And that is the best question you could have asked, Anthony.

There are three layers of US government:

• Federal
• State
• Local

And all three layers have their own opportunities.

First off, if the power lies with the voters, then all voting systems of these three levels can get changed as soon as the voters ask for this. Certain numbers of voters need to line up of course. Change cannot happen if just a single person asks for it.
[Actually, at the local level that is all that it takes, a single person asking.]

In truth, the institutions now hold more power over the voters than most people are aware of. I am trying to say here that our governmental representatives are themselves holding on to power that is claimed to be in the name of the voters, but that in reality is in name of the two parties plus the special interests behind these two parties that like things the way they are.

This is just one part of the reply, but a very important part. As long as voters do not:

A/ Recognize they are being handheld instead of being the true source of political power, and as long as voters do not:

B/ Know about other options, then

C/ Nothing will ever change.

The beauty is that change is readily available at:

• the local level
• the state level

These are excellent locations to express our desire to be more empowered as voters.

I did write in the Doughnut Politics article about the US Constitution, and in the image I made myself shown here one can see what the US Constitution literally says and what is found in place instead. The local governments are not following the 14th Amendment ruling of the US Constitution that governments cannot have discriminating systems in place if a better system is available.

Instead, most of them are just following the examples of the other governmental levels. Some of them, though, do experiment with voting systems in their city or county. So we know for a fact that they are aware that the local system in place is not cemented in place.

The local level is therefore the first level where we can get proportional voting put in place. A judge could rule it this way, but I think it is better to have folks recognize they are being taken for a ride and that there is something better out there for all of us. Then, if a majority of the voters pick a majority of the board then the local voting system can get changed. It's therefore quite simple. But it does require folks to not only be 'woke and aware', but they need to understand that they have a tool available to them and that they should use it.

Already by challenging politicians to change the voting system, this will turn our politicians' attention more toward the voters and therefore less toward the special (self)interests.

There isn't a safer place to learn how full democracy works than at the local level.

Once folks have seen how equal representation works, I am certain they want to have it anywhere they can get it.

I am also certain that the two parties will try to show with their utmost best how proportional voting is crummy. With the first problem of learning a new system, they will scream fire and murder at the top of their lungs. They may even succeed that way and have voters then shy away from what is bad for the two dominant parties and what is actually good for the voters.

One more point about the local level and why proportional voting is really fine at that level. Remember how the German system has a minimum in place of 5 percent before a party can obtain seats? In most places, there are less than 20 seats on council or board, so the minimum is then already set at 5 percent. If there are ten seats, the minimum is set at ten percent. It means we do not need to worry about splintering too much at the local level. Each person on the board or council already represents a real good chunk of the voters. Doing it the proportional way makes many more voters be represented than today.

---

Next, the state level is already wide open for changing the voting system. The US Constitution gives states wide freedoms even to the point one can counter-argue that the 14th Amendment ruling can be put to the side because of that given freedom.

So, voters at the state level are already in the driver's seat, but so far no one has left the two-party freeway to get themselves something better to eat than freeway food.

Perhaps we need to wait and see how political freedom works out at the local level. But I am very convinced that once folks get that freedom, then they do not want to go back into the two-party cage.

---

Lastly, the Federal level is the level where the US Constitution is most solid.

In my mind, the Federal level is best changed through minor but important changes. Minor, so the change is imaginable for enough voters to support it and small enough for the parties to swallow it.

For instance, amending the US Constitution so that the Senate can veto but no longer write bills can already improve our democracy. Where today pork is handed out to every House Representative and every Senator that puts a roadblock up before a bill can pass, it would be so darn good to get the Senators out of that picture.

The Senators are themselves already not the best representation of the voters' will. Just look at them: super-rich, male, white, old. They are nothing like the rest of us. The few females that are there with them are on average even richer than the males. The US Senate is very clearly a failure of democracy. It would be wise to take some of their powers away while making sure that each bill that got created in the House of Representatives does receive a check by the Senate.

This would best be accompanied by removing the veto power of the President (and giving it to the Senate). By establishing a House of Representatives that carries out the sole task of writing bills, we end up with a much cleaner democracy.

Naturally, the parties will scream rape and burglary because this ends up giving the voters some more power while they end up getting less money from their special interests.

Note therefore carefully that in proportional voting the representatives are on average ten years younger than our representatives. Our system partially hands the pork to the ones holding the seats so they can hand out the pork in the way it benefits them the best. Therefore, the seats end up more in the hands of the incumbents who have greased their hands in the game already rather than the seats going to the challengers of the incumbent.

In proportional voting, the grease is removed from the seats a bit more. And all of a sudden the representatives end up ten years younger on average. What a surprise!?!

So, you question is fantastic because it begs the question where true power lies: Does power lie with We the People or does it lie with divide-and-conquer, if you allow me to call our current system that way. Ultimately, the US Constitution declares that it lies with We the People, and so we do have tools to make our democracy become a truer and better democracy for us all.