9 Comments
User's avatar
Dangerous Dan's avatar

The line of argument in this text is very interesting, but I think it could be made more explicit. I am certainly capable of drawing some inferences about what McKelvey’s theorem is, and those inferences might well be correct, but the text would have been better if it contained a sentence like: “McKelvey’s theorem is X, and you can see its operation at work right here.” At this point, I don’t really know if McKelvey’s theorem is only applicable to 2-dimensional spaces or if it is of broader scope, or if the notion of McKelvey’s theorem is not entirely formalized , etc.

Will Hudson's avatar

Source of the first image? I’d always suspected it was the case. Very interesting to see it represented in data.

Steve Roth's avatar

I found this paper to be remarkably readable/skimmable, and not very long.

Giampiero Campa's avatar

"Republicans’ one defense from complete chaos is that they have a dictator".

Another one is the money from a big business and corporations. Which by the way is the reason (mostly pretend) libertarian faction survives.

Giulio's avatar

Fascinating read. If you had to go out on a limb, what would the consequences be for the Republican Party in 2026? Can this turn into electoral success?

Neocentrist's avatar

Hard to imagine it working out positively given the public fighting

Giulio's avatar

That’s my feeling as well - although purely political with no theory involved. I was wondering a situation where that turns out like “occupying a larger portion of the political spectrum”

Shawn Ruby's avatar

It's not chaos just because it doesn't follow mathematics or logic. It means you arbitrarily conflated too many variables into a few single dimensions that they have no explanatory power.