3 ms·

> that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & o

• jfengel 5y ago
  He's saying the opposite. He's saying that he wants a situation where two parties can rule together, but that under the circumstances minority action means that no governance gets done at all. Democracy wasn't intended to be about absolute rule. It was supposed to be a framework for compromise, with a majority-rules tiebreaker. But that's brittle when it's in one party's contention that government is the enemy, and so there is never any point in any negotiation. All of the rules put in place to protect the minority instead become complete gridlock. The OP cites "overwhelming mandate" as the only alternative under the rules -- something that rarely, if ever, happens. The OP's objective, I think, is to return to a state where negotiations are possible, and where anything the Democratic party proposes is not automatically dead on arrival simply because they proposed it. That's not something you can fix with rules. It's an acknowledgement that the circumstances for which the rules were intended have been frayed to the breaking point, if not past it. The OP wants, I think, the opposite of single-party rule. They want a situation where the two parties are capable of doing something other than using the rules to harm each other, and instead think about how to coordinate a nation of 300 million people with diverse beliefs and values.