I never intended 'extreme' to mean 'has a lot of opponents.' I think this is my fault, and I should have used 'intense.' It's all semantics, but I'll take the b

I never intended 'extreme' to mean 'has a lot of opponents.' I think this is my fault, and I should have used 'intense.' It's all semantics, but I'll take the blame for being unclear. That said, I would argue that even in the case where there is an 'extreme' view by your definition the numbers you suggest both seem arbitrarily unmotivated by real example is not reassuring to me monetarily. It also still does not address questions I raised about those with no expendable income whatsoever (either as the 'aggressor' minority or as the 'defensive' majority). It does not account for the question I raised about voter mobility (which looks nothing like you've pictured in the above imagined case study). Nor does it address the issue of finding a function that balancing the political mobility of the disenfranchised and capital poor with the power and financial elite. Nor does it address example groups (given both for historical and current political groups). And there are more issues, such as enforcement (how do you prevent fronts from buying votes or families or employees from buying votes so that n becomes n/m and this f(n/m) << f(n))? The argument you give doesn't seem to defend turning votes into a commodity, but appears to be a general argument for 'this thing I'm proposing is good.' I could use the words in the exact quote as an 'advertisement' (it really isn't an argument...) for any system, take say for example a Parliamentary system. I also disagree with it on the grounds that it claims, without any substantive analysis, that democracy as it stands tends not to improve the lives of people who are 40% in numbers for something. But I won't mention voter mobilization again...