Politics 101

So how does one move what may be an essentially good idea, viewed as somewhat wacky by those that haven't given it adequate consideration, forward? What is the community that is in greater need of being convinced -- Canada, or Iceland -- and how given a perceived need to convince a majority does one move forward. Should it be heads of state who one encourages to meet over tea to discuss mergers of nations, or should it be the people who one encourages to challenge the heads of state to comply with their wishes. The American model is one in which demand for change is often inflicted on the leadership as consequence of the desires of the grass roots majority, while in Canada change is more typically inflicted on the many as consequence of informed decisions being made by those elected to represent that majority. Somewhat counter-intuitively I am not at all comfortable with the notion that vocal minorities (such as I might be) should be thinking they have the right to impose their wills on the majority. But if I have no such right, how does a minority vision become a majority position?