Proportional Representation: Boosting Voter Turnout and Strengthening Democracy

December 3, 2024
Share
Deborah Apau

Across the world, proportional representation tends to increase voter turnout compared to winner-take-all. By adopting proportional representation, the U.S. could see increases in voter engagement, particularly among marginalized groups and voters who currently feel unrepresented by the current two major parties.

Introduction

Voter turnout measures how many eligible voters cast their ballots on election day. It is calculated as a percentage of votes cast among registered voters in a given election. On average across the globe, 80% of eligible voters in an industrialized democracy vote in national elections. By contrast, voter turnout in the U.S. is consistently far below this average.

The 2018 midterm election hit 49% voter turnout, and the 2020 election reached 67% — making them two of the highest-turnout elections in the U.S. over the past century. One study that analyzed electoral data from 1,256 parliamentary elections and 412 presidential elections from 170 countries found that with an average turnout of 50% or below, the U.S. has similar rates of electoral participation as younger democracies such as Senegal and Kosovo.

When turnout is chronically low, as it is in the U.S., it raises serious concerns regarding the legitimacy of elected officials, political equality, and trust in government. To boost voter turnout, many efforts have focused on tackling known barriers like restrictive voting and registration rules; yet scholars highlight that structural elements, such as the design of the electoral system, play a particularly significant role in shaping voter participation.

Below is a brief overview of voter turnout under different electoral arrangements — principally, proportional representation compared to winner-take-all — with implications for increasing democratic participation in the U.S.

Electoral systems have a powerful impact on voter turnout.

Proportional representation can boost voter participation by up to 12% compared to winner-take-all systems.

In general, countries with a proportional electoral system tend to enjoy higher voter turnout than those with winner-take-all, like the U.S. Turnout comparisons often focus on wealthy, long-established democracies, where proportional systems consistently outperform winner-take-all systems. Yet this trend holds even when examining a broader range of countries, including newer democracies: voter participation is generally higher under proportional systems.¹

Country	Average voter turnout since 2014	Electoral system
Sweden	85.73%	PR
Denmark	84.88%	PR
Indonesia	79.93%	PR
New Zealand	79.13%	PR
Germany	76.36%	PR
Zimbabwe	75.23%	PR
Kenya	73.87%	WTA
India	66.53%	WTA
Canada	66.06%	WTA
United Kingdom	65.47%	WTA
United States	61.95%	WTA
Pakistan	49.58%	WTA

Data from the IDEA Voter Turnout Database from parliamentary (and presidential elections where applicable) since 1/1/2014

Why does proportional representation increase voter turnout?

More votes count: Under winner-take-all, significant shares of votes often do not translate into seats. For instance, in a two-way race, if 40% of voters do not vote for a winning candidate, those votes are not translated into representation. Moreover, among the 60% of voters who supported the winning candidate, 10% did not contribute to the outcome (what political scientists term “wasted” votes).

Proportional representation, by contrast, awards seats based on the percentage of the vote share each party receives. In turn, more votes tend to translate into seats. For instance, consider a smaller party that earns 35% of the vote in a six-seat district. That party’s candidates secure two of the six seats — and, critically, those who voted for them have their votes “counted.” When voters see that their votes matter — that they influence outcomes and are translated into representation — they are reasonably more likely to participate in elections.

Competitive elections: In winner-take-all systems, single-member districts are often dominated by one party, reducing competition and leading to predictable electoral outcomes. Today, the vast majority of seats in congressional districts in the U.S. are considered “safe” for one party or another. Voters of the same party in the U.S. increasingly live near one another — a phenomenon termed geographic sorting — causing districts to easily become “red” or “blue.” Gerrymandering also creates lopsided districts just like geographic sorting. By contrast, the multi-member districts used in proportional systems are less susceptible to sorting: even if a district is only 35% “blue,” it may still be competitive with more seats in contention. They are also much more difficult (and sometimes impossible) to gerrymander. (For more on proportional representation and competition, see here.)

Voter turnout is closely tied to electoral competition. Using data that tracked changes in voter attitudes over six years before, during, and after the implementation of proportional representation in New Zealand, one study found a nearly 9% increase in the number of voters who reported feeling that their vote mattered in elections. The same data set reflects a nearly 7% decrease in the number of people who considered not voting.

Turnout as a function of competition appears especially pronounced among traditionally underrepresented groups. Researchers find a “large gender turnout gap in uncompetitive districts and a small gap in highly competitive districts.” Following the adoption of proportional representation in Norway, turnout increased overall, but women’s turnout increased at a faster rate than men’s in newly competitive districts. With regard to race, scholars have found that turnout among minority populations is dependent on the size of the population but is likely to increase when elections are more competitive.

Party-driven mobilization among minorities: Extensive research demonstrates that turnout in the U.S. is lowest among minority populations. In 2018 and 2020, Black and Latino voters each comprised approximately 9% of the voting population, but were 15% and 18% of the nonvoting population. Voting-eligible citizens of color may abstain from voting because they feel that the dominant parties fail to represent their interests consistently or effectively, and because they simply aren’t asked to participate. In a 2018 study, researchers found that voter mobilization strategies used by both major parties in the U.S. neglect Black, Asian, and Latino voters.

More competitive electoral environments under proportional representation can incentivize parties to engage with an array of racial and ethnic groups, knowing their votes are crucial to winning seats. Additionally, given that proportional representation tends to generate multiparty systems, minor parties that are more responsive to the needs of marginalized voters can offer representation themselves, or encourage other parties to run competitive candidates on their own tickets to secure part of the minority vote share. Research finds that under proportional representation, parties are more likely to engage in direct outreach to minority populations — an evidenced approach for increasing turnout among minority voters.

This inclusivity creates a sense of efficacy and fairness, as voters feel that their choices directly impact outcomes, fostering broader political participation. Proportional systems correlate with higher rates of political activism, civic group membership, and trust in government — all indicators of robust civic engagement.

In summary, proportional representation has the potential to significantly increase voter turnout by making more votes count and by representing a wider range of political views. Unlike winner-take-all systems, proportional representation ensures that seats in the legislature reflect the actual support that each party or candidate receives. This inclusiveness motivates voters, including those who support smaller or minor parties, as they are more likely to see their preferences reflected in electoral outcomes.

Multiple studies conclude that countries with proportional systems consistently report higher voter turnout and greater civic engagement, as citizens feel that their participation directly impacts political outcomes. As efforts to increase voter turnout, specifically in regard to minimizing the racial turnout gap and increasing the representation of minority interests, continue, the potential benefits of proportional systems should not be ignored. Through its ability to offer fair representation and empower voters across the spectrum, proportional representation stands out as a system that encourages democratic participation and in doing so, strengthens democracy.