Would this depolarize Washington

[OSR stands with Israel]

Where Senators and Congressman , no matter which party they are in are closer to the views of people of their state then the national party on non economic issues.


An example for that is pretend a state is +6 on an ideological spectrum(for non economic views) is from -10(Most liberal) - +10 (most conservative) , then the Republican candidate and platform in the state is ideologically a + 8 while the Democrats are ideologically a + 4.

 Same is true visa versa if a state is - 6 then Dems would be -8 in that state and the gop would be -4.


If you do that I believe the country will become depolarized .

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lmbo

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

jao

[Technocracy Timmy]

LMAOROTFBTCSTCNDBFOOTWIFOAGWLLBGWTHROOTSAIAKBAYB

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Polarization has much to do with things other than issues, and also much to do with national splits on the issues. Having both parties stand for similar things in a given state isn't going to fix these things.

[NeverAgain]

let the states decide.

[OSR stands with Israel]

let the states decide.

exactly what this would do.

[NeverAgain]

let the states decide.

exactly what this would do.

deeply disturbing.

[Person Man]

This was how it was once. It was when segragation was around.

[pbrower2a]

No. America is polarized into three factions: Scandinavian-style social democrats, people who fantasize a return to the Gilded Age, and Southern agrarians. The Southern agrarians and those who would return to the Gilded Age are much in political lockstep in their desire for an authoritarian,, elitist social order in which the inequality of a time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the  South and the sweatshop economics of the 1920s return.

Except on technology, America is polarized heavily between people whose minds are in the 21st century and people whose minds are in the latter part of the 19th at the latest, and possibly earlier. Welcome to Spain in the 1930s, except that the Right-wingers have advanced a century ago. That's about where America is except for the technology. I can imagine a Francisco Franco melding high technology with a medieval ethos and fundamentalist Protestantism (of course Franco was a medieval Catholic) and calling that the ideal expression of modernity. 

[GlobeSoc]

There's being a good fit for a state and there's not having a meaningful choice. This would be closer to the latter.

[Devout Centrist]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

[DavidB.]

kek

[SWE]

?

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

Why , this only applies to non economic issues .

[Devout Centrist]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

Why , this only applies to non economic issues .

It doesn't really do anything besides rearrange Congressional membership and make it harder for the majority party to vote on legislation. Depolarization requires some kind of consensus and much more compromise. Gutting Congressional procedures form the 1990's onward played a much larger role in our current polarization.

By the 2020's, we'll probably see a new consensus arise, whatever that may be.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

Why , this only applies to non economic issues .

It doesn't really do anything besides rearrange Congressional membership and make it harder for the majority party to vote on legislation. Depolarization requires some kind of consensus and much more compromise. Gutting Congressional procedures form the 1990's onward played a much larger role in our current polarization.

By the 2020's, we'll probably see a new consensus arise, whatever that may be.

What this does is wipes out the discussion of social issues at the national level and keeps it at state level . The parties are still united on tax policy ,  regulatory policy  , and spending policy .

[Devout Centrist]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

Why , this only applies to non economic issues .

It doesn't really do anything besides rearrange Congressional membership and make it harder for the majority party to vote on legislation. Depolarization requires some kind of consensus and much more compromise. Gutting Congressional procedures form the 1990's onward played a much larger role in our current polarization.

By the 2020's, we'll probably see a new consensus arise, whatever that may be.

What this does is wipes out the discussion of social issues at the national level and keeps it at state level . The parties are still united on tax policy ,  regulatory policy  , and spending policy .

It won't do that, though. You could issue a gag rule on any and all social issues, and proxy battles will emerge at the state level.

Look, polarization isn't fun, but it's a necessary transition point from one consensus to the next.

[Person Man]

This is a hilariously bad idea.

Why , this only applies to non economic issues .

It doesn't really do anything besides rearrange Congressional membership and make it harder for the majority party to vote on legislation. Depolarization requires some kind of consensus and much more compromise. Gutting Congressional procedures form the 1990's onward played a much larger role in our current polarization.

By the 2020's, we'll probably see a new consensus arise, whatever that may be.

What this does is wipes out the discussion of social issues at the national level and keeps it at state level . The parties are still united on tax policy ,  regulatory policy  , and spending policy .

It won't do that, though. You could issue a gag rule on any and all social issues, and proxy battles will emerge at the state level.

Look, polarization isn't fun, but it's a necessary transition point from one consensus to the next.

That's dark when you think about it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would need to see graphs and maps to properly consider this.

[Santander]

I wish you were trolling, but I know you aren't.

[publicunofficial]

What's the difference between a D+6 Democrat and a D+8 Democrat?

[Santander]

What's the difference between a D+6 Democrat and a D+8 Democrat?

2% in the marginal tax rate for income between 150,000 and 300,000.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

>computer89

[RaphaelDLG]

No, it wouldn't at all, because under your system, we'd still be a country of, regardless of party labels, -8s and -9s and +8s and +9s, and thus still intensely polarized.

The only thing that would depolarize Washington would be multi-member districts. 

We've sorted ourselves into either very liberal or very conservative geographic areas, and the only thing that will stop districts from being noncompetitive in the general (and their therefore their congressmen from being very ideologically polarized) would be MMDs, maybe to some extent new anti-gerrymandering laws.