Ancient Athens was version 1.0. We're on something like 2.0.5, based on new scalability work and with some minor tweaks made over the last couple centuries.

Athens was the alpha testing.

I can't disagree with this more.

The basis for the USA (ie the Constitution) has changed little in 200 years but the government has radically changed.

Look at the Supreme Court decision in the 20s that decided that constitutional limitations on the federal government also applied to the states and local government. Around that time an idea took hold among many that the constitution was a "living document", meaning that it's meaning changed with the times and it was OK to decide what the founders intended but never said.

Basically the constitution means whatever you want it to mean.

So the issue isn't that the US was an early iteration of democracy, it's that the judicial branch is out of control and the legislature has bought into the idea that's its ideas extend to things the constitution says nothing about (eg the federal Department of Education).

Excellent point. What I have never understood is that while the US constitution is relatively robust and, for the better part, has withstood the test of time, it is a document written to reflect the late 18th century, yet for some reason 21st century America seems to believe that it is a near immutable document and set of ideas. There is a need for a "refresh", or at least people should be willing to consider what aspects of the constitution have not aged as well as others.

Well, part of the cleverness built into the constitution is a meta-rule describing the process for changing the constitution. Every system accumulates cruft, but if we have a mechanism to apply patches, then we can (in theory) accomplish some refactoring without an upheaval.

The only issue is that modern politics in America is a lot more like trench warfare, with lines drawn and and fixed. Opinions on every issue fall along party lines, with a few exceptions.

I hope dearly that Lawrence Lessig succeeds in actually calling a constitutional convention (http://www.callaconvention.org), if for no other reason than to strike out your "in theory" qualifier.

While true, the problem is that our constitution also defines our civil rights and liberties. If you open the door to reexamining the Constitution, you open the door to butchering the Bill of Rights.

Given how dysfunctional our political system is, I'll take an outdated and flawed constitution before letting the clowns in power now try and write a better one. Sure, maybe it's not vitally important that the Constitution outlaw the government quartering troops in our houses, but I would not like to see the people behind the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, "extraordinary rendition", and internet wiretapping get a shot at "revising" the fourth and fifth amendments.

Most of it is very, very good. But how we chose who represents us and the lack of approval we have of their actions are the big flaws. If we make a few changes, I think the ship can be put back on track.

As far as what century it applies to, the problems of government are pretty timeless. When one class of people is free to exploit another, the results are the same no matter what century is it.

And we've had over two centuries of feature creep, while only rarely going back and formally updating the design docs.

Should we point out that the United States isn't a democracy at all?

Please go on.