The Grass is Always Greener on the Other Side: Proportional Representation vs. Majoritarian Election Systems

---

To access the full article, please click here

This piece explores the trade-offs between electoral systems and democratic values, particularly in the context of partisan gerrymandering in the U.S. and the potential adoption of proportional representation (PR) as a remedy. While PR enhances representational fairness by mirroring the electorate’s preferences in the legislature, it also introduces challenges, especially in parliamentary systems. These include political fragmentation, instability, the disproportionate influence of small parties, frequent caretaker governments, and potential agency and democratic legitimacy deficits.

I argue that PR, while promoting inclusivity, can exacerbate extremism and secessionism, particularly in divided societies, and may destabilize governance—evident in cases like Israel, Belgium, and Ukraine. To mitigate these disadvantages, democracies employing PR often adopt mechanisms not typically associated with it: (1) caretaker conventions limiting executive discretion during government transitions, (2) legislative continuity (carryover of bills across parliamentary terms), and (3) militant democracy tools such as bans on extremist parties and eternity clauses.

Ultimately, the article contends that no electoral system is without cost. PR may require counterbalancing through less democratic measures to maintain stability and protect constitutional values. Democracies must therefore “choose their poison” by deciding where to compromise—either in initial inclusivity or in governance mechanisms that follow.

Suggested Citation:

The Grass is Always Greener on the Other Side: Proportional Representation vs. Majoritarian Election Systems, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, July 18, 2019.