Yes. The system is corrupt, vicious, indefensible. But numerous historical examples suggest that if you just "burn it down", the replacement would likely bring an order of magnitude more barbarism, destitution, arbitrary violence, the vilest sorts of scapegoating and demonization, and expulsion or massacres of groups foolish and desperate enough to have taken the revolutionaries' initial promises at face value.

I can see the software development analogies all over the place here.

The founders basically knew they were delivering a MVP with some expectation it won't be perfect. Hence the large number of early Constitutional amendments. Jefferson was famously keen on having the whole thing tossed out every 25 years. In a way, he anticipated the gradual loss of product-market fit long before it was a term.

At some point, the US government became the entrenched legacy system. We can look at other countries and see they have modern shiny features like ranked-choice voting and being able to respond to crises in an integrated manner, but everyone is too afraid to break the existing system.

I wonder if we could apply what we know from engineering and software development lifecycles to political process. I could imagine reorganizing the US as an EU style relationship of three or four sub-nations, who have a permanent movement/trade/currency/foreign policy union, but can each run on different constitutions and nuts-and-bolts government structures. Instead of the protective mechanism of making constitutional change expensive and difficult, we can use the sub-nations as test branches, making changes liberally, with the understanding that the successful changes will be propagated to the rest of the country.

Yeah, a lot of political "discussions" seem like angry semi-informed venting or just lashing out into the void. It reminds me of a software engineer who says "I HATE GIT IT RUINED MY LIFE" without ever suggesting an alternative.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of classism, but in my experience whenever I ask people what concrete changes they would support (in the old system or the new), they are at a loss. This is disappointing to me because it seems pretty trivial to come up with dozens of great changes (e.g. judges being blind to the class of the person they are sentencing, or perhaps juries, etc...). Then most interestingly of all, the people who seemed so angry about these problems seem deflated/annoyed by the suggestion of solutions rather than energized and aligned.