The two-party doom loop - The Boston Globe

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

53% : But on other issues, particularly immigration and foreign policy (or Social Security, policing, etc.), the winning coalitions don't map so neatly onto the interests of the leadership of either party.
44% : In this environment, only low-salience issues that largely evade public attention stand a chance at productive, compromise-oriented resolution.
36% : Because proportional systems tend to create space for more parties -- and more opportunities for fluid coalition-building across them -- they are associated with less dangerous degrees of polarization and tend to be at a lesser risk of political violence.
32% : By contrast, winner-take-all systems like the United States' are associated with higher levels of polarization and a greater risk of political violence.
18% : The usual explanations for this are Donald Trump pressuring Republicans not to enact border policies when his presidential campaign depends on the failure of a coherent US border strategy or that bipartisanship has no place in an election year.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.