Help build a better future

The main set of proposals are things that Articles Media will bring attention to in the media and advocate for politically. In a perfect world politicians will choose to run our platform to appeal to our users. Even users from our platform that choose to run for office and agree with our fundamental proposals can run under our party if you will. The most important proposal on Articles is Ranked-choice voting. Americans need to be able to vote in a list of who they prefer for president. You can read more about this proposal here.

In a sense we are a digital political party. While you can say you are a part of, or run under the Articles platform if you agree with our fundamental proposals we laid out. The idea is to advocate for things like Ranked-choice voting so you can fill in a Articles Advisor as your first vote and then your political party of choice whether that be Democrat, Republican, Green or any others. If your first choice does not secure enough votes to qualify for a win then your vote, instead of being wasted, will get passed on to your next choice. This bill would bring an end to the power that political parties hold over us and grant us more power in our votes!

We have proposals on a variety of topics that are stripped down to the absolute necessities, no hidden agenda. A lot of bills in todays senate are filled with so much extra stipulations that end up dividing the country. Proposals aim to knock these issues out one at a time, with the help of user input we can refine these proposals to something that a good majority agree with. Then running on the platform agree not to vote against any of the fundamental proposals, and agree to introduce and promote bills that replicate the proposal on the site at the local, state and federal levels wherever they can. Those in political offices that agree and maintain a track record of voting with Articles get added as Advisors which you can read more about below.

Users can also choose to submit proposals themselves and the community can give sentiment and comment until enough feedback is given where advisors choose to move it to the main set to then receive feedback again. Those that submit proposals will be credited and remain as an editor for the proposal.

Fundamentals are proposals that are more or less non negotiable but still open to modification based on sentiment. Some proposals are just not worth dividing over. Advisors have to agree with fundamentals, unlike a normal proposal such as Pardon Edward Snowden or Increased NASA Funding which Articles supports. We need to be clear on which proposals are worth dividing over. Proposals like Ranked-choice voting and Abortion Rights Restoration should be held to a different severity. If a fundamental proposal loses support via sentiment, or a normal proposal has solid agreement among users across all political parties, then it's fundamental status will be reevaluated. The idea is there is we should not spread the focus of attention too thin.