Proportional Representation for Competition
Too many of our elections lack competition. In 2025, approximately 85 percent of House seats were uncompetitive at the general election stage, being effectively decided by the primary, usually amidst far lower turnout. This situation replicates itself within most states as well, which show stark geographic divides between cities and rural areas. This means most voters never get a meaningful say and results in elected officials who are less representative of their constituents and who are largely beholden to their primary voters at the expense of everyone else they are meant to represent. Proportional representation (PR) strengthens democratic accountability by making legislative elections more competitive, which in turn incentivizes politicians to respond to a broader range of voters and produces policymaking that better reflects the public’s preferences.
One of the most persistent challenges to competitive elections in the United States is the combination of gerrymandering and geographic sorting. While much can be said about unfair district maps, even neutral ones would still yield skewed outcomes because Americans increasingly live among those who share their political views. This trend, known as geographic sorting, makes competitive districts uncommon even under the fairest possible maps. This makes holding our elected officials accountable particularly difficult.
PR offers a structural solution. Instead of electing one person per district in a winner-take-all system—where only the top vote-getter wins—PR lets multiple representatives get elected from a larger district, in proportion to the votes each party receives. This gives both majority and minority voices in a region the chance to win seats and makes elections more competitive. Even where one party dominates, PR ensures others still get representation. In states where single-member districts favor either urban or rural voters—but not both—PR helps balance things out. Both communities can elect representatives who actually reflect their views.
For example, in Massachusetts’ 2024 U.S. House Election, Democrats won all nine seats. In five of the congressional districts, Democrats ran unopposed. Yet, in statewide competitions, Republicans secured 40 percent of the vote for senator and 37 percent of the vote for president. If Massachusetts functioned as a nine-seat district under PR, Republicans would have likely won three and potentially four seats. That wouldn’t change the majority, but it would increase competition and ensure the minority party still has a voice. This, in turn, gives voters more reasons to participate, since their votes are less likely to be wasted. With more on the line, voter turnout is generally higher in countries that use proportional systems. Analysis of the effects of PR on U.S. elections suggests that utilizing this system could boost the percentage of competitive House elections from 15 percent to 43 percent.
Better outcomes are only part of the story. PR changes political behavior by shifting the group of voters to whom politicians feel accountable. Right now, many lawmakers focus on pleasing the most vocal part of their base—the voters who decide low-turnout primaries. But elections were meant to remind politicians who they serve. James Madison wrote that House members should have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people,” and that reelection should follow “a faithful discharge” of their duties. That’s hard to achieve when primaries, not general elections, decide who stays in power. As with the Massachusetts example, the competitive seats will be decided at the margins by persuadable voters. With PR, competitive seats are won by persuading a broader group of voters. That rewards coalition-building, not division.
Like any reform, PR has tradeoffs. The more representatives per district, the more proportional the outcomes. But bigger districts can also weaken the connection between voters and representatives. When districts get too large, voters may not know who represents them, and lawmakers might not feel tied to any one community. This challenge could be mitigated by expanding the size of the House—a long overdue step that would lower the ratio of constituents per representative. How PR is implemented matters too. Systems that let voters choose individual candidates (open lists) versus party slates (closed lists) influence whether politicians focus more on personal relationships or party loyalty. The best systems strike a balance—using moderate-sized, multi-member districts to ensure both responsiveness and fair results.
PR doesn’t directly fix flaws in the primary system, but it does something more important: It shifts the decisive contest for many legislative offices from low-turnout primaries to general elections. That shift ensures broader participation in the outcome that matters most—who ultimately makes law on behalf of the people. In doing so, PR strengthens the legitimacy of our representative institutions where it matters most.