Dump the Duolopy #2: Solutions

This post extends from the first post on the Duopoly Dilemma and is focused on what changes would need to be made to move our political system towards one that better represents the will and way of its citizens. As people have varying inclination as to the pace of political change, I've categorized the proposed solutions into "hardball" and "softball" options.

Softball Solutions:

• Instant Runoff Voting: This voting method is actually already in use in municipal or local elections across the county. Instead of regurgitating the method here, check out this video on IRV, it explains it well, or you can read more about IRV.
• Reforming ballot access laws at the state level: eliminate or significantly reduce the number of signatures required to be placed as a candidate on the official ballot, fees for ballots access, and related measures. See how restrictive ballot access is in your state.
• Modifying how electoral votes are allocated at the state level: Instead of the winner takes all method, electoral votes could be allocated on the district level or proportionally in whole numbers or fractional. Though this reform can sometimes create strange outcomes, it would at least create an impression of fairness that can rebuild the polity's confidence in the system. 

Hardball Solutions:

• Repeal 1967 Public Law 90-196: This law is the latest update to a history of congressional acts that mandated all congressional districts to be single-member districts. This latest update was designed to insure minority representation in light of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The reality is that in today's highly mobile and demographically mixed society, the single-member district model is outdated. Another argument against the single-member model is the Duopoly defines district boundaries through gerrymandering, creating districts that are not logical, contiguous, and has resulted in the highest incumbency rate in US history.
• Congressional term limits: I've never really liked term limits as public policy; in my mind, voters should decide if politicians stays in office, not b/c some arbitrary law said it was time for them to go (the US Supreme Court takes this view as well). Another reason I don't like term limits (particularly on the federal level) is that with a constantly rotating slate of members, institutional knowledge would become very shallow, and the result would be empowerment of unelected congressional staff. Beyond these misgivings, I'm willing to give term limits a chance, if for no other reason but a sense of fairness in the system and it could also serve as a political hammer to push for other, more logical electoral reforms. Term limits does exist in about 30% of the states, but it would take a constitutional amendment to enact on the federal level.
• Modify or repeal the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971: FECA was another effort with good intentions to regulate and limit the influence of money in federal elections. However, the act over time has simply reified the Duopoly by giving money to the 2 parties before the election, but only giving money to third parties after the election.
• Another approach is take money out of the equation in elections. This approach is probably insurmountable as the US Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that giving money to a candidate is a form of protected speech. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think that reading of the 1st amendment is totally insane b/c in essence, such a standard means that those with more money get more "speech." This insult to the 1st amendment has been further exacerbated by the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
• An alternative to dealing with the issue of money as free speech is to mandate free TV time for all political candidates to office. Constitutionally, Congress would have the power to do this as the airwaves are technically public property. And if parties did not have to pay for TV time, that would greatly reduce the financial burden of running a campaign. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 supposedly mandates 30 minutes of free TV time if candidates raise a certain % of funds in their states, but I can't seem to find the actual provision in the law that states that, nor does it appear this provision was ever implemented.  

Well, that's what I have for now. Welcome any comments or counter-arguments.