Pristine20 said:
Isn't that the case with pretty much any govt at any level though? Even in a local district, someone was against whoever got elected there. Where do we draw the line? Pretty much everyone disagrees on something but humans aren't self-sufficient and thus must co-operate and learn to agree to disagree. The Federal one could be solved rather easily by using the popular vote instead of the electoral college but a lot of people would still be disenfranchised. Can we split the country in half? Even then a lot of people would be disenfranchised at some level. Amongst dems for example, there was always the huge divide between Clinton and Obama so even if Democrats were the only party, there still won't be unity...same goes for the republicans. In order words, as long as a group of people live together and have a govt, there will always be different views on the best way to govern...at least we can all take comfort in believeing that we all want the best for our country but some don't even believe that xD It's always convenient to blame opposing views when something goes wrong but we will never progress till we learn to share the blame. |
What I'm saying is not related (necessarily) to political parties as much as it is to political ideologies ...
While one political party may be dominant in many states, rarely is this political divide representative of a much larger ideological divide; effectively, you have some differences on major local issues that define the differences between the parties, but (overall) their beliefs are fairly similar.
When you have an ideological divide, for example mainstream democratic-free market beliefs on one hand and near-communist beliefs on the other hand, it is difficult to have a functioning government for a large portion of your population; because it becomes a winner take all situation.







