[humanrebar]

> And rather than showing the messages that divided each of the four groups, Pol.is simply made them invisible.

This seems like a good way to find some initiatives through consensus. The main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically.

I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my legislature does nothing". It might actually be an interesting mechanism for legislatures themselves to deploy internally to set agendas, though it would necessarily weaken the power of the factions that actually set legislative agendas (the majority party, the majority leader, etc.).

On the other hand, giving a strong and hidden minority veto also doesn't seem to help with the issues that actually divide citizens.

- Would not talking about Brexit anymore actually help the U.K.?

- Should the U.S. Congress not pass a budget anymore, to avoid balancing it?

- Maybe all legislatures agree to broadly humane treatment for refugees, but how would they agree on healthy levels and categories of immigration?

- The biggest divisive issue in the U.S might actually be abortion, which generally isn't debated so much as such. It's also clear that not addressing the issue isn't making the underlying problems go away.

- More broadly, would the U.S. have ever done anything significant about civil rights if consensus was required first?

EDIT: Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic about civil rights... the constitutional amendment process does require two kinds of consensus for ratification. And many amendments did deal with civil rights.

[Retric]

Politics is complex and deadlock preserves the current situation which some group considers preferable to change.

Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections.

Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus rather than a ban one party pushing for more restrictions. This is not a failure to achieve a ban, but rather a middle ground with significant popular support.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[rayiner]

Abortion is also a very interesting example of tactical voting: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-.... Just 28% of people support making abortion in the second trimester generally legal, but every state allows second trimester abortions. (Recent laws have not yet taken effect.)

So legal with restrictions is a middle ground, but there is a ton of debate and tactical voting within that middle ground.

[humanrebar]

My points were more that:

- Sometimes the controversy is about the process, such as historical efforts for suffrage for women.

- Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most unbalanced budgets fall in this category.

- Sometimes 10% people preserve benefits for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Especially concerning about automatically hiding debates without consensus is that it hides things that are important or urgent but haven't reached consensus (yet).

Maybe there are other mechanisms to provide transparency there, but the article did not seem to describe any.

[Retric]

> Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most unbalanced budgets fall in this category.

In isolation you can find many examples of this. But, political alliances mean that group may be trading financial support for support of another issue. Farm subsidies and net neutrality could be traded with people voting for both even if they only care for one or the other.

It smells like corruption, but political horse trading does represent people caring more or less about different issues.

Consider three friends going out, one cares a lot about the movie they watch, another cares about what they eat for dinner, and the third really wants to go out to a specific club afterwards. If everyone votes on each activity separately then people may be less happy than a compromise.

[arethuza]

A lot of political compromise always seems to me of the form: we have a cake to share, I want the whole cake and you, being reasonable, want the 'fair' portion of half a cake. So we compromise and I get three quarters of the cake and you get a quarter.

[K0SM0S]

This is as painfully true as it is down to earth.

Zooming out a bit, a less cynical take (merely observation) is that we seek what we think are the right means for our goals (and these too diverge a lot).

Maybe I want money, maybe you'd rather have love of the people; maybe we just both wanna make this world better, maybe we're mostly in it for ourselves.

The point is, industrious types seek the means to industry, romantic ones seek an emotional path to/of success, technical minds seek the knowledge or practice of their puzzle, etc.; and in the end everything is just as it should/cloud/would have been. There's a reason you asked 100%, got 75 and I let you walk away with it. However I'd want to spin it, it just had not mattered to me as much as it had to you.

[JetSpiegel]

The secret is to acknowledge that 25% is better than 0%, if you don't have leverage to force the fair 50%. And begrudgingly accept the 25% "under duress".

[calmworm]

I interpreted this differently. It’s not about ignoring the polarizing issues or tough topics. These issues would still be presented and discussed. It seemed to me it was all about finding the commonalities between groups then drafting statements that both could agree on.

[Johnwbh]

It reminds me a bit of the old dinner party rules of not talking politics, sex or religion. You keep things harmonious but at the cost of more interesting conversation. And doesn't help when you're forced to tackle controversial issues