The House of Unrepresentatives
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
May 15, 2026 -
Elected officials serve as bridges between the government and the people by representing the needs and preferences of constituents. However, few people feel properly represented because we have highly polarized parties in a rigid two-party system. Consequently, we need to move to a multi-party democracy.
The disconnect between the people and politicians is clear in the comparison between the ideological distributions of Americans and Congress. The plurality of Americans, according to the 2020 Cooperative Election Study, are moderate (26%). Yet, the big gap between the parties shows there are few, if any, moderates in Congress. Instead, we have two fairly homogeneous but ideologically distant parties.
Moreover, the parties don’t even represent their own voters well. For Democrats, liberals and moderates are the two largest groups (26%). Yet, there are few moderate Democrats. The existing moderate Democrats are pro-business but socially progressive, but they don’t vote very differently from their progressive colleagues.
Congressional Republicans look like they reflect their voters more closely since conservatives and very conservative voters make up almost two-thirds of the party. However, almost a quarter of conservatives are operational liberals, who hold liberal policy views. Thus, moderates make up a larger share of Republicans than polling suggests.
Gerrymandering is not the problem because we live near people with similar views (geographic sorting). Since cities tend to be Democratic and rural and exurban areas are Republican, it is hard to draw competitive districts because partisans are not evenly dispersed. While redistricting reform could increase the number of competitive seats, most members will be in safe districts.
Safe districts encourage ideological candidates. Our nationalized politics means that partisanship matters more than candidate reputation and policy positions. Since partisanship determines election outcomes, candidates have few electoral reasons to moderate and be bipartisan. Moreover, party activists, donors, and fellow legislators pressure them to be loyal team players who support the party and fight the “enemy.”
Finally, our polarized institutions discourage moderates from running. Moderates are less likely to run for office because the costs of running and serving outweigh the benefits. Moderates are less likely to achieve their policy goals or advance within the party. Even if they do win, these legislative constraints make them likely to retire early. Unfortunately, ideological candidates are more likely to run because being a partisan fighter is reward enough.
Following Sherlock Holmes’ dictum of “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth,” we conclude the two-party system is the problem. The solution then is to switch from single-member plurality districts to proportional representation (PR), allocating seats based on a party’s proportion of the vote.
Political scientists prefer mixed-member proportional representation. In this system, there are single-member seats, as we have now, and a compensation tier. Voters would vote for a member in their district, a party, and one candidate from the party’s compensation tier. The candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. The total statewide party votes are then counted, and extra seats are allocated to match the party’s vote percentage. The candidates with the highest vote totals in the compensation tier would fill the extra seats. Parties would have to win 5% to qualify for compensation.
In single-transferable vote (STV) systems, all candidates are listed together, and voters rank candidates in order of preference. States would typically be broken into districts of 3-5 seats to maximize the ideological breadth of elected candidates. The top-ranked candidates are elected if they meet a certain threshold. If not all seats are initially elected, the extra votes of the winner, the votes beyond the number needed to win, are reallocated to their second-favorite candidate. If seats remain to be elected, the lowest-ranked candidates’ votes are transferred until enough candidates are elected.
Proportional representation has multiple advantages. All voters would see their party represented, which increases trust in government. Tennessee would elect Democrats, and Massachusetts would elect Republicans. These systems tend to see more women and minorities elected via the compensation list system. Voter turnout is higher because voters have a greater impact on electing someone who represents their interests. PR systems reduce polarization because parties must work with other parties after the election, which incentivizes partisans to get along. Finally, PR also provides an incentive for moderates to run.
With more parties, we would need to move Senate and presidential races to STV, so the winner receives a majority of the state vote. Party coalitions could form for these offices, but the coalitions would be more fluid. Parties can combine depending on the election or issue, producing a more responsive government.
Multi-party democracy is like a public park. People from different backgrounds and political views can come together, interact freely, and enjoy a shared space, while maintaining their own identities. A park where everyone belongs and is respected would be much better than our current partisan battlefield.