Do you always assume something is the best there can be until a new better is created? I'm guessing not. I don't have a solution, I'm simply saying we should

Do you always assume something is the best there can be until a new better is created? I'm guessing not. I don't have a solution, I'm simply saying we should expect that things CAN improve instead of waving off all complaints. Sure, many of those complaints we CAN'T fix without an alternative, and we do know that known alternatives are generally worse, but there's a difference between "That is a legitimate problem, but we don't know how to fix it yet" and "stop complaining because there is no hope". Why does it matter? Because if we aren't looking for change, we're unlikely to find it. For example, here are few things we do know: * first past the post voting is one of the worst options in a democracy, regardless of your desired outcome. Some systems are better if you want compromise candidates, some systems are better if you want the most supported candidates, some are better if you want to avoid terribly unpopular candidates, but FPTP is subpar across the board. * an American-style system can invite crisis where two sides (Prez and Congress) are opposed...and both sides are directly (ish) elected by the people, whereas a Parliament system does not. * a representative democracy does not give decision power to people, but instead defines the boundaries within which the govt operates. Within those boundaries lots of unpopular decisions will be made, but so long as the boundaries are not violated, those decisions will still happen (and largely without consequence, though that's far harder to be decisive about). We know these things because people have cared to notice, people have bothered to consider "does it have to be this way?" Even if the answer for now is "Unless we want things worse", that should be the answer _for now_, not the final answer.