As others have said, it's clear that you spent some serious time into putting this together, and I respect your work. It just so happens that I've been reading The Federalist Papers recently, so your post served as a wonderful opportunity to mentally contrast the reasoning of the Founders for their structure of the government with your proposals for altering the structure of the government and then taking the time to write my opinions on the matter. As a mental exercise, it worked out rather perfectly.
I wrote thoughts out as I went, and the process took many different sessions and on multiple devices. I tried to combine all my notes in a sensible way, but if I say something redundant or otherwise off, it's probably because of that.
Increasing the House Representatives
The Founders spoke about the issue of representation in depth, and if you haven't read the Federalist Papers recently, it might be worth rereading in regards to this and many other aspects of your proposal. Most of their comments on House Representations was covered in 55 and 56. To sum up their view, representation needs to strike a balance; on one hand, it needs to be populous enough to represent the diverse kinds of people in the United States, but it does not need to be so massive as to become a mob. In the Foundners view, the larger the body, the more prone it is to be illogical and rely on mere passion rather than reason, a quality that is easily observable even in small groups of people. Furthermore, they cautioned that large groups could often be steered with just a few impassioned speakers. That being said, they admitted that there is no real formula for dictating the perfect number. They used the states as the basis for their starting points, (the largest of which I believe had a few hundred delegates for the state legislature, but I could be wrong on that point) and from the federal representatives low starting point, they expected over the next fifty years or so that their numbers could reach a level of three or four hundred. We cannot know whether they envisioned the United States ever becoming as large as it currently is, but it's clear they left the structure open to be adjusted as needed.
To me, it does seem ridiculous to have such a disproportionate ratio between the representatives and the represented. I'd be willing to consider increasing the number, but I'm a bit cautious on the point.
Computer Readjusts Districts
On redrawing the borders for districts, I'm all for this in theory. Politicians have clearly gerrymandered the crap out of many districts. Some of the district outlines look like snakes drawn just right to incorporate all the desired political affiliates. The question is how to do we reset the districts. The idea of a computer sorting out the problem sounds good because the cold, hard calculations of a machine should not be swayed by any political considerations, but this advantage is called into question as soon as you recall that a computer is only as good as its programmer, and you've got to know that the political parties would be desperate to get an operative in on the project. I'm not sure how difficult such a project would be or what parameters would be needed to establish a system. It seems it should be doable by the processes you mentioned, and hopefully any abuses put into the programming by one side would be noticed and called out by the other, but I would not be surprised if, like one of the other posters in this thread mentioned, a little variation in the computing formula could make a world of difference in the final outcome. I'm down for being cautiously interested in this proposal as well.
Territories Have the Right to Vote.
Regarding giving territories a vote, I'm not very informed on the nature of territories.. It seems to me that our possession of them is a problem in and of itself since we, if I understand things correctly, have a people under our nation's control which have no voting representation in the government. I'm inclined to say they should become their own independent nation, but perhaps there are some major considerations which make that impossible. If anybody wants to fill me in on relevant facts regarding territories, I'm all ears. Regardless, this point comes down to the classic pairing of rights and responsibilities as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe a territory should have a right to vote unless it has all the qualifications and responsibilities of being a state.
Extension of Representative Terms and Term Limits
I'm curious why you felt the need to increase the Representative terms to three years. My best guess is this is to get them to spend less time campaigning and more time working, and in that, it might be successful, but Senators, even with six year terms, still campaign (and by campaigning, I mean fundraising since the two are so intertwined to be more or less the same thing) almost constantly, so I suspect the longer term will not effect the Representatives campaigning either.
On the other hand, extending the Representatives terms will keep them in their positions of power for longer without a reckoning with the voters or opportunity to change the guards. I would like to see things go the opposite way with the political establishment being broken up and having less time to be entrapped by the political elites and indebted to lobbies. The House was designed to be the more populist and mutable branch of the legislature. I say we keep them on their toes and be ready to replace them as soon as the political winds shift.
You support a term limit of ten years which I think is a step in the right direction, but I would prefer a limit set at three terms of two years. In theory, I'd really like to see them exchanged every term. The typical argument against this is that politicians needs some time in Washington to become accustomed to the climate and to learn the political games. To that I would respond that if someone trained and prepared for his career in office who has numerous aides to assist cannot decipher a particular piece of legislation in order to decide to either support or oppose it, then that particular piece of legislation is obviously too convoluted to deserve any consideration in the first place, and on the flip side, to continue to send people to Washington who are experts in playing elitist games with the law of the land and which propose legislation which is so complex as to constantly hide its actual meaning is not doing the country any favors. Still, I admit that some kind of consistency is needed from year to year, and to have the entire House start from scratch every two years would be a problem, so I'd settle for a term limit of three two-year terms. This would force the voters to keep fresh blood in office who would hopefully have less time to become accustomed to power and therefore corrupted. It would also have the benefit of forcing politicians to work in the real world (or something closer to it) rather than dwelling indefinitely in the gilded halls of Congress.
Tickets
I don't mind voting for candidates on a ticket with a vice-candidate on board.
Senate Adjustment
You're idea to make the Senate representation reflect the population of the States does not track with me at all. The Senate was always intended to be an equal representation of the states, and the fact that the ratio of large state to small state population has increased over time does nothing to change the fundamental foundation of the Senate nor the intent of its construction. If the Founding Fathers had been looking for proportionate representation in the upper house on Congress, the ten to one ratio would have certainly been enough incentive, and contrary to what you have said, the Founding Fathers very much foresaw the growth of the population. We would have to believe they were guilty of a very large oversight if they were somehow able to craft such a world altering document which took into account hundreds of precautions against tyranny and yet somehow failed to consider that states might grow at different rates.
I've always found the equality between the states in the Senate and the equality of the people in the House to be one of the most impressive of the Founder's accomplishments. Finding a way to ensure that the States still had significant power while allowing the people to directly shape the federal makeup was an inspired choice. I've become even more fascinated and impressed by the Founders construction of the Constitution as I've been reading through The Federalist Papers. People always talk about the division of powers between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches and how ingenious that was, but I've grown to see that the Constitution was actually balancing six different groups, the Executive, Judicial, House, Senate, States and People. All six of these groups have their own interest, power and prerogative, and each is therefore inclined to keep others from rocking the boat too dramatically. The Senate was meant to be just one more check in this system.
Furthermore, the high standard which the Senate needs to pass legislation is no accident. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be changed easily. If a law was to be passed, then it needed to have a high degree of support, and if it did not, then the two houses and the executive would have to try and compromise. This is how it was intended. The Founding Fathers realized that there could be some harm done by setting a high standard for laws to be passed, but there was a much greater risk to be seen in laws being passed to freely. I think our current situation shows this to be true. Out of the problems our nations face today, I'd say nine out of ten stem from bad laws rather than a lack of laws. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers also spoke specifically that the Senate was suppose to be safeguard against flip flopping laws in order to add stability to the government. If congress frequently reversed it's decisions, this would lead to discontent and instability domestically and abroad.
As previously mentioned, the original disparity between the states would have been sufficient motivation for the Founding Fathers to have based Senate representation on a scale if that was their wish, but since the Founding Fathers were clearly against the idea, you would have to either establish that the situation in the nation has changed over time as to necessitate that the states should become less powerful or you would have to establish that the Founding Fathers were originally wrong in their idea of equality between the States in the Senate for your idea of changing the Senate structure is to be considered. No one could argue with a straight face that State power has increased since the days of the Founding Fathers; by all accounts, it has diminished, so the only way that you could reasonably make the case against the ending of State equality in the Senate is to show that the Founding Fathers were wrong in their original construction of the Constitution.
The Federalist Papers 62 and 63 make these points in what is no doubt a much more eloquent manner than what I am doing.
On a tangent, the recently employed nuclear option does away with much of the difficulty of getting things passed in the Senate, correct? I realize this does not negate your concerns since there still is an imbalance if you want representation based on population, but I'd like to take this moment to ask for clarification on this issue from anybody knowledgeable. I've heard partisans from both side say the nuclear option is legal, and I've looked into it briefly, and I can't see how it makes any sense. Can someone shed some light on it for me?
Term Extensions and Term Limits on the Senate
As much as I feel the suggestion to make the Senate more proportionate to population is a bad one, I can at least understand the motives, but I'm rather in the dark as to why you want to change the Senate elections from their current two-year rotation cycle. With term limits, it seems you are trying to remove all established bulwarks of power to keep the legislative dinosaurs who have been in the Senate forever, Reid and McCain for instance, from having control of the Senate, and I can see how the term limits would help with this, but I don't see any benefit of having officers elected at once. It would seem only to create a slightly more difficult adjustment period every six years as half the Senators would be new, and quite frankly, I don't that dramatic of a change in the Senate. I would be willing to see House Representatives dropped from office more quickly since they are supposed to be the more mutable and populous branch, but the Senators were designed to be the more stable of representatives in the two houses of Congress. The reason they were given longer terms was so that they could add consistency to the government and curb the House's more changeable nature. The Founding Fathers made it pretty clear, again in the Federalist Papers, that a longer term vision was needed to carry out long term legislative goals, and that guidance would come from the Senate. This is especially necessary in regards to foreign relations where the Senate has a specific role to advise and consent on treaties. The Senators were supposed to be the secondary face, after the President, of the Union which presented a specific policy towards other nations. In the scheme of international relations, six years is a very short time for a massive change of demeanor of a foreign nation. Can you imagine the shock to say, the Middle East if we went from a Senate full of doves to a Senate full of hawks overnight as half the Senate changed. A two-year change could also alter in the same amount of time, but it's more incremental nature would offer the much needed stability to all interested parties. No, I'm definitely not for getting rid of the staggered election of Senators, but I would be for term limits you mentioned. Two terms of six-years would seem to strike the right balance between making the Senate stable yet curbing entrenched power.
Senate Ticket
Again, I'm fine with making Senate races a ticket instead of individual matter.
National Senators
The idea of National Senators also befuddled me since I can't possibly see the interest in it. The legacy of the Bush and Clinton families are already smacking too much of an oligarchy for my tastes. Why would we want to expand this trend? It's not as if former Presidents would be less likely to engage in partisanship. On the contrary, the effects of saying, "What do you think about President Obama's stance on the withdraw from Iraq, President Bush?" would be likely to enflame partisanship to an incalculable amount. We already have had trouble with Americans saying, "That's not my President," with the last two Presidents. How much worse would it be when you see the last President you liked still holding major sway over the affairs of the nation and opposing the current administration? I have no doubt this would lead to a severe lack of national unity. Furthermore, most Americans have little respect for former Presidents' abilities by the time they leave office. I think Clinton and Reagan are the only Presidents in the last thirty years who stepped down to the mass public regret. In the case of Reagan, he has become nearly a God-like figure to the right who never falter to make supplications in his name every election year, and this is an unhelpful precedent in my view which is not worth encouraging. I guess you could make the case for Clinton being one of the two experienced President whose insight the American people would enjoy, but he can give advice from the sidelines. I don't see any reason to alter the Constitution in order to create a system that will add even more prestige and long lasting power to the Presidential elite who already hold a huge amount of power both during their term and after it nor can I see how this policy change would accomplish any of your goals.
The Vice-Presidents would appear to bring nothing to the table since their offices are nearly meaningless in practical terms. They are "useful" for playing politics occasionally, but Senators, in general, do not lack skill in the art of political shenanigans.
All of this overlooks one of the most basic objection that can be made on this point. These would be lifetime appointments to the legislature which would be subject to no revision by the citizens. All other legislators are subject to reelection. Why should the people be deprived of the right to vote here since the legislators are supposed to be the reflect the will of the people and the states? The only position anywhere in the Federal government which has lifetime appointments is the Supreme Court, and judges get that honor, in part, because they have the least amount of power and can, if doing their job properly, cannot harm the rights of citizens in any way.
Finally to this point, National Senators could already easily exist. If the former Presidents and Vice-Presidents wanted to continue serving as Senators and the citizens wanted to see them serve in this capacity, then the Presidents and Vice-Presidents could run and the people could elect them. To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping them.
Extending Presidential Term to Six Years
Though extending the Presidential term to six years would obviously decrease campaigning time, it would have an even greater negative effect of decreasing the ability of the people to replace an errant President. Less campaigning in exchange for less chance to control the Executive is a bad trade in my book. I'm not sure the basic fundamentals assumptions that underlie the attempt to get the President to stay off the trail are even true. It assumes that a lack of official campaigning will keep a President more engaged in the affairs in the Executive, but President Obama has been operating in a constant state of quasi-campaigning by spending a large amount of his time making speeches and touring the country. This is his right, and it is somewhat in keeping with his Constitutional right to propose legislation and the associated privilege of pushing for his agenda with his bully pulpit, but in actually looking at the responsibilities of President, this is only a very small part of his designated role. To be fair to President Obama, he can do a good job of fulfilling his role while in this mode because of the interconnected nature of the world these days and the fact that executive officers of the various executive departments pretty much do the day to day work without him, and the President's only real role is in making sure they do theirs. All this to say that it would be ideal if the Chief Executive of the United States would spend more time in the Oval Office to give his job his full attention, but it's not a huge deal if he runs the nation while on the road. There is time for both. Furthermore, the lack of open campaigning does not match the loss of an opportunity to remove from office a poorly performing President.
Repealing the Natural Born Citizen Provision of the Constitution
In a nation as vast as the United States, there is no reason we cannot find a qualified natural born citizen to hold the nation's highest office, so I don't see any reason to appeal this aspect of the Constitution. On the other hand, there are reasons to oppose a foreign born American citizen from holding the highest office in the land. Even the best intentioned naturalized citizen would be bound to have divided loyalties when looking at world affairs, and though it may be less likely now than it was in the 1780's, it is still not out of the question that a foreign born citizen with evil intent might take office. It's certainly plausible that such a person with a suave persona could get elected considering the American Idol aspect of today's political scene.
Presidential Flip-Ticket
You mention the Presidential flip-ticket idea as if it is new, but is there anything preventing that from happening now? I don't know that I have a problem with it necessarily, but it does remind me of Putin's stepping down from the Presidency to run things through a surrogate between 08 and 12.
Regulating State Elections
There is absolutely no reason for the federal to mandate the state election processes for governors. It's does not concern the federal government at all.
National Senator Votes and Electronic Votes for President
With the ex-president and ex-vice president votes, the right of the citizens to vote is subverted. The extra electronic votes does the same thing. going to the popular vote is about the third time you've made provisions for the system to be based more on the popular vote. If it is still possible for the popular vote to lose under this system, then I am certain the extra electoral college votes on the side of the popular election would not stop people from complaining and would in fact likely throw fuel on the fire by allowing people to say that the new system still doesn't go far enough. Once you took one step towards making it closer to a purely popularity based vote, it would be hard to objectively argue a stopping point since the scale is arbitrarily designed. I understand it is still based on population, but why not give ten votes to the largest states instead of six? Once the equality of the states in the Senate is abolished, it's all arbitrary.
Confidence Vote
The idea of doing a confidence vote in he fifth year only makes things worse.
For starters, you suggest that a failing confidence vote would encourage unpopular Presidents to drop out, but I suggest that it would never dissuade anybody from running for reelection. Administrations already know if they have a good chance of winning a year out because of polling. Making it a nationally mandated poll will not change the President's hopes that he will be able to turn around a negative spread. In addition, this would just move the campaign season in advance of the confidence vote. Sure, campaigning at this point would be illegal, but it would not stop the quasi campaigning of talking heads, the technically non-endorsing political ads, backroom deals for those in the media or able to influence the media, the President and his party's constant aggrandizement of his accomplishment and the corresponding push back from the opposing party and the constant attention of the administration to the deadline. You might not have official campaigning groups, (though to ban them would be another abridgement of freedom of speech) but in essence you would have just moved the election cycle up a year, and if the Confidence vote failed, you would have basically doubled the time spent in active campaigning.
Confidence Vote Keeps All Senators and Governors in Office
Making senators and governors contingent on the Presidential election is a completely confounding proposal. Sure, it would cut down on campaigning, but it would do so at the expense of the fundamental right of citizens to vote on their representatives, and that's hardly a worthy trade. It's also ridiculous to act as if support for one aspect of government should serve as an indication of happiness with the entirety of government. This is such a self-evident principle that it should need no further remark, but I'll entertain one just for fun. You might love President Obama but hate your abortion blocking governor, and support for the former should never be taken as approval for the latter. Also, it would seem to me that this would likely cause an alliance among the President, Senate and governorships. Whereas we now have at least some confidence that one group will object when another group starts to exceed its rightful authority, the possibility of a senator, President or governor solidifying his or her position by keeping quiet would be a strong incentive to let abuses slide for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
Longer Terms and Flip-Ticket Potential Will Increase Attention to Presidential Elections
You suggest that the longer terms and flip-ticket potential will encourage people to pay better attention to the people on the ticket, but people who fail to take seriously the election of the most powerful person in the country for a four-year term have already shown themselves to be woefully irresponsible voters and will be no more moved to grow a sense of civic responsibility by a six-year term. The possibility of a Vice President flip flop is even more irrelevant. As things are now, a Vice President could become the President at any moment. Under your proposal, the Vice President would still have to run for office to get the seat in the Oval Office. If the politically uniformed don't pay attention now, thy won't pay attention under the proposed system.
Judicial Appointments by Popular Vote
The judicial appointments are supposed to be apolitical appointments and are not be voted on.
The idea behind the judiciary is simple. The court is supposed to rule whether something is legal or not. Politics in the legislature and executive play major roles because it determines what laws are made and how laws are implemented. The judiciary should not be concerned in what should be but simply what is. It has nothing to do with the popular opinion or what the people want. If the people want to change the law or its execution, they can vote to fill up the other two branches with people who will affect those changes, but the judiciary is above that.
It should also be noted that this just creates another election through which votes can be bought and corruption can be seeded. Making judges elected position will just set up the typical Republican/Democrat rivalries that we always see with every other election. This creates another circus, and ensures, at best, that judges will be elected into office because of their loyalty to the public whims and not their loyalist to the law. At worst, someone with agenda could easily win hearts by tickling peoples ears.
The Supreme Court Judges Should Be Expanded to Fifteen
The judiciary's job is very simple in purpose if not implementation. As it is only needed to say what is, there should be a simple black and white in each case, but since laws will inevitably clash and the intent is sometimes obscured, there is room for interpretation. For this reason, the Founders established five different judges to fill the seat to give a chance for the majority of understanding of the law to prevail and to make corruption of the vote a bit more difficult. Since an objective interpretation of the law is not dependent on your location in the country or your specific interests as an individual or state, there need be no mass representation from across the nation as there is with the House and Senate. I saw we go back to the original five Supreme Court judges as there would still be had FDR and his Congress not subverted the original intent of the system.
Alternate Supreme Court Justices
I do like the idea of alternates. I'd be willing to consider this further.
Lifetime Appointment of Judges
I see no reason that the lifetime appointment of judges should be ended.
Judges were meant to be long term offices to add stability to the government. By keeping the Supreme Court stable, you decreased the possibility of frequent law reinterpreting which would disrupt the firmness of the government. Long term appointment also decreases loyalty to a certain group or individual If they were elected by a specific group, then they were likely to continue being loyal to that group for long periods. Under the life-time appointments, the person most directly involved with your appointment, the President, would be gone within, at the very most, eight years. If the Supreme Court became an elective issue, the political parties would be the strongest agent in getting a judge appointed, and that ever-present obligation would never diminish. The duration of the judiciary appointments was also a psychological rebuff against the advances of the executive and legislative on the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Since the judiciary is the weakest of the branches, the Founding Fathers felt it would be advantageous to increase their stature by giving them a limitless duration in office...presuming good behavior.
The Process of Popularly Electing Judges
The process for voting for judges also makes no sense to me. At first glance, it would appear to be a nerfing of the powers of the political elites to appoint judges, but in reality, it is just the opposite. Currently, the power to appoint and confirm judges is rightfully in the hands of the executive and legislature respectively. As things are, the President and the Senate vet one candidate at a time in a public manner that gives citizens plenty of time to get aquainted with the appointees. By speaking out in general and calling their senators specifically, citizens can currently have a significant effect on the approval of judicial nominees.
In your scenario, no greater power is truly going to the citizens. Though they are able to vote, the list of possible candidates has already been selected for them, so in reality, the political elites are still calling the shots. In essence, the vetting process is done by the same people. The critical difference is that rather than being able to look at one candidate at a time, the citizen would have to choose between sixty. What a laughably oppressive and daunting task. We can't get most Americans to pay attention to the President's statements and history which are much more easily understood and infinitely more promulgated than the cases and lives of any judge. How can you possibly expect the citizens to vote intelligently between sixty people at once? To learn the details of the history of each of these people would require each citizen to drop their day to day lives and spend countless hours researching judges. Even as someone more familiar with politics that a significant portion of American citizens, I cannot imagine how I could accomplish the task without ending my day to day concerns.Of course, it's a trivial exploration of the proposal anyway because a thorough investigation of the candidates would never actually happen by citizens in this scenario. In reality, people, daunted at the prospect of such a vote, would be moved by talking heads, campaign ads, and political affiliations because it would be impossible to actually get to know that many candidates, and of course, the confusion and inability of the voter to understand the issues gives the special interest, political parties and various other political elites the exact opportunity they need to shape the nation.
And again it must be asked, for what purpose are all these changes made? It is not as if the current system of choosing Supreme Court Judges has led to any scandals. I would argue that the alteration of understanding of how the Constitution functions has led to Supreme Court Justices making poor decisions, but nobody can say that the citizens never had a chance to know and, through their Senators, affect the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
Primaries Should Be Held at Times Appointed by the Federal Government
Primaries are held by non-governmental organizations, and the United States government has no purview over how political parties conduct their affairs nor should the federal government ever have control over the internal operation of political parties for this would be a precedent which could easily lead to an end game power play for whatever political party currently in power if they could manage the operations of the opposing parties.
Dividing primaries up by region does sound nice just for the fact that the current arrangement seems so random, but they are private operations free to operate as their organizers prefer, and more importantly to the discussion, the reforms you suggest on this point make no difference. What does it matter if a party does not know which areas to target until closer to Election Day? This just means that a greater amount of money will be spent in a shorter amount of time. What does it matter if money is spent on a few states instead of one state at a time? This might make things more hectic, but it does not diminish the role of he parties and special interest groups.
Fundraising Times Should be Carefully Controlled
As a principle, I believe people should be free to give to whatever party they choose at whatever time they choose, and I don't see any justification for limiting someone's freedom in this way, but assuming candidates are only allowed to raise money in August, what difference would it make? Currently, politicians schmooze with the elite in exchange for cash. Presumably, there are implied or implicit promises to serve the donators cause at these moments. If fund raising were delayed until the last minute, then all the deals and schmoozing would be done up front and the money would be given later. If this would make any difference at all, I can only imagine it would be negligible.
Furthermore, it wouldn't stop the donors from going to the Pacs which would already be collecting money year round. Nor would it stop people from giving money to parties which frequently give massive amounts of cash to their politicians. If anything, the inability to raise money as an individual would just empower these groups be making the individual candidates more dependent on these systems, and without the advantages of a big party, third party candidates would be pushed even more to the side.
There's also the tiny issue that any attempt to regulate what people can say to promote themselves or their candidates is a violation of freedom of speech and I would hope that it would be dismissed for that reason.
Voter ID
Unless there is some big problem that I've missed, voter ID is a great proposal. I personally find it embarrassing that we don't already have it. It doesn't need to be a brand new system; use of driver's licenses or any other state or federally provided picture ID would work just as well.
Automatic Voter Registration
I don't see the advantage of automatic voter registration. That seems to be based on the presumption that the country would be better off if everybody voted which is a presumption I hardily reject. If someone is too stupid or too lazy to register to vote, then we gain nothing by adding them to the political masses which are already uninformed as a whole. Those who are already so disinterested in politics that they would not take the initiative to register are likely to be swayed by the first argument they hear which makes them exactly the kind of pawns which the special interests groups and parties can easily manipulate through campaign ads. The only counter I can imagine for these points is the hope that people will become more engaged citizens simply by being given easier access to their voting rights. Though I'll admit this might encourage a few to become more honorable citizens, I liken it to giving somebody who had no interest or training with firearms a shotgun in the hopes that they will become an avid and responsible defender of gun rights. It could help in some situations, but it's more likely to cause trouble with someone who has no idea how to use it and has shown no previous interest in learning more. Some might find that too extreme a comparison, but I'd argue that the only difference between the two scenarios is in the amount of time that the likely devastating effect would take place.
Voting Stations
It does seem like voting stations should be easy to figure out. I'm not sure what the difficulty is in that situation. It seems so simple a problem, if it truly is a problem, that the only explanation for it is voter suppression or massive government incompetence. I'd need more info before taking an informed stance.
Electors Must Vote As Citizens Choose
I have to say that I never understood the Founding Fathers reasoning for selecting separate electors for the presidential election. It seems to me that either a direct election or an election by the legislature would be a better route. Once we went to, more or less, a direct vote system, the use of electors has become completely superfluous with the added disadvantage that electors could theoretically go their own way and disrupt the generally accepted process. As long as citizens vote for president, I say we just cut out the middle man. If anybody can explain to me either the advantages of electors in the original system, current system or the new proposal in this regard, I'd like to hear them.
Various Other Election Rules
I don't understand why exiting polls needs to be mandated or regulated, and the same goes with the announcement of winners. Also, restricting what the media can say on these manners is a clear violation of freedom of the press.
The automatic recount for federal elections seems reasonable. The federal government has no business regulating stage elections though.
I have no problem with the rules on final canvasses of political elections.
Conclusions:
1. Most of your suggestions complicate the government rather than simplify the current system. Making Senators based on population but not completely? More complicated. Making citizens have to vote for Supreme Court Justices? More complicated. Adding permanent National Senators? More complicated. Passing at least a half dozen rules on what private organizations can say and when? More complicated. Ideally, the government operations and compliance to the law should be easier to understand rather than more complicated.
2. Elections are one of the few things that get the Average Joe to pay attention to politics. For this reason, among the many others I mentioned, longer terms should generally be avoided.
3. Cramming campaigns into a shorter amount of time does not necessarily decrease the amount of money given nor does it decrease the effects of PAC's and parties. If people can only give in a small window of time, that does not necessitate that the giving will be less, and since private givers are banned from giving until August yet PACs and parties are free to give since January, that will increase their power. Also, fundraising through these organizations can go on constantly for the general PACs and Party funds, and those funds will just be transferred as needed to the politician as soon as it is allowed, so again, this empowers the Pacs and Parties.
4. If you want a more populace control of government, go for it. A few of your points seemed interested in making things more directly tied to the votes of the people, yet for some reason, you do not just say that you want the Senate and the Presidency decided by a popular vote. In the case of both issues, you either believe the states should have an equal representation in the Senate, or you don't. If you believe the legislative branch should be a compromise between the popular vote and the equality of states, then that is what you already have in the houses of the Legislature. If you are doing anything other than equality or based on population for those Senate seats/votes, then you are making an arbitrary rule which is hard to justify as either inferior or superior to any other non-even and non-population based measure of the Senate seats/votes, and with the addition of National and Electronic Senator votes, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote which was already small in most cases must be miniscule at this point, so why not just commit?
Not that I'm with you on it. I think the equality of the states is an excellent and integral part of the Constitution, and I think the higher bar set in the Senate is an excellent precaution against making the government too mutable for its own good.
5. Many laws do not equate to good laws. A lot of your work seems focused on unclogging the legislature, but the multiplication of laws equals the division of liberties. There should be laws passed, of course, but laws, especially on the federal level, should be an establishment or perfection of tried and true principles rather than a constant experiment to see if every problem can be solved by government intervention, and for all the complaints of a immovable legislature, I experienced not one inconvenience due to a lack of legislation this year and experience quite a few significant problems due to the law.
To expand on the topic more eloquently, I'll turn to the
Federalist Papers #73 with regard to the higher standard of approval needed for the Senate.
"It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones."
6. Politicians can be corrupted while in office not just when running for office. Out of all the strange assumptions you seem to make in the plan, this seems to be the biggest. Many of your suggestions attempt to fix the problem of PAC and political corruption by making elections less frequent, but corruption can come at any time. As mentioned a couple of times already, promises can be made while in a position that will not see financial compensation until the next election cycle. More than this, promises can be made during the tenure of office that might be rewarded when outside of office in a completely untraceable way. Dirt on politicians can also be used to blackmail someone to do something you wish by Parties or PACs or private individuals. Even this does not go far enough because politicians frequently act in corrupt ways without any external influence. Countless politicians have been shown to approve policies or spending for projects which give them a direct or indirect benefit without the need of any external force bribing them. Politicians have slanted policy in the favor of friends with no discernible motivation except favoritism. Sometimes spite is the source of the corruption as can be seen in Christie who had infinitely more to lose than to gain by punishing someone who he wished had endorsed him.
The point is this, power corrupts. Can donation money be used to corrupt? Sure, but it is but one route to corruption, and regulating political donations just throws up a wall of red tape that only the political elites have the skill to navigate. Joe Blow who truly believes in John McCain's primary campaign might not be able to figure out how to get all his intended donations to the candidate, but the People for the Buying of Politicians Society will certainly find a way to route the funds.
7. In many cases, it seems like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is no doubt that the system has problems, but rather than try to restore it to it's former state, you seem inclined to chop down and begin fresh. I have little respect in tradition for the sake of tradition, but in the Constitution, we have a document that revolutionized the way the world worked and (hopefully) rewrote the rules for how man would evermore interact with government. Under the Constitution, Americans have experienced more freedom than they have every previously experienced in the history of mankind. With that in mind, let's give it some props and try not to throw out every article just because we have an idea we think might work better. That's not to say that it shouldn't be changed. It has already been changed...sometimes for the better. When we change it, we should be extremely mindful of why it was constructed the way it was, and we should make sure to prune away no part of it unless it is proven fundamentally corrupt, broken on a conceptual level.
An example where I feel you did some baby chucking is with the judiciary. The judiciary is supposed to be impartial in it's interpretation of the law. Clearly, that is no longer how the court or at least most of the officers of the court operate, yet rather than urge a pursuance of a more apolitical court, you seek to make the court an elected office which would only ensure that it becomes more political. That seems to me a fine example of sending the child flying through the air admidst great amounts of moisture.
8. The need to campaign for election is practically non-existent. I mentioned this in a separate post, but it's worth reconsidering. In the modern age, we can find all the information we need to elect a politician without ever leaving our computers. 95% of the nonsense leading up to election is completely frivolous and capable of swaying only the very stupid who have either no political knowledge or no political values. Everybody who is a thinking person and takes the time to do their civic duty could easily choose a representative without the need for a single film to be filmed, a single pin to be pinned or a single poster to be posted. All the hoopla is done for the dumb vote.
9. It's the overreach of the federal government that entices the corrupting influences. The entire attempt to control campaigning, which in one way or another will almost always result in an attempt to control free speech, is a classic example of trying to solve the wrong problem. The vast majority of lobbies and political interests involve the passing or opposing of laws that were never put under the purview of the federal government in the first place, but since the federal government is constantly making laws about what sort of products you can and can't buy, who gets this tax break and who gets that tax break, who gets this exemption and who gets that exemption, private interests can profit greatly by getting involved. If the federal legislature and executive were to focus exclusively on passing laws they are actually legally allowed to pass, the lobbies and political parties would have significantly less to gain or lose from the process. What would be left for their interests? An occasional interstate trade dispute might draw some interest. Foreign treaties would frequently affect some groups though infinitely less than our own internal laws do already. Taxes might be an issue, but if the only federal programs active were the ones that were constitutionall allowed, taxes would be a much smaller concern.
To put it metaphorically, you have a lot of bears trying to get the food left outside the dumpster. Instead of trying to deter the bears, put the food in the dumpster and the allure to the bears will significantly decrease.
10. The solution to these problems is the attention and knowledge of the voter.
Freedom of speech is not bad. Lobbies that try to promote a certain cause to politicians are not necessarily bad. Political parties that band together along common values and for a common goal are not even bad. However, politicians that will rely on lying free speech are bad, lobbies that try to manipulate rather than present information are bad, and political parties that put their own power over the good of the nation are bad, yet all of these can be kept in check by a voter who actually has a brain.
If you know what you believe, you know what the laws are and you know what specific politicians do, then there is no need to try to disassemble freedom of speech to fix the problem. The voter will fix the problem. That's not to say that we will always agree or come to the same conclusions, but at least we'll be on the same page, and we wont be easily fooled by politicians who promise one thing and deliver another.
I do not think you can wave a wand or pass a law to make people more informed; it's something you have to inspire in them on a one to one basis, but it seems to me that finding ways, as private individuals working alone or separately, to encourage citizens to stay informed is an infinitely better discussion than how we can shield citizens from hearing certain kinds of freedom of speech we may find unhelpful.
What! You mean you didn't immediately drop today's work and take the time to address this point by point? Outrageous! 
