In Wyoming, as in most states, legislative elections use a “first-past-the-post” system: Lawmakers represent single-member districts and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, even without a majority. PR, by contrast, aligns the number of seats each party wins with its share of the vote in larger multimember districts.
As heightened polarization increasingly gridlocks the legislative process and gerrymandering undermines the electoral process, interest in reforms such as PR — aimed at increasing representativeness and improving political incentives — has grown.
In practice, PR can take many forms. One variation is illustrated by the Fair Representation Act, a bill to elect the U.S. House of Representatives via PR that has been repeatedly introduced in Congress since 2017. Amid strong polarization, however, the appetite for such reforms in Congress remains small, and the bill has failed to make significant progress.
Wyoming’s bill is an improvement over the Fair Representation Act. The federal bill uses what is known as single transferable vote (STV) proportional representation. This means voters use a ranked-choice ballot to select candidates in multimember districts; once a candidate reaches the quota necessary to secure election, their “surplus votes” are transferred to other candidates on the voter’s ballot. There is nothing inherently wrong with this method, and it can produce highly representative outcomes. However, it is complex and markedly different from any election method most Americans are familiar with.
The Wyoming approach is much simpler. State law expressly bans the use of ranked-choice voting. Instead, the Wyoming bill uses “closed-list” PR. Under this system, parties would submit lists of candidates before the election according to whatever process each party wants to use, whether a primary, caucus or convention. Voters would then choose between parties, and each party would fill the seats with the candidates on the list. For example, if a party receives 60 percent of the vote in a five-seat district, it would win three of the seats and fill them with the top three names on its list.
Granted, Americans tend to be uniquely anti-party and may chafe at the idea of fixed party lists. An “open-list” system could be employed instead, in which each vote contributes to a party’s overall vote share but the order of candidates is determined by the votes they individually receive (the method used in Finland). A middle-ground option worth considering is what is known as the Brazilian method, where voters may choose to vote for a candidate, and thereby influence the ordering of the list, or they may simply vote for the party without concern for specific candidates. Regardless, the more straightforward application of PR in Wyoming’s bill is likely to be more palatable in the current political environment than an STV system would be.
Among the Wyoming bill’s greatest strengths is its approach to districting. The Wyoming bill would create 11 state House districts based on county lines — down from the current 62 districts and a far simpler and cleaner approach to districting than the partisan gerrymandering that now prevails across the country.
At the most basic level, PR would give minority-party voters more voice in states where they are unfairly disadvantaged by gerrymandered districts or other political realities. However, PR has another, potentially more important effect beyond growing minority representation: Increasingly, majority parties are experiencing internal fragmentation over local issues. This is not a failure, but rather a recognition that many local issues do not map neatly onto national political divides.
Currently in Alaska and Montana, for example, Republican majorities are fractured, with some Republicans choosing to join Democrats to form governing coalitions. A similar dynamic occurred in the New York state Senate from 2011 to 2018, when a group of Democrats broke away and aligned with Republicans. These splits centered primarily on state-specific issues: In Alaska, disputes over the use of the state’s Permanent Fund were central. In Montana, divisions emerged over issues such as Medicaid expansion, labor laws and wolf hunting. In New York, ideological differences and conflicts over leadership and committee assignments drove the split. These differences are legitimate and often rooted in meaningful local debates.
One of the PR systems’ frequently cited strengths is that they can facilitate multiparty competition. While the American two-party system is deeply entrenched, PR at the state level could allow for the development of a more organic multiparty system, where distinct factions or sub-parties take nuanced positions on local issues while still aligning with one of the two major national parties. The result would be more choices for voters locally and a politics that is better connected to the issues affecting daily life.
Wyoming’s bill has the potential to be the next great innovation in American government. PR could improve the representative nature of our state governments and allow voters to express their preferences more effectively on local issues. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for a country as large as the U.S., other states would be wise to learn from Wyoming’s foray into this promising territory.
Jonathan Madison is a fellow in the R Street Institute’s governance program, where he researches electoral reforms to enhance the integrity and inclusivity of elections.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
