A POLITICIAN’S HANDBOOK

A POLITICIAN’S HANDBOOK

FOR

IMPROVING AMERICA’S DEMOCRACY

TOWARDS A MORE PERFECT UNION

October 2026

1. INTRODUCTION:

The United States Constitution contains nothing about the creation of political parties. In fact, the Founding Fathers warned that such entities could well usurp the power of the people, therefore denigrating the whole idea of the United States political system. That system is, as they defined it, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. (Actually, this is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address).

The current state of politics in the U.S., both at the national and local level, would indicate that the Founding Fathers were right to warn future generations of the dangers of political parties.

Currently, the Democratic Party appears to be in total disarray with few ideas, and little vision, about the future of the country, while the Republican Party has allowed itself to be commandeered by a megalomaniac who appears intent on disposing of the Constitution and creating a dictatorship.

However, and perhaps unfortunately, political parties are an organizational necessity because, otherwise, there would be so many factions to consider that anarchy would rule – imagine, if you will, the extreme case of each individual wanting the right to have their own ideas incorporated into the political process. It would be like trying to “herd cats”, only multiple times worse. Political parties are therefore an unfortunate necessity. As a further thought, it might be beneficial to explore the possibility of having more than just two parties, because experience has shown that only two can produce a situation where they each become so powerful that they dictate the “will of the people” rather than representing it.

The current chaotic situation of politics in America brings to mind the old saying/hope that every disaster contains the seeds of recovery and rebirth and, in that sense, the Democratic Party could be in a position to re-establish the basic tenets of the Constitution, while incorporating such changes as would bring the operational side of the Constitution into the twenty-first century and beyond.

This document is an attempt, a draft if you will, to develop a plan/prospectus for that opportunity. Although such an attempt could well be construed as presumptive of the authors, and more than a little arrogant, there appears to be few, if any other attempts in the Democratic movement to look to the future, beyond beating Trump – the exception being a few of the candidates for office in the upcoming Midterm elections.

Thus, in the current vacuum of positive, creative, initiatives on a nationwide level, this prospectus is a start.

1. PROLOGUE:

The American democratic experiment is now 250 years old, and has turned into one of the most successful governmental experiments in human history. It was a bold and ambitious departure from the majority of countries structures at the time. Most, traditionally, were ruled by kings and emperors, and had been for centuries. The idea that a country could be ruled by the people instead of a monarch, although not new, was a radical departure from traditional concepts of governance – the Founding Fathers of the United States had to go back to Ancient Greece and Rome to find ideas on which they would base the concept of America.

And it worked, even though there have been many missteps, mistakes, and setbacks in the process.

The United States has become the most powerful nation on earth, militarily and economically, although that dominance is currently being challenged on several fronts. Unfortunately, those challenges are coming from autocratic regimes that are designed to suppress the will of the people, rather than being led by the will of the people. The regime of Donald Trump is following the former course, and that has to be stopped if the American experiment is to survive.

The power of the U.S. is the power of the people, and that could well be what allows the country to continue to prosper and grow, rather than slipping into terminal decline, which, so far at least, has been the ultimate fate of almost all dominant countries of the world. Such decline is often driven but the negligent/complacent interest of the people. Ultimately, the future of the United States is in their hands.

This document starts with acknowledgement of the power inscribed in the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations definition of the “Role of Government”, and it seeks to lay out a path forward towards a “more perfect union”, as the Founding Fathers hoped.

However, first, to put this all in perspective when considering the future of the country, we have to ask a fundamental question – Democracy, why democracy? Well, as that famous half-American, Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented by human beings…except for every other”.

There are plenty of examples of other forms of government, both historically and in today’s world, some of which appear more efficient, even effective, from a bureaucratic point of view, but they come with the price of autocratic rule. The United States was founded because the people decided they didn’t want autocratic rule, and so the future of the country deserves no other direction than democracy, flawed though it may be.

I have to comment here that one aspect of virtually all human activity, which is also autocratic in nature, and therefore detrimental to democracy, and that is religion. Throughout history, most secular rulers and systems have demanded the separation of “church” and state because they knew religion is an autocracy and it is impossible to win against “faith”. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution, although it supports the idea of different churches and religions, does not specifically support the separation of “church and state”.

American democracy, with the idea of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” precludes the active involvement of religion in government. So, this handbook does not address, nor consider, religion in its proposals.

1. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT:

The United Nations has provided us with a comprehensive blueprint for the role of government, regardless of country. Who implements that blueprint, a dictator, or duly elected officials, is secondary to the fundamental role of all governments. This “U.N. Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG)” is a comprehensive framework that provides a detailed classification of the functions, or socioeconomic objectives, that governments aim to achieve through various kinds of expenditure. COFOG1999 was approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission at the thirtieth session of the Commission in March 1999, after extensive research and deliberations. It forms the basic framework of this handbook.

Despite the landscape of government policy and socio-economic objectives that have evolved over the period since 1999, both nationally and in response to global challenges, there has been no revision of the COFOG categorization to date. However, the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC), at its fifty-third session in 2022, did recommend the first  revision of COFOG, and that revision is currently underway. It is anticipated that the update will be completed by 2028.

The current version of the COFOG contains ten divisions in the roles of governments:

01 General public services
02 Defence
03 Public order and safety
04 Economic affairs
05 Environmental protection
06 Housing and community amenities
07 Health
08 Recreation, culture and religion (I assume here that they mean “freedom of” not “involvement in”.
09 Education
10 Social protection

More specifically, there are five areas that describe, in more everyday language, what government should be doing:

1. Protecting the country – providing national defence and dealing with threats from abroad.
2. Making and enforcing laws – establishing rules and maintaining law and order.
3. Protecting people’s rights and safety – through the police, courts and justice system.
4. Managing the economy – taxation, government spending, regulation and economic policy.
5. Providing, or ensuring, provision of public services – such as healthcare, education, roads, utilities, transport, etc.

Each of the major divisions are then broken down into groups, which are further broken down into classes. At the most detailed level, classes, expenditures are related to collective or individual services. The resulting blueprint is a comprehensive and generic guide to the “Role of Government” in any location. It is the underlying framework of the ideas presented in this handbook.

1. PLATFORM FOR THE FUTURE:

The Founding Fathers expected that the U.S. Constitution they had just written would be a dynamic document; in other words, it would be modified, from time to time, in a changing society. That expectation worked well initially, with a series of amendments incorporated into the original document. However, that dynamic process stopped around the beginning of the twentieth century, and a new movement arose, called “The Originalists”. That movement believed the original wording of the Constitution should be sacrosanct, and therefore should be taken at face value. Several of today’s Supreme Court judges are members of that movement, and they make their decisions accordingly.

The fact that a document written 250 years ago has any relevance at all today is a tribute to the Founding Fathers’ wisdom and vision. The idea that each word and concept in that document should be implemented in their entirety, and in perpetuity, is arrant nonsense because (1) It is totally illogical in an historical sense, (2) The authors themselves expected the document to change, and (3) We cannot possibly know what, exactly, the authors meant by the words they used 250 years after they were written.

This document is presented as a dynamic draft that is designed to be subject to careful and judicious change resulting from a consensus of the people through their elected officials. It will start with some structural changes that may need additional amendments to the Constitution, but that seem necessary in today’s America in order to support the basic concept of “governance of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The first section below, called “Structural Changes”, will be followed by some “Operational Changes” that reflect more ‘everyday” concerns of the electorate.

A short section of “Political Reality” will state the obvious observation that a document like this is only useful if it wins elections. Otherwise it can be consigned to history, and all the effort made to produce, and follow it, will be wasted. Given that reality, the third section takes some of the ideas presented above, together with a few others, and turns them into a list of campaign promises that can be used effectively with the media and the electorate.

1. STRUCTURAL CHANGES:

1. The Electoral College:

The Electoral College is an anachronism, which was invented by Southern Democrats in order to retain their control of the country’s national political scene. How the Northern political leadership let them get away with it is a subject of debate, but that system allowed each slave owner to count each of their slaves as two-thirds of a vote in national elections, and retaining that system is a blight on America. The “slave” component of the Electoral College is no longer relevant, but the remnants of the system remain and should be abolished forthwith. Presidential elections should be determined by The Popular Vote only.

• Congressional Terms:

The current Congressional terms were designed on the basis that the House of Representatives would be where new ideas from the people were constantly presented and entertained. Hence two-year terms would provide that constant “new blood”. The Senate term of six years was designed to provide stability, perspective and wisdom. However, current politics, and political campaign realities, has invalidated that concept of “New Blood” every two years. Newly elected congressional representatives spend their first year trying to figure out what they are supposed to do – there are no training camps available – and their second year campaigning for re-election. It is rare that they have time to present new ideas, or even to find out how to submit them if they do have time. In that vacuum, House of Representatives’ leadership steps in and dictates what happens and when, and that is hardly “governance of the people, by the people, for the people”. By default, it is a form of autocracy.

House of Representative terms should be changed to four years and, perhaps, staggered as are the Senate races, so some form of continuity and experience is guaranteed.

• Campaign Finance:

The old adage that “America has the best politicians money can buy” is too close to the truth. It contradicts the concept of “governance of the people by the people, for the people”. Money dominates all campaigns and, in many cases, is the single, most determinate, factor in a successful campaign. That is hardly democracy by any definition, and the rules need drastic revision.

However, the reality of congressional district sizes, both geographic and population, means it is impossible for candidates not to use media for promotion. Today, the largest congressional district (Delaware) has 990,000 people and the smallest (the State of Montana average) has 542,704. There are a total of 435 district nationwide. By comparison, at the time of the first congress in 1789, when the system was designed, the average district had between 33,000 and 35,000.

So some money is necessary. However, it is people that should vote, not corporations, companies and certainly not superpacs.

Therefore people, and no other entity, should contribute money to their preferred candidates. Also a maximum amount, per person, nationwide, should be incorporated into campaign regulations.

• Gerrymandering:

The current abuse of Gerrymandering rules for congressional districts is a blatant attempt to rig elections and disenfranchise voters. It should be stopped, by federal law, immediately, and should override any state regulation or law to the contrary. It is undemocratic in the worst sense.

Redistricting should take place once every ten years, based solely of National Census data, and adjudicated by an independent agency made up of equals numbers of Democrats and Republicans. A tied vote on changes means no changes for another ten years. There might be a caveat here, because of increasing population mobility, that the Census be held every five years, with redistricting following suit.

• Other Structural Changes:

This space is deliberately left open so that additional structural changes can be added when appropriate, and when agreed by the people through their duly-elected representatives.

• OPERATIONAL CHANGES:

1. Executive Orders:

Executive orders have been a part of Presidential privilege since the concept was first used by George Washington. The Presidential average is 55 Executive Orders per year. One president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, holds the record of 3726 Executive Orders during his time in office, but that was during World War II.

The idea behind Executive Orders is that, in certain, and unusual, circumstances, the President needs to react quicker than getting Congressional approval will allow; this normally means on national security issues. Most Presidents have used the system, and many have abused it, but there is a caveat in the system that allows an incoming President to write a single Executive Order that invalidates all Executive Orders issued by the previous President. This, also, has been used by many administrations in the past.

Unfortunately, there appears to be nothing that stops a President ruling through Executive Orders rather than using the legislative process, thus eliminating Congress from the process of an administration’s wishes or plans. This is obviously a very undemocratic process that should have been corrected long ago.

The operational change suggested here is for Congress to more tightly define the limits of Executive Orders so that the level of abuse by any president can be restricted. This would help eliminate the seesaw effect of the next administration eliminating all Executive Orders of the previous one, which only creates chaos and instability. Perhaps a timeframe on Executive orders of ninety days validity before they have to be changed into a law, passed by Congress or they expire, would be a good idea for restricting abuse. The existence of Executive Orders would be retained for emergencies, but only for emergencies.

• Flat-Rate Tax:

A flat-rate tax, which imposes a certain percentage on all income, from whatever source, with no exemptions and no deductions, would radically change the system, make it far more transparent to all, make it equitable across all income levels, allow a considerably reduced IRS army, which could then concentrate on offenders, and would significantly reduce the amount of tax litigation that overwhelms most court schedules. A minimum income level, before any tax has to be paid, would protect the most vulnerable citizens. Such a system would also allow the government to much more accurately predict income, and, therefore, perhaps, control expenditures, although that may be a forlorn hope. Ten percent across the board would be a good starting point for calculating what that flat-rate should actually be.

The current federal tax system in the United States requires three armies; one of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees to administer the program, and two other armies, one of private tax accountants and the other of private tax lawyers, to interpret the tax system for the “taxable” population. The system obviously favors the corporations and rich individuals who can afford their own “tax armies” and penalizes the vast majority of citizens who cannot afford such expenditures. The result is that the “rich” end of the scale pay very little tax, if any, and the vast majority of the population live in fear of “the tax man” because they don’t understand the system, and they pay full rates on top of that. Hardly a system for “all men are created equal” and hardly a democratic process either.

• Abolish the use of “Sunset Clauses” in all federal legislation:

Many federal laws are passed with “Sunset Clauses” as part of their stipulations. That means the law will automatically terminate on its specified “Sunset” date, thus returning the law governing that particular issue to the previous law. In many instances, this clause is used by lazy politicians to persuade legislative colleagues to support legislation that they do not actually agree with. The result is that many pieces of critical legislation disappear unless the entire process of re-authorization, or complete renewal, is carried out, and there is little personal political gain for any politician doing that. The public suffers and/or a huge amount of legislative time and money is wasted re-instating something that was already there. Legislative “Sunset” clauses should be abolished by law.

• Healthcare (Medicare) for All:

The United States has an extremely complicated and cumbersome healthcare system with multiple overlapping insurance coverages with corresponding overlapping premiums; for example, if a person gets injured, they can look to personal injury insurance, bodily harm insurance in your vehicle premiums, workman’s compensation insurance, store vendors injury-to-customers insurance, company health insurance for employees, etc. etc. All these different coverages each add to the cost of goods and services. Those costs, combined with the loss of productivity in the economy from all those who have no coverage at all, makes Medicare-for-all a cheap and simple alternative.

There are multiple examples across the world of this working well. It is only the powerful private lobby groups in the U.S., such as healthcare providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, that oppose healthcare for all.

The people of the richest country in the world deserve a government that stands up for them, and not the powerful vested interest groups. Private insurance should continue to exist alongside Medicare for those who can afford to pay more to receive quicker attention.

• Tariff-free Trade:

Almost everyone, except Donald Trump, agrees that tariffs raise prices for the consumer, no matter what form they take. They hurt the people of the country that impose them more than the country/countries subjected to them. They are a dumb idea in almost all circumstances.

Certainly, there will always be abuses of free trade agreements between countries, and actions will have to be taken by affected nations when those abuses occur, but tariffs do not deter unfair trade practices, and tend to cause massive disruptions for which the imposing country’s inhabitants pay dearly. A policy of “no tariffs” would make a significant contribution to consumers’ affordability concerns.

• “Civics” in Schools:

The United States public school system stopped teaching “Civics” in 1976. That means that any voter in the country, fifty-five (55) years old and younger, has never been taught what democracy is, how it should operate, or how the American system of government is structured and operates. Neither have they been taught the responsibilities of citizens within a democracy.

Frighteningly, that group includes the majority of members of the House of Representatives and a significant number of members of the Senate.

Simply stated, how can American democracy function successfully when a majority of its citizens, and legislators, have little idea of what democracy means and how it works. Mandatory “Civics” courses in public schools, and even colleges, should be re-introduced immediately.

• Free and required English language and civics courses for all legal immigrants:

Legal immigrants to the Unites States are generally looking for a better life for themselves and their families. However, many face a major obstacle that restricts their ability to achieve their dream, and also gives immigration opponents a reason for criticizing them as “spongeing” on American benefits; that obstacle is their language abilities in English. Lack of adequate English speaking, reading and understanding abilities automatically consigns them to “second-class” citizenship, and limits their abilities to contribute to the U.S. economy. Helping them, helping the country, and silencing the racial-based critics, has a simple solution; mandatory and free English and Civics classes.

• Age and Term Limits for the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency:

It is becoming increasingly obvious that age and term limits need to be introduced at all levels of public service. Inevitable creeping senility, and the remoteness from the everyday life of regular citizens of career, long term, politicians, are not conducive to pertinent/practical decisions that affect millions. There is definitely a place in public service for extensive experience, demonstrated wisdom, and considered decision-making, particularly in the Supreme Court and the Senate. However, there are realistic age limits to those human abilities, in most cases.

1. All of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency should have an age limit of 75 years old, with automatic retirement mandated on that birthday.
2. A minimum age of 35 years-old for the House of Representatives, 45 years-old for the Senate and the Presidency, and 55 years-old for the Supreme Court.
3. Term limits of three (3) terms of four (4) years (see above) for members of the House of Representatives, four (4) terms of the current six (6) years for the Senate, and the current two(2) terms of four (4) years for       the Presidency. The Supreme Court does not have terms, so only age limits apply.

• Mandated Voting for all Citizens:

Democracy requires the active participation of the eligible citizenry if it is to work on the basis that American democracy was founded; that is, governance of the people by the people, for the people.

It has been a debate almost since the experiment of American democracy began; should the electorate be compelled to vote, or should it be voluntary. Participant rates in the U.S. have been falling for years and, in recent elections, have often failed to reach fifty per cent (50%). The questions, therefore, has to be asked, “Can a true democracy exist when less than a certain participation rate exists, and why citizens who have the opportunity, given to few in the world, of controlling their destiny through their vote, appear to be so disinterested?” One solution to both of these questions is to make voting mandatory, with penalties for not doing so.

Certainly, a lack of understanding of democracy, which speaks to “Civics” in schools, can produce a lack of interest. Would it, therefore, be provident to ask the question of “mandated participation” to the electorate, or just impose it? A serious topic for study and discussion.

1. To be added when identified:

• POLITICAL REALITY:

The realty of a plan/prospectus/platform/promise/proposal in any political arena is that, if you don’t win, it will all have been a tremendous waste of time and resources. Therefore, whatever you call your initiative for undertaking a political campaign, it has to be presented to the electorate at large in a format that will resonate, be easily understood and, most of all, be simple, straight-forward and immediately relevant to them. This next section of the prospectus translates the structural and operational concepts presented above into the current media requirements for soundbite messaging.

• CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO WIN ELECTIONS:

It is an unfortunate truth that few of the above changes would make for successful political-campaign headlines. The current world of soundbite messaging almost precludes topics that would fundamentally redirect the path of American democracy in a way that this prospectus proposes. They, therefore, have to be molded into a campaign strategy and program, and explained in a way that makes them more directly relevant to the lives of individual voters – in other words, poignant in media language. They need to be subject to the KISS principle; keep it simple, stupid. Much like some sage commentators of the current era who have said repeatedly over the last few Presidential campaigns, “It’s the economy, stupid”.

The following are ten major campaign promises that address what “the people” want from their politicians and from their country going forward. They are presented as the basis of a future, successful, new Democratic Party campaign, with the recommendation that all future candidates choose a maximum of five (5) for their own individual campaigns. More than that will dilute the message to the point of confusion. Each of those promises start with “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people” as the main rallying point, followed by the specific initiative proposed:

1. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – the people have the right to expect Affordability in their lives”.
2. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – healthcare (Medicare) is the right of all in a civilized society”.
3. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – government should work towards abolishing all tariffs on imports”.
4. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – anything other than individual, and limited, contributions to campaign financing should be abolished by law”.
5. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – term and age limits for Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency should be made the law of the land”.
6. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – a flat-rate federal tax system should be introduced, no exemptions and no deductions”.
7. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – all Social Security payments should be tax free..
8. “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – all direct consumer pharmaceutical advertising should be abolished by law”.
9.  “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – ????”.
10.  “Governance of the people, by the people, for the people – ????”.

• SUMMARY:

The current chaos in American politics, created by President Trump’s plan to turn American Democracy into a dictatorship, the failure of his own party to stand up against his takeover bid, and the Democratic Party’s stagnation and leaderless floundering, are all a threat to the whole idea of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. However, this chaos also creates an unusual, and perhaps brief, opportunity to redirect the future of the country based on the idea of government “of the people, by the people, for the people”.

This prospectus presents a plan for how that re-direction can be achieved.