#2 I could get behind if it also has “vote by internet” provisions, and a “None of the Above is Acceptable” options for all elections and ballot measures.
#3 I can’t get behind. No Senate just means that New York City politicians rape Wyoming. The little guys (and little states) need protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Before any of that you need one thing above all else, and that’s a public, transparent paper trail at every election; what the hell is this nonsense about counting machines… you couldn’t make this shit up. Really.
I would to revamp the primary system so that it’s not the same few states picking the nominees. There should be a rotating system every election cycle.
I would like educators to seriously look at devising a plan similar to Finland’s.
We need to decouple the criminal justice system from profit-motive. There’s a reason why conservatives hate hearing the words “prison industrial complex”. They know it’s evil and don’t want to be reminded of it. There should be no incentive beyond justice to incarcerate people.
The world has as many fully functioning off-the-shelf Parliamentary democracies as you need. In 230 years, has any country been stupid enough to follow what was set up for the USA - wtf were those guys on? Madness, complete madness.
I would…
…Give the grousing evangelicals what they want, but in a way that they hate. They want a state-sanctioned religion? For sure - but not theirs. Officially throw away all this ‘judeo-christian’ nonsense, and hark back to our classical Hellenistic heritage; state-mandated worship of certain presidents and a few Roman emperors for good measure. Let’s have a state religion that nobody actually practices!
Or maybe this is a stupid idea. But it certainly would be a colorful one…
Alternately, in conjunction with ideas stated above, we could simply bring back George Washington as President-for-Life (and afterlife) as the ceremonial leader of the country, and go with a quasi-parliamentary system, maybe even with PR - though I hear that PR doesn’t exactly work?
But in all seriousness, I would abolish state-level Education authorities, give the Department of Education unlimited authority over all American public schools, abolish private education, and remake our system to closely conform with the modern German one, which IAGTU is the best in the world, on a systemic level - complete with the university and vocational tracks.
Also, in keeping with the genius advice of the one and only War Nerd, Gary Brechter, I would immediately abolish the Navy’s surface fleet, demolish the Pentagon’s R&D budget, cancel the Raptor program, and begin the process of establishing a fleet of anti-ship ballistic missile subs as the cornerstone of our new modern navy, as well as submarines that can launch drones. Gary Brechter is always right.
Also, I would use the power of my imagination to conjure up some kind of awesome war-hero politician, one who had worked his way up as an enlistee before going to OCS, who could sit at that long table in the Senate Armed Forces committee, point his finger at the latest DOD spokesman or whoever, and say, ‘you, top brass flag officers, you are the problem and I won’t let you use your shiny medals and bogus moral authority to hoodwink me into giving you money to spend on your contractor friends!’
…why yes, I am extremely interested in military reform…
We need also need to decouple it from the political ax-grinding motive. Incarcerated people can’t vote.
Fully fund Head-Start and other early childhood education programs. Make critical thinking a part of every student’s curriculum.
Won’t work until you train enough teachers who can do that. Most can’t.
Maybe if we paid teachers better we’d get some that can.
Everything I was going to say has basically been said, I think, but damn it I want to make my own list. I’m not actually American (though I do live here sort of), so my understanding of American problems might be incomplete (that is, even more incomplete than other people’s).
Instant runoff voting. Seriously, the most compelling argument I’ve heard against this is ‘the voters are too dumb to understand it’*, which is so weak that it makes me wonder if this notion is actually pretty uncontroversial, except insofar as the major parties don’t want it because it would make their positions harder to maintain.
Legalise soft drugs. Since I’m not touching the topic of harder stuff, this one seems like kind of a no-brainer - it would solve so many problems that it kind of blows my mind that it doesn’t appear to seriously be on the table.
This one’s a bit more controversial: Mandatory voting. It actually makes me a bit uncomfortable to force everyone to vote, but it just seems too easy to disenfranchise people when voting is optional. Also, silenus, since voting is anonymous you can always do an ‘informal vote’ (aka ‘just draw a penis on the ballot and hand it in’) - your vote doesn’t count towards anyone that way. ‘Compulsory voting’ in practice is really just ‘compulsory getting your name ticked off at a voting station’ - so it makes apathetic people drag themselves in, but people who feel strongly against expressing an opinion between the two candidates can still avoid doing so.
I guess those are the major things that I would feel reasonably comfortable introducing as god-king of America (with the caveat that the voting-related things may not have a place in a country run by a god-king, but you know what I mean). Health and education both seem pretty badly broken here, and somehow these can be fixed because there are other countries with working systems, but I’m not at all confident that I have much advice there in terms of details. I’m also pretty confused by the apparent system of subsidising corn and subsequently using corn in every piece of food ever, so I guess I’d look into that and see if it’s as silly as it looks, but perhaps there’s a good reason that I’m unaware of.
*If there’s a better argument for first-past-the-post though, I’d be curious to hear it - I just haven’t heard it yet.
duplicate
This +1000! 
Dinaroozie - I know, but I still want a “None of the Above” option. Why should we have to pick between losers? “Either give us real candidates or fuck off” is my message to politicians everywhere.
Agreed - there should be a way to communicate “It’s not that I’m too stupid to fill out a ballot correctly, I just think you guys are pathetic and I’m not voting for any of you.” Of course, you could just write that on the ballot, but in the current system the message only gets as far as the person that counts the votes. 
Campaign finance reform. From the ground up.
Seriously. We can have Lincoln/Douglas debates on any given issue, but none of it matters as long as bribery is essentially legal.
And it will never happen.
Australia has mandatory voting, with vote by mail for people who are away, and I believe also a “none of the above” box which you can check off. Voting by internet is more problematic – if you think electronic voting machines are subject to abuse, I can’t wait to see how that turns out.
But conversely, why should New York City have to suffer through policies that a coalition of rural mid-western states want and can impose on the whole country despite having a combined population smaller than New York?
I mean, “tyranny of the majority” is an argument against all democracy everywhere, which is why all practical democracies, including the US, have limitations on what can be enacted no matter how much of the electorate votes for it. Wyoming is already protected from being “raped” by that – I don’t see what having a disproportionately represented democratic body adds to that other than giving Wyoming an additional opportunity to be obstructionist.
It could happen. According to a recent Pew survey, the current times are making young people favor socialism over capitalism. Might be in for some rocky times soon.
I wasn’t aware it was one or the other. In fact, the most successful countries seem to have some mix of the two.
Some of what I’ll say has been said already.
Politics:
[ul]
[li]Change elections to allow for viable third party candidates. This could be instant runoff or something else. Just as long as we have more choices.[/li][li]Means test farm subsidies.[/li][li]Means test Social Security.[/li][li]Although I have no problem with people being less reliant on government, right now charities cannot replace government programs like Medicare, food stamps, etc… And cutting these programs is only hurting the poor. So stop cutting the programs and start raising taxes to pay for them and close state and federal budget gaps. Then make it so that before being able to eliminate any such program, one or more charities must be built up to be able to afford to take over and continue such services.[/li][li]Reduce the rights of corporate “persons”. Eliminating them would defeat the purpose of forming a corporation, but limits on campaign contributions and political influence are reasonable.[/li][/ul]
Economics:
[ul]
[li]Eliminate loan bundling.[/li][li]Eliminate conditions that make it more profitable for lenders to foreclose on houses instead of working with the owners for modified payments.[/li][li]The unemployment problem is only a problem for those of us who are unemployed. For companies it’s no problem at all. They won’t hire the unemployed. Since we can’t force companies to hire the unemployed the federal and state governments need to find more incentives to bribe companies into hiring them.[/li][li]We need to stop giving companies tax breaks on the premise that it will cause job creation. Job creation will be very slow for a while, and it’s not high taxes that are the problem.[/li][/ul]
Foreign policy
[ul]
[li]Have the War Powers Resolution declared constitutional.[/li][li]People captured on the battlefield are prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva conventions. People arrested off of the battlefield are subject to a fair trial and writ of habeas corpus. All other prisoner classifications are to be eliminated.[/li][/ul]
Constitutional amendment: formally incorporate some of the increases in federal power since the New Deal and repudiate the rest. The Commerce Clause needs a stake put through its heart.
Declare it unconstitutional for any state or local government to reserve to police any weapons that citizens are forbidden to possess.
Put the Pentagon on an allowance: give them $200 billion a year and tell them they have to do the best they can with that much. Commeasurately, drastically scale back the USA’s strategic commitments. Let’s see the EU keep oil tankers sailing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tax the rich at Eisenhower administration levels.
One more thing: Constitutional amendment that says, “any foreign war/police action/deployment of troops shall be accompanied by a 5% surcharge on the income tax of people making above half the median wage to pay for said action”.
If there’s going to be war, it should be a war that the people support on a level that’s more than just “moral support”. And you can bet that an automatic tax increase when the war starts and and and automatic tax cut when the war ends will keep wars short.