Proportional Representation values voices from all regions of a country

The argument

Proportional representation gives equitable voting power to all regions within a country. The system ensures that voter opinions are valued in both rural and metropolitan areas, and on this argument that is what makes it the best voting system: it accounts for the voices of voters in all regions rather than only those where the most voters happen to live. The case is made by contrast. With popular vote systems such as ranked-choice or approval voting, the populous regions would have the most voting power, because every vote counts towards a single national total and the largest concentrations of votes therefore decide it. Candidates respond to that arithmetic. They would focus their policies on appeasing large, metropolitan areas, which are generally left-leaning, since that is where a winning margin is most cheaply assembled. Candidates would disregard rural communities — not out of hostility, but because their low populations would not have a major impact on the total vote. A system that makes some voters unprofitable to persuade has, in effect, made their opinions optional. Proportional representation changes that arithmetic and therefore that behaviour. In a proportional representation system, votes are appointed based on regional favor, not the total popular vote, so support has to be assembled across the map rather than piled up in a few places. Candidates would instead focus on gaining support from all regions of a country rather than just the heavily populated areas, and a party that neglected less populous regions would forfeit the share those regions control. Because the proportional representation system values the voices of all regions of a country, proponents conclude, it is the best voting system. The system is more equitable than popular voting systems, which are known for being one-sided, precisely because it removes the incentive to campaign in only one kind of place.

Context

In proportional representation voting, elected legislators cast votes as a representative of the region. Several western countries use adaptations of proportional representation such as the American electoral college system and the British Parliament.

Premises

Counter-arguments

In the proportional representation system, the outcomes of a few swing states have the biggest impact on the whole election. Typical blue states will likely remain blue, while typical red states will likely remain red. As a result, candidates focus on the few states that swing between red and blue. In addition, individual voters in swing states hold more potential on the outcome of the election when compared to voters in stable regions. This key flaw of proportional representation has caused many to classify this system as undemocratic.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is not proportional representation. PR allocates seats in proportion to the votes cast, and its defining property is that a party's share of seats matches its share of the vote — not that votes are weighted by region. What the premise describes, with votes "appointed based on regional favour", is closer to a districted or electoral-college system, which is what PR is normally contrasted with. [Rejecting P2] The objection to majoritarian systems is also misstated. Under a national popular vote every voter counts equally wherever they live, so the complaint that rural areas would be ignored is a complaint about population size rather than about the voting rule. The counter-argument compounds the error by describing swing states, which are a feature of the US Electoral College and not of proportional representation at all — a system that neither the argument nor its counter describes accurately cannot be shown to be the best one.