Look, part of the problem is that you are treating a bunch of slave holders from the 18th century as saints...

I don't think they were saints. I do think they were a group of very smart, educated people who went to a lot of effort to design a system of government, and that system was designed well enough to work well for over two centuries as the United States grew from meager beginnings (where it very well may have taken some of them 41 days to travel to the capital) to what it is today, despite all the challenges along the way. The fact that different states have different systems, and that they have changed over time, is because the federal system they designed specifically intended and allowed for this. That's another one of the "balances" they intended by allowing states that power.

..., who should not be corrected.

Not at all, if the same group of people who designed the system then had designed it today I have no doubt it would have many differences, but I doubt the core constructs, such as the electoral college, wouldn't be included. I'm not against making changes when they make sense. Here again, they wrote the constitution with the need to make future changes in mind. I'm just more cautious in that I think changes should be made organically as need arises, and the degree of change should fit the need. In the case of the major political parties manipulating the system in ways that the majority of Americans (who largely consist of members of those parties) agree shouldn't be allowed, by all means lets find ways to write or rewrite legislation that prevents the behavior, or repeal existing legislation that allows it.

OTOH who am I to mangle in internals of another country

Well, I think I'm safe saying you are a human being capable of rational thought, and having an opinion on another countries system of government isn't mangling in the internals of another country. I like opinions and open discussion, it's an excellent tool available in countries that are fortunate enough to have it without fear of repercussion (beyond the occasional personal insult from those with too little self control anyway). Considering other peoples opinions, arguments, and why they have them is a good thing. Sometimes it even leads to people changing (or initially forming) their own opinion, which should be the point of a good debate. Even if I disagree wholeheartedly with someones opinion, I'd rather have them state it and argue their opinion rather than not. It's always likely that the two oppositions on any issue both have points that the other hasn't considered, not to mention any observers who can benefit from the exercise.

That being said, this is PerlMonks, and I don't think that's a very good venue for a political debate. Now, in a bar over beers (or in a pub over a pint if you prefer), that's a great venue. :-)