Our antiquated Election System -- Reflecting the electorate

Seatle PI -- The common denominator that vexes elections for the Legislature, Seattle City Council and King County Council is the use of our antiquated winner-take-all system. Under this setup, the group of voters with the most votes wins 100 percent of the representation but geographic minorities -- whether partisan or racial -- win none at all. It's not that there are no Republican voters living in Seattle or Tacoma, or Democrats in Pasco or Pullman, or racial minorities in Seattle and elsewhere.

It's just that under this system only one side can win. The geographic minority is hopelessly outvoted, and when this happens election after election, the losers start giving up, a quite sensible reaction.

Pennsylvania uses three-seat districts elected by a full representation system to elect most of their 67 counties' commissioners. The commissions usually have bipartisan representation, two members from one-party and one from the other party. Illinois also has used such a system to elect its Legislature. Nearly every Illinois three-seat district had two-party representation, with Democratic strongholds like Chicago electing a few Republicans and Republican strongholds electing some Democrats. All parts of the state were bipartisan, giving all regions a genuine voice in the all-important legislative caucuses of both parties.

Seattle might take note of the experience of Amarillo, Texas, which recently instituted a citywide full representation system to elect its school board. Under its at-large system just like Seattle's, no African Americans or Latinos ever had been elected to Amarillo's seven-member school board, despite making up more than 20 percent of the population. Full representation had an immediate impact: Both a black candidate and two Latino candidates have won seats, women also won representation for the first time, and voter turnout more than doubled.