Table Of ContentWHOSE VOTE COUNTS?
‘‘NewDemocracyForumoperatesatalevelofliteracyand
responsibilitywhichisalltoorareinourtime.’’
—JohnKennethGalbraith
OtherbooksintheNewDemocracyForumseries:
TheNewInequality:CreatingSolutionsforPoorAmerica,
byRichardB.Freeman
ACommunityofEquals:TheConstitutionalProtectionofNew
Americans,byOwenFiss
MetroFutures:EconomicSolutionsforCitiesandTheirSuburbs,
byDanielD.LuriaandJoelRogers
UrgentTimes:PolicingandRightsinInner-CityCommunities,
byTraceyL.MearesandDanM.Kahan
WillStandardsSavePublicEducation?byDeborahMeier
DoAmericansShopTooMuch?byJulietSchor
BeyondBackyardEnvironmentalism,byCharlesSabel,Archon
Fung,andBradleyKarkkainen
IsInequalityBadforOurHealth?byNormanDaniels,Bruce
Kennedy,andIchiroKawachi
What’sWrongwithaFreeLunch?byPhilippeVanParijs
AreElectionsforSale?byDavidDonnelly,JaniceFine,and
EllenS.Miller
WHOSE VOTE COUNTS?
ROBERT RICHIE AND STEVEN HILL
EDITED BY JOSHUA COHEN AND JOEL ROGERS
FOR BOSTONREVIEW
BEACON PRESS
BOSTON
BEACONPRESS
BeaconStreet
Boston,Massachusetts-
www.beacon.org
BeaconPressbooksarepublishedundertheauspicesofthe
UnitarianUniversalistAssociationofCongregations.
(cid:1),byJoshuaCohenandJoelRogers
OriginallypublishedasReflectingAllofUs:
TheCaseforProportionalRepresentation
all rights reserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
TheForewordbyLaniGuinierisacondensedversionofChapterof
LiftEveryVoice:TurningaCivilRightsSetbackintoaNewVisionofSocial
JusticebyLaniGuinier.Copyright(cid:1)byLaniGuinier.Reprinted
withpermissionoftheauthorandthepublisher,Simon&Schuster.
PortionsoftheForewordoriginallypublishedintheNewYorkTimes,
December,.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperthatmeetstheuncoatedpaper
ansi/nisospecificationsforpermanenceasrevisedin.
CompositionbyWilsted&TaylorPublishingServices
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Richie,Robert.
[Reflectingallofus]
Whosevotecounts?/RobertRichieandStevenHill;editedbyJoshua
CohenandJoelRogersforBostonreview.
p. cm.—(Newdemocracyforum)
Originallypublishedas:Reflectingallofus:thecaseforproportional
representation.c.
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
isbn---(pbk.)
.Proportionalrepresentation—UnitedStates. .Representative
governmentandrepresentation—UnitedStates. .Elections—United
States. I.Hill,Steven. II.Cohen,Joshua,– . III.Rogers,Joel,
– . IV.Bostonreview(Cambridge,Mass.:) V.Title.
VI.Series.
jf1075.u6r552001
.(cid:1)—dc
Thepureideaofdemocracy,accordingtoitsdefinition,isthe
governmentofthewholepeoplebythewholepeople,equally
represented.Democracyascommonlyconceivedandhitherto
practiced,is thegovernment ofthewhole peopleby amere
majorityofthepeople,exclusivelyrepresented.Theformeris
synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter,
strangelyconfoundedwithit,isagovernmentofprivilege,
infavorofthenumericalmajority,whoalonepossesspracti-
cally any voice in the State. This is the inevitable conse-
quenceofthemannerinwhichthevotesarenowtaken,the
completedisenfranchisementofminorities.
—johnstuartmill,RepresentativeGovernment
CONTENTS
ForewordbyLaniGuinier / ix
Editors’PrefacebyJoshuaCohen
andJoelRogers / xvii
1
robertrichieandstevenhill
TheCaseforProportionalRepresentation /
2
cynthiamckinney
KeepItSimple /
johnferejohn
CautionaryNotes /
e.joshuarosenkranz
SolvingaLegalPuzzle /
garyw.cox
Instability? /
danielcantor
MakingItHappen /
rossmirkarimi
MixingtheMessage /
anthonythigpenn
ComeOutFighting /
pamelas.karlan
ABiggerPicture /
3
robertrichieandstevenhill
Reply /
AppendixA:APRGlossary /
AppendixB:Resources /
Notes /
AbouttheContributors /
FOREWORD
lani guinier
The decisive moment in the presidential election
did not take place in the voting booths or in the public
tabulationofballotsbutinthesecretdeliberationsofthe
U.S.SupremeCourt.Whatbeganasjudicialoverreach-
ing when the results of those deliberations were an-
nouncedonDecember , ,inBushv.Goreshould
nowbecomeaclarioncallformajordemocraticreform.
SomelegalexpertsarguethattheUnitedStatesSupreme
Court decision, though heavily criticized for handing
theelectiontoGeorgeW.Bush,couldhelpopenthelo-
calcourthousedoorstoelectionreform.Theselegalop-
timists rely on language in that decision in which the
Courtdeclaredthatastatemaynot‘‘byarbitraryanddis-
paratetreatmentvalueoneperson’svoteoveranother.’’
Perhaps, given its new rhetoric about valuing votes
equallyinordertorestorecitizenconfidenceintheout-
comeofelections,theSupremeCourt’sconservativema-
jority will now look closely at other suits based on the
principle of equal protection—others that, like Bush v.
Gore, challenge disparate treatment of voters in voting
ff
procedures.Butthemoreimportante ectoftheCourt’s
{ ix }
LANI GUINIER
intervention,bolsteredbyitschoiceoflanguageexplic-
itlyvaluingnoperson’svoteoveranother’s,wouldbeto
launchacitizen’spro-democracymovement.
Theoneperson,onevotelanguageoftheCourtunder
Chief Justice Earl Warren—language that the recent
decisiondrawson—didexactlythat,inspiringcivilrights
ff
marchers in the s. Current e orts could focus on
creating new federal reforms, like financial assistance
to poor counties to upgrade voting equipment and the
eliminationofallwaysofrecordingvotesthatfailtogive
thevoterfeedbackastohowhisorherintentisbeingreg-
istered.Alsoneededaremeaningfulassistancetosemi-
literate or non-English-speaking voters, twenty-four-
hourpollingplaces,andanationalElectionDayholiday.
Enacting standards for federal elections is consistent
with the Voting Rights Act, which has banned literacy
tests nationwide as prerequisites for voting. That ban
waspassedbyCongressin andunanimouslyupheld
bytheSupremeCourt.
But reforms to equalize voting access, while impor-
tant,arenotenough.Thecircumstancesofthiselection
callforalargerfocusonissuesofrepresentationandpar-
ticipation. If we are to build a genuine pro-democracy
movementinthiscountry,wecannotlimitourselvesto
butterflyballotsandchads.
Voters must have a more meaningful opportunity to
participate in the entire democratic process—and not
justonElectionDay.Inourcurrentsystemof‘‘winner-
{ x }
