
          Winning Fair Representation with 
Alternative Voting Systems
          By Richie, RobRob Richie
          Vol. 22, No. 4, 2000 pp. 22-24
          
          Experts suggest that some 95 percent of black representation in the next decade will be won or lost in the upcoming redistricting. Without substantial numbers of black_voters in districts, very few black candidates will win; the U.S. Senate is the most notorious example of the negative impact of racial block voting-with its lack of black or Latino members a direct consequence of no state having a black or Latino majority.
          Dependence on redistricting to provide representation to black_people and other communities of color is based on three factors: white voters' general preference for white candidates; the fact that people of color are in the minority in most areas; and the general use in the United_States of "winner-take-all" methods of voting in which a 50.1 percent majority in a given constituency wins all representation in its area.
          Policy makers have few short-term means to end racism, but through redistricting they have the power to turn blacks into majorities in certain electoral districts. They also have the power to address the third barrier to fair representation: winner-take-all elections. Systems that provide more complete representation of the electorate can allow more racial minorities to elect candidates. In such "proportional" systems, like-minded groupings of voters can pool their votes from across a constituency to elect candidates in accordance with their voting strength. A 50.1 percent electoral majority remains well-positioned to win the majority of seats, but it cannot shut out a substantial political minority. With proportional systems, many voters gain new power to elect the representation for which they currently are deprived due to their minority status in their area. As American society grows increasingly diverse and communities of interest increasingly develop along non-geographic lines, proportional voting systems are drawing even more attention. Freeing more voters to define their representation with their votes has fundamental appeal.
          It also works. When Cincinnati used a proportional system to elect its nine-member city council from 1925 to 1955, a cohesive grouping of voters comprising 10 percent of the electorate could elect a seat. At least one black candidate consistently was elected despite blacks making up well under 20 percent of the population, and both major parties pursued the black vote in efforts to control the council. Today in Peoria, Illinois, where blacks are a fifth of the population, black candidates have won one of five citywide seats since a proportional plan was adopted before the 1991 elections.
          The most dramatic recent example of the impact of proportional
voting comes from Texas. In May 2000, the Amarillo Independent School
District for the first time used a proportional system called
cumulative voting to elect seats to its school_board. Blacks and
Latinos in Amarillo together comprise nearly a quarter of the city's
population, but no black or Latino candidate had won a seat on the
school_board in decades. Instituted to settle a voting_rights lawsuit
involving  the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),  and
the NAACP, cumulative voting had an immediate impact. Both a black
candidate and a Latino candidate won seats with strong support in
their respective communities, voter turnout increased four times over
the most recent school_board election, and all parties in the voting_rights settlement expressed satisfaction with the new system.
          Cumulative voting and limited voting also have been used in nearly two dozen Alabama localities for a decade in the wake of a sweeping decision in a voting_rights case. Analyses of these Alabama elections demonstrate that they have boosted turnout and increased black representation as much as likely would have occurred with single-member districts.
          Cumulative voting was first introduced to many Americans in 1993 during the controversy over cumulative voting advocate Lani Guinier's nomination to head the civil_rights division of the Department of Justice. That a generally conservative city like Amarillo would settle a voting_rights case with cumulative voting is only one example of how proportional systems-specifically, cumulative voting, choice voting, and limited voting, which are based on voting for candidates rather than party-based systems as used in South_Africa and most European nations-have evolved to be credible alternatives for empowerment.
          In 1995, Texas Governor George W. Bush signed legislation to allow school districts to adopt cumulative voting and limited voting, and more than fifty Texas jurisdictions have settled voting_rights cases with cumulative voting.
          Other recent examples of how proportional systems are gaining
attention include:
In 1999 North_Carolina Congressman Melvin Watt introduced the States' Choice of Voting Systems Act (HR 1173) to remove a 1967 requirement that states use single-member districts for U.S. House elections. Those testifying in favor of the bill at a hearing included the Department of Justice and Republican Congressman Tom Campbell.In 1998, Judge David Coar ordered Chicago Heights, Illinois, to adopt cumulative voting to assist black and Latino voters in elections to the city council and park board. Cumulative voting was used for more than a century to elect the state's House of Representatives, where black legislators had early and significant electoral successes; among those backing its return include Senate minority leader Emil Jones,  former governor Jim Edgar,  and U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. As of 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has ultimately
pre-cleared proportional plans in states covered by Section_5 of the
Voting_Rights_Act in every jurisdiction seeking to institute one. In
1999, the DOJ backed Judge Coar's order of cumulative voting in
Chicago Heights and denied pre-clearance to New_York City's plan to
replace choice voting for local school_board elections; choice voting
had elected a significantly higher percentage of racial minorities to
school_boards than have been elected in the city's other legislative
bodies.A National Black Caucus of State Legislators task force in 1998
found strong interest among black legislators in seeing how
proportional systems might assist negotiations in redistricting. The
National Conference of Black Political Scientists endorsed
proportional systems in 1999, while the Southern Center for Studies in
Public Policy at Clark-Atlanta University is pursuing ambitious
educational outreach about proportional systems to black elected
officials and historically black colleges and universities. National
and state affiliates of US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG),
Common Cause,  National Organization for Women (NOW), and the League
of Women Voters have adopted positions in favor of proportional
representation. In 2000 the League voted to pursue a national study of
voting systems-its first national study in a decade.
          The goal of proportional systems is simple: providing means to allow fair and realistic opportunities for citizens to elect individuals of their own choosing. While no cure-all, they are a practical, tested approach to winning fair representation.
          
            Rob Richie is executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. For more information about the Center and proportional voting systems, visit www.fairvote.org.
          
        
