Hey Everyone! Thanks for watching. It’s super exciting seeing so many views on this video and such a lively comments section. We do want to address the ton of comments we keep getting about how America is not a democracy and is a constitutional republic. So as our awesome video points out, it’s true that America is not a direct democracy. But we are a representative democracy AND we’re a constitutional republic. We’re both! For more details on this check out this awesome explanation written by a constitutional law professor at UCLA and published on his conservative/ libertarian leaning blog: reason.com/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and/ But we’re not really interested in debating whether America is a democracy-- it’s not really the point of the video. Instead, we’re more interested in all of your thoughts on the value of the electoral college in America. We’ve tried to point out the main pros and cons of the system, but there’s only so much you can cover in a short video. So if you want more information we definitely encourage you to check out some of the sources we listed in the description as well as do some of your own research, and please share your thoughts on the electoral college with us. Bonus points for citing sources in your comments! Thanks y’all!!
The United States is not a democratic state it’s a republic and a founding fathers never intended democracy in the United States this is why you don’t see democracy nowhere in the Constitution Democracy has not been working well in the United States proof of that? Look how bad all the blue states are doing. look at poverty look at the homeless in California The Democrats only promote socialism which only leads into genocide and communism history has proven that. so I’ll take my electoral college anyday 👍🏾
We are NOT both! That’s fake news and fake university propaganda. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. It’s an SJW messy argument. Universities have convinced students we are the biggest climate change offenders... “per capita”.. and refuse to acknowledge how bad China is.. but, but per capita we are worse... omg this “twist the facts to fit your narrative” stuff is bad news man. Same thing here. Don’t claim we are both. We aren’t. We are 1 thing; the founders read history and knew; so they founded us as 1 thing- a constitutional republic. It’s simple, plain and easy. Despite liberal efforts at obsfucation of that basic fact. DC is a swamp that has muddled and confused the HOA rules so you can’t even make sense any more. “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.” - Pelosi. Wth? Anyone with a brain understands that Liberalism is a disease now. There used to be good liberals. Where did they go? Common sense is lost on anyone in that arena. Nope. Not buying attempts to complicate anything. We are a constitutional republic; the electoral college is beyond intelligent and must stay. Period.
What an ignorant statement, @ryebrez81. IF we were to have a popular vote decide our president, no one place would decide our president. It would be the whole country deciding. Imagine this scenario.... Back in HS we voted on class presidents. If all students went to their home rooms to vote for class president, each room would be like a state. Now, say there are 7 rooms with 20 students in each, and 1 room (the gymnasium) has 200 students. Okay, we have 2 candidates, candidate A and candidate B. In each of the 7 rooms, 18 vote for A, and 2 vote for B. That gives A a 126-14 lead. But, in the gymnasium 175 vote for B, and 25 vote for A. This gives candidate B a 189-151 win. If the electoral college system was used, candidate A would get 21 electors, with 3 given to each room. The gymnasium is worth 18 electors. So, candidate A would win in the electoral situation, but more classmates voted for B. My point is, it shouldn't matter where a person is located when they place their vote. They are all students in the same school. The most votes should win. It shouldn't matter where a person is standing/sitting when they place their vote.
@@AniMaTheEarth I think you misunderstood what I said. Under the current system"the electoral college" there are just so many states that don't matter in the grand scheme of winning an election.
@@pueblonakahmora8118 And I said what I said, if it don't matter must as well secede. Must southon states can't wait to rule themselves. All those life lose during the civil war will be for nought!
Its frightening that people that dont understand our Constitution and how the federal structure of government works want to abolish the electoral college simply because they dont understand it.
@John Doe While the US practices a limited form of representative democracy that stops at the House of Representatives, in the end the US is a Constitutional federal republic. We have a Constitutional republic because we place the Rule of Law that protects the natural rights of the individual before the will of the majority.
@John Doe Please get an education. I dont know what country that you live in, but I live in the US and it is a Constitutional federal republic. End of story.
Thank you. Far too many people approach this subject from either a "we must abolish it" or "no, we must keep it" point of view. Thanks for trying to give a well rounded, non-partisan view of the issue
I was shocked for how the most part how objective it was. This was the first video I have seen to explain the 3/5 was messed up BUT it was done to limit the power of the states that had slavery
@@Smiggly2574one thing he did leave out about that was that the 3/5 rule was first applied to the House of Representatives (to determine how many representatives each would have) and what still is an applied to the Electoral College because of how it was and still is determined how many ECVs each state will get.
@nicholastrudeau7581 the 3/5 Compromise is no longer used. The south wanted slaves to count ad 100% to increase rhe power of the South. The north refused as it would give the South more power to keep slavery. The compromise was 3/5 in the census count
@@Smiggly2574 I apologize, I did not make myself clear. The Three-Fifths rule had to do with determining how many seats each state would have in the House of Representatives. That number + 2, being how many senators each state had, determined how many Electoral College votes they would have, AND THAT, the process used to determine how many Electoral College votes each state would have, is still used today, which is one of the big reasons why people don't like the Electoral College, because the House of Representatives did not continue to grow with population of the nation because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
No we don't, we need the people's voices to count, by having the electoral college your saying that the 2 million people difference between Trump and Clinton in the 2016 election didn't count.
We are both a constitutional republic AND a democracy. Republic simply means the people, or public, owns the country/government, in contrast to a monarchy, where the monarch owns the country/government.
The electoral college is ALL about States. We are a Union of States with independent governments. The President of this Union is not elected by the people directly but rather by the several States of said Union. This ensures that States remain on equal standing within the Union (in respect to the population) instead of the States being relegated to nothing more than counties.
Precisely. Why do you think it’s the race to 270 of 538? 100 Senators plus 438 representatives equals 538. The people aren’t voting. The states are. The people are voting by way of their state.
@@onebuc5874 because generalizing a large amount of people always works, 100% of the time. Without fail. You totally schooled all those people that you've never met or talked to
HobosCanFly I’ve had people admit that they only like the electoral college because it gives Republicans and advantage. If Texas ever turns into a blue state then I predict Republicans would be more on board with abolishing the electoral college.
There is nothing that said a slave was 3/5ths of a person. The compromise was that only 3/5ths of the slaves could be counted for representation otherwise things would have tilted strongly to slave owning states. The South wanted all the slaves to be counted for representation without giving slaves any of the rights of representation. So the compromise was 3/5ths of the slave population was counted.
That compromise, like the census description is in Article I, therefore it is to determine Congress, specifically the House... Not to control an Electoral College. The slavery issue, which is now moot due to Amendment 13, if brought up by those with a greviance, should discredit Congress, not the Presidency (Article II). The EC was designed before there were ANY parties. Parties emerged from the States and are never mentioned in the Constitution. The EC is an exact replica of the Senate and the House (plus three for DC since 1960). The EC was to keep an Congress from controlling the President, keep an outgoing Congress from picking a spite president, keep a freshly elected congress from picking a tody. An Elector is by law, not a politician or civil official. Just a private citizen that records the states choice on a registered letter one month after the people's election. Each State gets 2 for their senators and one or more for their population. Therefore this presenters description is misleading. I also notice objectors tend to ALWAYS site examples of WY or MT, but seldom VT, HI, NH who mostly vote DNC recently. Objectors seem to have no problem with liberal but Lilly white New England states or very liberal HI being so small, but object to states like Wyoming. Odd that Senators like Warren or Sanders hate the EC as not SOLELY population based, but they serve in a body that is completely not population based. Ironic that the DNC fusses about the EC favoring rural states, but their presidential primaries go Iowa, NH, SC then several other rural, mostly Southern states first. Leaving big states like CA, NY, TX, FL for last well after most diverse candidates have run out of money and dropped out. You want to make the EC more democratic then start by petitioning YOUR state to split their Electors by voting proportions. California disenfranchises 40% of their voters by their winner take all every 4 years. The founders did not call for or envision a winner take all Elector system. The two presidents that were not at the Constitution Convention (Adams and Jefferson ) created that trend to screw each other. They created the parties too.
@@STho205 There's nothing in the Constitution that requires States to employ a winner-take-all (first round) EV system. So... you go first. If there were a way to require every state to use proportional EV voting, I'd be all for it.
The Southern States wanted their Slaves all counted in full for more Representation in the House of Representatives, even though they were never going to give any slaves the right to ANY of that representation! Not too surprisingly, the Southern States wanted their slaves to count to bump up their numbers in Congress, but they were wildly opposed to having their slaves counted for proposed Head Taxes, based solely on population, which was a means for the federal government to raise tax revenue from the States.
Haden Hunt this was extremely biased. The main reason the electoral college was chosen was because of small states being afraid of larger states out voting them not because people were not educated.
This was extremely biased and goes to show exactly why the Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers and why it's still very much needed to preserve our Constitutional Representative Republic.
@@TeenWolf-hd6kg just curious to learn more about why you thought the video was so biased? We genuinely worked hard to represent the key arguments on both sides of this debate in a balanced way. It would help us to hear a specific example of where you think we failed to do this.
Talking about the origin of the electoral college without mentioning the REAL primary issue that caused the debate in the first place, big states vs. small states, makes this a pretty crappy video. Also, throwing in that garbage about voter suppression when there is zero evidence that requiring an ID to vote actually stops minorities from voting, shows that you basically failed in any attempt you might have made at making this unbiased.
Voter ID laws, when fair, aren't the issue. It's when Voter ID laws unfairly disqualify IDs from Indian Reservations, but count military IDs (such as happened in North Dakota). The source of most voter suppression is when districts close voting/poling locations in areas or limit hours to only allow voting during the work day. THESE actions, and others like them, are how districts suppress the vote of minority populations or poorer Americans.
@circa blonk IF someone's status is "questionable" then they most likely are not a citizen and not actually allowed to vote anyway. And how likely is a person to vote if they don't bother to get a usable ID anyway?
circa blonk now you sound just like the dummies in D.C. you’re basically saying that minorities are too lazy or too stupid to know how and where to get an I.D.
So keeping it means only swing states get candidates’ attention, but abolishing it means only big cities get candidates’ attention. Either way, someone gets ignored
Yes..but more big cities than swing states. There are not only LA or NYC or Chicago but also Dallas, Seattle, Miami not to mention aeras "connected" with each others which could be a big cities in a way. The term "big cities" remaining vague
@@youmustbekidding1718 Within my lifetime VA has swung from Red to Blue, and CO used to be Red, and TX appears to teeter on the edge of Blue these days. So no, not "every 40 years".
@@julies.1451 Swinging means back and forth. A state that has changed allegiances and stayed there is no longer 'swinging'. A Dem Presidential candidate hasn't won Texas since 1976, and has lost by fairly large margins. It'd be hard to characterize that as "teetering" whatsoever. Not a swing state. It's stuck red. Virginia had been deep red for 56 years (15 elections) before Obama, and for the past 4 elections has gone blue: mostly due to the NoVa DC suburbs. Not a swing state. It's swung. Colorado has also been consistently blue for 4 straight elections. Also not a swing state -- it's swung. Cali has only been consistently blue since 1992, but for 6 elections before that it was solid red. In my 60+ years, California has only changed allegiance 3 times. No political analyst would describe Cali as a swing state - ever. In contrast, Ohio has changed allegiances six times since 1972. Now that's a swing state.
The Senate is not intended to directly represent people. The Senate is intended to represent the collective states interests. Each state is represented equally in the Senate because each states interests are to treated equally.
Benjamin Keller it’s only a problem for the factions who directly benefit of the largesse granted via the votes of anchor babies to illegal parents. It’s the only reason CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, etc have swung blue in the last 10-15 years.
@Steve Sherman If they did that then Democrats would be screaming even more psychotically they they do now. It would literally swing the electoral college so far to the right that you would probably never see a Democrat become president for several hundred years. Naturally I am all for that idea.
Benjamin Keller, thank you for being one of the few to mention this. Most people have no clue. This was the original implementation of he electoral college, and it has been grossly perverted over the past two centuries. The electoral college must remain, but it should be fixed
There is no good answer. Without the electoral college, 10 states can decide the election. With the electoral college, individuals are not perfectly represented. Currently, Presidents can be elected without the popular vote, but they have to pay mind to the fly over states. Without the EC, candidates will not spend time with the fly over states. Those states grow a large % of our domestic grains and raise cattle. The million dollar question is "how do we fix the election process with causing more damage"? So that the rural farmers, as well as every individual from the most populated areas both have adequate representation.
Farmers etc in rural states already have disproportionally high representation in the Senate. The presidency is supposed to represent everyone equally, the electoral college should be abolished. The main problem is our insanely powerful overreaching unconstitutionally large government. It shouldn't be as important who gets elected because the offices shouldn't have as much power as they fo
@@oasiscrushinglife6878 The President is supposed to run the country- execute(hence chief executive) the laws passed by the Congress voted on by the people. The President has never "represented all the people" but he answers to them via elections.
@@ferocious20022002 I agree with your point, but the underlying point of all government is in service to the citizenry. The executive role of the president is not tied to individual states but to the country as a whole, hence all citizens. I didn't mean he is supposed to be a direct advocate in the same elected sense as Congressmen, but ultimately he does represent all citizens on a national basis
@Steve Sherman California "ignored" 4.5 million votes? Care to explain? And who are "they"? Are you just repeating Trump's BS about voter fraud in California? SMH. What a flailing, unsubstantiated, crock of a rant.
If ten times as many people live in the coasts than in central America, then it makes perfect sense that candidates should have to campaign ten times as much in those states. And the thing about democracy is, if a candidate manages to get every vote in all those middle states and a large minority in the coastal states, then maybe they will still win, so they won't be totally ignored.
Candidates can simply campaign online and on TV... Like they already do! No candidates are traveling out to Bumwater, Nebraska to campaign because even Bumwater, Nebraska has internet and TVs.
@madcheeseknight people in central America should have a voice. They should have exactly the same amount of voice as someone in the coast. But that's the thing - _people_ should have a voice, not _counties_ And besides, the Senate is supposed to take care of the interests of less populated states. If nothing else, the states should appoint electors proportionally, not winner-takes-all
@madcheeseknight Land doesn't vote, people do. I think local government is extremely important and should be expanded (hell, even the most cityish of cityfolk want more local power, I know many New Yorkers that would like Cuomo to stop meddling in their city decisions) but the president ultimately presides over the people. You aren't giving only half the country a voice. You're giving each person a voice. The country is made up of the people living in it, not its land.
@madcheeseknight Also, I would agree that it works if the electors from each state chosen to vote for the President were chosen proportional to the results (that is, 49% of Florida's electors went to Trump and 48% went to Clinton, 62% of California's electors went to Clinton and 32% of them went to Trump, etc) Because it's winner-takes-all in most states, only purple states have people campaigning in them.
1:29, this is why Places like California is fighting so hard to stop the citizen question on the Census. More people, more Electoral votes, even if they are not citizens.
jack frost The census was instituted by the founding fathers to count *everyone* - citizens and non-citizens alike. There are millions of legal residents who are not citizens but must be counted. Recall that the original, unamended Constitution counted slaves (who had no right to vote or even a right to claim citizenship!) at 3/5 of a person. The purpose of the census was not strictly for representation in Congress. It is also needed to determine apportionment of each state’s federal funding. There are also tens of millions of citizens who are not eligible to vote: including children and disenfranchised convicts. They all are counted too.
@Steve Sherman Whatever number of *residents* -- documented or otherwise - that a state has, counts towards federal revenue sharing. Of course it isn't proportionately equal for all states. It isn't a zero sum game whatsoever. If your state doesn't count its non-citizens, it loses out in federal funding. The census isn't entirely required for congressional seat apportionment.
@Steve Sherman That may be true, but the decennial Census (there are also mid-decade censuses) has long been appropriated for other purposes by the Federal Government. Federal law mandates that the Census be available for much more than congressional apportionment. That's why it's run by the Department of Commerce. The Census also intended to provide data for urban planning, commercial development, housing, land management, etc. Census data is also used for Federal Revenue Sharing: www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-in-Federal-Funds-Distribution.pdf
Nope. We have limiters there, too. Most states have a legislature and a senate. The Senate is a limit on pure democracy. True, we've added some democracy in the form of state-wide elections of U.S. Senate (they used to be elected by the state Senate or appointed by the governor) but the limits are there, too.
Right, only it is the States that gave power to the US Government. The States came first and they can, collectively, make the US Government disappear in one stroke of the pen.
The American people are represented by their elected officials, locally, statewide and on a federal level. We vote through our representatives and state, this ensures that all states get representation. I certainly wouldn’t want a scenario where the federal government is controlling presidential elections. Hard pass
We need *more* electoral colleges. States like Texas, NY, and Cali should have electoral colleges for their elections as well. As it is now, a few cities tyrannically control those states, and those states would tyrannically control the nation if it wasn't for the national electoral college.
Meaning that empty state counties should have equal power as densely populated ones? You think corruption and gerrymandering is bad now, just wait. You'll start seeing bridges to nowhere pretty fast. Good luck with that brilliant idea.
How can the Electoral College "kill democracy" when it is functioning exactly as set forth in the US Constitution, and for exactly the intended purpose. To keep the 4 largest cities (cesspools each) from determining the outcome of all national elections and policy decision?
Exactly. I gave this video a fair shot. I had my doubts, but I wanted to be surprised. It was going well at first, but then started to veer off course, turning from unbiased informing to heavily suggesting what the viewer should believe. Now, there’s nothing wrong with sharing your political opinion, but doing it covertly like this in a video that presents itself as unbiased (and claims to be such) is what’s wrong with the MSM.
Was that statement really what turned you off? It’s a common misconception, and as a conservative myself, I don’t get all that wound up about people mistakenly calling America a democracy. I thought this was a fairly comprehensive video, honestly. And I’m pro-EC.
"democracy: a country in which power is held by elected representatives" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy) I'm pretty sure this applies to the US... besides, republic just means a country is not a monarchy, but it can clearly still be a democracy. So if the US is not a democracy, what is it?
The democratic principles we run on is what makes the country as great as it is. The fact the the PEOPLE get to choose the elected officials to represent us.
It's worked brilliantly well for this long, and I see no value in changing it. I certainly don't want three or four states determining what's best for all of us.
@@BritishRepublicsn But those swing states are constantly changing, as are the demographics of some non-swing states. Otherwise, whatever CA & NY want, pretty much everyone would be forced to live with. Less concentration of power always works better than more. History tells us that, almost without exception.
@@DavidLongo22 ok but there's only a few Swing states at any given time Also California and New York are not Democrat hiveminds. In 2020, more people voted for Trump in California than in Texas
@@BritishRepublicsn The first part is circumstantial and can change drastically at any point. That's irrelevant though since the design to specifically to avoid a direct democracy (because they implode). We're heading for Rome's fate, which eventually fell because they too strayed too far from the ideals of their original republic. Power corrupts, so check and spread it as much as possible.
Achinth Murali That’s what we are, but the united states this case the states elect the president not the people, The peoples representation is in the house and the senate
If you actually read the diaries of the founders, you'll realize that the 3/5 rule was actually put in place to abolish slavery at a future date. It kept northern states "more populated" and made the southern states happy because they agreed that slaves shouldn't count as a person. I do think that it took the country a lot longer than they anticipated for slavery to be abolished, which is very disappointing.
The Southern states actually wanted slaves to count as a full person, so they'll get more representation even though slaves couldn't vote at all. The North wanted the opposite.
31% of all of the delegates in Philadelphia owned a total 1,400 slaves. It is difficult to think that delegates like George Mason, John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, Charles Pickney, George Washington included, among many others went to the Constitutional Convention in order to give up their slaves. They were there to protect their own interests. The three-fifths Compromise came about because all of these men wanted their slaves to be counted as a part of the total population. This ultimately gave the southern states a greater population which meant more representation in Congress despite the fact that slaves could not vote. The fact that the South not only got the Three-Fifths Compromise but the capitol, Washington DC would also be built in the South as well, the southern delegates basically made out like bandits in Philadelphia. It is also noteworthy that poor whites i.e. landless men, women and Native Americans were all counted as a part of the population too and could not vote. Nevertheless, groups like the Quakers in Pennsylvania had long been for abolition of slaves and the institution. The northern States successively abolished slavery after the 1790s. The Three-Fifths Compromise had nothing to do with setting slaves free.
@dercurt 3/5ths allowed slavers to steal an additional 3/5ths vote (aka 'more populated' by Kochservatively correct voters). Mathematically, the slavers nullified 2/5ths of slaves' votes, while hijacking 3/5ths of the slaves' votes.
Occasionally I read a comment that is so clueless as to be in a class all its own. What "diaries" are you talking about? You just made that up There are no real diaries or journals from the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 other than James Madison's notes and they do not support your views.. You completely misunderstand the bargaining that brought about the 3/5's compromise. It had nothing to do with planting the seeds of manumission. I have no idea what you mean by it keeping the northern states "more populated." The 3/5's compromise had no bearing on population in the north. And you have the southern position exactly backward - the south wanted slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of apportionment and representation. It was the northern delegates who bargained for counting non-voting slaves as less than one vote per person.
The video by CGP Grey is chock full of falsehoods and false assumptions. I can name many. Grey ignores numerous facts including the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that aren't part of the cities proper. Grey has no credibility when it comes to the electoral college.
@madcheeseknight I'm well aware of that map. I voted blue in 2016. My county voted blue as well. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of states that a candidate wins and how many electoral votes those states have. The 'popular vote' is irrelevant because the President does not directly represent the population. The President represents our union of states and is therefore elected by the states.
The only time people say it's time to do away with the Electoral College is when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses an election due to the EC (think dems and the 2016 presidential election), but when their candidate wins due to the EC they champion it (think dems and the 2012 presidential election).
Yo this is liberal af. No it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Y’all need to read the constitution. Imagine LA and NY having the ultimate say so. Nope and I live in Cali I’m embarrassed
The constitution wasnt written to remain static, it's designed to be able to adapt, hence why we no longer have slavery and women can now vote. It should be changed, it's ridiculous for the Presidency which is supposed to represent all citizens to be determined by anything other than a popular vote. The problem is our government is too damned large so it matters more than it should who gets elected. Also, NY and Cali etc blue states won't automatically determine the winner unless the majority of national voters vote that way, in which case that candidate SHOULD win
@@pdadd It definitely was not instituted to protect minorities, practically no one in 1804 cared about that at all. Clinton had a lower percentage vote but was still able to win only because Ross Perot took 18% as a third party candidates. I don't mind that Clinton won (at least from a fairness/procedural standpoint, I personally despise him) because he did actually have the highest vote total of the three candidates. If people want to keep the Electoral College but get rid of winner take all states and make proportional electoral voting mandatory, I'd be fine with that, and that still gives slightly more say to the smaller states. But the system right now of winner take all states means that in every state with that method, a massive bulk (often over 40%) of the votes are effectively ignored, that's complete nonsense. I did actually did do quite a lot of homework in this field when I was working towards dual degrees in history and political science
@@pdadd haha I hate to generalize based on nationalities but you Canadians really ARE polite😁! No apology necessary, I appreciate the response. I get the point of minorities in terms of a numerical vs racial form, but our current system literally ignores mass groups of peoples votes entirely. Our other checks and balances are more than enough to prevent tyranny of the majority. It's a worthy cause to seek to prevent, but the way we do it now is consistently ACTUALLY ignoring a massive percentage of our population upon the unjustified fear of the majority POSSIBLY doing so, that's irrational. Keeping the electoral college but mandating proportional electors instead if winner takes all states would endure equal representation for everyone as an individual and still give small states slightly more power proportional to their populations. Remember, the smallest minority is the individual, and tens of millions of those have their votes ignored every single Presidential election under the current electoral college system
Giovanni Fiorentini, that’s entirely false. It was designed and implemented with each electoral vote going to its respective candidate. It was, in fact, fair and proportionate with respect to individual state representation. However, this was quickly subverted through political parties consolidating power within states by establishing the winner takes all system on a state by state basis until nearly all states adopted this system as a tit for tat strategy. The electoral college certainly needs to be fixed, but definitely not revoked.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s not killing our democracy because we are not a democracy. We are a republic. I prefer not to live in a country where mob rule exists. Electoral college is vital and must remain intact as the founding fathers intended.
I understand that the Electoral College may not be perfect in the eyes of some people. But this system has maintained through some pretty crazy times, and frankly every other system is much worse. Changing just because something might have a small flaw to some, to a system that could degrade to pure anarchy is dangerous and wrong.
The Electoral College has it where if you live outside of 10 Swing States, your vote is mathematically trash. Let's mathematically enable multiparty democracy so more groups can have a say and not waste votes. It's not like Libertarian Republicans are happy about Mitch McConnell screaming at them to vote pro life anyway. Or socialist Democrats thrilled about Pelosi screaming at them not to vote for anything that would piss off her Party's corporate donors.
If the power of the federal government had been limited to that which is enumerated in the Constitution, Id be more open to a popular vote. However, we have corrupted our system of federalism where we try to dictate EVERYTHING from Washington, watering down states rights. The electoral college puts a little bit more power in the hands of the states, so I'm for it.
First, I must say you made a great video. The problem most people fail to realize is that we are not a pure democracy, we are a Republic. So, the trick the founders sought to achieve was to balance national power, state power, competing interests of a large republic, and preserve the rights of the minority interests. That balance was found in the electoral college. The key is, win the most valuable states. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. In order to win the presidency, you must win over a greater number of states from across the country. The game (system) isn't rigged for any one party or team. There has been incredible balance between the parties winning the presidency throughout the nation's history, especially since the 1968 election. I must end saying that you did an outstanding job of pointing out people's arguments on both sides of the issue and did a great job of explaining the system.
There was no "voter suppression" in Georgia..the law required voters to be removed from the voting rolls if they failed to exercise their constitutional right to vote in consecutive elections. Just because people are to lazy and irresponsible to vote does not mean they are "suppressed."
@@TJ-lh7xgjust objectively incorrect, the entire point of the EC is that the states vote, not the people. The EC hasn't gone wrong, it's done its job exactly how it was supposed to do it.
You guys are gonna regret that. You know if repubs were put into this where they won the popular vote and lost the electoral college they'd fucking complain and say the system sucked. Trump did that in 2012!
@John Doe You should educate yourself on how presidents are elected in the United States, the electoral college is what matters. It's like signing up for a Slam Dunk contest and shooting three pointers, you may make more points but it's a Slam Dunk contest you idiots. The electoral college was genius, it gives smaller states a chance to have a say in our elections. Just look at a county by county map of the 2016 election and look at the sea of red and a few blue stains.
@@octopuss1918 If the Democrats won the electoral college and lost the popular vote would they still complain about it ? If we were electing President by popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. Hillary screwed up by taking a few states for granted.
My first impulse was that we should go by the popular vote, but the more I research this, the more I think that we would run the risk of many of our least populist states leaving the union if we did. These States may have fewer people, but they are crucial when it comes to the amount of natural resources, food, and leverage for international trade that they supply for our nation. If we lost them, the prices of food, gas, and many other things would sky rocket in the states that remained in the union.. We would also lose access to a lot of ports and waterways on the Gulf Coast and the Mississippi.
We’re a republic, not a democracy. Democracy was never mentioned in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Walter Williams has very insightful knowledge on our republic.
What?!?!? And destroy the blue wall??? Can't have that happen. Its ok to suppress over 4 million republican voters in California, but not ok to allow smaller states to have a say in the election...
@@newleaksman Was waiting for someone to say something about that number so lets break it down. In California in 2019 there were a total of 19,978,449 registered voters or about 80% of those eligible to vote. Registered Democrats: 8,612,368 Registered Republicans: 4,709,851 Independent or other party: 6,656,212 So when you look at the real numbers you get a bit more understanding on how a few million votes could quite easily change the tide for elections. If California broke into three states you would no longer have a blue wall because the new states would be dominated by Republicans. Cutting the number of electoral votes the very liberal coast has tied up and distributing them to the Republicans. It would also give them 3-4 additional seats in the Senate and several seats in the house. But why take the time to understand something when you can jump to conclusions and think you actually posted something oh so witty right? I mean its almost like you didn't have any understanding of the topic before you jumped into the pool.
The Electoral College makes no sense at all. I understand that it's needed to rule out control of populous states like California but to give them more Electoral voters than any other states is ridiculous. If all states had the same amount of Electoral voters and were REQUIRED to vote for the majority vote then they would have my support.
@@jcbjcb2 What are you talking about? Go to PV? EC? I understand that the electoral college votes are used so the more populous states like California don't have too much control, which would make sense if all state had the same amount of electoral voters. But they don't. California alone has 55 voters.
Good presentation. I say get rid of the Electoral College or I'll continue not voting. I'm not worried about the government becoming corrupt; it is corrupt.
Perot was my favorite candidate behind my main man Ron Paul! I lean conservative but no longer can support the Republican party after Bush Jr. I'm now a proud member of the libertarian party. The Constitution is our only hope to uphold freedom! I've never thought about electoral hurdles third parties face so cheers for the information! Not trying to get political. I just wanted to state my opinion/feelings regarding unconventional candidates. My view still aligns with the founding fathers. California and New York should not control everyone else's fate.
I don’t understand why to bother waste time to go to cast your vote for a president when at the end others decide who the new president will be. Electoral college should NOT exist. Get rather of it ASAP
I believe the Electoral College is here to stay because it's hard to imagine enough smaller states voting to amend the Constitution to cede their leverage in national politics.
Just like the repeal of the 17th Amendment and returning the assignment of the States Senators back to the States Congress and its Governor. Such a repeal would never get the 2/3rd vote of the Senate to warrant a repeal to be forwarded to the States for Ratification requiring a 3/4 majority, 38 States.
Sorry, I had to downvote this and stop watching at about the 5 minute mark. 1) The debate was not over slavery, but about the size of the states (this is not to say slavery was a discussed issue). States like Rhode Island, Georgia (slave state), and Vermont had very small populations, whereas Virginia and New York had the largest. The smaller states feared that the larger states would tyrannize them through a popular vote. 2) The Constitution did not say that slaves were three-fifths of a person. It says that the total population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths of its total. It's a math equation, not a value of a person. The Three-Fifths compromise was an anti-slavery clause meant to prevent the slave states from being over-represented. You're not really above the noise, you're creating more of it.
Even as a lib-right person, i think that's really the only part of the video that skews. I found this to mainly be a good 2 sided and fair video about the electoral college.
The description is wrong. To this date, there were only 4 times in which the winner lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. There was one more time in which the winner lost the popular vote, but he also lost the electoral vote - he won the congressional vote.
Bingo! Lies, Lies, & MORE LIES. I'm truly not sure who I'm more sick of hearing lie and whine about how their elections were "stolen", Hillary Clinton or Stacy Abrams. (You remember Stacy and right? "We had the greatest minority voter turnout IN HISTORY!" But also, "Voter suppression is the only reason I lost." By over 55,000 votes.) Just more deception to keep "low information voters" from realizing THAT THE DEMOCRATS are the TRUE RACISTS in this country, just like they always have been.
@@arieldizon7676 Because it is absolutely unnecessary and is biased against people who either can't afford to or unable to get to a registration facility, or don't have appropriate documentation such as a passport. These voters could lose their eligibility that often was established decades earlier. This is a discriminatory practice that disproportionately affects the elderly, the disabled, and the poor in general. Also, many states do not have easily accessible registration offices where people have to travel great distances to, say, get to their county seat and they just do not have the resources to do so. Again, VOTER ID'S AREN'T NECESSARY. There is NO significant amount of voter fraud in America. It's a law without a crime. Anyone who says, "What - that's the price of being a good citizen?" is showing their privilege. Establishing one's right to vote shouldn't be a hardship. www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud And ain't it ironic that the only known election fraud was perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina? The fraud so egregious, it required the election to be re-run. Glory be: www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html Do some googling about Kris Kobach, the voter fraud bullshit champion. www.rawstory.com/2019/12/kansas-abandons-voter-fraud-security-system-trumpeted-by-trumps-onetime-voter-fraud-czar/
Os is the issue with people thinking America is a democracy? We are a Republic through and through simply because of the presidency. Almost every other elected official is won by popular vote, so they are all democratically elected, the President is elected through a republic system.
The concerns of today are the reason the Founding fathers agreed on the Electoral College.. Difference today is when some parties lose they want to change the rules to have them win....
@infernovoid [[ My point is that minority vs majority debate is not what it once was ]] In that case, your point is wrong. [[ The electoral college is an outdated concept created by people who lived centuries ago that couldn't know what modern society would look like. ]] What society would look like (whatever that means) is immaterial to whether or not certain States have undue (inequality) control over other States. The concept is still the exactly the same. It's not about the candidates, it's about disparity in voting power of the people of the States - i.e., it is about equal protection. [[ the electoral colleges reinforces the two-party system.]] Negative. Although it would be fair to say it supports a system of no more than five parties. Example: "then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President" [[ We can hear the voices of the rural and small town areas. ]] You miss the point (so your example is irrelevant). That goes to the choosing of the electors, but the votes of the electors is not directly about disparity of areas within a State, it is about disparity of voting power between the States.
@infernovoid [[ I recommend you actually look into the numbers. ]] I recommend you not look at the trees so you can see the forest. Your premise seems to be that the electoral college should reflect the popular vote among "all the people" and ignore the popular vote by "all the States". That would allow a single state with 51% of the people (because of merely being populous) to control the wishes of all the other States. What don't you get about that?
@infernovoid I did watch the whole video. That segment was the only thing pertinent to your statement that small States are not protected by the electoral college. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do . . . protect small states. You again claim [[ but it doesn't. ]] Repeating the same false claim does not change its veracity. Maybe you confuse which States receive more campaign attention with actual protection of small States??? That video leaves out that those States which are decidedly either for or against a candidate (based on polling) are the reason for not campaigning there - not that State has no influence over who will be president. Which states are "swing States" can vary over time, sometimes they will be large States, sometimes small States. That has NOTHING to do with whether small States are being protected by the electoral college. That is just a natural economic consequence- i.e., spending money only where it could have a good chance to change the "popular vote" in some State. In that sense, the "popular vote" is STILL part of the electoral process, it's just on a State by State basis.
I got the impression at the time that Perot realized he might actually get elected, so he threw the election. I don't think he was ever in it to actually win.
Wrong ! To vote you had to be a man and own land. Only in some states did they not allow free black land owning men to vote [500,000 Free Blacks in 1860]. Giving the vote to slaves was and is ludicrous and just gives their owner a ton of votes + 1. PS In 1860 only 1.45% of Americans owned a slave. ~35,000 Free Blacks owned slaves.
Pretty decent lesson, eh? Went into better detail than most. One super important thing: We are not a "Democracy". We are a REPUBLIC. The Constitution promises that and that is what makes us so special. We are the United States of America.
We should keep the electoral college system and expand it to state elections as well. No reason Seattle, Chicago,LA, or any other large city should get to dictate to an entire state how things are governed with no thought or concern given to the smaller cities,or communities.
All I can think about right now is the fact that if we had a popular vote, I'd probably be out of quarantine by now because I'd have a responsible president who can actually handle a pandemic
Perot got two electoral votes in Maine. I didn't learn that in school, I learned it by watching the election returns after I got home from work on election day 1992.
@@youmustbekidding1718 I don't need to "check my facts" I voted after work & then watched the returns as they came in that evening. I saw him get 2 electoral votes in Maine. You need to go tell your teacher she/he got it wrong. Believe it or not there are many people alive today that remember events you had to learn about from a teacher.
@@joecombs7468 You "saw" Ross Perot get 2 electoral votes? Then you must've been watching television in Bizarro World Maine,. There are 538 Electoral votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 of them. George HW Bush won 168. How many does that leave for Ross Perot? Right. Zero. Would you like to dispute the arithmetic as well? Get ahold of your fingers, man. They don't know what they're typing.
No. No, it's not. Read the Federalist Papers. We have an electoral college for the same dang reason we have a Senate, and the Senate was considered SO important that "states having equal representation in the Senate" is the ONE thing about the Constitution that the founders made IMPOSSIBLE to amend.
NOT!, Electoral College is the fairest system hands down, oh and yes I will echo commenters here, we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, duh, the people who think we are a Democracy need a history lesson..
You think it would be a good idea doing it in big states like california .Its like an authoritarian state there already. I just dont get they keep voting democrat even though states bankcrupt already.Do they expect a different result voting the same way?
The Electoral College is *not* what makes us a Constitutional Republic. The fact that we have a Senate and a House of Representatives who vote on their respective constituents' behalf is what makes us a Republic. There is no country on Earth that has a true democracy, (i.e. every bill would have to be put to a national referendum.) The great compromise was to allow less populated states to have a balance of power - and that's why we have a bicameral legislature. The Senate, which gives each state power, and the House, which gives the people power.
Here is an excellent advice to any one reading this: Focus your attention around your town/city officials, mayors, city council members, your state senators, governors, ect. They have much more power(in your city/town and state) than the president. If you really want to make any change, focus on them.
There is a big issue with this video, it keeps saying the U.S. is a democracy when it isn't. The U.S. was founded as a republic, hence at its founding, even Senators were elected by an electoral college.
Even the top 10 cities in the US only make up 7.4% of the population. How could three cities make up a majority of the country, even if every single person in those cities votes for one candidate?
@@vistastructions still probably not. People forget that just because some states vote blue and others vote red doesn’t mean there aren’t blue and red voters in that respective state from the 4 biggest states last election democrats got 22,000,000 votes about and the republicans got rounding up around 17,000,000 votes. If you guys can’t win the popular vote you shouldn’t get in is all I’m saying. Rural America is 60 million people far more voters than the 4 biggest states if people vote there
I live in CA and would hate to see the Electoral College go to a purely "popular vote". Heck, I already feel like my vote doesn't matter because my state has always put their Electoral College votes against what I voted for. Like you pointed out the potential president would only visit those few highly populated areas and leave the rest out in the cold so to speak. Personally I am in favor of the split Electoral College for each state. I feel this would give each person a better feeling that their vote matters. The popular vote would only be effective if the people voting were smart and weren't swayed by pretty lies and promises. But since our society isn't at that point it would be a disaster if we swapped.
" The popular vote would only be effective if the people voting were smart and weren't swayed by pretty lies and promises" So you don't want popular vote because your side would loose in a democracy. You know,this argument also work if you supprot autocracy or voter supression.
@@philguer4802 The same argument would be made if the positions were swapped. I hope you can see that? However with a portion of each electoral vote going to each side (based on the percentage of votes) then each side feels that their vote counted. This also prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome, of things like the presidential election, since smaller states just wouldn't matter if it was solely based on popular votes. Is what CA voted for what's best for all? I would argue it's not. As for voter suppression? Why would I ever want someone who is legally allowed to vote to not be allowed to. That is a horrible idea! You may have taken issue with my statement, but I do still believe that many politicians who have been elected have done so with pretty lies and promises that they have no intention of ever following through on. Which many people believe because they are taken in by them. I also believe that a well informed and educated populace would counter this problem, but sadly that is not the case we currently find ourselves in. Personally, I would much prefer politicians to be forced to adhere to their campaign promises during their term, to suffer consequences for not doing so.
@@SilentlyNikki "The same argument would be made if the positions were swapped. I hope you can see that?" You're inversing our positions:I do NOT supprt the electoral college,regardless of which party it help.You do,and I assume you wouldn't if it helped the left. Correct me if I'm wrong. "However with a portion of each electoral vote going to each side (based on the percentage of votes) then each side feels that their vote counted" ?The vote of a red Californian does not matter with the EC. Only the swing state voters have any say in the matter. You want to make peoples feel like their opinion count?Abolish the EC,allow ranked voting,give more autonomy to the states so peoples can choose to go in a Republican or Democratic state. "This also prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome" CA hold only 15% of the US population. Not nearly enough to choose president by itself. What you meant is "it prevent the Democrats from dictating the outcome." And even if it did hold >50% of the population,so what? Living in democracy is accepting the result of the election,even if you don't like the opposition. Having one state dictating the outcome isn't a problem,because state nationalism does not exist. Texan republican don't hate Californian republican. "Why would I ever want someone who is legally allowed to vote to not be allowed to. That is a horrible idea! " Because voter supression may " prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome". Not always,but if voter supression only affected California in favor of Republican,then your argument would support it. I don't think you support voter supression;but your argument do,as long as voter supression prevent tyranny of the majority. It was an argument by the absurd. "Personally, I would much prefer politicians to be forced to adhere to their campaign promises during their term, to suffer consequences for not doing so." I absolutely agree with you.
@@philguer4802 Honestly I do not support the current electoral college system. Regardless of who it "helps" left, right or whatever. I'm in favor of the splitting of it as I have said before. I think you may believe I am on the "republican/right?" but I have never voted strictly along party lines and am not registered to either political party. What I was pointing out was that if our positions were swapped, the same argument would be made by whichever side feels that their opinion doesn't count/matter. Democrats wants popular vote because they believe it will give them advantage, Republicans want Electoral college because they believe it will give them advantage. I want something in the middle. Where the number of electoral votes for each side is BASED on how many people actually vote for each side. So in California for this election the votes are 64.6% Biden, 33.4% Trump (Found from the associated press). This means 36 (of the 55 electoral college votes) would go to Biden and 19 would go to Trump. I understand that rounding will cause issues many times but I am sure a rule accepted by all can be achieved in such an event. Anyways with the current system of electoral college those 19 votes that 33.4% of voters voted for are now given to Biden even though that is not who they would prefer their votes go towards. I think this kind of answers your first 2 responses? Please let me know if it doesn't. You are absolutely right that CA by itself would never be the sole deciding factor in determining the outcome. I was trying to point out, poorly it seems, that the larger states would have more sway than the smaller states. For example Wyoming only accounts for roughly 0.17% of the US population. Their votes will almost certainly be, in effect, ignored if larger states like CA, TX, FL, NY voted for the other side. By other side I mean other side of whatever Wyoming voted. Not one specific party side. "So what?" Well this is a union of states, each with their own needs and desires and if their needs and desires are constantly ignored election after election what is to stop them from simply breaking from the US in order for them to get what they feel is needed? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Texan republican don't hate Californian republican." Is republican the word you meant to use? Because if so, why would a republican from one state hate someone from the same political party from another state, that doesn't quite make sense. If you mean Texas as a state doesn't hate California as a state, then probably? I think you and I are talking about 2 different kinds of voter suppression. I took your meaning to be "Not allowing certain individuals to vote based on (x) reason" say political affiliation, race, gender, whatever. Which I believe we can both agree is just a horrible idea. So I'm taking a wild guess then on your definition to mean "suppressing" you mean using the electoral college instead of the popular vote? Though I am again confused how this idea would only affect CA or any singular state. How would splitting the electoral college votes suppress voters and, more importantly, this splitting would be done in every state not just ones which are red/blue/switch/whatever. So every democrat state would give up some of their votes to the republicans living there the same as every republican state gives up some of their votes to democrats living there (electoral votes not personal votes). I hope I better explained my stance on the current electoral college and what I believe would be a more fair system to everyone. I don't think I covered what you mean by "voter suppression", but like I said above I think we are misunderstanding each other on the definition of that term.
@@SilentlyNikki Thank you for your answer. Forget about the voter supression stuff,it was just a thought experiment. I tried to show that someone who support diminishing the power of big states over proportionnal democracy would logically tolerate voter supression as long as it only target big states and prevent them from ruling over the rest of the land. My two first question are thorougly answered,and why I don't think your system would be optimal, I think it would be democratic enough for it to not bother me. "I was trying to point out, poorly it seems, that the larger states would have more sway than the smaller states." I don't see the problem with that. Imagine a state with only one person on it. Why should such a state be given any electoral vote? Peoples are useful,and get rightfully mad if their vote count less than peoples of others states. States don't. The USA is the only place on earth where peoples care about state's right. "(about states) if their needs and desires are constantly ignored election after election what is to stop them from simply breaking from the US" The same thing that prevent the big states from diminishing the number of electoral votes attributed to small states.The army and the constitution. But personally,I think secession should be allowed to prevent tyranny of the majority. Regardless, small states vote do matter. However,I don't believe the absence of electoral college mean the US will ignore small states. Each time a Republican president was elected,and it happened plenty of times without the electoral college, the small states were happy. And each time a republican won despite losing the popular vote,it's the left that felt like their voice were ignored. "I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Texan republican don't hate Californian republican." Is republican the word you meant to use?" Ah,sorry, I used the french word instead of the english one. What I meant,and you seem to agree with me,is that there is little to no interstates rivalry. So,why do you feel the need to prevent big states from taking power?The have no reason to bully smaller states. So yeah, to summarize,I still do not understand why you think it is bad to give less power to small states.Yes,it make peoples inside these states unhappy,but giving them power will make everyone else unhappy.Human deserve equality more than administrative subdivisions do, and I genuinely do not understand why you don't agree.
I think that the real questions are: 1. Are big centralized cities killing democracy? 2. Are big centralized cities killing the rural areas? 3. Are big cities killing nature? i.e. pollution etc. Why is it always everywhere in all the "western" world everything looked at from a view that is bias towards the cities? It isn't just an issue in The USA!
I'll answer #3, at least for the USA. No. Big cities actually do less harm and have a lower carbon footprint per capita than rural America does. That's been proven over and over again. City dwellers drive less, use mass transportation and share other fossil fuel resources more efficiently. As for your other questions: they're loaded and unfair. But the fact of the matter is that the large majority of the world must live in or near cities, so if there is a bias, it's a bias towards the majority.
@@youmustbekidding1718 Stats such as "per capita" are maybe correct, yet the total figures are so far apart and the "concentration" of pollution is so strong that there is a name for it, "smog". Never heard of smog in areas where the populations are not so dense! & this does not apply only to The USA, it applies to all countries. As far as "unfair" or "majority", well there are many creatures out there that prefer packs/schools. Strength in numbers.
@@AusLanderJack You don't understand the USA, then. We have reduced smog in our cities in the past 50 years due to strong vehicular fuel-efficiency regulations and pollution standards - particularly in California. The vast amount of smokestack air pollution today is generated by coal-firing power plants in the midwest.
I think the best system is keeping the collage on the presidential elections but making Congress proportional. That way little parties will be able to get through and rural communities won't be ignored
You realize Congress is made up of 2 parts right? Because the House of Representatives is... representative. More people more reps. The Senate ensures equal representation by having 2 senators
I’m from Montana and I believe we need to get rid of the electoral college. We live in a time where this system is outdated. If it’s a popular vote- each vote is equal.
The funny yet frustrating thing to me about this discussion, not just on this video but on every discussion on the topic, is that winner-take-all and the inequality of value between small and large states are brought up but never in a way where each could be addressed directly. For example, having a national interstate compact where all States agree to go away from winner-take-all and replace it by proportional by the popular vote in that state would be something a majority of Americans would support. I'm in support of the idea of making every single state a swing state by having at least one Electoral College vote for grabs in all of them and while at the same time having each Electoral College vote to be worth the same number of votes.
Considering the electoral college exists in order to make sure every person in the Country has a voice and is represented by the Government. I'm gonna go on ahead and say no, we should not get rid of it.... If anything the electoral college should be expanded to also apply to state elections. especially for the bigger states like California.
Fun fact: If you think politics are insane now, back during the 1700 and 1800s, politicians would get into full blown fist fights. Imagine Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton goin at it in a Pennsylvania court room.
Yeah if you were around at the time of Andrew Jackson in politics, you knew how heated it was. Andrew Jackson literally made it so that the political parties were the people for him and the people against him. There was no middle ground
These are my four major concerns about abolishing the Electoral College: 1-If all votes are to be counted equally, then all the laws and procedures concerning Presidential Election, need to apply in ALL 50 states, DC, and other territories equally. This includes the times to vote, what types of machines to use for voting, the types of languages written on a ballot, etc. Since the Constitution gives the states the power to choose their electors, what type of agency would oversee the Election? 2- How will the rules change when it comes to having a particular Presidential ticket on the ballot, so that it would be uniformed across the country? Would a person be limited to showing up as a member of one ticket? Or could a person be allowed to appear as a candidate on multiple tickets? Or would there be a case, where a President and Vice President are on separate ballots? 3-How many Presidential candidates will there be on a ballot? Most states might have 5 or 6, but eliminating the Electoral College could easily open the possibilty of having over 100 Presidential tickets on an ballot. (The Electoral College helped reduce the number of candidates, because each state has separate rules. Somebody might choose NOT TO RUN for election, because he or she knows that reaching 270 Electoral Votes is impossible AND that appearing on a ticket in some states, might come off as a spoiler, in favor of another candidate? For example, putting Bernie Sanders on the Liberal Party ticket in New York, might divide the Democratic vote in 2024 and the Republican Ticket would win the state's electoral votes. Winning New York, might give Trump the election in 2024 the Electoral Votes to win The Presidency. 4- How long would the process take for the voting? Any mechanism for a recount? Will ranked-choice or a "run off" election voting be an option? If there are 100+ candidates on a ballot, the candidate with a plurality might be a Republican who wins 27 percent of the popular vote. But the candidates who ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth might all be Democrata and have a combined vote of 65 percent. Which candidate would you consider to be the winner? The Republican who had a plurality OR a Democrat who might win a majority of the popular vote in a third or fourth round of voting?
Hey Everyone! Thanks for watching. It’s super exciting seeing so many views on this video and such a lively comments section. We do want to address the ton of comments we keep getting about how America is not a democracy and is a constitutional republic. So as our awesome video points out, it’s true that America is not a direct democracy. But we are a representative democracy AND we’re a constitutional republic. We’re both! For more details on this check out this awesome explanation written by a constitutional law professor at UCLA and published on his conservative/ libertarian leaning blog: reason.com/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and/
But we’re not really interested in debating whether America is a democracy-- it’s not really the point of the video. Instead, we’re more interested in all of your thoughts on the value of the electoral college in America. We’ve tried to point out the main pros and cons of the system, but there’s only so much you can cover in a short video. So if you want more information we definitely encourage you to check out some of the sources we listed in the description as well as do some of your own research, and please share your thoughts on the electoral college with us. Bonus points for citing sources in your comments! Thanks y’all!!
The United States is not a democratic state it’s a republic and a founding fathers never intended democracy in the United States this is why you don’t see democracy nowhere in the Constitution
Democracy has not been working well in the United States proof of that? Look how bad all the blue states are doing. look at poverty look at the homeless in California
The Democrats only promote socialism which only leads into genocide and communism history has proven that. so I’ll take my electoral college anyday 👍🏾
Corn Pop's Leg Hairs
History class has failed him.
We are NOT both! That’s fake news and fake university propaganda. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.
It’s an SJW messy argument. Universities have convinced students we are the biggest climate change offenders... “per capita”.. and refuse to acknowledge how bad China is.. but, but per capita we are worse... omg this “twist the facts to fit your narrative” stuff is bad news man. Same thing here. Don’t claim we are both. We aren’t. We are 1 thing; the founders read history and knew; so they founded us as 1 thing- a constitutional republic. It’s simple, plain and easy. Despite liberal efforts at obsfucation of that basic fact. DC is a swamp that has muddled and confused the HOA rules so you can’t even make sense any more. “We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.” - Pelosi. Wth? Anyone with a brain understands that Liberalism is a disease now. There used to be good liberals. Where did they go? Common sense is lost on anyone in that arena. Nope. Not buying attempts to complicate anything. We are a constitutional republic; the electoral college is beyond intelligent and must stay. Period.
Westminster system is much better BUT you need compulsory voting by all citizens!
Great video. That was my only caveat, the democracy comment. Thanks for addressing it
I’m a New Yorker and I def don’t want people here deciding who’s president
DITTO!!!
ryebrez81 amen
How democratic (lower case D) of you. I'm so glad your name wasn't Madison or Hamilton.
What an ignorant statement, @ryebrez81. IF we were to have a popular vote decide our president, no one place would decide our president. It would be the whole country deciding. Imagine this scenario.... Back in HS we voted on class presidents. If all students went to their home rooms to vote for class president, each room would be like a state. Now, say there are 7 rooms with 20 students in each, and 1 room (the gymnasium) has 200 students. Okay, we have 2 candidates, candidate A and candidate B. In each of the 7 rooms, 18 vote for A, and 2 vote for B. That gives A a 126-14 lead. But, in the gymnasium 175 vote for B, and 25 vote for A. This gives candidate B a 189-151 win. If the electoral college system was used, candidate A would get 21 electors, with 3 given to each room. The gymnasium is worth 18 electors. So, candidate A would win in the electoral situation, but more classmates voted for B. My point is, it shouldn't matter where a person is located when they place their vote. They are all students in the same school. The most votes should win. It shouldn't matter where a person is standing/sitting when they place their vote.
well id rather they do than any where in the inbred nazi south
"aren't we all a little more informed now?"
*Takes a quick look at the people on the internet* "No"
*takes a look at my commenting history* “agreed”
well now the electors have the same level of information
We need th electoral college. No real American wants Ca. And N.Y deciding the country’s future.
Hope this was sarcasm because this is the exact argument for getting rid of the electoral college. Too many states just don't matter.
@@pueblonakahmora8118 Then why have a federation of states if smaller state not matter? Why have a civil war at all?
@@AniMaTheEarth I think you misunderstood what I said. Under the current system"the electoral college" there are just so many states that don't matter in the grand scheme of winning an election.
@@pueblonakahmora8118 And I said what I said, if it don't matter must as well secede. Must southon states can't wait to rule themselves. All those life lose during the civil war will be for nought!
Wow! A perfect example of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy!"
Hey dude, You think it's okay if Wyoming does? Yep. Sure. Uh huh.
A lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What type of government did you give us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Its frightening that people that dont understand our Constitution and how the federal structure of government works want to abolish the electoral college simply because they dont understand it.
@John Doe While the US practices a limited form of representative democracy that stops at the House of Representatives, in the end the US is a Constitutional federal republic.
We have a Constitutional republic because we place the Rule of Law that protects the natural rights of the individual before the will of the majority.
@John Doe Please get an education. I dont know what country that you live in, but I live in the US and it is a Constitutional federal republic. End of story.
@John Doe We are a federal constitutional republic, Get it in your head,
@@dsmith9964 the problem is we have representatives that are not representing us. Electoral college is out dated af!
I've never seen someone age so quickly by putting on glasses and a sweater haha. The voice probably helped too.
Lol. We call that character "Prof Myles" and hope to see more of him this season.
Good thing we never had a democracy in the first place😂
Guitartutorial 85 I posted a mini rant then saw this and thanked a higher power that not everyone is a brainwashed sheep
West House u talkin about my comment or the video?
@@zanel8290 your comment
We are a republic not a democracy. Democratic ideals sure, but there's a meaningful difference between the two.
Democratic Republic, semantics
Thank you. Far too many people approach this subject from either a "we must abolish it" or "no, we must keep it" point of view. Thanks for trying to give a well rounded, non-partisan view of the issue
Regardless of partisanship, the electoral college is fundamentally no longer feasible
I was shocked for how the most part how objective it was. This was the first video I have seen to explain the 3/5 was messed up BUT it was done to limit the power of the states that had slavery
@@Smiggly2574one thing he did leave out about that was that the 3/5 rule was first applied to the House of Representatives (to determine how many representatives each would have) and what still is an applied to the Electoral College because of how it was and still is determined how many ECVs each state will get.
@nicholastrudeau7581 the 3/5 Compromise is no longer used. The south wanted slaves to count ad 100% to increase rhe power of the South. The north refused as it would give the South more power to keep slavery. The compromise was 3/5 in the census count
@@Smiggly2574 I apologize, I did not make myself clear. The Three-Fifths rule had to do with determining how many seats each state would have in the House of Representatives. That number + 2, being how many senators each state had, determined how many Electoral College votes they would have, AND THAT, the process used to determine how many Electoral College votes each state would have, is still used today, which is one of the big reasons why people don't like the Electoral College, because the House of Representatives did not continue to grow with population of the nation because of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
I think it's ridiculous that a President can be elected that wasn't voted for by the majority.
We actually need the electoral college now more than ever.
Yes. We are a country of “UNITED” STATES.
Because otherwise your favourite president would lose and you would get triggered
No we don't, we need the people's voices to count, by having the electoral college your saying that the 2 million people difference between Trump and Clinton in the 2016 election didn't count.
HyperREKZboss2 you obviously don’t understand.
@@ajv7575 help me to
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is MOB RULE.
Jim Bateman that’s why it’s so attractive to democrats...they are no better than a mob anyway
Wasn't it Socrates that said that? And he'd know.
We are both a constitutional republic AND a democracy. Republic simply means the people, or public, owns the country/government, in contrast to a monarchy, where the monarch owns the country/government.
Gerrymandering is MOB RULE but you idiots support it.
Pilot Perry we don’t
"Plus, aren't we all a little more informed these days?" HA.
The electoral college is ALL about States. We are a Union of States with independent governments. The President of this Union is not elected by the people directly but rather by the several States of said Union. This ensures that States remain on equal standing within the Union (in respect to the population) instead of the States being relegated to nothing more than counties.
well said
Precisely. Why do you think it’s the race to 270 of 538? 100 Senators plus 438 representatives equals 538. The people aren’t voting. The states are. The people are voting by way of their state.
Would you support the electoral college if it benefited the democrats? No you only like it because it gives you racist republicans an unfair advantage
@@onebuc5874 because generalizing a large amount of people always works, 100% of the time. Without fail. You totally schooled all those people that you've never met or talked to
HobosCanFly I’ve had people admit that they only like the electoral college because it gives Republicans and advantage. If Texas ever turns into a blue state then I predict Republicans would be more on board with abolishing the electoral college.
There is nothing that said a slave was 3/5ths of a person. The compromise was that only 3/5ths of the slaves could be counted for representation otherwise things would have tilted strongly to slave owning states. The South wanted all the slaves to be counted for representation without giving slaves any of the rights of representation. So the compromise was 3/5ths of the slave population was counted.
@John Doe You call someone uneducated without explaining what you mean. The answer is as clear as the nose on your face!
and you point is?
That compromise, like the census description is in Article I, therefore it is to determine Congress, specifically the House... Not to control an Electoral College. The slavery issue, which is now moot due to Amendment 13, if brought up by those with a greviance, should discredit Congress, not the Presidency (Article II).
The EC was designed before there were ANY parties. Parties emerged from the States and are never mentioned in the Constitution.
The EC is an exact replica of the Senate and the House (plus three for DC since 1960). The EC was to keep an Congress from controlling the President, keep an outgoing Congress from picking a spite president, keep a freshly elected congress from picking a tody.
An Elector is by law, not a politician or civil official. Just a private citizen that records the states choice on a registered letter one month after the people's election.
Each State gets 2 for their senators and one or more for their population. Therefore this presenters description is misleading. I also notice objectors tend to ALWAYS site examples of WY or MT, but seldom VT, HI, NH who mostly vote DNC recently. Objectors seem to have no problem with liberal but Lilly white New England states or very liberal HI being so small, but object to states like Wyoming.
Odd that Senators like Warren or Sanders hate the EC as not SOLELY population based, but they serve in a body that is completely not population based.
Ironic that the DNC fusses about the EC favoring rural states, but their presidential primaries go Iowa, NH, SC then several other rural, mostly Southern states first. Leaving big states like CA, NY, TX, FL for last well after most diverse candidates have run out of money and dropped out.
You want to make the EC more democratic then start by petitioning YOUR state to split their Electors by voting proportions. California disenfranchises 40% of their voters by their winner take all every 4 years. The founders did not call for or envision a winner take all Elector system. The two presidents that were not at the Constitution Convention (Adams and Jefferson ) created that trend to screw each other. They created the parties too.
@@STho205 There's nothing in the Constitution that requires States to employ a winner-take-all (first round) EV system. So... you go first.
If there were a way to require every state to use proportional EV voting, I'd be all for it.
The Southern States wanted their Slaves all counted in full for more Representation in the House of Representatives, even though they were never going to give any slaves the right to ANY of that representation!
Not too surprisingly, the Southern States wanted their slaves to count to bump up their numbers in Congress, but they were wildly opposed to having their slaves counted for proposed Head Taxes, based solely on population, which was a means for the federal government to raise tax revenue from the States.
First, also great unbiased information on a controversial topic
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching
Haden Hunt this was extremely biased. The main reason the electoral college was chosen was because of small states being afraid of larger states out voting them not because people were not educated.
This was extremely biased and goes to show exactly why the Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers and why it's still very much needed to preserve our Constitutional Representative Republic.
@@TeenWolf-hd6kg just curious to learn more about why you thought the video was so biased? We genuinely worked hard to represent the key arguments on both sides of this debate in a balanced way. It would help us to hear a specific example of where you think we failed to do this.
Talking about the origin of the electoral college without mentioning the REAL primary issue that caused the debate in the first place, big states vs. small states, makes this a pretty crappy video. Also, throwing in that garbage about voter suppression when there is zero evidence that requiring an ID to vote actually stops minorities from voting, shows that you basically failed in any attempt you might have made at making this unbiased.
In addition, lack of voter id encourages voter fraud
@circa blonk Please, share a link to a study on this.
My understanding is that most countries use voteri d of some sort.
Voter ID laws, when fair, aren't the issue. It's when Voter ID laws unfairly disqualify IDs from Indian Reservations, but count military IDs (such as happened in North Dakota).
The source of most voter suppression is when districts close voting/poling locations in areas or limit hours to only allow voting during the work day. THESE actions, and others like them, are how districts suppress the vote of minority populations or poorer Americans.
@circa blonk IF someone's status is "questionable" then they most likely are not a citizen and not actually allowed to vote anyway. And how likely is a person to vote if they don't bother to get a usable ID anyway?
circa blonk now you sound just like the dummies in D.C. you’re basically saying that minorities are too lazy or too stupid to know how and where to get an I.D.
So keeping it means only swing states get candidates’ attention, but abolishing it means only big cities get candidates’ attention. Either way, someone gets ignored
Yes..but more big cities than swing states. There are not only LA or NYC or Chicago but also Dallas, Seattle, Miami not to mention aeras "connected" with each others which could be a big cities in a way. The term "big cities" remaining vague
Swing states change often. There was a time not long ago that Texas and California were swings
@@michaelblanco7346 Define "often". Once every 40 years?
@@youmustbekidding1718 Within my lifetime VA has swung from Red to Blue, and CO used to be Red, and TX appears to teeter on the edge of Blue these days. So no, not "every 40 years".
@@julies.1451
Swinging means back and forth. A state that has changed allegiances and stayed there is no longer 'swinging'.
A Dem Presidential candidate hasn't won Texas since 1976, and has lost by fairly large margins. It'd be hard to characterize that as "teetering" whatsoever. Not a swing state. It's stuck red.
Virginia had been deep red for 56 years (15 elections) before Obama, and for the past 4 elections has gone blue: mostly due to the NoVa DC suburbs. Not a swing state. It's swung.
Colorado has also been consistently blue for 4 straight elections. Also not a swing state -- it's swung.
Cali has only been consistently blue since 1992, but for 6 elections before that it was solid red. In my 60+ years, California has only changed allegiance 3 times. No political analyst would describe Cali as a swing state - ever.
In contrast, Ohio has changed allegiances six times since 1972. Now that's a swing state.
And all that even though small states are already massively overrepresented in the senate.
The Senate is not intended to directly represent people. The Senate is intended to represent the collective states interests.
Each state is represented equally in the Senate because each states interests are to treated equally.
@Steve Sherman Thank you for stating facts.
My teacher assigned this to the class☠️ hey everybodyyyyy
same
same
Same
same
The problem is not the electoral college but the winner takes it all system in most states.
Benjamin Keller it’s only a problem for the factions who directly benefit of the largesse granted via the votes of anchor babies to illegal parents. It’s the only reason CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, etc have swung blue in the last 10-15 years.
@Steve Sherman If they did that then Democrats would be screaming even more psychotically they they do now. It would literally swing the electoral college so far to the right that you would probably never see a Democrat become president for several hundred years. Naturally I am all for that idea.
Benjamin Keller, thank you for being one of the few to mention this. Most people have no clue. This was the original implementation of he electoral college, and it has been grossly perverted over the past two centuries. The electoral college must remain, but it should be fixed
@@foxbodyblues6709 Blue voters want to escape redstate totalitarianism.
ranked choice helps.
don't mind me im just taking notes for school
3:18 + 3:45
4:00
4:20
5:15
6:10
6:50
me looking at these comments when i know nothing about politics: 👁👄👁
same lmao, im confused af
There is no good answer. Without the electoral college, 10 states can decide the election. With the electoral college, individuals are not perfectly represented. Currently, Presidents can be elected without the popular vote, but they have to pay mind to the fly over states. Without the EC, candidates will not spend time with the fly over states. Those states grow a large % of our domestic grains and raise cattle. The million dollar question is "how do we fix the election process with causing more damage"? So that the rural farmers, as well as every individual from the most populated areas both have adequate representation.
Farmers etc in rural states already have disproportionally high representation in the Senate. The presidency is supposed to represent everyone equally, the electoral college should be abolished. The main problem is our insanely powerful overreaching unconstitutionally large government. It shouldn't be as important who gets elected because the offices shouldn't have as much power as they fo
@@oasiscrushinglife6878 The President is supposed to run the country- execute(hence chief executive) the laws passed by the Congress voted on by the people. The President has never "represented all the people" but he answers to them via elections.
@@ferocious20022002 I agree with your point, but the underlying point of all government is in service to the citizenry. The executive role of the president is not tied to individual states but to the country as a whole, hence all citizens. I didn't mean he is supposed to be a direct advocate in the same elected sense as Congressmen, but ultimately he does represent all citizens on a national basis
@Steve Sherman California "ignored" 4.5 million votes? Care to explain? And who are "they"? Are you just repeating Trump's BS about voter fraud in California? SMH. What a flailing, unsubstantiated, crock of a rant.
If ten times as many people live in the coasts than in central America, then it makes perfect sense that candidates should have to campaign ten times as much in those states. And the thing about democracy is, if a candidate manages to get every vote in all those middle states and a large minority in the coastal states, then maybe they will still win, so they won't be totally ignored.
Candidates can simply campaign online and on TV... Like they already do!
No candidates are traveling out to Bumwater, Nebraska to campaign because even Bumwater, Nebraska has internet and TVs.
@@SylviaRustyFae campaigning online isn't as effective as campaigning in person - there's a reason why people emphasize rallies so much
@madcheeseknight people in central America should have a voice. They should have exactly the same amount of voice as someone in the coast. But that's the thing - _people_ should have a voice, not _counties_
And besides, the Senate is supposed to take care of the interests of less populated states.
If nothing else, the states should appoint electors proportionally, not winner-takes-all
@madcheeseknight Land doesn't vote, people do. I think local government is extremely important and should be expanded (hell, even the most cityish of cityfolk want more local power, I know many New Yorkers that would like Cuomo to stop meddling in their city decisions) but the president ultimately presides over the people.
You aren't giving only half the country a voice. You're giving each person a voice. The country is made up of the people living in it, not its land.
@madcheeseknight Also, I would agree that it works if the electors from each state chosen to vote for the President were chosen proportional to the results (that is, 49% of Florida's electors went to Trump and 48% went to Clinton, 62% of California's electors went to Clinton and 32% of them went to Trump, etc)
Because it's winner-takes-all in most states, only purple states have people campaigning in them.
We are a republic. The peoples voices are heard. Every vote counts for state level elections which are more important then the President.
1:29, this is why Places like California is fighting so hard to stop the citizen question on the Census. More people, more Electoral votes, even if they are not citizens.
Um, Texas benefits from non-citizens too. In fact, every state does.
jack frost The census was instituted by the founding fathers to count *everyone* - citizens and non-citizens alike. There are millions of legal residents who are not citizens but must be counted. Recall that the original, unamended Constitution counted slaves (who had no right to vote or even a right to claim citizenship!) at 3/5 of a person. The purpose of the census was not strictly for representation in Congress. It is also needed to determine apportionment of each state’s federal funding.
There are also tens of millions of citizens who are not eligible to vote: including children and disenfranchised convicts. They all are counted too.
@Steve Sherman Whatever number of *residents* -- documented or otherwise - that a state has, counts towards federal revenue sharing. Of course it isn't proportionately equal for all states. It isn't a zero sum game whatsoever. If your state doesn't count its non-citizens, it loses out in federal funding. The census isn't entirely required for congressional seat apportionment.
@Steve Sherman That may be true, but the decennial Census (there are also mid-decade censuses) has long been appropriated for other purposes by the Federal Government.
Federal law mandates that the Census be available for much more than congressional apportionment. That's why it's run by the Department of Commerce. The Census also intended to provide data for urban planning, commercial development, housing, land management, etc.
Census data is also used for Federal Revenue Sharing: www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-in-Federal-Funds-Distribution.pdf
@@youmustbekidding1718 seems like you just made the case to include a citizenship question.
From what I understand, the EC gives power to the states.
Total Democracy only works within the states, congress and senate.
Nope. We have limiters there, too. Most states have a legislature and a senate. The Senate is a limit on pure democracy. True, we've added some democracy in the form of state-wide elections of U.S. Senate (they used to be elected by the state Senate or appointed by the governor) but the limits are there, too.
Right, only it is the States that gave power to the US Government. The States came first and they can, collectively, make the US Government disappear in one stroke of the pen.
Pure democracy is logistically impossible. Representative democracy is the ideal. Two Senators per state and EC/EV degrade representative democracy.
The American people are represented by their elected officials, locally, statewide and on a federal level. We vote through our representatives and state, this ensures that all states get representation. I certainly wouldn’t want a scenario where the federal government is controlling presidential elections. Hard pass
We need *more* electoral colleges. States like Texas, NY, and Cali should have electoral colleges for their elections as well. As it is now, a few cities tyrannically control those states, and those states would tyrannically control the nation if it wasn't for the national electoral college.
Agreed, I live in rural Texas and don't understand why someone in Austin should be legislating me.
Meaning that empty state counties should have equal power as densely populated ones? You think corruption and gerrymandering is bad now, just wait. You'll start seeing bridges to nowhere pretty fast. Good luck with that brilliant idea.
How can the Electoral College "kill democracy" when it is functioning exactly as set forth in the US Constitution, and for exactly the intended purpose. To keep the 4 largest cities (cesspools each) from determining the outcome of all national elections and policy decision?
@gypsyjr1371
Beautifully and clearly explained concept. Best explanation I have found on UA-cam so far. Thank you.
The comment section gives a brief spark of hope that some people still care about factual history.
I tuned in thinking this would be an unbiased video even though it’s sponsored by PBS but I was wrong. We live in a Republic. Not a democracy.
Exactly. I gave this video a fair shot. I had my doubts, but I wanted to be surprised. It was going well at first, but then started to veer off course, turning from unbiased informing to heavily suggesting what the viewer should believe.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with sharing your political opinion, but doing it covertly like this in a video that presents itself as unbiased (and claims to be such) is what’s wrong with the MSM.
Was that statement really what turned you off? It’s a common misconception, and as a conservative myself, I don’t get all that wound up about people mistakenly calling America a democracy. I thought this was a fairly comprehensive video, honestly. And I’m pro-EC.
"democracy: a country in which power is held by elected representatives" (dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy) I'm pretty sure this applies to the US... besides, republic just means a country is not a monarchy, but it can clearly still be a democracy.
So if the US is not a democracy, what is it?
@@unicodesnowman3597 ItS a RePuBlIc NoT a DeMoCrAcY
@@Morningstar_37 BuT hiLLaRy wOn THe mOsT voTEs
We are a republic not a democracy. end of lesson
You nailed it! Mic drop.
The democratic principles we run on is what makes the country as great as it is. The fact the the PEOPLE get to choose the elected officials to represent us.
@@Littlespooby Don't you mean the Principles the founding fathers lived by in forming our Constitutional Republic.
uggghh, type of democracy.
@@quarters-eye8922 A constitutional republic is also known as a representative or indirect democracy.
It's worked brilliantly well for this long, and I see no value in changing it. I certainly don't want three or four states determining what's best for all of us.
EV/EC is tyranny by a minority.
But that's literally what happens. Most states are 'red' or 'blue' while a handful of states are fought over to get the 270
@@BritishRepublicsn But those swing states are constantly changing, as are the demographics of some non-swing states. Otherwise, whatever CA & NY want, pretty much everyone would be forced to live with. Less concentration of power always works better than more. History tells us that, almost without exception.
@@DavidLongo22 ok but there's only a few Swing states at any given time
Also California and New York are not Democrat hiveminds. In 2020, more people voted for Trump in California than in Texas
@@BritishRepublicsn The first part is circumstantial and can change drastically at any point. That's irrelevant though since the design to specifically to avoid a direct democracy (because they implode). We're heading for Rome's fate, which eventually fell because they too strayed too far from the ideals of their original republic. Power corrupts, so check and spread it as much as possible.
Because America is not democracy going exactly how was intended
infernovoid you are very naïve
infernovoid There was no argument just a statement on your part
infernovoid how am I bigoted? When I don’t want my state fucked over by the will of California or New York
a republic is a form of democracy; specifically, a representative democracy with a constitution.
Achinth Murali That’s what we are, but the united states this case the states elect the president not the people, The peoples representation is in the house and the senate
If you actually read the diaries of the founders, you'll realize that the 3/5 rule was actually put in place to abolish slavery at a future date. It kept northern states "more populated" and made the southern states happy because they agreed that slaves shouldn't count as a person.
I do think that it took the country a lot longer than they anticipated for slavery to be abolished, which is very disappointing.
Do you have an example of such a diary? I would like to see what you are referring to
The Southern states actually wanted slaves to count as a full person, so they'll get more representation even though slaves couldn't vote at all. The North wanted the opposite.
31% of all of the delegates in Philadelphia owned a total 1,400 slaves. It is difficult to think that delegates like George Mason, John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, Charles Pickney, George Washington included, among many others went to the Constitutional Convention in order to give up their slaves. They were there to protect their own interests. The three-fifths Compromise came about because all of these men wanted their slaves to be counted as a part of the total population. This ultimately gave the southern states a greater population which meant more representation in Congress despite the fact that slaves could not vote. The fact that the South not only got the Three-Fifths Compromise but the capitol, Washington DC would also be built in the South as well, the southern delegates basically made out like bandits in Philadelphia. It is also noteworthy that poor whites i.e. landless men, women and Native Americans were all counted as a part of the population too and could not vote. Nevertheless, groups like the Quakers in Pennsylvania had long been for abolition of slaves and the institution. The northern States successively abolished slavery after the 1790s. The Three-Fifths Compromise had nothing to do with setting slaves free.
@dercurt 3/5ths allowed slavers to steal an additional 3/5ths vote (aka 'more populated' by Kochservatively correct voters). Mathematically, the slavers nullified 2/5ths of slaves' votes, while hijacking 3/5ths of the slaves' votes.
Occasionally I read a comment that is so clueless as to be in a class all its own. What "diaries" are you talking about? You just made that up There are no real diaries or journals from the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 other than James Madison's notes and they do not support your views.. You completely misunderstand the bargaining that brought about the 3/5's compromise. It had nothing to do with planting the seeds of manumission. I have no idea what you mean by it keeping the northern states "more populated." The 3/5's compromise had no bearing on population in the north. And you have the southern position exactly backward - the south wanted slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of apportionment and representation. It was the northern delegates who bargained for counting non-voting slaves as less than one vote per person.
It's not necessarily true that you can jet set to just the major cities and win the pop vote. I directly you to the CGP Grey video
The video by CGP Grey is chock full of falsehoods and false assumptions. I can name many.
Grey ignores numerous facts including the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that aren't part of the cities proper. Grey has no credibility when it comes to the electoral college.
@madcheeseknight I'm well aware of that map. I voted blue in 2016. My county voted blue as well. But that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the number of states that a candidate wins and how many electoral votes those states have.
The 'popular vote' is irrelevant because the President does not directly represent the population. The President represents our union of states and is therefore elected by the states.
Great vid: complex info conveyed with humor, fairness & clarity. Appreciate you!
The only time people say it's time to do away with the Electoral College is when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses an election due to the EC (think dems and the 2016 presidential election), but when their candidate wins due to the EC they champion it (think dems and the 2012 presidential election).
Obama won 2012 PV.
Obama had 5 million more votes than Romney. He would've won without the Electoral College anyway.
Was there a point to this video? He didn’t mentioned why it was formed or why it is still
Relevant
It was formed to balance population based interests with state based interests just like our two houses of Congress.
Right.
Yo this is liberal af. No it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Y’all need to read the constitution. Imagine LA and NY having the ultimate say so. Nope and I live in Cali I’m embarrassed
The constitution wasnt written to remain static, it's designed to be able to adapt, hence why we no longer have slavery and women can now vote. It should be changed, it's ridiculous for the Presidency which is supposed to represent all citizens to be determined by anything other than a popular vote. The problem is our government is too damned large so it matters more than it should who gets elected.
Also, NY and Cali etc blue states won't automatically determine the winner unless the majority of national voters vote that way, in which case that candidate SHOULD win
@@pdadd It definitely was not instituted to protect minorities, practically no one in 1804 cared about that at all.
Clinton had a lower percentage vote but was still able to win only because Ross Perot took 18% as a third party candidates. I don't mind that Clinton won (at least from a fairness/procedural standpoint, I personally despise him) because he did actually have the highest vote total of the three candidates. If people want to keep the Electoral College but get rid of winner take all states and make proportional electoral voting mandatory, I'd be fine with that, and that still gives slightly more say to the smaller states. But the system right now of winner take all states means that in every state with that method, a massive bulk (often over 40%) of the votes are effectively ignored, that's complete nonsense.
I did actually did do quite a lot of homework in this field when I was working towards dual degrees in history and political science
@@pdadd haha I hate to generalize based on nationalities but you Canadians really ARE polite😁! No apology necessary, I appreciate the response. I get the point of minorities in terms of a numerical vs racial form, but our current system literally ignores mass groups of peoples votes entirely. Our other checks and balances are more than enough to prevent tyranny of the majority. It's a worthy cause to seek to prevent, but the way we do it now is consistently ACTUALLY ignoring a massive percentage of our population upon the unjustified fear of the majority POSSIBLY doing so, that's irrational. Keeping the electoral college but mandating proportional electors instead if winner takes all states would endure equal representation for everyone as an individual and still give small states slightly more power proportional to their populations. Remember, the smallest minority is the individual, and tens of millions of those have their votes ignored every single Presidential election under the current electoral college system
@@pdadd It was a three-party election where Perot got 19% (mentioned in the video). It's nice that you don't distort the facts.
@@pdadd The founding fathers counted slaves as 60% of humans, too. You left that part out.
The electoral college is working exactly as it was designed to work.
So, horribly
Giovanni Fiorentini, that’s entirely false. It was designed and implemented with each electoral vote going to its respective candidate. It was, in fact, fair and proportionate with respect to individual state representation. However, this was quickly subverted through political parties consolidating power within states by establishing the winner takes all system on a state by state basis until nearly all states adopted this system as a tit for tat strategy. The electoral college certainly needs to be fixed, but definitely not revoked.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s not killing our democracy because we are not a democracy. We are a republic. I prefer not to live in a country where mob rule exists. Electoral college is vital and must remain intact as the founding fathers intended.
I understand that the Electoral College may not be perfect in the eyes of some people. But this system has maintained through some pretty crazy times, and frankly every other system is much worse. Changing just because something might have a small flaw to some, to a system that could degrade to pure anarchy is dangerous and wrong.
The Electoral College has it where if you live outside of 10 Swing States, your vote is mathematically trash. Let's mathematically enable multiparty democracy so more groups can have a say and not waste votes.
It's not like Libertarian Republicans are happy about Mitch McConnell screaming at them to vote pro life anyway.
Or socialist Democrats thrilled about Pelosi screaming at them not to vote for anything that would piss off her Party's corporate donors.
@TheOneTonHammer
@@TheOneTonHammer EV is a contortion. Anarchy is irrelevant to EV vs PV comparison.
If the power of the federal government had been limited to that which is enumerated in the Constitution, Id be more open to a popular vote.
However, we have corrupted our system of federalism where we try to dictate EVERYTHING from Washington, watering down states rights.
The electoral college puts a little bit more power in the hands of the states, so I'm for it.
It is so sparsely populated states can preserve their sovereignty! "Free states".
Except that the states your talking about currently have less electoral power than swing states, which don't change often.
First, I must say you made a great video. The problem most people fail to realize is that we are not a pure democracy, we are a Republic. So, the trick the founders sought to achieve was to balance national power, state power, competing interests of a large republic, and preserve the rights of the minority interests. That balance was found in the electoral college. The key is, win the most valuable states. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. In order to win the presidency, you must win over a greater number of states from across the country. The game (system) isn't rigged for any one party or team. There has been incredible balance between the parties winning the presidency throughout the nation's history, especially since the 1968 election.
I must end saying that you did an outstanding job of pointing out people's arguments on both sides of the issue and did a great job of explaining the system.
100%
Pure democracy is logistically impossible.
There was no "voter suppression" in Georgia..the law required voters to be removed from the voting rolls if they failed to exercise their constitutional right to vote in consecutive elections. Just because people are to lazy and irresponsible to vote does not mean they are "suppressed."
@lonewolf4429
If we didn't have the electoral college Wyoming wouldn't have a voice at all.
You mean 3 seats in Congress isn't a voice?
So they don't get a voice for the presidential election? Why should their voice end in congress?
@@patrickleonard649 People are supposed to vote, not states.
@@TJ-lh7xgjust objectively incorrect, the entire point of the EC is that the states vote, not the people. The EC hasn't gone wrong, it's done its job exactly how it was supposed to do it.
Long live the Republic, the founding fathers were genius. Trump 2020
You guys are gonna regret that. You know if repubs were put into this where they won the popular vote and lost the electoral college they'd fucking complain and say the system sucked. Trump did that in 2012!
@John Doe You should educate yourself on how presidents are elected in the United States, the electoral college is what matters. It's like signing up for a Slam Dunk contest and shooting three pointers, you may make more points but it's a Slam Dunk contest you idiots. The electoral college was genius, it gives smaller states a chance to have a say in our elections. Just look at a county by county map of the 2016 election and look at the sea of red and a few blue stains.
@@octopuss1918 If the Democrats won the electoral college and lost the popular vote would they still complain about it ? If we were electing President by popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. Hillary screwed up by taking a few states for granted.
He’s got my vote and everyone around me too.
How is it tyranny if it's the majority? Smh
My first impulse was that we should go by the popular vote, but the more I research this, the more I think that we would run the risk of many of our least populist states leaving the union if we did. These States may have fewer people, but they are crucial when it comes to the amount of natural resources, food, and leverage for international trade that they supply for our nation. If we lost them, the prices of food, gas, and many other things would sky rocket in the states that remained in the union.. We would also lose access to a lot of ports and waterways on the Gulf Coast and the Mississippi.
Reds constantly make noise about war and secession, but they won't leave.
We’re a republic, not a democracy. Democracy was never mentioned in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Walter Williams has very insightful knowledge on our republic.
Keep the electoral college,divide CA into two smaller states!...maybe three!
What?!?!? And destroy the blue wall??? Can't have that happen. Its ok to suppress over 4 million republican voters in California, but not ok to allow smaller states to have a say in the election...
@@evilrevolations There is only 4 million of you guys out of 39.51 million? Of course you guys are "silenced"!! haha
@@newleaksman Was waiting for someone to say something about that number so lets break it down. In California in 2019 there were a total of 19,978,449 registered voters or about 80% of those eligible to vote.
Registered Democrats: 8,612,368
Registered Republicans: 4,709,851
Independent or other party: 6,656,212
So when you look at the real numbers you get a bit more understanding on how a few million votes could quite easily change the tide for elections. If California broke into three states you would no longer have a blue wall because the new states would be dominated by Republicans. Cutting the number of electoral votes the very liberal coast has tied up and distributing them to the Republicans. It would also give them 3-4 additional seats in the Senate and several seats in the house.
But why take the time to understand something when you can jump to conclusions and think you actually posted something oh so witty right? I mean its almost like you didn't have any understanding of the topic before you jumped into the pool.
and merge the former Dakota Territories back into a single state.
The Electoral College makes no sense at all. I understand that it's needed to rule out control of populous states like California but to give them more Electoral voters than any other states is ridiculous. If all states had the same amount of Electoral voters and were REQUIRED to vote for the majority vote then they would have my support.
Doamino41 Then people in California and New York still decide who the president is, since many people live in those states.
You mean to tell me even after watching this video you still don't get the reason the founding fathers put the EC in? Thick as a brick.
merely go to PV. Your EC adjustment is a complicated shadowing of PV.
@@jcbjcb2
What are you talking about? Go to PV? EC?
I understand that the electoral college votes are used so the more populous states like California don't have too much control, which would make sense if all state had the same amount of electoral voters. But they don't. California alone has 55 voters.
Good presentation. I say get rid of the Electoral College or I'll continue not voting. I'm not worried about the government becoming corrupt; it is corrupt.
Perot was my favorite candidate behind my main man Ron Paul! I lean conservative but no longer can support the Republican party after Bush Jr. I'm now a proud member of the libertarian party. The Constitution is our only hope to uphold freedom! I've never thought about electoral hurdles third parties face so cheers for the information! Not trying to get political. I just wanted to state my opinion/feelings regarding unconventional candidates. My view still aligns with the founding fathers. California and New York should not control everyone else's fate.
On top of everything else, losing the popular vote is meaningless when the campaigns are specifically running strategies to WIN THE ELECTORAL VOTES.
EC gives power to the state and the people in the state.
No. Not every state.
Ok besides Maine and Nebraska. But he’s still mainly right.
"But our acreage should count for something!" No, it really shouldn't. Only people should count. Senate has to go, too.
I don’t understand why to bother waste time to go to cast your vote for a president when at the end others decide who the new president will be. Electoral college should NOT exist. Get rather of it ASAP
I believe the Electoral College is here to stay because it's hard to imagine enough smaller states voting to amend the Constitution to cede their leverage in national politics.
Just like the repeal of the 17th Amendment and returning the assignment of the States Senators back to the States Congress and its Governor. Such a repeal would never get the 2/3rd vote of the Senate to warrant a repeal to be forwarded to the States for Ratification requiring a 3/4 majority, 38 States.
Small blue states, mostly in the northeast would be ok with it
Hey bucko who do you think has more weight in the presidential election, California or Wyoming?
@@theredman4752 California.
@@christiansoldier77 And we pay for it dearly every 4 years
Sorry, I had to downvote this and stop watching at about the 5 minute mark.
1) The debate was not over slavery, but about the size of the states (this is not to say slavery was a discussed issue). States like Rhode Island, Georgia (slave state), and Vermont had very small populations, whereas Virginia and New York had the largest. The smaller states feared that the larger states would tyrannize them through a popular vote.
2) The Constitution did not say that slaves were three-fifths of a person. It says that the total population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths of its total. It's a math equation, not a value of a person. The Three-Fifths compromise was an anti-slavery clause meant to prevent the slave states from being over-represented.
You're not really above the noise, you're creating more of it.
Stewart Collins, thank you
Even as a lib-right person, i think that's really the only part of the video that skews. I found this to mainly be a good 2 sided and fair video about the electoral college.
The description is wrong. To this date, there were only 4 times in which the winner lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. There was one more time in which the winner lost the popular vote, but he also lost the electoral vote - he won the congressional vote.
You guys are too under appreciated you helped me learn something in 10 minutes that i dint understand after 2 hours of reading.
Thanks for going over the pros and cons of each change without resorting to hyperbole.
You had me until the part where you push the myth of "voter suppression".
Requiring IDs is "racist " , but ballot harvesting is just fine ....
Bingo! Lies, Lies, & MORE LIES. I'm truly not sure who I'm more sick of hearing lie and whine about how their elections were "stolen", Hillary Clinton or Stacy Abrams. (You remember Stacy and right? "We had the greatest minority voter turnout IN HISTORY!" But also, "Voter suppression is the only reason I lost." By over 55,000 votes.) Just more deception to keep "low information voters" from realizing THAT THE DEMOCRATS are the TRUE RACISTS in this country, just like they always have been.
How can requiring voter id be racist and is a form of voter suppresion . Somebody who believes in this please explain why.
You cant register republican through the mail in CA. That's voter suppression.
@@arieldizon7676 Because it is absolutely unnecessary and is biased against people who either can't afford to or unable to get to a registration facility, or don't have appropriate documentation such as a passport. These voters could lose their eligibility that often was established decades earlier. This is a discriminatory practice that disproportionately affects the elderly, the disabled, and the poor in general. Also, many states do not have easily accessible registration offices where people have to travel great distances to, say, get to their county seat and they just do not have the resources to do so.
Again, VOTER ID'S AREN'T NECESSARY. There is NO significant amount of voter fraud in America. It's a law without a crime. Anyone who says, "What - that's the price of being a good citizen?" is showing their privilege. Establishing one's right to vote shouldn't be a hardship.
www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud
And ain't it ironic that the only known election fraud was perpetrated by Republicans in North Carolina? The fraud so egregious, it required the election to be re-run. Glory be: www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html
Do some googling about Kris Kobach, the voter fraud bullshit champion. www.rawstory.com/2019/12/kansas-abandons-voter-fraud-security-system-trumpeted-by-trumps-onetime-voter-fraud-czar/
It's a struggle in the UK to understand this issue and your video has made it so much clearer and interesting. Thank you! 👌
Os is the issue with people thinking America is a democracy? We are a Republic through and through simply because of the presidency. Almost every other elected official is won by popular vote, so they are all democratically elected, the President is elected through a republic system.
We do not have a democracy we have a republic
@tmastersat
The concerns of today are the reason the Founding fathers agreed on the Electoral College.. Difference today is when some parties lose they want to change the rules to have them win....
@rackets7991
why would they campaign in the big cities, the top 100 cities only have 20% of the population, they will need to get voters from other areas too
The best analysis and explanation of electoral college!! Stay blessed
Electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. The electoral college was all about large cities and states controlling to much power.
@infernovoid It is outdated to protect minorities?
Did you really say that?
If that were true, why was slavery repealed?
@infernovoid [[ My point is that minority vs majority debate is not what it once was ]]
In that case, your point is wrong.
[[ The electoral college is an outdated concept created by people who lived
centuries ago that couldn't know what modern society would look like. ]]
What society would look like (whatever that means) is immaterial to whether or not certain States have undue (inequality) control over other States. The concept is still the exactly the same. It's not about the candidates, it's about disparity in voting power of the people of the States - i.e., it is about equal protection.
[[ the electoral colleges reinforces the two-party system.]]
Negative. Although it would be fair to say it supports a system of no more than five parties. Example: "then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President"
[[ We can hear the voices of the rural and small town areas. ]]
You miss the point (so your example is irrelevant). That goes to the choosing of the electors, but the votes of the electors is not directly about disparity of areas within a State, it is about disparity of voting power between the States.
@infernovoid [[ I recommend you actually look into the numbers. ]]
I recommend you not look at the trees so you can see the forest.
Your premise seems to be that the electoral college should reflect the popular vote among "all the people" and ignore the popular vote by "all the States".
That would allow a single state with 51% of the people (because of merely being populous) to control the wishes of all the other States. What don't you get about that?
@infernovoid [[ The electoral college doesn't even protect the small states. ]]
Your own linked video disproves your statement ( 0:32 - 0:52 )
@infernovoid I did watch the whole video.
That segment was the only thing pertinent to your statement that small States are not protected by the electoral college. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do . . . protect small states.
You again claim [[ but it doesn't. ]]
Repeating the same false claim does not change its veracity.
Maybe you confuse which States receive more campaign attention with actual protection of small States???
That video leaves out that those States which are decidedly either for or against a candidate (based on polling) are the reason for not campaigning there - not that State has no influence over who will be president.
Which states are "swing States" can vary over time, sometimes they will be large States, sometimes small States. That has NOTHING to do with whether small States are being protected by the electoral college. That is just a natural economic consequence- i.e., spending money only where it could have a good chance to change the "popular vote" in some State.
In that sense, the "popular vote" is STILL part of the electoral process, it's just on a State by State basis.
I was 7 years old when Ross Perot ran for president. I must be too old for this channel 😁
I was a teenager
No! No! All are welcome here!
Remember how many people laughed at him? Looking back I'd much rather he had been elected.
@@oasiscrushinglife6878 Ross Perot reminded of a Wishing Troll!
I got the impression at the time that Perot realized he might actually get elected, so he threw the election. I don't think he was ever in it to actually win.
Wrong ! To vote you had to be a man and own land. Only in some states did they not allow free black land owning men to vote [500,000 Free Blacks in 1860]. Giving the vote to slaves was and is ludicrous and just gives their owner a ton of votes + 1.
PS In 1860 only 1.45% of Americans owned a slave. ~35,000 Free Blacks owned slaves.
Pretty decent lesson, eh? Went into better detail than most. One super important thing: We are not a "Democracy". We are a REPUBLIC. The Constitution promises that and that is what makes us so special. We are the United States of America.
It doesnt make us that special. Many countries are Republics lol
We should keep the electoral college system and expand it to state elections as well. No reason Seattle, Chicago,LA, or any other large city should get to dictate to an entire state how things are governed with no thought or concern given to the smaller cities,or communities.
Agreed…we’re feeling that here in Georgia
All I can think about right now is the fact that if we had a popular vote, I'd probably be out of quarantine by now because I'd have a responsible president who can actually handle a pandemic
Perot got two electoral votes in Maine. I didn't learn that in school, I learned it by watching the election returns after I got home from work on election day 1992.
That's not correct. Perot didn't win a single EV. Check your facts.
@@youmustbekidding1718 I don't need to "check my facts"
I voted after work & then watched the returns as they came in that evening.
I saw him get 2 electoral votes in Maine.
You need to go tell your teacher she/he got it wrong.
Believe it or not there are many people alive today that remember events you had to learn about from a teacher.
@@joecombs7468 You "saw" Ross Perot get 2 electoral votes? Then you must've been watching television in Bizarro World Maine,.
There are 538 Electoral votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 of them. George HW Bush won 168. How many does that leave for Ross Perot? Right. Zero. Would you like to dispute the arithmetic as well?
Get ahold of your fingers, man. They don't know what they're typing.
@@youmustbekidding1718 I know exactly what I am typing and I was watching CBS. You weren't even born yet.
No. No, it's not. Read the Federalist Papers. We have an electoral college for the same dang reason we have a Senate, and the Senate was considered SO important that "states having equal representation in the Senate" is the ONE thing about the Constitution that the founders made IMPOSSIBLE to amend.
NOT!, Electoral College is the fairest system hands down, oh and yes I will echo commenters here, we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, duh, the people who think we are a Democracy need a history lesson..
Ingenius idea from the forefathers
You think it would be a good idea doing it in big states like california .Its like an authoritarian state there already. I just dont get they keep voting democrat even though states bankcrupt already.Do they expect a different result voting the same way?
The Electoral College is *not* what makes us a Constitutional Republic. The fact that we have a Senate and a House of Representatives who vote on their respective constituents' behalf is what makes us a Republic. There is no country on Earth that has a true democracy, (i.e. every bill would have to be put to a national referendum.) The great compromise was to allow less populated states to have a balance of power - and that's why we have a bicameral legislature. The Senate, which gives each state power, and the House, which gives the people power.
@@youmustbekidding1718 Who said "The Electoral College makes us Constitutional Republic" I know I didn't, I only stated that we are one.
@@longdark4ever Then what is your point, exactly? We would still be a Constitutional Republic with or without an EC.
Democracy = 3 wolves and 1 sheep sitting around a table voting on what’s for dinner. We are a constitutional republic! God save the republic!
Bustacap Tx 2 wolves and 1 sheep 😎
@@irar4665 Great. Now with the elctoral college democracy is 1 wolf and 2 sheep,and the wolf get to decide beause he has more land.
Here is an excellent advice to any one reading this:
Focus your attention around your town/city officials, mayors, city council members, your state senators, governors, ect.
They have much more power(in your city/town and state) than the president.
If you really want to make any change, focus on them.
There is a big issue with this video, it keeps saying the U.S. is a democracy when it isn't. The U.S. was founded as a republic, hence at its founding, even Senators were elected by an electoral college.
A republic is a country without a sovereign. The US is a constitutional republic featuring a federal-style government.
@@johnmccormick8159 Agreed.
If we didn't have the electoral college then every election would be decided by three cities.
Even the top 10 cities in the US only make up 7.4% of the population. How could three cities make up a majority of the country, even if every single person in those cities votes for one candidate?
More like four or five states
@@vistastructions still probably not. People forget that just because some states vote blue and others vote red doesn’t mean there aren’t blue and red voters in that respective state from the 4 biggest states last election democrats got 22,000,000 votes about and the republicans got rounding up around 17,000,000 votes. If you guys can’t win the popular vote you shouldn’t get in is all I’m saying. Rural America is 60 million people far more voters than the 4 biggest states if people vote there
Right. The 2020 national vote spread was 5 million. That's still only a 3% margin. It doesn't matter where the votes came from in a PV election.
I live in CA and would hate to see the Electoral College go to a purely "popular vote". Heck, I already feel like my vote doesn't matter because my state has always put their Electoral College votes against what I voted for. Like you pointed out the potential president would only visit those few highly populated areas and leave the rest out in the cold so to speak. Personally I am in favor of the split Electoral College for each state. I feel this would give each person a better feeling that their vote matters. The popular vote would only be effective if the people voting were smart and weren't swayed by pretty lies and promises. But since our society isn't at that point it would be a disaster if we swapped.
" The popular vote would only be effective if the people voting were smart and weren't swayed by pretty lies and promises"
So you don't want popular vote because your side would loose in a democracy.
You know,this argument also work if you supprot autocracy or voter supression.
@@philguer4802 The same argument would be made if the positions were swapped. I hope you can see that? However with a portion of each electoral vote going to each side (based on the percentage of votes) then each side feels that their vote counted. This also prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome, of things like the presidential election, since smaller states just wouldn't matter if it was solely based on popular votes. Is what CA voted for what's best for all? I would argue it's not.
As for voter suppression? Why would I ever want someone who is legally allowed to vote to not be allowed to. That is a horrible idea!
You may have taken issue with my statement, but I do still believe that many politicians who have been elected have done so with pretty lies and promises that they have no intention of ever following through on. Which many people believe because they are taken in by them. I also believe that a well informed and educated populace would counter this problem, but sadly that is not the case we currently find ourselves in. Personally, I would much prefer politicians to be forced to adhere to their campaign promises during their term, to suffer consequences for not doing so.
@@SilentlyNikki "The same argument would be made if the positions were swapped. I hope you can see that?"
You're inversing our positions:I do NOT supprt the electoral college,regardless of which party it help.You do,and I assume you wouldn't if it helped the left.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
"However with a portion of each electoral vote going to each side (based on the percentage of votes) then each side feels that their vote counted"
?The vote of a red Californian does not matter with the EC. Only the swing state voters have any say in the matter. You want to make peoples feel like their opinion count?Abolish the EC,allow ranked voting,give more autonomy to the states so peoples can choose to go in a Republican or Democratic state.
"This also prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome"
CA hold only 15% of the US population. Not nearly enough to choose president by itself.
What you meant is "it prevent the Democrats from dictating the outcome."
And even if it did hold >50% of the population,so what? Living in democracy is accepting the result of the election,even if you don't like the opposition. Having one state dictating the outcome isn't a problem,because state nationalism does not exist. Texan republican don't hate Californian republican.
"Why would I ever want someone who is legally allowed to vote to not be allowed to. That is a horrible idea! "
Because voter supression may " prevents large states such as CA from dictating the outcome". Not always,but if voter supression only affected California in favor of Republican,then your argument would support it.
I don't think you support voter supression;but your argument do,as long as voter supression prevent tyranny of the majority. It was an argument by the absurd.
"Personally, I would much prefer politicians to be forced to adhere to their campaign promises during their term, to suffer consequences for not doing so."
I absolutely agree with you.
@@philguer4802 Honestly I do not support the current electoral college system. Regardless of who it "helps" left, right or whatever. I'm in favor of the splitting of it as I have said before. I think you may believe I am on the "republican/right?" but I have never voted strictly along party lines and am not registered to either political party. What I was pointing out was that if our positions were swapped, the same argument would be made by whichever side feels that their opinion doesn't count/matter. Democrats wants popular vote because they believe it will give them advantage, Republicans want Electoral college because they believe it will give them advantage. I want something in the middle. Where the number of electoral votes for each side is BASED on how many people actually vote for each side. So in California for this election the votes are 64.6% Biden, 33.4% Trump (Found from the associated press). This means 36 (of the 55 electoral college votes) would go to Biden and 19 would go to Trump. I understand that rounding will cause issues many times but I am sure a rule accepted by all can be achieved in such an event. Anyways with the current system of electoral college those 19 votes that 33.4% of voters voted for are now given to Biden even though that is not who they would prefer their votes go towards. I think this kind of answers your first 2 responses? Please let me know if it doesn't.
You are absolutely right that CA by itself would never be the sole deciding factor in determining the outcome. I was trying to point out, poorly it seems, that the larger states would have more sway than the smaller states. For example Wyoming only accounts for roughly 0.17% of the US population. Their votes will almost certainly be, in effect, ignored if larger states like CA, TX, FL, NY voted for the other side. By other side I mean other side of whatever Wyoming voted. Not one specific party side. "So what?" Well this is a union of states, each with their own needs and desires and if their needs and desires are constantly ignored election after election what is to stop them from simply breaking from the US in order for them to get what they feel is needed? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Texan republican don't hate Californian republican." Is republican the word you meant to use? Because if so, why would a republican from one state hate someone from the same political party from another state, that doesn't quite make sense. If you mean Texas as a state doesn't hate California as a state, then probably?
I think you and I are talking about 2 different kinds of voter suppression. I took your meaning to be "Not allowing certain individuals to vote based on (x) reason" say political affiliation, race, gender, whatever. Which I believe we can both agree is just a horrible idea. So I'm taking a wild guess then on your definition to mean "suppressing" you mean using the electoral college instead of the popular vote? Though I am again confused how this idea would only affect CA or any singular state.
How would splitting the electoral college votes suppress voters and, more importantly, this splitting would be done in every state not just ones which are red/blue/switch/whatever. So every democrat state would give up some of their votes to the republicans living there the same as every republican state gives up some of their votes to democrats living there (electoral votes not personal votes).
I hope I better explained my stance on the current electoral college and what I believe would be a more fair system to everyone. I don't think I covered what you mean by "voter suppression", but like I said above I think we are misunderstanding each other on the definition of that term.
@@SilentlyNikki Thank you for your answer.
Forget about the voter supression stuff,it was just a thought experiment. I tried to show that someone who support diminishing the power of big states over proportionnal democracy would logically tolerate voter supression as long as it only target big states and prevent them from ruling over the rest of the land.
My two first question are thorougly answered,and why I don't think your system would be optimal, I think it would be democratic enough for it to not bother me.
"I was trying to point out, poorly it seems, that the larger states would have more sway than the smaller states."
I don't see the problem with that.
Imagine a state with only one person on it.
Why should such a state be given any electoral vote? Peoples are useful,and get rightfully mad if their vote count less than peoples of others states. States don't.
The USA is the only place on earth where peoples care about state's right.
"(about states) if their needs and desires are constantly ignored election after election what is to stop them from simply breaking from the US"
The same thing that prevent the big states from diminishing the number of electoral votes attributed to small states.The army and the constitution.
But personally,I think secession should be allowed to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Regardless, small states vote do matter.
However,I don't believe the absence of electoral college mean the US will ignore small states.
Each time a Republican president was elected,and it happened plenty of times without the electoral college, the small states were happy.
And each time a republican won despite losing the popular vote,it's the left that felt like their voice were ignored.
"I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Texan republican don't hate Californian republican." Is republican the word you meant to use?"
Ah,sorry, I used the french word instead of the english one.
What I meant,and you seem to agree with me,is that there is little to no interstates rivalry. So,why do you feel the need to prevent big states from taking power?The have no reason to bully smaller states.
So yeah, to summarize,I still do not understand why you think it is bad to give less power to small states.Yes,it make peoples inside these states unhappy,but giving them power will make everyone else unhappy.Human deserve equality more than administrative subdivisions do, and I genuinely do not understand why you don't agree.
As soon as I saw the title of the video, I immediately thought, “Yes. It is. This is an objective fact, and is not debatable.”
No it’s not, elections go back & forth just like they always have, there’s nothing wrong with the Electoral College system.
I think that the real questions are:
1. Are big centralized cities killing democracy?
2. Are big centralized cities killing the rural areas?
3. Are big cities killing nature? i.e. pollution etc.
Why is it always everywhere in all the "western" world everything looked at from a view that is bias towards the cities?
It isn't just an issue in The USA!
I'll answer #3, at least for the USA. No. Big cities actually do less harm and have a lower carbon footprint per capita than rural America does. That's been proven over and over again. City dwellers drive less, use mass transportation and share other fossil fuel resources more efficiently.
As for your other questions: they're loaded and unfair. But the fact of the matter is that the large majority of the world must live in or near cities, so if there is a bias, it's a bias towards the majority.
@@youmustbekidding1718 Stats such as "per capita" are maybe correct, yet the total figures are so far apart and the "concentration" of pollution is so strong that there is a name for it, "smog". Never heard of smog in areas where the populations are not so dense!
& this does not apply only to The USA, it applies to all countries.
As far as "unfair" or "majority", well there are many creatures out there that prefer packs/schools. Strength in numbers.
@@AusLanderJack You don't understand the USA, then. We have reduced smog in our cities in the past 50 years due to strong vehicular fuel-efficiency regulations and pollution standards - particularly in California. The vast amount of smokestack air pollution today is generated by coal-firing power plants in the midwest.
I think the best system is keeping the collage on the presidential elections but making Congress proportional. That way little parties will be able to get through and rural communities won't be ignored
You realize Congress is made up of 2 parts right? Because the House of Representatives is... representative. More people more reps. The Senate ensures equal representation by having 2 senators
Rank choice voting can also help smaller parties.
@@donaldmaroschek3120 The Senate wrecks equal representation.
@@jcbjcb2 the senate represents the states. Two senators ensures that each state has equal power. The EC was a brilliant compromise
I’m from Montana and I believe we need to get rid of the electoral college. We live in a time where this system is outdated. If it’s a popular vote- each vote is equal.
So politicians shouldn’t care about farmers. Alright.
The funny yet frustrating thing to me about this discussion, not just on this video but on every discussion on the topic, is that winner-take-all and the inequality of value between small and large states are brought up but never in a way where each could be addressed directly. For example, having a national interstate compact where all States agree to go away from winner-take-all and replace it by proportional by the popular vote in that state would be something a majority of Americans would support.
I'm in support of the idea of making every single state a swing state by having at least one Electoral College vote for grabs in all of them and while at the same time having each Electoral College vote to be worth the same number of votes.
That essentially just makes the presidential election the same as the house elections
Excellent video! You stayed with facts (mostly) and were mostly unbiased with your presentation! Thumbs up! 👍
Considering the electoral college exists in order to make sure every person in the Country has a voice and is represented by the Government. I'm gonna go on ahead and say no, we should not get rid of it....
If anything the electoral college should be expanded to also apply to state elections. especially for the bigger states like California.
We have never been a democratic nation.
Great video! Why did so many people dislike it. What am I missing?
Translation: is the electoral college destroying mob rule?
Brilliant
Fun fact: If you think politics are insane now, back during the 1700 and 1800s, politicians would get into full blown fist fights. Imagine Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton goin at it in a Pennsylvania court room.
Yeah if you were around at the time of Andrew Jackson in politics, you knew how heated it was. Andrew Jackson literally made it so that the political parties were the people for him and the people against him. There was no middle ground
Why would I want some small committee on the EAST Coast, invalidate my vote.
These are my four major concerns about abolishing the Electoral College:
1-If all votes are to be counted equally, then all the laws and procedures concerning Presidential Election, need to apply in ALL 50 states, DC, and other territories equally. This includes the times to vote, what types of machines to use for voting, the types of languages written on a ballot, etc. Since the Constitution gives the states the power to choose their electors, what type of agency would oversee the Election?
2- How will the rules change when it comes to having a particular Presidential ticket on the ballot, so that it would be uniformed across the country? Would a person be limited to showing up as a member of one ticket? Or could a person be allowed to appear as a candidate on multiple tickets?
Or would there be a case, where a President and Vice President are on separate ballots?
3-How many Presidential candidates will there be on a ballot? Most states might have 5 or 6, but eliminating the Electoral College could easily open the possibilty of having over 100 Presidential tickets on an ballot. (The Electoral College helped reduce the number of candidates, because each state has separate rules. Somebody might choose NOT TO RUN for election, because he or she knows that reaching 270 Electoral Votes is impossible AND that appearing on a ticket in some states, might come off as a spoiler, in favor of another candidate? For example, putting Bernie Sanders on the Liberal Party ticket in New York, might divide the Democratic vote in 2024 and the Republican Ticket would win the state's electoral votes. Winning New York, might give Trump the election in 2024 the Electoral Votes to win The Presidency.
4- How long would the process take for the voting? Any mechanism for a recount? Will ranked-choice or a "run off" election voting be an option?
If there are 100+ candidates on a ballot, the candidate with a plurality might be a Republican who wins 27 percent of the popular vote. But the candidates who ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth might all be Democrata and have a combined vote of 65 percent. Which candidate would you consider to be the winner? The Republican who had a plurality OR a Democrat who might win a majority of the popular vote in a third or fourth round of voting?
1- Bet.
2- Idk
3- More options>>>less options
4- hopefully