At-Large Elections: Advantages and Disadvantages
In at-large elections, all elected representatives represent the entire polity, be it a city or county. Proponents argue that this method promotes a unified vision among members since they all serve the same district. Additionally, at-large elections eliminate the issue of gerrymandering within the city, as there are no individual districts to manipulate. It also allows every citizen to vote for every member of the city council. One can argue that no one is left out.
Those reasons are compelling for many people, but the most significant drawback of at-large elections is the very real marginalization of minorities. For example, if a city is 60% white and Democrat, it is common for all city council members to be white and Democrats (or vice versa). The majority easily forms a majority while they hold the majority. The cost of running is higher at large, which also reinforces the majority and further marginalizes other voters.
While occasionally someone outside this paradigm may be elected, they are immediately in the minority if they vote differently from the rest. Though just being there has an effect and that is substantive and moves the ball so to speak, they are easily voted down. At-large districts often result in every member of a city council being from one party, and one race and other factors leading to a lack of diverse perspectives and often an oppression of opposing views.
Single-Member Districts: Benefits and Concerns
In single-member district elections, the city is divided into districts with relatively equal population sizes as required by law, and each member runs from their respective district. One advantage is that the cost of running for office is significantly lower, as candidates only need to campaign within their specific district and not the entire community.
Research shows that voter participation tends to be higher in district elections, possibly due to increased engagement and a sense of direct representation. Candidates do not have the burden of running in the entire district. Thus, they can spend more time with their smaller group of voters. Critics of single-member districts express concern about each representative focusing primarily on their own district’s interests, a phenomenon known as parochialism. This can lead to conflicts between districts and a lack of a citywide perspective.
However, proponents argue that this localized focus ensures that each area’s unique needs and concerns are addressed. One exemplary problem could be that if one rep had a post office put in their district, everyone else would want one too. This can be true, but it also represents a form of fairness. Everyone in one way or another contributes taxes.
If one district is given something, it is only natural that other districts seek something to even things out. It might lead to overall general consumption that people might not want, but it also prevents one part of the city from getting all the spoils so to speak. People do keep score. There is a point for each person when you can no longer ignore the disparities and that is human nature.
Key Differences: Access, Cost and Accountability
The most critical differences between at-large and district elections lie in the access afforded to minorities, the cost of elections and the accountability of members to their constituents. Single-member districts provide better opportunities for minority representation, as historically underrepresented communities can have a stronger voice in electing their own representatives.
The lower cost of running in district elections allows for a more diverse pool of candidates. At-large races are generally left to those with significant financial resources. Finally, district representatives are more directly accountable to their constituents, as they are elected by and responsible for a specific area. When something happens in a district, it is that representative whose duty it falls on to fix the matter. At-large elections allow the representatives to escape responsibility.
History and Practice in California
In California, every county appears to have district elections, while cities have a mixed history. Research shows that all cities initially had district elections and strong mayors with veto power. Over time, many cities transitioned to at-large elections. The author believes this is likely due to the involvement and greater influence of government officials and employees, but this trend is now reversing due to the passage of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
Santa Barbara Case Study: From At-Large to District Elections
The author’s experience in Santa Barbara, Calif., provides a compelling example of the transition from at-large to district elections. When elections were held at large, the cost of running increased significantly, with each winning candidates eventually raising around $100,000 to have a chance at winning. Campaigns focused on prime voters – those who voted four of the last four elections were the doors that were generally knocked on. Most focus went particularly to an affluent area coined as the “golden triangle” area, leading to a lack of diversity on the City Council. The more focus over time simply reinforced its prominence to the detriment to other areas.
One strange period had all the members of the City Council living on the mesa within a few blocks of each other. At-large elections simply have a proclivity to electing people who were often living in the same area, were from the same political party and had the same racial background.
The Santa Barbara Tea Fire incident highlighted the problems with at-large elections at the end of 2008. During the fire, City Council members went on television and individually addressed issues based upon the fire in general terms, leaving citizens unsure of whom to contact with specific concerns. This lack of direct representation and accountability was clearly a significant drawback of the at-large system.
A lawsuit based on the CVRA forced Santa Barbara to adopt district elections. The first election under the new system saw a significant drop in campaign costs and increased voter participation. Two majority-minority districts for Latinos were created, and the winner of one of these districts ensured that more resources were allocated to previously neglected areas.
Interestingly, when district elections were brought back, the city police chose to no longer participate in the elections with support or endorsements, likely to avoid finding themselves with an opponent in office. Again, it appears that government employees may favor at-large elections as it appears to increase their influence on the electoral process. In one word, it gives those in government more power and in turn, many minorities are not given choices.
Legal Perspective: The California Voting Rights Act
The CVRA has been a driving force behind the shift from at-large to district elections in California. Enacted in 2002, the CVRA prohibits the use of at-large elections in local government if they impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or influence the outcome of an election (California Elections Code § 14027).
In Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006), the California Court of Appeal held that the CVRA applies to both charter cities and general law cities. This decision has led to numerous lawsuits and settlements, resulting in many cities transitioning from at-large to district elections to avoid costly litigation.
The CVRA has withstood constitutional challenges. In Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014), the Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the CVRA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.
The Importance of Minority Representation and Access
In district elections, citizens with specific problems can address their concerns directly to their representative, increasing the likelihood of their issues being addressed. In at-large elections, issues affecting a small number of people are less likely to receive attention, especially as the city’s population grows. The most reasonable and proper solution is to move to single-member districts and increase the number of representatives on the council.
In a republican form of government, minority rights must be vigilantly protected. The American system of government is styled as a democratic system, meaning that each person should have their part in government and not be structurally excluded from the process. Access to representative bodies should be a fundamental right, as the purpose of representative government is to provide access to those being represented.
Districts Elections are the Better Model
Single-member district elections offer a more equitable and accessible form of representation, particularly for minorities and underrepresented groups. The CVRA has been instrumental in promoting this transition in California, with courts upholding its constitutionality and applicability to all cities. While at-large elections may have some advantages, the potential for minority marginalization and lack of direct accountability make single-member districts a more democratic and representative system.
As cities and counties continue to grapple with issues of representation and governance, the move towards single-member districts is a step in the right direction for ensuring fair and inclusive political participation.
Michael Warnken works on court cases relating to representation and other similar issues. He is an advisor for the nonprofit Citizens Rising.
