I was responding to > every issue and potential solution is nuanced. By extension, this means that every person outside of the most extremist is nuanced as wel

I was responding to > every issue and potential solution is nuanced. By extension, this means that every person outside of the most extremist is nuanced as well. I think the article has it backwards. It asserts complicated people with uncorrelated beliefs (random vectors) and how impossible the task of self-categorization becomes (i'm so unique that im far from each parties centroid, which of course neglects those who are close to the centroid). This is a fake task. Candidates self-sort into parties to gain nominations by making promises to party insiders and voters choose among candidates during elections. The apparatus of party isn't relevant to the choice in the ballot box. Neither is the alignment of the candidate with the voter. You make a choice A or B. It's only the difference in A vs B not the alignment with A or with B. Alignment is correlated with the difference, sure, but its not the reason to choose A over B. That's what I meant by the aggregations comment. Parties cover/split voters and the centroid drifts over time. That drift is irrelevant to the task of candidate choice.