Here's a few to start out:

An ISO-like standard for governments, judges, and the like that would define how decisions are made, documenting them, and having public audits to show deficiencies?

Having the reason and proof that a law was made be a part of the law, so that it could be challenged in court (after the challenge passed a sanity test) if someone could provide proof that there was a better way. Ditto for budgets. The key point here would be fact and evidence-based decisions that could convince a judge, not spin. There should be a burden of proof, which would lead to more research and better decisions. It would also lead to fewer laws.

When corporations, politicians, and governments give public statements, they need to give proof and full discosure. Failing to do so or lying would mean jail time...

If there isn't sufficient proof that a policy or budget item is best practice, then it can be looked at by an auditor to see if it was used for gaining votes. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, out goes the politician.

I would love a real Conservative Party. The Libertarian party is ok, but has some issues I don't like.

Aren't new parties formed on an almost daily basis...?

New parties happen all the time. Assuming you're talking about America, a serious third party is impossible due to our first-past-the-post (winner-take-all) voting system.

Canada, actually.
Canada has a first-past-the-post system. Third-place parties can and do have an influence, but fourth place is practically impossible to get anywhere. There isn't as much of a strong Republican-Democrat type of party control here, so there is a little more flexibility.
How about posting your favourite alternative voting system?

Yes, I know that political parties form all the time, but what would make you pay attention to one?

STV is my preferred system.

In the UK the constituencies that minor parties can occasionally get an MP in areas with unusual cultural makeup (e.g. Green Party in Brighton), but it's pretty much dominated by the big 3, with Labour and the Conservatives being by far the biggest.

"Canada has a first-past-the-post system. Third-place parties can and do have an influence, but fourth place is practically impossible to get anywhere."

Each riding would be a localized two-party contest. For example, there are places where an NDP voter goes Liberal to keep out the Conservative since his preferred candidate cannot possibly win.

And at any rate, the United States doesn't have the parliamentary system so the comparison is not terribly apt. We have popular primaries to determine who the candidates in general elections will be rather than having them be selected as in those systems. In, for example, Rhode Island, it makes much more sense for a more liberal politician to run in the primary for the Democratic nomination than to start up his own party and possibly split the vote. It's easier to do and makes it more likely for him to win. Sophisticated politicians realize this and that's why third-parties are dominated by, frankly, crazy people.

Single Transferable Vote does look good, although it would be complicated in Canada with hand-counted ballots. Still, the real problem is getting it past the two main parties, who would not benefit from it.

I expect in Canada it would change the politics a lot, say, two conservative, one liberal, one socialist, and one green party, each with fair support.

I do not get why people want fragmented party systems. It's not as if you're going to be able to implement your ideologically pure agenda with your small ideologically pure party. You only get to power through coalitions.

Anyway, my preferred system is a one-party state with no bourgeois parties. But barring that, I like the British parliamentary system of first past the post, minus the existence of the Lib-Dems.

Surely a one-party state might as well be a no-party state. The state and party blur together considerably if history is any guide

There are such things as no-party states and they look much different, structurally.

I'm not referring to places lacking political parties where all the politicians are independents, but rather ones where the state and party are so intertwined it's just people wearing multiple hats. A paramount ruler in a communist country was also the head of the communist party in most situations. Same for one-party non-communist regimes, like Zaire.

It just strikes me that, absent an electoral or other political contest, the reason for a party structure vanishes. The party becomes just another appendage of the government, with success in one tied to success in the other. The party is superfluous if it controls the entirety of the state.

On the contrary, I think that in countries were parties only purpose is to run campaigns, these organizations aren't really parties in the proper sense, especially if candidates are able to raise money independently of the party. "Parties" are more or less ad hoc fundraising committees with very little popular participation. That's why most people who claim they are Democrats or Republicans do very little other than vote, or at most, donate some money. Parties, imo, are conduits for grassroots mobilization. They were, at one point, social clubs as well as political organizations.

In a one-party state, there was a typically a different command structure than the ordinary hierarchy of the state. Through party rules, party officials could resolve many problems through local government, even though many of the institutions formally were not under the control of local government. But because they were led by party members, these individuals were subject to the discipline of local party organs. Indeed the CPSU relied on local and regional party organs to coordinate the economic system even though the local and regional governments didn't have this authority, per se.

Also the party system created a demanding civil service qualification system where only the most qualified, hardest working civil servants who had worked for a decade or two were admitted into the party. In this way also the state could ensure ideological correctness and competence among its managers and administrators.

Then we're using the same word for two different types of organizations.

It should stand for expiration dates on laws. Laws remain in effect only if they are explicitly renewed. Only the Constitution remains permanent.

@Putin33

"In this way also the state could ensure ideological correctness"

That is nightmarish.

Expiration date on laws? Because the perpetual state of crisis caused by expiration of laws is something to look forward to.

There are too many laws on the books making criminals of ordinary people. A lot of them remain only because of inertia. The law should be made self-cleaning.

You have an inflated sense of congressional efficiency.

Either that or you're hoping for a state of absolute lawlessness, I can't tell which.

Every session, Congress meets, invariably promising to do something. If it's all additive, there's no end to the cruft that accumulates. If they had a baseline for doing something that simply preserves the status quo, by renewing some existing and acceptable laws, that keeps a lid on the cruft, and provides an attainable goal for your congressional representative. Better than making up some bullshit and having it sitting on the books forever, on top of all the other bullshit.

Congress would be more careful in writing laws if they had to do it over and over. And, from a perspective a lefty like you would like, all laws having sunsets would discourage lobbying, since even the most complete win is only temporary.

Most laws contain sunset provisions already. It's a recipe for gridlock and recurring crises. Congressmen aren't more careful they just punt important decisions to later dates. It doesn't discourage lobbying any more than recurring 2 year elections discourages campaign spending. People need consistency in policy not chronic instability. How does this make sense after looking at the annual budget debacles?

A one party state, like a monarchy, can be very effective in getting things done, and done quickly, provided it doesn't get so conservative and ingrown that change is repressed, or corruption doesn't dominate the system. Regrettably, there is little to stand in the way of that in a one-party system.

I like the idea of expiry date on laws, except that politicians would be doing little but spending their time re-voting in the various parts and amendments to the criminal code, much less getting anything new done. Having a stated reason why a law is in place allows the law to be challenged when the reason no longer exists.

"Republicans are threatening that if ObamaCare is not repealed this week, terrorism will no longer be a federal crime."

@semck83 Ideally ObamaCare would be repealed *and* terrorism would no longer be a federal crime. (Murder should still remain murder of course.)

That's to provide cover for themselves, since the lot of them are terrorists.

Murder is typically a state, not federal crime, tendmote.