The Virtue of Compromise in Politics

Compromise has, as David will say later on, an unfairly high reputation. In fact, compromises are not good. The reason why compromise is not good is because a compromise is a third option. Neither group A nor group B actually ever endorsed Z. They didn't think that Z was the best idea at all. So when Z fails, what happens? Both A and B go back to endorsing X again. And so then what do you do? You just do another compromise? Why should the compromise be better given that both X and Y think they've got a good explanation about why their particular theory is the best theory? Wouldn't it be a better, more parsimonious idea