proportional representation definition government quizlet

READ: Can a democracy put a presidential candidate on trial?

• Link to twitter
• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin

Proportional representation, explained

• Shaping the Democracy of Tomorrow
• Research & Analysis
• December 5, 2023

How our electoral system shapes our politics

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies. 

How is this different from what the United States uses? 

Every American today lives in a district that elects a single representative for congressional and most state legislative elections. Voters cast a vote for a candidate, one candidate wins, and all the others lose. This makes our elections “winner-take-all” — if a candidate wins 51 percent of the vote, she wins 100 percent of the representation. Any voters who did not back the winning candidate are not represented in government by a candidate for whom they voted. 

Read more: How open are Americans to electoral system reform? Read more: How open are Americans to electoral system reform?

In contrast, proportional representation uses multi-seat districts with representation allocated in proportion to votes. For example, in a six-seat district, if a party’s candidates win 51 percent of the vote, they would be expected to win three of the six seats — rather than 100 percent. Unlike with winner-take-all, under proportional representation, most groups tend to have at least one elected official representing their viewpoint in government.

The problems with winner-take-all

According to scholarly research, winner-take-all elections are causing or aggravating some of the most pressing problems undermining American democracy. These include: 

With winner-take-all, 51 percent (and sometimes less) of the electorate wins 100 percent of the representation in a district. This leads to unrepresentative outcomes. For example, despite a third of Massachusetts reliably voting Republican, Democrats control all nine U.S. House seats. Likewise, in Oklahoma, while a third of the electorate votes for Democrats, all five of its House seats are Republican.

Winner-take-all systems are uniquely susceptible to gerrymandering. But in proportional systems, manipulating district lines for partisan gain is often functionally impossible — multi-winner districts are simply too difficult to gerrymander. Want to get rid of gerrymandering? Adopt a system of proportional representation.

Winner-take-all elections uniquely disadvantage racial, ethnic, religious, and other political minorities, especially when they do not live in geographically concentrated areas and with district lines deliberately drawn around them. By contrast, minority representation tends to improve under proportional systems by allowing groups to win representation in proportion to their numbers , regardless of where they live.

Because winner-take-all elections make it easy for a single party to dominate in a district, they tend to depress political competition. As soon as a party can count on 55-60% of the vote, a district becomes “safe.” Except in a small number of swing districts, competition shifts to low-turnout primaries where candidates tend to be pulled to the extremes . By contrast, proportional systems tend to be more competitive: with more seats in contention per district, more parties and their candidates are incentivized to compete.

Winner-take-all systems tend to produce two-party systems, which are more likely to increase affective polarization — meaning voters from opposing parties don’t just disagree with one another, but come to reflexively distrust and dislike one another. Because multi-winner races create space for more than two parties, proportional representation tends to produce more fluid coalitions, which research finds helps to temper polarization .

By definition, winner-take-all elections are high stakes. Marginal differences in support for either of two parties can mean total victory or total defeat. Politicians are often incentivized to do everything they can to beat their opponents, even at the expense of problem solving, good governance, or maintaining democratic norms. Voters and politicians who lose in winner-take-all elections are less likely to trust democratic institutions , and more likely to resort to violence .

Researchers are especially concerned about the use of winner-take-all elections in highly polarized and diverse societies like the United States. As one global study of democratization concluded, “if any generalization about institutional design is sustainable,” it is that winner-take-all electoral systems “are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarizing divisions.”

‘[I]f any generalization about institutional design is sustainable,’ it is that winner-take-all electoral systems ‘are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarizing divisions.’ Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation

Potential benefits of proportional representation

Varieties of proportional representation.

In practice, proportional representation comes in many different versions. Most fit into one of four categories. 

Open List 

Think: Voting for a candidate and their party

In open list systems, each political party has a slate of candidates running for office (as in a primary election), and voters choose a candidate from one of the lists. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the total number of votes their candidates receive, and the candidates who receive the most votes are elected. For example, a voter may select one Democrat from a list of Democrats running. In a six-seat district, if the Democrats together win 50 percent of the vote, the three Democratic candidates with the most votes are elected.

Closed List

Think: Voting for a party, not for a candidate

In closed list systems, voters select a political party on a ballot rather than an individual candidate. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive, and candidates are seated in the order determined by the party itself. For example, a voter may select the Republican Party on the ballot, but not an individual candidate. In a six-seat district, if Republicans win 50 percent of the vote, the party is allocated three seats, and the top-three candidates on the party’s list are elected.

Mixed-Member Systems

Think: Proportional representation layered on top of single-member districts

Many countries use systems that blend components of winner-take-all and proportional representation, combining single-member districts with some number of additional seats allocated to parties proportionally. Voters make two choices: one for their single-winner district and one for a set of statewide seats allocated proportionally. For example, a given state could have three single-winner districts and three proportional seats. A party that gets 40% of the vote statewide could lose all three single-winner seats but still win one or two of the proportional seats.

Single Transferable Vote 

Think: Ranking candidate choices across the ballot

Some countries use a system where voters rank candidates, regardless of their party, and the top-ranked candidates are elected. Through successive rounds of ballot counting, votes are reallocated to lower preferences as candidates are either elected or eliminated. This goes on until the seats are filled. For example, if a voter’s first choice candidate comes in last, the candidate is eliminated and the vote is reallocated to the voter’s next preference in the next round of counting. Additionally, if a candidate gets more than the amount of votes needed to win a seat, the additional votes are also reallocated to the voters’ lower preferences.

It is clear that our winner-take-all system — where each U.S. House district is represented by a single person — is fundamentally broken. LETTER TO CONGRESS FROM 200+ POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, THE NEW YORK TIMES

Is proportional representation connected to ranked-choice voting?

Ranking candidates is a method of voting that is possible under both winner-take-all and proportional systems. While ranked-choice voting and proportional representation are compatible, they are also distinct reforms.

What about fusion voting?

Fusion voting, which allows multiple parties to nominate the same candidate and “fuse” their support, is distinct from proportional representation and generally is only used with single-member districts. However, the two reforms share many of the same goals, such as making it easier for more parties to form, permitting more options for voters, and enabling more fluid political coalitions. 

Learn more →

Won’t more parties just lead to more gridlock and chaos?

While certain proportional systems are designed in a way that can generate dozens of parties (which can be destabilizing), most do not. Research finds that modest multiparty activity can lead to more effective governance, while two polarized parties can lead to dangerous levels of gridlock, as well as destabilizing change from one government to the next.

How can this be implemented in Congress?

Adopting proportional representation for the U.S. House is possible through regular lawmaking. Congress could implement proportional representation, or rather, give states the ability to experiment with different versions, through legislation alone. No constitutional amendment is needed.

Can proportional representation work in a presidential system?

Proportional representation is just as common in countries with presidential systems as it is in countries with parliamentary systems. In fact, presidential systems are more likely to use proportional representation for their legislatures, while combining presidentialism with winner-take-all is a rarity found only in four countries (the U.S., Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone). 

What about state and local elections?

Any lawmaking body, from national and state legislatures to city councils and school boards, can be elected proportionally. Just like for Congress, implementing proportional representation in state legislatures could increase competition and representation and decrease polarization and antidemocratic extremism. But importantly, it could also encourage the de-nationalization of politics and a return to more localized concerns. 

Is large-scale electoral system change politically possible?

While changing electoral systems is politically difficult, it is far from impossible. Indeed, most democracies around the world have changed their electoral systems at least once, if not more. Several notable examples of reform in recent decades — New Zealand, Japan, and others — help illustrate how change can happen.

How would proportional representation work with the Voting Rights Act?

As long as proportional representation leads to minority representation that is as equivalent or better than winner-take-all outcomes, it is compatible with existing voting rights law. And in most cases, it expands the possibilities for minority representation beyond what is possible under winner-take-all rules. 

How does proportional representation fix gerrymandering?

The more seats a district has, the harder that district is to gerrymander. Most multi-winner districts are functionally impossible to manipulate for partisan gain. With a lower threshold required to win each seat, voters can no longer be predictably “cracked” between districts or “packed” into one district with any real effect.

How would proportional representation impact constituent services?

We don’t know for sure. However, all voters are, today, already serviced by three legislators: a congressperson and two senators. Research finds that constituent services may improve, as representatives compete with each other to provide better service and voters can select and engage with representatives who best represent their community and interests. Under proportional representation, most voters could contact a representative for whom they voted . 

Related Content

Protect Democracy Launches New Guide on Elections & the Trump Prosecutions

• Defending the Rule of Law

Prosecuting Political Leaders During an Election

• White Papers

New Guidance on Preventing Election Certification Interference

• Protecting Elections

The presidential pardon power, explained

Relevant experts, grant tudor, policy advocate.

Link to person: Grant Tudor

Beau Tremitiere

Link to person: Beau Tremitiere

Ben Raderstorf

Link to person: Ben Raderstorf

Cerin Lindgrensavage

Link to person: Cerin Lindgrensavage

It can happen here. We can stop it.

Defeating authoritarianism is going to take all of us. Everyone and every institution has a role to play. Together, we can protect democracy.

Sign Up for Updates Sign Up for Updates

Explore Careers Explore Careers

How to Protect Democracy How to Protect Democracy

Mobile Menu Overlay

Get Email Updates from Ballotpedia

First Name *

Please complete the Captcha above

Ballotpedia on Facebook

  Share this page

  Follow Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia on Twitter

Proportional representation.

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the number of seats held by a particular political party in a legislature is directly determined by the number of votes the political party's candidates receive in a given election. For example, in a five-winner district with proportional representation, if party A received 40 percent of the vote and party B received 60 percent of the vote, party A would win two seats and party B would win three seats. [1] [2]

• 1 Systems of proportionality
• 3 External links
• 4 Footnotes

Systems of proportionality

Various forms of proportional representation exist, including the following:

• In a party-list system , the elector votes for a party's list of candidates instead of a single candidate. Each party then receives a share of the seats proportional to the share of votes it received. [3] [4]
• In a single transferable vote (STV) system, voters rank their choice of candidates on the ballot instead of voting for just one candidate. [3] [4]
• In an additional-member system , each elector casts two votes instead of one. On a double ballot, the elector chooses a candidate and also his or her party of choice among those listed. [3] [4]
• Single-winner system
• Multi-winner system
• Ranked-choice voting

External links

• ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network
• ↑ FairVote , "Electoral Systems," accessed August 3, 2017
• ↑ ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network , "Electoral Systems," accessed August 3, 2017
• ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Encyclopedia Britannica , "Proportional representation," accessed March 30, 2014
• ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Mount Holyoke.edu: PR Library , "Proportional Representation Voting Systems," accessed April 29, 2014
• Electoral systems terms
• Election policy tracking
• Election policy expansion content

Ballotpedia features 452,271 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error . For media inquiries, contact us here . Please donate here to support our continued expansion.

Information about voting

• What's on my ballot?
• Where do I vote?
• How do I register to vote?
• How do I request a ballot?
• When do I vote?
• When are polls open?
• Who represents me?

2024 Elections

• Presidential election
• Presidential candidates
• Congressional elections
• Ballot measures
• State executive elections
• State legislative elections
• State judge elections
• Local elections
• School board elections

2025 Elections

• State executives
• State legislatures
• State judges
• Municipal officials
• School boards
• Election legislation tracking
• State trifectas
• State triplexes
• Redistricting
• Pivot counties
• State supreme court partisanship
• Polling indexes

Public Policy

• Administrative state
• Criminal justice policy
• Education policy
• Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
• Unemployment insurance
• Work requirements
• Policy in the states

Information for candidates

• Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey
• How do I run for office?
• How do I update a page?
• Election results
• Send us candidate contact info

Get Engaged

• Donate to Ballotpedia
• Report an error
• Newsletters
• Ballotpedia podcast
• Ballotpedia Boutique
• Media inquiries
• Premium research services
• 2024 Elections calendar
• 2024 Presidential election
• Biden Administration
• Recall elections
• Ballotpedia News

SITE NAVIGATION

• Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot
• 2024 Congressional elections
• 2024 State executive elections
• 2024 State legislative elections
• 2024 State judge elections
• 2024 Local elections
• 2024 Ballot measures
• Upcoming elections
• 2025 Statewide primary dates
• 2025 State executive elections
• 2025 State legislative elections
• 2025 Local elections
• 2025 Ballot measures
• Cabinet officials
• Executive orders and actions
• Key legislation
• Judicial nominations
• White House senior staff
• U.S. President
• U.S. Congress
• U.S. Supreme Court
• Federal courts
• State government
• Municipal government
• Election policy
• Running for office
• Ballotpedia's weekly podcast
• About Ballotpedia
• Editorial independence
• Job opportunities
• News and events
• Privacy policy
• Disclaimers

• Earth and Environment
• Literature and the Arts
• Philosophy and Religion
• Plants and Animals
• Science and Technology
• Social Sciences and the Law
• Sports and Everyday Life
• Additional References

• Political Science and Government
• Political Science: Terms and Concepts

Proportional Representation

Proportional representation (PR) is an electoral mechanism designed to ensure that the distribution of votes between various interests in an election to a collective body is reflected proportionally in the distribution of seats on that body. In its typical form, in continental Europe "list" systems, it ensures that the share of votes cast for party lists in elections is fairly accurately translated into share of seats.

Under the less common "single transferable vote" (STV) system of PR, voters rank candidates (in practice, party is the most important consideration, but other criteria such as region or gender may also count). These preference votes are then converted into seats on the basis of an electoral quota; "surplus" votes of candidates reaching this quota are redistributed according to lower preferences, and less popular candidates are progressively eliminated and their lower preferences are redistributed until all vacancies have been filled.

The STV form of PR has been the "normal" one in English-speaking countries. First implemented in Tasmania in 1896, it was introduced for local elections in Ireland in 1919 and for elections to the parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in 1920. Election of the Dáil by PR has been a constitutional requirement since 1922 (the 1937 constitution specifies that the STV system be used). Notwithstanding efforts to replace it with the U.K.- and U.S.-style plurality system in 1959 and 1968, this system has survived in the Republic of Ireland . It is also used in elections to the senate, in local elections, and in Irish elections to the European parliament.

In Northern Ireland , PR was abolished for local elections in 1922 and for domestic parliamentary elections in 1929. The reinstituted plurality system helped to preserve unionist hegemony, and when Northern Ireland's institutions were reformed following the outbreak of civil unrest, PR was brought back in 1973 for elections to local authorities and to the Northern Ireland assembly and its successors (apart from the Forum elected in 1996, when a modified "list" system was used).

The primary reason for the introduction of PR in Ireland was to ensure minority representation. One alleged side effect of the STV form is that it promotes intraparty divisions and, by placing a premium on electoral competition within rather than between parties, encourages clientelist politics, with candidates offering to do favors for constituents rather than engaging with issues of national policy; evidence on this issue is inconclusive. A second criticism of PR is that it inhibits strong government by promoting a multiparty system; but its defenders argue that non-PR systems violate basic principles of electoral justice. Since the political stakes are high, this debate is likely to continue.

SEE ALSO Northern Ireland: History since 1920 ; Political Parties in Independent Ireland ; Politics: Independent Ireland since 1922

Bibliography

Bogdanor, Vernon. What Is Proportional Representation? 1984.

Sinnott, Richard. "The Electoral System." In Politics in the Republic of Ireland , edited by John Coakley and Michael Gallagher. 1999.

John Coakley

Cite this article Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

" Proportional Representation . " Encyclopedia of Irish History and Culture . . Encyclopedia.com. 20 Mar. 2024 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

"Proportional Representation ." Encyclopedia of Irish History and Culture . . Encyclopedia.com. (March 20, 2024). https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proportional-representation

"Proportional Representation ." Encyclopedia of Irish History and Culture . . Retrieved March 20, 2024 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proportional-representation

Citation styles

Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Within the “Cite this article” tool, pick a style to see how all available information looks when formatted according to that style. Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list.

Because each style has its own formatting nuances that evolve over time and not all information is available for every reference entry or article, Encyclopedia.com cannot guarantee each citation it generates. Therefore, it’s best to use Encyclopedia.com citations as a starting point before checking the style against your school or publication’s requirements and the most-recent information available at these sites:

Modern Language Association

http://www.mla.org/style

The Chicago Manual of Style

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

American Psychological Association

http://apastyle.apa.org/

• Most online reference entries and articles do not have page numbers. Therefore, that information is unavailable for most Encyclopedia.com content. However, the date of retrieval is often important. Refer to each style’s convention regarding the best way to format page numbers and retrieval dates.
• In addition to the MLA, Chicago, and APA styles, your school, university, publication, or institution may have its own requirements for citations. Therefore, be sure to refer to those guidelines when editing your bibliography or works cited list.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION is an electoral device that seeks to make a representative body a faithful image of its electorate. Ideally, the system gives legislative voting strength proportionate to the electoral strength of every shade of societal opinion. Technically, proportional representation is achieved by devising a quota that determines the minimum number of votes required for election. The number of seats a party wins is the number of votes it receives divided by the quota. The simplest quota is the Hare quota, which is found by dividing the total number of votes cast by the number of seats to be filled. Such elections are usually at large or employ multimember districts. The greater the number of seats to be filled, the greater proportionality of representation possible.

Proportional representation dates at least to the French Revolution . Although it is the most common method of election in the Western democracies, the use of proportional representation in the United States has been rare. It has been tried by several cities, notably Cincinnati, Ohio; Boulder, Colorado; and New York City. Debate over the use of proportional representation has focused on the consequences of the system—especially instability of governments—rather than on its inherent logic or principle. Proponents argue that proportional representation prevents excessive centralization of government, strengthens parties by making candidates more dependent on them, and increases voter interest and participation in elections. Opponents contend that the system vitiates democracy on the interparty and intraparty levels.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barber, Kathleen L. Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1995.

David, Paul T., and James W. Ceasar. Proportional Representation in Presidential Nominating Politics. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1980.

Robert B. Kvavik / t. g.

See also Apportionment ; Caucus ; Gerrymander ; Majority Rule ; Republic .

Kvavik, Robert B. " Proportional Representation . " Dictionary of American History . . Encyclopedia.com. 20 Mar. 2024 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

Kvavik, Robert B. "Proportional Representation ." Dictionary of American History . . Encyclopedia.com. (March 20, 2024). https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/proportional-representation

Kvavik, Robert B. "Proportional Representation ." Dictionary of American History . . Retrieved March 20, 2024 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/proportional-representation

proportional representation

" proportional representation . " World Encyclopedia . . Encyclopedia.com. 20 Mar. 2024 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

"proportional representation ." World Encyclopedia . . Encyclopedia.com. (March 20, 2024). https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proportional-representation

"proportional representation ." World Encyclopedia . . Retrieved March 20, 2024 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proportional-representation

More From encyclopedia.com

About this article, proportional representation, you might also like.

• Taggart, Edith Ashover (1909–1997)
• Lewsley, Patricia (1957–)
• Courtney, Annie
• Armitage, Pauline
• Gildernew, Michelle (1970–)
• Politics: Impact of the Northern Ireland Crisis on Southern Politics
• Ulster Politics under Direct Rule
• Conn, Shena

NEARBY TERMS

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Many voters say Congress is broken. Could proportional representation fix it?

Hansi Lo Wang

A perimeter fence surrounds the U.S. Capitol in February ahead of President Biden's State of the Union speech in Washington, D.C. Mariam Zuhaib/AP hide caption

A perimeter fence surrounds the U.S. Capitol in February ahead of President Biden's State of the Union speech in Washington, D.C.

With an increasingly polarized Congress and fewer competitive elections , there are growing calls among some election reformers to change how voters elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

One potential alternative to the current winner-take-all approach for House races is known as proportional representation.

Instead of the single candidate with the most votes winning a House district's seat, a proportional representation system would elect multiple representatives in each district, distributing seats in the legislature roughly in proportion to the votes each party receives.

Supporters say proportional representation could help temper the rise of political extremism, eliminate the threat of gerrymandering and ensure the fair representation of people of color, as well as voters who are outnumbered in reliably "red" or "blue" parts of the country.

This story is part of a series of reports on alternatives to how U.S. voters cast ballots and elect their political leaders. Click here for more NPR voting stories .

And last year, a group of more than 200 political scientists, legal scholars and historians across the U.S. said the time for Congress to change is now.

"Our arcane, single-member districting process divides, polarizes, and isolates us from each other," they wrote in an open letter to lawmakers. "It has effectively extinguished competitive elections for most Americans, and produced a deeply divided political system that is incapable of responding to changing demands and emerging challenges with necessary legitimacy."

But how exactly proportional representation could change House elections is an open question with major hurdles. There's a federal law that bans it, and many of its supporters acknowledge it would likely be years, if not decades, before a majority of lawmakers allow such a big, untested restructuring of Congress.

What could proportional representation in the House look like?

There's a spectrum of ways to reform the House using proportional representation. Two key factors are how many representatives a multi-member district would have and how winners of House seats would be proportionally allocated.

In 2021, Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia led a group of other House Democrats in reintroducing a proposal that's been floating around Congress since 2017 . The Fair Representation Act would require states to use ranked choice voting for House races. It calls for states with six or more representatives to create districts with three to five members each, and states with fewer than six representatives to elect all of them as at-large members of one statewide district.

Some advocates also raise the possibility of increasing the total number of House seats, which has been stuck at 435 seats for decades .

Stuck at 435 representatives? Why the U.S. House hasn't grown with census counts

While there's no consensus on the mechanics, supporters say moving toward proportional representation could allow the country's diversity to be better represented — including in communities where elections, outside of primaries, have become non-competitive.

"When you're looking at New York City, where I live, it's a city of almost 8.5 million people. And there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Republican voters who find themselves in districts with lopsided Democratic majorities," says Reihan Salam, a Brooklyn-based Republican who heads the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and has written in support of proportional representation .

Salam sees proportional representation as "something that would be hugely healthy for our politics to see to it that you don't just have competitive elections in a small, tiny handful of swing districts or swing states."

And that increased competition could push political parties to be more willing to compromise and negotiate, says Didi Kuo, a fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Kuo, who has studied versions of proportional representation systems in New Zealand, Italy and Japan, notes that many other democracies around the world have rewritten their rules "when some people are marginalized or excluded from representation, or when votes are not being translated into seats."

"How would you like it if there were a system where you could at least ensure that one person you like gets elected or one person of the party that you support?" Kuo says about what proportional representation could offer.

It could also lead to the rise of more political parties, which supporters say could boost voter turnout by expanding voters' choices in candidates.

But that could come with complications, warns Ruth Bloch Rubin, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

"We've seen how difficult it was to elect a speaker with just two parties, that when you introduce multiple parties, it increases the odds that you're going to have collective action problems, coordination problems. It's just going to be slower and harder to get people to reach agreement," says Bloch Rubin, who has written about the potential challenges that could come with switching from the current system of two major parties.

Why is proportional representation in the House against the law?

In 1967, Congress passed a law that bans a House district from electing more than one representative.

Courts hearing redistricting lawsuits at the time were considering ordering states with contested maps to use multi-member districts and hold statewide at-large elections as a temporary fix — a scenario that many lawmakers wanted to avoid. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, many lawmakers also wanted to block southern states from using multi-member districts and at-large, winner-take-all elections for the House to weaken the voting power of Black voters.

Since then, lawmakers, including Beyer, have introduced bills that would undo that requirement of single-member congressional districts and allow for multi-member districts.

Former Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell of California is seen in 2010. While serving in Congress back in 1999, Campbell testified in support of multi-member districts, which he says he still supports. Paul Sakuma/AP hide caption

While serving in Congress back in 1999, now-former Republican Rep. Tom Campbell of California testified in support of multi-member districts, which he says he still supports.

"No one looks at the House of Representatives today and says, 'There's a good model of functioning governance.' No one says that. And so the interest in trying something else has never been higher," says Campbell, who is now a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., and has left the GOP to form the Common Sense Party of California.

But in recent years, there's been no public support for proportional representation from Republicans in Congress, which Campbell sees as a sign of how polarized Capitol Hill has become.

"A Republican who puts her name or his name on such a bill will be targeted in the next primary election for the simple reason that you are attempting to move towards a system that might allow more members of Congress who are not Republican," Campbell says.

For many representatives, regardless of party, there's not a lot of incentive to try and disrupt the status quo that got them elected, says Bloch Rubin, the political scientist at the University of Chicago.

"Everyone's adapted their campaign and electoral strategies for the way the rules currently function," Bloch Rubin adds.

Term limits for Congress are wildly popular. But most experts say they'd be a bad idea

The U.S. has a 'primary problem,' say advocates who call for new election systems

How could proportional representation ensure fair representation for people of color.

The U.S. Supreme Court's weakening of the Voting Rights Act over the past decade has helped fuel interest in proportional representation among some civil rights advocates.

While the high court upheld its past rulings on a key remaining section of that landmark law, the loss of other legal protections against racial discrimination in the election process has made it harder to ensure fair representation for people of color around the country.

"If you go into communities of color, they're increasingly disillusioned with the political process. And the system that we have now, in many ways, adds to that disillusionment," says Alora Thomas-Lundborg, strategic director of litigation and advocacy at Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. "It's a winner-take-all system, meaning that if you happen to be in a district where you don't represent the plurality of votes, then you just get no representation and folks feel as though they're not represented. And even when you're in a district where maybe you are being represented, if that district is no longer competitive, you may still feel that your elected representative is not responsive to your needs because they're not out there having to curry your vote."

For communities of color, proportional representation could, in theory, set up a House of Representatives that is more reflective of their shares of the U.S. population, which is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, Thomas-Lundborg adds.

But that promise is untested.

Thomas-Lundborg says more state and local governments adopting proportional representation systems could help assuage some concerns about what impact it would actually have in racially and ethnically diverse parts of the country.

"We are at a point where we're asking a lot of questions and trying to think about the future as the nature of the Supreme Court is changing and the demographics of our country is changing," Thomas-Lundborg says. "And it's a really important time to start thinking proactively about these issues."

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

• voting stories

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

proportional representation

Definition of proportional representation

Examples of proportional representation in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'proportional representation.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1870, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near proportional representation

proportional rate

proportional tax

Cite this Entry

“Proportional representation.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportional%20representation. Accessed 9 Apr. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on proportional representation

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about proportional representation

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

The tangled history of 'it's' and 'its', more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 5, 12 bird names that sound like compliments, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.

Proportional Representation in Electoral Systems: The Political Context

Proportional representation (PR) is a significant aspect of electoral systems that aims to ensure the fair distribution of political power among diverse factions within a society. Unlike winner-takes-all systems, which tend to favor majority parties and neglect minority interests, PR strives for an equitable allocation of seats in legislative bodies based on the proportion of votes each party receives. This approach fosters inclusivity and encourages cooperation between different ideological groups by granting them adequate representation. To illustrate this concept, let us consider a hypothetical scenario where a country adopts proportional representation: In this fictional nation, three major political parties compete for seats in parliament – Party A representing left-leaning citizens, Party B advocating for centrist policies, and Party C championing conservative values.

In such circumstances, under a PR system, voters would have more options to express their preferences accurately. For instance, if 30% of the electorate supports Party A, they can expect approximately 30% of parliamentary seats allocated to representatives from their party. Similarly, if Parties B and C secure 40% and 30% of the popular vote respectively, their respective shares in the legislature will reflect these proportions as well. Consequently, no single party or ideology would dominate the decision-making process unilaterally; instead, all all major factions would have a voice in shaping policies and legislation. This ensures that the diverse range of perspectives within society is adequately represented, rather than being overshadowed by a single dominant party or ideology.

Proportional representation also promotes cooperation and consensus-building among political parties. Since no single party typically holds an outright majority of seats, parties must negotiate and form coalitions to govern effectively. This encourages compromise and collaboration between different ideological groups, fostering a more inclusive and balanced approach to governance.

Furthermore, proportional representation can help reduce disparities in political power between majority and minority groups. In winner-takes-all systems, smaller parties or minority interests often struggle to gain representation or influence. However, under PR, even smaller parties that may not win a significant share of the popular vote can still secure seats in parliament based on their proportionate support. This allows for greater diversity in political representation and gives marginalized voices an opportunity to be heard.

Overall, proportional representation aims to create fairer electoral outcomes by ensuring that the distribution of political power aligns with the preferences of voters across various ideological spectrums. By promoting inclusivity, cooperation, and better representation for minority voices, PR helps foster a more representative democracy.

Proportional representation: Definition and principles

Proportional representation (PR) is an electoral system that aims to ensure a fair and representative distribution of seats based on the proportion of votes received by each political party or candidate. Unlike other systems, such as first-past-the-post, PR ensures that smaller parties are not disadvantaged and have a chance to be represented in government.

To better understand how proportional representation works, let us consider a hypothetical scenario. Imagine a country with five major political parties: Party A, B, C, D, and E. In this case, under a PR system, the number of seats allocated to each party would reflect their share of the popular vote. For instance, if Party A receives 40% of the total votes cast nationwide, they would ideally secure approximately 40% of the available seats in parliament or legislative body.

The principles underlying proportional representation can be summarized as follows:

• Fairness: PR seeks to achieve fairness by ensuring that every vote counts equally and that all citizens’ voices are adequately represented.
• Diversity: By providing opportunities for smaller parties to gain seats in parliament, PR promotes diversity and encourages different perspectives within decision-making bodies.
• Consensus-building: As PR often results in coalition governments where multiple parties must work together to form a majority, it fosters compromise and collaboration among political actors.
• Proportional allocation: The key principle behind PR is allocating seats proportionally according to the percentage of votes received by each party. This ensures that there is alignment between voter preferences and parliamentary representation.

To further illustrate these principles visually:

In conclusion, proportional representation is an electoral system that promotes fairness, diversity, and consensus-building. It ensures that every vote has equal weight and allows for a more accurate reflection of citizens’ political preferences in the composition of legislative bodies.

Transitioning to the subsequent section on the historical development of proportional representation

Historical development of proportional representation

Section H2: Historical development of proportional representation

To illustrate this progression, we will examine a hypothetical case study of Country X, which transitioned from a majoritarian electoral system to a proportional one.

Country X had long been governed by a majoritarian electoral system, where winners took all and minority voices were often marginalized. However, as societal values shifted towards inclusivity and fair representation, calls for electoral reform gained traction. Recognizing the need for change, political parties came together to discuss alternative systems that would better reflect the diverse opinions within their society.

The discussions resulted in the adoption of proportional representation in Country X’s electoral system. This shift brought about several key changes:

• Increased representativeness : Proportional representation ensured that every citizen’s voice was heard through their elected representatives.
• Fair distribution of power : With seats allocated proportionally based on votes received, no single party could monopolize control over decision-making processes.
• Enhanced pluralism : Previously underrepresented groups saw an increase in political participation and greater influence in policymaking.
• Strengthened accountability : Parties became more accountable to voters as they needed broad-based support to secure sufficient seats for governing or influencing policy outcomes.

To provide a visual aid, consider Table 1 below showcasing how these changes manifested in Country X’s parliament after transitioning to proportional representation:

*Includes smaller parties and independents

As the hypothetical case study of Country X demonstrates, adopting proportional representation can have profound implications for political systems. In the subsequent section on “Advantages of proportional representation,” we will explore these implications further, shedding light on the benefits that this electoral system brings to societies seeking more inclusive governance.

[Transition sentence into next section: Advantages of proportional representation.]

(Note: The table above is an example; actual data may vary in real-world scenarios.)

Advantages of proportional representation

Transitioning from the historical development of proportional representation, it is important to explore its political implications in contemporary electoral systems. To illustrate this, let us consider a hypothetical scenario where a country adopts a proportional representation system for legislative elections.

In this hypothetical case, Party A receives 40% of the national vote share, Party B secures 30%, and Party C captures 20%. Under a proportional representation system, seats in the legislature would be allocated based on these percentages. As a result, Party A would obtain 40% of the seats, Party B would secure 30%, and Party C would receive 20%. This allocation reflects the popular support received by each party more accurately compared to other electoral systems.

The adoption of proportional representation can have several significant consequences within the political landscape:

• Enhanced inclusivity : By allocating seats proportionally according to vote shares, smaller parties are granted representation even if they do not win an outright majority. This allows for greater diversity and inclusion within legislative bodies.
• Coalition governments : Since no single party usually obtains an absolute majority under proportional representation, coalition governments become more common as parties need to collaborate to achieve stable governance. These alliances often necessitate negotiation and compromise among different ideological factions.
• Reduced regional disparities : In countries with diverse regions or ethnic groups, proportional representation can help ensure fair representation across all areas. It prevents larger regions from dominating decision-making processes while giving voice to historically marginalized communities.
• Increased voter choice : Proportional representation expands options available for voters since they can choose from multiple parties instead of being limited to two major ones. This encourages political competition and empowers citizens by providing them with broader choices that align better with their preferences.

To further comprehend how various factors interact within electoral systems utilizing proportional representation, we present the following table:

In summary, the adoption of proportional representation in electoral systems can lead to enhanced inclusivity, increased voter choice, reduced regional disparities, and the formation of coalition governments. However, it is also important to acknowledge potential challenges such as government instability, slower decision-making processes, and the risk of neglecting larger regions’ concerns.

Moving forward, we shall now delve into the criticisms surrounding proportional representation and explore its limitations within contemporary political contexts.

Criticism of proportional representation

Advantages of proportional representation are evident in various political contexts. For instance, let us consider the case of Country X, which implemented a proportional representation electoral system. This enabled greater diversity and inclusivity in their government by ensuring that minority groups had fair representation. As a result, previously marginalized communities felt more empowered and engaged in the political process.

One key advantage of proportional representation is that it encourages multi-party systems to flourish. By allowing smaller parties to have a voice in parliament, this ensures that diverse perspectives are represented and debated upon. In contrast to winner-takes-all systems, where only the majority party holds power, proportional representation fosters collaboration among different parties, leading to more comprehensive policy-making processes.

Furthermore, proportional representation can help mitigate political polarization within societies. The presence of multiple parties necessitates negotiation and compromise when forming coalition governments. This promotes consensus-building across ideological lines and discourages extreme positions. By fostering cooperation rather than competition between parties, there is an increased likelihood of stable governance and effective decision-making.

To illustrate these advantages further, consider the following bullet points:

• Proportional representation allows for better representation of women and underrepresented groups.
• It reduces wasted votes and provides citizens with a stronger sense of having their voices heard.
• The system incentivizes politicians to focus on issues important to all constituents instead of just appealing to specific demographics.
• Proportional representation has been associated with higher voter turnout rates compared to other electoral systems.

In addition to these benefits, we can also examine concrete examples from around the world through the following table:

As seen above, countries implementing proportional representation tend to experience higher levels of political stability compared to those with winner-takes-all systems or mixed electoral models.

In conclusion, the advantages of proportional representation are evident in various political contexts. By promoting multi-party systems, fostering collaboration and compromise, and providing better representation for marginalized groups, this electoral system contributes to a more inclusive and democratic society.

Proportional representation around the world

The impact of electoral systems on political outcomes has been a subject of much debate and analysis. To understand how proportional representation (PR) functions in different contexts, let us consider the case study of Germany, which employs a mixed-member proportional system.

In Germany, voters are given two votes – one for a local representative and another for a political party. The local representatives are elected through single-member constituencies using the first-past-the-post system, while additional seats are allocated to parties based on their share of the national vote. This combination allows for both geographic representation and proportionality in parliament.

Proportional representation is not limited to Germany; it is utilized by numerous countries across the globe. Here are some key features associated with PR:

• Ensures greater inclusivity: Proportional representation serves as a mechanism to ensure that minority groups have adequate representation in government bodies. By allocating seats based on popular vote shares, PR enables diverse perspectives to be heard and considered.
• Fosters coalition governments: Due to its emphasis on proportionality, PR often leads to multi-party democracy where no single party can secure an outright majority. This necessitates collaboration among different factions or parties to form governing coalitions.
• Reflects voter preferences more accurately: Unlike winner-takes-all systems that may result in wasted votes or distorted parliamentary majorities, PR strives to match seat allocation with actual voter support. This enhances democratic legitimacy by aligning parliamentary composition with public sentiment.
• Encourages issue-based politics: In PR systems, parties need broader appeal beyond specific regions or interest groups since they aim at securing a higher percentage of the overall vote share rather than winning individual constituencies. Consequently, politicians tend to focus on policy platforms and engage in substantive debates rather than merely relying on localized campaigning strategies.

To illustrate these points further, consider Table 1 below showcasing selected countries employing various forms of proportional representation:

In conclusion, proportional representation is a widely implemented electoral system that aims to address the shortcomings of other systems by ensuring fairer and more representative political outcomes. By examining diverse examples like Germany and considering its impact on inclusivity, coalition-building, voter preferences, and issue-based politics, we gain valuable insights into how PR operates globally.

Transitioning seamlessly into the subsequent section about “The impact of proportional representation on political parties,” let us explore how this electoral system affects party dynamics and strategies.

The impact of proportional representation on political parties

The implementation of proportional representation (PR) in electoral systems has a significant impact on the dynamics and strategies employed by political parties. This section will explore some key aspects of this impact, including party fragmentation, coalition building, voter representation, and policy formation.

One example that highlights the effects of PR on political parties is the experience of Germany. Since adopting a mixed-member proportional system in 1949, Germany’s political landscape has become characterized by multiple parties vying for seats in parliament. This increased party diversity can be seen as both a strength and a challenge for German democracy. On one hand, it ensures that different ideological perspectives are represented, allowing for more robust debates and policy discussions. On the other hand, it can lead to fragmented governance and difficulties in forming stable governments.

The impact of PR on political parties can be summarized through several key points:

• Fragmentation: Under PR systems, smaller or niche parties have greater chances of gaining parliamentary representation. This leads to an increase in the number of parties competing for votes and often results in coalition governments.
• Coalition Building: The need to form alliances with other parties becomes crucial under PR systems. Political parties must negotiate and compromise to build coalitions capable of achieving majority support. This process often requires careful consideration of shared policy goals and potential trade-offs.
• Voter Representation: PR aims to provide fairer representation for all voters by ensuring that each vote contributes directly to seat allocation. However, the effectiveness of this goal depends on factors such as district magnitude and threshold requirements.
• Policy Formation: PR incentivizes broad-based policy platforms rather than single-issue campaigns since parties strive to appeal to a wider range of voters across various constituencies.

To illustrate these points further, consider the following table showcasing hypothetical election results under first-past-the-post (FPTP) versus PR systems:

This table demonstrates how the PR system can provide a more proportional distribution of seats compared to FPTP. While Party C would not have gained any representation under FPTP, it obtains a significant number of seats under PR. This allows for greater diversity in ideas and viewpoints within parliament.

In conclusion, the impact of proportional representation on political parties is multifaceted. It leads to party fragmentation, necessitates coalition building, enhances voter representation, and encourages broad-based policy formation. Ultimately, the adoption of PR systems alters the dynamics between political parties and shapes democratic governance by promoting inclusivity and pluralism.

Related posts:

• Electoral Systems: Their Role in the Political System

First-Past-the-Post: Electoral Systems in Political Context

Mixed-Member Proportional: Electoral Systems in Political Context

Parallel Voting System: Electoral Systems in the Political Context

The Impact of Political System on Systematic Loan Interest Rates

Systematic Loans: Loans Granted in the Political System.

Single Transferable Vote: Its Role in Political System Electoral Systems

Comments are closed.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Proportional Representation - Questions and Answers

What's wrong, what voting system is used in the u.s., why use the "winner-take-all" system, what is proportional representation (pr), questions..., how does pr work, has pr been used in the u.s., where in the world is pr used, ... answers, what are the advantages of pr, what about district representation, is pr the same as a parliamentary system, how do we change to pr, are there any election reforms that work when a single person is being elected, such as president, mayor, or governor, about californians for electoral reform, want more information, pr resource list.

11.3 Congressional Representation

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain the basics of representation
• Describe the extent to which Congress as a body represents the U.S. population
• Explain the concept of collective representation
• Describe the forces that influence congressional approval ratings

The tension between local and national politics described in the previous section is essentially a struggle between interpretations of representation. Representation is a complex concept. It can mean paying careful attention to the concerns of constituents, understanding that representatives must act as they see fit based on what they feel best for the constituency, or relying on the particular ethnic, racial, or gender diversity of those in office. In this section, we will explore three different models of representation and the concept of descriptive representation. We will look at the way members of Congress navigate the challenging terrain of representation as they serve, and all the many predictable and unpredictable consequences of the decisions they make.

TYPES OF REPRESENTATION: LOOKING OUT FOR CONSTITUENTS

By definition and title, senators and House members are representatives. This means they are intended to be drawn from local populations around the country so they can speak for and make decisions for those local populations, their constituents, while serving in their respective legislative houses. That is, representation refers to an elected leader’s looking out for constituents while carrying out the duties of the office. 26

Theoretically, the process of constituents voting regularly and reaching out to their representatives helps these congresspersons better represent them. It is considered a given by some in representative democracies that representatives will seldom ignore the wishes of constituents, especially on salient issues that directly affect the district or state. In reality, the job of representing in Congress is often quite complicated, and elected leaders do not always know where their constituents stand. Nor do constituents always agree on everything. Navigating their sometimes contradictory demands and balancing them with the demands of the party, powerful interest groups, ideological concerns, the legislative body, their own personal beliefs, and the country as a whole can be a complicated and frustrating process for representatives.

Traditionally, representatives have seen their role as that of a delegate, a trustee, or someone attempting to balance the two. Representatives who see themselves as delegates believe they are empowered merely to enact the wishes of constituents. Delegates must employ some means to identify the views of their constituents and then vote accordingly. They are not permitted the liberty of employing their own reason and judgment while acting as representatives in Congress. This is the delegate model of representation .

In contrast, a representative who understands their role to be that of a trustee believes they are entrusted by the constituents with the power to use good judgment to make decisions on the constituents’ behalf. In the words of the eighteenth-century British philosopher Edmund Burke, who championed the trustee model of representation , “Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests . . . [it is rather] a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole.” 27 In the modern setting, trustee representatives will look to party consensus, party leadership, powerful interests, the member’s own personal views, and national trends to better identify the voting choices they should make.

Understandably, few if any representatives adhere strictly to one model or the other. Instead, most find themselves attempting to balance the important principles embedded in each. Political scientists call this the politico model of representation . In it, members of Congress act as either trustee or delegate based on rational political calculations about who is best served, the constituency or the nation.

For example, every representative, regardless of party or conservative versus liberal leanings, must remain firm in support of some ideologies and resistant to others. On the political right, an issue that demands support might be gun rights; on the left, it might be a woman’s right to an abortion. For votes related to such issues, representatives will likely pursue a delegate approach. For other issues, especially complex questions the public at large has little patience for, such as subtle economic reforms, representatives will tend to follow a trustee approach. This is not to say their decisions on these issues run contrary to public opinion. Rather, it merely means they are not acutely aware of or cannot adequately measure the extent to which their constituents support or reject the proposals at hand. It could also mean that the issue is not salient to their constituents. Congress works on hundreds of different issues each year, and constituents are likely not aware of the particulars of most of them.

DESCRIPTIVE REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

In some cases, representation can seem to have very little to do with the substantive issues representatives in Congress tend to debate. Instead, proper representation for some is rooted in the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, and sexual identity of the representatives themselves. This form of representation is called descriptive representation .

At one time, there was relatively little concern about descriptive representation in Congress. A major reason is that until well into the twentieth century, White men of European background constituted an overwhelming majority of the voting population. African Americans were routinely deprived of the opportunity to participate in democracy, and Hispanics and other minority groups were fairly insignificant in number and excluded by the states. While women in many western states could vote sooner, all women were not able to exercise their right to vote nationwide until passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, and they began to make up more than 5 percent of either chamber only in the 1990s.

Many advances in women’s rights have been the result of women’s greater engagement in politics and representation in the halls of government, especially since the founding of the National Organization for Women in 1966 and the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) in 1971. The NWPC was formed by Bella Abzug ( Figure 11.11 ), Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, and other leading feminists to encourage women’s participation in political parties, elect women to office, and raise money for their campaigns. For example, Patsy Mink (D-HI) ( Figure 11.11 ), the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, was the coauthor of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX of which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Mink had been interested in fighting discrimination in education since her youth, when she opposed racial segregation in campus housing while a student at the University of Nebraska. She went to law school after being denied admission to medical school because of her gender. Like Mink, many other women sought and won political office, many with the help of the NWPC. Today, EMILY’s List, a PAC founded in 1985 to help elect pro-choice Democratic women to office, plays a major role in fundraising for female candidates. In the 2018 midterm elections, thirty-four women endorsed by EMILY's List won election to the U.S. House. 28 In 2020, the Republicans took a page from the Democrats' playbook when they made the recruitment and support of quality female candidates a priority and increased the number of Republican women in the House from thirteen to twenty-eight, including ten seats formerly held by Democrats. 29

In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement , African American representatives also began to enter Congress in increasing numbers. In 1971, to better represent their interests, these representatives founded the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), an organization that grew out of a Democratic select committee formed in 1969. Founding members of the CBC include Ralph Metcalfe (D-IL), a former sprinter from Chicago who had medaled at both the Los Angeles (1932) and Berlin (1936) Olympic Games, and Shirley Chisholm, a founder of the NWPC and the first African American woman to be elected to the House of Representatives ( Figure 11.12 ).

In recent decades, Congress has become much more descriptively representative of the United States. The 117th Congress, which began in January 2021 had a historically large percentage of racial and ethnic minorities. African Americans made up the largest percentage, with sixty-two members (including two delegates and two people who would soon resign to serve in the executive branch), while Latinos accounted for fifty-four members (including two delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico), up from thirty just a decade before. 30 Yet, demographically speaking, Congress as a whole is still a long way from where the country is and is composed of largely White wealthy men. For example, although more than half the U.S. population is female, only 25 percent of Congress is. Congress is also overwhelmingly Christian ( Figure 11.13 ).

REPRESENTING CONSTITUENTS

Ethnic, racial, gender, or ideological identity aside, it is a representative’s actions in Congress that ultimately reflect their understanding of representation. Congress members’ most important function as lawmakers is writing, supporting, and passing bills. And as representatives of their constituents, they are charged with addressing those constituents’ interests. Historically, this job has included what some have affectionately called “bringing home the bacon” but what many (usually those outside the district in question) call pork-barrel politics . As a term and a practice, pork-barrel politics—federal spending on projects designed to benefit a particular district or set of constituents—has been around since the nineteenth century, when barrels of salt pork were both a sign of wealth and a system of reward. While pork-barrel politics are often deplored during election campaigns, and earmarks—funds appropriated for specific projects—are no longer permitted in Congress (see feature box below), legislative control of local appropriations nevertheless still exists. In more formal language, allocation , or the influencing of the national budget in ways that help the district or state, can mean securing funds for a specific district’s project like an airport, or getting tax breaks for certain types of agriculture or manufacturing.

Get Connected!

Language and metaphor.

The language and metaphors of war and violence are common in politics. Candidates routinely “smell blood in the water,” “battle for delegates,” go “head-to-head,” and “make heads roll.” But references to actual violence aren’t the only metaphorical devices commonly used in politics. Another is mentions of food. Powerful speakers frequently “throw red meat to the crowds”; careful politicians prefer to stick to “meat-and-potato issues”; and representatives are frequently encouraged by their constituents to “bring home the bacon.” And the way members of Congress typically “bring home the bacon” is often described with another agricultural metaphor, the “earmark.”

In ranching, an earmark is a small cut on the ear of a cow or other animal to denote ownership. Similarly, in Congress, an earmark is a mark in a bill that directs some of the bill’s funds to be spent on specific projects or for specific tax exemptions. Since the 1980s, the earmark has become a common vehicle for sending money to various projects around the country. Many a road, hospital, and airport can trace its origins back to a few skillfully drafted earmarks.

Relatively few people outside Congress had ever heard of the term before the 2008 presidential election, when Republican nominee Senator John McCain touted his career-long refusal to use the earmark as a testament to his commitment to reforming spending habits in Washington. 31 McCain’s criticism of the earmark as a form of corruption cast a shadow over a previously common legislative practice. As the country sank into recession and Congress tried to use spending bills to stimulate the economy, the public grew more acutely aware of its earmarking habits. Congresspersons then were eager to distance themselves from the practice. In fact, the use of earmarks to encourage Republicans to help pass health care reform actually made the bill less popular with the public.

In 2011, after Republicans took over the House, they outlawed earmarks. But with deadlocks and stalemates becoming more common, some quiet voices have begun asking for a return to the practice. They argue that Congress works because representatives can satisfy their responsibilities to their constituents by making deals. The earmarks are those deals. By taking them away, Congress has hampered its own ability to “bring home the bacon.”

Are earmarks a vital part of legislating or a corrupt practice that was rightly jettisoned? Pick a cause or industry, and investigate whether any earmarks ever favored it, or research the way earmarks have hurt or helped your state or district, and decide for yourself.

Follow-up activity: Find out where your congressional representative stands on the ban on earmarks and write to support or dissuade them.

Such budgetary allocations aren’t always looked upon favorably by constituents. Consider, for example, the passage of the ACA in 2010. The desire for comprehensive universal health care had been a driving position of the Democrats since at least the 1960s. During the 2008 campaign, that desire was so great among both Democrats and Republicans that both parties put forth plans. When the Democrats took control of Congress and the presidency in 2009, they quickly began putting together their plan. Soon, however, the politics grew complex, and the proposed plan became very contentious for the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, the desire to make good on a decades-old political promise compelled Democrats to do everything in their power to pass something. They offered sympathetic members of the Republican Party valuable budgetary concessions; they attempted to include allocations they hoped the opposition might feel compelled to support; and they drafted the bill in a purposely complex manner to avoid future challenges. These efforts, however, had the opposite effect. The Republican Party’s constituency interpreted the allocations as bribery and the bill as inherently flawed, and felt it should be scrapped entirely. The more Democrats dug in, the more frustrated the Republicans became ( Figure 11.14 ).

The Republican opposition, which took control of the House during the 2010 midterm elections, promised constituents they would repeal the law. Their attempts were complicated, however, by the fact that Democrats still held the Senate and the presidency. Yet, the desire to represent the interests of their constituents compelled Republicans to use another tool at their disposal, the symbolic vote. During the 112th and 113th Congresses, Republicans voted more than sixty times to either repeal or severely limit the reach of the law. They understood these efforts had little to no chance of ever making it to the president’s desk. And if they did, he would certainly have vetoed them. But it was important for these representatives to demonstrate to their constituents that they understood their wishes and were willing to act on them.

Historically, representatives have been able to balance their role as members of a national legislative body with their role as representatives of a smaller community. The Obamacare fight, however, gave a boost to the growing concern that the power structure in Washington divides representatives from the needs of their constituency. 32 This has exerted pressure on representatives to the extent that some now pursue a more straightforward delegate approach to representation. Indeed, following the 2010 election, a handful of Republicans began living in their offices in Washington, convinced that by not establishing a residence in Washington, they would appear closer to their constituents at home. 33

COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATION AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL

The concept of collective representation describes the relationship between Congress and the United States as a whole. That is, it considers whether the institution itself represents the American people, not just whether a particular member of Congress represents their district. Predictably, it is far more difficult for Congress to maintain a level of collective representation than it is for individual members of Congress to represent their own constituents. Not only is Congress a mixture of different ideologies, interests, and party affiliations, but the collective constituency of the United States has an even-greater level of diversity. Nor is it a solution to attempt to match the diversity of opinions and interests in the United States with those in Congress. Indeed, such an attempt would likely make it more difficult for Congress to maintain collective representation. Its rules and procedures require Congress to use flexibility, bargaining, and concessions. Yet, it is this flexibility and these concessions, which many now interpret as corruption, that tend to engender the high public disapproval ratings experienced by Congress.

After many years of deadlocks and bickering on Capitol Hill, the national perception of Congress has tended to run under 20 percent approval in recent years, with large majorities disapproving. Through mid-2021, the Congress, narrowly under Democratic control, was receiving higher approval ratings, above 30 percent. However, congressional approval still lags public approval of the presidency and Supreme Court by a considerable margin. In the two decades following the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s, the national approval rating of Congress hovered between 30 and 40 percent, then trended upward in the 1990s, before trending downward in the twenty-first century. 34

Yet, incumbent reelections have remained largely unaffected. The reason has to do with the remarkable ability of many in the United States to separate their distaste for Congress from their appreciation for their own representative. Paradoxically, this tendency to hate the group but love one’s own representative actually perpetuates the problem of poor congressional approval ratings. The reason is that it blunts voters’ natural desire to replace those in power who are earning such low approval ratings.

As decades of polling indicate, few events push congressional approval ratings above 50 percent. Indeed, when the ratings are graphed, the two noticeable peaks are at 57 percent in 1998 and 84 percent in 2001 ( Figure 11.15 ). In 1998, according to Gallup polling, the rise in approval accompanied a similar rise in other mood measures, including President Bill Clinton ’s approval ratings and general satisfaction with the state of the country and the economy. In 2001, approval spiked after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Bush administration launched the "War on Terror," sending troops first to Afghanistan and later to Iraq. War has the power to bring majorities of voters to view their Congress and president in an overwhelmingly positive way. 35

Nevertheless, all things being equal, citizens tend to rate Congress more highly when things get done and more poorly when things do not get done. For example, during the first half of President Obama’s first term, Congress’s approval rating reached a relative high of about 40 percent. Both houses were dominated by members of the president’s own party, and many people were eager for Congress to take action to end the deep recession and begin to repair the economy. Millions were suffering economically, out of work, or losing their jobs, and the idea that Congress was busy passing large stimulus packages, working on finance reform, and grilling unpopular bank CEOs and financial titans appealed to many. Approval began to fade as the Republican Party slowed the wheels of Congress during the tumultuous debates over Obamacare and reached a low of 9 percent following the federal government shutdown in October 2013.

One of the events that began the approval rating’s downward trend was Congress’s divisive debate over national deficits. A deficit is what results when Congress spends more than it has available. It then conducts additional deficit spending by increasing the national debt. Many modern economists contend that during periods of economic decline, the nation should run deficits, because additional government spending has a stimulative effect that can help restart a sluggish economy. Despite this benefit, voters rarely appreciate deficits. They see Congress as spending wastefully during a time when they themselves are cutting costs to get by.

The disconnect between the common public perception of running a deficit and its legitimate policy goals is frequently exploited for political advantage. For example, while running for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama slammed the deficit spending of the George W. Bush presidency, saying it was “unpatriotic.” This sentiment echoed complaints Democrats had been issuing for years as a weapon against President Bush’s policies. Following the election of President Obama and the Democratic takeover of the Senate, the concern over deficit spending shifted parties, with Republicans championing a spendthrift policy as a way of resisting Democratic policies.

Link to Learning

Find your representative at the U.S. House website and then explore their website and social media accounts to see whether the issues on which your representative spends time are the ones you think are most appropriate.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/11-3-congressional-representation

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of proportional representation in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• absentee ballot
• absentee vote
• absentee voter
• absentee voting
• enfranchisement
• entrance poll
• first-past-the-post
• proxy voter
• proxy voting
• vote of no confidence
• vote something through
• voting booth
• voting machine

proportional representation | Business English

Translations of proportional representation.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

sung by a group of people without any musical instruments

Shoots, blooms and blossom: talking about plants

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Business    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

Add proportional representation to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.