You write a bit about voting, but say nothing about how it represents some interests better than others.
The original intent of the senate system seemed to make political change slow, and to represent each state's legislature. That was changed with direct voting, although the six year terms remain.
You wrote three essays on essentially rehashing scholarly essays. You say some voting systems create moderate numbers of political parties, but I don't know what that is.
The whole point of voting is to represent interests to implement policies. We might as well have transparent elections with votes bought from the federal treasury, at least the money wouldn't be going towards buying all the ad slots in battleground states.
Perhaps this post is about useful arrogance? Do not be so arrogant that you think your field is unique and independent, and requires no improvements from other fields, but be arrogant enough to point out there is problems to someone who thinks he is at the top of his field?
Actually it sounds like someone doesn't understand the protocol.
A related matter. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/02/12/solzhenitsyn-smyth-report/
Actually half of the people you meet are smarter then average, because you won't meet the people who are insufficiently intelligent to be verbal (as opposed to mute to other causes).