The link does not work. But from the title, I can guess the main idea of your article.

It is exceedingly hard to change existing political systems. I have a few Canadian examples. Even the 17th Amendment took almost 30 years of lobbying. Ever since I've been watching America politics, there have been calls for abolishing the Electoral College (that was 40 years ago).

I would say that Andrew's suggested changes are more likely than mine. His changes still fit with current American democratic structures (as does abolishing the EC). Mine are way outside the box.

But history has always had naysayers. If we had listened to the naysayers of 1688, the English parliament would have never been formed. If we had listened to the saysayers of 1787, the 13 colonies would more or less be separate countries. And after WW2, the naysayers were telling us not to bother with European democracy because Europeans have always been at war with each other.

In all cases, the naysayers were ignored and the champions of these democratic causes just worked to make them work. Had we listened to the naysayers, we would still be ruled by kings and queens.