Within the context of politics-as-usual in America, a "trifecta" means all three branches of the federal government or a state government are controlled by members of the same major political party. Within the context of making America a Perfect Democracy, the "Democracy Trifecta" means perfecting direct democracy, perfecting systems of representation to make them worthy of the descriptor "representative democracy", and perfecting elections.
Although the term "perfect democracy" is sometimes used as a synonym for direct democracy, direct democracy is not always perfect. the main defect with direct democracy in America is that it is far too difficult (and expensive) for citizens to call referendums and put proposed legislation on the ballot through the initiative. Other common problems with direct democracy is America include deliberately deceptive ballot language and anti-democratic provisions related to the initiative process, including super-majorities being required for approval by the voters of a community or state.
In a perfect direct democracy, it should be relatively simple for Citizens to call a veto referendum or put proposed legislation on the ballot through the initiative. There should be no anti-democratic provisions in place that require a super-majority for ratification of legislation proposed through the initiative. Ballot language should be straightforward and not deceptive in any way.
The details of Perfect Democracy Amendments will vary from community to community, from state to state, and at the federal level, but in general, will make it easier for Citizens to call referendums and use the initiative, remove antidemocratic provisions from charters and constitutions, and ensure that ballot language is clear and easily understood. Appropriate penalties for offering or accepting money or other things of value in exchange for votes, to influence Citizens as they assign Proxies, or hacking the online accounts of Politically Active Citizens should be included in Perfect Democracy Amendments or legislation enacted in support of Perfect Democracy Amendments.
The system of electing representatives that we have is the worst system possible. Winner-take-all elections, with plurality winners and single-member districts nearly always result in a duopoly (a political system dominated by two major parties). Duopolies have a strong tendency to degenerate into a ruthless, vicious competition for power.
Corporate-owned mass media tends to promote a negative political atmosphere by focusing on conflicts because conflict draws listeners and viewers, which increases ratings, which increases profits. The false friends and true enemies of democracy thrive within a system based on conflict and competition because conflict divides us and makes it easier for corporations and billionaires to maintain control of our government. Their efforts have been very successful. We are deeply and bitterly divided.
Most of the nations in Europe use the “Ordered Party List” form of proportional representation. A few of them use a “Mixed Member Proportional” system. Either one of those systems would be an improvement over what we have.
Implementing ranked choice voting combined with multiple-member districts has long been considered the form of proportional representation that would be most appealing to American voters, but that form of ranked choice voting has yet to be implemented in any of the fifty states or in Congress. (Two states and over fifty cities have adopted ranked choice voting, but few, if any, of them incorporate multiple-member districts or at-large elections.)
Proportional Ranked Choice Voting for electing members of representative assemblies is the best form of proportional representation, but is not as simple, obvious, or arithmetically perfect as Personal Representation. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting and Personal Representation are not mutually exclusive, they can be combined to good effect. The primary drawback to Proportional Representation has been that the tabulation methods that have been developed to achieve proportional representation, while maintaining the tradition of each member of a legislative body have a single, equal vote. In combination with a system of Personal Representation through Proxies, the tabulation method can be kept as simple as the tabulation method for Ranked Choice Voting in an election where there can only be a single winner. The process of eliminating the candidates with the fewest cumulative votes could end once the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled. Eliminating the need for complicated tabulation. methods would make Proportional Ranked Choice Voting considerably more appealing.
Ranked Choice Voting has long been considered the form of proportional representation that would be most appealing to American voters, but Proportional Ranked Choice Voting has yet to be implemented in any of the fifty states or in Congress. Two states (Maine and Alaska) and over fifty cities have adopted ranked choice voting, but with only one or two exceptions) do not incorporate multiple-member districts or at-large elections. (Which is the most powerful element of Ranked Choice Voting.)
Thirteen states have now banned Ranked Choice Voting, but importantly, have not banned at-large elections. An amendment providing for multiple-member districts would violate the Uniform Congressional District Act, which mandates single-member districts for seats in Congress, but multiple-member districts or at-large elections could be implemented at the state and local levels of government. The more members elected in each district, the better. Research has shown that districts with five or more representatives effectively neutralizes the effects of gerrymandering. At-large elections make gerrymandering impossible - there are no districts to be gerrymandered.
The most common argument against multiple-member districts or at-large elections is that voters will have too many candidates from which to choose. If we applied that logic to purchasing a car, we would want to limit the number of makes and models consumers have to choose from. The more candidates voters have to choose from, the better. A voter doesn't need to test drive every car to find one she or he likes and wants to purchase. A voter doesn't have to be familiar with every candidate on the ballot - they simply need to find someone on the ballot who will vote as they would vote to represent them. The more candidates they have to choose from, the more likely they are to find a candidate who truly represents them. (A system of Personal Representation through Proxies will ensure that they can change their representative at any time.)
There are several ways to apply the concept of citizens ranking multiple choices:
In an election where there can only be a single winner, Ranked Choice Voting is the key to ensuring that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the people.
Proportional Ranked Choice Voting for electing members of representative assemblies is the best form of proportional representation, but is not as simple, obvious, or arithmetically perfect as Personal Representation. Proportional Ranked Choice Voting and Personal Representation are not mutually exclusive, they can be combined to good effect. The primary drawback to Proportional Representation has been that the tabulation methods that have been developed to achieve proportional representation, while maintaining the tradition of each member of a legislative body have a single, equal vote. In combination with a system of Personal Representation through Proxies, the tabulation method can be kept as simple as the tabulation method for Ranked Choice Voting in an election where there can only be a single winner. The process of eliminating the candidates with the fewest cumulative votes could end once the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled. Eliminating the need for complicated tabulation. methods would make Proportional Ranked Choice Voting considerably more appealing.
Ranked Choice Voting has long been considered the form of proportional representation that would be most appealing to American voters, but Proportional Ranked Choice Voting has yet to be implemented in any of the fifty states or in Congress. Two states (Maine and Alaska) and over fifty cities have adopted ranked choice voting, but with only one or two exceptions) do not incorporate multiple-member districts or at-large elections. (Which is the most powerful element of Ranked Choice Voting.)
Thirteen states have now banned Ranked Choice Voting, but importantly, have not banned at-large elections. An amendment providing for multiple-member districts would violate the Uniform Congressional District Act, which mandates single-member districts for seats in Congress, but multiple-member districts or at-large elections could be implemented at the state and local levels of government. The more members elected in each district, the better. Research has shown that districts with five or more representatives effectively neutralizes the effects of gerrymandering. At-large elections make gerrymandering impossible - there are no districts to be gerrymandered.
The most common argument against multiple-member districts or at-large elections is that voters will have too many candidates from which to choose. If we applied that logic to purchasing a car, we would want to limit the number of makes and models consumers have to choose from. The more candidates voters have to choose from, the better. A voter doesn't need to test drive every car to find one she or he likes and wants to purchase. A voter doesn't have to be familiar with every candidate on the ballot - they simply need to find someone on the ballot who will vote as they would vote to represent them. The more candidates they have to choose from, the more likely they are to find a candidate who truly represents them. (A system of Personal Representation through Proxies will ensure that they can change their representative at any time.)
Initial victories in our campaign to make America a Perfect Democracy are most likely to come at the local level and then at the state level. The most common additional reform needed at the state and local level will be to remove antidemocratic provisions requiring a super-majority vote (typically a two-thirds vote) in a state legislature or local legislative body to override a veto from the executive.
Removing antidemocratic provisions from the Constitution of the United Sates will be a bigger challenge because the U. S. Constitution is the most difficult constitution in the world to amend. And because the false friends and true enemies of democracy hold nearly all the seats in Congress.
Several delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 warned against giving Congress a role in the amendment process. Their warnings were ignored as Congress was not only given a role in the amendment process, but was given a dominant role.
Most of the reforms listed below will likely be impossible to enact until pro-democracy voters have gained control of the legislatures in at least two-thirds of the states and can call a constitutional convention.
The reforms that are needed are listed and discussed below in order to begin to build support for them.
The U.S. Senate is the most undemocratic element in our form of government, with equal representation for states resulting in grossly unequal representation for the people of the larger states. Equal representation for the states in the Senate was “The Great Compromise” between the larger, more populous states (that wanted representation to be based on population) and the smaller states (that wanted to retain the equal representation for each state that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation). It was an unfortunate compromise, made necessary because the small states threatened to leave the convention (and the union) if they were denied equal suffrage in at least one of the two houses of Congress. It was designed to be an "elite" assembly (originally elected by state legislatures instead of directly by the people) to give the wealthy a check on the will of the people.
The primary reason we have a Senate at the federal level was to appease the small states at the Federal Convention of 1787. Our legislatures are also modeled on Great Britain's. We don't need a Senate to block the will of the people. We need a Congress and state legislatures that reflect the will of the people.
IMPLEMENT PERSONAL REPRESENTATION IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE
The alternative of implementing a system of Personal Representation through is the most modest way to eliminate the antidemocratic nature of the U. S. Senate. A system of Proxies would make both the House of Representatives and the Senate considerably more reflective of the will of the people. That would likely put an end to the gridlock that has paralyzed Congress.
MERGE THE SENATE WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Having both the House of Representatives and the Senate accurately reflect of the will of the people would introduce an unnecessary redundancy. Absent a desire to check or limit the will of the people, there is really no reason to have a bicameral (two chamber) legislature. After that redundancy becomes obvious, it would likely be easier to amend the Constitution to move to a unicameral legislature.
ABOLISH THE SENATE
A simple solution that has been adopted in many other democratic countries around the world would be to simply do away with the Senate.
Nebraska and most of the other democratic countries in the world already have unicameral legislatures. Amendments merging the Senate with the House of Representatives or simply abolishing the Senate should be adopted by other states.
Because the Constitution of the United States specifies that states may not be deprived of equal suffrage without their consent and that every senator has one vote, anything we do will require a constitutional amendment. Senators, like other people in power, are not likely to vote away their power or their position. The fact that the U. S. Constitution is the most difficult constitution in the world to amend, makes a near certainty that reform will come first at the state and local level.
“Every other presidential democracy in the world did away with indirect elections during the twentieth century, in America the Electoral College remained intact.” [Tyranny of the Minority. Page 215]
“America is the only presidential democracy in the world in which the president is elected via an Electoral College, rather than directly by voters. Only in America can a president be “elected against the majority expressed at the polls.” [Tyranny. Page 217]
The initial draft proposal, backed by Madison and embedded in the Virginia plan, called for Congress to choose the president - a system not unlike the parliamentary model of democracy that would later emerge in Europe during the nineteenth century. [Tyranny. Page 156]
James Wilson argued for popular election of the president. This is how all other presidential and semi presidential democracies - from Argentina to France to South Korea - elect their executives today. But at the time, there were no presidential democracies, and in Philadelphia in 1787 most delegates were still too distrustful of the “people” to accept direct elections, and the proposal was twice voted down by the convention. [Tyranny. Page 157]
The Electoral College has overruled the voters (the popular vote) in two of the last six presidential elections. This is blatantly undemocratic. It is time to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct election of the president and vice-president by the people, using ranked choice voting to ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).
We have, so far, avoided an even more antidemocratic process for electing the president that would be triggered if one or more independent or third-party candidates won enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from receiving a majority of the electoral votes. In that event, the 12th Amendment, as it stands, provides for the House of Representatives to elect the president with each state, regardless of population, casting a single vote. The vice-president would be elected by the Senate.
Article V of the U. S. Constitution includes a provision for amendments to be proposed by means of a constitutional convention to be convened “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” but does not include any details regarding how delegates to that convention would be chosen or how the business of the convention is to be conducted. If an Article V Convention is called without those details already in place, it will precipitate an unnecessary and avoidable constitutional crisis.
Several separate campaigns are actively seeking to call a convention, each of them calling for competing limitations on the amendments that can be proposed or considered at a convention. Twenty-eight states have adopted resolutions calling for a convention. That is only six short of the number required. It is not clear if Congress is required to call a convention if there are different limitations in some of the resolutions or if states legislatures have the power to set limits on the amendments that can be proposed the delegates to an Article V Convention.
The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, immediately upon convening, decided to disregard the language in the resolution that called the convention limiting them to do proposing nothing more than revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to an Article V Convention could presumably do the same thing.
Our greatest blessing, as Americans, is that we can change the form of our government peacefully, using ballots instead of bullets. (Although the amendment process is among the most anti-democratic provisions in our Constitution.). An Article V Convention is likely to be the best means of enacting the amendments needed to remove the other anti-democratic provisions from our Constitution. Absent legislation detailing a democratic process for electing delegates and conducting the business of the convention, there is good reason to fear an Article V Convention. With a democratic process in place, there would be good reason to celebrate a convention.
This is another reform needed to avert a foreseeable constitutional crisis. It could be enacted as an amendment to the Constitution or as legislation. Here is the text of a bill to provide the details of how delegates would be selected and the business of a constitutional convention conducted:
Upon receipt of valid applications from the legislatures of two thirds of the several states calling for a convention, Congress shall call an election of delegates to that convention on a date not less than five months nor more than six months after the required number of applications are received. Any applications for an Article V convention that include limitations on the nature of amendments that can be proposed by delegates to a convention shall be rejected as invalid.
At that election, the citizens of each state shall elect a number of delegates equal to the number of representatives each state is entitled to in the United States House of Representatives. Each delegate shall be eighteen years of age or older. No person holding public office shall be eligible to serve as a delegate. Citizens seeking to serve as a delegate shall be nominated by nominating petitions only, which shall be signed by a number of citizens of the state in which the citizen seeking to serve as a delegate resides, totaling one tenth of one percent or more of the number of voters who voted in the most recent state-wide election in that state. Notarized copies of the nominating petitions shall be submitted to the Secretary of State of the state in which they reside unless a different public official is designated by the legislature of a state. Nominating petitions must be submitted at least 60 days before the election of delegates.
All such candidates shall be voted for on a ballot providing for voters to rank a minimum of five candidates, in order of preference. Votes shall be tabulated as follows:
The delegates so elected shall convene in Washington, D. C. on a date designated by an act of Congress, not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after their election. The facilities of the House of Representatives shall be made available for the convention and the delegates.
Upon convening all delegates shall take an oath to discharge faithfully their duties as delegates to the convention.
Congress shall provide the funds necessary to reimburse delegates for reasonable and customary expenses related to attending the convention.
A majority of the delegates shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Delegates shall be free to propose a constitution or amendments to the present constitution, irrespective of any limitations or restrictions included in applications from the several states calling for an Article V convention.
No constitution or amendment to the present constitution shall be submitted to the people of the United States of America for their ratification or rejection unless by the assent of a majority of all the delegates-elect, the yeas and nays being entered on the journal of the convention.
The delegates to the convention may appoint such officers and employ such assistants as it may deem necessary and fix their compensation. Delegates may make provisions for the printing of documents, journals, proceedings and a record of its debates, and appropriate money for the expenditures incurred.
The sessions of the convention shall be open to the public. The convention shall determine the rules of its own proceedings, choose its own officers, and be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its delegates. In case of a vacancy by death, resignation, or other cause, the vacancy shall be filled by the last candidate eliminated during the tabulation of ranked choice votes.
Any proposed constitution or constitutional amendment adopted by the convention shall be submitted to a vote of the people of the United States of America at such time, in such manner, and containing such separate and alternative propositions and on such official ballot as may be provided by the convention, at a referendum conducted not less than 60 days nor more than six months after the adjournment of the convention. Upon the approval of the constitution or constitutional amendments the same shall take effect at the end of 30 days after the referendum. The results of the referendum shall be certified and proclaimed by the House of Representatives.
Corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Corporations are not people. They are a form of business organization. The fact that five misguided, dark-robed Supreme Court Justices declared that corporations are people, with the same natural rights as human beings, does not make it so. The corporate form of business organization enables companies to reap enormous profits, grow very large, and become very powerful. We must prevent that power from being used to take control of our government.
The Uniform Congressional District Act requires that all members of the U. S. House of Representatives be elected from a single-member district. This prevents states from taking advantage of the major benefits of ranked choice voting – neutralizing the effects of gerrymandering by and giving voters more choices regarding who will represent them in Congress by electing representatives at-large or from multiple-member districts. This act needs to be repealed so that states can elect members of Congress at large or from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.
Requiring a super-majority (typically a two-thirds majority) for the members of a legislature to overrule an executive veto violates the principle of an equal vote (requiring one more than two "yes" votes to counter a single "no" vote) and also violates the principle of the supremacy of the legislative power that is an essential part of majority rule.
Giving the executive the veto power adds an element of autocracy to a government.
If a legislative body is a truly representative assembly, the executive can be given the power to veto legislation and return it to the legislature along with a statement of the reason he or she vetoed it. But the legislature should be able to override the veto by a simple majority vote.
In a true democracy, the veto power is vested in the people of a community, state, or nation. Calling a referendum should be simple and easy. (Hence the need for Perfect Democracy Amendments.)
Allowing one person to set aside convictions for crimes is a formula for corruption, placing too much power in a single person. Lord Acton's assertion that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies here.
The House of Representatives (both in Congress and in state legislatures) should have the power to grant pardons or commute sentences, by majority vote. (Ideally, within a system that includes Proxies for Citizens.)
Note: This proposed reform is incorporated in the Personal Representation and Perfect Democracy Amendments.
Supreme Court Justices should be able to share their opinions, but not unilaterally nullify acts of Congress.
The power of the Supreme Court to nullify acts of Congress that have been signed into law by the president is not included in the Constitution. The power of "Judicial Review" is a power the Supreme Court gave itself early in our nation's history. Allowing a handful of Supreme Court Justices to unilaterally "veto" legislation through "Judicial Review" makes the judicial branch supreme rather than the legislative power.
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Courts in the states should have the power to notify representative assemblies of their opinion with regard to legislation being "unconstitutional" and offer suggestions for how to address their concerns. Representative assemblies should have the option of addressing or ignoring those concerns by a majority vote of the members.
Rules and established practices in both houses of Congress and state legislatures empower minorities and, in some cases, even individual members to block action on legislation.
The filibuster is the most notorious example. Requiring a super-majority of 60 votes in the U. S. Senate to even discuss or debate, let alone pass, legislation has been one of the primary reasons that critical problems and issues are rarely addressed by Congress. Getting rid of the filibuster requires nothing more than electing senators who believe in majority rule (democracy) to a majority in the U. S. Senate.
When Champions of Democracy hold a majority of the seats in a legislative body, they will be able to accomplish this reform without any further assistance from Politically Active Citizens.
Communication is vital within a broad-based grassroots movement. We are compiling a data base of pro-democracy activists and voters. To join the campaign to make America a Perfect Democracy, please provide your email address. Your information will not be sold or shared. You will not receive emails or text messages soliciting financial contributions.
Some of the material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: Perfecting Democracy in the 21st Century by Winston Apple.
That content is Copyright 2026 Gary Winston Apple, unless otherwise noted.
Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights Reserved.
This website is paid for by Winston Apple - as a private citizen.