Fixing the System That Dilutes Black Political Power

Black Americans have made historic gains in political representation—but representation alone hasn’t translated into real political power. Despite the presence of Black elected officials, systemic barriers continue to suppress Black influence in the policymaking process. These challenges aren’t accidental; they are the predictable outcomes of the United States’ winner-take-all electoral system. In this third installment of our series, we will look at the ability of a shift from a winner-take-all system to a proportional representation system to bring about more responsive policies and increase Black political influence.

Winner-take-all, characterized by single-member districts, is an electoral system in which the candidate or party that receives the most votes goes on to represent everyone within a district, even if many voters preferred another candidate or party, and even if the winning candidate's margin of victory is razor-thin or based on a mere plurality. This structure concentrates power in the hands of narrow majorities and routinely silences millions of voices, especially those of marginalized communities.

To create lasting change, we must confront the structure of our electoral system itself. Proportional representation–the leading alternative to winner-take-all–allocates seats based on the percentage of votes each party receives. This system can provide for fairer representation and gives all communities a real voice in government, laying the foundation for a more inclusive and equitable democracy. For Black representation in particular, proportional representation offers two key benefits: it enables Black voters to elect candidates who genuinely reflect their preferences, and it does so without relying on the increasingly fragile model of majority-minority districts. We’ll explore these advantages in more detail below.

More Responsive Policies

A change to proportional representation could create greater influence for marginalized groups, including Black Americans, by fostering coalition-building resulting in more responsive policymaking.

Civil rights activist and leader Fannie Lou Hammer spoke of the desire to achieve “true democracy” in the U.S. “and not merely equality within the existing order.” What this meant to her, and others critical of the dominant political system, including Lani Guinier, was that Black Americans should aspire not only to be included in the institutions that once excluded them–but to reform them into bodies that could and would be responsive to the needs of a highly diverse population.

Despite the gains of the civil rights movement, that vision remains unfulfilled. While the election of Black representatives has been transformative, long-standing power structures continue to shape which communities are prioritized–and which are neglected–in the policymaking process.

This ongoing neglect is evident in both overt and subtle ways. Voter suppression laws, felony disenfranchisement, and even seemingly routine decisions–like the choice change to Flint, Michigan’s water supply–have disproportionately harmed Black communities. Some policies are referred to as “benign neglect,” others–like Alabama’s decision to impose strict voter ID requirements and then shutter driver’s license offices in majority-Black counties–appear more intentional. Others simply fail to account for the needs of Black Americans. For example, despite long-standing disparities in maternal mortality rates, legislation to improve maternal health has often overlooked the specific risks faced by Black women.

Here is where there is potential for proportional representation to empower Black Americans. In contrast to winner-take-all, which concentrates power in the hands of a single winning party after each election, proportional representation would allow for a more equitable distribution of political influence. In proportional systems, seats in the legislature are allocated based on the percentage of votes they receive, meaning that smaller constituencies such as racial minorities, have greater ability to influence policy and legislation.

While the scenario in the graphic above is simplified, it highlights a key dynamic: winner-take-all systems tend to concentrate power in the hands of a single group, while proportional representation gives more groups a seat at the table–and a voice in shaping policy. Research shows that when legislatures more accurately reflect the diversity of the society they represent, as is more common under proportional systems, they tend to produce more responsive and inclusive policies.

But what if a party advocating for pro-Black policies is a small minority—say, 10% of the legislature? What is to prevent them from being ousted and steamrolled, as similar representatives have been under winner-take-all? In proportional systems, coalition-building, through which diverse groups can work together to push for legislation that reflects their shared concerns, is the norm. Hypothetically, this group could form a coalition with other parties to develop shared leverage that can be used to shape policies that address their communities' needs.

In such a system, coalition formation would typically result in the creation of a majority coalition, which then negotiates shared priorities to advance in the legislature. Political scientists refer to this type of power sharing as “consociational democracy.” While the practical effect could resemble what we see today–where different factions align under a single banner–the key difference would be in the transparency and accountability of the process.

With multiple parties clearly articulating their platforms, and each holding a visible portion of the electorate’s support, a majority coalition would be less likely to sweep important issues under the rug. Instead, the varied interests of smaller parties would need to be explicitly addressed, ensuring that important concerns, like those of a party advocating for pro-Black policies, are not sidelined or overlooked in the pursuit of broader legislative goals. In this way, coalition-building would not only ensure that diverse interests are represented, but also incentivize parties to engage with the full range of voters’ concerns, rather than simply prioritizing the majority party’s agenda.

Increase Black political influence beyond majority-minority districts

While majority-minority districts have played a critical role in empowering minority voters, proportional representation may offer a more sustainable and equitable solution by ensuring minority representation without relying on race-conscious districting.

When first introduced as part of the 1982 Voting Rights Act amendment, majority-minority districts were intended to be an ennobling function that would serve to protect the franchise of minorities in a system that historically diluted their voting power. Over the last 40 years these curated districts have helped challenge the legacy of racial disenfranchisement in the U.S. by creating opportunities for Black, Latino, and other minority candidates to win office in areas where they might otherwise struggle due to systemic barriers.

Despite this success, majority-minority districts have faced criticism. Lani Guinier argued that majority-minority districts treat Black voters as interchangeable, allowing only a specific, geographically concentrated group to be represented at any given point. This leaves Black voters outside of these districts effectively voiceless in predominantly white districts, thus limiting their potential for meaningful representation.

In 2018, Black Congressman Bennie Thompson won Mississippi’s only majority-Black district with nearly 72% of the vote. The state’s other three districts–all majority-white–elected white Republican candidates with 62–68% of the vote, closely mirroring the white population in those areas. As a result, in a state where nearly 40% of eligible voters are Black, Black voters consistently elect only one of four House members. Their votes are heavily concentrated—and often wasted—under winner-take-all, with one representative expected to speak for the entire Black electorate.

Winner-take-all systems reward geographic majorities. Since Black Americans make up 14% of the national population and often live in districts where they’re not majority, they are structurally disadvantaged under these rules. Proportional representation, by contrast, enables more equitable outcomes by allowing candidates to win seats in multi-member districts based on the share of votes their group receives. As Arend Lijphart notes: “in addition to producing proportionality and minority representation, [proportional representation] treats all groups–ethnic, racial, religious, or even noncommunal groups–in a completely equal and evenhanded fashion.”

This means that rather than relying on manufactured district lines to guarantee representation, minority voters could achieve meaningful representation in proportion to their actual numbers in a reasonable geographic area. A well designed proportional system would enable Black voters to form powerful voting blocs without the reliance on artificial district boundaries.

Additionally, one of the key advantages of proportional representation is that it limits the possibilities for racial and partisan gerrymandering, especially in districts with 5 or more seats. While it is true that gerrymandering remains possible, even in larger districts, the benefit of proportional representation is that because seats are allocated proportionally based on votes, any attempt to manipulate the system by drawing district lines is inherently constrained. The ability to distort representation is greatly reduced because winning seats requires more than just securing a geographically concentrated base; it requires broad support across a wider district area. This reliance on vote allocation, rather than district geography, is what makes gerrymandering significantly harder in proportional systems.

While majority-minority districts have been one of the most significant achievements of the Voting Rights Act, and an important step in achieving racial equity in political representation, proportional representation could offer a more stable and arguably more simple, effective way to increase representation for, and in turn the political influence of, minority voters. By reducing the vulnerabilities associated with race-based, or district-based solutions, proportional representation could ensure that minority voices are consistently represented in government.