Dear Elon: Approval Voting Is the America Party's Only Path Out of Two-Party Duopoly

The simplest solution is to let them vote for as many candidates as they want. This is known as approval voting.

While this may seem radical, it was adopted by a 64% supermajority in Fargo, North Dakota in 2018, and then by a 68% majority in St. Louis in 2020 for use in their open primaries. The only reason it hasn't continued to spread is funding, plus Republicans banned it statewide in each state—though it was grandfathered in St. Louis but eliminated in Fargo.

For the America Party, approval voting isn't just a reform—it's the only viable path out of two-party duopoly.

The Data Is Overwhelming

When voters escape choose-one constraints, third-party support explodes. The 2012 Manhattan Exit Poll of 507 voters shows stunning results:

Maine 2014: Independent Eliot Cutler got 8.4% under normal voting but would have won with 54.95% under approval voting—beating both major party candidates decisively. What actually happened? Cutler (who leaned closer to Democratic positions) split the vote with the Democrat, allowing an extremely unpopular Republican governor Paul LePage to win reelection with just 48.2%. This was the second election in a row where vote-splitting handed victory to LePage despite most voters preferring someone else.

2004 Presidential Study: Under approval voting, third parties would have received more total votes than Bush. Ross Perot would have gotten 42% in 1992 instead of his actual 18.9%.

2012 Manhattan Study: When 507 voters used multiple systems on Election Day, approval voting revealed "much higher support for third parties than traditional plurality elections would imply." Romney dropped from second place to last place.

Why RCV Fails Where Approval Succeeds

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has been adopted in over 50 US cities and two states, yet still hasn't broken the two-party stranglehold. The Manhattan data proves why:

RCV barely moves the needle: Under RCV, third-party candidates saw minimal gains - Johnson actually dropped from 1.8% to 1.4%, Lindsay from 0.99% to 0.90%. Meanwhile, approval voting revealed massive hidden support: Johnson 26.8%, Lindsay 31.2%.

1. Hidden Support: RCV has the "later-no-harm" flaw, meaning eliminated candidates' second choices are never counted or revealed. A Green candidate's elimination hides that they were the second choice of 40% of voters, making third parties look weaker than they are.

2. Center Squeeze: Broadly appealing candidates get eliminated unfairly. A centrist who could beat anyone head-to-head gets squeezed out by more polarized candidates with stronger bases.

3. Strategic Voting Returns: Voters start gaming the system again, voting for "safer" candidates instead of their true preferences.

Australia's House of Representatives proves this pattern: 150+ years of single-winner RCV, still essentially two-party dominated. Only their Senate uses proportional representation (which produces multi-party democracy), but proportional representation is federally banned for US House elections.

The Political Consultant War Against Democracy

As William Poundstone documents in "Gaming the Vote," political consultants have weaponized these mathematical vulnerabilities. Armed with polls, focus groups, and smear campaigns, they deliberately exploit the structural flaws of plurality voting—funding Green spoilers to hurt Democrats, paying for right-wing candidates' radio ads to split Republican votes.

They function like terrorists, attacking the mathematical foundations of democracy itself. At least five U.S. presidential elections have been won by the second most popular candidate due to these exploited spoiler effects.

Without approval voting, the America Party faces the same mathematical doom.

Why Proportional Representation Isn't The Answer

Proportional Representation requires changing federal laws and faces massive political obstacles:

- Currently forbidden for US Congress elections by federal law (since 1967)

- Was adopted in about two dozen US cities in the early-to-mid 1900s and repealed in all of them except Cambridge, Massachusetts

- Recently adopted in ultra-progressive Portland, but scaling nationally faces enormous resistance

- Even if implemented, cannot be used for senators, the president, governors, or congressmen from single-rep states, limiting its anti-duopoly impact

The Bottom Line

Launch the America Party with approval voting as your signature issue. This isn't just about winning elections—it's about changing the rules that make genuine political competition possible.

Without approval voting, you face the same mathematical constraints that destroyed the Progressive Party, the American Independent Party, and every other serious alternative since the 1850s.

With it, you have a genuine path to disrupting the most entrenched duopoly in American life.

The establishment knows this. That's why they're banning it state by state. They're scared because it works.

The data is clear. The solution is simple. The timing is perfect.

Approval voting works, and that's exactly why Republicans banned it statewide after its victories in Fargo and St. Louis. But these bans can be overturned through statewide ballot initiatives—and the funding required is remarkably small. City campaigns cost tens of thousands of dollars, statewide campaigns just a few million. For a successful entrepreneur, this represents pennies on the dollar to fundamentally reshape American democracy.

The infrastructure and expertise already exist. Groups like the Center for Election Science and Show Me Integrity have proven they can win at the ballot box—they just need the resources to scale from individual cities to entire states.

Sincerely,
The Approval Voting Community