General Discussion

Land back

I agree with a lot of this, especially ranked choice voting. Don't agree with abolishing the electoral college though. Rural voters and urban voters are generally quite different, if you get rid of the electoral college the rural voters will be completely ignored by every politician simply because there are fewer of them and they are spread out more. I don't think that means their priorities should be invalidated.

That said, I would add one thing. Abolish primary votes. Political parties can nominate as many or as few people as they wish, anybody with enough signatures can get their name on the final ballot. The current primary system basically disenfranchises voters in any state that isn't in the first 10 or 15 primary elections. Half the candidates will have dropped out by the time their state votes.

President decided by sortition (like jury selection) with a less military-focused role, cabinet members decided by voting on a list of working professionals in the applicable field (aka someone who works in agricultural sciences to be secretary of agriculture), housing as a human right, functional petitions that can initiate a direct vote in a special election on any issue with enough signatures. Ban prison labor and for profit prisons. Ban private schools and invest heavily in public schools. Employees of public services like libraries, schools, gov jobs pay no taxes. De-militarize the police. Sever the relationship between police and current/former prosecutors (possibly by only getting out-of-county prosecutors to oversee cases involving police?), enshrine prisoner voting rights, enshrine Land back policy, no corporate ownership of single family homes. Rent for an apartment has to be split to be exactly what the mortgage currently costs for the owner of the building + overhead, repairs and community agreed upon updates (if the building has no mortgage anymore, it is lowered to be only what is needed for overhead etc.- being a landlord shouldn't be profitable, it should be a service), salary has to be clearly marked on every job posting and if it is found out that they are underpaying what they advertise, the labor board can fine the company by percentage of total profit increasing 2x every time it happens. All jobs are union eligible except for police. State tax benefits to influence city centers to become car-free. Loitering is a protected activity. Ban EULAs that can change at the will of the company. Force companies to pay out money to those they stole data from and sold. Ban the NSA, TSA, FBI, and CIA. Ban the stock market in some way that wouldn't be awful. Ban more performant car/truck tires that's causing our microplastics problem in favor of almost entirely naturally decomposing tire compounds. All vehicles and machinery are subject to the emissions standards of cars. Farmers are always allowed to set up a stand and sell products from their farm in parking lots (even parking lots of grocery stores). No unmarked police cars and no police sirens at night. No 24 hour news cycle. Crackdown on javascript's power on the internet. Break up apple, google, Microsoft, and any other behemoth I'm forgetting. Ban court fees. Ban non-competes. 3-4 day workweek. On top of location representation in our federal government, include wage representation and age representation as well. Surprise, all businesses are co-ops now! There's probably way more, but I can only fantasize so much lol

I'd suggest adding:

• Establish new "Common Ground" party with a platform mandated to only reflect issues and positions with a 2/3rd majority support among the American public in multiple 3rd party polls from different pollsters

Political ideology falls along a normal distribution. Very dumb to draw the line down the middle rather than capturing the norm and excluding the edges.

Let's have progress demand a shift in the national attitudes over time rather than let minor shifts of a few percentage points every few years in a deadlock determine progress or regress.

From an outsider perspective. Two houses/chambers are better than one. But the second should be a review chamber that sends amendments back to the first. If those amendments are rejected by the first then so be it.

Something like PAYE would be better than having your government work out the tax. It places the expanse on the companies rather than the government or the individual.

With a less convoluted tax system and businesses working it out you probably wouldn't need to ban those tax companies as market forces would make them no longer viable.

VAT should be on luxury goods, and ones that the government wants to discourage the use of for public health (500% vat on tobacco products, 300% VAT on vaping etc).

Just add tax brackets up to 99% and have graduated lending taxes

Great band-aids, but doesn't fix the core issue of Capitalism, and as such these changes are likely to be rolled back and exploitation, both local and global, will continue.

In addition, this says nothing of police reform, minority protections, worker democracy, abortion rights, and so forth.

TIL america has a VAT..?

But yeah, other than that, this list makes too much sense for most people. they will shit on it because 1) they have no imagination and 2) they don't have enough knowledge to see that each point actually has a reason and seems to have been given a fair amount of thought

Abolish corporate personhood? No. Someone obviously doesn't understand what corporate personhood is or how it exists.

If there is no such thing as corporate personhood, how do you tax a corporation? How does a corporation own any property? How does a hospital exist? How do groups of people pool capital? How does one sue groups of people who have pulled their Capital and caused harm?

The jurisdiction of all law is based on personal jurisdiction. Corporate personhood is considered a "legal fiction," it doesn't exist to protect corporations, although it sometimes does, it exists by necessity and by operation of law. It would exist even if you didn't want it to, it would just have to be called something else. The alternative is that groups of people cannot pool resources toward a common endeavor, or, they can, but it's a lawless and ungovernable enterprise, with nobody having any enforceable rights.

....

House and Senate merge? No. Read up on bicameral versus unicameral legislative power as limitations on power, and in America the Senate's role as a saucer. It makes sense especially when the Congress is a huge body to begin with and when dealing with classified information and covert matters of state; in which case a higher tier with a smaller group and longer terms makes sense to protect our secrets.

This is the also the only idea, along with Supreme Court term limits, that requires a Constitutional Amendment. The others are much more feasible and reasonable. ...