My first instinct is to be sceptical that it’s possible to find enduring compromise and a working legislative process in a society that’s split 50⁄50 between two factions who hate each other and have diametrically opposed preferences.
I suspect the existence of some kind of common ground (mutual interests and mutual trust, at least to the extent of neither wanting to literally cannibalise or exterminate the other) might be a necessary component for avoiding a war between them.
I originally wrote this with an example of farmers vs fishers, where the two groups had some different legislative preferences, but the example just didn’t have strong internal logic (I didn’t come up with very plausible differences of opinion for the two groups).
The important thing is the payoff matrix. Clearly the two groups have a mutually beneficial agreement which they could reach, if they would look past their animosity.
My first instinct is to be sceptical that it’s possible to find enduring compromise and a working legislative process in a society that’s split 50⁄50 between two factions who hate each other and have diametrically opposed preferences.
I suspect the existence of some kind of common ground (mutual interests and mutual trust, at least to the extent of neither wanting to literally cannibalise or exterminate the other) might be a necessary component for avoiding a war between them.
I originally wrote this with an example of farmers vs fishers, where the two groups had some different legislative preferences, but the example just didn’t have strong internal logic (I didn’t come up with very plausible differences of opinion for the two groups).
The important thing is the payoff matrix. Clearly the two groups have a mutually beneficial agreement which they could reach, if they would look past their animosity.