>"We" could elect enough senators, representatives, & state legislators
>to get an amendment only if "we" could win elections without the
>amendment. And if "we" could do that, then obviously there would be no
>need for the amenment. If we can get it, we don't need it; if we need
>it, we can't get it.
Usually I agree with this reasoning applied to voting systems. For instance, proportional representation is a lost cause for exactly the reasons you state, to say nothing of other, more exotic balloting techniques.
However, paper trail voting has a lot of support from otherwise regressive goo-goos and might be achievable.