4 ms·

>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are huge and there's just too much inertia to change them. This is the power of a 3rd party winning the p

>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are huge and there's just too much inertia to change them. This is the power of a 3rd party winning the presidency. All of this force falls under the executive branch whose policy can be changed in an instant. Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.

pacificmint 13y ago
Interestingly enough, the number of non voters in 2012 was higher than the number of votes for either Obama or Romney. So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  That candidate would win the popular vote, but that doesn't mean they'd win the electoral vote. All people who's votes counted voted in the last election...
- ams6110 13y ago
  Third parties don't win, but they do affect outcomes. If Perot hadn't gotten back in in 1992, Bush would probably have been re-elected. No Clinton presidency, no impeachment, no Hillary. Would be quite a different political landscape by now.
mburns 13y ago
Policing is a state issue. No executive order is going to solve this problem.
- unabridged 13y ago
  The executive in each state controls statewide police, in smaller jurisdictions either sheriffs are elected or appointed by the executive.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    This is true, but rather undermines the original point about the POTUS doing it. State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.
Stubb 13y ago
> Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot. Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.
- unabridged 13y ago
  The power of TV is at its lowest point in recent history. Any candidate could have a fulltime youtube channel where they are gathering supporters everyday.
  - waffle_ss 13y ago
    Gary Johnson posted tons of videos to his YouTube channel, had online debates with Jill Stein and other third party candidates when they were all shut out of the CPD debates, did several Reddit AMAs, spliced his own responses into CPD debate footage and posted them on his YouTube channel, and generally had a very active online presence. The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  "Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind." Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
  - Stubb 13y ago
    I sure screwed up my recollection on that one. I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.
mrfusion 13y ago
My memory is fuzzy but wasn't he winning for a while? I remember him kind of going kooky towards the end of the campaign and lost a lot of votes. Is that accurate?
harshreality 13y ago
It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the game theory of Plurality Voting or IRV (in countries/regions which have switched to that) both of which are bad, yet overwhelmingly used for single-winner elections (like, for selecting a president, or in some countries for selecting a single representative per voting district). http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.
- specialist 13y ago
  "IRV which are bad" Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all? In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    PV is the same as FPTP. IRV is very nearly as bad, and perhaps worse due to monotonicity. See http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
- ajslater 13y ago
  And like rangevoting.org mentions, Range Voting technically may give you the least regretful results, but its a great deal more complicated than Approval Voting, which is dead simple and nearly as good. http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
brubaker 13y ago
Ross Perot was a novelty vote.

pacificmint 13y ago

Interestingly enough, the number of non voters in 2012 was higher than the number of votes for either Obama or Romney. So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.

dkuntz2 13y ago
That candidate would win the popular vote, but that doesn't mean they'd win the electoral vote. All people who's votes counted voted in the last election...
ams6110 13y ago
Third parties don't win, but they do affect outcomes. If Perot hadn't gotten back in in 1992, Bush would probably have been re-elected. No Clinton presidency, no impeachment, no Hillary. Would be quite a different political landscape by now.

mburns 13y ago

Policing is a state issue. No executive order is going to solve this problem.

unabridged 13y ago
The executive in each state controls statewide police, in smaller jurisdictions either sheriffs are elected or appointed by the executive.
- saraid216 13y ago
  This is true, but rather undermines the original point about the POTUS doing it. State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.

Stubb 13y ago

> Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot. Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.

unabridged 13y ago
The power of TV is at its lowest point in recent history. Any candidate could have a fulltime youtube channel where they are gathering supporters everyday.
- waffle_ss 13y ago
  Gary Johnson posted tons of videos to his YouTube channel, had online debates with Jill Stein and other third party candidates when they were all shut out of the CPD debates, did several Reddit AMAs, spliced his own responses into CPD debate footage and posted them on his YouTube channel, and generally had a very active online presence. The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
rgbrenner 13y ago
"Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind." Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
- Stubb 13y ago
  I sure screwed up my recollection on that one. I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.

mrfusion 13y ago

My memory is fuzzy but wasn't he winning for a while? I remember him kind of going kooky towards the end of the campaign and lost a lot of votes. Is that accurate?

harshreality 13y ago

It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the game theory of Plurality Voting or IRV (in countries/regions which have switched to that) both of which are bad, yet overwhelmingly used for single-winner elections (like, for selecting a president, or in some countries for selecting a single representative per voting district). http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.

specialist 13y ago
"IRV which are bad" Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all? In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nitrogen 13y ago
  PV is the same as FPTP. IRV is very nearly as bad, and perhaps worse due to monotonicity. See http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
ajslater 13y ago
And like rangevoting.org mentions, Range Voting technically may give you the least regretful results, but its a great deal more complicated than Approval Voting, which is dead simple and nearly as good. http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://www.electology.org/approval-voting

brubaker 13y ago

Ross Perot was a novelty vote.