Agreed Upon Solutions

Controversial things everyone agrees on

[agreed-upon-solutions]

Agreed Upon Solutions

[agreed-upon-solutions]

To give a sense of the number of decisions we make:

Our main discussion is called Every Thing. All of this is *only* about the list of topics.

The design goal of Every Thing is to make a naively abstract conception of politics into something precise. We believe, in theory, you could solve all political problems, if only you could "hold a vote on everything, in order of most to least important, and find consensus on all of them."

The name is "Every Thing" because you don't vote on everything - You vote on every thing. Proper nouns, like "Donald Trump", are part of everything, but they are not things. They are people, labels, slogans, or specific details, not the actual thing under discussion. They are a factor that introduces substantial biases into the responses, which enables push polling and all manner of other abuses.

To avoid this, we have imported >157,000 "things" from Wikidata, effectively all common nouns with a description. This list was then manually curated as much as possible to leave the list of comprehensible items. If Wikipedia knows about it, it's on this list.

For example, "president" is a thing, as is "abuse of power", or "right-wing personality". By limiting ourselves to common nouns, we create a perfectly neutral things, with no framing or attached opinions. They are as close to perfectly fair as possible.

We want to hold a discussion on all of them. We don't want to only cover discussions of what's on people's minds, we also want to be able to discuss the "unknown unknowns", issues too obscure or forgotten about to ever come up naturally in a survey like this.

This is an enormous list. Similar projects limit themselves to finding collections of things most people are likely to have opinions on. For example, Tom Scott's "best thing" survey included 8,000 items, chosen on the basis of having Wikipedia articles in many languages.

Our list, by contrast, has been curated to give a flat and accurate representation as possible of literally every thing. Rather than items people are likely to have an opinion on, we have attempted to curate for the list of items people are able to comprehend. The primary filtering is the manual removal of categories that are essentially databases so large as to overwhelm the set ("mineral", "human disease", "mouse genome", etc), and things with no description. There are still a few more highly technical similar items than ideal, but we could not find a principled way to remove them that did not remove meaningful items.

Some of my personal favorite items include: screaming hairy armadillo, uwu (the emoticon), imagery of nude celebrities, abecederium ("inscription consisting of the letters of the alphabet, listed in order"), fried brain sandwich, four-in-a-row, "walking ghost phase of radiation poisoning", smound (a synaesthesic sense combining smell and hearing), unbirthday, modern schools of ninjutsu, bullying in nursing, one-year period overlapping two calendar years, roadkill cuisine, bullfighting poster artist, cranberry morpheme ("bound morpheme which lacks independent meaning; eg the cran- in cranberry"), and wrap rage ("feelings of intense anger when failing to open packaging or wrapping").

When we say "every thing", we mean it *extremely* literally.

Much work has gone into making this list actually usable. Voting is done pairwise, asking "Which topic is more important to discuss?" This allows the ranking to scale theoretically indefinitely; we are currently working on ways to make voting even more attention-tractable. Our core concept is around coordinating extremely large discussions, and this is part of that.

I personally really like ranking random things, it's like the old Wikipedia random page with a much higher "weird thing" hit rate. We also have a voting modes centered around ranking high importance items (top n-thousand, it has varied as the set of potentially important ranked items has gotten larger), and one centered around ranking items selected to make the overall convergence at the top faster and more uniform.

This has the effect of making the overall list much more usable. There's an implicit two-stage ranking process where items are identified as important at all, then thrown into the more detailed ranking if they win. Items in the long tail might not always be considered (there are still many unranked topics), but empirically very important topics have many near duplicates, such as "climate change" and "global warming".

As bulky as this is, it does actually still surface meaningful long-tail items to vote on. An item found early on was voicism, "stereotyping or discrimination due to voice". It's a surprising issue that unites both trans women and the deep south (think the "southern hick" accent). Others include "fatigue as a safety concern" and "institutionalized adolescent". "Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing" actually appears prominently on the twothirds platform.

This list is, of course, not the Platonic ideal of the original goal, but it *is* as close as possible to a practical implementation. The top ten items do not need to be rated closely enough to distinguish them, that's likely impossible. However, creating a list where the top 500 accurately reflect a highly comprehensive yet completely neutrally selected set of important priorities is very possible.

-----

With regard to list UI, here's what is done and what is in progress:

There are a number of pain points generated by concerns around bias avoidance. Browsing items by rank is disabled past the first 2000 items, because we don't want to introduce the possibility of being used for things like determining the least important item. Our system does not attempt to find this in any way, and we don't want to present ourselves as having made a meaningful search for it. This makes some issues related to topic discovery very hard, there needs to be more implicit exploration of the list as people vote. Right now the ranking discussion generates much of our long tail comment stream, but we're slowly working to improve this.

Our search UI uses importance rank or result order by default. We wanted a ranking algorithm that is completely understandable, that was also extremely difficult to manipulate by AI. Changing the rankings requires hours of voting, mostly on topics that an attacker would have no opinion on, meaning we get a very detailed opinion portrait to use as a bot signature. (We do also support a full relevance based search, because it's honestly nicer to use, but having both makes sure no topics are buried by "the algorithm".)

Navigating between topics is also a bit cramped - Fighting against infinite lists is actually a last resort defense against ballot stuffing attacks used site-wide, and the UI is built to allow shut down voting on all specific topics directly, forcing users to confront the shuffled stream of all comments. The goal is that is like attempting to read all of Twitter, making targeted manipulation effectively impossible. However, this is admittedly hard to use, so there are chunks of our UI that were originally optimized for this task that are being retrofitted.

There are also some surprising behaviors stemming from the low-Javascript constraint. For example, we return 100 results by default per search as a way of emulating infinite scrolling. Our search controls are also implemented within <details> tags, as basic HTML lacks many facilities for manipulating buttons. By having our controls remain raw HTML, navigation of the page using older software is better supported, because their descriptions are present in plain text on the page.

Anyway, this is why the site has so many quirks, it's doing a ton of stuff, and the reasons for much of it are not obvious - Balancing shape principles, quality of life changes, and rigorous consideration of biases and manipulation is hard. Just know that we're doing our best! Our goal is that someday our designs are chosen officially as a better way of running a democracy, and we take that very seriously.

[phaeton-flier]

One of the issues with any form of Republic is how you balance between "a majority wants X so we're getting X" and "51% of the country voted for the Greens over the Blues, so we're getting 100% Blue Policy"

What you'd want, abstractly, is some way of taking everyone's preferences and doing tradeoffs and balancing out desires to get a fair spread. Theoretically you'd want a 30/60/10 Greens/Blues/Yellows split to have 30% Green stuff 60% Blue stuff 10% Yellow stuff. It's cleaner, it's nicer, it means there's more satisfaction because presumably even if you're yellow you got your top 10% of stuff

The first issue is that policy is cleanly divided like that; what is the fair balance between "Free Healthcare" and "Death Penalty" and "Lower Corporate Taxes", if there are three major issues between the various groups? The advantage of the majority rules is that you don't have to play those games, you just count what everyone wants and anyone in the minority was simply outvoted.

The second issue is that sometimes it doesn't matter what some people want because what that group wants is just awful: I am, for instance, against the death penalty and even that's the top desire for the Greens in our earlier metaphor, I sort of think it's awful enough that they should Just Not Get It. You can reconstruct this is 'well it seems like you care more about No Death Penalty than Free Healthcare, put that down as a explicit desire and we can negotiate from there' but that a) reduces to the first problem above and b) incentivizes taking as many positions the other sides don't want to waste political capital.

The third issue is that basically every system is based on the old idea of having a Local Representative from Your Town representing Local Interests. Which is still important, but it clashes with the desire to have opinions on National Issues. Even proportional representation only slightly solves this, because ultimately what you want is something that properly adds up the preferences of everyone in the country and outputs policy

[agreed-upon-solutions]

This is the premise of Agreed Upon Solutions!

Our solution is twothirds* supermajorities win. The short version is when >67% of people agree they want a policy, it passes; if <33% say they want it, it fails; if it is between the two, then democracy has not made a decision, and it delegates to the leaders (or other decision making body.) This lets representatives exist and pass unpopular policy, but keeps everything ultimately accountable to democracy.

[*Twothirds is a political term, distinct from the number two-thirds, referring to an empowered decision making supermajority.]

Onsite, we split votes into two automatically determined political parties, Up and Down, and use a balanced representation between them to determine whether or not consensus exists. It's very hard to pass pro- death penalty legislation, if a twothirds of the anti- death penalty side needs to agree with you. However, both sides could probably agree on something like "there should be extra precautions taken in death penalty cases." It seems obvious, but in a potentially fascist government it's still a good idea to establish.

This is actually a very detailed political philosophy, which is famously impossible to explain by posting, so we built Agreed Upon Solutions to be a fully functional reference implementation: This is more or less *exactly* how we believe the ballot box should work. This exact experience, weird 90s throwback aesthetic included - this is as honest of a reference as possible, and we think it would be *awesome* if old government websites had a personality. (Additionally the site uses minimal javascript, has light and dark modes, and has two different website scroll physics options. There's a lot that's still clunky, but everything is very deliberate.)

Our practical design goal is to construct a kind of automatic, continuous democracy, on all topics, where gridlock is prevented by the law of large numbers. Running the system against national polls instead of our own onsite polling data (multiple weeks of manual work, researching and verifying our top 500 voted most important topics) created what we call the twothirds platform:

Here are 671 political positions with supermajority agreement from 160 professionally conducted national polls

People believe it's impossible to put together a nontrivial political platform with >80% supermajority bipartisan support, but no, it's on here. People really hate police abuses of power, really want stronger data privacy laws, and really want to protect national parks. It's extremely reasonable, by construction; it's radical, by the fact that things exist that reach nearly unanimous agreement are ignored by the establishment.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

What level of BIPARTISAN agreement constitutes "common ground"?

51-55%

56-60%

61-65%

66-70%

71-75%

76-80%

81-85%

86-90%

91-95%

96-100%

Voting ended onJun 17, 2025

[agreed-upon-solutions]

What level of OVERALL agreement constitutes "common ground"?

51-55%

56-60%

61-65%

66-70%

71-75%

76-80%

81-85%

86-90%

91-95%

96-100%

Voting ended onJun 17, 2025

[agreed-upon-solutions]

Before the revolution, we will need to make decisions as a group.

After the revolution, we will need to make decisions as a group.

No matter how much things fall apart, we will still need to make decisions as a group.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

The very vague version of what would "obviously" fix politics is:

Poll everything,

Sort by agreement,

Go down the list.

To us, the natural next question is "why doesn't anyone do this?" Why has no attempt been made to establish what common ground actually is? People have told us to our face that it's impossible. Every step of this will fail for some reason, either "everything" is impossible to define, or agreement doesn't exist, or the items on the list won’t be meaningful anyway.

This is totally wrong. We've checked, and can show you proof! Anything you want, from our own efforts to reams of externally polled data. We've found agreement, over and over and over again. It's actually more unusual for people to be deeply divided than it is for them to agree! The default state is fairly neutral, as you might expect. It's not just little obscure things, either, we've found items of all sizes: Supermajorities want Citizen's United to end. Supermajorities want a law guaranteeing rape test kits are processed within 90 days. Both are worthy of consideration.

And yet, effectively no one knows.

It's hard to figure out how to tell them. Showing it to someone online requires them agreeing to look, and no one pays attention to anything like this. People assume what we're talking about is totally impossible, despite us having done it, and just ignore us.

In person, this conversation is easy. The people we talk to in person are usually confused for a moment while we explain, then go "OH" and are suddenly on board. This is true of all political persuasions, we've gotten anarchists and hard right Republicans to agree to the basic concepts. "If a supermajority agrees, (what we call a twothirds, because it requires two-thirds), you should do it." It's easy to explain because we're not pushing an ideology, we're pushing the idea that if we've all agreed to do something, we should do it. It's reasonable by design, but it's revolutionary because it creates a tradeoff between popular will and the power of the executive. That idea is absurdly powerful.

What more do we need? Do we actually need to form a political party? I deeply do not want to be a politician, but I want the world to work properly and that outweighs practically everything else. I've suggested it sarcastically a few times in the past, but as a serious question, do we need to do this?

[tanadrin]

man. i am just wildly out of step with the current consensus on what makes an attractive website design, aren't i? the color schemes most people choose for their websites are ass.

[discoursedrome]

As far as I can tell, functional graphic design just stopped existing as a serious discipline around 20 years ago, outside of certain high-end print publications. In the 80s and 90s, this stuff was done by people who were both artists and usability engineers, and the interfaces they designed are still head and shoulders above anything that has come since, because they did the work. Nowadays there are still people who might like to do that work, but there is definitely nobody left who wants to pay for it, so what gets called "interface design" is dominated by fad-chasing rubes whose only concern is conforming to a vague aesthetic sensibility with no regard for functionality. We're coming on 15 years of every website being designed by people who are actively hostile to usability and yet also lack any real artistic impulse, simply focusing on mimicking whatever fads everyone else is into.

This sort of mediocrity was always the norm in design, I think -- obviously people want to chase vacuous fads, and it takes an army -- but in the past the major players took design seriously, and you could expect something decent from the flagship products of major companies and institutions. The early iphone was the last gasp of what deserves to be called "design" in electronic interfaces, and by then, Apple was already exceptional as a holdout -- Google has always been actively contemptuous of design, and Microsoft's efforts are always sabotaged by competing internal priorities and the need to support 30 years of of incompatible UI frameworks. Nowadays, Apple doesn't care either, so it just doesn't happen. As a result, usability, visual accessibility, and artistic merit have declined precipitously in a way masked by the fact that the modern stuff is compliant with modern fads, while the old stuff looks dated.

So what are these fads everyone is chasing? In the current era, it's minimalism -- substance is cheap and trashy, so like a fine dining restaurant that serves a few ikebana specks of food on a vacuous white expanse of plate, the modern UX designer aims to add as much blank space as possible to their interface, a tendency exacerbated by the impossible demand to design something that can be used with either a touchscreen or a pointing device. Nowadays, even cheap retail monitors can achieve an intensity of brightness, resolution, and colour depth that was unthinkable for all of history, and designers have become self-conscious about all the substance thus revealed, like a bright light revealing dust and dirt, like Adam and Even realizing that they're naked. Layouts become sparser, text becomes thinner, and contrast becomes fainter, because the UX is shrinking into itself in shame at its own existence; it doesn't look "modern" enough, and what it means to be "modern" in design is to have a hermit's apophatic hatred of the world, to flee from the dirty weight of matter and scourge your sinful body in preparation for Heaven. Of course, designers drag everyone else along with them on this venture, even those without the constitution to sit with them on their pillars -- if their design is unusable on your monitor because it has poor colour depth or isn't professionally calibrated, or because you did something unusual with scaling or aspect ratio, that's your problem. They make it for themselves. The irony behind all this is that brightness directly improves all aspects of visibility, so higher brightness "pays for" lower contrast and all the other cryptic whispers of poor design; but brightness is wasteful, even with LEDs it's the biggest power draw on the user's side, and so this clean austerity is paid for by a hidden and displaced waste.

Culture swings constantly between minimalism and maximalism, so all this will change soon. It's overplayed, the rise of dark mode makes things ripe for a shift from "open" to "closed" design, and while touchscreen precision remains an issue, it's less of one now that, due to a different kind of bad design, even devices meant to fit in your pocket are now the size of a skateboard. But it won't fix the basic issue; the toxic sokushinbutsu austerity will give way to noise and clutter, because it will be designed by the same people, for the same companies, with the same incentives, and the underlying issue is just that functional graphic design is no longer a thing.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

Just to toot our own horn a bit here:

* Not only do we have artistically opinionated light and dark modes, we also have springy and solid scroll physics options for people with tactile sensitivity.

* All comments have types and descriptions (even user submitted ones), allowing meaning disambiguation.

* Parent discussion topics are pulled from Wikidata, ensuring top-level discussions are never hijacked by inflammatory titles, (or more insidiously, marketing).

* Our current goal is to move towards a kind of "omnipresent labeling", where not only are controls documented, they are visibly documented, making help text and guides unnecessary.

[balioc]

Let's imagine that you're trying to fix American politics by making a George Washington gambit, or perhaps a Dwight Eisenhower gambit.

Your goal here is to transcend our dysfunctionally-polarized moment by taking the two big political parties and smashing their heads together until they stop moving. You are trying to unite a supermajority of Americans behind a sane, stable, viable-consensus Middle Way - maybe through third-party shenanigans, maybe by hijacking and parasitizing the Republicans or the Democrats, whatever can be made to work.

Let's further assume - arguendo - that you have some good reason to think that you might be able to achieve this, given the right setup and the right resources. We don't need to have the argument over whether it's just a stupid idea from the get-go, that's not the point. (We also don't need to argue over what the sane stable viable-consensus Middle Way would actually be, in terms of policy prescriptions, branding, etc. Fill in your own favorite answer.)

You'll need a figurehead. A presidential candidate. Someone who can, in his person, stand in for the idea of "we're better than all this and we're actually going to set things to rights." Someone who won't immediately be treated as just another shill for the existing left/right.

A real American hero, ideally. Someone who seems like a good, trustworthy leader to as many voters as possible?

...any nominees?

Seriously. I mean it. Anyone at all? I'm coming up pretty short, and that fact scares me.

We tell jokes about God-Empress Taylor Swift (RIP @kontextmaschine), but of course that would actually be a bad idea for our project. She's popular, she might conceivably have the charisma and the intellect and the cultural-manipulation chops, but it doesn't matter; there's no escaping the fact that she's a pop star rather than anything else, and too many people would see her as inescapably frivolous. If she won, it wouldn't do the thing. Same goes for anyone else in the "celebrity performer" category.

War heroes are often good for this kind of role. Do we have any generally-accepted war heroes these days?

A scientist or high-culture artist might do. Are there any who are famous enough, and also not closely tied to an existing political faction?

I'd suggest "civil rights hero / activist leader" except that there are obviously none of those who aren't closely tied to existing political factions.

The best I can come up with on short notice is, like, Chelsey Sullenberger. Which is not super great.

(Admittedly I don't know enough about sports to say whether there's a sufficiently beloved-and-respectable athlete floating around. That would also be sort of an inherently weak choice, not much better than a celebrity performer and maybe even worse, but I can imagine really good spin doctors making it viable.)

[agreed-upon-solutions]

At this rate, it's going to be us, the ones who have been saying for years it's ridiculous to talk about this common ground not existing. Of course it does, no one has bothered to measure it.

First you need to define common ground. We use supermajority agreement, one of our slogans is "Twothirds is enough!" We've written a whole manifesto about why.

Then you need to determine the most important issues. We maintain a list of every topic from Wikidata, >157,000 items, which are ranked pairwise.

Then you need to research them all, and write down any positions you find with supermajority agreement. We manually researched the top 500, here's the TSV of every poll we could find with bipartisan twothirds support.

What do people agree on? Off the top of the list:

* 98% agree police officers with multiple abuse of power incidents should not be allowed to serve.

* 98% believe we should teach high schoolers about STDs, an observation that casually demolishes the "no sex ed in schools" talking point.

* Most popular among Republicans, 97% want a federal digital privacy bill of rights.

People are pro- regulation of AI, people are pro-environment, people *really* want Citizen's United repealed. There's tons of stuff, there's over 300 entries on that list. All of it has source links to professional polling data.

We don't need a "bold charismatic leader" to articulate an entirely arbitrary set of principles, we need a grounding tether to popular will. We're never going to solve this problem until it actually matters what citizens think. Twothirds is enough!

[agreed-upon-solutions]

We were out and about in the recent 50501 protests, handing out Twothirds Platform zines! If you'd like to print one out yourself, here are the images:

The information is sourced from national polling, based on our ranking of the top 500 most important to discuss topics. You can download the raw data at Agreed Upon Solutions - we'd love to see people use it!

[specimentality]

On April 16th 2025 the US federal government has proposed to change the interpretation of the endangered species act so that it no longer protects habitat.

This is open for public comment until the end of May 19th. Please comment and make your voice heard.

Wildlife need their habitat. If the ESA redefines harm so that habitat is no longer protected, the implications for wildlife would be catastrophic.

[coriakin-wandering]

Public Comment on the Proposal to Rescind the Regulatory Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act

Docket ID: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposal to rescind the current regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As someone with a deep concern for biodiversity, I believe that removing habitat modification from the definition of harm would critically undermine the Act’s purpose—to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

The ESA was designed not only to prevent the outright killing of endangered and threatened species but to ensure their long-term survival. Scientific consensus shows that habitat loss and degradation are among the leading drivers of species decline and extinction. For many species, “harm” occurs not only through direct injury but when key behaviors like breeding, nesting, or migration are disrupted by human alteration of their environment. Without intact, functional ecosystems, species cannot survive—let alone recover.

The current definition rightly includes significant habitat modifications that “actually kill or injure wildlife” by impairing essential behavior patterns. This is supported by decades of ecological research showing that species rely on specific habitat structures and timing cues for survival. For example, wetland drainage may not immediately injure a frog population, but if it eliminates their breeding grounds, it leads to population collapse. Removing this protection under a narrow interpretation of ‘harm’ ignores the scientific understanding of how ecosystems function and how animals experience injury.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo emphasized statutory clarity, but the ESA clearly states its purpose is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” This language shows Congress intended to protect more than just individual animals—it intended to protect the habitats they need to live.

I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to retain the existing definition of “harm” to preserve the integrity and purpose of the ESA. Rolling back this definition would render the statute reactive rather than proactive, forcing action only after species have already been pushed to the brink.

Thank you for considering this comment. Please preserve the full scope of protection the ESA has long provided, grounded in ecological science and consistent with the law’s original intent.

Sincerely,

Name

[agreed-upon-solutions]

It's worth mentioning, the Endangered Species Act is one of the most popular pieces of legislation in existence, with supermajority support across the board. This even includes groups like hunters, ranchers, and property rights advocates:

Source link: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12595

[agreed-upon-solutions]

[agreed-upon-solutions]

[agreed-upon-solutions]

[tanadrin]

people accuse libs of being the "better things aren't possible" faction, but honest to God, the overwhelming majority of doomers and crab-bucketers and terminally online dickheads waiting for someone else to start the revolution are all some flavor of leftist. and usually pretty far left, too. it really does seem to be, at least on social media, the ideology people turn to to relieve them of the burden of having to act on their beliefs. "ah well," they think, "the system is rigged, it's all hopeless and there's nothing i can do." which is not--to put it mildly--an attitude shared by leftists who actually accomplished shit, and frequently did so in political systems far more hostile to them than any on offer in North America or Europe today.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

The first step in starting a revolution is to articulate clearly what you want! That's part of why we started Agreed Upon Solutions.

Agreed Upon Solutions is a fully implemented example of how we propose the government should work: There is a ballot that covers every conceivable issue, and a consensus seeking algorithm pulls out strong consensus from the votes of everyone on everything. Come check it out, and if you have questions feel free to ask!

[rederiswrites]

Quietly losing my mind over the fact that Elon Musk has straight up orchestrated a coup of our executive branch and like....I don't even know what, if any, system we have in place to fix this. Like... He's just taken control of the money and locked out the actual appointed officials. What the fuck.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

There is no system whatsoever to ensure accountability to the people in the United States!

You may want to check out Agreed Upon Solutions - It is our proposal for exactly how government should work instead. It is fully implemented and you can try it out as much as you want.

You are given a ballot on literally Every Thing, and voting is done to determine policies with high consensus. We perform clustering to divide votes into two "parties", Up and Down, then require the 95% confidence interval on a balanced-representation vote to be above a supermajority opinion threshold (twothirds).

Anything that meets this standard should be a bounding guideline for policy, anything that does not can be delegated to representatives. This leaves room for leaders to make complex or unpopular decisions, without ever sacrificing democratic accountability.

The twothirds system is designed to work alongside any government, as a way of providing sanity and guard rails. If anyone has a better system, we'd love to hear it.

[dduane]

Shove the Presidency Down Trump’s Throat

Liberals spent the president-elect’s first term trying and failing to kick him out of office. This time out, they need to turn the White Hou

An interesting take.

[alex51324]

To get there, liberals need to get into the business of identifying the problems that real Americans face (which honestly, is something they could stand to relearn how to do) and more forcefully blame Trump for those problems’ continued existence. They need to raise a hue and cry over everything under the sun that’s broken, dysfunctional, or trending in the wrong direction; pile line items on Trump’s to-do list, wake him up early and keep him up late. Every day, get in front of cable news cameras and reporters’ notepads with a new problem for Trump to solve and fresh complaints about the work not done. ... For certain, Democrats can be grateful if he actually makes good on any of his “I alone can fix it” promises. (Or rather, they can take credit for having goaded Trump to get off his ass and do his job.) But as I’ve suggested before, in advice that Last echoes above, Trump should truly be left to solve these problems on his own. He’s claimed a mandate and congressional majorities, so let him (and his fellow Republicans) figure it out, with Democratic votes on offer only if massive policy concessions supporting Democratic Party interests are included.

Sounds like a plan to me!

[agreed-upon-solutions]

If you want that list, we're compiling it at Agreed Upon Solutions! Come vote on literally Every Thing!