This freaking guy

In this edition of Nerds for Humanity, we conducted a unique “stress test” of the leading AI models to see how effectively they could articulate and defend a hardcore MAGA perspective. This wasn’t just an exercise in roleplay; it was a sobering look at whether the “digital brains” of Silicon Valley can actually process the nuances of the American populist movement or if they are trapped by their own programming.The AI Showdown: Polite Moderation vs. Full Throttle PopulismThe exercise began with ChatGPT, which I pushed to defend the administration’s record on healthcare reform. Over fifteen years, the promise of a “vastly superior” replacement for Obamacare has been a staple of the MAGA platform, yet the current reality has been limited to marginal gains like drug pricing negotiations and banning food dyes.ChatGPT struggled significantly with the assignment. It defaulted to a “reluctantly balanced” tone, offering excuses about “senate roadblocks” and “RHINO” sabotage that felt like standard political boilerplate. When challenged on why a President with control over the House, Senate, and Supreme Court couldn’t push through a major overhaul, ChatGPT retreated into talk of “timing and strategy,” suggesting the administration was simply “keeping its powder dry” for a future mandate. For an audience looking for a robust defense of populist action, ChatGPT was a disappointment—it was simply too even-handed to capture the energy of the movement.Grok: The “Red Pill” Propaganda Machine?The dynamic shifted dramatically when we moved to Grok. Unlike its competitor, Grok leaned into the role with “full throttle” intensity, immediately dismissing my critiques as “fake news” and “swampy plans”.Grok provided a far more aggressive defense of the administration’s tactics:* On Healthcare: It reframed the focus on food dyes and drug prices not as “nibbling at the edges,” but as “game-changers” protecting American kids from “junk science”. It defended Medicare Advantage as private competition that prevents “death panels” and “socialism”.* On the Cabinet: Grok fiercely defended controversial picks like Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, and Kash Patel, labeling them “loyal fighters” rather than “swamp creatures”. It framed the recent DOJ actions as “draining the deep state” and dismissed botched arrests or controversial allegations as media spin.* On the Epstein Files: Perhaps most provocatively, Grok defended the handling of the Epstein files by Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, claiming they were leading a charge for “transparency, not stonewalling” despite public criticism.A Sobering ConclusionThe contrast was stark. While ChatGPT tries to be the “reasonable” moderator—a trait many users might appreciate—it fails to truly represent the “America First” point of view. Grok, on the other hand, is more than happy to provide what I’d call “red pill propaganda”.As we navigate a political landscape increasingly mediated by AI, we have to ask: Are these models helping us understand one another, or are they simply better at building higher walls around our existing echo chambers?If you value these deep dives into the intersection of technology and our democracy, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. We haven’t had a new member in nineteen months, and your support is what covers our operating costs and keeps this channel independent. Plus, you’ll get a personal shout-out on every livestream!Bye nerds.Click here to become a Nerd for Humanity today. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

In the world of political commentary, especially for those of us who lean center-left, the modern Republican party often feels like an impenetrable monolith of rhetoric and “four-dimensional chess”. But every so often, a conversation comes along that forces you to tilt your head and look at the landscape from a different angle.I recently sat down for the fifth time with Michael Maxsenti, a man who has spent fifteen years in the political reform sector. Michael isn’t your typical partisan hack; he’s a veteran of the Common Sense and Forward parties who has reached a sobering conclusion: the only way to fix the system is to get inside the gates. Now, he’s running for Congress as a Republican in a D+4 district, and his rationale is as provocative as it is unsettling for those of us comfortable in our ideological bubbles.The Myth of the Two-Party WarThe most striking part of our conversation was Michael’s dismissal of the traditional Republican-versus-Democrat narrative. To him, the “duopoly” we see on the news is a convenient distraction designed to keep us from noticing the real struggle.“The real duopoly is the people, the populist, the people—eighty plus percent of Americans—against those global corporatist, those political economic elites who see themselves above our humanity.”This isn’t just populist fire-breathing; it’s a critique of a “closed-loop system” where corporate interests like Vanguard and BlackRock pull the strings regardless of who holds the gavel. Michael argues that both parties have “sold us out” over the last forty years, hollowing out the middle class and offshoring jobs for the sake of corporate margins.The “Art of the Deal” DefenseAs someone who grew up valuing integrity and “character matters” as a political slogan, I find it difficult to reconcile the current leadership of the GOP with those traditional values. I challenged Michael on the chaos and the apparent lack of precision in the current administration’s implementation of policy—from tariffs on bananas to the “flamethrower” style of governance.His response was a common pattern I’ve seen in congressional Republicans in pragmatic reframing. He urged the audience to look past the abrasive style and view it as a series of tactical maneuvers.“What appears to be things that are opposite, opposed to... you’ve got to think of it in those broader terms of tacking into the winds, of navigating around those valleys and cliffs and stuff to get to your goal.”To Maxsenti, the tariffs aren’t just economic tools; they are a strategic necessity to “rebuild our country” in an era where AI is stripping away swaths of traditional employment. It’s a vision of “America First” that he traces back to the founding principles of Abraham Lincoln—the very principles he claims are buried in the modern party’s DNA.Making America Healthy Again: A Radical Common Ground?Perhaps the most surprising area of alignment for a center-left audience is Maxsenti’s focus on the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. He pointed out a sobering reality: Americans pay more than double what other developed nations pay for healthcare, yet we have lost six years of longevity compared to Europe over the last two decades.I critiqued the current system as a “fee-for-service” model that motivates providers to treat you only after you get sick. His solution? A radical overhaul of food standards and a focus on “healing” that transcends mere pharmaceutical intervention.“It’s about healing, but on the medical level alone... taking away government dollars that is allowing people to, forcing people into poor choices. It’s about freedom and it’s about giving people healthier options.”While he supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s focus on chronic disease, Maxsenti wants to go further by codifying changes in pesticide laws and farming practices to ensure that the next administration can’t simply “flip it back” because they’ve been bought off by lobbyists.Can an Independent Mind Survive the Machine?The central question for voters in his district—and for nerds like us watching from afar—is whether a man who claims to “only take a knee to God and our Constitution” can actually remain independent once he’s inside the Congressional machine.Michael is running against Dave Min, whom he describes as a “prototypical career politician” who “rubber stamps every one of the democratic machine”. In a district where 30% of the voters are independents who left both parties out of dissatisfaction, Maxsenti is betting that his deep roots—as a business leader, coach of eighteen sports teams, and non-profit board member—will carry more weight than a party label.“We need people to go to congress who have proven credibility and skills to bring people together and create solutions to problems, who are not there to make a win; they’re there to make a solution.”He admits that the execution of certain policies, like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and ICE operations, has been “unfortunate” or “tragic” in its delivery. Yet, he remains committed to the core objective: a total system audit and a return to national sovereignty.Final ReflectionsWhether you find Michael’s shift to the GOP a pragmatic necessity or a bridge too far, his perspective highlights the deep fractures in our political soul. He isn’t offering the usual partisan comfort food. Instead, he’s presenting a choice: continue the “downhill slide” of the last few decades, or take a gamble on an “insider-outsider” who believes the system can be reclaimed from the globalist elites.“At my age I’m obviously not going there to do anything other than help change the rules... so that we can have the long term results that the people can see and feel in their lives.”It’s a sobering analysis for anyone who cares about the future of this republic. As we navigate the coming months, the question won’t just be which party wins, but whether the people we send to Washington have the courage to stop “taking a knee” to anyone but the people they serve.If you enjoyed this deep dive and want to support the work we do here, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Your support helps cover the operating costs for the Nerds for Humanity livestream and keeps these independent conversations going. Plus, as a thank you, you’ll get a shout-out on every livestream!Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

Hello nerds.It’s been a while since I sat down and did what Nerds for Humanity was originally built for. Not shorts. Not algorithms. Not rage bait. But long-form, structural analysis of how power actually works in this country, and why things that feel shocking in the moment are often the predictable outcome of rules written decades ago.This livestream was about Trump’s military operation in Venezuela. But not in the way cable news framed it.I wasn’t interested in relitigating whether Trump is reckless, authoritarian, or dangerous. If you’re reading this Substack, you already know where you land on that. The more important question is this.How was he able to do it?How was a single president able to order a major military operation against a sovereign country, deploy massive air and naval assets, seize the country’s leader from its capital, and then inform Congress afterward?The uncomfortable truth is that Trump didn’t invent some new authoritarian power. He exploited one that has been sitting in plain sight for more than fifty years.And worse, he did so largely within the mechanics of existing law.The law that was supposed to stop thisIn 1973, in the shadow of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Its purpose was simple. Presidents were not supposed to be able to drag the country into war on their own.The law created two central guardrails.First, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities.Second, unless Congress authorizes the action, those hostilities must end within 60 days, with an additional 30-day period allowed for withdrawal.At the time, this seemed reasonable. Military action moved slowly. Wars took time to prepare. You could not overthrow a government in a weekend. The assumption was that Congress would have ample opportunity to intervene before anything irreversible happened.As I said on the livestream,“At that time in 1973 the thinking was well, surely no one can invade a country and capture the head of state inside of 48 hours. They would need weeks to prepare for it.”That assumption is now dangerously obsolete.We are using 1973 traffic laws for modern warfareOne analogy I used resonated with a lot of people.Trying to govern modern warfare with the War Powers Resolution is like applying 1970s traffic rules to autonomous flying cars.The law was written for an era of B-52 bombers, carrier groups, and weeks-long mobilizations. It was not written for drones, cyber operations, special forces insertions, precision strikes, and operations capable of destabilizing or decapitating a regime in days or even hours.Today, a president can dramatically alter another country’s political reality before Congress has even finished debating whether the notification email landed in the right inbox.The time-based trigger is the flaw. It assumes time equals restraint. That is no longer true.As I put it during the stream,“This time-based system is flawed. It doesn’t work for a world where you can basically destabilize and replace a regime in a few hours.”Trump didn’t invent this powerIt is tempting to treat Trump as a unique aberration. He isn’t.Modern presidents of both parties have steadily expanded executive war-making authority.George H. W. Bush built up a massive military force in the Gulf before Congress voted, and then received authorization shortly before the 1991 Gulf War began.George W. Bush secured a separate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to invade Iraq, and the post-9/11 era normalized expansive readings of both congressional authorizations and Article II authority.The Obama administration conducted extensive drone campaigns and the Libya intervention without a formal declaration of war, arguing that certain operations did not meet the War Powers Resolution’s definition of “hostilities.”Every modern president has pushed the envelope. Trump simply sprinted through it.As I said on the livestream,“This has been a loophole that’s been used by many presidents. We just relied on them to exercise judgment and honor the office. That honor code is clearly gone.”A system that relies on voluntary restraint is not a system. It is a gamble.Language laundering: from war to “kinetic action”One of the most revealing shifts has been linguistic.Presidents learned that if you do not call something a war, you do not need a declaration of war.So we get euphemisms.“Kinetic action.”“Law enforcement operation.”“Targeted strike.”As I pointed out,“They don’t want to say we are conducting warfare. If you don’t call it a war, then you don’t need a declaration of war.”This is how large-scale military action against a sovereign state becomes a “police-like operation.”If another country flew dozens of military aircraft into Washington, DC and seized the US president, we would call it an act of war without hesitation. Euphemisms only work when we are the ones using them.The public justifications kept shiftingThe administration’s public rationale for the Venezuela operation evolved quickly.Initial statements emphasized fentanyl and drug trafficking. Analysts and critics noted that available trafficking data does not identify Venezuela as a significant fentanyl source, which raised questions about that justification.Subsequent messaging emphasized cocaine trafficking and broader security threats, but those claims were also contested.What became clearer over time was that the operation was aimed at exerting decisive pressure on the Maduro regime itself.As I said during the livestream,“What some messaging from inside Trump’s orbit suggested was that this was really about regime change.”Trump later publicly discussed American oil companies entering Venezuela, reclaiming seized assets, and modernizing infrastructure as part of a post-Maduro arrangement.If that sounds familiar, it should.“That sounds a little colonial to me.”Because it does.The moral high ground is not abstractEvery time the US violates the sovereignty of another nation under contested legal theories, it weakens the norms it relies on to restrain other powers.As one viewer put it during the livestream,“I’m afraid the US just gave a license to Russia to take Ukraine and China to take Taiwan.”You cannot argue that international law matters only when it constrains other countries. Either it restrains power, or it doesn’t.Trump’s actions did not just affect Venezuela. They further eroded America’s standing in a world already drifting toward a more unstable multipolar order.This is bigger than TrumpOne of my core arguments, and the reason this livestream mattered, is simple.Trump will not be the last president to exploit this structure.Even if Trump disappears tomorrow, the authority remains.History shows that presidents, particularly lame ducks, often become more willing to take foreign risks once electoral constraints disappear.As I said,“We can’t rely on Trump or any president. Every president eventually realizes how much power this office has.”This is not about stopping one man. It is about fixing a system that assumes good faith in an era where bad faith is a governing strategy.How the law could actually be fixedThe War Powers Resolution does not need cosmetic reform. It needs modernization aligned with modern warfare.I outlined several possible approaches.First, scale-based triggers. Certain actions should automatically require prior authorization, regardless of duration, such as the use of specific aircraft types, large troop deployments, or major munitions thresholds.Second, target-based triggers. Actions aimed at heads of state, national command infrastructure, or critical civilian systems should never fall under a post-hoc notification model.Third, funding enforcement. If authorization is not granted, funding freezes. No money, no mission.As I argued,“Sometimes the US will have to use force. But introducing liabilities for the whole country should not be determined by one branch alone.”In corporate governance, CEOs cannot acquire compan… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

Hello nerds.When I first started interviewing Scott Santens years ago during the Nerds for Yang era, he was one of the most relentless and articulate advocates for universal basic income (UBI) in America. Back then, it felt like the country was on the verge of something big. Andrew Yang was on the debate stage making “Freedom Dividend” a household phrase. Silicon Valley technologists were whispering about automation in the same breath as moral responsibility. Even Republican voters were entertaining the idea that direct cash transfers might be less bureaucratic and more empowering than sprawling social programs.Fast forward to 2025, and the conversation feels quieter. The pandemic-era stimulus checks are long gone. Washington has reverted to tribal warfare. Meanwhile, AI is advancing faster than anyone—maybe even Scott and Andrew —predicted. The irony is thick: the very forces that made UBI seem like a radical idea a decade ago are now transforming entire industries before our eyes. And yet, the movement feels stuck in neutral.So when Scott rejoined me on Nerds for Humanity this month from his new base in Washington, D.C., I wanted to know: What happened? Why did UBI lose its moment? And is there a realistic path back to the mainstream before millions of Americans get left behind?The Move to D.C. and the Lost MomentScott began by explaining why he left New Orleans for D.C. a few years ago. “It just seemed that UBI was really a bigger part of the conversation,” he said. “I thought if the Democrats came in again in 2024, I could actually get some traction.”He laughs a little when he says that now. “That didn’t end up happening,” he admitted, reflecting on how the Biden reelection froze the kind of idea competition that defined 2020. “The big problem was that Biden decided to run again, and there was no primary process. Then suddenly Kamala comes in and still no primary process. So there was no ideas competition. We really missed out on that.”That lack of competition, Scott argues, has a ripple effect. Political movements thrive on moments of contrast, when new ideas bump up against old dogmas and voters are forced to re-evaluate assumptions. The 2020 race—with Yang, Sanders, Warren, and others pitching structural reforms—was one of those rare idea-rich moments. 2024, by comparison, was a desert.As Scott put it bluntly: “We were close enough to taste it during the pandemic. It really felt like we were actually on the cusp of doing a monthly cash payment that could change things. But none of that happened.”He’s not wrong. The COVID checks were, in effect, a large-scale experiment in direct income support. Poverty temporarily plummeted. Families caught their breath. Consumer demand stayed strong. And then we let it all expire.AI Ate the Jobs While America SleptWhat’s striking about this quiet period, as I noted to Scott, is that the threat he and Yang warned about—the automation of work—is no longer hypothetical. Knowledge worker jobs are being eaten by AI faster than policy debates can catch up.“I’m a parent of two teenagers,” I told him. “Other parents are starting to wonder if a computer science degree is still the golden ticket. Should we be preparing our kids to be plumbers instead?”Scott nodded grimly. “It’s disheartening,” he said. “Now that these impacts are here… this is the stuff that we’ve been warning about. It’s not a sudden thing, but it does seem to already be impacting the entry-level job market.”He pointed to a convergence of pressures: corporate hiring freezes driven by uncertainty around tariffs, companies experimenting with AI productivity tools, and executives under shareholder pressure to “do more with less.” The result: stagnating headcount even in high-growth sectors.“We don’t really need people that we likely would have if AI had not been introduced,” he said. I observed from Silicon Valley, “What we’re seeing right now is that companies can grow revenue while keeping headcount flat.”It’s not a collapse. It’s a quiet deceleration—a slow bleed. And that’s arguably more dangerous because it doesn’t provoke a policy response. There’s no headline-grabbing “AI layoffs.” Just the invisible absence of opportunities for millions of new grads.Even top business schools are struggling to place students. “It’s like the hardest market in years,” Scott said, and I agreed. “If we hit a recession,” he warned, “that’s when all these businesses really lean into productivity. The recession ends, and they realize they don’t need those people back.”That scenario—automation accelerated by economic downturn—is the nightmare UBI advocates have been predicting for over a decade. Each downturn becomes a ratchet that permanently eliminates another layer of middle-class work.The Automation MirageWhen politicians talk about “bringing manufacturing jobs back,” Scott and I get visibly frustrated. “I don’t think people realize—you don’t need that many people in those factories anymore,” I said.He reminded me of a chart he once published showing that U.S. manufacturing output is higher than ever, even though manufacturing employment has fallen dramatically. “We’re manufacturing more than ever, we just have fewer jobs,” he said. “If we did reshoring, sure, we could manufacture even more, but jobs would continue going down.”I brought up a U.S. tech investor who recently toured Chinese EV plants. “He said the number of BYD employees per car is something like a fifth of what it is for Ford or GM,” I told Scott. “If we build plants here, we’re not going to hire 20 people per car—we’ll hire four or five.”Scott didn’t hesitate: “Exactly. The only way to bring it back is to minimize labor. American labor is expensive. You can’t both re-shore and keep the same job intensity.”Then he pivoted to a deeper critique of political dishonesty. “Trump sold a lot of people false hope,” he said. “He told them, ‘Once I negotiate these trade deals, everything’s gonna be back to post–World War II full employment.’ But that’s a lie. We’ve heard that lie over and over again, even from people in the AI world. They say this will create more jobs than it displaces. Come on. We all know the realities.”This is the paradox of modern capitalism: productivity growth has decoupled from employment growth. We make more stuff with fewer people. And our political imagination hasn’t caught up to that new reality.From Careers to Gigs: The New NormalScott traced this shift back decades. “We know what happened when we displaced people from manufacturing jobs—they went lower down the ladder into lower-paying work,” he said. “You went from careers to gig labor.”He rattled off examples that have become painfully familiar: “People now earn extra money by signing up for Uber, delivering food, DoorDashing. There’s just a transformation of what employment even means.”In Scott’s view, the only logical response to this is UBI. “You need to make sure everyone actually gets basic income,” he said. “That helps feed demand for new jobs. If people’s incomes fall as a result of AI, demand falls. And when demand falls, the entire economy reorients.”He pointed to a staggering statistic: “Right now, the top 10% are buying half of everything produced and sold in the U.S. It’s a very unequal consumption economy. The markets start ignoring the basic needs of people and reorient around luxury experiences.”That imbalance, he argued, isn’t just economic—it’s political. “It leads to people getting violent. It’s key to the erosion of democracy.”The Coming Middle-Class AwakeningIf there’s any silver lining, I said, it’s that the pain is spreading up the income ladder.“I think it’s going to affect a lot of middle-class and upper-middle-class people in a way it hasn’t before,” I said. “When Andrew talked about truck drivers losing jobs, people thought, ‘My kid’s going to college, they’ll be fine.’ Now they’re realizing maybe not.”Scott agreed. “We just didn’t realize how fast it would hit arts, music, images, and photos. I didn’t… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

It’s been a while since I hosted a long-form livestream on Nerds for Humanity. Between shorts, behind-the-scenes projects, and life’s chaos, I hadn’t sat down for a deep conversation in some time. That changed when I brought on two co-conspirators, Ram and Spidermang, both collaborators on our board game Nerds for Democracy. What started as a behind-the-scenes look at a passion project turned into a far-ranging and sobering discussion about U.S. politics, tariffs, debt, 2028 contenders, and the health of our democracy.This post is my attempt to distill that conversation into an essay for my fellow political junkies who couldn’t make the livestream. What follows is analysis, commentary, and reflection, peppered with direct quotes from Ram and Spidermang. If you lean center-left and find yourself both fascinated and horrified by American politics, you’ll find this read worthwhile.Part 1: From Board Game to Real PoliticsWe started with our board game, Nerds for Democracy. Ram, an AI researcher and avid game designer, recalled how our collaboration began:“I didn’t realize Tom was such a politics aficionado. Once I realized that, I pulled out an old concept I had and we started working on it.”The game itself is designed around the absurd, chaotic, and unpredictable nature of American politics. Players collect “choice cards,” face “major events,” and debate topics that range from serious policy to whether pineapple belongs on pizza. Spidermang summed it up well:“The universal feedback was that everybody had fun. Even people not into politics found it accessible. It’s a competition, stuff happens, you adapt, and you try to beat the other players.”What struck me in revisiting the design process was how much the game mirrored real politics. Unpredictable events. Media chaos. Shifting voter moods. And the constant need to adjust strategy. It was a fitting prelude to the heavier political conversation that followed.But more than a mirror, Nerds for Democracy is also an invitation. It’s a way for friends and families to engage with politics without the toxicity that dominates our newsfeeds. Instead of doomscrolling, you sit around a table, roll dice, argue passionately over whether trucks are better than SUVs, and maybe sneak in a debate on universal basic income. Along the way, you laugh. You groan. You cheer. You conspire with your allies and plot against your rivals.Ram highlighted how laughter was a constant during playtesting:“I have not been in a single play test where people were not laughing out loud. That’s the best part for me. People are enjoying playing the game.”That’s no small feat. Politics has become a source of dread for so many Americans. To take that same subject and design a game that sparks joy, humor, and connection—it’s something special. And it’s why I’m so proud of this project.We deliberately designed mechanics to keep everyone involved, even if they fall behind. As Spidermang noted, a player in last place isn’t doomed:“There are ways that they can influence and help another person win or sabotage the other person. That’s personally my favorite part.”This makes Nerds for Democracy different from many strategy games where early mistakes doom you to irrelevance. Instead, it reflects the reality of politics, where underdogs can play kingmaker and longshots can surprise everyone. That dynamic keeps the game competitive and fun until the very end.The art and design also add a layer of charm. From humorous “breaking news” cards to realistic “major event” scenarios, every deck in the game balances playability with wit. One round you might be forced to respond to a cyberattack; the next, you’re navigating a viral scandal about an unflattering beach photo. Sometimes you’re boosted forward, other times set back. Just like real campaigns.We’ve poured countless hours into refining the mechanics, incorporating feedback, and testing with a wide range of players. The result? A game that entertains political junkies while staying approachable for people who normally avoid political conversations. As I said on the livestream, this crossover appeal was a pleasant surprise. It means the game works not just as a hobby for nerds like me, but as a bridge for families, classrooms, and friend groups looking for something new to play together.And here’s the kicker: we’re offering a limited Founders’ Edition of the game. Not a mass-market cash grab, but a passion project produced in small batches. If you pick one up, you’re not just buying a board game—you’re joining the earliest circle of players who helped shape it, laughed through its debates, and maybe even get immortalized in future editions. This first print might well become a collector’s item, the kind of quirky artifact you pull off the shelf years from now and say, “I was there when it started.”If that appeals to you, shoot me an email at tom[at]nerdsforhumanity.com. We’ll make sure you get a copy while supplies last.Part 2: Tariffs and Trump’s Economic TheaterRam pivoted us toward a topic he’d been thinking about—tariffs. His framing was simple but devastating:“Who exactly pays when a tariff is levied? It’s us as consumers. The way this government has been brandishing tariffs like a sword… I don’t know if it’s achieving the objective. There’s more chaos, more confusion, and not enough time for domestic production to ramp up.”He’s right. Tariffs are, in essence, a tax on American consumers. Trump has sold them as a populist tool to punish China or Vietnam, but the costs hit Walmart shoppers in Ohio and Costco shoppers in California long before they hit foreign exporters.Spidermang cut through the economics with a blunt reminder of lived reality:“It’s just hard enough to make ends meet at the end of the month as it is. It doesn’t seem like anything is happening to benefit people on the low end of the earning spectrum.”The irony is rich. Trump won in 2016 in part by railing against elites and promising affordability. Yet his trade policies operate as hidden taxes on the very working-class families who form his political base.Part 3: The Deficit, the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ and the Illusion of Fiscal ResponsibilityOur conversation naturally shifted to debt and deficits. Trump and his allies promised to run America like a business, but the numbers tell a different story. In just eight months of his second term, we’ve already added $1.6 trillion to the deficit. The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” is projected to add $4 trillion to the national debt, pushing us toward $40 trillion total.Ram put it plainly:“Tariffs actually increase taxes through the back door. Even if you cut income taxes, you’re taxing people on their purchases. Unless domestic production fills the gap, they don’t help. And uncertainty breeds narratives that we’re losing trustworthiness with trading partners, which causes long-term damage.”The lesson here is grim: Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but when given the chance, they balloon the deficit. Democrats talk about protecting working families, but they, too, shy away from serious budget discipline for fear of political backlash. Bill Clinton’s late-90s balanced budget looks like a historical anomaly rather than a precedent.And voters? Most seem not to care. We punish politicians for cutting spending or raising taxes but shrug when they quietly run up the national credit card. It’s political theater, not sound governance.Part 4: The 2028 Field—Hope, Cynicism, and UncertaintyWe couldn’t resist peering ahead to 2028. Ram predicted that JD Vance is “probably the clear Republican choice.” On the Democratic side, he saw Gavin Newsom as a frontrunner, with Kamala Harris a possible but weak contender.Spidermang, ever the underdog supporter, reminded us:“I was a Dean Phillips supporter. I was an Andrew Yang supporter. Whoever I support in the future is probably going to be along the same caliber—the underdog.”I shared my own enthusiasm for West Moore and Pete Buttigieg. Both are you… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

What if I told you that in a country not much larger than Indiana, you could vote in a national election where your ballot didn’t force you to choose just one imperfect candidate? Where campaigns cost $50K instead of $500 million? Where politicians knock on your door more often than they show up on CNN? And what if I told you that this system has been working just fine—for over 100 years?That’s not a political utopia. That’s Ireland.In my latest Nerds for Humanity livestream, I had the chance to talk with Alana Rush, an American-Irish dual citizen now living in Dublin. Alana is one of the few Americans who has both a deep understanding of ranked choice voting (RCV) and the rare experience of watching it operate at the national level in a functioning democracy. Our conversation turned into a sobering and often jaw-dropping look at how different things could be—if America had the courage to reform how we vote, how we campaign, and how we govern.This post will walk you through Alana’s observations and insights, along with my reflections on what it means for us here in the United States. Spoiler: it’s not all roses across the Atlantic, but there’s a lot to learn.A Voter’s Menu, Not a Single OptionBefore she moved to Ireland, Alana admits she didn’t understand much about how the Irish political system worked. “It’s nearly embarrassing given that I have citizenship here,” she laughed. But after five years of living in Dublin and getting involved in politics—including campaigning in a general election—she now sees what the U.S. is missing.Ireland uses a system called proportional ranked choice voting. Each constituency (analogous to a congressional district) elects multiple representatives—typically 3 to 5—using RCV. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters rank their preferences.This seemingly simple change has powerful consequences.“When I went into the ballot box for the first time, there were candidates from nine different parties,” Alana explained. “It wasn’t just binary Democrat vs. Republican. There were shades of left, right, and center. It felt like I could vote for someone who actually aligned with me, rather than just the lesser of two evils.”This multi-representative, ranked choice system protects minority voices and prevents the all-or-nothing dynamics we’ve come to expect in U.S. elections. Because voters can express multiple preferences, it discourages vote-splitting and strategic voting. It encourages coalition-building and reduces the pressure to cast a so-called “wasted vote.”And perhaps most importantly, it changes the tone of campaigns.Campaigns Without Character AssassinationIn Ireland, attacking your opponent doesn’t win you votes—it can actually lose them. Because second- and third-preference votes matter so much in RCV, candidates have a direct incentive not to alienate voters who already favor someone else.“We’d knock on someone’s door, and they’d say, ‘I’m voting for Candidate X,’” Alana told me. “Even if that candidate was the opposite end of the spectrum from our campaign, we’d say, ‘Great—what issues matter most to you?’ Then we’d try to earn their second preference.”This nuance-rich campaigning is reinforced by Ireland’s strict campaign finance laws. Campaigns are limited to spending about $40,000 to $50,000 total. There are no TV ads. No Super PACs. No billionaires bankrolling disinformation blitzes.“You can’t really buy your way in here,” Alana said. “If you’re not knocking on doors, you’re not winning votes.”Let that sink in: in Ireland, all politicians, including the equivalent of their Prime Minister, go door-to-door. Voters expect it. “I’ve seen voters put Post-it notes on their door with questions for candidates,” she told me. “People are engaged because they know their voice matters.”As an American who’s worked on primary campaigns in New Hampshire, I found this retail politics culture deeply familiar—and inspiring. But in Ireland, it’s not just for presidential primaries every four years. It’s baked into every election.The result? A culture where politicians are more accountable, more accessible, and more focused on policy than on personality cults.From Pendulums to CoalitionsWe’ve all seen the swing: red wave, blue wave, repeal, reverse, gridlock, repeat. America’s political pendulum is whiplash-inducing. Every few years, the country veers dramatically in one direction, only to lurch back again—undoing reforms, re-litigating the past, and paralyzing progress.Not so in Ireland.Because the government is typically made up of a coalition of multiple parties, wild ideological swings are rare. “There’s always an opposition, and they play an important role,” Alana said. “But because you need coalitions to govern, parties are incentivized to work together.”That doesn't mean Ireland has no conflict or partisanship—of course it does. But there's a structural restraint on extremism that America sorely lacks.“It’s harder to go hardcore in one fringe direction,” Alana said. “And there’s more room for people to actually represent what their communities care about.”No Big Donors, No Billionaires, No ProblemThis was one of the most shocking parts of the conversation.Candidates in Ireland can’t spend more than around $50K on a campaign. Individuals can donate a maximum of around $15. There are no Super PACs. No shadowy dark money groups. No endless email fundraising spam.And yet, elections still happen. Politicians still campaign. People still vote.This upends everything we’ve been told is “necessary” for modern democracy in America. The endless campaign season? In Ireland, campaigns legally last only three to five weeks. Fundraising marathons? They don’t exist.I mentioned, “Congressional representatives in the U.S. spend 20 to 30% of their time fundraising.” Alana observed, “Here, politicians spend that time knocking on doors.”But Does It Work at Scale?Critics of RCV often argue that it’s too complicated, too slow, or too confusing to be implemented at scale. But Ireland—a nation of over 5 million people—has been using it nationwide since 1922.“Elections are on a Friday. By Monday, all the senators were elected,” Alana said. “The fastest constituency took about nine hours to count, even with seven or eight rounds of redistributions.”Votes are counted manually, in public, with observers from all parties watching. It’s not high-tech—but it’s high-trust. Ballots are weighed, reviewed, and publicly tallied. And most importantly, the public has confidence in the outcome.“It’s not perfect,” Alana acknowledged. “But it expresses more of your voter DNA than just picking one name.”Why Americans Fear RCV—and Why They Shouldn’tSome Americans worry that RCV will confuse voters, especially those with less formal education or exposure to the process. Alana rejects that idea.“We make ranked choices all the time in everyday life,” she said. “Once you explain it to someone once or twice, they get it. And if you don’t want to rank everyone, you don’t have to. Just rank your favorite and stop there.”The idea that voters are too ignorant to handle RCV feels more like elite paternalism than a legitimate critique. And it conveniently preserves a broken system that benefits the two dominant parties.What the Irish Think of UsAs our conversation shifted to foreign policy and America’s global standing, things got… heavier.“I get a lot of sympathy and people asking, ‘What’s happening over there?’” Alana said. “There’s concern about global geopolitical stability. But also fear.”She described Irish neighbors who once dreamed of visiting New York, now saying they’ll wait a few years until things calm down. Some even wipe their phones or travel with burner phones when visiting the U.S.—just in case.Let that sink in. We’ve become the country that people are afraid to visit.On Gaza, Ireland is staunchly pro-Palestinian. “There are historical parallels here,” Alana explained. “Because of our experience with British colonization, there’s a lot of empathy for … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

If you told me two years ago that one of the most compelling answers to America's broken democracy would come from a blockchain-savvy military veteran out of Orlando, I probably wouldn’t have guessed it. But that's exactly what I discovered in my recent conversation with Ramon Perez, founder of the Digital Democracy Project (DDP), during a Nerds for Humanity livestream that still has me thinking.Perez is no idealist with a half-baked startup pitch. He's a 13-year military officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a data and AI consultant with a deep understanding of both how government works—and how it fails. And after January 6th, he knew he had to do something more.“It was hard to stomach this sense that we’d spent 20 years trying to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Perez told me, “and we were watching it fall apart here in the United States.”From the Battlefield to the BallotThat dissonance lit a fire under Perez. Leveraging his background in cybersecurity and AI, he partnered with a Boston-based startup called Voatz—best known for their blockchain-secure mobile voting platform. While Voatz originally focused on allowing military voters abroad to securely cast ballots from their phones, Perez saw a broader application.“Why should we wait every four years to weigh in on public policy?” he asked. “Why not let people tell their representatives what they want, when they want?”The result is the Digital Democracy Project. DDP allows voters to view active legislation in their state or in Congress, weigh in directly through the Voatz app, and see how their elected officials vote in comparison. No spin. No party filter. Just data.How It WorksWhen you register on the app, your identity is verified using photo ID and facial recognition, cross-checked with your voter file. Then, you get access to real legislation and can vote on bills before they reach the floor.Once the legislature acts, DDP matches each representative’s vote with the will of their constituents and gives every lawmaker a public scorecard. Think baseball cards for politicians, but instead of batting averages, you get alignment with the people.As of this year, DDP is going national. What started as a Florida pilot will be scaled to all 50 states, with the potential to reshape civic engagement in America.When the Will of the People Meets the Wall of PowerWhat happens when data shows that your representative consistently votes against the will of their constituents? You get names."Matt Gaetz was at the bottom of our Florida Congressional leaderboard," Perez said, with characteristic deadpan.Interestingly, the divergence isn't always partisan. In the Florida State Legislature, Democrats often aligned more with constituent sentiment than Republicans. But at the federal level, party lines blurred. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican, scored near the top. Progressive darling Maxwell Frost? Near the bottom.This discrepancy, Perez argues, proves that our tidy left-right dichotomy is mostly fiction.“Party affiliation is an intellectual construct. It doesn't exist in the real world,” he said. “That’s not how most people think, and it’s not even how many legislators vote.”A Quiet Threat to the Political-Industrial ComplexYou might think lawmakers would run from a project that holds them this accountable. And some do. But others see it differently.“We actually received bipartisan budget support in Florida—a Republican and a Democrat co-sponsored our funding bill,” Perez told me.That bill passed the legislature. It was then vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis.“Who knows why,” Perez said. But the potential was clear: when citizens gain power, entrenched interests push back.And it’s not just DDP feeling the pressure.Rank My Vote Florida: Buried Before It BloomedPerez also leads Rank My Vote Florida, which advocates for ranked choice voting (RCV). After local municipalities began adopting RCV and seeing positive results, the state legislature stepped in—and banned it.“They smothered the infant in its crib,” Perez said.Why? Because RCV helps consensus candidates win. In traditional elections, candidates can win with a mere plurality. That means you can become a member of Congress, or even governor, with just 20-30% support—if the field is crowded enough. RCV requires majority support and rewards broad appeal.Case in point: Sarah Palin's loss in Alaska.“In a first-past-the-post system, she likely would've won. But Alaska used RCV, and the voters chose someone else,” Perez explained. “That scared people.”So ALEC, a conservative policy organization, began circulating bills to preemptively ban RCV. Florida, Tennessee, and a dozen other states have already adopted those bans.Building a Parallel SystemSince state legislatures have closed the door, Perez is working on building a window. He's exploring the idea of a "citizens election" in Florida—a parallel, unofficial election using Voatz and RCV.The idea? Show what the results could have looked like with better voting infrastructure. Compare a Gaetz victory with a DDP winner. Let voters see the gap for themselves.Why This MattersFor years, the story of American democracy has been one of decay. Gerrymandering. Voter suppression. Uncompetitive districts. Primary systems that reward extremism. Polarization that turns every compromise into betrayal.And yet, this quiet, open-source, volunteer-powered movement is building something that just might work. It brings secure, authenticated mobile voting into the mainstream. It invites voters to participate continuously, not episodically. It creates pressure on legislators to respond to real constituent preferences, not just party bosses or lobbyists.It’s easy to be cynical about American politics. But Perez is one of the few builders I’ve met who is doing something tangible, practical, and scalable.As he put it: “We’ve only been a true representative republic for about 60 years. And in many ways, we’re already losing it. This technology helps us claw it back.”A New Social ContractPerez ended our chat with a vision: millions of voters across all 50 states using DDP to make their voices heard. Candidates running on a platform of following their scorecards. School boards, counties, and municipalities adopting digital engagement. And ultimately, a democracy that’s not defined by lobbying budgets, cable news cycles, or billionaire megadonors—but by real people, voting in real time.He’s got about 24,000 users today. He’ll need millions. But then again, every movement starts small.“We’re not trying to tweak the existing system,” Perez said. “We’re building a better one.”If you're a Python developer, consider volunteering. If you're a voter, download the app. And if you're a citizen who still believes democracy is worth saving, this is one place to start.If you found this conversation valuable, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Memberships help cover the costs of production and get you a shoutout on every livestream.Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com