Elections and representation

Selected direction.

Term limits and Senate election timing

Public office should remain responsive to voters rather than become an indefinite personal career.

The proposal. Establish term limits. Favor four-year Senate terms, with Senate elections alongside presidential elections. Term length, election timing, total service limits and leadership tenure are related choices, but each requires an explicit rule.

How it would work. The working election-timing model puts all senators on the same four-year presidential cycle. The service-limit options discussed are a three-term Senate cap totaling 12 years, a 12-year House cap, a combined lifetime cap on congressional service, and six-year limits in leadership positions. These are working options, not a finalized package. No combined lifetime number has been selected.

Implementation. Finalize each chamber’s cap, the combined lifetime rule, covered leadership positions, treatment of partial terms, eligibility after interrupted service, and transition for current officeholders. Reconsider the combined cap consistently with four-year Senate terms. Define the constitutional changes and transition required before implementation. Candidate qualification, campaign funding and the method used to select election winners are separate proposals.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Qualify candidates through exclusive endorsements and unique donors

Ballot access should depend on verified support, including for late entrants.

The proposal. Use exclusive individual endorsements as the primary candidate-qualification criterion, followed by a minimum number of unique verified donors. Each eligible person in the relevant electorate may endorse one candidate per race during a declared qualification window. Any positive donation can count; there is no minimum dollar contribution. Every candidate, including a late entrant, must meet the same exclusive-endorsement and unique-verified-donor criteria to appear on the ballot. Entering late provides no lower-threshold route.

Implementation. Set endorsement thresholds, the electorate denominator, donor minimums or ratios, verification, appeals, ties, and low-participation rules. A field of ten candidates is a target example, not a fixed qualification limit; no 10% threshold is adopted. Count unique donors rather than repeated transactions. Define how late entrants can gather sufficient support within the remaining lawful time, including the practical effect of exclusive endorsements. No absolute late-entry ban, endorsement-transfer rule or final deadline is established.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Create an official candidate-information and comparison service

People need an accessible way to evaluate candidates’ actual positions and records without relying solely on advertising or a simplified label.

The proposal. Provide an official, searchable federal candidate website covering everyone who meets the initial qualifying criteria. Show understandable positions on important topics and actual voting records where available. Offer optional matching between a person’s beliefs and candidates’ stated policies.

How it would work. Present the underlying information clearly, including sources and the distinction between a policy promise and a recorded vote. Matching should help people explore alignment rather than instruct them whom to support. A candidate without a voting record needs a fair way to explain positions.

Implementation. Define administration, eligibility, accessibility, corrections, appeals, and independent oversight. Proposed safeguards include published scoring methods, user-controlled issue weights, private preference handling, and a clear distinction between missing information and disagreement. Those mechanisms still require design and testing. This proposed government service is separate from the America OS project website.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Working proposal. This is a working proposal, not an adopted policy.

Give qualifying candidates equal starting campaign resources

An initial opportunity to be heard should not depend on personal fortune.

How it would work. A working campaign model would give qualifying candidates equal starting grants, followed by one to three debates featuring all qualifiers. Candidates could then raise individual contributions at their own pace up to a common ceiling. Equal starting resources would not require identical final spending. A voluntary contribution pool could fund the starting grants before contributions flow to donors’ chosen candidates. A familiar framework should inform state and local elections, whose detailed design remains with states and communities.

Implementation. Decide grant amounts, pool sufficiency, campaign ceilings, deadlines, unused funds, and administration. Late entrants must meet the same ballot-qualification criteria; under the working campaign model, missing the initial deadline still means missing the starting grant and initial debates. No compulsory tax-funded campaign baseline is established.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Working proposal. This is a working proposal, not an adopted policy.

Consider majority-winning elections

A winning candidate may lack support from a majority when several candidates divide the vote.

The proposal. Consider majority-winning elections using ranked choice or runoffs. This remains an electoral-method proposal, separate from term limits and qualification for initial campaign support.

How it would work. Ranked choice and a separate runoff are alternative approaches discussed for identifying majority support. Neither method has been selected as the final rule.

Implementation. Choose the method, applicable offices, ballot design, counting rules, ties, appeals and transition only after evaluating administration, access and voter understanding. No exact counting system or numerical threshold beyond the majority-winning objective is settled. Open questions also include how election winners should be determined, what role the Electoral College should have, and how electoral districts should be drawn while preventing gerrymandering. No Electoral College replacement or boundary-drawing system is selected.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Enable verified digital and remote electoral participation

Participation should fit people’s lives without sacrificing election integrity, privacy, or access.

The proposal. Develop digital, online and ultimately paperless participation, including verified endorsements and remote election participation. Verify identity and citizenship for eligible citizens’ electoral participation. Use a familiar, repeatable framework across national, state, and local elections while preserving local design authority.

How it would work. Separate identity verification, candidate endorsements, private political preferences, tax instructions, and secret ballots. A person should not have to surrender ballot secrecy to prove eligibility. The election-citizenship requirement does not by itself decide eligibility for every government service.

Implementation. No secure remote-voting implementation has been selected or demonstrated. Independent evaluation must address ballot secrecy, coercion, verifiability, compromised devices, accessibility, recovery, and resilience before deployment. Blockchain, AI analysis, monitoring, and built-in failsafes are research options rather than proven solutions. The paperless goal does not establish that existing safeguards can safely be removed.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Working proposal. This is a working proposal, not an adopted policy.

Reconsider a state second legislative chamber

State representation must fit a system of empowered existing communities.

Working proposal. A population-based chamber could be paired with a second chamber representing local jurisdictions. Its earlier Council of Districts design needs reconsideration now that cities and rural governments can exercise local authority directly. Equal versus population-weighted representation remains undecided; neither chamber would gain general control over protected local policy. The chamber’s design and legal route require constitutional review.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Selected direction.

Create an earned path to direct Senate representation

Local autonomy should not automatically create overlapping Senate representation.

Implementation. An earned Federal Commonwealth path to Senate representation requires redesign and constitutional review. Local autonomy or merger does not automatically create Senate seats, and overlapping Senate votes must be avoided.

Working proposal. Federal Commonwealth status could recognize durable self-government, population, fiscal reliability, constitutional-rights compliance, independent courts and elections, audited accounts, satisfied shared obligations and settled boundaries. Twenty years of autonomy, ten years without default and a 75% referendum were examples, not final thresholds. Eligibility, contribution, representation, certification and constitutional transition remain open.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Open question. This is an open question. No substantive policy has been selected.

Electoral College

The way presidential votes become a national result is a foundational design choice.

The question. Role, retention, replacement or abolition remains unselected.

How to develop it. Identify what currently works, establish any concrete problem and examine evidence, affected people, rights, costs and alternatives before selecting reform. No complete policy for this subject has been adopted.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.

Open question. This is an open question. No substantive policy has been selected.

Electoral boundaries and gerrymandering

District boundaries shape representation and require safeguards against manipulation.

The question. Who draws lines, standards, safeguards and review remain open.

How to develop it. Identify what currently works, establish any concrete problem and examine evidence, affected people, rights, costs and alternatives before selecting reform. No complete policy for this subject has been adopted.

Read this alongside The Framework and the Working Guide.