How do we heal the political divisions in America?

Oh yes...how could I forget about getting rid of Gerrymandering?
I would say that setting up a Ranked system would have a larger impact on polarization.
But still, getting rid of gerrymandering ought to be something that we should be able to do almost effortlessly.
And if we did, would pretty much guarantee an increased number of more competitive house races.
All of these incumbent politicians in tailor-made self-serving gerrymandered 'safe' districts are indeed contributing to the polarization issue.

-Meta

 

Very well said!

 

To understand how a ranked system will help to depolarize the country, we first need to understand what it is that really causes that polarization in the first place. Is it intractable disagreement? Certainly that cannot be the only thing, as in the past, our country has repeatedly been able to find a middle-ground in such cases, no reason we should not be able to do the same today. Perhaps then, we have simply forgotten how to find that middle-ground. If so, the question is why...

Thing is, it appears to me that a lot of people seem to have been fooled into thinking that for any given problem or on any given issue, that there are, at most, only two possible options for how to deal with it. That there is no middle-ground at all between the extremes in other words.

Take something like abortion for example, specifically the question of at what point life begins...it may be a special case (for a number of reasons), but it highlights what I mean fairly well. You have people in that particular debate that honestly believe the only two positions one can take on the issue are either a) life begins at conception or b) life begins at birth, and formulate their arguments from that basis. But it only takes one a few moments of really thinking about the question to realize that the a-b dichotomy is far from truth...that there are in fact an entire range of other options in between those two extremes.

Other seemingly binary issues are much the same, yet people far too often seem for whatever reason unwilling to attempt to discover or acknowledge the existence of that middle-ground, let-alone try to move towards it. Could it be simple intellectual laziness? Yes, perhaps that plays a part. Or perhaps it is that even if such a middle-ground range of options were to be known, people are yet unaware of how to find a consensus position from among that range within a group of individuals who's own views may lie at any given point on the spectrum...for one cannot always simply choose the center-point between the extremes and call that a fair compromise, so why even bother. But...what I believe to be the key contributing factor to binary thinking in our society is none other than our current FPTP Plurality election system, as it not only encourages such a way of thinking...it downright mandates it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like the abortion debate or any other issue, in truth there are a wide range of policy positions in between what is typically offered by the two 'main parties'. But it is certainly not a mere case of intellectual laziness which causes that particular middle-ground to be ignored, as each and every one of us are essentially forced by our flawed election system to choose between picking one of the two extremes as pre-chosen through a usually very polarized primary process, or take the high risk of not having our vote influence the election by going with something other than a 'main party' candidate.

Just consider for a moment, the thought processes of a voter as they walk into that voting booth on election day. Suppose that we have two extreme 'main party' candidates running in this election from either side of the political spectrum, and that we have a third moderate candidate that is squarely in the middle of the other two and running as an independent or as part of a third party. Now let's suppose that our voter is pretty centrist themselves, but leans slightly one way or the other and also has at least a cursory understanding of the track record of independents and third parties in major elections. Who do they choose to vote for?

They may in fact really like the moderate candidate and even prefer them...heck...a majority of the voters may prefer the moderate! But...each of those voters is going to be thinking to themselves in that booth, and rightfully so, that if they cast their individual vote for that moderate candidate, that what they are really doing is wasting their vote and simply increasing the chances that their least preferred extremist candidate wins instead...

...and so, they go with the extremist candidate for whichever way they lean in the belief that that candidate is more likely to win than the moderate of whom they prefer. Some may argue that that justification for picking a candidate you don't really like is part of the problem, but it is a perfectly rational way to handle things the way I see it, given the circumstances. The real problem imo is a system which forces voters to have to make such a choice in the first place.

Spoiler: Continued

Either way, tons of voters who prefer the moderate will end up voting for one of the extremists. And of those voters who actually prefer one of the extremists...well, obviously they're going to vote for one of the extremists too because....why wouldn't they...And as such we end up electing extremists....time...and...time...and time again, only for things to become gradually more extreme each election cycle, as those elected extremists influence the voters into becoming more extreme themselves,...luring them into the illusion that such extremism is normal, that it is accepted, even expected if one wants to win, as people often tend to emulate what they see in their leaders. Elect extremists, the people see it, and they become more extreme, and in turn elect even more extreme leaders. And so extremists from the two increasingly polarized sides take turns winning elections, switching places every now and then, each using their power to scare the other side of the political divide further into supporting ever-more extreme candidates in an effort to 'reverse' the perceived damage done by the last extremist of the opposing side...

...and this endless cycle, all of it turning a false dichotomy into one of real devastating consequence...

This in turn unfortunately only acts to foster a general attitude of division...
a mindset of...you're either with us, or ag'in' us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to recap...for polarizing binary thinking we have here three possible contributing factors:

1) intellectual laziness/not attempting to discover the middle-ground
2) lack of an understanding for how to find a consensus from among a group
3) an election system which encourages binary thinking by forcing binary choices​

So why do I focus so much on number 3? Simple....1 and 2 are certainly problems, but they are problems which are inherent in individuals. We can of course each do our part to educate our fellow citizens, and try that way to get them to change their behavior, but in the end, hard as it may sometimes be to change a system...still, it is much easier to change systems than it is to change people.

And I do believe if we were to change the system as I've suggested,...to replace Plurality voting with a Ranked system,...that the people would in fact change for the better over time.

The first way that a Ranked system would do this, would be by simply giving/showing voters their full range of options rather than artificially limiting their choices to two. If a voter understands that there are more than two options, for a particular election or in general, then they are much more likely to be able to comprehend a middle-ground.

Second, a ranked system will lead to more moderate results, and if you read the rest of my post, you'll remember that people tend to emulate the traits they see in their leaders, so overtime one expects that the population would moderate as well. It would though be a slow process; the polarization which the current strain of politicians have rubbed off onto the general populous took time to get there, and it will take time for it to be removed. But.......

.....while it will take time for the people at large to become less polarized, the politicians themselves and government by extension would change almost immediately. Following a switch to a ranked system, politicians would in short order become much more moderate as they found themselves forced to compete with suddenly viable third parties and independents running in-between the two current parties as moderate alternatives, and the dysfunction we see today would without a doubt become a thing of the past overnight. Even if we find ourselves impatiently waiting for our neighbors to become less polarized and discontinue their binary thinking, the immediate change to the politicians ought to be reason enough on its own for the switch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such is the nature of a change to the system. It is certainly the case that one need not always understand the middle-ground or consensus in order to contribute to a system which results in its finding. And while it may take a united effort to actually see such a Ranked system put in place, simply proving that a middle-ground can be found and a consensus position fairly chossen is a simple enough task which I can handle practically by myself. Its tougher than your standard political argument sure, but it isn't so Herculean of a task as to be un-doable. Consider the list at the bottom of this post:
Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread

Through those various ranked votes, what I have essentially done is found the consensus position of political forum posters (or at least that of those who participated) on those varying topics. For instance, the consensus view of political forum is that Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, carrots, potatoes, and green peas are the best vegetables, Androids/Google Phones are the best smart phones, and dogs are the best pets followed closely by cats. Because none of those votes were on particularly polarizing subjects, one cannot easily use them to tell the difference between a ranked system and plurality (save for possibly the vegetable vote). Their purpose was mainly just to familiarize members with the process. However, a vote is now currently ongoing which aims to identify the political forum consensus view on what the number 1 political issue is in the U.S. This marks the first point at which positions regarding these votes will likely start to become a lot more polarized.
What are the Nation's Top Issues Most Needing to be Addressed (US)

And yet...there is no reason to believe that in this vote, or in any that are to follow, that a similar consensus position can not be found. The Plurality method will have trouble, but the ranked methods will be able to find the option which lies among the middle-ground. Coincidentally, I set those discussion threads up in addition to the Ranked votes, specifically for the purpose of identifying the full spectrum of the issues (to include the middle-ground) prior to votes on those subjects. Each one already has a substantial list of options recorded in them, which I would say firmly dispels any inkling of the nonexistence of a middle-ground in those areas.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I say again, that this is not so tough of a task...To simply prove the existence of a middle-ground and then our ability to compromise through the finding of consensus within it.

However....what I personally do have trouble with, is summarizing these views in a way that still makes sense, or at least summarizing them without accompanying that summary with a less than brief record of the full thought. In my last couple of posts, I actually included links which already contained explanations for why Ranked voting would reduce partisanship, but assume now that you two, as well as others, have been frightened away from reading them by their length.

The funny thing is though, that this post here has now become even longer than those explanations, even though I originally intended it to be only a few paragraphs. Sometimes I suppose that I just can't help myself from being thorough. So.... @Belch, @Kode,...since you both were interested, let me ask you this....now that you've read my post to the end,...do you understand all the things I talked about in it?...And if so, how would you attempt to summarize it to someone else in such a way that still got the main points across??

-Meta