The original Constitution was built without the concept of political parties in mind. In the reality of not just having political parties, but two very polarized camps, that Constitution is an utter failure.

Put another way, the Constitution was designed with parameters in mind that are no longer true. Instead of rewriting it to fit actual needs of today, you're asking the users of the Constitution, the people, to change so they can use the Constitution as it was originally written.

In other words, you would constrain people rather than change the Constitution. That's your problem, and the obvious answer follows: no Constitution, ever, will be perfect. Never ever ever ever. Perish that thought.

The best Constitution is one that is highly flexible and can evolve quickly. That allows room for mistakes, but is designed so that mistakes do not get entrenched and like sclerotic deposits, block the flow of the actual democratic process.

The American Constitution is not worthless, mind. Just like Windows 95 was not. Both were revolutionary, opened many doors and changed a lot of lives.

Microsoft has moved on. We don't even use PCs as our primary computing terminals anymore. We respect the place of Windows 95 in the history of computing. We can look to it for lessons. But we don't deify it and clutch on to it as if nothing else can work, because that cynical belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Believing that nothing better can come, you have decided that the decisions made by people in the late 1700s are somehow sufficient to the problems of today. They are not.

Worse, they <I>couldn't</I> foresee how things would change. No one can. We won't either. So we shouldn't be writing Constitutions that rigidly hold for generations, with semantic reinterpretations of original text serving as the way to guide our politics and economy.

We did that for thousands of years. It's called religion. We don't need that, and you know what, your founders were perfectly aware of that. They just didn't have any way to know that the flexibility they built into the system wasn't enough.

Take stock of today, and you will see a million ways to build a government that is more responsive to it's people. Here's a simple start: make it a Constitutional requirement that every representative must spend x% of their time every month they are in office simply answering questions from their Constitutents in an open forum. That forum can be an in-person town hall that is televised, or an AMA on Google Meet, with all questions answered on a first-come, first-served basis from a Constituent portal.

We have the technology to make it so. It makes accountability literal. It means politicians cannot dance around issues their constituents care about. It means the media gets to scrutinize them to a much greater extent.

You will come back with how passing such a Constitutional amendment is impossible in the current climate. But that shows you that the Constitutional amendment process is broken. Because your Constitution, through fault of it's original drafters, wasn't designed to deal with such hyperpolarization and information silo-ing.

Respect the original Constitution. Study it. Revere it, even. But it's time to take lessons from the past 300 years, and build a new Constitution that is based on today's realities. One that is much more representative. That realizes that the difference between "Central" government and local government is far less than it was at the founding of this nation, and that we can make every level of the government much more representative and responsive to the needs of it's people.

Most importantly, one that realizes there's no way we'll get it all right, and mandates that every so often, say 25 years, we have another Constitutional Convention where all stakeholders can debate their issues, and come up with new additions to the Constitution, or make changes to things that do not work. One that mutates and changes constantly to the demands and pressures of the time.

That's your way out.