How do you try to weave a social fabric with that?
(I'm not arguing that you should choose not to think about it -- only that it's certainly possible to do so.)
> How do you try to weave a social fabric with that?
How do you do it without it? The only solution given your rules is "if everyone just thought exactly like me and had exactly my values, then everything would be fine", which is a very childish view.
Why is it a detrimental 'rule' to exclude those that would punish someones nature capriciously with legislation and policy? Feels like the right path given the intolerance paradox.
That's the real problem we are facing. Too many people believing they represent the "morally correct" side due to the impact of social networks.
If you eliminate terms like "medicare for all" or "socialized medicine" and just ask people if they believe someone's access to care should be limited based on their financial situation, most people would say no. We often agree on the crux of the issue, but disagree on the mechanics of how to get there. But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral.
I agree broadly. The two-party system is emergent phenomena due to our first-past-the-post voting system wherein whichever candidate for nearly any given election receives 50% of votes cast +1 additional vote wins the election, as opposed to a system which apportions seats in a cabinet proportionally according to the percentage of votes cast for a particular party out of total votes cast. It is my belief based on cursory study that this method of voting in USA was known to have this failure mode, but alternative methods of counting votes would be difficult to calculate as well as win support of the early colonies which ultimately became party to the Union.
The two-party system benefits both parties equally, to our collective detriment, as it has the knock-on effect of causing both parties to become increasingly pandering to their extremes, while representing poorly those at the extremes as well as their mean.
Ranked choice or other alternative apportionment schemes would allow voters to vote their conscience and would ultimately lead to better outcomes, as well as allowing third parties to have a reasonable likelihood of actually being elected. This would also force the extant parties to actually form coalitions based on issues and points of agreement, as well as enhance cooperation among the parties across the aisle, as opposed to down-the-line votes which lead to obstructionism and filibusters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
> But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral.
The blessed/cursed wedge issue. As they say in politics, never let a good crisis go to waste. Wedge issues are the ultimate Gordian knot of political hot potatoes, as they aren't meant to ever be solved in a two party system, as then they would be rendered ineffective as wedge issues, as the issue would be settled law, and could no longer be used to dodge or deflect. Much of current culture war disagreements fall under wedge issues broadly, but this is not a new development in politicking or jurisprudence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue
When you look at these issues as part of a larger whole, the two party system benefits immensely from the first-past-the-post system; similarly, wedge issues are designed to force voters and elected officials to pick a side on nuanced issues that may not have only two possible legislative outcomes desired by the public.
From the point of view of the two dominant parties, it's literally notabug/wontfix.
It seems like making others aware of how much the two party system is harming societal progress is important, so we can start making decisions to inch us closer to where we want to be, rather than continuing to fall victim to the status quo.
> Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation.
https://fairvote.org/archives/the_electoral_college-maine_ne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
No it can't.
It can be equally applied when it comes perhaps to things where there is a choice, gun ownership, abortion, and such.
But show me one area where the Democrats want to make someone "lesser" or "diminished" for who they are - the things they cannot change. Gender. Sexual orientation.
What about race? Harvard was making Asian applicants lesser based on their race and most Democrats seemed to support them in this.
Incidents like this seem pretty antisemitic: https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/school-of-art-institute-o...
> Two days after Shiran informed the attorneys of her decision, however, professor Sandie Yi — one of the faculty members Shiran complained about to the school and who is also named as a defendant in the suit — altered her course’s final assignment in ways that “uniquely targeted Shiran,” the suit claimed.