The high-stakes U.S. election this week aims to match the record 66% voter turnout set four years ago and surpass the consistently lower midterm election turnout that peaked at 49% in 2018. However, these figures appear disheartening when considering that many democracies achieve significantly higher voter participation rates.
With between a third and half of all voters choosing to stay home, and most expressing dissatisfaction with the options presented at the ballot box, it’s crucial to reexamine how America elects its leaders. These choices not only leave people disillusioned with politics but also discourage participation in our democracy, creating a path toward increasingly extreme candidates.
The U.S. electoral system remains an outlier among democracies. Instead of electing a single representative from a district, most democracies elect multiple representatives from each district proportionally to the share of votes each party receives. For instance, in a district with five members, if a party secures 40% of the votes, it would be allocated two of the five seats. This system is known as proportional representation. Most democracies adopted proportionality decades ago for good reason.
Proportional representation encourages higher voter turnout because voters believe their voices matter. Consequently, it’s no surprise that U.S. turnout is so low. In every election cycle, at least four out of five congressional districts are uncontested for their incumbent candidates. Nationwide, seven out of ten races in the general election were uncontested, including almost half of state legislative races and five percent of congressional races where only one candidate was on the ballot. This lack of competition is a direct consequence of our decision to elect representatives from single-member districts.
Gerrymandering is not the primary culprit for this issue. Even states that have established independent redistricting commissions to prevent partisan gerrymandering still largely experience uncontested elections. As Americans continue to concentrate geographically in Red or Blue areas, natural clusters dominated by one party are increasingly emerging. In some cases, the geography of where and how people live makes it impossible to draw single-member districts that provide partisan or racial minorities with a fair chance at representation.
Consider Massachusetts and Oklahoma. A third of voters in Oklahoma are Democrats, but all five of its congressional seats went to Republicans. Similarly, a third of voters in Massachusetts are Republicans, but all nine of that state’s congressional seats went to Democrats. This isn’t due to biased districting in Massachusetts—it’s simply impossible to draw a single-member district in the state that would elect a Republican. Researchers have confirmed that “though there are more ways of building a valid districting plan than there are particles in the galaxy, every single one of them would produce a 9–0 Democratic delegation.” In other words, simply redrawing single-member districts isn’t enough—we need to reimagine the electoral map entirely.
There are sensible reforms that can help rectify these issues. Shifting away from single-member districts and adopting proportional representation would force Democrats and Republicans to compete in more districts, encourage other candidates to run, and increase turnout because voters would have real choices. It’s also easier to maintain fair and representative districts under proportional representation.
The encouraging news is that in many states and across various political parties, these reforms can be implemented through simple statutory changes. At the state level, the referendum process allows voters to modify the constitution through ballot initiatives.
Proportional representation has been implemented before. Illinois utilized a partially proportional system for over a decade following the Civil War. Representatives for the state House were elected from three-member districts, roughly proportional to the votes cast. If a candidate could garner over a quarter of the vote, they typically secured one of the seats in a district. The results in Illinois mirrored the experience of other democracies with proportional systems—elections were generally more competitive, and minorities were able to gain representation that better reflected their numbers. Unfortunately, Illinois repealed its proportional voting system in 1980, and the share of state House races that went uncontested rose from 5% then to 25% this year.
Many Americans are frustrated with the electoral system. They lack trust in our democratic institutions. They are weary of the choices, or lack thereof, presented to them. But it doesn’t have to be this way. The question is: Are people sufficiently angered to pass reforms—like proportional representation—that can enact significant changes and finally fix the system?
The future of our democracy may hinge on the answer.