Isn't so-called bipartisanship another dogma that needs to die? — Xtrix

Yes, to hell with any kind of desire to reach consensus: the Majority rules, so just crush the minority! That will surely work...

...just as it has worked during the last years.

Otherwise you have policy lurching drastically every time a different side gets a majority. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's time to take that risk -- this middle-ground bullshit has gotten us exactly nowhere.

Yes, to hell with any kind of desire to reach consensus: the Majority rules, so just crush the minority! That will surely work...

...just as it has worked during the last years. — ssu

Yes, to hell with trying to convince those who believe in Q anon, that Trump will be reinstated and won the election, that climate change is a hoax, etc. I'm not interested in "consensus" in that respect -- that's a pure delusion, and the hour is already late. If we keep on sleepwalking we're toast as a species (if you "believe" in science, anyway).

The stakes are too high, which was the point of the OP. This "desire to reach consensus" is a joke. How has that worked the last "years" (40+ years to be precise)? If you think it's turned out well, that's your business.

If the Republicans can do it, the Democrats can too -- and should, especially given that their policies have majority support -- unlike McConnell's. It may even lock out Republican power for years to come. Worth a try.

Or we can push trying to "compromise" with people who want to see the election overturned and nothing done on climate change.

Seems like an easy call to me: let "bipartisanship" die.

Or are you just a joke?

I'm leaning towards the latter. — Xtrix

This was a play on words.
1. My post had nothing serious to do with the topic.
2. It rode on a word play, inasmuch as bi means two- as a prefix for many expressions, but it also means in the expression "bisexual" as a person who likes both genders.
3. Bipartizan (notice the z instead of the in Partizan) therefore, in a twisted logic, must mean partizans who are bisexual.
4. These days the politically correct acceptance of gender identity must also include "on the non-binary gender spectrum".
5. I replaced the "bi" with the " non-binary gender spectrum" and thus came a new meaning to bipartizan.

Sorry to have caused a confusion. My sense of humour is strange sometimes. Well, most of the time. But there is one person in this universe who enjoys it, and I write my jokes for him.

1. My post had nothing serious to do with the topic. — god must be atheist

Fair enough.

How does pure majority rule protect the perogatives of minorities? How does it offload responsibility to a strong, independent beaurocracy (something that political science suggests is a prerequisite for good administration)? Probably most important in the US context, how does it interact with federalism?

As has been pointed out, policy preferences in the US lean to the left of current policy, but this is hardly a strong majority. The massive expansion of mail in voting appears to have been a far larger boon to Democrats than most recent voter restriction laws have been to Republicans, and yet they still lost seats in the House and only tied in the Senate. Public opinion against Trump was fairly strong, 7 million votes, but the balance of their majority in the popular vote in House races was 0.8%, not exactly an endorsement for major changes. Given that history suggest Republicans are likely to take a majority of House votes in 2022, are we ok with reversing course on those small margins? Such policy whiplash would be impossible to implement.

However, majorities for each party are much stronger at the state level, and local government tends to have a far larger effect on the daily lived of citizens than the federal one, which overwhelmingly focuses its resources on pensions, healthcare for seniors, and defense. State and local budgets are larger, by a decent margin, than federal programs outside transfer payments. Do we really want majorities there deciding things?

The US's problems are partly with its antiquated and undemocratic systems, but all its issues are hitting other Western nations. The problem is how to keep support for a welfare state while also having a liberal system of open borders. How to have strong property rights, but also equality, which is always a problem, but is even harder now given that globalization has let transnationals avoid redistribution, and has led to large scale migration from poorer countries, something that necissarily increases inequality. More majoritarian systems don't seem to be avoiding these problems.

P. This "desire to reach consensus" is a joke. — Xtrix

And who has really tried it?

Nobody.

Try to win and depict your opponent in the worst light has been the approach. That hasn't been "trying to reach a consensus".

Seems like an easy call to me: let "bipartisanship" die. — Xtrix

Your not killing "bipartisanship" anymore, your killing parliamentarism.

(-;

And who has really tried it?

Nobody. — ssu

It’s been “tried” for decades in the sense of being viewed as an objective. But like other political fantasies, it’s been nothing but a cover to do nothing for the majority of the population.

Your not killing "bipartisanship" anymore, your killing parliamentarism. — ssu

The Republicans have already done that.