> if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic Absolutely! Which is WHY acting as if every rule and gu

> if you took a trip in a time machine back to then, I'm fairly sure you'd come off as a raving lunatic Absolutely! Which is WHY acting as if every rule and guideline from more than 200 years is holy and must not be changed is terrible. I'm definitely not in favor of pure direct democracy, nor of changing things on a whim. However, we have had more than 200 years more of experience around the world with variations on democratic systems, and I think we can do better than we've done. It is possible, even common, to look at a situation, see that all solutions tried so far have been bad for various reasons, and so to choose a new solution that avoids all of those pitfalls, only to run into new pitfalls that hadn't been seen before. That's no knock on the latest attempt! It's progress, it's just not the last attempt that should ever be made. I think the founders were reacting to the world at the time, and their reaction was maybe the best possible one given the time and the need for compromise. They saw the dangers of the unchecked power of royalty, but underestimated the power that comes with concentrating wealth. They saw some of the economic dangers that had been revealed in countries around the world at that time, but completely missed the economic power unlocked by enabling women to enter the workforce. I could go on and on and on, and I don't think it's speaking overly-negatively about those men and their accomplishments to say that they should not be venerated as all-wise, all-knowing, or god-like, which is definitely how some political figures--including US Supreme Court justices--describe them.