In Nigeria's 2019 presidential election, the winner received 55.6 percent of the vote. In the National Assembly elections held the same year, the winning party received 55.6 percent of the votes for the House of Representatives — and won 62.2 percent of the seats. This is the first-past-the-post system at work. The party with the most votes gets disproportionately more seats.

Now imagine a different system. Imagine that the 44.4 percent of Nigerians who voted for other parties also received representation. Imagine that their votes translated into seats in proportion to their numbers. Imagine a National Assembly where the governing party had a majority but the opposition had real presence, where every significant political current had a voice, where the government had to negotiate rather than dictate.

This is proportional representation. It is not a fantasy. It is how most of the world's democracies work. South Africa uses it. Germany uses it. The Netherlands, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand — all use some form of proportional representation. They have chosen systems where the legislature reflects the diversity of the electorate, rather than systems that manufacture artificial majorities.

Nigeria's current system — first-past-the-post, winner-take-all in single-member constituencies — has specific effects that shape Nigerian politics. It encourages ethnic bloc voting. In a constituency where one ethnic group is a majority, candidates from that group almost always win. It discourages national parties because the path to victory is through ethnic strongholds, not through building broad coalitions. It wastes votes — millions of votes for losing candidates translate into zero representation.

The result is a political landscape dominated by regional parties masquerading as national ones. The APC is essentially a northern party with southern affiliates. The PDP is a coalition of regional machines. Neither has a genuine national base. Both win power by dominating their regions, not by appealing across them.

Proportional representation would change this. If seats were allocated based on the percentage of the national vote, parties would have incentive to compete everywhere. A vote in Lagos would be worth the same as a vote in Kano. Parties could build support gradually, across regions, rather than needing to win entire constituencies. Minority viewpoints — not just ethnic minorities but political minorities — would have representation.

Consider the 2019 results under a proportional system. The APC won roughly 55 percent of the vote — they would get roughly 55 percent of the seats, not 62 percent. The PDP won roughly 33 percent — they would get 33 percent of the seats, not 37 percent. And the smaller parties, which together won 12 percent of the vote but zero seats, would have 12 percent representation. The legislature would look like the country.

This matters for governance. A government that has manufactured a majority through the electoral system can govern without negotiation. A government that has a genuine majority but faces substantial opposition must persuade, must compromise, must account for views other than its own. The difference between these two scenarios is the difference between majoritarian democracy and pluralist democracy.

Proportional representation also addresses the problem of excluded voices. In Nigeria's current system, if you are a Yoruba in Kano or a Hausa in Enugu, your vote for a minority candidate is almost certainly wasted. Under proportional representation, your vote counts toward your party's national total. You are represented not because you dominate a constituency but because you are part of a national community of voters who share your views.

The transition to proportional representation would require constitutional amendment. The current system is embedded in the 1999 Constitution, which specifies first-past-the-post for legislative elections. Changing it would require the agreement of the National Assembly and the state assemblies — the same political class that benefits from the current system.

But the question is not whether change is easy. The question is whether the current system serves Nigeria well. And the evidence suggests it does not. It produces legislatures that do not represent the country's diversity. It encourages the politics of ethnic strongholds. It wastes the votes of millions of citizens who support minority parties or live in areas where their party cannot win.

There are different forms of proportional representation. The purest is party-list PR, where voters choose parties and seats are allocated based on the percentage each party receives. South Africa uses this system. The voters choose parties; the parties choose the legislators through ranked lists. Critics say this gives too much power to party leaders. Supporters say it produces coherent parties with clear programs.

A hybrid is mixed-member proportional, used in Germany and New Zealand. Voters have two votes — one for a constituency representative, one for a party. The constituency seats are filled by first-past-the-post. Then additional seats are allocated to make the overall results proportional. This system keeps the constituency link that many voters value while ensuring proportional overall results.

Nigeria could adapt either system. It could retain constituencies while adding proportional top-up seats. It could move entirely to party lists. It could experiment with proportional representation for the House of Representatives while keeping the Senate as it is. The specific design matters less than the principle: that the legislature should represent the full range of political opinion in the country.

The opposition to proportional representation usually comes from those who benefit from the current system. Large parties prefer winner-take-all because it exaggerates their majorities. Regional strongmen prefer it because it allows them to control their ethnic strongholds. The current system has entrenched interests that would resist change.

But Nigeria's interest — the interest of having a representative democracy, of making every vote count, of building national parties rather than regional machines — points toward proportional representation. It is a system that has worked in diverse societies around the world. It could work in Nigeria.

The vote that counts for more than one is the vote under proportional representation — the vote that contributes to a share of seats, the vote that cannot be wasted, the vote that says: I am here, my views matter, I deserve representation whether I live in a stronghold or a minority. This is the vote that Nigerian citizens deserve. This is the system that could change Nigerian politics.

The question is whether Nigerians will demand it.