Note: This essay is a graphical story and is best viewed on a website using a desktop computer.
The Political Math Problem
Solving for a better political system in America today is a lot like solving a bad math problem. Let me explain…
When Andrew Yang ran for president in 2020, he used the acronym MATH to stand for Make America Think Harder. When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 and onward, he used the acronym MAGA to stand for Make America Great Again. I’ve just done something dangerous in this opening introduction—I have introduced two people and two ideas, all four of which have the capacity to trigger your positive and negative associations. Let me explain… (for you math fans, I’m now nesting an explanation for paragraph two inside an explanation still pending for paragraph one—hang with me on the order of operations).
There is a conundrum in the theory of change as it relates to democratic politics—people vs ideas. If we need to address change within our political system, and we certainly do, does the best pathway rely more on the right people or the right ideas? Based on our personality traits, we may be more strongly pulled toward making a political decision based on people (do I like this candidate, do I trust this person to reflect my values in office), or we may be more interested in ideas (what is your tax policy, abortion stance, and position on gun control). If we want to develop a political movement big enough to reset the stage of our national political theater, we need to appeal to somewhere between 66-75% of all Americans, which represents a solid majority of political strength. Reaching that percentage of citizens will necessitate that we scramble the voters housed in the two major political parties, capture the majority of independent voters, and appeal to those who don’t vote. Political enemies (and everyone else) will need to see a desirable pathway to lock arms and work together. We can’t solve major issues in the country in profoundly better ways on a 51-49 vote along party lines. How do we deal with this?
Still discussing two people and two ideas, I mentioned someone who leans liberal (Andrew Yang), who probably triggers positively or negatively for you. I also mentioned Donald Trump—the lightning rod politician—who triggers your emotions either mega-positively or mega-negatively in many cases. He’s totally charged up (i.e. indicted—a bad pun, sorry couldn’t help it)! Next, I mentioned that each one has an idea. The first idea is MATH—Make America Think Harder. This is an intellectual policy appeal. Yang became known as the UBI guy (Universal Basic Income). This proposal might help deal with technology impacting job displacement. The second idea is MAGA—Make America Great Again. This is an emotional idea. Trump is offering to return America back to some nostalgic version of her former self that appeals to Americans who don’t like certain changes of the past 20+ years—economic changes, cultural changes, and so forth since the time of 9/11. So, our connection to politics is through candidate personalities, intellectual ideas, and emotional ideas (appeals). Each of those three buckets triggers a personal reaction—acceptance or rejection of a potential political pathway.
Now, back to paragraph one. Solving for a better political system in America today is a lot like solving a bad math problem. If there is one equation with one unknown variable, it’s easy to solve! Two equations with two unknowns, a bit more challenging. How about 100 equations with 100 unknowns? Unless you have the expertise and the necessary computing power, forget about it. We know our brains work fast and slow—by rapid association (the way ideas and people trigger us), and by hard mental calculations (when wading through logic problems, math calculations, etc). We need to simplify politics to get better solutions for voters.
Reducing the Political Math Problem
Solving for a better functioning political system in America today presents a number of equations and unknowns—it has become so complicated. The major additions are always debt and deficits, the subtraction seems to be common sense, the multiplication is frustration, and the most overused math process right now is… division! With each new political variable in a problem, we encounter a constraint. The more constraints, the more we get stuck in hard processing, and the more we risk failing to ever solve the problem. A problem is said to be infeasible if no solution exists which satisfies all the constraints. Fewer constraints, more ease and freedom to solve the problem. To solve America’s political crisis, we have to bring the constraints down. We have to find the fewest number of core national ideas on which a large majority of Americans can agree. And we need these core ideas to appeal to us through our intellectual thinking, emotional reasoning, and through the personal appeal of those who will represent our values in elected office. We need a political platform built on these minimum few ideas; we need key thought leaders in the movement who will appeal to us; and we need a method to change our platform in a real-time democratic way—a periodic refresh as needed.
So what’s the answer to our political math problem? What new structure can relax the constraints on political effectiveness? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I will both write and illustrate the solution. Here it goes:
The Solution by Analogy
America needs a new vision for the 21st century—a vision to realign its political structure with the timeless ideals upon which the nation was founded. We need a new vision with new leadership to heal the toxic divisions within our body politic. Speaking in the language of human healthcare, we need to perform a national political bypass operation to restore healthy blood flow (debate, reflection, compromise, and wise policy prescriptions) to the heart of our democracy. With critical care adjustments to our national political organ (Congress) and circulatory system (political party machinery), We the People can once again renew the vital signs that signal the health of our democracy (healthy Constitution), so that our quality of political life in the present may dramatically improve. As a byproduct of the operation, America will politically heal itself and successfully extend the life of self-government for new generations.
That’s the quick pitch in the language of healthcare—the language of political healing.
Whatever your view of what really happened on January 6, 2021, we can consider that moment a political heart attack. We are still alive, but we haven’t performed the operation necessary to heal. We only put the defibrillator on the patient and juiced the paddles. We are still at risk. To add insult to injury, we seem to be spending all our time on political malpractice claims while the patient is still struggling.
If I could sit down with you and explain the solution one-on-one, I might do so in a variety of formats. Having conceived of this structural solution, I have tried to boil its explanation down to a series of simple analogies that might appeal to citizens everywhere. In doing so, I have four more explanations. Depending on your background, which would come out in a quick one-on-one chat, I might explain the solution in one of these ways.
Entertainment / music fan / general public: We are building American Idol for independent politics (without the TV show). [meaning: use a respected set of judges to vet talented political reformers onto a platform beyond the traditional duopoly gatekeepers of the industry, and let the members of the movement crowdfund candidates onto the ballot and into elected offices!]
Software developer: We need to reboot our federal operating system—we have both a hardware problem (government bureaucracy) and a software problem (political duopoly system) that are running on legacy code. Unless we debug the legacy code, we will have unreliable technical performance and glitches that prevent functional services from being efficiently rendered.
Engineer / architect: We need to build a superstructure to buttress the political party system—similar to the old flying buttresses of medieval church architecture that prevented the outward thrust of the walls of a church due to the weight of the roof. The top-heavy nature of our national two-party political system is causing the “base” structure to bulge outward in extreme and dangerous ways in the political sphere. We will fix this with new engineering.
If we build a new political superstructure, We the People can once again renew the experiment of self-government of the people, by the people, for the people, so that our freedoms may endure successfully for future generations.
The Political Problem Set to Be Solved (Political pset)—12 Items
In the university community, a problem set (pset) is a teaching tool. It’s a series of problems that must be solved to master the material. Here are twelve problems in our political pset. We need to solve these items as we build a process, structure, and strategy to reboot the American political system.
Solve the Behavior Failure: In Common Sense Papers No. 2 & 3, we already called for virtue—do-the-right-thing in every moment—so we will stick with that answer as applied to voters, candidates, political groups, etc.—pset #1 complete.
Launch the Movement
Produce Open^2 & Adaptable Platform
Solve the Visibility Problem
Solve the Credibility Problem
Solve the Gatekeeping Problem
Solve the Financial Problem
Solve the Election Structural Problem (election structure: primary & general)
Solve the Campaign Problem & the Voter Engagement Problem
Solve the Party Problem (duopoly power)—breaking the leadership grip on thin majorities; no hope of regaining leadership by waiting until the next election
Solve the National vs. Local Problem—the top-down party is bad (national needs to simplify and focus, local needs to flourish)
Solve the Government's Structural Problem—two branches legislating with little regard for the 10th amendment, complex inner workings, no fresh system, etc.
The Tipping Point Formula
According to Malcolm Gladwell, a major tipping point for change usually occurs with three things: context, a message, and messengers. The right context is often created by dissatisfaction and the feeling that people are ready for something new. The message needs to be simple and actionable. The messengers need to be trusted and connected individuals. When the right context meets the proper message and messengers, change can be rapid and sustained. The political sphere is probably the only domain in America that has not undergone massive innovation and technological change in the past 30 years. It’s time.
The Common Sense 250 Solution (A New Superstructure)
We will address these formulas in the following order as we map the Common Sense 250 (CS250) design that solves all twelve psets:
8 Variables to Victory for a new vision
6 Ingredients for the CS250 reform movement
5 Platform Pillars for political consensus
3 Key Objectives for life, liberty, & happiness
Let’s begin with eight variables to victory for a new political vision. These are the steps to produce rapid change. The structure will follow after that.
Step one is the publishing of the message—how and why we reboot the American political system.
Step two is the most critical and difficult: we call for a national crowdfunding event with a minimum requirement of 250,000 backers (average of $50/person) in 60 days. This step is the launch—the answer to pset #2. Everything hinges on a go/no-go decision about reaching enough citizens through marketing and influencers to call for the launch.
Step three is using the funds from the crowdfunding round, plus any matching donations from key donors, to build the technology platform that allows the whole movement to function.
Steps four through eight will be explained as we work through the picture of Operation Common Sense.
Now we turn to the structural landscape of national politics in America. The whole emphasis is on congressional races—primarily the House of Representatives, followed by the Senate later, if appropriate. Let’s begin with the current party terrain.
We simply acknowledge that the political landscape is a two-party system with the largest voting bloc of Americans as unaffiliated, or independent (roughly 40%+). There are a range of third-party groups as well, which typically don’t impact federal elections, at least not yet.
We now introduce the superstructure of Common Sense 250. This is a social welfare organization designed to be an all-citizens coalition for everyone in the country who wants a more effective federal government operating free from entrenched and corrupt influences. Think of the superstructure as a membership group for every adult American—it’s a general interest group for citizens; it’s an organized way of aggregating the issues of voters who want effective government regardless of party affiliation. The superstructure will act like a party but not register as such. The superstructure will create the bypass valve around the two-party duopoly. It will be open to launching candidates from any party or those who are independent.
Let’s introduce the six ingredients for the CS250 reform movement. The movement is designed to be 1) Democratic, 2) Citizen-Led, 3) Member-Funded, 4) Transparent, 5) capable of providing Healing / Unity, and 6) Free from Special Interests. I think most of those ideas are self-explanatory, but key explanations will enter into other parts of The Common Sense Papers as needed. This means the movement will require regular votes of the members. Member-funding will allow the movement to avoid big donations from special interests, again the focus is a general interest group for the common good of all Americans. Transparency builds trust.
Now we discuss pset #3. We need a platform that is Open-Squared and Adaptable. What does that mean? The platform is Open in that it is available to all parties (Democrat and Republican included, based on tough conditions), plus Independents—especially Independents. The open platform is meant to treat the upstanding members of the duopoly with goodwill even as the structure of the movement is a challenge to party power in the United States, particularly in Congress.
The second form of the Open platform relates to the five pillars. The five pillars are the core political ideas that must be emphasized by political candidates who wish to represent the political platform. The pillars are the starting position but can evolve with member participation over time.
In this slide, we only show the five pillars of political consensus in conceptual form. We will agree to focus on political values and policies that pertain to Safety, National Culture, Economy, Environment, and Governance. We will be open to all ideas and manifest a “live and let live” philosophy wherever possible in our pluralistic society. We will rise to champion E Pluribus Unum for the well-being of all Americans. The specific details of the five pillars will be explained in Part VII of The Common Sense Papers. To complete pset #3, we need an adaptable platform, which will come in a few more formula steps. Before moving on, we need to preview the three key objectives for life, liberty, and happiness. We need to reform, reboot, and renew certain aspects of our political economy. The exact details will also be addressed in Part VII. The reason we have three objectives is to make marketing the movement as simple as possible; we need to reach those who hate politics. These three items are intended to help individuals quickly understand “what’s in it for me.”
Any successful political movement needs mass adoption while also expecting that the key activities of the movement will be carried by 3-15% of the population.
Now we introduce the Citizens Congress and really start knocking out pset solutions. A Citizens Congress—why this structure? I credit Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein for providing the idea and Andrew Yang for confirming it. Mann & Ornstein wanted there to be a model for correct debate and compromise that would be free of the corrupt influences nested in Washington D.C.1 Yang wanted the engagement of Citizens through civic juries (weigh courses of action and provide deliberative polling) as explained in his book, Forward.2 My purpose is similar. It can be summed up with Credibility, Visibility, and Gatekeeping—let me explain…
We can solve pset #4, pset #5, and pset #6 all with the Citizens Congress. This collective body of citizens is vital to the success of launching independent politics for a new political era. The Citizens Congress can have the same number of positions as the U.S. Congress. It’s like a citizens’ assembly that would steer the CS250 movement. It would involve major thought leaders, former lawmakers, and former political candidates who were not elected. These citizens would all serve as volunteers. These individuals would debate policy proposals several times per year, write articles for the community, and serve as ambassadors of the movement to the media. These people would be the face of CS250 and the idea generators. That solves Visibility and Credibility relative to the current duopoly system. It makes independent politics viable and cohesive as a national force to compete away the dominance of the duopoly.
Members of the Citizens Congress could be nominated and ratified by a membership vote to adhere to the democratic style of the movement. The composition could also be determined by lot from a representative sample of thought leaders who qualify.
A major volunteer task of the Citizens Congress is to screen, background check, and interview applicants who want to run for national office. This service is like the judging system in American Idol. The national reach of 435 congressional districts would be covered. Individuals who want to run for Congress as CS250 Independents or CS250 representatives of a political party would apply and interview for placement on the technology platform where members can see and interact with them. Several potential candidates for each race with various backgrounds would hopefully be approved and placed on the CS250 tech platform for viewing by the membership of the movement. The tech platform would allow members to see information about each candidate and participate in Q&A rounds for better exposure. This process is the Gatekeeping function and solves pset #6.
At this point, you may have many questions. Who decides what the issues are? Who is the gatekeeper of members to this new movement that you have to buy into? How is it different from a union where you pay dues to represent your interest? Issues will be determined by membership polls and Citizens Congress votes—a healthy interplay between engaged thought leaders and the mass membership. Any adult in the country can become a member, but address verification will be necessary. Privacy will be a major feature of the platform. This is different from a union as we won’t fall under any collective bargaining agreement and we don’t have a constant adversary. We just want to solve problems. We won’t be a political party either, so we avoid some state laws related to voting on our platform.
Now we introduce the Citizens’ Agenda and the Dignity Agenda. The platform will allow citizens as voters to express their preferences for major national legislation packages to solve the biggest problems in our country—immigration, healthcare reform, national defense, education & workforce training, etc. The answers to polls would help form the Citizens’ Agenda—a broad expression of the will of the people on national political issues. The Dignity Agenda serves a different focus, which is more narrow. It is to be designed by the Citizens Congress and ratified by the membership base. This would comprise the key safety net provisions that should be provided in our society through the federal government—dealing with homelessness, job loss, poverty, mental illness, etc. We know the homeless population will be almost entirely unrepresented within the CS250 movement, so we must accept the responsibility to look after their portion of having a general interest in society and how it functions. The purple lines in the graphic represent the fact that members will vote to create the Citizens’ Agenda and to ratify the Dignity Agenda as proposed by the Citizens Congress. These Agendas are the Adaptable portion of refreshing the initial directives of the CS250 platform and movement—that completes pset #3.
For example, the membership may decide that the only major objectives to be achieved in a two-year election cycle are immigration reform and budget reform. If so, all candidates representing the movement would commit to pursuing the proposed recommendations of the Citizens Congress on how to solve these two issues in Congress. All other issues become open for individual candidate positioning and exploration. Over time, the movement will set its own rules for what is expected of candidates on the platform.
The reason for having an open and adaptable platform is to create a horseshoe alliance of voters on the left and the right of the full political spectrum. All are welcome and can find a place of belonging. The next graphic shows the heart of the alliance that is likely to form based on 2016 voter data that ranks voters on social issues and fiscal issues (conservative to liberal philosophy on each variable). The goal is to push the alliance as far into red and blue territory as possible while still holding onto the middle. The horseshoe is drawn to show that a winning coalition will have to spread across multiple social dimensions and lean fiscally liberal.
The next slide takes us to the critical financial step—the power of a crowdfunding platform for congressional candidates.
Members who have paid annual dues (for funding the movement and tools) will be allowed to vote (on some approval or other ranking method) and crowdfund the candidates of their choice. Any other non-paid member can also crowdfund candidates, but not vote. Voting takes precedence over dollars for determining winners. Crowdfunding independent candidates for office solves pset #7. This platform creates a small-dollar perpetual donation machine to allow an independent movement to source the money to run congressional campaigns against the duopoly.
As the traditional candidates for office pursue state primaries for Democrat and Republican placement on the general election ballot, we turn to the need to determine ballot access for the crowdfund round winner. If a Democrat or Republican candidate passed the CS250 gatekeeping and won the crowdfunding round, then won the primary, ballot access is solved. If not, we move to the next steps.
In the most common scenario, independent or third-party candidates that successfully win the crowdfunding round on the tech platform will gain ballot access by successful third-party placement or by signature requirement. The signature requirement again shows the purple highlight. Member volunteers of CS250 may need to coordinate massive signature parties enabled by technology to place candidates on the ballot in a cheap and efficient manner. This is one reason we don’t want to launch this movement unless we have 250,000 supporters on Day One spread across the country. The rise of the Forward Party, with its open platform, would provide a wonderful fit for the national dimensions of the CS250 structure. Rather than run as Independents, Forwardists could harness both national party support and CS250 crowdfunding. We have now completed pset #8.
This is the final and complete slide for Operation Common Sense—a bypass valve for American democracy (below). We have to use technology and coordinated member efforts to run a campaign ground game to win elections for CS250 candidates on the general election ballot. This means we will have competitive two-way and three-way races all over the country. Voters will have choices that include a cohesive independent team of reformers all on the same page without needing to adhere to right and left ideologies that divide us into dysfunction.
The ability for members to work locally, digitally, and efficiently with email and text features should enhance the power of independent candidates to promote a winning campaign message that is backed by efforts that align with Common Sense 250. So, pset #9 is solved.
To solve pset #10, we look at the effects of having 25-50% of Congress filled by independent representatives. Under this unique scenario, the grip of party power is broken since neither party can form a majority that carries votes above 50%. Transactional politics replaces party politics. If neither party can hope to return to a winning majority in the next election, then the stonewalling and undermining of presidential agendas and/or opposing party agendas are also put to rest. Stripping both sides of the duopoly from having a majority party is the most important outcome of the Common Sense 250 operation. Healthy politics and healing will flow from this painful procedure.
The solutions to pset #11 and pset #12 will have to wait until later. The national vs. local balancing act will be contained in one of the five pillars presented later. The structural issues with the government will be assessed by the Citizens Congress and feed into the Citizens’ Agenda for needed reforms to be carried out by elected officials representing the movement.
Okay, so who should sit on the board of this nonprofit vehicle built for the social welfare of the citizens? Answer: Major representatives of the groups that have been tirelessly volunteering for a healing influence, a more thoughtful politics, a more constitutional order, a more civil dialogue, a more perfect Union. Just as a group of ragtag revolutionaries in 1776 accomplished the unthinkable, a coalition of these honorable organizations and the visionaries that lead them could turn a new page in American political structure. Who might be on this dream team? We will solve that later.
To what end must we contemplate the creation of this movement? New institutional trust. Say those words slowly—New Institutional Trust. Letting citizens see volunteer citizens correct the biggest twin problems of our time—polarization of the people coupled with corruption of the national power structure—is the best way for We the People to demonstrate that government of the people, by the people, for the people, will not perish from the earth.
Some groups may be hesitant to tip the duopoly apple cart over. But good apples will find their way (virtuous candidates who are free from entrenched interests). Rotten apples can be sorted out. A new conveyor belt system for honest, reform-minded political candidates to bring change to Washington for the country, rather than a single party, is key. This would allow all Americans of all parties to take a fresh interest in democracy and trust that we are ready for another round of thoughtful innovation. Now that would be something to celebrate!
The five pillars and three objectives of the movement will emerge as we continue The Common Sense Papers. We need to look at the defects of the two-party system, as well as capitalism and our moral compasses, to get at the components that can unite the horseshoe alliance of left and right into a formidable body united around the need for change and healing.
Final thought: A new “all-party plus Independents” superstructure that has, 1) a funding mechanism, 2) solutions to the credibility/visibility/gatekeeping problems, 3) campaign organization elements, and 4) powerful technology tools for democracy, is the best possible pathway to disrupting national politics with innovation and technology for 21st-century political effectiveness. It’s a complete game-changer!!! Let’s take a step beyond Part I, “The Opening Pitch,” and look at parts of the foundational structure of our government as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It's Even Worse Than It Was: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism (New York: Basic Books, 2016) pp. 182-184.
Andrew Yang, Forward (New York: Crown, 2021) pp. 226-227.
> Software developer: We need to reboot our federal operating system—we have both a hardware problem (government bureaucracy) and a software problem (political duopoly system) that are running on legacy code. Unless we debug the legacy code, we will have unreliable technical performance and glitches that prevent functional services from being efficiently rendered.
Having represented myself - and other homeowners - in more H.O.A. related litigation than I've ever wanted to be involved in, I've seen how the law actually works. And more importantly, I've seen how it does → not ← work.
During that time, I endured listening to out-of-touch lawmakers tell me how they were making things better for H.O.A.-burdened homeowners, while experiencing for myself how much worse things were actually getting.
And after having spent time meeting wtih my elected representatives, and testifying on legislation at the state capitol, I've become convinced that laws should be written, or at least reviewed, by programmers instead of lawyers.
Lawyers have a vested interest in complexity of law; see note # 9 of "Hunt the Lawyer" (June 10, 2023)
at https://homeowners.substack.com/p/hunt-the-lawyer
Also, to a lot of lawyers their idea of "justice" is codifying that their clients are entitled to recover attorney fees, so that they can be paid by their clients.
Shameless self promotion : Although not a programmer - I was more of a hardware, operating systems, and applications guy - I have written some model legislation, the "A Man's Home Is His Castle Colorado Homeowner's Protection Act", which you can read
at https://homeowners.substack.com/p/a-mans-home-is-his-castle-colorado
Part One, the "Legislative Declaration", needs a lot of work; it's too much like spaghetti code right now. But the other four parts are far better - and would be far more effective - than anything the Colorado General Assembly has passed or is planning to introduce in the near future.