Skip to the content.
Last Updated: July 28, 2026

The Freedom to Vote and Fair Elections Act

Public Financing of Federal Elections

Replace the private money arms race with a system that lets candidates run on ideas rather than donor lists.

Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal Elections

End the “spoiler” dynamic that forces voters to choose between their preferred candidate and a strategic vote.

Independent Redistricting Commissions

End partisan gerrymandering by removing district line-drawing from legislatures.

Expand the House of Representatives

Address the most under-discussed structural problem in American democracy — that the House has not grown since 1929 despite the population tripling.

Lobbying and Revolving Door Reform

Break the institutionalized corruption pipeline between Congress and K Street.

Restore and Strengthen the Voting Rights Act

Reverse the damage from Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and modernize protections for the next generation.

Federal Deliberative Council (Citizens’ Assemblies)

Rebuild the deliberative substrate by giving citizens a structured way to study complex policy questions away from the noise of social media.

Constitutional Authority

Article I, Section 4 (Elections Clause — Congress may make or alter regulations regarding the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections, settled since Smiley v. Holm (1932)); Article I, Section 2 (House apportionment within Congressional authority); Article II, Section 1 (Congressional authority over Presidential election timing); 14th Amendment Section 5 (Congressional enforcement of equal protection); 15th Amendment Section 2 (Congressional enforcement of voting rights); 24th Amendment (poll tax prohibition extended to functional barriers); 26th Amendment. Public financing constitutional under Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and its progeny — government may offer public funds in exchange for spending limits, just not impose mandatory limits.

Rationale

American democracy works only when citizens believe the rules are fair. When wealthy donors shape policy, when district lines are drawn to predetermine outcomes, when third-party candidates “spoil” elections instead of competing meaningfully, when the House represents 760,000 people per member instead of the Founders’ 30,000, the structural promise breaks down — and people stop trying to participate constructively. They withdraw, or they grow extreme. This Act rebuilds the conditions for legitimate democratic participation. It is not a partisan reform: ranked-choice voting helps third parties of every ideological stripe; public financing breaks the donor capture of both parties; independent redistricting prevents safe-seat extremism regardless of party. Healing through fair play.

Implementation Timeline

Fiscal Impact

Total federal cost: $3.5-5B annually steady-state. Breakdown:

Funded by: (a) corporate tax surcharge dedicated to election fund (~$2B); (b) 0.1% surcharge on wealth above $50M (~$2B); (c) general appropriation balance. Net cost trivially small relative to federal budget (~0.07%). Indirect economic benefit: more competitive markets, less rent-seeking legislation, lower deadweight loss from regulatory capture.

Political Considerations

This Act threatens the institutionalized advantages of incumbents in both parties — expect bipartisan elite resistance even as rank-and-file voters in both parties support most provisions individually. Frame as: anti-corruption, pro-voter, pro-competition. Polling shows strong support for individual provisions: 80%+ for redistricting reform (Pew, Brennan Center); 65-75% for public financing; 60-70% for ranked-choice voting where voters have had exposure; 75-85% for making Election Day a holiday. The strongest political vulnerabilities are (a) RCV unfamiliarity in states that have not used it — invest heavily in voter education; (b) House expansion seen as “big government” — counter with framing as restoring representation closer to what the Founders designed; (c) public financing characterized as “taxpayer money for politicians” — counter with the empirical record that small-donor matching dramatically broadens the donor base and reduces big-money capture.

Have Suggestions or Feedback?

We welcome your input on this policy framework. Your insights help make Project 2029 stronger.

Send Feedback
This page is part of Project 2029: A Mandate for Economic and Political Justice