People (including me) have been trying that for years; but dialog only works if both parties approach it in good faith. When you have a political movement that leans heavily on orthodoxy and loyalty, and whose response to repeatedly losing elections is to simply insist they're rigged and the results are invalid (absent any credible evidence) discussions based on mutually agreeable priors and conventional logic are not fruitful.

The prevailing orthodoxy in this group is that losing elections or court cases is a priori evidence of fraud, violent action to overturn negative outcomes is often permissible, and that this right is reserved for future negative outcomes. They're not willing to be convinced, and loudly advertise their belief that it's OK to impose their point of view on others by force. I mean, if you're dealing with someone who avers that you should be fed into a woodchipper, it's not wise to put one arm in pursuit of a compromise.