> some point they’re going to need to be disowned if they don’t fall in line
They're still being elected by their voters. In many cases, with high approval ratings. You aren't going to mute them without addressing their districts' problems.
They're still being elected by their voters. In many cases, with high approval ratings. You aren't going to mute them without addressing their districts' problems.
They are not really the problem. The problem is that your institutions offer no mechanism for a majority that agrees on a particular course of action to actually make it happen. Silly partisanship trumps running the country.
Perhaps you need to consider secret ballots in your legislature. That would eliminate partisanship in a trice.
Yes, it does.
What it also does, sometimes, is create incentives for that consensus on some important issues not to form for electoral tactical reasons that go beyond thr immediate issue, even where there would otherwise be consensus on the immediate issue. (Conversely, it sometimes creates a tactical incentive for majority consensus despite disagreement on the merits of the immediate issue.)
> Perhaps you need to consider secret ballots in your legislature. That would eliminate partisanship in a trice.
It wouldn't eliminate partisanship, but it would eliminate individual accountability of legislators to the electorate, making the system less democratic but equally problematically partisan.