# The OPLA Postulate

### Peter Oye Sagay

The OPLA Postulate is a mathematical postulate proposed by research mathematician Peter Oye Sagay. It is a simple predictive model for determining the candidate most likely to be elected to govern any democratic space.

The postulates states that:

The candidate with the highest OPLA Score is most likely to be elected to govern a democratic space.

The OPLA Postulate is constituted by four fundamental components:

Ownership: candidate is a citizen of the space. A candidate that is not a citizen of a high profile space such as a country will most likely never be elected.
Preparedness: candidate is prepared with respect to education, experience and political ground game.
Likeability: candidate is liked by the electorate.
Aphabet Subsetting: the last name (surname) of candidate and the name of the space he or she wants to govern, have at least one letter in common.

The mathematical representation of the OPLA Postulate is as follows:

OPLA Score = Qe-k k is the degree of political chaos or disequilibrium in the space. 0 ≤ k ≤ 1. A k = 0 implies a stable democracy. The model is very reliable for k = 0 (a stable democracy). Its reliability decreases exponentially with increasing k and is not reliable for k > 1. A space with a k > 1 is politically unstable.

Q is the sum of the score for each of the four fundamental components of the OPLA Postulate, that is:
Q = (O score + P score + L score + A score).
The O score is either 0 or 1. It is 1 if a candidate is a citizen of the space. It is 0 if a candidate is not a citizen of the space.
The P score ranges from 0 - (20 + 10(number of political subspaces in space, e.g. wards)). It is the sum of the score for each aspect (education, experience and ground game) of the P component. The score for education and experience each ranges from (0 - 10), they add up to a maximum of 20. The score for the ground game is a measure of the political structure and influence of the candidate and his or her party in the subspaces of the space. Score for the ground game ranges from 0 - 10 for each of the subspaces.
The L score ranges from 0 - 100. For example, 50% polling likeability gives a score of 50.
The A score is simply the number of letters common to both the last name of the candidate and the name of the space he or she wants to govern (a letter is counted as many times as it occurs). For example, in "Obama" and "United States Of America", The A score for Obama is 4 because the common letters are o,a and m (a is counted 2 times because it occurs twice in the last name).

Obama defeated McCain in 2008 presidential election primarily because of a superior ground game and a very high likeability. The O score was even. The A score was advantage McCain (McCain (6), Obama(4)). The education subscore was about even. The experience subscore was advantage McCain.

The same scenario was repeated in the 2012 presidential election. Eventhough Obama's likeability dipped, it was sufficiently high enough relative to Romney's.

Essentially, the electability of a candidate in a stable democracy mostly depends on the candidates likeability score and his ground game score. Candidates who want to win elections in high profile spaces have to appeal to the senses of the voters. Beauty of body, mind and spirit is existentially attractive and is a solid starting point for attracting likeability. Appearance matters.

The A score is subtly significant in space governance. It definitely does not play a decisive role. However, it is freqeuently visible to discerning eyes. At least one letter from the last names of almost all leaders is a subset of the letters in the names of the spaces they govern.