Hey friends, I'm grateful to see all this engagement! I haven't had a chance to read through all your comments yet, but I will sit down this weekend and do so. I know we're all thinking hard about questions of design and how to find mechanisms fit for the purpose of protecting all of us from arbitrary power in 21st century conditions.
Watching Trump's Lion King video and then his State of the Union address called to mind some common sense from Thomas Paine's Common Sense: "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of" the concept of "kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn [kings] into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."
I have to thank Gordon Wood for reminding us of that in his powerfully insightful, concise and fairly new summary book, "Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution," which he previewed in different ways in multiple enlightening videos
Doesn’t the First Amendment bar Congress from outlawing ranked-choice voting in state elections for national offices? The First Amendment clearly established and emphasized that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Voting is a particular kind of speech. It’s also a particularly powerful and particularly protected kind of speech. The right to vote is so important that it is mentioned more often in our Constitution than any other right. It’s addressed expressly and specifically in Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
The right to vote also is secured by requiring elections within certain periods. Article I requires that every two years the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate be elected. Article II requires that the president and vice president be elected every 4 years.
The right to vote also is addressed more generally, albeit by a different name, in Amendment I ("the freedom of speech"). The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for the foregoing. "In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
Dr. Allen, we discussed this exact issue when I proposed the Governance Design Agency. You argued that implementation details should be democratically decided. The MEGA bill is precisely why that framework produces the problem you're now facing.
Here's the structural trap: You're asking the people who benefit from current system design to democratically decide how to improve it. Congress is "democratically" banning ranked-choice voting. That's democratic control over implementation details—exactly what you advocated for. And it's being used to prevent better democratic architecture.
This isn't a personnel problem. This is what the system is designed to do. When those operating within the rules also control the technical implementation of redesigning those rules, they optimize for their own electoral success, not for democratic health.
The structural distinction I'm making:
Your framework: Democratic control over implementation details (the HOW)
Result: Politicians design the technical mechanisms that govern their own elections
Outcome: MEGA bill
My framework: Democracy decides WHETHER to improve and WHAT outcomes we want. Professional architects design HOW.
Professional governance architects evaluate:
* Does RCV produce better democratic outcomes than FPTP? (measurable, empirical)
* Democratic accountability: Citizens decide what improvements they want, can override recommendations, replace architects
* Politicians still make all policy decisions, but don't design the technical implementation of the democratic system itself
Think of it like building codes. Democratically we say "we want buildings to be safe." That's the WHETHER/WHAT. Then professional engineers design HOW—California gets earthquake codes, Florida gets hurricane codes, Oklahoma gets tornado codes. The building owner doesn't get to decide the technical implementation. The engineering question—"what structural requirements make a building safe from earthquakes?"—isn't settled by whoever owns the building. **Or lawmakers.**
The same principle applies to democratic architecture. "What election method produces better representation?" is an engineering question. "Who should represent us?" remains democratic.
You're trying to defend RCV by appealing to the people. That's the right instinct. But the MEGA bill shows why that's not enough. Even when the people want better democratic architecture, the technical implementation has to pass through the very system that benefits from blocking it.
This is the bootstrap problem I keep describing. You can't fix the bridge while traffic is crossing. You need structural separation between those who design democratic systems and those who operate within them.
I'm not saying my specific GDA model is the only solution. But I am saying your framework—where technical implementation details remain under political control—creates exactly the vulnerability the MEGA bill is exploiting.
What am I missing? Because from where I sit, this bill is proving the structural case for architectural separation.
After everything the country has gone through, especially since 2020, I can't help but wonder about who or what org will decide what the proper "code" for these architectural separations are, and who or what professional association will decide that---who gets to form these associations which will presumably become a permanent feature of our state/federal election architecture??
One of the main problems since 2020 has been the politicization of our electoral process--a process the President has just launched repeated attacks on in order to nationalize as he and his party not coincidentally plumet in the polls. Luckily the Constitution provides the States primary control of elections, with Federal intervention permitted only in extraordinary circumstances. In complete defiance of this provision the President has stated clearly that Republicans should just take over the system and nationalize it, period, with his main justification seeming to be that Democrats are bad (that's about it). Meanwhile, what has saved us so far from a purely partisan system is State or local control of elections based on federalism--a principle the Republican party has exploited for decades, but now that it is led by an authoritarian leader it has conveniently abandoned.
The primary means Trump and Congressional Republicans--remember 140+ House Republicans voted not to certify Biden's election AFTER the coup attempt--have used to delegitimize our electoral process at large has been a myriad of attacks based on distrust of technology. The main actors, Trump and Giuliani, obviously don't know much about technology at all, but this ignorance has only spurred them on in making more and more outlandish accusations. The conspiracy theories of malicious software and stolen votes, even space lasers used by foreign governments, and the promise that the proof of voter fraud was always on the way, but never ultimately materialized--Giuliani's legal squad lost over sixty court decisions trying to prove a phantom case. To cede control of voting architecture to a faceless new profession must provoke even more such attacks of opportunity by anti-democratic political factions.
Meanwhile, as 60 Minutes has covered in detail ("Dominion Voting Systems and the baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 Election"-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=492jILlPtlA ), the firm that built these machines actually used paper ballots as a means to audit the vote count. Meaning the disinformation attacks on our electoral process overwhelmed reality and led people to believe that technology had been maliciously used to steal their votes; an ulterior motivation for believing such creative fictions was MAGA could dispense with electoral outcomes it did not like--from hindsight this seems to have driven much of the hysteria. From this perspective a more democratic approach via information provided to all voters on exactly how their respective state's election process works would seem to be essential to start to fix something that wasn't actually broken to begin with. While technical acumen is certainly important, trust is essential in any democratic electoral process.
Charles, you've identified the right concern: trust. But let's start with your own example - the Dominion conspiracy theories - because it actually proves my point, not yours.
The Dominion Example Proves We Need the GDA
You cite the 60 Minutes piece showing Dominion used paper ballots for auditing. Good design! Professional security architecture! And what happened?
Politicians who didn't understand the technology made wild claims. The professional design was sound, but the political attacks overwhelmed it because there was no authoritative technical architecture to reference. Politicians could make wild claims because there was no established standard to point to. And a sizable portion of the country still believes the election was stolen. I had a face-to-face discussion with a believer two weeks ago myself.
Who could say: "Here's the established security architecture these machines were built to meet"? Nobody. Because no such architecture existed. That's the structural gap.
Now let me address your concerns directly - because they're good concerns. But I want to show you how your own concerns point toward the solution.
Your Concern 1: "Who decides what the proper code is?"
Let's think through who SHOULD decide technical questions about election systems:
* Should politicians decide whether paper ballots are necessary for auditing? Or should researchers who study election security and cryptographic protocols?
* Should Congress decide what makes a voting system verifiable? Or should mathematicians and statisticians who specialize in risk-limiting audits?
* Should state legislators decide whether RCV produces more representative outcomes than FPTP? Or should political scientists who study voting theory and can demonstrate the mathematical properties of different systems?
Currently:
* No one is accountable for bad governance design. Congress designed the shutdown mechanism. When shutdowns happen, no one is responsible for the design failure.
* Each state reinvents the wheel. 50 different approaches to election security, no shared research.
* Politicians evaluate their own system design. "We investigated ourselves and found no problems."
With expert involvement:
* Measurable outcomes with accountability. Did voter participation increase? Are audits catching errors? Researchers who designed the system can measure results.
* Shared research across all states. Best practices in election administration, security analysis, implementation support.
* Independent evaluation. People who study election systems analyze whether current architecture works. Politicians can't just ignore empirical analysis.
Your Concern 2: "This creates new attack surfaces for anti-democratic actors"
You're worried about creating vulnerabilities. But look at what we have NOW:
Current system:
* Politicians design election rules that govern themselves
* No authoritative technical architecture (so Dominion conspiracies spread unchecked)
* Federal politicians can override state improvements (MEGA bill happening right now)
What if instead:
* Researchers who study election systems designed the architecture
* Transparent methodology and established standards make wild claims harder to spread
* States maintain operational control
* Politicians maintain democratic oversight but don't design their own accountability
The Dominion conspiracy theories spread because politicians could make technically impossible claims and there was no established architecture to make those claims obviously absurd. The MEGA bill is happening because there's no structural barrier to politicians optimizing election rules for themselves.
Both problems have the same root cause: No separation between system design and system operation.
Your Concern 3: "Federalism and state control protect us"
Your defense is: "The MEGA bill probably violates the Constitution, so courts will likely strike it down."
That's hope, not architecture. You're hoping the courts prevent abuse. Even if they do this time, Congress will rewrite the bill to pass constitutional muster while achieving the same goal.
But what if states had access to:
* Research from people who study election systems, voting theory, democratic institutions
* Technical standards they could implement locally
* Institutional backing when federal politicians try to override improvements
* Shared expertise without each state building that specialized capacity independently
That would STRENGTHEN state control, not weaken it. States could point to established research and say "our approach is based on empirical analysis, not political preference."
Your Concern 4: "Technology distrust drove the conspiracy theories"
Exactly. And look at how we handle technology questions in other domains:
* Airplane crashes: Engineers who specialize in aviation safety investigate (NTSB)
* Financial fraud: Auditors who specialize in forensic accounting evaluate
* Drug safety: Researchers who study pharmacology and epidemiology determine standards (FDA)
Take all those researchers and scientists and put them in a publicly funded institution, held to high standards around accountability and transparency.
That's the Governance Design Agency.
The GDA would be staffed by people who study election systems, voting theory, democratic institutions, statistical analysis, and security protocols - similar to how:
* The CDC employs epidemiologists to design public health architecture
* The Federal Reserve employs economists to design monetary policy architecture
* The NTSB employs engineers to design aviation safety architecture
Here's How It Would Work:
The Democratic Mandate (What Democracy Decides):
Congress passes (or the Constitution is amended to include):
"Federal elections shall be conducted in a manner that ensures maximum eligible voter participation, accurate and verifiable vote counting, representative outcomes that reflect the diversity of voter preferences, and public confidence in electoral processes, while preserving state administration of elections."
That's the WHAT. That's democracy speaking. That's the outcome we're optimizing for.
What the GDA Would Design (Professional Architecture of HOW):
1. Voter Participation Standards
* Research question: What registration methods maximize eligible participation while preventing fraud?
* Who answers: Researchers who study election administration
* Design output: Recommended practices with evidence basis
* State flexibility: States choose which methods, must meet participation benchmarks
2. Verification Architecture
* Research question: What audit mechanisms provide verifiable accuracy?
* Who answers: Experts in cryptography, statistical analysis, security protocols
* Design output: Paper ballot requirements, audit standards, chain-of-custody protocols
* Established architecture that voting systems must meet, with transparent methodology
* State flexibility: States implement using local resources, following technical standards
3. Representative Voting Systems
* Research question: What voting methods produce representative outcomes?
* Who answers: Political scientists who study voting theory
* Design output: Evaluation of FPTP vs RCV vs approval voting vs other methods
* Evidence basis: Mathematical analysis shows FPTP guarantees two-party dominance (Duverger's Law). If the mandate specifies "representative outcomes that reflect diversity of voter preferences," then FPTP mathematically fails that requirement.
* GDA recommendation: Ranked-choice voting, approval voting, or proportional representation depending on context
* State flexibility: States choose which method, must meet representativeness benchmarks
This is where RCV comes in. The democratic mandate says "we want representative outcomes." Researchers who study voting systems evaluate which methods achieve that. FPTP provably doesn't - it mathematically produces two-party systems. The GDA would recommend alternatives like RCV.
Congress couldn't just ban RCV because the GDA analysis would show: "You've mandated representative outcomes. FPTP doesn't deliver that. RCV does. If you ban RCV, you're contradicting your own stated goals."
4. Public Confidence Mechanisms
* Research question: What transparency measures build trust without compromising security?
* Who answers: Researchers who study public trust, security architecture
* State flexibility: States implement within the framework
How This Addresses Dominion:
Under current system:
* No established security architecture
* Politicians make wild claims about technology they don't understand
* No authoritative standard to reference
* Conspiracy theories spread unchecked
Under GDA framework:
* Security standards established BEFORE machines are purchased by people who specialize in election security
* Transparent, published standards
* Independent certification (like UL for electrical equipment)
When wild claims emerge, there's established architecture to reference
Doesn't convince true believers (nothing does), but makes it harder for politicians to exploit technical ignorance
The Trust Question You Asked:
Which creates more trust:
A) Politicians design election rules, run elections, certify elections, investigate concerns, and say "trust us"
B) Researchers who study election systems design standards (transparent methodology), states implement (local control), independent auditors verify (established protocols), politicians maintain democratic oversight but don't design their own accountability
System A is what we have. System B is what the GDA enables.
You've raised legitimate concerns about trust, attack surfaces, and federalism.
But every concern points toward the same solution: technical questions need technical expertise, not political decision-making.
Now answer: What's your structural solution to the MEGA bill?
Congress is using legitimate constitutional authority to ban democratic improvements. Even if courts strike this version down, they'll rewrite it. How does your framework prevent politicians from optimizing election rules for their own advantage?
Because hoping courts will save us isn't a structural solution. It's crossing our fingers.
Hmmm. Below, you assured me that "The GDA isn't ordinary legislation - it's a constitutional-level architectural change." "The Governance Design Agency would: Be established via constitutional amendment (28th Amendment)." But here you say "Congress passes [ordinary legislation] (or the Constitution is amended to include)."
Jason, I'm not familiar with your proposal for a GDA or with the MEGA bill. But it sounds like the MEGA bill likely violates our Constitution, and I'm even more sure a GDA would do so.
Article II clearly says that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" to choose the president and vice president. Neither Congress nor an Agency can do that.
Article I clearly says that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." An Agency cannot usurp the powers that the People assigned to states legislatures or to Congress.
Even though the People vested in Congress the power to regulate elections of Senators and Representatives, all federal legislation is subject to more general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
I think it's not even possible that national authorities barring state legislatures from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office is either necessary or proper.
Jack, appreciate the constitutional analysis, but let's be clear about what "state control over elections" actually means in practice.
Theory vs. Reality:
You cite Article II giving states control over how they appoint electors. But when Colorado tried to remove Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court smacked them down unanimously. So how much control do states actually have when it conflicts with federal political interests?
The constitutional framework you're defending sounds good on paper. In practice, federal power expands wherever politically convenient, and "states' rights" only matter when they serve federal political purposes.
Do you trust this Supreme Court to strike down the MEGA bill? Because I don't. And even if they did, Congress would just rewrite it to pass constitutional muster while achieving the same goal - blocking improvements to democratic architecture that threaten incumbent advantage.
This is the pattern: They claim to improve democracy while doing the opposite. When you object on constitutional grounds, they work around it. The MEGA bill is just the current iteration.
What I'm Proposing:
The GDA isn't ordinary legislation - it's a constitutional-level architectural change. Here's the framework:
The Governance Design Agency would:
Be established via constitutional amendment (28th Amendment)
Operate with professional staff, similar to how Federal Reserve handles monetary policy
Maintain democratic accountability through:
Presidential appointment of the Governance Architect (confirmed by Senate)
Congressional oversight and ability to override recommendations
Sunset provisions requiring reauthorization
Transparency requirements for all design decisions
The Key Separation:
Democracy decides: Whether we want better representation, what outcomes we're optimizing for
Professional design: How to achieve those outcomes (RCV vs FPTP vs other methods, specific implementation)
Politicians still make: All policy decisions within whatever democratic framework exists
The Legal Framework We're Developing:
Currently working with constitutional scholars to formalize:
Constitutional amendment language that creates the GDA while preserving democratic accountability
Limiting principles - what the GDA can and cannot design
Enforcement mechanisms - how to prevent political capture of the institution itself
Transition architecture - how to move from current system to new framework
The Structural Problem You're Missing:
You're defending the Constitution against the MEGA bill. Good. But the people who benefit from broken democratic architecture are the same people who:
Decide what's constitutional (through legislation and court appointments)
Control amending the Constitution (2/3 of Congress)
Operate within the system being "protected"
This creates the bootstrap problem: You can't fix the bridge while traffic is crossing. You're asking the current system to repair itself, when the current system benefits from staying broken.
The MEGA bill is working exactly as designed. They're using legitimate constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to prevent democratic improvements. Your constitutional defense doesn't solve this - it just describes the trap.
What we need:
Constitutional-level separation between those who design democratic systems and those who operate within them. Not federal takeover. Not removal of democratic control. But architectural separation that prevents exactly what the MEGA bill demonstrates - politicians optimizing election rules for their own advantage.
You might prefer a different institutional architecture. But pointing to the current Constitution and saying "this should prevent abuse" isn't working. We're watching it fail in real time.
What's your structural solution to prevent the next MEGA bill?
Jason, the Constitution provides the structural solution. Federalism (separation of state and federal powers) is part of the solution. Litigation and voting are part of the structural solution. Other exercises of First Amendment rights and freedoms are part of the structural solution.
State legislatures don't need to (and they shouldn't) acquiesce in anti-constitutional decisions of a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents. We need to learn to see how our Constitution was designed to work and be more forceful in insisting that it function as designed. That's how our Constitution was designed to work.
Jason, if the GDA is empowered by a constitutional amendment, then it obviously wouldn't be unconstitutional. But I don't put any hope at all in the process of constitutional amendments anytime soon.
I agree that we should be clear. Colorado wasn't "smacked down" by the Supreme Court. Colorado would have been well within its powers under our Constitution if Colorado (and other states) simply (1) showed that the so-called judgment of SCOTUS in Trump v. Anderson clearly violated our Constitution and (2) continued to keep Trump off the Colorado ballots. I wish they had.
There's no legal reason anyone should simply acquiesce in the frivolous and anti-constitutional purported logic of either Trump v. Anderson or Trump v. United States. Regarding the former case, please consider "Two Wrongs Meant Nothing SCOTUS Justices Did in Trump v. Anderson Was Right" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/two-wrongs-meant-nothing-scotus-justices?r=30ufvh
Jack, I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I'm not going to debate Trump v. Anderson with you. That's not my expertise.
But I am a systems engineer with 20 years of experience, and I want to focus on what I see clearly with the MEGA bill:
This is the fox guarding the henhouse.
Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting. They're claiming this "makes elections great again" - that they're improving democracy.
But the actual effect? Preventing states from adopting voting methods that would make representatives more accountable to broader constituencies instead of narrow partisan bases.
The structural problem:
The people who benefit from the current election system are the same people who have the power to prevent improvements to that system. They're using legitimate constitutional authority to optimize election rules for their own advantage while claiming to improve democracy.
This isn't a partisan observation. Whichever party controls Congress will use this same power for the same purpose. The structure creates the incentive.
Your solution: Heroic resistance
You're asking for:
* States to forcefully resist
* Citizens to litigate more aggressively
* Everyone to be "more forceful in insisting" the system work correctly
But what's the endgame here? Permanent crisis management where states just defy any federal orders they don't like? That's not federalism. That's dissolution.
And more fundamentally: Your solution doesn't address the fox-guarding-henhouse problem.
Even if heroic resistance works this time, Congress still has Article I, Section 4 authority. They can try again. And again. And eventually they'll find a version that passes constitutional muster (probably a low bar given the current Supreme Court) while achieving the same goal - preventing democratic improvements that threaten incumbent advantage.
The pattern I'm identifying:
When those who operate within a system also control the design of that system, they optimize for their own success, not system health.
Politicians design the rules that govern their own elections
Result: Rules that protect incumbents, not that improve representation
This is basic systems thinking. The conflict of interest is structural, not personal. Good people in a bad structure produce bad outcomes.
What I'm proposing:
I'm not asking you to debate the specifics of the Governance Design Agency. That's implementation details.
I'm asking you to acknowledge: Do you see the fox-guarding-henhouse problem?
Do you agree that having politicians design the election rules that govern their own elections creates a structural conflict of interest?
If yes, then the category of solution is clear: Separate those who design democratic systems from those who operate within them.
How exactly we do that - constitutional amendment, statutory institution, state-level pilots, whatever - that's a legitimate debate about implementation.
But you can't solve the MEGA bill problem with more forceful resistance. You need architecture that prevents the next MEGA bill from being possible.
The question:
You've admitted you have "no hope in the amendment process anytime soon."
So if the system can't fix itself through its own processes, and your solution is permanent heroic resistance...
Do you at least acknowledge we have a fox-guarding-henhouse problem that resistance alone won't solve?
Because from where I sit, the MEGA bill is proving exactly that.
The constitutional violation inherent in Congress presuming or pretending to have the power to prohibit states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office is the same as the constitutional violation inherent in partisan gerrymandering.
In hundreds of years of SCOTUS opinions, precious few highlight the direct and powerful connection between the sovereignty of the people and our rights or our liberty. Citizens United v. FEC was one of those precious few.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” But that was far from the most unusual aspect of the opinion. Far more uncommon and more important, SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential.”
“Political speech” (including voting, including by ranking our choices) is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” (including by ranking) current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” “Speech” (including voting) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (and self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty).
Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power of sovereignty. Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (including voting, including by ranking our choices) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.”
Requiring the government to bear the burden of proof before depriving us of any relevant “liberty” is a crucial and powerful protection of “due process of law” mandated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The evil of partisan gerrymandering or a federal law purporting to prohibit states from using ranked-choice voting in any state election for federal office is that both measures deprive citizens of liberty and property (our sovereignty) without due process of law. It violates the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution.
Jason, we don't need a new agency because "Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting." We need to recognize how our Constitution precludes Congress from prohibiting states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for federal offices.
Very shortly after the controversy over the Sedition Act of 1798 (and Madison's Report of 1800), the constitutional principles were addressed by Chief Justice John Marshal as the official opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
The SCOTUS justices published their opinion in 1803, when multitudes who risked and sacrificed tremendously for the American Revolution that culminated in our Constitution with our Bill of Rights were still alive to judge the truth of the justices' writing. SCOTUS justices repeatedly emphasized the opposite of the assumption that Congress has the power to prohibiting states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for federal offices.
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” "The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," i.e., by our public servants. So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." The same is true of the People and all our public servants.
"[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States [enacted by our public servants, so those laws] only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank [of being part of the supreme law of the land]. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle [that is] essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as [all] other departments [and judges and all other public servants], are bound by that instrument," i.e., our Constitution.
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions" (especially constitutions that were ratified by the People) "contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Any "act of the legislature" (any purported law purportedly granting the President unconstitutional powers or any purported law by which Congress usurps powers) "repugnant to the constitution, is void." So any "act of" any other purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any purported theory, doctrine or practice that is "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."
"[T]he language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, [rules] not to be departed from." "From these, and many other [provisions of our Constitution], it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument [our Constitution], as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature," as well as of the President and all other executive and judicial officers (including all attorneys).
"Why otherwise does it direct the judges" (all our most powerful or influential public servants and even all lawyers) "to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character." All "judge[s]" (all our most powerful or influential public servants and even all lawyers) "swear to discharge [their] duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States" so "that constitution forms" the "rule for [the] government" for all our public servants--each and every one in every position of any real power--and even all lawyers.
Jason, the following is an example of what I meant about the need to understand the system established by our Constitution before trying to design a subsystem under it.
The problem you perceive is that "Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting." So you want to design a new subsystem that is governed by our Constitution to remedy that problem.
The problem I perceive is the misperception of the powers vested in Congress. In Article I, Section 4, the People clearly did not vest in Congress the power to ban ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office.
I'm making the same point that James Madison made in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and his Report of 1800 (regarding the Virginia Resolutions) in opposition to an unconstitutional law that was made by Congress together with the President. Madison emphasized that with the Sedition Act of 1798, the majority of Congress and the President violated our Constitution in two respects. First, they usurped powers that they simply were not given by the People in our Constitution. Second, they violated an express prohibition by the People that was added to our Constitution.
As the First Amendment established and emphasized in 1791, and as Madison re-emphasized in 1800, and as I addressed above, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Voting clearly and irrefutably is a vital exercise of the freedom of speech. Ranked-choice voting necessarily is an exercise of the freedom of speech that the People never gave Congress any power to prohibit. This really is that simple.
Even though the People vested in Congress the power to regulate elections of Senators and Representatives, all federal legislation is subject to more general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Congress clearly was not given the power to prohibit ranked-choice voting in any state election for any federal office.
Jason, you think you can design a system to govern politics. That's exactly what the people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and its various amendments did. I have no reason to think that your ideas would be more effective than those of brilliant luminaries like James Madison, James Wilson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They thought a lot about how to design a system that worked well.
They realized that no system can be designed to work well if the people fail to carry their own weight. They all understood and emphasized that keeping the people involved in our own self-government was the only way to accomplish the purposes of our Constitution. Madison, for example, emphasized:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
I don't agree with your characterization that "we have a fox-guarding-henhouse problem." We're not chickens, and the people who threaten us are not foxes. I agree with Thomas Jefferson. He compared people in power to wolves. He emphasized that everyone with any power was potentially a wolf. Then, he said that many such people were worse than wolves. They're essentially cannibals.
The truth about people in power is that "under pretence of governing" many public officials "have divided" people "into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture[, for example,] of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to [some so-called] governments [ ], and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
Jason, rest assured that I have no interest in debating anything with anyone. I'm trying to help you understand the system that you are trying to engineer. How can you engineer a system that is governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?
Hey friends, I'm grateful to see all this engagement! I haven't had a chance to read through all your comments yet, but I will sit down this weekend and do so. I know we're all thinking hard about questions of design and how to find mechanisms fit for the purpose of protecting all of us from arbitrary power in 21st century conditions.
* "You need to understand the foundation (constitutional law) before you can propose changes"
* "Here's Madison, here's Marbury v. Madison, here's the First Amendment"
* "Learn the precedents, master the details"
* "How can you engineer a system if you don't understand the pieces?"
You genuinely believe if I just understood the constitutional framework correctly, I'd see the system works. And you're trying to help me understand it.
I'm demonstrating top-down pattern recognition:
* "I see the structural pattern (fox guarding henhouse)"
* "The architectural flaw exists regardless of constitutional details"
* "The conflict of interest is structural, not solvable through better understanding of precedents"
Neither approach is wrong. They're different types of intelligence.
But here's what I've noticed across my entire life:
Our entire credentialing system is bottom-up gatekeeping:
* Education: "Show your work" (must demonstrate bottom-up process)
* Academia: "Cite your sources" (build from established knowledge)
* Professional gatekeeping: "Master the fundamentals first"
* Legal/political establishment: "Learn constitutional law before proposing changes"
The pattern: Bottom-up processors optimize existing systems. Top-down pattern-seers envision systems that don't exist yet.
And our society systematically privileges the first and dismisses the second.
I had a business partner with a PhD in electrical engineering. Very bottom-up. He looked at components and decided what to build. I decided what to build, then figured out what components I needed (to find or create).
That difference is where innovation comes from.
Bottom-up: "Here are the pieces. What can we build?"
Top-down: "Here's what needs to exist. What pieces do we need?"
Both are valid. Both are necessary. But only the second produces transformation rather than optimization.
Jack, when you say "How can you engineer a system governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?" - you're doing bottom-up gatekeeping.
You're saying: Master all the constitutional details I've mastered, THEN you can propose changes.
But that's like telling an architect: "You need to understand every brick-making technique before you can design a building."
The architect needs to understand structural principles. The pattern-seer needs to understand systemic dynamics.
I understand the Founders' principles: popular sovereignty, distributed power, mutual accountability, rule of law. I understand Game Theory, institutional economics, how incentives shape behavior, how conflicts of interest produce predictable outcomes.
That's the level where governance architecture exists.
Constitutional precedents are important. But they're the implementation details, not the structural design.
Here's why this matters beyond our conversation:
As long as we continue to crush top-down intelligence through bottom-up gatekeeping, we are going to continue to suffer with the same problems.
The optimizers keep optimizing a fundamentally broken system because they can't see past the framework they've mastered.
The pattern-seers get dismissed for not having "proper credentials" or not "understanding the foundation."
Result: Incremental improvements to broken architecture. No transformation. Just better optimization of dysfunction.
That's why Jack's solution - "people need to understand the Constitution better and enforce it" - doesn't work.
It's optimization thinking. "If we just apply the existing framework more correctly..."
My observation - "the structure creates the problem regardless of how well you understand constitutional law" - is transformation thinking.
"The architecture is broken. We need different architecture."
If we as a society are going to conquer the difficult, complex 21st century problems that lay before us, both types of intelligence are necessary:
* We need constitutional scholars who understand precedent and legal frameworks
* We need governance architects who see structural patterns and design new systems
But right now, the first group controls all the gatekeeping. And dismisses the second group as "not understanding the foundation."
That's the meta-pattern keeping us stuck.
Danielle, when you read this thread - this is what you're seeing. Two different types of intelligence approaching the same problem from different levels.
Jack's approach: Master the details, apply them correctly, enforce constitutional principles as written.
My approach: See the structural pattern, design architecture that prevents the pattern regardless of who operates it.
The tragedy is we're treating these as competing rather than complementary.
We need both. But the bottom-up gatekeeping means only one gets validated.
And that's why innovation in governance is nearly impossible. The people who could envision fundamentally different architecture get told "you don't understand the system" by people who've mastered optimization within the existing framework.
This is bigger than the MEGA bill. This is about how we validate intelligence and who gets to propose transformation.
Jack, I appreciate the constitutional education, genuinely. You clearly know this material far better than I do.
But I need to point out what you're actually saying:
Your solution to the MEGA bill is: "People need to understand the Constitution correctly and enforce it."
That's it. That's your entire structural solution.
You're saying:
* The Founders designed the system correctly
* The MEGA bill violates that design (First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, etc.)
* Courts/states/citizens just need to recognize this and resist
* If people would "carry their own weight" and stay informed, it would work
You're asking everyone to become angels. More on that in a moment.
The MEGA Bill Proves Your Approach Isn't Working
You say Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to ban ranked-choice voting. You've cited Madison, Marbury v. Madison, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment.
And Congress is doing it anyway.
They're using Article I, Section 4. They're claiming it's constitutional. They're calling it "Make Elections Great Again."
Your response is: "Well, they're wrong about the Constitution. Courts should strike it down. States should resist. Citizens should understand their sovereignty."
When this lands in front of the current Supreme Court, do you trust them to strike it down?
December 23, 2025: Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to lift the block preventing him from deploying National Guard forces in Chicago. Illinois had obtained a court order stopping the deployment.
The Supreme Court said no. 6-3.
But three justices—Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—would have lifted the block immediately. Three Supreme Court justices were ready to let military deployment in an American city proceed.
And you know what happens even if courts strike the MEGA bill down? They telegraph a way to rewrite it. Congress comes back with version 2.0 that achieves the same goal while passing constitutional muster.
That's the pattern. And your solution is... hope courts save us next time too?
The Founders Warned Us About Exactly This
You keep citing the Founders as if I'm proposing to abandon them. I'm not. I'm proposing to restore what they actually built - which we've dismantled.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... is itself a frightful despotism."
That's exactly what we're experiencing. The MEGA bill is one faction using power to prevent the other faction from improving democratic architecture. And when power flips, the other faction will do the same.
James Madison designed the entire constitutional architecture around preventing concentrated power:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition... If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
This is what you're missing:
Jack's approach: Make everyone into angels (through constitutional education, sustained vigilance, forceful resistance, correct understanding)
Jason's approach: Recognize people are human. Build architecture that works with imperfect humans.
Madison didn't trust good intentions. He didn't design for virtuous leaders. He designed systems where ambition counteracts ambition. Where power is distributed. Where no faction can dominate.
We've dismantled what they built. We've removed the constraints. Weakened the checks. Concentrated authority in ways they explicitly warned against.
And now we're experiencing exactly what they predicted: frightful despotism alternating between factions, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.
You Said: "How can you engineer a system that is governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?"
Fair question. Here's my answer:
I understand that the Constitution gives Congress power over federal elections (Article I, Section 4). Congress is using that power. Whether it's unconstitutional under other provisions, they have the power and they're exercising it.
More importantly: I understand the underlying principles the Founders encoded in the Constitution:
* Popular sovereignty (the people are ultimate authority)
* Distributed power (no single faction controls everything)
* Mutual accountability (power holders accountable to each other and the people)
* Rule of law (laws bind everyone, including those who make them)
These weren't abstract ideals. These were architectural principles designed to enforce cooperation even when people didn't want to cooperate.
The Founders tried to build cooperation through architecture. They had 1780s knowledge. We have 238 additional years of knowledge about Game Theory, institutional economics, how incentives shape behavior, how unconstrained power corrupts regardless of intentions.
The question isn't whether to abandon their principles. The question is: How do we implement these principles in 2026?
How do we build architecture that enforces cooperation in a world of 330 million people, instant global communication, complex interconnected systems, and tribal media ecosystems the Founders couldn't have imagined?
What I'm Actually Proposing
Not abandonment of the Founders' vision. Restoration of their principles using modern tools.
Think about the Federal Reserve. It doesn't collapse every time a new president takes office (at least so far, we are likely to find out in the near future) because it's designed with the same founding principles:
* Mutual accountability - Subject to congressional oversight, transparent methodology
* Rule of law - Bound by Federal Reserve Act
* Popular sovereignty - Ultimately accountable to elected officials, accountable to people
Professional staff. Insulated from day-to-day politics while remaining democratically accountable. Both parties can lose an election without panicking about monetary policy.
That's what the Founders were trying to build for all of government. We just gave up halfway through.
The Governance Design Agency would do the same for governance architecture - applying founding principles using knowledge the Founders didn't have:
* Game Theory showing how incentives shape behavior
* Institutional economics explaining how systems succeed or fail
* 238 years of evidence about what works and what doesn't
This isn't rejecting Madison. This is asking: What would Madison design if he had Game Theory and modern systems engineering?
Jack's approach: The Constitution is sufficient if people understand it correctly and enforce it forcefully. The MEGA bill is unconstitutional. Courts should strike it down. States should resist. Citizens should engage. Everyone needs to carry their weight. Make everyone into angels.
Jason's approach: The Founders' principles were right. We've dismantled their constraints. We need to restore those principles - popular sovereignty, distributed power, mutual accountability, rule of law - using 238 years of additional knowledge about how to make them work. Recognize people are human and build architecture accordingly.
Jack, you're asking for sustained heroic effort within a structure that requires heroism.
I'm asking: Why not restore the architecture the Founders tried to build - using better tools?
You say I don't understand the Constitution well enough to engineer a system governed by it.
I say: I understand Madison's core insight perfectly. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Men aren't angels. Your solution requires them to be. Mine doesn't.
The Founders designed for imperfect humans with conflicting interests. You're asking those imperfect humans to suddenly become perfectly informed, perfectly vigilant, perfectly constitutional scholars.
Hey friends, I'm grateful to see all this engagement! I haven't had a chance to read through all your comments yet, but I will sit down this weekend and do so. I know we're all thinking hard about questions of design and how to find mechanisms fit for the purpose of protecting all of us from arbitrary power in 21st century conditions.
Watching Trump's Lion King video and then his State of the Union address called to mind some common sense from Thomas Paine's Common Sense: "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of" the concept of "kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn [kings] into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."
I have to thank Gordon Wood for reminding us of that in his powerfully insightful, concise and fairly new summary book, "Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution," which he previewed in different ways in multiple enlightening videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3dYnks5GI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57quJolSvs
Doesn’t the First Amendment bar Congress from outlawing ranked-choice voting in state elections for national offices? The First Amendment clearly established and emphasized that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Voting is a particular kind of speech. It’s also a particularly powerful and particularly protected kind of speech. The right to vote is so important that it is mentioned more often in our Constitution than any other right. It’s addressed expressly and specifically in Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
The right to vote also is secured by requiring elections within certain periods. Article I requires that every two years the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate be elected. Article II requires that the president and vice president be elected every 4 years.
The right to vote also is addressed more generally, albeit by a different name, in Amendment I ("the freedom of speech"). The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for the foregoing. "In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
Dr. Allen, we discussed this exact issue when I proposed the Governance Design Agency. You argued that implementation details should be democratically decided. The MEGA bill is precisely why that framework produces the problem you're now facing.
Here's the structural trap: You're asking the people who benefit from current system design to democratically decide how to improve it. Congress is "democratically" banning ranked-choice voting. That's democratic control over implementation details—exactly what you advocated for. And it's being used to prevent better democratic architecture.
This isn't a personnel problem. This is what the system is designed to do. When those operating within the rules also control the technical implementation of redesigning those rules, they optimize for their own electoral success, not for democratic health.
The structural distinction I'm making:
Your framework: Democratic control over implementation details (the HOW)
Result: Politicians design the technical mechanisms that govern their own elections
Outcome: MEGA bill
My framework: Democracy decides WHETHER to improve and WHAT outcomes we want. Professional architects design HOW.
Professional governance architects evaluate:
* Does RCV produce better democratic outcomes than FPTP? (measurable, empirical)
* Democratic accountability: Citizens decide what improvements they want, can override recommendations, replace architects
* Politicians still make all policy decisions, but don't design the technical implementation of the democratic system itself
Think of it like building codes. Democratically we say "we want buildings to be safe." That's the WHETHER/WHAT. Then professional engineers design HOW—California gets earthquake codes, Florida gets hurricane codes, Oklahoma gets tornado codes. The building owner doesn't get to decide the technical implementation. The engineering question—"what structural requirements make a building safe from earthquakes?"—isn't settled by whoever owns the building. **Or lawmakers.**
The same principle applies to democratic architecture. "What election method produces better representation?" is an engineering question. "Who should represent us?" remains democratic.
You're trying to defend RCV by appealing to the people. That's the right instinct. But the MEGA bill shows why that's not enough. Even when the people want better democratic architecture, the technical implementation has to pass through the very system that benefits from blocking it.
This is the bootstrap problem I keep describing. You can't fix the bridge while traffic is crossing. You need structural separation between those who design democratic systems and those who operate within them.
I'm not saying my specific GDA model is the only solution. But I am saying your framework—where technical implementation details remain under political control—creates exactly the vulnerability the MEGA bill is exploiting.
What am I missing? Because from where I sit, this bill is proving the structural case for architectural separation.
After everything the country has gone through, especially since 2020, I can't help but wonder about who or what org will decide what the proper "code" for these architectural separations are, and who or what professional association will decide that---who gets to form these associations which will presumably become a permanent feature of our state/federal election architecture??
One of the main problems since 2020 has been the politicization of our electoral process--a process the President has just launched repeated attacks on in order to nationalize as he and his party not coincidentally plumet in the polls. Luckily the Constitution provides the States primary control of elections, with Federal intervention permitted only in extraordinary circumstances. In complete defiance of this provision the President has stated clearly that Republicans should just take over the system and nationalize it, period, with his main justification seeming to be that Democrats are bad (that's about it). Meanwhile, what has saved us so far from a purely partisan system is State or local control of elections based on federalism--a principle the Republican party has exploited for decades, but now that it is led by an authoritarian leader it has conveniently abandoned.
The primary means Trump and Congressional Republicans--remember 140+ House Republicans voted not to certify Biden's election AFTER the coup attempt--have used to delegitimize our electoral process at large has been a myriad of attacks based on distrust of technology. The main actors, Trump and Giuliani, obviously don't know much about technology at all, but this ignorance has only spurred them on in making more and more outlandish accusations. The conspiracy theories of malicious software and stolen votes, even space lasers used by foreign governments, and the promise that the proof of voter fraud was always on the way, but never ultimately materialized--Giuliani's legal squad lost over sixty court decisions trying to prove a phantom case. To cede control of voting architecture to a faceless new profession must provoke even more such attacks of opportunity by anti-democratic political factions.
Meanwhile, as 60 Minutes has covered in detail ("Dominion Voting Systems and the baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 Election"-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=492jILlPtlA ), the firm that built these machines actually used paper ballots as a means to audit the vote count. Meaning the disinformation attacks on our electoral process overwhelmed reality and led people to believe that technology had been maliciously used to steal their votes; an ulterior motivation for believing such creative fictions was MAGA could dispense with electoral outcomes it did not like--from hindsight this seems to have driven much of the hysteria. From this perspective a more democratic approach via information provided to all voters on exactly how their respective state's election process works would seem to be essential to start to fix something that wasn't actually broken to begin with. While technical acumen is certainly important, trust is essential in any democratic electoral process.
Charles, you've identified the right concern: trust. But let's start with your own example - the Dominion conspiracy theories - because it actually proves my point, not yours.
The Dominion Example Proves We Need the GDA
You cite the 60 Minutes piece showing Dominion used paper ballots for auditing. Good design! Professional security architecture! And what happened?
Politicians who didn't understand the technology made wild claims. The professional design was sound, but the political attacks overwhelmed it because there was no authoritative technical architecture to reference. Politicians could make wild claims because there was no established standard to point to. And a sizable portion of the country still believes the election was stolen. I had a face-to-face discussion with a believer two weeks ago myself.
Who could say: "Here's the established security architecture these machines were built to meet"? Nobody. Because no such architecture existed. That's the structural gap.
Now let me address your concerns directly - because they're good concerns. But I want to show you how your own concerns point toward the solution.
Your Concern 1: "Who decides what the proper code is?"
Let's think through who SHOULD decide technical questions about election systems:
* Should politicians decide whether paper ballots are necessary for auditing? Or should researchers who study election security and cryptographic protocols?
* Should Congress decide what makes a voting system verifiable? Or should mathematicians and statisticians who specialize in risk-limiting audits?
* Should state legislators decide whether RCV produces more representative outcomes than FPTP? Or should political scientists who study voting theory and can demonstrate the mathematical properties of different systems?
Currently:
* No one is accountable for bad governance design. Congress designed the shutdown mechanism. When shutdowns happen, no one is responsible for the design failure.
* Each state reinvents the wheel. 50 different approaches to election security, no shared research.
* Politicians evaluate their own system design. "We investigated ourselves and found no problems."
With expert involvement:
* Measurable outcomes with accountability. Did voter participation increase? Are audits catching errors? Researchers who designed the system can measure results.
* Shared research across all states. Best practices in election administration, security analysis, implementation support.
* Independent evaluation. People who study election systems analyze whether current architecture works. Politicians can't just ignore empirical analysis.
Your Concern 2: "This creates new attack surfaces for anti-democratic actors"
You're worried about creating vulnerabilities. But look at what we have NOW:
Current system:
* Politicians design election rules that govern themselves
* No authoritative technical architecture (so Dominion conspiracies spread unchecked)
* Federal politicians can override state improvements (MEGA bill happening right now)
What if instead:
* Researchers who study election systems designed the architecture
* Transparent methodology and established standards make wild claims harder to spread
* States maintain operational control
* Politicians maintain democratic oversight but don't design their own accountability
The Dominion conspiracy theories spread because politicians could make technically impossible claims and there was no established architecture to make those claims obviously absurd. The MEGA bill is happening because there's no structural barrier to politicians optimizing election rules for themselves.
Both problems have the same root cause: No separation between system design and system operation.
Your Concern 3: "Federalism and state control protect us"
Your defense is: "The MEGA bill probably violates the Constitution, so courts will likely strike it down."
That's hope, not architecture. You're hoping the courts prevent abuse. Even if they do this time, Congress will rewrite the bill to pass constitutional muster while achieving the same goal.
But what if states had access to:
* Research from people who study election systems, voting theory, democratic institutions
* Technical standards they could implement locally
* Institutional backing when federal politicians try to override improvements
* Shared expertise without each state building that specialized capacity independently
That would STRENGTHEN state control, not weaken it. States could point to established research and say "our approach is based on empirical analysis, not political preference."
Your Concern 4: "Technology distrust drove the conspiracy theories"
Exactly. And look at how we handle technology questions in other domains:
* Airplane crashes: Engineers who specialize in aviation safety investigate (NTSB)
* Financial fraud: Auditors who specialize in forensic accounting evaluate
* Drug safety: Researchers who study pharmacology and epidemiology determine standards (FDA)
* Election security: Currently... politicians defending politicians' decisions?
You see the gap?
Here's The Pattern Across All Your Concerns:
Every concern you raised points to the same solution: We need people who actually study these systems designing the architecture.
* Not politicians making technical claims about voting machines.
* Not each state figuring out cryptographic protocols independently.
* Not hoping courts will save us from political capture.
But researchers who specialize in:
* Election administration and security protocols
* Voting theory and mathematical properties of different systems
* Democratic institutions and accountability mechanisms
* Statistical analysis and audit methodology
* Institutional design and governance architecture
Now Here's What I'm Actually Proposing:
Take all those researchers and scientists and put them in a publicly funded institution, held to high standards around accountability and transparency.
That's the Governance Design Agency.
The GDA would be staffed by people who study election systems, voting theory, democratic institutions, statistical analysis, and security protocols - similar to how:
* The CDC employs epidemiologists to design public health architecture
* The Federal Reserve employs economists to design monetary policy architecture
* The NTSB employs engineers to design aviation safety architecture
Here's How It Would Work:
The Democratic Mandate (What Democracy Decides):
Congress passes (or the Constitution is amended to include):
"Federal elections shall be conducted in a manner that ensures maximum eligible voter participation, accurate and verifiable vote counting, representative outcomes that reflect the diversity of voter preferences, and public confidence in electoral processes, while preserving state administration of elections."
That's the WHAT. That's democracy speaking. That's the outcome we're optimizing for.
What the GDA Would Design (Professional Architecture of HOW):
1. Voter Participation Standards
* Research question: What registration methods maximize eligible participation while preventing fraud?
* Who answers: Researchers who study election administration
* Design output: Recommended practices with evidence basis
* State flexibility: States choose which methods, must meet participation benchmarks
2. Verification Architecture
* Research question: What audit mechanisms provide verifiable accuracy?
* Who answers: Experts in cryptography, statistical analysis, security protocols
* Design output: Paper ballot requirements, audit standards, chain-of-custody protocols
* Established architecture that voting systems must meet, with transparent methodology
* State flexibility: States implement using local resources, following technical standards
3. Representative Voting Systems
* Research question: What voting methods produce representative outcomes?
* Who answers: Political scientists who study voting theory
* Design output: Evaluation of FPTP vs RCV vs approval voting vs other methods
* Evidence basis: Mathematical analysis shows FPTP guarantees two-party dominance (Duverger's Law). If the mandate specifies "representative outcomes that reflect diversity of voter preferences," then FPTP mathematically fails that requirement.
* GDA recommendation: Ranked-choice voting, approval voting, or proportional representation depending on context
* State flexibility: States choose which method, must meet representativeness benchmarks
This is where RCV comes in. The democratic mandate says "we want representative outcomes." Researchers who study voting systems evaluate which methods achieve that. FPTP provably doesn't - it mathematically produces two-party systems. The GDA would recommend alternatives like RCV.
Congress couldn't just ban RCV because the GDA analysis would show: "You've mandated representative outcomes. FPTP doesn't deliver that. RCV does. If you ban RCV, you're contradicting your own stated goals."
4. Public Confidence Mechanisms
* Research question: What transparency measures build trust without compromising security?
* Who answers: Researchers who study public trust, security architecture
* Design output: Observation standards, reporting requirements, accessible audit trails
* State flexibility: States implement within the framework
How This Addresses Dominion:
Under current system:
* No established security architecture
* Politicians make wild claims about technology they don't understand
* No authoritative standard to reference
* Conspiracy theories spread unchecked
Under GDA framework:
* Security standards established BEFORE machines are purchased by people who specialize in election security
* Transparent, published standards
* Independent certification (like UL for electrical equipment)
When wild claims emerge, there's established architecture to reference
Doesn't convince true believers (nothing does), but makes it harder for politicians to exploit technical ignorance
The Trust Question You Asked:
Which creates more trust:
A) Politicians design election rules, run elections, certify elections, investigate concerns, and say "trust us"
B) Researchers who study election systems design standards (transparent methodology), states implement (local control), independent auditors verify (established protocols), politicians maintain democratic oversight but don't design their own accountability
System A is what we have. System B is what the GDA enables.
You've raised legitimate concerns about trust, attack surfaces, and federalism.
But every concern points toward the same solution: technical questions need technical expertise, not political decision-making.
Now answer: What's your structural solution to the MEGA bill?
Congress is using legitimate constitutional authority to ban democratic improvements. Even if courts strike this version down, they'll rewrite it. How does your framework prevent politicians from optimizing election rules for their own advantage?
Because hoping courts will save us isn't a structural solution. It's crossing our fingers.
Hmmm. Below, you assured me that "The GDA isn't ordinary legislation - it's a constitutional-level architectural change." "The Governance Design Agency would: Be established via constitutional amendment (28th Amendment)." But here you say "Congress passes [ordinary legislation] (or the Constitution is amended to include)."
Jason, I'm not familiar with your proposal for a GDA or with the MEGA bill. But it sounds like the MEGA bill likely violates our Constitution, and I'm even more sure a GDA would do so.
Article II clearly says that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" to choose the president and vice president. Neither Congress nor an Agency can do that.
Article I clearly says that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." An Agency cannot usurp the powers that the People assigned to states legislatures or to Congress.
Even though the People vested in Congress the power to regulate elections of Senators and Representatives, all federal legislation is subject to more general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
I think it's not even possible that national authorities barring state legislatures from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office is either necessary or proper.
Jack, appreciate the constitutional analysis, but let's be clear about what "state control over elections" actually means in practice.
Theory vs. Reality:
You cite Article II giving states control over how they appoint electors. But when Colorado tried to remove Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court smacked them down unanimously. So how much control do states actually have when it conflicts with federal political interests?
The constitutional framework you're defending sounds good on paper. In practice, federal power expands wherever politically convenient, and "states' rights" only matter when they serve federal political purposes.
Do you trust this Supreme Court to strike down the MEGA bill? Because I don't. And even if they did, Congress would just rewrite it to pass constitutional muster while achieving the same goal - blocking improvements to democratic architecture that threaten incumbent advantage.
This is the pattern: They claim to improve democracy while doing the opposite. When you object on constitutional grounds, they work around it. The MEGA bill is just the current iteration.
What I'm Proposing:
The GDA isn't ordinary legislation - it's a constitutional-level architectural change. Here's the framework:
The Governance Design Agency would:
Be established via constitutional amendment (28th Amendment)
Design and maintain governance infrastructure (election systems, budget processes, accountability mechanisms)
Operate with professional staff, similar to how Federal Reserve handles monetary policy
Maintain democratic accountability through:
Presidential appointment of the Governance Architect (confirmed by Senate)
Congressional oversight and ability to override recommendations
Sunset provisions requiring reauthorization
Transparency requirements for all design decisions
The Key Separation:
Democracy decides: Whether we want better representation, what outcomes we're optimizing for
Professional design: How to achieve those outcomes (RCV vs FPTP vs other methods, specific implementation)
Politicians still make: All policy decisions within whatever democratic framework exists
The Legal Framework We're Developing:
Currently working with constitutional scholars to formalize:
Constitutional amendment language that creates the GDA while preserving democratic accountability
Limiting principles - what the GDA can and cannot design
Enforcement mechanisms - how to prevent political capture of the institution itself
Transition architecture - how to move from current system to new framework
The Structural Problem You're Missing:
You're defending the Constitution against the MEGA bill. Good. But the people who benefit from broken democratic architecture are the same people who:
Decide what's constitutional (through legislation and court appointments)
Control amending the Constitution (2/3 of Congress)
Operate within the system being "protected"
This creates the bootstrap problem: You can't fix the bridge while traffic is crossing. You're asking the current system to repair itself, when the current system benefits from staying broken.
The MEGA bill is working exactly as designed. They're using legitimate constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to prevent democratic improvements. Your constitutional defense doesn't solve this - it just describes the trap.
What we need:
Constitutional-level separation between those who design democratic systems and those who operate within them. Not federal takeover. Not removal of democratic control. But architectural separation that prevents exactly what the MEGA bill demonstrates - politicians optimizing election rules for their own advantage.
You might prefer a different institutional architecture. But pointing to the current Constitution and saying "this should prevent abuse" isn't working. We're watching it fail in real time.
What's your structural solution to prevent the next MEGA bill?
Jason, the Constitution provides the structural solution. Federalism (separation of state and federal powers) is part of the solution. Litigation and voting are part of the structural solution. Other exercises of First Amendment rights and freedoms are part of the structural solution.
State legislatures don't need to (and they shouldn't) acquiesce in anti-constitutional decisions of a handful of judges who were hand-picked by presidents. We need to learn to see how our Constitution was designed to work and be more forceful in insisting that it function as designed. That's how our Constitution was designed to work.
Jason, if the GDA is empowered by a constitutional amendment, then it obviously wouldn't be unconstitutional. But I don't put any hope at all in the process of constitutional amendments anytime soon.
I agree that we should be clear. Colorado wasn't "smacked down" by the Supreme Court. Colorado would have been well within its powers under our Constitution if Colorado (and other states) simply (1) showed that the so-called judgment of SCOTUS in Trump v. Anderson clearly violated our Constitution and (2) continued to keep Trump off the Colorado ballots. I wish they had.
There's no legal reason anyone should simply acquiesce in the frivolous and anti-constitutional purported logic of either Trump v. Anderson or Trump v. United States. Regarding the former case, please consider "Two Wrongs Meant Nothing SCOTUS Justices Did in Trump v. Anderson Was Right" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/two-wrongs-meant-nothing-scotus-justices?r=30ufvh
Jack, I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I'm not going to debate Trump v. Anderson with you. That's not my expertise.
But I am a systems engineer with 20 years of experience, and I want to focus on what I see clearly with the MEGA bill:
This is the fox guarding the henhouse.
Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting. They're claiming this "makes elections great again" - that they're improving democracy.
But the actual effect? Preventing states from adopting voting methods that would make representatives more accountable to broader constituencies instead of narrow partisan bases.
The structural problem:
The people who benefit from the current election system are the same people who have the power to prevent improvements to that system. They're using legitimate constitutional authority to optimize election rules for their own advantage while claiming to improve democracy.
This isn't a partisan observation. Whichever party controls Congress will use this same power for the same purpose. The structure creates the incentive.
Your solution: Heroic resistance
You're asking for:
* States to forcefully resist
* Citizens to litigate more aggressively
* Everyone to be "more forceful in insisting" the system work correctly
But what's the endgame here? Permanent crisis management where states just defy any federal orders they don't like? That's not federalism. That's dissolution.
And more fundamentally: Your solution doesn't address the fox-guarding-henhouse problem.
Even if heroic resistance works this time, Congress still has Article I, Section 4 authority. They can try again. And again. And eventually they'll find a version that passes constitutional muster (probably a low bar given the current Supreme Court) while achieving the same goal - preventing democratic improvements that threaten incumbent advantage.
The pattern I'm identifying:
When those who operate within a system also control the design of that system, they optimize for their own success, not system health.
Politicians design the rules that govern their own elections
Result: Rules that protect incumbents, not that improve representation
This is basic systems thinking. The conflict of interest is structural, not personal. Good people in a bad structure produce bad outcomes.
What I'm proposing:
I'm not asking you to debate the specifics of the Governance Design Agency. That's implementation details.
I'm asking you to acknowledge: Do you see the fox-guarding-henhouse problem?
Do you agree that having politicians design the election rules that govern their own elections creates a structural conflict of interest?
If yes, then the category of solution is clear: Separate those who design democratic systems from those who operate within them.
How exactly we do that - constitutional amendment, statutory institution, state-level pilots, whatever - that's a legitimate debate about implementation.
But you can't solve the MEGA bill problem with more forceful resistance. You need architecture that prevents the next MEGA bill from being possible.
The question:
You've admitted you have "no hope in the amendment process anytime soon."
So if the system can't fix itself through its own processes, and your solution is permanent heroic resistance...
Do you at least acknowledge we have a fox-guarding-henhouse problem that resistance alone won't solve?
Because from where I sit, the MEGA bill is proving exactly that.
The constitutional violation inherent in Congress presuming or pretending to have the power to prohibit states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office is the same as the constitutional violation inherent in partisan gerrymandering.
In hundreds of years of SCOTUS opinions, precious few highlight the direct and powerful connection between the sovereignty of the people and our rights or our liberty. Citizens United v. FEC was one of those precious few.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” But that was far from the most unusual aspect of the opinion. Far more uncommon and more important, SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential.”
“Political speech” (including voting, including by ranking our choices) is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” (including by ranking) current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.” “Speech” (including voting) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (and self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty).
Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power of sovereignty. Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (including voting, including by ranking our choices) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.”
Requiring the government to bear the burden of proof before depriving us of any relevant “liberty” is a crucial and powerful protection of “due process of law” mandated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The evil of partisan gerrymandering or a federal law purporting to prohibit states from using ranked-choice voting in any state election for federal office is that both measures deprive citizens of liberty and property (our sovereignty) without due process of law. It violates the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution.
Jason, we don't need a new agency because "Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting." We need to recognize how our Constitution precludes Congress from prohibiting states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for federal offices.
Very shortly after the controversy over the Sedition Act of 1798 (and Madison's Report of 1800), the constitutional principles were addressed by Chief Justice John Marshal as the official opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
The SCOTUS justices published their opinion in 1803, when multitudes who risked and sacrificed tremendously for the American Revolution that culminated in our Constitution with our Bill of Rights were still alive to judge the truth of the justices' writing. SCOTUS justices repeatedly emphasized the opposite of the assumption that Congress has the power to prohibiting states from using ranked-choice voting in state elections for federal offices.
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” "The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," i.e., by our public servants. So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." The same is true of the People and all our public servants.
"[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States [enacted by our public servants, so those laws] only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank [of being part of the supreme law of the land]. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle [that is] essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as [all] other departments [and judges and all other public servants], are bound by that instrument," i.e., our Constitution.
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions" (especially constitutions that were ratified by the People) "contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
Any "act of the legislature" (any purported law purportedly granting the President unconstitutional powers or any purported law by which Congress usurps powers) "repugnant to the constitution, is void." So any "act of" any other purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any purported theory, doctrine or practice that is "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."
"[T]he language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, [rules] not to be departed from." "From these, and many other [provisions of our Constitution], it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument [our Constitution], as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature," as well as of the President and all other executive and judicial officers (including all attorneys).
"Why otherwise does it direct the judges" (all our most powerful or influential public servants and even all lawyers) "to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character." All "judge[s]" (all our most powerful or influential public servants and even all lawyers) "swear to discharge [their] duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States" so "that constitution forms" the "rule for [the] government" for all our public servants--each and every one in every position of any real power--and even all lawyers.
Jason, the following is an example of what I meant about the need to understand the system established by our Constitution before trying to design a subsystem under it.
The problem you perceive is that "Congress is using their constitutional authority (Article I, Section 4) to ban ranked-choice voting." So you want to design a new subsystem that is governed by our Constitution to remedy that problem.
The problem I perceive is the misperception of the powers vested in Congress. In Article I, Section 4, the People clearly did not vest in Congress the power to ban ranked-choice voting in state elections for any federal office.
I'm making the same point that James Madison made in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and his Report of 1800 (regarding the Virginia Resolutions) in opposition to an unconstitutional law that was made by Congress together with the President. Madison emphasized that with the Sedition Act of 1798, the majority of Congress and the President violated our Constitution in two respects. First, they usurped powers that they simply were not given by the People in our Constitution. Second, they violated an express prohibition by the People that was added to our Constitution.
As the First Amendment established and emphasized in 1791, and as Madison re-emphasized in 1800, and as I addressed above, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Voting clearly and irrefutably is a vital exercise of the freedom of speech. Ranked-choice voting necessarily is an exercise of the freedom of speech that the People never gave Congress any power to prohibit. This really is that simple.
Even though the People vested in Congress the power to regulate elections of Senators and Representatives, all federal legislation is subject to more general restrictions in Articles I and VI. The latter permits only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution, and the former clarifies that means only "laws" that are both "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [Congress's enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Congress clearly was not given the power to prohibit ranked-choice voting in any state election for any federal office.
Jason, you think you can design a system to govern politics. That's exactly what the people who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and its various amendments did. I have no reason to think that your ideas would be more effective than those of brilliant luminaries like James Madison, James Wilson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They thought a lot about how to design a system that worked well.
They realized that no system can be designed to work well if the people fail to carry their own weight. They all understood and emphasized that keeping the people involved in our own self-government was the only way to accomplish the purposes of our Constitution. Madison, for example, emphasized:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
I don't agree with your characterization that "we have a fox-guarding-henhouse problem." We're not chickens, and the people who threaten us are not foxes. I agree with Thomas Jefferson. He compared people in power to wolves. He emphasized that everyone with any power was potentially a wolf. Then, he said that many such people were worse than wolves. They're essentially cannibals.
The truth about people in power is that "under pretence of governing" many public officials "have divided" people "into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture[, for example,] of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to [some so-called] governments [ ], and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
Jason, rest assured that I have no interest in debating anything with anyone. I'm trying to help you understand the system that you are trying to engineer. How can you engineer a system that is governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?
Danielle Allen
in just now
Hey friends, I'm grateful to see all this engagement! I haven't had a chance to read through all your comments yet, but I will sit down this weekend and do so. I know we're all thinking hard about questions of design and how to find mechanisms fit for the purpose of protecting all of us from arbitrary power in 21st century conditions.
I want to name something about this exchange that I think matters beyond just our specific disagreement.
Jack, you're demonstrating classic bottom-up processing:
* "You need to understand the foundation (constitutional law) before you can propose changes"
* "Here's Madison, here's Marbury v. Madison, here's the First Amendment"
* "Learn the precedents, master the details"
* "How can you engineer a system if you don't understand the pieces?"
You genuinely believe if I just understood the constitutional framework correctly, I'd see the system works. And you're trying to help me understand it.
I'm demonstrating top-down pattern recognition:
* "I see the structural pattern (fox guarding henhouse)"
* "The architectural flaw exists regardless of constitutional details"
* "The conflict of interest is structural, not solvable through better understanding of precedents"
Neither approach is wrong. They're different types of intelligence.
But here's what I've noticed across my entire life:
Our entire credentialing system is bottom-up gatekeeping:
* Education: "Show your work" (must demonstrate bottom-up process)
* Academia: "Cite your sources" (build from established knowledge)
* Professional gatekeeping: "Master the fundamentals first"
* Legal/political establishment: "Learn constitutional law before proposing changes"
The pattern: Bottom-up processors optimize existing systems. Top-down pattern-seers envision systems that don't exist yet.
And our society systematically privileges the first and dismisses the second.
I had a business partner with a PhD in electrical engineering. Very bottom-up. He looked at components and decided what to build. I decided what to build, then figured out what components I needed (to find or create).
That difference is where innovation comes from.
Bottom-up: "Here are the pieces. What can we build?"
Top-down: "Here's what needs to exist. What pieces do we need?"
Both are valid. Both are necessary. But only the second produces transformation rather than optimization.
Jack, when you say "How can you engineer a system governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?" - you're doing bottom-up gatekeeping.
You're saying: Master all the constitutional details I've mastered, THEN you can propose changes.
But that's like telling an architect: "You need to understand every brick-making technique before you can design a building."
The architect needs to understand structural principles. The pattern-seer needs to understand systemic dynamics.
I understand the Founders' principles: popular sovereignty, distributed power, mutual accountability, rule of law. I understand Game Theory, institutional economics, how incentives shape behavior, how conflicts of interest produce predictable outcomes.
That's the level where governance architecture exists.
Constitutional precedents are important. But they're the implementation details, not the structural design.
Here's why this matters beyond our conversation:
As long as we continue to crush top-down intelligence through bottom-up gatekeeping, we are going to continue to suffer with the same problems.
The optimizers keep optimizing a fundamentally broken system because they can't see past the framework they've mastered.
The pattern-seers get dismissed for not having "proper credentials" or not "understanding the foundation."
Result: Incremental improvements to broken architecture. No transformation. Just better optimization of dysfunction.
That's why Jack's solution - "people need to understand the Constitution better and enforce it" - doesn't work.
It's optimization thinking. "If we just apply the existing framework more correctly..."
My observation - "the structure creates the problem regardless of how well you understand constitutional law" - is transformation thinking.
"The architecture is broken. We need different architecture."
If we as a society are going to conquer the difficult, complex 21st century problems that lay before us, both types of intelligence are necessary:
* We need constitutional scholars who understand precedent and legal frameworks
* We need governance architects who see structural patterns and design new systems
But right now, the first group controls all the gatekeeping. And dismisses the second group as "not understanding the foundation."
That's the meta-pattern keeping us stuck.
Danielle, when you read this thread - this is what you're seeing. Two different types of intelligence approaching the same problem from different levels.
Jack's approach: Master the details, apply them correctly, enforce constitutional principles as written.
My approach: See the structural pattern, design architecture that prevents the pattern regardless of who operates it.
The tragedy is we're treating these as competing rather than complementary.
We need both. But the bottom-up gatekeeping means only one gets validated.
And that's why innovation in governance is nearly impossible. The people who could envision fundamentally different architecture get told "you don't understand the system" by people who've mastered optimization within the existing framework.
This is bigger than the MEGA bill. This is about how we validate intelligence and who gets to propose transformation.
Jack, I appreciate the constitutional education, genuinely. You clearly know this material far better than I do.
But I need to point out what you're actually saying:
Your solution to the MEGA bill is: "People need to understand the Constitution correctly and enforce it."
That's it. That's your entire structural solution.
You're saying:
* The Founders designed the system correctly
* The MEGA bill violates that design (First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, etc.)
* Courts/states/citizens just need to recognize this and resist
* If people would "carry their own weight" and stay informed, it would work
You're asking everyone to become angels. More on that in a moment.
The MEGA Bill Proves Your Approach Isn't Working
You say Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to ban ranked-choice voting. You've cited Madison, Marbury v. Madison, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment.
And Congress is doing it anyway.
They're using Article I, Section 4. They're claiming it's constitutional. They're calling it "Make Elections Great Again."
Your response is: "Well, they're wrong about the Constitution. Courts should strike it down. States should resist. Citizens should understand their sovereignty."
When this lands in front of the current Supreme Court, do you trust them to strike it down?
December 23, 2025: Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to lift the block preventing him from deploying National Guard forces in Chicago. Illinois had obtained a court order stopping the deployment.
The Supreme Court said no. 6-3.
But three justices—Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—would have lifted the block immediately. Three Supreme Court justices were ready to let military deployment in an American city proceed.
And you know what happens even if courts strike the MEGA bill down? They telegraph a way to rewrite it. Congress comes back with version 2.0 that achieves the same goal while passing constitutional muster.
That's the pattern. And your solution is... hope courts save us next time too?
The Founders Warned Us About Exactly This
You keep citing the Founders as if I'm proposing to abandon them. I'm not. I'm proposing to restore what they actually built - which we've dismantled.
I wrote about this recently (https://statecraftblueprint.org/p/when-everyone-admits-the-system-is):
George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... is itself a frightful despotism."
That's exactly what we're experiencing. The MEGA bill is one faction using power to prevent the other faction from improving democratic architecture. And when power flips, the other faction will do the same.
James Madison designed the entire constitutional architecture around preventing concentrated power:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition... If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
This is what you're missing:
Jack's approach: Make everyone into angels (through constitutional education, sustained vigilance, forceful resistance, correct understanding)
Jason's approach: Recognize people are human. Build architecture that works with imperfect humans.
Madison didn't trust good intentions. He didn't design for virtuous leaders. He designed systems where ambition counteracts ambition. Where power is distributed. Where no faction can dominate.
We've dismantled what they built. We've removed the constraints. Weakened the checks. Concentrated authority in ways they explicitly warned against.
And now we're experiencing exactly what they predicted: frightful despotism alternating between factions, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.
You Said: "How can you engineer a system that is governed by our Constitution if you don't understand our Constitution?"
Fair question. Here's my answer:
I understand that the Constitution gives Congress power over federal elections (Article I, Section 4). Congress is using that power. Whether it's unconstitutional under other provisions, they have the power and they're exercising it.
More importantly: I understand the underlying principles the Founders encoded in the Constitution:
* Popular sovereignty (the people are ultimate authority)
* Distributed power (no single faction controls everything)
* Mutual accountability (power holders accountable to each other and the people)
* Rule of law (laws bind everyone, including those who make them)
These weren't abstract ideals. These were architectural principles designed to enforce cooperation even when people didn't want to cooperate.
The Founders tried to build cooperation through architecture. They had 1780s knowledge. We have 238 additional years of knowledge about Game Theory, institutional economics, how incentives shape behavior, how unconstrained power corrupts regardless of intentions.
The question isn't whether to abandon their principles. The question is: How do we implement these principles in 2026?
How do we build architecture that enforces cooperation in a world of 330 million people, instant global communication, complex interconnected systems, and tribal media ecosystems the Founders couldn't have imagined?
What I'm Actually Proposing
Not abandonment of the Founders' vision. Restoration of their principles using modern tools.
Think about the Federal Reserve. It doesn't collapse every time a new president takes office (at least so far, we are likely to find out in the near future) because it's designed with the same founding principles:
* Distributed power - Fed Chair can't act unilaterally, requires board consensus
* Mutual accountability - Subject to congressional oversight, transparent methodology
* Rule of law - Bound by Federal Reserve Act
* Popular sovereignty - Ultimately accountable to elected officials, accountable to people
Professional staff. Insulated from day-to-day politics while remaining democratically accountable. Both parties can lose an election without panicking about monetary policy.
That's what the Founders were trying to build for all of government. We just gave up halfway through.
The Governance Design Agency would do the same for governance architecture - applying founding principles using knowledge the Founders didn't have:
* Game Theory showing how incentives shape behavior
* Institutional economics explaining how systems succeed or fail
* 238 years of evidence about what works and what doesn't
This isn't rejecting Madison. This is asking: What would Madison design if he had Game Theory and modern systems engineering?
Jack's approach: The Constitution is sufficient if people understand it correctly and enforce it forcefully. The MEGA bill is unconstitutional. Courts should strike it down. States should resist. Citizens should engage. Everyone needs to carry their weight. Make everyone into angels.
Jason's approach: The Founders' principles were right. We've dismantled their constraints. We need to restore those principles - popular sovereignty, distributed power, mutual accountability, rule of law - using 238 years of additional knowledge about how to make them work. Recognize people are human and build architecture accordingly.
Jack, you're asking for sustained heroic effort within a structure that requires heroism.
I'm asking: Why not restore the architecture the Founders tried to build - using better tools?
You say I don't understand the Constitution well enough to engineer a system governed by it.
I say: I understand Madison's core insight perfectly. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Men aren't angels. Your solution requires them to be. Mine doesn't.
The Founders designed for imperfect humans with conflicting interests. You're asking those imperfect humans to suddenly become perfectly informed, perfectly vigilant, perfectly constitutional scholars.
That's not Madisonian. That's hoping for angels.
(Excellent discussion, my dude 👍)