From Andrew Gripp at the Independent Voter Network:
One critique of political parties that appeals to many independents is that, in our system, many feel that in order to participate in the political process, they must “join a party” (in the recent words of a New Jersey judge who dismissed a lawsuit against the state’s closed primary system). However, there are two flaws with this argument, and the replies underline the need for proportional representation.
First, the judge has a point. He did not mean that independents must join the Republican or Democratic party. There are dozens of active parties across the country that cater to a variety of ideological positions – from paleoconservative to libertarian to centrist to socialist to revolutionary, and others appeal to voters with particular niche concerns, such as prohibition and marijuana legalization (and whatever it is the Pirate Party stands for). Also, citizens who feel that no party represents their interests and ideals can form their own party that is as ideologically rigid and uncompromising – or as ideologically vague and ecumenical – as they like.
Second, while it is true that many states hold closed primaries (which are unjustly paid for not only by partisans but by all taxpayers) that keep independents locked out of primary elections, this hardly deserves the name “disenfranchisement.”
Independents can still cast a vote for whomever they want when it counts the most: in the general election (unless, of course, they live in California, which under the top-two system bars write-in votes). Not voting in a primary is like not selecting a “menu option” when calling a customer service hotline and instead waiting to speak to a representative: you still get to say what you want – all you have done is skipped a step.
But few independents, I suspect, find comfort in either of these options — joining (or forming) a party or being content to write-in their votes in the general election.
Why? Because they know they are operating in a two-party environment and thus feel pressured by the prevailing incentives to vote for the “lesser evil” so as not to waste their vote with a minor party or independent candidate. Others, frustrated by the lack of options, simply choose not to vote at all.
Here is where the appeal of proportional representation comes in: it shapes the background incentives that affect how citizens vote.
If a party has no local candidates on their list then that’s less incentive for you to vote for them,
If there was PR, the vote tally for minor parties would increase dramatically.
First past the post makes it easy for elites to rig elections or render them meaningless. Proportional representation is not a magic bullet for political problems, but it does ensure more diverse representation and can (in genuinely free conditions) lead to more authentic parliamentary debates..
Proportional representation is not my preferred alternative- I don’t think you’re ever going to change the House to get rid of local representatives in favor of national party lists, which bring their own host of problems and would be totally alien to the American constitutional/political structure.
But just to make the point about current voters not represented, I did run the PR numbers for the US House party vote totals from 2014, where (1/435) * total votes cast = 1 Representative. The GOP would have still had a majority, but a narrower one. The Libertarians would have won 5 out of 435 seats. The Greens and WFP would have had one each.