
How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah and the Presidency - csense
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
======
tswartz
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
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
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
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.

~~~
maxerickson
The point isn't to detach the parties from the candidates, it's to make it so
that party infighting is not the strongest path to the ballot. At the moment,
winning a party knife fight is the thing that decides lots of local and state
office elections.

For the presidential election there would be more risk of pushing the election
to the House of Representatives, but candidates could bargain with each other
and withdraw and such. People would be able to figure it out.

------
lisper
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.

~~~
macintux
I'm strongly opposed.

The electoral college is designed to protect the country from manifestly
unqualified presidents.

Furthermore, the electoral college is all that stands between us and Florida
2000 on a national scale. Recounting one state was painful enough. Recounting
all 50? Nightmare.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
>The electoral college is designed to protect the country from manifestly
unqualified presidents.

Well, it doesn't do that in practice. The electoral college which goes against
the will of the voters will quickly become the last electoral college. As it's
politically untenable for the electoral college to do anything but heed the
will of the voters, it's vestigial. All it does is get in the way of a
democratic election.

~~~
_kst_
Depends on what you mean by "goes against the will of the voters".

There have been close elections where one candidate won the popular vote and
the other won the electoral vote. That hasn't led to the electoral college
being abolished.

If you're talking about faithless electors, they have so far never affected
the outcome of an election. If they did, I'm sure the calls for reform would
become even louder than they are now.

If the electors were intended to be able to exercise their own judgement, it
hasn't really worked that way in practice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)

~~~
macintux
I found a discussion of the topic in the Federalist papers this year because
it seemed it might be relevant. Don't have the citation handy but they were
absolutely intended to exercise their own judgment in the event of a patently
unqualified candidate.

~~~
inimino
It is interesting to speculate what would happen if that occurred in this
election.

------
leroy_masochist
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
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
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.

~~~
cookiecaper
>I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood
stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank.

I've known other field intel officers in real life, and while I enjoy their
friendship and admire them for many things, there's no doubt that they're a
little different than everyone else. That's not usually a problem in the
course of everyday life, but setting oneself up as a political candidate for
high office is not everyday life anymore.

While you need to be both intelligent and highly skilled to work for intel
agencies, you also need to have, at best, a fluid view of personal integrity
and authenticity. I don't see how this is based on "Hollywood stereotypes",
since movies usually portray spies as superheroes.

>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.

As a member of the LDS community you reference, he sets off my bullshit
detector. He's baiting Mormons hard by using specific inside-baseball phrases.
He's exploiting the opportunity created by the heavy LDS distaste for both
candidates. He'll only rank significantly in states with high LDS populations
(evangelicals are generally suspicious of Mormons, and more likely to be
comfortable with Trump).

I'm sensitive to this kind of thing. I actually think were McMullin _not_
Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the
right way to vote.

>I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an
alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton.

Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there _is_ no alternative
to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed.
So what's his real motive?

~~~
selimthegrim
Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the
Constitution in its moment of danger?

~~~
mdturnerphys
[https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-
of...](https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of-the-
american-west-maybe-youre-the-white-horse-weve-been-waiting-for/)

~~~
cookiecaper
I abandoned the LDS blogosphere (the "bloggernacle", if they still call it
that) many years ago. This article would be salient and useful if it stuck to
its initial point rather than going on to advocate explicitly for HRC. That
should've been a separate article.

I'd love it if Mormons got a more realistic/normal perspective on the White
Horse "Prophecy", as the author advocates at the beginning of the article, but
I don't think saying that we have to vote for a specific candidate to invoke
it (just not the candidate you would expect) really helps anything.

------
dforrestwilson1
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
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.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
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
The friction with those groups are that Mormons aren't a traditional Christian
group, are largely pro-immigration, and are largely sympathetic to Muslims.

------
mason240
It seems like former governor Jon Huntsman would have had an even better
chance.

~~~
cookiecaper
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.

------
losvedir
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-
craz...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-
to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/)

------
AndrewKemendo
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
I'm a little confused as to why you think CIA case officer makes someone more
qualified for POTUS than Senator/SecState/FLOTUS.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
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.

~~~
ceejayoz
Isn't all this a bit like saying "that guy can code an amazing JS front-end,
so he should be CEO"?

I don't doubt that case officers are hard workers. I question how relevant
that specific set of experience is in the much broader case of running a
country of 300 million people.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Not really, because his experience extends beyond the CO role. But to take
your metaphor, I think right now it's akin to saying, the two people in the
running for CEO are respectively, an egomaniac/possible rapist, and a
sociopathic habitual liar. So the alternative of someone with deep operational
and policy experience that has proven they aren't an egomaniac, and can be
trusted beats both of those handily.

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

~~~
knicholes
I'm okay with you being funny now.

------
cafard
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
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.

------
Animats
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
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.

------
rabboRubble
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
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
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
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...

------
esturk
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
This was an actual plotline on Veep

------
empressplay
This election is making me lose the will to live.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
President isn't the same as dictator. I don't get it.

------
vorotato
Who?

~~~
MOARDONGZPLZ
The article addresses this point at the beginning.

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

~~~
AnimalMuppet
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
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_m...](https://www.evanmcmullin.com/is_our_country_s_future_worth_more_than_our_pets)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'm pretty much on the same page with you. I might differ on one thing,
though: I don't think many people really _want_ HRC. A big chunk of her voters
want "not Trump". Trump unfortunately probably has more actual support, but a
fair amount of his support is really "not Hillary". So if McMillan won in the
House, I think maybe 70-80% of the country would breathe a huge sigh of
relief, and think "I have no idea who this guy is, but it could have been a
whole lot worse". (Put differently, if he were on the ballot in all 50 states,
and everyone thought he had a legitimate chance to win, McMillan would win in
a landslide.)

The issue is Trump's talk about the election being rigged. For the people who
really support him, if he loses, there's the possibility of violence.
Frighteningly, whether it erupts or not may well come down to Trump's choice
of words in his concession speech.

But even if it goes to violence, I think that the violence will be lessened if
the "not Hillary" people are split off from the "definitely Trump" people.

------
saosebastiao
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.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html)
[1] [http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-
feat...](http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-features-
former-u-s-sen-gordon-smith-r-ore/) [2]
[http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-
of-l...](http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-
church-in-utahs-politics.html)

~~~
vlunkr
Ok, this has nothing to do with McMullin besides the fact that they belong to
the same church, and is easily dwarfed by several Trump scandals. I wouldn't
expect such bigotry from HN.

~~~
saosebastiao
If the Mormon church were any other church, I'd agree with you. But the Mormon
church doesn't act like any other church when it comes to politics. They
dangle temple recommends over politicians heads, the possession of which is
required for salvation in their theology. And they do it mostly without
officially registered lobbyists...all they have to do is make a few phone
calls to bishops and stake presidents and all of a sudden political positions
change. They tend to stay out of most political decisions, but when they
decide to take a position on an issue the entire devout mormon political
spectrum falls in line immediately. They've done it countless times in Utah,
most recently with the medical marijuana vote (where an overwhelming majority
turned into a minority in less than 48 hours after the church made their
position official), and have done it so much that Utah is as close as we could
come to a theocracy in the US.

There are plenty of cultural mormons (New Order Mormons in our special lingo)
in US politics (Harry Reid, for example), for whom the threats of the church
do not hold sway. But devout mormons actually believe that their prophets talk
directly with god, and actually believe they will never see their family again
if they don't heed the counsel of their prophet. Anybody who believes in the
virtue of a separation between church and state should be terrified of the
prospect.

I'm at the very least grateful that mormon values would not tolerate Trump,
our generation's Andrew Jackson, but while McMullin holds a much better image
and temperament, he still has shown that he is as married to the mormon church
as he is his wife. When mormon politicians like Gordon Smith state they are
willing to trade in their professional ethics in exchange for their temple
recommend, you should take that as a threat.

[http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-
of-l...](http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-
church-in-utahs-politics.html)

