If you could change three things in the US constitution...

[Amish]

1. 28th amendment that repeals the 22nd and 17th amendments, caps how much Representatives, Senators, SCOTUS, POTUS, and everyone else in the Federal Government can make, and adds line item veto
2. Establishment of an Emperor and Empress, who will act as the ceremonial Heads of State.
3. 29th amendment that further reinforces the idea of Federalism, somehow.

Jam everything in to one amendment.

[politicallefty]

My changes would be a restructuring of the legislative and executive branches:

1. Adoption of a parliamentary system. The Prime Minister and Cabinet would all be Members of the House. The term would be a maximum four years with fixed elections, though the Government would of course be subject to motions of no-confidence. The Presidency would be reduced to a ceremonial office elected by a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) of Congress.

2. Reform the House of Representatives by increasing the size to the cube root rule (currently about 675 members) with redistricting done by a national nonpartisan commission.

3. Reform the Senate by reducing its powers compared to the House, increasing the size to three per state with elections every two years, and subjecting all votes to a simple majority.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What's with all the desire for PR for the House?  The size of the House would need to be considerably increased, well beyond a thousand, to have it work while keeping apportionment by States, and apportionment of the House by States is a minimal necessity for keeping our government a Federal one. For a country as large and diverse as ours is, a Federal system is a necessity, not merely a nicety.

What the heck are you talking about? PR would work just fine with the House as it is now (even though I actually support its expansion). Right now the average State has 8-9 seats. This is more than the average Spanish constituency, which has 7, or the average French Department when PR was used, which was 6. With D'Hondt method, this number of seats can easily work consistent with 3, 4 or even 5 parties winning seats (considering the way the US is, you will never see complete political balkanization as in Italy, Israel or the Netherlands. Sure, this means that the 1-seat States would effectively keep using FPP, but it's not the big deal. States like Idaho and RI would be generally split 1-1 except in landslide (if a party's vote is over twice that of any other, it would win both seats), and States like Nebraska, NM or WV could be 2-1 or 1-1-1, depending on the fragmentation. But when you get to 4 seats or more, PR is a reality.

So?!?

[Redalgo]

This is a tough one. There are over thirty things I want to change about the U.S. constitution!

I'd choose PR, more rights, and strict term limits. I'd otherwise prioritize changes to these sections:


Article I, Section 2: The House should have four-year terms and representatives limited to one term. Candidates must live in the state in question for at least one year and be at least sixteen years of age prior to election. Strike out the text regarding the original enumeration of representatives amongst the states. Representatives should be elected from their respective states using a form of proportional representation. Party lists must be open, Independent candidates allowed to run, and ballots should allow for alternative, preferential, or ranked-choice voting. All residents of each state and territory - of ages sixteen and over - should be allowed to vote. Each State and Territory with at least 1,000 permanent residents should get at least one seat in the House.


Article I, Section 3: The Senate should have five-year terms. Senators should be limited to one term. To run, candidates must live in the U.S. for at least one year and be of at least sixteen years of age prior to election. Senators should be elected nationwide using a form of proportional representation. The party lists must be open, Independent candidates allowed to run, and ballots allow for alternative, preferential, or ranked-choice voting. All residents of each state and territory, ages sixteen and over, should get to vote.


Bill of Rights: Strike the preamble. The 1st Amendment should expand to establish an irreligious government. The 2nd Amendment should allow private possession of small arms limited only by prerequisite training and licensing under standards to be determined by the respective states in which people reside. The 5th Amendment should be reworded to imply government cannot sentence criminals to be deprived of life. The 7th Amendment's $20 minimum value of controversy for filing suit in 1791 ought to be adjusted for inflation, and the 8th Amendment ought to include the death penalty as a forbidden sentence to be imposed.

Other rights amended into the Constitution should include: a guaranteed minimum income; adequate shelter, food, water, clothing, medical care, education, and healthful environs - delivered to the People in a manner decided by the legislatures of each state; workplace democracy and a republican form of government in all firms doing business within U.S. borders other than sole proprietorships; representative democracy in all states; equitable recognition of consensual civil partnerships/unions under the law; freedom from monopolies and cartels in the economy; freedom to partake in ones cultural heritage (up until the point it infringes on the rights of others); and ample time off from work for sleep, leisure, and other necessities of life - as defined by the legislatures in each of the many states. Furthermore, Native American nations should have the right to complete self-government on their respective reservations. I'd leave the exact wording up to others to decide, and I haven't any strong preference for whether they are described in a manner consistent with the concepts of positive or negative freedom.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So?!?

As for why not PR by States, there are 7 States (8 if we give DC representation as a State) that have only 1 Representative, and another 4 that have have only 2.  PR simply will not work as desired with those sorts of numbers.  If there were only one or two small entities as is the case in Italy, it would be less of a problem, but that is not the case with the US.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So?!?

As for why not PR by States, there are 7 States (8 if we give DC representation as a State) that have only 1 Representative, and another 4 that have have only 2.  PR simply will not work as desired with those sorts of numbers.  If there were only one or two small entities as is the case in Italy, it would be less of a problem, but that is not the case with the US.

You are just plain wrong. In 1986 France had 20 Départements electing 2 deputies (their average seat/dep count being, as I said, lower than in the US), and PR worked just fine.

[traininthedistance]

1) Add an amendment that establishes an affirmative right to vote for all adult citizens, and ensure this by specifically mandating that a) the federal government runs federal elections with both early voting periods and universal vote-by-mail, and b) this amendment is incorporated to the states, so that local and state elections are run with the same thoroughness and openness.

2) Increase the size of the House of Representatives to at least Wyoming Rule level (smallest at-large seat is the largest constitutionally permissible target population), and switch elections to PR.

3) Expand the Commerce Clause (or include an additional clause besides it) to explicitly state that the government has a right to enact legislation to protect common natural resources such as air, water, and soil for the benefit and sustenance of future generations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So?!?

As for why not PR by States, there are 7 States (8 if we give DC representation as a State) that have only 1 Representative, and another 4 that have have only 2.  PR simply will not work as desired with those sorts of numbers.  If there were only one or two small entities as is the case in Italy, it would be less of a problem, but that is not the case with the US.

You are just plain wrong. In 1986 France had 20 Départements electing 2 deputies (their average seat/dep count being, as I said, lower than in the US), and PR worked just fine.

And how many of those 2 departments had 1 PS deputy and 1 RPR-UDF deputy?  A system that practically guarantees the left and right will split the seats evenly in a large number of districts is not functionally PR.  Both the PS and the RPR-UDF got considerably more seats than they would have under a nationwide PR system, yet the reason for going to PR is to avoid having politics dominated by two polarized blocks.  The 1986 French election failed to achieve that goal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So?!?

As for why not PR by States, there are 7 States (8 if we give DC representation as a State) that have only 1 Representative, and another 4 that have have only 2.  PR simply will not work as desired with those sorts of numbers.  If there were only one or two small entities as is the case in Italy, it would be less of a problem, but that is not the case with the US.

You are just plain wrong. In 1986 France had 20 Départements electing 2 deputies (their average seat/dep count being, as I said, lower than in the US), and PR worked just fine.

And how many of those 2 departments had 1 PS deputy and 1 RPR-UDF deputy?  A system that practically guarantees the left and right will split the seats evenly in a large number of districts is not functionally PR.  Both the PS and the RPR-UDF got considerably more seats than they would have under a nationwide PR system, yet the reason for going to PR is to avoid having politics dominated by two polarized blocks.  The 1986 French election failed to achieve that goal.

Of course it's not absolutely perfectly full PR. It's still PR by all rational measures. FN and PCF both got 35 seats with about 9%. It's a pretty big difference compared to having 2 parties completely dominating the political spectrum.