Proportional representation in the United States

Definitions

Proportional representation is achieved by any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.^[1] There are multiple systems for this. The main ones include:

• Party-list: If a party wins 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. There are two main forms (open-list and closed-list) of party candidate nominations. Ranked-list proportional representation (RLPR), a party list system with ranked-choice voting (RCV) to determine party list order, has also been proposed in the US but has never been used.^[2] Spare vote, considered but not adopted in Germany and New Zealand, could also be used for states with high thresholds.
• Single transferable vote (STV): As a combination of RCV and PR, voters rank a number of candidates and multiple candidates are elected. Electoral thresholds are typically 1/(n+1) where n is the number of seats up for election (i.e. if there are 4 seats, the threshold would be 20%). Surplus votes are transferred to subsequent rankings. STV does not require political parties. In partisan elections, parties exercise varying control over nominations. Above the line voting used in the Australian Senate allows voters to rank party lists or rank candidates below the line.
• Mixed-member proportional (MMP): This system combines single-winner geographic districts with at-large "compensatory" seats added to make the seat count proportional to the vote count. MMP retains single-member districts, SMDs, (unlike party-list and STV) but allows for PR in the overall body. MMP's SMDs could use ranked-choice voting but not STV (which requires multiple winners).

The presidential primary nomination process is most similar to party-list, and all cities that have enacted PR have used single transferable vote. MMP has not been used in the United States, but it is occasionally suggested by PR activists.

MMP's compensatory seats may be unconstitutional at the federal level due to a requirement in Article I Section 2 of the US Constitution that congressmembers must be elected by states.^[2] Other forms of PR likely would be constitutional and would only require a bill in Congress.^[3]

• 
  Closed-list PR
• 
  Open-list PR
• 
  Above/below the line voting
• 
  STV
• 
  MMP

Electoral structure

Multiple states ban ranked-choice voting for local elections,^[4] which prevents the use of single transferable vote (STV), but not necessarily party-list or MMP systems. Municipalities' ability to alter electoral systems depends on home rule laws.^[5] In Minnesota, cities are either statutory or charter cities, and only charter cities are currently able to implement any ranked-choice voting systems.^[6]

United States House of Representatives seats are elected by plurality vote (the candidate receiving the most votes wins). House seats in Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting (RCV) instead of plurality voting.^[8] Since the late 1960s, all House congressional districts have been single-member districts due to the Uniform Congressional District Act (UCDA).^[9] The current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system does not require a proportional number of seats in relation to votes, and seat allocation may vary widely from votes cast.^[10]

Since 1913, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, US senators have been elected by plurality vote in at-large, statewide elections.^[11] Some states use runoffs^[12] or RCV^[8] instead to elect senators by a majority instead of a plurality. According to a 1992 DOJ memorandum opinion, Senate races must be at-large and may not be broken into two single-member district races.^[13]

The president of the United States cannot be elected directly via proportional representation, since the seat is inherently single-winner. In parliamentary systems, the legislature, which may be proportionally elected, chooses the prime minister. The United States is a presidential system with a separation of the legislature and executive. Many Latin American countries elect their legislatures through party-list proportional representation^[14] and hold a direct popular vote for president, such as Peru, Chile, and Costa Rica.

Progressive era

The Progressive movement of the early 20th century advocated for a variety of electoral reforms, including proportional representation.

Populist former-Senator William A. Peffer described proportional representation as a "tenet of the People's party creed" in the Advocate in 1897.^[23] In the 1898 Populist convention in Topeka, the adopted platform stated, "We demand that the initiative and referendum be embodied in our state constitution and favor proportional representation."^[24][25]

Above is the share of seats after 1904 United States House of Representatives elections. Republicans won 251 seats (65% of total) despite winning 54.58% of the vote.

John R Commons argued in Proportional Representation that the seat results would be much different if the seats were allocated proportionally.^[10]

Famous reformers such as John R. Commons advocated for proportional representation to undermine gerrymandering and to elect Black politicians.^[26]

Proportional representation cannot be secured where but one candidate is elected in a district. He is the representative of the majority and not of all. The single-membered district system, which is almost universal in the election of representatives, is an historical accident, and not a rational device for representation or modern lines. In feudal and colonial times, when it was adopted, it happened that each organized interest lived by itself in a given territory. Each guild of handworkers had its own ward in the town, and therefore the alderman of the shoe-makers happened to be the alderman of the shoe-makers’ ward. Suffrage was limited to those who belonged to the guild. Also the farmers were only farm owners and not farm laborers. Now, when suffrage is universal, ward and district lines have lost their meaning.

Pivot to cities

In 1913, an initiative to elect representatives via open party-list proportional representation in Los Angeles failed, receiving 48.2% of the vote.^[28] The campaign was marked with infighting between socialists who wanted to expand their representation and progressive Republicans who wanted to undermine party influence.^[29][28] A chunk of the progressives were also hesitant to ally with anti-capitalists after a bitter election two years prior.^[30]

The Proportional Representation League advocated for the use of single transferable vote, a ranked-choice, proportional vote system, in cities in the 1890s^[31] and the early 20th century.^[32] The league preferred at-large proportional representation as opposed to district models.^[33] In 1932, the Proportional Representation League merged into the National Municipal League, now known as the National Civic League.^[34] The National Municipal League endorsed a move toward the city manager plan and STV in 1914.^[35] In Ashtabula, the transition to a city manager plan and PR were seen to go together, as there was concern that a plurality voting system would result in only one party appointing the city manager.^[36]

According to Jack Santucci, a Georgetown University professor, when city charter reform occurred, most cities chose plurality at-large (block voting), but cities that chose STV instead had intraparty factions (who wanted to weaken party nominations) that allied with minority parties to pass PR.^[7]

Between 1915 and 1962, 22 cities used STV, including Cincinnati, Sacramento, and most notably New York City.^[38] The first city to use PR the US was Ashtabula, Ohio in 1915 via referendum.

Progressives in LA were set to vote for their preferred system, STV, in 1922, but the Supreme Court of California struck down Sacramento's STV system days before the election.^[30]

Kalamazoo, Michigan used PR for two elections before the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the system.^[33]

In Cincinnati, the City Charter Committee was formed to pass a citywide ballot initiative to institute PR without Republican machine support.^[39] Cincinnati's 1925 City Council election had a threshold of 10% of the vote (including after transfers) for a candidate to be elected to one of the nine seats. This required a candidate to receive 11,974 votes.^[37] Candidates who were endorsed by the two main factions (Republicans and the Charter) won their races in 1927. The Republicans performed best in the 1929 election after endorsing nine candidates for the city council.^[39]

In January 1929, Representative Victor L. Berger introduced a bill to elect the US House of Representatives by proportional representation.^[40][41] The bill did not pass, and Berger died in August the same year in a trolley accident.^[42]

In the wake of the Walker scandal, Fiorello La Guardia advocated for a successful referendum to replace gerrymandered districts with STV.^[44] New York City's first election using PR was in 1937. The city used a quota system, wherein each borough was entitled to one councilmember for every 75,000 votes cast (plus one more for a remainder of 50,000 or more).^[45] Ballot guides were widely distributed during the election, and the system was credited for making it easier to prevent vote tampering and a having a higher percentage of votes going to elect a candidate than the previous single-member district system.^[46]

Decline in 1940s-1960s

Proportional representation fell out of favor and began to be repealed after racial and political minorities began to win seats.^[32] Initially, most repeals came from court challenges or state repeals without input from local voters.^[47] Fear of Black mayors and councilmembers, as well as the Second Red Scare, led to successful referendums against PR.^[48]

In his book More Parties or No Parties, Jack Santucci argues STV struggled with vote leakage (voters ranking very different parties close to each other) and was more susceptible to repeal than party-list systems. Reformers in the 1910s held strong anti-party sentiments that conflicted with party-list systems,^[49] and the media branded party-list as "socialist," particularly during the failed 1913 Los Angeles charter campaign.^[29]

Cambridge has consistently used proportional representation since 1941—the only city from the era to do so.^[50][51][48]

Attempted Electoral College reforms

Article Two of the Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...", which has generally been taken to mean that changes to the way states allocate electoral votes (EVs) would have to be passed by states (via legislatures or initiatives) or by a constitutional amendment.^[52] According to McPherson v. Blacker, states have plenary power in selecting the method of appointing electors.

If Humphrey's method were applied to the 1956 election, it would have given Stevenson 130 more EVs (204 total), resulting in him receiving 38% of the total.

Since the Lodge-Gosset method did not award 2 EVs for statewide winners, smaller states (such as the Dakotas) would allocate more votes for non-statewide winners.

The Lodge-Gosset amendment was a proposed constitutional amendment that passed the Senate in 1950 that would have retained the Electoral College but require each state to allocate its electoral votes proportionally. To be elected, a presidential candidate would need to win at least 40% of the total EVs.^[53] Louis Lautier argued via the NPAA that the amendment would hurt African Americans' swaying power as an interest group in swing states, primarily due to disenfranchisement in the South (pre-Voting-Rights-Act) preventing a counterbalance in the vote for president.^[54] Journalist Walter Lippmann, preferring the Congressional district model assumed by the Founders, argued the use of PR in the electoral college would lead to the use of PR in the House of Representatives.^[55]

In early 1956, then-Senator Hubert Humphrey proposed an amendment to the Constitution in which 2 EVs would be given for the winner of a state's popular vote (96 total, before the addition of Alaska and Hawaii) and the rest (435) would be allocated proportionally according to the percentages of the nationwide vote.^[56] The proposal passed the House but not the Senate.^[57]

In 2004, voters rejected an initiated amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have allocated its EVs proportionally with the state's popular vote and retroactively applied the system to the 2004 election occurring the same day.^[58][59] Major politicians from both parties (Republican Gov. Bill Owens and the two candidates in the Senate race) opposed the initiative, and opponents argued it would eliminate Colorado's swing state character.^[60] One study found that had Colorado allocated its electoral votes proportionally in the previous election, the presidency could have gone to Gore (270-268) if Barbara Lett-Simmons chose not to be a faithless elector.^[61]

Contemporary usage

Currently, multi-member elections for Congress are banned under the Uniform Congressional District Act.^[62][63] The act was intended to ban general tickets^[32] (a type of block voting^[c] currently used in the Electoral College) for congressional races, which had been controversial since the 1840s,^[64] but it also banned proportional systems.

Presidential primaries

Following the controversial 1968 election, the DNC created the McGovern–Fraser Commission to democratize the presidential nomination process.^[65] The commission supported using proportional representation for delegate selection and agreed with the DNC's decision to ban winner-take-all primaries.^[66]

Proportional representation is currently used to elect pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention.^[67] Candidates must receive at least 15% of the vote to receive delegates.^[68][69] Proportional ranked-choice voting was used in four states in the large 2020 Democratic primary, including in Kansas,^[70][71] which saw an increase in turnout.^[72]

Currently, the Republican National Committee leaves delegate selection processes to the states, resulting in a variety of systems for the Republican Party presidential nomination process. Some states use proportional representation, a plurality use proportional representation with a winner-take-all trigger after a threshold is reached, and some states use a true winner-take-all system.^[73][74] In the 2024 Republican presidential primary elections, Nikki Haley received 19.7% of the vote and 97 delegates (4% of the total delegates).^[75]

Return in municipal government

Multiple cities use proportional representation to elect their city councils,^[76] including Portland, Minneapolis,^[77] Charlottesville,^[78][79] and Cambridge.^[77] Since Portland uses STV, candidates are elected when they reach a victory threshold. The result does not ensure party proportional representation due to the races being formally nonpartisan.^[80] Portland first used STV in its 2024 city council election.

Eastpointe, Michigan and Newburgh, New York transitioned to STV to settle Voting Rights Act disputes in 2017 and 2026 respectively.^[81][82]

More information 9-winner STV city council election in Cambridge, 2021 Cambridge City Council ...

9-winner STV city council election in Cambridge

2021 Cambridge City Council [83] Candidate Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 Round 10 Round 11 Round 12 Round 13 Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Sumbul Siddiqui 4,124 18.91% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% Denise Simmons 1,764 8.09% 2,088 9.57% 2,089 9.58% 2,091 9.59% 2,095 9.6% 2,103 9.64% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% Patricia M. Nolan 1,971 9.04% 2,143 9.82% 2,145 9.83% 2,151 9.86% 2,159 9.9% 2,167 9.93% 2,178 9.98% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% Dennis J. Carlone 1,493 6.84% 1,544 7.08% 1,544 7.08% 1,550 7.11% 1,554 7.12% 1,560 7.15% 1,569 7.19% 1,580 7.24% 1,663 7.62% 1,702 7.8% 1,762 8.08% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% Marc C. McGovern 1,539 7.06% 1,768 8.11% 1,773 8.13% 1,776 8.14% 1,785 8.18% 1,790 8.21% 1,834 8.41% 1,855 8.5% 1,887 8.65% 1,973 9.05% 2,055 9.42% 2,182 10.0% 2,182 10.0% Burhan Azeem 1,379 6.32% 1,566 7.18% 1,567 7.18% 1,569 7.19% 1,570 7.2% 1,574 7.22% 1,589 7.28% 1,643 7.53% 1,743 7.99% 1,810 8.3% 1,955 8.96% 2,108 9.66% 2,182 10.0% Alanna M. Mallon 1,220 5.59% 1,552 7.12% 1,552 7.12% 1,556 7.13% 1,562 7.16% 1,567 7.18% 1,598 7.33% 1,641 7.52% 1,713 7.85% 1,805 8.27% 1,914 8.77% 2,083 9.55% 2,182 10.0% Quinton Y. Zondervan 1,295 5.94% 1,431 6.56% 1,432 6.56% 1,436 6.58% 1,436 6.58% 1,443 6.62% 1,457 6.68% 1,502 6.89% 1,549 7.1% 1,592 7.3% 1,777 8.15% 2,112 9.68% 2,182 10.0% Paul F. Toner 1,703 7.81% 1,756 8.05% 1,756 8.05% 1,759 8.06% 1,771 8.12% 1,776 8.14% 1,792 8.22% 1,801 8.26% 1,813 8.31% 1,952 8.95% 2,012 9.22% 2,096 9.61% 2,182 10.0% Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 1,225 5.62% 1,363 6.25% 1,365 6.26% 1,372 6.29% 1,373 6.29% 1,377 6.31% 1,380 6.33% 1,429 6.55% 1,475 6.76% 1,534 7.03% 1,721 7.89% 1,898 8.7% Eliminated Nicola A. Williams 1,159 5.31% 1,244 5.7% 1,244 5.7% 1,245 5.71% 1,249 5.73% 1,258 5.77% 1,299 5.96% 1,394 6.39% 1,462 6.7% 1,497 6.86% 1,690 7.75% Eliminated Theodora Theo Skeadas 813 3.73% 911 4.18% 915 4.19% 915 4.19% 917 4.2% 921 4.22% 928 4.25% 977 4.48% 1,046 4.8% 1,104 5.06% Eliminated Joe McGuirk 611 2.8% 641 2.94% 641 2.94% 645 2.96% 659 3.02% 665 3.05% 682 3.13% 696 3.19% 727 3.33% Eliminated Dana Bullister 520 2.38% 545 2.5% 548 2.51% 558 2.56% 561 2.57% 574 2.63% 582 2.67% 599 2.75% Eliminated Tonia D. Hicks 363 1.66% 409 1.88% 410 1.88% 419 1.92% 420 1.93% 425 1.95% 449 2.06% Eliminated Frantz Pierre 355 1.63% 382 1.75% 382 1.75% 382 1.75% 384 1.76% 384 1.76% Eliminated Ilan Levy 97 0.44% 99 0.45% 99 0.45% 101 0.46% 103 0.47% Eliminated Gregg J. Moree 80 0.37% 83 0.38% 83 0.38% 84 0.39% Eliminated Robert Eckstut 70 0.32% 74 0.34% 74 0.34% Eliminated Write-in 32 0.15% 32 0.15% Eliminated

Close

Relationship with Voting Rights Act (VRA)

In 1993, Lani Guinier, a prominent civil rights lawyer, was nominated by then-President Bill Clinton for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Guinier's civil rights legal papers on the Voting Rights Act garnered public controversy and Clinton withdrew her nomination, saying "[Guinier] seems to be arguing for principles of proportional representation and minority veto as general remedies that I think are inappropriate as general remedies, anti-democratic, and very difficult to defend."^[84][85]

Some advocates, such as FairVote and More Equitable Democracy, see proportional representation as a solution to the perceived underrepresentation of Black Americans in Congress.^[86][87] Several municipalities had transitioned from block voting systems to STV in the 2020s as a result of VRA lawsuits.

As part of a 2017 Voting Rights Act (VRA) lawsuit, Eastpointe, Michigan was told by the DOJ it needed to change its electoral system.^[81] Pastor Albert Rush of Immanuel United Methodist Church expressed concerns over the original proposal to retain FPTP but remain in compliance with the VRA by drawing single-member districts. The original plan was to create a "Black ward" similar to minority-majority districts used for Congressional races. He characterized racial wards as "a step backward."^[88] To settle the lawsuit, Eastpointe changed its electoral system from block voting to single transferable vote with a 33.3% threshold.^[81][89] According to More Equitable Democracy, VRA lawsuits can be lengthy and expensive.^[5]

Newburgh, New York adopted proportional ranked-choice voting (STV) to resolve a New York Voting Rights Act violation in February 2026.^[90] Newburgh had previously elected all five members of its town board members at-large via block voting.^[82] The town is currently the first in New York (since the repeals) to use STV. The new system only elects two representatives at a time, resulting in a higher threshold than Portland's races. The transition is expected to elect Black and brown representatives.^[91][92]

In June 2026, a judge in Huntington Beach, California required the city council to be elected all at once using ranked-choice voting, marking the first time in the US when a judge has specifically ordered the use of single transferable vote to settle a state voting rights act dispute (as opposed to a city opting to use STV over single-winner races after the old system was struck down).^[93][94][95]

Voting Rights Act Supreme Court decisions

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court created the Gingles test to determine whether a map is illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Its first prong, regarding the compactness and possible creation of majority-minority district, was expanded upon in Johnson v. De Grandy (1994), which found that a jurisdiction is unlikely to be liable for vote dilution if its redistricting plan contains a number of majority-minority districts that is proportional to the minority group's population.^[97] This has been understood to have created a form of racial proportional representation as a remedy for VRA violations.

In the Louisiana v. Callais (2026) decision, which made VRA districting lawsuits more difficult to pursue, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court "should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups 'an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.'"^[98] FairVote criticized the court's decision and called for "proportional, multi-member districts that give every community a seat at the table."^[86] Former Vice President Kamala Harris called for a "no bad ideas brainstorm" that would include "a conversation about multi-member districts" following 2025-2026 redistricting efforts and the Callais decision.^[99][100]

Polling

According to the 2022 Cooperative Election Study conducted by YouGov, 71% of Americans who have a positive opinion on ranked-choice voting also support proportional representation. This may suggest cross-support among the two electoral reforms, especially compared to national popular vote (NPV) support, which had lower support for PR among NPV supporters (58%).^[102]

A Citizen Data poll commissioned by Protect Democracy in 2023 found that 59% of Americans had never heard of proportional representation. The poll found that after a generic explanation of PR, support for using proportional representation to elect representatives increased from 24% to 52%. A "Thanksgiving dinner" metaphor (where dishes won spots on the dinner table) resulted in an increase in support for PR to elect representatives from 27.4% to 61.5%.^[103]

According to a September 2024 poll commissioned by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences of 3,200 eligible voters, 63% of Americans supported a reform to increase the number of political parties, including a majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.^[104] A Centiment study funded by FairVote found 66% of Democratic Illinois voters supported using proportional ranked-choice voting in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries.^[105]

In an October 2025 Strength in Numbers poll conducted by Verasight, 48% of Americans said they supported electing the House by proportional representation, 19% were opposed, and 32% said they did not know.^[101]

Support

Journalists Ezra Klein^[107] and Matthew Yglesias^[108] expressed support for PR in 2026 in response to mid-cycle redistricting.

In May 2026, Former Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg supported "looking at" using proportional multi-member districts to elect members for Congress in order to address "systemic issues" preventing the passage of bills that cover "kitchen-table issues."^[109][110]

Opposition

In January 2026, House Republicans introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which would prohibit ranked-choice voting for federal elections (prohibiting STV) and prohibit any federal system that "permits a voter to vote for more than one candidate for the same office."^[134][135] No modern sitting federal Republican politician has endorsed federal legislation to enact proportional representation.^[136]

New York University School of Law professor Richard Pildes argued that political tensions are not inherent to first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems, and he said that the tensions surrounding Brexit were an aberrance in the political climate of the United Kingdom, which uses FPTP. He also questioned how many parties would form without reform to the Senate. Pildes suggested state legislature multi-member district (MMD) reform efforts to be a better starting place than federal races and recommended nonpartisan reforms to the primary process instead.^[137]

According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, some lawmakers elected through winner-take-all elections were hesitant to change the system under which they had been elected, and one said that implementation of PR might require a delay period to pass.^[104]

Historical

PR prevented vote splitting and undermined the effects of political machines in cities that used it in the 1920s.^[33]

In New York City, under STV, 80% of legislation was passed unanimously.^[138] In the 1939 election, Genevieve Earle formed a multiracial women's committee to attempt to elect a Black candidate that she had beaten the previous election. Commentators said this showed no resentment between the two.^[138]

In the NYC 1939 city council election, which used PR, voter turnout was 90%.^[139]

Turnover of representatives between two PR elections in New York City (1937 and 1939) was low, and only four out of 21 councilmembers following the 1939 election were newcomers.^[140]

Race

According to Hoag, PR undermined the Ku Klux Klan's ability to enter and control government in Ashtabula and Cleveland in the 1920s, since they did not have majority support.^[141] In Cincinnati, Black residents consistently elected 2 (out of 9) Black councilmembers under PR, a disproportionate result for the city's demographics. After the repeal in 1957, the city did not have two Black councilmembers concurrently until 1992.^[142] The first Black candidate to win an office in Toledo, Ohio was elected via single transferable vote in 1945.^[143]

Before the Louisiana v. Callais decision, Voting Rights Act lawsuits resulted in a transition away from block voting to STV in some municipalities.

Portland, which had been typically run by white men under FPTP, elected a majority POC city council in 2024 under STV.^[145]

Proposed

Federal

PR may also expand national focus from swing races to unrepresented groups, such as Republicans in Democratic congressional districts.^[136]

PR elections could introduce three or more political parties to Congress, requiring collaborative coalitions to elect a Speaker of the House.^{[147][136][137]} Proportional representation could allow for centrist or syncretic parties to form coalitions in the House.^[148]

Race and the Voting Rights Act

Proponents of federal proportional representation argue it could give more electoral sway to minority groups who do not currently live in majority-minority districts. The threshold to be elected to Congress would be lower under a proportional voting system. In response to Miller v. Johnson (1995), Representative Cynthia McKinney saw PR as a solution to underrepresentation of African Americans in Congress.^[125]

Images

• TimesMachine: October 21, 1936 - NYTimes.com—La Guardia meeting with PR advocates
• TimesMachine: November 1, 1937 - NYTimes.com—Sample ballot for 1937 NYC city council election (pages 4 and 5)