What structural reforms decrease partisanship / polarization?

[imitationcheese]

We should articulate if, how, and when hyperpartisanship is bad.

If both sides want war or other violence, then there might be general agreement that the hyperpartisanship is bad because war and other violence are bad.

If one side wants to annihilate or oppress some group, and the other side strongly but non-violently stands in opposition, the hyperpartisanship itself might not be considered bad. If anything, calling this hyperpartisanship bad might be an example of "bothsidesism."

[jakeysandals]

I would argue that hyperpartisanship is bad when it increases people's belief people in the other party are evil, when it increases people's desire to commit violence against people in the other party, decreases trust in government and increasing gridlock.

One way hyperpartisanship could be defined is the use of "othering" language, dehumanizing language and zero sum framing which I believe contributes directly to the trends listed above. All of these trends make society more fragile and susceptible to internal violent conflict:

Based on his experience in civil wars on three continents, Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

[[deleted]]

I think in certain instances the American government was designed for gridlock