The use of single-seat districts and majoritarian rules for legislative elections is associated with many problems in American politics. However, this method of electing legislators to the U.S. House of Representatives can be reformed through acts of Congress. We investigate the potential of mixed-member electoral systems, which have gained popularity among reformers for potentially providing the “best of both worlds.” We review the comparative scholarship to clarify the mechanics of mixed-member systems, particularly how mixed-member proportional systems (MMP) balance the representational goals of dyadic, localized representation with proportional party representation. We model an MMP system for the House to see whether it can address problems such as the two-party system and gerrymandering. Using data from the 2024 House elections and the 2025 mid-decade redistricting, we find that an MMP system that significantly expands the size of the House would improve the alignment of votes to seats at the state level, increase third party seats, and neutralize partisan bias in gerrymandering. Our analysis demonstrates that specific design choices (assembly size, seat linkage, and apportionment formulas) shape the system’s effectiveness. Our exercise underscores the potential benefits and challenges of MMP as a reform option for the U.S.
AnsolabehereStephenHansenJohn MarkHiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.Jr. 2007. “The Incumbency Advantage in US Primary Elections.” Electoral Studies26 (3): 660–668.
2.
BalinskiMichel. 2008. “Fair Majority Voting (or How to Eliminate Gerrymandering).” The American Mathematical Monthly115 (2): 97–113.
3.
BehnkeJoachim. 2025. “The Spectacular Enlargement of the Bundestag and the Long Road to the 2023 German Electoral Law Reform.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 101–123.
4.
BensonS.LimbockerS.. 2023. “Campaigning Through Cable: Examining the Relationship Between Cable News Appearances and House Candidate Fundraising.” American Politics Research51 (5): 633–654.
5.
BlaisAndréDobrzynskaAgnieskaIndridasonIndridi H.. 2005. “To Adopt or Not to Adopt Proportional Representation: The Politics of Institutional Choice.” British Journal of Political Science35 (1): 182–190.
6.
BochslerDaniel. 2023. “Balancing District and Party Seats: The Arithmetic of Mixed-Member Proportional Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies81: 102557.
7.
BormannNils-ChristianGolderMatt. 2022. “Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946–2020.” Electoral Studies78: 102487.
8.
CarellaLeonardoEggersAndrew. 2024. “Electoral Systems and Geographic Representation.” British Journal of Political Science54 (1): 40–68.
9.
CareyJohn M.HixSimon. 2011. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science55 (2): 383–397.
10.
CareyJohn M.OscarPocasangre. 2024. Can Proportional Representation Create Better Governance?Protect Democracy and New America.
11.
CareyJohn M.ShugartMatthew Soberg. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies14 (4): 417–439.
12.
CarsonJamie L.RobertsJason M.PorterRachel. 2020. “Congress and the Nationalization of Congressional Elections.” In New Directions in Congressional Politics, 87–105. Routledge.
13.
CatalinacAmyMotoliniaLucia. 2021. “Geographically Targeted Spending in Mixed-Member Majoritarian Electoral Systems.” World Politics73 (4): 668–711.
14.
ChiaramonteAlessandroPaparoAldo. 2025. “Parties’ and Voters’ Dilemmas Under Italy’s New Mixed Electoral System.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 51–74.
15.
ChoSung Dai. 2020. “Manipulating the Electoral System: Collective Strategic Split-Voting in the 2020 Korean National Assembly Election.” Korea Observer51 (2): 251–274.
16.
ColomerJosep. 2005. “It’s Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (Or, Duverger’s Laws Upside Down).” Political Studies51 (1): 1–21.
17.
CoxKaren E.SchoppaLeonard J.. 2002. “Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence From Germany, Japan, and Italy.” Comparative Political Studies35 (9): 1027–1053.
18.
DahlRobert A.1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press.
19.
DemirkayaBetuelSilvaPatrick CunhaCrispBrian F.. 2022. “The Logic of Campaign Spending in mixed-member Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies79: 102496.
20.
DowJay K.2017. Electing the House: The Adoption and Performance of the US Single-Member District Electoral System. University Press of Kansas.
21.
DrutmanLee. 2020. Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press.
22.
DrutmanLeeJonathanD. CohenYuvalLevinNormanJ. Ornstein. 2021. The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives. American Cademy of Arts and Sciences.
23.
DuvergerMaurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. John Wiley & Sons.
24.
EnosRyan D.2017. The Space Between Us: Social Geography and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
25.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Little, Brown and Co.
26.
FerraraFedericoHerronErikNishikawaMisa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillon.
27.
FlisJarosławBehnkeJoachimLorencKatarzynaSalamonJeremiasz. 2025. “Cancellation of Overhang Seats: The Price of Unkept Promises.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 237–259.
28.
FlisJarosławKaminskiMarek M.SalamonJeremiasz. 2025. “The Mixed Local-Proportional Electoral System: Balancing Political Interests and Common Good.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 221–236.
29.
FlisJarosławGrofmanBernardKaminskiMarek M.. 2025. “Mixed Electoral Systems: an Introduction to the Special Issue.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 1–14.
30.
Gómez DíazAbelardo. 2021. “Contamination Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: A Dissemination of Measurement Techniques.” European Political Science20 (3): 502–520.
31.
GrumbachJacob M.2022. Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics. Princeton University Press.
32.
HerronErik S.NishikawaMisa. 2001. “Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies20 (1): 63–86.
33.
HicksWilliam D.KlarnerCarl E.McKeeSeth C.SmithDaniel A.. 2018. “Revisiting Majority-Minority Districts and Black Representation.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 408–423.
34.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.Jr. 2007. “The Decline of Third-Party Voting in the United States.” The Journal of Politics69 (1): 1–16.
35.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.Jr. 2019. Primary Elections in the United States. Cambridge University Press.
36.
HögströmJohn. 2025. “How Does the Introduction of Mixed Electoral Systems Influence Women’s Representation in Parliaments?” Public Choice204 (1–2): 143–168.
37.
JacobsonGary C.2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics77 (3): 861–873.
38.
KeenaAlex. 2024. “Out-of-State Donors and Legislative Surrogacy in the US Senate.” Political Research Quarterly77 (3): 880–890.
39.
KeenaAlex. 2025. “Constituency Size and Turnout in Mixed Electoral Systems.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 169–180.
40.
KeenaAlexKnight-FinleyMisty. 2019. “Are Small Donors Polarizing? A Longitudinal Study of the Senate.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy18 (2): 132–144.
41.
KeenaAlexLatnerMichaelMcGannAnthony J.SmithCharles Anthony. 2021. Gerrymandering the States: Partisanship, Race, and the Transformation of American Federalism. Cambridge University Press.
42.
KerevelYann P.MatthewsAustin S.SekiKatsunori. 2019. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems, Best Loser Rules, and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Electoral Studies57: 153–162.
LeeFrances E.2022. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
45.
LeemannLucasMaresIsabela. 2014. “The Adoption of Proportional Representation.” The Journal of Politics76 (2): 461–478.
46.
LijphartArend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. Yale University Press.
47.
LijphartArend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford University Press.
48.
LublinDavid. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton University Press.
49.
MaedaKo. 2025. “Voter Disengagement and Dissatisfaction Under Japan’s Mixed Electoral System.” Public Choice204 (1): 31–50.
50.
McGannAnthony J.SmithCharles AnthonyLatnerMichaelKeenaAlex. 2016. Gerrymandering in America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
51.
McLeanIain. 2025. “Hybrid Choice Systems in Small-n Elections with Sophisticated Electorates.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 15–30.
52.
MoonWoojinKimMyung Chul. 2025. “The Paradox of the Mixed Semi-Compensatory System in South Korea: Gaming the System or Toeing the Mark?” Public Choice204 (1): 125–142.
53.
NobleBenjamin S.2024. “Presidential Cues and the Nationalization of Congressional Rhetoric, 1973–2016.” American Journal of Political Science68 (4): 1386–1402.
54.
NwanevuOsita. 2025. The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding. Random House.
55.
PocasangreOscarStranoMaresa. 2024. What We Know About Fusion Voting. Report New America.
56.
RaabeJohannesLinhartEric. 2018. “Which Electoral Systems Succeed at Providing Proportionality and Concentration? Promising Designs and Risky Tools.” European Political Science Review10 (2): 167–190.
57.
RieraPedroBolDamien. 2017. “Ticket-Splitting in Mixed-Member Systems: On the Importance of Seat Linkage Between Electoral Tiers.” West European Politics40 (3): 584–597.
58.
SantucciJackKetchamJohn. 2025. Reforming Big-City Elections. Manhattan Institute.
59.
SantucciJackShugartMatthewLatnerMichael S.. 2023. “Toward a Different Kind of Party Government: Proportional Representation for Federal Elections.” In More Than Red And Blue: Political Parties and American Democracy. American Political Science Association and Protect Democracy.
60.
ShikanoSusumuHerronErik S.. 2025. “Risk Diversification and Vote Decisions in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 203–219.
61.
ShugartMatthew S.2001. “Extreme Electoral Systems and the Appeal of the Mixed-Member Alternative.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds, 25–51. Oxford University Press.
62.
ShugartMatthew S.TaageperaRein. 2017. Votes from Seats: Logical Models of Electoral Systems. Cambridge University Press.
63.
ShugartMatthewWattenbergMartin P.. 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?OUP Oxford.
64.
SongB. K.2025. “The Effect of Incumbency in a Mixed-Member Electoral System.” Electoral Studies98: 102988.
65.
StearnsMaxwell L.2024. Parliamentary America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
66.
TaageperaRein. 1972. “The Size of National Assemblies.” Social Science Research1 (4): 385–401.
67.
Tanács-MandákFanniHorváthAttila. 2025. “The “Hacking” of a Mixed Electoral System: A Case Study of Hungary.” Public Choice204 (1–2): 75–99.
68.
TaylorSteven L.ShugartMatthew S.LijphartArendGrofmanBernard. 2014. A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. Yale University Press.
69.
VučićevićDušan. 2025. “The Legacy of the Past: Pre-Reform Party Competition and Contamination of Single-Member Districts in Mixed Electoral Systems.” Public Choice204 (1): 181–201.
70.
Wills-OteroLaura. 2009. “Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century.” Latin American Politics and Society51 (3): 33–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
