That's just it though, once we start considering how to fix one issue, we realize that a particular design decision is part of a wider architecture, and it's impossible to change the one design decision without undermining the whole architecture. It's like software, in a sense, that if you try to quickly patch a system, with no regard for the assumptions of the system, you will end up with tech debt. That implies that actually fixing the problems with our democracy requires a hard re-think of certain fundamentals. If you're at all interested, I plan to spend the next year writing about this issue:

https://demodexio.substack.com/p/what-i-hope-to-prove

> That's just it though, once we start considering how to fix one issue, we realize that a particular design decision is part of a wider architecture, and it's impossible to change the one design decision without undermining the whole architecture

'Sokay, the architecture is fundamentally flawed, in part because it was designed when less was known about the pragmatics of representative democracy because of less extensive experience and no systematic research and analysis, but also because in some parts it was designed with bad purpose (notably, entrenching chattel slavery.)

Undermining the whole architecture ought to be the goal.

Designing a new architecture should also be a goal, otherwise we will end up in that limbo where the old system has been destroyed but the new system has not yet been built. From what I've read in history books, such transitions are uncomfortable.