Direct Democracy Global Network: Creating Multi-Party Elections

For decades a large segment of US voters has been criticizing the US two-party system dominated and controlled by the two major parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, demanding third parties that give them more choices.

Reasons for their widespread opposition are described in a recent New York Times Opinion entitled "This Is Why So Many Voters Hate Both Parties" (Sept. 17, 2026).

But the two parties hold on to their "monopoly" of the system, pejoratively referred to as a "duopoly". They impose constraints making it difficult and often impossible for third parties to take root and compete with them in "free and fair elections".

One of the results is that the two major parties also monopolize campaign contributions, which they exploit to outmaneuver opposing candidates and parties. This leads to undemocratic party management and control that European sociologist Robert Michels describes as oligarchic, in his classic treatise entitled Iron Law of Oligarchy.

In the US and UK, this impediment weakening authentic democracy is aided and abetted by election laws, regulations, and rules referred to as "winner-take-all" elections, and "first past the post" methods, which enable candidates to be elected even if they did not win a majority of votes cast. Candidates can be declared the "winner" even if party candidates competing with them actually received more total votes than they did.

These patterns have long been criticized by numerous "good government" groups, but to no avail. They include:

• FairVote: A leading electoral reform non-profit that argues winner-take-all single-member districts create non-competitive "safe" seats, leave millions of partisan minorities unrepresented, and incentivize malicious vote-splitting. FairVote champions proportional ranked-choice voting for Congress under the proposed Fair Representation Act. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• Protect Democracy and Fix Our House: These non-partisan research and advocacy groups criticize single-member winner-take-all congressional districts as a root cause of partisan toxicity, legislative gridlock, and democratic backsliding. [1]

• National Popular Vote: A non-profit initiative advocating for states to join an interstate compact guaranteeing the presidency to the national popular vote winner, circumventing state-level "general ticket" winner-take-all statutes that disenfranchise non-battleground state voters. [1, 2]

• Equal Citizens and Boies Schiller Flexner: Founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, Equal Citizens coordinated legal challenges alongside attorney David Boies arguing that state winner-take-all rules for presidential electors violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "one person, one vote" principle and the First Amendment. [1, 2, 3]

• League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and Brennan Center for Justice: Civil rights advocates that have contested winner-take-all and at-large voting schemes, noting that winner-take-all mechanics frequently dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act. [1, 2]

• New America: A public policy think tank whose political reform program, led by senior fellows like Lee Drutman, actively critiques winner-take-all House elections and calls for proportional representation to resolve two-party doom loops. [1]

What I view as equally undemocratic is the practice of US parties and their candidates to unilaterally determine their legislative priorities and agendas, with scant participation by supporters and voters. The result is that voters have to choose between the two major parties and their candidates in what critics have labeled "no choice elections". Or not vote at all and exert virtually no influence over outcomes.

This party-imposed electoral "bind" is what has led half of all registered voters to decline to register in either of the two major parties, and to register instead as "independents". The resulting dilemma is they are unable to vote in party primaries and influence who runs on the parties' general election ballots.

To circumvent these practices, voters who are members of the Direct Democracy Global Network (DDGN) can use its tools and services to create and participate in multi-party elections. The DDGN VoterGuide Q&A describes this possibility.

Women on the Rise -- Again!

Guardian International reports:

"‘Don’t worry about the leopard. It’s a man you don’t want to run into’: Delhi women reclaim the outdoors"

"‘You need the power of all your votes’: Bedouin women secure success for Arab parties in Israeli election"

APNews reports:

"A knife and a pledge: Brazil’s candidates court women with promises to combat violence"

New York Times reports:

"Democrats Project a Party Milestone in Congress: 100 Women in the House"

"Democrats are increasingly confident they will have a record number of women serving in the House next year, after backing women in competitive districts they are now positioned to win."

"Will Democracy Be Re-Invented by New Generations of Anti-Establishment Voters?"

The UK-based e-newspaper, The Guardian International, describes an unusual student-led election in Europe.

"Serbia’s Student List preparing for talks on forming government despite no clear leader.
Non-hierarchical movement is seeking to ‘rebuild society’ in Balkan country after years of authoritarian rule".

Similarly, recent widespread protests throughout France are also reported to have been sparked by students without recognized leaders. What I find especially striking is the decentralization of both movements. Serbian and French students were led not by political parties or politicians, but by individuals and groups in generations born after the late 1990s, referred to as "Gen Z".

Their birthdates -- of all things -- are tending to place them in the "anti-establishment" category, which cross-national research indicates is becoming a global phenomenon not restricted to the United States. This category comprises young adults with low trust in elected officials, governmental decision-makers, traditional political parties, or elections and legislative processes and institutions.

Or at least this appears to be the case. Instead of working through traditional political channels, they are taking to the streets. Needless to say, we've seen such phenomena in the past, if we think back to what was called the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East and "Occupy Wall Street" in the US. They do not appear to have led to systemic changes in the nations affected.

Nonetheless, the current global reach of student protests is worth considering. I have read the subcontinent of India is also experiencing a surge of youth-led, anti-establishment political opposition. For example, one reflected is the protests led by what has become known as the "Cockroach Janta Party" after protesting youth were referred to as cockroaches.

Reports indicate these protests in India are led by "Gen Z" students focusing on material demands rather than ideologies and traditional political doctrines. Of possible future significance, these protests appear to be attracting support from recognized political figures, such as Rahul Gandhi.

Time will tell if these global political movements are harbingers of student-led re-inventions of democracy, as conflict-plagued 2026 draws to a close.

"Instead of 70,000 Riot Police, What About Public Debates and Plebiscites?"

I am reading in today's edition of the UK-based newspaper, The Guardian International, that the French government is sending 70,000 police throughout the country to "prevent civil unrest". They include elite "counter-terrorism" units!

France is not alone, however, as similar protests are expected in Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Albania.

Common causes are reported to be "declining public services, housing affordability, public sector budget cuts and the spiralling cost of living". There are also unproved allegations that protests launched by millions of people are caused by "agitators" and "terrorists".

Here's my initial reaction. When so many governments are opposed by so many people, it is preferable to hold public debates and plebiscites (online and offline) where divergent views can be expressed, discussed, and confronted. Proposals can be expressed, debated, and used to build consensus. They can be voted upon, to craft and adopt policies, and enact laws that reconcile divergent views -- and make riots unnecessary!

Fortunately, it is now possible for whole populations and electorates to use modern communications to express their needs, demands, and preferences just about any time. The old-fashioned practice of holding periodic elections is simply obsolete. So is the practice of different branches of government enacting contradictory laws and regulations, with no workable mechanisms for reconciling them.

And of course the practices of many political parties espouse ideologies and adopt platforms that are behind the times, in terms of what populations and voters need, want, and demand. Curiously, I have been intrigued by recent reports and research describing, and explaining, why people tend to dislike -- and even hate! -- political parties.

In my view, elected government leaders, starting at the top of the legislative, executive, and judicial power pyramids, should be on the lookout 24/7/365 to find out exactly what their constituents' needs are. They should ask them directly, and give them the chance to articulate and promote the policies and laws they need to live the lives they want to live.

In addition, government leaders can and should hold public debates and plebiscites, constantly. Divergent views can be surmounted by the results of the votes, which make it clear to them -- continuously in real time -- what they must do to serve the public interest. No more riots!

"Conservative Commentators Exclaim: The World is on Fire!"

Today's New York Times published a conservative opinion referring to protests occurring throughout Europe. The authors fear the upheavals and resurgence of extremist parties may be an omen of a "continent coming apart at the seams". Without mincing words, and with a worldwide magnifying glass, they claim we can all now agree the world is on fire.

The question I'm pondering is whether there may be encouraging signs lurking beneath these firestorms. For most protesters appear to be driven less by ideologies than by practical difficulties they face in paying for basic necessities, and, now in France, learning in modern educational facilities.

By taking to the streets, within and across nation-state boundaries, these young protestors may be exploiting the closest and most immediate channels for expressing their frustrations, anger, and even rage about problematic futures. They are lighting firestorms to demand actions by decision-makers who have the power to make systemic change. Time will tell.