Blogger Ryan Cooper "The Week" web publication on January 26 put out and article America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over. Mark Levin's Conservative Review web video station highlighted the article and called it rubbish. Other web sites have also presented articles reviewing it. The author, Mark said, has a degree in chemistry which makes him not even close to being an expert on Revolutionary time period history. As an engineer I do not claim to be any more an expert than Ryan so I suggest that consider reading his article. https://theweek.com/articles/750816/americas-constitution-terrible-lets-throw-start-over
I would like to point out where I see the errors in the article, maybe enticement you to read it. He starts with the typical attack on the Constitution, morally hideous compromise with slavery. But this is taking today's standards and applying them to 1700's. Slavery is still accepted in the Muslim world today which is one of the major religions of the world and represents a major slice of the humans on this planet. Slavery outside of Islam was not outlawed until about the time of the Civil War, almost a century after the Declaration of Independence.
He says that the Constitution has fallen prey to the same defects that has toppled every similar government. But he does not define what that defect is. I will, ruled by a small upper class of humans that make decisions for the nation. The population serve the interest of the upper class before they can serve their own interests.
He says there is no mechanism to break a deadlock. That is not quite true, since representatives are elected, the mechanism occurs every two years called an elections and all representatives face election in 6 years. What he is complaining about the long time to break a dead lock. The voters in the end determine how a dead lock is broken. On this point he mentions the super-majority rule in the Senate, which is a senate rule and is not ever required by the Constitution or any amendment. A Senate Rule that can be changed by the Senate.
He wants a proportional parliamentary democracy, but purposely ignoring history. Benjamin Franklin and other colony representatives went to England and lobbied the Parliament for decades before the revolution. The lack of representation the occurred violated the law for British citizens, which the colonist were. The other British colonies were given representation or allowed to have their own Parliaments after the American Revolution, opened Parliament eyes, they feared other revolutions.
Gerrymandering has always seem as a problem, but Ryan C., doesn't end it. One approach for example, say that districts have a ratio of area to perimeter length with some provision for the natural boundaries. He create super Gerrymandered district electing three representatives. And makes an unfounded assumption that this will improve choice. How is anyone's guess, and he doesn't provide statistic models to even make his argument. I can assure you that models of boundaries following area perimeter rules have been done. Ratio rules will end one party rule of a district is obvious. The performance of any representative elected is another matter. He also assume with no proof the third parties will gain seats. But the biggest problem of third party candidate is convincing voters that their vote is not wasted. That means a third party candidate need the money to campaign against the coffers of party candidates. The swamp purchase seats in Congress, never mention by Ryan Cooper.
The Founders by experience and history know that the lack of check and balances in a parliament system, doesn't work well most of the time. Britain is a class society rooted in a monarchy. The rights of citizens depended on one's class. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [property, the product of their sweat equity]. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Why would one believe that the parliament system that failed the colonist. They didn't want to have a revolution. The founders in the end had not choice since the parliament was never going to treat them as equal citizens of the empire. Why would this flaw never happen again? Never answered by Ryan. The reason is simple it could happen again, and the discussion of classes of citizens by the representatives suggest that it will happen again.
Ryan goes further to make the Senate a toothless body and the president an agent of the house which would be the parliament type legislation body. American is not a 'normal country' in Ryan's eyes.
Ryan says, “Constitution as written, makes changing anything nearly impossible. Other countries regularly ditch or overhaul their constitutions to deal with problems.” But he provides no examples. I suggest the USSR is an example. And how about the 27 Amendments to the Constitution. He forgets about them. Impossible NO, it does require agreement of the federation of states, the stake holders that are closer to the voters. It requires the citizens support the Amendment, consent of the governed.
Ryan, America actually is coming close to achievement of a class based government. Article Five in the Constitution, the firewall of the founders, lets a state driven convention drafted Amendments is the only thing that can stop the collapse of the government he desires, throw the Constitution in the garbage. The citizen effort, consent of the governed, can be found on the web https://conventionofstates.com/ is a grass roots effort to use the firewall means of amending the Constitution. The founders realized that Congress may some day consider themselves a special class. So the Founders in the closing days before the end of the convention to draft the Constitution added a means of drafting amendments out side the Federal government, a fire wall to a corrupt federal government. It passed without must effort.