When you think about democracy, you probably imagine people voting freely and fairly. But there’s a hidden question that determines how powerful your vote really is: How are voting districts divided?
This question might sound technical, but it’s actually one of the most important issues facing modern democracies. The way countries draw electoral district boundaries directly affects which candidates win elections and whose interests get represented in government. Scholars and constitutional lawyers have been studying how different democratic nations approach this challenge, and their findings reveal something surprising: there is no single “correct” way to divide up electoral districts.
Nicholas Aroney, a constitutional law expert from the University of Queensland, explored this fascinating question by comparing three similar democracies: the United States, Canada, and Australia. In his groundbreaking work examining democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases, Aroney discovered that these three nations use remarkably different approaches—even though they share similar histories and democratic values. This exploration of how democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases are handled differently teaches us crucial lessons about what democracy actually means.
Table of Contents
The Three Big Questions About Voting Districts
Before diving into how different countries handle electoral apportionment, we need to understand what makes this issue so complicated. Nicholas Aroney’s analysis reveals that every country faces three fundamental tensions:
1. Individual Equality vs. Community Representation
Should we prioritize giving every individual voter exactly equal power? Or should we recognize that people live in communities with shared interests that deserve representation as a group?
Imagine two districts: one is a dense city with 100,000 people, and the other is a rural area with 50,000 people spread across a huge geographic area. If you divide representation perfectly equally (one vote = one representative), then the city gets twice as many representatives. But the rural community might argue that their shared way of life and unique challenges deserve recognition in government.
2. National Unity vs. Federal Structure
In countries with federalism (where power is divided between a central government and regional governments), there’s tension between treating citizens as members of a single national community versus treating them as members of distinct state or provincial communities.
In the United States, for example, every state gets exactly two senators, regardless of population. Wyoming—with about 580,000 people—gets the same number of senators as California, with about 40 million people. This seems unequal from an individual perspective, but federalists argue it protects the interests of smaller states.
3. Mathematical Precision vs. Practical Reality
How strictly should we follow the principle that all districts should have exactly equal populations? Or is it acceptable to have some variation to keep traditional community boundaries intact?
How Nicholas Aroney Classified Democratic Approaches
In analyzing democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases across three nations, Nicholas Aroney identified three distinct philosophical approaches that countries use:
Individualist Approach
This approach treats democracy as fundamentally about protecting the equal rights of individual citizens. Under this view, each person’s vote should have the same weight, regardless of where they live or what community they belong to.
Key principle: One person, one vote, one value.
Countries leaning individualist argue that any deviation from equal population districts undermines democratic equality. They point to the idea that modern democracy is built on the notion that all individual citizens are equal political participants.
Communitarian Approach
This approach emphasizes the representation of communities as corporate bodies, not just collections of individuals. Under this view, democracy means government “by the people,” where political decisions reflect the interests and values of different groups within society.
Key principle: Communities deserve voice in political decisions.
Countries using this approach accept population variances in electoral districts if they preserve the representation of distinct communities—whether defined by geography, culture, language, or shared interests.
Federalist Approach
This approach recognizes that citizens belong to multiple overlapping political communities at local, state, and national levels. A legitimate democratic system must represent citizens’ membership in these nested political communities.
Key principle: Political communities at different levels deserve recognition.
Federal systems embrace the idea that while national representation matters, the states or provinces that make up the federation also deserve guaranteed representation.
How the United States Handles Electoral Apportionment
The American approach to democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases has evolved significantly, particularly through landmark Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s.
The Individualist Revolution
In a series of famous cases—Baker v. Carr (1962), Gray v. Sanders (1963), Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964)—the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution requires “one person, one vote.” Chief Justice Earl Warren famously stated: “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”
These decisions fundamentally shifted American constitutional law. The Court held that electoral districts must contain roughly equal populations. States could no longer create huge variations in district size just to advantage rural areas or protect traditional boundaries.
Where Federalism Still Matters
However, even the individualist-leaning American approach preserves some federalist elements:
- Every state gets exactly two senators, regardless of population
- Every state gets at least one representative in the House
- The Electoral College for presidential elections gives extra weight to smaller states
These provisions show that even the most individualist democracy acknowledges that federalism—protecting the representation of states as entities—has constitutional value.
The Tension Remains
Despite the Supreme Court’s strong commitment to equal voting power, American critics argue that the system still doesn’t fully achieve equality. Why? Because voters are not uniformly distributed across districts. Some districts naturally have different demographic compositions, and some states deliberately draw boundaries to advantage certain political parties (a practice called gerrymandering).
How Canada Handles Electoral Apportionment
Canada’s approach to democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases reflects a different constitutional history and different political priorities.
A More Communitarian Emphasis
Canada’s courts have been more willing than American courts to accept population variances in electoral districts when they serve important communal purposes. This is partly because Canada is explicitly a multicultural nation with two major linguistic communities (French and English) and significant Indigenous populations.
In the leading case Dixon v. British Columbia, Canada’s Supreme Court said that while some commitment to electoral equality exists, it’s not an absolute principle. Courts must balance equality with other important values, including the representation of distinct communities.
The Role of Community Interests
Canadian electoral law explicitly recognizes “communities of interest” as legitimate factors in drawing district boundaries. A community of interest might be based on:
- Geographic characteristics
- Cultural or linguistic identity
- Economic activities
- Historical identity
This approach reflects a more communitarian vision of democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases, where preserving the political voice of distinct communities matters as much as achieving mathematical equality between districts.
Protecting Quebec
Canada’s approach partly reflects the challenge of maintaining unity between anglophone and francophone communities. By recognizing community-based representation, Canada acknowledges Quebec’s distinct society while keeping it within the federal structure.
How Australia Handles Electoral Apportionment
Australia’s approach to democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases represents a fascinating middle ground, emphasizing federalist principles while acknowledging democratic equality.
A Federalist Foundation
In the landmark case McGinty v. Western Australia (1996), Australia’s High Court rejected a rigid “one person, one vote” requirement. Instead, the Court emphasized that the Constitution was founded on federalism, not purely on individual equality.
Justice Michael Gummow pointed out that the Australian Constitution explicitly:
- Gives every state equal representation in the Senate
- Guarantees every original state at least five representatives in the House
- Requires that only referenda (with approval from both a national majority AND a majority of states) can change the Constitution
- Protects state boundaries from being altered without state consent
These provisions, Gummow argued, show that the framers intentionally created a system that treats voters in different states differently. The Constitution recognizes “we, the peoples” (plural)—not just “we, the people.”
Limited Judicial Intervention
Notably, Australia has no Bill of Rights or Charter of Rights. This means courts cannot point to explicit equality guarantees when questioning electoral apportionment decisions. Instead, Australian courts have been much more restrained in questioning legislatures’ choices about electoral boundaries.
This restraint reflects a different judicial philosophy: courts should defer to political branches unless the Constitution explicitly prevents them from acting.
Understanding Electoral Apportionment: Practical Examples
To make democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases concrete, let’s look at some real-world scenarios:
The Rural-Urban Divide
Imagine a state with three districts:
- Urban District A: 150,000 people → 1 representative
- Suburban District B: 100,000 people → 1 representative
- Rural District C: 50,000 people → 1 representative
Each citizen in the rural district has three times as much voting power per representative as citizens in the urban district. Is this fair?
- Individualist answer: No. This violates equal representation.
- Communitarian answer: Maybe. If the rural area is a distinct community, it deserves voice.
- Federalist answer: It depends on whether these districts represent different counties or regions with legitimate political autonomy.
The Minority Representation Problem
Suppose a state has:
- 70% of voters who support Party A
- 30% of voters who support Party B
If districts are drawn to reflect this state-wide ratio, Party B will win 30% of seats. But if Party B voters are geographically concentrated, they might win more seats by having their own districts.
Does Party B deserve representation proportional to their numbers? Or does geography matter? Different democracies answer differently.
Key Differences Between the Three Countries
Here’s a quick comparison of how the United States, Canada, and Australia approach democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases:
| Factor | United States | Canada | Australia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Philosophy | Individualist | Communitarian | Federalist |
| Allows Population Variance | Minimal (< 10%) | Moderate (accepts communities of interest) | Significant (protects state representation) |
| Bill of Rights | Yes (includes equal protection) | Yes (includes right to vote) | No |
| Courts’ Role | Very active in scrutinizing districts | Moderate intervention | Limited intervention |
| Geographic Factors | Secondary to population equality | Important for community representation | Primary concern alongside population |
| State/Provincial Power | Limited by federal court review | Balanced with federal principles | Protected as federalist principle |
Why This Matters for You
Understanding how different democracies approach democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases has several important implications:
1. Your Vote’s Power Depends on Where You Live
In some systems, living in a less-populated area means your vote has more influence. In others, it means less influence. The rules about electoral apportionment directly determine how much your individual vote matters relative to other voters.
2. Minority Representation Requires Intentional Design
If you belong to a minority group (racial, linguistic, economic, or otherwise), whether your community gets fair representation depends on how districts are drawn. Some countries prioritize protecting minority representation; others prioritize individual equality, which can dilute minority voting power.
3. Federalism Is Built Into Representation
Even in highly democratic countries, the system acknowledges that not all citizens are “equal” in a pure sense. People living in different states or provinces have different interests, and legitimate systems can represent this diversity.
4. Democracy Itself Is Contested
There’s no universal agreement on what democracy requires for electoral apportionment. Different values—individual equality, community representation, federalism, and practical feasibility—sometimes conflict. How a country balances these conflicts reflects its deepest values about political community.
Frequently Asked Questions About Electoral Apportionment
Q: What is electoral apportionment?
Electoral apportionment is the process of dividing a country or state into electoral districts and determining how many representatives each district gets. It includes both deciding how many total representatives there should be and how those representatives are distributed geographically.
Q: Why can’t we just make all districts have exactly the same population?
Several reasons: (1) Population changes constantly, so districts become unequal naturally; (2) Keeping existing community boundaries (like county or neighborhood lines) may create variation; (3) In federal systems, ensuring all regions have representation may require unequal districts; (4) Administrative and practical factors sometimes make perfect equality impossible.
Q: What is gerrymandering?
Gerrymandering is deliberately drawing electoral district boundaries in a way that unfairly advantages one political party or group. By spreading out opposition voters or concentrating them, politicians can create districts they’re likely to win, even if the statewide vote is close.
Q: Which country has the fairest electoral system?
This is genuinely debatable and depends on what you mean by “fair.” Systems that prioritize individual equality (like the U.S.) might seem unfair to people in less-populated areas. Systems that protect community representation (like Canada) might seem unfair to people in numeric minorities. Systems that respect federalism (like Australia) might seem unfair to people in smaller states.
Q: Can courts overturn electoral districts they think are unfair?
Yes, in countries with active judicial review, courts can strike down electoral district plans. But courts’ willingness to do so varies dramatically—the U.S. courts are most aggressive, Canadian courts are moderate, and Australian courts are most restrained.
Q: Why does Australia care about federalism more than the United States?
Australia’s Constitution explicitly emphasizes federal principles in representation, and Australia has no Bill of Rights limiting state power. The U.S. Constitution includes equal protection guarantees that courts have interpreted as limiting state discretion in drawing districts.
Q: What does “one person, one vote” mean?
It means each citizen should have equal voting power—that is, each person’s vote should have the same influence in determining election outcomes. This principle dominated American constitutional law after the 1960s cases, but it’s not universally accepted globally.
Q: Can states or provinces refuse to follow federal courts’ orders about electoral districts?
No. In the U.S., Canada, and Australia, federal constitutional law supersedes state or provincial law. States cannot legally refuse to comply with federal court orders, though practical implementation sometimes takes time.
Q: How often should electoral districts be redrawn?
This varies by country. In the United States, redistricting usually happens after each decennial census (every 10 years). In Canada and Australia, electoral commissions regularly review boundaries based on population changes, with no fixed schedule.
Q: Do Indigenous peoples get special representation in these systems?
No automatic special representation in mainstream electoral systems, but Canada and Australia have made policy efforts to ensure Indigenous peoples can participate meaningfully. The U.S. has similar efforts for racial minorities under the Voting Rights Act.
Q: What is proportional representation, and how does it differ from district-based systems?
Proportional representation systems allocate seats based on the percentage of votes a party receives nationally (or regionally), rather than based on winning districts. This can reduce population variance issues by not relying on geographic districts at all. Neither the U.S., Canada, nor Australia uses pure proportional representation for major elections.
Q: Is there a “global best practice” for electoral apportionment?
International organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) recommend guidelines emphasizing equal suffrage, geographic compactness, and public participation in boundary-drawing. But countries balance these principles differently based on their unique constitutional frameworks and political values.
Conclusion: Democracy Is About Making Choices
The comparative analysis of how the United States, Canada, and Australia handle democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases, as Nicholas Aroney’s scholarship demonstrates, reveals something fundamental: there is no single definition of fair representation.
Each country has made different choices about what matters most:
- The United States prioritizes individual equality and has courts enforce this principle aggressively
- Canada balances equality with community representation, reflecting its multicultural character
- Australia emphasizes federalism and defers more to political branches
These aren’t arbitrary choices. They reflect different constitutional histories, different political contexts, and different values about what democracy means.
Understanding democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases helps us appreciate that democratic design involves real tradeoffs. You cannot simultaneously achieve perfect individual equality, perfect community representation, perfect federalism, and perfect geographic compactness. Countries must choose which values matter most.
As you think about democracy in your own country, consider these questions:
- What does democracy require?
- Should your vote have the same power as someone’s vote in a different region?
- Do communities deserve representation as communities, or should only individuals matter?
- Should federal systems treat all citizens equally, or can they protect the representation of constituent regions?
There are thoughtful people on multiple sides of these questions. That’s what makes democracy, community, and federalism in electoral apportionment cases such an enduring and important issue in constitutional law.
About the Author: Nicholas Aroney
Nicholas Aroney is a Reader in Law and Fellow of the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law at the T.C. Beirne School of Law at the University of Queensland, Australia. He is a leading scholar in comparative constitutional law, federalism, and electoral systems. His groundbreaking 2008 article “Democracy, Community, and Federalism in Electoral Apportionment Cases: The United States, Canada, and Australia in Comparative Perspective,” published in the University of Toronto Law Journal, provides one of the most comprehensive comparative analyses of how different liberal democracies approach the fundamental question of how to structure representative institutions.
Aroney’s work is distinguished by its careful attention to constitutional texts, judicial precedents, and underlying political philosophies. Rather than assuming that different countries’ approaches reflect merely technical differences, he demonstrates how fundamentally different conceptions of democracy shape electoral law. His scholarship has influenced legal scholars globally and contributed to important debates about the relationship between federalism, democracy, and individual rights. Beyond his work on electoral apportionment, Aroney has written extensively on constitutional amendment, federalism, and the theoretical foundations of democratic government, establishing himself as an essential voice in comparative constitutional studies.
Read More
Module I: The Discipline of Comparative Law (Sessions 1-7)
Session 1
Otto Kahn-Freund, ‘On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law’, 37(1) Modern Law Review 1-27 (1974).
Session 2
Alan Watson, ‘Comparative Law and Legal Change’, 37(2) Cambridge Law Journal 313-336 (1978).
Session 3
Session 4
Sessions 5
Session 6
Session 7
Module II: Methodology in Comparative Public Law (Sessions 8-14)
Session 8
Session 9
Session 10
Session 11
Session 12
Dieter Grimm, ‘Types of Constitutions’, pp. 98-132 in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (OUP, 2012). IMP (2ND HALF)
Session 13
Session 14
Module III: Systems of Governance (Sessions 15-22)
Session 15
Bruce Ackerman, ‘The New Separation of Powers’, 113 Harvard Law Review 633-729 (2000).
Session 16
Session 17
Session 18
Samuel Issacharoff, ‘Fragile Democracies’, 120 Harvard Law Review 1405-1467 (2007).