[EM] Fwd: The list might like this...

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 07/22/2013 07:20 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> An interesting article from DLW  on modelling two-party voting as a
> battle between two networks. (The comments are depressingly stupid, though.)

Maybe that could be used to argue in favor of Michael Allan's "party 
that will dissolve itself". The general line would go to the effect of 
"hey, connected nodes: you're what the party needs to succeed. So 
shouldn't you get some influence too? You can by using delegative 
structures, which is what we'd like to use".

Regarding the comments, I get the impression that the commenters know 
that something is wrong. But they don't know *why* something is rotten 
with the state of politics, so they try to find a simple explanation on 
their own. And the simplest explanations (in the sense of being easy to 
imagine) are conspiracy or that all blame can be placed on the current 
party in power.

I know that line of reasoning is potentially logically rude (in Suber's 
sense), so I'll be really careful with it. Still, it fits with the 
impression I get.