The USA didn't look so... indeed, uneven or fractured, before Trump's appearance in politics. I guess I should have travelled across there several years ago. I sincerely hope you can collectively get out well of this mess.
Also, hopefully not the point here, but the "this country is too big/different to try..." reminds me of several conversations I've had with people from certain countries, justifying their authoritarian regime.
Also, in a room of 20, if one person cannot bring and share into their voice at least a second person among the 19 other ones, they won't get any result either by being part of the assembly. That's were you build friends and teams before elections to propose your platform. Alone, you can't act much.
> authoritarian regime
There is nothing authoritarian about the system. It is just different in the sense that it was designed to put more weight to the states instead of the union in the balance of power.
In my view, much more authoritarian/totalitarian was Napoleon's obsession with centralization and uniformity, to which I guess you take no issue? ;)
> Alone, you can't act much
You are moving the goal posts. We were talking about representation according to one's votes, not about the efficiency of its parliament.
I wouldn't say that 5% is a "low barrier clause", actually quite the opposite. That means, e.g, in a room of 20 people, every lone/dissenting voice gets completely shut out of the conversation.
> My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue.
For you, it's an issue. For me it is a feature. The USA is too big, too diverse and too uneven of a country to try to apply universal policies and expect good results everywhere. It makes sense to balance this by bringing more power to the states and not push it away to the federal level.