Click on a topic to begin.

Why we need the Fair Representation Act The U.S. Constitution does not say how states should elect their Members of the House of Representatives, and states used a variety of methods for most of the nation's history. However, since 1970, every state has elected only one per district in a winner-take-all election, due to a federal law passed in 1967. After half a century of exclusive use of single-winner districts, we need a new standard. 560315https://www.youtube.com/embed/LvqEGpHfcZw0mediaencrypted-media Elections under the single-winner district system are broken: Elections are not competitive . More than 85% of U.S. House districts are completely safe for the party that holds them. and only 4% were true toss-ups in 2016. As a result, millions of Americans are perpetually represented by politicians they oppose, with little hope of changing things at the polls.

Outcomes are distorted. Massachusetts Republicans haven't elected a House Member in more than 2 decades. Arkansas Democrats are similarly shut out. Minor parties are nearly always shamed as "spoilers." One party can run the House even when the other earns more votes. In fair elections, those with the most votes should win the most seats, but every American deserves a fair share. Representatives are more polarized than voters. Voters in general elections must choose between polarized candidates selected by highly partisan primary voters, leaving many without a route to representation. The Fair Representation Act can help: Meaningful elections. By electing candidates from multi-winner districts with at least three seats each, fair representation voting would allow every voter to elect someone from the major party they support. And, more of each party's "big tent" would have the opportunity to support - and even elect - a candidate in the general election. Accurate Representation. Because election results with ranked choice voting would be proportional within each district, the skewed outcomes of our current system would be a thing of the past. Voters that are now shut-out, like Republicans in Massachusetts or Democrats in Arkansas, would win their fair share of representation. In every state, the number of seats earned by each party would align far more closely to their share of the vote. Open elections to reflect our full diversity. With proportional outcomes and a wider variety of candidates advancing to the general election, the Fair Representation Act will create more fair opportunities for women, people of color, urban Republicans, rural Democrats, and independents.

What Does The Fair Representation Act Do? The Fair Representation Act is a proposed federal statute to change elections for Members of Congress. Beginning in 2022, House Members would be elected by ranked choice voting in primary and general elections. Members would be elected in multi-winner districts of up to five seats in states with more than one seat, with districts being drawn by independent redistricting commissions. The bill consists of three core components: Ranked choice voting Multi-member districts Requirements for congressional redistricting Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries and the General Election The Fair Representation Act requires that primary and general elections for Congress be held with ranked choice voting. The goal of this system is to maximize the number of voters who help elect a candidate. The ballot will give voters the freedom to rank candidates in order of choice: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on.

Vote counting proceeds in rounds. At first, every ballot counts only for its 1st choice.



For the election of only 1 member, if a candidate receives a majority (50% + 1) of the votes, then that candidate will be elected.



For the election of more than 1 member statewide or in a multi-winner district, instead of one candidate winning with more than half the vote, more than one candidate will win, each with their own smaller share of the vote. That makes the system proportional, ensuring that multiple groups of votes can each elect representatives. The threshold to win depends on the number of winners: 1 winner 2 winners 3 winners 4 winners 5 winners 1/2 + 1 vote 1/3 + 1 vote 1/4 + 1 vote 1/5 + 1 vote 1/6 + 1 vote At first, every ballot counts only for its 1st choice. If a candidate passes the threshold, they win one of the seats.

Votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the threshold (surplus votes) count for their next choices. This works by reweighting each vote so that all votes are treated equally and no votes are wasted.



In a round where no one passes the threshold, the candidate in last place is eliminated. If a voter’s top choice loses, their vote will count for their next choice.



This process repeats until all seats are elected.



In June of 2021, states will receive $1 million plus $500,000 per representative to pay for election administration and education costs associated with ranked choice voting. Multi-Winner Districts in States with More Than 1 Seat The Fair Representation Act repeals the single-winner district mandate (2 U.S.C. 2c) and replaces it with a multi-winner district mandate applicable to all states that elect more than one Representative. Any state electing 5 or fewer members will not use districts, but will elect all statewide.



Any state electing 6 or more members will elect from multi-winner districts. Multi-winner districts may not elect fewer than 3 or more than 5 members each, with an equal number of persons per seat.



For primary elections, each political party will nominate candidates equal to the number to be elected in the district. States with “Top Two” primaries will advance twice the number to be elected in the district. Requirements for congressional redistricting The Fair Representation Act requires that any state drawing multi-winner districts must create an independent redistricting commission to adopt its district map. A state using districts—only those electing 6 or more members—must do so either by establishing a citizens’ independent redistricting commission. The state may also delegate state legislative redistricting to the commission, though that is not required.

The makeup of the commission and its operation is based on the For the People Act, H.R. 1. The commission will ultimately consist of 15 members, 5 each from the majority party, the minority party, and the independent group. All of the procedural requirements in H.R. 1 apply.

After assembling an independent redistricting commission, a state is entitled to $150,000 per representative to offset its costs.

Districts must be drawn according to criteria, in the following order of importance: compliance with the U.S. Constitution; consistency with the Voting Rights Act; providing racial, ethnic and language minorities an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of choice; no district can be completely safe for one political party (based on prior presidential vote totals); as few districts as possible should elect 4 candidates (to avoid frequent 2-2 splits); as many districts as possible should elect 5 candidates (to maximize proportionality); as few districts as possible will divide any community of interest, municipality, county or neighborhood.

No district plan may unduly favor or disfavor any political party when considered on a statewide basis.

Each independent redistricting commission must operate transparently. After holding hearings around the state, it will publish preliminary maps, and then hold at least 3 further hearings with opportunities for public comment.



A majority of the commission (including at least one from each of the 3 groups) must approve a final congressional district map by August 15 th of the year ending in the number one.





If the independent redistricting process fails to adopt a redistricting plan on that timeline, a plan will instead be adopted by a three-judge panel in Washington, DC, using the same criteria. A state using districts—only one of those electing 6 or more Members—must do so by establishing a citizens’ independent redistricting commission. This approach is based on the proposal in the Redistricting Reform Act of 2015. In states that must draw districts, a nonpartisan agency develops a pool of 60 candidates: 20 affiliated with the state’s majority party at the time of redistricting, 20 from its minority party, and 20 who are unaffiliated with either of those two parties. After a bipartisan legislative committee approves that pool, the nonpartisan agency randomly selects 4 from each category to create the 12-member commission. Those 12 choose a chair, who must come from the unaffiliated group. The commission then can operate.

After assembling an independent redistricting commission, a state is entitled to $150,000 per Representative to offset its costs.

Districts must be drawn according to criteria, in the following order of importance:: contiguity; consistency with the Voting Rights Act; no district can be completely safe for one political party (based on presidential vote totals from prior elections); as few districts as possible should elect 4 candidates (to avoid frequent 2-2 splits); as many districts as possible should elect 5 candidates (to maximize proportionality); respect for existing political boundaries and communities of interest; compactness; and respect for visible geographic features. Each independent redistricting commission must operate transparently. After holding hearings around the state, it will publish preliminary maps, and then hold at least three further hearings with chances for public comments.

A majority of the commission (including at least one from each of the 3 groups) must approve a final congressional district map by August 15th of the year ending in the number one.

If the state does not establish the requisite non-partisan agency or legislative committee, if the legislative committee fails to approve a pool of applicants, or if the independent commission fails to approve a final plan, then a panel of federal judges will develop and adopt a congressional redistricting plan, guided by the same criteria.

Supporting Research Comparative Structural Reform Partnering with 13 leading scholarly authorities on electoral reform and legislative functionality, FairVote conducted an in-depth assessment of 37 different structural reforms. Each scholar assessed the impact of each reform on 16 different criteria to assess how it would impact legislative functionality, electoral accountability, voter engagement, and openness of process. The reform at the heart of the Fair Representation Act, ranked choice voting in five-winner districts, was assessed to be the most impactful. Monopoly Politics Monopoly Politics exposes the undemocratic and destructive nature of winner-take-all elections to elect "the people's house." Use the interactive map to learn more about our fair voting solution: a plan to combine existing congressional districts into a smaller number of multi-winner "super districts," each electing between three and five Members by ranked choice voting. Read comprehensive analyses about the impact of reform, and descriptions of House elections as they are and as they could be in all 50 states. The Fair Representation Act Report The Fair Representation Act Report outlines how multi-winner ranked choice voting will transform the U.S. House of Representatives. Using the model established by the Fair Representation Act, the report simulates the impact of multi-winner ranked choice voting in maps drawn by independent commissions with district maps drawn by the Autoredistrict computer program. It includes a report on the impact on each individual state as well as analysis of the overall impact in making elections more competitive and representative. Papers and Articles Ranked Choice Voting and the Voting Rights Act

Read Drew Spencer and Rob Richie’s analysis of the impact of ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts on the Voting Rights Act.

Ranked Choice Voting and Money in Politics

Analysis on “The Supply Side: Alternative Reform Approaches to Campaign Finance.”

Ranked Choice Voting and Increasing Civility in Politics

Resources and data from comprehensive scholarly analysis of impact of ranked choice voting on the tenor and substance of campaigns in the United States.

Endorsers of the Fair Representation Act We've just begun compiling a list of official endorsers of the Fair Representation Act. Here is an opening list of endorsing congressional members, individuals and organizations. Congressional Sponsors: Representative Don Beyer (VA-8)

Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-8)

Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17)

Representative Jim Cooper (TN-5)

Representative Jim McGovern (MA-2)

Representative Scott Peters (CA-52)

Representative Joe Neguse (CO-2) Individuals & Organizations: If your organization would like to add it's name in support, please contact Drew Spencer Penrose at dpenrose@fairvote.org. Political polarization is higher than ever, and research shows that having more women in office will reduce the dysfunction and lack of collaboration crippling our legislative bodies. Ranked choice voting and multi-winner districts will move the United States to political parity faster. It couldn't be more imperative that we create more opportunities for women to run and win. - Anne Moses, Founder and President of IGNITE Americans across the political spectrum are growing increasingly frustrated with our system that offers binary choices and privileges the ideological extremes. Third Way applauds the introduction of the Fair Representation Act, which would be a major step toward empowering the full spectrum of American voters in Congressional elections. Under its proposed system, voters would know that they are choosing their elected officials, rather than politicians picking their voters. And liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike would be able to vote with both their head and their heart by ranking their choices, preventing the concern that the candidate of their choice will be a spoiler. Reforms like those in the Fair Representation Act would begin to address the simmering anger at our political system which boiled over in the last election and ensure that our democracy truly represents the variety of perspectives in our country. --Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, Senior Vice President for the Social Policy & Politics Program "I enthusiastically support the Fair Representation Act. I have recruited and trained hundreds of candidates and helped to elect Black women and people of color candidates across the nation. The Fair Representation Act would further enable candidates from diverse backgrounds to run, have a fair shot to win, and offer a solution to a half-century of single winner districts that represent the few. Electoral justice demands it, our diverse country requires it." -- Jessica Byrd, Three Point Strategies & Movement for Black Lives

With the Fair Representation Act, we'd end gerrymandering and ensure that everyone gets real representation in Congress. We support the Fair Representation Act and call on Congress to take action. The Fair Representation Act would be a game changer for American politics. It would mean that everybody's vote counts. You don't have to live in a swing state, or a swing district in order to have your vote count. Everybody's vote will count equally after the FRA, and it would scramble the winner take all, zero-sum dynamics that are just tearing this country apart. Totally changes the incentives of politics. It will reduce polarization and partisanship, and give every person an equal voice in our politics. --Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at New America The Fair Representation Act would allow all people to have a say in who represents them, regardless of party or race. This proposal is an important reform that would make our democracy work better. --Justin Nelson, President of One Nation, One Vote