Democracy's Missing Pieces (Parts 7-8)

Part 7 – The Ideal Democracy

If we were designing a democracy from scratch, what should we do?

I’ll tell you!

A. The Core Ideas

1. Only two “official” parties are allowed – formally ban the rest. (Again, this is not to restrict choice, but to concentrate the resistance into a cohesive team, and maximize the threat they pose to the ruling party.) The actual ballot, is just a “thumbs up” vs thumbs down [Ruling Party vs Opposition Party].
   • An unlimited number of “special interest groups” may form. And they should (see Appendix 2).
2. Each party must publish written ByLaws (aka a party “Constitution”), specifying:
   • The “Chief Accountability Officer (CAO)” – the current leader of the party.
   • The “Executives” – up to 25 other senior members.
   • The “plebs” – the list of normal people who belong to this party (ie, “the registered Democrats”), and how to contact them [via phone/email, webportal, or whatever is convienient].
   • The “processes” of the Party. For example: how the ByLaws are updated, how plebs join/leave the party, how primaries are run (if at all), how candidates are chosen, how the platform is ratified, how the Party surveys the public for feedback, how party executives are chosen. All of the details go here.
   • In particular, the the ByLaws contain the process for selecting a new CAO (see Bullet 4).
3. The CAO unilaterally selects their Candidate (who appears on the ballot).
   • The Party may have primaries (etc) – but the CAO must choose to voluntarily abide by these.
   • The CAO can select themselves as candidate (unless the ByLaws forbid it).¹
   • Power passes from CAO to Candidate, at the moment of nomination. The nomination is permanent – if the Candidate must drop out of the race, then the Candidate picks their replacement. The Candidate may establish a line of succession (should they die on the campaign trail). After nominating, the CAO does nothing until the next election cycle.
   • The Candidate unilaterally chooses all their subordinates – this includes (but is not limited to) one candidate for Vice-President, one candidate for each cabinet position, 100 candidates for Senate, and 538 candidates for Representative.
4. Consequences for losing an election:
   • Upon losing 1 election, the Party CAO must resign immediately, (and be replaced according to the ByLaws). He must wait 8 years (two cycles) before possibly becoming Party CAO again. Power passes immediately to the new CAO, who is now “leader of the opposition”.
   • Upon losing 3x elections in a row, the losing party declares “bankrupcy” and is “reset”.
   • • Seventeen adults are chosen at random, from a big list comprising: [all Opposition Party plebs] + [500 randomly chosen Ruling Party plebs] + [500 randomly chosen citizens of neither party]. You cannot appear on this list, if you are (or ever were) a CAO, Executive, Candidate, or subordinate Candidate (from either party).
   • • These 17 plebs have 90 days to rewrite the party’s ByLaws (if they deem this necessary), and pick new leadership (they may pick themselves).
   • • They may simply copy the Ruling Party’s ByLaws (ie, the winning ByLaws); or they may copy/paste proposals from Opposition Leaders.
   • • The 17 are not being chosen for their expertise, nor their intelligence; they are being chosen for their lack of corruption. The knowledge will find them – (surely, the Competent People will beat a path to their front door, to besiege them with proposals).
   • • They pass this as a single “package deal” resolution, by majority vote. They may use secret ballot if they prefer.
   • • If 500 people cannot be found (in categories 2 and 3), then take all the people you can find. (For example, if no one ever leaves a party, then 0 people will be in the 3rd category [500 citizens from “neither party”], so just ignore it.)
   • • If they cannot accomplish their task within 90 days, then choose 17 adults again (from the list) and start over.
   • • If one of the 17 dies, or is unable (or unwilling) to participate, then choose an adult (from the list) to replace them.
5. Upon gaining the right to vote (ie, on their 18th birthday), citizens automatically become registered as a pleb of the Ruling Party.
   • Citizens may leave a party whenever they like. However, joining a party is specified by that party’s ByLaws.
   • A party can also kick out plebs.
   • A citizen in neither party is registered as in the “Neither” party. These are the only three categories (Ruling, Opposition, and Neither).
6. The federal government (ie, the public) financially supports this process:
   • CAOs are paid annually (from the US Treasury) a salary of 375x per-capita nominal GDP. (In 2024, pcGDP was $86,601, so the salary would be $32.4 million per year.)
   • From this salary, CAOs may hire a staff, security detail, pollsters, etc as they like. Or keep the money for themselves.
   • Up to 25 Executives, are each paid annually 15x per-capita nGDP ($1.3 million each, in 2024). The CAO may subsidize this and pay them more, out of his own salary.
   • During periods of transition, party leaders (and plebs who are resetting a party) get Secret Service protection and/or US Capitol Police protection.
   • Plebs who reset the party, are each paid a one-time lump sum payment, of 20x pc-nGDP ($1.7 million, in 2024).
7. The sitting president can fire anyone in the executive branch – but they cannot fire Party Chiefs, or Executives. The candidate works for the party, not the other way around.
   • “Executive Orders” have the same status as laws. Laws must wait 90 days before coming into effect.
   • There are no term limits. The president can serve for more than 8 years – if the Chief continues to put them on the ballot.
8. The losing party’s new CAO selects a “shadow cabinet” – 15 people in the Opposition Party who are allowed to observe the Ruling Party. The shadow cabinet is given security clearance, allowed to sit in on meetings (but not disrupt), allowed to interview federal employees (and civil service), etc. The “shadow president” may politely observe the Oval Office, even. While the shadow cabinet is powerless today, in four short years the tables may have turned (and the retribution may be vicious). So we may expect some respect be voluntarily paid to the shadow cabinet.
9. A Recall (ie, “Vote of No Confidence”), forces Election Day to come early – within 60 days.
   • To trigger a recall, the Opposition Party must collect signatures from 10% of all registered voters.
   • However, in a Recall Election, voters who stay home (and do not cast a ballot) are counted as if they voted for the Ruling Party.
   • The loss consequences listed in #3 (above), apply to this election as well. (The Opposition CAO is fired, if he loses this election.)
   • The Ruling CAO does not have to choose the sitting President, as Ruling Party candidate.

The aim of these ideas, is:

1. To fill each Party, with a dread of being fired and replaced. This dread, motivates them to do something productive… not only after an election loss, but also in anticipation of imminent election loss. More dread, equals less slacking off.
2. To prevent collusion. By limiting the nation to just two parties –each controlled entirely by one person– the temptation to collude will be enormous, and collusion would ruin the competitive logic of the whole scheme. Thus, the guaranteed “imminent death” of at least one party per cycle (either via the mandatory resignation of the losing CAO, or via the party reset upon losing 3x), ensures continual “fresh blood”. There will always be a new CAO, with new ideas on how to run the party – and with the full authority to implement them (perhaps in an unforseeable way). In this way, we try to give hope to any laypeople who feel overlooked by both parties. (After all, the most common kind of collusion [especially today], is when both parties agree to be low quality – both put out terrible candidates – ie, the whole raison d’être of this essay.)
3. To make each party more accountable to the outcome – not the process. This prevents parties from weaseling out of blame – instead, the blame sticks. It also prevents parties from deferring to a process they know is corrupt or defective. (After all, they know the weaknesses of their process, better than anyone.)
4. To facilitate specialization of labor. The CAOs are professional “candidate pickers” & “platform assemblers”; the candidates are professional “rulers”; the voters are “customers of the government”; and finally plebs are specialist advocates (for moving society in a particular direction).

Schumpeter wrote that politicians fight for votes, the same way that businessmen compete to make sales. My version extends his framework, to include “party bankruptcy” – if a political party cannot “make a sale” (ie, win an election) in 12 years, it must “declare bankruptcy” (ie, be “reset”). In that way, I’ve added extra “destruction” to his “creative destruction” paradigm.

B. Other Great Ideas

These refinements would help further:

1. Ideally, society would make conditional prediction markets legal, tax free, and private. As I presented in Jan 2018, these markets allow parties to learn –in advance– which candidate has the highest chance of winning. (By extension, this allows them to learn which platform has the highest chance of winning.) Obviously, this is useful for any party who wants to win. But that is just the tip of the iceberg – it misses the greater point. The big point is that conditional prediction markets will warn one party (in advance) of its imminent defeat, if it stays on the path it is on. They are warned, in advance, that their platform contains errors. And – who is doing the warning? An incorruptible, decentralized, minimally-fallible market price – in public for all to see, and which none can credibly deny. Thus, it will cause the losing party to delete its errors – before the election. The losing party will automatically improve, until it is no longer projected to lose – at which point its rival will be warned of its imminent loss, and the process will repeat (over there). Thus, the mere presence of these markets, triggers an uninterrupted chain of endless improvement. Since both parties improve in this way, they will each converge on a rational frontier. Eventually, it will indeed be like Crest vs Colgate – both parties getting all the big decisions correct, with only superficial differences between the choices.
2. The more money, paid to the Chief/Executives, the better. More money, means a greater motivation to obtain/keep these jobs. If there was some kind of “Patriot Fund” which supplemented the income of each party (no strings attached), that would help.
3. Ideally, voters would switch parties more. To say: “I always vote Democrat, no matter what” – that is a mistake. It means that the Democratic Party will not try to to fight for your vote – and it also means that the Republican Party will not fight for your vote, either. It would be better for society, if more people were moderates – and more votes were “get-able” by parties. Psychological identification with a political party, as one’s “tribe” is detrimental to prosperity and should be discouraged in any way possible.
4. It is sometimes joked: “it’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes!”, reflecting the need for the vote to be secure. In my proposal, votes actually do matter, so the vote must be secure – and, laypeople must believe that it is secure. (It must be resistant to insincere accusations of tampering.) I published some ideas for this here after the 2020 election.
5. It may help if the two parties had neutral, meaningless names – such as “left vs right”, or “red vs blue”. Ideally, state and local parties would be slightly-differently named, such as “National-Red” vs “State-Blue”.
6. Probably, it would help if each party had its own “media”. Of course, in practice they already do (ie FoxNews vs MSNBC). But, in general, we should drop the pretense of “bipartisanship” – and instead focus on competition. Voters are better served, if they can alternate between two strong, coherent presentations – (just as a courtroom has [one strong prosecution] versus [one strong defense]). In this sense, it helps that Elon bought Twitter/X and turned it into a home for the right – given that all other social media leaned left.
7. Anything that enhances communication between voters, candidates, parties, activists, pollsters, etc, is good. Private companies value your feedback – complaints are far preferable to losing you as a customer.

Now, let me respond to an anticipated criticism of this idea.

C. The Illusion of Emptiness

i. How it may appear

At first, my solution may appear unimpressive.

After all, the original problem was: “how do we pick the nominee?” – and all I did was push it over one space. I say: “the CAO will unilaterally choose the nominee”. But how do we choose the right CAO?

Isn’t that an infinite regress?

Making matters worse, I say: “the CAO will be fired”, if he loses, and replaced “according to the ByLaws”. That is quite vague. It itself pushes this second problem over one space – onto the ByLaws. So – I’ve barely explained anything! At the end of the day, it comes down to “the right CAO, chosen by the right ByLaws”.

So, how is my idea of any use? How is it different, from what we have now? After all, today’s system depends on “the right Party picking the right Candidate”. Right?

ii. My Response

First, “The ByLaws” must be unspecified (by me) – because they must evolve over time. They must be allowed to change (and take on any shape). I am trying to be Gutenberg – inventing the printing press, but not writing a novel. Someone else is going to come up with the perfect ByLaws – not me. And if I specify them now, I will lock that future genius into a permanent straight-jacket.

Second, it so happens that I already know the optimal Party CAO – it is the conditional prediction market, mentioned above. So, it is NOT an infinite regress, at all – I know exactly what to do. Anyone using CPMs, would be a 99.999th%-percentile CAO. (Put me in, coach!) It is an infinite “pro-gress”, not “regress”, since I am saying that, if anything can beat CPMs, my idea should politely step aside and allow the new thing to take over.

And that is exactly my point. My idea is different, because it focuses on a process that improves over time. If you only look at its performance at a given time, you’ll misunderstand how it works. So – while ByLaws (and CAOs) may [unfortunately] be low-quality at first, they will immediately start to evolve. If one party’s ByLaws are significantly more effective, it will pull ahead. The rival party must either [1] copy them, [2] improve in some other way, to compensate, or [3] die. Each election, we delete whichever party improved the least since the last election. But during the election season, our ballot is ruled by two tyrants (the CMOs).

With that in mind, let me continue…

Third, there is a component here which is very new – “resetting” the party – and it has been carefully laid, to have a profound effect on everyone’s behavior, even if the bankruptcies themselves rarely (or never) actually happen. It is the ultimate deterrent. It is similar to how “escalation” works in law enforcement – if you have a dispute with a friend, you might first talk it over; but if they will not talk to you about it, then you might escalate to sending them a formal letter; but if they do not reply to the letter you may call a lawyer or notify the police; if your friend ignores these they may get a court summons; if they ignore that, then they may face an arrest warrant; if they resist arrest, the police may respond with violence; if the friend fights back against the police, then they may draw their weapons; if your friend has bigger and better weapons than the police, then the police may call the SWAT team; …the military, …marines, …NAVY Seals, …air force. And so on. If people can win by escalating, then they will escalate – but if they can’t win by escalating, then they won’t escalate – they will preemptively submit.

So – if a party loses consecutive elections, then the noose will draw tighter and tighter – their search for new ideas [to reinvent themselves creatively] will become frantic. The beatings will continue until morale improves – the price of excellence is eternal vigilance. So, I am merely organizing a contest, and rewarding the winner with a prize – it is the contestants themselves, who will bring out the best in each other.

Fourth, a key feature of this proposal is how it manages the “internal” and “external” venues. If one party is winning elections (ie, success in the external venue), then their CAO must be promoting the right people to Candidate, and to internal advisor, etc (ie, a rational internal venue). My scheme freezes this CAO permanently in power – no one can fire him. This harmonizes the two venues. On the other hand, if a party is always losing elections, then it clearly has a sub-optimal internal venue – my scheme fires the CAO, thus stomping on their internal venue, destroying it over and over (until they get it right).

D. The Correct Use of “Process”

Under this idea, the CAO can modify his process [for choosing the Candidate] on a whim.

For example, CAOs could –if they want– use primaries, committees or whatever else. Or they could abandon those ideas, halfway through.

Imagine your “process” for buying a car. You may plan to do the following: [1] research online, [2] visit some dealerships, [3] test drive some cars, finally [4] shop around for a good price. But imagine that, as you are halfway through this process, your uncle offers to sell you his car, for $1. A great car at a great price. Well? Process, schmosh-cess! Just take the deal!

“The process” is supposed to help you. The process is the servant – not the master. Once the process stops helping, you can (and should) get rid of it.

Similarly, the Party CAO will be motivated to find someone who can win. They may make a plan – [1] make a shortlist of viable candidates, [2] circulate the list for feedback, [3] ask the candidates to do fund-raisers or compete in straw polls, and [4] host primaries so that the party base can have a vote. But, as they are halfway through this process, suddenly the perfect candidate appears – and asks to be considered. Well, ditch the process. Or, at least, weigh the costs of abandoning the process against the benefits. After all – its your job to make the right call.

A motivated CAO wants to have a good process. They want to find the best candidate – one that people like. (This is better than a primary.) They want to find errors in the current process. (This is better than a convention.)

This logic is true, both for [1] how the CAO picks the Candidate, and also [2] how the CAO is replaced (upon losing). That is why it is counterproductive to specify the ByLaws here.

E. Endless Improvement

that does tend to be part of the problem:
political reformers -- always fighting the
last war.
-Ian Shapiro, 16:33

Source)

In the business world, there is no “once and for all” perfect business model. Old business models are constantly becoming obsolete, and new business models are always being invented.

However, this is no reason to despair. As consumers, we face an efficient frontier – the business models we see, are the best ones anyone could think of. CEOs are responsible for keeping their business models up-to-date, and new CEOs are always competing (with new models). The free market is the “once and for all” reform, that grants us an endless timeline of optimal business models.

Similarly, there is no “once and for all” political reform. Old ways of finding candidates (and of winning elections) are constantly becoming obsolete, and new ways of finding candidates (and of persuading voters to vote for them) are always being invented.

And similarly, this is no reason to despair. We should not expect to find the “final”, perfect, process for nominating candidates. It does not exist. In fact, the presumption that the process will eventually halt (after “reforming” enough times, to reach some “perfect process”) – is false. We will never reach the perfect process. We cannot specify the perfect, everlasting “candidate chooser” – just as we cannot specify the perfect, everlasting “business model”. The “state of the art” will always be improving, forever. Each new year, the newest best idea is objectively “out there”, in the wild – and the CAO of that year, must go out and “catch it”, and implement it.

The wisdom of my idea –party bankruptcy (ie, replacing the CAO, upon an election loss)– is that it forces immediate total reform, of the failing party, once per cycle. Thus, political reformers can safely “fight the last war”, over and over – better to at least do that (vs nothing at all). The new CAO can learn the newest techniques (from the winning party), and implement them immediately in the losing party.

The new CAO will want to conduct a full autopsy on the last election, to find out what killed it. The most useful people (during such an autopsy), are those who made concrete, specific, precise, verifiable, falsifiable theories about the upcoming loss, in advance (ie, before the election). Those are the first people the new CAO will interview. As a result, party insiders have an incentive to make their concerns known to the next-CAO (since this [1] can help their party win this cycle², and also [2] might help them with the new CAO if their party loses this cycle). This is a healthy way for aspiring politicians to use the election-loss to advance their career – [by predicting it in advance, in detail]. In contrast, the unhealthy way is to use the election-loss as a political soapbox, and take your complaints directly to the layperson-voter (or, even worse, the layperson-primary-voter).

F. Democracy’s Missing Pieces

The “pieces of democracy” that mankind has already found, are:

1. Rule of the people, by the people, for the people.
2. Periodic elections – to remove bad politicians without violence.
3. A focus on persuasion – and on the consent of the governed.
4. The secret ballot – minimizing coercion (and retribution, and bribery, etc).
5. Parties – their essential quality, as realistic candidates to replace the whole government.

The missing pieces, are:

1. The two-party system (partially embraced in US/UK, but not completely) – to maximize the health and credibility of the opposition party.
2. First-past-the-post (partially embraced in US, but not completely [Electoral College, etc]) – to directly connect the voter to their government.
3. Party Bankruptcy – mandatory internal reform, of the losing party, after each election.
4. Strong Parties – personal responsibility, concentrated in one individual, in selecting the ballot candidate (and platform).
5. Strong Executive – the winning party is allowed to implement their agenda (leaders have enough rope to hang themselves).
6. Conditional Prediction Markets – to easily foresee (and prove) how each candidate would do, if elected – before election day [and before nomination day].

Of course, we cannot make a new system from scratch. We have to work within the one we have. I advise on this in the next Part – Part 8.

Part 8: Getting There From Here

A visitor stops a local and asks:
  "How do I get to Aberdeen from here?"
The local answers:
  "Oh, if I were going to Aberdeen -
   - I wouldn't start from here!"

--Scottish joke

We cannot make a new system from scratch. We have to work within the one we have.

So… what should we do!?

This part is in four sections:

1. Review: A Short History of Primaries
2. Specific Advice: for Voters
3. Specific Advice: for Aspiring Democratic Candidates
4. Overall General Advice

First: if “primaries” are so bad, then how did we get them in the first place?

A. These Damn Primaries – A History

Where did primaries come from? Surely they have some use?

I’m afraid not. Primaries began as an idea for increased accountability. Unfortunately, they fail at this task on every level. And in fact, every year we jump further from the frying pan into the fire.

Here, I review this history.

i. The 1968 Democratic Convention

The 1968 DNC was a disaster.

The wikipedia article includes these sentences:

"...among the most tense and confrontational political conventions in American history...
Dissatisfaction with the convention led to significant changes...ushering in the modern
primary election system...the convention also followed the assassination of Robert F.
Kennedy [second in delegates at the time of his death]...his committed delegates [went]
for Humphrey [#1] over candidate Eugene McCarthy, who had been third ...  Walter Cronkite
complained of 'a totally unwarranted restriction of free and rapid access to information'
... Intelligence agents had infiltrated among the protesters, including some from the
Central Intelligence Agency, who – contrary to American law – had been sent to spy upon
domestic politics. ... unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions,
particularly at night. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it
[police violence] was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no
order, made no threat ... On the last night, NBC News switched back and forth between
images of the violence, to the festivities over Humphrey's victory in the convention hall,
highlighting the division in the Democratic Party. ... It was often commented through
the popular media that on that evening, America decided to vote for Richard Nixon."

In other words: in 1968, the Democrats had a disastrous Pre-Campaign. It resulted in an electoral loss. (Just like today!)

They knew they had a problem. So, they responded with…

ii. The McGovern–Fraser Commission

…a Commission to reform the process.

“Dissatisfaction… led Democrats to create a commission that would ensure greater democratic input into how nominees were selected.”

This commission was led by Senator George McGovern.

Most suspiciously – under McGovern’s fancy new rules, McGovern himself was chosen as the next presidential candidate (in 1972). Imagine that! The first time the new rules were used, and the creator of those rules clinches the nomination. What are the chances!

Worse, McGovern got obliterated in the 1972 election, losing the popular vote by 20 million (26%), and losing the electoral college 520-17. (This suggests that he was a bad candidate, objectively – making it more suspicious that he was chosen in the first place – thus casting yet more doubt on his new process.)

McGovern then said: “I opened up the doors of the Democratic Party, and 20 million people walked out.” Primaries move the party away from the center – and toward the extremes (which is how you lose elections).

(This has been true ever since. In 2024, Kamala was butchered via the she’s for they/them ad – sourced from her 2019 democratic primary campaign, where she was in dire straits, and undertook increasingly desperate measures to stand out³.)

The 1972 loss was one of the biggest in US history. Ideally, someone would have realized that things had taken a dark turn. We’re going the wrong way!

So, why not kill the primaries immediately?

iii. Crossing Over

Flushed with overconfidence from his blowout victory, Nixon pressed his advantage. His legendary Watergate scandal took place two years later (1974), a crushing blow to Republican credibility. Angry voters responded to Watergate, by firing the red team from Congress 3 months later in the 1974 midterms. Nixon was about to be impeached, and removed from office – (the ultimate election loss). But instead, he weaseled out of full accountability – he resigned and was pardoned by Ford, his own former Vice-President. The red party was now in shambles!

This is a perfect example of “the long leash”. In a perfect world, the Democrats would have internalized the 1972 loss, and reformed and improved themselves. But instead, their terrible performance “crossed over”, and made Republicans overconfident. So Democrats decided that primaries are the future, after all.

Perplexingly, by 1976, Republicans had also adopted primaries. These had no real effect, since Ford was the sitting president at the time, and he was therefore nominated. One “cynical reading” of the situation is that Ford wanted to shore up his legitimacy (since he was never elected at all – to VP or P).

Ford’s opponent, Carter-1976, was the 2nd presidential candidate chosen via primary. And he won! But only barely (50%-48%).

Perhaps, this bolstered people’s faith, in the new process. (It shouldn’t have – this election was primary-vs-primary; only the 1972 election was primary vs non-primary, and it was a knockout landslide.)

Party-insiders pushed back gently, by adding the super-delegates system. And they have tinkered with the rules, ever since. But overall, primaries were here to stay!

iv. Primaries vs CAOs

Could history have been different? What if we had CAOs, back in 1968?

First, CAOs want to earnestly investigate each candidate – this limits corruption, in the first place. Second, the CAO is unambiguously in charge – the nomination and convention are controlled by him. He is unambiguously a super-specialist, with a strong incentive to win. A disorderly protest is unlikely to persuade the CAO to change his mind. And why bother changing his mind? If the nominee is truly such a poor choice, then they will lose [on election day], and the CAO will be fired – the problem will take care of itself. So nothing can be gained, by violent protest – and so there is no need for the police to put down any protests, either.

The CAO system would have made better choices. But even if it (somehow) made terrible choices, these would not have led to protests or violence. And – no matter how badly the 1968 nomination went – the whole nomination process would have automatically “fixed” itself, just 70 days later, on November 6th, 1968.

It even repairs itself on a meta level. In the real world, the 1968 loss led to McGovern’s commission and his terrible reform ideas – which we’ve been stuck with ever since. But, in the CAO world, even if the 1968 loss led to the adoption of terrible McGovern-shaped ideas, we would only have been stuck with them for four years – after the 1972 loss, these ideas would no longer be a mandatory part of “the process”. The new CAO could take-them-or-leave-them.

So, in the CAO-world, no matter how bad things get, there is always hope – heads will role, and a new process is right around the corner.

v. Now, about that advice…

Of course, the better idea doesn’t automatically win. We still need a way to get there from here.

Hence sections [B,C,D]…

B. Specific Advice: For Voters

We laypeople cannot easily affect the Democratic Party (nor the Republican Party). But – we can affect the culture.

Idea 1: The Blame Game

First, we must assign blame accurately.

We must dish out some harsh accountability – the harsher the better.

Specifically, we [both Democrats and Republicans alike] must maximize the suffering of the Democratic leadership that got us here. The people responsible for the 2024 loss, should have their careers ended, and Democrats should try again with new people. First of all, the old leadership are (likely) not up to scratch – we deserve better. But, much more importantly: we must motivate the new leadership to try harder in 2028. It is a moral imperative that both Democrats and Republicans do this. It is our patriotic duty to maximize their suffering (see Part 4, above).

Who, in particular, should suffer??

I’m glad you asked:

First, Joe Biden. Just think of his mistakes – [1] to stay in the race, [2] to cling desperately to power, [3] to give a horrendous debate performance so horrible it basically tanked the whole race right then and there. Plus, [4] Biden was actually in charge, of the country, these past four years. Furthermore, [5] Biden picked Harris – in a sense, he has failed as CAO twice in a row: first by appointing himself (and then withdrawing), and second by picking Kamala (who went on to lose). I say the Kamala choice was “unilateral”, because Biden ran it as a fait accompli – his tweet about withdrawing from the race, is the same tweet in which he immediately endorsed Kamala, leaving other Democrats unable to realistically dispute his choice. On top of all that, book evidence now confirms that Biden [6] basically extorted Kamala – forcing her to agree to a “no daylight” policy in return for his endorsement.

So – if you are angry about a second Trump term, then blame Biden. He was the leader of the opposition party and he failed on every level.

Second: the senior DNC leadership. The party supported Biden. The party covered up his age and senility – they lied, to the American people. They tried to pawn off this lemon on us! It’s just a complete fraud, if you think about it. And… where was the apology? Where was the explanation? A whole slew of primaries were held, and Biden won them all – not Kamala. The party picked Biden, without vetting him. He did not have to fight through any primary elections – he did not have win any debates against fellow democrats (which would have alerted everyone, to his inability to debate). Biden just picked himself – and everyone else was too cowardly to question it. Only after debate #1 (ie, after it was too late), did Pelosi (apparently) get involved. (I bet she wishes she got involved earlier.)

So – if cowards are all we can find, [to run the DNC], then –at least– it should be us, that they are so afraid of! They were worried, about Biden’s retribution? Well – two can play that game – what about our retribution.

"You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me, Sirius."
...
Black and Lupin stood shoulder to shoulder, wands raised.
"You should have realized," said Lupin quietly, "if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Good-bye, Peter."
-Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999)

[ Maroni falls and screams, breaking his leg ]
 Batman: "Where is he?!" ...
 Maroni: "Nobody's gonna tell you nothin' -- they're wise to your act.
          You got rules. The Joker? He's got no rules! No one's gonna
          cross him for you."
-The Dark Knight (2008)

So – we should run a scorched earth campaign against any Democrat in any position of leadership (or prestige) during 2020-2024. Notably, Barack Obama supported Biden (and even doubled-down, after debate #1) – so, we must now reject Obama. Pelosi also – too little too late!

It would be faster to mention the Democrats we should not blame. Dean Phillips called for Biden to withdraw, in July 2022 – at great personal risk. Thus, he was the 1st person in the party to call BS on Biden – the loyal opposition. He also scored #2 in delegates, in the Democratic 2024 Primaries. George Clooney’s NY Times editorial is from July 10th. He wrote that, right after organizing the largest fundraiser for a Democratic candidate in history. That was long before Pelosi or any spineless Congresspeople got involved. Bill Maher called this exact issue, perfectly, in Sept 2023. These are the people that the party should promote.

Kamala lost, but she was more-or-less sabotaged, by Biden (and the DNC) – so we don’t need to go out of our way, to psychologically torture her.

All other DNC leaders should be tortured. They should be shamed and disgraced – brutally, and mercilessly – to the point where they cannot participate in politics any longer. They refused to stick their neck out, for us, the people – instead they were loyal to Biden – who lost. Had Biden won – they would have prospered. …but Biden didn’t win. So we should magnify their suffering.

Thirdly, these doctors: Feb 16, 2023 - Biden’s physician says he remains “fit for duty” after routine physical. Who the hell are these doctors? The whole Walter Reed Team?! They signed off on this? They ruined the election – they are responsible for Trump winning. We expect the DNC to lie to us – they are politicians, it is in their nature. But doctors?? On a question like this?!

Why not arrest them all? And charge them with treason – and sentence them to death. That would make an impression.

I mean, they all lied to everyone – about something very important! How can you care, about January 6th – Trump’s insurrection – but not care about this? It is a gargantuan fraud, either way. A breakdown of the norms governing our society.

We expect the red team to sabotage the blue team. (Trump [probably] lured Biden into the debate [knowing Biden would lose] – Trump probably has spies in the White House, leakers, etc.) But a professional [ie, a doctor]?! Someone officially reporting to the public, on this exact question? We rely on their expertise – they have special, unique access to the president. We don’t. It was a key question, and they flatly lied. That is quite the betrayal.

Idea 2: Always Vote Opposition

There is a political action which is [1] easy to explain, [2] easy to organize around, [3] low effort, [4] high impact, and [5] puts politicians in the mood for reform. It is: vote opposition every time. If Republicans are currently in power, then vote Democrat. If instead Democrats are in power, vote Republican.

All by itself, this strategy does not accomplish much. But – if you pair it with a demand – it becomes effective. Its bipartisan nature helps make it a more effective threat. You could get a large crowd, of many diverse voters together, and say (something like): “we will ALL be ‘voting opposition’, until we get XYZ reform”.

This begs the question: what reform(s) should we demand?

Idea 3: Primary Turnout Rule

Professor Ian Shapiro of Yale, has recommended one reform: if primary turnout is low [ie, less than 75% of general election turnout], then heavily discount the primary (and not be bound by it).

Shapiro admits this reform is unlikely to pass – but, by pushing for it, he hopes to draw attention to the low primary turnout rates. (They are nowhere near 75% – more like 15% of all votes cast, and 30% of each party’s general election votes.)

That would certainly help.

Idea 4: Kill The Electoral College via NPVIC

Ending the electoral college (EC) is both [1] high-impact, and [2] achievable.

First, why is the EC so bad? Two reasons are obvious. First, only 17% of voters live in a swing state – leaving 83% of the country with no real vote. Second, the federal government outranks the state & local governments. If Kansas disagrees with the President of the United States, then probably Kansas will lose. The states must run a balanced budget, but the federal government does not. The federal government has a standing army (the largest in the world); states do not. So – the federal government is the more important one, and it is controlled by the EC.

Less obviously, the EC causes low voter turnout. In 2024, 89 million voters (36%) didn’t vote, despite being eligible.

Why is the EC responsible for low turnout? Well, imagine Connecticut had >51% of the electoral college votes. In that world, CT voter turnout would probably be high… but non-CT turnout would be low! In fact, it should logically be zero percent (since non-CT votes can’t affect the outcome). So, not only does the EC steal the election (for Connecticut), it also covers up its crime by killing all the witnesses. The low voter turnout, makes it appear as though the popular vote and EC agree – when in fact they do not.

So: we must destroy the EC.

But how?

Luckily, there is a realistic, crafty way to get rid of the Electoral College: it is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

And it already is close to passing, with 209/270 EVs. How do we get it across the line?

Well, we must be strategic, about which states to lean on.

Swing states, are least likely to want to pass it – since they’d give up some of their extra influence. The same goes for smaller states, (who benefit from the mandatory minimum 3 EC votes). Thirdly, the red states, (since Trump won), might be less “in the mood” for reform.

Texas + Florida (70 EV), would put it over the line. To appeal to them, the strategy would be: [1] they are deeply-red states, [2] they are dynamic engines of economic growth, [3] they are “maverick” states and vaguely libertarian (and the NPVIC would give their citizens more leverage over the federal government).

If we can’t get those, then the backup plan should be: [Virginia + New Hampshire + New Mexico] (23 EV). These are blue states – and the Trump-hating blue activists in those states need something to do. It would only get us to 232 EV. However, this would drastically weaken Florida’s negotiating position as a veto point. After banking those 3 states, we can try a second time to get either: [1] Texas alone, or [2] Florida alone (no Texas) + [any one of OH, IN, MI, WI, TN]. This would hopefully produce a “writing on the wall” situation, where the holdout states believe that passage is imminent (with or without them) and they jump ship to the winning team.

By the way, the NPVIC wikipedia page contains the important misconception I mention above: “The idea gained traction amongst scholars after George W. Bush won the presidential election but lost the popular vote in 2000.” But, as I explained, “disagreement with the popular vote”, is not the problem with the EC. The EC changes who bothers to vote in the first place, thus changing what the [observed] popular vote is.

Idea 5: Support Prediction Markets

As I mentioned in Part 7, prediction markets would help. I’ve written and presented on this already to an enormous extent.

Nonetheless, it would be nice if: PolyMarket, prediction markets, betting, etc all became more culturally normalized.

That will probably either [1] happen automatically, or [2] not happen at all until we have on-chain blockchain prediction markets. So there’s less of a need to discuss it here.

Idea 6: Persuade Everyone / Go Viral

Ideally, activists would educate the public on these facts…

1. We are limited to two parties – this is an iron law of democratic logic.
2. That means, getting on the ballot (on either party), is a big deal! We [the people] must curate this process! If we get two bad candidates, we are screwed!
3. If one party consistently sends us bad candidates, then we are likely to end up with two bad candidates. [Thus, screwing us.]
4. The existing primary process, is very bad. It has very low turnout (11% ish) – it relies on a shortlist – it destroys accountability – etc. We should kill it.

…and change people’s minds, on these topics:

• Primaries being “democratic” (or useful at all). They are not.
• Blaming the Republican President for winning. Instead, we should blame Dem-leadership for losing.
• Parties as fixed “clubs” that you remain loyal to. Instead, we should view them as ‘brands’ like Crest vs Colgate.

Unfortunately, persuasion is very difficult.

Of course, it does happen – Gay Marriage, Tea Party, environmentalism, Regan Revolution, woman’s suffrage, etc. We can assemble a community [artists, media personalities, t-shirt designers, corporate sponsors, regular people, etc] and spread the word.

Milton Friedman once said: “There are idea-manufacturers… and idea-distributors… and idea-wholesalers… and idea-retailers…”. The inventor of an idea, is [often] different from the person who takes it mainstream. This essay is certainly a manufacturer – it probably won’t go mainstream. But I can pass the torch, to YOU. You can make your own content – TikTok videos, memes, t-shirts. You can be the wholesaler who gets these ideas to a retailer [Joe Rogan, Jon Stewart, etc], who will then take them mainstream.

However, politics is very tricky. Most normal people have a fundamentally performative relationship to politics. Most political opinions are performances designed to look important and gain the respect of friends, family, and co-workers. A group of loyal friends who are all-Democrat, will stay all-Democrat, out of loyalty to each other – [not out of loyalty to the DNC, nor leftist philosophy]. (Same for any group of all-Republican friends.) This is a problem for anyone who wants [either party] to improve – since [both parties] can slack off without losing supporters.

The trick will be: criticize party leadership, without criticizing the party.

I don’t really know how to do that. But someone probably does. [Probably a comedian.]

Ok – enough about citizens – what about politicians?

C. For the Politicians

Aspiring Democratic candidates should use the DNC’s past mistakes to their advantage.

Idea 1: Use Primary Debates to Take Revenge

During the 2028 primaries, you should mercilessly attack anyone in the [failed] Biden administration – as follows:

“These people LIED – they lied to all of us, about Biden’s health! That’s how we got Trump #2. That’s how we got DOGE cuts. That’s how we got the deportation of citizens to El Salvador, without due process! [Bernie Sanders] was a presidential candidate in 2016, 2020, and 2024 – he has enormous clout – there is no way – NO WAY he didn’t know. [turn to the audience for dramatic effect] How can you support these people?? Don’t you have any self-respect? They LIED… to everyone! About Biden. How can you support… you supported them, they have betrayed your trust. He [Sanders] lied to you, to protect Biden. What a fraud! Where’s the apology? Where’s the explanation? If you vote for them [point at the establishment candidates], then you are voting to be kept in the dark – you are voting for a broken process – that’s what Trump wants, that’s what Steve Bannon wants – that is exactly what they want. For us to run these Failures.”

Your sincerity and passion will shine out. Meanwhile, their lack of integrity will drag them down. This gives you a big advantage.

Trump himself did this, during the 2016 primaries. First, he tied establishment Republicans [ie, George W Bush], to failure – linking him to the Invasion of Iraq and 9/11. This set Trump apart – and it let him attack Jeb Bush (the brother of the former President – and the once-frontrunner of the 2016 field, [although by Feb 2016, Trump had already himself become the frontrunner]).

Watch and learn:

    Trump: They lied!
           They said there were weapons of mass destruction,
            --there were none-- , and they KNEW there were none.
           There were no weapons of mass destruction.
  ...               
 Jeb Bush: I am sick and tired of him going after my family,
  ...
            While Donald Trump was building a Reality TV show,
            my brother was building a security apparatus to keep
            us safe.
  ...
     Trump: The World Trade Center came down, during his brother's
            reign. Remember that -- that's not keeping us safe.
            
  ...
     Rubio: [George Bush] kept us safe. And I am forever grateful
             for what he did for this --
  
     Trump: How did he keep us safe, when the World Trade Center
            came down? 
            The World -- excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends --
            the World Trade Center came down, during the reign of
            George Bush.
 
[Crowd Booing Mercilessly]

            He kept us safe?!
            That's not safe.
            That is not safe, Marco.

     Rubio: The World Trade Center came down, because Bill Clinton
            didn't kill Osama Bin Laden, when he had the chance to
            kill him.
  
     Trump: And George Bush had --
            -- by the way -- George Bush had the chance also, and
            he didn't listen to the advice of his, CIA.

This is good politics, and good for the country. Politicians should face a dual punishment for their mistakes: first, the rival party will criticize them, to win the general election. But second – future members of their own party should criticize them, during the primary election.

A shrewd candidate will just pound on this relentlessly. And ideally: everyone would know that it is coming. The anticipated imminent shame, would ideally be unbearable. Ideally, insiders would see the writing on the wall, and just quit now. The sooner the better! That is exactly what we want: any politician who ever makes a serious mistake, or is merely associated with wrongdoing, understands that their career is over.

Idea 2: Centralize and Take Responsibility

Trump also used centralization to improve party discipline.

By “centralization”, I mean that Trump [1] appointed his own family/friends to key RNC roles, and [2] led a scorched-earth campaign against anyone less-than perfectly-loyal to him. Trump does not govern by consensus – everything goes through him personally. In effect, he made himself CAO of the Republican party – and swept away all past CAOs (ie: the Bush family, the moral majority, independent Republicans, etc).

And it has worked. Trump’s monopoly on the Republican party, enhances his leverage over other Republicans. This allows him to make fast, ad hoc modifications to the platform without consulting anyone. This maneuverability let Trump cut quick deals, to capture the median voter (ie: Elon Musk, RFK Jr, crypto-currency enthusiasts, the Libertarian Party, Joe Rogan, etc). In contrast, Kamala had trouble reigning in pedantic, nit-picking extremists, and thus lost the center. In other words, the Republican party had superior party discipline.

You see: when you centralize all decision making through yourself, you take responsibility for the outcome. You take responsibility for the whole party. Had Trump lost, the “blame game” would be easy – everyone [Republican and Democrat alike] would blame Trump. But Trump’s vulnerability [to blame], is also the source of his extra legitimacy. If Trump wants to kick someone out, he can. Republicans must support Trump, lest they be fired – it’s just easier to run a big organization that way. When Trump talks at rallies, (or on Joe Rogan’s podcast), the listeners believe they are talking to the person who will decide their future. And? The devil-you-know, beats the devil-you-don’t. It’s hard to beat something, with nothing.

Trump’s successor(s), will probably try to replicate his style – since (after all) it did work.

So – the new Democratic candidate should also emulate Trump – not his rudeness or vainglory, but his centralized management of the party. These are the specific steps to follow: [1] craft a platform that appeals to the center-left, [2] put yourself (and your platform) out there, unapologetically [3] demand total loyalty from your (subordinate) congresspeople and party members, [4] make your “personal brand” overlap with the “party brand” as much as possible, [5] declare that your priority is winning the election, and that you intend to deliver the win personally, and that [6] you should be blamed, if the party loses.

Who is best equipped to execute this strategy? I have no idea. George Clooney? Mark Cuban? Taylor Swift?

Unfortunately, the Democratic party has been going the wrong way. In 2016, Bernie Sanders dropped out and endorsed Hillary Clinton – but in return for Sanders’ support, the DNC agreed to partially dismantle the superdelegates system. In 2020, they continued this process. In 2024 season, they continued to focus on legitimizing primaries, moving South Carolina, Georgia, and Michigan up the schedule, because these states were [supposedly] more “representative” of the party. In 2025, a popular view is that Kamala lost because she wasn’t nominated via primary – her nomination was (as some say) “undemocratic”. All these steps are mistakes – they are decentralizing reforms, pushing accountability away from leaders; and making it harder for the Democratic party to win on election day.

But you don’t have to play by the party’s broken rules. Go out there and say: “it’s my way, or the highway”. Voters (and donors) will flock to your banner – especially if they are sick of losing.

Idea 3: Informal CAOs

It will be hard to formally implement CAOs.

But informally it would be quite easy. A critical mass of DNC members could just start acting as if (for example) “George Clooney is our CAO”⁴. They could just start treating him as though he were in charge – voluntarily deferring to him. Then, Clooney could start firing people, weeding out the disloyal and the underperformers.

Use years 2025-2027 to organize and unify the opposition. Track all the mistakes made by Trump, on a big leaderboard. Plan the 2028 party platform and election strategy.

When the primaries roll around, curate the “debate shortlist”. Make sure it contains: [1] your handpicked favorite, [2] insiders from the 2024-era (for your candidate to beat up on), and [3] a bunch of low-quality candidates who are too-similar to the insiders in [2] (they will cannibalize each other’s votes). This gives your candidate a good chance of winning!

After nominating, give total control of the party to the nominee.

Finally, after the election: reassess. If Clooney’s choice won, then Clooney should pick again (in 2032)! If not, then everyone should immediately start deferring to someone else [ie: Bill Maher, or whatever].

D. Overall General Advice

Keep these basic facts in mind:

1. We shouldn’t expect either party to fix itself – we have to get involved.
   • The winning party has a monopoly, on ruling the country.
   • The losing party has a monopoly, on running the only viable opposition.
   • Therefore: both are monopolies. Both can safely slack off, without being “challenged”. Therefore: change must come from us – the layperson.
2. We have been steadily going the wrong way, since 1968. Things may continue to get worse.
3. Existing party elites will defend their corrupt system to the death.
   • So – be on the lookout for all kinds of whining and excuse-making.
   • Be especially suspicious of past nominees (or anyone who does well in the current system).
4. The strategy of “just explain everything, patiently, to everyone, until we all agree!” has a very disappointing track record.
5. The 2028 primaries will probably pick a terrible blue candidate. Therefore, Trump/Vance will do a worse job, today.

Here’s some “good news”:

1. [If my theories are correct] – then American democracy is saved, if just one party, optimizes their Pre-Campaign.
   • Because: that party will consistently win.
   • Therefore: the rival party must either imitate them, or lose [ever after].
   • Therefore, our problem is cut in half, right off the bat.
2. Every 4 years, one of the two parties will lose.
   • And they will then search for new ideas – (new ways to avoid losing).
   • Large donors will withhold money, until they see a winning plan.
3. The internet makes it easy to spread ideas.
4. The US Constitution makes no mention of parties – so it won’t get in our way.

These are some principles to live by:

1. Accountability is our friend.
   • Shun anyone who held a 2024 DNC leadership position – ideally they would all resign.
   • Burn it to the ground.
2. Nail the 2024 failure to the old guard – so as to get rid of them.
3. Pick a centrist – do NOT pick someone popular “in the party”. (The goal is to win the general election.)
4. Republican laypeople! Do your part – by criticizing Democrat craziness. This helps the whole country – it helps Dems bring a better candidate next time, and it helps keep Trump/Vance on a short leash.

Remember that the core dispute boils down to this:

1. On one hand – primaries, where citizens are more directly involved (and can vote)… from a few pre-selected options.
2. On the other hand – centralization, where one champion specializes, and risks everything on a single choice.
3. Of those two options, which is the more inspiring?

E. The Pep Talk

Finally, I must give a “Pep Talk” – to Democrats.

Why? Well, the psychology of a Republican tends to be: more transaction-al, more pragmatic about winning, more “tough” in the face of hard choices, more militaristic, and more in favor of strict rules (enforced as-is). In contrast, Democrats are more compassionate, more “forgiving” (of failure), more empathetic and “supportive” during times of adversity (vs tough love). Democrats are also more universal, and thus less apt to partition their world into “more capable” and “less capable”. Thus, Republicans will take to the CAO model like a fish to water (probably). But Democrats may not.

Hence…. my pep talk: “Okay, Democrats. You did your part. You voted; you volunteered. Everyone tried really hard – including Kamala. Including… and Biden and the DNC leaders. They tried their best. And – unfortunately – it is time for them to take one tiny step down. It’s no disrespect to them. This is just how it has to be. Now – I want everyone to close their eyes – and imagine all the Democratic voters who were let down by this loss. Where’s our sympathy for them? Those people need our support. And also, please – close your eyes, and imagine the new blood – the next Barack Obama, or JFK, is out there somewhere. They deserve a chance. The old experts [like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders] – they’ve had several turns already; and a few people at the top, shouldn’t hoard all the “turns” for themselves. That’s not fair. In a Democracy, the top people (candidates and nominees) should play by the same rules as an Uber driver or factory worker. Accountability helps an organization learn and grow – it’s how we make progress. Let’s focus on setting up the Democratic Party for future success. We don’t have be rude, we don’t have to dwell on it – but is time to give new people a turn. And ONLY new people.”

Now – to finish this essay up.

Continue Reading: Part 9: Misconceptions About Democracy ; Part 10: The End

Footnotes