Change who gets in, and what they may do once there

What It Changes

5 changes. Anything underneath one of them is supporting detail, not another change.

1. 01

   A public formula draws the districts, not the politicians

   Politicians should not draw the districts in which they run. Congressional maps are generated by a published formula from the Census's geography and population counts, under five rules in order: equal population; contiguity; the fewest counties split between districts, then the fewest municipalities, then the fewest census tracts; then the most compact shape; then fixed tie-breakers. The formula never sees election results, party registration, incumbent addresses, polling, candidate information, or demographic data beyond head counts, except where federal voting-rights law expressly requires it. The code and the inputs are public, and the same code runs in every state. The only human hand allowed on the map is the one voting-rights law requires, and every such change must be published, explained, and reviewable in court.

   See the real-world case →
   WHERE THIS ALREADY WORKS

   Iowa. Since 1980 its nonpartisan legislative staff have drawn congressional and legislative maps under a statute that requires equal population, contiguity, the fewest county and city splits, and compactness, and that forbids using incumbent addresses, party registration, prior election results, or demographic data beyond head counts except as federal law requires. The formula takes that rule the rest of the way: the map is computed, not drafted, so there is no staff judgment to capture and no legislative vote to withhold. Source record S37.

   WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS, AND WHAT IT DOESN'T

   Taking politicians out of the room is associated with more competitive seats: in the 2024 cycle, independent commissions drew about 19% of congressional districts but 41% of the toss-ups (Brennan Center). That finding is about commissions, the design this fix replaced, and it argues for the direction, not for the formula's results. A neutral process is not a neutral outcome: Chen and Rodden showed that compact, politically blind maps still tilt against the party whose voters are concentrated in cities. The formula removes the choice, not the geography, so this fix promises that no one chose the map, not that the map is proportional or competitive. Competitiveness is measured separately, on the scorecard. And a federal court's 2023 correction of thirteen Michigan districts shows where human judgment about race goes wrong; the formula confines that judgment to one published, reviewable exception. Source records S30, S38, and S14.

2. 02

   One open primary ballot for every voter

   Every qualified candidate on one ballot, open to every eligible voter regardless of party registration. Voters mark every candidate they would accept, and the two with the most approvals advance to a head-to-head general election that produces a majority winner.

   See the real-world case →
   THE FOUR TESTS ANY PRIMARY SYSTEM HAS TO PASS

   The tests, not the mechanism, are the permanent commitment:

   1. 1.Every eligible voter can participate in the election that actually decides the seat. In a safe district, the primary is the election.
   2. 2.Supporting one acceptable candidate can never hurt another you'd also accept. No vote-splitting penalty.
   3. 3.The final winner holds real majority support in a head-to-head election, not a plurality of a divided field.
   4. 4.The ballot is understandable in line, practical to administer on existing equipment, and auditable by hand.

   WHY AN APPROVAL BALLOT, AND ITS HONEST LIMITS

   Test 2 is the one a pick-one ballot fails: in California's 2012 top-two primary, four Democrats split nearly half the vote in CD-31 and two Republicans took both November slots — and once that risk exists, parties clear fields early and less visibly. An approval primary passes all four tests. But it is provisional: St. Louis is the only U.S. jurisdiction using it (since 2021, after North Dakota banned it in 2025), it changes rather than eliminates strategic voting, and St. Louis critics argue it can dilute a cohesive minority bloc — an objection the approved record treats as serious and not yet fully answered. Ranked choice is not the recommendation: in Alaska's 2022 special election it eliminated the candidate the cast ballots showed would have beaten both finalists head-to-head. If a better method meets the four tests more completely, it should be used. Source records S08–S10.

3. 03

   Index funds only, while in office

   Members of Congress, their spouses, and their children hold broad-market funds, Treasuries, cash, and a home — nothing an officeholder can move with a vote, a hearing, or a phone call. Rapid disclosure, and anti-evasion rules for trusts, shell entities, and arranged trades written first, not added later.

   See the real-world case →
4. 04

   Any bill with real bipartisan support gets a recorded vote

   A bill clearing a meaningful, predefined bipartisan sponsorship threshold receives committee consideration and a recorded up-or-down floor vote on stable text. Leadership loses the silent pocket veto; members lose the ability to hide.

   THE WORKING NUMBERS, LABELED AS DEFAULTS

   The author-approved modeling default — 15% of the chamber, including at least 5% from each of the two largest caucuses, with 14 days of stable text, committee action within 30 legislative days, and a protected vote within 60 — is a starting point for historical testing, not a final statutory number. A poison-pill substitute does not satisfy the requirement.

5. 05

   Miss the budget deadline, and the public is protected while the chamber answers for it

   Funding continues automatically under a neutral formula — no shutdown, no hostages. Congress then faces a mandatory conference and protected votes on the same final package, and a chamber that still rejects it or refuses to vote faces a special election within 90 days. A chamber that passed the package is not punished for the other chamber's failure.

   See the real-world case →
   THE HONEST CATCH

   The automatic-funding half is ordinary legislation and already has a bipartisan bill (the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act of 2026). The immediate-election half would require a constitutional amendment, because House and Senate terms are fixed by Article I and the Seventeenth Amendment. That is the largest feasibility problem in the whole program, stated plainly rather than glossed over. Source record S16.