The 33% solution. Add a group equal to 33% of representatives and senators to both congressional chambers that are filled via a jury-pool like system of common people with a term of one congressional session. Participants would earn equal pay as other representatives and service would be equivalent to national guard duty, where employers have to hold your position open for your return. Would need to apply at state level as well for full effect. Participants can serve only once and must not have an active affiliation with one of the other political parties. It eliminates majority party leadership as the entire body has to vote on a leader they all can get behind, which allows for a less obstructive path for legislation and fair debate for all policy and spending.
Such a change would force traditional parties and this neutral group of citizens to compromise on all legislation removing extreme policies from the equation. Because legislation has a direct effect on this neutral body and there terms are short, career politician agendas and "loss of connection" to the common needs of citizens is virtually eliminated. It would also eliminate the us vs them ideology, as common citizens become an actual party to the governmental process and have skin in the game from their own participation in the process.
The 33% solution provides the biggest bang for the buck with the least impact to current government structures and election processes.
For one, we need rule of law to be followed. The government seems to frequently violate rule of law. For example, the constitution says that Congress shall pass a budget, yet all we get are "spending bills" and last minute stop-gap legislation.
America has a first passed the post tweedist republic.
In order for the act of democracy to perform better, barriers to entry for participating need to be dropped and representation has to be improved.
Big steps that can be made are
- getting money as far away from politics as possible. This will be done by limiting spending and limiting time spent campaigning.
- mathematically designed districts
- instead of first pass the post, many will say instant runoff. Instant runoff is fine, but it is still super linear. To get closer to a direct democracy, liquid voting is far more effective. I personally like log-liquid voting that scales a representative influence logarithmically with their constituent size. This logarithmic scaling allows smaller communities to be heard and dissuades clout chasing.
- typically smaller countries are able to represent the diversity of their citizens better
- term limits on all positions
- remove advertising from news outlets
- Break apart information and monopolies like all of the major social networks and news stations
Remove: Parties. Law and governance is nuanced and shouldn't be reduced to black and white issues.
Remove: Disproportionate representation. One vote should count as much as any other vote from anywhere in the country.
Remove: Politics is popularity contests and soundbites for fame. Remove this by allowing people to assign their votes to experts by proxy.
Remove: Ban lobbyists and lobby groups.
Remove: Ban anyone in government from holding financial interests in anything.
Add: Digitally secure elections. Somehow.
Ability of normal citizens to view and comment on laws being enacted on their behalf before such laws are being voted on.
Vote of no confidence. Has big implications. -Better feedback loop, more real time accountability. -Ability to change pitcher having given up runs without waiting for the next inning. -Ability to respond quicker to administration failures. -More power to the people.
1.) As soon as you get (re)elected you have to start working on getting money for your next election, hence people/businesses with money will always have a higher chance of getting time in your schedule. As long as more money equals a higher chance of a position of power in politics it is at a minimum an unfair democracy. No lobbying, no money to politicians outside a fair wage.
2.) A two party system will always end up with candidates most voters "can live with". Everyone else than the biggest candidates are wasted votes. This leads to populism, like how you can be hard on crime/immigration/whatever and the other candidates have to beat you. This leads to laws like "Three strikes and you're out" and candidates like Donald Trump. No more Dem. vs Rep. It fuels hatred / Us vs Them mentality.
Voting reform - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnR...
It strikes a good balance of something that would have profound systemic effects and influence many ongoing issues but at the same time it's also achievable.
Electronic/Mail ballot voting cannot guarantee both anonymity and easy auditing which results in a lack of trust in election results.
It must be removed. https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
It's funny how nobody mentions fixes for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering works for winning those 49% votes, but in all honesty, if the votes are that close, it doesn't really matter.
Add: Government funded airtime for candidates to speak uninterrupted about their policies
Here's a great video on that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE5B9uGpqrM
tl;dr A firewall between money and the leaders doing politics
The USA should be dissolved into thousands of sovereign city states. At the very least the existing states should dissolve the federal union.
The size of government should be reduced until its voters can meaningfully participate, and understand the scope of its responsibilities.
People who live in entirely different communities should not be governing each other. One office, like the US President, should not govern millions of people. A legislature of a few hundred should not govern hundreds of millions.