No second amendment, publicly funded elections.
Also, severe penalties for media favoritism or bias.
Standardize the legal age for drinking, driving, joining the military and voting to 18. No reason we should go by 21, 16, 17 and 18, respectively. It’s confusing. Make it 18 for all four rights/privileges.
Get rid of bias or prejudice or discrimination in the educational accreditation system, too.
One man, one vote. No voter should be allowed to vote twice.
Two party system???
In 2012 the candidates were:
Democrat - Barrack Obama / Joe Biden
Republican - Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan
Libertarian - Gary Johnson / Jim Gray
Green - Jill Stein / Cheri Honkala
Constitution - Virgil Goode / Jim Clymer
Justice - Rocky Anderson / Luis Rodriguez
and several others…
I voted Libertarian.
How many states did your candidate win?
The Tampa Bay Buckaneers only won two games this season. I guess is it means that the NFL is biased? Or maybe they were just a bad team…
I think the proposal to look at a parliamentary system is worth considering. Right now, we have a system that massively over represents some voters, and under represents others. I think a parliamentary system would go quite a ways in correcting that, if elections were held at a national level. I’m not totally sold on that idea, but it is attractive.
Does this extend to the Editorial Pages of Newspapers?
There might be a good reason for doing this, but “confusion” is not one of them. I don’t think many people are confused about when they can drive, when they can legally vote, drink or join the military.
As for the OP, I’d look for a way to strengthen Congress and weaken the President. Make them more co-equal, as was the original idea. Make separation of Church and State firm, not squishy. Eliminate 2nd amendment.
Who decides what media bias is and is not?
Would that apply to MSNBC, CNN, and NPR?
President elected by popular vote. No two term limit (which is how it started).
More senators per state based on population, perhaps between 1 and 5.
Smaller congressional districts (which is how it started).
Supreme Court justice term would be 2 years time the total number of justices. Chief Justice is the senior justice.
Very strict conflict of interest laws which make it illegal for elected and appointed officials to take anything of value from anyone (exception for returns from disclosed investments made prior to office). Judges could not be associated with any political party. Significant post office income to make it feasible for those who are not rich to serve.
Any use of military force exceeding 30 days would automatically activate a draft. No draft exclusions, but alternate means of service based on need and ability.
I’m not American, but if I may stick my oar in, I’d strengthen campaign finance (although Europe definitely hasn’t got it perfect), abolish term limits (I just don’t get the appeal), centralise and reform electoral districting (on the British system, perhaps), abolish the Second Amendment, and reform the Senate to be unelected but also considerably weaker, making the House the most important chamber.
That may horrify many here though 
someone mentioned a triumvirate presidency, that actually does sound interesting.
Also, not sure how to do it, but the Senate and House would not be allowed to make their own rules.
Here are a few ideas off the top of my head. I’m sure some of them have negative consequences that I haven’t considered.
Campaign Financing
No limit on donations by individuals.
All donations published immediately.
All donations must be made by an individual who can legally vote for the candidate in question. [e.g., Candidate for senator from state X can only receive contributions from the voters in state X; Exxon, NRA, UAW cannot contribute to any candidate.]
Two Party System
[Note: These changes wouldn’t eliminate TPS, but would reduce the influence.]
No preprinted ballots and no straight party voting. Voters would type in the name for each office, and that candidate’s picture would display as confirmation.
In lieu of debates, each candidate’s curriculum vitae (including a record of votes in any previously held office) would be posted on line. Anyone who can legally vote for the office in question could submit questions. Candidates would be required to answer certain questions (say the top 20 by number of submittals) or provide a reason for not answering. Any factual assertion in a question or answer would require a citation. This Q&A would be continuous for a specified number of days (weeks?).
Term Limits
The current system has it exactly backwards. If the majority of citizens want to reelect a president sixteen times, then anyone opposed to that president is free to campaign for someone else. Congress, on the other hand, can be controlled by a few powerful, long-term politicians that are answerable only to their constituents, while making decisions affecting the whole country. I would eliminate term limits for president and impose them on congress.
Law Making
If bills are too long or too complex to be read and understood before congress votes on them, then the bills are too long or too complex to be imposed on the citizenry. Each new law should be written, introduced, and voted on as a stand-alone document. This doesn’t mean a law can’t have sub-parts, but omnibus bills should be eliminated.
All bills should include a description of the problem they are intended to solve, along with the metric to be used to determine when that problem has been solved. The GAO would produce an annual report classifying each law as follows: (a) Metric met, law no longer required, (b) Metric met, law required to maintain status quo, © Metric not met, law is functioning, (d) Metric not met, law is ineffective. Laws classified as (a) or (d) would automatically expire unless the Congress reintroduces the bill and passes it as a new law.
Zero of course, but it was because people don’t vote for who they believe in, they vote for who they think can win and are convinced we have only two parties to choose from. We end up getting the “least terrible of two”.
I vote for who I want in office. If others voted like that, the quasi-two party system would be broken immediately.
“Two-party system”, at least in an American context, doesn’t mean only two parties are permitted. It means that only two parties are large enough to really be considered important on anything more than a local scale. On a national level, control of the White House, of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives is always in the hands of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. The last president who wasn’t a member of either of those parties was Millard Fillmore. Whose term ended in 1853.
Like it or not, the only presidential contest in 2012 that mattered was Obama vs. Romney. Nobody else was going to win, period. Once the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are selected, it is a foregone conclusion that the next president will be one of the two, and the only question that remains is which one. A vote for anyone else is a vote for principals, not for president.
I agree this is broken. I’m not registered with any party, and never have been. (Registering non-partisan was one of the few decisions I made at age 18 that I still stand by.) I think more parties need to become powerful enough to make a difference, and I’d like to see someone who’s not a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. But it’s not like this problem is exactly institutional; there is no law that says we only get two parties that matter. It’s just that only two parties have enough people voting for them. So to the people saying we shouldn’t have a two-party system, I would say, “I agree, but that would require a change in the voters, not a change in the government itself.”
How many of those were allowed into the Presidential debates without being arrested?
I have a better idea: if somebody wants to activate the draft, shoot him. Make the activation of the draft contingent on the execution of every politician who voted in favour of it. If they’re not willing to lay down their own lives to make it happen, circumstances clearly aren’t dire enough to justify bringing back slavery.
First off, I’d go with the obvious. “All men are created free” - I’d have put an end to slavery in the original document.
I’d also extend the franchise to all adult men and women, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. And I’d make voting a constitutional right.
I’m assuming I spiked the punch bowl with peyote to get those two passed.
As you note, there’s nothing preventing third parties or even multiple parties from being elected into power under our existing system. It’s just the voters don’t want to elect the candidates of these parties.
Some people that support these parties are unable to accept this. They want to “fix” the problem. They want to create a system in which a million Libertarian (or Green or Socialist or Constitution) voters have equal power to a hundred million Democratic voters or a hundred million Republican voters. You could invent a system like that but it wouldn’t be a fair one.
This states’ rights crap is right out.
You can say it, but that doesn’t make it fucking true. Your electoral system has an inherent tendency towards a two party system by introducing the problem of spoilers: if 60% of the electorate supports Adam becoming president and also supports Bob becoming president, one of those two candidates should win. There should be no situation in which Charlie wins with only 40% support, but that is what can happen if you force people to arbitrarily split their vote between two equally good candidates instead of using a voting system that more accurately reflects the preferences of the electorate.
Even if you can’t understand that, the fact that the Republicans and the Democrats have been allowed to take control of the presidential debates and actively bar other parties from participating should be a conflict of interest that even you can recognise.
The Bill of Rights should include one or more amendments protecting our economic freedoms, in addition to the existing amendments protecting personal freedoms. It should include the following rules:
[ul]
[li]The government may not establish any maximum or minimum price for the sale of any item.[/li][li]The government may not force the American people to purchase anything.[/li][li]The government may not pass any law specifically designed to favor any one private corporation or union.[/li][li]The government may not prohibit anyone from buying or selling anything, except for the following reasons: the sale is fraudulent, the item in question threatens someone’s physical safety[/li][li]No one may be forced to join a union.[/li][/ul]