In the hellscape of modern American politics, it seems there’s only one political idea we all agree on: both choices suck, but the lesser of two evils is better than nothing. The issue of the two-party system isn’t a problem with American voters, but how they’re represented.
Congress represents American voters through winner-takes-all elections. One representative wins the majority, let’s say 56% of the vote, and represents everyone in their district. See the issue? 44% of that district doesn’t get a voice in Congress. Representation isn’t proportional to votes.
Because of this majority-rule system, single-member congressional districts go hand in hand with gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when Mapmakers can redraw district lines that cut out and split smaller populations of voters, ensuring their party wins the seat.
Even without the inevitable creep of gerrymandering, single-member district systems inherently underrepresent the population. For example, Massachusetts is a state with virtually no gerrymandering. Republicans receive a little over a third of the statewide votes, but out of the state’s nine House seats, they win none.
Even the “majority” people’s opinions are filtered through parties, not candidates. Republican senators who don’t like Trump are crucified. Votes are inevitably watered down by politics on a national scale instead of the district’s collective opinions. Nobody wins in a two-party system because it could never represent 349 million people. Americans feel like they don’t get a real choice because, in practice, they don’t.
Thankfully, this is a problem that can be solved from the bottom up. A consistent majority of Americans want to get rid of the two-party system, so what would we replace it with, and how can we break it?
A multi-party congressional district system is the solution for most successful democracies. These models work based on proportional representation. What this actually means is larger districts with multiple representatives per district.
In this system, Massachusetts’ nine districts with one representative each would be combined into something like four districts with three representatives in each one.
This would give regular people a reason to vote for smaller parties, because their vote would actually matter, and it would represent them. Put an end to gerrymandering and hold representatives accountable for their people.
Multi-member districts would add natural competition to America’s political ecosystem. Necessitating a change in party incentives, shifting away from the corruption that defines our politics today.
Most importantly, none of this requires a constitutional amendment. All Congress needs to do is amend the UCDA, an act that mandates the use of single-member congressional districts for The House.
This means practical strides towards representative politics in America start on a district level. Town halls, emails, and lobbying can all influence congressmen.
While change might seem impossible under the current administration and Congress, more people care than you might think. Being loud, coming together, makes a physiological imprint even if you can’t always see it.
