# Bridging the great divide (partisan politics) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347 "2016-10-12T18:58:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/21 "2016-10-13T11:33:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > By the way - there is some solid evidence that while the parties are more polarized, [the public in fact is not.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/13/no-americans-have-not-become-more-ideologically-polarized/) My proposal: Make voting mandatory. Currently candidates appeal to the extremes of society because those people, if you “excite” them, come out reliably to vote. Centrists you have to work had to get to show up, so anyone appealing to them is going to have an automatic disadvantage. If candidates knew that centrists were going to show up, hold their noses, and vote for the “least bad” option, it would be worth their effort to appeal to centrists. Energizing your own base, while hoping that the other guy doesn’t energize his as much would not longer be a viable strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/22 "2016-10-13T12:06:02Z")
Don’t have the time to comment in detail yet, but starting with the OP, this thread should have been called “post your worst ideas here.” ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/23 "2016-10-13T13:02:49Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Good luck convincing people to stop caring about their rights. Everyone has the same rights as an individual, guaranteed by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/24 "2016-10-13T13:07:14Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Is there anything that can be done to undo the echo-chamber tendencies of social media like Twitter? Looking forward, it harms everyone, not just Trumpers. I dislike the idea of government intervention but is there a way of changing these search algorithms that are used to force people to face alternative viewpoints? People generally don’t want their opinions challenged, as they would rather stay in the comfort and security of the echo chamber. A colleague of mine, when I tried to share an article with him, once said “What’s it about? I don’t want to read anything I might disagree with.” Perhaps if, in the media, there was more emphasis on balance, and rationally discussing diverse viewpoints, that could help, but it’s probably not as profitable as keeping the masses whipped-up and divided and in their camps. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/25 "2016-10-13T13:17:32Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Everyone has the same rights as an individual, guaranteed by the Constitution. Just as a matter of fact, no they do not. There are classes that protected by the constitution and ones that are not constitutionally protected classes. That’s just for the in theory realm. In terms of real world of course the application of “the same rights” to _protected_ classes is … uneven. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/26 "2016-10-13T13:52:26Z")
That’s not how the Constitution works. There is no such thing as a “protected class” at the constitutional level. There are _suspect classifications_, but those cut both ways equally. It is just as unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against whites or men as it is for them to discriminate against blacks or women. I actually agree with **puddleglum** that there is some merit to devolving more power back to the states. The problem is that states typically use that power to discriminate against their citizens in ways that are unsupportable under the federal Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/27 "2016-10-13T14:00:06Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > My proposal: Make voting mandatory. Yes. Several countries have compulsory voting including Brazil, Belgium, Switzerland and Australia. (If nothing else, it would tend to eliminate voter suppression ploys!) Jury service is a duty; why not voting also? (IIRC, some people avoid registration for voting as a way to avoid jury duty. :smack: ) I don’t think mandatory voting is likely to be implemented, however, in the The Land of the Free™. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/28 "2016-10-13T14:11:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not how the Constitution works. There is no such thing as a “protected class” at the constitutional level. … No, the term actually is “[protected class](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/protected_class).” ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/29 "2016-10-13T14:16:49Z")
I think we should reverse the 17th Amendment among other things and remove some of the mob rule / lowest common denominator factors from national politics. There were several checks (such as the Electoral College) put in place to protect the country from the whims of the majority. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/30 "2016-10-13T15:38:00Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > I dislike the idea of government intervention but is there a way of changing these search algorithms that are used to force people to face alternative viewpoints? This is another frighteningly-authoritarian position. Personally, I rather enjoy the rough-and-tumble back-and-forth of robust debate. I like to hear the other side’s arguments and evaluate their merits for myself (that’s probably the biggest reason I hang out here), but the idea of forcing people into that (particularly the limp-wristed millenial pajama-boys that are currently crying over seeing “Trump 2016” chalked on sidewalks and demanding trigger warnings on content and safe spaces) seems a tad cruel and anti-freedom. If people want to avoid opposing viewpoints, who are we to force it on them through government regulation? I see it as only being one small step from that to [communist-style reeducation camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_camp). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/31 "2016-10-13T15:52:45Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I think we should reverse the 17th Amendment among other things and remove some of the mob rule / lowest common denominator factors from national politics. There were several checks (such as the Electoral College) put in place to protect the country from the whims of the majority. The way state legislatures are being run by Republican majorities in most states makes me think that repealing the 17th amendment would just intensify mob rule. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/32 "2016-10-13T16:03:37Z")
Elections are run by the states. I wonder if a (federal) mandatory voting law would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Where in the constitution is the federal government granted that authority? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/33 "2016-10-13T16:27:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Elections are run by the states. I wonder if a (federal) mandatory voting law would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Where in the constitution is the federal government granted that authority? With a couple more Clinton appointees to the SCOTUS, I have no doubt they’d find it in there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/34 "2016-10-13T16:55:45Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > The only place where people move for political reason is between Vermont and New Hampshire since they’re so close to each other and so small. People don’t move because of politics but the reasons they move reinforce the political divide. For instance in California the costs of doing business is high and the scenery is beautiful. So business owners move out and scenery lovers move in. Business owners tend conservative and scenery lovers tend liberal so the moving makes California more liberal even though no one actually moved because of politics. It would be better if we let people who loved California scenery make California’s laws and let people who loved jobs make the laws of the surrounding states. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/35 "2016-10-13T17:05:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is no “insurmountable gap”. Americans fall on a spectrum of political beliefs, even if that gets exaggerated by a 2-party system. I don’t know where people get this idea that we were all one happy body politic at sometime in the golden past, but it never was that way and it never will be that way. This is what makes democracy so much “fun”. John, I agree with you. The gap only appears insurmountable if you listen to the talking heads or the mass media. But that’s where most people get their ideas to parrot. If the centrist view was an accepted accommodation of both sides of an issue then getting 2/3’s approval is a cakewalk and obviously a well deserved new law (or change) ---
**Author:** ![TwiSpark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TwiSpark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwiSpark)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/36 "2016-10-13T17:08:35Z")
Once upon a time I thought the Internet was doing this. Bringing people together despite all their differences and showing that we’re all just human and enabling us to talk and find common ground. So much for that… Axing social media would be a good start. Get rid of the echo chambers and the necessity to try and fit arguments into 140 characters. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/37 "2016-10-13T17:09:46Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > This is good if you don’t want anything to get passed. This favors conservatives. > > The parties will work together to defeat any effort at electoral reform. Also, one problem with multiple parties is that during coalition building the larger blocs need to pander to smaller, more extreme parties, giving them more power than they might otherwise obtain. > > Both parties believe in an absolute morality. The right isn’t OK with abortions or gay rights or restricting gun rights anywhere. The left isn’t OK with disenfranchising minorities or lax environmental regulations anywhere. > > Good luck convincing people to stop caring about their rights. I am uninterested in who it favors. If something passes then it is clear that it works for both sides. If not, then no go. Or find a way to compromise on the issue ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/38 "2016-10-13T17:10:41Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Both parties believe in an absolute morality. The right isn’t OK with abortions or gay rights or restricting gun rights anywhere. The left isn’t OK with disenfranchising minorities or lax environmental regulations anywhere. The right isn’t okay with abortions anywhere but only have the power to enact bans where they have a majority. There is a reason that the US is one of the few countries in the world where abortion is still a hot button issue. The US is one of the most religious countries in the world and also has some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the developed world. That is not a stable equilibrium. I know of no serious legal scholar who is of the opinion that the constitution bans abortion yet the Supreme Court still pretends that the constitution mandates legal abortions. The gay marriage example is instructive. When gay marriage was recognized by some states opponents organized democratic referendum. When those referendum passed proponents organized lawsuits. There has never been a state where gay marriage recognition was voted for and then overturned by judicial fiat. Currently the vast majority of states had gay marriage recognition imposed on them after voting against it. Gun laws are different because they are explicitly in the constitution when every state joined the country. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/39 "2016-10-13T17:32:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Right now the House can not get 51% to pass a budget! You think needing 67% would make it _more_ likely to pass a budget? One ideology — which IMHO is a very bg part of the problem — is that by default teh government is teh bad bad eevul. In fact, many on the right deliberately hamstring government to make it appear more inefficient than it need be. Is that your plan? > > As for more than 51% being needed for legal appeals, I suppose the next step would be to ban appeals altogether. :smack: > > And here in a nutshell is a BIG part of the problem. The other party wants to “ruin” us, while we are “sensible.” I’m also guilty of this: I read comments like the above and find _it_ to be the ruinous, non-sensible thinking. (Or am I giving **puddleglum** too little credit? Was his a tongue-in-cheek parody to display the problem?) > > I’d agree with this IF by “flocking together” you mean flocking to shared opinions on social media and cable news, and by “far more mobile” you mean the ability to _virtually_ travel thousands of miles with the click of a mouse-button on the Internet. > > But if you mean people “voting with their feet” and leaving a red-state for a blue-state or vice versa, I think you’ve got it backwards. High mobility is reducing geography-based polarization; it’s self-selection of opinion on the Internet which increases polarization. Do I think it more likely that “more” things would get done? No, I don’t. But I think “more” would get done that doesn’t leave 49% of the populace going wtf. I think if something that the people want is popular enough that they can get 66% then that something is deemed worthwhile and gets passed. This FORCES cooperation. And In my mind, it gets rid of the mindset of the absolute right or wrong of an issue. You work together to find common ground. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347/40 "2016-10-13T17:46:16Z")
Do you even understand what is happening on our government for the last eight years? The problem is NOT that 50 percent plus one legislators can enact legislation. The problem is that ONE senator can bring the entire government to a halt if a minority party holds 40 percent plus one of the seats on the Senate. The fact that we essentially have a supermajority requirement CURRENTLY is one of our problems. Enshrining that in the constitution isn’t going to solve any problems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bridging-the-great-divide-partisan-politics/768347.md?page=3)