People have the ability to vote because other people who formed the governments those people live under thought it would it be a good thing to let them vote. I'm not sure what you mean exactly. That's true, but incomplete. Fact is, over the last two thousand years or so we've tried all combinations of people voting. Sometimes it was smart people, sometimes it was religious people, sometimes it was only special people trained to rule.

The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions. Perhpas there is another optimum, but I haven't seen anything so far that's better. So even though people have this tendency to view us versus them, somehow we still manage to make tough decisions. Heck, some legislators have been know to get into fist fights, and fights at early elections in the states were common. But it still worked.

My wife and my oldest son are completely opposite politically. When he lost his car, she gave him a ride to the polling booth -- human nature holds, but a good system of rules (both personal and structural) allows conflict to be productive and not destructive.

Yes -- the system is set up for indirection, and on purpose. Direct democracy has the knack of being "rule of the mob".

Over time, a simple 3-branch, 3-level government turned into a complex machine, but that has nothing to do with the two-group thing, at least not directly. That's simply the (recent) institution of the idea that government should be everywhere. Democracies run just fine and make tough emotional decisions without all of that complexity.

Note that I'm just using democracy as an example here. You run into the same problem whenever two groups meet, like for instance when you have a programming team half composed of web developers and half die-hard COBOL programmers. Democracy shows us that such divisions can be surmounted.

you're trying to argue that humans are so malleable that you can change courses of history or foundationally change the way humans deal with each other by changing how they consume news or other information This already happens. It's called mass media: TV, internet, radio, newspapers, etc. It's been going on forever.

The new thing in the mix is the ability to self-discriminate sources of information. It used to be with only one town newspaper and no radio or TV that there was a forced conversation at the town level about important events This type of forced conversation is critical, whether in government or startup teams. We have to learn to have critical conversations.

Anymore, however, we've been able to completely filter out anybody who might challenge our worldview. This prevents us from realizing how close the two groups actually are, and it additionally prevents us from developing skills at crossing the barrier to accomplish meaningful things. One group isn't right and the other wrong, rather both groups need each other. Our way of interacting has failed us by allowing us to clan to a degree that is not natural (or productive)

And I'm not talking about a Suggest-A-Tron. I'm talking about a discussion board, just like this, only with a more advanced filtering mechanism in place of up-down voting.