It depends, first, on whether you think America can be fixed. I've increasingly come to doubt it in recent years, but a part of me still thinks that incremental reform is at least conceivably possible. But whether it is desirable, or whether the system should be remade entirely, is a question you must decide for yourself. This article assumes a measured, incrementalist approach that is at least within the realm of possibility.
With this in mind, we must know the problem; the system fundamentally doesn't answer to the people. Presidents are elected against the will of the majority. The approval rating of Congress is 17%, yet incumbents are re-elected 91% of the time.[1] A large majority of Americans—72%—want the parties to work together to get money out of politics, but it doesn't happen. Politicians enrich themselves, yet the government is sometimes unable to fund itself, let alone Social Security or Medicare in the long-term. Monied interests prevent any attempts to address, for instance, gun violence in America, or the obscene cost of health care.
It seems impossible to solve all of this with a simple, three-point plan, but what I herein propose would reduce the influence of money in politics and make the government more responsive to the people. It's a heavy lift, requiring a new Progressive Era of reform, but it can conceivably be done. This is what I propose:
1. Term Limits on Judges and Congresspeople.
Politics is about power. Once you have it, you must keep it. Once you are in power, you must stay in power. Newly-elected Congresspeople spend more than half of their time—6 to 8 hours a day—fundraising for their re-election campaigns;[4] that is, soliciting contributions from wealthy donors. Such donors don't contribute out of the kindness of their hearts; they expect favors in return. You can reliably predict a Congressperson's positions on the issues from who their top donors are. When you limit terms, you limit the quest for power. Congresspeople would answer to their constituents, not just to donors.
"For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people," said Ted Cruz, who recently proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit his own term in office,[5] "Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington." Cruz was confident, of course, that his amendment wouldn't pass. 80% of Americans support net neutrality,[6] yet Senator Cruz opposes it. The telecomm industry is one of his largest donors.[7]
We also need term limits on federal judges so that bad decisions, such as Citizens United, cannot be foisted on the American people for generations, which brings us to my second point.
2. Campaign Finance Reform.
It's the least glamorous part of my plan, but limiting the amount of money that can be donated to campaigns is also about limiting the power of wealthy donors. If there is parity in how much an individual—or a corporation, or a union—can donate to a campaign, then no one has more influence than anyone else, and disclosure requirements force Congresspeople to reveal who their donors are, such as Ted Cruz's telecomm contributors. Strict campaign finance laws have existed before, but were struck down in the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, which held that money is a form of speech, therefore freedom of speech means the government cannot limit political expenditures. Citizens United must be overturned, or a constitutional amendment passed, in order to have meaningful campaign finance reform.
3. Non-partisan Redistricting.
Congressional district boundaries are redrawn every 10 years to keep up with demographic changes, which is a good thing. However, the state legislatures who redraw the district lines frequently do so for partisan gain, which is a bad thing. Districts are "gerrymandered" to, for instance, include Republican voters and exclude Democratic voters. The result is a solidly Republican district. (The Democrats do this also.) As the saying goes, it's "politicians choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their politicians."
Partisan gerrymandering is largely to blame for the political dysfunction in Washington, D.C. That's because Congresspeople are never forced to appeal to the center—with a solidly Republican district, for example, a Congressperson need only please far-right voters, who are the most animated to vote in primary elections. This results in more bitter partisanship, as Republicans are elected who refuse to meet Democrats half-way. (And vice versa). We saw this with the "Tea Party" wave in 2010, for instance. We are seeing it this year with QAnon-supporting candidates.
Non-partisan redistricting takes the power to redraw Congressional boundaries out of the hands of state legislatures, which favor their own party, and vests this power instead in a non-partisan commission, without favor to either party. It means that districts are more ideologically diverse, and Congressional candidates must appeal to the broadest possible constituency in order to win. This encourages more centrist candidates who are amenable to compromise—to getting things done.
It's a simple, three-point plan that would require a Herculean effort to enact, but it would mean Congresspeople who actually answer to a broad constituency, not just to donors. It would get money out of politics and actually get things done; gun control, health care, and other institutional reforms such as abolishing the Electoral College, which a majority of voters support.[8] All of this would be conceivably possible with a system that is accountable to the majority of the people.
Call it the "Let's Fix America Plan."
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
[2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx/
[3] https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all
[4] https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html
[6] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/435009-4-in-5-americans-say-they-support-net-neutrality-poll
[7] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
[8] https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolishing-electoral-college.aspx