Part 13 of the series: How Systems Are Rigged Against the Bottom 90%

We’ve established that the political system maintains wealth extraction through bipartisan consensus. Both parties take corporate money. Both parties vote to protect extraction. The system works exactly as designed—just not for us.

But here’s the good news: this isn’t how the system was supposed to work. And more importantly, we know exactly how to fix it because other democracies have already done it successfully.

The U.S. political system has specific structural problems that create gridlock, enable corporate capture, and prevent majority rule. These aren’t abstract philosophical differences—they’re concrete mechanical failures. And mechanical failures can be fixed with mechanical solutions.

Even better: many of these reforms don’t require constitutional amendments. Some can be implemented at the state level right now. Others need only legislation. And we’re already seeing progress—ranked choice voting is spreading, independent redistricting commissions are forming, and movements for change are growing.

This post examines: (1) How the Founders designed the system and what they got wrong, (2) How the system broke over time, (3) Why Wall Street loves divided government, (4) What structural reforms would actually fix it, and (5) How other countries already solved these exact problems—proving these solutions work.

The system is broken. But it can be fixed. Let’s look at how.

How the Founders Designed It (And What They Got Wrong)

The Constitution was written in 1787 for a country of 4 million people in 13 states. Today: 335 million people in 50 states. The system wasn’t designed for this scale, and it shows.

The Senate: Built for a Different Country

The Senate gives each state two senators regardless of population. In 1787, this made sense: the largest state (Virginia, 750,000 people) was only 12x the smallest (Delaware, 60,000). Significant but manageable.

Today:

• California: 39 million people, 2 senators • Texas: 30 million people, 2 senators • Florida: 22 million people, 2 senators • New York: 19 million people, 2 senators • Wyoming: 580,000 people, 2 senators • Vermont: 645,000 people, 2 senators • Alaska: 733,000 people, 2 senators • North Dakota: 779,000 people, 2 senators

California has 67 times Wyoming’s population. Same number of senators. A Wyoming voter has 67 times the Senate representation of a California voter.

This gets worse: The 26 smallest states contain 18% of the U.S. population but control 52% of the Senate. A minority of voters control the legislative branch.

The Founders did NOT anticipate this disparity. When they designed the Senate, they expected states to be relatively similar in population as new territories were added. They were catastrophically wrong.

How Senators Were Originally Chosen

The Constitution originally specified that senators would be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This was intentional—the Senate was meant to represent state governments, not people directly.

This changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment, which established direct election of senators. Why? Because the old system was spectacularly corrupt—state legislatures sold Senate seats to the highest bidder. Literally. Wealthy industrialists would bribe legislators to appoint them senator.

Direct election reduced corruption but didn’t fix the structural problem: empty states with tiny populations still have equal Senate power to states with tens of millions of people.

The Electoral College: Also Built for a Different Country

The Electoral College gives each state electors equal to its total congressional representation (House + Senate). This means small states are overrepresented in presidential elections too.

Electoral votes per capita:

• Wyoming: 1 electoral vote per 193,000 people • Vermont: 1 electoral vote per 215,000 people • California: 1 electoral vote per 711,000 people • Texas: 1 electoral vote per 763,000 people

A Wyoming voter has 3.7 times the influence on presidential elections as a California voter.

Plus, winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes (used by 48 states) means millions of votes are effectively wasted. California Republican votes don’t matter. Texas Democratic votes don’t matter. Only swing states matter.

Result: 5 times in U.S. history, the popular vote winner lost the election (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016). In a democracy, this should never happen.

The House: Artificially Capped

The House of Representatives was meant to grow with population. It did—until 1929, when Congress capped it at 435 members.

Why? The Capitol building was running out of space. Seriously. That’s the reason.

In 1929, U.S. population was 122 million (1 representative per 280,000 people). Today, 335 million (1 representative per 771,000 people). Representatives now represent 2.75x more people than they did when the cap was set.

If the House maintained the same ratio as 1929, we’d have 1,196 representatives. If we matched the ratio at founding (1 per 30,000), we’d have 11,167 representatives (clearly unworkable).

The cap distorts representation. States with declining populations keep representatives. States with growing populations are underrepresented. And everyone is represented less than they were in 1929.

Constitutional Amendments: Nearly Impossible

The Founders expected the Constitution to be amended frequently. They were wrong about this too.

Amendment process requires: (1) 2/3 vote in both House and Senate, OR 2/3 of state legislatures calling for a constitutional convention, THEN (2) 3/4 of states ratifying.

This is extraordinarily difficult. Since 1787, only 27 amendments have passed. Ten of those were the Bill of Rights, passed immediately. So in 235 years: 17 amendments, most of them in the first 100 years.

Compare: Germany has amended its constitution 63 times since 1949. France: 17 times since 1958. Switzerland: Dozens of times via referendum.

The U.S. system makes fixing structural problems nearly impossible because fixing them requires amending the Constitution, which requires supermajorities that don’t exist in our polarized system.

How the System Broke Over Time

The Founders’ design had problems, but the system got significantly worse through specific changes and court decisions.

The Two-Party Duopoly (Not in the Constitution)

The Constitution doesn’t mention political parties. The Founders warned against them. George Washington’s farewell address explicitly cautioned against “the spirit of party.”

But parties formed immediately anyway. Why? Because of how we vote.

Duverger’s Law: First-past-the-post voting (whoever gets the most votes wins) mathematically creates a two-party system. Here’s why:

Imagine three candidates: Center-Left (40%), Center-Right (35%), Far-Right (25%). Center-Left wins despite 60% voting for candidates on the right. So next election, Center-Right and Far-Right voters coordinate—they merge into one party to avoid “splitting the vote.” Result: Two parties.

This isn’t theory—it’s observable fact. Every country with first-past-the-post voting has two dominant parties. Every country with proportional representation has multiple parties.

Once established, the two parties rigged the system to prevent competition:

• Ballot access laws: Third parties need tens of thousands of petition signatures to appear on ballots in many states • Debate requirements: Commission on Presidential Debates (controlled by Democratic and Republican parties) requires 15% polling to participate—impossible for new parties to achieve without media coverage, which they can’t get without being in debates • Winner-take-all electoral votes: Means third parties can’t win electoral votes even with significant support • Campaign finance: Two parties get millions in public funds. Third parties get nothing unless they won significant votes in the previous election (catch-22)

Citizens United (2010): Unlimited Corporate Money

For most of U.S. history, there were at least some limits on corporate influence in elections. Not anymore.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) ruled that corporate spending on elections is protected free speech under the First Amendment. This opened the floodgates:

• Corporations can spend unlimited money on “independent expenditures” (ads supporting/opposing candidates) • Super PACs can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions, and individuals • Dark money groups can spend unlimited amounts while hiding their donors

Results:

• 2008 election (pre-Citizens United): $5.3 billion total spending • 2012 election (post-Citizens United): $6.3 billion • 2016 election: $6.5 billion • 2020 election: $14.4 billion

Election costs nearly tripled after Citizens United. That money came from somewhere—corporations, billionaires, special interests. And that money buys influence.

Gerrymandering: Making Voters Irrelevant

Every 10 years, after the census, congressional districts are redrawn. In most states, the party controlling the state legislature draws the districts. This creates a massive conflict of interest—politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians.

Both parties gerrymander. Democrats in blue states, Republicans in red states. The techniques are sophisticated:

• Packing: Concentrate opposition voters in a few districts they win overwhelmingly, wasting their votes • Cracking: Split opposition voters across many districts so they’re minorities everywhere • Geographic manipulation: Draw bizarre district shapes to achieve desired outcomes

Results:

• In 2012, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes for House seats but Republicans won 33 more seats (234-201) • In recent elections, ~90% of House races are “safe” for one party—competitive races are rare • Politicians don’t need to appeal to swing voters anymore, just their base

Gerrymandering creates polarization. Politicians in safe districts only fear primary challenges from their more extreme base, not general election losses. So they move further left or right, and compromise becomes political suicide.

The Filibuster: Not in the Constitution

The filibuster—requiring 60 votes to end debate and pass most legislation in the Senate—is not in the Constitution. It’s a Senate rule that can be changed by simple majority.

The modern filibuster emerged in 1917 and was rarely used until recently. Now it’s routine: virtually all legislation requires 60 votes to overcome filibuster, which is nearly impossible in our polarized system.

Filibuster use over time:

• 1917-1970: ~50 filibusters total (less than 1 per year) • 1970s: ~20 per year • 1990s: ~40 per year • 2000s: ~80 per year • 2010-2020: ~100+ per year

The filibuster creates permanent gridlock. Nothing passes without 60 votes. But this is by design—both parties use the filibuster to block the other party’s priorities while providing cover (“we tried, but we couldn’t overcome the filibuster”).

Lifetime Appointments to Supreme Court

The Constitution says federal judges serve “during good behaviour,” which has been interpreted as lifetime appointment. When life expectancy was 35-45 years, this was reasonable. Today, with justices serving 30-40 years, it’s become absurd.

Current Supreme Court justices’ tenure:

• Clarence Thomas: Appointed 1991 (33 years) • John Roberts: Appointed 2005 (19 years) • Samuel Alito: Appointed 2006 (18 years)

These justices will likely serve into the 2030s or 2040s. A president elected in 2024 is choosing justices who will make decisions for 30-40 years.

This creates perverse incentives: Presidents nominate young justices to maximize their influence after leaving office. And justices time their retirements based on which party controls the presidency.

The Court has become another partisan institution, not an independent judiciary.

Why Wall Street Loves Divided Government

Here’s something interesting: the stock market tends to perform well under divided government (different parties controlling House/Senate/Presidency) and less well under unified government.

This isn’t because investors love compromise or think divided government leads to better policy. It’s because divided government means gridlock, and gridlock means nothing changes. And when nothing changes, wealth extraction continues uninterrupted.

The Data

S&P 500 average annual returns by government control (1945-2020):

• Divided government: 11.6% average annual return • Unified government (either party): 10.1% average annual return

Wall Street analysts explicitly say this: “Gridlock is good for markets.” Why? Because major policy changes create uncertainty. Gridlock creates predictability.

What Gridlock Protects

When government is divided, nothing major passes. This protects:

• Corporate tax rates (can’t be raised) • Financial regulations (can’t be strengthened) • Healthcare system (can’t be reformed) • Military budgets (only go up) • Campaign finance (stays unlimited) • Antitrust enforcement (stays weak)

Gridlock maintains the status quo. And the status quo is wealth extraction from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. So markets love it.

What This Means

The wealthiest Americans and corporations benefit from political dysfunction. They don’t want government to work. They want gridlock, because gridlock means no change, and the current system works perfectly for them.

This explains why both parties take corporate money but accomplish so little. It’s not incompetence—it’s the design. Gridlock serves corporate interests.

Structural Reforms That Would Actually Work

We know how to fix these problems. Other democracies have already done it. Here’s what works:

1. Ranked Choice Voting

What it is: Voters rank candidates by preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice). If no one gets 50%+, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their voters’ second choices are redistributed. This continues until someone has a majority.

What it fixes:

• Eliminates “spoiler” candidates and vote-splitting • Allows third parties to compete without helping their least-favorite major party win • Reduces negative campaigning (candidates need to be voters’ 2nd or 3rd choice, not just avoid being hated) • Encourages consensus candidates over polarizing ones

Where it’s working:

• Maine: Statewide since 2018 • Alaska: Statewide since 2022 • New York City: Local elections • 50+ cities nationwide • Australia: National elections since 1918 • Ireland: Since 1921

Results: In Alaska 2022, moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski won reelection by being voters’ 2nd choice even though she didn’t win the most first-choice votes. Ranked choice saved a moderate from being primaried by an extremist—exactly what it’s supposed to do.

2. Proportional Representation

What it is: Instead of winner-take-all districts, parties get seats proportional to their vote share. If a party gets 30% of votes, they get 30% of seats.

What it fixes:

• Eliminates gerrymandering (no districts to manipulate) • Gives third parties real representation • Makes every vote count (no “wasted” votes in safe districts) • Forces coalition-building and compromise

Where it works:

• Germany: Mixed-member proportional system • Netherlands: Pure proportional • New Zealand: Mixed-member proportional (switched from first-past-the-post in 1996) • Scandinavia: All use proportional systems

Results: These countries have 4-8 major parties, coalition governments, and policies that actually reflect voter preferences. They also have less polarization—parties need to work together to govern.

U.S. implementation: Would require significant changes to House elections. Could start with multi-member districts at state level as pilot programs.

3. Independent Redistricting Commissions

What it is: Non-partisan or bipartisan commissions draw congressional districts instead of state legislators. Strict criteria for district shapes (compactness, respecting county/city boundaries, etc.).

What it fixes:

• Eliminates partisan gerrymandering • Creates more competitive districts • Reduces polarization (politicians need to appeal to swing voters again) • Restores actual voter choice

Where it works:

• California: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission since 2010 • Arizona: Since 2000 • Michigan: Since 2018 • Colorado: Since 2018 • UK: Boundary Commissions (independent since 1944) • Australia: Electoral Commission (independent) • Canada: Electoral Boundaries Commissions (independent)

Results: California saw more competitive districts after implementing independent redistricting. Michigan’s 2022 elections had more competitive races than previous decades.

4. Expand the House of Representatives

What it is: Increase the House from 435 members to better reflect population. Proposals range from 574 (Wyoming Rule: smallest state gets 1 rep, others proportional) to 1,000+.

What it fixes:

• Better constituent representation (fewer people per representative) • Reduces small-state advantage in Electoral College • Makes gerrymandering harder (more districts = harder to manipulate) • Dilutes influence of money (costs more to influence 1,000 members than 435)

International comparison:

• UK: 650 MPs for 67 million people (1 per 103,000) • Germany: 736 MPs for 83 million people (1 per 113,000) • France: 577 MPs for 67 million people (1 per 116,000) • Canada: 338 MPs for 39 million people (1 per 115,000) • U.S.: 435 representatives for 335 million people (1 per 771,000)

We have the worst representation ratio among developed democracies.

Implementation: Requires only a law, not constitutional amendment. Could be done tomorrow if Congress wanted.

5. Abolish or Reform the Filibuster

What it is: Either eliminate the 60-vote requirement entirely, or return to “talking filibuster” where senators must physically hold the floor to block legislation (not just threaten filibuster).

What it fixes:

• Allows majority to govern • Reduces gridlock • Makes parties accountable (can’t hide behind “we couldn’t overcome filibuster”) • Restores Senate function

The debate:

Pro-filibuster argument: Protects minority rights, forces compromise, prevents hasty legislation.

Counter-argument: The filibuster isn’t protecting minority rights—it’s enabling minority rule. A minority of senators representing a minority of Americans can block legislation supported by the majority. That’s not democracy.

Implementation: Senate can eliminate filibuster with 51 votes. It’s a rule, not a law or constitutional requirement.

6. Term Limits for Supreme Court

What it is: 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with staggered appointments so each president nominates 2 justices per 4-year term.

What it fixes:

• Prevents justices from serving 40+ years • Makes appointments regular and predictable • Reduces incentive to nominate young ideologues • Ensures each presidential term has equal influence on Court • Reduces strategic retirements timed for favorable president

Implementation question: Debate over whether this requires constitutional amendment or just legislation. After 18 years, justices would move to senior status (still federal judges, just not on Supreme Court).

International comparison:

• Germany: Constitutional Court judges serve 12-year terms • France: Constitutional Council members serve 9-year terms • Italy: Constitutional Court judges serve 9-year terms • Japan: Supreme Court justices face mandatory retirement at 70

U.S. is an outlier with lifetime appointments.

7. Overturn Citizens United / Public Campaign Financing

What it is:

Option A: Constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United and allowing limits on campaign spending

Option B: Public financing of elections (candidates who refuse corporate money get public funds to compete)

What it fixes:

• Reduces corporate influence • Allows candidates to run without corporate backing • Reduces money in politics generally • Makes politicians accountable to voters, not donors

Where it works:

• Germany: Parties get public funding based on votes received, strict contribution limits • UK: Spending caps, short campaign periods, free broadcast time • Canada: Contribution limits CAD $1,725/year, corporate contributions banned since 2004 • Maine and Arizona: Public financing for state elections

Implementation: Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of Congress + 3/4 of states (very difficult). Public financing could be implemented by law.

8. National Popular Vote for President

What it is: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: states agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes.

What it fixes:

• Ensures popular vote winner becomes president • Makes every vote equal (no more small-state advantage) • Forces candidates to campaign everywhere, not just swing states • Eliminates possibility of losing popular vote but winning presidency

Current status: 17 states + DC have joined (209 electoral votes). Need 61 more to reach 270.

Alternative: Constitutional amendment eliminating Electoral College. Would require 2/3 of Congress + 3/4 of states (unlikely—small states benefit from current system and won’t vote against their interest).

9. Automatic Voter Registration + Election Day Holiday

What it is:

• Automatic registration when turning 18 or getting driver’s license • Make Election Day a federal holiday • Early voting period (2+ weeks) • Vote-by-mail option available to all

What it fixes:

• Increases turnout • Reduces voter suppression • Makes voting accessible to working people • Eliminates registration barriers

Where it works:

• Many countries have automatic registration • Many countries vote on weekends or make election day a holiday • Oregon: Automatic voter registration since 2015 (increased registration by 300,000) • Several U.S. states have early voting and vote-by-mail

10. Congressional Term Limits (Maybe)

What it is: Limit House members to 6 terms (12 years), Senators to 2 terms (12 years).

Arguments for:

• Reduces entrenchment and corruption • Forces turnover and new ideas • Weakens seniority system that concentrates power • Makes politicians less dependent on donors for reelection

Arguments against:

• Increases lobbyist power (inexperienced legislators rely more on lobbyists for expertise) • Reduces accountability (lame duck members don’t face voters again) • Eliminates institutional knowledge • We already have term limits—they’re called elections

The verdict: Term limits might help, but only if combined with campaign finance reform. Without that, you just get a rotating cast of politicians all beholden to the same corporate donors.

What Works: International Examples

We don’t need to guess whether these reforms work. Other countries have already implemented them.

Germany: Proportional Representation + Campaign Finance Limits

System:

• Mixed-member proportional representation • Strict campaign finance limits • Public funding for parties based on votes • 5% threshold to enter parliament (prevents extreme fragmentation)

Results:

• 6-7 parties in parliament, coalition governments • Forces compromise and consensus • Less polarization than U.S. • Policies reflect voter preferences more accurately • Election costs: fraction of U.S. spending

New Zealand: Switched from First-Past-the-Post to Proportional

In 1996, New Zealand switched from first-past-the-post (like U.S.) to mixed-member proportional representation (like Germany).

Before reform:

• Two-party system (National and Labour) • Minority governments with majority power • High polarization

After reform:

• 5-6 parties in parliament • Coalition governments • More representative policies • Higher voter satisfaction

New Zealand proves you can reform a broken electoral system and get better results.

Canada: Independent Redistricting + Campaign Finance Reform

• Independent Electoral Boundaries Commissions draw districts • Corporate contributions banned since 2004 • Individual contribution limit: CAD $1,725/year • Public financing for parties

Results:

• No gerrymandering • Lower election costs • Less corporate influence • 2021 election cost ~CAD $500M total (all parties combined)

Compare: U.S. 2020 election cost $14 billion. Canada has 1/9th the population but spent 1/38th as much. Per capita, U.S. spending is 4x higher.

Why These Reforms Are Difficult (But Not Impossible)

The people who benefit from the broken system are the people who would need to fix it. This creates obvious obstacles.

What Requires Constitutional Amendment (Very Hard)

• Overturning Citizens United • Abolishing Electoral College • Changing Senate representation • Term limits for Congress (though unclear—could possibly be done by law)

These require 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate + 3/4 of states. In current polarized environment, essentially impossible.

What Requires Only Legislation (Still Hard But Possible)

• Expanding the House • Public campaign financing • Automatic voter registration • Election Day holiday • Supreme Court term limits (debated) • Abolishing filibuster (Senate rule only)

These need only 50 Senate votes + House majority + President’s signature. Difficult but achievable if right coalition wins.

What Can Be Done at State Level

• Ranked choice voting • Independent redistricting commissions • National Popular Vote Interstate Compact • State-level campaign finance reform • Automatic voter registration • Early voting and vote-by-mail

States can implement these now. No federal action required. Build momentum at state level, prove they work, expand nationally.

Conclusion: Yes, the System Can Be Fixed—And It’s Already Starting

The U.S. political system is broken. The Founders created problems (Senate representation, Electoral College). Later changes made it worse (Citizens United, two-party duopoly, gerrymandering, filibuster abuse, lifetime judicial appointments).

But here’s what matters: other democracies have solved these exact problems. And they’re not smarter than us. They’re not more democratic. They just implemented structural reforms that work.

And it’s already happening here:

• Ranked choice voting: Working in Maine and Alaska, spreading to more states and cities • Independent redistricting: California, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado have all implemented it successfully • National Popular Vote Compact: 17 states + DC (209 electoral votes, 61 more needed) • Automatic voter registration: Spreading state by state • Campaign finance reform: Several states have implemented public financing

Progress is happening. Slowly. At the state level. But it’s happening.

Reform is difficult because the people who would need to implement it benefit from the broken system. But not impossible. The path forward is clear:

Short term (achievable now):

• Implement reforms at state level (ranked choice voting, independent redistricting, automatic registration) • Prove they work • Build momentum • Expand to more states

Medium term (requires winning elections):

• Expand the House (requires only legislation) • Public campaign financing (requires only legislation) • Supreme Court term limits (probably requires only legislation) • Abolish or reform filibuster (Senate rule change only)

Long term (requires sustained movement):

• Constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United • Electoral College reform • Proportional representation

The reforms that would fix the system:

1. Ranked choice voting (already spreading) 2. Proportional representation 3. Independent redistricting commissions (already working in several states) 4. Expand the House 5. Abolish or reform the filibuster 6. Term limits for Supreme Court 7. Public campaign financing / overturn Citizens United 8. National Popular Vote for president (17 states already in) 9. Automatic voter registration + Election Day holiday (several states already doing this) 10. Possibly term limits for Congress

These aren’t radical ideas. They’re standard in other democracies. They work. We have proof.

Wall Street loves divided government because gridlock protects wealth extraction. The current system serves corporate interests perfectly. That’s why reform is difficult—powerful interests oppose it.

But not impossible. New Zealand reformed its entire electoral system in 1996 and got dramatically better results. Germany rebuilt its democracy after WWII with proportional representation and strict campaign finance limits—and it works. Canada banned corporate contributions in 2004. These weren’t inevitable—they were choices made by movements that demanded change.

The first step is recognizing the system is designed to fail the bottom 90%. The second step is understanding exactly how it fails. The third step is demanding specific structural reforms that would fix it. The fourth step is implementing them state by state, building proof they work, and creating unstoppable momentum.

We know what works. We have proof it works. The question isn’t whether these reforms would help—we know they would. The question is whether we can build enough political will to force them through.

And the answer is: yes, if we organize. Yes, if we start at the state level. Yes, if we prove these reforms work and demand their expansion. Yes, if we build mass movements that politicians can’t ignore.

The system is broken by design. But it can be fixed by design. Other countries have proven it. Some U.S. states are already proving it. The path forward exists.

The system can be saved. The reforms exist. The proof exists. What’s needed now is the political will to implement them—and that comes from us organizing and demanding change until it happens.

Next time: We’ll examine what comes next—how to build the movements and coalitions necessary to force these changes, what history teaches about successful reform movements, and why the bottom 90% has more power than they realize if they organize.