Andrew Hong that's because they kinda dumb it down and make it funnier so the majority of Americans can swallow it without falling asleep. Also comedians are allowed to use political satire. if news anchors did that, they'd be fired
I would not say he is dumbing it down: he mixes it with (mostly superfluous) jokes, yes... but despite of his opinion he tries to stick to the facts, actually explaining what terms mean, talking about their backgrounds this is what news should cover too, instead of just repeating catchphrases
They're the only ones allowed to call anything bullshit. Journalism outside of comedy has come to accept that to retain viewers they have to present nearly every issue impartially, and without bias for either side. Even when one side is the truth, and the other is false. Think Flat Earthers... now think how modern journalism in the USA would cover it... yep, they'd have a Flat Earther on who talks and debates his points, to ensure both sides are heard from. In reality, news should be biased towards the truth, regardless of political agendas... "creationism isn't valid science", done. No need to talk with one and have them present their views like somehow it's a valid argument.
It is set up to restrict majority rule as often as possible. Well the electoral college part. Removing it would give large cities vastly more power over small towns and cities. Despite the rhetoric of democracy. We are far more a Republic. We just like catch phrases to sound cool and Democracy is more catchy
@@JohnDoe-yz5wh No it's Not. Every Vote should be equal. In Germany, for example, that's the case, in the US it's not. And i would argue that US politics are far more fucked up and chaotic than germanys'
This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem with our (America's) democracy. Sure, the electoral college is poorly made but it in no way disenfranchises people so blatantly or to the degree that gerrymandering does.... Republican or democrat, if you support real American values of fairness and freedom, you should oppose this.
its actually way more than that when you taken into account that even people who voted for trump, the ultimate winner, in states that went to Hillary, their votes didn't matter either, they just got lucy that their preferred candidate won
ZeLunatic not quite, it is still illegal to dilute the votes of minorities. What happened is that places like Alabama needed to clear their districting is a federal judge first, before they could implement the lines. Now, it's reactionary.
I have often thought so, but my concern with term limits is that you would wind up with lame duck Congressmen who would pass any law they wanted with no fear of being voted out. If we can get rid of their financial backers so that the votes of their constituents are the only things concerning them, then I think the current system would be just fine.
Term limits won't help at all. Imagine if you're a politician knowing that you only have a limited time in office. You're gonna end up spending all your time figuring out ways to benefit yourself (more likely leads to corruption) before your 5 minutes of fame is up, so to speak. Plus, we need politicians with experience in their communities. If we removed unlimited money in politics - then term limits wouldn't be something that would be considered.
Yael Jimenez, Term Limits could work, but they should be able to run again. I think having some shuffling of the deck would help. That, and more people actually caring about congressional elections. Because right now it seems like the main reason less than competent people are able to be in office for as long as they have been is because not enough people are interested in voting them out.
11:25 If you were an older, native-born American, you would know that that is the same face that Graucho Marx made whenever he giving a pause for laughter.
David Lewis is really speaking about issues outside of understanding at 16:41. We can certainly create multiple measures of bias based on all of the biases we can identify and minimize this amount of bias (this has already been done by mathematicians and computer scientists). It's NOT belief, Mr. Lewis, it's mathematics. C'mon!
Or you could just use the percentage in the states... ohh no, you could not do that because of what they wrote on a piece of paper in the end of the 18th century.
It seems to me like we ought to be able to sit down with some computer gurus who can write code and have computers do it for us of course the code writer has to be unbiased so you would probably need more than one to check and balance
Wouldn't square be better though? Sure, people don't live in squares, but maybe it's worth separating communities to avoid gerrymandering. Squares (or any other predefined polygon) are much harder to gerrymander.
Josh Beane At least it's not Florida, because everyone hates Florida, or even California. Seriously, the only good things about California are Hollywoodand some songs by bands named after spicy Mexican plants of a distinct colour. Bad things, however can include being a hot spot for human trafficking. Seriously, (correct me if I'm wrong) two of the cities most used in America for human trafficking reside in California. And it's still not as bad as Florida,in my honest opinion. I've seen Florida in a light tropical storm, it wasn't fun.
@Josny13 wot the fuck are you talking about? Africa is just like any other geopolitical region in the world, its developing, just not nearly as fast as other regions. Mostly because AFRICA IS A HUMONGOUS CONTINENT WITH WILDLY VARYING CULTURES AND PEOPLES. Not to mention the rest of the world has been exploting THE SHIT out of its peoples for centuries, so politics is very VERY volitile and messy. But don't let the absence of major coverage deceive you, Africa is moving up in the world. So is India. Just not at the speeds the west has seen.
Michigan overwhelmingly passed Prop 1 to end Gerrymandering. Betsy DeVos spent several million dollars of her own cash to fight the proposal. It was a win win. Her effort failed and it cost her a buttload of cash.
Side note, if you have more digits in your net worth than someone can be reasonably bothered to type out in a UA-cam comment, maybe you should be taxed at a higher rate than the cook at Waffle House that has four kids and a crippling student debt he’ll never be able to pay off
pranith geddapu when you reach the point of becoming a billionaire, you don’t do it through your own work and effort. You make that kind of money through exploiting the labor of your workforce. Take for example the Walton family, owners of Walmart. Six people that, cumulatively, are worth $191 billion as of 2019. Last year, collectively, they made $100 million per day, $4,000,000 per hour, $70,000 per minute. These six people make more than double in a minute off of delegation of responsibilities and minimal to no labor than most of their employees make in a year. They hoard an exorbitant amount of wealth that could be put towards circulation in the economy, or the betterment of so many lives, and have an absurdly disproportionate and undemocratic control over our social and political landscape. Nobody deserves that much wealth and power
@@daltongarrett3393 right? That is a ridiculous amount of money that you could never spend in a life time. At a point it stops being about money and the money turns into power which is why we see so many billionaires trying so hard to become trillionairrs
This video is so very important, regardless of which party you identify with. If you're a democrat, you're probably pissed about gerrymandering now. But as a republican, you should be pissed if things switch in favor of democrats. As a members of the United States, you should be pissed that the system is favoring one side or the other.
Robert Hutchison another problem LWT didn't cover is safe districts. if you are a Dem or a Rep, if you don't have to worry about re-election because your district is safe (packing) then you have no mathematical reason to listen to your constituents - you're gonna get reelected anyway. you could be a decent person who listens to your voters anyway, but that's despite of the system that all but guarantees your job.
Jennifer Schlicht This is also contributing to, if not the leading cause of, the increasing tribalization in American politics, since if you live in a safe district, you don't need to appeal to the other side to get elected, so you'll continue to get more and more extreme in order to avoid the only thing that can threaten you, a primary fight.
It doesn't matter. Politicians represent corporations and money, not the people. So all of gerrymandering and you being pissed is just an pointless exercise in democracy.
For the most part we think of Republicans as anti progressive. For example, they don't approve of same-sex marriage. So if things switch and we get a party (Democrats) that try to be more inclusive, what's wrong with that?
I really respect that John will throw Democrats under the bus, too. It's not about sides, it's about policies. The US has a lot of defective POLICIES which need improvement, regardless of which side abuses them more. For example, don't have all of your voting based on landmass.
True, but Republicans still engage in more bullshit manipulation and lying than Democrats in my experience. I've never heard of a Democrat gerrymandering a district to get elected. Apparently its the only way Republicans can get elected.
@@frankm.2850 Sincere question-- in what state do you live? I live in Massachusetts and it's the exact inverse of what is describes here-- Democrats and Republicans are like 60 D/40 R or maybe 65 D/35 R here, but Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican in congress since 1997-- 22 years ago. We have some Republicans in the state legislature, but it's extremely lop-sided.
@@frankm.2850 Voter fuckery genuinely does happen extremely frequently on both sides of the fence. Don't let people tell you otherwise- the whole system is impossible to be salvaged. As example, Democrats have been found being voted for by deceased persons, and non-citizen immigrants in California have no issue legally obtaining a driver's license (sensible), which is all the ID you need to vote in that state (crazy). It's all fucked, my friend. One side will point the finger at the other to keep this "us vs. them" going, because keeping the people divided is key to keeping us unaware of how they work together. Don't buy into the party bullshit.
I like how John Oliver doesn't always talk only about Trump like other talk show hosts do. He focuses on other topics that are interesting, but don't have as much exposure.
Joseph, (and this may come off a bit patronizing), if he's becoming political, and this leads to more nuanced political discussion, isn't that a net positive?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Well I'm living in america and my lifes pretty fair so I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
If you like neither of them you're fucked. Your opinion doesn't count. If you're part of one party but you don't like the current leader; like how many republicans dislike trump, then you're fucked as well. Basically there is no third option. If you don't like your current leader but you still like republican ideals then too bad. This is the harsh reality of this ridiculous " democratic system " From the botched electoral college to the silly party system, it's basically a politics game with the illusion of free will.
To remove a little cynicism here, you vote for one of the couple third parties. The idea is that you'll get some reimbursement from the government for campaign funds IF you can get 5% of the popular vote. To move back into cynicism here, this is a terrible system that threatens to bankrupt anyone without enough money or political clout to gain a voting following. This is one of the many reasons that third parties don't gain traction here: if you're not immediately appealing, the deck is stacked against you monetarily. So third parties are generally a joke, a la Joe Exotic, or they're funded by the same kind of people that fund Dems and Republicans, just to a lesser extent.
@Julie W. with the way our voting system is set up, that will never happen. If there's a good third party leftist option that gains a lot of traction, that will only split the vote and make all left wing candidates lose. Same case if the independent party is right wing.
No offence, but I just don't get it! Between the presidential elections where the popular vote means nothing and this. How much can you still call this system democratic?
the popular vote does kinda matter. the vote chooses which electorates (dem or rep) will vote for the president. basically it's voting for the people who will vote for the president. we're a representative democracy so we have "representatives" who focus on politics because 70-80% of Americans don't know anything about politics and 99% of Americans aren't involved with it
yin yang But why? And if I remember correctly, choosing your representatives is a complicated process which is different everywhere? And how can you know you chose the right representative before the candidates are introduced?
sniffthecactus duh our system is in place because 1. We have a huge country without a true homogenous group of people( when it comes to culture). And 2. Many Americans are simply to dumb in the eyes of politicians to make educated votes for the president. And your question about the representatives, these representatives make it pretty clear who they will be voting for when they are running for office. And these representatives votes obviously reflect the popular vote (which is why the trump presidency is quite surprising)
john brand You say that they reflect the popular vote, but hasn't the whole spread out controversy started with the lack of proportional represenration? I live in Europe, and since I'm only recently alowed to vote, is my knowledge of our political system stil inadequate. We work with a Parliament iny country, but while we have multiple forms of gouvernement (city, province, 'gewest' and state) even our system seems more direct.
That's a hard question to answer in a few words. Berlusconi controlled most of the media, whereas Trump sees them as an opposition force. Berlusconi would make us look ridiculous, use his political power for his own financial gain and do nothing good for the rest of the economy - Trump looks like he's going to be the same. The real difference here is that the POTUS office yields so much more power internationally, and has access to the nuclear codes. Italy doesn't even have nuclear plants and is way less influential on the global scale.
Its funny Until they fly airplanes into buildings Kill a million people for the Oil Mafia Allow Monsanto to give millions cancer Brain damage babies with lead in the water
I let John Oliver tell me about things I've heard passed around but was too bored or lazy to learn much about. (Usually politics.) Thank you John, for tricking me into educating myself.
Look, I love Oliver, but for the love of god do some reading alongside. John is NOT a new reporter. He's a comedian. A lot of his videos are extremely biased, such as the Kavanaugh one. But even if he wasn't, never EVER EVER get your news from ONE source.
@@davidralphsky Kavanaugh is a pile of maggot filled dog shit, his opinion about the man may be biased, but the facts he states are not, you can easily look them up for yourself and see they are true.
Syed Abdul Wasay I think everyone knows George Washingtons favorite quote. The party system is the downfall of fair democracy. Government office holders don't fight or vote for what is right, they only bicker and trifle over meaningless issues to discredit the other party
Syed Abdul Wasay but a third party would actually hinder the process imagine party a and b in a two party system, and comes along party c. some of party a members move to party c but that actually helps party b. if originaly it was a 60:40 split for a and b respectively, if c omes and take 30% from a, b which had a minority would win.
paskal prasetya the problem wouldn't solve with one more party , elections have to be representative there should be more than 4 political parties to make it work , just look smaller countries like Iceland they got more than 4 ...........
Syed Abdul Wasay In India we have many political parties ... and an independent election comission to decide upon the districts or constituencies of voters.
Not sure why I look at the comments. It's always a narcissistic superiority competition. Congratulations, you're objectively better than a stranger on the internet.
This is why I'm glad that in Canada, at least for federal and provincial elections, voter districts are drawn by a nonpartisan independent organization
Gotta love how you say something reasonable and true and someone is just like "nope, don't think so"... could make too much sense. That seems to bother people too
@@joeypoil9370 but they aren't drawing it according to people.moving and communities changing.. both sides change it to Make it better for them instead of fare
Can someone please tell me something that is genuinely good about the US voting system? Pretty much each and every step seems to be shit based upon the infrastructure nearly two centuries ago when people had to ride around on horseback to share a message.
That is what happens? That's what happens for the senate, because the whole state votes. You can't do that for the HoR because then everyone would have to vote for every representative. So they have to have districts. And the people who do get elected ARE the percentage in that district; the problem is that the district is badly drawn.
@@joeypoil9370 ...What?? How does it make the USA united to have a system in which someone can win the majority of the votes from the people and NOT be the person in office? All that does is leave the literal majority of American citizens feeling cheated.
@@animeartist888 without electoral college, only 2 states would matter. (CA & NY). They would be the 2 states that decide the government for the rest of the country. The electoral college is how all states agreed to be United.
@@joeypoil9370 With the electoral college, a person in North Dakota's vote counts >1000 times more than a person in CA due to the dilution of 2 senators across the whole state's population. How is that any more fair than your scenario? Also, you left out Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania as high population states. Plus, how would 60M people (population of those two states) decide the will of 350M? Your point is a Fox News scare point.
@@buckosoft 350million people, yikes your country packed. What's your voter turn out? ...50% on a good year...maybe. yes, your country has other high population numbers. New York state and California have the most. The states with the most people (under your scenario of equal vote) would mean the highest pop state would get most of the attention by the federal government, then the second highest pop state and so on. The smallest states would get no attention and have no voice. This issue is not new, this issue is what kept ur country divided. The electoral college is what United your states and made you the solid country that became the empire.
The whole joke about the Jill Stein voter was the fact she was never going to win being a third party candidate in a two-party electoral system, hence it was a crazy choice for that person to back her. If you think Bernie would have won (which I'm not disputing btw, I would have loved to see him run against Trump), why would you want that joke made about him?
People are not crazy for voting for someone you would not vote for. It is a democracy. So ridiculing the choice is an expression to support fascism to an extent. I did vote for Stein. I had no one left to vote for. Bernie ran away so I was left the tournament winner. Hell no she would not win. People who dislike but clearly support the so-called two-party system prohibited her chances more than the government.
Did you notice that the whole Gerrymandering thing is about racism with a cover of base-control and division? If so, then you may find this odd. His interest selection at the end was diverse. The gender was diverse. Racially, it was a mere token black dude barely in the shot on the far barely lift left side. I don't know if that was part of the joke, or just end-skit gerrymandering. What do you think?
@@johnclose4201 we get a list with all the candidates from all the political parties on the ballot. We can choose from those and the votes are counted on a national level, so that a party with less votes doesn't grt more seats
John Close it’s called party-list system in my country (Thailand). We used to have it for senate election... although now we are under a military government who came to power by a military coup ... so now we have one-house system (we used to have House of Reps and House of Senates - both have different election rules) and all seats are now appointed by the junta ☹️
Guinness I can see at least an advantage in district election - that people can directly choose representatives who should most represent their local interests/affiliations. And I’m thinking the party-list system might work in NL due to the size of the country/population ... but may be too complicated for some country like the US (with different federal & states systems too)... Though I don’t know much details about both countries’ systems so my comment is just theoretical.
@@khamfai You're right about the complexity of replication of a similar system in the US, but even in the US, people don't elect a party based on the candidates running on a district-to-district basis, but the frontrunner candidates for the highest government position, so it doesn't make sense to allow gerrymandering to continue.
This was exactly what I was thinking.. A point that was glossed right over until he slights the Jill Stein voter at the end. His half baked bashing her take on quantitative easing prior to the election was enlightening, while he was waving that corporate Pant Suit flag, and devoting most of his shows to making fun of the Con Man and his supporters.. Ironic.. especially considering who got the last laugh.
A two party system means the majority of the people will support one candidate, if there were something like 3 major parties, than it isn't guaranteed that the majority of the population will support the winner. In the same 3 party example the winner could only have 40% of the vote, while in a two party system it guaranteed that the winner will have the majority.
Ha! The electoral college just crushed your position. The 2 party system is broken. The Demwits and Reptiles no longer represent the majority of anything. www.selfgovernment.us/news/3
But, that's not how it works. Just because a candidate gets 50 % of the votes doesn't mean that it has 50 % of support. And in a presidential election with more than 2 parties the candidate that won will have won with 50 % of the votes, only it would have happened during the second round of voting. In a state with more than 2 parties all(well, most at least) opinions will be represented, instead of forcing people to choose between two parties and therefore two opinions(this is obviously simplified since every party has different factions in it, and the voters in the US choose a candidate instead of a party(although since the candidate is tied to a party they will of course have to follow the party line most of the time), but in general this is the result). A system with more than two parties also allows for proportional representation(meaning no gerrymandering), which in a two party state is problematic since it means that the variation of options of what opinions exist in the political system would be even more limited than now, since the party chooses the candidate instead of the voters(with more parties this is not a problem).
honestly other than the president no politician's beliefs should matter. Ideally their job would be simply to do what a majority of their constituents want and to make sure the bills don't harm anybody with hidden features. Cuz instead I vote for someone cuz most of their beliefs line up with mine and then everyone else does so now on the issues I disagree with and possibly other people I am represented as if I did.
The Incredible Link Lol, judging a modern day German (probably a young one at that, given the channel's viewer demographics) based on Nazi atrocities. Classic
Janik Wieland die Überhangmandate der Unionsfraktion, die bis vor 2013 im Bundestag nicht ausgeglichen wurden, haben die parlamentarische Abbildung der Wahl auch verzerrt. Also Deutschland war, was das angeht bis vor kurzem auch nicht besser.
Zachery Bishop to be fair, Dems can when they will (and dropped the ball in 2010). district lines should be out of partisan control as much as possible altogether.
The biggest problem is we're using a system that was invented when mail traveled by horse or boat. We don't really need "representatives" as we can all now vote for our favorite celebrity dancer we see on TV.
Gerrymandering is covered in the required civics/government course needed for a high school diploma. You just didn't pay attention... the Mandela effect isn't just for oddly specific stuff on social media.
+LastWeekTonight can you do a segment on the famine in Yemen and East Africa. The UN described it as possibly the worst humanitarian crisis since WW2 and it doesn't seem to be getting any coverage in the mainstream media.
In New Zealand electoral boundaries are done by an independent Electoral Commission to avoid gerrymandering. Gerrymandering in any form is a crime here because it's seen as only one step below vote rigging. Boundary drawing in New Zealand also take into consideration communities of interest. In other words they try to avoid dividing communities but if a town or city is too big they prefer to put the boundaries along a major highway or a natural feature like a river. Electoral boundaries can also be challenged by both politicians and voters to ensure fairness. No method of electoral boundary drawing will get rid of districts (or what we call electorates) being dominated by a particular party but having the boundaries drawn by politicians is effectively election rigging in all but name, no matter what the politicians claim. I should add that Electoral Commission staff are not allowed to be members of political parties or serving or former politicians.
I mean this is true, but we also made the districts almost completely irrelevant. our version of MMP has a baked in system to ensure that party vote almost entirely represents the eventual allocation of seats
In Germany we simply count the votes for the parte and sum them up. So the form of the voting area does not play any role. Why is that not possible in America? Am I missing something?
It's the same process in Australia. The commission that decides new electoral boundaries remains independent from political parties and parliament. I'm assuming the UK has a similar process as well, considering the comments in the video. It makes sense to have an independent commission redraw electoral boundaries instead of highly partisan politicians. The US might like to think of itself as a bastion of democracy, but it's a rather flawed democracy and I find it puzzling that gerrymandering is so blatantly allowed.
In Australia, we have an independent commission, the AEC, to draw our federal electorates to avoid this problem. Same for all our states; I'm from Victoria, and it's the VEC that handles it. It works; we've never really had any problems with gerrymandering. Also, preference voting is pretty great too at avoiding some of these problems. We've had that for almost 100 years.
Ah no... you clearly need to read some more Austrian political history... Queensland under Joe in the 70s and 80s was heavily gerrymandered... but all that was blown sky high when he was eventually kicked out. Eternal vigilance is the only cure. Australia's next reform hoop is removing politician's power to set their own salaries. Followed shortly after by removing politician's powers over: immigration policy, energy, drugs including alcohol, hospital funding, human rights, national parks management, compliance with international treaties, consumer information and labeling, legal aid, law reform, waste management, and prison sentencing. Get the politics out of areas where expert knowledge and world's best practice are never going to be popular, or has proved to be an irresistible asshole magnet.
Reece, in the USA Republicans are horrified at the thought of having a fair and unbiased system to determine political representation for the American people! How else would they be able to control all branches of the American government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) when Republicans are only making up 26% of the American population?
Maybe I am missing something here, but why do we need districts? Why not look at the stats as a whole? If a state votes 44% blue, then why not give them 44% of the seats?
The go-to argument would be that the DNC and RNC would just send whomever to fill those seats instead of people with a vested interest in districts that need representation the most (minority communities, sparsely populated farmlands, etc.). Also, it could make it impossible to "vote out" a particular candidate.
well if we had proportional representation the democrats and republican parties would collapse, so it wouldn't be an issue. Minorities could have their own party
That are the advanteges of majority voting with districts. And thats why we have both in Germany, half the representatives are voted in districts (Wahlkreise), the other half with party lists. Its also really complicated ;)
Because big cities are always blue, without exception, and that is where democrats get their votes. Under a democracy, majority (or mob rule) wins. That is not the way America was founded and why the word democracy is not in any founding documents. We live in a constitutional republic and protect the minority opinion. Most of the land throughout out the country are hard working people who should not have to be forced to live the way people in the city want them to live.
This episode made me realize that in "Parks and Recreation", Gerry's name being mistaken so many times was a deeply seeded political pun.. Thanks for that one John xD
As a GIS professional, we have AAALLLLL the data and ability in the world to make perfectly bipartisan districts. We just need someone to make them. How much are you willing to pay me?
"we have AAALLLLL the data and ability in the world to *make* perfectly bipartisan districts." That bold word is the problem. There shouldn't be any drawing of lines at all. I don't understand why we can't just group up counties into districts.
What sort of democracy allows the party in government to draw the boundary lines of the electoral districts? Won't the government rig the boundary lines to give itself an unfair advantage? Of course they will. So in advanced democracies, the drawing of electoral lines is entrusted to an electoral commission which is apolitical. But not in America? The mind boggles!!!!!!
Now you know why when the Democrats wanted to change the current system of drawing electoral districts to a more fair and non-biased system by creating a non-partisan commission that is responsible for such duties the Republicans vehemently refused! States that are controlled by the Republicans and are guilty of massive Gerrymandering accused the Democrats of imposing federal power over their state rights and conspiring against them!
@@liquidKi Aye, there's the rub. An "apolitical commission" may be less exploitable than our current system, but politicians will inevitably find a way to thwart it. We should still do it, though, because a half-fix at least fixes half of the problem.
*"How do you make this commission apolitical?"* Staff it with foreigners. That way, the people drawing the boundaries will be apolitical, since they neither hold power in the US, nor reap any potential benefits for rigging the system. Ideally, you'll want people who think the US electoral system is stupid, so most Europeans are eligible (Although not UK Conservatives).
@@liquidKi my country is so small that this doesn't help as only 2 mil people means every vote counts. We just devide the country and cities to easily register people so the voting is fer(you know so one person can only vote at one place)
@@liquidKi The commission should follow a set districting procedure, with an accountability and appeals system. Like any other government commission in the developed world basically.
The mathematician that creates the model, the programmer that writes the program and the technician that installs it are all naturally biased human beings. Even if we try, we cannot completely avoid bias.
Yes we can. The developer doesn't need to be unbiased, the algorithm just needs to be vetted by both sides. Plus, you can run simulations to determine whether the outcome is biased or not. You can't vet human gerrymandering because that'd be too labour intensive and the politics alone would be a headache every time. If you vet an algorithm once, you can just keep it running until there are legitimate grounds to reassess the situation. If "the technician that installs it" manipulates the algorithm, that is called fraud.
To be honest, that's a great idea. My major concern is whether the gerrymandering process shoulr be approved by third parties. On one hand, third parties represent a considerable percentage of the population and thus should be taken in account, on the other hand a single person could create a "I-Hate-Computers-Party" and veto all the algorithms.
I think he's speaking on Italian Mafia (gangsters) which are technically white. But I agree an overwhelming majority of white people are candy asses Source: Am white, am a candy ass
As a Greek, I cringe when I hear John describe Chobani as a "Greek export", given that it's an American brand started by a Kurdish man in New York. The word "Chobani" itself is Turkish. Just because you like to call that stuff "Greek" doesn't mean it is, and in fact I can assure you our dairy products blow that processed garbage out of the water.
Sadly, that joke about the pen running out of ink isnt a joke. It's the actual reason that we, that is the British, didn't draw the border between Pakistan and India into the Kashmir and consequently why Indian soldiers, Pakistani soldiers and militants are fighting there.
watch the ones about church, tobacco and nuclear weapons. Then swear at the sky in anger due to the irresistible need to retroactively watch dozens of already aired episodes.
Here is how you fix gerrymandering. You have the Democrats draw up their chosen districts. You have the Republicans draw up their chosen districts. Each district is tossed in a bag. A randomly selected school provides a team of 4th graders overseen by a teacher and a government official who is there to apply basic rules. The kids draw out a district and place it on the map. As the districts are placed and may over lap or fall short, they are in charge of redrawing the borders to keep things fairly sensible. Both parties then get to shut the fuck up.
I don’t know how American still go around claiming their country is the most democratic, I think we Australia have a far more fair and efficient system when it come to representation, and we never try to rub it on other’s face!
shao19851 No I really do like to rub it in other people’s faces and especially on Donald Trump and how they voted him into power and how I’m laughing at them right now.
Why doesn't a district's population size determine how many seats they get to elect? Why should democrats, or any political ideology for that matter, be punished for living in close proximity to like-minded people?
It does determine how many seats they get. All the districts have roughly the same number of people. The issue is that the Democrats waste their votes in highly uncompetitive districts, not that their districts have more people in them.
the answer to your question is electoral college. you are punished for living in the same ideological place at higher population under electoral college and you are punished for living in spread-out population under popular vote. basically, electoral college favors republican, popular vote favors democrat. now if you say "but the popular vote is clearly better. it doesn't punish people for living closely and its more democratic", that is true but you have to understand something. More people live in the north than south, and each presidential election, democrat would win because of popular votes as there are more democrats now then ever before. but think who lives in the south: farmers. this is a battle fought by federalist industrial hamilton and democrat-republican agricultor Jefferson. things like higher tariffs would benefit the industries but create an economic depression for the farmers, and if democrats controlled the executive branch, itd always be a burden on farmers. Jefferson opposed the making of president because of this and hamilton needed to compromise with him. this is why the founding fathers made the electrole college. it was a compromise to make the position of the president but also (the compromise) not have it controlled by the mob-mentality (one party control)due to their rising population. they made it in order to create a system that doesn't favor closed population. In layman's term, The US founding Father "punished [people] for living in close proximity to like-minded people" to stop California* and new your alone from electing every president. of course, cali wasn't even made then but just giving you an example to why the system was made. each state wanted to be equally represented.
*whiny voice* but that's mob ruuullee.. We're a repuubliiic *really getting the annoying voice going* I'm going to make a bad comparison: If the majority is right, that makes gang rape okay. (Idiot logic FTW)
Cloud Naeris well if you're talking about"teams" why wouldn't either take an advantage where they can, eh? ... which is exactly why redistricting NEEDS to be out of partisan control as much as possible.
lets chat Standing up may require more than most are willing to give. What happens when making your voice heard, marching, or writing your "representatives" does nothing? What happens when you learn that the only way politicians will give up their control is by prying it from their cold dead hands? Would you be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to stand up?
It's really not that complicated. There's a concept in political philosophy called the "veil of ignorance," where the people who make the choices have no knowledge about how they will personally be affected by those decisions. In this case, you find a "committee of unbiased people" to draw boundaries by not providing any demographic information about the people living in those areas. No names, no gender, no race -- simply "this many people live in this community and this is how they are laid out." Or you can just get a computer to use a shortest straight line algorithm. Or do away with districts altogether and use some kind of proportional representation.
but in the video it says "it is important to find a balance between different groups of people so minorities can also be heard" in the video, they argue shortest straight lines are also problematic and harmfull
Republicans: 'Ha-ha! We're Gerrymandering a District!' Democrats: 'That's not a Gerrymandered District!? - This is a Gerrymandered District!' U.S. Voters: 'Are you SURE there isn't a third party? Did you look behind the couch?'
Well there is American Greens and American labor. I am sure there is at least 20 other parties but those are the ones similar to Australia's. I vote ALP (Australian Labor Party) because they actually do their job and have a history of doing it well. Oh btw it's a democratic socialist party.
2 party system makes it hard for any other parties to compete. As it is a "winner-takes all" system. Winning a prime minister seat in my nation of Norway is way less power in 1 person than a president. Aswell as everyone gets mandates from votes. This is why some odd parties can have 1 mandate if they have high enough votes. This is to include minorities, not a democracy if there is majority rule. When US was created they made the 2 party system to avoid majority rule. However they kinda made it.
Green Party: We exist and we're not behind the couch. In fact, we're making huge strides in ensuring our environment will be clean and safe for- U.S. Voters: So, Democrat or Republican, you say? Maybe I'll try voting Libertarian this year.
This is why majority voting is stupid. Just give the party exactly the portion of seats that is equivalent to their result in the ellection and you don't have this or many other problems.
Uhm no. Proportional voting doesn't mean you can't choose who's on your ballot. At least not everywhere ;). Also. are you seriously claiming that anybody can win a district in the US, independently of whether he's been nominated by a party or not?
We don't have a democracy. We have a REPUBLIC, and for good reason. Besides, they already choose who you can even vote for in the primaries so it would change nothing.
Algrokoz: A democratic republic is a subtype of democracy, and "republic" is a vague blanket term that doesn't describe a specific political system. A bacon cheeseburger is still a cheeseburger. You're not as special as you think.
Those are two separate issues. You could have ranked choice voting in a gerrymandered district; you could have first past the post in a gerrymandered district.
People who hate political parties would actually be pretty reliable at drawing non-partisan districts. Then we'd just need to fix the rest of our 18th-century electoral system.
Jonas Pesen, it takes one to know one. Out of mockery John Oliver entertained & encouraged the idea. That came to bite him on the ass along with those who are (out of touch with American voters!) Mainly liberal elite media.
Well, the biggest reason why gerrymandering is such a big deal in US politics is because the electoral system is 99.999% first-past-the-post, which is a system so ancient it should only belong in a museum. If you take a look at more advanced electoral systems such as those in Germany or Australia you can quickly realize that by capping district voting with national-level proportional representation (Germany); or by allowing preferential voting (Australia), you will get much better results. I am no American so I can't firmly tell why the system has not been changed already. But my guess is that it's the same reason why the Imperial System is still in used today even though it also is an ancient system that simply does no good in the modern world - Americans are too proud of themselves to admit that they are wrong or admit that some other countries are doing things better than they do.
American here; although I understand and agree with what you're proposing, it's much easier said then done. It's incredibly hard to change the way things work when they're so deeply imbedded in our constitution (and history). Things have worked this ways since practically day one. Changing things seems incredibly unlikely.
Hannah Marie This is the kind of thinking that gets the country nowhere. Many other countries have moved past where the US currently is. Germany only got Bundestag in 1949. Canada metricated in 1970s. Every country with good systems today used to have worse systems in the past. It can be done. Maybe if everyone in the US realizes that the only other countries in the world that use Imperial System are Myanmar and Liberia, they will want to make a change. I once told that to an American dude and I swear I had never seen anyone get that pale before.
I believe a big part of the problem is that whoever has the advantage and gets to draw the lines, won't want to change it since they have the advantage. And the other party can't make the change alone. When the roles are reversed later, the same thing happens in reverse. You can clearly see an example of this in how smug the politicians in those interviews were when they were about to rip off the opposition.
Well, when left to themselves, politicians (as a group) are going to choose whatever is good for them, not what is good for the people. So, in order to make a change, it has to be a bipartisan effort from the mass. What you are saying is true, and it's a symptom of a deeper problem: the majority of Americans either have no idea how much they are being screwed by their own electoral system; or they don't trust each other enough to fix it. Whenever someone realizes this problem and speaks up for the system to change, the mass thinks that it's a ploy from the other side to steal voting powers. The rift is wide, and it keeps getting wider and wider because of the two-party system, which is a result of Electoral College and having 99.999% of all elections within the country be first-past-the-post, which are being kept despite being antiquated just because it's "the will" of the founding fathers. Everything is intertwined and the whole thing is totally messed up. You guys already have a mature system with proportional representation; Cambridge, MA, has had proportional representation since forever. Learn from that city.
Atipong Pathanasethpong actually, Americans still use the imperial system because of the size of our country/how many roads we have simply put, it would cost a lot of fucking money to replace every road sign in the USA all at once.
By far the best explanation of Gerrymandering, although I can't show this to my high school students! too many dicks references! I could receive tons of complaints from their parents!
I really wish that their team would edit down old episodes to be high school friendly. It would also be Grandma friendly. I accidentally recommended the one about kidney centers to my mother, went back and re-watched while she was re-watching it, and suddenly there was this amazingly sexual joke which I can't remember, something about microwaving something, that immediately forced me to text my mother that I forgot this is HBO and the jokes go kind of that way and um um um....
At the very least they change the constitution from "We the people" to read "We the electoral districts". It wouldn't be fair but it would be a more accurate, and probably a lot easier to pass as well.
I love how comedy shows these days are doing a better a job than major news stations at covering political and social issues here in America.
Andrew Hong that's because they kinda dumb it down and make it funnier so the majority of Americans can swallow it without falling asleep. Also comedians are allowed to use political satire. if news anchors did that, they'd be fired
I would not say he is dumbing it down: he mixes it with (mostly superfluous) jokes, yes... but despite of his opinion he tries to stick to the facts, actually explaining what terms mean, talking about their backgrounds
this is what news should cover too, instead of just repeating catchphrases
They're the only ones allowed to call anything bullshit. Journalism outside of comedy has come to accept that to retain viewers they have to present nearly every issue impartially, and without bias for either side. Even when one side is the truth, and the other is false.
Think Flat Earthers... now think how modern journalism in the USA would cover it... yep, they'd have a Flat Earther on who talks and debates his points, to ensure both sides are heard from. In reality, news should be biased towards the truth, regardless of political agendas... "creationism isn't valid science", done. No need to talk with one and have them present their views like somehow it's a valid argument.
the thing is pretty much all other media stations are not even trying, they are just crapping out clickbait
Someone saw the Vox article :X
The more I learn about the american election system, the more baffled I become.
It is set up to restrict majority rule as often as possible. Well the electoral college part. Removing it would give large cities vastly more power over small towns and cities. Despite the rhetoric of democracy. We are far more a Republic. We just like catch phrases to sound cool and Democracy is more catchy
I came to the comments specifically to check if anyone else shares these thoughts.
@@JohnDoe-yz5wh No it's Not. Every Vote should be equal. In Germany, for example, that's the case, in the US it's not.
And i would argue that US politics are far more fucked up and chaotic than germanys'
@qwertzuiop how many german people watch john oliver? Cause there are like 6 in basically every comment thread.
@@momopenguins7335 yeah dunno i guess it's pretty popular considering it's not even in TV here
This is, in my opinion, the biggest problem with our (America's) democracy. Sure, the electoral college is poorly made but it in no way disenfranchises people so blatantly or to the degree that gerrymandering does.... Republican or democrat, if you support real American values of fairness and freedom, you should oppose this.
I'd say it comes close to conflicts of interest and money in politics.
But, in the words of Mel Brooks
We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen!
You are correct, Frodo Baggins.
The electoral college disenfranchised over 3 million people.
its actually way more than that when you taken into account that even people who voted for trump, the ultimate winner, in states that went to Hillary, their votes didn't matter either, they just got lucy that their preferred candidate won
America's political system is so fucked up it hurts.
John, you are just the best part of my Monday mornings.
That moment you realize that John Oliver is more American than most Americans.
get out.
well
SELECTOR_D AA
John Oliver is an American though, he has American citizenship. He's just as American as you or me, accent or no
John Oliver is not an American citizen. He is a permanent resident.
They don’t teach you all this is high school. This is insane!
Who would have thought I'd be watching this 3 year later and yearning for the good ole days.
7:44 ACTUALLY that voting rights act of 1965 was completely gutted in 2012/13. so yeah, even that is alright now.
It was, but the part that makes racial gerrymandering was left intact. It's still illegal. Not that it matters.
ZeLunatic not quite, it is still illegal to dilute the votes of minorities. What happened is that places like Alabama needed to clear their districting is a federal judge first, before they could implement the lines. Now, it's reactionary.
Term limits would probably help
They've been tried at state level and they don't work.
I have often thought so, but my concern with term limits is that you would wind up with lame duck Congressmen who would pass any law they wanted with no fear of being voted out. If we can get rid of their financial backers so that the votes of their constituents are the only things concerning them, then I think the current system would be just fine.
Term limits won't help at all. Imagine if you're a politician knowing that you only have a limited time in office. You're gonna end up spending all your time figuring out ways to benefit yourself (more likely leads to corruption) before your 5 minutes of fame is up, so to speak. Plus, we need politicians with experience in their communities. If we removed unlimited money in politics - then term limits wouldn't be something that would be considered.
Yael Jimenez, Term Limits could work, but they should be able to run again. I think having some shuffling of the deck would help.
That, and more people actually caring about congressional elections. Because right now it seems like the main reason less than competent people are able to be in office for as long as they have been is because not enough people are interested in voting them out.
Good in theory, but then that creates a tsunami of new lobbyists once their term is up
Ranked choice voting makes this a lot less of a problem.
11:25 If you were an older, native-born American, you would know that that is the same face that Graucho Marx made whenever he giving a pause for laughter.
How dare he say the best taco anything is made in his tower.
I have never been this accidentally early to a video.
David Lewis is really speaking about issues outside of understanding at 16:41. We can certainly create multiple measures of bias based on all of the biases we can identify and minimize this amount of bias (this has already been done by mathematicians and computer scientists). It's NOT belief, Mr. Lewis, it's mathematics. C'mon!
Once, just once I would like my state to NOT be one of the colored in ones. Can't we be one of the ones that aren't all that f#cked up?
draconiclady0610 if you don't mind me asking, which colored-in state do you occupy?
I live in NC. I totally understand the feeling.
"One of the few remaining sciences in which the republican party actually believes" Oh boy this stings in 2021
"....and strawberry for the perverts"
After 3 years i still read GERMANdering ...
Or you could just use the percentage in the states... ohh no, you could not do that because of what they wrote on a piece of paper in the end of the 18th century.
Sara Liljenberg that's mob rule
Easy solution is each voter gets assigned to a random state district each election.
It seems to me like we ought to be able to sit down with some computer gurus who can write code and have computers do it for us of course the code writer has to be unbiased so you would probably need more than one to check and balance
Wouldn't square be better though? Sure, people don't live in squares, but maybe it's worth separating communities to avoid gerrymandering. Squares (or any other predefined polygon) are much harder to gerrymander.
3:19 “...Broken politics can be pretty rough... but that move was gangsta.” -Rep. Hakeem Jefferies -legit
Brooklyn politics*
Best line EVER
he said brooklyn
Shawn Wesson Brooklyn*****
I think he purposely meant to type broken
"So how do you know whether your district was gerrymandered?"
I live in North Carolina. That's how.
As a resident of NC, I can assure you, we have some shady elections in nearly every branch of our state government.
Josh Beane
At least it's not Florida, because everyone hates Florida, or even California. Seriously, the only good things about California are Hollywoodand some songs by bands named after spicy Mexican plants of a distinct colour. Bad things, however can include being a hot spot for human trafficking. Seriously, (correct me if I'm wrong) two of the cities most used in America for human trafficking reside in California. And it's still not as bad as Florida,in my honest opinion. I've seen Florida in a light tropical storm, it wasn't fun.
laughinsohard Agreed. But idk I still like nc
same
I seriously live 10 blocks away from I94 in Chicago.
Am from Africa, i think this is best show in the world... I never knew i can learn this much from a comedian
where in africa i am in moz
Why does you being from Africa matter at all
Comedians have become damn serious and politicians f***ng clowns...
@Josny13 wot the fuck are you talking about? Africa is just like any other geopolitical region in the world, its developing, just not nearly as fast as other regions. Mostly because AFRICA IS A HUMONGOUS CONTINENT WITH WILDLY VARYING CULTURES AND PEOPLES.
Not to mention the rest of the world has been exploting THE SHIT out of its peoples for centuries, so politics is very VERY volitile and messy. But don't let the absence of major coverage deceive you, Africa is moving up in the world. So is India. Just not at the speeds the west has seen.
@Josny13 devolving sounds a bit harsh there, As a South African I can assure you it's not that bad
Michigan overwhelmingly passed Prop 1 to end Gerrymandering. Betsy DeVos spent several million dollars of her own cash to fight the proposal. It was a win win. Her effort failed and it cost her a buttload of cash.
Unfortunately she’s still worth over $2 billion, so it didn’t hurt her all that much
Side note, if you have more digits in your net worth than someone can be reasonably bothered to type out in a UA-cam comment, maybe you should be taxed at a higher rate than the cook at Waffle House that has four kids and a crippling student debt he’ll never be able to pay off
@@daltongarrett3393 I have a question.. why does he deserve to be taxed at a higher rate? Wouldnt that not be fair to the billionaire?
pranith geddapu when you reach the point of becoming a billionaire, you don’t do it through your own work and effort. You make that kind of money through exploiting the labor of your workforce. Take for example the Walton family, owners of Walmart. Six people that, cumulatively, are worth $191 billion as of 2019. Last year, collectively, they made $100 million per day, $4,000,000 per hour, $70,000 per minute. These six people make more than double in a minute off of delegation of responsibilities and minimal to no labor than most of their employees make in a year. They hoard an exorbitant amount of wealth that could be put towards circulation in the economy, or the betterment of so many lives, and have an absurdly disproportionate and undemocratic control over our social and political landscape. Nobody deserves that much wealth and power
@@daltongarrett3393 right? That is a ridiculous amount of money that you could never spend in a life time. At a point it stops being about money and the money turns into power which is why we see so many billionaires trying so hard to become trillionairrs
"Donald's Trump's tweets will be a threat to our democracy"
Me: *chuckles nervously in October 2020*
*Chuckles nervously in November 2020*
More like twitter censoring is a threat to our democracy
@@MrRafagigapr lmfao no.
Laughing happily in November 8
@@loljewlol *happy european noises*
This video is so very important, regardless of which party you identify with. If you're a democrat, you're probably pissed about gerrymandering now. But as a republican, you should be pissed if things switch in favor of democrats. As a members of the United States, you should be pissed that the system is favoring one side or the other.
Robert Hutchison another problem LWT didn't cover is safe districts. if you are a Dem or a Rep, if you don't have to worry about re-election because your district is safe (packing) then you have no mathematical reason to listen to your constituents - you're gonna get reelected anyway. you could be a decent person who listens to your voters anyway, but that's despite of the system that all but guarantees your job.
Robert Hutchison and if you're a Rep in a guaranteed safe Dem district, or vice versa, good effing luck being heard
Jennifer Schlicht This is also contributing to, if not the leading cause of, the increasing tribalization in American politics, since if you live in a safe district, you don't need to appeal to the other side to get elected, so you'll continue to get more and more extreme in order to avoid the only thing that can threaten you, a primary fight.
It doesn't matter. Politicians represent corporations and money, not the people. So all of gerrymandering and you being pissed is just an pointless exercise in democracy.
For the most part we think of Republicans as anti progressive. For example, they don't approve of same-sex marriage. So if things switch and we get a party (Democrats) that try to be more inclusive, what's wrong with that?
I really respect that John will throw Democrats under the bus, too. It's not about sides, it's about policies. The US has a lot of defective POLICIES which need improvement, regardless of which side abuses them more.
For example, don't have all of your voting based on landmass.
Captain Doomsday kil
True, but Republicans still engage in more bullshit manipulation and lying than Democrats in my experience. I've never heard of a Democrat gerrymandering a district to get elected. Apparently its the only way Republicans can get elected.
Captain Doomsday m
@@frankm.2850 Sincere question-- in what state do you live? I live in Massachusetts and it's the exact inverse of what is describes here-- Democrats and Republicans are like 60 D/40 R or maybe 65 D/35 R here, but Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican in congress since 1997-- 22 years ago. We have some Republicans in the state legislature, but it's extremely lop-sided.
@@frankm.2850
Voter fuckery genuinely does happen extremely frequently on both sides of the fence. Don't let people tell you otherwise- the whole system is impossible to be salvaged. As example, Democrats have been found being voted for by deceased persons, and non-citizen immigrants in California have no issue legally obtaining a driver's license (sensible), which is all the ID you need to vote in that state (crazy). It's all fucked, my friend. One side will point the finger at the other to keep this "us vs. them" going, because keeping the people divided is key to keeping us unaware of how they work together. Don't buy into the party bullshit.
"Mommy, why is our district shaped like a swastika?"
That's our democracy at work, honey.
because steve bannon lives near by
Syrup & Pancakes *Mississippi
Joshua Kastle I live in the earmuff district
Joshua Kastle there's a district in Michigan (Macomb county) that is shaped like a cross. obviously God's work.
"A map that churns out republicans like Ann Romney" is a joke that still lands in 2020 lol
Man I miss candidates like Obama and Romney 😂
I like how John Oliver doesn't always talk only about Trump like other talk show hosts do. He focuses on other topics that are interesting, but don't have as much exposure.
Hammad Ali umm he talked about Trump this episode this is just a clip from that episode
but you're right he's probably the one who does it the least but I think it's more dependent on his writers and what hbo wants to air
Joseph, (and this may come off a bit patronizing), if he's becoming political, and this leads to more nuanced political discussion, isn't that a net positive?
This segment is also about Trump because it shows how republicans use gerrymandering to win elections even when they don't have a majority of voters
Gerrymandering only affects house and state representatives. It's unrelated to Trump except for the thin connection of being "republican"
What the hell even is American politics?
Vonix #FoxGuardingTheHenhouse
Vonix A shitshow
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Well I'm living in america and my lifes pretty fair so I don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
A dumpster fire fueled by religion hurdling down a hill straight into an orphanage.
I thought that was what the 2016 election was also know as?
I'm still kinda puzzled by the idea of having just two political parties... I mean who do you vote for if you don't like neither of them?
If you like neither of them you're fucked. Your opinion doesn't count. If you're part of one party but you don't like the current leader; like how many republicans dislike trump, then you're fucked as well.
Basically there is no third option. If you don't like your current leader but you still like republican ideals then too bad.
This is the harsh reality of this ridiculous " democratic system "
From the botched electoral college to the silly party system, it's basically a politics game with the illusion of free will.
you suck it up and vote for whichever corrupt millionaire might cause less damage. basically, an oligarchy.
To remove a little cynicism here, you vote for one of the couple third parties. The idea is that you'll get some reimbursement from the government for campaign funds IF you can get 5% of the popular vote. To move back into cynicism here, this is a terrible system that threatens to bankrupt anyone without enough money or political clout to gain a voting following. This is one of the many reasons that third parties don't gain traction here: if you're not immediately appealing, the deck is stacked against you monetarily. So third parties are generally a joke, a la Joe Exotic, or they're funded by the same kind of people that fund Dems and Republicans, just to a lesser extent.
the one you hate the least. this is why we should have a ranked voting system. first past the post ALWAYS ends in a 2 party system
@Julie W. with the way our voting system is set up, that will never happen. If there's a good third party leftist option that gains a lot of traction, that will only split the vote and make all left wing candidates lose. Same case if the independent party is right wing.
No offence, but I just don't get it! Between the presidential elections where the popular vote means nothing and this. How much can you still call this system democratic?
sniffthecactus duh well.... We are a Democratic Republic. Which is a bit different.
the popular vote does kinda matter. the vote chooses which electorates (dem or rep) will vote for the president. basically it's voting for the people who will vote for the president.
we're a representative democracy so we have "representatives" who focus on politics because 70-80% of Americans don't know anything about politics and 99% of Americans aren't involved with it
yin yang But why? And if I remember correctly, choosing your representatives is a complicated process which is different everywhere? And how can you know you chose the right representative before the candidates are introduced?
sniffthecactus duh our system is in place because 1. We have a huge country without a true homogenous group of people( when it comes to culture). And 2. Many Americans are simply to dumb in the eyes of politicians to make educated votes for the president.
And your question about the representatives, these representatives make it pretty clear who they will be voting for when they are running for office. And these representatives votes obviously reflect the popular vote (which is why the trump presidency is quite surprising)
john brand You say that they reflect the popular vote, but hasn't the whole spread out controversy started with the lack of proportional represenration? I live in Europe, and since I'm only recently alowed to vote, is my knowledge of our political system stil inadequate. We work with a Parliament iny country, but while we have multiple forms of gouvernement (city, province, 'gewest' and state) even our system seems more direct.
Jesus Christ, American democracy is a fucking joke. And I say this as an Italian, so my standards are already pretty low.
I've got a faint interest in this so answer me if you will: Which is worse, Trump or Berlusconi?
The whole country is a joke.
That's a hard question to answer in a few words. Berlusconi controlled most of the media, whereas Trump sees them as an opposition force. Berlusconi would make us look ridiculous, use his political power for his own financial gain and do nothing good for the rest of the economy - Trump looks like he's going to be the same. The real difference here is that the POTUS office yields so much more power internationally, and has access to the nuclear codes. Italy doesn't even have nuclear plants and is way less influential on the global scale.
Gabriele Catalano we are not a democracy. We are a republic!
Gabriele Catalano the U.S is a Republic
Why can't we just have 13 districts based on their resource specialty. Then one main capital region to manage the districts.
That is a perfect plan!
Yess and than kill off district 12
And then make a secret district called district 13. It can house refugees.
and lets have people in the first few districts be born with more wealth
Can we also have a train that goes through all of the districts and takes a couple people from each district to an arena?
Unicorns
I’ve watched so much John Oliver recently that my inner thoughts are in his voice
My god same!
Disturbingly relatable
i know this seems complicated, but let me break down for you !
Painfully unfunny
"But that move was gangsta"
😭😭😭😭
Its funny
Until they fly airplanes into buildings
Kill a million people for the Oil Mafia
Allow Monsanto to give millions cancer
Brain damage babies with lead in the water
@@APEX-qv7rm what
@@majikss
Politicians + Corporations
Kill people by the millions
@@APEX-qv7rm drug abuse is a problem
@@GoogleGebruiker
Drugs are not as evil as Beliefs
Beliefs kill 100's of millions of Innocent people for 5,000 years
I let John Oliver tell me about things I've heard passed around but was too bored or lazy to learn much about. (Usually politics.) Thank you John, for tricking me into educating myself.
Look, I love Oliver, but for the love of god do some reading alongside. John is NOT a new reporter. He's a comedian. A lot of his videos are extremely biased, such as the Kavanaugh one. But even if he wasn't, never EVER EVER get your news from ONE source.
You made me laugh, but it was a nervous laugh. Your phone has Google, right???
@@davidralphsky Kavanaugh is a pile of maggot filled dog shit, his opinion about the man may be biased, but the facts he states are not, you can easily look them up for yourself and see they are true.
Same
Politics is kept boring to keep people powerless
this is what's happens when you have a two party system , everything get rigged to fuck!!!!!
Syed Abdul Wasay I think everyone knows George Washingtons favorite quote. The party system is the downfall of fair democracy. Government office holders don't fight or vote for what is right, they only bicker and trifle over meaningless issues to discredit the other party
Syed Abdul Wasay but a third party would actually hinder the process imagine party a and b in a two party system, and comes along party c. some of party a members move to party c but that actually helps party b. if originaly it was a 60:40 split for a and b respectively, if c omes and take 30% from a, b which had a minority would win.
paskal prasetya the problem wouldn't solve with one more party , elections have to be representative there should be more than 4 political parties to make it work , just look smaller countries like Iceland they got more than 4 ...........
Syed Abdul Wasay In India we have many political parties ... and an independent election comission to decide upon the districts or constituencies of voters.
Sharmishtha Ch Yeah the daily show (when John Stewart was on) showed how organised the elections are.......
My father ran for a local office and came pretty close to winning. Coincidentally we were also drawn out of the district before the next election.
Not sure why I look at the comments. It's always a narcissistic superiority competition. Congratulations, you're objectively better than a stranger on the internet.
Sean Porcelli I know its a nasty place but I still join in to share my opinion. Its a place to get corrected or know the opinions of others.
Well said TF2 scout memes.
hit the nail on the head.
Fuck off Sean, think I don't see right through you; tryina maintain a fucking moral high ground.
Jews are responsible for Pokemon not being real.
gerrymandering needs a darker name
Buggery?
GritsnBeans to funny.
Deathmarking? Angerlining? Evilcoiling? Darth Gerrymandering?
david gonzalez ratfucking? www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628
How about "State Rape"?
Well, gerrymanding is apparently fine now. Thanks Supreme Court! Glad to see American """"Democracy"""" is alive and well!
I came here today for the same reason as you.
RIP RBG.
Fr
This is why I'm glad that in Canada, at least for federal and provincial elections, voter districts are drawn by a nonpartisan independent organization
Bull shit
Jeremy Boily why?
@@jeremyboily1551 evidence please
@Jeremy Boily It is independent.Google electoral district Canada and read.
Gotta love how you say something reasonable and true and someone is just like "nope, don't think so"... could make too much sense. That seems to bother people too
So can we all agree that there should be a federal law against Gerrymandering?
Joshua Graham There is one. Politicians have just found loopholes and ways to get around it.
Loopholes? People move and communities change. Is not a loophole
But who makes the law?
@@joeypoil9370 but they aren't drawing it according to people.moving and communities changing.. both sides change it to Make it better for them instead of fare
NO!
It is amazing to me that John Oliver said "Everyone should get a say in government" and five thousand plus people somehow disliked that sentiment
It's okay, UA-cam took away the ability to see sad numbers 🙃
Because of his framing. 30 mins to say 5 or so simple points sandwiched by selective coverage of facts baked into partizan implicatkons. And 90% memes
excuse you slenderman would be a great babysitter. you will never see your children again but wherever they are they are in great care.
It's sad when a British man is more American proud sounding than an American
Duh duh duh?
It's not surprising - immigrants typically care more about the country than natives - they went to a great deal of effort to choose to live there
@@Septimus_ii being English not only a great deal of effort to get here but also a great deal of money
Aw come on you should come to France and just point me towards any single person saying anything good whatsoever about France. It's impossible.
@Moss : food is good ;-)
Oh and we have perfected strikes on art level. No one does strikes as we frenchmen do XD
Can someone please tell me something that is genuinely good about the US voting system?
Pretty much each and every step seems to be shit based upon the infrastructure nearly two centuries ago when people had to ride around on horseback to share a message.
FieserMoep nothing
I know something! If you have no clue about any of the details or steps, it seems like a perfectly fine one!
direct election of senators?
Tom Windle I personally agree with you, but even that is fairly controversial.
It has provisions in place to protect the voices of small states.
I have a radical idea: whatever percentage of people who vote for someone get that percentage!
You’re right that is a radical idea
"COMMUNIST" - USA 45th president
ADSM17 “IDIOT”
That would make too much sense, go back to any other developed democracy.
That is what happens?
That's what happens for the senate, because the whole state votes. You can't do that for the HoR because then everyone would have to vote for every representative. So they have to have districts. And the people who do get elected ARE the percentage in that district; the problem is that the district is badly drawn.
Crazy old president, districs, walls... Are you guys trying to get your own Hunger Games?
We're really going more for Mad Max than the hunger games...
Aoshi Kearun yeah I agree hunger games is a little too hopeful, but mad max is exactly what we are going for
Given the level of corporate involvement, it's more Blade Runner
Yeah right. That would entail poor people getting food. Too close to socialism. Lol
Collin McLean we already have a mad max, it's called Florida
Everybody’s vote should count equally huh? Talk to Electoral College about that!
Without electoral college America would fall. It's what made ur country United.
@@joeypoil9370 ...What?? How does it make the USA united to have a system in which someone can win the majority of the votes from the people and NOT be the person in office? All that does is leave the literal majority of American citizens feeling cheated.
@@animeartist888 without electoral college, only 2 states would matter. (CA & NY). They would be the 2 states that decide the government for the rest of the country. The electoral college is how all states agreed to be United.
@@joeypoil9370 With the electoral college, a person in North Dakota's vote counts >1000 times more than a person in CA due to the dilution of 2 senators across the whole state's population. How is that any more fair than your scenario? Also, you left out Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania as high population states. Plus, how would 60M people (population of those two states) decide the will of 350M? Your point is a Fox News scare point.
@@buckosoft 350million people, yikes your country packed. What's your voter turn out? ...50% on a good year...maybe. yes, your country has other high population numbers. New York state and California have the most. The states with the most people (under your scenario of equal vote) would mean the highest pop state would get most of the attention by the federal government, then the second highest pop state and so on. The smallest states would get no attention and have no voice.
This issue is not new, this issue is what kept ur country divided. The electoral college is what United your states and made you the solid country that became the empire.
The speech at the end was awesome!
I was surprised no one else mentioned this yet.
LadyCeag840 I
The whole joke about the Jill Stein voter was the fact she was never going to win being a third party candidate in a two-party electoral system, hence it was a crazy choice for that person to back her. If you think Bernie would have won (which I'm not disputing btw, I would have loved to see him run against Trump), why would you want that joke made about him?
People are not crazy for voting for someone you would not vote for. It is a democracy. So ridiculing the choice is an expression to support fascism to an extent. I did vote for Stein. I had no one left to vote for. Bernie ran away so I was left the tournament winner. Hell no she would not win. People who dislike but clearly support the so-called two-party system prohibited her chances more than the government.
Did you notice that the whole Gerrymandering thing is about racism with a cover of base-control and division?
If so, then you may find this odd. His interest selection at the end was diverse. The gender was diverse. Racially, it was a mere token black dude barely in the shot on the far barely lift left side. I don't know if that was part of the joke, or just end-skit gerrymandering. What do you think?
Why divide districts at all? In the Netherlands we just count the votes and divide it between seats of parliament. It's the fairest system
how do you then decide who sits in those seats?
@@johnclose4201 we get a list with all the candidates from all the political parties on the ballot. We can choose from those and the votes are counted on a national level, so that a party with less votes doesn't grt more seats
John Close it’s called party-list system in my country (Thailand). We used to have it for senate election... although now we are under a military government who came to power by a military coup ... so now we have one-house system (we used to have House of Reps and House of Senates - both have different election rules) and all seats are now appointed by the junta ☹️
Guinness I can see at least an advantage in district election - that people can directly choose representatives who should most represent their local interests/affiliations.
And I’m thinking the party-list system might work in NL due to the size of the country/population ... but may be too complicated for some country like the US (with different federal & states systems too)...
Though I don’t know much details about both countries’ systems so my comment is just theoretical.
@@khamfai You're right about the complexity of replication of a similar system in the US, but even in the US, people don't elect a party based on the candidates running on a district-to-district basis, but the frontrunner candidates for the highest government position, so it doesn't make sense to allow gerrymandering to continue.
why is that no one ever thinks a system dominated by 2 parties might be a problem?
This was exactly what I was thinking.. A point that was glossed right over until he slights the Jill Stein voter at the end. His half baked bashing her take on quantitative easing prior to the election was enlightening, while he was waving that corporate Pant Suit flag, and devoting most of his shows to making fun of the Con Man and his supporters.. Ironic.. especially considering who got the last laugh.
A two party system means the majority of the people will support one candidate, if there were something like 3 major parties, than it isn't guaranteed that the majority of the population will support the winner. In the same 3 party example the winner could only have 40% of the vote, while in a two party system it guaranteed that the winner will have the majority.
Ha! The electoral college just crushed your position. The 2 party system is broken. The Demwits and Reptiles no longer represent the majority of anything.
www.selfgovernment.us/news/3
But, that's not how it works. Just because a candidate gets 50 % of the votes doesn't mean that it has 50 % of support. And in a presidential election with more than 2 parties the candidate that won will have won with 50 % of the votes, only it would have happened during the second round of voting.
In a state with more than 2 parties all(well, most at least) opinions will be represented, instead of forcing people to choose between two parties and therefore two opinions(this is obviously simplified since every party has different factions in it, and the voters in the US choose a candidate instead of a party(although since the candidate is tied to a party they will of course have to follow the party line most of the time), but in general this is the result).
A system with more than two parties also allows for proportional representation(meaning no gerrymandering), which in a two party state is problematic since it means that the variation of options of what opinions exist in the political system would be even more limited than now, since the party chooses the candidate instead of the voters(with more parties this is not a problem).
honestly other than the president no politician's beliefs should matter. Ideally their job would be simply to do what a majority of their constituents want and to make sure the bills don't harm anybody with hidden features. Cuz instead I vote for someone cuz most of their beliefs line up with mine and then everyone else does so now on the issues I disagree with and possibly other people I am represented as if I did.
every time I watch this show I'm happy to live in Germany
You know that World WarII was about 70 years ago, right?
The Incredible Link Lol, judging a modern day German (probably a young one at that, given the channel's viewer demographics) based on Nazi atrocities. Classic
Janik Wieland die Überhangmandate der Unionsfraktion, die bis vor 2013 im Bundestag nicht ausgeglichen wurden, haben die parlamentarische Abbildung der Wahl auch verzerrt. Also Deutschland war, was das angeht bis vor kurzem auch nicht besser.
The Incredible Link Don't judge a book by it's cover. Plus, today's German youth have nothing to do with the war, so shut it.
Janik Wieland Yep can't wait for the next attack from your refugees and I hope you are there when it happens! Then tell us how great Germanistan is!
I learn more from John Oliver than I ever have at school.
JohannsSOCKS lololol xD
GunsMc$h00t Right!?
Pooponastoop xD
StampedingSquirrels you know it!
JonSnow :P
Proportional voting and just a more parliamentary system of electing our officials would work much better.
Zachery Bishop *democrats
Zachery Bishop to be fair, Dems can when they will (and dropped the ball in 2010). district lines should be out of partisan control as much as possible altogether.
*politicians
this is not a partisan thing
*people
Political Parties in general
Everytime I see LastWeekTonight I think that the American political system is pretty messed up.
Well, that's because it's kinda true....
The biggest problem is we're using a system that was invented when mail traveled by horse or boat. We don't really need "representatives" as we can all now vote for our favorite celebrity dancer we see on TV.
it is
Ive learned so much about illegal goverment actions from john Oliver. They should teach this stuff in school.
Ive learned so much insane legal government actions That definitely shouldn’t be legal from him 😂😅 *cries in American*
Can't teach kids the truth in America, that's against the law.
Gerrymandering is covered in the required civics/government course needed for a high school diploma. You just didn't pay attention... the Mandela effect isn't just for oddly specific stuff on social media.
+LastWeekTonight can you do a segment on the famine in Yemen and East Africa. The UN described it as possibly the worst humanitarian crisis since WW2 and it doesn't seem to be getting any coverage in the mainstream media.
likhith chandragiri worst humanitarian crisis since WW2 is probably Rwandan Genocide, but the U.N was barely involved in it so they don't count it
DmacAttack At least somebody was involved.
Its not covered because its caused by islamists and maistream media loves islamists.
likhith chandragiri never heard of it xD.
The worst crisis is the immigration into Europe but ya'll don't care about that cause you hate white people
In New Zealand electoral boundaries are done by an independent Electoral Commission to avoid gerrymandering. Gerrymandering in any form is a crime here because it's seen as only one step below vote rigging. Boundary drawing in New Zealand also take into consideration communities of interest. In other words they try to avoid dividing communities but if a town or city is too big they prefer to put the boundaries along a major highway or a natural feature like a river. Electoral boundaries can also be challenged by both politicians and voters to ensure fairness. No method of electoral boundary drawing will get rid of districts (or what we call electorates) being dominated by a particular party but having the boundaries drawn by politicians is effectively election rigging in all but name, no matter what the politicians claim. I should add that Electoral Commission staff are not allowed to be members of political parties or serving or former politicians.
Sounds like the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from New Zealand.^^
I mean this is true, but we also made the districts almost completely irrelevant. our version of MMP has a baked in system to ensure that party vote almost entirely represents the eventual allocation of seats
In Germany we simply count the votes for the parte and sum them up. So the form of the voting area does not play any role. Why is that not possible in America? Am I missing something?
It's the same process in Australia. The commission that decides new electoral boundaries remains independent from political parties and parliament. I'm assuming the UK has a similar process as well, considering the comments in the video. It makes sense to have an independent commission redraw electoral boundaries instead of highly partisan politicians.
The US might like to think of itself as a bastion of democracy, but it's a rather flawed democracy and I find it puzzling that gerrymandering is so blatantly allowed.
Miles Lacey n
Anyone else come here from the Census episode?😂
Me!!!! 😂
Lol I never usually click on the recommended videos at the end either, but for some reason this one stood out to me
In Australia, we have an independent commission, the AEC, to draw our federal electorates to avoid this problem. Same for all our states; I'm from Victoria, and it's the VEC that handles it. It works; we've never really had any problems with gerrymandering.
Also, preference voting is pretty great too at avoiding some of these problems. We've had that for almost 100 years.
Reece Druiven Maybe the US should outsource their district selection to Australia if they cannot find any unbiased people in their country.
In india also we have an election commission which js out of government control....
And the same in Canada. Don't want that Fox keeping the keys to the hen house...much?
Ah no... you clearly need to read some more Austrian political history... Queensland under Joe in the 70s and 80s was heavily gerrymandered... but all that was blown sky high when he was eventually kicked out. Eternal vigilance is the only cure. Australia's next reform hoop is removing politician's power to set their own salaries.
Followed shortly after by removing politician's powers over: immigration policy, energy, drugs including alcohol, hospital funding, human rights, national parks management, compliance with international treaties, consumer information and labeling, legal aid, law reform, waste management, and prison sentencing. Get the politics out of areas where expert knowledge and world's best practice are never going to be popular, or has proved to be an irresistible asshole magnet.
Reece, in the USA Republicans are horrified at the thought of having a fair and unbiased system to determine political representation for the American people! How else would they be able to control all branches of the American government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) when Republicans are only making up 26% of the American population?
Wtf america... when do you think this is, the 1800s?!
America: Actually its 1794 .....get it right
Yes
Alfin Andy If we say it is, then it is.
Apparently, that's when America was great.
I've said it before on LWT videos and I'll say it again: America is basically the world's stubborn uncle.
Maybe I am missing something here, but why do we need districts? Why not look at the stats as a whole? If a state votes 44% blue, then why not give them 44% of the seats?
The go-to argument would be that the DNC and RNC would just send whomever to fill those seats instead of people with a vested interest in districts that need representation the most (minority communities, sparsely populated farmlands, etc.). Also, it could make it impossible to "vote out" a particular candidate.
well if we had proportional representation the democrats and republican parties would collapse, so it wouldn't be an issue. Minorities could have their own party
+sleazycakes you're assuming all minorities want the same thing, diversity exists even within minority groups.
That are the advanteges of majority voting with districts. And thats why we have both in Germany, half the representatives are voted in districts (Wahlkreise), the other half with party lists. Its also really complicated ;)
Because big cities are always blue, without exception, and that is where democrats get their votes. Under a democracy, majority (or mob rule) wins. That is not the way America was founded and why the word democracy is not in any founding documents. We live in a constitutional republic and protect the minority opinion. Most of the land throughout out the country are hard working people who should not have to be forced to live the way people in the city want them to live.
This episode made me realize that in "Parks and Recreation", Gerry's name being mistaken so many times was a deeply seeded political pun.. Thanks for that one John xD
As a GIS professional, we have AAALLLLL the data and ability in the world to make perfectly bipartisan districts. We just need someone to make them. How much are you willing to pay me?
GIS professionals, secret saviors of democracy!
There's the rub- someone will always pay more to make them partisan as hell
David Angeletti Please run for office. There will be free healthcare.
"we have AAALLLLL the data and ability in the world to *make* perfectly bipartisan districts."
That bold word is the problem. There shouldn't be any drawing of lines at all. I don't understand why we can't just group up counties into districts.
I have $1.30, is that enough? I can pay up front in cash.
What sort of democracy allows the party in government to draw the boundary lines of the electoral districts? Won't the government rig the boundary lines to give itself an unfair advantage? Of course they will. So in advanced democracies, the drawing of electoral lines is entrusted to an electoral commission which is apolitical. But not in America? The mind boggles!!!!!!
Now you know why when the Democrats wanted to change the current system of drawing electoral districts to a more fair and non-biased system by creating a non-partisan commission that is responsible for such duties the Republicans vehemently refused! States that are controlled by the Republicans and are guilty of massive Gerrymandering accused the Democrats of imposing federal power over their state rights and conspiring against them!
@@liquidKi Aye, there's the rub. An "apolitical commission" may be less exploitable than our current system, but politicians will inevitably find a way to thwart it. We should still do it, though, because a half-fix at least fixes half of the problem.
*"How do you make this commission apolitical?"*
Staff it with foreigners. That way, the people drawing the boundaries will be apolitical, since they neither hold power in the US, nor reap any potential benefits for rigging the system. Ideally, you'll want people who think the US electoral system is stupid, so most Europeans are eligible (Although not UK Conservatives).
@@liquidKi my country is so small that this doesn't help as only 2 mil people means every vote counts.
We just devide the country and cities to easily register people so the voting is fer(you know so one person can only vote at one place)
@@liquidKi The commission should follow a set districting procedure, with an accountability and appeals system. Like any other government commission in the developed world basically.
"First, that's racist," is the one of the most hilarious lines from this segment lls
Since there are no unbiased _people_ who could do it, then why not create an unbiased _computer algorithm_ that does it?
Just a thought.
JW3HH
Do it. Don't forget to create a teleportation device while you're at it!
I agree, and it's easily doable. The problem is, people are scared of math. Google voting voronoi
The mathematician that creates the model, the programmer that writes the program and the technician that installs it are all naturally biased human beings. Even if we try, we cannot completely avoid bias.
Yes we can. The developer doesn't need to be unbiased, the algorithm just needs to be vetted by both sides. Plus, you can run simulations to determine whether the outcome is biased or not. You can't vet human gerrymandering because that'd be too labour intensive and the politics alone would be a headache every time. If you vet an algorithm once, you can just keep it running until there are legitimate grounds to reassess the situation. If "the technician that installs it" manipulates the algorithm, that is called fraud.
To be honest, that's a great idea. My major concern is whether the gerrymandering process shoulr be approved by third parties. On one hand, third parties represent a considerable percentage of the population and thus should be taken in account, on the other hand a single person could create a "I-Hate-Computers-Party" and veto all the algorithms.
As a white guy, I never knew the term "gangsta" could be used in politics. But I have learned something new.
White people have always been the biggest gangstas.
I'm sure African Americans and the LGBT community think the same thing about systematic oppression under the name of "traditional values."
Manu wtf are you talking about. Whites are the biggest candy asses. Source: am white
I have to seriously agree with that guy though. That move was pretty 'gangsta' they purged him out of the district like a big gang purges a small one.
I think he's speaking on Italian Mafia (gangsters) which are technically white.
But I agree an overwhelming majority of white people are candy asses Source: Am white, am a candy ass
As a Greek, I cringe when I hear John describe Chobani as a "Greek export", given that it's an American brand started by a Kurdish man in New York. The word "Chobani" itself is Turkish. Just because you like to call that stuff "Greek" doesn't mean it is, and in fact I can assure you our dairy products blow that processed garbage out of the water.
I understand your concerns, but I dare not try to speak your name lest my furniture start floating again.
Also, it was a joke.
Maybe it's Greek style?
But I get it, Thin Mints are also false advertising. I can eat boxes and boxes of them and never get thin, LOL.
you owe me money
Sadly, that joke about the pen running out of ink isnt a joke. It's the actual reason that we, that is the British, didn't draw the border between Pakistan and India into the Kashmir and consequently why Indian soldiers, Pakistani soldiers and militants are fighting there.
James Digby Palestine Israel and Cyprus too
James Digby I was wondering what incident that was.
It was not because they ran out of ink
That's more along the lines of an excuse than an actual reason.
In the middle East we had the French to help us
Phillip defraco said this was worth watching...so true. Guess I have a new show to watch each week
What if he also said bleach was worth drinking would you drink it?
tiagovalen Chill, Dude. He did his due diligence and actually checked out the video and found it suited to his taste.
So I should at least try the bleach?
watch the ones about church, tobacco and nuclear weapons. Then swear at the sky in anger due to the irresistible need to retroactively watch dozens of already aired episodes.
Here is how you fix gerrymandering. You have the Democrats draw up their chosen districts. You have the Republicans draw up their chosen districts. Each district is tossed in a bag. A randomly selected school provides a team of 4th graders overseen by a teacher and a government official who is there to apply basic rules. The kids draw out a district and place it on the map. As the districts are placed and may over lap or fall short, they are in charge of redrawing the borders to keep things fairly sensible.
Both parties then get to shut the fuck up.
I like it.
Fuck it, let's do it.
I don’t know how American still go around claiming their country is the most democratic, I think we Australia have a far more fair and efficient system when it come to representation, and we never try to rub it on other’s face!
shao19851 No I really do like to rub it in other people’s faces and especially on Donald Trump and how they voted him into power and how I’m laughing at them right now.
Why doesn't a district's population size determine how many seats they get to elect? Why should democrats, or any political ideology for that matter, be punished for living in close proximity to like-minded people?
Because you system doesn't represent parties it represents communities. If you chose to group together with like minded people too damn bad.
IskurBlast oooh sounds like someone's jealous.
It does determine how many seats they get. All the districts have roughly the same number of people. The issue is that the Democrats waste their votes in highly uncompetitive districts, not that their districts have more people in them.
Chad Carteret What? All districts have roughly the same population
the answer to your question is electoral college. you are punished for living in the same ideological place at higher population under electoral college and you are punished for living in spread-out population under popular vote.
basically, electoral college favors republican, popular vote favors democrat.
now if you say "but the popular vote is clearly better. it doesn't punish people for living closely and its more democratic", that is true but you have to understand something. More people live in the north than south, and each presidential election, democrat would win because of popular votes as there are more democrats now then ever before. but think who lives in the south: farmers. this is a battle fought by federalist industrial hamilton and democrat-republican agricultor Jefferson. things like higher tariffs would benefit the industries but create an economic depression for the farmers, and if democrats controlled the executive branch, itd always be a burden on farmers. Jefferson opposed the making of president because of this and hamilton needed to compromise with him. this is why the founding fathers made the electrole college. it was a compromise to make the position of the president but also (the compromise) not have it controlled by the mob-mentality (one party control)due to their rising population.
they made it in order to create a system that doesn't favor closed population.
In layman's term, The US founding Father "punished [people] for living in close proximity to like-minded people" to stop California* and new your alone from electing every president.
of course, cali wasn't even made then but just giving you an example to why the system was made. each state wanted to be equally represented.
That is misrepresentation, the guy was not wearing a Fedora, he is actually wearing a Trilby
which is a variant of a fedora?
What's wrong with wearing a fedora anyways? It's a nice looking hat that (depending on the color of both) can go great with a suit.
There is nothing wrong with the Fedora. I was just pointing out that it is a Trilby, not a Fedora that the guy was wearing.
Ridiculous 77 it's because the 'fedora' is associated with a certain type of people. Typically the 'nice guys' who are really just entitled assholes.
OMG thankyou i was thinking the exact same thing when John said that
whats so fucking hard about 1 vote = 1 vote whoever gets the most votes wins?
*whiny voice* but that's mob ruuullee.. We're a repuubliiic *really getting the annoying voice going* I'm going to make a bad comparison: If the majority is right, that makes gang rape okay. (Idiot logic FTW)
2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner
Because the majority poor would always vote to seize the assets of the majority rich
drlawitts What??
Cloud Naeris well if you're talking about"teams" why wouldn't either take an advantage where they can, eh? ... which is exactly why redistricting NEEDS to be out of partisan control as much as possible.
"We should all be relevant...that's the point of this country."
Yes, John, that's definitely the point of that country.
The term Gerrymandering was coined in 1812
@@nobackhandseven if the term is new, anythings existence is always vastly older than the name.
@@kempolar9768 "the term is new" over 200 years old
This man is going to unite the world. Just wait #faithinjohnoliver
Zackery Sharp unite eveyone except republicans of course. because republicans cause all the problems (that was sarcasm)
Zackery Sharp they don't cause all of them but they do cause a great majority
Heheh...I mean, he has a church.
Issa alSaleh Had. He had to shut it down after some joker sent him actual semen.
Zackery Sharp
Indeed, may he finally unify it through comedy and depression.
#ModernMrBeale
This is a problem that needs to be fixed... Real Americans need to STAND UP TO THIS MESS!!!.
lets chat
Standing up may require more than most are willing to give.
What happens when making your voice heard, marching, or writing your "representatives" does nothing? What happens when you learn that the only way politicians will give up their control is by prying it from their cold dead hands?
Would you be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to stand up?
John Matrix What's that? Choosing between the red and blue pill? Plz
Alright. I'm standing up. Even though I don't live in the US.
Yeah no way. This is a damn comfy chair. I'm not leaving it for anything :P
+lets chat *Puts on patriotic cape* I'M READY.
It's really not that complicated. There's a concept in political philosophy called the "veil of ignorance," where the people who make the choices have no knowledge about how they will personally be affected by those decisions. In this case, you find a "committee of unbiased people" to draw boundaries by not providing any demographic information about the people living in those areas. No names, no gender, no race -- simply "this many people live in this community and this is how they are laid out."
Or you can just get a computer to use a shortest straight line algorithm. Or do away with districts altogether and use some kind of proportional representation.
but in the video it says "it is important to find a balance between different groups of people so minorities can also be heard"
in the video, they argue shortest straight lines are also problematic and harmfull
V O T E-2020BLUEWAVE
Jack Phoenix very good point, only slightly undercut by the fact that your profile picture is a Simpsons character with a beard.
This comment should have WAY more likes than it does.
Spot. On.
Then minorities may not be fairly represented and the districts by chance could rig the electrion
The end of this was a more patriotic speech than any I heard in the presidential election by far.
Republicans: 'Ha-ha! We're Gerrymandering a District!'
Democrats: 'That's not a Gerrymandered District!? - This is a Gerrymandered District!'
U.S. Voters: 'Are you SURE there isn't a third party? Did you look behind the couch?'
Well there is American Greens and American labor. I am sure there is at least 20 other parties but those are the ones similar to Australia's. I vote ALP (Australian Labor Party) because they actually do their job and have a history of doing it well. Oh btw it's a democratic socialist party.
That's the funniest Yt comment I've ever read. LOL. Good show :)
2 party system makes it hard for any other parties to compete. As it is a "winner-takes all" system. Winning a prime minister seat in my nation of Norway is way less power in 1 person than a president. Aswell as everyone gets mandates from votes. This is why some odd parties can have 1 mandate if they have high enough votes. This is to include minorities, not a democracy if there is majority rule. When US was created they made the 2 party system to avoid majority rule. However they kinda made it.
Green Party: We exist and we're not behind the couch. In fact, we're making huge strides in ensuring our environment will be clean and safe for-
U.S. Voters: So, Democrat or Republican, you say? Maybe I'll try voting Libertarian this year.
Getting more people off the couch and into the voting booth would make these districts kind of obsolete, really.
This is why majority voting is stupid. Just give the party exactly the portion of seats that is equivalent to their result in the ellection and you don't have this or many other problems.
So the party chooses who is your representative and not you? Proportional representation is anti-democratic.
it's like that already...the game is over. Citizens lost and the wealthy are not giving the country back.
Uhm no. Proportional voting doesn't mean you can't choose who's on your ballot. At least not everywhere ;). Also. are you seriously claiming that anybody can win a district in the US, independently of whether he's been nominated by a party or not?
We don't have a democracy. We have a REPUBLIC, and for good reason. Besides, they already choose who you can even vote for in the primaries so it would change nothing.
Algrokoz: A democratic republic is a subtype of democracy, and "republic" is a vague blanket term that doesn't describe a specific political system. A bacon cheeseburger is still a cheeseburger. You're not as special as you think.
ABOLISH BIPARTISAN GERRYMANDERING, EMBRACE RANK-CHOICE VOTING FOR AMERICA💋
Those are two separate issues. You could have ranked choice voting in a gerrymandered district; you could have first past the post in a gerrymandered district.
People who hate political parties would actually be pretty reliable at drawing non-partisan districts. Then we'd just need to fix the rest of our 18th-century electoral system.
leadfoot9x They'd use common sense and gerrymander for Democrats, so that wouldn't work either
Can we draw a line around Mar-a-Lago and tell Trump his hands will shrink if he leaves? That move would definitely be gangsta.
When a British import is more patriotic than the president...
when someone named yak ,hasn't a clue!
Enlighten me then?
Yak, are you forgetting your British important encouraged Trump to run for the most patriotic office? Lol
Jonas Pesen, it takes one to know one. Out of mockery John Oliver entertained & encouraged the idea. That came to bite him on the ass along with those who are (out of touch with American voters!) Mainly liberal elite media.
@Penis Jonas
are you?
"Americans don't live in squares"
So where do you live?
Oh, you know, a few blocks from here...
What a coincidence! My friends and I are cracking and packing right now!
Honestly I loved that last part in the end!!! Everyone voice should be heard NO MATTER WHAT!!!
Mario Armia You like that he bashed Jill Stein supporters in the end?
+andrewwantsafreetibet so? whats your point?
allthatishere I supported Jill Stein.
Were you in a competitive state? Because if you were that's a guaranteed stupid decision.
Freedom of speech
Well, the biggest reason why gerrymandering is such a big deal in US politics is because the electoral system is 99.999% first-past-the-post, which is a system so ancient it should only belong in a museum.
If you take a look at more advanced electoral systems such as those in Germany or Australia you can quickly realize that by capping district voting with national-level proportional representation (Germany); or by allowing preferential voting (Australia), you will get much better results.
I am no American so I can't firmly tell why the system has not been changed already. But my guess is that it's the same reason why the Imperial System is still in used today even though it also is an ancient system that simply does no good in the modern world - Americans are too proud of themselves to admit that they are wrong or admit that some other countries are doing things better than they do.
American here; although I understand and agree with what you're proposing, it's much easier said then done. It's incredibly hard to change the way things work when they're so deeply imbedded in our constitution (and history). Things have worked this ways since practically day one. Changing things seems incredibly unlikely.
Hannah Marie This is the kind of thinking that gets the country nowhere. Many other countries have moved past where the US currently is. Germany only got Bundestag in 1949. Canada metricated in 1970s. Every country with good systems today used to have worse systems in the past. It can be done.
Maybe if everyone in the US realizes that the only other countries in the world that use Imperial System are Myanmar and Liberia, they will want to make a change. I once told that to an American dude and I swear I had never seen anyone get that pale before.
I believe a big part of the problem is that whoever has the advantage and gets to draw the lines, won't want to change it since they have the advantage. And the other party can't make the change alone. When the roles are reversed later, the same thing happens in reverse. You can clearly see an example of this in how smug the politicians in those interviews were when they were about to rip off the opposition.
Well, when left to themselves, politicians (as a group) are going to choose whatever is good for them, not what is good for the people. So, in order to make a change, it has to be a bipartisan effort from the mass.
What you are saying is true, and it's a symptom of a deeper problem: the majority of Americans either have no idea how much they are being screwed by their own electoral system; or they don't trust each other enough to fix it. Whenever someone realizes this problem and speaks up for the system to change, the mass thinks that it's a ploy from the other side to steal voting powers.
The rift is wide, and it keeps getting wider and wider because of the two-party system, which is a result of Electoral College and having 99.999% of all elections within the country be first-past-the-post, which are being kept despite being antiquated just because it's "the will" of the founding fathers. Everything is intertwined and the whole thing is totally messed up.
You guys already have a mature system with proportional representation; Cambridge, MA, has had proportional representation since forever. Learn from that city.
Atipong Pathanasethpong actually, Americans still use the imperial system because of the size of our country/how many roads we have
simply put, it would cost a lot of fucking money to replace every road sign in the USA all at once.
By far the best explanation of Gerrymandering, although I can't show this to my high school students! too many dicks references! I could receive tons of complaints from their parents!
I really wish that their team would edit down old episodes to be high school friendly. It would also be Grandma friendly. I accidentally recommended the one about kidney centers to my mother, went back and re-watched while she was re-watching it, and suddenly there was this amazingly sexual joke which I can't remember, something about microwaving something, that immediately forced me to text my mother that I forgot this is HBO and the jokes go kind of that way and um um um....
At the very least they change the constitution from "We the people" to read "We the electoral districts". It wouldn't be fair but it would be a more accurate, and probably a lot easier to pass as well.
The districts only apply to the House.