In the 20th Century, entrenched warfare was confined to the battlefield. In the 21st, it has moved into the political arena. A metaphorical no-man’s-land now separates Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives — each side entrenched and unwilling to give an inch.

Voters are clearly fed up with this state of affairs. Majorities on both sides believe political leaders should compromise or find middle ground (80% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans), but believe the parties are more focused upon fighting one another (87% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats). This frustration has fueled bipartisan support for expanding the number of political parties (74% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans).

Such deep partisanship — and the widespread dissatisfaction it breeds — is a relatively recent development. In the 1950s and 1960s, more than 70% of Democrats and Republicans trusted the federal government. Today, fewer than 30% do. The loss of confidence runs deeper than party politics: 81% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats say the political system works “not too well” or “not at all.” Roughly two-thirds of both parties say they’re dissatisfied with how democracy is functioning and no longer confident in its future.

In short, voters are disillusioned and tired of being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. While citizens share some blame for repeatedly electing politicians they feel aren’t properly representing them, the real problem lies in the system itself — one that limits choice and rewards polarization. Most people assume that’s just how things are or that a broken system can’t be fixed. That’s not the case. If we’re willing to step outside our comfort zones and embrace real change, we can build a better system.

The solution is to replace our first-past-the-post (plurality) system — where whoever gets the most votes “takes all” — with a proportional representation (PR) system. In simple terms, representation would no longer depend on who “wins” the most races but on the percentage of total votes received.

Consider an example: imagine a district electing five representatives. In our current system, if Republican candidates received 41% of the vote, Democrats 39%, and Independents 20%, all five seats would go to Republicans — leaving 59% of voters unrepresented. Under proportional representation, that same election would produce two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent — a far more accurate reflection of the electorate.

If implemented correctly, PR would solve several of the system’s biggest problems: First, there would be no more two-party monopoly. Voters today must choose between candidates that are completely conservative or completely liberal, but life is rarely that black-and-white. A proportional system would make space for at least four viable parties — socially conservative, socially liberal, economically conservative, and economically liberal — giving voice to the one-third of voters who say neither major party represents them.

Second, there would be fewer wasted votes. The top reason people give for not voting is “not interested,” which indicates they feel that their vote won’t matter. More people would participate if they knew their vote would help elect at least one representative aligned with their views.

Third, we could end gerrymandering. Redistricting has become a gerrymandering “arms race” in which both parties try to squeeze every possible advantage out of their states. More than two-thirds of Republican and Democratic voters agree this is a major problem and should be illegal. Proportional representation would make gerrymandering irrelevant.

Yes, change can be intimidating. But more than 80 countries already use some form of proportional representation — and many of them rank among the world’s most stable democracies. There’s no reason the United States, with its long history of innovation and self-governance, can’t design an even better version.

If we combine proportional representation with the reforms outlined in my earlier columns — making voting easier, limiting terms, and reducing money’s influence — we can strengthen our democracy and restore confidence in our political system.

The unknown may be unsettling, but continuing down our current path is far riskier. It’s time to step out of the political trenches and start building bridges again.

My fifth and final column in this series will explain exactly how we can make that happen.

Dr. Raymond E. Barranco is professor of sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Louisiana State University, and his work has been published in multiple criminology and sociology journals. Dr. Barranco invites readers to send feedback and sociology-related questions you’d like him to address in this space to [email protected].