Filibuster and the Electoral College

A few days ago I said that I would be coming back to write about filibuster.
Before I get into my position on this I will provide a small synopsis of the filibuster, where the word comes from and its effect on our political system.
The term filibuster was first used in 1851, and it is a word derived from Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. Thus the word filibuster would mean pirating or taking control of the time of debate. It is not a new concept. The Roman Senate had members that would filibuster.
Both Houses of Congress allowed its members to filibuster. The House of Representatives allowed the filibuster until 1842 when a rule was passed that stopped the use of it.
In the Senate it would require 67 senators to stop a filibuster. The rule was then changed to 60 in 1975.
The Senate used to use the filibuster to stop or extend debate of bills.
In the period 1999-2002 an average of 58 filibusters took place. In the period ending 2008 there were over 110 filibusters, almost double of the previous minority. In most instances used for reasons that are unnecessary such as allowing proposed staff members of the Executive branch to be brought to a vote on the floor.
This is arguably the main reason why the public in the United States is frustrated with its government, nothing gets done. The Senate has become the place where all bills end up dying.
Before my conclusion I will draw a comparison with the election of US senators. When the constitution was written members of the senate were elected by state legislatures. Between 1911 and 1912 the Seventeenth Amendment to the constitution was passed changing Articles 1 & 3 allowing US senators to be directly elected.
Lastly, this also brings me to the election of US presidents. This is probably one of the few democracies in which the public does not elect its presidents directly. The concept of the electoral college may have been useful at the time when the constitution was written. This system seems to favor the minority to govern over the majority like we witnessed in 2000, where Al Gore had the most votes and George W. Bush, supposedly, the most electoral votes. Although that election ended being decided by the Supreme Court, in what even conservatives should admit, was an over reach of the Federal Government. I wonder where the Tea Parties were back then when Washington was over reaching many times in local decisions.
It is time to do away with both the electoral college, a concept that has become obsolete, and the possibility of filibuster. The US does not have a representative system like other democracies, such as the most European nations have, where every vote is represented, so why should we allow the minority party to block every single piece of legislation.
By removing the possibility of filibustering we would stop people who do not represent the interest of their constituents, and who seem to be only interested in representing the people who pay for their campaigns, to whom they owe favors. This will become more acute starting with the next election thanks to the unfortunate decision by this Supreme Court to allow corporations to fund elections.
The only people who are opposed to these ideas are the people that in the name of democracy are really only interested in holding on to power.