[vnchr]

GoodParty.org | Multiple Roles | REMOTE (US) | Full-time & Part-time | https://goodparty.org

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/

[Taikonerd]

When I read "disrupt the corrupt two-party system," I wondered if you were pushing for voting reforms such as ranked-choice voting that make it easier for third-party candidates to win.

It seems like that's not the main focus of your org, but I was pleased to see a reference to RCV in your blog: [0]

[0]: https://goodparty.org/blog/article/final-five-voting-explain...

[bravesoul2]

I live in Australia and we have preferential voting. We also don't vote for a president but the prime minister is decided by majority of seats in house of representatives.

It still ends up mostly being a 2 party thing. Supporting your team is deep rooted. However at least there is the potential for a third party to get in.

But it suffers from the same statistical issue. If a quarter of voters vote green but equally across seats then that popular vote is not represented in the number of seats.

It is a vote of a vote still.

I wonder if we can move away from representation purely on where you live.

Where you live means something. City vs. Countryside. Poor neighbourhoods vs. Rich. But if your issue is suffered by many but you don't all cluster together in latitude and longitude then that issue has less weight.

Sorry forgot this is who's hiring!

[theteapot]

Current US house of reps (435 seats):

  Republicans: 220 seats.
  Democrats: 215 seats.
  Independents/Third Party: 0 seats.

Current AU house of reps (150 seats):

  Australian Labor Party (ALP): 94 seats
  Coalition: 43 seats (combined Liberal/National parties)
  Australian Greens: 1 seat
  Centre Alliance: 1 seat
  Katter's Australian Party: 1 seat
  Independents: 10 seats

[bravesoul2]

It's definitely better. But it's not proportional representation.

E.g. Greens got about 12.2% of vote.

12.2% of 150 is 18, not 1.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/02/...

The system while better is biased towards parties who can get the majority of individual constituencies based on geographic location. It relies on localized monocultures to get democracy for smaller parties. But that doesn't happen.

[theteapot]

House of representatives is not designed to provide proportional representation based on aggregate % vote country wide. Senate is more aligned that way and it's reflected in the numbers, in AU:

Current US senate (100 seats):

  Republicans: 53 seats (Majority Party)
  Democrats: 45 seats (Minority Party)
  Independents: 2 seats

Current AU senate (76):

  Australian Labor Party: 29
  Coalition: 27
  Australian Greens: 10
  Pauline Hanson's One Nation: 4
  Jacqui Lambie Network: 1
  Australia's Voice: 1
  United Australia Party: 1
  Independents: 3

So Greens are slightly over represented in the AU Senate based on aggregate vote if 12.2% is correct.

[willguest]

no mention of any system-level strategy on the website. this may as well be another lobbying group.

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

[vnchr]

That’s interesting feedback about there not being a system level strategy communicated on the site. I’ll pass that along. Thanks for pointing that out.

It’s very much a system level strategy, but more by way of democratized technology as opposed to head on disruption. I asked the same questions when I joined.

We want to provide powerful technology to candidates that are not going to be supported by the two main parties. And we have some other qualifications, like not taking corporate money. The more that independent candidates can succeed and win, the more we normalize the electorate expecting something that isn’t just to two main parties. In a way, it’s the electorate that we are trying to empower by supporting viable alternatives to the current system.

I’m glad there is interest in what we’re doing. I think we are on track too, making increasing impacts and I am excited about our growing team.

[torial]

Yeah, one of the problems is that many states have onerous ballot access laws. Even established 3rd parties often have to regain ballot access and jump through hoops the larger 2 don't.

[aloof8723]

who do I have to pay to get my resume read by a human? I am really excited about sr full stack role here - 9 years experience, ms cs, most of my work at startups

[locao]

I'm completely aware you're joking, but I've got people damn mad at me for making the "who do I have to pay/bribe around here" joke that I avoid it like the plague these days.

[aloof8723]

Sorry for the triteness, will improve my humor game in following months! (The 2021 vs 2025 interview parody video that I watched lately is pretty amazing...)

[vnchr]

I gave our hiring team a heads up about this thread as a source for candidates. Could you drop a comment if you don’t get the human reply you’re expecting in a while? Really appreciate you taking an interest, and I hope that we’re showing respect to folks like you in our process.