[ExI] crossdressing: was RE: Nobody can say we weren't warned

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Legionara
Subject: Re: [ExI] Nobody can say we weren't warned

>...It's too bad Johnson's brain is fried from all the pot. How did we get
from Paul to this? Legionara


Crossdressing.

Here's an interesting mathematical modeling puzzle for those so inclined.
First, convince yourself you understand why any democracy will evolve into a
two-party system by the competitive advantage of belonging to a mainstream
party.  This tends to reduce the number of main parties until the number of
parties is one.  At that time, the lone remaining party splits into two.
This causes the magic number of parties to always tend toward two.

In European countries we see coalitions of parties, and in some cases it
evolves into three coalitions where the winner is whenever two of the three
work together.  This is analogous in a sense to two major parties, if you
want to think of it that way.

OK now, view the two mainstream US parties as coalitions.  Those two gain
strength to the point where any other party is shut out, leading to the
well-known observation that third parties cannot win.

Next step, visualize the mainstream parties realizing that to win they must
present a unified front.  Their own primary process is destructive and
expensive.  They need to save their powder for the main event.  Turns out
there is a well-known way to do that. 

A party's pragmatists are those who realize the party's victory is more
important than the candidate.  The pragmatist segment goes with the most
likely front runner.  

Now imagine the party wants to control the pragmatist vote.  A category of
special delegates are selected, ones that can be consulted, controlled,
party loyalists.  Lock up these delegates, the Chosen One locks up the major
contributors and the pragmatist vote.  With those three factors (selected
delegates, pragmatists and donors) the primaries are over before they start.
The party appears unified.  I call it pseudo-unified.

Meanwhile, the hapless opponents not using that strategy are scrapping for
donations, fighting each other, dividing themselves 17 ways.  The advantage
to the pseudo-unified party is enormous.

Even if a challenger emerges who has no chance at all and makes a surprising
good showing by coming across even to those who disagree as at least a
decent respectable person, the illusion of a unified front can be
maintained.

But wait, there's more.

If the pseudo-unified party then cross-registers as voters from the other
party, they can create chaos by selecting the other party's least acceptable
candidate.  The other party's strong candidates are defeated early, since
the other party is divided so many ways.  The other party elects someone who
just isn't right, the pseudo-unified party wins in the general.

This cross-dressing strategy has at least two easily-identifiable risks.
The second biggest risk is that the non-unified party, with the help of
crossdressers, selects an unacceptable candidate and wins anyway, leading to
chaos.  The biggest risk is that the pseudo-unified party's pre-selected
candidate wins, leading to chaos.

Mathematical modeling experts, here ya go.  Legionara, that is how we got
from Rand Paul to here.

spike