13.4 Election Systems: Ohio and Beyond

Ohio, like many states in the United States, uses the winner-take-all election model, also known as first-past-the-post (FPTP). In this system, the candidate with the most votes in a district wins the seat, regardless of whether they achieve a majority. One of the primary advantages of this system is its simplicity and ease of understanding for voters. Additionally, it often leads to stable governments by promoting a two-party system, reducing the chances of coalition governments. However, it also has significant downsides, such as the potential for disproportional representation where the distribution of seats does not accurately reflect the overall vote share.

For example, in Ohio’s 2022 U.S. House elections, Republican candidates won about 56% of the statewide vote but secured 10 of the 15 congressional seats (approximately 67%). This outcome demonstrates disproportional representation, where the allocation of seats favored one party disproportionately compared to the overall vote share. Smaller parties and their supporters also struggle to gain representation under this system, and votes cast for losing candidates are effectively “wasted,” leaving many voices unheard in the legislative process.

In contrast, some states and cities in the U.S. have adopted alternative election models to address these issues. One such model is ranked-choice voting (RCV), used in Maine and Alaska. In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the voters’ next preferences. This process continues until a candidate has a majority. RCV can reduce the impact of vote splitting, which occurs when multiple candidates with similar positions divide the vote among themselves, and ensures that the elected candidate has broader support. However, it can be more complex for voters to understand and for officials to administer.

Many southern states in the U.S. use the two-round system (TRS) for certain elections, particularly for statewide offices like the governor and U.S. Senate seats. In this model, a second round of voting is held if no candidate achieves a majority in the first round. The second round, often called a runoff, is typically a contest between the top two candidates from the first round. This system ensures that the elected candidate has majority support, potentially reducing the influence of extreme candidates and encouraging broader voter engagement. However, it can also lead to voter fatigue and additional costs due to the need for a second election.

Another model is the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, which combines elements of FPTP and proportional representation. While not widely used in the U.S., this system is prominent in countries like Germany and New Zealand. In MMP, voters typically have two votes: one for a candidate in their local district (FPTP) and one for a party list (proportional representation). This system aims to balance the direct representation of FPTP with the fairness of proportional representation. It allows for more accurate reflection of voter preferences in the legislature, but it can be more complicated and may require significant changes to the electoral framework. These alternative systems illustrate different approaches to achieving fairer and more representative electoral outcomes.