I read that as "Electron Basics" and spent a good 5 or 10 seconds trying to figure out what electrons have to do with politics before I realized my mistake.
Can we have a separate episode on the purpose of the electoral college and what the framers were thinking when they made it? I'm in an argument about whether or not it was meant as a buffer between direct election and electing an unqualified person.
The framers were used to the 'Government Elects the Leader' back then the PM was elected by the house of commons, or the UK Lower House, and the father's argued over that kind of election, or a people's vote. So they mixed them. Like there are 4 Representatives in the house for Hawaii, so if Democrats win by 12% then all four of those reps 'Vote' for that party candidate.
Duvergers Law is pretty important here in Canada where there is currently only one large Right leaning party whereas there are many Left leaning parties. This tends to 'split the left'. So, while left leaning parties tend to get the majority of the vote, the right does win some election.
+Nolan Thiessen Switch to Instant Runoff Voting. That'll solve that problem. It was adopted in Australia because the conservative vote got split when the National Party appeared in the 1920s, resulting in a Labor win when they otherwise wouldn't have won.
+Roxor128 The problem with that though is that the very premis of that law is that politics is limited to a single axis and isn't multidimensional. A false assumption. A lot of political compasses uses economic left and right as one axis and libertarianism vs authoritarianism as another axis. But even that fails to pick up the nuances that actually exist out there. All major topics can have their own axis. Environmentalism vs pragmatic/grey parties, conservative or liberal religious values can be separated from the issue of personal freedom when it comes to things like spending money on religious education or not, supporting missionary work economically or not and so one. You can split parties in equality issues, immigration, taxation or a bunch of other things. A party could be supporting higher taxes and against higher immigration or the exact opposite. The only way of actual have peoples views genuinely represented in a meaningful way is with a multiparty system. Norway have a population of just a little more than 5 millions but got 26 political parties. 2 are currently in our cabinet with another 2 supporting their cabinet without choosing to join the cabinet themselves this round. 8 parties represented in the parliament. 18 eligible for parliamentary elections (but with the last 10 failing to actually get representatives at a national level. 13 held power in municipalities in 2011 (we've recently had an local election and I don't know the latest breakdown right now) Still with all of that things are working quite well I'd say. The US actually have about 30 parties at a national level (that is eligible for a federal election as far as I can gather) But I seriously doubt any of you know of even all the 5 major parties while I'd be able to name up to 18 (on a good day) parties in my own nation and hold a opinion the politics of about 16 of them (although I'll admit that I'd be unable to know more then one or two main topics for a lot of the smaller ones that they hold strong opinions on...
I wouldn't say it's that important most of the time. It only became important recently due to most of Canada being tired of Stephen Harper, which only happened because he ended up with a majority government. When it was a string of minority governments there was a lot of political shifting back and forth between different parties, which would never be possible in a two party system. As far as I know, a 'minority' government is next to impossible under the US system.
+rahn45 Well, here in Norway I got the impression that most people actually prefer a minority government as it makes things more interesting. Especially for the smaller parties. Like a coalition might come into power with support from one faction outside the coalition but then in individual issues they might get support from some other political parties who didn't support their coalitions cabinet but support that issue or at least don't care enough about it to not trade their support in favor of the cabinets support for another totally different issue. With such a system the politicians become really good at negotiating with each other. =)
rahn45 True, the US can't really have a minority government, but their system of 3 different legislative branches ensures that one man doesn't control the country. In Canada the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) can essentially pass any law they wish with a majority government.
What a great episode! Lots of excellent analysis and the tips of the hat to later episodes makes this feel like a small piece of a larger puzzle, rather than a topic viewed in isolation
It's so ironic that a nation that prides itself on democracy, and the voice of the people, have quite possibly the worst voting system for democracy, and the voice of the people.
The map about winner takes all was wrong, Nebraska and Maine are the only two states without winner takes all. The map shows Massachusetts as the other state not Maine
+Aaron Horrell I don't understand why you need an electoral college, it seems quite undemocratic to me. The people have voted then you give the decision to a handful of people to confirm or not the winner. I may be wrong in that assessment and I would really like to know how it works.
+john howe it's in the Constitution so it's not going anywhere for now. It really is an unnecessary and terrible relic. Easiest way of making it more representative of actual voting would be proportional allocation of delegates. But even that doesn't work well for smaller states. it would take power away from the swing states, but swing states don't want that. it would also mean that if you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, there is actually a point in voting
+Aaron Horrell Although I agree with you, there is one thing I feel I need to point out: Texas is turning into a purple state. Slowly but surely, the state has become more Democrat over the last decade. In another decade, we might even be a swing state. Also, another interesting tidbit of information: some polls show that there are more liberals in Texas than conservatives. While I'm not convinced that is entirely true, it is true that the media has done such a wonderful job of convincing people that Democrat votes don't matter that most people don't bother to vote.
+Nutritious Cookie Yes I agree the media in all its forms can sway an election a little. If the American press is anything like that in the UK then the majority are owned by the Murdock clan and are far right wing, unfortunately people do not think or rationalise what they read, often taking opinion dressed up as news as the political gospel.
+john howe It's worse in the US. All media is extremely biased, to the point where I actually use British media for all my world news. While most media sources balance each other out fairly well, certain organizations (like the NRA) have so much money that issues like gun control are never really pushed.
Not sure if Duverger laws seems too relevant in today politics landscape. My example is my home country, Colombia. For most of the 20th century we had two political parties, left-center and right-center. However, the apparition of a very charismatic independant change things in the begginning of the 21st century, and the left-center party got shattered into 3 parties, and the right-center into another 3. That and the apparition of new independent parties which promote more singular ideas (like environment, or ethics-morality issues) has increased the number to 9 parties with at least one senator. On this landscape, major elections (president, governors, city mayors) usually mean alliances of different parties to promote a particular candidate. In our current local elections, the alliances are determined almost position by position - two parties allied to elect a governor, may have different candidates running for a citiy mayor on that state. I think media and technology are primary elements of this fracture. It is way easier for smaller groups to deliver a message to a potential electorate, and to win some key positions. For example, our green party is very much dedicated to elect congressmen and councilmen, but have fewer candidates to run for mayors or governors, they just choose someone to support. I think it might not be impossible to consider that a strong candidate could campaign as a third option in the US in the near future (yeah, maybe Trump, but maybe the election after), and that might create the idea in some elements of the Republican party (who drink tea) to launch their own image. Anyhow, the ease of information access, and new means to promote political ideas mean that a strong group may not feel as inclined to put themselves under the umbrella of a larger party, and try out by themselves.
Just a small error in the video: At 5:55, during the discussion about run-off elections, it should be candidates B (28%) and D (37%) to advance, not candidate C (24%.) I doubt it could confuse people, but then again, Internet.
We have preferncial voting in australia. So say if you liked a more extreme person you could put them first then put the less extreme second. If extreme is knocked out your vote goes onto your second preference and so on
It is terrible that our system us designed to support two parties only. If we had a lot of parties there couldn't exist people that blindly vote for the same party everytime. It would also force politicians to be more well rounded so that they could actually be considered good canidates instead of the way it is now.
+Matthew Stickney Which was a human construct/design. Whether the inventors intention for the voting method to evolve to be bipartisanship, who knows. Hehe I hate bipartisanship, and this rat race of a country who's congress works for big money interests. Oligarchy. Manipulating democracy through political action committees and donations when the rest of the world begins to understand the average education level of an American through the Internet. Before automation, the Internet, and software engineers, there was an arms race played for power, thus represented by our military spending- greater than the next 26 countries summed together, 25 of whom are allies. In addition, oil is such a big topic in this country when we fought a war over it perhaps? Iraq? And now the right wing conservatives in congress ALL do not support motives towards cleaner energy and away from oil? They're being controlled, right? Money.... Bribery and slavery in the roots of this country: AMERICA.
You need preferential/run off voting! We have it for everything in Australia. It doesn't stop the 2 party system BUT it does mean independents have a decent chance of at least being heard & generally hold the balance of power in the senate. We haven't had a situation where one party has controlled the senate that I can ever remember in my lifetime, which means you can't have an opposition party voting no just to spite the other party they hate because if they do, the third party or independents are available for the main party to negotiate with. Keeps everyone much more reasonable and gives a "protest vote" option if you're pissed off at "your" party but not willing to vote for the other party
No, you do not benefit as much with instant runoff voting like in Australia. A legislature performs poorly with this system. Executive offices can do OK with instant runoff (although I am liking directorial systems even more), but legislatures do even better with STV, which is also used for the Australian senate.
What election system would be best?Personely i would go for a proportional system it's more democratic even if it's more unstabel it forces party's to compromise to form a coalition to govern.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen Why keep the bicameral legislature? It has no purpose in a modern understanding of democracy. The framers wanted it because they were hoping to blend democracy and aristocracy, but we've thrown the aristocracy out the window with the 17th. Every other country with a bicameral legislature based on the American model has collapsed, and the US itself has fallen into oligarchy. We need a parliamentary system, just like every other civilized nation.
+icedragon769 Most parlementary country's also have a bicameral system with a upper and lower house even the unitary states do. So I do not really understand what you mean.
FYI, In the graphic that shows which states are "winner take all", you have Nebraska and Massachusetts cut out, but it's Nebraska and Maine that can split up their electoral votes.
Why does Crash Course use images licensed under the Creative Commons license but Crash Course episodes themselves use the Standard UA-cam License and not CC.
The electoral system is pretty much the same since you guys also have FPTP, only you have more then two parties and your prime minister is by default the leader of the majority party in parliament, chosen through FPTP. Correct me if I'm wrong
Duverger's Law assumes a simple left/right, liberal/conservative spectrum. I suspect the reality is closer to that depicted in the Pournelle chart (see Wikipedia).
People in America always talk about the electoral college and how it sucks but we never talk about plurality voting and the alternatives, fptp voting sucks
[1:20] This video has inappropriately defined adverse selection. It appears to have given it the definition of asymmetric information, or even the meaning of simply being under-informed. Adverse selection happens when one party to a transaction has less information than the other, and if the lesser-informed party possessed a fuller information set, it would NOT engage in the transaction (since the additional information would show that party the deal is not consistent with their interests). CC's definition is overbroad in that it allows for the inclusion of instances where one party might not have all the information, but would still proceed with the transaction if they were fully informed.
As a outsider, i'd never understood the system of having two parties and all of them representing a 'left' wing or a 'right' wing. Why can't you make a party say; liberal with better and greater ideas? Why would that harm your 'wing'? Isn't that a pressure system?
+xzaz2 Define "better and greater ideas". The American liberal party already thinks they have the better and greater ideas. The system demands two parties because of duverger's law. In almost every case, this resolves itself as a liberal (left) party, and a conservative (right) party. If you make a third party, whether its liberal or conservative or centrist or a single issue party or whatever. I have a choice to vote for your party, or I can vote for one of the establishment parties. If me and a lot of the people who are like-minded give you our vote, then the establishment party that we like gets less votes, so the establishment party that we don't like wins. Check out CGPGrey's video on First Past the Post (another name for Plurality voting), it explains it well.
+icedragon769 Than, why does many country have plural parties? Like in Canada, where there are 3 to 4 main parties as well as many more smaller parties. Maybe it's only because of the winner takes all Policy. If the main party gets 40 % of the seats, he as to bargain with the other parties for approval and thus voting for a small regional party can be good.
I know quite a bit about how elections are run in the United Kingdom (where we have plurality elections, multi member polarity elections and proportional elections) but I don't have any of your fancy graphics and animations. May I contribute to an episode dealing with UK elections?
The mug at 2:47 was so distracting I had to rewind three times before I got the gist of what Craig was saying. Wait - the 12th amendment means the pres and v.p. must come from the same party? I did not know that. This explains why Obama and McCain could not promise to have each-other as their vice presidents - which I wanted them to do; I thought that would be the best way for them to demonstrate bipartisanship - and also a great way to bridge the partisan divide and maybe a real way to solve problems of political polarity. Fuck! How did I not know that?
Electoral College Thought Bubble edit: Maine splits their EC vote by House district along with Nebraska, not Massachusetts which awards in winner-take-all as the graphic suggests.
WAIT! I noticed something that is incorrect! Massachusetts does have a winner-take-all system for the electoral college, but, Maine does not. You switched this on the map. Maine and Nebraska are the two states that do not have winner-take-all for the electoral college. Easy mix up, Maine was once a part of Massachusetts after all! Sorry if this has already been addressed!
AV or a run off doesn't give you a real majority, just a fake majority, because it forces people to vote against themselves in a second or subsequent ballot. One can argue that a run-off system is actually less proportional (less fair to voters) because it's harder to vote strategically, one of the few things you can do under FPTP as a voter to better your chance of having at least some affect. Best of course would be to achieve proportional representation, which requires multi-winner districts so a number of parties/candidates can win in proportion to the votes cast for them with no absurdly unfair advantage to the twin "Demopublican" establishement parties. There's no need for or advantage to strategic voting in a fair (proportional) voting system, because by by definition PR essentially means that every vote counts.
Your nation graphic for the winner-take-all system is incorrect. Nebraska and MAINE are the states that do not have winner-take-all, not Nebraska and Massachusetts.
I think to save our country from bad policies being voted in by casual voters we should raise the prerequisites of voting. Instead of having a nonexistent IQ peroxide to vote we should have a minimum IQ requirement of at least in the 90. I also believe that all voters should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their knowledge should be proven by a standardized test.
So you think that only smart people with an Iq above 90 should vote? That's stupid. Have fun not voting if all goes your way. And a test? This isn't fu*kin school. Btw, the average iq is 80.
+Nuran On Honestly, the US system is better than most other systems. In many other countries you can't actually pick your head of government; only the party. And that leads to people blindly voting for the party they like rather than individual candidates.
Sweet "T" ...well technically you dont vote for the directly President either but I get your point...here in germany you do both then voting for the next parliament - you have two votes: the first which gets a local politician directly into parliament and the second votes goes into a nationwide pool there every party gets seats from additionally to the directly voted seats (called Überhangsmandate - we have a word vor EVERYTHING). Not perfect but definetly better than the american system and it allows smaller parties to exist, parties which only rarly could win any seat with direct votes in some area but get enough 2nd votes to be represented quite well in parliament, currently we have 4 parties in parliament (1 was fell bellow the required 5% border last election) which is a heathy number i guess - parties usually have to form acoalition of 2 or 3 parties in oder to get a majority - this slows soem things down and might kill ambitious problems but its good at forcing parties to cooperate and compromise.
सर् अगर कोइ बियक्ति अपना गांव में नही है व दिल्ली , मुम्बई जैसे सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे देगा । इस तरह काफ़ी वोट इलेक्शन में नही जा पाता। क्योंकि उसका नाम तो गांव की वोटर लिस्ट में नाम है वह सहर में वोट कैसे देगा । उसके लिए भी कुछ कीजिये जो गांव में नही है सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे डाले।
Love your narrative ! Now if only more American's understood why so many of the Founding Fathers Warned U.S. NOT to allow Party Systems to form in out Halls of Governance. Hint. " . . . specifically a two party system will tear the country apart." George Washington
Ohh the plurality graphic helped! The words all over the screen at times while you’re narrating do not. They are very distracting. I’m assuming you don’t this anymore since the video is so old
I will probably die before I see a more accurate and effective voting system like AV, STV, and MMP . First past the vote has way too many flaws to be put in a single comment.
I read that as "Electron Basics" and spent a good 5 or 10 seconds trying to figure out what electrons have to do with politics before I realized my mistake.
Can we have a separate episode on the purpose of the electoral college and what the framers were thinking when they made it? I'm in an argument about whether or not it was meant as a buffer between direct election and electing an unqualified person.
The framers were used to the 'Government Elects the Leader' back then the PM was elected by the house of commons, or the UK Lower House, and the father's argued over that kind of election, or a people's vote. So they mixed them. Like there are 4 Representatives in the house for Hawaii, so if Democrats win by 12% then all four of those reps 'Vote' for that party candidate.
Please Please PLEASE don't screw up the next episode. CGP Grey has already done THE BEST JOB of making videos about that.
Are you kidding me?? I had to hold a presentation about this just this morning and NOW YOU UPLOAD THIS?? I could've used this D:
test first lesson later just like real life
How u doin now
5:50... C was NOT the second highest; B was.
I need to play this in slow-mo, he talks too fast.
I am a straight A, 4.0 student yet when when it comes to my govt class...😤 I get so lost😖😖
shouldn't it be Maine, not Massachusetts that got shook off the map at 6:02 ?
+A_commenter Yes, that's an error. Thanks for catching it.
+Raoul Meyer Tell him what he's won!
I noticed that too
+Raoul Meyer Hey, you're that guy behind Crash Course (or one of them rather)
+A_commenter Yep!
Duvergers Law is pretty important here in Canada where there is currently only one large Right leaning party whereas there are many Left leaning parties. This tends to 'split the left'. So, while left leaning parties tend to get the majority of the vote, the right does win some election.
+Nolan Thiessen Switch to Instant Runoff Voting. That'll solve that problem. It was adopted in Australia because the conservative vote got split when the National Party appeared in the 1920s, resulting in a Labor win when they otherwise wouldn't have won.
+Roxor128 The problem with that though is that the very premis of that law is that politics is limited to a single axis and isn't multidimensional.
A false assumption.
A lot of political compasses uses economic left and right as one axis and libertarianism vs authoritarianism as another axis.
But even that fails to pick up the nuances that actually exist out there.
All major topics can have their own axis.
Environmentalism vs pragmatic/grey parties, conservative or liberal religious values can be separated from the issue of personal freedom when it comes to things like spending money on religious education or not, supporting missionary work economically or not and so one.
You can split parties in equality issues, immigration, taxation or a bunch of other things.
A party could be supporting higher taxes and against higher immigration or the exact opposite.
The only way of actual have peoples views genuinely represented in a meaningful way is with a multiparty system.
Norway have a population of just a little more than 5 millions but got 26 political parties.
2 are currently in our cabinet with another 2 supporting their cabinet without choosing to join the cabinet themselves this round.
8 parties represented in the parliament.
18 eligible for parliamentary elections (but with the last 10 failing to actually get representatives at a national level.
13 held power in municipalities in 2011 (we've recently had an local election and I don't know the latest breakdown right now)
Still with all of that things are working quite well I'd say.
The US actually have about 30 parties at a national level (that is eligible for a federal election as far as I can gather)
But I seriously doubt any of you know of even all the 5 major parties while I'd be able to name up to 18 (on a good day) parties in my own nation and hold a opinion the politics of about 16 of them (although I'll admit that I'd be unable to know more then one or two main topics for a lot of the smaller ones that they hold strong opinions on...
I wouldn't say it's that important most of the time. It only became important recently due to most of Canada being tired of Stephen Harper, which only happened because he ended up with a majority government. When it was a string of minority governments there was a lot of political shifting back and forth between different parties, which would never be possible in a two party system.
As far as I know, a 'minority' government is next to impossible under the US system.
+rahn45 Well, here in Norway I got the impression that most people actually prefer a minority government as it makes things more interesting. Especially for the smaller parties.
Like a coalition might come into power with support from one faction outside the coalition but then in individual issues they might get support from some other political parties who didn't support their coalitions cabinet but support that issue or at least don't care enough about it to not trade their support in favor of the cabinets support for another totally different issue.
With such a system the politicians become really good at negotiating with each other. =)
rahn45 True, the US can't really have a minority government, but their system of 3 different legislative branches ensures that one man doesn't control the country. In Canada the Prime Ministers Office (PMO) can essentially pass any law they wish with a majority government.
What a great episode! Lots of excellent analysis and the tips of the hat to later episodes makes this feel like a small piece of a larger puzzle, rather than a topic viewed in isolation
It's so ironic that a nation that prides itself on democracy, and the voice of the people, have quite possibly the worst voting system for democracy, and the voice of the people.
Gotta love it.
+Evdog Music Right?
+Evdog Music We were one of the first proper democracies and it worked better than anyone else up until somewhat recently. We simply haven't updated.
+Evdog Music American never prided itself on democracy. We're a constitutional Republic. Pure Democracy is horrifying.
+Citric Thoughts no, first modern democracy was on this side of the pond, and ours has worked for centuries
Edit: omg Tysm for the likes
Anyone else here bc the Coronavirus closed there school??
|
|
\/
iicloudie Vibes me 😂
Me
Yes, and I'm using this to teach my students.
Ay yo, anyone from goldberg's class hit that like right here
I
I
V
6:10 Massachusetts is winner take, Maine splits the vote
The map about winner takes all was wrong, Nebraska and Maine are the only two states without winner takes all. The map shows Massachusetts as the other state not Maine
At 6:02, you took off Massachusetts, when it should have been Maine.
There should be an International Politics series explaining Geopolitical issues as well as the internal politics of other major countries.
At 5:49, the run-off should be between candidates B (28%) and D (37%). C only has 24%, so she should not get to the second election round.
I'm happy someone else besides CGP Gray is talking about the problem with pluraltiy. We should be trying to implement approval voting.
America really really really needs electoral reform. In particular, electoral college delegates needs to be allocated proportionally.
+Aaron Horrell I don't understand why you need an electoral college, it seems quite undemocratic to me. The people have voted then you give the decision to a handful of people to confirm or not the winner. I may be wrong in that assessment and I would really like to know how it works.
+john howe it's in the Constitution so it's not going anywhere for now. It really is an unnecessary and terrible relic. Easiest way of making it more representative of actual voting would be proportional allocation of delegates. But even that doesn't work well for smaller states. it would take power away from the swing states, but swing states don't want that. it would also mean that if you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, there is actually a point in voting
+Aaron Horrell Although I agree with you, there is one thing I feel I need to point out: Texas is turning into a purple state. Slowly but surely, the state has become more Democrat over the last decade. In another decade, we might even be a swing state.
Also, another interesting tidbit of information: some polls show that there are more liberals in Texas than conservatives. While I'm not convinced that is entirely true, it is true that the media has done such a wonderful job of convincing people that Democrat votes don't matter that most people don't bother to vote.
+Nutritious Cookie Yes I agree the media in all its forms can sway an election a little. If the American press is anything like that in the UK then the majority are owned by the Murdock clan and are far right wing, unfortunately people do not think or rationalise what they read, often taking opinion dressed up as news as the political gospel.
+john howe It's worse in the US. All media is extremely biased, to the point where I actually use British media for all my world news. While most media sources balance each other out fairly well, certain organizations (like the NRA) have so much money that issues like gun control are never really pushed.
I love that finally someone has mentioned Duverger's Law. It's super important for understanding elections especially in America.
Very informative!!! I will be watching the other episodes. Thank you so much.
please do a playlist for UK government and politics! :)
5:52 B demands a recount!
Not sure if Duverger laws seems too relevant in today politics landscape. My example is my home country, Colombia. For most of the 20th century we had two political parties, left-center and right-center. However, the apparition of a very charismatic independant change things in the begginning of the 21st century, and the left-center party got shattered into 3 parties, and the right-center into another 3. That and the apparition of new independent parties which promote more singular ideas (like environment, or ethics-morality issues) has increased the number to 9 parties with at least one senator. On this landscape, major elections (president, governors, city mayors) usually mean alliances of different parties to promote a particular candidate. In our current local elections, the alliances are determined almost position by position - two parties allied to elect a governor, may have different candidates running for a citiy mayor on that state.
I think media and technology are primary elements of this fracture. It is way easier for smaller groups to deliver a message to a potential electorate, and to win some key positions. For example, our green party is very much dedicated to elect congressmen and councilmen, but have fewer candidates to run for mayors or governors, they just choose someone to support. I think it might not be impossible to consider that a strong candidate could campaign as a third option in the US in the near future (yeah, maybe Trump, but maybe the election after), and that might create the idea in some elements of the Republican party (who drink tea) to launch their own image. Anyhow, the ease of information access, and new means to promote political ideas mean that a strong group may not feel as inclined to put themselves under the umbrella of a larger party, and try out by themselves.
At 5:49 the top two vote getters were candidate B and D but the animation shows candidate C and D being the top two vote getters haha :)
Just a small error in the video: At 5:55, during the discussion about run-off elections, it should be candidates B (28%) and D (37%) to advance, not candidate C (24%.) I doubt it could confuse people, but then again, Internet.
Your vote matter!! Young people are starting to realize it so please go out and be a part of history!
The winner takes all part is flawed. Nebraska and Massachusetts float away from the map. It should be Maine.
*PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE* Stop ignoring the bilateral political spectrum. It makes everything so much better.
The winner spends the most money.
5:50 B and D should have moved on to the run-off, not C and D.
+killerfrenchy Heh, I thought I was hallucinating and didn't go back to check until I saw your comment.
6:05
its maine and Nebraska, not Massachusetts :)
6:37 My homie Bernie
You should try to get CGP Grey to do a guest rant when you get to the video on voting system alternatives to First Past the Post.
1:33 Hey! that's MY name!
Yes! Thank you for touching this subject. I've always been kinda confused of this subject matter.
I like how we think we are one of the freest nations yet our elections and say in our leaders is so screwed up..
"you are gerrymeandered out of here eagle"
Seen Bernie Sanders in that photo :)
+james frazier I think Crash Course is Feeling the Bern.
+james frazier timestamp?
+james frazier the left is on the rise again...
+james frazier Where at?
+Lildrummerboy714 6:38
Hey Broward County, Florida! Are you watching this!
3:58 Funniest political joke I have ever heard. Hands down.
Thanks, Crash Course.
We have preferncial voting in australia. So say if you liked a more extreme person you could put them first then put the less extreme second. If extreme is knocked out your vote goes onto your second preference and so on
The people want more choices. We need fair elections and fair debates.
It is terrible that our system us designed to support two parties only.
If we had a lot of parties there couldn't exist people that blindly vote for the same party everytime. It would also force politicians to be more well rounded so that they could actually be considered good canidates instead of the way it is now.
+Bartholomule01 It wasn't DESIGNED for two parties, that is just the amount that naturally formed over time.
+Matthew Stickney Which was a human construct/design. Whether the inventors intention for the voting method to evolve to be bipartisanship, who knows.
Hehe
I hate bipartisanship, and this rat race of a country who's congress works for big money interests. Oligarchy. Manipulating democracy through political action committees and donations when the rest of the world begins to understand the average education level of an American through the Internet. Before automation, the Internet, and software engineers, there was an arms race played for power, thus represented by our military spending- greater than the next 26 countries summed together, 25 of whom are allies. In addition, oil is such a big topic in this country when we fought a war over it perhaps? Iraq? And now the right wing conservatives in congress ALL do not support motives towards cleaner energy and away from oil? They're being controlled, right? Money.... Bribery and slavery in the roots of this country: AMERICA.
+cory allen Solid response.
You need preferential/run off voting! We have it for everything in Australia. It doesn't stop the 2 party system BUT it does mean independents have a decent chance of at least being heard & generally hold the balance of power in the senate. We haven't had a situation where one party has controlled the senate that I can ever remember in my lifetime, which means you can't have an opposition party voting no just to spite the other party they hate because if they do, the third party or independents are available for the main party to negotiate with. Keeps everyone much more reasonable and gives a "protest vote" option if you're pissed off at "your" party but not willing to vote for the other party
No, you do not benefit as much with instant runoff voting like in Australia. A legislature performs poorly with this system. Executive offices can do OK with instant runoff (although I am liking directorial systems even more), but legislatures do even better with STV, which is also used for the Australian senate.
I love the thought bubble
Excellent
this video is great!
What election system would be best?Personely i would go for a proportional system it's more democratic even if it's more unstabel it forces party's to compromise to form a coalition to govern.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen Why keep the bicameral legislature? It has no purpose in a modern understanding of democracy. The framers wanted it because they were hoping to blend democracy and aristocracy, but we've thrown the aristocracy out the window with the 17th. Every other country with a bicameral legislature based on the American model has collapsed, and the US itself has fallen into oligarchy. We need a parliamentary system, just like every other civilized nation.
+icedragon769 Most parlementary country's also have a bicameral system with a upper and lower house even the unitary states do. So I do not really understand what you mean.
[6:08] The two states that do not engage in Winner-Takes-All Electoral College voting are Nebraska and Maine, not Nebraska and Massachusetts.
"Polish women give birth in England, because there are single-member constituencies" - Paweł Kukiz
Isn't it Nebraska and Maine that are not winner-take all states, not Nebraska and Massachusetts like you say at 6:00 ?
FYI, In the graphic that shows which states are "winner take all", you have Nebraska and Massachusetts cut out, but it's Nebraska and Maine that can split up their electoral votes.
+zh11147 Usually facts haha
What year did the electoral college begin and why do you think the same system has been around for so long?
I love Crash Course....if I had time, I'd watch it for fun. :D
Me too
Can you guys make a podcast with all these videos so I can listen on the go
Why does Crash Course use images licensed under the Creative Commons license but Crash Course episodes themselves use the Standard UA-cam License and not CC.
5:50 the candidate with 24% goes on to the runoff but there's a guy with 28%.
Would you be able to do one for elections in Canada?
It would be very interesting, but this is for US govt and politics, so I highly doubt it.
The electoral system is pretty much the same since you guys also have FPTP, only you have more then two parties and your prime minister is by default the leader of the majority party in parliament, chosen through FPTP. Correct me if I'm wrong
I love this guy
Duverger's Law assumes a simple left/right, liberal/conservative spectrum. I suspect the reality is closer to that depicted in the Pournelle chart (see Wikipedia).
Electors.... I kinda want to see you explain the Electors of the HRE now.
Love this guy doin these vids he's great!!!!
at 5:51 there is an error in the video - B got 28%, which is more than C's 24% so should go to the second round
I enjoyed your crash course, but slow down a little for us old folks. Appreciate you a lot.,
People in America always talk about the electoral college and how it sucks but we never talk about plurality voting and the alternatives, fptp voting sucks
Can you please make a course on sociology?
thank you
[1:20] This video has inappropriately defined adverse selection. It appears to have given it the definition of asymmetric information, or even the meaning of simply being under-informed.
Adverse selection happens when one party to a transaction has less information than the other, and if the lesser-informed party possessed a fuller information set, it would NOT engage in the transaction (since the additional information would show that party the deal is not consistent with their interests).
CC's definition is overbroad in that it allows for the inclusion of instances where one party might not have all the information, but would still proceed with the transaction if they were fully informed.
As a outsider, i'd never understood the system of having two parties and all of them representing a 'left' wing or a 'right' wing. Why can't you make a party say; liberal with better and greater ideas? Why would that harm your 'wing'? Isn't that a pressure system?
+xzaz2 Define "better and greater ideas". The American liberal party already thinks they have the better and greater ideas.
The system demands two parties because of duverger's law. In almost every case, this resolves itself as a liberal (left) party, and a conservative (right) party.
If you make a third party, whether its liberal or conservative or centrist or a single issue party or whatever. I have a choice to vote for your party, or I can vote for one of the establishment parties. If me and a lot of the people who are like-minded give you our vote, then the establishment party that we like gets less votes, so the establishment party that we don't like wins.
Check out CGPGrey's video on First Past the Post (another name for Plurality voting), it explains it well.
+icedragon769 Than, why does many country have plural parties? Like in Canada, where there are 3 to 4 main parties as well as many more smaller parties. Maybe it's only because of the winner takes all Policy. If the main party gets 40 % of the seats, he as to bargain with the other parties for approval and thus voting for a small regional party can be good.
+icedragon769 It still doesn't make sense why the USA only has two parties.
xzaz2 Because in the USA, you vote for president and the one who wins his President for 4 years and has all the power. So people vote strategic.
+hillcon45 That's not why there are only two parties, you can have a President (of one party) that represents the cabinet of ministers.
I know quite a bit about how elections are run in the United Kingdom (where we have plurality elections, multi member polarity elections and proportional elections) but I don't have any of your fancy graphics and animations. May I contribute to an episode dealing with UK elections?
Oh my god, my state of Nebraska did something sensible! No winner takes all!
You speak extremely fast. It was difficult to keep up.
I'm not from the US but I understand this clearly
congrats
What type of democracy is the electoral college system?
Why haven't you made a video on presidential elections?
Who decides by proportion of population how many congressional seats each state gets?
M. Julian Goldstein the census
M. Julian Goldstein which happens every 10 years or so
The mug at 2:47 was so distracting I had to rewind three times before I got the gist of what Craig was saying. Wait - the 12th amendment means the pres and v.p. must come from the same party? I did not know that. This explains why Obama and McCain could not promise to have each-other as their vice presidents - which I wanted them to do; I thought that would be the best way for them to demonstrate bipartisanship - and also a great way to bridge the partisan divide and maybe a real way to solve problems of political polarity. Fuck! How did I not know that?
Can you please do Australian politics!?!?!?
Electoral College Thought Bubble edit: Maine splits their EC vote by House district along with Nebraska, not Massachusetts which awards in winner-take-all as the graphic suggests.
WAIT! I noticed something that is incorrect! Massachusetts does have a winner-take-all system for the electoral college, but, Maine does not. You switched this on the map. Maine and Nebraska are the two states that do not have winner-take-all for the electoral college. Easy mix up, Maine was once a part of Massachusetts after all! Sorry if this has already been addressed!
I know I should be asking political questions, but what is the purpose of the coffee mug in this video?
AV or a run off doesn't give you a real majority, just a fake majority, because it forces people to vote against themselves in a second or subsequent ballot. One can argue that a run-off system is actually less proportional (less fair to voters) because it's harder to vote strategically, one of the few things you can do under FPTP as a voter to better your chance of having at least some affect. Best of course would be to achieve proportional representation, which requires multi-winner districts so a number of parties/candidates can win in proportion to the votes cast for them with no absurdly unfair advantage to the twin "Demopublican" establishement parties. There's no need for or advantage to strategic voting in a fair (proportional) voting system, because by by definition PR essentially means that every vote counts.
It appears that the Netherlands don't understand duverger's law that much, for we have multiple political parties.
He looks so important with that mig
*mug
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
At first I thought the title said "ElectRon basics" and I thought "man what do electrons have to do with government and politics?"
Your nation graphic for the winner-take-all system is incorrect. Nebraska and MAINE are the states that do not have winner-take-all, not Nebraska and Massachusetts.
should do one on sueing
It is Maine NOT Massachusetts. My US I history students wish to see it corrected.
Thank you,
Hailee Martin
oi, idiot, don't sign your comments, we can see your username. you mean to make us believe you're a teacher? ha, funny
Good
I think to save our country from bad policies being voted in by casual voters we should raise the prerequisites of voting. Instead of having a nonexistent IQ peroxide to vote we should have a minimum IQ requirement of at least in the 90. I also believe that all voters should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their knowledge should be proven by a standardized test.
So you think that only smart people with an Iq above 90 should vote? That's stupid. Have fun not voting if all goes your way. And a test? This isn't fu*kin school.
Btw, the average iq is 80.
tl;dr: the system is fucked to the point there it can`t be fixed anymore
+Nuran On
Honestly, the US system is better than most other systems. In many other countries you can't actually pick your head of government; only the party. And that leads to people blindly voting for the party they like rather than individual candidates.
Sweet "T" ...well technically you dont vote for the directly President either but I get your point...here in germany you do both then voting for the next parliament - you have two votes: the first which gets a local politician directly into parliament and the second votes goes into a nationwide pool there every party gets seats from additionally to the directly voted seats (called Überhangsmandate - we have a word vor EVERYTHING).
Not perfect but definetly better than the american system and it allows smaller parties to exist, parties which only rarly could win any seat with direct votes in some area but get enough 2nd votes to be represented quite well in parliament, currently we have 4 parties in parliament (1 was fell bellow the required 5% border last election) which is a heathy number i guess - parties usually have to form acoalition of 2 or 3 parties in oder to get a majority - this slows soem things down and might kill ambitious problems but its good at forcing parties to cooperate and compromise.
"Hopelessness"
Wanna know why? Because it helps the asswipes politicians who are actually in power, so why would they give up the system?
Released a few days after the Canadian election...
***** only a year.
I think the Canadian election was a bit closer.
***** who won?
सर् अगर कोइ बियक्ति अपना गांव में नही है व दिल्ली , मुम्बई जैसे सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे देगा । इस तरह काफ़ी वोट इलेक्शन में नही जा पाता। क्योंकि उसका नाम तो गांव की वोटर लिस्ट में नाम है वह सहर में वोट कैसे देगा । उसके लिए भी कुछ कीजिये जो गांव में नही है सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे डाले।
Love your narrative !
Now if only more American's understood why so many of the Founding Fathers Warned U.S. NOT to allow Party Systems to form in out Halls of Governance.
Hint. " . . . specifically a two party system will tear the country apart." George Washington
Anyone got the answers to the worksheet?
Whoo!
Ohh the plurality graphic helped! The words all over the screen at times while you’re narrating do not. They are very distracting. I’m assuming you don’t this anymore since the video is so old
I will probably die before I see a more accurate and effective voting system like AV, STV, and MMP . First past the vote has way too many flaws to be put in a single comment.
Alternative vote.
And it's not just the US where it's a problem, I've heard it's also in the UK and Canada and they hate it.