If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to be able to accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.
If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.
If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.
My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?
There’s this implication that the same number of people required for reform are required for Revolution and that is not necessarily the case. Revolution can include a large majority of people, but if it did, it’s more likely that a relatively peaceful revolution would be able to take place. Violent revolution is typically thrust upon people. Not everyone will want to or is equipped to be able to do a revolution. It’s not like every American colonist was behind the American revolution. Many were loyalists, many fled, and many did fuck all and watched it happen around them. Some did a little, some did a lot.
All that really required is enough people organized to fight off the people who would fight to keep the current state alive.