Plausible Alternatives to our Exclusionary “Winner-Takes-All” System: Proportional Representation and Its Merits

A candidate running for the House of Representatives wins fifty-one percent of the votes in a neck-to-neck race with another highly-qualified and revered politician. While both candidates are adept officials with a passion for their work, their beliefs stand in opposition to one another. The winning candidate won fifty-one percent of votes and now represents one hundred percent of the district. In diverse American districts where both Democratic, Republican, and alternative interests exist, this is the inevitable reality.¹ Although a significant portion of voters supported the opposing candidate, they lack representation in a “winner-takes-all” world.² With only two real options to choose from, voters frequently compromise their morals to avoid political disaster, choosing the lesser of two evils.³ In the given scenario, approximately forty-nine percent of the population’s interests are not spoken for in the House of Representatives due to the nature of the single-member district election system. How can the United States call itself a democracy when large groups of people are often completely excluded and silenced in the democratic process? Within a single-member district system, voters are cornered into a restrictive binary, choosing between two options that are often undesirable.⁴

The American electoral system is a topic of contention among many voters, specifically those whose views do not align with either Democratic or Republican interests.⁵ The single-member district system alienates third-party candidates and voters, reinforcing the Democrat-Republican binary. This is an exclusionary approach, preventing the voice of the masses from being represented in government. In 2023, the case Alonzo v. Schwab observed that if minority voters are unable to form a majority within a single-member district in Kansas, is racial discrimination through redistricting banned by the Fourteenth Amendment?⁶ The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiff, in favor of Kansas, and according to the American Civil Liberties Union, declared that “The Constitution permits intentional racial discrimination against minority voters if those voters are relatively few in number.”⁷ According to many political science scholars, the single-member district system is accredited with gerrymandering, excluding minority voices, and reinforcing polarization.⁸

A testament to the competitive and individualistic American culture, the “winner-takes-all” single-member district system has facilitated the emergence of the two-party system.⁹ Polarized politics and an overarchingly static binary have defined the political sphere entirely. In contrast, proportional representation promotes the inclusion of political subgroups by electing multiple officials per district based on the proportion of the votes they receive.¹⁰ This sort of electoral system facilitates the existence and development of a multi-party government, better representing the interests of individual voters and their respective communities. Proportional representation facilitates diversity in thought and allows for the representation of multiple perspectives in government.¹¹ Multiple officials are elected from each zone representing the voters based on proportion. In its most basic form, if fifty percent of the votes go to Party A, thirty percent go to Party B, and twenty percent to Party C, in theory, five members of A, three members of B, and two members of C would be elected. This provides an opportunity for more accurate representation, unlike the exclusionary practice of the single-member district system. There are an abundance of case studies that support the idea that proportional representation reinforces democracy, as many democracies utilize this within their electoral systems. With a focus on Belgium and New Zealand, proportional representation and its very plausible application is superior to the single-member district electoral system.

I. Case Studies

Ia. Case Study: Belgium

After gaining its independence from the Netherlands in 1830, Belgium adopted a “two-round system,” in which a simple majority of votes were necessary to be elected in round one, followed by a second round where voting between the winning candidates took place.¹² Within this, only a portion of the population could vote due to “tax means testing,” meaning that a citizen would pay the government in taxes to be granted the ability to vote.¹³ Increasingly, the Belgian population grew frustrated with the system, as it led to Catholic districts hindering Liberal voters from paying the necessary tax while Liberal governments did the same to Catholic voters.¹⁴ In 1895, the Belgian government introduced proportional representation for local elections, particularly in the sense that if “no party won a majority of votes, seats were allocated proportionally.”¹⁵ Specifically, the 1900 Belgian election revealed the strength of three parties: Catholic, Liberal, and Labour.¹⁶ With the votes being approximately fifty percent, twenty-three percent, and twenty-two percent respectively, voter preferences were scattered among the three top parties.¹⁷ Compared to the results of single-member district elections in which two parties dominate the political landscape and voters are cornered into choosing between them, the first proportional representation election in Belgium facilitated the strength of three major parties.

Belgium’s implementation of the party-list proportional representation has proven itself successful. This form of voting entails the election of multiple candidates based on an electoral list.¹⁸ According to the Freedom House, Belgium’s electoral system of proportional representation has given its ‘electoral processes’ a score of four out of four.¹⁹ Because a greater portion of the population’s interests are represented through the Belgium utilization of party-list proportional representation, a more representative and effective governing body exists.²⁰

Ib. Case Study: New Zealand

Through a referendum vote in 1993, New Zealand implemented a mixed member proportional representation system, a system in which votes that are cast for local elections are also used for broader party tallies.²¹ This ensures that the existing proportional representation continues to appropriately function. Prior to this, their system of “first past the post” did not accurately represent the interests of the voters.²² This entailed the presentation of a ballot of singular candidates, the one with the majority of votes winning the election.²³ Because of the ineffective format of the previous system, many complained that the composition of the Parliament did not accurately reflect the voters.²⁴ In 1996, New Zealand saw its first proportional representation election leading to the creation of a coalition government between the “National and New Zealand First parties.”²⁵ The implementation of this was followed by the determination of a minimum threshold of what percentage of votes must be required.²⁶ In doing this, proportional representation was applied in New Zealand with preventative measures against extremism.²⁷ While many argued that the execution of a mixed member proportional representation system had not been done in an optimal fashion, this method diversified the Parliament. In the 2005 election, Indigenous Pacific, Māori, and Asian members of Parliament came to power.²⁸ Because of its ability to represent the population’s interests more accurately, the mixed member proportional representation system allowed for a broader set of voices to be heard in the New Zealand Parliament.²⁹ Furthermore, based on the scoring conducted by the Freedom House, New Zealand scored a four out of four in its electoral processes criteria, with an overall freedom score of ninety-nine out of one hundred.³⁰

II. Discussion

The electoral histories of Belgium and New Zealand underscore the potential of proportional representation and its ability to transform the political sphere into a diversified and representative sector. The case of Belgium highlights the strength of proportional representation in a party-list form to facilitate the emergence of more than two parties.³¹ Because additional, non-binary parties are given a voice through proportional representation, a more representative government was allowed to thrive. In New Zealand, mixed-member proportional representation diversified the identities of those in power, allowing a plethora of cultural perspectives to enter the political arena and represent their communities.³² While both nations have high scores on the Freedom House tests for reasons beyond their implementation of proportional representation and there are nations that utilize proportional representation and score low on the test, the respective population’s satisfaction with their electoral processes is a testament to the power of this system.

Although the merits of proportional representation are evident in the diversification of elected politicians, more accurate representation, and emergence of multiple parties, critics of the system argue that it encourages extremism. According to this perspective, smaller parties and minority opinions that lean toward extremism are given an opportunity to exercise control on a large scale.³³ Moreover, critics have argued that when proportional representation elections produce two dominant parties and one weaker party, the latter has the ability to form coalitions and partnerships with one of the two dominant groups.³⁴ While both concerns are valid in their own right, proponents of proportional representation have responded that worries of extremism are largely inflated.³⁵ According to political scholar Douglas Amy, for the past fifty years European nations have utilized proportional representation without the threat of extremism.³⁶ Furthermore, the existence of a minimum threshold, as seen in New Zealand, ensures that parties that do not receive at least five percent of votes, for example, are unable to qualify for seats in the race.³⁷ This is an effective method by which to ensure that extremist groups that have small but passionate followers are unable to have a voice in the political affairs of the nation.³⁸ The primary arguments against proportional representation, while they stem from genuine concerns about the real implications of the system, fail to acknowledge the numerous successes of the system. Disproportionate small party power and extremism have not been applicable to observed cases of proportional representation in the previous case studies.

Proportional representation has the potential to transform the American electoral system, diversifying those who represent us, dismantling the historical binary between Democrats and Republicans, and empowering minorities to amplify their voices in positions of power. The current single-member district system has perpetuated a rigid split between the two dominant parties. With the two case studies as testaments to the benefits of a proportionally represented governing body, proportional representation’s strengths lie in an appropriate and equitable implementation. Using the Freedom House metric and the continuity of the system in both nations as evidence of the success of proportional representation, the United States may benefit from this alternative. With the implementation of proportional representation, either as the Belgian method, New Zealand format, or another form, the electoral process would align more closely with the democratic standards that the United States was founded upon.

Edited by

About the Author

Anika Iyer is a senior in the Honors program at Northeastern majoring in Political Science and Human Services. Anika is the Executive Editor at NUULR, overseeing the writing process between editors and writers, developing materials to standardize guidelines, and ensuring the general functionality of the organization as a whole. She has been with NUULR since its founding, starting off as a Staff Writer, writing the piece “Plausible Alternatives to our Exclusionary ‘Winner-Takes-All’ System: Proportional Representation and Its Merits.” She then worked as an Article and Notes Editors for a few semesters before transitioning into her role as Managing Editor.

Anika’s legal interests primarily lie in public interest law, with a focus on public health issues. The Human Services aspect of her major has allowed her to develop a strong understanding of the issues faced by various marginalized groups and how this can impact health outcomes. She is interested in using the law to address some of these issues. She has completed two law firm co-ops at Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP as a Legal Recruiting Assistant and Ropes & Gray LLP as a Law Library Assistant. Anika also currently interns in the Medical-Legal Partnership Unit at Volunteer Lawyers Project and will work with the Advancing Harm Reduction Through the Law project during Summer 2026.

Outside of NUULR and work, Anika loves to sing, cook, go to the gym, and try new coffee shops and restaurants around Boston.

Plausible Alternatives to our Exclusionary “Winner-Takes-All” System: Proportional Representation and Its Merits

I. Case Studies

Ia. Case Study: Belgium

Ib. Case Study: New Zealand

II. Discussion

About the Author

Notes from the Author

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Share this:

Like this:

Discover more from Northeastern University Undergraduate Law Review