Proportional Representation Is a Great Idea That The Left Should Embrace

A response to Benjamin Studebaker

Benjamin Studebaker recently wrote in Current Affairs that “Proportional Representation Is a Terrible Idea That The Left Should Not Embrace”. He’s categorically and emphatically mistaken. #ProRep is a great idea, and badly needed as a US reform.

The biggest overarching flaw in the article is its one-sided analysis, highlighting potential issues with #ProRep whil apparently blind to the serious flaws in FPTP (that is, the US / Canadian / UK system that #ProRep would replace.) I don’t think Studebaker is arguing in bad faith; I just think he’s falling prey to status quo bias. He brings up interesting issues in one heading after another — but then considers them only in a light to make #ProRep look bad. Based just on these arguments, you might be forgiven for thinking that the US status quo was a leftist utopia!

So, before responding to his anti-ProRep arguments, it’s important to make a brief case for ProRep and against FPTP:

• #ProRep is more democratic. It gives almost all voters a representative they helped elect, where FPTP denies that to almost half of voters. That means that problems with wasted votes and vote splitting are several times worse under FPTP.

• #ProRep solves gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when politicians draw district boundaries to deliberately weaponize wasted votes and create an outcome biased to one party. In the US, it clearly benefits Republicans on net; for instance, in 2012 they won nearly 52% of the seats in the House of Representatives with under 48% of the votes, and many state-level elections are worse. Since #ProRep minimizes wasted votes, it leaves nothing to weaponize.

• #ProRep leads to more-diverse winners. This is supported by theory and evidence in multiple ways: in terms of gender, ethnicity, economic status, etc. For instance, Australia is nearly an ideal controlled experiment in this sense: in the last two decades its Senate, elected with a ProRep system, has consistently averaged over 10% more women (that is, closer to a fair 50%) than its House, elected with a single-winner (FPTP-like) system.
• #ProRep encourages participation. Because fewer votes are wasted, and because it breaks two-party zero-sum dynamics, the way to win is to bring more people in, not to turn more of them off. This can start a virtuous cycle of improving democracy in other ways, too.

Does that mean ProRep is always flawless? Of course not. But with those sizeable advantages at stake, we shouldn’t reject the idea at the first sign of an issue. Instead, it’s worth putting in the effort to design a ProRep system to minimize flaws.

With that established, let’s look at Studebaker’s points one-by-one, in the order he gives them:

“Party Proliferation”

Yes, proportional representation would lead to more viable parties; in fact, that’s part of the point. Lee Drutman even called his book on PR “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop”.

But still, Studebaker isn’t entirely wrong here. Starting from the US status quo, some party proliferation is good; but still, excessive party proliferation isn’t. And some kinds of ProRep can lead to such excessive fragmentation. For instance, as Studebaker points out, the system of closed party lists has had that problem in countries such as Israel and the Netherlands.

If more parties were always bad, then the ideal would be one party. So the solution isn’t to reject all forms of ProRep; it’s to find one that tends to avoid excessive fragmentation. There are several possibilities. For instance, a system which divides elections into 5-seat districts would tend to keep all viable parties larger than 15%; in practice, that would tend to mean only around 3 parties that mattered. Or, a delegated-transfer system with one- or two-seat districts could have relatively high individual thresholds for candidates (say, 25% of the local votes); that would be an even stronger incentive for big-tent parties, probably leading to around “two and a half” that matter.

“Campaigns versus Coalition Agreements”

In this section, Studebaker points out — correctly—that a ProRep government is often a coalition of more than one party, none of which has a majority on its own. Thus, no one party can keep all its campaign promises.

Fair enough. But it raises the question: what country does Studebaker live in? Can he vote for a unified left party that makes bold, clear promises and then, when elected, keeps them? If he can, then I’d like to move there.

Of course, sarcasm aside, he’s not that deluded; he explicitly points out that the Democratic party breaks its promises all the time. But still, he seems to think that under the current system, utopia is almost within reach; while under ProRep, it would suddenly become impossible.

I disagree. Yes, under ProRep, politics is hard; you need to build coalitions cautious enough to include the tepid median voter yet still brave enough to actually get things done. But that’s politics under any system. It’s hard, but not impossible; and I’d argue that if anything, ProRep makes it easier.

Perhaps, though he doesn’t say it, Studebaker’s argument here reflects envy of the Republicans. After all, from Reagan to Gingrich to Bush to Trump, they’ve become increasingly dominated by an increasingly hard-line faction, yet they still win many elections as their moderate wing seems always to fall in line behind the extremists. But that can’t and shouldn’t be a model for the left. For one thing, this Republican success has often relied on anti-democratic aspects of the US system which let them win power with a minority of votes. And for another, the right’s more-authoritarian outlook makes wrangling losing factions into line inherently easier.

“Unreliable Partners Make Winning Impossible”

This section brings up the new example of Spain, but in terms of arguments, I don’t see anything new here. I suspect an editor added this header just to break things up.

“A Ghetto for the Left”

Here, Studebaker argues that in countries like Germany, the presence of a left-wing party actively makes its politicians and voters less relevant. And again, I’d respond that he perhaps has a point, but compared to what? Are there US leftists espousing a Linke-like platform who are more relevant?

It’s true: splitting off into your own party can be a false comfort, and a healthy voting system should continue to push people to build meaningful coalitions (including big-tent parties) before and not just after elections. That’s why nobody in the US, Canada, or the UK is pushing to use nationwide closed party lists like the over-fragmented systems in Israel or the Netherlands. As I already said: a well-designed ProRep system has incentives to join together, not just split apart.

“Non Dynamic Democratic Institutions”

Here, Studebaker argues that in ProRep, any viable coalition will include the center. Let’s all say it together this time: compared to what? I really can’t see any interpretation of this argument that isn’t based on envy of the radical Republican takeover — something I’ve already argued is neither possible nor desirable from the left.

This section also includes some examples from the mid-20th century, before and after World War II. While interesting, I don’t think these examples are particularly relevant to the present. The underlying message is that non-PR systems tend to be more dynamic. But look at the US today: not only does its sclerotic inability to meaningfully legislate make a mockery of that argument on its face; a deeper analysis makes it look even sillier. The US Republican party has entrenched itself behind layered barriers of anti-democratic biases and veto points: gerrymandering, senate malapportionment, the electoral college, the filibuster, and the Supreme Court. Undermining this fortress takes reinvigorating democracy — including with proportional representation—not just fantasizing about the 30s or the 60s.

“Avoiding Work Through Proceduralism”

Here, Studebaker is right. ProRep won’t magically solve politics. Nothing will. But though ProRep isn’t a magic shortcut for the long, hard path to healthy democracy, it is a sturdy walking stick to lean on along the way.