In American politics, the people are supposed to choose their leaders. However, in state after state, it’s increasingly the opposite: politicians choose their voters.
The evidence of democratic breakdown is stark. In 2024, 70 percent of elections were uncontested — the highest rate in recent history. At least four out of five congressional districts are safe for incumbents, creating millions of “wasted votes” that don’t matter. Political polarization and institutional distrust are at all-time highs, while voters increasingly clamor for meaningful third-party options that the current system cannot provide.
The winner-take-all electoral system enables gerrymandering to thrive. In most U.S. elections, one candidate wins everything while the rest get nothing. This invites parties in power to manipulate district lines to guarantee control.
Worse, gerrymandering actively exploits and deepens societal divisions. By packing opposition voters into a few districts while spreading their supporters across many “safe” seats, parties create electoral maps that reward the most extreme voices while silencing moderate ones. This breeds tribalism and conflict, sometimes turning neighbors into political enemies.
There’s a better way, one used by many of the world’s strongest democracies: proportional representation. By ensuring that all significant groups receive representation based on actual voter support rather than district boundaries, PR eliminates the tension that gerrymandering creates and exploits.
Under proportional representation, seats are awarded based on the share of votes received, not to the candidate who wins the most in a single district. Using Ohio as an example, which has 15 House seats in 15 districts, proportional representation could divide the state into three larger regions with five representatives each. If Party A wins 50 percent of the vote, Party B wins 30 percent, and Party C wins 15 percent, then Party A gets three seats, and Party B gets two seats. Party C gets zero because its support fell below the 17 percent threshold needed to guarantee a seat in a five-seat district (calculated as 100 percent ÷ 6 seats = 16.7 percent).
Seats can be filled through ranked-choice voting, where voters rank candidates by preference, or through party list systems, where parties submit ranked candidate lists and fill won seats in order. Independent candidates can still run and win under both systems.
Because representation depends on vote totals rather than district boundaries, parties lose the incentive to manipulate those boundaries.
Proportional systems don’t require adding more legislative seats; they change how existing seats are allocated. States can avoid partisan redistricting altogether under proportional representation. While districts may still gain or lose seats based on population changes, there’s no need to manipulate boundary lines for political advantage since vote totals rather than district shapes determine representation.
This isn’t radical. Most major democracies already use it, including Germany and Ireland. Proportional representation systems tend to have higher voter turnout and lower corruption. Most important, because representation is based on vote totals rather than district lines, proportional representation reduces incentives to gerrymander.
While critics argue that proportional representation can produce coalition governments or empower smaller parties, these potential drawbacks are outweighed by its ability to prevent gerrymandering, reduce wasted votes, and make every ballot meaningful.
Proportional representation offers a democratic reset. America’s two-party system limits choice and fuels tribalism. With proportional representation, elections are less zero-sum — multiple parties can win seats and share power, and more voters feel heard. At a time when democratic legitimacy is fraying, proportional representation reduces all-or-nothing pressure and restores balance.
Why doesn’t the United States adopt it? The winner-take-all system enables gerrymandering, which helps incumbents stay in office and stifles challengers. Change is possible.
At the national level, the Fair Representation Act was reintroduced in Congress in July 2025 by Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md. This bill would create multi-member congressional districts and use ranked-choice voting, bringing proportional representation to Congress — a change that would require amending the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act, which mandates single-member districts.
Several states are already experimenting with related innovations. Cities like Cambridge, Mass., and Minneapolis use forms of proportional representation for their city councils. Reform groups such as FairVote are working to expand that model nationwide.
The real threat isn’t partisan control. It’s the system that enables both parties to manipulate district lines to maintain power. Until we reform the system, both parties will continue to game it. Proportional representation offers a way out by weakening the power of district lines and giving voters real, equal choices. By making every vote count and curbing partisan manipulation, proportional representation offers a path to a more responsive, representative and resilient American democracy.
