Improving Elections

NPR did a survey asking what people would like to see in the constitution.  I think quite a few of them are bad ideas, but there are some good ones.

Here's my own answer to such a survey:

No one party may hold more than 25% of the seats in any elected body.   Nearly all the founders were terrified of political parties--they'd seen the damage they caused in England.  Unfortunately the best of intentions didn't last long.  They weren't able to figure out a way to define what a party is sufficiently to create an effective ban.   My thinking is that any specific political leadership must not be allowed to lead more than a tiny number of votes over some fairly short period.  Coalitions must be highly topical.

All elected offices must include "None of the Above".  Nobody scoring lower than NotA may run for that office for at least one term following.  This will encourage third and alternate parties and eliminate bad politicians with no opposition.  It doesn't permanently disqualify anybody for office but it opens up the runoff.

All votes include instant runoff.   Several venues have tried this and it works very well.   You get several choices on your ballot.   All the first place votes are tallied and if nobody gets a clear majority (I think 51% at least, maybe more), the bottom candidate is eliminated and ballots listing that candidate as #1 get their second place vote tallied.  Repeat until you have a winner.  This will encourage "protest" votes and third party candidates.    

Organized bodies such as corporations, unions, PACs, 527s, political parties and so forth, may not directly advertise for or against any candidate or ballot measure.   Before Citizens United, something like this was the law and the extreme judicial activists decided to change it.

No individual or organized body may spend more on lobbying than 10 median incomes.  Right now that's about $500K.  "Free" lobbying and under the table payments must be counted.

No one entity may gross more than 1/2% of US  GDP.  any income exceeding this would be taxed at >100%, to force such companies to break themselves up.  Right now this threshold is about $75B, and there are 97 such companies, about half which do a majority of their business in the US.  One major complication of this is that companies subect to this limit would be at a disadvantage against competitors who do not do business in the US.   Passing a law which has the same threshold in the EU is about a 90% solution, although China and Japan are a factor too.

Lying  in political advertising is a felony offense.  (today, lying in any political speech is protected free speech) (lying is saying something you know is false.  ignorance is a defense, but it only works once).