If you’re reading this, you probably live in a locality dominated by one party—a city, town, county, or suburb where one political party controls nearly everything.
Maybe it’s deep blue. Nine Democrats on a nine-member city council, or five Democrats on a five-member board of selectmen, or seven Democrats on a county commission. Safe seats that haven’t flipped in decades. Primary elections determining outcomes because the general election is a formality. Or maybe it’s deep red—Republican supermajority on your town council or county board, token opposition if any, real decisions made before November even arrives.
Either way, you know what it feels like when your vote doesn’t matter. When the outcome is predetermined before you cast a ballot. When minority viewpoints—sometimes representing 40% of your community—get structurally shut out regardless of how many people hold them.
Here’s what you need to understand: Your locality doesn’t have to work this way.
Local governments control their own electoral systems. Cities operate under charters. Towns under bylaws or charters. Counties under county constitutions or ordinances. Most can amend these governing documents through ballot initiatives, council votes, or town meetings. These documents determine whether winner-take-all rules produce one-party dominance, or whether proportional representation creates space for multi-party democracy.
This is the entry point. This is where we break Duverger’s Law.
What One-Party Dominance Looks Like
Most American cities, towns, and counties elect representatives from single-member districts or wards. One representative per district. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Second place gets nothing.
This seems normal because it’s what we’ve always known. But watch what it produces.
Picture a city with a nine-seat city council elected from nine districts. Or a town with a seven-member board of selectmen from seven wards. Or a county with five commissioners from five districts. The locality as a whole leans 60% Party A, 40% Party B. You’d expect something close to a 5-4 or 6-3 split. That would be fair. That would match the community’s actual politics.
What actually happens: Party A wins all nine seats. Or eight seats if one district happens to lean heavily toward Party B.
Why? Because winner-take-all elections in single-member districts amplify slight advantages into supermajorities. If Party A wins 60% in every district (or even just 51%), they win 100% of seats. Party B’s 40% gets zero representation. A voter who supports Party C—maybe 20% of the locality agrees with them on local issues—has literally zero chance. Can’t win 20% of a seat. Either you win or you don’t.
This isn’t because Party B voters don’t exist. It’s because the structure makes anything other than first place worthless.
And here’s what makes it worse: in safe districts (which most become under winner-take-all), the real election is the primary. Whoever wins Party A’s primary becomes the councilor, the selectman, the commissioner. The general election is theater. Everyone knows who’ll win before November.
But primary turnout? 15-25% if you’re lucky. And those voters skew toward party activists—people who care intensely about party ideology and internal party politics. Not the general population. Not even the general Party A population.
Result: A small fraction of voters, often representing the party’s most ideological wing, selects the officials who then govern everyone. The 60% who vote for Party A in the general election don’t choose their representative. The 15% who vote in the primary do. And the 40% who support Party B? They get no voice at all.
This is Duverger’s Law playing out at city scale.
When Local Issues Get Forced Into Binary Thinking
Housing policy. Zoning rules. Public transit. Parks. Budget priorities. Street maintenance. Development projects.
These don’t naturally map to national red-versus-blue politics. Housing involves trade-offs between affordability and development. Zoning involves balancing neighborhood character with growth. Transit involves practical questions about routes, funding, reliability.
But when only two parties can win seats—and really only one party dominates—every issue gets forced into that binary frame. Housing becomes “free market versus government control.” Transit becomes “car culture versus socialist buses.” Zoning becomes “property rights versus progressive planning.”
Nuance dies. The possibility of saying “I agree with Party A on housing but Party B on transit” disappears. Coalition-building across issues becomes structurally impossible. Binary thinking dominates not because voters think in binaries, but because the electoral system only allows two positions to win.
And millions of people feel politically homeless. In deep blue cities and towns, moderate Democrats, independents, Republicans—all structurally shut out. In deep red suburbs and counties, progressives, independents, moderate Republicans who care about parks more than tax cuts—all structurally shut out.
Not because they’re tiny minorities. In many localities, the minority position represents 35-40% of voters. That’s not fringe. That’s a huge chunk of the population that gets zero representation because the system makes anything other than first place worthless.
This is optional. Local governments don’t have to work this way.
The Core Reform: Multi-Member Districts
Here’s the engineering fix: instead of nine seats in nine single-member districts, create three “super-districts” electing three representatives each. (Scale this to your locality—if you have a five-member board, maybe two multi-member districts electing 2-3 each, or elect all five at-large proportionally.)
Take your locality’s current map. Find three neighboring districts or wards—maybe a downtown core and two adjacent neighborhoods, or a cluster of suburbs with shared economic ties, or rural townships with similar concerns. Combine them into one multi-member district.
Do this three times across your locality. Now you have three districts, each electing three representatives. Still nine seats total. But the math transforms completely.
Here’s how it works in practice:
Voters in each multi-member district cast ranked-choice ballots. You rank the candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. Candidates can come from multiple parties—Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, neighborhood parties organized around local issues.
Count the votes. Calculate each party’s share of votes in that district. Allocate the three seats proportionally.
If votes in that district break down like this:
45% Party A
35% Party B
20% Party C
Then seats get allocated roughly:
Party A: 2 seats (45% ≈ 2 of 3)
Party B: 1 seat (35% ≈ 1 of 3)
Party C: 0 seats (20% falls short, or might get 1 depending on allocation formula and whether threshold is met)
Or with a different allocation method and lower threshold:
Party A: 1 seat
Party B: 1 seat
Party C: 1 seat
Three parties represented, matching voter preferences. No party has a majority. Coalition required to pass anything.
Compare this to the current system in those same three neighborhoods or wards. Under single-member districts, Party A would probably win all three (or two of three if they have strong concentrated support). Party B might win one seat if they dominate a particular area. Party C wins nothing—too dispersed to carry any single district.
Current system: 55% of votes go unrepresented or underrepresented. Party with slight advantage wins everything.
Proportional system: Every vote counts toward something. Representation matches voters. Third parties become viable not hypothetically, but mathematically.
This is how you break Duverger’s Law at local level—whether you’re a city, town, county, or suburb.
Why Multi-Member Districts Work
The math is straightforward. In a single-member district, if you have 35% support, you get 0% representation. In a three-member district, 35% support gets you roughly one of three seats—33% representation. Still not perfectly proportional, but light-years better than zero.
That difference—between zero and proportional—transforms politics. If you’re a voter who leans Green or Libertarian or toward some neighborhood party organized around local quality-of-life issues, your vote isn’t wasted in a multi-member district. You’re not forced to choose between “vote for someone who can’t win” and “vote for lesser evil.” You rank your actual preferences, knowing that if 20-25% of your district agrees with you, that’s enough to win a seat.
This eliminates the spoiler effect that keeps third parties suppressed. Under ranked-choice voting, you can rank your first choice first—even if they’re from a small party—because if they don’t win, your vote transfers to your second choice. No penalty for voting your conscience. No strategic voting calculations. Just: rank who you actually want.
Third parties become mathematically viable. When they’re viable, people vote for them. When people vote for them, they win seats.
This pattern holds across every democracy that uses proportional representation. It’s an empirical regularity strong enough to plan around.
And gerrymandering? Multi-member districts make it much harder. You’d have to manipulate three districts at once to get the same partisan advantage. The math gets complex fast. And because districts are bigger (combining three old districts), there’s more diversity within each district. Harder to pack opposition voters into “waste” districts or crack communities across multiple boundaries.
You’re also still electing local representatives. Not citywide or countywide party lists where you vote for a party and they decide who represents you. You vote for actual people who will represent your multi-member district. They’re accountable to your neighborhoods or townships. Local connection preserved, proportionality gained.
How Ranked-Choice Voting Changes Everything
The other critical piece: voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing just one.
Without ranked-choice, voters face the classic “spoiler effect.” You prefer the Party C candidate, but you think they can’t win. So you vote for the Party B candidate—lesser of evils—to block Party A. Your true preference never registers in the vote count. Party C looks less viable than they actually are because supporters strategically vote for someone else.
With ranked-choice, this whole calculation disappears. You rank: first choice = Party C, second choice = Party B, third choice = Party A. If Party C doesn’t get eliminated, great—your first choice counts. If Party C does get eliminated, your vote automatically transfers to Party B. You voted your conscience and still had a say in the final outcome.
This eliminates the “wasted vote” psychology that keeps third parties locked out.
In localities that have implemented ranked-choice voting—Minneapolis since 2009, San Francisco, New York City for some races, Maine and Alaska statewide, and various towns across New England—candidates from outside the two major parties suddenly become competitive in ways they never were before. More candidates run because it’s no longer suicidal to run as a third-party candidate. Voters rank them highly enough that they’re viable.
And even if third parties don’t win immediately, they pull the conversation in new directions. Major party candidates have to address issues that third-party candidates raise, because those third-party voters’ second-choice rankings matter. Coalition dynamics start forming even before multi-party governance becomes the norm.
Additional Reforms That Reinforce the Core
Once you’ve established multi-member districts with proportional representation for your local council or commission, other reforms become easier and more powerful.
Ranked-choice voting for mayor, county executive, or board chair breaks two-party control of executive power the same way proportional representation breaks it for legislative power. If your locality has a single executive wielding authority, apply the same principle: candidates from multiple parties run, voters rank preferences, and if no one gets 50%+ on first count, the bottom candidate gets eliminated and votes transfer until someone reaches majority.
Suddenly third-party mayoral or executive candidates aren’t spoilers. They’re viable options. Voters can rank them first without feeling like they’re throwing their vote away. Even if the third-party candidate doesn’t win, they pull the conversation in new directions and force major party candidates to address issues they’d otherwise ignore.
New York City, San Francisco, Maine, Alaska—they all use this successfully for various offices. It works.
Participatory budgeting gives residents direct control over a portion of the local budget. Your locality allocates, say, 10% of its budget to a participatory process. Residents propose projects—park improvements, street repairs, bike lanes, community programs, whatever matters to neighborhoods or townships. Community votes on priorities. The government implements the winning projects.
This breaks party control over spending in a direct, tangible way. It proves democratic participation works at scale. And it creates a constituency that demands deeper reforms. Once people experience having actual say over budget priorities, they start asking: “Why can’t we have more of this? Why do parties control everything else?”
Hundreds of localities globally use participatory budgeting. Porto Alegre, Brazil pioneered it. Paris uses it. New York City boroughs, Phoenix Arizona, and many smaller towns allocate millions this way. It works, it builds civic engagement, and it creates momentum for broader democratic reforms.
Lowered ballot access makes multi-party competition feasible by making it easier for candidates to actually get on the ballot. If you need 5,000 signatures to run for city council or county commission, lower it to 500. If you need expensive filing fees, replace them with public financing for candidates who meet a minimum threshold. Streamline paperwork. Offer same-day registration for voters.
Multi-party democracy only works if multiple parties can field candidates. High barriers to ballot access entrench the parties already in power. Lower barriers let new voices emerge.
Nonpartisan elections (where localities ban party labels from ballots) can help or hurt depending on context. They’re helpful when they break two-party branding and allow issue-based coalitions to form around local concerns rather than national partisan alignment. They’re harmful when they make it harder for voters to identify candidates’ actual perspectives and values, obscuring real ideological differences.
The key: combine nonpartisan elections with proportional representation so that diversity of viewpoint still gets represented structurally. Don’t just remove labels—change the underlying math so that multiple perspectives can win.
What Happens When the Math Changes
Here’s the crucial insight: when winning 30% of seats becomes possible, third parties become viable. When they’re viable, people vote for them. When people vote for them, they win seats. And when they hold seats, politics transforms.
Under winner-take-all, the calculation is: “Get 51%, win 100% of seats.” Every party tries to build a 51% coalition that excludes everyone else. Binary opposition. Zero-sum competition. Obstruction as strategy.
Under proportional representation, the calculation is: “Get 30%, win 30% of seats.” Suddenly it’s not about building a bare majority and shutting everyone else out. It’s about coalition-building across the diverse perspectives that actually win representation.
Party A gets 40%. Party B gets 35%. Party C gets 25%. No single party controls the council or commission. To pass anything—budget, zoning changes, major projects, anything—you need coalition support. Compromise stops being a moral aspiration and becomes a structural necessity.
Multiple paths to majority exist. Sometimes A and B align on an issue. Sometimes A and C. Sometimes B and C. Different coalitions for different issues. This is how adults govern when they can’t simply impose their will through majority control.
And the incentives change completely. Under current system, Party A differentiates maximally from Party B to win majority. Compromise looks like betrayal to the base. Gridlock or rubber-stamp governance depending on which party controls. Under proportional system, parties differentiate enough to have clear identities, but must maintain coalition-building relationships. Compromise looks like competent governance. Cooperation becomes the path to accomplishment.
The culture changes too. Once voters experience multi-party democracy:
Binary thinking fades. Complex local issues don’t fit into two boxes. Housing policy involves trade-offs that cut across party lines. Transit planning involves practical considerations that major parties often ignore. Having three, four, five parties means more positions can exist simultaneously.
Political homelessness ends. Parties form around actual viewpoints and constituencies, not around which pre-existing national party brand you’re forced to align with. Neighborhood parties. Environmental parties. Business-oriented parties. Regional parties focused on specific local concerns. Parties that represent real coalitions of interest.
Participation increases. People vote when it matters. When your vote can elect someone even if you’re in the minority, you show up. Turnout in proportional representation localities tends to be higher than winner-take-all ones.
Demand builds for deeper reforms. Once voters see this work locally, they start asking: “Why can’t our state government work this way? Why can’t Congress?”
Localities become proof of concept. Evidence accumulates. Pressure for broader reform grows—not guaranteed, but increasingly difficult to ignore.
Localities That Have Already Done This
Cambridge, Massachusetts has used proportional representation for city council since 1941. That’s 80+ years. Nine seats elected at-large with ranked-choice voting. Seats allocated proportionally.
Results: Consistent multi-party representation (not always three parties, but often diverse perspectives including candidates who wouldn’t win under winner-take-all). Higher voter turnout than similar cities. More diverse council—gender, race, ideology. Stable governance despite proportional system. Multiple attempts to repeal it have failed. Voters prefer it.
This isn’t theory. This is a real American city, operating under proportional representation for eight decades, proving it works.
Minneapolis has used ranked-choice voting for municipal elections since 2009. Mayor, city council, park board—all elected with ranked-choice ballots.
Results: More candidates run (average 4-5 per race versus 2-3 before). More diverse candidate pool. Voters report higher satisfaction with the process. Third-party candidates competitive in ways they weren’t before ranked-choice. No spoiler effect—people vote their actual preferences.
Minneapolis hasn’t implemented full proportional representation (still single-member districts), but ranked-choice voting alone transformed local politics. Proof that voters can handle this and prefer it.
New York City has allocated millions of dollars through participatory budgeting since 2011. Borough councils let residents propose and vote on projects using a portion of discretionary budget.
Results: Over 300,000 residents participated. More than $240 million allocated by communities directly rather than by party-controlled council members. Projects reflect neighborhood priorities, not party platforms or political favors. Higher civic engagement in participating districts. Creates constituency demanding more democratic participation.
European cities use proportional representation almost universally. Multi-member districts. Party-list systems. Coalition city councils. This isn’t exotic experimentation—it’s how local government works in dozens of developed democracies.
Results: Typically 4-8 parties represented in city councils. Coalition governance normal, not exceptional. Higher voter satisfaction. More responsive to diverse constituencies. Local issues addressed on their merits rather than through national partisan lenses.
This is proven practice globally, not theoretical speculation about what might work.
The Path From Here to There
So you live in a locality dominated by one party—whether it’s a city, town, county, or suburb. You’re tired of your vote not mattering. You want multi-party democracy at local level. How do you actually make this happen?
Start by building a coalition. Not a partisan coalition—a cross-partisan coalition of frustrated voters from across the spectrum.
Find the progressives in red areas who never get representation. Find the conservatives in blue areas shut out by supermajorities. Find the libertarians everywhere—two-party system marginalizes them by design. Find the independents who feel politically homeless. Find good-government advocates. Find academics who study electoral systems. Find business leaders frustrated with one-party capture of local government.
The pitch is simple and universal: “Your vote should matter. Let’s build a system where it does.”
This only works if it’s genuinely cross-partisan. If progressives try to implement proportional representation alone, conservatives assume it’s a power grab and oppose. If conservatives try alone, progressives oppose. But when voters from all perspectives see they’d benefit from fair representation, it becomes politically viable.
Form a local chapter of national reform organizations—FairVote, RepresentUs, Common Cause. They have resources, templates, legal expertise. Don’t start from scratch. Partner with organizations that have done this before in other localities.
Research what’s possible in your locality. Pull up your charter, bylaws, or county ordinances. Can they be amended? By what process? Ballot initiative that goes directly to voters? Council vote followed by referendum? Town meeting? What signature requirements exist? What’s the timeline?
Then model what proportional representation would produce. Use the last five local elections. Run the numbers. Show what the council or commission would have looked like under proportional representation versus actual results. Make it concrete. Not “this might help someday,” but “here’s exactly how your vote would have counted in the last election.”
Next: public education. Explain the problem first. Show voters how the current system disenfranchises them. Use local data, not abstract principles.
“In the last election, 40% of voters supported Party B, but they got 11% of seats.” “Third parties received 18% of votes combined, but 0% of representation.” “Your district went 65-35 for Party A. That 35% gets nothing. Under multi-member districts, 35% would win roughly one of three seats.”
Make it personal. Find voters in safe districts who feel politically homeless. Interview them. “My vote hasn’t mattered in a local election in 20 years. The outcome is decided before I cast a ballot.” Put faces and stories to the problem.
Show the solution next. Explain multi-member districts simply. Use visuals—charts, maps, simulations showing how different election results would have played out. Walk through ranked-choice voting with actual ballots people can fill out. Use examples from other localities. “Cambridge has done this since 1941. Minneapolis uses ranked-choice and voters love it. This works.”
Address concerns before opponents raise them. “Too complicated”—voters in Cambridge, Minneapolis, Maine handle this fine. “Chaos”—Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland have stable coalition governments. “Radical”—this is how most democracies work; we’re the outliers insisting on winner-take-all.
Media strategy: Write op-eds for local newspapers. Start social media campaigns. Organize town halls across your community. Testify at council or commission meetings. Partner with community organizations, neighborhood associations, civic groups. Get the conversation started and sustained.
Then: the campaign itself. Draft amendment language for your governing document. Something like:
“The [Council/Commission/Board] shall consist of 9 members elected from 3 multi-member districts, with 3 representatives per district. Seats shall be allocated proportionally to candidates receiving at least 10% of votes cast within each district. Voters shall rank candidates in order of preference using ranked-choice voting. Districts shall be drawn to ensure equal population and preserve community integrity.”
Adapt this to your locality’s structure—whether it’s a city charter, town bylaws, county ordinances, or other governing document. Get lawyers involved—good government groups, ACLU chapters, law schools often have pro bono resources for electoral reform. Make sure it’s legally sound.
If your locality requires signatures to get an amendment on the ballot, gather them. Typically 5-15% of registered voters. Build a volunteer network. Target high-traffic locations—farmer’s markets, college campuses, transit hubs, community events, town common areas. Use digital signature tools where permitted. Make it a campaign event—not just collecting signatures, but having conversations about why this matters.
Run the referendum campaign like any major ballot initiative. Fundraising—printing materials, some paid advertising, organizing infrastructure. Volunteer recruitment. Door knocking. Phone banking. Social media advertising targeted at likely supporters.
Get endorsements from across the political spectrum. Local politicians willing to buck party establishments. Civic organizations. Newspapers (editorial boards often support good-government reforms). Faith communities. Student groups. Show the diversity of support.
Message discipline matters: “Make your vote count.” “End one-party dominance.” “Let every voice be heard.” “Other localities do this—it works, and it’s our turn.”
Target specific constituencies with tailored messages. Minority party voters: “You’ll finally have representation.” Independents: “More choices, not just lesser of two evils.” Young voters: “Fix the system that doesn’t work for you.” Disengaged voters who haven’t bothered because outcome is predetermined: “Your vote will actually matter.”
Expect opposition. Both parties will likely resist—they benefit from the current duopoly. Establishment politicians will call this “confusing” or “risky” or “a solution in search of a problem.” Party activists who control primaries will oppose anything that dilutes their influence.
Counter with evidence. Cambridge has used this for 80 years. Voters in New Zealand approved proportional representation by referendum and prefer it. This works better than what we have. Let voters decide—if it’s such a bad idea, they’ll vote it down.
Win the referendum. Not guaranteed, but achievable if the coalition is genuinely cross-partisan and the campaign is competent. New Zealand’s referendum won 54-46. Doesn’t need to be overwhelming. Just needs to win.
What Happens After You Win
Amendment passes. Now you implement it.
Form an independent redistricting commission (or use whatever process your governing document specifies). Draw multi-member districts combining existing single-member districts or wards. Equal population per seat. Preserve neighborhoods and communities of interest where possible. Public input process so residents see how boundaries are drawn.
Train election officials on ranked-choice voting. Update voter registration systems. Test proportional allocation software extensively—you need to get this right. Many localities use hand-counting for ranked-choice, which is slower but transparent and trustworthy. Either way, test procedures with sample elections before the real thing.
Intensive voter education. How does ranked-choice voting work? How do seats get allocated proportionally? Create sample ballots. Run public demonstrations. Partner with libraries, community centers, schools. Multilingual materials. Media campaign: “This is your new system—here’s how to use it.”
Multiple parties need to field candidates. This might be the hardest part initially. Major parties are used to winner-take-all. Third parties are used to being marginalized. Everyone needs to adapt to the new system.
Candidate recruitment across parties. Debates and forums showcasing multiple perspectives. Media coverage of policy substance, not just horse-race predictions. Build excitement around the fact that this election actually matters—multiple parties can win, coalitions will form, governance will require negotiation.
Then run the election. Count the votes carefully. Allocate seats proportionally. Document everything—voter turnout, satisfaction surveys, which parties won representation, how diverse the council or commission is, what worked and what needs refinement.
What success looks like: Three or more parties win seats. Representation roughly matches voter preferences. Higher turnout than previous elections because people vote when it matters. Diverse candidate pool. Coalition forms to elect leadership and pass legislation.
What the challenges look like (realistically): Initial confusion as voters and candidates adapt to new system. Media portraying complexity as “chaos.” Some voters uncomfortable with multiple parties sharing power. Slower decision-making initially as coalition governance takes practice. Parties learning to negotiate in good faith rather than just opposing each other.
Give it time. Coalition governance takes practice. New Zealand’s first years under proportional representation had growing pains. Germany’s early coalition governments required learning curves. But in both cases, voters preferred the new system and never wanted to go back.
After a few election cycles: Coalition-building becomes routine. Multiple perspectives improve decisions rather than causing gridlock. Voters see their actual preferences reflected in government. Binary thinking fades as local issues get addressed on their merits. Trust in local government increases because representation actually matches the electorate.
Document everything. Academic studies. Voter satisfaction data. Comparison to pre-reform period. Media coverage. Case studies. Make this available to other localities considering reform. Your success becomes their evidence.
What Your Locality Gains
Fair representation. That’s the obvious benefit. 40% of voters get roughly 40% of seats instead of zero. Third parties with 20% support can win seats. Political homelessness ends.
But the secondary benefits matter too:
Better policy outcomes. Coalition governance forces compromise, which usually produces better policy than either pure majority rule or gridlock. Housing policy that balances affordability and development. Transit planning that addresses actual needs rather than ideological positions. Budgets that reflect diverse priorities.
Higher civic engagement. People participate when it matters. Voter turnout increases. Public comment at council or commission meetings becomes more diverse. Neighborhood associations get involved because they can actually influence outcomes.
Proof of concept for broader reforms. Once voters see multi-party democracy work locally, they start demanding it at state level. Then federal level. Localities become laboratories proving this isn’t fantasy—it’s functional governance.
Local identity strengthened. When local politics isn’t just an extension of national partisan warfare, communities can develop their own political cultures. Neighborhood parties. Regional parties. Parties organized around local issues that matter to residents. Politics becomes local again.
Economic benefits. Functional governance attracts investment. Businesses prefer stability and responsiveness over gridlock. Young people want to live where their vote matters and government addresses problems. Localities with better governance become magnetically attractive.
This Is Where It Starts
Federal reform is blocked. Congress won’t vote to weaken the two-party system that keeps incumbents in power. Constitutional amendments require supermajorities neither party can achieve alone.
But local governments control their own electoral systems. Cities can amend charters. Towns can change bylaws. Counties can reform ordinances. Localities can act now. And when enough localities prove that multi-party democracy works better than binary gridlock, pressure builds on states to follow. When states follow, federal transformation shifts from impossible to inevitable.
Constitutional evolution works from the bottom up.
Abolition started at state level. Women’s suffrage started at state level. Civil rights started at local and state level, building pressure until federal law had to catch up.
Breaking the two-party system follows the same path. Localities first. Then states. Then federal government when it can no longer resist the momentum.
Your locality can do this. Cambridge did it in 1941 and never looked back. Minneapolis proved ranked-choice works. New York City showed participatory budgeting builds engagement. European cities and towns demonstrate coalition governance produces stability.
Your city, town, or county can be next.
Research your governing documents. Build your coalition. Model the results. Run the campaign. Win the referendum. Implement the reform. Prove it works.
Then help the next locality do the same.
This is how we break Duverger’s Law. This is how we end two-party dominance.
It starts in your community. Right now. With you.