It's Time to Talk About Electoral Reform

To fix the dysfunction in American politics, reformers should consider fundamental changes to electoral rules

Alex Tausanovitch | Center for American Progress

Over the past several decades, advocates for improving American democracy have focused their efforts on a few discrete issues. One of these is voting - trying to make it easier to vote, secure the voting process, and ensure equal access to the ballot box. Another is money in politics - working to make political spending transparent and prevent it from corruptly influencing elected officials. A somewhat distant third, until recently, is redistricting - preventing politicians from gerrymandering their districts to keep themselves and their allies in power.

All of these issues are critically important. Democracy means little without the right to vote, and it is at least compromised if money or district lines drive political outcomes.

However, there is another equally fundamental issue that has, until recently, received only niche attention. That issue is electoral reform - examining the most basic rules of the political system and finding ways to ensure that they are promoting effective, representative government. The electoral system is the set of rules that determines how representatives are selected: which candidates and political parties can compete on the ballot, who those candidates and parties represent, and how voters are allowed to choose between them. These rules shape the makeup of Congress and local and state legislatures, and they create strong incentives that guide the behavior of elected officials.

Two fundamental problems with the U.S. electoral system are worth emphasizing upfront …

Electoral rules discourage problem-solving and reward conflict. America has a two-party political system that encourages candidates to appeal, first and foremost, to members of their own party - while locking out independents, third parties, and other sources of competition. For the most part, instead of working together to solve the nation’s problems, the two major parties engage in an endless tug of war. Disagreement is to be expected in a democracy, but at the end of the day, representatives should be motivated to find areas of agreement and to pass legislation that the public supports.

Electoral rules impede representation. Both major parties depend on the support of their own partisan voters, or at least on the prevailing majority of those voters. This means that there are few genuine moderates in Congress and that both parties, at times, are out of step with the median American voter. It also means that diverse viewpoints are underrepresented, whether from people who do not fit neatly on the left-right spectrum, communities of color, or a host of other cultural, geographic, and political groups. There are two points on the political spectrum, the core of the Republican Party and the core of the Democratic Party, that exert a gravitational pull - and in recent years, the core of each party has sometimes veered to ideological extremes.

According to polling data, Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy with politics, with Congress, and with both major political parties. And while voting restrictions, the influence of money in politics, and the corrosive effect of partisan gerrymandering all play some role, the electoral system itself is a major contributor to the current era of political dysfunction.

Recent research shows that many American voters are moderates, and some have views that do not cleanly fit on the left-right spectrum. Moreover, whether Democrat or Republican, many voters - if not most - would prefer a government that is professional and responsive, in which politicians work together to solve the nation’s problems. Unfortunately, however, that is not the government that America’s electoral rules incentivize politicians to deliver.

How Electoral Rules Foster America’s Current Political Dysfunction

In the United States, most elections have three main structural components: 1) partisan primaries; 2) first-past-the-post winners; and 3) single-member districts. Each of these pieces of the electoral system contribute to the current era of political dysfunction.

Partisan primaries

Most candidates in the United States are chosen in party primary elections.

Typically, the participants in these primaries are strongly partisan voters. This means that candidates only need to win a bare majority of committed partisans to participate in the general election. And whether voters find themselves in the middle or at the ends of the political spectrum - or not really fitting on the spectrum at all - they will typically have only two candidates to choose from once the primaries are over: a Republican candidate somewhere on the right and a Democratic candidate somewhere on the left.

First-past-the-post winners (also known as “winner take all”)

The term “first past the post” is a reference to horse racing: The first horse to cross the finish line is the sole winner, whether it leads by an inch or a mile. U.S. elections are referred to as first past the post because, typically, the candidate who receives the most votes wins - even if they have less than 50 percent of the votes, which often happens when more than two candidates are competing. This strongly disincentivizes independent and third-party candidates from participating. If a third-party or independent candidate enters a race, they are most likely to serve as a “spoiler,” siphoning votes away from the candidate with whom they are more closely aligned and therefore helping their furthest rival. As a consequence, most elections feature only two major-party candidates. And because there are only two candidates, neither candidate necessarily needs broad appeal to win; they simply need to be a hair more appealing than their opponent. Often, the best strategy in these circumstances is to run a negative campaign.

Single-member districts

Unlike legislators in many other democratic systems, legislators in the United States are generally elected from single-member districts - or districts where there is only one winner. Single-member districts have at least three major disadvantages. First, since there is only one winner, the voters who do not support the winning candidate are simply out of luck; no matter how diverse the district is, it only gets one representative. Second, single-member districts make the emergence of third parties difficult, even without first-past-the-post elections, because third-party candidates must achieve a top finish in an entire district to win any representation at all - a difficult feat when every non-major party in America lacks the infrastructure of the major parties. Finally, single-member districts enable gerrymandering, which worsens all the problems already discussed; it gives parties more power to rely on their most partisan supporters and to lock out competitors. Without first-past-the-post elections and single-member districts, gerrymandering may be nearly impossible.

In summary, these three features of the U.S. electoral system usually give voters no more than two choices: one Democrat and one Republican. Those candidates must cater to the strongly partisan voters who elect them in the party primaries, but they still win in general because first-past-the-post elections in single-member districts do not allow for meaningful alternatives.

To be sure, factors outside the electoral system make this dynamic even worse. Perhaps the most important is that governing, like elections, is winner take all. In Congress and most state legislatures, the party that wins the majority of seats also wins control of the legislative agenda. With only two major parties, this creates a strong incentive for each side not to work with- let alone make compromises with - the other side. It is a two-sided, zero-sum competition. While it might make sense, in the short term, for the minority party to work together with the majority, any perceived “victory” that the majority earns is a loss for the party that wants to win control of the legislature. The minority party therefore often defaults to opposing everything that the majority party suggests, even in areas where policymakers may otherwise have found common ground. In other words, the current U.S. electoral system, in this governing context, is a recipe for partisan animosity, vitriol, and gridlock.

Yet, it is possible to take this critique too far. The fact that American government is currently stuck in a state of high conflict and low productivity does not mean, necessarily, that nothing is achieved, or that there is no democratic accountability, or that a democratic crisis is inevitable.

From time to time, even an embittered, closely divided Congress is able to get things done. As a number of commentators have pointed out, 2022 was an unusually productive legislative year; but it was also in some ways an exception that proves the rule. Much of that productivity was only possible because the same party controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, a rare circumstance in recent history and one that ended in 2023. A number of legislative conflicts were resolved through bizarre procedural maneuvers: Although the minority party tacitly allowed majority proposals to pass, it did so in ways that allowed its members to publicly disavow and oppose them. And while congressional members reached across the aisle to pass some serious bipartisan legislation, a number of the key members who bucked their party were retiring or otherwise not up for reelection.

Members of Congress should certainly try to keep this streak going. The likelihood, however, is that electoral rules will incentivize a return to the default mode of conflict and dysfunction. Unless the rules change, then at least in the medium term, American politics can be expected to continue along its current path: two parties, a substantial distance apart, locked in an indefinite conflict and only sporadically able to get things done.