Don’t like gerrymandering? There’s a path to more fair Missouri elections | Opinion

As an outsider looking into Missouri politics, it seems like their GOP politicians have made it their priority to oppose the will of the people. Most recently, they overturned the expansion of paid sick leave despite it being approved by voters less than a year ago with nearly 58% support. Other recent examples include their refusal to fund voter-approved Medicaid expansion and the reversal of nonpartisan redistricting.

Now Republicans in Jefferson City are looking to further insulate themselves from popular opinion by calling this special session. In addition to an attempt to gerrymander the Congressional districts around Kansas City, they will try to introduce gerrymandering to the ballot initiative process. Requiring a concurrent majority based on legislative districts simply means that lawmakers can leverage the usual “packing and cracking” methods they use for their own seats to influence the outcomes of initiative petition meaures as well.

I believe that is the real story of this special session, even more than the Kansas Ciy gerrymander. Ballot initiatives act as a check against the power of the government. It gives ordinary voters a way to adopt a policy that their government is ignoring. As Missouri Republicans move further away from what the people want, they are understandably terrified of a ballot initiative coming along that would allow the people to reclaim their power. This is why they are trying to go after the initiative process before this can happen.

I believe the root of these problems are our plurality elections. Even though it is commonly used throughout the country, plurality has many critical flaws. Plurality is what makes the Kansas City gerrymander even possible in the first place, giving Republicans a shot at winning 87% of the seats in the U.S. House when their statewide candidates receive less than 60% of the votes. With plurality, it’s possible for one group to shut out any opposition and keep all of the power for themselves. At the state level, plurality subdivides most of the state into safe districts where elections are little more than a formality. Just look at how many state representatives and senators get elected unopposed.

The solution to this problem is to change the way we choose our legislators. I am an advocate for proportional representation, which allocates seats by vote share rather than by plurality. In proportional representation, a party that gains 60% of the votes will win roughly 60% of the seats, and a party that wins 30% of the votes will win 30% of the seats. Overall it produces governing bodies that represent all voters instead of just one group.

When our elections are framed as competitions or races, it ends up understating the ethical argument behind why fair elections are important. As competing groups do what they can to win, it quickly becomes strategically correct to infringe on other groups’ right to choose their own representatives. Gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression are well-known examples of this, but plurality elections themselves are also unethical for the same reason. I believe all voters deserve an equal voice in government, so that is why I advocate for this reform.

I like to think that most people agree with this sentiment, even if they haven’t considered election reform before. Some voters may still prefer plurality despite its unethical nature, but at the end of the day most voters want fair elections. Recent polling shows 46% of Americans support proportional allocation of seats, with only 27% opposing. The same poll also showed nearly 90% of voters supported fair elections even if it means their preferred leaders sometimes lose power.

Given this popular support and the success of previous ballot initiatives, I believe Missouri organizers have an opportunity to bring proportional representation to the state. Even if Republicans succeed in requiring a concurrent majority going forward, I think it’s possible to get the broad support needed to overcome that barrier. Establishing proportional representation in Jefferson City would remake the General Assembly into one that reflects all of Missourians. It might even make ballot initiatives less of a necessity, given that the legislature’s priorities would actually mirror that of the people.

At the national level, I think reform would have to happen in a different way. I’ve previously written about what it might take to bring proportional representation to Washington, D.C. Missouri isn’t the only red state redrawing its maps at the president’s request this year. If this backfires on Republicans and Democrats actually win more seats with the new maps, they might have some second thoughts about plurality.

Whenever Congress is ready to sit down and end the gerrymandering wars, proportional representation must be a part of the solution.

Richard Pund is an electrical engineer interested in improving elections at all levels of government. He lives in Overland Park with his family.

This story was originally published September 3, 2025 at 4:54 PM.