We're on a mission to disrupt the corrupt two-party system by building tools that change the rules—and we need your help. GoodParty.org is not a political party; we're a fully remote, US-based team united around making democracy more accessible, transparent, and fair. If creatively disrupting politics for good sounds like a challenge you're up for, check out the roles we're looking to fill right now:
- Analytics Engineer • Engineering • Full-time
- Campaign Assistant • Politics • Full-time (Contractor)
- Content and Communications Director • Growth • Full-time
- Growth Marketer (Contractor) • Growth • Full-time (Contractor)
- Marketing Operations Manager • Growth • Full-time
- Part-time Finance & Operations Manager • Gifted Savings • Part-time
- Product Design Manager • Design • Full-time
- Product Marketing Manager • Growth • Full-time
- Senior Full Stack Engineer • Engineering • Full-time
- Senior Product Manager • Product • Full-time
- Social Media Account Manager • Growth • Full-time
- User Success Manager • Product • Full-time
Work with us: https://goodparty.org/work-with-us/
pumping more candidates (even good ones) into a busted system is like increasing the flow rate into a cracked bucket. good metrics showing how much more is going in, with little attention paid to how much is flowing out.
i do appreciate the ambition to change things at a higher level, but there is nothing resembling significant disruption here.
my suggestion would be to identify a single, core point of systemic leverage that can actually make a demonstrable change to the way things operate (i.e. patch the bucket or, better still, replace it). for example, if you can get a sensible cap put on the amount of funds that can be given in support of a political campaign (yeah, i know, good luck with that) or can instigate a nationwide movement for proportional representation, or tie up the practice of gerrymandering, that might get momentum for a bigger step.
i'm sure there is lots i don't know about the role and potential for independents in the US (i live elsewhere), but the principle still holes that a problem must be solved by a higher level of complexity than the one that created it.
so i implore you, don't stop what you are doing, but try to find the next step up into systems thinking or, even better, meta-systematic strategy, which is actually what is needed for serious political reform.
there are, of course, many ways to shoot down my argument, and it is true to some extent that 'policy is personnel', but the level of systemic failure evidenced in recent years makes me think that such an initiative, while valuable in itself, cannot flourish in the way it needs to in order to be effective