An argument for proportional representation -- 2012 House races modeled

[Ransom]

Start with an oft-quoted fact. That Democrats, despite winning the majority of the vote in aggregate house races in 2012 still failed to retake the US House of Representatives. Why? Simply put, Democratic voters tend to be much more urban (and thus geographically dense) than the more geographically spread out Republican base. As a result, even in the absence of malevolent gerrymandering, Democrats tend to be packed into an artificially small number of districts, leaving an unnaturally large number of republican-leaning districts in the country's many metro regions.

Proportional representation bipasses the problem of geographic disadvantage entirely by not bothering with districts. In a proportional system, all the voters in a state (or in the nation, depending on the scenario) vote for one party. The votes are tabulated, and then a quotient system is used to allocate seats in a way which ensures parties represent as close to the amount of people who voted for them as possible.

To illustrate the point, I converted the 2012 US House results to proportional representation using the Sainte-Laguë method. To quote wikipedia (because apparently I have to spam your board until I can link there):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't view my spreadsheet here, because I can't link to my mediafire account. But if you scroll down, AdamGriffin linked to it. Thanks AdamGriffin! The meat of the data is below:

I did two simulations. The first is the statewide application of the Sainte-Laguë method, with Ohio's 2012 races as a case study. In actuality Republicans won 51% of the popular vote and got 75% of the seats, while Democrats, who polled a close second with 47% of the vote, only got 25% of seats. Compare this to proportional representation, where Republicans and Democrats split the house seats 50/50, a sensible conclusion after splitting the popular vote within a margin of error. (again, this post would be a lot better if I could include links)

The second simulation applied proportional representation to the nation at large. Remember, in 2012 the Democratic Party got 48.74% of the popular vote but only 201 seats to the Republicans 234 seats with 47.58% of the vote. Not very fair, right? Under proportional representation Democrats won 220 seats (50.58%) to Republican's 210 (48.28%). The Libertarian party managed to break into the house with five seats (1.15%), a fair representation of there 1.12% vote share.

Proportional representation is obviously the superior system when it comes to representing the choice of the voting population. The obvious criticism, that party-list PR systems de-emphasize the individual candidate in favor of the political parties is, in broad terms, true. However, this concern can be mitigated in two ways. First, use proportional representation at the state level, rather than transitioning directly to a nation-wide house election. This way, representatives are sure to come from every state in the Union (rather than, say, Yale). Secondly, couple state-wide proportional representation with primaries where the order in which candidates finish determines the order in which they appear on the party list in that state. This way, individuals who are unpopular within a party's voters stay out of Congress.

Obviously the system is not perfect; no system is. But I believe adopting proportional representation would solve so many of the problems in American politics. What do you guys think?

[Ransom]

I've always liked the system of proportional representation, but I'm unsure about it. It gives too much power to political parties, for one. I always feel that it might be better that all localities get some form of representation in congress. Mixed-member proportional representation, to me, sounds like the best possible model. Carries the benefits of both PR and FPTP.

Indeed.

Only thing I'll add is that the model becomes obsolete as soon as you go to a PR model because the 2 party system will break up to some degree.

I would not be so sure about that. Sure, minor parties can sneak a handful of representatives into the house this way, but to become a significant political force they would have to poll better than single digits. In my opinion, you also have to reform campaign finance laws before third parties have any staying power (as opposed to, say one of the major parties switching place with a minor party, but the two party system staying broadly intact).

[Ransom]

I don't think PR is particularly operable under our current system, even though I would support it under a Westminster one. The real problem I feel is gerrymandering. Frankly, in my own situation I feel completely unrepresented. I'm shoe-horned into District 9 even though 18, 14, 12, etc. are all closer. District 9 was competed by two candidates from Central Pennsylvania when Western Pennsylvania is represented elsewhere. Districts need to be done impartially and for the best interests of the citizens in the area, not of a political party.

The fact of the matter is even if districts were always drawn impartially, democrats will always lose out simply because of how dense democrats are settled compared to Republican distribution. Districts will never be impartial, which is why I favor some sort of proportional representation scheme.