[HN Gopher] The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the...
___________________________________________________________________
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world (2019)
Author : choult
Score : 74 points
Date : 2026-01-25 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| puppion wrote:
| This rule didn't hold in Israel in the last 3 years. Well over
| 3.5% went to the streets and the government remains in tact.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| So far, if estimates are accurate, neither in Iran with 90
| million population, more than five percent turned out.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I have no idea how many Iranians have been involved in the
| protests, but it seems like they're getting past the 3.5%
| number as well..
| smallerize wrote:
| It doesn't work if the opposition is also organized. For
| example, a March 2003 Gallup poll showed that 5% of the US
| population had made a public opposition to the Iraq war, but
| 21% had made a public display to support the war. Small
| minorities can't go directly against more popular movements.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| I agree that's what it's saying but it does make the whole
| statement a bit meaningless.
|
| Essentially the statement is 3.5% succeed unless there's
| meaningful opposition.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It's not meaningless, as there is a difference between
| opposition and status quo.
| terminalshort wrote:
| What do you mean by "went to the streets?" If it's just show up
| at a protest and wave a sign on Saturday and Sunday, and go
| back to work on Monday, that's not enough. That's not civil
| resistance. People seriously underestimate the commitment
| levels necessary to actually matter.
| conception wrote:
| Paper says non-violent is ~50/50 vs one in four for violent. So
| not a sure thing.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| So there were 323 events investigated but there's some
| criteria that should be taken into account for violent
| resistances that is not - for instance zero of the
| resistances to the Nazi occupations during World War 2
| succeeded by their definition, and off the top of my head
| only the Yugoslavian resistance really put up a substantial
| dent in the occupation and still required the Soviet army
| invasion to kick the Nazis out.
| erxam wrote:
| The problem is defining 'non-violent'. Is it just showing up
| to a protest from 5pm to 6pm with a sign? Is it a general
| strike that will undoubtedly harm the economy? Is it
| demonstrating that you _could_ respond to violence
| effectively and daring them to up the scales?
| alephnerd wrote:
| > This rule didn't hold in Israel [...]
|
| It did (ie. Revolutionary thresholds) until 10/7 and
| Hezbollah's shelling of the north changed the calculus.
|
| There was increased pressure from senior IDF careerists,
| industry titans, and intelligence alums (oftentimes the 3 were
| the same) against the government which was about to reach the
| tip over point, but then 10/7 happened along with the mass
| evacuation of the North, which led everyone to set aside their
| differences.
|
| Israel is a small country (same population and size as the Bay
| Area) so everyone either knows someone or was personally
| affected by the southern massacre or the northern evacuation.
| graemep wrote:
| This is plausible. Non violent groups will often have wider
| public support (because most people would prefer not to support
| violence) and if those in power use violence against the non-
| violent it increases public sympathy for them.
| jfengel wrote:
| (2019)
| alephnerd wrote:
| Iran proved it wrong (the regime mobilized roughly 1% of the
| country's population to crack down on protesters) with regards to
| Single Party Regimes, and knowing people at the Ash Center, they
| are pessimistic about this as well.
| bananasandrice wrote:
| So much from Orwell's Bolshevik State Broacaster.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| If you have 2+ groups with opposing views, each 3.5%+ it's pretty
| clear that at least one of the 3.5%+ groups will fail.
|
| Others here note it's really "3.5% if there's no one seriously
| opposing their objectives" but in my opinion that's a meaningless
| rule. Of course in those cases non-conflict resolves the issue.
| vog wrote:
| This is far from meaningless, because if you are too far below
| those 3.5%, you'll fail to make a change for the better,
| _despite_ having a good cause with no real opposition.
|
| Those 3.5% are encouraging for all social movements, who suffer
| (and/or have friends/family who suffer) from some issue in the
| system, have perhaps developed a good plan out of it, but think
| they are too small to make a difference.
| mihaic wrote:
| Success doesn't have to mean getting your way, but rather
| making a meaningful change in your direction. Even opposing
| groups often can find a way so that both get a better
| situation. For instance, taxes can overall be lowered while
| teacher salaries can increase on average at the same time, if
| excess money is taken from other activities.
| roenxi wrote:
| [delayed]
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| (2019)
|
| Chenoweth has backed off her previous conclusions in recent
| years, observing that nonviolent protest strategies have
| dramatically declined in effectiveness as governments have
| adjusted their tactics of repression and messaging. See eg
| https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/07/erica-chenoweth-demo...
|
| One current example of messaging can be seen in the reflexive
| dismissal by the current US government and its propagandists of
| any popular opposition as 'paid protesters'. Large attendance at
| Democratic political rallies during the 2024 election was
| dismissed as being paid for by the campaign, any crowd protesting
| government policy is described as either a rioting or alleged to
| be financed by George Soros or some other boogeyman of the right.
| This has been going on for years; the right simply refuses to
| countenance the possibility of legitimate organic opposition,
| while also being chronically unable to provide any evidence for
| their claims.
| alephnerd wrote:
| That's a misreading of Chenowith's argument which itself is
| heavily based on Timur Kuran's _Revolutionary Thresholds_
| concept.
|
| The thesis is once mass mobilization of non-violent protesters
| occurs, it reduces the threshold for elite defection because
| there are multiple different veto groups within a selectorate,
| and some may choose to defect because they either view the
| incumbent as unstable or they disagree with the incumbent's
| policies.
|
| I also recommend reading Chennowith's discussion paper clearing
| up the "3.5%" argument [0]. A lot of mass reporting was just
| sloppy.
|
| [0] -
| https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Eric...
| monero-xmr wrote:
| It's true that large leftist groups fund protests. 100% true.
| Here's a recent ABC News report on the No Kings protests
| https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/no-kings-protes...
|
| Also they completely stopped once the new anti-ICE thing became
| popular. Where are all the new organic No Kings protests?
| Everyone wrote about it in all the major publications and now
| we forgot(?) and the Tesla dealership protests? No normal
| person engages in this stuff, it's hyper activists part of
| organized groups with real financing
| estebank wrote:
| > No normal person engages in this stuff, it's hyper
| activists part of organized groups with real financing
|
| I guess I'm not a normal person then. I didn't realize that I
| was a hyper activist because I drew on some cardboard and
| that my group of friends was being financed. I better go
| demand for my Soros-check from them.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Are you planning on going to a Tesla dealership again to
| protest? This was top of my Reddit algorithm for several
| months, no one even mentions it anymore
| coryrc wrote:
| Because they won? Have you seen Tesla's sales numbers and
| market share?
| runako wrote:
| Over that timeframe, did anything change about the
| relationship of the CEO of Tesla and the US government?
| coryrc wrote:
| > Where are all the new organic No Kings protests?
|
| I see them regularly just driving around.
| pousada wrote:
| Many years of taking care in protests against rightwing
| politics and I haven't received a single penny; meanwhile
| everyone else is getting paid, I really fucked up I guess...
| awesome_dude wrote:
| "Paid" demonstrators has been an accusation used by governments
| for several decades.
| yesco wrote:
| In the age of centralized broadcasting where everyone watched
| the same TV channels, smaller protests could have outsized
| impact. That was an anomaly of the 20th century, not a timeless
| rule.
|
| Some still haven't gotten the memo and are now framing
| declining effectiveness as somehow the "other side's" fault.
| But how could it be? The people you actually need to convince
| are those in the middle, and it seems like many protests aren't
| even trying to reach them anymore.
|
| I genuinely don't understand what a lot of modern protests are
| attempting to accomplish in terms of persuasion. I see their
| political goals, but why would going outside and complaining
| change any minds? Why would blocking traffic and ruining
| someone's day make them sympathetic to your cause? How is
| shaming people who aren't already supporters supposed to win
| them over?
|
| It was always naive to think 3.5% of the population could force
| the other 96.5% to do whatever they want by making enough
| noise. It's even more naive to suggest it's everyone else's
| fault for not listening. And it's completely unhinged to imply
| that roughly 35% on the opposite political side are somehow
| bamboozling the remaining 60%.
|
| If you're asking what they should do instead, I honestly
| couldn't tell you. But not having a better answer doesn't mean
| the current approach is working. Maybe try doing something that
| would actually make people like you? Pick up litter, volunteer
| visibly, something that builds goodwill instead of resentment.
| I don't know. But whatever this is, it isn't persuading anyone
| who wasn't already on board.
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Hong Kong proved this wrong too...
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The world seems to have changed since the events that led to this
| conclusion (that were mostly way before 2019).
|
| Governments apparently learned how to assimilate protests and
| burn people down without any apparent violence, but still
| destroying their causes.
| andrepd wrote:
| Occupy Wall Street was a turning point for me. It's staggering
| how many things today follow directly from the 2008 gfc and its
| disastrous aftermath.
| Animats wrote:
| The primary legacy of Occupy Wall Street is that "the 1%"
| became a meme. Enough so that policies are still evaluated on
| how they affect "the 1%" vs the rest of the population. The
| concentration of wealth in the US became much better known.
| It did not, however, reduce that concentration of wealth.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Individuals can change the world, too. Lee Harvey Oswald, for
| one. Elon Musk, for another (in a totally different way). And
| Fritz Haber. Plenty more.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| (2019)
|
| Some previous discussion:
|
| 2024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40378867
|
| 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32458241
| rayiner wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-25 23:00 UTC)