I think the issue is that they are competent in the skill that matters; getting elected. Voters are not competent at the skill they need - voting for people who will do a good job running the government.
I think part of it is because lies work so well in campaigns. People will believe things they want to believe, so if one candidate is telling a convenient lie and another a harsh truth, people will vote for the convenient lie. Of course, when it comes time to actually govern, the reality will come back to bite them, but by then it doesn’t matter. They already won the election.
I think both sides are competent. Electors at getting elected and voters at voting against what they don't want. We're pretty efficient at voting people out of office when they mess up egregiously.
The two parties and winner take all system probably create what we see now where you want to have extreme positions to get elected, but only extreme enough to still win 50% + 1.
It's like we're optimizing for agreement among the smallest majority possible.
There's no incentive to win 90% of the vote.
If your power as an elected official somehow increased in proportion to what % of the vote you got I think we'd see a lot more unique solutions to common problems rather than blaming the other side.
There is also no path to get 90% of the vote across the entire US population. As soon as a politician takes a stance on a polarizing issue, and they're not allowed to not take a stance, they lose half the vote.
One could try and blend the tribes by choosing stances evenly-ish across them but it's practically impossible because you need tribal backing to have a successful run and that backing comes with a promise of loyalty. It probably wouldn't really work anyway -- people don't really tally positive stances, they vote for whoever has the fewest bad checks so everyone would end up hating you.
Our electorate is, sans cheating, a reflection of ourselves. As long as we are divided about issues that are important to us so too will Capitol Hill.
If there were a best solution there would be nothing to argue about unfortunately.
So according to your idea, a politician who would not flag many bad boxes while getting a few common issues nailed down would be a winner?
Unfortunately, this is not what we see. We get politics playing to respective power bases and not the actual electorate as an aggregate, and politicians that are a reflection of these power bases and not electorate.
> not flag many bad boxes while getting a few common issues nailed down would be a winner
Easier said than done when you have to take a stance on a bunch of polarizing issues, and any choice you make will be a bad check for half the population.
Not messing up the issues people generally agree on is the easy part.
Sorry, 90% was a bit of an exaggeration, but 60-70% might not be unrealistic if someone came out and said they respect both sides of a controversial issue and want to find common ground.
I disagree that it's the fault of anyone other than the process we've established. It's only a recent belief that democracy is a process for everyone to participate in. I personally think Locke and Rousseau were the two best early political theorists, and they would never have considered democracy a viable system if they knew people as poorly educated as most Americans are were enfranchised. The system collapses upon itself as poorly educated people vote their own pocket books and consistently fall for frauds. That's just inevitable when you build a system that's susceptible to it.
These people just merge into background for a time then make a comeback when everyone has forgotten the lie or a new even more outrageous one moves the set point...
Lies are a broad category. If you mean overpromising / huge signature campaign promises, let's look at some of DJT's many, many promises. On healthcare and budgetary concerns, you see him pulling back from promises of better/cheaper healthcare, not trying to cut medicare/medicaid. Even on immigration and trade, he's walked a tough line but it's hard to say if he's really kept any of those promises.
Do I blame him for that lack of delivery, were those promises lies? Well, he had GOP majority in 3 different branches and it didn't happen. He was a great campaigner for various reasons, however he has not effectively governed and delivered on promises, which his opponents would say is highly predictable. Is it then on his voters, they chose this politician who hasn't delivered? Is it their responsibility for not predicting the lack of progress he has made on even his own signature issues?
Another theory is that candidates simply signal their stances/worldview/personality, and big/bold proposers like DJT and Obama are generally much more likely to get votes than incrementalists like HRC. Then, when it comes to real decisions, the bold promise-type politicians are practical and try to compromise to move towards their previous promises.
I think part of it is because lies work so well in campaigns. People will believe things they want to believe, so if one candidate is telling a convenient lie and another a harsh truth, people will vote for the convenient lie. Of course, when it comes time to actually govern, the reality will come back to bite them, but by then it doesn’t matter. They already won the election.