How does Free and Equal Candidate Selection Impact Congress in Two-Party, Multi-Party and No Party Systems
Executive Summary by Cecilia Duncan
June 1, 2025
Wilson’s Fountain proposes to restore power to citizens by reforming the current political system to create a free and equal nominating process. The process uses a Super PAC, a National Party, and local committees to reform the relationship between politicians and money. Specifically, it elevates community-nominated leaders based on qualifications and values rather than campaign donations or partisan loyalty.
This paper evaluates potential Congressional evolution in two-party, multi-party, and no-party systems when a fair candidate selection process is implemented and financial influence in elections is greatly reduced. We find that Wilson’s Fountain offers transformative potential, especially as it moves democracy from rigid partisanship toward more deliberative, people-driven representation.
A People-First Nominating Process
The process challenges conventional candidate selection methods by shifting focus from parties and money to people and merit. It operates based on three main principles:
Money in elections distorts representation.
Political insiders and the media disrupt the level playing field.
A free and equal process produces better candidates.
Each major party funnels millions into candidates to protect donor interests. Party leadership decides who gets funding and endorsements, with the result being candidates who reflect their interests. Thus, instead of reflecting the will of the people, our political system reflects the preferences of wealthy donors and partisan strategists. By contrast, a free and equal process facilitates selection from a broader pool of candidates so that the top contender truly represents their constituents. This process operates within existing frameworks, without the need for new laws, and adapts to different political environments.
Entry into the Two-Party System
In the current two-party system, the impact of free and equal candidate selection does not abolish major parties but shifts their gravitational center. Electing enough representatives through this process will deny either side a majority and force the election of the Speaker of the House to be made by the full chamber rather than by a single party caucus. Without a clear majority, traditional party leadership will need to negotiate with independents and moderates from across the aisle to elect a Speaker. This will result in a more centrist leader who can command bipartisan support, reducing the influence of ideologically extreme factions and promoting compromise. Although the traditional party establishments may not welcome these insurgents, their role in electing a centrist Speaker grants them leverage. The Speaker may reward them with committee assignments to further empower a coalition-oriented agenda.
A moderate Speaker of the House is more likely to appoint moderate Committee Chairs. It should be expected that a handful of seats on these committees would then be held by National Party members, which would prevent the typical party line vote - the two major parties would both be fighting to get National Party votes for or against legislation, giving Party members power.
Overall, this structure would force both parties to work together. With no single party able to govern alone, they would need to build durable coalitions around shared goals. This would produce legislation that better reflects a wider spectrum of the American electorate.
Transition to a Multi-Party System
As more representatives are elected through a free and equal process, they may begin forming independent legislative caucuses. At this stage, congressional elections will evolve into a multi-party system like the coalition-based governance of other democracies. The nominating process elevates candidates with broad community consensus, which appeals to the places where traditional party platforms tend to fall short, such as regions with ideological blends.
Caucuses can foster new collaboration between lawmakers previously divided by party, causing party whips to lose their traditional enforcement power. As members start to rely less on party money and more on public support, whips will find it harder to discipline members or maintain strict party-line votes. The balance of power will shift from party enforcers to issue-based coalitions and cross-partisan bargaining. These groups can operate independently or align with major parties to form governing coalitions.
Facing declining influence over candidate selection and message control, the major parties are forced to respond. Some may attempt to co-opt the public nominating process to stay relevant. This shift is not necessarily the end of parties but a redefinition: parties as loose networks of values and ideas rather than centralized power brokers. Parties continue to exist, but caucuses begin to shift the balance of power.
One possibility is a multi-party system with two robust free and equal caucuses - one center-red and one center-blue. This model echoes the Congress of the mid-20th century, when liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats played key roles in shaping legislation. Lawmakers routinely crossed party lines, and committee chairs reflected seniority more than partisanship.
Coalition governance starts to restore “place” as a driving force in national politics. Instead of partisan identity determining legislative behavior, geography (i.e. district needs, local economies, and regional cultures) takes precedence. A representative from a drought-stricken agricultural district, for instance, might align more closely with colleagues from similar regions regardless of party. They could form coalitions around shared material interests. This can encourage a broader range of legislation that amplifies the concerns of overlooked communities.
By breaking from rigid partisanship, this model encourages negotiations among place-based coalitions with overlapping goals. In this environment, representatives will start to coalesce into new caucuses, or existing caucuses will evolve, that reflect ideological nuance or regional interests.
Potential for a No-Party System
As free and equal processes impact traditional primaries, the system may transition into a no-party model. Voters select candidates based on ideas and values rather than party affiliation. The new ideological caucuses will not replicate the financial structures of legacy parties. The erosion of centralized campaign finance dissolves the incentive for party allegiance based on financial survival. In this new landscape, legislation begins to stand on its own.
The basis for political cohesion shifts from financial loyalty to shared principles. This makes possible the vision outlined by Lee Drutman of six or more ideological caucuses, such as the Labor Left or Libertarian Right. These caucuses can thrive without formal party discipline because their unity comes from shared priorities, not shared donors. Without party whips, legislators are freer to build coalitions across former partisan lines, resulting in a more dynamic Congress. Voters will see this as open negotiation among representatives bound by their districts, values, and coalitions.
When the pathway to power is no longer determined by money or party, but rather by public support, the rationale for existing campaign finance structures fades. At this stage, the question is no longer whether SuperPACs should be regulated but whether they are even necessary. The free and equal nominating tool has effectively replaced the traditional public primary.
Special interest groups will still spend money in politics, but the money is redirected. Rather than swaying individual lawmakers through donations or backroom deals, these groups must focus on persuading voters directly. This creates public accountability and pushes interest groups to earn support in the open marketplace of ideas. This model promises to reshape how power is distributed and what it accomplishes.
Challenges and Considerations
The model operates within the legal and institutional realities of the current system. It builds a parallel nominating infrastructure that works within the rules but outside party control. Rather than fighting the system head-on, the model takes an alternate route. Unlike reforms such as ranked-choice voting or independent redistricting, the model requires no new laws.
Some may argue that building a viable public nominating system is unrealistic, but that claim overlooks two core facts: (1) the cost of developing the platform is equivalent to a single competitive US House race, and (2) the technological and civic infrastructure already exists. We are not inventing a new form of government but giving voters a better tool to navigate the one we already have. The model is lightweight, scalable, and built for immediate adoption.
Still, there will be resistance. The two major parties will not accept a redistribution of power. They may deploy misleading narratives or pressure officials to slow adoption. But the strength of the model lies in its legitimacy: a transparent, citizen-driven nominating process that does not depend on partisan permission.
Importantly, while Wilson’s Fountain reduces the role of money in politics, implementation does require resources: outreach campaigns, secure digital infrastructure, and equitable access across regions. But for the cost of a single congressional race, we can seed a nationwide nominating system that reclaims the electoral process for the public.
Conclusion: A Scalable Vision for Democratic Renewal
James Wilson inspired this initiative as a Founding Father and early advocate for popular sovereignty. His belief that legitimate government arises from the will of the people is the foundation of this nominating system. Just as Wilson argued that members of Congress should represent their community’s values, this system empowers voters to shape leadership from the ground up.
The model adapts and evolves as we move from Two-Party to Multi-Party to No-Party governance. It is not a rejection of the system but a reinvention of who it works for. By removing money from the equation and returning nomination power to the public, the model invites us to imagine a democracy that works for everyone – not just political elites.