Because like most complex engineering projects we know it's not perfect but we know every idiosyncratic function and any revision will still have idiosyncratic functions but they will be unknown with no countermeasures in the beginning.
We don't upgrade hardware or software company wide just because there are are new enhancements or 'bug fixes' because we know the nature of the universe is Chaos not Order and small changes can have a 'butterfly effect' that's unpredictable.

So can not adapting in changing times. Ask the dinosaurs.

 

There is a mechanism to change the Constitution.

We has 27 changes since the beginning.

Ask yourself which states benefited from the great compromise?

 

Why do so many engineers/technical people here, who I assume are responsible for various levels of innovation and forward thinking, look back at the constitution as a "perfect document" and complain about any amendments made since the bill-of-rights was added as ruining our country?

Do politicians look at scientific discoveries from the 1700s and complain about all of the changes made since then? If they did, we could log into the off-topic section of the AllAboutConstitutions.com website and read how they complain about innovations in touchScreens, keyboards, ball-point pens, all the way back to the best way to trim a quill for writing a Declaration of Independence.

This thread has definitely taught me why a certain slogan works so well when it makes no sense at all.

No one is claiming that the Constitution was a perfect document. How many times have we talked about the compromises that were made in crafting it. And claiming that people that support the Constitution believe that every amendment made since the bill of rights has ruined our country is preposterous, and you know it (well, maybe you don't). The majority of amendments deal with voting rights and I don't see very many people claiming that any of them has ruined our country (but maybe the people you hang out with are different). Out of seventeen post-Bill-of-Rights amendments, most pro-Constitutionalists take issue with just two and the misinterpretation of another.

Now consider that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were crafted by people that were creating a new country after standing up to the one of the world's great powers and were well aware that they were writing a document that would govern that new nation going forward and were committed to attempting to avoid as many of the faults of other countries as they could. They also knew that they were crafting the entire governing policies of the country and that they had to be comprehensive and integrated. That included the Bill of Rights. Later amendments, on the other hand, were written from a very different perspective by people safe in an established and stable country (the Civil War era notwithstanding). Many of them tended to be very narrow in focus and not well integrated into the overall whole. The bulk of the Bill of Rights deals with overarching themes while many later amendments dealt with single issues (such as giving voting rights to DC inhabitants, or prohibiting alcohol, or prohibiting poll taxes).

 

Not everything is fun and Jefferson said we should have more than just "a life". You should balance your time to achieve all three of Jefferson's quests - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Voting is part of that triad.

I agree. I have voted in every general election and all but one primary election since I turned eighteen. I've served as a delegate at the State level and as an election judge in four general elections. I believe the right to vote is also an obligation to vote. I also believe that it is so important that only people that are eligible to vote should be allowed to vote.

But the reality, however sad it is, is that a huge fraction of people aren't interested in elections not because they don't think their vote counts (but certainly some feel that way), but because they don't really see elections as affecting their lives. So, even if they do vote, they spend virtually no time investigating the candidates or the issues before casting their vote. As I've already noted, a significant fraction of people voting for "their guy" aren't even aware that "their guy" happens to be the sitting vice-president -- and that holds true for both parties.

When you think about it, it's a two-edged sword. The underlying reason that so many people are apathetic about voting and believe that elections don't affect them is precisely because our country is sufficiently stable to allow them to adopt that attitude.

 

When your country becomes oppressive to you, you become political.

 

...a huge fraction of people aren't interested in elections not because they don't think their vote counts (but certainly some feel that way), but because they don't really see elections as affecting their lives....

That hair that is too fine for me to split. If they don't see elections as affecting their lives, how could they possibly think their vote matters?

 

So can not adapting in changing times. Ask the dinosaurs.

The impact theory is what most scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs. Hard to adapt to a 10km-wide rock. Terrorist using WMD on a national scale would be the equivalent today. Due process and rights would be secondary to survival.

 

The underlying reason that so many people are apathetic about voting and believe that elections don't affect them is precisely because our country is sufficiently stable to allow them to adopt that attitude.

That's akin to the efficient mkt paradox. Fama observed that if the mkt is perfectly efficient, there would be no reason for people invest in price discovery. If no one invests in price discovery, the mkt cannot possibly be efficient.

So he concluded that an efficient mkt must be inefficient at all times.

The same here. Low voter participation and low viter turn out can be a good thing and an indicative of a political system that runs reasonably well so that some people don't think it is worth their while to vote.

They aren't sufficiently motivated.

Some in political science have advocates this idea and I'm sure some social or experimental economists may have carried out experiments or surveys to show that.

 

That hair that is too fine for me to split. If they don't see elections as affecting their lives, how could they possibly think their vote matters?

When someone talks about their vote not mattering, they are pretty much always saying that they think their vote has no affect on the outcome of the election. That is very different from thinking that the outcome of the election has no effect on them.

 

That's akin to the efficient mkt paradox. Fama observed that if the mkt is perfectly efficient, there would be no reason for people invest in price discovery. If no one invests in price discovery, the mkt cannot possibly be efficient.

So he concluded that an efficient mkt must be inefficient at all times.

That's a false dichotomy that assumes that a market can only be "perfectly efficient" or the opposite.

Just like a proportional feedback control system, a perfectly sensible alternative is that a market could be just slightly short of "perfectly efficient" with that slight inefficiency being sufficient to provide an error signal large enough to drive the market very close to the "perfectly efficient" mark. Of course, a lot of other elements from feedback theory could also be very applicable, at least in some nonlinear approximation, that would result in instability if the feedback gain were too great and also result in equivalencies, at least roughly, between derivative and integral feedback paths.

 

When someone talks about their vote not mattering, they are pretty much always saying that they think their vote has no affect on the outcome of the election. That is very different from thinking that the outcome of the election has no effect on them.

Perhaps that is what you would mean, but it is not what I mean, nor do I think that is what most people mean. They mean that it makes no difference to them who wins or loses, so there is no point in voting. And for the most part, they are exactly correct. By the time the national and state primary elections take place, there is rarely a decent choice left. The party machines and the lobbyists have separated the wheat from the chaff.

 

That's a false dichotomy that assumes that a market can only be "perfectly efficient" or the opposite.

You are so extreme. How would you define the opposite of "perfectly efficient"?
Perfectly inefficient? Why would someone propose a "perfectly inefficient" market as an optimum? Why are you so extreme?

Anything infinitesimally less than "perfectly efficient" is enough to satisfy the paradox - inefficient enough to not be perfectly efficient yet, by definition, still "inefficient".

If I was wrong about what you assumed the opposite of "perfectly efficient" might be, I need some guidance. Could it be "less-than-perfectly efficient" or "slightly-better-than perfectly inefficient". Any clarification would be helpful.

 

Back to the topic of Brexit -

The announcer from the Iceland - England Soccer game at Euro 2016 tournament in Paris said everything that needed to be said as England had a second major upset in a week. (I trust the translation of his screaming, emotional filled end to a game when Iceland won 2-1 to make the quarter finals). Maybe @Sinus23 can confirm the translation.


=============================================

 

The impact theory is what most scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs. Hard to adapt to a 10km-wide rock. Terrorist using WMD on a national scale would be the equivalent today. Due process and rights would be secondary to survival.

Yup, throw your hands up and say we cannot prepare for it because nothing can be done to survive that 10km rock. Or you can open your eyes and realize that the thousands of species in earth today didn't come from spontaneous generation after the mass extinction, they evolved from species that did survive the impact. Most are way better than dinosaurs - like your kids.

 

Yup, throw your hands up and say we cannot prepare for it because nothing can be done to survive that 10km rock. Or you can open your eyes and realize that the thousands of species in earth today didn't come from spontaneous generation after the mass extinction, they evolved from species that did survive the impact.

Life eventually evolved on the Earth despite at which at one time, it was a ball of molten rock.

So a global disaster like (an asteroid impact) would not be sufficient to exterminate 100% of the existing life and a lot of species would recover. As an example, after the 1991 super-eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano, the crater is now a huge lake with plants and animals living in and around it like nothing happened.

 

You are so extreme. How would you define the opposite of "perfectly efficient"?
Perfectly inefficient? Why would someone propose a "perfectly inefficient" market as an optimum? Why are you so extreme?

Anything infinitesimally less than "perfectly efficient" is enough to satisfy the paradox - inefficient enough to not be perfectly efficient yet, by definition, still "inefficient".

If I was wrong about what you assumed the opposite of "perfectly efficient" might be, I need some guidance. Could it be "less-than-perfectly efficient" or "slightly-better-than perfectly inefficient". Any clarification would be helpful.

Interpret it however you want -- no matter what I say you are going to bitch about it, so there's no point even trying.

 

Voting ... some people follow the polls to vote. Some are swayed by the politicians crafted message. Some vote for, some vote against or choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Some research the issues near and dear to their hearts, some research the issues for the betterment of the country. Some vote for the critter that promises more cash from the government.

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
---Ben Franklin

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

 

Voting ... some people follow the polls to vote. Some are swayed by the politicians crafted message. Some vote for, some vote against or choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Some research the issues near and dear to their hearts, some research the issues for the betterment of the country. Some vote for the critter that promises more cash from the government.

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
---Ben Franklin

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Very much consistent with my main thesis that I developed while I was in high school (and I'm in no way claiming that I was the first to think this way) which is that civilization is a self-defeating concept.

 

Yup, throw your hands up and say we cannot prepare for it because nothing can be done to survive that 10km rock. Or you can open your eyes and realize that the thousands of species in earth today didn't come from spontaneous generation after the mass extinction, they evolved from species that did survive the impact. Most are way better than dinosaurs - like your kids.

Thank you:

Those of us that don't think changing our current contract with government to solve some perceived defect du jour are not dinosaurs waiting for the end. I've seen too many despotic governments come to power and exercise that power with total brutality to even think about giving away rights of any kind. My personal gold standard for bad outcomes in the search of a Utopian makeover was Cambodia. Everyone always says' it can't happen here' until it does.

 

Voting ... some people follow the polls to vote. Some are swayed by the politicians crafted message. Some vote for, some vote against or choosing the lesser of the two evils.

Some research the issues near and dear to their hearts, some research the issues for the betterment of the country. Some vote for the critter that promises more cash from the government.

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
---Ben Franklin

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

The statement

Very much consistent with my main thesis that I developed while I was in high school (and I'm in no way claiming that I was the first to think this way) which is that civilization is a self-defeating concept.

The statement “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville is patently false and does not represent what's going on today.

The truth is that Congress has discovered it can bribe special interests (by accepting "campaign contributions") in return for handing out the public's money. California is a prime example of this corruption where special interests of various types (big business, public and private employee unions, and even foreign governments) shovel millions to the city, state, and local governments in return for some special favor.

However, the general public does NOT benefit from any of these government handouts. In fact, here in San Francisco, the Average Joe middle class citizen is slowly sinking into the low income class.

Special interest politics has been going on from the beginning f the U.S. so why didn't Alexis de Tocqueville mention that? Or was he just a talking horse for the wealthy elite who were behind the corruption?