The Listening Tube with Bob Woodley--Tom Joseph on a new election process

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This is the listening tube.

SPEAKER_02 0:08

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, I'll speak with Tom Joseph, founder of America's Main Street Party. He'll explain his idea for how to put the citizens back in control of the American Congress.

SPEAKER_00 0:27

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_02 0:34

Something you may not have heard a lot about happened when the Trump administration terminated agreements with several schools and a college that mandated they call a student by their preferred pronouns and let them use the lavatory with which they identify. The letters of termination were sent out in February. One school district in eastern Pennsylvania agreed to the Trump viewpoint in late March, which prompted the Associated Press to write a story about it in early April. The last two Democratic administrations, Obama and Biden, both required schools to maintain what they believed were protections that were needed if someone decided they were born in the wrong body. They mandated that school administrators who didn't interpret Title IX the same way the Progressive Left does go through training on civil rights and sexual harassment laws because some little boy or girl wanted to be called something different in school and a teacher wouldn't do it. For the record, my preferred pronouns are hey you. Now, we can debate about whether gender dysphoria is a mental or physical issue and how it should be handled by those of us who are happy in our original skin. But when it comes to little kids, there's no room for this kind of coddling. If you're a boy, you're a boy. And if you're a girl, you're a girl. Deal with it. And don't burden your classmates and teachers with your issue. It's not fair to everybody else. It leads to confusion and contributes to a disorderly school environment where teaching and learning aren't the main focus. Calling a person by their birth sex isn't a violation of anyone's civil rights, and it isn't any kind of sexual harassment, despite what the Obama and Biden administrations want you to believe. These are children. They're not old enough to vote, not old enough to serve their country, not old enough to purchase alcohol or cigarettes or vape pens. Many are not even old enough to drive. They should not be able to tell an adult which pronouns to use or agree to any type of sex change surgery, or what progressives call gender-affirming care. What a load of crap that description is. Nothing is being affirmed, and the only care involved is care for a radical agenda, not the child in question. The AP story would have you believe otherwise. It called the Trump administration's quest to bring common sense back to schools an assault on the rights of transgender people. First of all, we're not talking about people in general. We're talking about kids. You can do whatever you want after you turn 18. Add boobs, remove boobs, hell, get yourself six boobs for all I care. When you're a legal adult responsible for your own actions and the results. We're talking about kids here, and if we're talking about protecting so-called trans kids, then we're missing the bigger picture and not protecting all the other kids. Nor are we protecting confused kids from the predators who want to subject kids to the horrible nightmare of sex change surgeries and a lifetime of regret. I'm all for protecting those of us who may be subject to discrimination. At the same time, we have to accept that if we choose to be something other than average or normal, in the sense of how we look or how we act, then there's a risk that people who don't understand or don't agree with your lifestyle choices will react in a negative way. Kids and adults alike. That's not a violation of anyone's civil rights. That's not discrimination. But Shuwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women's Law Center, is quoted in the story as saying, This is part of the Trump administration's assault on education and assault on those who are most vulnerable to experiencing discrimination and harassment, including trans students. They've made their intention very clear in wanting to erase protections for trans people. There's that phrase again, trans people. They try to make it look like the Trump administration is somehow waging a war against trans people, and that simply isn't true. First of all, ending the set agreements only apply to five schools and a college. And it's more about not making school districts spend tax dollars on training for teachers and faculty about a student's preferred pronouns and which bathroom the kids should use. But somehow it gets turned into a battle about trans people. As for Shawali's claim that the President is also somehow assaulting education, that's just laughable. He's turning education back over to the States. As since the inception of the Federal Department of Education, education has suffered and standards have fallen and success rates have plummeted. The biggest assault on education began in nineteen eighty, and we finally have a president who's bringing attention to the matter and doing something about it. Perhaps the senior director of education justice at the National Women's Law Center should examine the role of teachers' unions in the downfall of and increasing costs of our education system. Nobody can put any blame for the state of our education system on Donald Trump. He's removing the bureaucracy and returning school to its roots of learning instead of indoctrinating. Students have always been divided in two ways boys and girls, and for good reason. We have opposing, yet wonderfully compatible, sex organs. We have innate and very powerful instincts to mate. As far as I can tell, that's the main reason we don't let boys in the girls' locker room, and vice versa. If you start making exceptions for a select few, then who are you really protecting? And exactly who is a danger to some kid who claims to be trans, other than a surgeon. By getting out of these agreements made by the Obama administration and again supported by the Biden administration, the Trump administration has actually eliminated state-mandated discrimination. Now everyone, regardless of race, color, sexual preference, or even identity, is treated the same, and nobody is being required to participate in labeling someone other than what they see or know to be the case. This is just one small step in the Trump administration's quest to rid the country of discrimination based on race or any other way we divide ourselves or others divide us. This week in 1906, an earthquake and fire destroy much of San Francisco, California. The earthquake was felt far and wide, all the way to Los Angeles in central Nevada. And certainly the shaking did a lot of damage. But the fire was the ghost pepper flavored icing on the cake. San Francisco was the largest city on the West Coast at the time, and the San Andreas fault shifted more than 20 feet or about six meters. The following fires resulted in adding to the death toll, which was never confirmed, but estimated to be close to 3,000. The city looked like well, it looked like a fire had just ravaged through it. We have a recent example from the fires in Southern California. It was just as bad. Everything was gone. But the city bounced back, rebuilt, and became a hub of activity once again, earning its way to one of the most admired cities in the world. Today, the most likely threat to the health of the city, other than another earthquake, is the politicians who seem to get elected there. Case in point, Eric Swalwell. I knew he was a snake. Sometimes you just get a feeling about a guy, and that guy gave me the creeps. Turns out he's an alleged sexual predator, now being investigated in two states, New York and California. He's resigned his office as a congressman and ended his campaign for governor of California. That's the kind of earthquake the San Francisco Bay Area didn't see coming. Or did they? Some are claiming his perversions were a well-kept secret, but known to the Democratic elite, aka San Francisco politicians. This is the same guy who had an affair with a Chinese spy and then tipped her off so she could get out of the country. And then Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco lets him stay on the House Intelligence Committee. Maybe Eric Swalwell will spill the beans on Nancy Pelosi. No, we're talking about a San Francisco earthquake.

SPEAKER_00 11:07

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_02 11:19

My guest today is Tom Joseph, founder of America's Main Street Party. As you'll hear, it's more than a political party, it's an idea that comes with an app. Tom spoke with me from his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. You've developed a system that allows the people to nominate a candidate for Congress that doesn't use money or party affiliation in the process. You call it America's Main Street Party. Why did you feel it was necessary to do this?

SPEAKER_01 11:57

Because once we qualify as a national party, this will be a gateway onto the general election ballot. We can bypass the public primary.

SPEAKER_02 12:06

Who is your target audience? Would that be independents?

SPEAKER_01 12:10

Everybody's frustrated with the two-party system, which is almost everybody.

SPEAKER_02 12:16

Okay. Well, I I am uh personally, I am a registered independent, and from what I understand, there are now more registered independents than registered Democrats and registered Republicans combined. So that certainly offers up some promise uh for a startup party like yours. How long has it been around? And at what stage are you now?

SPEAKER_01 12:39

You know, I we're more like a tech company than we are a political party. You know, we're we operate inside a 527 political committee because that's a legal way that you can get somebody on the ballot and actually conduct the activities that we're doing. I started the party in January 2021. I actually was thinking about it for years before this. This whole idea of gerrymandering and uncompetitive districts as a business person is just something that I had a hard time wrapping my head around. I just had this idea of coming up with a fair way of nominating somebody and had to shoehorn it into the existing system to make it legal. Because I think trying to pass election reform is a feudal activity. The parties don't want to make the system more fair. And even the measures they're proposing just make it a little bit less worse. So, how does it work? It's an app and a portal. At this stage, I would describe that we're at a beta release, so it's not something that is ready to put into production. But the way it works is that from the candidate side, as long as a potential nominee for Congress doesn't spend money, the party can promote them in any way possible. So if you come up with a free system and the candidates don't declare, they can enter this contest. And what we're doing is we're creating a portal for the candidates to put campaigns on, you know, billboards, position papers, videos on positions. Um, but the one thing that's really unique about this, because think there's gonna be a lot of people that will want to enter if it's free, is that they have to weigh in on seven issues that's determined by a local committee that are gonna come up in Congress over the next term. Two global, three national, two local. We think that the five global and national be common across all the districts we run, but the local committees will have a chance to weigh in on a local issue that has federal implications. You'll be able to see this on our demo, which is coming out in a couple weeks. But basically, by weighing in on those positions, the constituents, when they're now searching for candidates, can find the people that match on their views. They don't have to do all seven. They say, hey, of these seven, maybe these three or four are really important to me. I want to make sure the person I'm nominating for Congress shares my values on those positions. So the system will return and say, Hey, it's like match.com, there's 35 prospects. They could research them where they could say, Hey, at this point, there's 75, 100 candidates in the pool. I'll endorse them all. This is called approval voting, where you're allowed to endorse all the people that you share your values. It allows really moderation to occur. So the next round is a top 20. Now you may see that of those people that shared your value, maybe five or six made the top 20. Do you want to research them? Let it ride. You can hit a button to say, because Americans are lazy. This can't be too hard. Now we get to top 10. Now you see how we get to a top four. When we get to a top four, we're thinking about doing a virtual town hall. Give the candidates now a chance to weigh in on additional things in a virtual stand. They won't be debating. But the can now the constituents would be able to see a little bit more content. And we're thinking at this stage to use a ranked choice to get to a top two, then have a final debate, and then a final round. So it's really like five rounds of voting, like the Olympics trials for Congress, to pick your nominee where the people actually choose their candidate, not super donors, not party leaders, not somebody who self-appoints because they won once, and now it's hard as heck to knock them out.

SPEAKER_02 16:16

And you say you're focusing on districts that have no competition. Why is that? Well, the system works there.

SPEAKER_01 16:25

In a swing districts, this would be harder to implement because actually, you know, swing districts, the the representation moves towards the center. So we're really trying to create the same thing in a gerrymander district. Because in a gerrymander district, there's a lot of opposition votes that have been silenced. And if you think gerrymander is unfair, this is a thing to combat gerrymandering. Because now there's a disincentive to gerrymander. We figured out how to restore the voice of the people that have been gerrymandered. They may not get, you know, in a red district, they may not get a blue representative, but they might get a pink one. And that pink one would share more values with them on certain issues. So it would drive certain um legislation toward the center because now you're able to bring voice to the opposition votes that have been gerrymandered. And that both parties are doing it. And that was my goal: figure out a way to combat gerrymander.

SPEAKER_02 17:20

If there's no ideology attached, how will people describe themselves? I mean, you couldn't say I'm a liberal or I'm a conservative, or or could you? And what would that mean?

SPEAKER_01 17:32

We're trying to break the parties into the caucuses. So what we um will do is they'll be identified to caucus, but not party. So now you get to determine what type of liberal or conservative are you electing. We ultimately think that if you can eliminate money from the nominating process, the people identify to caucus, not party.

SPEAKER_02 17:55

Okay, now I'm conservative on many issues. I'm liberal on others. Would I have to rank my priorities and then vote based on a point system that I basically invent myself of how the candidates relate to my priorities? It seems rather labor-intensive. And you did say Americans are lazy.

SPEAKER_01 18:21

Well, we're thinking this quiz. You know, you're going to weigh in on these seven issues, and you're going to see who matches to you. You might find Canada match exactly two on seven, but mathematically it starts getting more difficult as the field reduces. So now you can say, okay, where which issues am I willing to compromise? So there's like a left center right position on all three, all seven of those issues, and you'll be able to see where they weigh in on those things. And it could be something like for the local issue, it says, hey, should the federal government subsidize our stormwater restoration? Maybe you live in a district that has a lot of problems with rain. Now you get to choose whether you know you want a candidate that's basically, yeah, the federal government should uh underwrite this or no, this is local responsibility, that they should pay for this. So those are the things that you'll actually be able to hold, then hold them accountable. Are you the my type of conservative liberal?

SPEAKER_02 19:17

Now you say that you uh have already examined a way to get this plan implemented and and still comply with election laws. How does your plan weave its way into the system we already have as far as complying with election laws? And and if we were to adapt this idea, would it be an abrupt change?

SPEAKER_01 19:40

It'd be I would love it to be an abrupt change. I think we needed an abrupt change, but our approach is to start where we do five red, five blue, ten red, ten blue. You know, we gradually work our way into the system. We I we're not looking for candidates, we're looking for districts that we feel are vulnerable because they have bad representation, and that the you know, the people would prefer a pink or baby blue candidate in the district rather than somebody who's really too far right or left. You know, the extremism is really what's destroying the functionality of the Congress.

SPEAKER_02 20:14

Well, certainly uh Congress has not been able to get a whole lot done uh because of the the widening divisions between the left and the right. And a lot of times it doesn't even seem like our elected representatives are actually representing us anymore. Like you take, for example, and whether or not you you personally agree with it, this uh this SAVE Act appears to have the the support of 80 to 90 percent of Americans, yet half of our Senate representatives will not vote in favor of it. So are they just not representing their constituents, or do they, for some reason, know better than we?

SPEAKER_01 20:59

Uh well, on that particular issue, I think it's more of an issue of the states, you know, constitutionally that the responsibility for elections lies within the states. And um, I think there's a lot of arguments that that ought to remain that way, that there's there was a fear, you know, originally about having the federal government involved in elections, that this is an important check and balance in the system. And I think that that's the caution that they're they're exercising there. I personally support photo IDs, um, proof of our system is going to be airtight. You know, we're gonna use encrypted encryption, we're gonna um use uh government-approved uh mobile voting technology that's already in place of the military. You know, they can't get ballots out of submarines and uh war zones. And these folks deserve this has been in implementation for years. There are many states that accept mobile voting uh technology. And certainly for a nominating system, it's worth a shot to work out the bugs, you know.

SPEAKER_02 22:00

How much does this system rely on technology? And would the use of technology exclude participation by any subgroup of citizens?

SPEAKER_01 22:11

We're going to have kiosks. You know, we're only targeting certain districts. So, you know, there would be a retail presence throughout that district if folks can't use the phone or can't figure it out. The thing we have to start thinking about, you know, if voting is cumbersome and it affects turnout, you know, we're holding back progress for a grow, a shrinking number of Americans who are really not familiar with that technology. And that as the years go by, that that number just continues to dwindle down. And I think what we want to demonstrate is that through this, if we can have participation in our nominee contests that outperforms the public primary, that we're doing a public good. That we're we're and we're proving it out. And if somebody tries to hack it, we'll figure out how it's done and how to how to prevent it from happening again. So we got to make progress because you you one thing you see is in um TV reality contests, participation increases as the rounds go on. If we watch the Olympics, interest increases the rounds go on. In our contest, we believe that interest will increase as the rounds go on. But in the public voting system, if you ask people to vote for a second time, it goes down, you know. So that's why we have to make some progress on the mobile voting end, because ultimately there should be more and more interest to determine who the nominee is.

SPEAKER_02 23:34

So if you don't get involved in the process early, then you may end up having to choose between the lesser of two evils, which is what a lot of us do today anyway.

SPEAKER_01 23:47

There's yeah, I mean, but I do think that you know the way the current system is now is that there's just you know weeks and weeks and weeks of bad advertising and then one shot of voting. So even if somebody doesn't get involved when the field is 75 or 100 candidates and they only get involved when there's a top 20 20 or top 10, they're still having a lot more input than they have now. I mean, people have zero input on who that person is on the ballot right now. It's somebody who wants to get re-elected or somebody that a bunch of rich people pick to put on the ballot. So, how do you put this plan into action? I'm launching this, I have a business background, I've launched my own business. I've been involved in the launch of a lot of organizations, both for-profit and nonprofit. But I am taking a business approach to this and just trying to make the next step of the plan. The next step of the plan is to come out with a beta release where people will be able to download the app and play with it. And we'll have avatar candidates, but it'll be simulated contests in PA1 and PA2, red and blue districts. And each week we'll just run through this contest, and people can just join in, learn how it works, and hopefully from that we'll raise money and get to put this in election someday. But as a business person, you do not launch efforts to fail. You wait until the conditions are right and the market's right, and you do it. So we'll just continue to make progress, and we've made amazing progress with very little money until we're ready to run this in a general election cycle. I don't think we're gonna make 2026. Um, it's not the technology, it's really amassing the resources, getting the word out. We've really just started to market the idea. If a miracle happened, a big show picked us up and a super PAC donor came in and said, we'll back the winners. We could probably hit you know 10 or 20 primaries by the end of the primary season and get you know 10 or 20 candidates on the general election ballot for 2026. But I'm not really planning on it because I really don't think we have the traction yet.

SPEAKER_02 25:43

So maybe the next presidential election then in 2028.

SPEAKER_01 25:48

Yeah, but it'd be Congress. We're focusing on Congress. This is not eventually Senate and eventually president. But uh, you know, I think it's easier to win five or ten congressional seats than to try to take a senate or a president, certainly presidency. And that, you know, our natural instinct is to have this independent president who brings a party behind it, but it's never worked. I go back to Ross Perot, you know, his failed effort. If he had just focused that party on winning House seats, they might have accomplished something.

SPEAKER_02 26:17

Would this type of process just result in a different kind of gerrymandering? I mean, wouldn't we just learn how our neighbors feel about the issues and then find other ways to divide ourselves?

SPEAKER_01 26:33

Um, I think it really gets back to fair re a fair process rep generates true representation. If money distorts the process and we take it out, then you're gonna get somebody who really is there just to serve the people, not to serve donors. That's really, I think that's where the animosity comes in, is that people are fighting for money. And if they're really concerned about representing voters, I think their effort would be more sincere.

SPEAKER_02 27:00

Now, politics is by nature a popularity contest. How likely is it that the person with the flashiest campaign, someone who's more tech savvy, does better than the person with the best ideas?

SPEAKER_01 27:17

Well, they'll at least have a platform where people can compare it and actually have a choice and put that person they like better. I do think charisma is part of being a politician. You need to rally support for ideas from movements on behalf of your district. You know, if you're if they said that, hey, we care this way about these issues, then you need to be passionate and communicate that message. I don't think we've got the the best folks going to the House of Representatives these days. I just don't. It's a lot of people who've inherited money, and the founders hated the idea of inherited power. So, how does money play a role? It plays a role in competing against Republicans and Democrats. Um, the candidates themselves are not allowed to make extraordinary donations or campaign. They don't have a campaign committee until the contest is over, and all the candidate potential nominees will agree not to compete should they not prevail from the contest. So there'll be rules to enter because we're going to give them a lot of you know visibility through the contest through the portal. And um, but at the end of the day, when the contest winner emerges, they have to agree to certain rules. One of the rules is that a treasurer is appointed that's a member of the local committee, and they'll empty that campaign account at the end of the general election cycle or return it to the local committee, you know, supported the activities for the next contest. But no war chests in this party and nobody buying seats.

SPEAKER_02 28:38

So, where does this super PAC money come from if you're not supporting any type of ideology per se? It's like nobody is going to be going, well, I don't know what you stand for, but here's 50 bucks.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

Um, it could come of one of two ways. It could be that somebody um one restriction on super PAC party have I cannot lead the super PAC. Somebody has to decide that they want to do this common good. But it'd be a very unique super PAC. Right now, super PACs are, you're right, either aligned to a candidate or to a cause. This super PAC would basically be restoring the voice of the people. So I think it could be attracted to a wealthy person that wants to go down in history as the the one who helped break the two-party system.

SPEAKER_02 29:23

Now, how do you get people to participate? Is there an incentive other than affecting the government?

SPEAKER_01 29:31

I think frustration. You know, I think there's a lot of frustration in this country, but people wanting to have a voice, people being tired of money uh destroying and distorting their views? If you're people ready for change, they should be willing to download an app, learn how it works, spend a few minutes. It'd be worth it if we can get rid of all these text messages and badass. That could be incentive in itself.

SPEAKER_02 29:56

That was my next question. I mean, if we're gonna remove all this money from the from the political cycle, what effect will that have on radio and television advertising and and finding ways to reach uh the people who who you want to vote for you?

SPEAKER_01 30:14

Well, frankly, the way it works now is not a very good system. But what we see is this the super PAC acts as a marketing department. So, and they'll have a big hand in picking the you know the 10 or 20 districts that we go into it. But in advance of the contest, we'll come in there, or we'll come in and we'll say, hey, the contest is coming to your district. If you're interested in running, here's how it works. If you're interested in volunteering for the local committee, here's how that works. But you know, it's time for change and you need to participate, download the app, run for run for something. Uh, and then once the contest starts, instead of them getting these really awful ads for candidates, the ads will be, hey, do your civic duty, download the app, check out the candidates, you know, vote for this round by Saturday and see who the top 20 is. Vote you know for the round this Saturday, see who the top 10 is, but make it compelling, you know, not make it be about people tearing each other down.

SPEAKER_02 31:06

That was another issue I wanted to uh ask you about. Now, if we're going to remove political ads from the mainstream media, then we would probably also be less subject to negative ads and ads that outright lie. How might uh a plan like yours affect the psyche of the American voter as far as maybe uh you know changing their their whole attitude about voting and not viewing it as such a negative thing or uh an evil necessity.

SPEAKER_01 31:45

Right. And think about it, you know, the candidates are gonna say, hey, respond to these three, four issues. It's not like, hey, tell me what you think about your opponent. You know, so at this point, that that we're only giving them an opportunity to reflect on the issues and then they know who their own opponent is until the final debate. So, you know, at that point, if they want to say it's me versus them and they know enough about their candidate to say it, we have to let them have the opportunity to do that. But we see that only happening at the very end of the contest. And at that point, who knows? They might decide that if you win, I'll be on your chief of staff, and if I win, you'll be on my chief of staff. They might be very ideologically similar because we're not running this in swing districts. It's not going to be the red versus blue, it's gonna be what shade of blue, what shade of red?

SPEAKER_02 32:35

Neither of our first two presidents, Washington and Adams, believed in political parties. Is there a way to be a servant of the people without choosing a side in today's political landscape?

SPEAKER_01 32:49

Well, you know, it's interesting you bring that up. I'm wearing the Wilson, uh James Wilson, who penned uh the words in and equal to what was before that, the free election clause. But what Wilson wrote after he wrote the Pennsylvania Constitution, he did a law lecture and he described free and equal elections as the fountain of democracy, and that without fairness, the fountain is poison and it spreads everywhere. So the belief is that if we create a free and equal process, which is what we're doing, that it'll cleanse the system. And that instead of us, you know, fighting with money, that lobbyists will have to really campaign to the people. The advertising will be on the issues, you know, not buying Congress people. They'll have to convince the public that what you know this project or this legislation stands on, because otherwise the person who shares those views won't get elected.

SPEAKER_02 33:39

You mentioned James Wilson. Uh I I noticed a lot of your ideology is based on the the writings and lectures of James Wilson. Now, when I look to see who James Wilson was, I'm going to look that up.

SPEAKER_00 33:55

He's gonna look it up. He's really gonna do it.

SPEAKER_02 33:59

You can't handle the truth. I was astonished to realize that I don't remember ever being taught about James Wilson in school. Yet he's one of only six people who helped write and sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What made you aware of James Wilson and what inspired you to dig deeper into what he contributed to the founding of our nation?

SPEAKER_01 34:32

That's a great question. I um I was actually, you know, came up with this idea of the concess without any historical reference. And I was talking to a friend of mine, he's a constitutional lawyer, and he goes, you know, there's constitutional roots in what you're doing, the free and equal election clause. And so I researched it, I did a Google search. And it turns out just four years ago, a law student, um, he doesn't want to be mentioned his name because he works in government now, but he discovered the linkage and the pen he basically was the person who credited the words and equal and did all the research of what happened in the Pennsylvania legislature, when before there, himself his defense of it, how he defended it, and then found that he wrote this law. He was the first law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And the inaugural law lecture, he invited George Washington, governor of Pennsylvania, uh Robert Morris, all the how legislatures of both Pennsylvania, which is the largest state, and um the US Congress, and basically did the keynote on the free and equal elections law, uh, free and equal election clause, and said that if we don't do this, he said the system will basically come apart. And his prediction was pretty true.

SPEAKER_02 35:41

So you're you're arguing that the system has fallen apart, but we can put it back together again if we go back and look at what James Wilson taught us and implement that philosophy. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 35:55

That the free uh of money distorts representation and unfairness distorts representation, the absence of money, the absence of unfairness should return the representation to the center of the bell curve. He called it the true voice of the people.

SPEAKER_02 36:10

Is there a way to reestablish that James Wilson philosophy in today's political climate?

SPEAKER_01 36:19

You know, we're not complete election reform. What we are is a um a way to uh break the system so we can fix it. You know, the two-party system needs to be broken. I think once we get into four factions, we're back into a Congress that looks more like it was in the 50s and 60s. That you know, we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, and that that balance, those four factions, allowed probably the you know, the best time of our government to really administer fairly. So that's my goal. I have a there's a paper one of our interns wrote about you know the long-term impact of doing this, but it would result, we think, in like four to six caucuses within Congress and no political parties.

SPEAKER_02 37:03

Do you think America would be better off without political parties or more active political parties?

SPEAKER_01 37:12

Well, I said uh we want them to identify and tie to um congressional caucuses. So if you can think of those as parties, then yes, that there would be more factions. Unfortunately, the money forces these factions to be combined. And uh that's why I think we get these super bills. They're everybody's horse trading to get their things in for their district. If you unbind the money from the representatives, they have to do what's best for their local people and really make the right decisions.

SPEAKER_02 37:47

Now, you have already said that you'd like to focus on uncontested uh congressional districts where gerrymandering has basically taken over the political affiliation of that district. Do you see this idea expanding outside of those types of districts and becoming more commonplace if it were to catch on? In other districts?

SPEAKER_01 38:13

What I hope is that as a catch. Yeah, I I think our move is to more like uh gerrymandered states or states where the representation is too blue, too red, for Senate races, and then ultimately election reform would happen where they'd adopt our systems into the public primary. I think that that, you know, I would like to see us become the public primary. Um, and if we're really adhering to the laws, there's really no reason why we couldn't become basically the nominating tool for all offices. I mean, certainly the way we nominate a president is just absolutely ridiculous. And um, you know, everybody in the nation should be able to weigh in on a round of the presidential primary at the same time. We have the technology, you know, we can do this. And that, you know, certain states don't weigh in till the very end, till the contest is already decided, or that we have, you know, so much weight goes into who wins New Hampshire or Iowa? I mean, this just seems like a silly way to choose one of the most important offices in the world.

SPEAKER_02 39:16

What stumbling blocks, uh, if any, have you come across so far with implementing and developing this solution? And are you are you anticipating any further ones as you progress through this process?

SPEAKER_01 39:32

I think our biggest hurdles to get media recognition. It's catching on, you know, for people that aren't tied to the current ecosystem. But I think the people with ABC, CNN, Fox, whatever, they do not want to report this idea. And you know, we've gotten on the inside of like some pretty big uh news channels pitching this idea and they just don't want to report it. And at a time when gerrymandering is destroying elections, and I have a way to do that that's legal, and they don't want to report on it. I mean, that's a huge stumbling block. But I think we'll we'll make that barrier and we just keep keep pitching it. And as more and more people hear the story, it'll it'll catch on.

SPEAKER_02 40:13

Why don't they want to report on it? Do you do you get any response? Did they give you any reason? Do they do you read between the lines?

SPEAKER_01 40:22

Well, I don't know. Maybe um, you know, I'm not Mark Cuban, I'm not, you know, I think people will already have a big following. It's easier for them to take an idea and and launch it. And I have not, people that are in the election reform space also don't like this idea. And I think they have a similar issue that the parties have. They have donors that are supporting whether it's ranked choice voting or open primaries or overturning Citizen United, and they want to get that over the finish line. And then for them to you know turn their donors over to me is not, you know, they don't see that in their best interest, even though you know at some point you have to put the country ahead of your donors.

SPEAKER_02 40:59

Do you think Citizens United will get overturned at some point?

SPEAKER_01 41:03

Getting a constitutional amendment passed is a really high bar. The issue that I have is that if you pass Citizens United, it are elections that much fairer. I mean, Citizens United almost kind of did what NIL money did for college athletics. Usually we had all this dark stuff happening and boosters, and and NIL just brought it in the public and let kids get the money. That's kind of what super PACs do, is that they took businesses, people spending all this dark money behind promoting these candidates. Um, I'm trying to say, hey, we're gonna use that against them. An attorney might have thought it was a good idea to put a system, something with infinite power into the system, but an engineer, that's what I am, you know, would advise you otherwise. You've given somebody a tool that they can turn on you, and that's what we're doing. We're gonna take a super PAC and potentially, you know, take down the two parties with it.

SPEAKER_02 41:58

Well, that all sounds very interesting, Tom, and I'm fascinated by the whole process. Is there anything about which I didn't ask you that you feel is important that you want to share?

SPEAKER_01 42:10

We cover a lot of ground. We usually don't get into the Wilson stuff halfway into it, but in the theory, you know, but um, you know, what I would say is that, you know, go to mainstreetparty.org. There's a one-minute video that kind of explains the contest. Uh, there are also demos on what's called a proof of concept page of what the college students did. But within a few weeks, um, we'll have something on the website that looks like a little mobile app that you'll be able to step through and get a sense of the contest. And probably within a couple months, we'll have an app that people download on their phone and have the simulated contest running in the background so that people can learn about the method before we actually implement it uh in the system. I think we implemented it without the public really understanding it, we would fail for sure.

SPEAKER_02 42:56

That website again is mainstreetparty.org. Now we can all take part in the primary process or even run for office without big financial backers or breaking open your own piggy bank. Thanks to Tom Joseph for spending some time with you and me in the listening tube. The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2026. Shout out to some new places checking in Punjab, Maldonado, Lima, and Nakuru. Yes, the listening tube has now been downloaded in 110 countries. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley for Thou Ad Infinitum.