This. The government in the US is thought of as a thing that exists over there. Like a king in his castle. But we call it a democracy. And in a democracy, governance is just the rules that we set up to keep our communities operating in a sustainable way that provides the community members with the highest quality of life. So the government, is really just us following our own rules.
Rules that are well designed have a defined scope, and address known caveats and risks. Good governance rules come with qualitative and quantitative monitoring built into them, as well as periodic evaluation. The evaluation should identify whether the rule is still providing the intended service to society, how well it is doing so, and how to improve it based on lessons learned and ever-evolving social context. Then the rule is iteratively improved so that the intended outcomes, both statistically and culturally, are improved, based on evidence and feedback.
The rules themselves would be governed by a set of agreed-upon principles that reflect the culture and aspirations of a people, usually in the form of a constitution or charter. These principles, likewise, would be subject to periodic review for improvement or retiring to history.
My point is that the world changes, society changes, culture changes, the environment changes, people change and so too should the principles and rules which we design to make our lives better, also change.
The longer the gap between their last update and the present moment, the worse of a job they do in addressing the needs of the present moment.
The framework as described in the constitutional has led to full and complete political gridlock
Honestly one of the best parts about it. Everything both parties can agree on doing federally lately is awful. The things they want to do but can't because of the constitution are worse.
That seems dangerously optimistic to me though. If what should be done is not what elected officials will do, and what they will do is what should not be done, then isn't removing the barriers constraining them from acting just going to make things much worse? Even if you can get a government in office sometimes that is not malevolent, it would still be a net negative.
For it to be worth it, you would have to either have a realistic path to consistently electing people that serve the will of an informed and thoughtful population, or the circumstances are so dire and the need to make positive changes so desperate that things can't actually get much worse than a course of inaction so you might as well risk it. To me it doesn't seem like either are the case yet; there is no clear path to that, and things could be much, much worse.
Every other industrialized democracy is able to do this
I'm not convinced of this, especially with Europe flirting with stuff like encryption bans and far right extremism, other countries could benefit from more restrictive constitutions.
A government that doesn’t pass legislation isn’t the safety net you think, it is the precursor to authoritarian control and dictatorship
Can you give a specific example of this happening or rationale why it would happen?
If you live in [constitutional gridlock] then you should be arming yourself to the teeth right now and storming the government.
For what should be very obvious reasons this would be a disaster. This is the sort of mindset driving the events of Jan 6 and I hope those sorts of people with no respect for our republic fail.
deleted by creator
This. The government in the US is thought of as a thing that exists over there. Like a king in his castle. But we call it a democracy. And in a democracy, governance is just the rules that we set up to keep our communities operating in a sustainable way that provides the community members with the highest quality of life. So the government, is really just us following our own rules.
Rules that are well designed have a defined scope, and address known caveats and risks. Good governance rules come with qualitative and quantitative monitoring built into them, as well as periodic evaluation. The evaluation should identify whether the rule is still providing the intended service to society, how well it is doing so, and how to improve it based on lessons learned and ever-evolving social context. Then the rule is iteratively improved so that the intended outcomes, both statistically and culturally, are improved, based on evidence and feedback.
The rules themselves would be governed by a set of agreed-upon principles that reflect the culture and aspirations of a people, usually in the form of a constitution or charter. These principles, likewise, would be subject to periodic review for improvement or retiring to history.
My point is that the world changes, society changes, culture changes, the environment changes, people change and so too should the principles and rules which we design to make our lives better, also change.
The longer the gap between their last update and the present moment, the worse of a job they do in addressing the needs of the present moment.
Honestly one of the best parts about it. Everything both parties can agree on doing federally lately is awful. The things they want to do but can't because of the constitution are worse.
deleted by creator
That seems dangerously optimistic to me though. If what should be done is not what elected officials will do, and what they will do is what should not be done, then isn't removing the barriers constraining them from acting just going to make things much worse? Even if you can get a government in office sometimes that is not malevolent, it would still be a net negative.
For it to be worth it, you would have to either have a realistic path to consistently electing people that serve the will of an informed and thoughtful population, or the circumstances are so dire and the need to make positive changes so desperate that things can't actually get much worse than a course of inaction so you might as well risk it. To me it doesn't seem like either are the case yet; there is no clear path to that, and things could be much, much worse.
deleted by creator
I'm not convinced of this, especially with Europe flirting with stuff like encryption bans and far right extremism, other countries could benefit from more restrictive constitutions.
Can you give a specific example of this happening or rationale why it would happen?
For what should be very obvious reasons this would be a disaster. This is the sort of mindset driving the events of Jan 6 and I hope those sorts of people with no respect for our republic fail.