If you could make one change to reduce partisan gridlock what would it be?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Only Elect Republicans

You really are a child.

[Green Line]

Abolish the Senate.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Adopt a proportional  system of elections, without a doubt.

[Dereich]

Unpopular but correct answers:

Get rid of CSPAN. Have the speeches made in the House and Senate be actually aimed at other members instead of primary voters at home.

Alternately, force members of Congress to spend more time in DC and away from their constituents.  Currently the only time congressmen talk to members on the other side of the aisle is during committee meetings; proximity leads to understanding and friendship and there should be more of it.

[Virginiá]

I'm stuck between major changes to the filibuster rule and gerrymandering. Actually requiring Senators to stand there and talk non-stop to block a bill would be nice and alleviate the constant obstruction in the Senate, but ending gerrymandering for both Congressional and legislative districts is crucial to returning more moderates to the House and state legislatures. A functioning Senate only pays off if you have a House not run by batsh**t crazy radicals who refuse to compromise on anything because their rigged districts invite no competition but from equally crazy candidates.

I am going with both. Sue me.

[Mr. Morden]

Eliminate primaries and have party nominees chosen in smoke-filled rooms.  Members of Congress would thus no longer fear straying from ideological orthodoxy in a way that would invite a primary challenge.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Bring back earmarks.


Seriously, the only reason anyone used to do anything was because it came with a bridge/dam/wildlife refuge for their district. Solve the infrastructure and gridlock problem with one stroke.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bring back earmarks.


Seriously, the only reason anyone used to do anything was because it came with a bridge/dam/wildlife refuge for their district. Solve the infrastructure and gridlock problem with one stroke.

I wasn't aware earnmarks had ever gone away.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Bring back earmarks.


Seriously, the only reason anyone used to do anything was because it came with a bridge/dam/wildlife refuge for their district. Solve the infrastructure and gridlock problem with one stroke.

I wasn't aware earnmarks had ever gone away.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/earmark-moratorium-republicans-poised-ban-pork-barrel-spending/story?id=12155964

Now, that's not to suggest that the practice hasn't continued in some lesser form or another. But activity is down since the TEA party put the kibosh on it (if I perceive things correctly).

[Representative simossad]

How about seperating the governmental obligations and the representative obligations of the president by creating a new "head of government"-office which is appointed by the congress?

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

Campaign finance reform, elimination of gerrymandering, removing filibustering.

[Starpaul20]

Increase the size of the House of Representatives to the Wyoming Rule (547 seats) and elect the via Single Transferable Vote.

[Orser67]

Change House redistricting, with independent commissions drawing multi-member districts based on metro areas (that go across state lines)

[Bojack Horseman]

Eliminate gerrymandering.

This. Term limits aren't the answer, they just result in different extremists with the same ideology ruining everything.

[RaphaelDLG]

Unicameral legislature with no filibuster.

This, probably.  I think a decade or two of multi member districts with proportional representation could potentially help, but the above would definitely help.

And to be clear, the question was "if I could make one change to improve gridlock," not "one change to improve govt period," which would instead be campaign finance reform.

[RaphaelDLG]

Eliminate gerrymandering.

This. Term limits aren't the answer, they just result in different extremists with the same ideology ruining everything.

There are two big problem with term limits, in my opinion:
1) They seem like they would encourage the revolving door (though maybe I don't understand it well enough)
2) Legislative expertise is a good thing.

However, recently, I think one huge negative as far as term limits are concerned is the tremendous advantage of incumbency and the reticence of other party members to regularly challenge incumbents in primaries.  Which is how you get people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[Badger]

Campaign finance reform, elimination of gerrymandering, removing reforming filibustering.

This. At least require talking fillibusters again and reduce the override to 55. I'm hesitant to give it up entirely yet, despite it's abuse. Though I could probably be convinced otherwise.

Also limit individual senator "holds" on legislation. Abolish the Hasert Rule. And perhaps mandate a liberal time limit (e.g. at least 6 months, maybe a year) for an up or down vote (even on committees) for any Executive Branch nominee unless there's a supermajority vote to extend time. Adopt the Wyoming Rule for expanding Congress, though arguably 547 is still too small a body considering the US population has more than tripled since 1911 when the number was fixed at 435.  

Oh, and getting rid of term limits would help too. More politicians with actual experience as to what works and what doesn't, plus building enough constituent connection to be able to tell big money special interests to f$%k off.

EDIT: Oh! And abolish the anachronism known as the Electoral College. Admittedly this might actually increase partisanship somewhat as now the candidates can seek huge turnouts from their base in states like CA and TX rather than always play for the same 10-12 swing states, but definitely better in the long run.

[SteveRogers]

End the filibuster.

Proportional representation would solve gerrymandering but (at least in its conventional form) won't actually reduce partisan gridlock. On the contrary, since PR would mean both ditching direct primaries as we know them and removing the ability of voters to vote for a candidate instead of a party, I'd argue that PR would make partisan gamesmanship worse. No matter what voting system you use, one party or the other is still going to win the House at the end of the day, and one party (you know which one) is going to obstruct whether they win or lose.

[politicallefty]

The easiest way to eliminate all partisan gridlock would be to adopt a unicameral parliamentary system. Even though I would prefer a parliamentary system, I'd feel more comfortable keeping the Senate in a weakened form.

It's hard to pick just one remedy, because the faults are in various places. I think there are two primary faults in American politics. The first is partisan gerrymandering. While I strongly disagree with unilateral disarmament, partisan gerrymandering is an affront to and outright violation of democracy itself. The second major fault is midterms. If we're not going to adopt a parliamentary system or a unicameral legislature, midterm elections must end. Elect the President and the House for a 4-year term in the same year. Elect the Senate in two classes with terms lasting eight years (staggered every other four years). Every state would have a Senate seat up every four years (for example, class 1 would be elected in 2016 and up again in 2024 and class 2 would be up in 2020 and again in 2028).