Political scientists say over half the population is independent, having no party affiliation. The practical identity of the popular vote (its utility) is an emergent property.
While elitists say the elite model is an ontological expression (the Iron Law) that naturally authors the risk (its utility), a pluralistic dimension measurably emerges at the margin. Reactionary resistance is usually ideological. Anyone that thinks The People should determine fate “is a communist or something.”
The Republican front runner describes Senator Sanders as a “crazy communist-socialist or something that’s going to give it all away” and the DNC’s super-delegates resist Sanders’ expressed, democratic-socialist identity.
To conserve its functional counter-identity (the binomial confidence game that appears to be democratic self-determination, but really isn’t), the DNC does not want “their party” to be identified with being “communist or something.”
Both parties are determined to demonstrate elitist properties with an emergent pluralistic identity at the margin; and like political science tells us, this emergent property actually describes objective reality, naturally yielding to the numbers because, like Positivists say, numbers have a strict interpretation, yielding to a natural identity, measured at the margin.
Again, the president says that change is not inevitable. (It does marginally exist, nevertheless. President Obama was effectively marginalized but it did not prevent him from acting at the margin using the bureaucratic model.) It’s like a gravitational wave, hard to detect but, over time, emerges at the margin where elitists, obsessed with “their” natural, super-identity, tend to ignore it, naturally yielding to the imperative (like two black holes colliding) the more reactionary “they” become. This ontology of the risk dimension (that I write about extensively) is what Bernie Sanders is saying about “separation of powers” and the natural identity (the functional utility) of the “executive branch.” (The model of pluralism–“existing” in the form of collective “action”–“that comes through in waves.”)
When the House, for example, resists “the will of the people” with “their” best-and-brightest judgment, it is a function of the executive branch to bring it closer to a “more perfect union” (making the irrational number more rational). Constitutionally endowed (having a natural identity), the logic of collective action “acts” to know the priority at the margin (on demand) in the form of a general election, which naturally identifies (like elitists say) with the power of executive authority.
Is it a coincidence that the majority of voters are non-partisan at the margin!
Without super-delegates, for example, what is the natural identity that really exists (inevitably actualizing) at the margin?
Crashing somebody else’s party… well, that’s just downright rude (impolitique–impractical–way too radical), isn’t it? That just “spoils it” for everybody, doesn’t it!
Maybe it’s better that “they” invite everybody to the party with party favors that are not bread and circuses.
(Notice how the emergent identity is a technical function of changing support and resistance measured at the margin.)