In your opinion, what is the most urgently needed electoral reform in America today?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

[Brother Jonathan]

Controversially, repeal the 17th Amendment, but I know it won't happen.

Less controversially and perhaps more practically, end closed primaries so that there is more crossover voting and input from independents in primaries. It may not do too much, but it might help to reduce polarization on the margins.

[cris01us]

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

Would doing so create another federal expenditure in the budget?  As such, it would have to be proportional, and a cut off would have to be made to determine who is a viable recipient of such monies. Then there is the issue of advertising costs.  If the ad companies know, beforehand, how deep the pockets of candidates are they can maximize charges albeit at the taxpayers expense.  Each year there could very well be an inflation adjustment, which means the expenditure may or may not stay proportional.  Or, do you force the ad companies to run ads at a fixed rate, even though expenditures could vary well fluctuate over time?  I think there is peril in moving to this system that needs addressed.  Luckily we have other countries to examine when considering it. 

I rather like out sourcing the problem to the market, I'd rather set limits of how far in advance people can advertise and raise money (and for how long),  how much they can give, and ensuring we can trace who donates to whom and how much.  It isn't perfect, and special interests take hold, but as voters we can expose ties and attempt to hold candidates accountable in that regard. 

[Kleine Scheiße]

National voter ID law

That's fine so long as everybody is automatically given an ID, instead of the limited access for poor people & minorities that we see in the status quo.

I agree 100%.  All American citizens should have access to a no cost, Federally-issued Photo ID. 

Then why vote Republican?

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

If money is power, and if power corrupts, and if money corrupts politics, why isn't money a corrupting influence on business, as well?

[Water Hazard]

We need a shorter cycle across the board, with later primaries and filing deadlines. It's ridiculous to have legislative primaries in March and filing deadlines almost a year before elections to seats with two-year terms. The presidential timeline is particularly bad; I'd say there should be no debates until the spring of election year, with actual primaries and caucuses happening no earlier than the summer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

National voter ID law

That's fine so long as everybody is automatically given an ID, instead of the limited access for poor people & minorities that we see in the status quo.

I agree 100%.  All American citizens should have access to a no cost, Federally-issued Photo ID. 

Then why vote Republican?

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

If money is power, and if power corrupts, and if money corrupts politics, why isn't money a corrupting influence on business, as well?

Did I say it wasn't?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

Would doing so create another federal expenditure in the budget?  As such, it would have to be proportional, and a cut off would have to be made to determine who is a viable recipient of such monies. Then there is the issue of advertising costs.  If the ad companies know, beforehand, how deep the pockets of candidates are they can maximize charges albeit at the taxpayers expense.  Each year there could very well be an inflation adjustment, which means the expenditure may or may not stay proportional.  Or, do you force the ad companies to run ads at a fixed rate, even though expenditures could vary well fluctuate over time?  I think there is peril in moving to this system that needs addressed.  Luckily we have other countries to examine when considering it. 

I rather like out sourcing the problem to the market, I'd rather set limits of how far in advance people can advertise and raise money (and for how long),  how much they can give, and ensuring we can trace who donates to whom and how much.  It isn't perfect, and special interests take hold, but as voters we can expose ties and attempt to hold candidates accountable in that regard. 

That was my position for a long time, but at this stage I don't think it would be enough.

The first hurdle for my proposal is that it likely requires a constitutional amendment and then beyond that there are various methods of funding you could look at it, but at the end of the day I wouldn't treat the possibility of appropriation as a deal breaker, since it is the cost of doing democracy like spending money on voting ballot paper or so forth and yes I realize the amount is much larger.

[Frodo]

Complete move to a public campaign finance system. For years I opposed this out of fear that unsavory people would get money, but frankly nothing has been more unsavory then the influence of money in terms of distorting our politics and the will of the voters. It is far more consequential then the Senate or electoral college, which so many have raised as an issue in this thread yet the only mention I see of money is in context of limiting fundraising to within a year before the election.

Get all independent money, self-funding and donations out of politics, give a capped amount to each candidate that way everyone has an equal amount to make their case to the voters. No one can say their free speech has been impinged if everyone has equal access to the resources to get their message out.

Would doing so create another federal expenditure in the budget?  As such, it would have to be proportional, and a cut off would have to be made to determine who is a viable recipient of such monies. Then there is the issue of advertising costs.  If the ad companies know, beforehand, how deep the pockets of candidates are they can maximize charges albeit at the taxpayers expense.  Each year there could very well be an inflation adjustment, which means the expenditure may or may not stay proportional.  Or, do you force the ad companies to run ads at a fixed rate, even though expenditures could vary well fluctuate over time?  I think there is peril in moving to this system that needs addressed.  Luckily we have other countries to examine when considering it. 

I rather like out sourcing the problem to the market, I'd rather set limits of how far in advance people can advertise and raise money (and for how long),  how much they can give, and ensuring we can trace who donates to whom and how much.  It isn't perfect, and special interests take hold, but as voters we can expose ties and attempt to hold candidates accountable in that regard. 

That was my position for a long time, but at this stage I don't think it would be enough.

The first hurdle for my proposal is that it likely requires a constitutional amendment and then beyond that there are various methods of funding you could look at it, but at the end of the day I wouldn't treat the possibility of appropriation as a deal breaker, since it is the cost of doing democracy like spending money on voting ballot paper or so forth and yes I realize the amount is much larger.

It is already in motion, though it has a long ways to go yet:

https://wolf-pac.com/the_solution/

[libertpaulian]

Give more teeth to the Voting Rights Act.

Same-day and automatic voter registration.

Universal vote by mail as an option.  In-person voting can still be a choice as well.

Election Day as a national holiday.

Two to three weeks of early voting.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

1. Ranked Choice voting
2. Campaign finance reform
3. National Voter ID law

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Automatically register every citizen older than 18 and issue to all of them a voter ID.
Stop purging people from voter rolls for reasons that are not "that person is dead" and "that person is now a convicted felon" and reinstate all convicted felons after they have completed their sentence.
Making Election Day a federal holiday or even better moving Election Day to a ing Sunday.
Equalize polls opening and closing hours across states, possibly to something like 8 am through 8 pm.
Maybe end partisan voter registration and thus make all primaries open primaries?
Something about public financing? In Italy we had public financing of political parties, but after a huge corruption scandal* in 1992 it became a very controversial topic; it was abrogated by referendum, then it was kind of reinstated under another form and name, then it underwent many revisions and then it was definitively ended in 2013.

*this is not pertinent, but because of that scandal, now every scandal in Italy ends in -poli just like every scandal in the USA ends in -gate

[Damocles]

Proportional representation for the US House of Representatives.

[Stuart98]

It physically pains me every time I see someone posit ranked choice voting as the most needed electoral change. Being better than choose one plurality is a low bar guys, and RCV/IRV ain't that much better.

Instituting score voting for all single winner US elections.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

abolish the EC and force redistricting to be done via a computer algorithm that is as fair as possible

[The Houstonian]

Proportional representation for the US House of Representatives.

Where would independents fit within this system?

abolish the EC and force redistricting to be done via a computer algorithm that is as fair as possible

How would the algorithm in question work?

[Hammy]

The most immediate and urgent reform--and something that would have a better shot than abolishing the EC entirely--would be to abolish electors, and award unretractable electoral points that are awarded immediately upon the state's certification--that removes any element that could go contrary to the state's vote, and something I've been in favor of as long as I've followed politics.

Others:

Expand the House. Wyoming rule, but halve it--Wyoming gets two representatives and whatever half of the states population is how the districts are apportioned. The computer algorithm method of redistricting would work if you feed pure population data into a computer, ignoring political affiliation and such, and have it draw up x number of equal population sized districts.

Either abolish the Senate, or restructure the terms--four years for each class, so 100% of the population has a say in the Senate in each election--50 senators are up in Presidential races, 50 in midterms.

Create a national ID and system, make it free, and nationwide automatic voter registration--if you move to another state, you are automatically registered, and automatically de-registered in the previous state; similarly upon getting a license or ID in one state your old one is automatically removed from the system. This will avoid the "but they don't live there anymore" or "what if they vote in two states with an old ID" argument to invoke voter suppression tactics.

Absentee ballot verification process and tabulation must begin as soon as the ballot arrives.

I'll add that the president should be required to surrender power after election night, win or lose, thus removing any influence they might have during the transition process.

[The Houstonian]

Elect both of a state's senators simultaneously and on the same ballot, using single transferable vote and no party identification.

[President Johnson]

Outlawing gerrymandering.

It's major driver of the extreme partisanship and gridlock. If 85% or more of members have nothing to fear but a primary challenge from the right or left, that doesn't give them any reason to work with the other side, which is needed most of time in American politics. Members of swing districts tend to be more moderate and willing to make compromises, while lots of members from safe districts think obstruction is the way to go. It makes everything so dysfunctional.

[sofaboi]

Illinois needs to be split up as a state.

[Crumpets]

Americans have made clear that all they really want is obstruction and to pass any sort of legislation is Bad. They also hate experts and insiders and they think politicians should have term limits to prevent them from becoming swap creatures.

Wit this in mind, I propose we select the Senate via sortition for 2-year terms and give every member veto power.

[vileplume]

Proportional representation for the US House of Representatives.

Where would independents fit within this system?

abolish the EC and force redistricting to be done via a computer algorithm that is as fair as possible

How would the algorithm in question work?

The algorithm on 538 for compactness whilst following county borders would be a good place to start. Obviously more requirements would need to be added on such as for minority majority districts, ensuring decent road connectivity, keeping cities and towns together where possible etc. It is definitely doable though you likely would still need some human involvement to iron out cases where the algorithm comes up with non-ideal proposals.

[jimrtex]

There should be national IDs for all citizens and permanent residents. Temporary residents and visitors could use their visa.

The national ID would be used for employment and housing purposes. It would also automatically register someone to vote. When an address was updated, the voter registration would be updated.

Voting in federal elections would be in person on election day. Voters would be given one voting paper for each office being contested: (1) president; (2) senate; (3) US House. Votes would counted in the precinct, and the results announced. Ballots would be secured and taken to a secure location in case of a recount.

Remote voting would be available for those who are away on election day, whether in foreign countries or other states. Foreign locations would include embassies, consulates, military bases, and other concentrations of voters. After presenting their national ID, correct ballots would be generated, and after voting, encrypted and transmitted to the US.

Similar voting centers would be available in each state, perhaps one per 100,000 persons.

Persons who could not vote in person would have ballots brought to them (as is done in France and Austria).

Congressional elections would be done Louisiana style, with a runoff if necessary one month later. Ballot access would require a modest demonstration of support - any financial cost would be at most minimal for a handling fee (e.g. $10). Support would be demonstrated by voters appearing at courthouses and being counted. Support level would be 1/20 of 1% of votes cast at preceding election (around 150-200 for a congressional district).

National ID's would also be used to facilitate the Census. Districts would be based on registered voters, and adjusted if they fall out of whack (as is done in Australia).

[darklordoftech]

Federally ban caucuses. It’s way too difficult to participate in them and they’re too vulnerable to voter intimidation.

[zoz]

Immediate implementation of an absolute monarchy

[Richard Slapper]

Make all elections nonpartisan.