The Effect of the Plurality of Opinions in a Democratic System

The plurality of opinions in a democratic system often leads to political deadlock.
Describe a specific political situation in which the plurality of opinions might not lead to deadlock. Discuss what you think determines whether or not an abundance of opinions will lead to political deadlock in a democracy.
___

Democracy is a political system in which the government must remain accountable to the citizens. Politicians compete for the vote of citizens and should make decisions in a way that serves the best interests of the people. In order to ensure that the citizens' needs are met, the government encourages the free flow of information and thoughts. Oftentimes, the plurality of opinions prevents timely decision-making. However, the founding forefathers designed the system in a way that slows down the legislative process so that all feasible solutions to a problem can be analyzed in a thoughtful manner.

Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, citizens have the right to free speech and can vote during elections. Since all Americans (save prisoners and minors) can freely express themselves, their representatives in Congress also reflect the plurality of opinions. In contrast, authoritarian states maintain one set of political opinions characterized as absolute truths. When varied opinions are represented in Congress, it is often difficult to compromise and come up with timely decisions. For instance, the recent debt ceiling debates reveal how differing opinions lead to political deadlock. Congress eventually presented a compromise but only during the eleventh hour while facing credit-rating downgrades and threats of further economic repercussions.

In the current political atmosphere, citizens do not support politicians who compromise. For example, during the 2010 Congressional primaries, politicians running on a center platform found themselves defeated by the more fundamentalist wing of their party. With ideological differences among politicians so stark these days, it is no surprise that Congress seems unable to compromise and produce changes that benefit America as a whole.

Congress, however, has not always been so partisan and unwilling to work with each other. For instance, major reform has tended to be bipartisan in the last half century; the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 all passed with solid support from the two parties. On the other hand, the 2010 Health Reform Act was deeply partisan and still faces huge opposition by the conservatives. No doubt, the internet and popularity of political pundits have played huge roles in influencing the "unworkable" dynamic facing Congress these days. Constituents are more aware of how their representatives vote and are better equipped to keep them accountable to their wishes. Politicians are well aware that their popularity in polls will slip due to compromising with the other side; therefore, they take hard-line stances that show their utmost dedication to party platforms regardless of whether they help the nation move forward in a healthy manner.

In a democratic system, the plurality of opinions is valued as a means of forming solutions that serve the best interests of society. When a government values freedom of speech, different thoughts and opinions serve to play off one another with the goal of finding optimal solutions. However, when people are hard set on their opinions and refuse to allow any type of compromise, it is difficult to make progress. Politicians, with such insular mindsets, fail to fulfill their responsibilities to solve the nation's problems. While their varied opinions are valuable for a well-rounded analysis of the issues, politicians should keep in mind the end goal of making government accountable to the needs of the people.