I do find it interestingly NUTS that the constituent votes for a candidate founded on the political governing principles espoused by the candidate; when the candidate is elected he or she compromises on the very principles that motivated the constituent’s vote; reasoning, that if there was no compromise there would be deadlock…nothing would go forward. Well, if compromise is the overriding principle governess why not say exactly that going in? The candidate should run on the principle of compromise not on some hyperbole of governing principles of infrequent possibility.
Surely, in the world of politics comprise is the vehicle that greases the legislation into law; however, as such I must question the veracity in the truth of any original thought that intent on becoming law because intent transforms itself from the ideal to the implemented and in the process sterilizes the original into a synthesis unrecognized by the originators of the original thought. I believe that compromise is the poison pill of justice, fairness, reasonableness, righteousness, principles, ideals, and sensibility. I say if there is not enough votes to pass as intended do not pass the legislation. The elected legislator would respond of course with disdain as to my unsophisticated legislative approach; unless of course, if I was substantial cash donor to his political sway; the response would be to take the issue to committee.
If the northern states had not bowed to southern requirements, slavery would have ended years earlier and yes there may not have been the revolution of 1776 but there would not have been a civil war eight-five years later and on and on.
Compromise is the root of all nonsense and as such sprouts of corruption is sure to blossom.