We all know how Americans revere the constitution, so I was struck by the news that tiny, little Iceland is actually junking its own constitution and starting anew using an unusual - some would say innovative - mechanism.

The nation decided it needed a new constitution and it's soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This social media method has worked. Ideas have been flowing in. Many have asked for guaranteed, good health care. Others want campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal. And some just want the country to make shark finning illegal.

There is a Constitutional Council. It incorporates some of these ideas, rejects others, but everything is done in plain sight on the web. As one member of the Constitutional Council said, the document is basically being drafted on the Internet.

Now, why do they need a new constitution anyway? Well, after Iceland was crippled in recent years by the economic crisis, they all wanted a fresh start. And, anyway, they felt the document was old and outdated, drafted all the way back in 1944.

Now, you might be tempted to say that Iceland doesn't have any reasons to be proud of its political traditions in the manner that the United States does. Well, think again.

Iceland is home to the world's oldest parliament still in existence, the Althing, set up in 930 A.D. The rocky ledge on which they gathered represents the beginnings of representative government in the world. So Iceland has reasons to cherish its history, and yet it was willing to revise it.

By contrast, any talk of revising or revisiting the American constitution is, of course, seen as heresy. The United States constitution was, as you know, drafted in a cramped room in Philadelphia in 1787 with shades drawn over the windows. It was signed by 39 people.

America at the time consisted of 13 states. Congress had 26 senators and 65 representatives. The entire population was about one percent of today's number - four million people.

America was an agricultural society, with no industry - not even cotton gins. The flush toilet had just been invented.

These were the circumstances under which this document was written.

And let me be very clear here, the U.S. constitution is an extraordinary work, one of the greatest expressions of liberty and law in human history.

One amazing testament to it is the mere fact that it has survived as the law of the land for 222 years.

But our constitution has been revised 27 times. Some of these revisions have been enormous and important, such as the abolition of slavery. Then there are areas that have evolved. For example, the power of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is barely mentioned in the document. This grew as a fact over history.

But there are surely some issues that still need to be debated and fixed.

The electoral college, for example, is highly undemocratic, allowing for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent.

The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.

And we are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.

So we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the constitution for the 21st Century.

Such a plan is not unheard of in American history.

After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates saw a disconnect between the document that currently governed them and the needs of the nation, so their solution was to start anew.

I'm just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.

Anyway, what do you think? Should we do this? And if we were to revise the U.S. Constitution, what would be the three amendments you would put in?

Fareed Zakaria wrote:

In 1787, shortly after the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman interested in the proceedings approached Benjamin Franklin.

"Well, doctor," she asked, "what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

The venerable champion of American liberty replied, "A republic, madame, if you can keep it."

His argument that the Senate is undemocratic because states of varying population have the same representation is idiotic. The House of Representatives balances this. Besides, the United States is not purely a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic.

Originally Posted by: rabidgopher04 

The structure of the Senate is even more undemocratic, with Wisconsin's six million inhabitants getting the same representation in the Senate as California's 36 million people. That's not exactly one man, one vote.

Stopped reading there and after he spoke about Democracy for the 40th time. We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The entire purpose of the senate is to protect the rights of smaller states, and is countered by the house and the presidency (elected by more or less popular vote). As a resident of a smaller state, would it be fair to you or in the best interest of the country if the largest 20 states population-wise got together and decided to draft a law that would completely shaft the other 30 states? Sure, it'd be democratic, but the founders knew well what it was like to be opressed (ib4 NSD) and were wary of the dangers of a tyrannical majority.

Put quite simply, government doesn't work well on a massive scale, but different forms of government work better on larger scales than others. A pure democracy never would have lasted this long, the country would have fragmented, plain and simple. Communism and pure democracies simply don't work well/fairly on a large scale. This article is utter trash, exactly what I'd expect from CNN (and fox, msnbc, abc, cbs...)

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Four presidents took office without winning the popular vote. In other words, they did not receive a plurality in terms of the popular vote. They were elected, instead, by the electoral college or in the case of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives after a tie in the electoral votes. They were:

John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

The entire purpose of the senate is to protect the rights of smaller states, and is countered by the house and the presidency (elected by more or less popular vote).

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Put quite simply, government doesn't work well on a massive scale, but different forms of government work better on larger scales than others.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

A pure democracy never would have lasted this long, the country would have fragmented, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by: Porforis