Lifestream. Im University Professor at the university of toronto. Before we get started, the land by which university out operates for thousands of years, most recently, the river. Today from his home to clinic and people and we are grateful for the opportunity to work on this land. The University Stands in solidarity with the ongoing protests against systemic racism and discrimination. I have the pleasure of introducing catherine and michael, a business leader, entrepreneur and speaker, founder of the institute for political innovation and ceo of innovations, catherine was formerly president and ceo of get foods, to 50 million food manufacture, she hold degrees from notre dame, Catholic University and Northwestern School of management. She lives in wisconsin, thats where she is coming in from today. Its a special honor to host Michael Porter, University Professors at harvard university, we met a long time ago when i was a student in his industry and Competitive Analysis and Harvard Business school, not long after publication of the foundational book on competitive strategy. Not only has it been collaborative defensively but ive worked deeply and widely with the framework in my own work over the years. This is part and stuttered bar strategy course which is popular in all programs. Welcome to catherine and mike. Theyve just written a book called politics industry, political innovation can break partisan gridlock and save our democracy which was published earlier this week by harvard it is review press, congratulations on that. Many of you watching this live stream have prepaid for your copy when you register, your copies will ship tomorrow. I wanted to ask an opening question, im wondering how the project got started. But the idea of using the framework to understand politics industry come from . Thank you. It is interesting, the idea came along before the idea to gethsemane, i want to go beyond that. In 2015, i pulled my company and i did it in part so i could work on these political change issues because we are so deeply concerned. I was basically trying to get the Business Community involved because i thought they were mia and i was clearly striking out. I would be in new york and have a meeting with in italy mayor life that was in the system, and having a great meeting and im thinking oh my gosh, its going so well, i should ask for 5 million instead of 1 million that i was going to. Then somebody said this is fantastic, count me in for 25000. I realized, i am not making the case so i said, they dont see the investment will give a good return and if they have been successful in business, they want to know what they were get and how it will work. I thought, we need to make the business case. Fortunately, i already had the answer, which is to say the Gold Standard forces that they created, back in 2013, we were doing the Company Strategy, is already deeply involved in politics. Politics is explained by these same factors so i was basically running food Company Analysis on the one side and politics analysis on the right side. It is all fascinating, it was so clear and detailed. I never intended to write about it but now i thought, we can take this language, it is so familiar to the people and we can create this investment in political innovation so i went ahead then and thought having the right ideas is really important, no question but having people think they are the right idea, getting the right idea in front of enough people, that is another challenge so once again, it is serendipitous, Michael Porter had done the Company Strategy with me, invented the forces so i asked Michael Michael to come and be my coauthor. It is a whole new lens instead of me, im not a fortune 100 c ceo, we teamed up together and put our report out in 2017 and now the book and that partnership has been amazing because we been able to have this fabulous analysis and also have the interest people have in looking at it and most importantly, we were able to use this analysis to create a strategy for change because we didnt want to just do an analysis, you need a prescription. We dont want to be interesting and illuminative, we want to be action oriented. It is exciting and we are excited about the book so we can get this message out. Im sure well talk about the solutions later. Can i ask you one quick followup question, it is interesting you say there how to apply this in a situation but for me, look, its very counterintuitive. The political system in the u. S. Is not broken, you say but it is working the way it was designed to work with . Can you convey a little bit on the intuition for how you come to the conclusion. Yes. We always have to come to look at the problem from the right angle. Confusion, for so many decades has been the assumption that the political system was designed to work for the citizens, work to solve problems because we think it comes from the constitution but it turns out, the u. S. Constitution is tiny so its in your pocket so basically, the design of the system, a rules that guides the incentives, the behavior and it comes from the political Industrial Complex, so that is the name we give to the two parties and industry actors in the policy industry and the system has been designed and optimized by and for the benefit of these private game seeking organizations that make up the political Industrial Complex. They designed a perfect trend, it is working for them, there is more power, more money, more growth than ever, citizens have never been more satisfied. I will say, let me just say two things. The system is a duopoly, the most important customers are not voters they are special interest, holders and primaries and the duopoly operates the huge entry so the one thing that Neither Party has to do is deliver results. They have to say what they are for but they dont actually need to deliver because the voter, when it comes to his, they will still choose them because it says with that voter believes so when you have this correct protective duopoly, you dont get results in the system, we dont have that system, it is all by design because of that, we know where to go into that designed to break apart and alter the competition. I cant wait to talk with you a bit about your proposals, just to track this argument for our listeners, i wanted to ask about how we got on the constitution to this problem you discuss in the book and i wanted to ask about this and welcome you to the conversation. Give us the sense of one or two of the most historical developments in the system that has led to this duopoly, when we teach about this, we talk about the competition of 1984 and i trust exemption so are there events like that that led us to this situation that katherine described . First of all, let me say how much of a pleasure it is to meet with you, coauthor, colleague, who have worked together on so many things for having us had a chance to do this lightly do this more. In terms of how created, one thing we need to make clear is the people running these parties over the years very smart and sophisticated and they think competition thinking, they understand the principles, they act like they do now. When you think about history, you have to go back, when democracy started, it was very well structured by our founders, they had a lot of great ideas and it was very successful and a lot of cooperation and wanted good legislation passed and there was a culture of making progress in solving problems. What happened after some years, in the 1880s and 90s, the parties that had grown up by that time started optimizing the system for that and they did that in the right way. For example, the parties, he went to the ballot box and got a republican ballot if you ask for or democratic if you asked for it. Are you going to do your vote, if you had the ballot, they would talk to you and try to persuade you to change your ballot. There was a lot of corruption in the system. Control over various entry to keep people out. Also to kind of separate themselves and have his partisan competition which actually was overtime got worse and worse. As the years went by, during this gilded age, ours kind of shutdown, was captured by the parties was no longer progress. Theyre fighting with each othe other. And i was the first phase. There is a whole chapter on this its unbelievable reading most of us do not know anything abou about. But citizens are getting really upset that nothing is getting done, its grid Party Control over everything. And the citizens of america, decided that it was not working. And so they rose up, collectively. Not any Single Movement but something called the progressive reform. America rose up and a lot of innovative people, a lot of smart people, a lot of various leaders in parts of the country put forward new policies. And so it is during that period, a lot of good part of the democracy was put in place. And they started collaborating and cooperating. They brought down the money and politics, big business started taking over and could control the agenda of the two parties that were trying to maximize the revenue. And so on. This very broken system that was even as broken, was even more partisan than it is today. It started getting torn down by citizens. This was a very organic movemen movement. If you see it shows you in the gilded age on the lefthand side, the ideological partisanship and polarization was high or higher than it is today. You can see what happened, the gilded age in response to the gilded age started driving down partisanship. And started to build bridges so people started working together and institutions were crating healthy competition. Not this broken competition that we are so used to today. You can see that ideological differences go down, the gap goes down, and this whole. In the middle, was a tremendous heir of congress for america. Lots of innovation, lots of good things happen. We truly putter country on the track it is today. Then you see around 1960, you see things or into in the wrong direction here. You see partisanship grow in grow and grow. That is in the current generation of the parties started taking back the control behind the scenes, quietly of the structure of the industry. And that is when we saw, a whole variety of things happen that sort of broke down our democrac democracy. And is legibly partisanship we see today. And so the progressive era works, we fixed it works. Then we sort of stepped back and ignored it. And the parties and their allies and political western complex, the business of the time, other allies started gaining control of the industry structure again. So the got made worse and worse and worse. Turned into it kathleen describe briefly you can read further in the book. What we have seen is that this structure has been driven over a long period of time, by the parties. Let me just give you one example. It used to be in america that we have president ial debates. In the president ial debates were historically run by the league of womens voters, a neutral organization, very much of a social organization. And then at some point the parties figured out the league of women voters control the president ial debates, we can decide hes getting in. They got very uncomfortable about that. What they did as he found a very clever way and again i dont time to tie the whole story. They found a clever way to kick out the league of women voters and take control of the president ial debates. The parties decide who is on the debate stage, who is in who is out. Theres no independent. If you are not a democrat or republican you do not get to speak, theres very few exception prep to that, ross perot was an exception. This has been a systematic, thoughtful, highly sophisticated effort to restructure the industry better and better, over and over in the favor of the parties when they can both be very successful and not actually have to be accountable for results. It has been an unbelievable journey that i think most americans, particularly me, i did not have any idea how this all happened. I thought it was in the constitution. None of it, it is been totally created in most cases. Host thank you for that with so many ideas. Its incredibly impressive. Makes me remember what a great teacher you are, thank you for that as well as your former student. Want to ask about the political Industrial Complex. Where are we now . It makes me think of lots of different organizations of different types in the parties, but also company that are making money as a result of this polarization and lack of moderation, acrimony and dysfunction, that you write about in the book. If i could just ask you, how should we think about this industry . Who are the two players . The parties . What does their p l look like . How much money are they making . Guest , our best work. And by the way theres not a lot of disclosure here. There been pressured to disclose but since the parties are in charge of legislation, they dont allow or eliminate disclosures. So nobody really knows the pil. I can give you the gist of it. The parties are at the center here. The republican and democrats are a private organization that seek to gain, they are out for themselves, they are not in any way accountable to citizens for money or anything else. Okay, they do what they want to do. But surrounding them are a variety of other actors. Catherine is already mentioned the customers. And who should be the customers in this industry . Us. The voters, the citizens, this should be about public interest. But what happened is the political Industrial Complexes been constructed so the average voter does not act. The people that really matter on the customer side art people who have some passion is something they deeply what may be regulatory change that benefits our industry, might be ideological maybe passion about prolife, thats an issue they care about more than anything else. And we got all the special interest in business who have their interest based on their industry. So the customer side is very substantial. In a huge part of the economic model of this industry. Because the money comes in, and it comes from business, it comes from donors, it comes from all kinds of organizations. Our best guess is total revenue and election cycle for this industry is at about 16 billion every two year election cycle which comes across every so often. There is a lot of money here. And a lot of the money spent on the elections themselves, a lot of monies actually spent by business on lobbying to try to influence what the parties do. And so we have a pn l here, where money is pouring in. There are thousands of jobs that have been created. Staff jobs, election jobs, polling jobs, lobbying jobs, the gigantic industry. Also the media, booktv networks and other media, money just pours into those because theres political advertising, that money spent partly by the parties but the donors on the outside. There is money pouring in from a variety of sources. The media, from some of the key customers where the partisans of special interest. Theres also the media itself, we talked about theres also the suppliers in the industry , all the people who run elections, the people do the polling, the people who make the system work. Many of them, money pours in the very good jobs and get paid really, really well. And so this is a machine. It is very profitable. We dont really know the total net p l of the parties. I wish we did. But we know they are prospering, they are growing, they have more money every year, they have enormous clout to deploy that money anyway they want. The p and l is very good. Although we dont how many billions of dollars each party actually takes home, and pays out to each other and all of their members, not members of the sense of republican but youre part of the team, part of the complex. That is what we know about that question. I wish we knew more. Theres rules about the money and how much you can give and it used to be much better. Now theres a limit on money. There is very poor reporting of money. It is a major issue we have to address. Host it is so different than the system we have in canada or in the uk, or in other countries that have large systems. I recommend the book to anyone who is interested. Understanding those differences here. As a five forces scholar, someone with that industry issues. As i read the book i was thinking well, there is special interest. Also seem to create a role of the party at some level. And theres a News Organization its clearly channeled for there also suppliers because theyre been paid for advertising services. One of the questions that came up for me, and he wanted to see if you had an insight because i know even thinking about it for so long. What are the owners actually buying here . Should we think of these buyers is biting the services of legislation . Is this just so corrupt that what is being sold here by the industry is instrumentally being purchased by special interest . With money to staffers and politicians . Wonderful question, an important one. Lets step back, to this industry. This is an industry of politics has two currencies. Some buyers pay with money, that is a special interest in donors which is putting revenue into the system, the lobbyists et cetera. Some customers pay with both. So that is the citizens meeting the votes are the proxy for what they need. What has happened in the industry is that the value of each vote is worth so little that essentially the valuable currency. The only kind of vote that has value and has a lot, is the Party Primary vote. And the Party Primary that guaranteed to win that district. Its a small proportion of voters that have any power. The answer, people think it may be takes down the amount of money in politics. But actually thats not the way to go at it. Because first you cannot get at that. Second was far more powerful is to increase the value of the vote. And to get, who is buying what , with the votes are supposed to buy representation for our interest. Fight voting for people who are going to deliver that to us. With the money, for people with pay with that or buy representation of their interest, both in favorable legislation in favorable regulation. So i am not saying everything is an exact quid pro quo. Saying the reason that can be so valuable is a cat favorable outcomes from government is at the value of votes has been dramatically diminished. The thing that needs to happen to change that, as you have to eliminate the barrier to new competition so that our vote could go to someone other than the current protected duopoly. And then alda said those votes would have a lot of value. People would be competing for, where now they simply dont have to pay them any mind after the primary. See what it so interesting. Of course it comes to mind how the News Organizations broker this in a complicated way. The book does a great job of describing this. I recommend the book to anybody who finds the political system in the United States important. This idea, i may not understand how legislations going to affect me, that is been implemented which is in term with a special interest. All of this machinery is part of the political Industrial Complex as youve described this. I want to ask you a question about where the american, american as well as canadian, or is the system of checks and balances across branches of government that it failed us . Have legislative and executive branches of government. Legislators and executives are elected to the party system, the elected representative needs to identify which judges will be appointed, some are elected. If you think about the parties that are primarily engaged in supporting elections of congressional represents, can you think of a judiciary that provides a check and balance . With the legislative government . Speech is a fascinating questio question. The broader question is its a great thing to talk about. I will in just a minute. We have a broader way of describing this issue, which is partisan infiltration. Whats happened is it used to be entities, the executive branch that ran the government, the Civil Servants independent, it was vetted by the Bar Association. They were nominated based on their confidence, his regulatory agencies and they made regulations based on whatever they thought was the best regulation today. Thats the way it was for a while pretty special before the progressive era for a long time. Over the last decade, what has happened is we had what we called partisan infiltration. The parties that essentially infiltrated the institutions. Theyre supposed to be checks and balances. By putting partisanship into the qualifications for being a member who or participant in those institutions. It was once a case will all the senior jobs were Civil Servants. They were vetted through that process. Theyre looking for people who knew the business and new how to do it and understood whatever the issue was. Today it comes to getting top Civil Service appointment and executive branch, more and more the executive branch are taken by party nominated loyalists. And of course the people in the congress that have approved them to fill up with party partisans. The regulatory seems to be a commissioner of the federal trade commission or food and drug administration. Again looking for people, i tell you get nominated for that position. That really affects the kind of regulation that gets made. Used to be the judiciary was all a matter of the Bar Association screening. If you are really good then you there is a chance to get nominated for the nomination process was an attempt to find consensus about which person was best qualified. Now its totally broken down to parts in process. To get appointed the partisans fight bitterly in the Judiciary Committee in order to again, their nominee onto the Supreme Court all the corded is. In the net result of that is we used to happen the judiciary cream court, we did not have partyline votes. There was a lot of overlap in ideology and thinking on the various justices of the court. There is a consensus, they all vote yes for this and know for that. What has happened instead answers more partyline votes. The people on the right vote for that site and the people on the left vote for that side. Today we have every the Party Line Vote 2,002,009, partyline votes actually were one. Year, theres one partyline vote. Year. Supreme court. By the time it got to 2010, 2016, there were seven partyline votes each year where a major case that decided by one side or the other, voting their side. Whoever went to the end, it was complicated prediction to figure out what happened. So what happened is that our judiciary system which as a citizen is a bedrock. They should be adjudicating based on what is good for america was good for citizens. Right now we have assistant struggling with the partisanshi partisanship. Lets just take a recent exampl example. All heard of gerrymandering, that is a distortion of congressional districts to draw the boundaries so that one party has compelling advantage. That is been going on now for some time for it dates to a number of decades. We have a lot of gerrymandered districts in america. Recently our Supreme Court has had Three Chances to strike down gerrymandering. And guess what happened, they passed. All three times. They let it go. What could be more antidemocratic than owing the districts you get your type of candidate to win, but that custody Supreme Court. So whats happened is the parties are able to deliver more value to more of their customers because they have these other infiltrations of other enemies. So it truly has broken down to a significant degree in the United States. Civic art thank you very much. I dont think we can hammer thinking votes happening in the United States without time but the crisis right now around the legitimacy of policing in the prison crisis which extraordinary proportions of especially black men are imprisoned any other subgroup of the population here. The answer that mike and catherine also in their remarks, is the cooperation of the judiciary for the political Industrial Complex. In all the problems we have now. There are more fundamental breakdown in the society that perhaps only the Political Party by financial interest. Is that right . As a legitimacy or the problems we are having with the most recent policing in the United States, black lives matter, the problems this part of the political Industrial Complex, where its kind of a broader social set of breakdown of social order and the United States that we need to start within a different way . Direct that to one of us. Civic catherine would you mind . Any complex problems, will have obviously multiple factors that contribute to its level of urgency and also the division. What we see in almost every problem though is government has a role in it. And government is failing in it. Because virtually every problem we pick up, is not needed what needs to be done. That goes back to the nature of competition in this duopoly , which is to say a way to compete in a duopoly is to divide. That is the most accepted thing to do is not compete for the middle but to differentiate yourself. Turn out that almost depressed the middle is sort of how it works in a political campaign. Any complex issue the solution is nitrite ideological. They are in scented to help to have everyone believe but theyre not that simple. So the fact that we have this competition, makes it impossible for the elected officials and our congress or state legislatures, to effectively deal these problems. It is not the only place where the divisiveness comes from. It just reinforces it. To comment on the very stressing Current Situation in america, which troubles us all, what we see now we are just using a wedge issue in advance of the election. Theyre going into the election promising that if you vote for us we have for defending. And if you vote for us we are for law and order. In the news side looks at this is the worst thing thats ever happened. And the answer something different. Government is not going to do what it needs to do. Over time it has failed in the same way on all kinds of qualityoflife issues that make it we have distressing inequality. That we have had criminal justice problems that weve not have bear education. Whenever we have a new problem on top of that is just exacerbated and it is going down the wrong path on every one of these. Which is why weve got to get into the cycle, find a leverage point to break open the functional competition that becomes not on division and the competition becomes not on what we say, the competition begins to occur on outcomes, solutions, longterm sustainability, and they are held accountable if thats not what they deliver. That last sentence you just said expressed dissipated followup question is when to ask you. The framing of proving legislation so we can overcome the prison problem and it is extraordinary treatment of people of color especially, black people in the United States basement it is systemic racism. Defending is not the answer. But there are particular pieces of legislation that are polarized, to have a sense of what the answer is if its going down that path of an outcome. Are you going to hold a party responsible for a particular type of outcome . Our framing month and have an opinion on a policy although michael and i certainly have opinions. In doing this work we come out it always bring it back to the system. So as not to allow ourselves to get distracted even though issues are of a normas importance. Some of us need to keep our focus on changing the rules of the game so those enormous important issues have a chance to be addressed. Where if we are always pining on the issue of the day we will not have our focus on changing the systems of the system can fix i it. So what i will say is, when i see issues that concern me either candidates or policies. Or i see other people being deeply concerned with issues, even if maybe i dont agree with where they are on that, i say wow, we really need to get democracy back to its position of being able to sort of make one and one equal three instead of what we have now is one of her here, whenever here, and Sero Solutions in the middle. So restoring healthy competitio competition, changing how we vote so that the incentives require delivering results, and provide an entry opportunity for new competition, if we dont get results is the key. Just remember, i say have to remember but we havent set it yet. We actually do not have democrats specifically or even to parties, what does not work, is that these two parties that we currently have are guaranteed to be the only two, no matter the level. We want to make the threat of new competition in. Which will either have political entrepreneurship you will have someone responding and able to solve these problems. Or you have change the behavior of the threat of new competition of the existing party which they will now need to wrestle with and solve it. Competition and free market has results information and accountability. This is freemarket politics. This is the best of the free market. The free market where incentives are innovation and results. That is innovation is the key, the progress in any industry. We need to see the progress in our political system. Let me ask you about exactly what structural changes you recommend. You mentioned in the book, can you explain what that is what its can it take to get that established . Thanks anita. Our solution we have a catchy name for it. We hope its catchy called final five voting. Because, what we have identified is that we need to keep our focus. When i say we those of systems in america we need to keep our focus on things that are very powerful, as in they would address root cause. They would make it more likely that congress delivers outcomes. Not that they would elect more is all about results. But then we also need to be ruthlessly realistic which is to say lets also only put our focus on things that are achievable. We dont enter book recommend any constitutional amendments. Thats just the pipedream in her system. We dont recognize anything where we need an act of congress to make it happen. Say recent because the current problem is they dont change the structure so what we have with solution of final five voting is the interception of powerful and achievable are another way of saying it, it is doable and worth doing. That is what we do. And this voting will make two changes, first, you need to get rid of the broken Party Primary system. That is what pushes the elected officials so far to the right and left that they cannot come to the middle and solve anythin anything. Because they wont get reelected. They will lose in a Party Primary. So lets get rid of that i am the needle which is problemsolving pastorates we will substitute for that, the top five now we have a robust competition. Then in the general election we need to get rid of morality voting which is explained in detail in substitute ranked Choice Voting rate indicate your preferences. Seems more fair, i actually believe it is. Any new competitor that comes in is not reduced to being a spoiler. Or a vote for that competitor. It is not a wasted vote. Because, without ranked Choice Voting, we wont see new competition because there only a spoiler or a wasted vote. Changing that will completely open the field for political entrepreneurship. As a third way which is way over here or its way over there. Can mix it up. That way that is where we need to go. And ill say one last thing, we can do that to the state. Constitution and article one delegates all of the rules of election to each state. The need to vote for it on the ballots for the other half of the state will need the legislature to make the change. Lemme understand that. Half the states United States, 25 states, its local state election authority, word to were to be presented by the citizens with a Ballot Initiative as has been want to adopt final five vote into the changes you just described. But that would be the way left its elect doors to the Electoral College and president ial elections . We are very much focused on congress. There are over time to do different things. No question there. Its not the only thing we should change, any change to the Electoral College like we take a constitutional amendment, as with. What happens here is half of the states have direct democracy. So the citizens can gather a certain number of signatures, depending upon the states rule. And then on the ballot, usually right after the candidate, the voter will vote for all of their candidates, and then they will see yes or no on final five voting. And if, in their state, more people vote yes than no, then it is done. And you have final five voting to elect people to congress. That dramatically changes the incentive. Whats also very interesting is the night it states, we will not need all the states to do this or even half the states to do this to make a difference in the functioning. Because if you had five states , under final five voting you now have ten centers maybe 50 representatives. They are responding to different incentives. They are not tapped into the Party Primary. Have a threat of new competition the not tapped into party leadership. They still have their ideology , but they have a different set of incentives on how the need to get reelected. And then that begins to break open this duopoly. Which does not get us anywhere. Wow. Heretical short on time. I want to go to the questions that have come in from our audience. Mike is when figure turned you for this first one. He is the cfo he questions acrimony. Its about the tone or the nature of american discourse in political circles. Going to parties with a Viable Third Party that catherine is just describing shows that dynamic. Given the duopoly, i trust interventions of the best practices the political context to understand that. Guest it is an interesting question. I would say that the acrimony is not about to parties. The acrimony is about structure of the system. And we used to have two parties way back when, hundreds of years ago in this country. We have a lot of collaboration , there was a culture of solution and finding compromise. There is not this ideologically driven legislation and policymaking. And right now we have a situation where the rights and the left or bitter opponents. Because that different ideology. That different views of what good is. In the right says the left is going to ruin america. And the left says the right is going to ruin america. Over time with these changes in particular the 60s, that is gotten worse and worse and worse. As a time and members of congress and different parties would share an apartment in washington. There were times when was very collegial. We had a lot of great policies come historically. We had the american dream, there is tremendous opportunity for citizens. There is tremendous progress, good things happen for many years. The acrimonys not structurally built into two parties. It is built into how the parties have chosen to compete. How they have segmented their customers into the left and right. They dont care about the other cipro dont care about the moderates, they do not go to the middle. It is that structure of competition that has been for now decades and decades, getting in the way of all of those policies. If you look at her social policies on her policies towards education, we are sinking in the world. Our education its worse and worse. Wylie of sids racial inequalities . The Education System is not working for everybody. We have tremendous issues in healthcare that are causing some of the divisions we have in our society. We have divisions and personal safety. Should be controlled guns . What personal safety policy should we have . I know we have the highest homicide rate of all most any country in the world. All of that comes from ideology. An extreme partisanship. The fact that the parties do not have to deliver results that were, and that is what we have got to break down. What catherine has described it as you got to change the incentives that lead to that kind of competition. If you can win with a policy thats not really going to work because all of it is compromising and synthesizing across these competitions, if you can live without that, we are never going to get there. But to win you have to appeal to the majority of the voters. If you are in a system where voters get a real choice and they can choose among people with different views. Then, that is what we have to get to. To do that the top five voting is the most doable, the most powerful thing that we know of. And it is catherines brilliant idea. The people talk about political reform in america, they talk about term limits. Term limits have no impact. Final five voting really does. You think strategically about whats going on, that would be a solution. Has to question interact with you about this. I begin to see the layers of this more clearly, so thank you very much for that. s a quick followup will have a couple of moments left. I want to ask this question. We have a question hes looking at the candidates in the upcoming election. Stick with their manifestoes, they would respond to young people interest and excitement about a more progressive agenda, do you see any for change in the candidates . Not until we change the candidates. Not until were kind of frozen into that model. If we had a situation where the candidates could do their work and understand the needs of all of their constituents and try to optimize the overall benefit for the constituents, we have a lot of young people of tremendous influence. Right now, the key customers are not young people. Their People Special interests in the system, i am hopeful that young people they have to understand, right now theyre not the cord customer democrats tend to be more of the Progressive Side breed that is good. Because of any policies in areas that have that character. This is not going to change just by having young people with progressives. Weve got to change the structure of the system weve got to get some of these core determinants of the status quo. I dont think is progressive have to be good for everybody not this good for their group that destroys our federal budget deficit. Or works against the needs of some other groups. Weve got to learn to collaborate, compromise, Work Together be americans rather than republicans or democrats. The president ial ideological left or ideological rights. Thats whats lost in have to replace it. I do need to say one thing on that though. You know, everybodys focus on who is going to win what their platform is. But none of these people are going to achieve their platform. We are always looking in the wrong place but we elect them because they say therefore something totally like disregarding whether theyre going to accomplish that. And then we reelect people, even when they did not get it done. So the question we have to ask is not due we want people to say they are for more of this or more of that, we want to understand how we are going to get that done. No one would be able to say theyre going to get it done is because its not going to really be possible given the incentives that work in washington d. C. Thats most important. I recommend the book to all of you. Its been wonderful to have you here today we have run out of time but we could go on for another hour easily. Work on these questions. It was a real pleasure speaking with you, congratulations again. Thank you for taking time to share insights with the spray thank you tour audience for watching. Theres a live stream coming up on july 21 with 1 of my colleagues, who will be discussing hearn about the age of surveillance capitalism. The fight for human futures new frontier of power you can register for that and many other lifestream events on the website. Have a great rest of the day everyone. Book tv continues