[unethical_ban]

The Constitution is not fine. You are correct that it is not being enforced properly, and IMO we have a coup being staged in real time.

We should have rolling term limits for SCOTUS.

We should have ranked-choice/multiple-choice mechanisms for all elections to facilitate a true multiparty system.

We should further regulate money and transparency in spending vis-a-vis political advertising.

We should ban gerrymandering.

The Senate should be weakened or entirely removed. I am aware that is theoretically the only thing that is not amendable, but it's a flaw that we have it in any case.

The Electoral College should be discarded.

And clearly, impeachment should be easier than it is - or else maybe we just have the dictatorship we deserve? Thanks, GOP.

That's just off the top of my head.

[anon291]

There is no dictator ship though.

These takes are insane. Hate trump as much as you want (I certainly dislike him).... He's the democratically elected president of the US

[ezst]

Your democratically elected president (or, rather, the group behind him) is undoing whatever was left of the democratic apparatus. There is no counter power in place. Executive, legislative and judiciary are de facto one.

You seem to operate on the belief that democratically elected leaders can't do harm to democracy, while history has times and times again proved you wrong, and that to me is what's insane here.

[dragonwriter]

> He's the democratically elected president of the US

“Dictator” and “elected” are not incompatible. In fact, the term originates as the title of an elected (not directly by the citizenry, but then neither is the US President in any case) officer, and the term has nothing to do with how you got into power, but with what practical constraints it is exercised.

[anon291]

I mean sure. But he's not even doing anything dictatorial. Most of his actions are well within the laws of the United States. Not more than any other president.

[nmfisher]

If the reports are true, the proceeds from selling Venezuelan oil are going into his own Qatari bank account. That's third-world tinpot dictatorship right there.

[unethical_ban]

If you're into word games, swap out authoritarian so you don't get hung up on him being elected.

He is daily exceeding legal bounds of the presidency and otherwise abandoning all precedents that limit executive overreach.

He has committed crimes against this country and should not be in office.

[gmd63]

Those takes are informed and level headed. We have a wildly unqualified Secretary of Defense who was appointed only because he advocated in his book "American Crusade" for a crusade against the "American Left". A Project 2025 leader Kevin Roberts described us as in the middle of a second American Revolution that will remain bloodless if the left allows it. And he said that before the election.

The DOGE project was a wildly unconstitutional overreach of the executive branch, shutting down or severely crippling agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without the approval of Congress.

Republicans are letting Trump act like a dictator to accomplish things they want outside of the guardrails of our democracy. There are plenty more examples out there if you choose to pay attention.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> There is no dictatorship ... He's the democratically elected

The first part does not follow from the second. It's much easier to become dictator when in power, e.g. after being democratically elected. It's a common route. See also Self-coup / autocoup (1).

Of course, nothing like that could even be attempted in the USA! (2) /s

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup#Notable_events_descr...

[Kim_Bruning]

Interesting choices. Some seem straightforward, others debatable. Can you explain them a bit more? (or link to a blog post?)

[unethical_ban]

No, I don't unfortunately.

https://fairvote.org has info on Ranked Choice Voting. It is, to me, the single most bang-for-buck reform we should have in government.

A voting system where voters give preferences to multiple candidates on a ballot takes away the "spoiler effect", where a candidate too similar to the two main candidates will split the vote.

We need a freer market of political parties for a number of reasons. People need to feel like political change is possible. The two main parties need more pressure to evolve or die within their section of the political spectrum. Allowing more political parties to exist allows splinter parties to have a chance. Imagine a "sane Republican" party, or a progressive party, or some hybrid-centrist party that likes unions and public education but doesn't like massive social services, and so on.

MAGA would be polling at 15% or less, I think.

---

SCOTUS term limits is just an idea I heard once. Most other democracies have it in place.

---

I am skeptical of the Senate's utility in a modern federal government - the difference between the population of Virginia and Rhode Island was far less extreme than the difference between California and Wyoming today. The electoral inequality is too much.

---

Electoral college has to go for obvious reasons, as does gerrymandering.

Maybe I should blog about it.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Why weaken or remove the Senate? It seems like one of the few parts of the federal government which is vaguely functional.

[dddgghhbbfblk]

Uhhhhh... What? Are we living on the same planet? The Senate is absolutely terrible. Not only is it breathtakingly undemocratic, the modern rise of the filibuster raising the threshold to 60% makes it even harder to pass any legislation.

The weakness of the Senate has abetted the expansion of the other two branches as Congress has ceded most of its lawmaking responsibilities. But there are still limits. There are so many other knock on negative effects too: inability to pass laws leads to more enormous omnibus bills, increasing the influence of lobbyists.

Simply deleting the Senate entirely would go a very long way to improving the structure of the US govt.

Edit: incidentally, the main thing I've learned over the years about this topic is that most Americans (not necessarily you specifically) have simply never questioned the received wisdom about the US Constitution that they learned in grade school and are maybe even incapable of evaluating it dispassionately.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

In a hyper-partisan age, it seems good to have some collegiality and requirements for cross-partisan cooperation.

If we can't agree on anything then maybe we shouldn't do anything. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Why are so many people so desperate to move here if things are going so badly? Much of the discontent is performative. How willing would you actually be to give up your spot and switch places with someone in Guatemala?

Maybe we need filibuster-style restraints for the executive too. Executive overreach is a major complaint people have about the current structure, correct?