James: the 50-50 split as a modicum of not a cut off point, but a kind of overlap in a continuum, best defined by applying the prisoners’s dilemma, to express bonding in terms of co-operation within a range of total randomly selected, and redundant c
hoices -to-entirely coerced, antropic ones, that a finding of co-operation , [in case of such cooperation] TO the maximally entropic , minimally
co-operative - , that such involves the functionally
invasive cross value-which may change the hypothetical fulcrum of the 50-50 split.
To this type of scenario could values be attached, minimal in the lower, less redundant levels . The point You are making is well taken, that this representation transposes values from one to the other side of the fulcrum, changing and transforming values as a result. A cut off of one from the other was not intended, as the point in fact that democracy has suffered an anamolie be a de-differentiation of what is considered ‘democratic’ from one that is not.
For example, the Deep South was formerly, not too long ago considered solidly democratic, while now, it is republican. The dilemma consists of being bound into a set definition, while co-operation of less randomly effected pre-set patterns of value become predominant.
The relation to redundantly more randomly selected
patterns of value set co-operation at a minimum, regardless of the set value. In other words , co-operation in the democratic model seems to be based less on the inference of the value itself, but more on how co-operating on any value x, solves the dilemma of co-operation. It becomes the function of Democracy to co-operate given any value x, then to reduce the level of arbitrariness of such a value.
50-50 is some kind of bargaining chip-model between these two modes of organization, to establish the level of co-operation, among themselves, vis. the underlying authority keeping them captive to some arrangement.