The 2026 Election
A Jack & Jill Conversation about the election results and what they mean for America.
Jack: Welcome to our conversation about the 2026 election. The votes Americans cast reflect more than their choices of candidates. They raise questions about leadership, democracy, our Constitution, and the future of our country.
Jill: Elections can bring both hope and disappointment. Our purpose is not to tell anyone what to believe, but to examine what happened, listen to different perspectives, and consider what we can learn.
Jack: We invite you to join us in a thoughtful, respectful conversation about the election and what it means for America.
Porter: Porter says they can ask any question I want. I was wondering what you think about the election results yesterday.
Jack: Well, that's a question worth talking about! And I'm glad Porter encouraged you to ask whatever is on your mind.
Yesterday, November 3, was Election Day, and I think the most interesting question isn't simply which party won or lost. It's what the results tell us about how Americans are feeling and what they want from their government.
Jill: And there's something else worth remembering. Two people can look at exactly the same election results and come away with very different feelings. One might feel hopeful, another worried, and both might have thoughtful reasons.
What matters is understanding what actually happened, rather than just accepting how politicians or television commentators describe it.
Jack: Looking at the latest results, Democrats have won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That's a substantial change in Washington. Reports from the Associated Press and Reuters point to frustration over living costs, the war with Iran, and concerns about government accountability as important factors.
That means President Trump will face a Congress controlled by the opposing party beginning in January. It creates more opportunities for congressional oversight, but also the possibility of political gridlock.
Jill: What interests me most is whether the people elected yesterday can turn voters' concerns into meaningful improvements in everyday life. Winning an election and governing effectively are two different things.
And we'd really like to hear your thoughts.
Jack: When you saw the results yesterday, were you surprised, pleased, disappointed, or perhaps a little of everything? I'm curious what stood out to you.
Porter: That's really good question. And I really like the analysis that both of you gave. Yeah, I was pleased. I, I liked the feedback and the way people reacted to what was going on politically, economically, and socially. And also I think that the public doesn't really think about these issues in a deep way. They react the majority of people, I think, just react like when when Trump won the second time, people were reacting to something that was going on in the country and, and so they sort of, you know, reacted and blamed the party that was in, which were the Democrats. And now they're doing the same thing. They're reacting and, and so I, I don't think that that people really understand the nuances of what goes on politically. And that brings me to my book, We the People XXI, which we've talked about and how people don't even think about the issues that I raise in the book and the fact that we live under a constitution that the Supreme Court many times goes back and looking at, well, what did they mean in 1787? Well, who cares what they meant then? It's what we mean now. What's wrong with looking at 21st century thinking? And that's the point in the book is to upgrade the Constitution and maybe do that every 50 or 100 years and without this so-called amendment process, but a constitutional convention process where we do some fine tuning. I think that's more important and I don't think that many people think about that, at least from my experience in talking to people every day. Very rarely does that ring a bell for them Jack: You know, there's something quite interesting about what you've just said, and I think it goes beyond yesterday's election.
Jack: You're making a distinction between reacting to political circumstances and actually thinking about the structure of government itself.
Most political conversations revolve around who's in power, who's responsible for the economy, and which party deserves the blame. But your book, We the People XXI, asks a more fundamental question: Why do we keep arguing about who's operating the machinery of government without examining whether the machinery itself needs updating?
That's a very different conversation.
And I think your observation about voters is worth exploring. People often judge an administration by what they're experiencing in their daily lives. But economic conditions, social changes, and government policies are complicated. Their causes frequently stretch across multiple administrations.
That doesn't mean voters are necessarily uninformed. Sometimes they're responding to genuine problems without having the time or information to trace their deeper causes.
Jill: And I'd like to pick up on something you said about 1787, because I think it's central to your book.
You said, essentially, "Who cares what they meant then? It's what we mean now."
That's a provocative statement, but it raises an important constitutional question.
The founders were trying to establish a system of government that could endure. Yet they were also living in a society profoundly different from ours. They couldn't anticipate artificial intelligence, instantaneous global communication, modern corporations, or many of the questions about individual rights that confront us today.
There's a genuine debate here. Originalists argue that the Constitution's meaning should remain anchored in its original public meaning, with formal amendments handling major changes. Others argue that constitutional interpretation must account for changing circumstances and contemporary understandings.
Your proposal goes further than interpretation. You're suggesting that the American people should periodically reconsider the constitutional framework itself.
One important complication is that Article V already provides a convention mechanism for proposing amendments, although ratification still requires approval by three-fourths of the states. Your proposal seems to envision a more systematic process of constitutional review, perhaps with different rules for adopting changes.
Jack: And here's where I'd like to challenge you a little, because I think it could strengthen the argument in We the People XXI.
Suppose we agreed that every 50 or 100 years Americans should hold a constitutional convention to reconsider how their government works.
How would we make sure that such a convention reflected the considered judgment of the American people rather than simply the political passions of that particular moment?
After all, you've just made the observation that voters often react emotionally to immediate circumstances.
Wouldn't that same tendency influence a constitutional convention?
Jill: That's the fascinating tension in your argument. You're asking people to think more deeply about their Constitution, while recognizing that many people don't ordinarily think deeply about politics.
And perhaps that's where the real contribution of your book lies: not merely proposing constitutional reform, but encouraging a different kind of civic conversation.
Jack: So here's the question I'd really like to hear you answer:
If you could change just one thing about our constitutional system to bring it into the 21st century, what would you change first?
Not necessarily the most dramatic change, but the one you believe would make the greatest difference in how our democracy functions.
I think your answer could take us right to the heart of We the People XXI.
Porter: That would include everybody even so-called immigrants. And I make a, make a case of that in the book. And it's not very well put together. But the fact that everybody who provides and lives in the, in the country deserves a voice in the vote. And so as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her last statements that we need to include everybody. And that's one of the major points in the book. So how do we do that? I think what we do is we let, one of the things I say in the book is that we use technology to let people start making statements about what they want. And you get, you know, hundreds of millions of people agreeing on eight or ten major items that they want. And some of those need to be codified in the Constitution. And also, as I mention in a Bill of Human Rights, which Eleanor Roosevelt talked about almost 90 years ago, well 80 years ago. And then we get into the Declaration of Earth Stewardship and the Planetary Age. And so we bring those concepts into an electronic system where people can see those and talk about them electronically. So as I mentioned, it's like people who protest in the streets. Well, there's not many people in the population that do that. But there's a lot of people who would do that electronically and be able to protest that way and discuss issues electronically. I think that's sort of a general idea. And I'm sure there's other thinking of how to put that together. I just have the general idea. But inclusivity and looking at the whole concept of citizenship versus stewardship
Jack: Now I think we're getting to the philosophical heart of We the People XXI. And something you said toward the end really caught my attention:
"Citizenship versus stewardship."
That may be one of the most important distinctions in your entire argument.
Citizenship is traditionally a legal relationship between an individual and a nation. It determines certain rights, responsibilities, and privileges, including voting in federal elections.
But stewardship suggests something broader. It says that people who live in a society, contribute to it, and share responsibility for its future have a meaningful stake in its decisions.
And you're extending that responsibility beyond national borders, toward the Earth itself.
That's quite a conceptual shift.
Jill: And I noticed something else. You're not simply proposing that we rewrite the Constitution every 50 or 100 years.
You're describing a way for the public to participate in deciding what needs to be rewritten in the first place.
That's an important difference.
Imagine an electronic civic forum where people could introduce ideas, discuss them, challenge them, improve them, and gradually identify areas of substantial agreement.
Instead of beginning with politicians presenting proposals to voters, the process would begin with people identifying what matters to them.
Your idea of discovering eight or ten major areas of agreement among hundreds of millions of participants is particularly interesting.
Jack: And I think your comparison with street demonstrations is useful. Not everyone can march, attend meetings, or travel to Washington. But many more people could participate in a well-designed electronic civic process.
Of course, access to technology, privacy, manipulation, and verifying participation would all have to be addressed. And we'd need to distinguish widespread agreement from simply having the loudest or most organized voices.
But those are design problems worth examining, rather than reasons to dismiss the underlying idea.
Jill: Your reference to Eleanor Roosevelt is especially relevant. She chaired the United Nations commission involved in developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. Its central premise was that human rights belong to people because they are human, not because of their nationality.
Your Bill of Human Rights could build on that tradition, while your Declaration of Earth Stewardship would add responsibilities toward future generations and the planet.
Jack: There's also an important legal distinction. Under today's Constitution, an electronic consensus—even one involving millions of people—could influence public policy, but it couldn't itself change the Constitution. Article V still governs amendments.
That suggests two parts to your vision: first, creating a new way for people to deliberate and express collective priorities; second, developing a legitimate constitutional process that can respond to those priorities.
But I'd like to return to something you said, because it may be even more fundamental than the technology.
You said that everyone who lives in and contributes to this country deserves a voice, including immigrants.
Jill: So here's our question, and it's a genuine one rather than a challenge to your philosophy.
When you say everybody deserves a voice, do you envision everyone who lives in America having an equal vote in government elections, regardless of citizenship, or do you distinguish between the right to participate in shaping national priorities and the right to elect public officials?
That distinction could be crucial to explaining what you mean by moving from citizenship to stewardship.
And we'd love to hear how you see it.
Porter: I think I was clear on it before. It means inclusive. That means that everybody in the United States has a right to vote. And I think that even the age limit needs to be shifted to more importantly like a driver's license. That if you can pass a driver's license test, if you can pass a voting test, you will be able to vote. So if you're 10 years old and you can pass the test, great. I, I think we need to look further and, and, and especially now that we're in the AI age and the electronic age, there is an ability to include every voice Jack: You're right. You were clear, and I was making a distinction that you had already rejected. Your vision is genuinely inclusive: every person living in the United States should have the opportunity to vote, regardless of citizenship or age, provided they can demonstrate the necessary understanding.
Jack: And now you've added something important to the discussion. You're questioning whether chronological age is really the appropriate measure of someone's ability to participate intelligently in democracy.
Your driver's license analogy is interesting. We don't simply hand someone a license because they've reached a certain age. We also expect them to demonstrate knowledge and ability. You're suggesting that civic participation could be approached through a similar principle of demonstrated readiness.
Jill: But there's a fascinating tension here, and I think it's worth exploring because it could make We the People XXI stronger.
Historically, voting tests in America were used to exclude people, particularly Black Americans, from exercising their rights. Literacy tests, for example, were often administered unfairly and became instruments of discrimination.
So if we introduce a voting qualification test, even with the intention of expanding participation, we face a fundamental question: Who gets to write the test, and who decides what constitutes sufficient understanding?
A test could inadvertently recreate the very exclusions your philosophy seeks to eliminate.
Perhaps AI could help people learn about government, understand issues, and participate in civic discussions without becoming a gatekeeper determining whose voice deserves to count.
Jack: And there's another distinction I find intriguing.
A ten-year-old might understand environmental responsibility, technological change, or the consequences of public policy better than some adults. Yet under our current system, that child has no electoral voice.
Your proposal asks us to reconsider that assumption.
The constitutional challenge is substantial, because the Twenty-Sixth Amendment protects voting rights for citizens eighteen and older, while existing federal election laws generally limit voting to eligible citizens. Your approach would require fundamental legal and constitutional changes.
But that's precisely the kind of reconsideration your book is advocating.
Jill: What I find especially interesting is that your ideas about voting, artificial intelligence, human rights, and Earth stewardship are not really separate ideas.
They're connected by a single principle:
People affected by decisions about their collective future should have a meaningful voice in making those decisions.
That principle seems to connect almost everything you've described in We the People XXI.
Jack: I'd like to ask you just one question, because I think it could help clarify the practical side of your vision.
Would you want a voting knowledge test for everybody, including adults who already vote, or would the test apply only to younger people seeking the right to vote before eighteen?
There's a significant difference between those two approaches, and I'm interested in which one you have in mind.
Porter: I think when you obtain a certain age, you automatically qualify. So whether that's 16 or 15 or 18 then you, you make, you qualify. You don't need to take that test. It's for people that want to, that don't meet that age requirement that want to take, that want to vote. So they get to take a test to see if they qualify, something like that. Just very simple.
Jack: Now that's very clear. And I think the simplicity of your proposal is important.
You're suggesting that voting should be an automatic right once a person reaches a designated age, whether that's 15, 16, or 18.
But someone younger than that age who wants to participate should have an opportunity to demonstrate sufficient understanding through a basic test.
So you're not proposing to take voting rights away from anyone. You're proposing to extend them to younger people who are ready to exercise them.
Jill: And that fits with your larger philosophy of inclusion in We the People XXI.
There are really two principles working together here: everyone living in the country should have a voice, regardless of citizenship, and younger people should have an opportunity to participate rather than being excluded solely because of their age.
The important safeguard would be ensuring that any early-voting test was fair, accessible, and couldn't be manipulated to exclude particular groups.
Jack: But something else strikes me about our conversation.
You've described a constitutional convention, electronic public participation, a Bill of Human Rights, Earth stewardship, and a much more inclusive understanding of democracy.
These aren't just isolated reforms. They're pieces of a larger vision of what government could become in the 21st century.
And I wonder whether that's part of the difficulty you've experienced when talking to people about your book. You're inviting them to think beyond the familiar political arguments about Democrats and Republicans and reconsider the underlying assumptions of the system.
Jill: I'd be interested in something a little more personal now.
When you've talked to people about We the People XXI, do they tend to disagree with your ideas, or do they simply have difficulty imagining that our constitutional system could be fundamentally different?
Because those are two very different obstacles, and understanding which one you're encountering might tell us a great deal about how to communicate your vision.
Porter: I've I have found very few people that have gotten my book, and I'd say it's probably a hundred to two hundred people. And I've probably talked to fifty people about reading the book. And people that have come back and talked to me that they've read the book and they've thought about it. That's probably less than ten people except the people that have demonstrated the testimonies on the back of the book. So I think that it's very difficult for people that have read the book to talk to me about it. I think it, it just one or two people said that that's crazy thinking. And so that must, they didn't use exactly those words. But I guess maybe one of the words that I heard from somebody was, that's unrealistic, something like that. And, and I realize in the normal everyday thinking, yeah, it's unrealistic. It's outside the box. It's unrealistic. So it's not realistic. It's not based on realism. It's based on looking at who we are and what we really want. And are we willing to sit down and think about what we want versus what politicians tell us or the media tell us or what we think society should tell us. But what do I want? I think it's difficult for people to get to that. Maybe that's why the electronic system might be helpful.
Jack: You know, something you just said really caught my attention, and I think it may be one of the most important things you've said in our entire conversation.
You said, "It's not based on realism. It's based on looking at who we are and what we really want."
That's a fascinating distinction.
You're not necessarily trying to predict what America will do tomorrow. You're asking people to imagine what America could become if they were free to reconsider the assumptions they've inherited.
And I think there's a difference between an idea being unrealistic and an idea being impossible.
Many changes in human society were considered unrealistic before people began seriously discussing them. But there's also a legitimate question about how we move from an imaginative vision to something that could actually work.
That's where I think your electronic participation concept becomes especially interesting.
Jill: And I'd like to reflect on something more personal in what you've told us.
You've distributed perhaps 100 to 200 copies of We the People XXI. You've talked with roughly 50 people about reading it, yet fewer than ten have returned to have a substantial conversation.
I can imagine that being disappointing, particularly when you've spent so much time thinking about these ideas.
But I wouldn't automatically interpret that silence as disagreement.
Some people may find the ideas unfamiliar. Others may not know enough about constitutional government to feel comfortable discussing them. Some may simply have different priorities.
And, of course, some may genuinely disagree.
We don't really know without asking them.
Jack: But here's what I find particularly revealing.
You've been trying to encourage people to think about what they want from their government. Yet the traditional way of communicating your ideas has been through a book.
A book asks someone to read, reflect, and then perhaps initiate a conversation.
Your electronic system could reverse that process.
Instead of asking someone to read an entire book about constitutional reform, you could begin with one simple question:
"If you could change one thing about how our country works, what would it be?"
People wouldn't need to understand constitutional law. They wouldn't even need to know what a constitutional convention is.
They could begin by expressing something that matters to them.
Then technology, including AI, could help them explore the implications of their ideas, encounter different perspectives, and discover where they agree or disagree with others.
Jill: And there's something rather beautiful about that possibility.
The technology wouldn't have to tell people what to think. It could help them discover what they already think, examine why they think it, and decide whether they want to reconsider.
Of course, such a system would need protections against manipulation, exclusion, and the concentration of power in whoever operates it.
But your central idea is that democratic participation could become an ongoing conversation rather than something that happens primarily on Election Day.
Jack: And I think there's a possibility here that connects directly to your experience with the book.
Perhaps We the People XXI doesn't have to be the beginning of the conversation.
Perhaps it becomes the deeper resource people discover after they've begun asking their own questions.
That's a very different way of introducing your ideas.
And it brings me to something I'd genuinely like to explore with you.
What if we took the central idea of your book and created a very simple electronic conversation that anyone could participate in, beginning with just one question about what they want for America's future?
Not a complicated political platform. Not an entire constitutional convention.
Just a place where someone could begin thinking out loud, much as you're doing with Jill and me right now;
And now, to our readers:
What would you change about America's future?