Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va) recently introduced what he calls the Fair Representation Act. It’s an interesting idea that seemed doomed from the start, but I’m seeing more press coverage than I’d thought. Maybe his proposal has legs? Here’s a Salon article and a Washington Post opinion piece.
Our recent elections have left us locked into our unhappy place. We hate our government — Congress hovers around a 20% approval rating — and yet the re-election rate in the House is up at 97%. At least in Congress, we hate the people who we’re forced to choose.
So, what voting problems are Beyer (and I) trying to fix? What do we see as broken? Again, right now we’re only talking about the House, not the Senate nor the Presidency.
Voting is frustrating. To pick representatives for the House, each state divides itself into single-representative districts, with every voter in each district getting one vote. That makes Congressional elections easy to understand and to run, but frustrating:
- Only the majority gets a voice. Even if a candidate squeaks through by one vote out of thousands, that winner gets the whole, unrestrained seat at the table, and the other 49.99% of the voters get no voice in their governance.
- It’s possible for the majority party to lock in their dominance using gerrymandering and voter suppression. While gerrymandering is primarily a Republican sin, but it’s not like Democrats don’t do it. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Maryland!)
- Dark money is powerful. Prices are going up here and there, but unless you get into a bidding war with a competing oligarch, you can buy yourself an average congressional district for not too much.
- It locks in the current two-party oligopoly: Democrat or Republican, that’s all that matter. A vote for a third-party effectively gives your vote away to whoever you liked the least. Sure, you’re ‘sending a message’, but the message is that you don’t matter.
Beyer’s argument is that these problems are part of what has pushed the House into hyper-partisan parties. I think there are other forces at work, too, but these problems are real enough.
Beyer suggested two changes to congressional voting: Multi-Member Districts (MMDs) (he calls it multi-representative districts) and ranked-choice voting.
Multi-Member Districts are bigger districts with more than one representative. Some states run that way. The Constitution only dictates how many representatives each state gets. There used to be some combination of districts and at-large seats, but in 1842, Congress changed the law to enforce single-representative districts nationwide.
Beyer says that looks like a mistake. He suggests we expand districts to allow, more representatives each, and the top winners in each election get voted in. What would that look like?
Gerrymandering gets harder with bigger districts. Gerrymandering uses fine divisions to separate voters into small, distinct subsets that you can juggle into specific configurations. Bigger districts generally represent the wider population more accurately. It’s not impossible to gerrymander big districts, but it’s harder and less effective.
Dark money should lose some influence. Bigger districts take more money to buy, and you’re working with a more diverse group of voters. Again, not impossible to do, but more expensive and less influential.
Minority voters would have more power. The Post uses heavily Democratic Massachusetts as an example. The state is 25% Republican, and Republican candidates haven’t won a seat in 20 years. I’m pretty sure that, even there, you could find a moderate Republican candidate who could at least come in third. And there’s a lot of evidence that representation among women and minorities would grow, too.
The downside of bigger districts is that the representatives have more constituents, and each representative might not love you, specifically, as much. That’s a real thing, but I don’t see it as especially insurmountable. Besides, it’s not like our current representatives have been feeling especially… representative these days
Next in Beyer’s bill is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), also called Instant-Runoff Voting. That’s where, instead of forcing you to vote for one person, take it or leave it, in RCV you list the people you want, in order. “I like Bob the best, then Damaris, and then Montserrat.”
How’s it work? Count everyone’s first choice, and if Bob, say, is the first choice for more than half the voters, he wins. Same as now. Good so far?
Now suppose it’s a split. Damaris gets 40%, Montserrat gets 45%, and Bob’s in third place at 15%. (Bob and Damiris split the conservative vote, leaving Montserrat-the-Commie on top). Nobody wins more than half the first choice votes, so we’re not done. We hold a separate (expensive, easily influenced by dark money) runoff election some weeks later, with all the delays, bother, noise, and extra voting that means. Ugh. Maybe enough Bob voters turn out the second time to push Damaris to victory, or maybe Montserrat the Commie wins despite not being the popular choice. We’ve seen both happen.
Here’s the RCV magic part. Bob — the bum! — came in third, a last-place loser. Instead of throwing those voters away, take all ‘Bob’ votes and see who those people voted for as their second choice. Tote up all the votes again and see if someone breaks the half-way mark now. If most of Bob’s people said they could settle for Damiris, she breaks 50%. Zip-zop, you’re done, no runoff election, no delay and waste, no questions, and more people get their votes counted.
Best of all, you don’t have to worry that you’re ‘throwing away your vote’. You can vote for who you like, honestly, and not just choose the lesser of two evils. Vote for that minority candidate if you want. Even if they don’t win, your vote still counts.
So kind of cool, right? I think so.
Rep. Beyer’s bill has two big problems. First, a Democrat touched it at some point. Cooties or something, I’m not sure, but for the loyal 35% of hard-core tribalists, it’s already dead, sight unseen.
Second and worse, the bill threatens to weaken gerrymandering, dark money, and the current two-party political oligopoly. Our corporate/political party/big money overlords won’t approve.
So… snowball’s chance in hell, right?
But somehow or other, it’s getting talked about. A lot of people think it’s slick. I think it’s something we should be considering, at least. And if we decide we like it, we can start pushing. Because our representatives do have to listen to us. Sometimes.
OK, if we make them, but we can. We know how.
