Frequently Asked Questions

Select a category to view questions and learn more.

How could PR be implemented in California?

Implementing PR in California is most likely to happen through the citizen-led ballot initiative process, which allows Californians to bypass the state legislature and amend the constitution directly. To qualify, ProRep would need to collect about 900,000 valid signatures. That is a lot, but doable with the right organizing effort.

Would we need to change the state constitution?

Yes. California's constitution currently requires each legislative district to be represented by exactly one elected member, which is fundamentally incompatible with PR. Adopting PR would require a constitutional amendment to allow multiple representatives per district.

Would PR apply to state elections, local elections, or both?

PR can apply to any election that involves multiple seats — so everything except single-candidate races like governor or mayor. The ballot initiative ProRep is pursuing would establish PR for election of state legislators. Some California cities could also adopt PR independently by amending their city charters. Many cities don’t have a city charter, and state law would need to be changed to allow them to adopt PR for local elections.

Would I still have a local representative under PR?

There would likely still be geographically-based representatives, just more of them, in a larger district. Instead of one winner claiming the entire district, multiple representatives would be elected, meaning a broader range of viewpoints from your community would actually have a seat at the table.

How would PR affect the California State Assembly and State Senate?

PR would break up the two-party duopoly that currently dominates the legislature by electing multiple representatives from each district. This would create conditions for a genuine multiparty system to emerge, and allow independent candidates to win seats as well.

Could PR be used for congressional elections in California?

Eventually, yes — but it would require federal action first. For U.S. House elections, Congress would need to repeal the 1967 law that mandates single-member districts and replace it with legislation permitting multi-member PR systems. Senate elections are harder still: changing the two-senators-per-state rule would require an amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That’s why ProRep thinks the road to multi-party democracy starts at the state level!

How many parties would be elected to the legislature if we get PR?

It depends on the specific form of PR adopted and the number of seats per district — larger districts with more seats tend to support a wider field of parties. Most PR democracies end up with three to six parties holding meaningful representation, compared to the usual two-party domination in winner-take-all systems.

What is proportional representation?

Proportional representation (PR) is the world's most widely used electoral system. In PR systems, a party's share of legislative seats directly mirrors its share of the popular vote. So a party winning 40% of votes earns 40% of seats. This contrasts with the "winner-take-all" system used in most elections in the U.S., where the candidate with the most votes (even if they get less than 50%) claims 100% of the representation for that district, leaving large groups of voters unrepresented.

How is PR different from our current electoral system in California?

California uses a winner-take-all system with single-member districts, meaning each district elects one representative — and the runner-up gets nothing. The result is a pretty unrepresentative legislature. Although only about 45% of registered California voters are Democrats, Democrats hold roughly 75% of State Assembly seats. Under PR, multi-member districts replace single-member ones, so a wider range of voters and political parties actually earn representation.

Why is PR considered more democratic or fair?

The core idea of representative democracy is that your vote elects someone who represents you. The goal of PR is to try to represent EVERYONE, as much as possible. That’s the opposite of winner-take-all systems, which routinely under-represent large groups of voters, especially when districts are gerrymandered. PR makes gerrymandering essentially moot, because multiple seats are allocated based on vote share across larger districts. The result is a legislature that reflects the full spectrum of voters, giving every vote real weight.

What types of PR systems exist?

PR isn't one-size-fits-all. It comes in several forms, most commonly Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), Party-List, and Single Transferable Vote (STV). Some systems are party-centric (voters choose a party, and the party fills seats from a list of candidates), while others are candidate-centric (voters choose individual candidates directly). Each model balances proportionality, geographic representation, and voter choice differently.

What countries use proportional representation?

Winner-take-all voting dates to the Middle Ages and today survives mainly in England and a handful of former British colonies — including the U.S., Canada, and India. More than 80% of the world's democracies have moved to PR, including Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan, spanning every region of the globe.

Does PR mean there are no districts?

No — districts still exist under most PR systems, but there are fewer of them. Each district elects multiple representatives, which is what allows seat allocations to reflect vote shares proportionally.

Would we need to increase the size of the legislature to adopt PR?

No, PR can be implemented with the existing number of seats by redrawing district boundaries into larger, multi-member districts. That said, there are good reasons to consider expanding the California legislature. California has by far the worst ratio of representatives to residents of any U.S. state — and most other democracies. (Our Assembly districts average nearly 500,000 people and State Senate districts nearly one million, making meaningful constituent contact nearly impossible.) The second-worst state, Texas, isn't even close, at around 200,000 residents per lower house district. A larger legislature would provide more flexibility in designing our PR election system, and produce more proportional outcomes. But it’s not absolutely necessary.

Is PR the same as ranked-choice voting?

No — ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a ballot method that allows voters to express their preference among candidates. It can be used in single-winner elections, or elections where multiple winners are elected at the same time. PR is an election system designed to fairly represent different groups in the electorate. The two can be combined in the form of Proportional Ranked-Choice Voting (PRCV, commonly known as Single-Transferable Vote), which uses ranking to determine which candidates fill the proportional seats. Several U.S. cities, like Portland, Oregon, Albany, California, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, use this system today. It’s also the way Ireland elects the lower house of its parliament, and how Australia chooses its Senators. But most advanced democracies with PR do not use PRCV to elect their national legislatures.

Would PR reduce political polarization?

Our democracy is failing largely because of negative partisanship — voting against a party out of fear rather than voting for a party you truly support. A system that allows more parties reduces negative partisanship. Smaller parties with distinct values can win seats on their own terms, without being absorbed into a major party and forced to defend positions they don't hold. Rather than two big-tent parties locked in all-encompassing battle, PR creates incentives for parties to stand for something specific and build coalitions around genuine agreement. Countries like Germany and New Zealand consistently show lower levels of polarization than the U.S. as a result.

How does PR affect minority representation?

Under winner-take-all, specific "majority-minority" districts must be carefully drawn to keep racial minorities from being shut out of power entirely — and voting rights advocates worry the U.S. Supreme Court may soon eliminate even that remedy. PR offers a more durable solution. Because seats are allocated proportionally across larger districts, minority communities can pool their votes and elect candidates who actually reflect their interests, without depending on favorable district lines. Studies consistently show that PR legislatures are more racially and gender diverse than those elected under winner-take-all systems.

Would more parties be able to win under PR?

Yes — that's one of PR's defining features. Winner-take-all systems create a powerful incentive for voters to abandon smaller parties in favor of whichever major-party candidate they dislike least. PR eliminates that "wasted vote" problem, making it viable for third and fourth (or more) parties to win seats and build lasting presence in the legislature.

How would PR affect voter turnout?

Research shows that PR systems are associated with higher voter turnout than winner-take-all systems. The likely reason is that more votes actually matter. When everyone’s vote is likely to result in some representation, there is more reason show up, even if your preferred party is in the minority.

Would PR lead to more coalition governments? Is that good or bad?

It's worth clarifying that PR for the California legislature wouldn't require any changes to our basic governmental structure — we don’t need to change to a parliamentary system. We could still have a governor, a bicameral legislature, and all the familiar checks and balances. What would change is the composition of whichever chamber adopted PR, which would likely include multiple parties rather than just two. Those parties would need to build working majorities to pass legislation, which encourages negotiation and compromise rather than winner-take-all governance. Far from producing gridlock, this tends to generate more durable, broadly supported policy in countries that use PR — and it prevents the dramatic swings in direction that happen when one party sweeps to power and dismantles what the last one built. Most PR democracies consider this one of the system's greatest strengths.

Is proportional representation expensive to implement?

Not likely. One way to estimate is to look at projected costs in places that switch to ranked choice voting. Based on what states like Colorado (~$6M) and Nevada (~$3M) estimated for RCV transitions, and a national survey pegging implementation at roughly 94 cents per voter, California could expect somewhere in the range of $23–35 million in one-time costs for its 22 million registered voters — a modest price for a significant upgrade to our democracy.

Would new voting equipment be required?

For most jurisdictions, no. Assuming that ballots are designed for widely-used optical scan equipment, the biggest changes involve ballot design, updated software to tabulate multi-winner races, new procedures, and voter education — not expensive new hardware. Some jurisdictions already use free open-source software called RCTab that can handle proportional RCV elections; Maine, New York City, and Portland, OR are among them. If California chose a party-list PR method instead, new tabulation software would need to be developed and certified, though the underlying math isn't complex.

Are there any cost savings that come with the adoption of PR?

Potentially yes. Some savings could come from eliminating state-run legislative primaries under a PR system. Shorter primary ballots would likely mean savings on ballot printing, postage and other administrative costs. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission and its public process would remain in place. But redistricting would likely become somewhat simpler, since large multi-member districts require less surgical redrawing after each census. A January 2026 report from the Institute for Responsive Government outlines these and other potential savings in detail.

How long would it take to implement PR in California?

If voters approved a PR ballot measure in 2028, the new system could theoretically be in place for the 2030 elections. But realistically, jurisdictions may need more time to acquire software, train staff, and educate voters. Any ballot measure should be drafted with input from local election officials to ensure the timeline is actually workable.

How would ballots or ballot counting change?

The ballot itself would look familiar — most PR methods work fine with standard optical scan (fill-in-the-bubble) ballots, though they may be longer to accommodate more candidates. A proportional RCV ballot would look much like today's RCV ballots; a party-list ballot would show candidates grouped by party with a single bubble per name. The bigger change is on the counting side: most jurisdictions would need new software to handle multi-winner tabulation, and hand-count procedures would need updating — particularly for proportional RCV methods, which can involve fractional vote transfers.

Has California ever tried something like this before?

California has made some genuinely big democratic reforms in recent decades — eliminating partisan primaries, moving to universal vote-by-mail, ending partisan gerrymandering (and then bringing it back), and expanding ranked-choice voting in many local elections — all of which felt significant at the time and are now just how things work. PR would be a larger step, but not an unprecedented kind of one. In ambition, it's probably comparable to California's Progressive Era reforms of the early 20th century, which gave us the citizens' initiative, referendum, and recall — tools that are now central to how California governs itself.

Is PR legal in the U.S.?

Yes — for state and local elections, there is no federal law or constitutional provision that prohibits proportional representation. The main constraints are at the state constitutional level, where rules about single-member districts may need to be amended. For congressional elections, however, federal law is a barrier: the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967 explicitly requires single-member districts for U.S. House races, meaning PR at the federal level would require repealing or amending that law first.

What federal laws or court decisions affect PR adoption?

The most relevant federal constraint is the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967, which requires states to use single-member districts for U.S. House elections — meaning PR for Congress would require repealing or amending that law. For state and local elections, no federal law prohibits PR. The Voting Rights Act actually supports PR in some contexts, as multi-member proportional districts can enhance minority representation and remedy voting rights violations.

Can California adopt PR without federal approval?

For state and local elections, yes. Adopting PR for U.S. House seats would require a change in federal law. Everything else — the State Assembly, State Senate, and local offices — is California's to decide.

What political obstacles exist to adopting PR in California?

Officeholders and party activists in both major parties will likely resist any change to the system they've mastered. Well-funded opposition campaigns should be expected. But the truth is, many politicians would actually be more effective under PR, when they can run on a party platform (or an independent one) that truly reflects their own values.

Has PR ever been challenged in court?

Proportional ranked-choice voting for local elections has faced legal challenges in at least four states, with mixed results. Courts in Michigan (1920) and California (1922) ruled against PR on grounds that no longer apply, because those state constitutions have since changed. Courts in Ohio (1924) and Massachusetts (1941) rejected similar challenges.

What would it take to pass a PR initiative statewide?

Because the state constitution mandates single-member districts, PR requires a constitutional amendment — and since the legislature is unlikely to put that on the ballot willingly, it will have to come through a citizen petition. That means gathering about 900,000 valid signatures, then running an effective statewide campaign to educate voters and counter well-funded opposition.

Isn't PR the same as RCV?

No. Ranked-choice voting is a method for marking and counting ballots — it can be used in winner-take-all races and proportional ones. PR is a principle: that a party's share of seats should reflect its share of votes. PR and RCV can work together — proportional RCV (PRCV), but RCV in single-winner elections doesn't produce proportional outcomes. RCV can also be used in election for single-winner offices (Governor, President), while PR only applies to representative bodies (State Legislatures, Congress).

Israel uses PR, and their system is largely considered dysfunctional. Why would we want that for California?

Israel's challenges stem from specific design choices, not from PR itself. Israel uses a single nationwide district with a very low threshold (just 3.25% of the vote) to win seats, which produces an extremely fragmented legislature with dozens of parties — including fringe parties. Most PR systems use higher thresholds (Germany requires 5%) and multiple regional districts to prevent this kind of fragmentation. California would adopt a PR system to reflect its own political needs and culture, drawing on practices of the many PR democracies that function smoothly.

Won't PR just give extremist parties more of a platform?

As we have seen recently in the U.S., winner-take-all systems allow extremist factions to gain power by capturing one of the two major parties from within. Under PR, moderate and centrist voters have viable alternatives, which reduces the leverage that fringe groups hold over the major parties. Most PR countries use minimum vote thresholds to keep genuinely fringe parties out of the legislature entirely.

Won't having multiparty legislatures just produce more partisan gridlock?

The evidence from PR democracies suggests the opposite. When multiple parties must negotiate to build a governing majority, the result tends to be more durable, broadly supported policy — not paralysis. The gridlock we experience at the federal level comes largely from two parties with incentives to obstruct each other, not from having too many voices at the table.

Isn't this too expensive?

No, in fact it's a bargain. Based on what other states have spent transitioning to ranked-choice voting, California could expect roughly $23–35 million in one-time implementation costs. That's a small price for a major upgrade to our democracy. And that’s not counting the potential long-term savings from fewer redistricting battles and more efficient election administration.

Are there local governments in the U.S. that use PR?

Yes — Albany, CA, Portland, OR, and Cambridge, MA all use proportional ranked-choice voting to elect their city councils and school boards, and Minneapolis uses it for part of its parks and recreation board. PRCV is also used in student government elections at several UC campuses, including UC Davis and UC Berkeley, giving a generation of California students direct experience with the system.

What can California learn from other places that use PR?

The consistent lessons from PR democracies are: gerrymandering is a non-issue, very few votes are "wasted," and the large majority of voters end up with someone they supported actually serving in the legislature. PR legislatures are also consistently more diverse — by race, gender, and age — than their winner-take-all counterparts.

What happened when cities like Cambridge, MA used PR?

Cambridge isn't alone in its history with PR — in the 1920s and 30s, a wave of American cities adopted proportional ranked-choice voting for city council elections, including New York City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Boulder. The systems generally produced more diverse and competitive councils. But established party machines didn’t like losing control, and during the 1940s and 50s, opponents successfully used anti-communist sentiment to repeal PR in city after city, arguing that it was giving too much influence to left-wing candidates. Cambridge held out, and has used PRCV to elect its city council ever since 1941, making it one of the longest-running PR experiments in the U.S. The system has produced a consistently diverse and competitive council, with representation for independents and smaller political groups that would be shut out under winner-take-all rules.

Are there recent success stories or failures to consider?

Portland, Oregon's 2024 city council election — the first under its new proportional RCV system — resulted in the most diverse council in Portland's history. Nearly half the new council are people of color, a quarter LGBTQ+, a quarter renters, and the first Millennials have been elected to serve on the council. Perhaps most importantly, between 75 and 80 percent of voters saw at least one of their top three choices elected — a level of representation that winner-take-all systems almost never achieve.