Letter to the Editor
One of the missing parts of the conversation is that unless the citizenry “buy-in” and collaborate with government policy, it does not usually work as well as intended. Thus if we have proportional representation more or less all interests are at the table, just as in any successful relationship, most needs can be represented, and the solutions that are acceptable negotiated. These are then more likely to be supported in their application, sustainable rather than lurching left and right and successful; also likely to be reflected in less polarization in our society. This would be leadership in every sense.
The book “The Righteous Mind”, is based on published peer-reviewed research on traditionally “right” vs. “left “ wing people. It informs us that fairness/justice is a moral issue for Left-wing people. Morality meaning something that is experienced as a self-evident fundamental assumption about what is right; i.e. not based on, nor requiring any other assumptions. For Right wing people, predictability, the appearance of clarity and control are an equivalent moral issue that is experienced as obvious. Both are capable of producing outrage and deadlock. I would submit that Right wing people tend to be better at the details of implementation but have little patience for complexity and often miss the indirect implications of their choices (e.g. bigger wealth gap means more crime and the need to live in gated communities), whereas Left wing people often feel good about the principles of fairness and justice being affirmed but are not very good at examining the details of implementation - how is that policy going to work? I would submit that this is why we need each other and need to learn to work together.
Lastly, it is important to remind people that the legislation includes a chance to re-assess if the voting system is working with the second election that follows.
As a semi-retired MD, I have no vested special interest and lots of experience with relationships.
Andre C. Piver MD | Canyon