Don't worry, this article will not be filled with wonderful mathematic formulas, but is to be inferred in a perhaps allegorical way.

First a statement of the constituents in the physical problem present: political parties. Currently, there are "two" primary political parties, which is more semblance than reality. Multiple minor other parties are always present but only rarely replace a major party, such as the end of the Whig party before our first civil war (what's the second civil war? We're in it now).

Then there is the necessary confined space which the pressure/volume (PV) relation necessitates.
We actually have, for purposes of national politics two fixed-volume containers, known as the Senate and the House of Representatives. Let us fix our gaze upon the more capacious of the two chambers, the House of Representatives (HR). Fixed by law HR can only have a fixed number of constituents. Although there can be fewer constituents (and by constituents, I do NOT include the voting or non-voting public, but only those elected (selected) to allegedly perform the duties of office. Ostensibly those duties were fiduciary in respect to the population: decisions were supposed to be made in relationship to the COMMON good, however that may be envisioned. Now of course the fiduciary duties have been appropriated by campaign donors, in whatever form the monetary infusions are made.

So the heart of the PV is that for a fixed volume, at a fixed temperature, only so much material can fit a given container in order to maintain a fixed pressure. The container currently contains 415 components, maximum. These components exist in many sizes, shapes, colors, and odors inside the container. Adding more constituents into the already filled container is impermissible because of Constitutional limitations. The chamber was purposely designed to contain a certain volume.

Who are the constituents? At the current time, I believe all are either red or blue, but in some past configurations, a few "trace elements" find their way into the chamber, before they are chased out by the big players who don't want any "outside" competition.

The current contents of the container are red and blue. Theoretically each red and each blue member represents a certain hardness which prevents them to be compressed. In that way, the "molecules" exert counterpressures against each other, proportionate to the relative numbers. I hope I haven't lost too many of you so far.

But in certain situation, the "hardness" of the constituents varies. When one of the two major constituents become numerically inferior by a significant amount (a not readily definable number), all the members of the constituent class lose "hardness" and thus are compressed by the other major constituent class.

In political terms, this means that when the Democrats lose a certain amount of numbers in the chamber, they ALL lose influence, so that Republicans expand in power to fill the lapse in Democratic counter-pressure. In other words, a once formidable obstacle to Republicans has become so weakened as to not to be able, with their current chamber constituents, to engage in significant legislative "pressure" or counter pressure.

Where is this all leading? Remember, every two years constituents are reassembled within the chamber. In 2018, the Democratic party, already hit by waves of desertion, will be further weakened--and in some cases willingly--by those in power resistant to change. Approximately half of the pre-2016/Bernie Democratic party still remaining amongst possible voters have abandoned the Democratic Party.

One-half of the D party, either through non-voting, cross-over voting, third party voting, will NOT return to the D party. Establishment D's would sooner lose to an R than to a Progressive. This has been shown time after time. Despite disillusionment with Trump, for which there is great cause, non-R's may yet vote for R's and the majority of disaffected former D's will go elsewhere. There will be no great D resurgence in 2018 mid-terms, especially if Obama and Medusa stick their noses back into the game. (BHO didn't do very well halting Brexit; HRC lost an election almost impossible to lose). Most likely, except in NY and CA, another cadre of R's will enter the container, further diminishing the D's counter pressure, rendering D's TOTALLY ineffective. Up to now the D's have been ineffective by choice. In 2018, D's will be ineffective, even if they wanted to be so otherwise (which they don't), because there will be obviously too few of them.

Pressure Volume relation in 2020

Regardless of whether Trump is impeached or not, the D's will not gain votes. They still have no message. They still only offer the status quo of elitism, austerity, and suppression. The kicker here is whether a third party can gain enough traction to effectively insert itself into the current two color chamber. Such an event would exert pressure on remaining D's and even R's. The D's, as we know them, are a dying party, ruled over by an ancient team of sell-outs. It is unlikely that enough establishment D's will get re-elected to maintain the current malfunction.

Okay, you say, what about the "rising stars" of the corporatist D party, such as Kamala the Camel Harris or Booker T. Booker or Kirsten Gillibrand? As of now, all 3 are so openly beholden to the Obama/Clinton establishment as to be incapable of drawing back former grassroots D's. They will lose nationally even though their home states are very blue.

So, the end of the D's is in sight. Rich donors having not reaped return on investment from Medusa and other puppets. With declining numbers of D's, they will less likely support other D's for the ROI reason. Remaining grass roots members will be, and already are, disinclined to contribute to the D's.

This part of the equation is simple: Less Money = Less D's.

Now for the consequences:

Scenario 1: A third party, most likely headed by Bernie will rise from the ashes of the D party. They will be a minority party--but so will the remaining establishment D's. Alone neither faction will be effective, leaving the R's in complete control.

Scenario 2: Regardless of a left-of center--or even center--D / Indie Party constituency, R's will have overwhelming legislative control. And here is the R's Achilles heel.

The R's Achilles heel

As the non-R counter pressure diminishes, the R's will expand. But the R's are not as monolithic as some think. They are currently fracture prone into several constituents:
1. Trumpista
2. Establishment / NeverTrump
3. Libertarian / Tea Party

With the demise of the D's the R's have quite a good chance of fracturing.

Now assume that each former pseudo-monolithic party fractures into at least two significant subcomponents each. That leaves 4 contenders in the political arena. But the coalitions will not be rigid. On points of agreement several of the factions may unite, whereas at points of disagreement, the coalition will cease. This is what I consider an almost parliamentary system. We already have a King who rules over the President. (The King is corporate giants / elites).

This whole situation is dependent upon one factor besides volume and constituents. That is Temperature. The temperature is rising. Political as well as economic discontent is rising. Not coincidentally the rising climate temperatures also worsen social temperatures. People in hot weather are more prone to violent acts than people in cooler climates.

Hypothesis

There are two possible outcomes from this current political situation:

1. Peaceful disassembly of the constituent political parties

2. Violent explosion.

We are at a point of no return--not just in a climatic sense but in a political sense. Why this is true could be a subject for another essay. But true it is.

Either the two parties divide or explosion comes.