Why The US Would Fail Without The Electoral College
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- America needs the Electoral College now more than ever. Here's why.
~
Got a "why" you want answered? Give us your questions here:
forms.fillout.com/t/3V1uTMRJwXus
~
Get new episodes in your inbox once a week: thewhyminutes.com/subscribe/
/ whyminutes
/ thewhyminutes
Host: / nickfreitasva
Those who fail to understand a system are always the first to want to change it without understanding the consequences.
The change is inevitable and it's for the worse bc some states will count the 10s of millions of illegals for purposes of representation and electoral votes.
Chesterton's Fence is a good rule to apply in these situations. :)
Like firearms...
that is exactly Chesterton's Fence
Those that benefit from a systems' corruption are always the first to defend it.
"but but the Electoral College restrains the Democracy of the election"
The founding fathers: Yes, that's based.
Based because slavery was legal at the time.
Founding Fathers: but there are amendments that can be made to change the system if change is needed.
@Drakkonemus the Republicans don't want this of course. Because they can't win the presidency legit.
Not entirely true, Madison, Jefferson and many federalists opposed the electoral college.
@@Letwoo67 Like I care
Hillary Clinton ignored my home state of Wisconsin. The election was called with Wisconsin's elector count. She concentrated on the states with high populations, forgetting the rest of us!
Evil woman.
Well duh, what do you expect from a psychopath like Clinton?
@@EuroWarsOrgexactly 😂 Trump all the way
Hillary Clinton won the election by a landslide. The American people chose her overwhelmingly. She should have been president.
Should have nominated Bernie!
DC works for themselves, not the people they claim to represent.
And DC isn’t even a state. Not cool!
DC runs the Democratic Party from behind the curtain. Biden, Pelosi, etc. don't write the laws or read them. They simply vote on them as told. In return, they can run petty crimes without fear of prosecution.
John C. Calhoun said that one difference between a democracy and a republic is that, in a republic, the majority rules, but only to the extent that the rights of the minority are protected. For example, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are so fundamental that no one, even a majority of 99%, has the right to take them away.
Hellenic Republic = Elliniki Dimokratia = Greece
if your _res publica_ is not _dimos kratia_ it is not a republic, sorry
Er ... all republics are democracies. You can have a democracy that is not a republic, but you cannot have a republic that is not a democracy. ("All colonels are soldiers, but not all soldiers are colonels.") Now, if you want to change the US into a monarchy or dictatorship, then go ahead, but it will be neither a republic nor a democracy.
an irrelevant quote.
wrong since every democracy on earth protects minorities as well (to varying degrees). the netherlands legalized gay marriage 15 years before the US did.
"For example, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are so fundamental that no one, even a majority of 99%, has the right to take them away."
and yet those in power do take them away. torture, patriot act, guantanamo bay etc.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 You're conflating rights with freedoms. Each person everywhere has rights even under regimes that deny people the freedom to exercise those rights. Further, government offering certain "protections" as a matter of policy isn't the same thing as government recognizing and safeguarding a right that exists prior to, and independent of, government. Rights don't come from government. If government "granted rights" (an oxymoron), that same government can take them away.
Oh please...you have no rights beyond what some government official allows. The truth is censored. And .gov tramples every other "right" you THINK you have.
It's actually a meaningless discussion. Abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. That would require a 3/4 majority of the legislatures of the states to ratify. Since the few largest states would be the only ones to benefit, this would never happen.
The truth is that when the EC overrode the majority, the vote as so close that it was within the margin of error of the election process.
It's not meaningless when it disarms those who hate the country.
There's a loophole some are trying to get through, though it's likely unconstitutional. That's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is a law that would be passed in individual states.
It would give all Electoral votes of all states that passed the law to the candidate that won the popular vote nationally, regardless of the will of the people of each state. This would only take effect once states totaling 271+ Electoral votes have passed it into law.
Currently 16 states plus DC have signed onto the compact, totaling 205 EV. 11 more stares (101 EV) are considering it. It's notable that all states but 1 of the 16 that signed on are deeply blue, Colorado being the outlier.
@@firstcynic92
Except that wouldn’t work when the constitution determines how Presidential elections work.
@@firstcynic92 If it was ever attempted to be used, that would land in the US Supreme Court faster than you can blink.
Not saying that the Supreme Court would strike those laws down, but it certainly seems to be contravening the Constitution.
Just wish the states had something similar so big cities wouldn't have total power to the whole state!
Nebraska and Maine have that. They vote by congressional district. Someone made a map of the 2020 election if all states voted by congressional district and he found that Trump would’ve won.
At one time they did but that was ruled 'unconstitutional' by a Supreme Court decision June 15th 1964!
big cities dont have power over anything. the corporations do. also the cities are too small to do that. EC defenders failed math class
@@industrialathlete6096 I'm not surprised that decision came out of the Warren Court, the most activist era we've ever seen.
The dissenting opinion by Harlan was correct, that the court was rewriting the Constitution rather than waiting for the amendment process.
Still, even apportioning electoral votes by congressional district under the current rules would serve to break the hold of the big cities to an extent.
Yeah, if Illinois voters could vote on it county by county, they probably would have spun Chicago off into its own separate new state, and the rest of the existing state would turn solidly conservative overnight.
The EC only shows the genius behind the founding fathers they knew what they were doing
They really thought ahead, or they just had common sense. Same shit different day. Even in 2024 with computers and internet, human beings are still zero sum mentality, my way or the highway.
not really no, considering the Ec is broken and absurd
Separation of powers is exactly why its structured in such a way.
Overall only one wants power over the other which is why the ones demanding to structure the government a certain way want to sweep the board clean to enact their devious schemes to push onto the ignorantly and gullible masses that praise them as if they have well meaning intentions towards them all
Why do people treat the founding fathers like gods. Like for fuck sakes, they were men, who while brilliant, came up with some terrible views. Doesn’t change their contributions, but it does mean they are immune from criticism.
@@nathansmith7686 I think it's mainly a comparison between the typical nitwits and greedy degenerates we often get today in politics.
It’s just annoying how large cities often control the vote for the whole state. I’m from Alaska and most people throughout Alaska vote red, while the city folk in anchorage vote blue, I understand that they have more people, but it’s like they don’t realize how their votes affect those who live differently from them. This happens to farmers a lot, who don’t have a lot of voting power and live in rural areas. People in cities often just don’t think about people who don’t live in cities, the electric vehicle policies is a great example. I know it was good intentions, but they only think about having an electric car in a city and don’t realize how difficult and impractical that
Is for most of rural America.
Selfishness is the weakness of all political decisions. A monarch focuses on the fortunes of his family. A republic on the interest of the elites; a democracy on the needs of the majority. A mixed government is the best of all. Our Constitution seeks a balance of power. Until after 1914. despite the Civil War, most governmental power still rested with the States and their localities. The short interlude of a consentration of power from, 1917-19i9, ended with the war. But the New Deal and world war 2 and the Cold caused a huge concentration of power in the Central Government. Ironically, the end of the Cold War has only led to an even greater increase. We new see a great concentration of power in the Nation’s capital.
But Alaska is a red state??? So if anything it’s like the rural voters override the people in anchorage
@@elroyla227 I’m talking about local elections and the type of policies that effect Alaskans the most. The presidential elections don’t effect Alaskan as much because we don’t have a lot of voting power either way.
@@Jinxx9081But why should rural people be the only minority who gets special privileges? You can find many different types of minorities that overwhelmingly tend to vote one way, but all of those groups don't get special rules so their party can win without a majority.
@@racool911 you are kidding right? The left wanted to not enforce voter ID laws for some ridiculous notion that black people couldn’t get an ID. Literally most people on the left would rather listen to anyone else rather than farmers. When farmers try to explain why their “environmentally friendly” solutions aren’t real solutions, they just get pissed off and say that the right just doesn’t care about the environment or animals. I’ve seen it enough to know for certain that the left would rather feel good about themselves than actually do good.
If the big cities control everything then it will all fall apart. The rural areas have their own culture, we don’t need the cities dictating our way of life when it’s completely different from theirs. This just creates more divide within our country
Nonsense, it is the inability to regulate things across the country which has led to the death of many small towns across America, and the attack on the Middle Class. The electoral college entrenches a ruling class that is killing America, if there were no electoral college the American Working and Middle Classes would be represented better, and Small businesses would be prioritised over large domestic and foreign corporations that destroy towns and corrupt domestic politics.
But rural areas should be able to dictate the way of life in urban areas?
@@oscartheamazing6745 double standards from conservatives
I found someone living in Illinois, lol. You're 100% correct, as a Mainer I'd be PISSED if Boston was making my rules
ridiculous nonsense. no they cannot "control everything". theyre too small. Ec defenders failed math class.
no one is suggesting anyone "dictate your way of life" and that isn't how elections work. elections work by selecting a single dude to run things, and even then, 90% of what he promised isnt gonna happen. most places in the US have not really changed in their way of life for decades.
no it would create more peace and unity. the popular vote is superior to the Ec in every way and most people prefer it to the broken absurd EC
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Good example. I'll have to remember that.
That’s why most every advocate for it isn’t asking for unrestrained democracy
ridiculous analogy that means nothing and falls apart with the slightest scrutiny.
first, wolves must eat sheep to survive.
second, wolves are naturally superior to sheep while your average human voter is the same as another for the most part.
third, this presumes that the losers get eaten, which they don't and weren't.
People from smaller states are still ignored like wyomming, idaho, the dakotas, and west cirginia.
That's not true. They have their 2 senators like every other state.
@@Giovannytru I'm talking about the electoral college not the senators
@kevinaguilar7541 Well, the Electoral College is based on the number of members of congress each state delegation has and that is based on it's population. So, no, they aren't being ignored.
@@Giovannytru in presidential elections, you don't see the president really making much of an effort in appealing these states besides some generic statements. I was referring to how the electoral college does not do what people claims, that being it brings attention to non-populated area.
@kevinaguilar7541 oh definitely but not just smaller states. Nobody pays attention to Tennessee or Texas, let's not talk about Massachusetts or California
Without the EC, a politician can offer a region an incentive that doesn't benifit the rest of the nation to garner a large percentage of the vote in that area. Lets say they offer citizens in Gulf States a percentage of oil revenues from the Gulf of Mexico. This results in winning 70% of the votes from those states tipping the popular vote of the nation in their favor. With the EC, 51% of the vote in these states gives them the same result as the 70% forcing a candidate to pay attention to the entire nation.
This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you, that was helpful. Something like this should have been said in the video.
which would be ridiculous impossible nonsense.
first, promises don't really eventuate much unless you have a supermajority, and voters would know this.
second, this already failed when bernie ran twice and lost twice, even though he promised 100% of americans guaranteed universal healthcare and education. 100%! and he still lost! so what possessed you to believe this?
already the EC doesnt force one to pay attention to the entire nation. just 5-6 swing states.
If anyone tried that they would lose an extreme number of votes from every other state. And since they can't win entire states with only 51% of the votes, all those lost votes stack up.
However in the electoral college, they don't have to give a fuck if they lose votes in states they're definitely gonna win anyway. So that actually makes it easier to pull shit like this.
Thanks, Nick. I'm Canadian and I do not fully understand how American elections work. This helps.
As a Canadian, you should see what happens when your Government and an idiot like Trudeau is put in power by just a few large population centers.
It shouldn't help at all. Nothing he said makes any sense at all unless you're living in the 1800's.
@@racool911 I thought I was the only one laughing at this nonsense.
@@Radioman.the United States is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Never was intended to be. Tell me you would fail a middle school US government exam without telling me. The people who wrote the constitution had Rome and Greece to base off of, and our system is the foundation of a lot of systems worldwide because it’s the first system that works, the only reason it’s failing right now is because people are greedy for power and sheep like you let them have it.
@@racool911 Just because you're to ignorant too understand doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Let's make it easy...no electoral college, all of middle America secedes because the coastal States are unfit to rule us. We are a FEDERATION of SOVEREIGN States. This is very similar to the EU. The federal government is the EU, the States are the individual European countries. If the most populace European countries simply drown out the wishes of the smaller ones, the smaller ones will no longer remain in the union.
I would to see a video on the 17th Amendment; direct election of Senators, instead of being elected by the State's legislatures. I think the States gave up oversight of the Federal government, since the Senators don't have the state's interest anymore.
I would say it didn't take long for the federal government to get out of control after the passage of the 17th Am. Thank you Wilson.
I agree,the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
Yes, the combination of the 16th, direct taxation, and the 17th, popular election of the Senate, completely neutered the States as a check on federal power. Unquestionably true.
Decentralization of power is essential to the survival of the American Republic, but as we can see, those who want bigger and more government don’t see it that way. Think about this the next time you head to the polls.
oversimplification. the debate is and always has been, how much government in each specific area/issue. progressives want universal healthcare and universal education, which you can call "bigger government'. but less government in virtually every other issue. some things should not be left up to profit, and health is one of them.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 - Single-issue people lose all common sense. The problem is bigger than you think.
@@Blublodwhen you have a chronic condition that allows health insurance companies to not cover your healthcare, and your kid inherits the condition, you become a single issue voter very quickly.
As an outsider, I think the US's biggest problem is the lack of political parties. With many parties, they are forced to work together and find a compromise. Instead the US are extremely divided and radicalized which makes progres stall. A part of the solution to this is the removal of the “winner takes it all” principle.
Well, unfortunately that's how it used to work, and with only two parties. There used to be give and take, diplomacy and gentlemanly disagreements that would eventually...eventually lead to some sort of compromise. At least for now those days are behind us.
There should be ranked choice voting to remove the spoiler effect.
A multi party system would be even worse. That’s how you get a leader with less than 40% of the vote. See Canada for further.
We actually do have multiple political parties, including parties specific to one state, or even one county!
The thing is, they're small.
Our communist party (Yes, we have one) has ~5K members.
Our Nazi party (Yes, we have one) has ~600 members.
We have plenty of even more interesting parties. I personally find it entertaining to look through them.
If there were more parties that were large, I think we could root out corruption.
On the contrary the US has too many political parties. We should have 0. George Washington on his farewell address warned against political parties because they would only lead to division among Americans. He believed political parties would hurt national unity and sure enough he was right.
Of course if you know US history we said "Thanks George for the advice!" and then immediately formed political parties.
It's a good system, to allow for regional representation. I think more countries ought to adopt something similar. In fact I believe Germany's system also has strong regionalism. The problem in the US is the lack of proportional representation and the current winner takes all (FPTP) system. The number of electors per state ought to be divided based on vote share, instead of entirely going to one candidate. Such a system doesn't reflect the vote and forces a two-party system. Hypothetically, instead of one party with 34% of the vote winning all 10 electoral votes of a state, and the other two parties with 33% each winning 0 seats, it should be that the state gives out 4, 3, and 3 electoral votes to these three parties.
No. That defeats the purpose of it being a Republic of Republics. You just suggested the majoritarian rule with one extra step. That's fundamentally opposed to the "good system for regional representation" you claim to be in favor of.
I believe some states do actually apportion their electors in the EC based on the outcome of the popular vote as you describe. However, this is something that should be handled on a state-by-state basis.
Yes, this would at least fix the "throwaway" votes of republicans in California or democrats in Texas. As it stands rn they might as well stay home.
@NemisCassander Unfortunately, that's not true. The 2 states you're thinking of use a "districts" system where each congressional district has 1 elector who is assigned to the ticket that wins a plurality of votes within that district. The state's remaining 2 electors are assigned to the ticket that wins the statewide plurality. Maine will never have a 2-2 split; though, with Kennedy in the race, it could theoretically end up as a 2-1-1 split with Trump and Biden each taking a district but Kennedy winning the overall state without winning a single district.
No it isn't. It's an outdated system that serves no purpose but to keep the supermajority of minorities.
The exact thing that is missing from the EU to be fair. Anything to lower the weight of Germany (and France) so it can not be accused of being the Fourth Reich.
But the EU already has this?
“It’s not democratic”, yes. Exactly…
It's a republic, if you can keep it.
One of the things most desired by our founders was to have a government of predictability, of continuity. For better or worse, a predictable government is something we can all work with. A government elected by simple majority would almost certainly be a fickle one, an unpredictable one, or as James Madison called it, a mutable one.
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. -- James Madison.
no it wouldnt. you made that up to try and make regular folks look bad. and since the EC already takes into account population size, how is it not also fickle and unpredictable? there has been dozens of surprise upset electoral wins
The 2000 election was far from "predictable"...
@@Blaqjaqshellaq - elections weren't meant to be predictable, government policy is meant to be. A good example of mutable policy is what happened to Keystone XL. Whether you were for it or against it, the mutable policy meant investors lost everything. If there had been consistency/predictability in policy, either nobody would ever have invested in it (and thus would have lost no money on it), or the investors would have made money on it.
Mutable policy has a chilling effect on "we the people" and our willingness to do things like invest money; and that's bad for the economy. A growing economy benefits everyone, some certainly more than others, but we all benefit from an expanding economy.
HMM... its almost as if we shouldn't have a massive overarching empire controlling vast and diverse cultures that all have their own needs.
Every state would matter if places like California and New York didn't vote overwhelmingly one way and thus end up taken for granted. The last time anyone bothered campaigning for my state's electoral votes was 1992.
Perhaps the greatest threat we can face his ignorantly of the the basic fundamental principles our county is built to upon.
If there was ever a time and place for "Chesterton's Fence" (don't tear down that which is was built by others in the ignorance of why it was was built to that way in the first place) it is here and now vis a vis the ignorant screeching and the pitching a fit to tear down those crucial foundations.
Thanks, Nick. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton, 1887)
On the other hand 'all power delights, and absolute power is absolutely delightful'. ( I think it was David Friedman said that, though I may be wrong).
I always ask people who are for abolishing the Electoral college by asking them this:
"Given how the SCOTUS is selected, why should Texas or California have more say in a dispute between North and South Dakota than those states themselves?
"Given how treaties and national borders are determined, why should Texas have more say over a treaty with Canada than Michigan or Washington, or New York more say over a treaty with Mexico than Arizona or New Mexico?
Their answers typically indicate they hadn't considered that, or that they just don't care, as they often amount to, "So what" or "Because democracy".
However, for the latter I remind them that every state entered the federal union *democratically*, so the rules by selecting the federal government are in line with democracy. They're just not in line with majoritarianism, because *federate republics* aren't majoritarianism.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of modern democracies don't select their head of government or head of state by a simple popular vote. They're selected by either the legislature like in parliamentary republics, or an analogue to Electoral College like in Germany for head of state, while their head of government (Chancellor) is selected by the Legislature.
The problem is that a vote from Wyoming is much more valuable than a vote from California or Texas.
Utter nonsense. The vast majority of heads of state are elected directly by the people through democratic elections. Where did you go to college? Trump University? If so, you might be eligible for compensation as part of a class action lawsuit for having been defrauded with the illusion of an education.
@@gregoryturk1275 Not really, and not inherently. You can expand the house to address that.
Further, why all residents for apportionment? Why should states with more non citizens or more minors get more votes? California has far more non citizens than Montana. Utah has far more minors than Vermont. Maybe be like Germany(which also uses the equivalent of the Electoral College btw) and have apportionment only apply to voting age citizens, since including anyone else for apportionment *artificially increases the value of those votes*. It would also increase the incentive for naturalization to boot.
Fun fact, if the number of representatives were to be expanded using the Wyoming Rule, Trump still would have won in 2016, and by a larger margin. This is because he won most of the key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The reality is that states except Maine and Nebraska CHOOSE to be all or nothing for electoral votes, which dilutes the impact of the minority votes in that state. 30% of California voters voted for Trump in 2016, but NONE of their votes counted for him, and instead "counted" for Hillary. The majoritarian bent towards that is all about maintaining power in that state.
Another fun fact, if every state did the district method like Maine and Nebraska, Romney would have won instead. Trump still would have won in 2016, but by a smaller margin.
Another fun fact: the majority of the entire US population is found in only 10 states.
The US is not unique in this AT ALL. Most modern democracies don't elect their head of state or head of government by popular vote, and in the Senate, all states are equal.
No one is saying the UK is anti-democratic because PARLIAMENT chooses the Prime Minister-like every other PARLIAMENTARY republics.
The USA is not a unitary state. It is a FEDERATED republic.
People who call for a national popular vote aren't for democracy-they're for majoritarianism.
They're the same kinds of people who call supermajority requirements anti-democratic because needing a more robust and diverse consensus is somehow *bad* for democracy. They either misunderstand the math or sincerely just care about what is most expedient to get their way. They also don't seem to care too much about all the democracy that formed the rules in the first place.
@@gregoryturk1275 Same goes for apportionment in the House: states with more people ineligible to vote(non citizens, minors) get more voting power per voter. Germany is a federated republic like the US and uses basically the same system as the Electoral college, and it only include voting age citizens for its apportionment.
Again, the Electoral college is not unique to the US, and a popular vote is not the norm for the head of state/government in modern democracies.
You need more of an argument than majoritarianism for the sake of it.
@@SphincterOfDoom Just because it isn’t unique doesn’t mean it is a good system.
The idea that the swing states determine elections and that all other states don't matter under the electoral college system is also idiotic. It ignores the fact that swing states change over the years, that parties rise and fall, and that the swing states are only relevant if the rest of the states are relatively evenly matched in voting power. It's like if you put two 50 pound weights on a scale, then you add a little sand to each side randomly, and say the sand had all the weight
I am in favor of abolishing the electoral college and have issues with the arguments presented here.
Argument 1: The United States is not a unitary state, but rather a federal state comprised of 50 coequal states each with their own issues. The electoral college ensures that each state has a voice in electing the president.
Correct, the United States is a federal state. But states do not elect the president, electors from each of the states do. The people from those states elect said electors.
The way you describe it makes it sound like the state governments each cast a vote for president, which is not at all what the electoral college is or was. When the founders set this up, the thinking was that you couldn't trust the common people to elect the highest office in the country, so you had people elect electors, who were supposed to be these "high minded intellectuals" who supposedly had educated, well thought out opinions about who should be the leader of the country. However, the modern electoral college is beholden to the people. Most states have laws on the books preventing electors from voting for anyone who didn't win that state's popular vote. In many ways, the electoral college is merely a shadow of what it was meant to be. Instead of coming up with a cabal of intellectuals to elect the president, we elect the president based on the popular votes of individual states, in a winner take all system with a pointless middleman. The winner take all system doesn't help things either. The hardest pill to swallow for the electoral college is this: if you are a Republican in California, your vote does not matter. If you are a Democrat in Mississippi, your vote does not matter. To the electoral college, everyone is either red or blue, fueling political polarization. I see no point in keeping the electoral college around just so that we can pretend it's the states who elect the president.
Argument II: The United States was never meant to be a purely majoritarian system.
This is a complete non argument, just because the US wasn't set up that way doesn't mean that setup was "good" or "correct". By that logic, the way the electoral college was supposed to function is the right way to do it, and the people shouldn't be voting for president at all. If you support the electoral college, you are ok with minority rule. You are ok with someone in Wyoming's vote for president counting more than someone in California's vote for president. This video completely sidesteps that issue by making an argument from authority. They then claim that the electoral college disperses power. The only thing this system does is consolidate power towards the minority.
Would a national popular vote seek to consolidate power in the big states? Not necessarily. The electoral college is ultimately dependent on a few swing states, because it's a winner take all system. In the electroral college, it doesn't matter if Ohio is 51% Republican or 67%, they still get all those votes. If it was instead reformed to a proportional system, then those votes would matter. It would force candidates to campaign across all states, hearing the interests of Democrats in Arkansas and Republicans in California, to get those votes because in a proportional system because those votes matter. The electoral college, in its current state, allows for minority rule while paradoxically making sure that the voices of the minority in each state are neglected. I am in favor of either abolishing the electoral college completely and doing a national popular vote (with either ranked choice voting or runoff elections) or reforming to a proportional electoral vote system.
The big point here is that the citizens of states are supposed to (through their state election systems) elect people who will represent the state's/individual's interests and will make the best decision for that state. The citizens of the country shouldn't elect the President directly because doing so ignores the interests of the states (as well as a state's "check" on the presidency). If there's a "problem" with the Electoral College, it would be the fault of the states for forcing electors to vote for a specific party versus the electors considering the needs of the people that voted for them (such as electors for districts) as well as the state's individual needs.
The country isn't ran by one branch of government, each branch is elected in different ways. The House of Reps is for the people, Senate for the states, Presidency for both, Judicial for all. Part of the "minority rule" problem is again the result of state's setting up their electors "poorly." Republicans in California could have a larger electoral vote if Republican areas voted directly for electors that would then vote in a way that aligns with them and the state (with the state not forcing party voting). Same with other states. You could say the states themselves took more power away from the people in their effort to consolidate all their electors to one party to better "compete" with other states.
A national popular vote goes to the other extreme by ignoring all state interest completely for the interest of individuals. Individuals should primarily be focused on local and state, where issues more directly effect them specifically. They are directly represented in the House. The federal government more directly effects the states so they should naturally have a say in the executory.
If we get rid of the E.C, then we should be a parliamentary system like Australia. Read why Socrates hated Democracy.
I fear that, if we dump the E.C. but keep our presidential system, the U.S. would have a Jan. 6th every 20 years. Do not forget the strong regionalism, as well as the strong individualism of people in the U.S. it runs deep. Very deep.
We already had a civil war, a woman's march, and Jan 6 because certain people got elected. Get rid of the E.C? Fine, but replace it with a parliament. Get rid of the E.C. but keep everything else the same? No. Just no.
You can say "the Senate is enough to keep big states from overpowering small states.". I dislike the Senate more than I dislike the E.C. without the Senate, slavery might have been abolished earlier. And the Senate is for legislating. The E.C. is for electing. There is a difference.
When Lincoln won in 1861, the slave states wanted to leave because they felt "left out;" that the North was too powerful. Well, get rid of the e.c. and watch what happens.
There are places all around the country within states that have felt "left out" because of the "urban elites" in their state. For instance, parts of New York considered leaving Albany because of our liberal governor's harsh fracking regulations.
Now, here is where you are right: New York will almost always go Democrat because of NYC, so what about all the counties in the West that feel unrepresented? Yes, why should they vote in the presidential election at all if they know NYC will just swallow them up, making their votes "meaningless?"
Ultimately, their votes should count. Reform the E.C so their votes count, or switch to a parliamentary system. Do NOT have a national popular vote. I think the "people" will always vote on emotion rather than thought, and that is why, I think, in the end....
The democratic process sucks.
@@DEmersonJMFM no. individuals should primarily be focused on by everyone. the entire government. states cna only go so far.
one individual is not superior to another individual as the EC tries to suggest.
@@italia689 the democratic process is wonderful. democracy is the best and most successful system in human history.
of the top 20 most peaceful nations on earth, 17, if not more, are democracies.
are you trying to suggest socrates would have liked the EC? which is still democracy but in a roundabout flawed setup, rather than simple "more votes wins". and why do we care what he thought? appeal to authority fallacy.
"I fear that, if we dump the E.C. but keep our presidential system, the U.S. would have a Jan. 6th every 20 years'
for no reason. you completely made that up out of thin air based on nothing.
"When Lincoln won in 1861, the slave states wanted to leave because they felt "left out;" that the North was too powerful. Well, get rid of the e.c. and watch what happens."
nearly 200 years ago. times change. partially thanks to the civil war, people no longer feel more loyal to their state than their country.. whenever some lib says "man the feds are corrupt. i wish cali would just up and leave", they are called traitorous and conservatives demand that they move to cuba. so in what scenario could this ever happen? and why would the states feel left out? that's not possible because they'd have no good reasons to feel this way.
"Yes, why should they vote in the presidential election at all if they know NYC will just swallow them up, making their votes "meaningless?"
because they are by definition not meaningless. they aren't numerous but not meaningless either. thanks to the popular vote counting every single vote from everywhere, no one from anywhere is "swallowed up". the EC does that. but not the popular vote.
people from remote areas might feel like not voting. but they should anyway in case we get another JFK vs Nixon election where it is extremely close and comes down to a few thousand votes as the difference.
" think the "people" will always vote on emotion rather than thought"
which means you are an elitist and your plan is to screw them all over, 350 million of them, because you arbitrarily made up out of thin air that no one votes based on thought. which you have no good reason to believe unless your plan is to permanently rig the system in favor of the rich 1%.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091
The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.
I live i Eastern oregon. We are at the mercy of portland/ salem area. They have the numbers andcwe get stuck with stupid laws and regs that make no sense whrre i live.
You don't have the numbers, otherwise you wouldn't be "stuck with stupid laws." The folks in Eastern Washington say the same thing, but again, they don't have the numbers, so they don't get their laws passed.
I live in northeast Colorado, and we basically have to live with the decision made by the Denver metro area so we get screwed alot.
That's why some of the counties in eastern Oregon want to cede from the state and join Idaho.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade No shit, that's the problem.
Not only that, but you folks want to make your areas roll into Idaho and Oregon says "hell no you won't". And you wonder why people are really worried about Civil War sometime this year or the next...
One of the saddest things about where our nation has gone, when it comes to our political discourse, is our INABILITY to dialogue and engage in discussions involving nuance.
With nearly every issue of the day it inevitably turns into two points of view that overwhelming dominate the attention of the majority. And in this case it is either get rid of the EC or keep it exactly the same.😢
"Don't talk religion or politics" they say. But I think that talking religion and politics around dinner tables, in tavern rooms, and in small churches is a huge part of what birthed our country. I try and talk religion and politics, and I'm trying to get more people around me on board with that. So far with very little success 😀
@@MikeBradleyJ yeah, I've experienced that if you try to keep the parties out of it and focus on the practical helps.
Two additional reasons to keep the Electoral College are that (1) some cities and states currently encourage non-citizens to vote, even in federal elections, although this is illegal, and (2) some states fail to adequately safeguard their voting systems to ensure that only legal votes are included and counted. These practices allow the offending states to inflate their voting numbers. The Electoral College puts some brakes on the extent that illegal voting influences the outcome of federal elections.
Thank you for the great video!!
"Two thirds of Americans favor abolishing the electoral college..." what happens when you take out the voters in NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Austin, Denver, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, LA and San Diego? THAT is why the Electoral College is needed.
The electoral college is just affirmative action for conservatives
The population of all the cities you named adds to about 25 million
The population of the US is 334 million
If you somehow managed to get the entirety of all these city's people you would get less than a 13th of the vote so just going to all the cities wouldn't make you automatically win
Even if all these 14 major cities had the population of New York AND you convinced all the people living in these places to vote for you, you would get a third of the vote still not enough to automatically win though in this case you would have a substantial advantage
Though every one of those cities getting about 6 or 7 million more people is kind of insane
what do cities have to do with anything? and why would we "take out" voters?
@bobg5362, you left out San Antonio wjich is 2nd only to Houston and FAR more populous than little podunk Austin.
There's a good reason the two points in the video are usually ignored. It's because they're utter horseshit.
1. We don't live in the 1800's anymore. America is a much different country than it was hundreds of years ago. America has a much stronger national identity and people no longer associate themselves with their states anymore.
People in smaller states aren't gonna be upset about larger states having more of a sway because they know their vote is worth the exact same as a vote from someone in a big state. Unlike now where someone in Wyoming has far more say in an election than someone in California purely because of where they live. In fact they'll be happier as they won't be forced to have their voice be affected by what the people around them think. States are not monoliths as they are presented to be in this video. Every state has a different history and needs, but so does every region within the state, and every person within those regions. This whole America was always meant to be a federal republic shtick is just an excuse to abide by an archaic system just because the founding fathers thought it was best back in the 1700's.
2. This power consolidation point has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college. It's fine if you think the federal government should have less power, but that has nothing to do with how federal officials are elected.
3. The video then proceeds to talk about a high stakes power struggle and national division, which again has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college.
The Electoral College is one mechanism the States can use to keep the feds in check. The 17th Am. interferes with another mechanism. The States aren't any better. But if we have corruption checking corruption, then we have a better change keeping government in check in whole.
Is there an episode regarding the 17rh Amendement?
Robert Welch's essay "Republics and Democracies" is a must read.
It's not that the electoral college needs to be abolished, it's that the electoral ballots should be distributed according to the support rate for each candidate. That way, it doesn't all go one way or the other. Candidates would have to campaign in small and large states to win instead of focusing only on swing states.
That would make a lot of sense and we just can't have that
Amen
That is abolishing the EC, effectively.
@@212ntruesdaleI agree,who ever wins the state should get all of the electoral votes of that state.
Thanks Nick.
Ran into this channel today. Very informative.
Something else to consider is the fact that the majority opinion (by population) is already favored in the House of Representatives. So, if a bill is to become law, then a majority of the Representatives in the House must agree to it. Additionally, the Senate is a place for each state to have equal weight. Thus, it will also take a majority of the states to support the bill to become law. Finally, because the Electoral College does give slightly more weight to the smaller states (in terms of Population per Electoral Vote) the smaller states cannot be completely ignored. This is because every bill must pass the House & Senate, and then be signed into law by the President.
This was intentionally set up to make it hard for change to happen too quickly, but it could still happen quickly if needed.
As WE are seeing NOW. Thank you for the easy way to understand the Electoral College.
Interesting video, and one that aligns to my point of view. What you didnt bring up, under the original intent, the winner would become president and the first runner up would become vice president. Now in our current radicalized climate, such an idea would create chaos if in force today, and practically did in the early years of the republic. But the concept is sound and fair, it allows the vanquished a seat at the table, the minority a voice, and insight into compromise and bipartisan consensus.
the popular vote gives minority a voice, not the EC
@@godemperorofmankind3.091
States are SOVEREIGN. States need representation, NOT people.
The federal government is supposed to govern interactions between States, not US the people.
The Federal government, per the Constitution, does not have powers to affect the daily lives of individuals.
All powers the federal government is exercising that do affect our daily lives are unconstitutional.
That's A LOT of usurped power which is causing most of our problems.
We really need to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments...
Hi Nick, I'm curious as to what effect you think the following proposal might have: I would like to see the financial responsibility for all members of Congress moved to the respective States with no funds provided by federal taxpayers. For example, each State's legislature would be responsible for determining the salaries of their House representatives and their Senators. I would include pensions, health insurance, staff costs, office space rental, travel costs, postage, security details, and office supplies down to the paper clips. Any services currently available to members in the Capitol (i.e. gym, haircuts, meals, office assignments) would also be paid for by the State. Congressional office space could be rented out based upon market factors, securing income for their upkeep.
My thought is that it would keep the members focused on the wants and needs of their constituent States and greatly reduce the number of life-long politicians currently infesting the Capitol.
Also: Repeal the 17th!!!
Yes could you go into more detail on how exactly the electoral vote works please & Thank you 😊
It’s called internet search, plenty of articles on how it works.
@scubasteve1555 be nice. Explaining a little bit might redpill someone, you never know
I would recommend Prager U for some videos.
@@F-ll5pz
I am being nice. Doing your own basic research is basic, it’s what red pilled me.
Here's the idea...
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."
-Federalist Paper 45
The Federalist Papers were published to convince States to sign into the Constitution. They explain the meaning.
CONCEPT
So given this, here is how these elections were INTENDED to work:
It IS in fact a popular election, except the constituents are the STATES, not individuals because the design of the Constitution prevents the federal government from affecting our daily lives. It simply was not granted those powers. The federal government was for governing interactions between the States, which is why the States are the constituents.
Senate - elected by States.
President - elected by the States via electoral college, which doesn't even require a vote, much less a vote by citizens
SCOTUS - affirmed by the Senate - see Senate above
That leaves the House as the lone odd-man-out as a voice of the people.
So, federal elections, except for the House, are supposed to be a popular election between the 50 States, who would have to work with the Federal government for the rules of how the States would interact with each other or foreign nations. The federal government was NEVER intended to make laws applying to CITIZENS in their daily lives that would apply to all States.
As you can plainly see, the Federal government has taken powers never given to it in the Constitution, which is why individuals now get so invested in these elections.
As to FUNCTIONALLY, how does this work:
The States decide how to select their electors. There was no requirement for a vote, AT ALL.
The State government got to decide and could simply select them with no vote if they wanted. They could do a vote in the State government, or they can do a popular vote. It's all up to the State. This is because this election SHOULD only affect the State government negotiating with other State governments or when the States collectively negotiate with foreign nations.
So, if you're a small State, why would you join this union if a large state by itself can outvote multiple small States? You wouldn't!! So, how do we weight the States votes against each other so neither large nor small States have too much say? Small states wanted one-state one-vote. Large States wanted it weighted by population. They settled on a compromise of how many electors each State gets. The number is based on the combined Senate+House seats they get, so each State gets the flat two from the Senate, but it is also weighted by population. It is MOSTLY proportional, but the flat two for small States helps them a LITTLE bit to not simply be outnumbered.
Also, this may be an unintended but definitely beneficial side-effect, but a majority is not always right. Packing too many people together in one space seems to make them all collectively dumber or at the very last breeds a disconnect form one another and from basic necessities they now take for granted. the Holodomor happened in Ukraine during the Cold War because the Bolsheviks and their followers (a majority at the time) seized land from farmers and in doing so eliminated the people who knew how to work the land effectively and 10 million people starved, similar situation went down in South Africa fairly recently. Majority =/= right, majority =/= smart, those who consume do not get to boss around those who produce.
no one ever said the majority was always right. but i would rather have the people in charge than a small corrupt minority of rich old politicians. i stand with the people. not sure who you stand with
"democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried" -Winston Churchill
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 hence why we have division of powers, checks and balances and a bicameral legislature with one house representing population and the other representing states equally. the office of President is not all-powerful.
This was a great explanation and I appreciate you making it.
This is why people should be better educated about the political and constitutional history of their country.
No lies detected.💯
No lies, just bad arguments.
Just stupidity and gaslighting.
VERY well said!
The State of Indiana gave the world the Washing Machine, something people use every day; but w/0ut the College--IN'd be washed away
Could you do a video on the filibuster? I see it as the best thing ever for a legislative body but also the worst thing ever for a legislative body.
I think the default vote required to pass a bill should by 60% anyway. It would encourage more bipartisanship, and thus more moderate legislation, instead of each side simply trying to ram their agenda through in the two years they have between each election, before a new Congress is chosen.
If the federal government were truly limited to its Constitutional powers, would it really matter?
Can you do a show on convention of states COS. That should show the population of the way the constitution has avenues for keeping the federal government from having to much power. Thank you
@brianlane3715 That is absolute NONSENSE. There is no such thing as a "convention of states" as an avenue for keeping the federal government from "having too much power."
You are being lied to by lying liars like Mark Levin, who really hates the Constitution and thinks he can rewrite it better than the Founders/Framers.
Go read the writings of the Founders and Framers; NONE of them ever said that Article V was designed as a means to prevent federal government from assuming too much power.
The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be re-read and followed.
The COS project is a group of scammers trying to convene a Constitutional Convention where everything is on the table, including getting rid of the current document completely and replacing it with something entirely different.
The avenue for states keeping the feds in check is the 10th Amendment, which preserves the right of state nullification of federal acts.
The problem is that states do not want to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, because they want to keep unconstitutional federal funding pouring into their state treasuries.
Stop being so gullible. There is NO SUCH THING AS A CONVENTION OF STATES.
Read Article V: It is about AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION, and it specifically says that CONGRESS proposes amendments or CONGRESS CALLS A CONVENTION. The only thing states get to do is ASK CONGRESS to call a constitutional convention.
And the only state conventions mentioned in Article V are for RATIFICATION.
STOP BEING GULLIBLE.
Our society has a habit of throwing away what worked without thinking through the consequences of it.
The Senate works on the Same Principle as the Electoral College, it protects the right of smaller states. Should Wyoming have the same number of Senators as California, yes. The only mistake was the 17th amendment.
The Electoral college is uniquely American, part of our history & Constitution so it MUST stay!!
Just like slavery, right?
that's not a real reason. so is democracy and the EC stifles it
How do rural states benefit in an electoral system college if presidential elections are really focused on just 4 states?(Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona Virginia and Florida receive the most visits and campaign funding, north Carolina and other big states don't lag behind much). Electoral college doesn't benefit rural areas, it benefits swing states, typically bigger swing states at that.
Furthermore, sure the U.S. wasn't set up to be 'majoritarian' as you put it, so why can't it be now? We don't need to just loosely follow what the founding fathers intended, and you're right this puts more power in bigger states... But bigger states have bigger populations and currently they are being misrepresented (not being given proportional votes to their population) by electoral college. Big states have bigger population and the whole point of democracy is to sway more population because it's a POPULAR vote.
The U.S. is not a "democracy." I wish people would stop using that term. It is a constitutional republic.
@@italia689
You're right, but that's not a point. We aren't by definition a traditional democracy, so does that mean we shouldn't strive to be one???
We should be aiming to increase representation and strengthen our democracy, not simplemindedly continue what the founding fathers intended,; times have changed
@@mistersiemsen8090
Democracy equals anarchy, my friend. There are no "democracies" on all planet Earth.
If the U.S. we're a democracy,, a direct democracy, it would fall apart. People would be petulant about losing. Look up why democracy is always doomed for failure.
A national popular vote without some kind of check on it will breed nothing but petulance and division, because sore losers would not get their way. More Jan 6ths. More women's marches. Maybe even a second civil war. This country has a FEDERAL system. The states have considerable autonomy, and it is important that South Dakota's vote counts as much as New York's. That is what the E.C. does.
Even if we get rid of the E.C, my vote for the Republican candidate would mean nothing in the end. It would be swallowed up by the tyranny of the majority (in New York State) any way.
Again, this country is not like France, where it is heavily centralized. We are a federal nation of fifty semi-independent regions
I do think if the U.S. gets rid of the E.C, it should switch to a parliamentary system. We must NOT have an absolute tyranny of the majority under any circumstances, period. A national direct popular vote would cause division. The E.C. equalizes the regions of this country. That is why it is needed.
@@mistersiemsen8090
No. Democracy leads to mistrust and division. Look up why democracy always fails.
@@mistersiemsen8090 Look up every country that was a 'democracy' and you'll see pretty much all of them have failed even though most where made AFTER the US. The US's system of government has been around for 200+ years because it works and most of the issues we see nowadays are because Dems for the most part are trying to shove aspects of failed Democracies into the US (such as Socialism and Communism of the Soviet Union, WW2 Germany, WW2 Japan, current day China, current day Russia, Current day North Korea, etc (and all are by definition still Democracies) or as for non Dictatorships aspect of countries like France which has had roughly 10 or more democratic aligned governments and other styles since the US has formed.
The fact the US is still using the same government system it has used for the past 200 years means it works better than all of these other Democracies that Dems love to push as all of them failed at one point.
Hell the only scenario that Socialism and Communism may work would be in incredibly small population centers of about 100 to 1000 people max where all of the people are too busy doing their respective job and don't really have competition thus no other self interests that could collide with their business/livelihood and everyone would be far too busy surviving day to day without that much extra time to feel bored enough to want more than just the basic necessities. The moment the population gets too large too many interests start colliding (people in the same field vying for the same consumers, more politicians needed to help run respective districts thus political division will become inevitable as different needs from different districts clash, more violence and theft by people that are either lazy or can't find jobs, and so on. Ocne all this starts the core aspects of what is supposed to be true Socialism/Communism get corrupted and the politicians/army start taking a bigger power trip than even the US's Capitalist Republic systems and young et Dictatorships like Nazi Germany, WW2 era Japan, Current Day Russia/China/N Korea, etc as those systems don't have the checks in place to stop the government overreach to the degree the US system has.
Also nothing anything the Dems propose strengthens a Democracy much either and has only caused more tension than anything else. Most of the policies they're pushing are either crap that will waste money we don't have, screw over our energy bill, are redundant as laws already exist that address the issue (but I guess don't go as far as they want...basically all of these Civil rights Bills/policies that would just give minorities more power than whites and toss equality out the window or give them reparations when we don't have the free cash right now, probably never will either, to throw out all the cash they want. The Civil Rights Bills/Amendments were passed and already fixes the issue IF the States and Federal government follow through with the laws as they're written...if they're not than the people you voted in aren't following those laws to begin with and are part of the problem for failing their jobs so how about you make sure the people you put in actually follow existing laws first before demanding they make laws that already exist but they ignore (they probably want the law made to push some extra BS into a bill and that's it...whether it's an addition that would unjustly benefit a single minority group or some funding for some pet project)). Oh and like what was said we're not a Democracy either so fuck that comment of yours for that reason too.
An idea for you: A video on how the Electoral College of today is so dramatically different from the Electoral College that Alexander Hamilton envisioned in Federalist 68. The latter effectively being a Council of "Elders", chosen from amongst the voting populace, sitting for the _sole_ purpose of choosing the President and Vice President. The closest analogy in modern times is how the NCAA has a committee to determine schools that qualify for Basketball and Football tournaments, but anyone who can vote in a State election is eligible to be an Elector on this committee and said Electors are elected by their fellow citizens, not _appointed_ by outside bodies (e.g., State Legislatures in the antebellum era, State chapters of Political Parties in modern times).
Thanks !
Thank you Nick for all the hard that you do. You explained it simply about how the US system works. Can you explain how Net Zero would become a total disaster please. Thank you.
Factor in number of counties won in the state when delegating electoral college votes, rather than simply the number of votes cast per candidate, and the stranglehold of the big cities would end overnight.
there is no stranglehold. and unfairly screwing over cities for being cities is undemocratic and absurd
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Is it that you don't want to see because your party has the most power? Would you feel very differently if they weren't?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Thankfully, our country is not a democracy.
Counties don't vote. People vote. The Founders were wise in wishing to block any attempt at absolute power. The Electoral College provides a balance between pure democracy and a democratic republic.
@@Dagot1948That's utter nonsense. The Electoral College makes it possible for you to have a tyranny of the minority. Plenty of other republics function just fine without Electoral colleges. The US Electoral College is dysfunctional and horrifically outdated.
The main reason is that most people, and by most I mean close to all, don't know a single thing about politics. In fact most people who register for a party don't even know what the name of that party means.
I agree the Electoral College is necessary. However, in the event a 3rd party candidate garners enough electoral votes to give no one a majority, (270) votes to win, then the House of Representatives decides the President. But their is a catch, each STATE casts only one vote in the House, not each congressmen. In a country where over 50% of the population resides in just 10 states, that means those 10 states only have 20% of the voting power, over the vastly smaller population of the remaining 40 states that has less than 50% of the total population, now having 80% of the voting power.
the EC is unnecessary, broken and absurd
You nailed it!
I wish more people understood the nature of the country they live in.
Don't the schools teach this stuff anymore?
he nailed nothing. the video is nonsense
No, the schools don't teach this anymore. They don't teach history and they don't teach civics, so kids don't understand how the system has worked over two centuries and why it has worked so well. The same people who want to eliminate the Electoral College are the same people who want to pack the Supreme Court, create new states to create super-majorities in the Senate, etc. It's all about determining outcomes and destroying any restraints on creating a one-party state.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091Exactly.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091no explanation? Just a lame dismissal of his 3+ minute explanation? You have no argument
I have to admit this changed my mind. I hadn't heard the other side of the argument.
That's very sad, because this is utter nonsense.
The Electoral College benefits underpopulated, largely rural states that just so happen to lean Republican. It is inherently unfair, where a candidate preferred by the majority of Americans loses. In what other case does the person who finished second, win? As I read the comments, I notice many people are complaining that there minority views should take precedence over the majority's. Small states are already overrepresented in the Senate. My state of Michigan has 10,000,000 residents. Wyoming has less than 800,000. Both states get two Senators. That is hardly democratic.
It's not just representation in campaigns but political concern that would falter without the dispersed nature of the EC vote. It could be improved though; for instance instead of the winner-takes-all method of choosing electors, all the states could use a method similar to Nebraska or Maine, where electors are chosen by district or even a method in which the two electors representing the state's Senate seats are chosen based on the popular vote in the state and the others are chosen in proportion to the vote, so voters in a reliably red or blue state won't feel like their votes don't matter.
I wish states would do a Nebraska and Maine instead of the winner takes the state system the other 48 have
I was scanning through the comments hoping someone would say this. I agree, but right now it's in Nebraska's best interest to stop doing this. Because they are fighting fair, when other states are not, they think they need to switch tactics to better compete with the other states. Unless all states go away from winner-takes-all, then any state (like CA) will see that it can have more power by not having an electoral system within itself.
The electoral map would be so complicated if that were the case.
I'm fine with winner-take-all for smaller states.
Break it up for bigger states like Texas, California, NY, Florida.
One problem: Gerrymandering
@@armstrongtixid6873 Both sides do this, the real reason we will probably not see it happen is from the amount of work both parties will have do to flip a few districts all over the nation.
So so so wrong. It wasn’t about protecting small states. It was about giving slave states weight. That’s why Virginia dominated for so long.
We settled the “republic of republics” issue in 1865 and shifted to a more federal system.
One point you didn’t make but I’ll give to you is the electoral college generally helps to isolate problems and discrepancies, for better or worse. In 2000, we only had to sort out FL (whether we did or not is debatable tho). We didn’t need to examine votes throughout the country.
Here’s a better solution for everyone that few talk about. Shrink congressional districts. Not down to the 30,000 or so people that we had originally but perhaps something like 100,000 people. With 750,000 per district, a state with 600,000 people has as much representation and electoral votes as one with twice as many people. Shrinking districts will make electoral votes more proportionate to population. It’ll also make Reps more accessible to their constituents, make Congress more diverse, make running for office less expensive and make buying influence nearly impossible. What’s more, it wouldn’t require a Constitutional Amendment. It would only require an Act of Congress, like the one over 100 years ago that fixed the number of reps.
_Sixty or Seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be a better depository. And if we carry the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary ... to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude_ .
James Madison, Federalist 55.
What we currently have is the worst of both ends that the author of the Constitution described above: Our Congress is too small to properly represent the people, as you state, yet is already too large to effectively govern. This is a case where there is no longer a "happy medium" but rather a "donut hole".
States should allocate votes proportionally instead of winner takes all, as most currently do.
This way, rather than having about 10 swing states who can decide an election, and thus candidates focus almost all their time and resources, all states are at least partially up for grabs.
If Republicans are 40% of California voters, then rather than being ignored by Republican Presidential candidates because its not worth trying to win in California, they could get 22/55 Electoral College votes.
And in reverse, if Democrats are 45% of Texas, they could still get 17/38 EC votes.
This way, a handful of close state results won't skew the whole election, but smaller states still get greater representation than their population alone would give.
50 states...50 votes for president...first one to get 26 "electoral votes" wins. CA having 54 votes knocks out 14 states with the lowest number. Each state gets 1 vote depending on how their population voted. A parent with 8 kids doesn't get 8 votes while a parent with 1 gets 1...so why do populous states get more votes? The EC should be more like the Senate as opposed to Congress. I would personally like to see the EC made up of counties. Why should a concentrated city have so much influence when it doesn't represent the majority of the "area" of the state. Even California is mostly "conservative"...it's the cities that are liberal. Or let the states go back to proportional division of electoral votes. Let CA submit say 28 D and 26 R...instead of everything going for the Ds because they got 0.05% more votes.
I disagree, I learn conservatives on some issues but no one is elected president this way, and the electoral college becomes too explosive, I used to think it was good, but Republicans in California are completely ignored and Democrats in Wyoming are ignored too. Also now the Electoral College favors republicans but it can favor Democrats, what if Texas became a blue state? Then there is no path of ever winning the president, the electoral also exists because of slavery. Slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of the electoral college. If the electoral college did not exist probably the US was not facing democratic back sliding.
Yeah maybe it should be split into cities or districts the same way that it's split into states now.
Then it would be each city/district gave a small amount of votes (like 1) and then it'd be the same process for needing a majority (over half the total votes).
It again further encourages competition as the votes in a city or district can change a lot in just 8 years.
@@theAstarrr I think one person one vote better. I noticed something living abroad, cities can be conservative.
No one is ignored. States have changed political leanings before. The EC means who have to focus on trying to win influence within your state, instead of simply using the federal government to control the state from the outside.
Thank you, it is cool to learn more about the opporation of the government.
Relative size of states is an issue. In Australia we dealt with this by giving states equal representation in the Senate. The lower house (= your Congress) is representative.
In the U.S.:
"Lower" house = House of Representatives (apportioned base on population, each state gets at least 1 vote)
"Upper" house = Senate (2 votes for each state)
House of Representatives + Senate = Congress.
Not much different.
Ah yes the idea of "major city " choose the president. Even though the top 100 populated cities dont up to 30% of the population
Oh, now I can see how the current system doesn't breed radicalism. Bullshit! Every vote should have the same weight.
I might be in favor of some kind of reform to the Electoral College, but not abolishing it or changing the number of electors per state.
I have had this argument in so many "overthrow the EC" threads and conversations, it's nice to see a video actually in agreement.
One of the errors in stating the GOP needs the Electoral College because they are winning despite losing the popular vote, is assuming that in the absence of the EC they would have campaigned the exact same way. That’s like saying a football team got more yards than the other team and would have won if they were going off of yards to win. But if that were the case the teams would shift their strategy to prioritize yards over points on the board.
The EC forces candidates to campaign outside of the populated areas. It’s not perfect because of the outsized influence swing states wield, but swing states can change as they get more diverse. Metro areas rarely change and only get more and more dense.
The EC exists because the Founding Fathers did _not_ want POTUS elected by popular vote. That's all. However, they also didn't want political parties and they didn't want the VP to be an afterthought, rather than the runner-up of the EC vote.
The political and legal landscape is vastly different than it was when the Constitution was ratified. It's time elections reflected those changes.
Blah Blah Blah
I have a point of nuance.
It IS in fact a popular election, except the constituents are the STATES, not individuals because the design of the Constitution prevents the federal government from affecting our daily lives. It simply was not granted those powers. The federal government was for governing interactions between the States, which is why the States are the constituents.
Senate - elected by States.
President - elected by the States via electoral college, which doesn't even require a vote, much less a vote by citizens
SCOTUS - affirmed by the Senate - see Senate above
That leaves the House as the lone odd-man-out as a voice of the people.
We've allowed them to turn it all on its head and rob the States of the ability to be a check on federal power.
@@dustythurman5426
The term "popular election" refers to an election by the populace, not a special subset of the populace chosen by a subgroup of the populace.
@@avishevin1976
When the States ARE the populace in question, then a vote by 50 states would be a popular election. That's entirely my point. The States are SOVEREIGN in a voluntary federation, so they can be considered the same way as people as having agency in the federation.
A similar example might be universities voting on NCAA topics. The universities vote, not the students or even the whole staff of the universities.
@@dustythurman5426
You are missing the point. The term "popular vote" has a meaning. A vote by the states themselves, via their electors, is not what the phrase means. That's all. You want to be pedantic and have me write out "the president is not elected by a vote of the eligible voters, but rather by the electors the states appoint"? Well, too bad. Literally everyone else already understood that from my first comment, because I used the term in the way everyone understands it.
Tackle the inflow of money from corporations and PACs which the SCOTUS ruled in favor, saying the entities had voice in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce; which effectively reduced citizens “the People’s” ability to be heard by their representatives as congressmen or more focused on raising money to stay in office therefore small individual contributions get very little attention. With the unintended consequences of silencing People.
You’re aware the electoral college doesn’t even do the job you already claim it should. Most every presidential visit is to high-population swing states, destroying the electoral college merely reduces innacuracies in what the system allows. It doesn’t even do the job you want it to, that was originally out of fear of early states encroaching upon one another, which is why the system originally existed, however, the federal government’s own power already allows us to counteract these issues with what we gained after the civil war. It’s lost it’s purpose, valuing one vote over the other based off of land, which destroys the entire “one person, one vote” concept, a desperately needed aspect of both republics and democracies.
Isn't youtube AMAZING (WINK, WINK)!! I love how my 12 attempts to post are not there! I'm now attempting to articulate my "praise" for them to get my post to stick! Those on the left seem to... really not like our domicile on this continent and would welcome its unaliving, so deleting one of its founding principles would be heralded as brilliance of accomplishment
Happens to me daily!
We're you previously trying to include a link? YT is very picky on those. They often reject even their own links.
@gregr6799 --- Hello. I do not know what you tried to post, but I also have had posts disappear about an hour or a day after I post them on various pages. I do not use foul language, don't threaten to do permanent bodily harm to people or destroy a building or an aircraft. I do not post nasty pictures. I tell the truth about people. places, things, ideas, issues, policies and for doing that, many of my posts disappear without any notation from the Y.T. thought police. I thought that it was the Channel host, but he said he had not, and did not know how to delete posts. It must be someone at Y.T./ Google company that hates truthful speech.
or maybe we just understand that the Ec is broken and absurd
Not only is the Electoral College necessary on a federal level, it has now become necessary at the state level as well.
no its not necessary for anything. its broken,. absurd and undemocratic
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 If you don't understand why it's necessary you shouldn't be talking about getting rid of it until you do.
Whenever people talk about "Why does land get a vote" meaning, why does a large space of land with very few people get the same vote as a spot a land with a high density of people. Lets look at the map California made when they entertained the idea of succeeding from the US. How they would "give" the entire east portion of the state that would border the US to Native Americans. Those people who live in that land would lose their homes because of where they live.
so the popular vote is bad because of some irrelevant hypothetical about an entirely different issue?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091Is that what I said? Lets look at what I wrote...... Nope, never said anything about that popular vote being bad.
I kept my point relevant and used an example why "land" should get a voice. So my point is not irrelevant as people like to use the argument that certain states should not have the same vote as they are not densely populated. Why should people who live in a densely populated area dictate what everyone gets? (In case you don't get it, the densely populated area would be the popular voice or vote due to the higher population). People live out in the land and should have an equal voice in the conversation. Popular doesn't always mean it's right or the best option.
Negative voting (voting against the candidate you dislike the most option) could work. Negative voting would give each voter twice the power to select a preferable candidate.
Frankly, individual states should have an electoral college for state offices. Would solve alot of problems in NY and California.
no it wouldnt solve anything. since the EC is broken, absurd and undemocratic. also interesting you didn't demand an EC for alabama or wyoming.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Because NY and California are prime examples of what happens when smaller population areas are fucked over by large urban centers. The very reason the Electoral College was created in the first place. But you wouldn't know that because you slept thru civics.
The Electoral College forces candidates to focus on states where the voters are evenly split. Abolishing it would push candidates to be more extremist to fire up the voters at the ends of the political spectrum.
no it wouldn't. you made that up. the Ec is what is forcing candidates to the fringes. the popular vote would cause them to be more centrist so they can appeal to the majority and win.
Oddly enough, I like both the original argument from @jeffputman3504 and the counter argument from @godemperorofmankind3.091. Good stuff.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 The popular vote would send the candidates to the most populated areas and the rural areas would be left behind.
@@captaincarl8230the rural areas are already left behind with EC.
@@kevinaguilar7541 How so? It is the current political system and the political machines at fault, not the EC.
It's an extension of rule by land idea because laws aren't just over people but land.
Excellent treatment of the subject.
It was also to keep the voices of the less educated majority from having too much power. Now, less educated doesn't mean school educated, it's talking about the majority of Americans who don't understand how their government works or how the other half lives.
what could possibly qualify you to determine who's educated and who's not? state by state, blue states seem to dominate in terms of having the best and most successful education.
again there's no way to properly quantify that due to polling on those issues being so rare and uncomprehensive. sounds as if you're just trying to rig the system against the will of the people based on personal misgivings, not data or evidence.
This does absolutely nothing for me. One person, one vote. Count the freakin votes.
Federalism.
Look it up.
Figure out the importance.
Check back when you're not opining from ignorance and apathy.
I want to know, what are those ways to remove power from the hands of the government that it shouldn’t have? It’s why I’m one of the many Texans (and southerners in general) who increasingly like the idea of succession.
*Secession, not succession.
The ways to remove power from the hands of government are through legislative acts that explicitly delegate certain governmental authorities to lower levels of governance. Or explicitly abdicate governmental responsibility from something the government used to do. Both of these would run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences and tempt the fate of Chesterton's Fence.
How about you go ahead and secede and rid us all of your unwelcome presence? But to be clear, we keep every democratic county in the state of Texas. Go ahead and become a third world country overnight. Or rather, accelerate the path you're already on.
Amen. That was beautiful
Thanks for clarifying from a none US citizen.
If voting actually did something we would not be allowed to do so, it makes people think they did their part.
If it works so well, why does no other country use this system?
cause majority of countries aren't federal
Well think of it this way though: at the moment the current US government has been around since 1812 (technically the years before are considered another government system but carried over the Bill of Rights and US Constitution) and is the oldest Democratic style government (not a Democracy mind you, it's a Republic but it's Democratic in the sense it allows citizens to vote for those to be put into office) to date, all others (Democratic systems) that have been made since usually collapse in the span of 30 to 50 years after being established and in France's case they have had roughly 10 such systems since some time after the US established theirs (think of each time France went and offed their leaders as examples of when the government changed) and even the USSR, current Russia, WW2 Germany, WW2 Japan, current day China, current day N Korea, and most EU countries would be counted as Democracies made since the US's formed its current government ~200 years go (and yes those dictatorships are technically Democracies by the literal definition even if they're run by tyrants)).
The fact ours has been around for 200 years while all others have died and been replaced at least once or multiple times after the US's was formed should be proof of which is actually the more effective system should it not (the one that's been around longer is the answer btw...if the others failed it means it wasn't a good system and most of the problems that the US is having nowadays is because Dems keep trying to bring in ideas from these failed systems such as Communism and Socialism which if looked at by purely definition could be good systems...but only for very small populations such as small towns and the like of 100 to 1000 people max where all members need to work with each other for survival and thus have little chance to let their personal interests and greed wind up leading to the system to be corrupted or laziness from some people who won't work with the others which would all lead to conflict sooner or later...on the macro scale there's too many self interest colliding with what the people want, what the government wants, what businesses want, etc that those systems won't work as intended as special interests collide which results in people no longer working together, distrusting each other, and so on).
Because the US is the only system designed to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority.
If we went by the Constitutionalists we would still be living in 1776 and slavery would still be legal. Sometimes its best to leave dinosaur ideas in the past and to bury them where they belong.
1776: Only land-owning White men can vote.
1856: All White men and land-owners can vote.
1870: All male citizens can vote (race-based vote removed)
1920: All citizens could vote (women now granted vote).
1924: Indigenous Americans made citizens.
1952: Asians made citizens.
1971: All citizens 18 and over can vote.
WE❤LOVE ❤️YOUR ❤️ CHANNEL 😊
The Electoral College system made some sense when states were, in fact, distinct and independent political and cultural entities. People from Kentucky considered themselves Kentuckians more than they did Americans. Same for New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders, etc. That attitude went out the window after the Civil War when the phrase "these United States" was replaced with "THE United States." I was born in Illinois, went to college is Wisconsin, lived two years in Florida, and have been in California since the early 1980s. When I go back to Chicago to visit, I can eat at the same McDonald's, shop at the same Walmart or Target, watch the same TV shows, and get on the same Internet I do in California. We are now a basically homogenous country...even our regional accents are flattening to sound like we're all from Nebraska (the standard TV news anchorman accent). Getting rid of the electoral college would hardly be a "disaster." Every other industrialized democracy manages to elect leaders through direct majority elections and they do just fine...and they all have the same kind of regional differences we do.
So you are saying that the rest of the country has to abide to all the what the biggest city's want.
No thank you
@@daneczaplewski9460 There are currently millions of registered Republicans in big cities who are being disenfranchised by the Electoral College and the winner-take-all system of all but a handful of states. If 50.01 percent of a state votes Democratic, then the 49.99 percent of Republican votes don't count. Is that fair?
The word these is a pronoun and the plural of this. The word the is the definite article and can be either singular or plural. In the phrase "The United States" the key word is states, which last time I checked was a plural word.
The problem is not the electoral college. The problem is the "winner takes all" rule which is in place in the vast majority of states. Your argument of "without the electoral college, small states would be ignored" is not relevant because right now, with the electoral college, not only are small states ignored, but so are big states. Nobody cares how I vote if I'm registered in small "states" (from an electoral college standpoint) like DC, North Dakota or Alaska, who are always turning the same color. And nobody cares how I vote if I'm registered in big state like CA, TX or NY. Only the swing states matter. So, because of the "winner takes all" rule of the electoral college, we don't have a system where "49% of Americans decide for the rest", but a system where 12% of Americans decide.
No, as @reubenoakley5887 said above:
"The idea that the swing states determine elections and that all other states don't matter under the electoral college system is also idiotic. It ignores the fact that swing states change over the years, that parties rise and fall, and that the swing states are only relevant if the rest of the states are relatively evenly matched in voting power. It's like if you put two 50 pound weights on a scale, then you add a little sand to each side randomly, and say the sand had all the weight"
You are taking for granted that these States stalemating each other don't themselves fluctuate over time. You are taking for granted things that are not a given.
@dustythurman5426 who cares about over time? Population also changes over time. The fact that Texas could be competitive in 2032 is irrelevant to the 2024 election. The fact that Florida used to be competitive is irrelevant too. A vote in Pennsylvania is worth 1000 times more than a vote in DC, LA or Bismarck