In regards to paragraph two, and moving the amendment process away from the states and to the population, that would require an amendment in itself as I'm sure you know. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Once you recognize that fact, the whole article becomes a piece of fan fiction.
Everything in that article is worded to cause a reaction rather than to invite thought, and it works to divide the people who read it even more. The entire third act completely ignores the fact that it does actually take majorities to move amendments forwards. Three-fourths would be a rather large majority of people to those paying attention.
I completely agree with the fourth paragraph, but partisan articles like the one written do nothing to actually change it.
I disagree with his statement about the Constitution, it is the only thing keeping the piece, and articles like this calling it into question and wanting it changed because it doesn't work the way they want it to are exactly what is undermining it and causing the brittleness that he mentions.
The last paragraph is exactly the fear-mongering goading to action that I despise about all of these opinion pieces that get produced lately. This is not news, it is one person's very obviously biased opinion.
Unfortunately I don't see the election rigging that you do. I know it is supposed to be Jim Crowe round two to ask poor minority folk like me to go get a state issued license, but I drive, and I'm licensed, so I'm good. I'll still be able to vote. I was highly disappointed in the activities that the folks who participated in 1/6. We had a lot of discussion about this due to military members being found to have participated. People brought up the oath we took, and how it was shameful, and I played devil's advocate and reminded people that if those people really thought the election was being stolen, that they would therefore also believed it was a domestic enemy, and thus they were upholding their oath. I still don't think they were right, but until you try to understand how other people think, you won't be able to talk to them in a meaningful manner.
As to your comment that having two Senators from each state is enough check and balance, I believe that could be true if it weren't for the fact that Senators now, as I discussed previously and your article reiterates, being voted on by the public. Look at Georgia, which was a hotbed for this last Senate race. You cannot look at all the red on that map and tell me that Georgia would have sent anything other than two Republican Senators if the actual state legislation was making the decision vs the public vote.
Link: Georgia Senate Runoff for Ossoff vs Purdue