The American system, really in a lot of ways, discourages participation. Elections for Congress in the United States are based on a plurality winner system where you live in one district. Candidates from two or more parties go run in that district, and then whoever gets the most votes wins. Right now many of our maps are incredibly disproportional and in a state like North Carolina Democrats got 47% of the vote but Republicans have over two-thirds of the seats. Meanwhile most of us end up living in congressional districts that aren’t competitive. where often the opposition party doesn’t run a candidate at all. We end up focusing on a handful of swing seats that happen to be narrowly balanced. There’s a very strong incentive to vote for one of the two major parties because people don’t want to waste their vote by supporting a third party with no chance of winning. When you have 330 million people and two parties trying to represent them lots of people inevitably are gonna feel left out. You have incredible levels now in the United States of dissatisfaction with the political parties. Americans should think more seriously about switching from our current electoral system to one of any number of more proportional alternatives that could solve a lot of problems that exist in American voting today. In a party list system, it’s very simple. Everybody in the state they would go to the voting booth and they would vote for a party that they like best. And then at the end we would see how many votes did each party get and if you got 25 or 30 or 40 percent of the vote that’s how many seats you would get. And then the seats would be filled by just sort of running down a list that party leaders had made for themselves. Israel, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany and New Zealand all used variations on this system and as a result voters have lots of choices when it comes to finding a party that represents their interests. And voter turnout in these countries is much higher than in the United States. Another popular system is called an alternative vote system. You show up and you have to rank a whole bunch of candidates in order of preference. A constituency will elect a whole bunch of different members as individuals. But it’s still gonna work out that if 40% of people were for Democrats, they’ll end up with 40% of the seats. This is how legislators get elected in Australia and Ireland and there too you see lots of political parties. In the American system, a loss is a loss. So Republicans don’t really put resources into House races in Massachusetts and Democrats pretty much ignore a place like Alabama. But in a proportional system, both parties would need to fight everywhere. Then they would need to try to engage citizens everywhere. There’s no constitutional requirement in the United States that everybody use this district based system. Most states could adopt elements of a proportional system if they wanted to. Sure, the connection between a specific place and a specific legislator would weaken a bit. But it would also solve the problems of gerrymandered districts and break the two-party hold on our political system. You would get a wider range of views represented. You would get a wider range of talents involved in the system. And you have more people feeling that they’re represented.