Federal Elections Modernization Act¶
House Member Guide¶
Published February 2026¶
Based on Rev 5.0 of the Federal Elections Modernization Act
The Opportunity and the Honest Reality¶
The Federal Elections Modernization Act (FEMA), hereafter referred to as "the Act," represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the Republic on solid institutional footing for the next 250 years. It also changes the electoral landscape in ways that will reward some skills and diminish others.
This document is not a sales pitch. It will not tell you that the Act protects your seat or guarantees your reelection. Some members will thrive under the new system. Others will not. The ones who adapt will have significant advantages. The ones who coast on structural advantages that no longer exist will struggle.
That is how democratic reform is supposed to work.
What this document offers instead is honest guidance: what actually changes, when it changes, what skills transfer, what skills you need to develop, and how to navigate the transition. Think of it as a player's guide to the new Congress.
What Actually Changes¶
The Tiered Effective Date Structure¶
The Act uses a tiered triggering system that phases in different provisions at different times:
| Tier | What Takes Effect | When |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Title VI (compensation, professional development), Title VII (enforcement), Title VIII (general provisions) | Upon enactment |
| Tier 2 | Titles I-IV (ballot access, party recognition, House expansion, electoral reform) | First FEMA Election |
| Tier 3 | Title V (FCAO examinations) | Second FEMA Election |
The First FEMA Election is defined as the second regularly scheduled general election after enactment, with an 18-month minimum runway. If the Act passes in early 2026, the First FEMA Election would be November 2028.
The House Expansion Schedule¶
The Act uses accelerated expansion rather than the previous 25-year phased approach:
| Election | House Size | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Current | 435 | -- |
| First FEMA Election (~2028) | 510 | +75 |
| ~2030 | 545 | +35 |
| ~2032 | 580 | +35 |
| ~2034 | 615 | +35 |
| ~2036 | 650 | +35 |
| ~2038 | 685 | +35 |
| ~2040 | 720 | +35 (cube root compliance) |
Cube root compliance is reached in approximately 14 years -- three presidential terms. Members who vote for the Act will see results during their careers.
Electoral System Changes at the First FEMA Election¶
Everything launches together as an integrated system:
STAR Voting: Score Then Automatic Runoff replaces plurality voting in all federal elections. Voters score candidates 0-5; the two highest-scoring candidates advance to an automatic runoff determined by preference.
Unified General Election Structure: All federal elections use single general elections. No state-administered primaries. Qualified candidates appear directly on the November ballot with party endorsements and (starting at the Second FEMA Election) FCAO scores displayed. This applies uniformly to House, Senate, and Presidential elections.
Multi-Member Districts: Initial rollout begins at the First FEMA Election. States with sufficient population begin transitioning to 3-7 seat districts using STAR-PR (proportional representation).
Joint Endorsement Lists: Candidates may display up to three party endorsements on the ballot, making coalition structures transparent to voters.
FCAO Examinations at the Second FEMA Election¶
The Federal Candidate Assessment Office begins administering examinations at the Second FEMA Election (approximately 2030). Key features:
- Non-qualifying: No minimum score required to run or serve
- Unlimited retakes with only highest score reported
- Year-round availability at nationwide testing centers
- Separate House and Senate examinations
- Scores appear on ballot as voter information, not gatekeeping
A Tale of Two Representatives: The Martinez Scenarios¶
Consider Representative Martinez, who currently holds a competitive district with approximately 30% fervent base support and wins general elections with 51-52% margins.
Martinez faces a choice: adapt to the new system or try to maintain familiar patterns.
Scenario A: Martinez Coasts¶
Decision: "I'll keep doing what I've always done. These reforms will shake out somehow."
First FEMA Election (~2028): Martinez's district transitions to multi-member representation as part of a five-seat regional district. Martinez continues the old campaign playbook -- triangulating between base and swing voters, focusing on the same donor networks, treating the election like a single-member race.
The problem: in a five-seat district, Martinez doesn't need 51% anymore. Martinez needs approximately 16-20% to secure one seat. But Martinez hasn't built the kind of durable base loyalty that proportional systems reward. The 30% "fervent base" was never cultivated as a base -- it was taken for granted while Martinez chased swing voters.
Other candidates -- including a newcomer with strong grassroots energy -- have spent the transition period building genuine coalition support. They understand that proportional representation rewards depth of support, not breadth of lukewarm acceptance.
Martinez wins a seat with 22% support in the first multi-member election, but it's closer than expected. The warning signs are there.
2030-2034: Martinez continues the old approach. FCAO scores appear on ballots starting in 2030. Martinez took the exam once, scored 71%, and hasn't retaken it. A challenger who spent two years studying scores 84%.
The coalition dynamics of multi-member districts continue to evolve. Candidates who built reciprocal endorsement networks and genuine base relationships outperform those who didn't. Martinez's support slowly erodes from 22% to 19% to 17%.
2036: A new candidate emerges who has done the adaptation work Martinez skipped. Strong FCAO score. Deep base relationships. Coalition endorsements from allied candidates. Genuine constituent service reputation built through enhanced MRA resources.
Martinez's 17% support falls below the effective threshold. After 20 years in Congress, Martinez loses -- not to a scandal or a wave election, but to a candidate who simply adapted better to the new system.
Career outcome: Martinez served during a historic transition but failed to evolve with it. The skills that won elections under the old system -- swing voter triangulation, donor network maintenance, cautious positioning -- were the wrong skills for the new system.
Scenario B: Martinez Adapts¶
Decision: "The rules are changing. I need to develop new skills."
Transition Period (2026-2028): Before the First FEMA Election, Martinez begins the adaptation work:
Base cultivation: Instead of triangulating toward swing voters, Martinez focuses on deepening relationships with the 30% base. What do they actually care about? What constituent services matter most to them? Martinez begins treating them as a durable coalition to cultivate rather than a foundation to take for granted.
Coalition building: Martinez reaches out to candidates who will share the multi-member district. Which ones have compatible but not identical bases? Can they build reciprocal endorsement relationships? Martinez attends to the coalition dynamics that proportional systems reward.
FCAO preparation: Martinez takes the examination early -- in 2027, well before scores appear on ballots. First attempt: 68%. Martinez uses congressional resources and institutional knowledge to study systematically. Second attempt in early 2028: 77%. Third attempt later in 2028: 85%. By the time FCAO scores appear on ballots in 2030, Martinez displays a strong score built through genuine competency development.
Enhanced capacity: Martinez uses the immediate Title VI benefits -- professional development resources, enhanced MRA once multi-member districts activate -- to build better constituent services. More staff. Better casework. Genuine responsiveness that builds the kind of loyalty proportional systems reward.
First FEMA Election (~2028): Martinez enters the five-seat district election with preparation complete. The 30% base has been cultivated into genuine 28% durable support. Coalition relationships with allied candidates create reciprocal endorsement benefits. FCAO preparation is underway.
Martinez wins a seat with 28% support -- well above the ~16-20% threshold.
2030-2040: Martinez continues building. FCAO score improves to 89% by 2032. Coalition relationships deepen. Constituent service reputation grows. The enhanced MRA enables genuine casework capacity that strengthens base loyalty.
Martinez serves through the full transition period, adapting as the system evolves, and retires in 2040 having served 24 years -- through one of the most significant institutional transitions in American history.
Career outcome: Martinez recognized that the rules were changing and invested in developing the skills the new system rewards. The transition became an opportunity rather than a threat.
The Difference¶
Same member. Same starting position. Different choices.
Martinez A treated the Act as something happening to them. Martinez B treated it as something happening around them -- a new environment requiring new skills.
The new system doesn't guarantee anyone's seat. It rewards different things than the old system rewarded. The members who recognize this early and adapt will have significant advantages over those who don't.
Skills That Transfer, Skills That Don't¶
What Still Matters¶
Constituent service: The fundamentals of helping people navigate federal bureaucracy, solving problems, being responsive. Enhanced MRA resources make this easier to do well. Members who build reputations for genuine constituent service will find that reputation transfers directly to the new system -- and matters more, because proportional representation rewards depth of support.
Legislative competence: Understanding how to draft legislation, build coalitions within Congress, navigate committee processes. FCAO examinations test exactly this knowledge. Members who are genuinely good at the job will demonstrate that competence publicly.
Relationship building: The ability to build trust with colleagues, work across ideological lines when appropriate, and maintain professional relationships. Coalition dynamics in multi-member districts reward this skill.
Communication: Explaining complex issues clearly, connecting with constituents authentically, building public understanding of your work. This matters in any electoral system.
What Matters Less¶
Swing voter triangulation: The old system rewarded positioning yourself precisely at the median voter's preferences. The new system rewards building durable coalitions. Trying to be acceptable to everyone often means being compelling to no one.
Donor network maintenance: Public matching funds at 6:1 reduce dependence on large donors. Members who spent enormous time cultivating donor relationships will find that time less well-spent under the new system.
Negative partisanship exploitation: The old system rewarded making the other side seem terrible. STAR voting and proportional representation reward building positive coalitions. Fear-based mobilization becomes less effective when voters can express nuanced preferences.
Geographic lock-in: Safe districts based on geographic sorting matter less when districts are larger and multi-member. The structural advantages of favorable district lines diminish.
What Matters More¶
Base cultivation: Proportional representation rewards depth of support. A genuine 20% who strongly support you beats a lukewarm 45% who merely prefer you to the alternative.
Coalition relationships: Multi-member districts create opportunities for reciprocal endorsements, shared campaign infrastructure, and coalition building. Members who invest in these relationships will outperform those who don't.
Demonstrated competence: FCAO scores appear on ballots. Members who take preparation seriously will display that competence publicly. Those who don't will display that choice publicly as well.
Authentic representation: Proportional representation lets you represent your actual ideological constituency. You don't need 50%+1; you need your base. Strong positions that energize your coalition are more valuable than cautious positions that offend no one.
What to develop: Figure out what you actually believe. Represent it authentically. Your base will reward conviction; swing voters are no longer the margin of victory.
Timeline and Decision Points¶
Upon Enactment (~2026)¶
What happens:
- Title VI takes effect immediately: phased compensation increases, professional development funding (5% of salary), enhanced pension accrual
- Anti-retaliation protections activate
- Administrative preparation begins for Titles I-IV
Your decisions:
- How to message the compensation increases to constituents
- How to use professional development resources
- Whether to begin FCAO preparation early (recommended)
- Whether to begin base cultivation and coalition building work
Pre-First FEMA Election (~2026-2028)¶
What happens:
- States prepare for new electoral systems
- House expansion planning proceeds
- FCAO develops examinations (not yet administered)
Your decisions:
- Take FCAO examination for practice/baseline (scores won't appear on ballots until Second FEMA Election)
- Build coalition relationships with likely district partners
- Deepen base relationships
- Prepare campaign infrastructure for multi-member dynamics
First FEMA Election (~2028)¶
What happens:
- House expands to 510 seats
- STAR voting implemented for all federal elections
- Multi-member districts begin rolling out
- Joint Endorsement Lists appear on ballots
- No primaries in multi-member districts
Your decisions:
- Full engagement with new electoral mechanics
- Coalition endorsement strategies
- Base mobilization approach
- Adaptation of campaign messaging for STAR and proportional dynamics
Second FEMA Election (~2030)¶
What happens:
- FCAO scores appear on ballots for first time
- Multi-member district expansion continues
- House reaches 545 seats
Your decisions:
- FCAO score optimization (retake if needed before ballots printed)
- Continued coalition and base development
- Leverage enhanced MRA for constituent service advantages
Ongoing (~2030-2042)¶
What happens:
- Biennial +35 seat expansions continue
- Multi-member district coverage expands
- System stabilizes at cube root compliance (~2040-2042)
Your decisions:
- Continued adaptation and skill development
- Career planning in context of new system
- Whether to seek leadership positions in reformed Congress
The Honest Bottom Line¶
The Act changes the game. Some members will thrive. Others will not.
The members who thrive will be those who:
- Cultivate durable base support rather than chasing swing voters
- Build coalition relationships with natural allies
- Take FCAO preparation seriously as genuine competency development
- Use enhanced resources to provide excellent constituent service
- Represent their constituencies authentically rather than triangulating constantly
The members who struggle will be those who:
- Rely on structural advantages that no longer exist
- Continue old campaign playbooks in a new electoral environment
- Treat FCAO as a nuisance rather than an opportunity
- Take their base for granted while chasing voters who no longer determine outcomes
- Fail to build the coalition relationships proportional systems reward
This is not a threat. It is an honest description of how democratic reform works. The new system rewards different skills than the old system. Those skills are learnable. The question is whether you invest in learning them.
The Republic benefits either way. The Act creates a Congress that better represents the American people, with members who have demonstrated competency, built genuine coalitions, and earned durable support from constituents who chose them with full information.
If you adapt, you have significant advantages: name recognition, institutional knowledge, existing relationships, constituent service infrastructure, and years to prepare while challengers build from scratch.
If you don't adapt, you will be replaced by someone who did.
That is how it should be.
Appendix: FCAO as Incumbent Advantage¶
Critics sometimes portray FCAO examinations as threatening to incumbents. The opposite is true -- but only if you take preparation seriously.
The Structural Advantages You Have¶
Time: You can take the exam in Year 1 of your current term, retake it multiple times over years, and display your highest score by your next election. Challengers must prepare during compressed campaign timelines.
Staff support: You have paid staff who can help organize study materials, research constitutional questions, and manage your preparation. Most challengers don't.
Institutional knowledge: You understand congressional procedure, constitutional structure, and legislative process from actually doing the job. The FCAO examination tests exactly this knowledge. You live the material; challengers must study it academically.
Unlimited retakes: Only your highest score ever appears. Early attempts are practice runs. Challengers face one-shot pressure during campaigns.
Lower stakes per attempt: You can take the exam "just to see" without campaign pressure. Each retake is a free option to improve your public credential.
The Strategy¶
- Year 1: Take exam to establish baseline. Score doesn't matter yet.
- Years 1-2: Study weak areas systematically using congressional resources.
- Year 2: Retake exam. Improve score.
- Year 3: Retake again if needed. Optimize.
- Year 4: Display highest score on reelection ballot.
A challenger who declares candidacy 12 months before the election must study while fundraising, organizing, and campaigning. They take the exam under time pressure and display whatever score they achieve.
You've had years to optimize. The asymmetry is substantial -- but only if you actually use it.
The Deeper Point¶
FCAO preparation makes you better at your job. The examination covers material every legislator should understand: constitutional structure, legislative procedure, policy fundamentals, oversight responsibilities.
Treating FCAO as genuine competency development rather than a test to game produces two benefits: a higher score, and improved effectiveness as a legislator. The latter builds the reputation that earns votes regardless of what appears on the ballot.
---¶
Data Reference¶
The following sections provide tabular reference data supporting the narrative guidance above. They catalog financial provisions, electoral system changes, protection mechanisms, and implementation timelines.
I. Tiered Effective Date Structure¶
| Tier | Titles | Trigger | Provisions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | VI, VII, VIII | Upon enactment | Compensation, enforcement, general provisions |
| Tier 2 | I, II, III, IV | First FEMA Election | Ballot access, party recognition, House expansion, electoral reform |
| Tier 3 | V | Second FEMA Election | FCAO examinations |
Definitions:
- First FEMA Election: Second general election after enactment (18-month minimum)
- Second FEMA Election: First general election after First FEMA Election
- Full Implementation: Fifth election after Transition Cycle 1 (~10-12 years from First FEMA Election)
II. Financial Provisions¶
Compensation Schedule (Tier 1 -- Immediate)¶
| Year | House Salary | Senate Salary | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | $174,000 | $174,000 | Baseline |
| Year 1 | ~$189,200 | ~$199,200 | 8.7% / 14.5% increase |
| Year 2 | ~$204,400 | ~$224,400 | Phased increase |
| Year 3 | ~$219,600 | ~$249,600 | Phased increase |
| Year 4 | ~$234,800 | ~$274,800 | Phased increase |
| Year 5+ | $250,000 | $300,000 | Full salary + COLA |
Additional Financial Benefits (Tier 1 -- Immediate)¶
| Provision | Section | House | Senate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Professional Development | 604 | $12,500/year (5% of salary) | $15,000/year (5% of salary) |
| Pension Accrual | 603 | 2.5% per year (vs. 1.7%) | 2.5% per year (vs. 1.7%) |
| Vesting Period | 603 | 5 years | 5 years |
| COLA | 602-603 | Automatic (ECI-linked) | Automatic (ECI-linked) |
Conditional Benefits (Tier 2 -- First FEMA Election)¶
| Provision | Section | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhanced MRA | 606 | +35% (~$450-550k/year) | Upon initial House expansion |
| Public Matching Funds | 607 | 6:1 up to $5M | For qualifying candidates |
Career Value Comparison¶
| Metric | Current System (10-year House career) | Under the Act (10-year House career) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Salary | $1,740,000 | ~$2,120,000 |
| Professional Development | $0 | $125,000 |
| Annual Pension (at retirement) | $29,580 | $62,500 |
| Actuarial Pension Value | ~$400,000 | ~$850,000 |
| Enhanced MRA Capacity | N/A | ~$3,150,000 (7 years) |
| Estimated Total Career Value | ~$2,140,000 | ~$6,245,000 |
| Difference | -- | +$4,105,000 (+192%) |
III. Protection Provisions¶
Anti-Retaliation and Durability (Section 611)¶
| Protection | Mechanism | Enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Retaliation | Salary/benefits/privileges cannot be reduced based on vote for the Act | Supermajority protection + severability |
| Supermajority Repeal | 3/5 vote required in both chambers to reduce Title VI benefits | Constitutional entrenchment |
| Severability | If any provision invalidated, compensation mechanisms remain | Statutory protection |
Transition Protections (First FEMA Election through Full Implementation)¶
| Protection | Provision | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Optional Multi-Member Districts | Section 605 | Transition Cycles 1-4 (~8-10 years) |
| No Forced Competition | Section 605(b) | Until Full Implementation |
| Redistricting Coordination | Section 605(c) | Transition Cycles 1-4 |
| No Incumbent Disadvantage | Title IV Section 406(3) | Throughout transition |
| Minimize Incumbent vs. Incumbent | Title IV Section 406(5) | Throughout transition |
IV. FCAO Examination Structure¶
Timeline¶
| Event | Timing |
|---|---|
| FCAO Agency Establishment | Upon enactment |
| Exam Development Complete | 18 months before Second FEMA Election |
| Exams Available to Candidates | 12 months before Second FEMA Election |
| Scores Appear on Ballots | Second FEMA Election onward |
| First FEMA Election Exemption | No FCAO requirement; no scores on ballots |
Examination Features¶
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Retakes | Unlimited |
| Score Reporting | Highest score only |
| Availability | Year-round, nationwide |
| Qualifying Nature | Non-qualifying (no minimum score required) |
| Format | Multiple-choice, short answer, essay |
| Length | 2-3 hours (House); longer for Senate/President |
| Practice Materials | Publicly available |
Structural Advantages for Incumbents¶
| Advantage | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Time | Years to prepare before scores appear |
| Staff Support | Congressional staff can assist with preparation |
| Institutional Knowledge | Serving provides direct familiarity with exam content |
| Lower Stakes Per Attempt | Can take exam "just to see" without pressure |
| Multiple Retakes | Can optimize score over time |
V. House Expansion Schedule¶
Expansion Timeline (assuming 2026 enactment)¶
| Election | House Size | Change | Representation Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 435 | -- | ~760,000:1 |
| First FEMA Election (~2028) | 510 | +75 | ~657,000:1 |
| ~2030 | 545 | +35 | ~615,000:1 |
| ~2032 | 580 | +35 | ~578,000:1 |
| ~2034 | 615 | +35 | ~545,000:1 |
| ~2036 | 650 | +35 | ~515,000:1 |
| ~2038 | 685 | +35 | ~489,000:1 |
| ~2040 | 720 | +35 | ~465,000:1 |
| Stabilization | ~720 | Per census | ~450,000:1 |
Multi-Member District Phase-In¶
| Transition Cycle | Maximum MMD Coverage | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Cycle 1 | 25% | First FEMA Election |
| Cycle 2 | 50% | +2 years |
| Cycle 3 | 75% | +4 years |
| Cycle 4 | 90% | +6 years |
| Full Implementation | 100% | +8-10 years |
VI. Electoral Math Comparison¶
Vote Threshold Comparison¶
| System | District Size | Votes Cast (60% turnout) | Votes Needed to Win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-Member (current) | 300,000 voters | 180,000 | 90,001 (50%+1) |
| Five-Seat Multi-Member | 1,500,000 voters | 900,000 | ~150,000-180,000 (16-20%) |
| Reduction | -- | -- | 65-70% fewer votes needed |
Risk Factor Comparison¶
| Risk Factor | Single-Member District | Multi-Member District |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Challenge | Vulnerable | Eliminated (no primary) |
| Spoiler Effect | Vulnerable | Eliminated (STAR voting) |
| Demographic Shift | Can flip district | Absorbed proportionally |
| Geographic Controversy | Decisive | Diluted across larger area |
| Enthusiasm Gap | Can lose 50%+1 | Easier to maintain 16-20% |
| Name Recognition Value | Helpful | Near-decisive |
Electoral System Features¶
| Feature | Single-Member + Plurality | STAR/STAR-PR (All Federal Elections) |
|---|---|---|
| Winners per District | 1 | 1 (SMD) or 3-7 (MMD) |
| Vote Threshold | 50%+1 | Varies by district size |
| Primary Required | Yes | No (unified general election) |
| Spoiler Effect | Present | Eliminated |
| Coalition Building | Limited | Enhanced (Joint Endorsement Lists) |
VII. Career Timeline Scenarios¶
Scenario Analysis (assuming 2026 enactment, 2028 First FEMA Election)¶
| When Elected | Terms by 2026 | Likely Retirement | MMD Mandatory (~2038-2040) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before 2014 | 6+ | 2024-2028 | 10+ years after retirement | Retire before ANY MMD |
| 2014-2018 | 4-6 | 2024-2032 | 6-14 years after retirement | Retire before MMD mandatory |
| 2019-2022 | 2-4 | 2029-2036 | 2-11 years after retirement | Likely retire before MMD mandatory |
| 2023-2026 | 0-2 | 2033-2040 | Around same time | May face MMD late in career (optional until then) |
| After 2026 | 0 | After 2036 | During career | Elected knowing system exists |
Senate Comparison¶
| Factor | House Members | Senators |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-Member Districts | Apply (phased) | Never apply |
| FCAO Examinations | Apply (Second FEMA Election) | Apply (Second FEMA Election) |
| Compensation | $250,000 (Year 5) | $300,000 (Year 5) |
| Electoral System Change | STAR + MMD | STAR only |
Summary Statistics¶
| Metric | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Current House members retiring before mandatory MMD | 50-60% |
| Current Senators affected by MMD | 0% (Senate exempt) |
| Years from enactment to mandatory MMD | ~12-14 |
| Years from enactment to cube root compliance | ~14 |
VIII. Provision-by-Provision Reference¶
Title I: Ballot Access Standards (Tier 2)¶
| Provision | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Signature Threshold | 0.5% of votes cast (capped at 5,000 statewide, 1,000 House) |
| Filing Fee Alternative | $1,000 House, $2,500 statewide |
| Collection Window | Minimum 120 days |
| Major Party Threshold | 5% in most recent election |
Title II: Party Recognition (Tier 2)¶
| Provision | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Electoral Performance Standard | 5% in 15+ states |
| Membership Standard | 100,000 members in 25+ states |
| Joint Endorsement Limit | Up to 3 party endorsements per candidate |
Title III: House Expansion (Tier 2 + Ongoing)¶
| Provision | Specification |
|---|---|
| Initial Expansion | 510 seats at First FEMA Election |
| Biennial Increase | +35 seats per Congress |
| Target | Cube root of population (~720) |
| Timeline | ~14 years to compliance |
| MRA Increase | +35% upon initial expansion |
Title IV: Electoral Reform (Tier 2)¶
| Provision | Specification |
|---|---|
| Voting Method | STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) |
| Multi-Member Allocation | STAR-PR (proportional) |
| District Size | 3-7 seats |
| Election Structure | Unified general election (no state-administered primaries) |
| Phase-In | 25% -> 50% -> 75% -> 90% -> 100% |
Title V: FCAO (Tier 3)¶
| Provision | Specification |
|---|---|
| Agency Type | Independent (Federal Reserve/SEC model) |
| Commission | 9 members, multi-branch appointment |
| Qualifying Nature | Non-qualifying (no minimum score) |
| Score Display | On ballot, adjacent to candidate name |
| Retakes | Unlimited; highest score reported |
| Effective Date | Second FEMA Election |
Title VI: Compensation (Tier 1)¶
| Provision | House | Senate |
|---|---|---|
| Year 5 Salary | $250,000 | $300,000 |
| Professional Development | 5% of salary | 5% of salary |
| Pension Accrual | 2.5%/year | 2.5%/year |
| COLA | Automatic (ECI) | Automatic (ECI) |
| MRA Enhancement | +35% at First FEMA Election | N/A |
Revision History¶
This document merges two previously separate publications: the House Member Guide (narrative guidance) and the House Member Guide: Data Appendix (tabular reference). Revision histories for both lineages are preserved below.
House Member Guide¶
Revision 3.0 (Current)
- Updated from CMA Rev 4.2 to FEMA Rev 5.0
- Rebranded all references from "Congressional Modernization Act (CMA)" to "Federal Elections Modernization Act (FEMA)"
- Applied APAI self-reference conventions: full name established once, "the Act" used for all subsequent references
- Updated defined terms: "First CMA Election" to "First FEMA Election," "Second CMA Election" to "Second FEMA Election"
- Merged Data Appendix into unified document as "Data Reference" section
- Removed "Appendix: Financial Provisions Summary" (superseded by Data Reference Section II)
- Removed "Appendix: What This Document Replaces" (historical context folded into this Revision History)
- Reformatted header and footer to APAI Document Production Standards
- No changes to narrative guidance, Martinez scenarios, skills analysis, or FCAO appendix
Revision 2.0
- Updated to reflect CMA Rev 4.2 Unified General Election Structure (UGES)
- Replaced differentiated primary structure with unified general election framework
- All federal elections now follow same structure: candidates appear directly on general election ballot
- Updated "Electoral System Changes" section to reflect UGES
- Renamed from "The First CMA Election and Beyond: What House Members Need to Know"
Revision 1.0
- Initial document created from consolidation of CMA-Why-CMA-Makes-Your-Seat-Safer and CMA-Incentive-Alignment-Matrix
- Updated for CMA Rev 4.0 implementation architecture
- Reframed from "incumbent protection" to honest adaptation guidance
- New Martinez scenarios reflecting accelerated timeline
Data Appendix (now Data Reference)¶
Revision 5.0 (Current -- merged into this document)
- Integrated into House Member Guide as "Data Reference" section
- Updated all references from CMA to FEMA
- Updated defined terms to match FEMA Rev 5.0 legislative text
- Removed Section IX "Document Information" (metadata handled by document header/footer)
Revision 4.0
- Updated to reflect CMA Rev 4.2 Unified General Election Structure (UGES)
- Updated Title IV provision table: primaries eliminated for all federal elections
- Updated Electoral System Features comparison table
- Source legislation updated to CMA Rev 4.2
- Renamed from "CMA Member Impact Reference" to clarify companion relationship
Revision 3.0
- Renamed from "Incentive Alignment Matrix" to "Member Impact Reference"
- Converted to lean reference format: tables and data only
- Removed strategic narrative (moved to House Member Guide)
- Retained all provision tables, timeline scenarios, financial calculations, and electoral math
Revision 2.0
- Updated to reflect CMA Rev 4.0 implementation architecture redesign
- Replaced 25-year three-phase timeline with accelerated ~14-year expansion
- Revised all timeline scenarios to reflect compressed implementation
Revision 1.2
- Renamed from "Incumbency Protection Provisions Matrix" to "Incentive Alignment Matrix"
Revision 1.0
- Initial comprehensive analysis
📄 Download this document (opens on GitHub -- click the ⬇ download button)
Prepared by Albert Ramos for The American Policy Architecture Institute