Americans continue to be disillusioned and apathetic toward politics. Cynicism about candidates and parties is common and voter turnout is low. There has been some talk for changing the election system in this country, campaign finance reform, and term limits are two of the ideas put forward. However, what some feel should we be doing is replace our present, winner-take-all election system with proportional representation (PR) elections.
             Leaders of most alternative parties, including the Libertarians, the Greens, and the New Party, are pushing for the change to PR. Even a Harvard Law professor, Lani Guinier* has concluded that proportional representation would be the best way to give minority voters fair representation.
             Proportional representation comes in many varieties, but they all share two basic characteristics. First, they use multi-member districts. Instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, PR uses much larger districts that elect several members at once, five or ten, for example. Second, which candidates win the seats in these multi-member districts is determined by the proportion of votes each party receives. Eliminating the problem of one winner of the district from misrepresenting the section of the population that did not vote for them. Those people would have their own representation.
             This system would then help ensure more balanced and fair representation to women and minorities. Under the current system there is no representation for these groups and their agenda if their candidates are not elected, as they are usually a minority and do not have the voting power. A 5 member PR district, which is populated 80% white and 20% black, if the population voted strictly along racial lines, the African American still elect one representative.
             Proportional representation would also eliminate the problem of gerrymandering, a problem of the single-member per district system. District ...