Of course it's easy- the political will must exist to do it.
I don't live in a fantasy world where the existence of "political will" emerges by magic.
You have a right to petition your government, and so do they.
Bill Gates has the "right" to use a private jet and so do I. But that doesn't makes a private jet a realistic solution for my transportation needs. I have a right to donate to all 435 candidates for office and hire someone to build a personal relationship with each of them. That doesn't make it a realistic political solution for me.
The interests you're speaking of are trillion dollar companies that employ millions of people.
In most trillion dollar companies the majority of those millions they employ are not Americans. What is your point?
Yes, there are trillion dollar companies, but there are very few government decisions that will have enough financial impact to justify spending money electing and lobbying support from 8000 representatives. Trillion dollar companies need a financial return on their investments in politics.
Look no further than US history. Do you think the US always had 435 representatives?
No, only for a little over 100 years. When was the last time a house district was smaller than 50,000 people?
What kind of idiot looks at a problem and thinks they can scale their way out of it?
I suppose those who recognize that "scale" matters. That understand from experience that getting 10 people to agree to your idea is harder than getting one person to agree and that having the experience of 10 people results in different decisions than decisions based on one person's experience. And that the "scale" of difficulty increases as the numbers increase.
For someone who lacks any experience with the politics of human beings consider another example where scale matters. There is a shortage of housing. You don't think increasing the scale of home building will help solve it?
Whether to increase the amount of representatives, or replace Congress with a representative group of people, you need to elect the same amount of people.
Well, no you don't. That was the point. The original first amendment already passed Congress. It has been ratified by a handful of states. So their support has already been given. So ratification only requires getting a majority of the legislators in enough of the remaining states.
And yes, it is a matter of political will. So what? Political will is something you create, not something you find. The question is whether people are dissatisfied enough with how the system is working to try a radical revision. If they are, the original first amendment is an opportunity for them to do that.
If you had to get Congress to pass any change, it would be a non-starter. The system has worked to give them power and prestige. They have little personal interest in any changes that might threaten that.