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.
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.
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.
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™.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.