SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A mathematical model that looked at the sudden collapse of empires or states was created, with an intent to look at why social disorder can appear from an apparently stable state (an example cited is the Arab Spring in 2011). Factions within a state make choices described by game-theory about whether to accept the political status quo, or to attempt to better their circumstances through costly rebellion.
We find that a small amount of dissatisfaction is typically harmless to the state, but can trigger sudden collapse when there is a sufficient buildup of political inequality. Contrary to intuition, a state is predicted to be least stable when its leadership is at the height of its political power and thus most able to exert its influence through external warfare, lavish expense or autocratic decree.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday May 14 2014, @06:08PM
Sounds like you didn't read TFA.
The gist of the paper is summed up in the second and third Paragraphs of the "Discussion" header.
The thing is that Governments that operate with some semblance of democracy, which includes most European governments, US, Canada, India, etc., have essentially removed the penalty for defection.
People living in functional democracies can switch political affiliation at will, and that makes a HUGE difference, even when the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Monolithic states like Egypt were set up to give the appearance of democracy without any real democracy.
Britain, US, Canada not unstable, (in the sense portrayed in this paper), because stability was never built into the structure of government. Intentional, frequent, and scheduled CHANGE was built in. The more opportunity for real change, without tearing everything down and starting again, the more stable the country.
When you defect from one political party you pay no lasting penalty, EVEN when your newly adopted party loses the election. When your party wins, you gain no lasting benefit.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday May 14 2014, @07:14PM
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by turonah on Thursday May 15 2014, @08:56AM
So in light of another recent study that essentially labelled the US as an oligarchy (http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/04/17/02 37218 [soylentnews.org]), would that not support Grishnakh's claim? Especially when you look at what the cost for "defecting" is (anecdotally: anyone who spoke out against the war in Iraq; the manhunt for Snowden). As far as my (admittedly limited) knowledge goes, there's also a fair amount of backlash from friends and family if one "defects" from either of the two major parties.
Combine everything, and I'd say that unless the status quo changes the US will end up unstable as well.
That all being said however, maybe trends are moving toward positive changes?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48AM
That is only true so long as the people believe there is a significant difference between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. As soon as the populace becomes convinced it doesn't matter which one they vote for, the democracy advantage goes away.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 15 2014, @06:07PM
Or third parties appear.
Its happened already in Europe, and its slowly happening in the US. Not yet successful in getting a lot of people elected, but already forcing the dialog to change.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.