I believe that the whole problem with the duopoly arises from the ability of either party, and any one party, to monopolize power within each district for the duration of the term for which each representative has been elected. The duopoly wouldn’t exist if we didn’t have single member plurality representation. Remove SMP, and the duopoly would go away, too. But this would require the larger and better organized local factions to agree to concede power to other, weaker ones. The duopoly survives in no small part because it serves the interests of local factions. So we can’t really say that we have a solution to the duopoly, or even a completely realistic call to dismantle it, if we’re not also calling for the destruction of extremist conspiracies to seize power locally.
Austin - You’re absolutely right that single-member plurality voting (SMP) is a key structural pillar of the duopoly. It creates a winner-take-all incentive that discourages coalition-building and entrenches binary choices. I've called this out in most of the chapters in this substack. There are reforms that address the problem that are underfunded relative to the war chest of the existing political industrial complex. We need to rally enough billionaires to fund a super-pac to end all super-pacs. With a war chest of $4-5 billion we could back a super majority of the House and Senate against primary challengers in order to be veto and filibuster proof. With Elon saying he's ready to back a 3rd party... there might be sufficient balance sheets to finally take on the duopoly in earnest. Reforms like single non-partisan open (jungle) primaries, ballot access reform, and national service-based civic renewal as first steps, expanding congress, repealing citizens united and others. It's not hopeless... but we need the funding to take on the $20+ billion spend during each election cycle. It's a daunting challenge but there are solutions. I've written a few chapter that address these issues. Here's one that directly addresses plurality voting. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/plurality-voting. Here's one on Closed Primaries. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/closed-partisan-primaries-polarization. American Promise and Citizens United. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/citizens-united-dark-money.
Andy—congratulations on tackling one of the most urgent and complex conversations of our time with such courage and intellectual integrity. This chapter doesn’t flinch from the contradictions, hypocrisies, or dangers we face—and that’s exactly what makes it matter.
Why This Could Be a Good Crisis
If there’s a silver lining in Trump’s reckless policies, rhetoric, and behavior, it’s the pressure they apply. And pressure can be clarifying. It can force hard questions. It can move people who’ve been sitting on the sidelines.
You’ve shown in this chapter that the system isn’t failing because one man broke it—but because we, collectively, allowed our institutions to decay through tribalism, inaction, and selective outrage. And yet, because the system isn’t yet gone, we still have the power to fix it.
This could be a good crisis—if it leads us to rebuild a resilient, principled future. Not one based on retribution, but on recommitment and renewal. Not defined by fear, but by shared responsibility.
Thank you for pushing us to think bigger, clearer, and more bravely.
Very well articulated. I’ve been coming to similar conclusions - and having many similar thoughts - of late … and am finding that I’m about 15 years behind the phenomenon.
I believe that the whole problem with the duopoly arises from the ability of either party, and any one party, to monopolize power within each district for the duration of the term for which each representative has been elected. The duopoly wouldn’t exist if we didn’t have single member plurality representation. Remove SMP, and the duopoly would go away, too. But this would require the larger and better organized local factions to agree to concede power to other, weaker ones. The duopoly survives in no small part because it serves the interests of local factions. So we can’t really say that we have a solution to the duopoly, or even a completely realistic call to dismantle it, if we’re not also calling for the destruction of extremist conspiracies to seize power locally.
Austin - You’re absolutely right that single-member plurality voting (SMP) is a key structural pillar of the duopoly. It creates a winner-take-all incentive that discourages coalition-building and entrenches binary choices. I've called this out in most of the chapters in this substack. There are reforms that address the problem that are underfunded relative to the war chest of the existing political industrial complex. We need to rally enough billionaires to fund a super-pac to end all super-pacs. With a war chest of $4-5 billion we could back a super majority of the House and Senate against primary challengers in order to be veto and filibuster proof. With Elon saying he's ready to back a 3rd party... there might be sufficient balance sheets to finally take on the duopoly in earnest. Reforms like single non-partisan open (jungle) primaries, ballot access reform, and national service-based civic renewal as first steps, expanding congress, repealing citizens united and others. It's not hopeless... but we need the funding to take on the $20+ billion spend during each election cycle. It's a daunting challenge but there are solutions. I've written a few chapter that address these issues. Here's one that directly addresses plurality voting. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/plurality-voting. Here's one on Closed Primaries. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/closed-partisan-primaries-polarization. American Promise and Citizens United. https://www.fairnessmatters.vote/p/citizens-united-dark-money.
Andy—congratulations on tackling one of the most urgent and complex conversations of our time with such courage and intellectual integrity. This chapter doesn’t flinch from the contradictions, hypocrisies, or dangers we face—and that’s exactly what makes it matter.
Why This Could Be a Good Crisis
If there’s a silver lining in Trump’s reckless policies, rhetoric, and behavior, it’s the pressure they apply. And pressure can be clarifying. It can force hard questions. It can move people who’ve been sitting on the sidelines.
You’ve shown in this chapter that the system isn’t failing because one man broke it—but because we, collectively, allowed our institutions to decay through tribalism, inaction, and selective outrage. And yet, because the system isn’t yet gone, we still have the power to fix it.
This could be a good crisis—if it leads us to rebuild a resilient, principled future. Not one based on retribution, but on recommitment and renewal. Not defined by fear, but by shared responsibility.
Thank you for pushing us to think bigger, clearer, and more bravely.
—Jim
Very well articulated. I’ve been coming to similar conclusions - and having many similar thoughts - of late … and am finding that I’m about 15 years behind the phenomenon.