I understand that 50%+1 is enough to rule, but is there no value in building consensus? Or at least having a civil debate among sensible people?
Obama's presidency suggests that consensus is not as valuable as one might hope, but I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.
> I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.
That's nice, but what political power did you gain as a result?
Remember, we're talking about what effective politicians do.
In other news, pundits are evaluated on how many newspapers they sell, not on their accuracy. Readers are free to decide to buy, or not, for any reason, such as hair color. (Readers could use accuracy as part of their buying decision, but don't seem to.)
Obama's presidency suggests that consensus is not as valuable as one might hope, but I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.