The spatial theory of simple majority rule in a multidimensional issue space implies that the chaotic disequilibrium situations are a common occurrence. This creates an empirical puzzle because in most real-world decision-making situations, neither chaos nor disequilibrium is frequently observed. Although there may be some unperceived chaotic and disequilibrium situations, decision-making institutions like Congress do not usually appear to wander randomly through issue spaces, nor are decisions, once made, easily overturned. Experimental outcomes in largely unstructured cases also do not appear to be randomly scattered across the issue space. This lack of agreement between theory and practice has led to attempts to explain why there is so much stability in real-world decision processes. Short of assuming that all decisions are made in a unidimensional space in which Black's theorem produces an equilibrium at the median, three kinds of answers to this question are possible. (1) One singles out a set of decision makers and gives them special powers to manipulate the agenda of the legislative process.