The Perils of Proportional Representation for Ethnic Minorities

Two arguments about ethnic minorities run through the debate over replacing first past the post. One promises that proportional representation would represent minorities better; the other worries that it would empower the parties they have most reason to fear. This article argues that the promise is unreliable and the worry real. Evidence for better descriptive representation rests on women, but that result is driven by party selectorates’ control over candidate selection, not proportionality as such. It does not transfer neatly to ethnic minorities, who differ in number, geographic concentration and a second route into Parliament through ethnic parties. In Britain, the aggregate descriptive gap has largely closed under first past the post. Nor do descriptive gains secure substantive ones. Proportional representation, whether the list system or the single transferable vote, more readily rewards, sustains and amplifies anti‐minority factions, converting intense support into seats and leverage over government. For ethnic minorities, a House of Commons elected through a single‐member ranked‐choice system—which registers not only whom voters prefer first, but also whom they can and cannot accept—is likely to be the best option.