I'm not sure armchair quarterback is the right term for me. I'm talking about playing an entirely different game with the TDG.
Here are your points, and my quick TDG response.
"A more reasoned vote"
TDG will be based on "good character and capacity for governance", not on "what will the politician do for ME" or "my grandparents voted this way."
"A way for the public to force needed legislation to review and vote by sequestering congress until they do their job"
Today's public is too divided to send a message to Congress. Congress listens to big money more than the public anyways. The elections do not need big money. If good people are elected, they will be more responsive to the the public needs.
"A way to follow up and change or remove laws that are unintentionally harmful after a respectable period of time to determine effects and to remove outdated laws, scrub them in fact, so they can’t be used in obscurity on another matter."
Big problem in most democracies, especially the American version. I believe the TDG will evolve to fewer laws and rely more on competent committees.
"A shift in how we think about elections and candidates toward character vs party"
Already addressed that one.
"The public decides the agenda not by choosing between two candidates but by choosing the platform which the candidate must follow."
Again, public is too divided to send a strong signal. And candidates can promise, but realities of governance often make them break their promises. I have another process:
1) There are times when the government needs to let citizens make their own decisions and live with the consequences.
2) There are times when the government needs to take collective action to better society.
3) The decisions between 1 and 2 shall be done by due democratic process.
4) All decisions must be monitored, adjusted, and recalled as needed.
"A society wide full embracure of civic duty around the vote from early childhood. People need to know and believe their vote matters."
The TDG will be foster at fostering the importance of voting and voting wisely.
"These same battleground states time and time again should not decide the fate of us all. End the electoral college."
Moot point. The removal of the EC will not erase even one of the 12 limitations I have listed in my book.
"Religion out of politics. There’s a reason why the founders placed that “wall”. It was a mistake to tear it down."
Yep. The teleevangelists should not be influential in government.
"An easily accessible way to view information in a way that can be studied, not through quasi hypnotically listening to talking mouthpieces, about laws and upcoming votes that is politically neutral so people have a sound idea what they’re voting for in the first place."
Everyone once in a while, I find PBS programs talking about issues in the way you are suggesting. We need more programming like that. While very informative This PBS approach is not sensationalist by any means, so it cannot draw in the masses. Even so, I doubt the masses can even process 20 or 30 programs like that, line up what they have learned, and choose the best political party to that knowledge. In other words, we should not expect the public to be thoroughly knowledgeable on even a few issues. The better solution is to ask them to vote for good character and capacity for governance--and lets these people take the reins of teh various issues.
I hope my quick answers have helpe you.