The government has no role in redistributing wealth under our Constitution. The government's primary responsibility is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which includes one's personal property earned in the marketplace.

You can stretch the "life" provision to include providing a social safety net to those unable to help themselves, but there is not legitimate argument for government to intentionally set out to redistribute wealth under our Constitution. That is more of a socialist concept.

Rank choice voting has good and bad things about it. Democrats like it because they understand how to use it. Republicans will quickly catch on. Under rank choice voting, you simply resolve who your candidate will be before the primaries. That insures you have someone in the final election as the other side divides their vote among multiple candidates.

We have proportional representation in the House and proportional representation in the Senate. One is based on population and the other based on state. That compromise reflects the fact that we are a "union of states" not one country divided into provinces. The beauty of our system which the Democrats have tried hard to undermine is it keeps "regions" of the country "on board". The South seceded because they felt like they would become a "unrepresented region" in a country where the north controlled the House through population and the Senate through state representation.

I do believe we need campaign finance reform that disallows national fundraising for politicians other than the President. All state offices including Congress should be funded by people in the state or corporations whose headquarters are in the state. No outside contributions should be allowed. This will force politicians to look to their constituents rather than their party for support. Alternatively, you could implement the filibuster rule in both the House and the Senate forcing bipartisanship. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about "parties" (parties were not new and existed since ancient times). They felt as long as every state pursued its self-interest over a "parties" platform, that the country would remain divided enough to force compromise and such compromise would serve to moderate our politics and keep everyone vested in the government.

Regarding debt and economy. Politicians like to spend money, bigger economies can support more debt, therefore the bigger the economy the more debt can government takes on without collapsing.

However, in the rare instances, like under Bill Clinton, where the country was paying down its debt, it continued to grow at quite a healthy pace. This has led to the economic theory that the government should use fiscal stimulus and austerity to "manage" the economy... taking on debt in recessions to stimulate growth and paying down debt when economies become "to hot" to slow down growth before inflation kicks in. The problem is monetary austerity is not very politically popular and politicians are more inclined to spend than save.