This is a guest opinion column

As President Trump, Elon Musk, and their allies cause chaos and threaten essential services like Social Security, Americans are rightly concerned. Republicans in Congress don’t seem to mind. This “no-show” majority has abdicated its responsibility to represent the people.

Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District, which contains the Huntsville area, relies heavily on federal jobs. According to the most up-to-date figures, 7.63% of all workers in the district are employed by the federal government. And yet, even as DOGE threatens federal employment, the representatives of the workers and families who are doing those jobs have no interest in meeting with their constituents.

Lawmakers, emboldened by their safe seats in gerrymandered districts, have actively limited engagement with their constituents. Congressional leadership has discouraged in-person town halls, and many GOP lawmakers have followed suit, including in Alabama.

Rep. Dale Strong, who represents the Fifth District, has come under fire for holding a town hall where constituents could not ask questions. And Rep. Gary Palmer (AL06) refused to hold any town hall meetings.

Strong ran unopposed in 2024, while Palmer secured his seat with a decisive 40.75% margin. Notably, although Palmer’s district does not include UAB, it does encompass downtown Birmingham. Given this proximity, it is highly likely that many of his constituents will be directly impacted by the loss of NIH and other funding to the university.

Democrats reacted similarly during the rise of the Tea Party movement, when, for example, public outrage over the Affordable Care Act led Rep. John Dingell to stop holding town halls in 2009 after being heckled and called a “fraud” and “liar.”

This crisis of representation is not just a function of partisan politics; it is a systemic failure rooted in our winner-take-all electoral system that leaves voters in districts dominated by a single party without meaningful representation. When representatives feel secure in their seats, they have little incentive to engage with voters who challenge their positions. And since fewer than 10% of U.S. House races were competitive in 2024, the vast majority of Americans live in districts where their votes do not meaningfully impact the outcome.

Indeed, in Alabama, there is precious little actual competition for these seats. In the 2024 elections, the average gap across all seven US House Districts in the state between the first-place and second-place vote-getters was 59.78%. That incredibly high margin means candidates feel their seat is safe and that is even if they have an opponent. In three of the seven races, the winner ran unopposed. With each congressional seat controlled by one party or another, representatives have less motive to be responsive to voters’ needs and instead often prioritize national partisan agendas over state or local concerns.

The public is demanding a better system. A near supermajority of Americans want major political change or a complete overhaul, and nearly two-thirds wish they had more than two parties to choose from. Many voters feel trapped in a cycle of choosing the “lesser of two evils.”

But what if there was a system that allowed every voter to have a voice in their representation? What if, when one representative refused to hold town halls in your district, you could turn to other representatives from different parties who were willing to listen?

A proven alternative to winner-take-all is electing multiple members per district using proportional representation. Instead of one member for each district, you’d have a larger district with three to five members, and you would elect representatives based on the share of votes each party receives. For example, imagine instead of seven districts electing a single representative, Alabama had two districts that elected three or four representatives. Constituents shut out from town halls by Rep. Strong and Rep. Palmer could turn to one or two other representatives, at least one of which might be a Democrat, to find some help or get some answers.

Under proportional representation, elections are more competitive, and every vote matters; this boosts voter turnout by up to 12%. This kind of change disrupts the lock the Democratic and Republican parties have on our electoral system, making elections more competitive for the two major parties, and encouraging candidates from new parties not just to run, but actually win seats by competing to address state and local concerns.

Proportional representation also reduces gerrymandering, as multi-member districts make it almost impossible to draw a district that elects someone from a specific party. More competition means a more responsive government, as constituents have multiple representatives who must compete for re-election every cycle, rather than phoning in a race for a seat that is safe or uncontested.

The winner-take-all system has allowed Alabama’s lawmakers—from both parties—to evade accountability, fueling voter frustration and deepening polarization. If we want a Congress that listens, we must change how our representatives are elected.

Proportional representation isn’t a radical idea; it’s a system that is used worldwide. It could transform Alabama’s political landscape, ensuring that all voices are heard—not just the majority’s. If we want a stronger, fairer democracy, it’s time to embrace it.

Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Troy University.