Last week, the Democratic Socialists of America released their new platform for 2026. It is the platform socialists are running on and will try to get enacted if they are elected. This is Bernie Sanders’ golden moment, when he sees his dreams coming to fruition.
The political reforms proposed would fundamentally change the structure of the U.S. government, go well beyond policy changes, and envision a different constitutional system.
Here are the platform’s major components.
1. Replace the two-party system with a multiparty democracy
The United States operates as a two-party system with single-member congressional districts and winner-take-all elections. The DSA proposes creating a system more like those of Germany, Sweden, or New Zealand, where several parties routinely win seats. Instead of Democrats and Republicans, there could be Democratic Socialists, a Progressive Party, a Labor Party, a Green Party, Moderate Democrats, Conservatives, and Libertarians.
2. Proportional representation
Today, Congressional seats are won by the party with the most votes. The state delegation is the number of districts in the state, divided between Republican and Democratic districts. Under proportional representation, seats in that state would be allocated to parties based on their share of the vote.
If the vote was: Democrats 45%, Republicans 40%, Labor Party 10%, and Green Party 5%, and the total number of seats was 10, the seats would be allocated as Democrats: 4–5 seats, Republicans: 4 seats, Labor: 1 seat, Greens: 1 seat
3. Expand the House of Representatives
The House has been fixed at 435 members since 1929, even though the U.S. population has more than tripled. The DSA argues that this makes representatives responsible for districts of roughly 750,000 people each. Expanding the House would mean smaller districts, representatives closer to constituents, more proportional representation, and reduced influence of gerrymandering
4. Abolish the Senate
5. Replace the presidency
Rather than having an independently elected president, the platform calls for replacing the President with an executive chosen by and subordinate to Congress. This resembles the parliamentary system used in most European countries.
6. Replace or restructure the Supreme Court
The platform calls for replacing the Supreme Court with a judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress and elsewhere calls for limiting judicial review. The rationale is that unelected judges should not have the power to invalidate laws enacted by elected representatives.
6. Campaign finance reforms
The new platform calls for public financing of elections, eliminating or sharply restricting dark money, reducing lobbying influence, and overturning or otherwise nullifying the effects of the Citizens United decision.
Items 1-5 are characteristics of most parliamentary systems, like those used in Europe. Let’s take a minute and compare the American and European systems.
Parliamentary systems offer better representation because they consider multiple viewpoints. Rather than forcing voters into two broad coalitions, parties can specialize in environmental issues, rural concerns, libertarianism, social democracy, Christian democracy, or other philosophies. Voters can support a party that closely aligns with their beliefs rather than choosing the “lesser of two evils.”
In such a system, parties must negotiate and compromise to form governing coalitions. This can reduce ideological extremes and produce policies with broader support. Power is more dispersed, making it harder for one party to control all branches of government for long periods. Smaller parties can raise issues that larger parties have ignored. Environmental policy is a classic example: Green parties in Europe helped bring climate issues into mainstream politics.
There are also drawbacks to the parliamentary system. Coalition governments can collapse if partners withdraw support. Countries like Italy have historically experienced frequent changes in government, though many modern multi-party systems are more stable than in the past. Negotiating among several parties can delay legislation and make decisive action during crises more difficult.
A party with only 5–10% of the seats may be essential to forming a coalition and can demand policy concessions that exceed its electoral support. When several parties govern together, voters may have difficulty determining which party deserves credit or blame for government performance. When many small parties hold seats, it can be difficult to form stable governing majorities.
The bottom line when comparing the two systems is choosing between a stable government with clear accountability, as in the U.S., and broad representation that gives voters more meaningful choices, as in the European model. The power of the American president is clearly superior in a crisis because the president can act immediately. In Europe, prime ministers have to get permission from their party to move forward, which can take time.
You might be wondering why the DSA is proposing a change to a parliamentary system rather than a socialist one. There are several reasons.
The DSA has moved away from traditional socialism and more toward democratic socialism. That means democratic elections, civil liberties, a mixed or heavily regulated economy, and a much larger public role in providing healthcare, housing, education, and labor protections.
They see U.S. political institutions as the biggest obstacle. Progressive policies are blocked not because Americans oppose them, but because U.S. political institutions distort representation and give too much power to the opposition. Parliamentary systems tend to help smaller parties because a proportional parliamentary system would make it much easier for parties such as the DSA to win seats.
That would allow democratic socialists to become an independent political force rather than operating largely within the Democratic Party. They see the Nordic Model of Northern Europe as a model for the system they are proposing.
The DSA goals, as expressed in their platform, are intended to be incremental. Rather than proposing an immediate abolition of private enterprises, the platform seeks to expand democratic control in steps over time.
Reform democratic institutions to make elections more representative, allow additional parties, including a democratic socialist party, to gain legislative representation, build governing coalitions, and use those democratic institutions to enact progressively more social-democratic and, potentially, democratic-socialist economic policies.
The DSA platform highlights many of the current problems with our federal government; issues that both sides are upset about. Many of these problems stem from elite behavior, as elites are more interested in money than the common man. The same problem exists in Europe, even with a parliamentary system. Bottom line: if the people can’t control the elites, it doesn’t matter what kind of system you live under.
Changing our system would require Constitutional Amendments, which are not easy to pass. The Amendments required for the changes the DSA is seeking would be resisted by all Americans, across both parties, who want to retain the current structure of the Federal government.
The Socialist wing of the Democratic Party is giddy right now, bolstered by the prospect of more power. They always have a goal to seek, even if it is unattainable. They’ve been waiting 170 years for Socialism to take hold, proving they are very patient people.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
I've read that when Senators became elected directly, power concentrated in the urban areas. Considering CA and how large swaths of rural areas beg for water, some of which is siphoned off by the Resnicks who are big Dem donors, I wonder if this is true. It makes sense that if you capture the votes of the large cities, you ignore the rest. Any thoughts? As for Bernie, Vermont seems like a relatively pleasant place to live. It has a small population and socialist tendencies make sense just like the do in the Amish communities. Having extremes would disrupt the order. But like many baking recipes, it seems that one reaches a point where doubling the ingredients doesn't give the intended results.
I'm a little surprised to find things I actually *agree* with in there. I have long advocated expanding the House of Representatives to have as many members as necessary to have levels of representation equivalent to when the Constitution was ratified, based on the number of citizens of a given state enumerated during the decennial Census. Of course, *I* want that because I think it would radically increase the amount of gridlock in Congress, and I don't support any of the *rest* of their proposals, except #1, which would come about as a natural consequence of #3. It's not like we have a "two party system" as a foundational principle, it's just a natural mathematical outcome of the way our elections work at the population and candidacy levels we have. With roughly 11,500 members of the House (one Representative per 30,000 citizens) there would be a *significantly* more diverse range of positions.
It's also the one proposal that could be achieved *without* a constitutional amendment. As with the Supreme Court, that size is not currently defined by the Constitution nor any Amendment to it. So, passing new legislation to rewrite the "Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929" would allow us to alter the size of the House, so long as we did not go *below* the limit in the Constitution of one Representative per State, nor *above* the limit of having no more than one Representative per 30,000 citizens.
I waffle on #6. It would -- potentially -- limit the shenanigans of foreign money pouring into elections. Of course, it would likely *also* enable *different* shenanigans with *domestic* money in elections. I'd want to read concrete proposals, and wargame them out in various scenarios, and see the safeguards proposed to prevent shenanigans in general. That said, given the First Amendment, it probably *would* also require a constitutional amendment to enact.