Yes, why not?

I'm actually not a big fan of DUI laws. They're kinda bullshit, especially when there are already laws against reckless and careless driving.

There are a lot of bad ideas in this thread (I agree with most of the op though).  Too many to even bother with...

Here is my thing that we should agree on.

The environment should be protected while still viable for business.  Finding the perfect balance for nature and business.

After dissing most of the ideas in my previous comment I was surprised to see 3 in a row ideas that are easily agreed upon.  I doubt very few people enjoy the current political system in the USA. 

It's a preventative thing, to stop someone from doing something bad that is statistically very likely to happen.

Unless we just called Driving under the Influence "reckless driving" by default.

Single-member, simple-plurality rule. The United States CANNOT have more than two parties for any sustainable amount of time.

You'll have to define "very likely", but I don't see any evidence that DUI laws actually prevent anyone from doing it. All it really does is give cops yet another excuse to harass people, and it's a racket for making money off of people who are minimally impaired (if that) and were only "caught" because of a roadblock.  Reckless drivers ought to be punished whether they are sober or not.

Money should not be involved in Politics like it is now

The representative should be truly representating their area properly, not just their own interests

We should try to work together to avoid conflict, at least most of the time

We need to get people more educated and interested in politics, so a decent leader is elected (this could also eliminate the 2 party system,if sucessful) 

1. The voter cant really solve this if no politician will take up the cause.  As it is, most states have rules that make it very hard for third parties to get on the ballot.  The system is designed to keep the established parties in power.  The system needs to be revamped and the qualifications to get into the national debates needs to be lessened.

2. The electoral college system supresses voter turnout for the majority of the country.  People in the state of utah, for example, already know that their state is going to romney, so why vote?  The fact of the matter is that the electoral college is great for the 7 or 8 states that are close and benefit from all the spending and attention.  Politicians tend to mostly care about only about issues important in those states as well.  Funny enough, your example of chicago ruining the state of illinois is a perfect example of why the elctoral college system doesnt work.  Illinois will go democrat because of chicago, so all those republicans voting in that state will have votes that dont matter.  If we got rid of the electoral college than voter turnout would increase and every state would benefit from policians paying more attention to the needs of the nation instead of the needs of a handful of states.

3. True, some politicians are good, but is that really a good argument against term limits?  Why do we have term limits on the president then?  With the two party system, there are usually only two viable canidates and if a state or district is heavily biased towards one party then there really isnt an option.  Look at orrin hatch in utah.  36 years ago he ran a campaign against an incumbent that had been in office for 18 years.  His message was that 18 years was too long and they should send him home.  Hatch has now been in office twice as long, he is incredibly entrenched with special interest groups and wont lose an election because he is the republican on the ticket in utah.  The idea of imposing term limits isnt to keep good politicians out, but instead keep politicians focused on the job they were elected to do, not the next election they have to win.  That is why washington deadlocks, because some votes would look bad the next time they are up for election, even though they are the right thing to do.