The Democracy Agenda
The Legislation Needed to Make America a Perfect Democracy
"The cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy."
~
Jane Addams
Perfecting democracy in America in the 21st century involves perfecting both direct and representative democracy, creating a system that facilitates seamless interactions between those two forms of democracy, repealing antidemocratic provisions from constitutions, addressing flaws in the way we conduct elections, and taking full advantage of advances in technology to make civic engagement easier and to make the deliberative phase of decision-making as inclusive, respectful, and productive as possible. We refer to the legislation needed to accomplish those objectives as the Democracy Agenda.
The primary reasons some countries rank ahead of us in the Democracy Index and the Freedom in the World Report are that they make more extensive use of referendums and elect their representatives using various forms of proportional representation.
The systems they have in place for calling referendums and electing representatives are considerably better than our system but are not perfect. We can make America the most democratic country in the world by enacting two universal, foundational, and transformative pro-democracy reforms: Personal Representation and Perfect Democracy Amendments. Enacting these reforms will make it easier to enact the additional reforms needed to make America a Perfect Democracy.
Note: The exact nature and the details of the reforms that are needed to make a government a Perfect Democracy vary from state to state within the United States. The following is the Democracy Agenda the federal level.
Personal Representation
A government with a system of representation is only a “representative democracy” if all the elements of a true democracy are in place. Citizens must have equal representation and the will of a majority of the people must be reflected in the acts of representative assemblies.
The best way to perfect a system of representation is to implement a system of Personal Representation that allows every citizen who is eligible to vote to assign a proxy to any one member of each legislative body that governs them, and then allows each member of that legislative body to cast a number of votes equal to the number of proxies they have been assigned (plus one for themselves) on everything voted on in a legislature. Citizens should also be able to reassign their proxies at any time. That will allow Politically Active Citizens to vote (albeit indirectly) on every issue of concern to them
Implementing systems of Personal Representation will instantly transform Congress and state legislatures into truly democratic institutions and bring a system of representation as close as possible to being a Perfect Democracy.
Perfect Democracy Amendments
The details of Perfect Democracy Amendments will vary from state to state and at the federal level, but in general, will make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative in the states that already provide for them, and will extend the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and to the twenty-four states that do not yet have provisions for them.
The most obvious ways to make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative are by allowing citizens to “sign” petitions electronically (by submitting Statements of Support through Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens) or by reducing the number of signatures required to call a referendum or put a proposal on the ballot.
Once these two foundational and transformative reforms are in place, it will be easier to enact the additional legislation in the Democracy Agenda:
Ranked Choice Voting
As the name implies, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a method of voting that allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of their true preferences. If the candidate who is your first preference does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your second preference. If that candidate does not win, your vote is transferred to the candidate who is your third preference. Ranked Choice Voting not only gives voters more choices, it increases the chances that a candidate you support will be elected.
When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera, or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for RCV ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.
Ranked Choice Voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts or at-large elections for constituting legislative bodies because it results in proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – one of the primary principles of democracy.
In addition to eliminating wasted votes and the spoiler effect, research has shown that when combined with legislative districts of five or more members, Ranked Choice Voting neutralizes the effects of gerrymandering.
Ranked Choice Voting can also be used to give voters a range of choices when voting on legislation where that would appropriate (various dollar figures for minimum wage, et cetera).
Direct Election of Presidents (With RCV)
Avoiding a foreseeable constitutional crisis
A majority of voters in America support replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president by the people. That would be an improvement and would avert a potential constitutional crisis. Adding Ranked Choice Voting and all the benefits of RCV would be a major improvement.
All the candidates listed on the sample ballot (right) were on the ballot in one or more states in 2020. There are many minor party and independent candidates on the ballot in most presidential elections, but without ranked choice voting, voters who cast their ballot for alternative candidates are almost certainly casting "wasted votes". If enough votes are cast for alternative candidates the "spoiler effect" may lead to the major party candidate, who would have won in a head-to-head match-up, losing in the Electoral College, as has happened in two recent presidential elections - in 2000 and 2016.
Candidates for President (on the ballot in one or more states) in 2020.
A candidate who wins the most votes losing the election 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. Including Ranked Choice Voting in the process will ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).
Replacing the Electoral College with direct election of the president using Ranked Choice Voting will also avert a potential constitutional crisis.
Within the system that has been in place since 1804, if a minor party or independent candidate were to actually win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from winning a majority of the electoral votes, that would trigger the even more anti-democratic process provided for in the 12th Amendment. The House of Representatives would elect the president, with each state having a single vote, regardless of population. And the Senate would elect the vice-president through a similar method.
The only time that has happened, so far, was in the election of 1824. Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Henry Clay, who came in fourth, was eliminated. He threw his support to John Quincy Adams (allegedly in exchange for being named Secretary of State – a deal that was labeled the “corrupt bargain”). Adams, who had finished second in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, became the president. Jackson had his revenge four years later, when he won the presidency.
We have, so far, avoided a repeat of what happened in 1824. If our luck runs out, it will trigger a serious constitutional crisis.
Amending our Constitution to provide for direct election of the president using ranked choice voting will not only give voters more choices, without triggering anti-democratic procedures, and ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference), it will also allow us to eliminate primary elections (saving a considerable amount of money.
Repeal the Uniform Congressional District Act
The Uniform Congressional District Act requires that all members of the U. S. House of Representatives be elected from single-member districts. Repealing the Uniform Congressional District Act is necessary to make Ranked Choice Voting with multiple member districts possible.
Research has shown that single-member districts contribute to gerrymandering, which effectively renders many citizens’ votes meaningless, requiring all members of the U. S. House to be elected from single-member districts violates the principle of an equal vote.
The federal government guarantees “a republican form of government” to the states in Article IV, Section 4. Single-member districts result in a form of government that is not “republican” (as defined by James Madison and others). To make state governments more “republican”, Congress should require multiple-member districts or at-large elections using selection by proxies or ranked choice voting in states with more than one representative in Congress and in state legislatures.
At the very least, Congress should repeal this act to enable states to neutralize the effects of gerrymandering and give voters more choices regarding who will represent them in Congress by electing representatives at-large or from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.
Veto Referendums and/or Veto Overrides by a Simple Majority
Allowing one person (a president or a governor) to negate the votes of a sizable majority of the members of Congress or a state legislature, if support for a bill is even one vote short of the two-thirds super-majority in both the House and the Senate (as currently required to override a veto) is extremely undemocratic, violating the principle of majority rule.
In a true democracy, the role of a president or governor is to simply carry out (execute) the laws that have been enacted by the people and by the legislature. If we continue to allow a president or governor to veto legislation, to be consistent with the principle of majority rule, the legislature should be able to override a veto by a simple majority vote. We could also continue to allow presidents and governors to review legislation that has been enacted by the legislature, share their concerns, when they have concerns, and encourage the legislature to reconsider the legislation, but stop short of allowing presidents and governors to veto legislation.
In a true democracy, the power to veto legislation is properly vested in the people. Whenever it appears likely that Congress or a state legislature has enacted legislation that does not have the support of a majority of the people, veto referendums should be conducted, with every voter having a single vote, and the votes of a simple majority deciding whether legislation is approved or rejected. Calling veto referendums should be a simple and relatively easy process. The power to call a veto referendum could be shared with a super-minority of one-third or more of either house of a legislature (or a unicameral), the people (through the initiative), or a president or governor.
People already have the power to veto legislation by calling a veto referendum in some states. We should extend that power to the people of America and to the states that do not provide for veto referendums.
Note: This proposed reform is incorporated in the Personal Representation and Perfect Democracy Amendments.
Make Judicial Reviews Advisory
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.
The Power to Grant Pardons
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.
Corporations are not People
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.
[A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) has been introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives by Representative Pramila Jayapal. It currently has 75 cosponsors.]
The Details of a Constitutional Convention
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 a draft of proposed legislation:
Unicameral Legislatures
Most other democracies have moved to unicameral legislatures. It's time for us to do the same.
The U. S. Senate 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. In a true democracy, absent a desire to check or limit the will of the people, there is really no reason to have a bicameral (two chamber) legislature. Nebraska implemented a unicameral in 1937 through a statewide referendum. It has proven to be more efficient and saved the taxpayers a lot of money. We should make Congress and the legislatures in the other 49 states unicameral legislatures.
Most of the other democracies that have moved from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature have simply abolished their upper chambers. The primary obstacle to abolishing the U. S. Senate is that the normal amendment process would require a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate to propose the amendment that would abolish the Senate (and do away with the lucrative and prestigious positions to which they have been elected). A constitutional convention is, at present, the only other way to enact any amendment abolishing the Senate or merging it with the House.
A proposal to merge the House and Senate might get more support in the Senate if we retain the concept (and titles) of both senator and representative with senators having more power than representatives. That could be accomplished through a system of Personal Representation (with proxies) with the members of Congress who have been assigned the most proxies nationwide holding the office of senator and the members who hold the most proxies in each congressional district serving as representatives.
If we do not move to a unicameral Congress, we will need to find some other way to democratize the U. S. Senate.
The U. S. Senate is, in and of itself, the most undemocratic element in the form of our 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 one house of Congress.
At a minimum, we need to extend a system of Personal Representation (using proxies) to the Senate. That would make both the House of Representatives and the Senate considerably more reflective of the will of the people, which would presumably put an end to endless gridlock. It would also introduce an unnecessary redundancy. That might be necessary at least temporarily to get the necessary amendment enacted.
Any of these alternatives (abolishing the Senate, merging it with the U. S. House of Representatives to make Congress a unicameral legislature, or implementing a system of Personal Representation proxies in the Senate) will require a constitutional amendment.
Amendments merging the Senate with the House of Representatives should be adopted in state governments. 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.
Note: This proposed reform is incorporated in the federal version of a Personal Representation Amendment.
Conduct Business Democratically in Legislatures
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.
Join the Pro-Democracy Movement
Communication is vital within a broad-based grassroots movement. We are compiling a data base of pro-democracy activists and voters. To join the Pro-Democracy Movement, please provide your email address. Your information will not be sold or shared. You will not receive emails soliciting financial contributions .
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.
Content is Copyright 2025 Gary Winston Apple, unless otherwise noted..
Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights are Reserved.
This website is paid for by Perfect Democracy - a 501(c)4 political action committee.