Possibly, just one of the enumerated suggestions would be sufficient. As the Beatles so aptly put it:

"Number 9. Number 9. Number 9."

Heh.

Not bad, but I can't stifle the impulse to tinker.

3. Strike. No limit on the number of different offices. This means officials can start small, and work up.

8. Strike. I'll associate with whoever I damn well please while petitioning my government, thank you very much. Oh, fine, keep the bribe executions. These will be by hanging from a tight rope off a short stool, and will be televised.

9. Very amusing, but there's no feed back there. Instead:

9a: Legislators who vote for a law later struck down by a court, in whole or in part, get flogged. (This applies only to the final vote on passage.) Administrators who promulgate struck regulations, ditto.

In addition:

-> All campaign appearances must include a public marksmanship contest. At the speechifying, contestants get to sit in the front rows, proudly displaying their contest arms. Candidates who do not participate in the contest for reasons other than war-wound infirmity will be mocked without mercy.

-> All campaign appearances must include an open question and answer session at least as long as the candidates' speeches. (Questions limited to one minute each; answers to five.)

-> Elected official pay decided by referendum.

Most important, and dead serious:
-> All legislative votes to be by role call; regulations shall cite their authors.
-> No law or regulation may single out or exempt its authors or executors, or their families or subordinates except: a)Taxes+50% shall be imposed on their authors. b)Criminal penalties shall be doubled for their authors.

Only ones I agree with.

4. No retirement pay for elected officials, ever.

6. All political parties are banned. Run on your own merits or fuck off.

4. If it is a public service, that these people do, they don't need retirement, after all, they all make a shitload of money kissing corporate ass once they get out of office.

As for

6. It's almost impossible. We can only eliminate the formalized political action of party's which would be good, cuz as you say, they would be judged on their own merits. But how are you gonna enforce a candidate saying "I'm an old-time small government republican" in a political speech? you can't.

I think that including an absolutionist position for financial accounting being made public is a good idea. Every drink, every dinner, every flight, every minute of government time spent meeting with lobyists is a good idea. Full, after the fact schedules for interaction with other branches, and private entities to be released within 2 weeks of the event and. . . .

What are they called? family trusts? coupled trusts? you know where no one person actually handles the money but everyone included in the trust gets to collect off of it. All of those financial scams used to hide corruption must be removed from the individuals portfolio prior to ascension to office in perpetuity. (cool word pepetuity. however it's spelled)

Though, 9 would be a definate guilty pleasure.

Problem is they've torn down the KC Stockyards, and the American Royal facilities are much too nice.

I've got one more.

No official running for office shall have a net worth greater than the average net worth of his constituency.

(I'm sick to death of being lorded over by the wealthy)

I say:

Thompson/Bolton '08

Hey, you left out the mandatory clown suits! Otherwise, good job.

Pofarmer: No official running for office shall have a net worth greater than the average net worth of his constituency.

This should be first and foremost. I don't really get how some (if not all) public officials can identify with the average citizen and what they have to go through everyday.

Adam Smith wrote that the cost of government must be borne by those best able to afford it.

All I can say about public flogging is, "Yeessssss!!!"

I think the one thing that has caused all of this mess is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 where the size of congress was fixed. In Article one, section two, clause three the original sizing of congress was "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative". When Congress was first held, the number of persons per representative was ~60,000 people. Today with a population of about 300 million that number is ~700,000 people. Looking at 1920 the last time before the number of representatives was fixed the number was ~240,000 people. If we wanted the same representation as in 1790 or 1920 we would need 5007 and 1746 representatives respectively.
With the appointment of 5000 representatives, each person running for office would only require to campaign for 60,000 people. This number is small enough that the need for a political party to get elected becomes some what useless. The mayor of a large city would have a larger election purse than a representative. Those stupid election ads on TV would disappear since a team of 50 people could talk to each voter personally. Though they may replace the Jehovah's witnesses as the scorn of the Earth door bell rings. I think this with the corporal punishment for bribery would take care of the lobbyist problem. The biggest draw back with this proposal is that the number of floggings required would go up by a factor of 10.

Randy, I know your heart's in the right place but if your policies were implemented, the US would become the world's largest 3rd world country overnight.

Term limits? Sounds good in theory but in practice what it means is that people in office know they only have a limited time in which to loot the treasury and pass out favors to the private-sector industries that will employ them once they're no longer sucking off the public teat. How is that an improvement?

8. Lobbying shall be a capital offense, for all parties involved. So will accepting bribes, and any other form of corruption.

You'd outlaw lobbying? Like the NRA lobbyists who managed to insert the 10-year expiration on the assault weapons/high-cap magazine ban? Lobbying is a value-neutral enterprise, it's neither good nor bad, it's simply the natural result of living in a large, complex nation-state that spans the width of a continent. It would be nice if we could all take time off our jobs to visit our congresscritters and let them know how we feel, but most of us don't have that luxury so instead we join together in freely organized goups of like-minded individuals, pool our money together and hire professionals to speak to Congress on our behalf. Why is this an evil thing?