You’re writing the next chapter of Make America Grow Again.
The 25 structural fixes are done. Now vote on the next 5.
Rank your top 5 reforms by July 4 → winners become new episode.
The ratings aren't meant to tell you what to support. They're meant to help you think about trade-offs. Feel free to use different criteria or different weights.
I weighted reforms based on five questions: Structural Impact, Cascade Potential, Political Defensibility, Implementation Feasibility, and Speed to Effect.
One pattern stood out immediately: the reforms with the greatest long-term impact almost always scored the lowest on feasibility and speed. That's the reality of structural change. The biggest fixes are usually the hardest to pass and the slowest to implement.
That's why I focused most heavily on Structural Impact and Cascade Potential. If one reform can solve multiple problems or make other reforms easier to achieve, it deserves more weight than a reform that addresses only a single issue.
For example, greater transparency doesn't just improve public oversight. It can also make conflicts of interest easier to detect, improve accountability, strengthen performance measurement, and support other reforms that depend on reliable public information.
Don't treat my scores as the answer. Challenge them. Replace them with your own. I used AI to help estimate feasibility and implementation because many reforms involve constitutional, state, federal, and administrative questions that aren't obvious. Then I reviewed the reasoning before assigning a score.
The goal isn't to reinforce your existing beliefs. It's to build a consistent framework for comparing ideas and deciding which reforms create the greatest long-term public benefit.
Removes the primary upstream driver that misaligns policy with public interest.
D. Ban Gerrymandering
Electoral Integrity, Systemic Leverage
Makes elections responsive to voters instead of map-drawers.
K. Regulatory Capture Reform
Anti-Capture, Accountability
Restores regulators as public watchdogs across the entire economy.
J. Revolving Door Restrictions
Anti-Capture, Systemic Leverage
C. Congressional Stock Trading Ban.
the fastest, cleanest root-cause fix on the ballot. One law removes a direct personal profit motive from the people writing the rules. High current bipartisan momentum makes this the most immediately winnable big item.
@Jerry M. Withers - thank you for restocking my post with the fixes that would force the people pretending to run the country to actually do the jobs… it was one of my favorite posts to write and I'm building a subscriber based exclusively so we have a lot on The Voice to get this message to the mainstream.
Since you're asking about which five reforms are strongest, I can't give a personal political ranking. What I can do is evaluate them using a neutral framework: breadth of impact, evidence of effectiveness, bipartisan appeal, and ability to reduce systemic conflicts of interest.
Based on those criteria, these five stand out as the most frequently discussed and evidence-backed structural reforms:
Tier 1: Highest Structural Impact
1. Congressional Stock Trading Ban (C)
Addresses a direct conflict of interest.
Consistently enjoys overwhelming bipartisan public support.
Targets trust in government rather than a specific ideology.
2. Ban Gerrymandering (D)
Directly affects electoral competitiveness and representation.
Research suggests independent commissions can increase competition and reduce partisan bias when properly designed.
3. End Dark Money Politics (A)
Attacks the influence pipeline between money and policy.
Transparency of political spending is one of the most common reform proposals across ideological lines.
The challenge is constitutional and legal implementation.
4. Revolving Door Restrictions (J)
Addresses regulatory capture and lobbying incentives.
Targets a structural problem that affects healthcare, defense, finance, tech, and many other sectors simultaneously.
5. Audit the Pentagon (B)
One of the largest public expenditures in the world.
Appeals to both fiscal conservatives and government-accountability advocates.
Focuses on measurable oversight rather than ideology.
---
Strong Second Tier
6. Regulatory Capture Reform (K)
Arguably one of the deepest systemic problems.
Less politically marketable because it's more abstract than stock trading or gerrymandering.
7. Constitutional Data Privacy Rights (N)
Growing importance as AI, surveillance, and data collection expand.
Could become significantly more important over the next decade.
8. National Transparency Portal (E)
Strong complement to several other reforms.
Transparency alone doesn't solve problems, but it makes concealment harder.
---
Middle Tier
9. Federal Sunset Reviews (H) 10. Government Performance Reviews (L) 11. Simplify the Tax Code (I) 12. Congressional Term Limits (F)
All are defensible, but the evidence on outcomes is more mixed or heavily dependent on implementation details.
-
Lower Tier (Not Bad, Just Narrower)
13. Automatic Voter Registration (G)
Meaningful election reform, but affects a narrower slice of the system than anti-corruption measures.
14. Congressional Pay Reform (M)
Popular rhetorically.
Symbolic value may exceed practical impact compared with other reforms.
If I were analyzing this as a political strategist rather than a policy analyst, I'd note something interesting: C (Stock Trading Ban), A (Dark Money), B (Pentagon Audit), D (Gerrymandering), and N (Data Privacy) probably create the broadest left-right coalition because they can be framed around accountability, transparency, and citizen power rather than partisan ideology. Humans remain remarkably willing to disagree about everything except their suspicion that somebody else is getting special treatment. On that issue, national unity appears achievable.
Many liberals view large political donations, Super PACs, and the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC decision as major drivers of inequality in political influence.
This is probably the safest bet for broad liberal support.
2. Ban Gerrymandering (D)
A long-standing Democratic reform priority.
Often tied to voting rights and fair representation arguments.
3. Automatic Voter Registration (G)
One of the most consistently supported election reforms among liberals.
Framed as increasing participation and reducing barriers to voting.
4. Constitutional Data Privacy Rights (N)
Particularly attractive to younger liberals and tech-policy-focused voters.
Also has growing bipartisan appeal.
5. Congressional Stock Trading Ban (C)
Not uniquely liberal, but overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum.
Liberals generally support stricter ethics rules in government.
This is exactly the kind of political conversation we need more of.
Not left branding. Not right branding. Structural diagnosis.
The core question should always be: where has power become too insulated from public correction?
Dark money, Pentagon opacity, stock trading by lawmakers, gerrymandering, and transparency failures all point to the same deeper problem: institutions that are supposed to serve the public have learned how to protect themselves from the public.
My top five would be:
1. Ban Gerrymandering
2. End Dark Money Politics
3. Congressional Stock Trading Ban
4. Audit the Pentagon
5. National Transparency Portal
A republic cannot function when voters cannot see who is influencing elections, where their money goes, or whether their representatives are serving the public or themselves.
The Declaration isn’t finished because democracy is not a document we inherit once. It is a structure every generation has to repair.
Thank you so much for the compliment. When I did the 25 part series that I linked in the bottom of the post the problem was that it might double the federal budget unless you assume that one fix pays for the next but this set doesn't technically cost anything and I feel like it would fix half of the problems in ways we can't even imagine because it would create an informed (and actually represented) public. Thanks for your vote!!!
Absolutely. That’s the part I think gets missed most often: structural reforms can be “cheap” in budgetary terms while being enormous in democratic value.
Transparency, representation, anti-corruption rules, and accountability mechanisms don’t require building a massive new welfare state. They require making existing power visible, contestable, and harder to abuse.
An informed public changes the incentives of every institution around it. Once people can see where money flows, who benefits, who writes the rules, and whether representation is real or engineered, a lot of other reforms become easier because the public is no longer arguing in the dark.
That’s why this set matters. It doesn’t just fix one policy area. It strengthens the public’s ability to correct the whole system.
That's exactly why I ended up putting so much weight on these reforms.
People often ask, "How does banning congressional stock trading fix healthcare?" or "How does auditing the Pentagon fix education?" The answer is that they don't directly.
They fix the public's ability to see and influence the system.
Most policy debates happen after the incentives have already been set by money, information asymmetry, lobbying, and institutional self-protection. Structural reforms don't guarantee better outcomes, but they give citizens a fighting chance to correct bad ones.
My biggest concern isn't whether Americans disagree. It's whether Americans are increasingly forced to make decisions with incomplete information while the people with power have access to far more than the public does.
A republic can survive disagreement. It struggles to survive opacity.
Thanks Heather!!! Your comments kind of embodies the whole point of my publication if a party actually could establish some type of consistency and accountability and become worthy of public trust come maybe that changes the conversation... until then we really need to look at the person not the party.... While everyone’s winning arguments on cable news and social media, who’s actually winning on debt, borders, or wages? This post explains the gap.
1. E Transparency is directly related to professional integrity which, in my opinion is the root cause of our issues with office holders. The list of 14 can contribute to what the voter thinks is important with respect to elected official integrity.
2. A Goes hand in hand with transparency
3. F Keeps elected officials from feeling entitled to serve
4. D Redistricting should be confined to census years after the data is in. This combined with increasing the number of members in the House can insure better representation for all voters, as long as the lines are draw by an impartial group.
5. C Nothing contributes more to conflicts of interest. I give you Donald Trump as a prime example, though he is not a congressman.
Fixing the problem is just as important as identifying it. Keep up the good fight!
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this Steven and I appreciate you doing in the comment section… I have had an awful lot of direct messages.. lol…
I would like to ask your advice as I advance my project of letting the voters define what they think professional integrity in our elected officials should be. I am beginning with the county I reside in and will progress further as the initiating gains traction. My initial plan was to do the first meetings live but expansion will most likely require a method similar to what you are using for your project. I am looking forward to the results on July 4. I hope you get hundreds of thousands of responses.
I'd be happy to share whatever I've learned along the way….
I think I have a ton of valuable information including what I can tell you right now prioritizing them was admittedly difficult bordering on impossible as you already know it reflects the actual trade-offs that government officials would need to make that cause certain things to fall through the cracks when it isn't a case of integrity, rather a case of resources and priorities… however quantifying things and making a set of criteria that's weighted in a way that makes sense definitely helps and I'm going to share all of that stuff with you and we can talk whenever is good…
One thing I'd encourage is keeping the conversation centered on principles instead of personalities.
It's much easier to find common ground when people are defining what integrity is rather than debating who has it. I also like to lead off by stating things that are bipartisan agreements to help and disarm people because their reaction will be to cite the problem instead of answer your question ironically... the same thing politicians do.. the difference is one is by design and the other is from emotional triggers and reaction
I also think your project highlights something bigger. We spend a lot of time arguing over capitalism vs. socialism, left vs. right, or which party is to blame. But none of those systems function well if the people running them lack professional integrity and aren't held accountable. Public office is called public service for a reason.
If voters can agree on the standards first, they'll be in a much stronger position to hold every elected official to them, regardless of party. I think that's a conversation worth having.
Your approach is precisely the same as the one I am trying to get the voters to determine what Professional Integrity means to them. Your effort is a great way to begin, though I am beginning at the county level and expanding after that. Thanks for showing me another way to reach more people. I will definitely be submitting my 5 plus the reasons I think they are the most important,.
One thing I've been realizing is that we often jump straight to debating policies when the bigger issue is whether the people implementing them have the professional integrity to serve the public in the first place.
Whether someone is left, right, capitalist, socialist, or independent, they all point fingers at each other… and ignore the simple fact that… no system works if honesty, accountability, and public service become optional.
That's why I like your approach. Before we argue over solutions, we should probably agree on the standards we expect from the people we've entrusted to make them.
I run into this a bunch in the comment section when people throw me one word magic Solutions like socialism… I can't get over the fact that all of the problems they're identifying... are caused by not enforcing the rules that I already in place.. and all of the fixes that made this article necessary ..
How can we eat at debate over which economic systems right when the people that are writing the rules are the same people that benefit from breaking them and are the same people that are responsible for enforcing them…
The debate isn't about whether capitalism, socialism, Republicans, or Democrats are inherently better.
Any system fails when the people entrusted to run it aren't held to a high standard of professional integrity and accountability.
Terry… Ireally appreciate that. Thank you. I was thinking maybe I aimed too high but obviously I had to invent the solutions since nobody's going to campaign on them for damn sure. 🤣😂 but my subscribers and I have been talking for the last 2 months as I've been promoting my publication and these are things that we kind of develop together from the other posts I made.
I wrote a 25-fix series in March/April: biggest impact, zero cost.
This ballot builds on it.. democracy fixes, ranked by you… that cost nothing but have the biggest impact.
60 days into promoting @Rxan Smith Uncomfortable. Just Crept into Top 100 Culture on the subject rising bestseller list!
I'm building a community that adds context, not noise. Teaches each other. Catches things like this.
Don't know the exact destination yet… but I do recognize people whose voices and intellect would help our collective voice.
you get it.
But everything's researched with sharp people.. the kind of ideas that belong in a new Declaration.
This is going to turn out really cool.
A quick note on how I approached this exercise.
The ratings aren't meant to tell you what to support. They're meant to help you think about trade-offs. Feel free to use different criteria or different weights.
I weighted reforms based on five questions: Structural Impact, Cascade Potential, Political Defensibility, Implementation Feasibility, and Speed to Effect.
One pattern stood out immediately: the reforms with the greatest long-term impact almost always scored the lowest on feasibility and speed. That's the reality of structural change. The biggest fixes are usually the hardest to pass and the slowest to implement.
That's why I focused most heavily on Structural Impact and Cascade Potential. If one reform can solve multiple problems or make other reforms easier to achieve, it deserves more weight than a reform that addresses only a single issue.
For example, greater transparency doesn't just improve public oversight. It can also make conflicts of interest easier to detect, improve accountability, strengthen performance measurement, and support other reforms that depend on reliable public information.
Don't treat my scores as the answer. Challenge them. Replace them with your own. I used AI to help estimate feasibility and implementation because many reforms involve constitutional, state, federal, and administrative questions that aren't obvious. Then I reviewed the reasoning before assigning a score.
The goal isn't to reinforce your existing beliefs. It's to build a consistent framework for comparing ideas and deciding which reforms create the greatest long-term public benefit.
A. End Dark Money Politics
Anti-Capture, Systemic Leverage
Removes the primary upstream driver that misaligns policy with public interest.
D. Ban Gerrymandering
Electoral Integrity, Systemic Leverage
Makes elections responsive to voters instead of map-drawers.
K. Regulatory Capture Reform
Anti-Capture, Accountability
Restores regulators as public watchdogs across the entire economy.
J. Revolving Door Restrictions
Anti-Capture, Systemic Leverage
C. Congressional Stock Trading Ban.
the fastest, cleanest root-cause fix on the ballot. One law removes a direct personal profit motive from the people writing the rules. High current bipartisan momentum makes this the most immediately winnable big item.
@Jerry M. Withers - thank you for restocking my post with the fixes that would force the people pretending to run the country to actually do the jobs… it was one of my favorite posts to write and I'm building a subscriber based exclusively so we have a lot on The Voice to get this message to the mainstream.
Since you're asking about which five reforms are strongest, I can't give a personal political ranking. What I can do is evaluate them using a neutral framework: breadth of impact, evidence of effectiveness, bipartisan appeal, and ability to reduce systemic conflicts of interest.
Based on those criteria, these five stand out as the most frequently discussed and evidence-backed structural reforms:
Tier 1: Highest Structural Impact
1. Congressional Stock Trading Ban (C)
Addresses a direct conflict of interest.
Consistently enjoys overwhelming bipartisan public support.
Targets trust in government rather than a specific ideology.
2. Ban Gerrymandering (D)
Directly affects electoral competitiveness and representation.
Research suggests independent commissions can increase competition and reduce partisan bias when properly designed.
3. End Dark Money Politics (A)
Attacks the influence pipeline between money and policy.
Transparency of political spending is one of the most common reform proposals across ideological lines.
The challenge is constitutional and legal implementation.
4. Revolving Door Restrictions (J)
Addresses regulatory capture and lobbying incentives.
Targets a structural problem that affects healthcare, defense, finance, tech, and many other sectors simultaneously.
5. Audit the Pentagon (B)
One of the largest public expenditures in the world.
Appeals to both fiscal conservatives and government-accountability advocates.
Focuses on measurable oversight rather than ideology.
---
Strong Second Tier
6. Regulatory Capture Reform (K)
Arguably one of the deepest systemic problems.
Less politically marketable because it's more abstract than stock trading or gerrymandering.
7. Constitutional Data Privacy Rights (N)
Growing importance as AI, surveillance, and data collection expand.
Could become significantly more important over the next decade.
8. National Transparency Portal (E)
Strong complement to several other reforms.
Transparency alone doesn't solve problems, but it makes concealment harder.
---
Middle Tier
9. Federal Sunset Reviews (H) 10. Government Performance Reviews (L) 11. Simplify the Tax Code (I) 12. Congressional Term Limits (F)
All are defensible, but the evidence on outcomes is more mixed or heavily dependent on implementation details.
-
Lower Tier (Not Bad, Just Narrower)
13. Automatic Voter Registration (G)
Meaningful election reform, but affects a narrower slice of the system than anti-corruption measures.
14. Congressional Pay Reform (M)
Popular rhetorically.
Symbolic value may exceed practical impact compared with other reforms.
If I were analyzing this as a political strategist rather than a policy analyst, I'd note something interesting: C (Stock Trading Ban), A (Dark Money), B (Pentagon Audit), D (Gerrymandering), and N (Data Privacy) probably create the broadest left-right coalition because they can be framed around accountability, transparency, and citizen power rather than partisan ideology. Humans remain remarkably willing to disagree about everything except their suspicion that somebody else is getting special treatment. On that issue, national unity appears achievable.
Wow…. That's thorough. Congrats… Don't lobby my readers 😉 .
1. End Dark Money Politics (A)
Many liberals view large political donations, Super PACs, and the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC decision as major drivers of inequality in political influence.
This is probably the safest bet for broad liberal support.
2. Ban Gerrymandering (D)
A long-standing Democratic reform priority.
Often tied to voting rights and fair representation arguments.
3. Automatic Voter Registration (G)
One of the most consistently supported election reforms among liberals.
Framed as increasing participation and reducing barriers to voting.
4. Constitutional Data Privacy Rights (N)
Particularly attractive to younger liberals and tech-policy-focused voters.
Also has growing bipartisan appeal.
5. Congressional Stock Trading Ban (C)
Not uniquely liberal, but overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum.
Liberals generally support stricter ethics rules in government.
What is all this liberals would prefer justification?
This is exactly the kind of political conversation we need more of.
Not left branding. Not right branding. Structural diagnosis.
The core question should always be: where has power become too insulated from public correction?
Dark money, Pentagon opacity, stock trading by lawmakers, gerrymandering, and transparency failures all point to the same deeper problem: institutions that are supposed to serve the public have learned how to protect themselves from the public.
My top five would be:
1. Ban Gerrymandering
2. End Dark Money Politics
3. Congressional Stock Trading Ban
4. Audit the Pentagon
5. National Transparency Portal
A republic cannot function when voters cannot see who is influencing elections, where their money goes, or whether their representatives are serving the public or themselves.
The Declaration isn’t finished because democracy is not a document we inherit once. It is a structure every generation has to repair.
Thank you so much for the compliment. When I did the 25 part series that I linked in the bottom of the post the problem was that it might double the federal budget unless you assume that one fix pays for the next but this set doesn't technically cost anything and I feel like it would fix half of the problems in ways we can't even imagine because it would create an informed (and actually represented) public. Thanks for your vote!!!
Absolutely. That’s the part I think gets missed most often: structural reforms can be “cheap” in budgetary terms while being enormous in democratic value.
Transparency, representation, anti-corruption rules, and accountability mechanisms don’t require building a massive new welfare state. They require making existing power visible, contestable, and harder to abuse.
An informed public changes the incentives of every institution around it. Once people can see where money flows, who benefits, who writes the rules, and whether representation is real or engineered, a lot of other reforms become easier because the public is no longer arguing in the dark.
That’s why this set matters. It doesn’t just fix one policy area. It strengthens the public’s ability to correct the whole system.
That's exactly why I ended up putting so much weight on these reforms.
People often ask, "How does banning congressional stock trading fix healthcare?" or "How does auditing the Pentagon fix education?" The answer is that they don't directly.
They fix the public's ability to see and influence the system.
Most policy debates happen after the incentives have already been set by money, information asymmetry, lobbying, and institutional self-protection. Structural reforms don't guarantee better outcomes, but they give citizens a fighting chance to correct bad ones.
My biggest concern isn't whether Americans disagree. It's whether Americans are increasingly forced to make decisions with incomplete information while the people with power have access to far more than the public does.
A republic can survive disagreement. It struggles to survive opacity.
Great work. Please keep it up
#4 -votes should not be tied to a party, or a CONGESSIONAL seat but I already picked my 5
GOOD EXCERCISE!
Thanks Heather!!! Your comments kind of embodies the whole point of my publication if a party actually could establish some type of consistency and accountability and become worthy of public trust come maybe that changes the conversation... until then we really need to look at the person not the party.... While everyone’s winning arguments on cable news and social media, who’s actually winning on debt, borders, or wages? This post explains the gap.
https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/winning-arguments-losing-america
Even though it’s past the due date
CDEFG
Just saw this today. Looking forward to the results.
GFBAM
See. Thank you so much for voting. Join the community. Subscribe and engage in Publications about things like this every week.
A, D, F, I, C
Thanks Patti!!
My top 5 and why:
1. E Transparency is directly related to professional integrity which, in my opinion is the root cause of our issues with office holders. The list of 14 can contribute to what the voter thinks is important with respect to elected official integrity.
2. A Goes hand in hand with transparency
3. F Keeps elected officials from feeling entitled to serve
4. D Redistricting should be confined to census years after the data is in. This combined with increasing the number of members in the House can insure better representation for all voters, as long as the lines are draw by an impartial group.
5. C Nothing contributes more to conflicts of interest. I give you Donald Trump as a prime example, though he is not a congressman.
Fixing the problem is just as important as identifying it. Keep up the good fight!
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this Steven and I appreciate you doing in the comment section… I have had an awful lot of direct messages.. lol…
Hint. hint... for any other perspective voters
I would like to ask your advice as I advance my project of letting the voters define what they think professional integrity in our elected officials should be. I am beginning with the county I reside in and will progress further as the initiating gains traction. My initial plan was to do the first meetings live but expansion will most likely require a method similar to what you are using for your project. I am looking forward to the results on July 4. I hope you get hundreds of thousands of responses.
I'd be happy to share whatever I've learned along the way….
I think I have a ton of valuable information including what I can tell you right now prioritizing them was admittedly difficult bordering on impossible as you already know it reflects the actual trade-offs that government officials would need to make that cause certain things to fall through the cracks when it isn't a case of integrity, rather a case of resources and priorities… however quantifying things and making a set of criteria that's weighted in a way that makes sense definitely helps and I'm going to share all of that stuff with you and we can talk whenever is good…
One thing I'd encourage is keeping the conversation centered on principles instead of personalities.
It's much easier to find common ground when people are defining what integrity is rather than debating who has it. I also like to lead off by stating things that are bipartisan agreements to help and disarm people because their reaction will be to cite the problem instead of answer your question ironically... the same thing politicians do.. the difference is one is by design and the other is from emotional triggers and reaction
I also think your project highlights something bigger. We spend a lot of time arguing over capitalism vs. socialism, left vs. right, or which party is to blame. But none of those systems function well if the people running them lack professional integrity and aren't held accountable. Public office is called public service for a reason.
If voters can agree on the standards first, they'll be in a much stronger position to hold every elected official to them, regardless of party. I think that's a conversation worth having.
Great comment. Thanks for your input and support.
Your approach is precisely the same as the one I am trying to get the voters to determine what Professional Integrity means to them. Your effort is a great way to begin, though I am beginning at the county level and expanding after that. Thanks for showing me another way to reach more people. I will definitely be submitting my 5 plus the reasons I think they are the most important,.
… myou're onto something important.
One thing I've been realizing is that we often jump straight to debating policies when the bigger issue is whether the people implementing them have the professional integrity to serve the public in the first place.
Whether someone is left, right, capitalist, socialist, or independent, they all point fingers at each other… and ignore the simple fact that… no system works if honesty, accountability, and public service become optional.
That's why I like your approach. Before we argue over solutions, we should probably agree on the standards we expect from the people we've entrusted to make them.
I run into this a bunch in the comment section when people throw me one word magic Solutions like socialism… I can't get over the fact that all of the problems they're identifying... are caused by not enforcing the rules that I already in place.. and all of the fixes that made this article necessary ..
How can we eat at debate over which economic systems right when the people that are writing the rules are the same people that benefit from breaking them and are the same people that are responsible for enforcing them…
The debate isn't about whether capitalism, socialism, Republicans, or Democrats are inherently better.
Any system fails when the people entrusted to run it aren't held to a high standard of professional integrity and accountability.
These choices are Awesome!! 🙌
Terry… Ireally appreciate that. Thank you. I was thinking maybe I aimed too high but obviously I had to invent the solutions since nobody's going to campaign on them for damn sure. 🤣😂 but my subscribers and I have been talking for the last 2 months as I've been promoting my publication and these are things that we kind of develop together from the other posts I made.
I wrote a 25-fix series in March/April: biggest impact, zero cost.
This ballot builds on it.. democracy fixes, ranked by you… that cost nothing but have the biggest impact.
60 days into promoting @Rxan Smith Uncomfortable. Just Crept into Top 100 Culture on the subject rising bestseller list!
I'm building a community that adds context, not noise. Teaches each other. Catches things like this.
Don't know the exact destination yet… but I do recognize people whose voices and intellect would help our collective voice.
you get it.
But everything's researched with sharp people.. the kind of ideas that belong in a new Declaration.
More voices, louder signal. Join in.
I vote for the top five one through five but I like them all they all need to be instituted.
Tha KS David. Appreciate it