13 ms·

How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah and the Presidency

172 points by csense 10y ago

mason240 10y ago
It seems like former governor Jon Huntsman would have had an even better chance.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Huntsman torpedoed himself super early in the 2012 cycle by acting ashamed of his Mormon background on national TV. This alienated his base Mormon/Utah constituency, which would've been instrumental in propelling him to major primary candidate status, and made everyone else think he was a traitor. Really sad, because 2 major Mormon candidates in the primary would've required Mormons to pay some consideration to the policies instead of just voting for the candidate that was most like themselves.
tswartz 10y ago
An interesting thought exercise and an explainer on how the U.S. election process works that a lot of Americans (including myself) probably didn't realize. I appreciate that the author caveats most of their statements with how statistically unlikely each of the steps for McMullin to win are. I think FiveThirtyEight coverage of the election has been very good. A side point that I took from this article is that some people talk about the potential for the U.S. to shift from a two major party system, however our election process strongly discourages it. As a result, it's highly unlikely to ever happen. Since the process for electing a President and VP go to Congress if candidates fail to win at least 270 electoral votes, I feel that the American public would be less likely to vote if the chances of Congress picking the President, assuming 3 major candidates are likely to split the electoral college vote. However, maybe that would make people pay a lot closer attention to the down-ballot races for Congress...
- Svip 10y ago
  I think the problem with the US system is that there is too much emphasis on the President. The office is important, but it's not all powerful. It's not that the presidency itself needs to be available to more than two parties, but seats in Congress as well as state legislatures should be. Indeed, a party-list proportional representation for the state legislatures would strongly encourage minority parties to obtain seats, as votes cast for a party not winning in one's district would be go on to matter on the state-wide level. As for the presidency, a worthy consideration could be how France elects their president. Their system is a two round system. In the first round, anyone who is eligible can be on the ballot. But if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes (not electors), it goes onto the second round, where the two candidates with the most votes are the only ones on the ballot. In practical terms, only two parties in modern France have held the presidency, but at least each presidency was elected by a majority of the voters. Plus France's parliament and senate contains members from parties that never get the presidency itself. Another place to look could be your neighbour to the North, that practically has three main parties: NPD, Tories and Labour. Of course, Canada is a parliamentary system, so they don't have a strong executive branch like the US. But you are not wrong, it's the US election system that encourages the two party system. But what I truly wonder is why each state basically maintains the same system as every other state.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The states maintain their systems because there are 2 parties that exercise a lot of influence in state politics. I've thought about trying to start a ballot initiative to remove parties from the ballot process. Each candidate would have to generate sufficient support to get their name on the ballot, no other rules. Organized groups like parties would be useful under those rules, but an independent wouldn't be at a legal disadvantage compared to a member of an incumbent party (as is the case in many states today).
    - Svip 10y ago
      I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually a step in the wrong direction. Because while parties won't appear on the ballot, the parties will make sure to include their name and their candidate in every advertisement, so only few voters are unsure whom each candidate represents. Likely washing away other parties' chances as they don't maintain the same influence. No, party-list proportional representation is a much more democracy and fairer system. Because it allows a voter to vote for a party that's not popular in their district, but so that their vote can matter on a state-wide or national-wide level. Of course, that's a major overhaul of the system, but unfortunately, I personally believe that's what necessary. However, I believe that such an overhaul could start in smaller more progressive states like Vermont or Maine. And if the system catches on, there may be public push for a similar system in neighbouring states.
- specialist 10y ago
  "shift from a two major party system" Would require a change from our first past the post (FPTP) voting system to something like approval voting. (Or proportional representation for assemblies.) Duverger's Law suggests that plurality systems (like FPTP) results in a two party system, because candidates (belligerents) all try to form the smallest winning coalition. FWIW, I strongly prefer approval voting. Easy to explain, tabulate. A lot more fair. Preference-based systems discourage mudslinging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    Duverger's Law says that Plurality Voting (specifically) leads to two-party domination. http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  All this talk of a 'two party system' is kinda nonsense. Yeah, first-past the post voting encourages the emergence of two main parties but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the emergence of a third party besides bad strategy. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians (the two best-known alternatives) put any serious effort into getting anyone elected to Congress that I can see. That it's possible to get elected to Congress without the support of a major party is proved by the existence of independent representatives and senators. If they can get elected as individuals, there's no reason that they can't get elected as members of a minority party...but Congressional races are boring so neither party seems willing to invest much effort in doing so. This cycle, Libertarian Gary Johnson was polling well enough that he had a prospect of getting into one of the debates (hitting 13% in several polls, with the threshold for inclusion in the Presidential debate being 15% - I don't approve of this arbitrary rule, but at least it's a known factor in advance. But then in a series of interviews he demonstrated how foolish he was - ignorant of Aleppo in Syria, a major global flash point for a few years now, unable to name a single foreign leader he admires even slightly, and finally giving an interview where he said he could go into the debates without saying a word and still improve his standing before sticking his tongue out at the reporter and performing an impression of Donald Duck (as best I can guess). The guy is just clown shoes and nobody has sidelined him this year except himself. As for his party conference, it was mainly memorable for one candidate for party chairman performing a strip tease on stage, presumably to win a bet or as a prank. Is it any wonder voters don't take them seriously? Jill Stein of the greens is little better and seems more interested in publicity stunts than promoting a platform or getting anyone else into Congress. The real reason (IMO) is that if you seriously want to influence politics it is far more efficient to sponsor ballot initiatives in states that allow them and lobby in other states and at the federal level. Why waste money on getting someone elected when you can just buy off a politician from one of the major parties? Anyone who has enough money to actually underwrite a party already knows this and so has little or no incentive to spend years and multiple election campaigns trying to build a political platform, especially given that the Democrats and Republicans are quite willing to sell their principles so cheaply. the people with the political will have no money and the people with the money have no incentive. It's not impossible, it just takes time. I estimate that with a starting pot of $5-10m and 10 years I could build a minority party in the US Congress. An even better prospect given the parlous state of the Republican party would be to simply drive a wedge into it after this election, subvert the least powerful side. adn just hijack the leadership after 5 years or so, which is basically what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.
- 551199 10y ago
  Fivethirtyeight is anything but balanced as you might expect from a company that is Clinton's biggest donor. See Taleb's tweet storm of their methodology: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674
  - TylerE 10y ago
    Got any of dem fire unskewed polls dude?
  - Lewton 10y ago
    I don't get it Taleb doesn't seem to be talking about 538s actual prediction, the polls plus model on the site, he's talking about swings from 50% to 20% 538 has not swung that hard at all
- ende 10y ago
  If the electoral vote were split across a multi-party ballot via plurality voting, then yeah that would often be the case. The winner take all system of allotting electors that is used by most states might mitigate that. That is exactly what disincentivizes third party / independent candidates though. What would be better is to use IRV at the state level to allocate electors proportionally. That would still increase the probability of elections going to the house. It's funny how we see that as a bad thing considering it's how most modern democracies elect their chief of state. But maybe instead of adopting the parliamentary method wholesale we could just borrow the coalition building factor when no party has a majority. That is, if no candidate had the required number of electors, they could acquire the electors of another candidate in exchange for VP or a cabinet position. Constitutional hurdles not withstanding.
noobermin 10y ago
If this happens, the establishment would inch even more forward the possibility of violent revolution.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I don't think "the establishment" has any interest whatsoever in violent revolution. Or did you mean that the actions of the establishment cause others (outside the establishment) to become ever more willing to consider violent revolution? If so, I think I agree, though I consider it a bit unfair to blame the establishment for this particular mess (other than for Hillary, who is clearly an establishment politician).
  - noobermin 10y ago
    I admit my wording is a little difficult. The reading of it I intended is that the establishment does not want any revolution, violent or otherwise, but they are stoking it whether they realize it or not. See brexit and the Trump and Sanders campaigns for context. All these are anti-globalists, anti-free trade, more insular focusing movements. I am not a supporter of Trump personally, but I can recognize he is tapping into a deep distrust of the establishment in the first world. Whether it is true or not, many in the electorate blame neo-liberal policies pushed by the last couple of administrations for the current state of inequality in the first world, like NAFTA. People on the right blame immigration. That coupled with what many consider shady politics that is subverting the fairness of the democratic process, many people are angry. Many on the left realizing that Trump is a terrible candidate for their interests, a few have chosen to vote for Clinton, who despite being an establishment figure, at least has adopted some of the positions the populists ask for. I am on the left, and I think that in Trump vs. Clinton, we have more of a chance to hold her feet to the fire than Trump. However, McMullin is the safest candidate that the moneyed interests could ever hope for. He for example is for free-trade in his public opinions. He is for lowering taxes on the rich. He doesn't have a strong stance on money in politics[0]. But if the moneyed interests who contribute a lot to campaigns for almost all the representatives do push the house to vote on McMullin in non-majority situation, you can bet people both on the left and the right will be irate. The leftists will see even the lifeline they have in Clinton fade. The right will be irate that the repubs didn't even choose their own nominee. Many people will be angry. It doesn't have to end in violence or even revolution, but if the Trump campaign should teach anyone any lesson, is that it took a tape full of lewd comments to finally make it a sure bet for HRC. A candidate who called Mexicans rapists, promised to discriminate against Muslims, who called McCain a loser was tied with HRC until a few weeks ago. That's how upset they are. [0] The only thing I could find from McMullin on money in politics. I am being charitable to him in not interpreting this as a favorable opinion on the current system in campaign finance. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/is_our_country_s_future_worth_more_than_our_pets https://www.evanmcmullin.com/is_our_country_s_future_worth_m...
leroy_masochist 10y ago
I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Do you know him well enough to shed light on his personal motivations? Frankly, though spies are frequently the heroes in movies, in real life I think there's good reason to be suspicious of that type of character. If he actually got installed by the House, there'd be widespread unrest. We know he knows that's not a realistic option, because a) reps would never do something that would upset their constituents so seriously and b) if they did, there's a real likelihood of armed resistance. So what's the end game here? He just felt so bad that Utah may go Trump he felt he had no option but to step in and make sure that it didn't go down in history as a pro-Trump state? That's the only benefit McMullin can offer, and it's only valuable if Trump gets elected and actually turns out to be Hitler 2.0. Then Utah can have a clean nose. In practice the only thing McMullin is doing is making a Clinton presidency more likely. Ross Perot served the same function in 1992, taking ~20% of the popular vote, probably 15% of which would've gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race. Given McMullin's background as both a CIA operative and an international banker, I think it's fair to ask just where his intentions lie.
  - leroy_masochist 10y ago
    I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. With regard to his personal motivations -- he's clearly a patriot, as his record of service as an intelligence officer more than sufficiently demonstrates. I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. I would likely do the same if I had the same opportunity set that he currently does.
    - 10y ago
vorotato 10y ago
Who?
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
  The article addresses this point at the beginning.
lisper 10y ago
A friend of mine is working on a plan to fix this electoral college madness once and for all. It's called National Popular Vote, and it's a brilliant scheme to have the president elected by (as the name implies) the national popular vote without a Constitutional amendment: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com http://www.nationalpopularvote.com The idea is to get state legislatures to pass laws that their states will cast their electoral collect votes according to the outcome of the national popular vote, but contingent on enough states passing similar legislation that the states who have passed such laws constitute a majority in the electoral college. In other words, the legislation has no effect until enough states pass it that it has the same effect as Constitutional amendment would. It's a devilishly clever hack, and the law has already passed (stealthily) in over a dozen states, including California and New York. It enjoys (as you might expect) overwhelming popular support nearly everywhere, so I think it has a good chance of actually succeeding. If you care about this sort of thing you might want to consider spreading the word, or even making a contribution.
- noobermin 10y ago
  We did it with senators, we should do it with the President. Curious why you wouldn't want to amend the Constitution for this though and enshrine it there. If it needs to be passed in a majority of states, might as well fight for an amendment. Also, it is a tired meme that amendments are hard, especially when a majority of Americans agree on something.
  - lisper 10y ago
    One might wish to amend the Constitution, but the current political climate makes it practically impossible.
    - noobermin 10y ago
      Not if a) a majority of Americans agree and b) you go to the states instead of through congress.
      - 10y ago
rabboRubble 10y ago
Very strange... second time I've seen this guy's name in two hours. First a text message from my sister-in-law in (you guessed it) Utah, and for a second time here.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  He is taking Utah by storm. Small but legit possibility that he wins the state. More likely, he will be the reason that Utah goes blue for the first time in a half-century, by splitting the conservative majority into two 35% camps (with Johnson siphoning off the remainder), making Clinton competitive with ~35% in what has been considered the most reliably red state in the Union for the last 50 years. This election is turning everything upside down.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    That isn't really "going blue" though, that's more like going red in three directions with the blue part having the largest fraction less than 50%. I guess you could define that as "going blue" but "blue winning" makes more sense.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      And, it wasn't "going blue" when the Republican primary just had the same thing effectively happen, but I don't have a phrase for that either. It's been a strange year...
- swsieber 10y ago
  As explained in the article, there's not many places you could vote for him outside of Utah and still have him win. So of course he is strong in Utah.
rabboRubble 10y ago
Very strange... second time I've seen this guy's name in two hours. First a text message from my sister-in-law in (you guessed it) Utah, and for a second time here.
cafard 10y ago
The last two elections that went to the House of Representatives left lasting marks. After 1800, the twelfth amendment to the Constitution required the distinction of presidential and vice-presidential candidate. The results of 1824 increased Jackson's popularity, made J.Q. Adams one-term president, and probably did Clay no good. Had 1800 not gone for Jefferson, there could well have been an insurrection.
- noobermin 10y ago
  With the nation's current climate it could be much worse indeed. I assure you the vast majority of the nation doesn't know that this is to happen if no candidate gets 270+ and there will be a lot of anger from both sides of the aisle who are both fed up with the current establishment. Also, we've had no election like this in the modern era, so who knows how different the nation's response will be compared to the response of the nation in its earliest years.
saosebastiao 10y ago
So that we can have a puppet of the Mormon church just like Gordon Smith[0][1][2]? Hell no. I'd take Trump over a devout Mormon politician any day of the week. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.ht... [1] http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-features-former-u-s-sen-gordon-smith-r-ore/ http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-feat... [2] http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-church-in-utahs-politics.html http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-l...
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  This just in: politicians care about their spiritual leaders' opinion on things. The reason that story got no legs outside of the far-left press is that nobody who isn't blindingly anti-religion cares if a candidate/official looks to his/her spiritual leaders for guidance. In fact, normal people assume that happens. The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal.
  - sofal 10y ago
    The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal. I was concerned by a couple of things about it, like him sharing what might have been classified information with the church leaders, and also indicating that his support for the Iraq war was so that the church could eventually send in missionaries. If that is not abnormal, then it is a pretty disturbing example of how religion influences our government.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      The "that may be classified" thing was pretty obviously a slip-up on minor information (number of centrifuges; the other information was publicly known), which is why he made that statement after the fact. He wasn't intentionally sharing classified information, and Church leaders weren't shown asking for it. I assume we'd see those kinds of slip-ups reasonably often if we recorded and played back all of the private conversations of reps. Americanizing Iraq was the underlying subtext and principle during the invasion discussion. I know there was the superficial justification of WMD, but Republicans often spoke of things like "bring them democracy" and "bring them freedom", i.e., teach them the American way. For most of the people that supported the invasion whom I talked to around that time, this was the salient point and driver of their interest, not the potential possession of WMD. Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Most religious people would say the opportunity to spread their religion to new people is desirable. That's why missionary programs exist (Mormons are neither the first nor the only religion with a missionary program). Smith was certainly laying it on thick, no one can doubt that. I would guess that politicians are wont to do so. The Quorum of the Twelve, the body to whom Smith is presenting in the video, is the second-highest body in the Church and it's a big deal to talk to them. Thus, while his presentation was annoying, it wasn't improper in a substantial way. Accidentally disclosing a minor possibly-but-not-definitely piece of confidential information is the only infraction here.
empressplay 10y ago
This election is making me lose the will to live.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  President isn't the same as dictator. I don't get it.
dforrestwilson1 10y ago
I'm really crossing my fingers for Utah to break away from the Republican Party and swing Libertarian or somewhere else. Conservatives need a morally defensible party. Democrats need alternative policy proposals to keep them honest. America needs new ideas.
- alexanderson 10y ago
  It's gonna happen, whether it swings to Hillary or one of the 3rd parties. Utah is demographically a Mormon (Latter-day Saint) majority, with a little over 50% of the population claiming to be members. Mormon remnants and culture tend to lean to a more conservative political viewpoint, which is why, historically, Utah has voted for the Republican Party despite many non-Mormons holding liberal views. However, the positions and character of Donald Trump have really ruffled a lot of Mormon voters. I would cite news sources if I weren't on mobile, but both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune have written about the Mormon's disdain for Trump, in addition to speaking out against him. I think it's highly likely that Trump will not win Utah simply because he does not have the support of the majority of the voters. Disclosure: I am a Utahn and a Mormon.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    It's worth noting that Bill Clinton came in 3rd in Utah, twice. It's entirely probably that Utah could go third party, with Libertarian Party a strong contender. As much as I haven't appreciated Gary Johnson's handling of some of the interviews, he's definitely more likable than Trump, and probably a bit smarter than GWB. I just don't like Trump, and really don't like HRC.
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    Mormons seem to me a bit like displaced New England puritans. They're currently aligned with the south and evangelicals, but it doesn't look like an alignment that can't change.
    - phaedryx 10y ago
      The friction with those groups are that Mormons aren't a traditional Christian group, are largely pro-immigration, and are largely sympathetic to Muslims.
neves 10y ago
McMullin election would be the only chance to restructure USA crazy election rules. I would be funny.
- knicholes 10y ago
  I'm okay with you being funny now.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
The fact that he was a Case Officer for more than a decade gives me a lot more comfort that he would be a great president over the other three options. It also makes me think that he might be able to actually pull off such a far fetched scenario.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  I'm a little confused as to why you think CIA case officer makes someone more qualified for POTUS than Senator/SecState/FLOTUS.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Being a CO is a special kind of service to your country. IN the best case scenario, you risked your life consistently and nobody outside of a handful of people inside the system will ever know about it. Worst case, you get killed on a wild goose chase and nobody ever knows why. Pretty much every CO I know, knows this is the reality of the job, and still does it. I have immense respect for them, because I saw that path and knew I just couldn't bring myself to risk that much for that little reward. Career Case Officers are really the best of us - neutral, loyal, incredibly hardworking, smart, multi-talented, flexible and above all else dedicated. Obviously there are outliers and not all are good eggs, but I'd say it's more true than not. This opposed to the vast majority of career politicians who are mostly egomaniacs who don't really ever sacrifice much and aren't particularly principled. This is where the disconnect was for me - politicians would create intelligence requirements, for example a PIP, which doesn't go through the same NIPF process, which Intelligence Officers would have to fill. Sometimes these were really dangerous and at then the resulting intelligence, was barely glanced at because by the time it was collected, the politicians had moved on to another hot topic. Joseph Kony is a great example of this. We already had intelligence collection requirements for this person and groups, but once it became a popular issue then all of these new priorities got leveraged and tasks got re-prioritized to that - which they shouldn't have probably. Now, understand that that is how the system is supposed to work, with the IC responding to political requests. The problem is, incompetent politicians really make like hell for the intelligence community. It's just like a shitty CEO barking at the CTO to change everything to RUST overnight. That's the environment that the IC lives in daily - very little consistency, and high risk. Anyway, that's why someone like this guy to me has a much better view and idea of how the world works, and how to make things actually happen for a purpose, rather than his ego. I don't think your average person realizes the importance of good intelligence, it informs everything. There is a reason that the PDB is the first event for the President everyday.
esturk 10y ago
This is actually a great plot line for season 5 House of Cards. Who would've thought that real life could be so entertaining.
- zelias 10y ago
  This was an actual plotline on Veep
Animats 10y ago
It's very unlikely. The US came much closer to a 3-way split in 1968, when George Wallace, running under the American Independent Party, carried five states, and got 46 electoral votes. Nixon had such a big majority over Humphrey that he still won; it wasn't close. (Electoral vote: 301/191/46). No third-party candidate has won a state since.
the_watcher 10y ago
Enjoyed this as a thought exercise, but unfortunately, in reality, Republicans have been demonstrably terrified of upsetting Trump's core supporters, no matter what he does. They'd just vote him in.
losvedir 10y ago
Fivethirtyeight recently had a similar piece about how Gary Johnson could do the same via his home state of NM[0]. It's strange - Governor Johnson is polling much better overall than McMullin, and is actually on the ballot on all 50 states unlike McMullin, but McMullin works better "in the system" than Johnson. He's Republican (or republican flavored independent?) so it's less of a risk for the GOP to tacitly support him. Whereas if Johnson were to succeed at this gambit, that could be the beginning of the end for the Republican party so he won't get as much support from the GOP. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craz...

172 points by csense 10y ago

mason240 10y ago

It seems like former governor Jon Huntsman would have had an even better chance.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Huntsman torpedoed himself super early in the 2012 cycle by acting ashamed of his Mormon background on national TV. This alienated his base Mormon/Utah constituency, which would've been instrumental in propelling him to major primary candidate status, and made everyone else think he was a traitor. Really sad, because 2 major Mormon candidates in the primary would've required Mormons to pay some consideration to the policies instead of just voting for the candidate that was most like themselves.

tswartz 10y ago

An interesting thought exercise and an explainer on how the U.S. election process works that a lot of Americans (including myself) probably didn't realize. I appreciate that the author caveats most of their statements with how statistically unlikely each of the steps for McMullin to win are. I think FiveThirtyEight coverage of the election has been very good. A side point that I took from this article is that some people talk about the potential for the U.S. to shift from a two major party system, however our election process strongly discourages it. As a result, it's highly unlikely to ever happen. Since the process for electing a President and VP go to Congress if candidates fail to win at least 270 electoral votes, I feel that the American public would be less likely to vote if the chances of Congress picking the President, assuming 3 major candidates are likely to split the electoral college vote. However, maybe that would make people pay a lot closer attention to the down-ballot races for Congress...

Svip 10y ago
I think the problem with the US system is that there is too much emphasis on the President. The office is important, but it's not all powerful. It's not that the presidency itself needs to be available to more than two parties, but seats in Congress as well as state legislatures should be. Indeed, a party-list proportional representation for the state legislatures would strongly encourage minority parties to obtain seats, as votes cast for a party not winning in one's district would be go on to matter on the state-wide level. As for the presidency, a worthy consideration could be how France elects their president. Their system is a two round system. In the first round, anyone who is eligible can be on the ballot. But if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes (not electors), it goes onto the second round, where the two candidates with the most votes are the only ones on the ballot. In practical terms, only two parties in modern France have held the presidency, but at least each presidency was elected by a majority of the voters. Plus France's parliament and senate contains members from parties that never get the presidency itself. Another place to look could be your neighbour to the North, that practically has three main parties: NPD, Tories and Labour. Of course, Canada is a parliamentary system, so they don't have a strong executive branch like the US. But you are not wrong, it's the US election system that encourages the two party system. But what I truly wonder is why each state basically maintains the same system as every other state.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The states maintain their systems because there are 2 parties that exercise a lot of influence in state politics. I've thought about trying to start a ballot initiative to remove parties from the ballot process. Each candidate would have to generate sufficient support to get their name on the ballot, no other rules. Organized groups like parties would be useful under those rules, but an independent wouldn't be at a legal disadvantage compared to a member of an incumbent party (as is the case in many states today).
  - Svip 10y ago
    I think Sir Humphrey said it best, 'no government would change a system that put it there'. While your initiative is well meant, abandoning parties is actually a step in the wrong direction. Because while parties won't appear on the ballot, the parties will make sure to include their name and their candidate in every advertisement, so only few voters are unsure whom each candidate represents. Likely washing away other parties' chances as they don't maintain the same influence. No, party-list proportional representation is a much more democracy and fairer system. Because it allows a voter to vote for a party that's not popular in their district, but so that their vote can matter on a state-wide or national-wide level. Of course, that's a major overhaul of the system, but unfortunately, I personally believe that's what necessary. However, I believe that such an overhaul could start in smaller more progressive states like Vermont or Maine. And if the system catches on, there may be public push for a similar system in neighbouring states.
specialist 10y ago
"shift from a two major party system" Would require a change from our first past the post (FPTP) voting system to something like approval voting. (Or proportional representation for assemblies.) Duverger's Law suggests that plurality systems (like FPTP) results in a two party system, because candidates (belligerents) all try to form the smallest winning coalition. FWIW, I strongly prefer approval voting. Easy to explain, tabulate. A lot more fair. Preference-based systems discourage mudslinging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/ http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  Duverger's Law says that Plurality Voting (specifically) leads to two-party domination. http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html
anigbrowl 10y ago
All this talk of a 'two party system' is kinda nonsense. Yeah, first-past the post voting encourages the emergence of two main parties but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the emergence of a third party besides bad strategy. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians (the two best-known alternatives) put any serious effort into getting anyone elected to Congress that I can see. That it's possible to get elected to Congress without the support of a major party is proved by the existence of independent representatives and senators. If they can get elected as individuals, there's no reason that they can't get elected as members of a minority party...but Congressional races are boring so neither party seems willing to invest much effort in doing so. This cycle, Libertarian Gary Johnson was polling well enough that he had a prospect of getting into one of the debates (hitting 13% in several polls, with the threshold for inclusion in the Presidential debate being 15% - I don't approve of this arbitrary rule, but at least it's a known factor in advance. But then in a series of interviews he demonstrated how foolish he was - ignorant of Aleppo in Syria, a major global flash point for a few years now, unable to name a single foreign leader he admires even slightly, and finally giving an interview where he said he could go into the debates without saying a word and still improve his standing before sticking his tongue out at the reporter and performing an impression of Donald Duck (as best I can guess). The guy is just clown shoes and nobody has sidelined him this year except himself. As for his party conference, it was mainly memorable for one candidate for party chairman performing a strip tease on stage, presumably to win a bet or as a prank. Is it any wonder voters don't take them seriously? Jill Stein of the greens is little better and seems more interested in publicity stunts than promoting a platform or getting anyone else into Congress. The real reason (IMO) is that if you seriously want to influence politics it is far more efficient to sponsor ballot initiatives in states that allow them and lobby in other states and at the federal level. Why waste money on getting someone elected when you can just buy off a politician from one of the major parties? Anyone who has enough money to actually underwrite a party already knows this and so has little or no incentive to spend years and multiple election campaigns trying to build a political platform, especially given that the Democrats and Republicans are quite willing to sell their principles so cheaply. the people with the political will have no money and the people with the money have no incentive. It's not impossible, it just takes time. I estimate that with a starting pot of $5-10m and 10 years I could build a minority party in the US Congress. An even better prospect given the parlous state of the Republican party would be to simply drive a wedge into it after this election, subvert the least powerful side. adn just hijack the leadership after 5 years or so, which is basically what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.
551199 10y ago
Fivethirtyeight is anything but balanced as you might expect from a company that is Clinton's biggest donor. See Taleb's tweet storm of their methodology: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/762032883414556674
- TylerE 10y ago
  Got any of dem fire unskewed polls dude?
- Lewton 10y ago
  I don't get it Taleb doesn't seem to be talking about 538s actual prediction, the polls plus model on the site, he's talking about swings from 50% to 20% 538 has not swung that hard at all
ende 10y ago
If the electoral vote were split across a multi-party ballot via plurality voting, then yeah that would often be the case. The winner take all system of allotting electors that is used by most states might mitigate that. That is exactly what disincentivizes third party / independent candidates though. What would be better is to use IRV at the state level to allocate electors proportionally. That would still increase the probability of elections going to the house. It's funny how we see that as a bad thing considering it's how most modern democracies elect their chief of state. But maybe instead of adopting the parliamentary method wholesale we could just borrow the coalition building factor when no party has a majority. That is, if no candidate had the required number of electors, they could acquire the electors of another candidate in exchange for VP or a cabinet position. Constitutional hurdles not withstanding.

noobermin 10y ago

If this happens, the establishment would inch even more forward the possibility of violent revolution.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I don't think "the establishment" has any interest whatsoever in violent revolution. Or did you mean that the actions of the establishment cause others (outside the establishment) to become ever more willing to consider violent revolution? If so, I think I agree, though I consider it a bit unfair to blame the establishment for this particular mess (other than for Hillary, who is clearly an establishment politician).
- noobermin 10y ago
  I admit my wording is a little difficult. The reading of it I intended is that the establishment does not want any revolution, violent or otherwise, but they are stoking it whether they realize it or not. See brexit and the Trump and Sanders campaigns for context. All these are anti-globalists, anti-free trade, more insular focusing movements. I am not a supporter of Trump personally, but I can recognize he is tapping into a deep distrust of the establishment in the first world. Whether it is true or not, many in the electorate blame neo-liberal policies pushed by the last couple of administrations for the current state of inequality in the first world, like NAFTA. People on the right blame immigration. That coupled with what many consider shady politics that is subverting the fairness of the democratic process, many people are angry. Many on the left realizing that Trump is a terrible candidate for their interests, a few have chosen to vote for Clinton, who despite being an establishment figure, at least has adopted some of the positions the populists ask for. I am on the left, and I think that in Trump vs. Clinton, we have more of a chance to hold her feet to the fire than Trump. However, McMullin is the safest candidate that the moneyed interests could ever hope for. He for example is for free-trade in his public opinions. He is for lowering taxes on the rich. He doesn't have a strong stance on money in politics[0]. But if the moneyed interests who contribute a lot to campaigns for almost all the representatives do push the house to vote on McMullin in non-majority situation, you can bet people both on the left and the right will be irate. The leftists will see even the lifeline they have in Clinton fade. The right will be irate that the repubs didn't even choose their own nominee. Many people will be angry. It doesn't have to end in violence or even revolution, but if the Trump campaign should teach anyone any lesson, is that it took a tape full of lewd comments to finally make it a sure bet for HRC. A candidate who called Mexicans rapists, promised to discriminate against Muslims, who called McCain a loser was tied with HRC until a few weeks ago. That's how upset they are. [0] The only thing I could find from McMullin on money in politics. I am being charitable to him in not interpreting this as a favorable opinion on the current system in campaign finance. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/is_our_country_s_future_worth_more_than_our_pets https://www.evanmcmullin.com/is_our_country_s_future_worth_m...

leroy_masochist 10y ago

I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Do you know him well enough to shed light on his personal motivations? Frankly, though spies are frequently the heroes in movies, in real life I think there's good reason to be suspicious of that type of character. If he actually got installed by the House, there'd be widespread unrest. We know he knows that's not a realistic option, because a) reps would never do something that would upset their constituents so seriously and b) if they did, there's a real likelihood of armed resistance. So what's the end game here? He just felt so bad that Utah may go Trump he felt he had no option but to step in and make sure that it didn't go down in history as a pro-Trump state? That's the only benefit McMullin can offer, and it's only valuable if Trump gets elected and actually turns out to be Hitler 2.0. Then Utah can have a clean nose. In practice the only thing McMullin is doing is making a Clinton presidency more likely. Ross Perot served the same function in 1992, taking ~20% of the popular vote, probably 15% of which would've gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race. Given McMullin's background as both a CIA operative and an international banker, I think it's fair to ask just where his intentions lie.
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank. If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc. With regard to his personal motivations -- he's clearly a patriot, as his record of service as an intelligence officer more than sufficiently demonstrates. I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. I would likely do the same if I had the same opportunity set that he currently does.
  - 10y ago

vorotato 10y ago

Who?

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
The article addresses this point at the beginning.

lisper 10y ago

A friend of mine is working on a plan to fix this electoral college madness once and for all. It's called National Popular Vote, and it's a brilliant scheme to have the president elected by (as the name implies) the national popular vote without a Constitutional amendment: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com http://www.nationalpopularvote.com The idea is to get state legislatures to pass laws that their states will cast their electoral collect votes according to the outcome of the national popular vote, but contingent on enough states passing similar legislation that the states who have passed such laws constitute a majority in the electoral college. In other words, the legislation has no effect until enough states pass it that it has the same effect as Constitutional amendment would. It's a devilishly clever hack, and the law has already passed (stealthily) in over a dozen states, including California and New York. It enjoys (as you might expect) overwhelming popular support nearly everywhere, so I think it has a good chance of actually succeeding. If you care about this sort of thing you might want to consider spreading the word, or even making a contribution.

noobermin 10y ago
We did it with senators, we should do it with the President. Curious why you wouldn't want to amend the Constitution for this though and enshrine it there. If it needs to be passed in a majority of states, might as well fight for an amendment. Also, it is a tired meme that amendments are hard, especially when a majority of Americans agree on something.
- lisper 10y ago
  One might wish to amend the Constitution, but the current political climate makes it practically impossible.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Not if a) a majority of Americans agree and b) you go to the states instead of through congress.
    - 10y ago

rabboRubble 10y ago

Very strange... second time I've seen this guy's name in two hours. First a text message from my sister-in-law in (you guessed it) Utah, and for a second time here.

cookiecaper 10y ago
He is taking Utah by storm. Small but legit possibility that he wins the state. More likely, he will be the reason that Utah goes blue for the first time in a half-century, by splitting the conservative majority into two 35% camps (with Johnson siphoning off the remainder), making Clinton competitive with ~35% in what has been considered the most reliably red state in the Union for the last 50 years. This election is turning everything upside down.
- noobermin 10y ago
  That isn't really "going blue" though, that's more like going red in three directions with the blue part having the largest fraction less than 50%. I guess you could define that as "going blue" but "blue winning" makes more sense.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    And, it wasn't "going blue" when the Republican primary just had the same thing effectively happen, but I don't have a phrase for that either. It's been a strange year...
swsieber 10y ago
As explained in the article, there's not many places you could vote for him outside of Utah and still have him win. So of course he is strong in Utah.

rabboRubble 10y ago

Very strange... second time I've seen this guy's name in two hours. First a text message from my sister-in-law in (you guessed it) Utah, and for a second time here.

cafard 10y ago

The last two elections that went to the House of Representatives left lasting marks. After 1800, the twelfth amendment to the Constitution required the distinction of presidential and vice-presidential candidate. The results of 1824 increased Jackson's popularity, made J.Q. Adams one-term president, and probably did Clay no good. Had 1800 not gone for Jefferson, there could well have been an insurrection.

noobermin 10y ago
With the nation's current climate it could be much worse indeed. I assure you the vast majority of the nation doesn't know that this is to happen if no candidate gets 270+ and there will be a lot of anger from both sides of the aisle who are both fed up with the current establishment. Also, we've had no election like this in the modern era, so who knows how different the nation's response will be compared to the response of the nation in its earliest years.

saosebastiao 10y ago

So that we can have a puppet of the Mormon church just like Gordon Smith[0][1][2]? Hell no. I'd take Trump over a devout Mormon politician any day of the week. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.ht... [1] http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-features-former-u-s-sen-gordon-smith-r-ore/ http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-feat... [2] http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-church-in-utahs-politics.html http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-l...

cookiecaper 10y ago
This just in: politicians care about their spiritual leaders' opinion on things. The reason that story got no legs outside of the far-left press is that nobody who isn't blindingly anti-religion cares if a candidate/official looks to his/her spiritual leaders for guidance. In fact, normal people assume that happens. The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal.
- sofal 10y ago
  The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal. I was concerned by a couple of things about it, like him sharing what might have been classified information with the church leaders, and also indicating that his support for the Iraq war was so that the church could eventually send in missionaries. If that is not abnormal, then it is a pretty disturbing example of how religion influences our government.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The "that may be classified" thing was pretty obviously a slip-up on minor information (number of centrifuges; the other information was publicly known), which is why he made that statement after the fact. He wasn't intentionally sharing classified information, and Church leaders weren't shown asking for it. I assume we'd see those kinds of slip-ups reasonably often if we recorded and played back all of the private conversations of reps. Americanizing Iraq was the underlying subtext and principle during the invasion discussion. I know there was the superficial justification of WMD, but Republicans often spoke of things like "bring them democracy" and "bring them freedom", i.e., teach them the American way. For most of the people that supported the invasion whom I talked to around that time, this was the salient point and driver of their interest, not the potential possession of WMD. Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Most religious people would say the opportunity to spread their religion to new people is desirable. That's why missionary programs exist (Mormons are neither the first nor the only religion with a missionary program). Smith was certainly laying it on thick, no one can doubt that. I would guess that politicians are wont to do so. The Quorum of the Twelve, the body to whom Smith is presenting in the video, is the second-highest body in the Church and it's a big deal to talk to them. Thus, while his presentation was annoying, it wasn't improper in a substantial way. Accidentally disclosing a minor possibly-but-not-definitely piece of confidential information is the only infraction here.

empressplay 10y ago

This election is making me lose the will to live.

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
President isn't the same as dictator. I don't get it.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago

I'm really crossing my fingers for Utah to break away from the Republican Party and swing Libertarian or somewhere else. Conservatives need a morally defensible party. Democrats need alternative policy proposals to keep them honest. America needs new ideas.

alexanderson 10y ago
It's gonna happen, whether it swings to Hillary or one of the 3rd parties. Utah is demographically a Mormon (Latter-day Saint) majority, with a little over 50% of the population claiming to be members. Mormon remnants and culture tend to lean to a more conservative political viewpoint, which is why, historically, Utah has voted for the Republican Party despite many non-Mormons holding liberal views. However, the positions and character of Donald Trump have really ruffled a lot of Mormon voters. I would cite news sources if I weren't on mobile, but both the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune have written about the Mormon's disdain for Trump, in addition to speaking out against him. I think it's highly likely that Trump will not win Utah simply because he does not have the support of the majority of the voters. Disclosure: I am a Utahn and a Mormon.
- tracker1 10y ago
  It's worth noting that Bill Clinton came in 3rd in Utah, twice. It's entirely probably that Utah could go third party, with Libertarian Party a strong contender. As much as I haven't appreciated Gary Johnson's handling of some of the interviews, he's definitely more likable than Trump, and probably a bit smarter than GWB. I just don't like Trump, and really don't like HRC.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Mormons seem to me a bit like displaced New England puritans. They're currently aligned with the south and evangelicals, but it doesn't look like an alignment that can't change.
  - phaedryx 10y ago
    The friction with those groups are that Mormons aren't a traditional Christian group, are largely pro-immigration, and are largely sympathetic to Muslims.

neves 10y ago

McMullin election would be the only chance to restructure USA crazy election rules. I would be funny.

knicholes 10y ago
I'm okay with you being funny now.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

The fact that he was a Case Officer for more than a decade gives me a lot more comfort that he would be a great president over the other three options. It also makes me think that he might be able to actually pull off such a far fetched scenario.

ceejayoz 10y ago
I'm a little confused as to why you think CIA case officer makes someone more qualified for POTUS than Senator/SecState/FLOTUS.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Being a CO is a special kind of service to your country. IN the best case scenario, you risked your life consistently and nobody outside of a handful of people inside the system will ever know about it. Worst case, you get killed on a wild goose chase and nobody ever knows why. Pretty much every CO I know, knows this is the reality of the job, and still does it. I have immense respect for them, because I saw that path and knew I just couldn't bring myself to risk that much for that little reward. Career Case Officers are really the best of us - neutral, loyal, incredibly hardworking, smart, multi-talented, flexible and above all else dedicated. Obviously there are outliers and not all are good eggs, but I'd say it's more true than not. This opposed to the vast majority of career politicians who are mostly egomaniacs who don't really ever sacrifice much and aren't particularly principled. This is where the disconnect was for me - politicians would create intelligence requirements, for example a PIP, which doesn't go through the same NIPF process, which Intelligence Officers would have to fill. Sometimes these were really dangerous and at then the resulting intelligence, was barely glanced at because by the time it was collected, the politicians had moved on to another hot topic. Joseph Kony is a great example of this. We already had intelligence collection requirements for this person and groups, but once it became a popular issue then all of these new priorities got leveraged and tasks got re-prioritized to that - which they shouldn't have probably. Now, understand that that is how the system is supposed to work, with the IC responding to political requests. The problem is, incompetent politicians really make like hell for the intelligence community. It's just like a shitty CEO barking at the CTO to change everything to RUST overnight. That's the environment that the IC lives in daily - very little consistency, and high risk. Anyway, that's why someone like this guy to me has a much better view and idea of how the world works, and how to make things actually happen for a purpose, rather than his ego. I don't think your average person realizes the importance of good intelligence, it informs everything. There is a reason that the PDB is the first event for the President everyday.

esturk 10y ago

This is actually a great plot line for season 5 House of Cards. Who would've thought that real life could be so entertaining.

zelias 10y ago
This was an actual plotline on Veep

Animats 10y ago

It's very unlikely. The US came much closer to a 3-way split in 1968, when George Wallace, running under the American Independent Party, carried five states, and got 46 electoral votes. Nixon had such a big majority over Humphrey that he still won; it wasn't close. (Electoral vote: 301/191/46). No third-party candidate has won a state since.

the_watcher 10y ago

Enjoyed this as a thought exercise, but unfortunately, in reality, Republicans have been demonstrably terrified of upsetting Trump's core supporters, no matter what he does. They'd just vote him in.

losvedir 10y ago

Fivethirtyeight recently had a similar piece about how Gary Johnson could do the same via his home state of NM[0]. It's strange - Governor Johnson is polling much better overall than McMullin, and is actually on the ballot on all 50 states unlike McMullin, but McMullin works better "in the system" than Johnson. He's Republican (or republican flavored independent?) so it's less of a risk for the GOP to tacitly support him. Whereas if Johnson were to succeed at this gambit, that could be the beginning of the end for the Republican party so he won't get as much support from the GOP. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craz...