Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Why multi-member districts with fair voting rules would be a boon to women
Gilda Geist is a rising sophomore at Brandeis University and an intern at RepresentWomen. The non-partisan organization advances women's representation and leadership by advocating for reforms so that more women run, win, serve, and lead.
In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld partisan gerrymandering, Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia reintroduced the Fair Representation Act on July 25. This bill would implement ranked choice voting, multi-member House districts and rules for congressional redistricting.
What do all three have in common? They're simpler than they seem and are important for increasing women's representation in American government. Currently, women make up 24 percent of Congress, 29 percent of state legislators, and 0 percent of all U.S. presidents. This is because our current voting system protects incumbents, limits competition and perpetuates the status quo.
One way the Beyer bill would tackle this issue is ranked choice voting. This is an electoral method where instead of choosing only one favorite candidate, voters can rank the candidates in order of preference.
Here's how it works when electing one candidate in the smallest states, like Wyoming and Vermont, which have just one House seat. If a candidate earns more than half of first choices, that candidate wins. If no candidate has more than 50 percent of the vote, the last place candidate's votes are redistributed from those voters' next choice candidate. This process of eliminating last-place candidates and redistributing their votes repeats until one person has a majority of votes and is declared the winner.
Under the Beyer bill however, most states would use ranked choice voting to elect more than one person in each congressional district. When more than one candidate wins, more voters can help elect one of their favorite candidates because the Fair Representation Act is an American, candidate-based form of proportional representation. With three people getting elected to represent one district for example, just over three out of every four voters will elect a favorite candidate because each candidate can win with just over a quarter of the vote. The ranked choice voting tally adds a couple of extra steps to accomplish this goal, but remains just as easy for voters.
What's most important is what ranked choice voting does for fairness. It helps increase women's representation because it is more representative of the electorate. While the current winner-take-all system favors incumbents and reinforces the status quo, ranked choice voting and multi-member districts create opportunities for all underrepresented groups, including women.
At RepresentWomen, our research shows that multi-member districting is another electoral reform that strengthens women's representation in government. The Fair Representation Act would establish that any state with fewer than six seats would simply run a statewide election with ranked choice voting. Larger states would create districts that elect between three and five seats.
Women traditionally have done much better in running and winning in elections with multi-winner districts than single-winner districts. For example, in the Maryland General Assembly, women hold 25 percent of seats in single-winner district, but 45 percent in multi-winner districts — a substantial difference.
Just as with ranked choice voting, multi-member districts increase womens' representation because they change incentives for people to run and expand opportunities to underrepresented groups. Proportional outcomes and a wider variety of candidates provide more choices and greater diversity, thereby giving more women a chance to run and win.
The final component of the Fair Representation Act involves implementing rules for drawing lines for multi-member districts. The bill requires that a state must create an independent redistricting commission if it wants to redraw its district lines. Once the commissions are created, they must be sure to draw districts that comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Districts must not be completely safe for any one political party and they must provide minority groups equal opportunity to engage in the electoral process. This will ensure political representation is reflective of the population.
The Fair Representation Act is a non-partisan, common sense piece of legislation. People of all political parties, genders, and races would benefit because this bill would ensure that representation is accurate and fair to all voters.
Nearly 100 years after the 19th Amendment became part of the Constitution, we are still making painfully slow progress toward gender parity in government. The only way to achieve equal representation for women in a timely manner is by making changes to the rules and systems that have reigned unquestioned for years. We cannot wait for the culture surrounding women in politics to change. Instead, we have to be proactive in making politics accessible to women. After we successfully do so, the culture will start to change. Strong legislation that takes a stand like the Fair Representation Act will allow us to move toward this goal of gender parity in government.
The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn
In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.
The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.
TV stations fight FCC over political ad disclosure
Broadcasters are pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission after the agency made clear it wants broader public disclosure regarding TV political ads.
With the 2020 election less than a year away and political TV ads running more frequently, the FCC issued a lengthy order to clear up any ambiguities licensees of TV stations had regarding their responsibility to record information about ad content and sponsorship. In response, a dozen broadcasting stations sent a petition to the agency, asking it to consider a more narrow interpretation of the law.
This dispute over disclosure rules for TV ads comes at a time when digital ads are subject to little regulation. Efforts to apply the same rules for TV, radio and print advertising across the internet have been stymied by Congress's partisanship and the Federal Election Commission being effectively out of commission.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
"I also do this work because, as a white woman, I know that the exclusion of entire communities from our democracy was (and is still) led by my people and, often, in my name," says Laura Williamson of Demos.
Meet the reformer: Laura Williamson, sounding a progressive Carolina call
Laura Williamson says her career was shaped by growing up in North Carolina, which she describes as being historically at the center of the best and worst of American democracy. She spent seven years working with young people at progressive groups and got a master's in public affairs at Princeton before joining Demos in the summer of 2018. The think tank aims to combat "threats to democracy, racial equity and economic inclusion" and as a senior policy analyst she's focused on voter registration, voting rights, money in politics and civic participation. Her answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.
What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?
Abolishing all disenfranchisement schemes and achieving an inclusive, multiracial democracy.
Describe your very first civic engagement.
Testifying at the North Carolina General Assembly against cuts to funding for vocational education. The woodworking classes I took throughout high school were among the most formative of my public school education, so as a high school senior I advocated for their continued funding to lawmakers in Raleigh.
What was your biggest professional triumph?
It's actually a triumph-in-progress. At Demos, we are privileged to work with powerful grassroots leaders redefining democracy and pushing the reform conversation across the country. Alongside these Inclusive Democracy Project leaders we are dreaming and scheming about what it would take to build a truly inclusive democracy — without limiting ourselves by what's perceived as politically feasible or reasonable — and to chart a radical reform agenda that meets the challenge. Our agenda is in progress and, like all real victories, is benefitting from the efforts of many smart and talented people. Stay tuned, it'll be ready for public consumption soon!
And your most disappointing setback?
They have always come after I've not listened well enough, have brought too much ego and taken things too personally, or not followed my gut about when a process or decision felt off.
How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?
I'm from North Carolina, where we pioneered multiracial, pro-justice fusion politics during Reconstruction, civil disobedience during the civil rights movement and franchise-expanding voting reforms since the 1990s. More recently, we have also been home to the vanguard of voter suppression and other democracy stifling tactics since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. I stand on the shoulders of giants and against the abdication of our identity as democracy leaders. I also do this work because, as a white woman, I know the exclusion of entire communities from our democracy was — and is still — led by my people and, often, in my name. I work every day to undo that legacy and ongoing reality.
What's the best advice you've ever been given?
Learn to simultaneously practice patience and show up with urgency in all the work I do.
Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.
Impeaches and Cream
West Wing or Veep?
West Wing — for the sometimes-too-earnest belief that government can be a force for good, not the centrist politics!
What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?
Turn on do not disturb.
What is your deepest, darkest secret?
I'm deeply terrified by karaoke.
On TV, political ads are regulated – but online, anything goes
Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.
With the 2020 election less than a year away, Facebook is under fire from presidential candidates, lawmakers, civil rights groups and even its own employees to provide more transparency on political ads and potentially stop running them altogether.
Meanwhile, Twitter has announced that it will not allow any political ads on its platform.
Modern-day online ads use sophisticated tools to promote political agendas with a high degree of specificity.
I have closely studied how information propagates through social channels and its impact on political messaging and advertising.
Looking back at the history of mass media and political ads in the national narrative, I think it's important to focus on how TV advertising, which is monitored by the Federal Communications Commission, differs fundamentally with the world of social media.
