The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
I’m well aware of it. sorry but basically every instance of a government falling from power have substantial violent elements operating simultaneously with the non-violent. just quoting ‘if we 3.5% of the population’ gets you no where. we already have 3.5% of the population against trump/gop. the problem is you twits dont know how to protest effectively.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 3.5% of the populations support is sufficient you’re an idiot. You need that support to be willing to do something that negatively impacts society, strikes, sit ins, property damage, etc.
You’ll note the distinct lack of actual activity against trump. People are more interested in waving signs and listening to people talk than actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
This is the point I am discussing in this thread.
I, personally, did not come up with the 3.5% number. Rather, I read what was written by people who publish their findings and rationale. I’ve provided sources that informed my opinion. My opinion could be wrong. If so I look forward to changing it, and thank you for taking the time to inform me better.
To the point: I don’t see how quoting election figures counters the 3.5% number regarding protests. ‘Election’ and ‘protest’ are not synonymous, and the relationship between them are not as simplistic as you infer.
To clarify, and to the (certainly unintentional) strawman-ing of some of what I have posted:
Re: No-Kings Protests - I’ve never suggested that all protests are effective. I don’t believe that at all. I said protests the size of 3.5% of a population affect change. I’m not aware of any protest that has been that well attended yet.
Re: Violence - My point was to counter the incorrect claim that the 3.5% referred to violent protests. I’m not making any further claim beyond that. I’ve cited the source material
Re: Support - I’ve never claimed that 3.5% support will change anything. I’ve only stated that a protest of 3.5% population does cause change, historically.
Re: Idiocy - I can confirm that I am an idiot. That’s why I read books, because I’ve found that the facts often are unintuitive. The good news is that if we read what people have figured out before critically, then we often don’t have to relearn things the hard way. I highly recommend this process over the alternative.
Re: Sources - I’ve provided sources for you so you can verify that I’m not just pulling random statements out of my ass. I don’t expect you will actually look at them, but objecting to them with anecdotes and unrelated reasoning seems like a fruitless way to spend your time. But please, continue if you’d like…
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against a government, that government is likely to fall from power. The rule was formulated by Erica Chenoweth in 2013. It arose out of insights originally published by political scientist Mark Lichbach in 1995 in his book The Rebel’s Dilemma: Economics, Cognition, and Society.
Non-Violent
I’m well aware of it. sorry but basically every instance of a government falling from power have substantial violent elements operating simultaneously with the non-violent. just quoting ‘if we 3.5% of the population’ gets you no where. we already have 3.5% of the population against trump/gop. the problem is you twits dont know how to protest effectively.
It’s funny that in 2025 people still think that just saying shit on the internet means anything.
Sources, or stfu dude.
Sources for over 3.5%: see the 2023 election results. 60 million people were willing to vote for a genocidal prick over trump.
Sources for ineffective protests: please attend any no kings protest and you’ll see what i mean. Words words words, and not a single action being promoted.
Sources for violence: pick a movement. Will find the violent aspects. But lets use gandhi as an initial example
If you think just having 3.5% of the populations support is sufficient you’re an idiot. You need that support to be willing to do something that negatively impacts society, strikes, sit ins, property damage, etc.
You’ll note the distinct lack of actual activity against trump. People are more interested in waving signs and listening to people talk than actuall doing anything.
Then you twats run around screeching 3.5% is all we need! God you’re all idiots. At least start fucking striking. Someones notices a numerical value and you twits think the number is magical all on its own completely disassociating it from actual context.
This is the point I am discussing in this thread.
I, personally, did not come up with the 3.5% number. Rather, I read what was written by people who publish their findings and rationale. I’ve provided sources that informed my opinion. My opinion could be wrong. If so I look forward to changing it, and thank you for taking the time to inform me better.
To the point: I don’t see how quoting election figures counters the 3.5% number regarding protests. ‘Election’ and ‘protest’ are not synonymous, and the relationship between them are not as simplistic as you infer.
To clarify, and to the (certainly unintentional) strawman-ing of some of what I have posted: