Here's the deal. I believe our election system can be transformed without changing a single law. And if I can prove that 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, an academic, nor a journalist. I'm a business owner with an engineering degree. Then again, these days it hardly takes 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 us of our voice, wastes huge sums of money, normalizes incivility, and undermines our institutions. You know I could go on.

Where This Started

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

Ross talked common sense and was cheered for skewering both parties with equal aplomb. Even though he didn't win, Perot planted a seed in my head: that a business approach might 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 its nominees to high ethical standards, built around a centrist platform.

I eventually concluded that alternative political parties depend on wealthy people funding their campaigns inside a stacked system. Instead of seismic change, a third-party approach would only lead to more of the same.

The Monopoly Challenge

The two parties leverage election law to stifle competition and dominate the field just like monopolies. Quality of representation suffers as a result. In an open marketplace, a solution eventually forms to fill the gap.

Politics is obviously different from business, but I couldn't abandon the monopoly analogy. It suggests the resolution: the existence of a quantum leap forward, a jump that's invisible from inside the bubble.

Then one day I joked that our country does a better job picking the next American Idol than it does selecting our next member of Congress. That quip sparked an idea.

Telecom had disrupted nearly every industry imaginable, but never touched elections in the same way. Our nominating process is a hassle, and producing the best nominee requires a level of public engagement our current system isn’t poised to deliver.

That failure is most visible in uncompetitive districts, where representation is often at its worst. Fixing it requires larger candidate pools, higher voter participation, and more rounds of voting than a traditional primary allows.

The Breakthrough

An idea began to form: what if the system could be positively disrupted by running a contest entirely outside the public primary? A simplified version of it might work something like this.

A local committee manages a fair competition run on a platform hosted by the Party. Technology lets contestants operate a no-cost campaign, which lowers the entry barrier and levels the playing field. The moneyless nature of the system is critical because the moment citizens start spending on a campaign, they become legal candidates for office, subject to every FEC regulation and filing requirement associated with it.

Constituents sift through potential nominees using the Party's app and website. Contestants with the most endorsements advance to a round that includes a virtual town hall. From there, citizens narrow the field to their top two candidates. In the last round, an online debate is followed by a final vote.

Would the candidate pool improve if soul-selling is no longer a prerequisite? Would more constituents engage if tools for capturing voter input were better as well?

I believe the answer is yes, on every front. Build a good app and website, and this contest outdraws the public primary by a wide margin. The byproduct is a winner who's motivated to represent the whole district — not just the faction chasing a national agenda. They are likely to enter the general election with broader constituent support than a major-party nominee.

Where It Gets Interesting

Here's the thing: a political party can already do everything I just described. The solution — nonpartisan political parties competing directly with partisan ones — already exists as a legal structure. It just was never utilized that way.

The twist is that a political party can deliver fairness through a technology platform instead of one built on ideology. This is potentially a Moneyball way to beat gerrymandering.

Once the contest produces a winner, that candidate still has to defeat a major-party nominee in the general election. Ideally, the party would want to cover the cost of that general election campaign, to preserve the integrity of the process that produced a candidate unspoiled by donors.

Unfortunately, political parties are sharply limited in how much they can directly fund a campaign. When a candidate officially launches a campaign, the law requires them to form their own committee with a corresponding bank account — and the fundraising incentives built into that account are exactly the problem we're trying to solve. Candidates become beholden to donors, and the mission fails right there.

A Super PAC for The Common Good

My attorney, an election lawyer who once ran for Congress himself, understood these limitations better than anyone. He advised using a Super PAC from the outset, since a Super PAC can raise and spend money without any restrictions — with one exception. The only real limitation on a Super PAC is that it can't "coordinate" with a candidate's campaign.

That was the problem: a Super PAC couldn't run the contest I'd envisioned. Coordination was exactly what the contest required. By law, the Party and the local committee would have to do that job. So another twist was needed to insulate our candidate from the root of all evil.

This one hands the power back to the people. Here's the innovation.

After the fair contest concludes, the Super PAC runs the uncoordinated media campaign needed to defeat the major-party nominee — whatever that takes. In exchange, the winning nominee appoints a treasurer designated by the local committee. Under the contest's rules, that treasurer must spend every dollar raised, or return whatever's left to the local committee.

Winners aren't allowed to use the contest to build a personal war chest. Elected representatives have to re-enter and win the contest again to earn another round of Super PAC funding for the next election cycle.

Because the Super PAC has no role in selecting the candidate, no strings can be attached to its support. Candidates just need to follow the contest's rules and earn the most support.

This plan delivers full campaign finance reform — an accomplishment that requires no act of Congress, a body that currently gridlocks over nearly everything.

Remember that deal from the top? It's about to get better.

Term Limits, Without A Law

The local committees also control entry into the contests, which means they can enforce term limits without any law or constitutional amendment. If an elected representative tries to break that limit, or breaks any other contest rule, they start their next race with no money, no donor network, and a Super PAC actively working to see them lose.

That's an enforceable term limit — no legislation required.

Public contributions can fund the development of the technology itself. Once that's built, unlimited donations to the Super PAC let people with deeper pockets rapidly raise the capital needed for media campaigns.

The Endgame

The next step is to launch these contests in uncompetitive districts — always an equal number of red and blue ones. This has to be a bipartisan approach.

The goal is to elect enough independent representatives that no single party holds a majority in either chamber. That forces Congress to abandon majority-party rule, and fulfills the original vision the Constitution's framers actually had in mind.

Transforming elections to serve the common good isn't just possible — it's inevitable. Technology eventually reshapes everything. The only real question is timing, and that's up to us.

In today's environment, I think Ross Perot would invest in a plan like this one over a presidential bid. It's a great deal for everyone — except those currently in Congress. And more than anyone, he would have loved to see the tables finally turn.