Every state should have their own senators for representation, and a separate vote for their desired president.
Or just Instant Run off Voting.
Voting day should definitely be a national holiday.
All parties and party members should have a budget cap. None of that Super-pac nonsense.
There should be organised debates between leading nominees (eg. 3) of each party, before the nominations are picked, so that each potential candidate can be accurately assessed.
In the future, implement a Citizen's House, where up to 100 people (especially professionals in different fields) can discuss issues every week at a more local level and so influence the senate.

3. Which political power given to the supreme court could have prevented them from doing this, if it were not to exist? It seems to me that it is their decision, and the only way to prevent the ability to make said decision is to not have a supreme court at all. 

4. I've worked at Walmart and Ikea as a part time employee in recent years . The first allowed me to take off two hours, if I so chose, to go vote. The latter let me take off the whole day and gave me PTO (independent of my regular earned PTO) to do it. If jobs like these allow people to vote, I have a hard time believing more white-collared positions wouldn't. Although I guess one can go vote on one's very long lunch breaks in those positions. 

3. I don't believe money is the same as free speech.  I don't believe in getting away from the court.  We just need a reverse on the decision.

4. I work manufacturing and they would rather us build server boards than go out and vote.  Perhaps some or most private companies give their employees time off to vote but that isn't the case in my experience.

Just wanted to point out that I liked your 1 and 2 response.  However, Trump and Carson make a counter to your 1 response.  Both shouldn't be running but dumb people exist in the USA.

I agree with your sentiment because America desperately needs to defend its core democratic values from the political system that serves to undermine them but...

Do you actually believe that the President gets to make important decisions regarding things like foreign policy? Do you actually believe that Gore could have prevented the Iraq War? Presidents are not the primary policy makers. Case in point, Reagan's foreign policy was identical to Carter's. The Reagan Doctrine was simply a continuation of the Carter Doctrine because neither President was involved in these policies. Independent, private organizations and unelected individuals make the important decisions.

You should see the Philippines xD

Whatever, this's still "wrong end of the stick" approach. Consider very much plausible situation when elites consensus might come to an abrubpt end and we'll be witnessing a "spiders in a sealed pot" fight, which current political system might not survive, whoever wins. Here's your make-believe change with dozens of political parties while the system as the whole is even less manageable and average voter infuence is even more negligible :D

In the situation of the global deflation, when assets are cheap and money are expensive, this is most realisitc thing to expect. More assets to the fattest spiders.

3. It is pretty tough to reverse a decision. Often when judges (lower than the supreme court) make decisions regarding a relevant case they'll look for a precedent case decided by the Supreme Court, and since the Supreme Court already made a decision, it likely won't reach them again for a very long time. And even if it did reach them again, it might not be so likely that they'd vote against superpacs. So that leaves a constitutional amendment as the next option, but I think congress is even less likely to decide towards your desired position - they (more than anyone else) are the primary benificiaries of Super-Pacs. Like political parties, there isn't much anybody can do with regard to this.

4. I suppose not all companies do this, but many seem to. Nevertheless, like I said, I think if people who aren't very likely to vote in the first place when given the option of leisure or going to vote, they will generally choose leisure. So I am unsure if a national holiday would really bolster votes that much, unless people made it a sort of tradition to go out and vote like they do with regards to shopping and black friday. 

Thanks, overall this a good thread. Political systems are never really perfect, so we definitely should talk about how to make them better. 

End first past the post. Congress should be represented roughly proportioned to the will of the electorate.

435 seats up every two years, you vote for a party and number of seats are allotted based on percentage of votes received. Would end issue of gerrymandering as well.

1. There's nothing preventing the formation of more political parties - it's just that they garner little support. Just look at the Libertarian and Green parties.

2. However, the more parties with elected officials the more likely partisan politics will be a greater problem. In other words, the more disagreements in Congress and the more gridlock we will get.

3. Polls are open from 7am to 7pm where I live. No need for another national holiday.

1. There are many state and federal laws which prevent these political parties from being on the ballots and/or debates. So yes, there is plenty of political power against the proliferation of these parties. Although the winner takes all voting system also perpetuates a binary division of political beliefs. 

2. Not necessarily. Coalitions are a notable feature of multiparty politics. More disagreements will be resolved because say Republicans and Libertarians can overcome Democrats on an issue they both agree on but Democrats disagree with, and likewise Democrats and Libertarians vs. Republicans, and likewise Republicans and Democrats vs. Libertarians.