Tom Geoghegan advances the idea that American society can benefit from an increased commitment to democracy at home and abroad. Geoghegan argues that the United States can improve the process of presidential elections through the National Popular Vote. The states of Maine and Nebraska are examples of National Popular Vote. In See You in Court, Geoghegan makes the case that this reform would increase responsiveness, transparency and accountability.

In addition, Geoghegan insists that the U.S. House of Representatives is insufficiently responsive to the American people. A specific solution advanced by the labor lawyer is based on the Iowa system through which attorneys could sue in order to "get a process." polling data and voting data should not be used in the formation of congressional districts. Fewer than 10 % of Congressional districts are in play in every election and this discourages voter participation.

Tom argues against the filibuster. Fewer than 9 % of the population resides in 20 states representing 40 seats in the United States Senate. In the January 11, 2010 New York Times op-ed article, Geoghegan argues that since the vice-president's job is vote in the Senate when the Senate is equally divided and since a filibuster under revised Senate Rule 22 removes the vice-president's ability to make that vote, it is an unconstitutional rule. He also argues that the Article requirement for just a bare majority to form a quorum supermajorities were expressly disapproved by the Founders. He says In Federalist 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: "All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operation of government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority." Geoghegan continues, It would be illogical to preclude a supermajority {for a...} quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote.

Geoghegan describes the process through which Federalism inhibits the expression of popular majorities on issues.