The legislature is the people’s house, the hall of a representative democracy where representatives of the people meet to craft solutions to pressing problems. It is the body that takes people’s values and puts them into action. That’s the ideal. And when it works well, it’s golden.

For example, the US Congress turned people’s growing concern about labor conditions during the Progressive Era into child labor and minimum wage laws; the Oregon state legislature’s leadership on the bottle bill enacted community values about protecting the environment; Washington’s state legislature responded to changing public sentiment by legalizing marriage equality; and British Columbia acted on people’s concerns about climate change by enacting a tax on carbon pollution.

But it doesn’t always work that way. In fact, in the United States and Canada, federal, state, and provincial legislatures often don’t reflect or act on the views and values of the people. They become mired in gridlock and political grandstanding, seeking quick fixes and catering to special interests. The media talk more about representatives’ hairstyles, emails, and personal lives than community challenges and solutions, leaving voters ill-informed about policy they could urge their representatives to enact.

What other options do Cascadians have for electing more reflective and effective legislative bodies? This article gives Sightline’s take on what is important in a method for electing a legislative body, including city and county councils, and how different election methods could achieve results that get closer—more often and more deeply—to the ideal where electeds work for the people who put them in office, rather than for special interests or narrow or extreme slices of the electorate. The theme throughout is: homogenous legislatures including only, say, white men with a narrow range of political ideologies or life experiences, produce poor results for a diverse electorate, while diverse legislatures, including people with many different life experiences and political perspectives, produce better results.

Election methods aren’t the only factor. Big money in politics and barriers to voting can prevent people from having a say in who gets elected, and structural barriers in the candidate pipeline can block diverse candidates. Elections are not a silver bullet, but improving how we vote could be a hefty piece of silver buckshot in the quest to make democracy in Cascadia and throughout the United States and Canada more representative.

If you are wondering about the best ways to elect an executive officer—a mayor or president, for example—see our Glossary and Guide to Methods for Electing Executive Officers.

Our Glossary of Methods for Electing Legislative Bodies describes nine different ways to elect a legislature, categorized into four families:

In Majoritarian methods, used in the United States and Canada, all or most legislators represent majority views, while minority groups do not have fair representation. Usually, two major parties representing the social or political majority dominate the legislature.

In Proportional methods, used in most developed countries, legislators represent the diversity of voters. Usually, several parties representing a range of social and political views win seats in proportion to the votes they receive.

In Semi-proportional methods, used in local elections across the United States, minority social or political groups have a chance to win seats.

Potentially Proportional methods have not been used in any public elections, but might achieve proportional results.

Research reveals stark differences between majoritarian and proportional methods. For each of the properties we identified below as being broken about the political systems in the United States and Canada, proportional election methods offer a solution.

Semi-proportional methods are used at the local but not the national level anywhere in the world, so there is much less research on their outcomes, and the sections below only discuss majoritarian and proportional methods. The effects of semi-proportional methods tend to fall somewhere in the middle, depending on the specific circumstances in which they are implemented.

Two Potentially Proportional methods have not yet been used in any public elections but theoretically could achieve proportional results. They would likely achieve many of the benefits that semi-proportional methods yield, and possibly more.

Majoritarian methods have problems; Proportional methods have solutions

The United States and Canada primarily use majoritarian election methods—particularly single-winner, “vote for one” elections—to elect federal, state, and provincial legislatures, local councils, and school boards. These methods lead to many problems. But decades of research on countries using different election methods show a better way forward with proportional methods. Proportional electoral methods elect more representative legislatures, defang gerrymandering, empower voters, lead to long-term policy solutions, and counter the power of extractive special interests.

(Click on each header below to expand it.)