Here’s the deal. I believe our election system can be transformed without changing any laws. And if I prove a paradigm shift is all that separates politicians from campaign money, would you support my cause? Given the state of government, you’ve got to admit-it’s a small ask for a large task.

I am neither a politician, academic nor a journalist. I’m a business owner with an engineering degree. Although these days it doesn’t take any credentials to see the problem in our nation’s Capital.

Washington D.C., home to the richest democracy on the planet, is a partisan hot mess. To an alarming degree, the two-party system robs our voice, wastes huge sums, normalizes incivility, and undermines our institutions. You know I could go on.

My journey in political reform dates to the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot. Perot was an information systems pioneer turned politician. The idea of a businessman shaking up D.C. captivated the country.

Ross skewered both parties with equal aplomb and was cheered for it. Even though he didn’t win, he inspired me to think a business innovation could someday revolutionize “the system.”  

In 2021, I formed a political committee, raised a little money, and learned a lot about election law. My original idea was to start a political party that held nominees to high ethical standards based on a centrist platform.

I concluded that alternate political parties depend on wealthy people funding their campaigns in a stacked system. This is not seismic change, just more of the same.

The major parties leverage election laws to stymy competition and dominate like monopolies. Quality suffers as a result. In a true marketplace, an entity forms to offer better representation.

Even though politics are vastly different from business, I didn’t abandon the monopoly analogy. It foretells the existence of a quantum leap forward, a jump invisible from inside the bubble.

Then one day I joked that our country does a better job picking the next American Idol than our next Congressional representative. Thoughts began to stir.

While telecom was positively disrupting every industry imaginable it had not impacted elections similarly. Our process is a hassle and to yield the best nominee requires a level of engagement the public voting system will never deliver.

This is especially true for elections in uncompetitive districts where representation is often the worst. To step it up, larger candidate pools, higher voter participation and more rounds of voting must occur.

An idea formed … maybe the system could be disrupted by running a contest outside the public primary. An abridged version of the contest could play out something like this ...

A local committee manages a fair contest using a system hosted by the “Party”. Technology allows contestants to operate a “no-cost” campaign, lowering the entry barrier and leveling the playing field. This is crucial because once citizens start spending money on an election campaign, they are legally candidates for office and subject to all FEC regulations and filings.

Constituents sift through potential nominees utilizing the Party app and website. Contestants with the most endorsements advance to a round where they participate in a virtual town hall. Constituents pick their top two candidates. In the last round, an online debate and a final vote will be held.

Do you think the pool of candidates will improve if it’s a fair competition and doesn’t require soul-selling? Would more constituents engage if there were good candidates and better methods to capture voter input?

I believe the answer is “yes” on all fronts. Develop a good app and website, and the contest outdraws the public primary by a wide margin. The byproduct is a winner entirely motivated to broadly represent the district, not just the faction with a national agenda.  They are likely to enter the general election with more constituent support than the major party candidate.

Here’s the thing. A political party can do everything I just described. The solution … using nonpartisan political parties to compete with partisan ones … already exists.

In a twist, political parties can deliver fairness using a technological platform instead of an ideological one. A Moneyball way to beat gerrymandering.

The contest winner must now defeat a major party nominee. In an ideal world the party would want to cover the general election campaign costs to preserve our candidate’s integrity.

Unfortunately, political parties are limited in their ability to directly fund campaigns. When candidates declare their nomination, the law requires them to form their own committee and open a bank account. Incentives inherent in fundraising make these accounts untenable. Candidates become beholden to donors and our mission fails.

My attorney, an election lawyer who ran for Congress, understood the limitations of political parties. He advised using a Super PAC from the outset due to its unrestricted fund raising and spending.

The problem was that a Super PAC couldn’t run the contest I envisioned. It would require “coordination”, the only restriction on a Super PAC. Another twist would be needed.

This one would enable the Super PAC to return the power to the people. Here’s the innovation.

After the fair contest, the Super PAC delivers the uncoordinated media campaign required to defeat the major party nominee. Whatever it takes. In exchange, the candidate appoints a treasurer designated by the local committee. Under the rules of the contest, the treasurer must spend all funds or return the remainder to the local committee.

Winners won’t be allowed to leverage the contest to amass a war chest. Elected representatives are compelled to re-enter and win the contest to earn another round of Super PAC funding for the next election cycle.

Consider that the Super PAC has no role in the selection of the candidate so strings cannot be attached to its support. Candidates simply need to follow the contest rules and garner the most votes.

This plan delivers complete campaign finance reform. An accomplishment requiring no act of Congress, a body that currently gridlocks over everything.

Remember that deal? It’s about to get better.

The local committee can implement term limits. How? It controls entry into the contest. If an elected representative attempts to break the limit, or any contest rules for that matter, they start with no money, no donor network, and must face a Super PAC determined to see them fail.

This results in enforceable term limits without a law or Constitutional amendment.

Contributions from the public can fund the development of the technology. Once they do, limitless donations to the SuperPAC will allow those with deeper pockets to rapidly raise the capital required for the media campaigns.

The next step is to launch contests in uncompetitive districts, always an equal number in red and blue. It must be a bipartisan takedown.

The goal is to elect enough representatives, so no party holds a majority in either chamber. Congress is forced to abandon majority party rules, fulfilling the original vision of the Constitution’s Framers.

Transforming elections to serve the common good is not only possible, but also inevitable. Technology eventually reshapes everything. Our mindset determines the timing.

In today’s environment, Ross Perot would most likely invest in this plan over a Presidential bid. It’s a great deal for everyone, except those in Congress. And he would have loved more than anyone to see the tables turn.