One thing that has been shown on all forms of media in the more recent years is how “The Government is broken.” We hear this (although more overtly) from the left side of the political aisle as well as the right. The left will say something like “Such and such was just protesting fiery but peaceably, why are they in jail now? - See the system is broken!” And the counter view of this is “See how such and such was convicted by an incident no fault of their own, it is an attack on our freedoms! - See the system is broken!”

Although I think the right is slowly starting to wake up and realize that the system is broken, the left has been agreeing that there is a problem for quite a few years, at least since 2014 or so. And the right and left haven’t agreed on much lately - and as a point, it is easy to believe that part of the issue is a core issue of not stating the problem. Use to, most of us remember, when we would all agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. A key example I remember is in my home town about 2 decades ago. We all agreed that a particular school (where mold was found 2-3 years in a row in a specific room) everyone agreed that it was a problem and our local government needed to act on it. At least the left and right agreed there WAS a problem. This is a key element of moving forward. And it is hard to see, wherein modern times, that the left and right even agree on the problems. Now, with that school, the solution was vastly different from both sides in our community. One side immediately made a point to build a new school and condemn the previous. The other side said clean it up as best we can including preventative maintenance - and just move students away from that area of the school. Different solutions, but everyone outright and openly agreed there is a problem.

As the astute of you might be collecting this is where we get to what is on page five. What comes next. Well, for most of the Right the key need is to realize that our constitution - even though how great it is - isn’t perfect. And we should look to actively improve and fortify it. And the left needs to come to a similar revelation that changes are needed, but not every little problem needs to be considered at a federal level. But, once again - we need to agree that there is a shared problem. The system is broken.

The next question is always “How do we fix it”. And this is where we should all allow for differences, and then share knowledge – including history, that shows a positive direction forward. As previously stated, our current document is clearly aging, and has (possibly) passed its expiration date. But, even though we agree that the system is broken – I’m not sure we’ve gotten specific enough to even warrant solutions. When going through the scientific method there are six stages. The first is defining a problem. You can not continue without a specific problem defined. The second is building a hypothesis. This stage includes researching previous questions that might have been asked, as well as any studies that come from that. This stage might involve combining different studies and making inferences. A hypothesis should be easily defined something like “if ABC happens, then XYZ will be the result.” It has to be measurable, most people don’t realize this. A lot of people accepted Newton’s idea of Gravity – but rejected his math and by extension, it causes issues of wide acceptance. Everyone knew something returned us to earth when we jumped. But, because it took nearly his whole life to get the math right, it wasn’t measurable. So you have to say “If someone throws a 1 lb ball, straight up, with 100lbs of force – then it will go up to 25 feet above where the thrower was standing, then after 5.5 seconds, return to the same height where it was launched.” This is measurable and verifiable. It is easy to see a lot of solutions being thrown around lately that do not have a hypothesis that is clear, complete, or correct. Which makes it impossible to draw the correct outcome. As you can see, making a hypothesis is a lost art and not many seem to do this at a good or particularly great rate.

The third item that must be done is building a proper test, to measure the hypothesis. As mentioned before, this is impossible to do if we just say “we throw a ball up and it comes back to the ground.” This isn’t measurable. This would (obvious to most of us now) happen, but it doesn’t prove that gravity is real. It just proves the ball comes back, without a reason why. The fourth is to execute the test itself. This oftentimes requires special conditions, for example when trying to measure weather phenomenon, or when measuring social interactions within a group of people. The fifth step is tied very closely with steps three and four: collect and analyze the data. This must be taken into account with steps three and four. Without both of these steps taking into account the data, we can’t possibly determine a resolution. While you run an experiment on social interactions it is reckless to not record the data immediately – it is too easy to forget and negotiate the details in your mind. The last step is also related – prepare your conclusion. Speak to your hypothesis. Don’t be afraid to be wrong. Remember the process of “Science” does not set out to prove anything to be true – as a fact it sets out to disprove things. Otherwise, it is a biased agenda, the best scientist will question everything and attempt to prove theories wrong, after enough time the individual will review the data and determine “I can’t prove this theory wrong – it must be true and a law of nature.” Let’s review for those of you that like list:

Now that we have the Science 101 class out of the way – let’s proceed to execute step one, and define a few problems that we currently have with the modern U.S. Constitution, in no real particular order:

1. It doesn’t take into any account modern technology – specifically the speed at which ideas/information are shared

2. It doesn’t take into any account how global society has become – specifically the speed and ease with which people can travel

3. The process for introducing bills into both chambers of Congress is both too labor-some and not thoroughly defined enough.

4. There is no clear path for accountability to the people, other than the 2, 4, 6-year voting cycles – which just aren’t enough.

5. There are too many career politicians that are/become completely out of touch with the people they allegedly represent.

6. There are no limitations, seemingly, of what either chamber of Congress is allowed to introduce as a bill and vote upon.

7. There is no guidance on politicians and how they’re able to raise funds and be paid both personally and professionally.

8. The House of Representatives has far too many individuals – so many so that if they met every day of the year for 10 hours a day, each rep would get just over 8 hours to talk in front of the body all year.

9. Bills don’t even have to be read aloud, in front of all voters (both Congress and the people) to be voted on.

10. Presidential (and other appointed positions inside the executive branch) are far too difficult to impeach and remove from office.

11. Point 10, but for the Judicial branch.

A fair amount of the points that are provided are things that both the radical left and right can get on board with – for example, point 9 should be a clear winner for everyone. If it can’t be read in its entirety in front of the body voting on it, it is either too long or just straight up doesn’t need to be voted upon. This is something we all agree with and several polls in the past indicate that we should do this in some way. But now how do we get to it, how do we measure it, how can we test if it is successful, and how do we hold some accountability for any changes made?

We will explore several of these items in future articles, and we hope that we can find some solutions to apply. But the question today is “Where did we go wrong?” And the answer is extremely simple, we no longer openly agree on the problems. Far too many times I see one side mention a problem then immediately see the other side dismiss the problem – all to see them flip sides on the SAME core issue just a few days later. This might be an issue with media and how they like to incite viewership and it can also be an issue where people just aren’t breaking down the problems well enough and defining the problem. We need to get to the point where we define problems better and then where we see common problems we can proceed to address those issues together so we can build that bridge and make that gap a little smaller.

All that I continue to see over the past few years is “The system is broken” and that it “needs to be replaced”. And I would be inclined to agree, except we have an INSANELY good foundation. There are a few components that need to be adjusted slightly, usually in favor of common sense.