I think part of the problem with pardon power is that it can be freely done.

I think a president should nominate someone for pardoning, then congress critters have to give a 51% vote in favor of pardoning for it to ultimately take effect. 30 days have to pass during the nomination period for them to review the pardon, the pardon to be public knowledge, and congress critters having their name attached to their vote. Particular crimes should be noted for the pardoning, and a pardon doesn’t void new infractions of the same kind of crime.

A second 30 day direct voting period then takes place to confirm the pardon. The general public sends in a vote, based on all voters who send in a ballot. By default in this stage, the pardon passes unless 51% of the ballots reject the pardon.

To sum up:

• 1a: A president nominates a person for pardon for specific crimes at the time of the pardon.

• 1b: The nominated for pardoning must be considered a flight risk, and prevented from free international travel during the review stages.

• 2: After 30 days of review, 51% of congress must decide whether to approve of the pardon, attaching their name to the vote.

• 3a: Following approval by the congressional voting period, direct voters from the public can send in ballots to cancel the pardon. 51% of voters who submit a ballot must agree to cancel the pardon. This window lasts 30 days.

• 3b: Direct voters can choose to automatically prevent the leader from nominating pardons. 51% of the voters have to agree to remove the pardoning power. This state lasts for the current term of the leader. If this leader is elected again, a ballot is sent out to ask whether their pardoning privilege is restored for their new term.

IMO, the important part of a pardon is for national security purposes - but right now, it is too easy to pardon bad actors in the name of factional forgiveness or bribes.