This fundamental electoral math

From Repealing the Second Amendment would be incredibly difficult by Megan McArdle.

When one side of an issue is willing to tell pollsters they support something, and the other side of the issue is willing to act on their beliefs, the side that acts tends to win, even if they are numerically smaller. This fundamental electoral math explains a lot of seeming anomalies in American politics, including the gap between gun polls and gun policy.

Indeed. I sometimes suspect that what gets attributed to polarization is actually something else going on to do with distributed social media.

With the internet and social media, it is easy to hear the people who talk and harder to see the people who act. Things occur because of those who do things, not because of those who pose and posture.

There are so many controversies which only exist because of the gulf between select peoples' trumpeted opinions rather than because of the actions of the great middle in the real world.

Lots of people claiming X is a crisis but acting like it is not. Lots of people acting on Y and never saying a thing.

If you hear X and don't see Y, it is easy to see the world as crazy and polarized. Perhaps all that is going on is that we have not societally learned yet to screen out the Cassandras and pay more attention to the Norman Borlaugs of the world.