> let the government dictate the morality (like it should) Here's a radical alternative, though: Let the people decide what is moral, and force the government

> let the government dictate the morality (like it should) Here's a radical alternative, though: Let the people decide what is moral, and force the government to follow those moral principles. I'm hopeful that if you asked people "Do you want uncompetitive elections where the government chooses its electors rather than the electors choosing the government?" a super-majority would say "No!". Unfortunately that's not really the question that gets asked at election time. Instead we end up with a terrible Prisoner's Dilemma where the question is more like "Do you want a fair system that lets the other side win more often?", but such a question is itself a result of the systems that the major parties have put in place, and in any case fails the Rawls "veil of ignorance" requirement for a moral question.