We talk about how divided our country is ceaselessly. And we know our Congress is intransigent but cannot agree on how to make it function again. It's time we find a way to operationalize our differences to make for a more robust and functional democracy. Our country is generally divided between citizens on the political right, left, and center. It turns out that this is reasonably easy to delineate geographically. The West Coast of WA, OR, and CA, plus Las Vegas, Southern AZ, Western NM, and Central CO form a cohesive liberal-to-progressive region. The Northeast Coast from Northeastern NC to Southern ME is also on the liberal-to-progressive spectrum. The Northern Midwest plus Northern New England, with some tendrils west to Kansas City, KS and south to Louisville, KY are generally moderate conservative to moderate liberal. Similarly, the Southern part of the Southeastern states from TX to GA and FL, then north to Southeastern NC is quite moderate if you exclude what used to be called West Florida, a greater panhandle on the Southeast Coast. And finally, the interior of the country so far not delineated is generally quite conservative, with some moderate pockets. So how can we turn this set of geographic divisions into a more functional democracy? By allowing these five regions to have greater autonomy over their policymaking and governance. Under this system, these regions would have broad self-determinative powers, but retain a shared military and currency with the rest of the US and the ability to freely associate with other regions on specific issues. This way, these regions that are so divided ideologically divided due to cultural history, infrastructure for commuting, ecology, and of course partisan politics, can reach a new and sustainable equilibrium of coexistence through newly democratic means. Finally, these boundaries would be democratized through periodic vote so that people can choose what regional system best suits their interests and goals. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a functional democracy that can make progress on policy?

I believe that to be a true People's Constitution, this new constitution should incorporate democracy by lottery, also know as sortition. Democracy by lottery has its origins in ancient Athens--the Athenians filled almost all their government posts through lotteries to avoid corruption. They knew from experience that elections are aristocratic devices--they are used by the upper classes to capture the political system and lead to oligarchy. Lotteries with frequent rotation of officeholders is how Athenians avoided oligarchy. Democracy by lottery was used in many city states in the Middle Ages. Today, it is undergoing a renaissance in the form of Citizens' Assemblies, especially in Europe. Citizens' Assemblies call together everyday people from all walks of life through a lottery to deliberate on policies and make laws. There are several groups working on Citizens' Assemblies in the United States right now. I believe the process itself to generate a new constitution--the constitutional "convention" if you will-- should be one of multi-body sortition, using several different groups of Citizens' Assemblies to generate the document. For example, an initial Citizens' Assembly of, say, 1,000 everyday people could be called together via a democratic lottery. The selection could be stratified so that the group accurately represents the various demographics of the society at large (e.g., age, gender, level of income, race/ethnicity, political viewpoint). Once assembled, the group would, with the assistance of facilitators, deliberate on the goals and ends they want the new constitution to achieve--basically, asking what makes the good society. What kind of America do we want? What generally do we want the constitution to do for us? They would set the agenda. The second phase could see, say, five different Citizens's Assemblies of 100 people each who spend several months taking expert testimony, researching constitutional theory, deliberating among themselves, and--most importantly-- hearing from the public about how to rewrite the constitution. The public could apply to speak before one of the assemblies by groups of, say, 12 people each. The five assemblies could each then produce a draft of the constitution, then come together in a joint session to deliberate on and revise them into one final version. The last phase could see a large Citizens' Jury of, say, 500, that conducts a "trial" of the proposed constitution. Members of phase two could speak for and against adoption. After a day or two of the trial, the Jury would vote by secret paper ballot. You could require a threshold of 2/3 for adoption. If they fail to achieve it, the document would return to phase two for revisions. This is just a rough outline--there are many details to take into account. But the heart of the process is the democratic lotteries and the deliberation among people of different worldviews. I believe this kind of multi-body sortition should be the form of the final constitution itself. You could create a legislature made up of three phases, like the above, with short terms of office and a ban on future terms. You can also use lotteries to create an Executive Council, instead of a singular President. And you can use lotteries to choose Supreme Court justices and the cases the Court hears. For example, a Court of 50 judges, chosen by lot from a pool of qualified people (e.g., folks with law degrees). Then for each case that comes before the Court, you could choose 9 justices by lot to sit on the case. But the point is that this process would be truly democratic (while also relying on experts) and produce a final product greater than that of any one group of self-appointed insiders. It would prevent elites from capturing and corrupting the process.

To layout in plain, precise, and everyday language an understanding of our deepest thoughts on sentience. The moral agreements that occur naturally which drive the spirit of our laws, the intellectual rigor that we appreciate richly - but will not simply yield to it based on orthodoxy, and the understanding that we can not understand everything. Trust, our internal organizing principle, is what enables decentralized decision-making and is fostered by universal allowance of input in the formation of Party intent. From this shared understanding of intent - disparate groups can trust that each are working toward the same end goals - just some local specifics must be fluid. Recognizing that we are a part of nature, we can look to the world around us to dictate that an imbalance in power yielded to any one niche will quickly lead to destruction of robust vitality and functional diversity. We recognize because sentience are ignorant from birth containing varied innate abilities, that mistakes and sins are a necessary part of free-will, and maturity takes individual introspection together with community input of precedent norms. As a committee, some ideas have been: utizling some form of STAR or RCV to allow the minority to queue the proposed matter again immedietly - so that, even though, the majority opinion becomes law for now - some time in the future another vote is schedule. This way, there is always vigourous debate encouraged so no voice feels abandoned. Some forms of liquid democracy may prove useful in the execution of these ideals.

Constitutions are generally organized around a set of Articles. The Legislature, the Judiciary, the Executive, Electoral System, Finance, Rights etc. There are many things to consider under each Article. An evaluation of our existing Articles, comparisons to other more democratic constitutions and historical contexts are all necessary to understand before any comprehensive Article can be ratified, even among friends. I recommend that those with specific knowledge of or interest in a particular aspect of constitutional design organize into groups in order to develop specific language for the various Articles they wish to be included. Setting out to understand legislatures, for example, is no small task. There are many ways to do the people's business, and that committee will require a lot of homework. I personally favor a parliamentarian system with a unicameral legislature like New Zealand's.

- The Senate should be abolished. The 2-senators-per-state rule is antidemocratic and structurally racist. - The legislature should be unicameral. Unicameralism is already the norm around the world, as 60% of the world's legislatures are unicameral. - The legislature should be elected by some form of proportional representation. PR makes a multi-party democracy possible, and it makes gerrymandering impossible. The constitution should be flexible enough that the specific form of PR can be defined by statute, but non-proportional methods such as FPTP or block voting should be unconstitutional. - The unicameral legislature should be larger than the current House of Representatives, with at least 600 members.

I believe that the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are some great ideas that a Constitution should reflect and facilitate. These are to "ensure that all human beings can fulfill their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment." https://sdgs.un.org/goals