RSA, IMO you are the one saying "CAN"T". You call me a "naysayer". In post #3, I listed several items, all just administrative changes.
Of course the thread goes on into deeper stuff as any discussion will. Of course some will disagree with others as any problem solving session will. That is the purpose of an exploratory and/or fact-finding discussion.

Example: In post #3, I suggested a change to the nominee selection that would allow a potential candidate for office to SECURE a place on the ballot with a large number of signatures. Immediately the Huber comes in with a need for a smaller number. What Huber fails to recognize is that such an avenue to the ballot says: If someone REALLY wants to be an officer, then that one has the opportunity to go among the membership, and obtain approval of the membership adequate to SECURE a place on the ballot.

In such a case, the potential candidate could not only do a significant political trip early in the election year, he could also make it worthwhile because he would know that he would be on the ballot. Just because someone signs the petition doesn't mean that someone will vote such in the election. In any case it is the CHOICE of the potential candidate to get acquainted while knowing he will be a nominee.
Do I expect such a change to the EC's Standing Rules? Of course not as a potential candidate COULD do this and the incumbent would definitely be THREATNED by the opponent's previous get-acquainted trip. Therefore the incumbents will not change their SR.

Now in my last post above, RSA, May I request that you re-read my first and last paragraphs. I do not say that changes cannot be made. I do in the text point out how changes must benefit the bureaucracy. Their desired changes come quickly, but those that they do not want, well, that takes some time and time is on their side.
EXAMPLE: The last EC meeting finally gave the OK for my requested approval of casual PAID INSTRUCTORS at AMA Chartered Club facilities. That change is beneficial to the Bureaucracy in that it will help secure more members from the vast numbers of "I wanna' do that" crowd as hopefully more people will be willing to instruct. In addition, no threat to the powers -that-be can come from the program.

Now when real changes are needed, I still say that only through much dissatisfaction from the membership can they be realized. The numbers on this forum do not support such dissatisfaction, albeit the forum is a darn good place to start. I can list a number of items where such changes resulted in a quick About-Face of the EC. One was years ago when member-to-member liability was dropped, and whamo, that got some action. Then there was the RC Combat restrictions and they were changed to livable conditions. Look at the recent JPO and tail-touch situations. The EC can listen when a large number of voices threatens their position.

Since the changes you seek here are going to be slow, and probably forgotten without any real action, then YOU, RSA, are the one that needs some patience and frustration with your results indicate a lack of such patience. As it has been written: "Persistence and Determination alone are omnipotent." Hang in there, and for now steer your buds to the ballot box to specify their desire for CHANGES.[>:]

Hey, MAN, no one knows the feelings of frustration better than myself in my endeavors to get to where I can institute SIGNIFICANT change in AMA direction. BTDT![:@]

edited to add some stuff.