Editing Proportional representation (section)

===Voter participation===
Plurality systems usually result in single-party-majority government because generally fewer parties are elected in large numbers under FPTP compared to PR, and FPTP compresses politics to little more than two-party contests. Relatively few votes in a few of the most finely balanced districts, the "[[marginal seat|swing seats]]", are able to swing majority control in the house. Incumbents in less evenly divided districts are invulnerable to slight swings of political mood. In the UK, for example, about half the constituencies have always elected the same party since 1945;<ref name="DMstvPdf">{{cite web |last1=Mollison |first1=Denis |title=Fair votes in practice STV for Westminster |url=http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/signif.pdf |publisher=[[Heriot Watt University]] |access-date=3 June 2014}}</ref> in the 2012 [[United States House of Representatives|US House]] elections 45 districts (10% of all districts) were uncontested by one of the two dominant parties.{{Citation needed|date=May 2025}} Voters who know their preferred candidate will not win have little incentive to vote, and even if they do their votes have [[wasted vote|no effect]], although they are still counted in the popular vote calculation.<ref name="ideaEsd" />{{rp|10}}

With PR, there are no "[[marginal seat|swing seats]]". Most votes contribute to the election of a candidate, so parties need to campaign in all districts, not just those where their support is strongest or where they perceive most advantage. This fact in turn encourages parties to be more responsive to voters, producing a more "balanced" ticket by nominating more women and minority candidates.<ref name="Norris" /> On average about 8 percent more women are elected in PR systems than non-PR systems.{{Citation needed|date=May 2025}}

Since most votes count, there are fewer "[[wasted vote]]s", so voters, aware that their vote can make a difference, are more likely to make the effort to vote, and less likely to vote [[Tactical voting|tactically]]. Compared to countries with plurality electoral systems, [[voter turnout]] improves and the population is more involved in the political process.<ref name="ideaEsd" /><ref name="Norris" /> However, some experts argue that transitioning from plurality to PR only increases voter turnout in geographical areas associated with [[safe seat]]s under the plurality system; turnout may decrease in areas formerly associated with [[marginal seat|swing seats]].<ref name="CoxContEffect">{{cite journal |last1=Cox |first1=Gary W. |last2=Fiva |first2=Jon H. |last3=Smith |first3=Daniel M. |title=The Contraction Effect: How Proportional Representation Affects Mobilization and Turnout |url=http://www.jon.fiva.no/docs/Cox-Fiva-Smith-JoP-Final_Main.pdf |journal=[[The Journal of Politics]] |date=2016 |volume=78 |number=4 |pages=1249–1263 |doi=10.1086/686804 |hdl=11250/2429132 |s2cid=55400647 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

Proportional systems show higher [[political efficacy]], citizens' trust in their ability to influence and understand the government, compared to plurality and majoritarian systems.<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000161 |doi=10.1017/S0007123408000161 |title=Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour |year=2008 |last1=Karp |first1=Jeffrey A. |last2=Banducci |first2=Susan A. |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=311–334 |hdl=10036/64393 |s2cid=55486399 | hdl-access=free}}</ref>