I&#x27;m interested in thinking through several examples on this subject.<p>One example that comes to mind with me is the campaign by many university student groups across the country to encourage endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies. For example: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fossilfreeuc.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fossilfreeuc.org&#x2F;</a> <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fossilfreemit.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fossilfreemit.org&#x2F;</a> . The the vocal minority on this subject is very strongly in favor of their opinion (divestment), whereas the larger mass of students mostly doesn&#x27;t care about the issue or perhaps leans to not divesting but only slightly.<p>It is interesting to consider the more detailed results of this where people don&#x27;t have 0 cost acquiescence, for example if people really wanted some non-kosher soda it would still exist in the marketplace.<p>It is also interesting how this phenomena occurs in voting schemes where you have a fixed number of voting points to distribute over all issues up for consideration. In such systems people can have their minority issues more strongly represented.