Frequently Asked Questions

This site presents three proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution aimed at strengthening representation, accountability, and election integrity. They address structural problems—gerrymandering, oversized districts, and winner-take-all voting—that many Americans, across parties, believe undermine trust in government. The proposals are drafted as constitutional text with version history so people can read, discuss, and advocate for them.

Congress and state legislatures can change ordinary laws at any time. Constitutional amendments are harder to pass and harder to undo, which is intentional. These reforms target rules that currently benefit incumbents and partisan majorities—the same people who would have to vote for reform. Embedding principles like “no gerrymandering,” “smaller districts,” and “ranked-choice federal elections” in the Constitution protects them from being weakened or repealed when the political winds shift.

Under Article V of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is then ratified by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states (Congress chooses the method). So ratification requires broad, sustained support across the country—no single party or region can do it alone. That’s why building a cross-partisan conversation is essential.

No. The proposals are written to be neutral with respect to party or ideology. Geometric districting prevents either party from drawing districts for partisan gain. Smaller House districts and equal voting power for every member benefit all voters. Ranked-choice voting lets voters express preferences without “wasting” a vote and can produce winners with broader support. The goal is a more accountable, representative system—not advantage for one side.

It requires congressional districts to be compact, contiguous, and follow clear geometric rules—for example, a limit on the number of sides, no “holes” where one district completely surrounds another, and a limit on how much longer one side can be than another. It explicitly forbids using political affiliation, incumbency, or partisan advantage as a reason to bend those rules. The aim is to end gerrymandering by making district shapes objective and transparent.

It does three things: (1) Caps district size at 100,000 people (using the decennial census), so each House member represents a smaller, more manageable number of constituents; (2) Allows Congress to designate additional lawful places of assembly, so the House could meet in more than one location if needed; and (3) Ensures that every member’s vote counts equally regardless of where they are physically present, so no one gains or loses power based on location.

It requires federal elections (President, Vice President, House, and Senate) to use a ranked-choice method where voters can rank candidates in order of preference. The counting method must respect those preferences and produce winners with majority or broad support; systems that misrepresent preferences or manipulate rankings are invalid. It also requires Congress to provide for secure tabulation, protection of voter intent, chain of custody, audits, and legal consequences for manipulation. States may optionally use the same method for their own elections.

Share the proposals with family, friends, and community groups. Contact your members of Congress and state legislators and ask where they stand; you can find your representative by zip code. Support organizations that work on fair representation, voting reform, and anti-gerrymandering. Stay informed as the language and version history evolve. Lasting change depends on sustained citizen engagement.

These are living drafts. As people raise legal, practical, or drafting concerns, the proposals may be revised and new versions posted. This site is intended to provide version history so you can see how the text has evolved. If you cite or advocate for an amendment, refer to a specific version (e.g., “Version 1”) so others know exactly which text you support.

This effort is presented as a set of public proposals for anyone who cares about structural reform. Opposition is likely from those who benefit from the status quo: incumbents in safe gerrymandered districts, party leaders who control large caucuses, and anyone who prefers winner-take-all outcomes to broader consensus. The amendments are written so that enforcement does not depend on the goodwill of those in power—they include self-executing and judicial relief provisions. Expect resistance; the goal is to build a broad coalition that can sustain the effort anyway.