Satire, ignorance, or intentionally misleading?

This piece of refuse in the New York Times has to be the worst column I've read in years. Gee, incumbents win - what to do? The three ideas Mr. Kristoff comes up with are either inane or irrelevant.

1. Non-partisan "experts" redistrict the states
2. Eliminate the electoral college and use the popular vote for the president
3. Funnel campaign donations through a blind trust

Really? That's it?!

1. Who gets to pick the "non-partisan" experts? Maybe the state legislatures? Duh, not gonna work.
2. If you eliminate the electoral college, who would have won most (though not all) of the presidential elections? The person who won anyhow, usually the incumbent. So how does this even address the original question? Let me guess: Mr. Kristoff lives in a blue county.
3. Yeah, big campaign contributors are never going to tell the recipient that he just put a gob of cash into the blind trust, nor is he going to tell him about the PAC or 527 contribution he just made.

Here's a real suggestion for eliminating incumbent victory: term limits. No more than 2 terms in any single legislative or executive area (House, Senate, President). I vote against incumbents on principle: Pete Domenici has evolved from a budget hawk to a pork monger in the past 20 years, but Republicans vote for him no matter how much he acts like Robert Byrd.