<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:27.2px">OK now, view the two mainstream US parties as coalitions. Those two gain</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:27.2px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:27.2px">strength to the point where any other party is shut out spike</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:27.2px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:27.2px">I am having trouble with this one. Europe can govern with coalitions - we can't or don't. They cooperate in some senses of that word, and we don't. So in what sense are our two parties coalitions, as opposed to bitter enemies? bill w</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:40 AM, spike <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net" target="_blank">spike66@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
>... On Behalf Of Legionara<br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Nobody can say we weren't warned<br>
<br>
>...It's too bad Johnson's brain is fried from all the pot. How did we get<br>
from Paul to this? Legionara<br>
<br>
<br>
Crossdressing.<br>
<br>
Here's an interesting mathematical modeling puzzle for those so inclined.<br>
First, convince yourself you understand why any democracy will evolve into a<br>
two-party system by the competitive advantage of belonging to a mainstream<br>
party. This tends to reduce the number of main parties until the number of<br>
parties is one. At that time, the lone remaining party splits into two.<br>
This causes the magic number of parties to always tend toward two.<br>
<br>
In European countries we see coalitions of parties, and in some cases it<br>
evolves into three coalitions where the winner is whenever two of the three<br>
work together. This is analogous in a sense to two major parties, if you<br>
want to think of it that way.<br>
<br>
OK now, view the two mainstream US parties as coalitions. Those two gain<br>
strength to the point where any other party is shut out, leading to the<br>
well-known observation that third parties cannot win.<br>
<br>
Next step, visualize the mainstream parties realizing that to win they must<br>
present a unified front. Their own primary process is destructive and<br>
expensive. They need to save their powder for the main event. Turns out<br>
there is a well-known way to do that.<br>
<br>
A party's pragmatists are those who realize the party's victory is more<br>
important than the candidate. The pragmatist segment goes with the most<br>
likely front runner.<br>
<br>
Now imagine the party wants to control the pragmatist vote. A category of<br>
special delegates are selected, ones that can be consulted, controlled,<br>
party loyalists. Lock up these delegates, the Chosen One locks up the major<br>
contributors and the pragmatist vote. With those three factors (selected<br>
delegates, pragmatists and donors) the primaries are over before they start.<br>
The party appears unified. I call it pseudo-unified.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, the hapless opponents not using that strategy are scrapping for<br>
donations, fighting each other, dividing themselves 17 ways. The advantage<br>
to the pseudo-unified party is enormous.<br>
<br>
Even if a challenger emerges who has no chance at all and makes a surprising<br>
good showing by coming across even to those who disagree as at least a<br>
decent respectable person, the illusion of a unified front can be<br>
maintained.<br>
<br>
But wait, there's more.<br>
<br>
If the pseudo-unified party then cross-registers as voters from the other<br>
party, they can create chaos by selecting the other party's least acceptable<br>
candidate. The other party's strong candidates are defeated early, since<br>
the other party is divided so many ways. The other party elects someone who<br>
just isn't right, the pseudo-unified party wins in the general.<br>
<br>
This cross-dressing strategy has at least two easily-identifiable risks.<br>
The second biggest risk is that the non-unified party, with the help of<br>
crossdressers, selects an unacceptable candidate and wins anyway, leading to<br>
chaos. The biggest risk is that the pseudo-unified party's pre-selected<br>
candidate wins, leading to chaos.<br>
<br>
Mathematical modeling experts, here ya go. Legionara, that is how we got<br>
from Rand Paul to here.<br>
<br>
spike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>