What is the 'it'?

The day after I submitted the final draft of my manuscript to Federation Press, an associate rang me.

“The judge wants to know if you have a view on what ‘plurality’ means.”

“Hold my beer”, I replied.

I do have a view. Four pages of my book, in fact, are devoted to an attempt to come up with a workable definition.

I gave the associate an executive summary of what I had written.

“So”, the associate said, “essentially you are talking about a situation where there is a fracturing of the majority”.

I thought to myself, If we had had this conversation two days ago that would be in my book.

Albeit with an asterisk after the word “majority”, because “plurality” is equally available where all of the judges reach the same dispositive result but where there is no dissenting judgment, only a divergence of opinions as to how to get there – in which case I suppose you could describe it as “a fracturing of the reasoning of the court”.

But “fracturing” is good.