I keep seeing "both sides". This whole schema seems to be based on the faulty assumption that there are only two sides.

In the last US Presidential election, nearly half of eligible voters didn't vote for either of the 2 major party candidates. This is mainly due to turnout being only 56%.

IMO political discourse would be much improved if "both sides" simply stopped talking altogether, allowing other people and views to have adequate representation for once.

are there any clear cut answers to

“minimum wage should federally be $15/hr for all states“

democrats say yes

republicans say no

hence, two sides

wash, rinse, and repeat for socialized healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and open borders

how can it not be party versus party when there’s no clear cut correct answer?

There are many sides. I used “both sides” as a minimum. All sides should have their points listed and acknowledged.

We need to show that the 2 major parties are ignoring the other parties.

If the number of "sides" is unbounded and it's necessary to acknowledge, consider, and respond to all points/beliefs from all sides, then it's functionally impossible to do what you're suggesting. Especially so when there are trade-offs to prioritizing one belief system over another and not an ideal outcome for all people.

I think, at its very core, the exercise of trying to "solve" politics is misguided. It's naive to assume that there are objective truths that can be distilled from rationally deconstructing peoples' political beliefs. There is a huge emotional component to any individuals' framework of beliefs, whether they will admit to it or not, and I strongly believe this is a good thing and part of what makes us human.

I see very often here that people try to totally factor out emotions from their thinking and think like computers. While this makes for good storytelling tropes (characters like Elliot Alderson or L from Death Note), it makes for bad human beings. We should be embracing the fact that we are emotional beings and encouraging passionate behavior, at least so far that it's not used as a bludgeon to "destroy" other people.

I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy. All too often people throw around the idea that a plurality of people in their countries are "evil" - and I think it comes from a place of fear and ignorance. It will be more fruitful and interesting to break down peoples' barriers rather than change them or figure out who is "right."

> I think a better exercise would be to accept that people have different beliefs and encourage constructive debate based on curiosity and empathy.

That’s the goal. Both sides are stuck in echo chambers. We need to pressure them out and acknowledge the others.

It’s pointless listening to and side when they don’t address criticism.

I think this also assumes that the 2 major parties have coherent, consistent ideologies. On the contrary, it seems to me that each of them are fairly diverse coalitions with not a small number of fierce internal disagreements, who are forced to come together because of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system.

What if there are millions of sides?

1. Listen to Christopher Hitchens talk about the hate speech law proposed in Canada (particularly his rant about how this is a problem rooted in human nature, not something we can legislate away).

2. Read "Robert's Rules of Order." (Not the whole thing, just the beginning.) The problem of building consensus among diverse and differing parties has been considered at length, and we should be familiar with the historical approaches to the problem rather than starting from scratch.

3. Read "Digital Minimalism" or some other book about the attention economy so that you understand how many businesses (as well as dark money political groups) intentionally engineer their products to produce dramatic emotional responses to information (because they are more addictive and make it easier to sell ads or win votes).

Without appreciating the history of this problem, its roots in human nature, and the business and political incentives to prevent its solution, we aren't going to get anywhere.

These seem to be the ground rules for a high school debate, not sure if they are adequate to the troubles in these times.

First there is a body of work on political "science" which is not quite physics or chemistry but is closer to "science" than it is to Scientology that is the backdrop of what is possible.

Here are two semesters worth of lectures from Ian Shapiro which for me are a "required curriculum" for those who want to talk about reforming politics at a fundamental level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6MOA_Y3MKE&list=PL2FD48CE33... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDqvzFY72mg

How do we get politicians to follow these rules?

We don't. But the reason why isn't because politicians don't like to follow rules, it's because they are following the rules that their constituents provide. Even if you disagree that they are following what is best for their constituents, they are following what their constituents want.

The simplistic view is that politicians will be voted out if they don't have enough followers. Right now in the US anyway, (and maybe other places, I hardly have time to keep up with US politics, let alone politics for other countries), the electorate wants entertainment. So they are receiving it. They want sound bites and bumper stickers. They want short speeches with easy to remember catch phrases. They want social media fights and they want news that entertains.

And thus, politicians are giving them what they want because that's their job.

I am the electorate. I helped build the system that we have now. The only way to change it is to get more and more people to want to be informed in different ways. As long as people want what they are getting right now, it will continue down this path. Will it change? Of course. When will it change? I have no idea.

The thing about politics is that it never works as the median middle-class programmers think.

Politics involves murder, assasination, bribery, local interest (which sometimes reads as Mafia) and other ugly things and trying to solve these by proposing a "system" is like trying to solve war by asking everyone nicely to sit down and play a war game.

The hard point is that people are wired as animals who fight with their teeth and claws, and political instituition is simply a nice facade because for God's sake we are civilized people so we can't let others see that we fight with our teeth and claws and cheat to death whenever we can.

That said, prepare to get really dirty if you want to play politics.

1. Figure out what you want to achieve 2. Figure out how to manipulate the system to achieve that end

(In the case of your proposal, this probably means bombarding everybody that might disagree with a viewpoint with long lists of [possibly spurious] 'points' which they are 'forced' to acknowledge and respond to until they are too exhausted to raise any further objections...)

Platforms let in more misinformation than they allow corrections.

Reply to multiple misinformed threads with the same link to corrections and Reddit will rate limit you or Twitter will hide your tweets as spam.

One of the shifts I've noticed is changing one's mind has become a negative, especially in politics. We are quick to call them flip-floppers and question what they stand for.

This mindset seems to incentivize politicians and constituents to avoid changing their mind no matter what, sometimes even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

Politicians who flip sides get attention. Changing one’s mind shows they thought of both sides and they’re not tied to a party. The party you depart will disown you. The other will welcome you.

This gets even worse when posting research results on divisive topics that you have a minority opinion on and having people flag you.

This idea is rational but politics isn't, due to things like: Decades of long-term deliberate misinformation. An uneducated public with many totally vulnerable to misinfo. Believing what you hear has been a long-term evolutionary survival trait, and we are all affected by what we hear - and repetition can cement a belief almost beyond remedy. Another evolutionary survival trait is to belong to a group. Given these two traits many are convinced of their "truths" whatever they may be. Since these "truths" may or may not be actually factual, I do not see how it can even be agreed upon what "issues" even exist or can be debated upon. Remarkable most of us are pretty rational within the context of our jobs - yet often not in other contexts.

You might want to replace rational with reasonable. The systems you describe are rational sytems but maybe not reasonable based on the perception of the facts or the philosophical structure they are being used in.

Switching the voting system to approval voting[0] is probably the most effective action for how simple it is. It would greatly help solve the prevalent "only two parties are viable" problem, which should help remove the need to push for extreme viewpoints.

[0] https://ncase.me/ballot/

Politics provides value and if you don't recognize that you can't begin to try and 'solve' for it.

> it seems simple to solve politics

This is an interestingly naive take on the issue.

I think maybe you need to look into the concept of Realpolitik - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik . Basically, it may be the case that the "points" I offer as justification or rationale for what I am doing have absolutely nothing to do with why I'm really doing something, and you may never get enough information to know why that is.

Your suggestion is basically saying something like a Hegelian dialectic could work to produce consensus given enough time, but it breaks down for a number of reasons:

1. There isn't always necessarily some guarantee of compromise. There are positions which simply cannot overlap or bend - for example, if I think everyone should be allowed to live in some area, and you think only one group should be allowed to live there, it's going to be mighty hard to come to some arrangement that works, even with all the logical responses and open dialogue in the world.

2. There's a requirement of true, academic-grade scientific honesty in your method. Any time that's required, someone can simply game it by being disingenuous in a creative enough manner. It's going to be virtually impossible to know when that's happening, though game theory could give some insights into whether lying is a good strategy or not based on the particular circumstances.

3. What happens when your dialogue starts to get into subjects that are taboo / problematic / etc? You may have people that disagree with the exact history of what has happened with regard to wars and other events in the past, and draw their conclusions and positions from that history. Determining what actually happened isn't always possible, and neither is simply telling people to accept a different version of events from what they've been told even if you do have compelling evidence on your side (or can prove the other side simply doesn't have any evidence for their position).

Still, it is the realpolitik that is the strongest reason why this cannot work. I could spend all day having pleasant dialogue with you about something, but if at the end of the day my personal interests are controlled upstream by someone paying me, blackmailing me, etc. or if I simply have a power lust, there's no reason why my actions will necessarily line up with my purported ideology or public positions on issues.

> 2. There's a requirement of true, academic-grade scientific honesty in your method.

If one side lies, the other side calls out a lie and presents evidence. The other side acknowledges and counters.

What we have now is one side calls out a lie and the other side ignores it. If there is a response to a false accusation, the other side ignores it or never sees it.

We need to see who’s ignoring what and pressure them for a response.

> 1. There isn't always necessarily some guarantee of compromise.

We don’t need a guarantee of compromise. We need them to talk to each other and do what they can. If they can’t compromise, at least we know they tried and they can move on to the next issue.

There's a really great proposal that I hope Canada will follow that has had incredible results in other countries. https://nationalcitizensassembly.ca/

Citizen Assemblies are a great way to deal with contentious and large political issues. Couple that with a truly representative democracy with proportional representation, you've got a whole new world where policy can be driven by evidence rather than ideology of the season.

OP you might be interested in the analytic philosophy of Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc. Part of the idea was that if you could reduce statements in philosophy to a type of formal logic, you could solve all these long standing questions just like solving a mathematical expression. Spoiler alert: the whole thing falls apart because of the way language is actually used, and because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

Sorry to emphasize a problem without providing a solution. While I agree, those are rules of engagement I would likely practice on my own, naturally, as soon as I propose my way (or in this case, you proposing your way) as _the_ way, the nature of the protocol shifts into the political realm, just because it may not envision something important to one of the participants.

Have you looked at how Bridgewater runs their company:

Here's an example.

https://qz.com/1071749/bridgewater-associates-ceo-ray-dalio-...

I don't think we should be taking ques from a company that had listening devices in the bathrooms and where employees were encouraged to sabotage each other to get ahead.

For all its flaws, politics is the only tool I know by which people can share real power without - usually without - anyone deciding they need to kill anyone else.

I'm not sure "solve" is the best approach to take to something like that.

Incentives? How do you exploit a fair and well run system for personal gain?

Removing the state actors who pollute discourse on the major platforms by amplifying extremist opinions would be a good start.

> Removing the state actors

That would certainly solve most of the problem. Easier said than done, though.

The profit motives have to be taken out of news. 24-hour news networks are cancers on society and have virtually no benefits. Until that is achieved, we'll continue treading different paths that all lead to the same destination. Increasing funding to something like PBS is a good start.

> The profit motives have to be taken out of news.

I assume that would apply to social media too. Certainly social media platforms that have personalised algorithmic news feeds are at risk of recreating the dangers of 24-hour news networks.

I don't think this is how it works. You have voters that vote for parties/politicians/programs, it's always a whole package that you want to go for. If you have only 2 parties to choose from, do you really care for every detail? Or rather excuse some details that you don't like?

Speaking of the current crisis in politics in the U.S., I have the strong impression that the person Trump was voted for deliberately. That people wanted someone who didn't follow all the protocols, I think this is also what he advertised and what actually even made him popular towards some conspiracy theorists.

Real-world discussions about polarizing topics are rarely concluded and at best just serve to exchange view points. On the other hand for less controversial topics it might kind of work. In fact, the majority of work in modern politics is AFAIK not done by the politicians you see on TV. There are armies of people that do all the paper work. E.g. in case of financial politics these people do example calculations, to assess how certain proposals would work out.

Still, I think it's also the point of politics, it goes beyond facts and what they mean. But actually choosing which of the possibilities - knowing the consequences - to go for.

As argumate@tumblr says, the solution to politics is to have one planet per person.

There are websites that form trees of different arguments/responses/responses-to-responses. I don’t remember any of their names off the top of my head. I don’t remember the results of such trees being particularly encouraging, though the example I’m remembering on one of those websites was a for/against with a fairly obvious answer, and was a not particularly political topic, more a philosophy debate. The bottom layer was mostly dumb relativist-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness objections.

One idea I’ve heard of, which sounds like it could be useful, is the idea of a “double crux”, a question where both parties agree that if their initial belief about this question was wrong, then so was their initial belief about the bigger question. This potentially allows reducing one question to another, hopefully making it easier to tackle.

But there are multiple things here. One is disagreement about material/positive claims. The other is disagreement about what is to be done. These are, of course, rather connected, but also not entirely the same. It is possible for 2 people to at least be unaware of any relevant positive claims about which they disagree, but still disagree about what to do in light of how things are.

There are mechanisms that should work well for resolving disagreement about material/positive claims, at least provided honest participants, though I think setups can also work which will still work with some level of dishonesty among participants.

But, for disagreements as to what to do given certain positive/material facts, I suspect that these may be more difficult to resolve. That’s not to say that I don’t think they can ever be resolved. People have been convinced by moral argumentation before, are there are valid chains of reasoning about what is right and what is wrong, and people will generally have many moral beliefs in common, and this can provide some shared foundation for the argumentation.

But, unlike with questions of positive/material facts, I’m not convinced that essentially all questions of “what should be done” can be reduced through reasoning to combinations of material/positive facts with principles which both parties agree with.

To be clear, I do believe that there are moral facts.

But possibly some questions of what to do, do not have a single morally obligatory choice, and in such cases, if different people have different preferences, then it is unclear why debate would result in an agreement as to what to do.

(Also, even if there is a moral fact as to which choice would be better in a given topic, it is conceivable that I might be sufficiently wrong about the relevant moral questions that it wouldn’t be feasible to convince me, or at least, not feasible to convince me by the time that the decision has to be made. I mean, hopefully this wouldn’t happen, I don’t want to be in the wrong, but I don’t think it is totally out of the question.)

There is no universal way to aggregate preferences of people. In the end, a system must simply produce a result. Of course, in some restricted cases, there are ways to combine preferences which I think should be considered optimal. For example, if the thing being decided is a single number, and everyone has a single-peaked preference, in that for a pair of numbers on the same side of their most preferred number, they will always prefer the one closer to their most preferred number, having everyone state their most preferred number and then taking the median (or, if there is an even number of people, a random selection between the middlemost 2) is optimal I think, in that everyone is incentivized to give their honest preference, and no other option will be an improvement from the perspective of more people than think it is a dis-improvement.

> How can we solve politics?

Get money out of it.

You described how a Congress work.

Where can we see how they respond to or ignore points of the other side?

I'm not sure how it works in the US Congress, but that usually is done by vote after deliberation. Nothing different than what OP is proposing.