Our electoral system stabilizes factions because voters must choose between expressing their true preference and having influence. For the system to identify the General Will, it must allow both simultaneously. Two things need to change for a voter’s earnest preference to have equal power to influence the political agenda:
Both fair elections and fair representation is required to make established factions compete on the same level as newcomers, ending the inherent bias of our electoral system. However, while each is needed, the fix for each differs, so each will be explored in their own chapters. Fixing elections so the people’s Individual Wills are preserved is covered in the chapter “Direct Representation”. Meanwhile, the solution to fair political power for representatives is covered in “Compromise”.
Proportional representation is the better election system as it allows for multiple Factional Wills to advance. However, a few additional issues may come into play, but candidates can often better distinguish themselves by offering a cross-faction platform. Thus proportional representation breaks-up the contrasting, non-decomposable platforms of single-winner elections, but adds few new issues to the discussion and most continue to be filtered out.
Clever voting systems can not solve this problem. Proof is beyond the scope of this paper. However, a quick summary of the reason is that a voting system can generate an approximation of General Will if everyone votes earnestly, however, people want to express their Individual Will, and will vote strategically to do so.
Consensus is usually thought of as everyone agreeing to the same course of action—going to the same path as General Will. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, it rarely works. Wills change, and our ideas of what is best for ourselves, our group, and the nation vary radically. As noted, there is no consensus, unanimous path to General Will. The present system invites discord and fighting.
However, even with dynamic and opposing Wills (wants and interests), there is a path forward. Becoming aware to the situations that others face, and understanding the reasons behind others Wills (in other words being willing to listen) is a first step. The next step would be to ask not if you agree to an action that does not satisfy your Will, but if you understand why the action is being taken, that the system is fairly representing all people, and that you can consent to the action. This is consent building rather than consensus building.
Consent building, however, depends on fair representation in the decision and governing process and on a willingness for all sides to understand rather than to demonize the other side. In our current system, this is not possible (See Durable Factions).