At the other end of the dangerous corporate 2-party facade of democracy (which masks the need to found a democratic system), lie the democratic options summarized in this article, while, in-between we note Canada's broken system, which awaits a promised but still not realized overhaul.
As for the 2 systems of democratic government that are summarized for the survey above (and from which Canada will choose), while Choice #3 may be the purest, Choice #2 may be best for Americans as it represents a less dramatic change, for a country which presently has something worse than no democracy at all.
The final referendum question could contain an adjoining clause that allows voters to revisit the constitutional change in 15 years, to determine if the people would welcome an "upgrade" to Choice #3.
Simply, today, fewer than 25% of voters are deemed to be in support of most policies in the U.S.
Under today's Canadian system, that number would increase to about 37%, unless a party gains a majority with 37% while simultaneously misrepresenting its intentions, as has been the case in the post-1984 period under unprecedented neo-conservative rule (hence the coming promised electoral change), which has defied House conventions and basic decency that were respected since Confederation in 1867.
Under Choice #2, I believe approximately 44% of voters would be deemed to be in support of any given government policy.
Under Choice #3, 50% or more would be deemed to be in support of any given government policy.
Conclusion: Irony and futile efforts
When I sent the initial piece to Greg Palast, several activists, writers and, of course, Sen. Sanders, the senator was in the middle of the DNC.
Yet, only Greg Palast tweeted a "like" (I don't know if he read Rousseau's Social Contract, but Mr. Palast let the world know of his approval).
While the constitutional amendment (the 1March 28, 2016 article actually represents more of an overhaul) addresses permanent overnight change and solutions, the new constitution would also prevent the reshaped borders and new currencies that otherwise lie directly ahead, including the massive human destruction that would almost surely run hand-in-hand.
Today's frustration and its building energy of violence would morph into the celebration of true greatness, replacing today's U.S. nationalist ranting and propaganda-borne facade of democracy.
The celebration's swell would be organic.
Greg Palast's appreciation was intellectual, while the initial article called for the organisation of writers and activists of all stripes and professional backgrounds, so as to finally make a real-world difference in the implementation of the constitutional overhaul.
Without the latter, all of the writing and faithful struggles to-date will have related to nothing more than futile efforts against a background of swelling success enjoyed by the increasingly arrogant and defiant monsters who operate a system wherein the good works of kind and brilliant minds are set aside most dismissively.
For this reason, Greg Palast's appreciation for the repeatedly linked article above is ironic. The article had a stated purpose:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).