Latest / World Ablaze with George Fontes / Tom Joseph - Fair Elections Through Nominees That Actually Represent Your Values

Transcript

Tom Joseph - Fair Elections Through Nominees That Actually Represent Your Values · World Ablaze with George Fontes

0:00
okay thank you for being here mr tom joseph and thanks to all the world of blazers
0:09
another episode i have another guest as you see as i already stated tom joseph and here's here's
0:15
what's cool about this um we we do a lot in terms of analysis geopolitics all that stuff we're always
0:21
trying to figure things out give you the what why etc but not always a solution and this is what's
0:27
cool about having Tom here, he has a solution
0:29
or a proposed solution to one of
0:31
the things that we're lacking in America, and that's actually
0:33
getting real representation
0:35
for
0:37
you and me.
0:39
Not what's chosen for us, for example.
0:41
As I'm sure Tom will be explaining
0:43
here. And so, Tom,
0:45
with that, I'm not going to get in your way too much on
0:47
this because I'm really interested in what you have
0:49
to offer and what you're working
0:51
on. Because with midterms,
0:53
this is very timely, this
0:55
conversation. So if you don't mind, let's just start with why you started this project,
1:01
what you have to offer, and how it's going to change things for the voters if we can get everybody
1:05
on board. Why I started? I think like a lot of people just really frustrated with the situation
1:14
we were in. Actually, I was kind of the height of COVID and just watching news thinking partisanship
1:22
is going to kill ourselves.
1:24
And I wanted to do something.
1:26
I made a commitment that if my business got PPP money,
1:29
that I would pay it forward somehow.
1:32
And I knew I didn't want to run for office.
1:34
And I knew that changing laws was not going to happen.
1:39
So my goal was to try to figure out how to kind of break the system without changing.
1:44
And I eventually stumbled on a solution.
1:48
Nice.
1:49
So let's talk about that solution, though.
1:51
from what I understand, and obviously correct me because you're the guy, you're here.
1:56
From what I understand, you're looking at a way, for example, we're talking about
1:59
midterms coming up or actually right in it. Texas has already
2:04
pretty much gone through theirs. And so let's
2:07
talk about districts. I'll actually start with
2:12
gerrymandering because I believe that was one of your motivators here also, right?
2:15
There's a prime moment for debating way back
2:18
way back to Ross Perot. And just when I started getting involved in looking at politics, this
2:23
whole idea of uncompetitive districts and gerrymandering and really a lack of accountability
2:29
really bothered me. And it was just something I couldn't wrap my head around. But I always
2:35
thought about it. And I thought, you know, if I was ever going to do something, I would figure out
2:39
how to create a market force in gerrymandered districts that like change things. And that was
2:45
really kind of the genesis of what I did. I thought, hey, if we were starting from scratch,
2:50
we wouldn't do this. I mean, we kind of fell into the system. And I had this idea of coming up with
2:56
a contest that was, and to make it a level playing field, I figured it had to be no average, you know,
3:03
no money. And I happened to talk to a constitutional lawyer friend of mine. I didn't really understand
3:10
of the historical aspects of this, but he said, you know, that has constitutional roots. He said,
3:15
this is a free and equal election clause. You know, I started doing some research on
3:19
the ideas that, I guess it was in the 1800s when elections first became free,
3:26
which meant anybody could run. James Wilson, when he wrote the Pennsylvania Constitution,
3:31
he first included the words and equal and did a law lecture about how if it wasn't fair,
3:39
the whole system become poisoned.
3:42
And, you know, so I figured, hey, there's really something, you know, to this,
3:47
that this may actually cleanse the system.
3:51
He actually described it as the fountain of democracy, free and equal elections.
3:55
And that if you do that, the system's pure, but if they aren't fair,
3:59
it poisons the entire system.
4:00
That feels a lot like where we are today.
4:03
but so the i also began to think that hey 100 years from now we're not going to do things
4:10
this way so why not start thinking about how that is now you know let's just break those
4:16
barriers down and i started saying hey how would we do this with technology and what happened was
4:22
i backed into a way to figure out how to do this legally because there's no laws that really
4:28
prevent a political party from actually functioning as a tech company. So instead of this political
4:34
party I started, there's no ideology, just technology. And my background is starting
4:42
companies and tech. And I said, we put the app inside the party and we publish that to local
4:51
districts that are gerrymandered and let local committees run the contest, kind of like Olympic
4:55
committees run trials for 100 yard dashes or the 250 free or whatever, you know, but you,
5:02
you have a process that results in the best person being selected. We do not have a process
5:08
that results in the best person being selected. We have a process that results in the best person
5:13
being funded. Right. Person who's sold out. Yeah. We want somebody that's going to sell out to the
5:19
people, not to the donors. Let's do the, I'm really interested in this because what you said
5:26
is correct. Like we have an issue in gerrymandering. We didn't dive too deep into it, but the thing is
5:32
that what's important to state is gerrymandering is actually legal every 10 years we do it, right?
5:37
We redistrict, so to speak. Redistrict is legal. It's required. Yeah, absolutely. And it has to be
5:43
because your demographics change, et cetera. And I get it. People's leanings change. But at the same
5:47
time. What we're seeing now seems to be a weaponized version of that. And it came to the
5:52
forefront after what happened in Texas, which people don't have the whole story on. They assume
5:57
they do. And then what happened in California with the Prop 50. And so with that being said,
6:02
how does what you're working on, how does that help in those instances to where people still get
6:08
equal representation? It sounds like what you're doing is just like, look, we're going to put
6:14
everybody on an even playing field.
6:16
We're all going to give them a shot. We're going to give
6:18
everybody a chance to get out there in front of everybody.
6:22
And
6:22
that's the issue we're seeing at this moment
6:24
is we don't have that. We think we do. It's a false
6:26
sense of it, correct? So
6:27
with the redistricting, every 10
6:30
years makes sense. But the way it's been happening now
6:32
seems very weaponized. And it doesn't
6:34
feel like it would happen to me. Like in California,
6:36
we're just talking offline a little bit.
6:38
We're seeing red districts, which
6:40
it's not majority red in the state anyway.
6:42
But we're seeing how it's been
6:44
redrawn and used to suck those red districts up,
6:48
break them up and turn certain purple or even turn them blue intentionally.
6:53
And it doesn't matter what your politics are in terms of red or blue,
6:56
but it's an example of how it can be used against you and how your
7:00
representation for what you believe in is just taken away and you don't have
7:02
an option.
7:04
What is your solution going to do to help with that specifically?
7:08
Well, I mean, this is really about money and the fact that when you create
7:13
this unfairness. And basically what you're doing is you're burying opposition votes.
7:18
And Illinois, same thing. I mean, the split between, it's really looking at the split between
7:24
the number of representatives that go to Congress and the percentages in that state of Democrats
7:29
and Republicans. And if it's really distorted, then obviously there's something that's unfair.
7:35
But one thing to think about, George, is that money distorts representation. And if you didn't
7:42
have unfairness and a guarantee, you wouldn't want to gerrymander.
7:50
Like, you would want natural collections of people that are like-minded.
7:55
And those people would not want opposition voices in their district because it kind of
8:00
messes up their representation.
8:02
So my theory is that if you create a free and equal process and you take out, then eventually
8:09
there'll be incentive to actually un-gerrymander the districts because people want a representative
8:14
that isn't distorted by opposition votes. So that to me is like, you have to create this market force
8:21
that causes them to react. And actually when I came to my election, my election attorney with
8:27
this idea, I mean, they were trying to figure out how to break it. And they said the only two ways
8:30
to break it were to get rid of super PACs or un-gerrymander the districts. I think either one
8:35
and maybe we'll get both.
8:37
Let's talk about that money part
8:38
because that's very important.
8:40
You know, money is power.
8:43
Money makes things happen, right?
8:44
And so the guys, like if I ran, for example,
8:46
I don't really have a shot.
8:47
I'm not a millionaire.
8:48
I don't have the backing.
8:49
I'd be a brand new candidate, for example.
8:52
So what do you propose to make it even
8:55
for people that don't have the money?
8:57
Like how does that happen?
8:58
The way you would win.
8:59
The way you would win.
9:00
And there are any regular person,
9:01
which is a government of the people,
9:03
by the people that you would win the contest And at the end of that there a super PAC that says hey we support in the general election whoever wins this contest So you think about it we taken the partisanship out of the super PAC
9:15
This is a completely novel use of the super PAC
9:19
where it's for the common good.
9:20
It's saying, we will back that.
9:21
And they say,
9:22
why would somebody put the money up for that?
9:24
Right.
9:26
Because they want to go down to history.
9:27
I mean, think about it.
9:28
If you're a wealthy person
9:29
and you put this money up for the super PAC,
9:31
you will be remembered forever.
9:33
You will change this country for the good.
9:36
And people are spending billions of dollars to run a run for a senator, to be a president.
9:41
They could form the super PAC and basically coordinate the marketing campaign that would restore the voice of the people.
9:48
And that person will go down in history.
9:50
I wish I had the money.
9:51
I'd do that piece.
9:52
Right.
9:53
So this super PAC would be obligated to back whoever wins in these rounds.
10:00
How many rounds do you think you propose, for example?
10:03
I propose five rounds, and here's how it goes down.
10:07
This is the way I think things will happen.
10:10
In advance of the contest, a public service announcement will come into the district, say, hey, your district was selected.
10:16
The numbers are right.
10:17
We think this is a good thing for the people.
10:19
If you're interested in running, download the app and fill out your campaign portal.
10:24
So you have a place where you can create marketing materials and public service announcements and your ads so that you can, it doesn't need to be in TACAC, it can be really what you're about.
10:34
The key thing that we're doing, this is a clever idea, I'm working with some college students to come up with this, this idea of having what they call an issue indicator.
10:42
And if the local committee would pick seven issues that will be before Congress, they predict the next election cycle, two global, three national, two local.
10:50
And anybody entering the contest must weigh in on those seven issues, pick one of three positions.
10:55
And what this does is that, you know, there's a free and equalness, 50 to 100 candidates.
11:00
We're too lazy to go through all those candidates.
11:02
What we want to do is say, hey, George, these four issues are important to you.
11:06
Where do you match up exactly with these candidates?
11:09
It's going to return out of that field of 50 to 100 candidates, maybe 25.
11:13
You could study them and say, hey, this is going to happen for me.
11:15
I'm going to hit a button.
11:15
and now they're endorsed for,
11:17
that's called approval voting,
11:18
where you get to approve of all the candidates
11:21
that meet your criteria.
11:22
So now their first elimination,
11:23
we go to a top 20.
11:25
Might be digestible enough for people to dig into,
11:28
but for the rest of the lazy people,
11:30
you're a guy, eight people come through.
11:31
You let it ride.
11:32
Let's top two.
11:34
We're top 10, I'm sorry.
11:37
Do you want to study yet?
11:38
But what we want to do is get to a top four
11:40
because it's like a final.
11:41
Now I think the public will engage.
11:44
We do a ranked choice.
11:45
This is the fourth round.
11:47
There's a ranked choice to get to the top two, final debate, top one.
11:52
Sounds like Mark Madness.
11:53
So we got three rounds of approval voting, one round of ranked choice, and one round of up and down debate.
11:59
But I think that's what people want.
12:01
They want a final choice between two people.
12:03
This ranked choice and stuff like that, I think this is really a little bit too indeterminate.
12:09
And I think, in general, ranked choice, people aren't crazy about it.
12:13
I know.
12:14
I like that approach.
12:14
I made a little joke, but it does.
12:16
It's just like you're taking brackets from a playoff, right,
12:18
for a sports team, for example.
12:20
And it absolutely makes sense.
12:21
And so you're giving everybody an even chance to present themselves
12:24
that people make up their minds based on the debates at hand.
12:27
And hopefully they actually debate and just not insult each other too, right?
12:31
Well, and I think it'll be less personal because I think at this point,
12:35
it's not about this party, that party.
12:38
Right.
12:39
And we're going into gerrymander districts.
12:41
So it's going to be a district that's going to produce either a left or right candidate.
12:46
We're not trying to disrupt by electing an opposition voice.
12:50
We just want to have enough opposition voters to push the candidate either pink or baby blue.
12:55
Right. Makes sense.
12:57
So at this point, as you said, no money.
12:59
There's no money involved.
13:00
No one can market themselves, etc.
13:01
It's just like we all start from zero.
13:04
Correct?
13:04
No physical evidence of the campaign.
13:06
There's physical evidence campaign to get kicked out of the contest.
13:09
So it's easy to enforce the rules.
13:10
Plus, it's a violation of the election law.
13:13
If you start spending money on a campaign, you don't form a committee, you're violating a law.
13:18
So the law actually helps us enforce the rules of the contest.
13:22
Huh.
13:23
What do you think it'll take to get this implemented?
13:26
Not as much as I thought, actually.
13:29
Like I said, I've been working with these kids at Drexel and Penn and Haverford Temple.
13:34
We have a proof of concept, basically a prototype.
13:38
and there's demos on the website when we get it running.
13:41
But I'm also working with a group
13:44
called the Digital Democracy Project
13:45
who's standing up an app.
13:48
And our first version of the app is gonna be something
13:51
we're gonna have basically a simulated election contest going
13:54
and run it every week.
13:57
Like every day we'll represent a week of the contest.
13:59
So the people will be able to play with it.
14:01
We'll have avatar candidates, just fake people.
14:04
And we're gonna have a red and blue district
14:05
that people would toggle between and see how the contest actually works.
14:09
Because I don't want the first implementation of this to be in an actual election.
14:13
I want everybody to know how this is going to work before we actually pick districts and go into it.
14:20
What's the response been so far as you've been giving presentations about this?
14:25
Just been getting into it.
14:26
I mean, this is probably done a dozen podcasts.
14:30
I'm pleased with the response.
14:32
it's interesting the you know the response from people that are either staunch democrats or
14:37
republicans they hate this idea um even the people in the election reform space i think you know
14:44
see this as kind of competitive i look at it as like if you aren't tied into the current
14:51
political ecosystem you like the idea you're of an open mind to it if you if this threatens
14:57
if you're in the media or a lawyer and you're doing political stuff and this threatens that
15:02
the minds close up. So the key is really, I think, do podcasts like this, get the word out to
15:09
people at the grassroots level and get support. And what I want people to do,
15:14
MainStreetParty.org, if they can't donate, go to our change.org petition, which you can get a link
15:22
to on our website, and at least sign our petition and show that there's public support for this.
15:28
You know what I like is... Because that is the key.
15:29
I like that this, what you're saying, because it literally, truly brings us back to grassroots.
15:36
Like, it just cuts the fat, cuts the influence, cuts all the BS out, and brings everybody back to level, even playing field.
15:45
This is truly grassroots at this point.
15:48
And so, I think it's timely because I don't see too many people these days, like the pulse of the nation isn't necessarily hard left or right anymore.
15:56
I think there's a lot of people in the middle looking for like, well, who's representing me?
16:00
Who's going, how do I get my chance?
16:02
And so this sounds like a very, very bold and timely proposal that we should adopt.
16:08
And I think both parties are showing this thing that they want to be top down.
16:13
Right.
16:13
And that they're choosing themselves over and over again.
16:18
Yeah.
16:18
And it's just time for, there's just the leadership just has to change.
16:27
It's just so old and entrenched.
16:29
Yeah, it's tired.
16:30
It's old.
16:31
It's not working.
16:31
And it's not how it was.
16:33
It's not what was intended either.
16:36
Unfortunately, this is what it evolved to or into.
16:39
Is there any room in your model, though, for another party?
16:43
Is it just based off a two-party system?
16:45
Or do you see down the road there being a third or fourth party implementation of this, for example, or making room for one?
16:53
There's another website we have, wilsonsthountain.us.
16:57
We had one of our interns write a paper on this.
17:00
And what I see happening is that a system like this can actually evaporate the political parties and that we would move to a caucus system and that the factions that Madison envisioned weren't in the public.
17:13
They were within Congress itself.
17:15
And that when you unbind ideologies from money, that you'll have more caucuses.
17:20
And there's an author named Lee Dropman who has studied this.
17:25
And he sees the party system, his ideal party system goes into five or six factions.
17:32
And he's actually defined how they're aligned and what they stand for.
17:37
And that's really when you get stable because coalitions have to form legislate.
17:42
You wouldn't have these big super bills.
17:45
everything would stand on its own.
17:47
Yeah, that'd be nice, right?
17:48
That's the way it's supposed to be.
17:50
I mean, we've put a parliamentary system
17:53
on top of a different type of democracy.
17:58
I mean, I think by putting a party system
18:00
on top of what the framers design,
18:02
we messed it up.
18:04
Yeah.
18:05
Well, I mean, we're not really a true democracy though, right?
18:08
We're a constitutional republic.
18:10
Yeah, but I meant in terms of the way
18:11
the Congress functions They a design of Congress I said that in agreement with you Yeah I said that in agreeance with you It like I just reinforce what you saying because it correct It like we not a true democracy
18:23
and it sounds like this would bring us back to that.
18:26
Now, would there be any danger in this change
18:29
in your mind to where on the surface right now,
18:33
this sounds amazing because like,
18:35
hey, this would give everybody a chance
18:37
to get true equal representation,
18:39
but could this possibly turn or be manipulated
18:42
to where people would not.
18:44
And this isn't a dig at what you're proposing, by the way,
18:46
because we've seen how the powers that be
18:48
can find ways to manipulate things.
18:50
Do you think that this would be something
18:52
that could be really hard to manipulate?
18:55
Like it would really just, you know,
18:57
stay true to how it was intended or designed?
19:00
Well, I'm designing it with a system of checks and balances.
19:04
Okay.
19:05
Meaning that the party and its bylaws
19:10
can only release an equal number of contests.
19:13
Five red, five blue, 10 red, 10 blue.
19:16
So that, to me, keeps it bipartisan.
19:18
The way the structure of the super PAC funding is set up,
19:21
that they're supporting all these candidates, same.
19:23
And their check and balance on the system
19:26
is that the constituents have to show up.
19:28
Say we pick a district and the constituents just bail
19:30
and don't show up.
19:31
I don't think the super PAC should be on the hook
19:33
to fund that contest winner if they didn't really win a list.
19:37
So maybe that's a carrot that the super PAC says.
19:39
you got to get 50,000 people to vote.
19:43
And so there was those things that I tried to design into the system that they are separate
19:49
entities that put the inability to corrupt the system.
19:56
You look at voting corruption, we're also looking at doing some things that I think are
20:00
unique.
20:01
The idea of a virtual polling location, you know, the original concept of a polling location
20:06
is small enough that you would know your neighbors.
20:10
Well, with a truly digital system,
20:12
we can make a virtual polling location
20:13
be an apartment building.
20:15
And you could have poll workers that could say,
20:17
oh yeah, that guy's dead, or he did vote,
20:19
you know what I mean?
20:19
So you can shrink this down
20:21
and do some new creative things
20:23
because once you basically don't make this a system
20:28
that has to go through lawmakers to make changes,
20:30
you can do whatever you want.
20:31
And now we're business people and tech professionals
20:34
creating a system that we would for commercial market,
20:38
making customers happy,
20:40
not citizens bombarded with text messages.
20:45
That's their idea of technology,
20:47
is bombard us with text messages.
20:50
Or strange phone calls from numbers we don't recognize.
20:54
That's for sure.
20:56
So this can lead to not just giving candidates
21:01
an even playing field,
21:01
but possibly also give us a better way
21:03
for people to vote, for example.
21:06
So it sounds like you're laying the infrastructure,
21:10
you're doing everything you need to do
21:11
to make sure we have even an actual fair elections, correct?
21:15
Unfortunately, not.
21:17
I mean, I think that this is a nominating system,
21:20
not election system.
21:21
I do think that we can provide a model
21:23
for how it ought to work.
21:25
I do want to put the primary system out of business.
21:27
I think it does not.
21:29
But in terms of the general election,
21:31
legislation would have to pass.
21:33
We're going to get a better candidate on the ballot.
21:38
And it might actually be a thing where whoever wins this contest just gets elected by default because the people accept that this is a fair way to do it.
21:47
But at the end of the day, legislation has to pass.
21:52
And I just think you can't fix the system until we break it.
21:56
We have to break the two parties to the point where we now have free and equal candidates that are representatives that are in there that aren't bound by money who actually can force that legislation to change to make the elected system better.
22:08
Understood.
22:08
So we're going to start by putting the nominees that people actually want on the ballots.
22:13
And then after that, we'll see where it goes.
22:15
Do you see what you're working on now, though, going into that, though, into offering an alternative to how the general election is handled?
22:23
I think it should.
22:24
But I mean, we're able to, I mean, there's a lot of good things that are happening.
22:29
There's a lot that's happening with mobile voting.
22:30
I was surprised how far along that is.
22:33
I mean, I thought we were going to have to spend millions to build that.
22:36
We're going to be able to leverage technology that already works, already approved, been running in states for five, 10 years.
22:43
I mean, a lot's been done for the military to make sure that people on submarines or in battlefields that can't get balance out can vote.
22:50
So the government invested some money in blockchain technology and highly encrypted forms of submitting ballots.
22:56
And we're going to leverage that.
22:58
Our system is probably going to be more secure than the current system.
23:03
Just because the bar will be higher for us.
23:06
That's good to hear.
23:07
So as far as what you see now with the midterms, do you have any opinions on what's going on these days or no?
23:16
You know, I try to stay focused on this.
23:18
It's kind of depressing.
23:20
And I'm really not a fan of the two-party system.
23:26
So if you're following this, you just get depressed about how awful the system works.
23:30
So I try to keep my head buried in doing this and making sure that we continue to make steps.
23:38
And my background is in business.
23:41
I've been involved in a couple of startups.
23:43
And political parties fail.
23:45
So I'm going to launch just like a business because businesses succeed.
23:48
All they have to do is get the next step of the plan.
23:50
So I'm not going to rush this along.
23:52
We're going to continue to plod down this path and release this like a product that's
23:57
trying to win customers.
23:59
And right now, there's a lot of citizens that are starving for a better system.
24:05
So I think if we have put a better product out there, I think there'll be demand.
24:08
So how would this be adopted, though?
24:10
Like, who's going to adopt it?
24:11
Who's going to regulate it?
24:12
Who's going to make sure it gets in the hands and accessible to the people?
24:15
Because right now, it sounds like you're going to be the third-party company that's
24:18
developing it, but then how is it going to be monitored and who's going to do the oversight of it?
24:25
Let's say the local committees, the three entities that are involved in it, the super PAC,
24:30
like I said, would oversee the party itself will validate the results. So we would make sure that
24:37
two things, that the results are audited and also that they followed the FARA process,
24:43
that they didn't allow people to cheat. So there is a role of the party to provide oversight to
24:48
make sure that people aren't bastardizing the process because integrity is everything.
24:54
And we can, I think, you know, what probably happened is that if people don't follow the
24:59
process or that, we will disqualify that contest because that's the thing. It should really bother
25:06
the people about, you know, why the parties don't disqualify some of their candidates. You know,
25:11
they find out that they lied about their credentials and things like that. And it's
25:15
Like if they have money, that's all that matters.
25:18
And I think when you have a moneyless system,
25:20
it allows you to make the rules matter.
25:22
I mean, it's the way it is for the Olympics.
25:25
So we're going to need buy-in from both major parties
25:28
to adopt the system.
25:29
And aside from that, like what you just said,
25:33
truth and candidacy, right?
25:35
Like actual transparency.
25:37
Would that be part of what you offer in this app
25:40
or in this technology where you'd be able to verify
25:42
Canada's actual background and make sure
25:44
they're actually who they say they are?
25:46
So the local committee is going to act more like an HR department.
25:49
They're going to do a background check, reference check, that.
25:51
They're not going to screen people out.
25:53
They're just going to make sure that if they said that they served in the 7th Infantry Battalion,
25:59
that they actually did.
26:00
I mean, to me, it's just ridiculous.
26:01
These candidates are this far down the road and didn't work there where they said they worked
26:06
or served where they said they served.
26:08
So there are going to be criteria.
26:10
And also, you know, there is going to be some standards in terms of language.
26:15
I mean, we're not going to let people just go in there and make a mockery of the system.
26:20
And those are probably our only two criteria, just making sure that people are being honest about what they report that they did and that they aren't, you know, like I said, trying to create this.
26:35
This is a serious business.
26:36
But that's not crazy because anybody who's running is applying for your actual job.
26:42
Yeah.
26:42
And you're working for the people.
26:44
So why shouldn't we have these things in place?
26:46
It'd be interesting to see that in action, though, where it was like, would it be an alert to everybody?
26:53
Like, hey, candidate said this, but this is the reality?
26:55
Or would it be like an internal private thing between the candidate and, for example, the organization going, hey, by the way, here's what you said.
27:04
this is...
27:05
Yeah.
27:05
Well, number one,
27:07
they won't get on the platform
27:08
to begin with.
27:09
Got it.
27:09
So if that happens,
27:10
it's like...
27:11
So all the candidates
27:11
will be submitting their information
27:13
in advance of getting out
27:14
the contest starting.
27:16
So there'll be that initial screening.
27:17
Then after that,
27:19
I mean, there's some thought
27:20
that there might be
27:21
an additional question They do another 30 second or 60 second PSA after every round in the virtual town hall round Also they be submitting PSA So that will all be managed and overseen to keep it clean
27:39
to the debate will be recorded. We're not going to let them step on each other. All the things
27:44
that people want, we're going to do. Oh, no, no. I understood. I just brought that up because,
27:48
you know, look, I've been an employer as well. I've owned six businesses and I'm going to tell
27:51
you that things slip through the cracks. You find out about people later. So you never know.
27:56
So just wonder, like, you know, let's say they get through the preliminary, for example,
28:01
hiring process and quotes here. And we find out later as they're out there and they're up there
28:08
doing their debates and present themselves, information comes out later, right? So, you know,
28:12
I was just wondering, like, would that be a controlled situation like between whichever
28:16
organization a candidate and say, okay, you're now, you can't, you can no longer run after that
28:19
point. Would that be one of those checks and balances in place? Yeah. Like I said, I think
28:24
we would try to make sure that that didn't get on the platform in the first place. I think in terms
28:30
of being disqualified, we're really more concerned about the money aspect of this. To me, that would
28:41
be the part that we'd be really concerned about. Now, people will still be able to promote on social
28:47
media. Okay, so let's talk about the money, though, Tom. Would you propose a budget for each
28:57
candidate, for example, that would get the funding? Like, it would only be so much money and that's
29:02
it? Or would you leave the door open or propose to leave the door open? Like, well, if you can
29:06
pulling $30 million, then fine, you get $30 million. Or should we set a limit to that?
29:11
During the contest, there's no money.
29:14
No, understood.
29:15
After the contest, the super PAC is going to back the candidate. And I think we would say that the
29:20
only person that can back the candidate is the super PAC, because if they're now getting
29:25
potentially separate money and that person might have strings attached to that, we don't want to
29:30
have any, we want a super PAC that's backing all the candidates because now it's.
29:36
I understand that.
29:37
But what my question is, is this, you know, you're, you're going to regulate the, you're
29:42
okay.
29:42
You want to regulate the process to get all nominees on even playing field so that they
29:45
can be, you know, nominated.
29:47
But after that, the super PAC will be obligated to back whichever candidate comes ahead.
29:52
My question is, would you take it a step forward, for example, because you brought up the money
29:57
a few times to work with the super PACs or whoever's going to regulate whatever the parties
30:02
to be like, okay, both candidates, super PAC, thank you for backing, but you could only back
30:07
up to this amount of money. Or would you just leave it open to how much it would be?
30:10
The idea is we're trying to take out the Republican or Democrat. So I think you got to take the
30:16
gloves off. You got to let them win. And the super PAC may determine that in this one district,
30:23
they got to try harder because it's New York city and the advertising more
30:27
expensive and the size places in a place where the advertising, you know,
30:30
so from that standpoint, I think you just have to say,
30:33
you do what you have to do to win because the most important thing to me is to,
30:37
is to, is to make sure we are no longer in a two party system.
30:42
And to do that, you got to take out those, the competition.
30:47
So this would hopefully give those people a chance against those who've built up,
30:51
for example, a war chest, right?
30:53
Yeah. No, so the money issue is tricky because the one thing I didn't mention is one of the conditions of the super PAC funding is that the candidate has to let the person on the local committee be their treasurer and that they'll either empty the account at the end of the general election cycle or return the money to the nominating committee.
31:15
no war chess. The other rule, which is also unique, is that the candidates are not allowed
31:21
to contribute money to their own campaign that goes beyond what a normal citizen can contribute.
31:26
So the max donation for Congress is $2,700. That candidate can only put $2,700 into their own
31:33
campaign. Now it's unlimited. People who put as much money, which means rich people buy seed in
31:39
Congress. And that is not a free and equal system. Yeah, no, that's not a fair system.
31:45
So you got legacy families and politics with deep pockets through relationships and et cetera.
31:51
And it's like, you're never going to win against those people.
31:53
The framers hated inherited power.
31:56
And the idea that people, because of their family name, family money,
31:59
I mean, they'd be crapping their crips if they saw what was going on today.
32:05
They would.
32:07
Oh, man.
32:08
I hope that you can get this rolling, though.
32:10
So you said you had no rush, but what's your goal?
32:12
Like how soon do you actually want to get this rolled out?
32:16
I would have loved to have it for this year.
32:18
I mean, that was a cool thing.
32:20
250th birthday.
32:22
So, but we just did not, we really have to take this one step at a time.
32:27
I think get this in the hands of public, attract the super PAC donor, a big, big number.
32:34
I think once that happens, we can move quickly.
32:36
If that happened, Georgia, some rich listeners listening to your show today, and that happened,
32:41
We could probably hit 10 or 20 districts in this cycle.
32:46
I mean, there's still a window.
32:48
See, rich listeners, you need to donate.
32:51
Well, we donate and, like I said, somebody to open and run the super PAC.
32:57
No, no, I like what you're proposing.
32:58
I think it's something that's long overdue.
33:00
I wish we can take it a step further and, like you said, just wipe the board, period,
33:06
for everybody in how our elections are handled
33:09
and bring all things under your system
33:12
that you're proposing.
33:13
That would be amazing.
33:15
So let's talk about where people can find you.
33:20
First off, I know you're getting your website.
33:23
I think you're redoing it right now.
33:25
But anyway, I know it's up.
33:26
I've been there.
33:27
So you want to tell people about that
33:28
and how they can donate and support you
33:30
and what they can do to help your cause?
33:33
I think the most important thing,
33:35
Like I said, this is a big paradigm shift. It's a change from where we are. So learning about what we do, if you go to MainStreetParty.org, there's a page called A Brand New Way. There's a one-minute video on there that describes how the contests work. And there's also a description of the five rounds of voting that we describe.
33:55
And then there's also a proof of concept page where you can see demo videos of how the profile page and how the issue and how these different things work.
34:04
It's not a usable app.
34:06
It's a demonstrable app.
34:09
So the college students recorded how this works.
34:12
But pretty soon, I'd say within weeks, we'll have something that's downloadable that we can put on the phone.
34:19
I have it that it shows on my phone.
34:22
It looks like it's going to look.
34:23
It's getting really close.
34:25
Nice.
34:25
But our goal is that within hopefully a month or so that we'll have a contest running every week with fake avatar candidates, but people can play with the system and start to learn what this is about.
34:38
That's awesome.
34:41
If there's anything else you want to add, let's, I mean, your floor is yours.
34:46
Yeah.
34:46
Well, the other thing that we had worked on, there's a website called wilson's fountain.us.
34:51
This covers more of the whole concept.
34:53
But over the past year, I hired a number of students that wrote papers on the impact of free and equal elections.
35:01
One of them talks about this, the impact on Congress and how we go from a two-party system to a no-party system and how it impacts economically.
35:12
So if people are really curious about that kind of stuff and the history of James Wilson, they can find that on wilsonstountain.us.
35:20
It's an educational site.
35:21
It's kind of the sandbox for this project.
35:23
That's awesome. Good information. Listen, I'm going to let you go here because I know you got
35:29
some things you're trying to deal with over here. You got a lot going on, but I'm going to say this.
35:34
I appreciate this conversation because it's not often I get too many people on here that actually
35:39
are offering solutions to problems. We talk about what's happening. We're always speculating,
35:45
giving our opinions, but you're actually giving or offering and working on a solution to a problem
35:49
we actually have, which is great.
35:51
So I do appreciate your time and talking about that.
35:54
I do.
35:54
No, no, no, no.
35:56
Nope.
35:57
Just get to it.
35:58
This is what it is.
35:58
I love it.
35:59
Thank you very much, Tom.
36:01
Bye.
36:03
Devils hide behind redemption.
36:06
Honesty is a one way gate to hell.
36:19
Bye.