WI: Perot chooses a different political path?

Zioneer

Banned
I've been thinking about a scenario in which Ross Perot is a bit more reflective and far-thinking, and as a result he decides to reform the electoral system in the United States, rather than run for president. Basically, my idea is that he tries to reform the "first past the post" system into a proportional system, and attempts to form a multiparty political system.

Of course, he still tries to promote his Reform Party, but as one of a multiparty system, rather than one of the "big two" parties. I'm imagining Perot taking the last bit of the 80s and all of the 90s to slowly break the two-party system.

Would he be successful in his attempt (especially if he could recruit other billionaires to help fund this electoral reform)? Would he get a lot of support? I'm imagining a push for a Constitutional Amendment changing electoral rules, and a lot of talk about how the old system worked with the Founders because the Founders didn't start out with political parties, but now that we have them, we're going to have to change things to allow the maximum amount of voices.

Or something like that, anyway.
 
Actually that seems like a not to big leap from his "Both parties are broken/the same" line as I recall it.

I think more than other billionaries, he would get natural allies from many third parties.

THis is one topic, that the Greens, the Libertarians, The Socialists, The Communists, ect. could all benefit from.

Sounds like a very realistic POD.
 
Perot tapped into widespread unease about the mounting debt to get his popularity.

There is no widespread unease about FPTP and it can't be manufactured either.

Your alt-Perot wastes a lot of money and is widely perceived as some kind of crank, to the extent anyone has heard of him at all.
 
Perot tapped into widespread unease about the mounting debt to get his popularity.

There is no widespread unease about FPTP and it can't be manufactured either.

Your alt-Perot wastes a lot of money and is widely perceived as some kind of crank, to the extent anyone has heard of him at all.

What if the elections of 1988 or 1992 resulted in a hung electoral college (without the involvement of Perot)?
 
Perot tapped into widespread unease about the mounting debt to get his popularity.

There is no widespread unease about FPTP and it can't be manufactured either.

Your alt-Perot wastes a lot of money and is widely perceived as some kind of crank, to the extent anyone has heard of him at all.

If he can convincingly argue that the REASON the two parties can't deal with the issue is because they NEED to be big tents...

He might be able to get some mileage out of it.

And I think the unease was less focused than you suggest. It was not all debt related, by no means.
 

Zioneer

Banned
If he can convincingly argue that the REASON the two parties can't deal with the issue is because they NEED to be big tents...

He might be able to get some mileage out of it.

And I think the unease was less focused than you suggest. It was not all debt related, by no means.

That's what I'm figuring; I'm thinking that Perot would say stuff like "political parties are here to stay, but we need to ensure that the people get their choice. Why should you have to vote against someone, rather than for someone else?"

I don't actually know how Perot talks, but I imagine the rhetoric would be similar to that.

Maybe Perot could go state-by-state with his message? If he could do that, where would he start?
 
I've been thinking about a scenario in which Ross Perot is a bit more reflective and far-thinking, and as a result he decides to reform the electoral system in the United States, rather than run for president. Basically, my idea is that he tries to reform the "first past the post" system into a proportional system, and attempts to form a multiparty political system.

Of course, he still tries to promote his Reform Party, but as one of a multiparty system, rather than one of the "big two" parties. I'm imagining Perot taking the last bit of the 80s and all of the 90s to slowly break the two-party system.

Would he be successful in his attempt (especially if he could recruit other billionaires to help fund this electoral reform)? Would he get a lot of support? I'm imagining a push for a Constitutional Amendment changing electoral rules, and a lot of talk about how the old system worked with the Founders because the Founders didn't start out with political parties, but now that we have them, we're going to have to change things to allow the maximum amount of voices.

Or something like that, anyway.
I like it, a good POD would be Dukakis doing much better in 88', butterfly the tank fiasco might work, where neither candidate gets to 270 though Bush 41 has the popular vote, have the election go to congress giving the election to Dukakis despite Bush getting the most votes, I think this would really shake the foundations of the two party system.
 
If he can convincingly argue that the REASON the two parties can't deal with the issue is because they NEED to be big tents...

He might be able to get some mileage out of it.

And I think the unease was less focused than you suggest. It was not all debt related, by no means.

The argument is too wonkish. He can't convincingly make that argument.

Not all, but mostly. Conversely, the amount of unease about our FPTP system was zero.

This POD is ASB.
 
Indeed. Could you get a movement to abolish (or at least reform) the electoral college? Yes, although it would be difficult. Youd probably need an election or two where the 'winner' lost the popular vote.

Could you get a movement to abolish FPTP? No. Theres no constituency for it, and it works in the us, if only because there are no third parties, no significant ones.

And if anyone DID lead such a movement, it wouldnt be ross perot.

He wanted to run things, to rule, not to play politics and build longterm strategies. He would have been a HORRIBLE president, because he wouldnt be able to get anything through congress. Not that he could ever havebeen elected in the first place.
 
It would take a decade of two-party anxiety and disapproval, with many 3rd-party/independent challenges to awaken the US population from their FPTP dogmatic slumber. Ross Perot in a year can't do that.
 
Top