Americans say they want compromise in their government. But they don’t vote for compromisers. (Case in point: Richard Lugar, the senior senator from Indiana who was ousted in May by a Republican primary challenger who vowed never to compromise with Democrats.)
That may be, in part, because they don’t have a lot of shared experiences with people unlike themselves – a consequence of what author Bill Bishop sees as the human tendency to live among people like oneself.
“People – especially Americans – hate disagreement,” writes Bill Bishop, author of “The Big Sort,” a book that examines how Americans are dividing themselves geographically. “That's why they put themselves in churches, neighborhoods, and clubs where they easily find agreement.
"It's interesting, however, that when pollsters ask about compromise, most Democrats and Republicans believe their side has given enough – that it's time for the other side to see the error of their ways. We all seem to think it's the other side that's causing the problems. So, yes, there's a lot of talk about the end of partisanship. We just don't see anybody changing neighborhoods.”
“The public’s expectations are skewed, and I hate to blame them and I’m not,” says Mr. Glickman, the former congressman from Kansas, “because they do not have this sense of common ground or shared experiences.”
Others argue that congressional districts are helped along in this "sorting" process by gerrymandering – the practice of drawing districts that are considered "safe" for one party or the other. If a district is drawn so that its voters are overwhelmingly conservative or overwhelmingly liberal, the argument goes, what's the incentive for a lawmaker elected to such a district to compromise or strike deals with the opposing party? However, many see this concern about gerrymandered districts as overstated.
How might Congress have more compromising members, given a currently uncompromising electorate?
Downey, the former representative from New York, suggests mandatory voting. Under such a system, both parties would be forced to address their messages to the widest possible audience, proponents argue.
“You have to moderate, and you have to spend some time thinking about how people who don’t agree with you are going to react to your ideas,” Downey says.
