Proportional representation (PR) in the United States refers to the multi-winner electoral systems, usuallysingle transferable vote, used in several cities historically and currently in the US. Several electoral reform groups have advocated for the use ofproportional representation to elect Congressmembers, instead of the currentwinner-take-all plurality system.
TheProportional Representation League advocated for the use of single transferable vote (STV), aranked-choice, proportional vote system, in cities in the 1890s[1] and the early 20th century.[2] The league preferred at-large proportional representation as opposed to district models.[3]
Between 1915 and 1962, 22 cities used STV, including Cincinnati, Sacramento, and most notably New York City.[4] The first city to use PR the US wasAshtabula, Ohio in 1915 via referendum.Kalamazoo, Michigan used PR for two elections before the Supreme Court of Michigan overturned the system.[3]
New York City's first election using PR was in1937. 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).[6] 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 ofvotes going to elect a candidate than the previoussingle-member district system.[7]
Proportional representation fell out of favor and began to be repealed afterracial and political minorities began to win seats.[2]
Currently, multi-member elections for Congress are banned under theUniform Congressional District Act.[8][9] The act was intended to bangeneral tickets (a type of block voting),[10] which had been controversial since the 1840s,[11] but it also banned proportional systems.
Multiple cities use proportional representation to elect their city councils,[5] includingPortland,Minneapolis,Charlottesville, andCambridge.[12] Portland's form of STV elects candidates who reach avictory threshold, but it does not ensure party proportional representation due to the races being formallynonpartisan.[13] Portland first used STV in its2024 city council election.
United States House of Representatives seats are elected by plurality vote (whoever gets the most votes wins). House seats in Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting (RCV) instead of plurality voting.[14] Since the 1960s, allHouse congressional districts have been single-member districts.[15]
Since 1913, after the ratification of the17th Amendment, US senators have been elected by plurality vote inat-large, statewide elections.[16] Some states use runoffs[17] or RCV[14] instead to elect senators by a majority instead of a plurality. According to a 1992DOJmemorandum opinion,Senate races must be at-large and may not be broken into two single-member district races.[18]
Reform groups such asFairVote,[19]Protect Democracy,[20] andFix Our House advocate for proportional representation for federal races.
Every Congressional session since the115th United States Congress, CongressmanDon Beyer has introduced theFair Representation Act,[21][22] which would split states into multi-member districts that would elect 3-5 representatives using STV, similar to theDáil Éireann (lower house in Ireland). RepresentativeSean Casten's Equal Voices Act would expand the size of the House of Representatives and allow for the optional use of multi-member districts.[23][24][25]
The ProRep Coalition advocates for use of proportional representation in theCalifornia state legislature,[26] citing increasingpoverty, perceived lack of representation forleft-of-center ideas in theDemocratic Party, and lack ofRepublican influence on state legislation.[27] The coalition consists ofthird parties such as theGreen Party,Libertarian Party,Forward California, and theAmerican Solidarity Party,[28] as well asadvocacy groups such asRepresent Women, Californians for Electoral Reform, and Cal RCV.[28]
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."[29][30] No modern federal Republican politician has endorsed federallegislation to enact proportional representation.[31]
New York University School of Law professorRichard Pildes argued that political tensions are not inherent tofirst-past-the-post (FPTP) systems and thatBrexit was an aberrance in the political climate of theUnited Kingdom. He also questioned how many parties would form without reform to the Senate. Pildes suggested state legislaturemulti-member district (MMD) reform efforts to be a better starting place than federal races and recommendednonpartisan reforms to the primary process.[32]
In New York City, under STV, 80% of legislation was passed unanimously.[33] In the1939 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.[33]
PR preventedvote splitting and undermined the effects ofpolitical machines in cities that used it in the 1920s.[3]
Proponents of federal proportional representation argue it could give more electoral sway to minority groups who do not currently live inmajority-minority districts. PR may also expand national focus fromswing races to unrepresented groups, such as Republicans in Democratic Congressional districts.[31]
PR elections could introduce three or more political parties to Congress, requiring collaborativecoalitions to elect aSpeaker of the House.[34][31][32]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)