Picture a Congress where leaders from varying beliefs come together to pass laws that align with the desires of most Americans. This isn’t just a dream; it was the reality for much of the last century. Back then, even though there were only two main parties, they embraced a wider range of ideologies than we see today, facilitating frequent deal-making and coalition building. Laws addressing Social Security, civil rights, immigration, and environmental protection were frequently enacted by Congress. But here we are in 2025, with American politics seemingly at a standstill. Voters often witness chaos as Congress jumps from one self-created crisis to another, re-electing incumbents endlessly while failing to address crucial concerns effectively.
It’s clear that the current path isn’t the only option. To break free from the two-party confinement, we should consider adopting proportional representation when electing Congressional officials. This shift could restore a sense of relevance and responsiveness in our legislature.
Rewind to early 2020, when Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive Democrat from New York, was asked about her prospective role under a Biden presidency. She let out a groan, remarking, “In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party.” Her sentiment echoes the frustration many voters feel each election cycle, trapped between two choices, with often only one poised with a viable chance to win.
As Congress tries to gear up, this outdated, win-or-take-all mindset is a key factor behind its current divisiveness. Understanding this helps explain why an open letter from more than 200 renowned political scientists and historians in 2022 called for the House of Representatives to embrace proportional representation. This electoral system, which finds widespread use globally, ensures that parties get seats proportional to the votes they receive, thus fostering more competition and expanding voter choice.
An alarming statistic from 2024 revealed that fewer than 10% of U.S. House races were competitive. In most districts, one party solidly dominates. This has been cemented by geographically-driven sorting and partisan gerrymandering, leading to an entrenched polarization that grows with every election cycle.
The crux of the problem lies in single-winner districts that award 100% representation to the candidate with the most votes, leaving others without a voice. Winner-take-all fuels a system of two dominant parties, relegating third parties to spoilers, effectively wasting their supporters’ votes. This cycle repeats every two years, perpetuating either a dominating or divided governance.
In such polarized times, winner-take-all systems fail to reflect public opinion adequately, resulting in mistrust, extremism, and even political violence. Political scientist Barbara F. Walter noted that many civil wars over the past century have emerged from countries with such systems, showing the critical need for change to restore faith in democracy.
It’s no surprise that over two-thirds of Americans yearn for major changes in the political system, wanting more than just two parties. After all, a binary choice in a vast, diverse nation of 335 million is far from adequate.
We didn’t reach this point through deliberate decision-making. The founding architects of our Constitution never specified how Congress should be elected, and what we have is akin to a default setting that doesn’t serve the present dynamics. But we’re not trapped; there’s an alternative path—proportional representation.
Most established democracies have transitioned to proportional representation. Should the U.S. follow suit, here’s a glimpse of how it can reshape our political landscape. With multiple representatives per district, it allows for diverse parties and candidates to win seats, reducing the winning threshold and increasing feasible party options. This shift empowers millions more to vote for and elect candidates representing their views, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or from other parties.
This concept aligns with the fundamental democratic visions of founders like John Adams and James Madison, who cautioned against the pitfalls of dual-party rule. Adams once expressed that Congress ought to be a microcosm of the populous, acting and reasoning as they do.
Fast forward to 2025, and what could this look like in practice? Analysis of large surveys reveals potential distributions of voters among various hypothetical parties. Offering a choice beyond two parties gives voters a louder voice and unlocks potential new coalitions for widely supported legislation, tackling issues like gun control, immigration, and education. Furthermore, it fits better in larger legislative bodies which, for over a century, haven’t grown with the U.S. population.
Initially, House membership expanded with the population, but it froze at 435 in the early 20th century. Today, with districts averaging 760,000 people, it’s challenging for one representative to serve adequately. Reform is needed to expand the House in line with modern demographic diversity, advocating for a size matching the cube root of the nation’s population, which would mean 593 House members now.
Taking Massachusetts as a case study, an expanded House and proportional representation could lead to 13 representatives split across several districts, ensuring that diverse political views get representation. This kind of system promises to revitalize the ideological spectrum suppressed by the two-party framework.
Proportional representation would significantly alleviate issues like gerrymandering, providing a more inclusive platform for underrepresented groups. It’s a progressive step away from outdated legislative mechanisms.
Most Americans view the two-party structure as a constitutional fixture, though it isn’t explicitly prescribed. The existing system has its roots in a mere eight-word law from 1967 to counter potential voting abuses but could pivot now to allow for multi-member districts using proportional representation.
Realizing such reforms prompts logical questions, particularly when considering the complexities within a two-party system. However, a multiparty setup, as seen in other nations, can unite various parties into government coalitions, maintaining operation through compromise and shared governance.
While major elections like the Senate and presidential races would remain intact, a multiparty Congress could foster alliances reflecting prevailing voter preferences, supporting stability similar to that seen in other countries with similar systems.
Whether the existing Congress can implement such transformations remains speculative. However, awareness of dysfunction is rising, with recent initiatives advocating for electoral review and House expansion gaining traction. Although party leaders may resist, significant reform often takes shape during widespread public demand.
The current system has shaped political consciousness for decades, yet change is possible and often spurred by crisis. As discontent with the status quo grows, the opportunity for reform presents itself—let’s seize it.
