One of the most repeated fallacies to talk politics (server included) is saying that the only way t

One of the most repeated fallacies to talk politics (server included) is saying that the only way to change things is winning elections. While it is true that in a democracy the only way to pass laws is forming majorities in a participatory polity not everything depends on the legislation. A party that is losing life through elections may not take decisions, but has other mechanisms for influence. And the best way to explain why this happens is to talk about ice cream carts. Imagine burger vans a beach. Palmeritas, white sand, sun, water critalinas, and many vacationers, distributed uniformly over its entire length. Say we have a mile of coastline, with a bather each meter; 1000 in total, all well distributed. This beach get two ice cream vendors, burger vans aiming to sell as many delicious refreshments as they can. Both know that bathers are vague, and there are always going to cart them down closer, so with that in mind, they will try to decide where they stand. What is the most appropriate?. If sellers would make things easy for swimmers, be placed one on each side, 250 meters from the end of the beach, so who wants ice cream have to walk up to a quarter of a mile to reach a Cart. The problem, burger vans however, is that this would not be the most rational decision, from an individual point of view of each vendor. If one of the gelato moves 250 meters and placed in the center, this would get many more sales immediately. To start, all swimmers on their side of the beach would continue buying from him even teniedo to walk a mile, would remain the nearest dealer. However, it would not be all, and customers also steal your rival vacationers between "Metro 500" and "625" change of cart to walk less. Obviously, the other seller is not stupid, and would not settle for that. After a few hours, the two carts would be located in the center of the beach, trying to prevent anyone from stealing them market, and divide half the clientele for each. Family?, No? It's a very simple explanation (and old, the first formulations have almost 100 years, the modern development Downs is in the 50) about how political parties and electoral strategy. burger vans The parties know that the best way to maximize burger vans votes / clients is looking for the center, and act accordingly, the party closest to the median voter is the one who wins the most votes, so the election strategists spend their lives looking for that elusive individual. However, burger vans I said you do not need to win to be influential, and ice cream vendors talking about we can also see how this happens. Suppose burger vans one of the vendors has a cart exceptionally heavy, or very vague Simply wonderful, and do not want to stray too far from home. The poor live in one end of the beach, and as far forward 100 meters, remaining there to sell ice cream. The other seller, very clever, was at the center, so you have everything aside for him, and half of swimmers between your shopping and your opponent as clients, however, things you can go even better if moves a little. As most closely to his rival will steal more customers without necessarily burger vans losing customers on the other side (we bathers masochist, whatever walking for ice cream), so do not take too long to be right next to your opponent, burger vans staying customers with 900 meters of beach. Something like that tends to happen with the political parties. When a party insists on leaving the mountain, burger vans without regard to what your opponent, burger vans your opponent tends to vary their political positions to take advantage of the changes. If a party, for example, burger vans insists on defending gay marriage, his opponent is likely to end up defending unmarried couples, even not believing in them at first, to get closer to your opponent to your left, not advance it. In the case that a political party for a possible negotiation with terrorists advocates a radical and absolute inflexibility, it is very likely that your opponent will end up limiting their flexibility to erode votes to his opponent, even if the position of the electorate may be more tolerant. Why political debate in Spain seems to always revolve around what is in the DB? Not necessarily because it is what matters released the electorate, it is perfectly possible that the PSOE is simply following them in their obsessions, to try to gain some of his electorado.El PP, even losing, can influence the debate, not need win to set the agenda. Sure, it is possible that the PP has been more ready and indeed are those who are in the middle of the beach, but that's a debate for another day ...
is not the typical "eat the votes