Here's the problem with Scott Adams' article: it doesn't lay out exactly what the problem is. He says that "the system," by which he means the Constitution, no

Here's the problem with Scott Adams' article: it doesn't lay out exactly what the problem is. He says that "the system," by which he means the Constitution, no longer functions because it was designed too long ago. His proposed course of action is to redesign "the system." This presumes that "the system" as it currently exists reflects the original design. Which it manifestly does not. Not only was the Constitution amended 27 times, vast parts of the federal government are not even close to constitutional in a way that the Founders would have recognized. And if the system no longer works as designed, that doesn't actually pinpoint what the problem is. What is causing it not to work? If a system no longer produces the desired outputs, is it because the system is broken or because you're feeding it garbage inputs? As George Carlin said about American politics, "garbage in, garbage out" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&NR=1 So, Adams is calling for people to design a new system that will accept garbage inputs and produce desirable outputs. Moreover, he ignores that the current system-as-is-operated is not a reflection of the system-as-designed. Asking for a redesign of the original spec and blaming the original spec, when current practice flouts with contempt the original spec, simply misses the point and will produce an embarrassing misdiagnosis from which an embarrassingly incorrect solution will be derived.