I think the hole size is fair and does not need to be changed. Also, how many millions of rounds have been played with the current size hole? To me it is like the narrow definition of "hazard" - I don't like it but it has been the rule since the R&A created them.. it would be like allowing 4 strikes for an out in baseball.
Agree, and we have strayed pretty far from the original system of stronger state governments. They control their own fates in congress, so it makes sense to me that popular vote should control the presidency. I would even support that for party nominations.
I didn't vote (yet). I suspect that if the hole had always been some other specific size (e.g., 2x, 3x, 4x ball diameter; or 4 inches, 6 inches, etc.) I probably would have considered that to be correct and wouldn't give it a second thought, unless someone else had a different standard--like the standardizing of golf ball size a few decades ago.
I also suspect that if there were no standard hole size, I would have considered that to be correct. After all, greens are all different sizes, configurations, and we consider that part of the game. Probably would be reflected in the slope/rating.
Imagine: "What do you think of Rory's putt coming up here, Roger?" "I don't know, Jim: He's got a short putt here for birdie, but on this green they used a 3 inch hole today. Not like the fourth hole where they gave them a 6 inch target--that was easier despite the way the green tilts toward the creek. And not like Oakmont last week, where they went with 5 inch holes on all 18 greens on Sunday to give the guys a lot more birdie opportunities."
So I suppose my answer is "No, because if it were larger or smaller, we would adjust--our scores (everyone's) would be lower or higher-- it would just be a "new normal."