Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What should be done about polarization?

Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 5:29:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
There's actually a pretty interesting article from WaPo here too about using psychology to overcome polarization.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 5:39:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?

When you have a President hellbent on sitting as far to the left as is humanly possible who will toss out executive orders no matter what Congress says, those on the right will run to the farthest right as is possible by default. We need a new President who allows Congress to make these decisions. He has bypassed them so many times on crucial matters, thus they have become indignent and uncooperative as is human nature and an instinctive defense mechanism.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 5:57:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:39:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?

When you have a President hellbent on sitting as far to the left as is humanly possible who will toss out executive orders no matter what Congress says, those on the right will run to the farthest right as is possible by default. We need a new President who allows Congress to make these decisions. He has bypassed them so many times on crucial matters, thus they have become indignent and uncooperative as is human nature and an instinctive defense mechanism.

The problem with this is that a) Obama's a centrist, maybe center-left at best (kept Guantanamo open, war in Afghanistan, made Bush's tax-cuts permanent, gave the private health sector ENORMOUS power by making people buy private insurance, etc) and b) the polarization has been happening long before Obama.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 7:08:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:57:03 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:39:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?

When you have a President hellbent on sitting as far to the left as is humanly possible who will toss out executive orders no matter what Congress says, those on the right will run to the farthest right as is possible by default. We need a new President who allows Congress to make these decisions. He has bypassed them so many times on crucial matters, thus they have become indignent and uncooperative as is human nature and an instinctive defense mechanism.

The problem with this is that a) Obama's a centrist, maybe center-left at best (kept Guantanamo open, war in Afghanistan, made Bush's tax-cuts permanent, gave the private health sector ENORMOUS power by making people buy private insurance, etc) and b) the polarization has been happening long before Obama.

He attacked nations without being provoked that had been our allies for a 100 years. That'sa good way to get the Republicans to give you the finger for the rest of your Presidency.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 7:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
"Obama: Libya his worst mistake"

http://www.dawn.com...

Plethera of Middle East blunders-

http://www.d-intl.com...

"Obama wrecked U.S. Egyptian ties"

http://nationalinterest.org...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 7:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

This. So much this.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 8:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

I like this idea.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 8:49:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

In individual districts, they may have a majority.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 8:50:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 7:08:42 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:57:03 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:39:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?

When you have a President hellbent on sitting as far to the left as is humanly possible who will toss out executive orders no matter what Congress says, those on the right will run to the farthest right as is possible by default. We need a new President who allows Congress to make these decisions. He has bypassed them so many times on crucial matters, thus they have become indignent and uncooperative as is human nature and an instinctive defense mechanism.

The problem with this is that a) Obama's a centrist, maybe center-left at best (kept Guantanamo open, war in Afghanistan, made Bush's tax-cuts permanent, gave the private health sector ENORMOUS power by making people buy private insurance, etc) and b) the polarization has been happening long before Obama.

He attacked nations without being provoked that had been our allies for a 100 years. That'sa good way to get the Republicans to give you the finger for the rest of your Presidency.

What are you talking about? Republicans have generally been more than happy to go to war. Isolationism is a liberal position.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 8:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

In other words, this is necessary, I agree, but not sufficient. I'd definitely incorporate it with some of the others in the list though.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 9:39:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 8:50:42 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 8/4/2016 7:08:42 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:57:03 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:39:28 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/4/2016 1:28:18 PM, Semiya wrote:
Rigged.

That's a word we've all heard frequently this election cycle - and from both sides of the aisle. And while I'm positive there were some cases of scale-tipping, the truth of the matter is, as most people will agree, is that our political process is not rigged.

Insiders "rigging" the electoral process is, in a nutshell, an entirely too simplistic explanation for what's wrong with our political process. If it were that easy, all we'd need are a few impeachments and some arrests and bam, the system is fixed.

It's not that easy.

It should surprise exactly no one when I say that partisanship in America has reached unprecedented - and I would say unsustainable - levels.
http://www.pewresearch.org...

Today, I'm not looking at why this happened. I'm looking at what we can do about it.

It's more useful to look at Congress here than at the presidency. The 112th and 113th sessions of Congress have been the least productive in history. Why? Partisanship. We have fewer Americans voting split-ticket than ever before. We have fewer competitive districts than ever before. We even have fewer primary voters than ever before, which in turn means that our elections are determined by the politically motivated and radical fringe groups (primaries, after all, garner less attention, and so they attract the more ideologically driven voters).

In other words, a tiny fraction of voters - the most hardened partisans - are determining 90+% of Congress. That is why it's been nearly impossible for people to find compromise or get anything meaningful done.

This has also led to increased frustrations with Congress and the entire political process. But the problem here isn't the politicians. It's the voters. I know this may be difficult to believe, but most politicians are actually decent human beings who try their hardest to represent the interests of their constituents. Most don't run to please interest groups or to receive glory or honor or wealth. They come in promising all these changes and then get trapped in the same cycle as everyone else.

So what can we do about it?

The first thing is to take gerrymandering out of the hands of the states. Form an independent commission (ideally consisting of only independents, but an equal number of members from both parties and maybe even a few third party representatives would be more realistic) and have that be in charge of districting.

The second thing to do is to generate more national news coverage of primary races. Local news readership is insufficient, largely because of how steeply it has been declining. This leads many people to be completely unaware of what's happening right next to them (the people who don't care are another issue).

The third thing is to restore the filibuster to its roots. It should not be used as a regular weapon for obstruction. We should return to allowing only one filibuster per bill, and allowing the minority party to take the floor and hold it via debate. There should also be a guaranteed up/down vote on executive and judicial nominations done with a time limit on holds.

This grants more power to the majority, so we should also allow the minority party to propose a reasonable number of (relevant) amendments on bills.

Lastly, rather than making voting compulsory, we should incentivize it, at least, in the primary/"lesser" elections. Perhaps everyone who votes could receive a lottery ticket or something - a chance to be entered in a raffle for a pot of $1 million or so. (I imagine both parties would be fine with compiling such a pot, since more voting could benefit both).

(I'd also strongly support proportional representation).

What about term limits? Well, there are some major issues there. Since the 90s, term limits have been implemented in 21 states (later overturned in six), and they have always resulted in lawmakers planning ways to reach the next level or find a cushy lobbying job once they expire. They have no incentive to work for the long-term or maintain their institutions. This also results in a shortage of expertise in Congress.

Those are my thoughts. But what about you? Do you think political polarization is a problem? What do you think we can do to combat it?

When you have a President hellbent on sitting as far to the left as is humanly possible who will toss out executive orders no matter what Congress says, those on the right will run to the farthest right as is possible by default. We need a new President who allows Congress to make these decisions. He has bypassed them so many times on crucial matters, thus they have become indignent and uncooperative as is human nature and an instinctive defense mechanism.

The problem with this is that a) Obama's a centrist, maybe center-left at best (kept Guantanamo open, war in Afghanistan, made Bush's tax-cuts permanent, gave the private health sector ENORMOUS power by making people buy private insurance, etc) and b) the polarization has been happening long before Obama.

He attacked nations without being provoked that had been our allies for a 100 years. That'sa good way to get the Republicans to give you the finger for the rest of your Presidency.

What are you talking about? Republicans have generally been more than happy to go to war. Isolationism is a liberal position.

But not an Obama position because he's neither a liberal nor a conservative because he was raised in another country in another culture. He's an anticolonialist. This is why he cannot unite Congress or the American people who were fully united after 9/11 with seemingly little problem.

Republicans are pro war towards their enemies when provoked. Obama attacked our allies.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 9:43:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
We need a more moderate type President like Trump to unite the people. He's pro vets, pro police, pro immigration limits, pro evangelicals thus satisfying Republicans.

He is pro LGBT rights, bounces around on abortion, and wants to create jobs for immigrants satisfying Democrats.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 2:07:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 7:15:01 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

This. So much this.

Do you think that's sufficient?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 4:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 2:07:53 PM, Semiya wrote:
At 8/4/2016 7:15:01 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/4/2016 5:40:40 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
Ranked choice voting. That way, polarizing candidates that may have the most support, but not a majority, don't win the elections. Instead, the candidate with the highest rank out of all the total votes is elected. This forces campaigns to be less negative.

This. So much this.

Do you think that's sufficient?

I think it's sufficient for some significant short-term change, and would likely have the greatest impact. But a long-term fix requires more, including a general attitude change among the populace. I don't know how to effect that change.