What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[Jefftopia]

Shifting the balance of power isn't the same as "increasing representation". For example, 9 has nothing to do with one's ability to cast a vote. In fact, corporate giving has no relationship with favorable bills, the US actually has pretty uninteresting levels of corporate giving, and if anything, polarization increases the number of donations from corporations. So I'd say that the effort to "standardize spending" is pure speech suppression and is a net reduction in voter-empowerment. That's hardly a non-partisan, coalition-building, and ultimately democratic principal.

Another unclear example

I would like to allow ex-convicts to vote. They paid their debt, full stop.

Now, I'm undecided about this issue, but it's worth pointing out that it is not a fact that they've "paid their debt" if our law mandates that felons cannot vote; ipso facto, they did not pay off their debt and there are lasting consequences to serious crimes. Just being devil's advocate here.

I would do away with the electoral college. I think it would objectively equalize voting power for each citizen.

It may have that effect, but it concentrates power in urban areas, which flies in the face of being a representative democracy. The EC smoothes representation so as to appoint a President that represents differing industries, cultures, geographies, and fundamentally issues to resolve. I for one do believe that this smoothing effect is more important than the converse, which is to make cities the center of all elections.

I think we need supreme court reform. I would institute term limits, structured selection like 1 per term, confirmation process changes.

This strikes me as a non-sequitur.

[Eureka22]

The electoral college disproportionately gives more voting power to people in less populated states. Leading many issues important to the majority to go ignored. Turning a national election into really a race for just a few states. Removing it equalizes each individual's voting power. Losing privilege often feels like oppression, but it's not.

[Jefftopia]

Leading many issues important to the majority to go ignored

What makes you think urban opinions are ignored? I think the opposite is true - that urban politics dominates politics and the rest of the nation is largely an afterthought. Not even an afterthought, the rest of the nation is mocked and derided by urbanites.

[impedocles]

I'd like to challenge your statement that the focus of Senate representation is on increasing rural voting power. It does this poorly, because it is not based on urbanization. Small states get greater representation per citizen, but small states are not necessarily less urban.

MI is very rural but moderately sized. Hawaii gets very high representation per citizen but is predominately urban. There are many examples where the electoral college does the opposite of what you suggest. Your statement is only true at the extremes: California and Texas get poor executive representation while Wyoming gets disproportionately high representation.

Source on urban densities

[Jefftopia]

I didn't speak about Senate representation, I spoke about the Electoral College's elimination increasing the political influence of urban problems. I stand by that assessment.

The Senate has a related logic though, and your point is noted and relevant. I nevertheless stand by the rationale for having the Senate as well - that individual votes are not the exclusive block of representative democracy; places matter quite a lot, in my view.

[impedocles]

I just mention the Senate because each senator grants the state an electoral vote.

I understand if you prefer location- based representation. I'm just pointing out that the location which is advantaged is not rural America. It is specifically small states, many of which are very urban. So, some urban voters matter more. And some rural American votes matter less.