¿ì»îapp¹ÙÍø

The software that processes unemployment claims in California—and in —was partly built on COBOL, a programming language from the 1950s that today is rarely taught and used. In their book , Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson recount that when the Covid-19 pandemic hit in 2020 and unemployment skyrocketed, the outdated system couldn’t process the unprecedented demand and collapsed, resulting in the delay or wrongful denial of unemployment benefits at a time of great need.

Much like software that runs on COBOL, the American winner-take-all electoral system is quite antiquated—few countries still use it and few experts would recommend it. The electoral system is the software that democracies use to aggregate the preferences of millions of voters and shape the distribution of power. And yet, despite transformative changes to the country’s demographics, the American electoral system has barely changed and it now struggles to fairly process the views of a diverse population through competitive elections that keep politicians responsive.

This electoral system—where typically only the one candidate with the most votes wins the seat—is constraining the emergence of the political will necessary to pursue the projects that the abundance agenda envisions. Without political will, these projects will not be funded or completed. A realistic abundance agenda, then, needs to consider electoral reforms that will upgrade the electoral system. , where multiple candidates win in proportion to their party’s vote share, would be such an upgrade by ensuring that elections better channel the views of a diverse electorate and creating strong incentives for politicians to embrace ambitious projects that deliver abundance.

Consider how electoral systems affect housing. Research has shown that when American cities switched from at-large elections to district-based elections for their city councils, permits for housing units fell by as much as . In Californian cities that had at-large elections and were forced to adopt district elections by the state’s Voting Rights Act, permits for multi-family housing decreased by an estimated .

Why did housing permits drop? City council members in are elected by voters across the entire city, with the top vote-getters filling the available seats. In this system, council members are responsive to the city-wide median voter and encouraged to pursue projects that benefit the city, like approving housing permits. In district elections, the city is divided into districts where only one candidate wins. Council members are beholden to the median voter in their district and responsive to local concerns, like neighbors opposing new construction in their neighborhoods. And, thanks to practices like member deference, which give representatives a veto over certain projects in their district, representatives are able to block new housing if their constituents oppose it, even if it would be good for the city overall.

The problem with at-large elections is that they often disempower minorities, especially when voting happens along racial lines. For this reason, many cities were forced to switch to district-based elections that made it easier for minorities to elect their candidate of choice and advocate for their policy interests. Indeed, the research on housing in Californian cities also found that the switch from at-large to district elections prevented new construction from being built disproportionately in minority neighborhoods. District-based elections, however, are no panacea for minority representation. If minorities are not geographically concentrated or if there are multiple sizable minorities within a district, minority groups will face barriers to representation.

Proportional systems would address these problems by creating the political incentives to pursue ambitious city-wide projects while ensuring minority representation. With proportional representation, multiple candidates win in a district and the number of seats parties get are assigned in proportion to their vote shares. Each additional vote a party gets in a district can help it secure more seats, encouraging parties to create broad coalitions and to offer public goods that benefit a broader electorate. with greater levels of redistribution and spending on programmatic policies that benefit a larger segment of the population and not just a targeted block of voters.

Moreover, because proportional systems assign seats proportionally, minorities can still win representation even if they are not clustered geographically and they make it easier for new parties to remain viable. Parties representing minority communities can survive electorally and citizens who feel their policy views are not well represented by existing parties can more readily form new ones: if no party prioritizes housing or climate change, a proportional system makes it feasible to organize a new party around those issues.

Globally, most democracies use proportional representation instead of outdated winner-take-all systems, whether at-large or district-based. Without reform, the U.S. risks further erosion of democratic responsiveness and capacity. Big cities across the country can do better by adopting proportional representation or . Elections are how democracies decide which collective problems to solve and how. But elections can only do that if they reflect the views of all voters, not just of swing voters or decisive districts.

An abundance agenda that is fair and democratic needs the political will to carry it out. That will only come from a competitive electoral system that gives politicians the right incentives. Just as outdated software failed Americans when they needed help most, outdated winner-take-all elections are failing to deliver the leadership and responsiveness this moment demands. It’s time to upgrade to proportional representation.