Some policy things lot of us would think are good?

[Anon1787]

Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?

As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.

Part of this perception id due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

Article 5 doesn't make an exception for an increase in the size of population differences among the states (which increases the danger of majority tyranny). You could create more states out of the larger states but that would be politically difficult.

[dismalist]

As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.

Part of this perception id due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

Article 5 doesn't make an exception for an increase in the size of population differences among the states (which increases the danger of majority tyranny). You could create more states out of the larger states but that would be politically difficult.

The idea of breaking up States is a good one, not to affect the Electoral College, but to make State policy more congruent with peoples' wishes. If States were more homogeneous, their majorities would tyrannize fewer people.

A favorite of mine, held since my late teen years in New York City, is to make NYC its own State. It would be 110% Democratic. The rest of the State would be 80% Republican. Would not affect the Senate, but would make a lot of people in the current New York State very happy.

As for getting rid of the Electoral college, I don't want to be ruled by Californians. Hell, even Californians are leaving California!

[Wahoo Redux]

The end of the Electoral College.

The beginning of the tyranny of the majority.

Also known as a fair and equitable vote that represents one citizen, one vote...

...or as someone once said, "Who wants the majority of the population deciding on their own fate"...

...and the end of the Republicans in their current radical form, which is why they are so afraid of getting rid of the EC.

Thank God! System is working. Don't fix it.

It does work.  And for that reason the Republicans felt the need to lie about the election and attempt sedition at the Capitol. 

[ciao_yall]

Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.

The end of the Electoral College.

Ranked choice voting.

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18. 

Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.

In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.

Yes.

Voting is mandatory in Australia - makes sure everyone comes out and encourages people to take an interest.

Ranked choice voting works really well in San Francisco.

A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.

Not sure how you would enforce that?

Still I might replace it with...

Independent nonpartisan commission draws district/electoral maps to focus on local community needs, not partisan gerrymandering. Worked very well in California.

I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.  At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."

And, our current political power structure, for both parties and major stakeholders/donors who give to both parties, is designed to take advantage of the bugs features in the way things were designed.

Sometimes I think Ds and Rs are just Coke versus Pepsi. The branding is different but still they are just caffeine, bubbles, and sugar water.

[Wahoo Redux]

Crackdown on gerrymandering. 

[Kron3007]

Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.

The end of the Electoral College.

Ranked choice voting.

Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18. 

Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.

In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.

A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.

I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.  At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."

Mandatory voting sounds great, except that I have met the people you are talking about.  I would bet, at least half the public has very little understanding of the issues or candidates.  Why would you want them influencing the results?  It would end up being even more of a reality tv show.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Term limits.

[ciao_yall]

Term limits.

We have those at the State level and it's a disaster. The only people who know what is going on are lobbyists and staffers.

[dismalist]

Term limits.

We have those at the State level and it's a disaster. The only people who know what is going on are lobbyists and staffers.

I'm very partial to term limits, indeed a single term. One problem it solves is that elected officials start campaigning for re-election the day they start their office. And I see that non-stop campaigning is inimical to the whole point of representative democracy -- coupling popular wishes with some expertise.

But to develop and use that expertise, and attract good candidates, the term would have to be very long, say 15 years. I got no problem with that for Senators. The House, which is supposed to represent the people's whims of the moment [though the Senate is a strong competitor for that task] presents a conundrum. You can't leave a single term at two years, for if you did, only part-timers would run, i.e. the independently wealthy. Even four years would be problematic. Perhaps choose the House members at random.

Nor do I have a problem with 18 year terms for Supreme Court judges, not on any political grounds, but because on average in our dotage we kinda' lose it.

I don't even have a problem with two six-year terms for Presidents.

[marshwiggle]

But to develop and use that expertise, and attract good candidates, the term would have to be very long, say 15 years. I got no problem with that for Senators. The House, which is supposed to represent the people's whims of the moment [though the Senate is a strong competitor for that task] presents a conundrum. You can't leave a single term at two years, for if you did, only part-timers would run, i.e. the independently wealthy. Even four years would be problematic. Perhaps choose the House members at random.

Several years ago, a friend of mine proposed a lottery system for (Canadian) senators. It would be like jury duty, but as you note it would eliminate lobbying for re-election, and virtually everyone would come in without any partisan connection. It would be interesting to see some country try that out.