Elected representatives should be accountable to voters. It is supposed to work like this: you, the voter, consider your options and choose a candidate who seems most likely to fight for policies you like. You vote for her and she gets elected. But if she doesn’t represent you well—say she votes against a health care bill that you favored—then the next time around, you don’t vote for her, and she may lose her seat. Representatives learn that they need to keep their constituents’ preferences in mind once they are in the capitol.
If your vote doesn’t matter in who gets elected, your representative isn’t accountable to you
But if your vote doesn’t have the power to elect a representative (see Part 2 in this series) due to intentional or unintentional gerrymandering (see Part 3 in this series), then no elected official is dependent on your vote. No one is accountable to you.
Here’s how it works with gerrymandered single-member districts: you, the voter, consider your options and choose a candidate who seems most likely to pass legislation you like. Say you are a conservative living in an urban area and you vote for a conservative candidate. He doesn’t get elected. Instead, a left-leaning candidate goes to the capitol as “your” representative and she votes for a health care bill you hate. The next time around, you (again) don’t vote for her and she (again) gets elected anyway. Representatives learn that they can ignore half their constituents. Indeed, they may need to, in politically diverse districts. Elected officials aren’t bad people or even bad representatives. It’s just that their constituents have varied views, and they can’t represent them all simultaneously. They have to choose.
Alternatively, you are a Social Democrat or a Green Party enthusiast in an urban area. You consider your options and, seeing no viable Social Democrat or Green Party candidates on the ballot, you vote for the Democrat. You are incensed that he refuses to vote for universal healthcare and you vow not to vote for him again. But the next time around, you again have to choose between the Democrat and a Republican, and so, despite your vow, you vote for the Democrat again. Representatives learn they can safely ignore half their constituents.
When your vote matters, you can hold your representative accountable
The problems above can’t be solved by handing the district line-drawing pen to someone else. But they could be solved immediately if your district elected three representatives instead of just one. Imagine again you are a conservative in a left-leaning urban area, such as Portland, but this time your district gets to choose three representatives. Likely two will be left-leaning, but if even one fourth of your fellow Portlanders share your conservative views, you have the power to pick one conservative representative. He will go to the capitol as your representative, representing your geographical area and your views. And if he doesn’t vote for the health care bill you support, the next time around you can vote for a different conservative candidate who will represent you better. That candidate will know he needs to answer to you and other conservative voters in your district if he wants to keep his job.
In multi-member districts, more voters have the power to elect a local representative who represents their views, votes have equal power to elect, and all candidates and elected officials must pay attention to what their voters want.
Or imagine you are a Social Democrat or Green Party voter in a heavily left-leaning district electing three representatives. A Social Democrat candidate could snag one of the three seats in your district and vote for universal health care. If she doesn’t represent you well, the next time around a Green party candidate might vye for your vote, listening to your preferences and vowing to push for the solutions you want. Or one of the Democratic Party candidates might respond to voters and create a left flank within the major party. In any case, it will matter who you vote for. No seat will be safe simply because of how the district lines are drawn—every candidate will need to connect with voters when running and respond to them once in office.
Multi-member districts empower voters to hold elected representatives accountable
Voting is the way that voters hold elected officials accountable. But only if candidates actually need your vote to get elected. Gerrymandering saps voters’ power by wasting half the votes and protecting politicians in safe districts. Multi-member districts with ranked choice voting give the power back to voters. A federal bill—the Fair Representation Act—would elect all congressional representatives from multi-member districts drawn by an independent commission. Oregon’s five districts would become one district electing five members, and Washington would elect five members from each of two districts. Within these districts, each candidate would have to reach out to like-minded voters and those voters could hold him accountable. In Oregon, representatives Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden couldn’t depend on crushing the competition with 70 plus percent of the vote; each man would have to pay close attention to his voters to win re-election when competing against multiple candidates. An incumbent would not continue to enjoy a 90 percent chance of winning because he would be competing against other similar candidates (maybe even other incumbents) who could poach his voters if he doesn’t keep his finger on the pulse.
Slaying the gerrymander
Voters are increasingly aware that the gerrymander saps their power (see Part 1). Single-member districts leave many voters powerless to make a difference in the election, and unrepresented once the election is over (see Part 2). Single-member districts deprive some voters—particularly those in dense urban areas—of equal voice in the legislature (see Part 3). And when voters don’t have the power to elect their representatives, they also don’t have the power to throw them out, meaning elected officials aren’t accountable to their constituents.
Unfortunately, no amount of prodding the gerrymander into a more pleasing shape can guarantee more power for voters. But multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting, like those proposed in the federal Fair Representation Act, or the possible ways of electing Oregon and Washington state legislatures outlined in this article, can slay the gerrymander for good. In multi-member districts, more voters have the power to elect a local representative who represents their views, votes have equal power to elect, and all candidates and elected officials must pay attention to what their voters want.
Slaying the Gerrymander, Part 3: Give Every Voter Equal Power
Steve
So Sound Transit should have an elected board – directly elected by the People
More Accountability !
Whelp
Want to catch vitriol? Try getting a Sound Transit supporter to discuss whether or not an appointive board for a local government like that complies with what the 14th Amendment demands.
Deb Blakeslee
People gerrymandered INTO or OUT of a district still have someone elected to represent them.
The real problem is that elecyed officials don’t ask us what our concerns are. Our votes three years later (to “throw the bums out”) DON’T get our concerns to our elected officials any better.
Ranked choice voting doesn’t get our concerns to our elected officials any better, either. (Take a look at RCV results – the 2 top vote-getters in round one are usually the 2 remaining in the final round. So much for getting smaller party, or 3rd party, or lesser known candidates in the final round.)
Steve
Sound Transit should have a directly elected board from the People – Not
Appointed – More Accountabiltiy !
Lee Mortimer
I only recently discovered your institute and appreciate your insightful analysis. Multi-member representation is unquestionably a prerequisite and the building block for helping voters elect their preferred representative. I would like see more analysis of how best to accomplish that.
Ranked-choice voting has received a lot of promotion, primarily coming from FairVote where the “Fair Representation Act” originates. Rather than considering multi-member methods that may work best for states, the Fair Representation Act mandates that states adopt ranked-choice voting.
I was a founding member of FairVote, which two decades ago sponsored the “Voters’ Choice Act.” States could consider limited voting or cumulative voting, as well as ranked-choice voting. The proposal did not impose a particular voting method but offered states a choice. The current legislation forecloses any possibility for “open-list” (or “open-ticket”) voting as used in Finland, or a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, from consideration in U.S. House elections.
Proponents seem not to want the technical complications, potentially expensive retrofits, and transparency concerns with RCV to receive scrutiny. Someone needs to do to a thorough comparison examination. The Sightline Institute seems well positioned and qualified to do that examination.
Kristin Eberhard
Thanks for your work on this topic, Lee. Just to be clear, when you say “expensive retrofits” do you mean upgrades to vote-counting equipment to make them able to count ranked choice ballots? And by “transparency concerns” do you mean the ability to audit a ranked choice election?
We analyzed the equipment needs for ranked choice voting in every county in Oregon and Washington: http://www.sightline.org/2017/07/11/an-action-plan-for-ranked-choice-ready-voting-equipment/
And regarding the option to use Open List, MMP, or cumulative or limited voting, yes, Sightline supports those possibilities! http://www.sightline.org/2016/05/02/three-ways-oregon-and-washington-could-vote-better/
In particular, we see that New Zealand’s move to MMP could be a great model for states to accomplish through citizen’s initiative. http://www.sightline.org/2017/06/19/this-is-how-new-zealand-fixed-its-voting-system/
And local jurisdictions could try multi-member districts with either ranked or cumulative ballots. http://www.sightline.org/2017/06/15/could-portland-create-a-city-council-that-looks-like-portland/
Sara Wolf
Good question and request Lee. I’d like to see more detailed comparison on this too. For me “technical complications” means STV’s bias to over-represent smaller minorities as I talk about above as well as questions on weather STV carries over the inaccuracy of single winner RCV or if that isn’t an issue.
Obviously if the voters were divided into 4 even groups but there were only 3 seats there is no way to perfectly fairly represent everyone. You either have to round up or down. I’d like to see more debate around this issue. It seems like many people are assuming that this bias would work in the favor of the progressive left like it did in Burlington but I think overall this would be more likely to favor right wing groups in our country.
“Technical complications” could also mean the super complex algorithm used by STV and the fact that it would be highly unlikely for voters to understand the process itself is probably what Lee means by “transparency issues”
Sara Wolf
Thanks for your detailed work on gerrymandering! I don’t think STV is the reform we want but I do think you’re on the right track with multi-member districts.
RE “Imagine again you are a conservative in a left-leaning urban area, such as Portland, but this time your district gets to choose three representatives. Likely two will be left-leaning, but if even one fourth of your fellow Portlanders share your conservative views, you have the power to pick one conservative representative.”
This sentence highlights the crux of the issue we face when comparing various proportional representation (PR) systems. What is a fair quota of support needed for a group to deserve a seat? Ideally I think that to win a 1/3 of the seats you should need support from a 1/3 of the voters. If STV will give conservatives a 1/3 of the vote with only 1/4 of the voters then that leaves the other 3/4 of the electorate underrepresented.
If STV was helping historically underrepresented PoC and women get more seats specifically I might be open to this kind of political affirmative action, but STV, as you say, can help any minor group get more representation than they have voters. With the growing concerns over the alt-right and white supremacy I am legitimately concerned that over-representing political minorities could have disastrous unintended consequences. Why can’t we have a PR system where it actually takes 1/3 of the votes to get 1/3 of the seats? Smaller minority groups would have to form alliances and coalitions in order to get elected which would by nature be easier to do for positive minority groups and harder for antagonistic hate groups.
Kristin Eberhard
Sara – a switch to PR would mean groups that are currently under-represented will gain a legislative seat, and those that are currently over-represented will lose them. Women and PoC are clearly under-represented in the US, and the evidence is crystal clear that they will gain representation with PR.
PR will only help White Supremacists gain power if you think they are currently under-represented, that is, that there are more White Supremacist voters than are reflected in our political leaders. Given the alt-right’s sway with one of two political parties, I would venture to say this is not the case. If there were an alt-right party, and, let’s just hypothetically say, 20% of voters voted for candidates in that party, they would win around 20% of seats, nowhere near enough to pass damaging laws. As it is, they can wield influence inside a party that can gain more than 50% of the seats with less than 50% of the votes, so even if they are only 20% of the voters they have a shot at passing laws. I would say that is a more dangerous situation.
Doug Wright
Nice gerrymandering articles Kristen.
Overlapping first-past-the-post (FPTP) single-member districts do a better job than single transferable vote (STV, also referred to as ranked choice voting) multiple-member districts at slaying the gerrymander.
Consider the following. On Election Day:
1. Each FPTP voter puts a mark beside just one candidate in three separate overlapping single-member districts on the ballot. This three overlapping single-member districts FPTP proportional representation (PR) electoral system gives about 88% or more of the voters the voting power to elect preferred candidates.
2. Each FPTP voter puts a mark beside just one candidate in four separate overlapping single-member districts on the ballot. This four overlapping single-member districts FPTP PR electoral system ensures about 94% or more voters elect preferred candidates.
Now, compare the above single-member district election results to the following multiple-member district election results. On Election Day:
1. Each STV voter ranks candidates on a three-member district ballot in order of preference. This three-member districts STV electoral system enables about 75% or more of the votes of voters to elect preferred candidates.
2. Each STV voter ranks candidates on a five-member district ballot. This five-member districts electoral system ensures about 83% or more of the votes of voters elect preferred candidates.
Election result comparisons show overlapping single-member districts ensure larger proportions of voters elect preferred representatives and that fewer votes are wasted. This means overlapping single-member districts produce better PR and do a better job at slaying the gerrymander than multiple-member districts. Besides this, the FPTP election method is the simplest of all election methods on record and the STV election method is amongst the most complex.
Additional information on the FPTP PR electoral system is available at Election Districts Voting. The website covers new FPTP PR, alternative vote (also known as instant-runoff voting) PR and STV PR electoral systems. These systems strengthen voting power, create a strong connection between voters and representatives, provide more diverse representation and improve the quality of representative government.