General Discussion

I agree with most of these. Key differences that'd I prefer:

• Approval instead of ranked choice voting (easier auditing, simpler to explain)
• Get rid of pretty much all taxes, and replaced it with a land and carbon/pollution tax
• Mandate all companies be employee owned
• Abolish the stock market
• Ban on corporations from owning single family unit homes, every citizen capped to 3 residences, and all multi-unit homes must be non-market housing
• Massive public investment into housing construction

Lots of good stuff here, and I agree with others to keep the senate. Abolish the filibuster!

I like almost all of this, but I disagree with merging the Senate and House as well as a VAT on luxury items. We already have tax on basically every transaction and the burden is on the consumer, that needs to change. What should happen is that all taxes on food items currently should be removed. I believe the separation of Senate and House, while burdensome and inefficient at times, really does an essential good for American society. We would fare much better if we had term limits and more than two (essentially one) political party.

Edit: I want to continue with strickening the UBI from this list as well in exchange for significanly improving social services to make sure that everyone is guaranteed food, housing, medical, and security. I get that income is important and some people cant work, but inflation is real and that money has to come from somewhere not just the ether. It would be better to create/improve upon existing social safety nets to make sure everyone can contribute to society in some way rather than just giving everyone money for nothing.

Something something.. gerrymandering

Where I'm from judges have to be picked by a list prepared by the bar of that jurisdiction, IIRC. That way you can't just get any barely competent idiot who happens to be a good party man as a justice on the highest court of the land.

Term limits on Supreme Court and Senators/Reps.

Roleplaying as Decronym bot for a moment:

Depends on what time-scale. Sweeping changes all in one go would be asking a lot, and none of these are minor changes on their own, either.

The 50k and under untaxed I disagree with. It sets up for a possible scenario where those who are taxed get priority in policy. If you are able to be a productive member of society, you should pay taxes to support that society, and the infrastructure it provides.

Most of the others in the list I agree with or don't know enough about the case to comment

Ranked Choice Voting? 100% approve.

Get rid of the EC entirely. The popular vote would work quite a bit better as a means of ensuring power is exercised with the consent of the governed.

Scotus and congress both desperately need oversight that is different from 'we oversee ourselves and find we did nothing wrong' when obvs. that doesn't work too well

Tax prep companies... I wish them a prompt and thorough viking funeral.

Fun fact about corporate power at the time of the framers: the colonists felt first-hand the abuse of being effectively governed by crown corporations and shortly after the founding of the USA, corporations were drastically limited in what they could do- for example, they could not engage in politics, they could not own other corporations, could not engage in activities not strictly related to their charters, had charters of finite span, and their charters could be revoked for any violations. If corporations are going to be people today, it's about damned time we started charging them with crimes when they commit crimes- and yank their charters if they re-offend.

One thing worth questioning: do we really need representative districts? Why not have at-large representatives on a per-state basis, with seats allocated to states/apportioned via census? It would be pretty hard to gerrymander an at-large system, I think

And another one: push cities (by carrot and sticks, financial incentives and penalties) to change their layouts and designs to be humans first, 15 minute cities, whatever you want to call them. Pedestrian areas and cycling infrastructure over cars, mixed use building areas, let's get rid of the suburb rot. It makes it that people don't need a car and if you don't need a car, why have an expensive piece of crap that costs a fortune to use and maintain? Cars will still be allowed, because of course. It's just that priorities have to change. People first, cyclists first. Cities will become more quiet, people will walk and cycle more, they'll be outside more, healthier, happier, safer, richer, safer.

Why do you want more than 435 reps? How does that benefit anyone? They're doled out in proportion of population.

No more first past the post elections and so break the duopoly

Way way way better than the first one!

Soapbox: You there! Are you tired of getting sand kicked in your face? I ask you: why does the US have public debt without public equity?

Public funding, subsidy, stimulus, and infrastructural spending should purchase public equity that can only be bought back from the public via surplus taxes. We don’t have to call it socialism. It can be capitalism proper. But it’s the people’s capital and labor being lent, interest-free. They should expect a return. Fair is fair.

It’s simpler and stronger than labor unions. There’s no collective bargaining for temporary compensation, no dues, no pickets, no fuss. The pension is paid from the start by public endowment as a matter of course, eliminating the underlying financial insecurity employers exploit. The free market is more free when poverty can’t dictate your fee.

And besides securing the future for so many people, it would change the way citizens see themselves and the world around them, the stake they have in their governance and economy, and would certainly reframe public discourse.

1. National healthcare is clearly overdue vertical integration that would curtail inefficiencies and improve outcomes.
2. Entitlements like UBI could then be ordinary financial vehicles, annuities of the ever-expanding public trust.
3. National debt would become leverage for a better future rather than a burdensome inheritance.
4. Conservative rhetoric would sound hopelessly plebeian against an owner-proletariat. Whining about unfair government handouts has no place where everyone is granted the same share of public dividends.
5. Many large private interests that have historically gobbled up public funds would quickly see the public become majority shareholders, effectively nationalizing many industries that should have been long ago. In particular, many nonprofits would coalesce into the bonafide public works they should have been all along.
6. It even allows the good intent of inheritance without compounding generational inequality, and your safety net is not contingent upon means testing or number of years working. Were you just born? Welcome. You’re covered.

Public equity unlocks the logical, humane, and sustainable version of capitalism in which every worker is vested and shares both the means of production and the value they produce.

RCV is the best available way to elect the president (afaik), but for the House I'd use full-on proportional representation. You could use the German or the Irish models, both of which still retain bonds between reps and their districts.

If you could achieve 1 thing on this list you could do all of them.

Money =/= speech

Death penalty for lobbyists.