has there been a lot of experience doing these kinds of simulations? Have there been competing groups conducting such studies?
It might be interesting, even informative. I would not be inclined to make policy decisions solely based on the results of such studies.
There are ways to study dynamic systems which have been used to model and predict outcomes, yes. For example we could model (like a game) the voting and decision systems to predict what kind of negotiations would happen if instead of Congress we switched to a parliamentary system. We could do repeated simulations that would establish the fairness or unfairness of particular setups. We could then know how the system would respond if, say, 23% of voters were disenfranchised or the impact of letting prison inmates vote.
We could do the same with studying term limits, and it would not even be very expensive. What is the impact of an eight year term limit for supreme court judges, and what is the risk that it could enable an overthrow of the government? This is a mathematical question that can be mostly answered by a well done study. Its not an unreasonable request.
Computing is a luxury the framers did not have. We have computing, and it ought to be used.
Words like 'guarantee' are frankly delusional in relation to constitutional change.
I can guarantee the existing version isn't perfect, and I can guarantee the new version also won't be. I'm not sure that helps.
Computer simulations are as good as the assumptions and information available to be fed into them, and generally are pretty bad initially, then refined over time. Whereas a constitutional change is a bespoke process with unique impact.
I hear what you're saying. You aren't completely wrong.
Here in USA we cannot get any changes made because of our strong conservative impulse (such as my own about this major change). We're certainly never getting term limits for supreme court judges in the current political climatel. I'm talking about a way to get something done. We do a simulation to prove any new term limits are fair and will not destabilize the government. It just needs to be a study in game theory showing that it won't end in tragedy. That could go a long, long way towards assuring me that it was a good idea to make a change.
But I assume you can tell what people in the thread actually are doing. They are upset that the system worked the way it was supposed to. They don't like the supreme court that has resulted, and so they want to claim the system isn't working. Because they don't like the decisions it is making, but it hasn't overthrown the government. It made decisions against Trump. Its not broken. Its just not tasty right now.