I'd have to hard disagree.

> two party model: while the two party model isn't ideal it's not always been as divisive as it is right now since ~2016. There are steps we could take at the state level that would over time make this better.

Is this really the best excuse you have? It hasn't always been this bad? Are there any legitimate reasons to want or keep a two party system? That the people benefiting from it don't want it to change is a very poor excuse, and honestly i can't think of another one.

> winner take all: Our system is designed to have a relatively powerful head of state while also enforcing severe limitations. The constitution mostly accomplishes this by giving the president the military but not the budget. In principle this is a difficult balance to get right. Too much power to the president and there is a run-away effect where limitations get sidestepped over time. Too little power and the federation eventually breaks apart (imagine Lincoln accepting the confederacy without a fight)

I meant winner of a single election take all, disenfranchising anyone who didn't vote for the winner. E.g. a senator elected with 45% against another candidate with 30% represents only the 45% of the electorate who voted for them, the rest be damned. Obviously that's ridiculously stupid, and makes it so people in areas overwhelmingly disagreeing with them don't even bother voting, and aren't represented by anyone.

> gerrymandering

It's not that hard to get right, go proportional at a fixed predefined level - like a state. 10 representatives from the state, state-level elections, and the places are proportionally distributed per list/party by percent of votes.

> electoral college: there are pros and cons. The pros are that it works to balance power between population centers and vast rural areas by giving a slight boost to unpopulated areas over the population centers. The cons are obviously that the result of this leads to elections that are slightly off from a 'popular' vote. Feel free to dislike the rule but it is debatable at the very least.

To stop disenfranchising a part of the population ( rural areas), it drastically disenfranchises the vast majority of the population ( urban areas). Rural areas are already overrepresented by virtue of the fixed number of senators per state. I think that's more than enough, but i agree, it's debatable. However what's not debatable is applying the ridiculously stupid winner take all logic for that.

> Judges

I'm not saying elected judges are better than appointed by the executive, because both are pretty bad. Popular judges aren't necessarily the best ones. A mixed system whereby other judges, prosecutors and lawyers vote seems better, but that's certainly debatable.

> Slavery & constitution

Few countries explicitly allow slavery in their constitution. Or have their system of governance proportional based on number of slaves (3/5s, electoral college distribution). Most countries are capable of realising and admitted bad things, and working on making them impossible ( see Germany). The document is obsolete ( as you said yourself, it literally dates from a different time, a time with kings, slaves, the fastest travel method being a horse or a boat, literacy being rare, etc.) and needs to be rewritten before being torn down.