This is an unoriginal thought. Reference https://www.datacoalition.org/version-control-for-law-tracking-changes-in-the-u-s-congress/
Our governance should be version-controlled where every citizen has a direct fork of the [nation]'s original repository. Anything considered unconstitutional would be a literal "breaking change" between MAJOR versions, MINOR version changes would be variable among the sub-federal/local level, and PATCH version changes would be variable AND common among individuals. Reference semantic versioning.
So a process like voting would look less like selecting a representative and more like personally articulating the changes seen fit that a citizen intends to live by. If enough individuals intend to live by similarly articulated principles across many forked versions, the original repository would have to merge these principles into itself thus updating the living documentation of our governance.
An obvious flaw in this system would be due to the flaws of democracy, as it were, in the form of mob rule. But due to the nature of version control, similar to that of maintaining software complexities, only those willing to make meaningful change would do so and each fork PATCH would have to prove itself compatible with the original.
If our governance is to be a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", we could actually do it and foster the practice of elected political representation to remain functionally deprecated.
Democracy is legitimate but fails as it scales.
Representation is legitimate but fails as it requires election cycles.
We can eliminate both issues.
If we need proof-of-concept that this form could work, look no further than organizational goals such as the Open Source Initiative and tooling such as Git with distributed infrastructure such as GitHub.
Please consider my other thoughts.