You would think everyone would want a stimulus package, but no. The Democrats want money for this, Republicans want less money. They say their is wast. Nobody wants negotiation
@@harrisontucker8397 The Democrats motive is not more money, it's that they don't want Trump to be the perceived winner of anything. That has consumed them on every issue for the last 4 years. The issue could be legalizing a cure for cancer and they would vote it down if Trump was the one who proposed it
@@nekad2000 Like the way that Republicans' motivation in the previous 8 years was to stifle anything that Obama tried to do? Face it, the Republicans started these issues. You can't now complain that the same is being done to you. Besides, you don't think for one second that a major reason for the Democrats' "behaviour" is that Trump's a turd who doesn't know what the hell he's doing? Remember, it wasn't the Democrats' fault that he couldn't get anything done in the first two years of this shit show.
@@JumboCod91 I kinda laugh at popular anti-establishment views keep changing. "Oh no, politicians are agreeing with each other." being the complaint to "Oh no, politicians are arguing with each other." being the new one. I mean even 4chan seems to turn from "cool rebel kids" of 2000's to "reactionary assholes" of 2010's. Even the Internet turned into disappointment lately since I've seen people complaining about sensationalism while also posting such articles because "durrr, muh anti-establishment" (i.e.- Alot of my "rebel" friends online).
This video misses one key aspect of it: The method through which a state is to appoint its electors is up to the state legislature to decide. That was done to allow for the states to have maximum flexibility in deciding their own systems of government. At the time, voting rights varied a lot between states, and having a single direct popular vote for president would have required uniformity of voting rights across the country.
AND the manor of power vested on those electors: some are iron clad bound to vote along their state elected numbers lines, while other states basically have no control of their elector once appointed, he (usually a he) can vote any way he wants to, no matter what his state did.
@@galfinsp7216 Well, National Popular Vote *Interstate Compact*. Which is basically an agreement between the signatory states that they'll give their electoral votes to whoever won the national vote instead of their respective states' vote.
What are you talking about? America and the Vatican City are nowhere near famous as the great island of Madagascar. Do America and the Vatican have their own Dreamworks movie?
I love that Arizona is now a Swing State. When I first lived in AZ, it was staunchly Republican. But the last few years that's changed. Candidates have to pay attention to us now. Suck it California! (Isn't it wild that staunchly liberal Democratic California has contributed 2 republican Presidents?)
@@billt8504 I hate to be blunt but the reason is because not of the Arizonan people but the people from your southern border jumping on in Just like how Texas is somewhat competitive (well that might just be the Austin stupidity, pretty fucking worthless city)
@@merrittanimation7721 it technically is a gradient of blue, I think, with closest to sun being lighter blue, getting darker blue the further you go from sun, up to a point. Even in hypothetical scenarios you could argue, lol
The American political system was designed by the Framers to result in gridlock. It's all in the Federalist Papers. Such an important document yet Americans don't know it.
What this fails to mention is that one of the features of the Electoral College system is that if no one wins a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses the President. This feature was part of the compromise, as it was believed that this would happen often, and made the system more appealing to those that wanted Congress to choose the President. Still, this video is fairly well done, better than the CNBC video on the subject.
This has happened in 2 elections: 1800, where both Jefferson and Burr recived 73 electoral votes (They decided Jefferson as pres and Burr as VP) and 1824 where nobody got a majority of the vote to win. There is also a feature in which the Senate choses the VP if nobody got a majority of votes in the VP race, but the only time that happened was in 1836.
It was also designed in an age when information traveled very slowly and where national media was nonexistent. The idea was that a group of well educated men (who did not hold any elected office) would be able to gather together and review all up to date information as they made a decision. There was some merit to this idea since it could literally take months between a major event happening in Europe and voters in rural America first even hearing about it.
Also, at the time, each state had its own laws on who can and cannot vote. It wouldn't make sense for, say, a state that only has land owners vote also be in the same popular vote pool as a state that has universal male suffrage. That was a real concern, and is the reason why they also decided that the Census would apportion seats in the House, but wouldn't tell the states how to select seats. It was common in southern states for their Congressional delegation to be entirely chosen by the state government.
@@TheSSUltimateGoku It stems from what Alabama did in that election. Instead of the ballot listing Kennedy and Nixon, the ballot listed the individual presidential electors. Voters could vote for up to 11 and the top 11 vote-getters would cast the state's electoral votes. All of the state's 11 Republican electors were pledged to Nixon, but of the Democratic electors, 5 were pledged to Kennedy and 6 were unpledged. In the end the top 11 electors were, in order, the 6 unpledged Democratic electors, followed by the 5 Kennedy electors. The unpledged electors all voted for Harry F. Byrd. So the question is how you actually "count" Alabama's popular vote as if it was run as a standard one-vote-for-one-candidate election. One method involves taking the top Democratic elector's vote total and dividing it proportionally between the unpledged electors and the Kennedy electors, while taking the top Republican elector's vote total and giving it all to Nixon. Doing so leads to a nationwide popular vote victory for Nixon.
I only know the systems of Germany, the US and the Vatican. But those 3 are allready very different from each other. So i guess the term "electoral college" is used in a very wide definition.
In Germany, the president is pretty much useless. He is only a figurehead. Except if there is dissent between the head of government and the parliament, then he can decide which one will be reelected.
the Pakistani president has a grand total of 0 powers he can exercise without the consent of the Prime Minister (who's elected by the legislature) so hes just a figurehead
Someone may have, but there wasn't an internet. People still thought up clever turns of phrase, but if they didn't send them to a newspaper, almost nobody else would hear of them.
There was another embarrassing situation about the Electoral College that was changed very quickly. In 1796, John Adams won the Presidency, yet his on and off friemy Thomas Jefferson, who was campaigning for very different things to Adams, was elected Vice President, leaving two opponents awkwardly working together
But it was changed after the next election when Jefferson and Burr were tied. Most of the nation did not favor Adams as a president forgoing four years of Justin Trudeau style administration. Most states wanting a change voted for Jefferson and Burr...assuming Burr would be VP. Oddly enough Jefferson disliked Burr but Democratic-Republicans in the nation did. The original rules were written like a gentleman's club, so it was revised to running mates for those two situations....AS quickly politics got nasty and political parties created themselves....then inserted themselves into the process.
This seems like parents naking two fighting kids sit in the back seat next to each other in an attempt to force them to get along. I would pay good money to see politicians have to do that
@@ebnertra0004 Adams was politically both a genious and naive, and Jefferson played him, stabbed him in the back, and had his cronies finish the job. One term President. Then went home.
@@thedwightguy What I find interesting is that Adams wanted to talk about their old political fights in his letters but Jefferson opposed that desire, so they never talked about politics again.
Yep. At the time the process was that each elector in the college voted twice, being required to vote for two different candidates. The person with the most votes, provided that that number was a majority of the electors, would be the President while the person with the second most would be the vice president. But after the rather tense relationship between ideological rivals President Adams and Vice President Jefferson and the chaotic election of 1800, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed which created the electoral college system we have now. Now the election for President and Vice President are two separate elections with each member of the college voting only once in each one.
That's the difference between America and the rest of the world we are a Constitutional Republic not a direct Democracy because they don't work....they lead to Tyranny sooner or later.
I like how generally neutral this explanation is. That makes this better than if a pundit had said yay or nay on the validity of the system. Plus hey, it maximizes video comments. Smart!
Donald Trump opposed the electoral college when he thought Obama would be president but lose the popular vote. Republicans only like it because in recent elections it gives them the unfair advantage.
The use of "Your party" to make it seem a bipartisan phenomenon is a little misleading. In point of fact, since the development of the modern two-party system in U.S. politics, every president who won the electoral college vote while losing the popular vote has been a Republican. So, not saying that the Republicans wouldn't behave the way you describe, but so far they've had no reason to. It's only Democratic candidates who've ended up on the short end of the electoral college stick, despite securing the most popular votes.
@@rderran5377 yes, because otherwise California and New York would be electing every president. The electorial college works as intended, keeping crazy lefty's from owning the country.
@@UniqueBreakfastTaco Spoken like someone truly ignorant of history. The first time the phenomenon occurred, the candidate who benefited (the Republican) would more likely have fit the "lefty" label you've used so sloppily. At that time, the Republicans were the more progressive party; the Democrats were the conservatives. The second time it happened, the nature of the candidates was such that trying to apply "left/right" distinctions to them would probably be meaningless. The third time it happened, the candidate who benefited (G. Bush) could fairly be called conservative. The most recent time, it only makes sense to use the lazy "left/right" label because Trump desires to be an autocrat, not because he's a conservative. Anyone who thinks Trump's a conservative is profoundly delusional (as any true conservative would tell you).
Almost every state has flopped between the parties at some point so Oklahoma may have vote Democrat, then realized their mistake and switched to Republican. Even Texas and all of the old south once voted for Dems but now they ussually vote Republican.
Yeah, keep in mind they also wanted the runner up in presidential elections to be Vice President. I think they wanted the different perspectives to work together to to run the states. But This lead to a lot of feuding in the government when the first parties emerge mere years later. Nothing like Presidency divided among themselves over whether the country should be a farming or industrial power. That’s why presidential tickets have both positions on it. Also VP got his own position nerfed.
@@1InVader1 I'd love that. Seriously. The Libertarian, Green and Constitutional party all need to step up. The others are even more fringe than them but who knows?
The Electoral College doesn't actually make candidates care about small states. It makes them care about swing states. Because of the "winner takes all" approach to each state's electoral votes, candidates can safely ignore states where they already have a comfortable lead. Spending money campaigning there won't earn them anything. It almost always comes down to a few thousand voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida
Trends have varied over the years. The swing states are not always the same, nor are safe republican or democrat states. What the Electoral College does require is attention be paid to more than (nowadays, not at the beginning) California, Illinois, and New York.
@Arkelk2010 This is a stupid argument. Not everyone in a state votes the same, the electoral college just makes it seem like everyone in a state votes the same way. Their are millions of trump voters in california and millions of kamala voters in texas. Also campaigns are more than just appealing to specific voters. The point of the national popular vote is that you don't care which state the voter is in.
Yeah, but the idea of swing states is actually a pretty new concept in the grand scheme of us history. In older elections, politicians didn't ignore half the country, and the amount of swing states when swing states first started were much more than they are now. If anything, blame the politicians for willfully ignoring half of the country and causing this to happen
@@jamesslater9098 Non-contentious reply: there are a couple of states which allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the votes within the state. I could agree with that. Potentially contentions: I do not want the President to be chosen by merely the most populous areas of the country. He (or maybe she) is the one elected officially elected by the entire country. Votes therefore should come from all corners of the country.
(looks at the overwhelming votes from California for Hillary Clinton vs. Trump, then looks at the rest of the country) In some cases... No, you cannot trust the people.
This video might have benefited by reading the explanation of Max Farrand, the great historian and compiler of the records of the Constitutional Convention, of why the Electoral College was invented. It was actually meant to prevent deals between States to decide the Presidency, and bring about a more genuine nationwide selection process in an era when most things were State-centric, there was little nationwide travel or nationwide media.
Well if you eat the poor then you don’t have to pay tax rebates or welfare (ie free money) and there’s no more poor people to be poor This seems like a foolproof governing idea to me
@@looinrims I mean if you look realistically at our government’s definition of poor it’s literally over 70% of Americans you eat that much of the population America becomes South Korea fairly quickly and also a good percentage of the military mostly e1 -e4s are considered por
Honestly it's a good thing, think about how bad it would be if they were able to continue pumping out more and more regulations without any hold up. Our nation would be gone in a week.
The two party system is a problem. Both sides just oppose and demonize one another no matter what. They will follow their party to hell no matter what. We need more parties to make a better balance where compromises have to be made to get things done rather then nothing getting done because no on wants to agree with the other.
@@LordJaric Ranked choice voting would solve a lot of these issues, too. Americans agree on a lot. Our representatives never do. Even if it's something reasonable, the system as it is now demands that they oppose the other party and pretend it's all of a sudden a morally relevant issue. Check 80% of polls on issues. If you ask about Americans' stances on ISSUES, we agree on a surprising amount. That, and the party system means we're always voting _against_ something, rather than _for_ anything we'd actually like, as well as the fact that those we elect are heavily influenced by campaign contributions - so our system devolves into further dysfunction all the time, while never failing to pass legislation which favors the entities which already have (and "donate" plenty of) money. It's dysfunctional for the people. It's working perfectly well if you're the right type of dollar-laden entity.
XCodes it’s not a problem. Mob rule and populism have been the end of every democracy in history... probably including this one. Human beings respond to incentives and gov’t officials being humans especially respond to the incentive to increase their power, influence, and relevance.
@CommandoDude the problem at heart here is that mob rule is the destroyer of freedoms and the ender of republics like ours, and are fundamentally flawed in most every possible way. The electoral college is flawed, yes, but would you rather live with a system that has a few flaws or one that has flaws in every aspect of it's being?
@CommandoDude I wouldn't say bigger, but definitely as big a problem. This is why the electoral college is so good, it provides equal representation, unlike a direct democracy.
@@randomeastasian347 wrong again open a history book. The rules on the electoral college changed in 1820. So that means there has not been a fair vote since then.
"Good luck getting Congress to agree on anything" couldn't be more true. You could tell them water is wet and a quarter would launch an investigation into water, another quarter would try to rebel against it or outright impeach it. The 3rd quarter would claim that water had violated some right or another.....and the 4th quarter would try to make every molecule of water vote for them.
Democrat congressmen: "the sky is green!" Republican congressmen: "no it's not." Republican congressmen: "the sky is yellow!" Democrat congressmen: "no it isn't." Average layman/normal person: "the sky is blue!" Congressman: "our education system sucks!"
History Matters, every single video you give me a new reason to love you. That Warhammer meme was tight but you being English I really should have seen it coming.
And I do add that there was a property requirement in the states to vote in the first place when the electors were first implemented, so seeing it as a defense against the rabble would have been somewhat strange. At best it could have been deliberative within each state's capitols rather than a riot, but that would have required the electors to not have personal loyalties of any significant magnitude.
@@lancemuller9556 If you rank the states by the polls and assume that a candidate, who wins a state also wins all, in which his polls are better, Biden could also win with Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the ones in which he is better.
@@0000-z4z I could see Wisconsin flipping to blue, but Pennsylvania I see trump holding because of Bidens flip flopping on fracking and saying that he will destroy the oil industry
@@Joesolo13 remember when you lefties said Trump was going to cause economic problems and high gas prices and start WW3? How's that turning out for you?
How do you know this is not his overal view? Congratulating an history channel for just presenting the facts seems patronising. As it turns out there's enough in the presentation to say how silly the idea is and how blind the American people are for not changing it with out having an agenda to it.
I love your videos HM, firstly, but there's a few issues that aren't well supported by the history we have. At one point in your video where you mention that the Electoral College "protects small states", but there's no document from the founding fathers stating that, at least, that's not the actual mechanism that protected small states. I've always assumed this is misconstrued from what we do know which is that it gave states the ability to choose how electors are chosen, so they could condense their votes for the most singularly popular giving them a harder edge in decisions, but it's a guess. In 1787, when what would become the 12th Amendment would be forming in the heads of the founding fathers, the idea of small states having the same power as big states was not popular (Delaware with the smallest population had the same voting power as Virginia with the largest). This was one of the problems going into the Philadelphia Convention. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton talks about how the electoral college would make it more difficult for foreign entities to inject candidates or influence Americans with their wants into the system. This is the same paper that he describes what is talked about at 1:20, but the one bit I'd add is that information was not readily available at the time. Electors were supposed to be men of good communication that could take the votes for a candidate, determine if the reason those people voted for that candidate were in line with the actual information available to the elector and decide if the people made a mistake and could fix it through a change in their ultimate vote. To quote George Mason of Virginia at the time , "It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper candidate for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would be to refer a trial of colours to a blind man." That doesn't happen today though, as though this is claimed to be the reason in No. 68 and No. 64 (by John Jay), within the first decade after 1800, all states had adopted laws that appointed electors solely based on party loyalty. This type of arrangement was intended to be avoided by banning all federal officials from serving as electors in order to enforce the independence of electors to vote mindfully with the people's vote as a suggestion, but was worked around. Thus, the EC had no impact ultimately on partisan politics. This change in the early 1800's took away the ability of electors to refuse mob rule, because this protection was solely contingent on the elector being able to be an independent agent. That's why they've always been allowed to cast secret ballots as well, as pushing against mob rule is surely an action to get one's head cut off. The EC was built to be about people not numbers. Nothing about the numbers of electors matters and they never were supposed to matter. The Federalist papers don't even mention them because everyone at the table assumed they would be proportional to the population in the same way congressional seats were assigned, because it had nothing to do with stopping a big group of people from swarming the smaller group. It was supposed to be the person casting that deciding vote to change their minds in the best interest of their fellow citizens. If they saw mob rule, they could say "sorry everybody, I can't let you tyrannize democracy." ... But secretly, y'know, cut head cutting offing. Another problem is that from the records of that convention, we know that some small states voted against popular vote and the electoral vote because it didn't solve the problem of big states having more power than small states. The actual solution to that was the Contingency Election and necessary trigger: If a candidate does not possess a majority of votes (not electors, but their votes) for Presidency, the House will determine the winner of Presidency, Senate Vice Presidency. The purpose was to prevent a cluster of small states coming together and voting, but Virginia and New York both vote and get 42% and will swamp any combination of other candidate votes from the smaller states. That is the only record we have of small states complaining, and that solution is arguably a great idea. If any of you are reading this and would like to know more, constitutioncenter dot org has a lot of great information and history of amendments. The Avalon Project also keeps records of those founding meetings, votes, and papers and is a fantastic resource. I'm also very well aware I just wrote a book in a UA-cam comment section. I can accept how dumb it looks.
Very well redacted, avfusion! But, it’s not clear in my EU-mind how these 538 electors are elected by the 50 states (and 3 of them by DC). How can one be sure that, say a known republican elector, will respect the result of the popular vote in his/her state, if the majority of the ‘winner takes it all’-votes (except in Maine & Nebraska, where the proportionality valids) go to the democrats. I thought the electors are supposed to respect the popular majority, but there have been examples in the past of the phenomenon of ‘faithless electors’! Is there a republican and/or democratic electoral college in the states? What are the guiding principles, what conditions have to be met to be elected as an elector? Many thanks in advance for your clarifications.
@@RemySPROELANTS Thank you! Most electors are chosen directly from the pool of the national committees or state party committees. In that case, they're generally very loyal already. So there's not a party specific college per se, each party has a pool of electors they're more than ready to throw at the election. This way, if democrats win, they choose only democrat electors from the democrat pool. Same with republicans. All electors are chosen after the election has been decided in the state. On the point of faithless electors, while the identities of electors are purposefully unknown to the public, the state legislatures do know who they are and will know how they voted. Nearly every state in the union has faithless elector laws in place, and those have been upheld by the Supreme Court. While they still can vote independently of their mandate, they could face stiff fines or jail time for doing so.
Some of the more interesting discussions come out of how the number of representatives for each state (and thus the important number in how many electors each state has for the Electoral College) are actually determined. The very first presidential veto in US history was actually about this exact issue. If you want to know more about this, StandupMaths has an excellent video breaking down how the process used to work, why it works the way that it did, what it was changed to, and why the new (and current) one works the way that it does, and why they were chosen. Very fascinating. There is a similar one by CGPGrey where he steps through the current process for the states so you can see how each state received its elector if you go one-by-one, but he doesn't go into the math all that much. As far as making the Electoral College better, I personally like the Cube Root Rule which says that the size of the House should be equal to the Cube Root of the US population, which at this moment would mean a size of about 700 instead of 435. But more importantly, it would increase the size of the House as population grows which should reduce the minimum requirements for getting elected.
Why does he keep mentioning him at the start of his patreons? Did that dude donate thousands to him, or what? I know it’s some type of running joke.. but why?
Ruthefraud Hayes is more about him actually rigging the elections in South Carolina, where turnout was 101%. And yes, “there were more people voting than there were voters” is a thing which actually happened, but in the 19th century, not 2020.
Half of Congress: “Good morning”
Other half: “No”
"🙂 Good morning... Sunday morning."
Half of Congress: "Puppies are cute"
Other half: "We've just drawn up anti-puppy legislation"
One half : Congress spells Congress
Other half : it’s spelt gefniygdrbnku
One half : immortality for all. Others: genocide
@@michaelhibbard654 sorry to annoy you, but I think you meant "immortality" (not dying), and not "immorality" (being not moral)
As an American, the phrase "Good luck getting Congress to agree on anything" couldn't be more true
You would think everyone would want a stimulus package, but no. The Democrats want money for this, Republicans want less money. They say their is wast. Nobody wants negotiation
@@harrisontucker8397 The Democrats motive is not more money, it's that they don't want Trump to be the perceived winner of anything. That has consumed them on every issue for the last 4 years. The issue could be legalizing a cure for cancer and they would vote it down if Trump was the one who proposed it
@@nekad2000 Like the way that Republicans' motivation in the previous 8 years was to stifle anything that Obama tried to do? Face it, the Republicans started these issues. You can't now complain that the same is being done to you. Besides, you don't think for one second that a major reason for the Democrats' "behaviour" is that Trump's a turd who doesn't know what the hell he's doing? Remember, it wasn't the Democrats' fault that he couldn't get anything done in the first two years of this shit show.
@@JumboCod91 I kinda laugh at popular anti-establishment views keep changing.
"Oh no, politicians are agreeing with each other." being the complaint to
"Oh no, politicians are arguing with each other." being the new one.
I mean even 4chan seems to turn from "cool rebel kids" of 2000's to "reactionary assholes" of 2010's. Even the Internet turned into disappointment lately since I've seen people complaining about sensationalism while also posting such articles because "durrr, muh anti-establishment" (i.e.- Alot of my "rebel" friends online).
@JumboCod91
People on the era of good feelings: oH nO My dEMocRaCy!!
Because an electoral elementary school was deemed to silly.
What about the electoral kindergarten
too*
But good one
too*
@@trtyuiop I think it was part of the New Jersey plan, I would have to check tho.
@@trtyuiop Legends say, that they are still making votes with crayon ans sleeping half the time
This video misses one key aspect of it: The method through which a state is to appoint its electors is up to the state legislature to decide. That was done to allow for the states to have maximum flexibility in deciding their own systems of government. At the time, voting rights varied a lot between states, and having a single direct popular vote for president would have required uniformity of voting rights across the country.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the inevitable popular vote bill tries to solve this.
Good point, still true.
... referring to Anders in my remark.
AND the manor of power vested on those electors: some are iron clad bound to vote along their state elected numbers lines, while other states basically have no control of their elector once appointed, he (usually a he) can vote any way he wants to, no matter what his state did.
@@galfinsp7216 Well, National Popular Vote *Interstate Compact*. Which is basically an agreement between the signatory states that they'll give their electoral votes to whoever won the national vote instead of their respective states' vote.
What are you talking about? America and the Vatican City are nowhere near famous as the great island of Madagascar. Do America and the Vatican have their own Dreamworks movie?
El Dorado
Kinda...
@@Ironhold_Watch
South America, not the US
Let's be honest Shrek was filmed in the Everglades and Disney world in Florida.
Several. On both counts.
But did Madagascar have An American Tail? Or A sequel where Fievel goes west?
Germany: Uses electoral college
Me, a German who made fun of Americans for using one: „Wait, we do?“
As i know, it's due to the old thing Prussia=/=Germany and all that stuff.
lol
@@mrcocoloco7200 what 🤔 ?
Yeah but our President is basically the Queen, no powers compared to merkel lul
@@maddoxcindy5017 the queen of Britain have no power whatsoever.
People in swing states: Stonks.
People in safe states: Ah shit here we go again
1. make your state a swing state
2. ???
5. Stonks
@Luís Andrade or unhappy with it. Depends on which party it's 'safe' for
I love that Arizona is now a Swing State. When I first lived in AZ, it was staunchly Republican. But the last few years that's changed. Candidates have to pay attention to us now. Suck it California! (Isn't it wild that staunchly liberal Democratic California has contributed 2 republican Presidents?)
@@billt8504 I hate to be blunt but the reason is because not of the Arizonan people but the people from your southern border jumping on in
Just like how Texas is somewhat competitive (well that might just be the Austin stupidity, pretty fucking worthless city)
@@looinrims yeah, sure. it couldnt be because trump was unpopular and repeatedly insulted arizona's most popular senator, John McCain.
I liked the total war reference "Summon The Elector Counts" Karl Franz
>not obsessed with bringing him men
Idk if that actually could be considered Karl with that oversight.
1/2 of congress: Lovely day
The other 1/2: is it though?
The other half lives in Spain, but the S is silent
"The sky is blue during the daytime"
"Well you see..."
@Dr. M. H. No I mean the chairs
cough*sarcarsm*cough
@@merrittanimation7721 it technically is a gradient of blue, I think, with closest to sun being lighter blue, getting darker blue the further you go from sun, up to a point. Even in hypothetical scenarios you could argue, lol
@@kazaktranslator9850 This is the pedantic answer I was expecting.
"Good luck on getting 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything" - Dictatorship congresses: "We always agree on everything"
Congress agrees near unanimously on lots of stuff, its just almost always bad like the patriot act or invading iraq lol
They are all on board for voting on pay raises for themselves!
@Oxtail So true:)
@Oxtail Parliament of Russia will be proud. Let's just drink vodka and go home!
The American political system was designed by the Framers to result in gridlock. It's all in the Federalist Papers. Such an important document yet Americans don't know it.
I just want to say I appreciate how super super difficult it is to squeeze historical concepts into 3 minutes videos. Thanks for the channel.
What this fails to mention is that one of the features of the Electoral College system is that if no one wins a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses the President. This feature was part of the compromise, as it was believed that this would happen often, and made the system more appealing to those that wanted Congress to choose the President. Still, this video is fairly well done, better than the CNBC video on the subject.
This has happened in 2 elections: 1800, where both Jefferson and Burr recived 73 electoral votes (They decided Jefferson as pres and Burr as VP) and 1824 where nobody got a majority of the vote to win.
There is also a feature in which the Senate choses the VP if nobody got a majority of votes in the VP race, but the only time that happened was in 1836.
This is also what caused 1824 and 1876 to not be with the popular vote. Congress decided who was president
It was also designed in an age when information traveled very slowly and where national media was nonexistent. The idea was that a group of well educated men (who did not hold any elected office) would be able to gather together and review all up to date information as they made a decision. There was some merit to this idea since it could literally take months between a major event happening in Europe and voters in rural America first even hearing about it.
Also, at the time, each state had its own laws on who can and cannot vote. It wouldn't make sense for, say, a state that only has land owners vote also be in the same popular vote pool as a state that has universal male suffrage. That was a real concern, and is the reason why they also decided that the Census would apportion seats in the House, but wouldn't tell the states how to select seats. It was common in southern states for their Congressional delegation to be entirely chosen by the state government.
no MSM what a glorious time that would of been
“1960 Maybe???”
*HAHAHAHA NOTHING BAD EVER HAPPENS TO THE KENNEDYS!*
*Car flips*
WAAAAHH
Yeah, their luck is worse than the Carmines!
why was it maybe tho?
John F Kennedy did in fact win the popular vote I don’t know why he put “maybe” in here.
@@TheSSUltimateGoku It stems from what Alabama did in that election. Instead of the ballot listing Kennedy and Nixon, the ballot listed the individual presidential electors. Voters could vote for up to 11 and the top 11 vote-getters would cast the state's electoral votes. All of the state's 11 Republican electors were pledged to Nixon, but of the Democratic electors, 5 were pledged to Kennedy and 6 were unpledged. In the end the top 11 electors were, in order, the 6 unpledged Democratic electors, followed by the 5 Kennedy electors. The unpledged electors all voted for Harry F. Byrd. So the question is how you actually "count" Alabama's popular vote as if it was run as a standard one-vote-for-one-candidate election. One method involves taking the top Democratic elector's vote total and dividing it proportionally between the unpledged electors and the Kennedy electors, while taking the top Republican elector's vote total and giving it all to Nixon. Doing so leads to a nationwide popular vote victory for Nixon.
The USA, the Vatican, Germany, Estonia, Pakistan, Burma(Myanmar) and Madagascar.
What a hodgepodge collection that is
As for the purpose of protecting against populism, partisanism and mob rule. Well I guess 1 out of 3 isn’t bad.
That the weirdest Yako's Nations of the World version I have seen so far
I only know the systems of Germany, the US and the Vatican.
But those 3 are allready very different from each other. So i guess the term "electoral college" is used in a very wide definition.
In Germany, the president is pretty much useless. He is only a figurehead. Except if there is dissent between the head of government and the parliament, then he can decide which one will be reelected.
the Pakistani president has a grand total of 0 powers he can exercise without the consent of the Prime Minister (who's elected by the legislature) so hes just a figurehead
Me: sees Oklahoma being blue in the thumbnail
Also me: wait... that’s illegal
I know 🤣😂
It was for many years
If you check out videos of election coverage in 1980 and 1984; they had Reagan states in Blue.
So the thumbnail isnt the result of any Presidential election. The map doesnt line up with any outcome.
@@robertmoore6149 it's the 2016 map but Oklahoma is blue that's the only difference
0:46 you are indeed a man of culture, History Matters
Really? Only Rutherfraud Hayes? Nobody even thought of Ruthefraud B. Trayes?
Someone may have, but there wasn't an internet.
People still thought up clever turns of phrase, but if they didn't send them to a newspaper, almost nobody else would hear of them.
It's brilliant but a bit of a mouthful
@@BeastlyMussel61 YOU'RE a bit of a mouth full.
...wait. 🤔
You're a genius! We're all lucky you weren't there to conquer the world....
So we literally have Elector Counts choosing our next president, but they DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE GLORIOUS EMPIRE AGAINST IT'S ENEMIES!?
Man, never thought I'd see you in here.
Is it so wrong to vote for Volkmar as Elector Count of West Virginia?
DEFEND THE GLORIOUS EMPIRE.
@@arjusarauis9901 because he sucks, Boris Todbringer for West Virginia.
Yes-yes, squabble in your petty politics, man-things, while we shall make our Underempire great again!
one part of congress: aye good mornin kanye
other part: shut tf up
This is the weirdest way I have seen someone say "stfu"
Karl-Franz von Washingtown: This action does not have my consent!
Summon the Elector-Senators !
There was another embarrassing situation about the Electoral College that was changed very quickly. In 1796, John Adams won the Presidency, yet his on and off friemy Thomas Jefferson, who was campaigning for very different things to Adams, was elected Vice President, leaving two opponents awkwardly working together
But it was changed after the next election when Jefferson and Burr were tied. Most of the nation did not favor Adams as a president forgoing four years of Justin Trudeau style administration. Most states wanting a change voted for Jefferson and Burr...assuming Burr would be VP. Oddly enough Jefferson disliked Burr but Democratic-Republicans in the nation did.
The original rules were written like a gentleman's club, so it was revised to running mates for those two situations....AS quickly politics got nasty and political parties created themselves....then inserted themselves into the process.
This seems like parents naking two fighting kids sit in the back seat next to each other in an attempt to force them to get along. I would pay good money to see politicians have to do that
@@ebnertra0004 Adams was politically both a genious and naive, and Jefferson played him, stabbed him in the back, and had his cronies finish the job. One term President. Then went home.
@@thedwightguy What I find interesting is that Adams wanted to talk about their old political fights in his letters but Jefferson opposed that desire, so they never talked about politics again.
Yep. At the time the process was that each elector in the college voted twice, being required to vote for two different candidates. The person with the most votes, provided that that number was a majority of the electors, would be the President while the person with the second most would be the vice president. But after the rather tense relationship between ideological rivals President Adams and Vice President Jefferson and the chaotic election of 1800, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed which created the electoral college system we have now. Now the election for President and Vice President are two separate elections with each member of the college voting only once in each one.
"66 percent Congress and 75 percent of state legislatures."😂😂😂
Good luck with that!
That’s the point!
That's the difference between America and the rest of the world we are a Constitutional Republic not a direct Democracy because they don't work....they lead to Tyranny sooner or later.
It has happened 27 times!
@@adithyastren6218 dam! Scary.
@@echo5226 how so?
I like how generally neutral this explanation is. That makes this better than if a pundit had said yay or nay on the validity of the system. Plus hey, it maximizes video comments. Smart!
0:46 yes...
This is good
THE EMPIRE ENDURES
"Good luck getting Congress to agree on anything". Dude, it's so funny, it hurts. 🤣Man that's more reality than I like in my life.
And I thought Sejm in Polish-lithuanian Commonwealth was weird.... Good luck americans
Agreed 😂😂
0:45 Summon the elector counts
BRING ME TO MY MEN
Thank God I wasnt the only one to notice that
(Karl Franz trying to decide what to wear today(
*SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS*
Who calls?
@@Antonh. The nation calls!
It actually works similarly here in Denmark. Finland used the Electoral College until recently.
Denmark a monarchy
@@haroldlawson8771 Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen has no say in who is the Prime Minister; elected freely.
I was doing my homework on my school Ipad and accidentally clicked this notification
No regrets
N. M. Because I could, and I did
What school issues iPads? Is it a private school?
I'm glad you are learning the importance of the Electoral College.
@@Ironhold_Watch public, but they were smart enough to get IPads instead of chromebooks
@@wolfmantroy6601 yeah, especially since I live here
I've been waiting for this video for a long time.
Same here!
"Stars, yo" in the usa flag.
*noice*
its kind of an old legacy
Also this:
"...Fun fact: No."
"Stars, yo" is one of my favorite things in these videos.
@@christianagi one of the other things is the "insert earth here"
Still cracks me up, every time
Your party wins: "We did it fair and square!"
Your party loses: "ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE"
Donald Trump opposed the electoral college when he thought Obama would be president but lose the popular vote. Republicans only like it because in recent elections it gives them the unfair advantage.
@@onebuc5874 That's exactly what I said, yes
The use of "Your party" to make it seem a bipartisan phenomenon is a little misleading. In point of fact, since the development of the modern two-party system in U.S. politics, every president who won the electoral college vote while losing the popular vote has been a Republican. So, not saying that the Republicans wouldn't behave the way you describe, but so far they've had no reason to. It's only Democratic candidates who've ended up on the short end of the electoral college stick, despite securing the most popular votes.
@@rderran5377 yes, because otherwise California and New York would be electing every president. The electorial college works as intended, keeping crazy lefty's from owning the country.
@@UniqueBreakfastTaco Spoken like someone truly ignorant of history. The first time the phenomenon occurred, the candidate who benefited (the Republican) would more likely have fit the "lefty" label you've used so sloppily. At that time, the Republicans were the more progressive party; the Democrats were the conservatives. The second time it happened, the nature of the candidates was such that trying to apply "left/right" distinctions to them would probably be meaningless. The third time it happened, the candidate who benefited (G. Bush) could fairly be called conservative. The most recent time, it only makes sense to use the lazy "left/right" label because Trump desires to be an autocrat, not because he's a conservative. Anyone who thinks Trump's a conservative is profoundly delusional (as any true conservative would tell you).
This is exactly what I was wondering about! You always cover the topics which appeal to me
The Thumbnail
*49 States*: In realistic party colors
*Oklahoma*: Blue
Why?
Must be an impostor. Or trolling.
Sus
@Luís Andrade
Indians dont exist.
Almost every state has flopped between the parties at some point so Oklahoma may have vote Democrat, then realized their mistake and switched to Republican. Even Texas and all of the old south once voted for Dems but now they ussually vote Republican.
@Luís Andrade dead
0:46 is that a warhammer reference i see there?
SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS
I think it is.
I am Prince and President!
The nation calls!
Chris Withee ALL I EVER WANTED WAS PEACE
NO PEACE! JUST WAR!
"Summon the Electors" BY SIGMAR, YES!!!
"It was supposed to protect against partisanism"
big oof
Yeah, keep in mind they also wanted the runner up in presidential elections to be Vice President. I think they wanted the different perspectives to work together to to run the states. But This lead to a lot of feuding in the government when the first parties emerge mere years later. Nothing like Presidency divided among themselves over whether the country should be a farming or industrial power. That’s why presidential tickets have both positions on it. Also VP got his own position nerfed.
Who wants NY and CA to dominate voting polls simply because of population? Not this guy
What Dev-O said. the EC protects against partisan popularity contests from massively populated regions of the country.
@@jimharris5320 or you could just not have a 2 party system :T
@@1InVader1 I'd love that. Seriously. The Libertarian, Green and Constitutional party all need to step up. The others are even more fringe than them but who knows?
"summon the elector counts!"
el octor
this action does not have my consent!
Thank you! This is a really good and nonpartisan video amidst all of the annoying campaign ads.
The Electoral College doesn't actually make candidates care about small states. It makes them care about swing states. Because of the "winner takes all" approach to each state's electoral votes, candidates can safely ignore states where they already have a comfortable lead. Spending money campaigning there won't earn them anything. It almost always comes down to a few thousand voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida
Trends have varied over the years. The swing states are not always the same, nor are safe republican or democrat states. What the Electoral College does require is attention be paid to more than (nowadays, not at the beginning) California, Illinois, and New York.
@Arkelk2010 This is a stupid argument. Not everyone in a state votes the same, the electoral college just makes it seem like everyone in a state votes the same way. Their are millions of trump voters in california and millions of kamala voters in texas. Also campaigns are more than just appealing to specific voters.
The point of the national popular vote is that you don't care which state the voter is in.
@@JoeMama-i7h 2000 was so close that Gore would have won if he'd concentrated more on getting New Hampshire.
Yeah, but the idea of swing states is actually a pretty new concept in the grand scheme of us history. In older elections, politicians didn't ignore half the country, and the amount of swing states when swing states first started were much more than they are now. If anything, blame the politicians for willfully ignoring half of the country and causing this to happen
@@jamesslater9098 Non-contentious reply: there are a couple of states which allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the votes within the state. I could agree with that.
Potentially contentions: I do not want the President to be chosen by merely the most populous areas of the country. He (or maybe she) is the one elected officially elected by the entire country. Votes therefore should come from all corners of the country.
Simple answer:
“The people?”
*_”The people?!”_*
*_”You can’t trust the people!”_*
@Ger Many Why you can’t get the joke
@Ger Many CPGrey joke.
"Do you think this Compomistitution for a Direct Democracy LOL? We're building a republic here."
@Ger Many CPG Grey electoral College Video.
(looks at the overwhelming votes from California for Hillary Clinton vs. Trump, then looks at the rest of the country)
In some cases... No, you cannot trust the people.
When will we elect James Bisonet
*Holds up sign saying: “Soon.....”
To quote Lex Luther from DC: “President? Do you know how much power I would lose becoming President?”
Soon brother. .
He's become the George Soros of this channel.
Don't tell Bernie Sanders. He'll try to steal Bisonet's money.
Perfect timing for this video to be out at this time!
This video might have benefited by reading the explanation of Max Farrand, the great historian and compiler of the records of the Constitutional Convention, of why the Electoral College was invented. It was actually meant to prevent deals between States to decide the Presidency, and bring about a more genuine nationwide selection process in an era when most things were State-centric, there was little nationwide travel or nationwide media.
Where would popular vote compact fall in relation into this?
Never thought I'd see the day that Karl Franz of the Empire would be holding up a sign to the founding fathers. Thanks, History Matters!
First Congressman: "Lovely day."
.
.
.
Second Congressman: "Communist."
FAR LEFT RADICAL COMMIE!
First congress man: “good hearing”
Second congress man: “thanks”
Third congress man: “ 😤”
Only Libtards would think it is a lovely day.
Joseph McCarthy: *I'm going to do what's called, a pro gamer move*
@Joseph Stalin Big Fan!
"good luck getting two thirds of congress to agree on anything" is now one of my favorite political jokes.
well it is easy, just do as Mussolini and hitler did
have armed "guards" in the room when the vote is being held
@@crazydinosaur8945 don’t forget imprisoning/banning/executing anyone who disagrees with you in the first place
Sadly, it isn't a joke
You must be young if you've never heard that
“Eat the poor”
still a popular electoral mandate 😂
Bipartisan issue it seema
Well if you eat the poor then you don’t have to pay tax rebates or welfare (ie free money) and there’s no more poor people to be poor
This seems like a foolproof governing idea to me
@Jacob Wilson "But who will work at Amazon? Or McDonalds?"
@@looinrims I mean if you look realistically at our government’s definition of poor it’s literally over 70% of Americans you eat that much of the population America becomes South Korea fairly quickly and also a good percentage of the military mostly e1 -e4s are considered por
@@brycehoward4139 No
As an Iowan, I appreciate you using the American Gothic during the credits of many of your videos.
Love your brief explanation of the EC. Look forward to more content.
For a brief few minutes history and the whys and whats are pretty well explained. I also enjoy the subtle humor and how it is put into his narrative.
0:46 I understood that reference
"Yes, to unite the provinces!"
"I will marshal the men"
Summon the elector counts!
Carl Frantz
Seing Karl Franz with the sign "Summon the electors" made me smile.
Alexander Hamilton, his name is Alexander Hamilton. And there's a million things he hasn't done. But just you wait, just you wait
I'm not throwing away my , shot !
You could never be satisfied
God I hope you’re satisfied
He fought a duel and lost it, and died by it.
Didn't expect you to like musicals, Kimmy
Happy Thanksgiving to the ever present James Bissonnette.
0:46 BY SIGMAR YES.
Wow I completely missed that
Therapist: Blue Oklahoma doesn’t exist there’s no need to be worried
*Blue Oklahoma*
Blue Iowa and blue Texas
Red California
@@wires-sl7gs Lets not get too crazy
@@EinePerson Just stating what I saw in the video XD
@@EinePerson California used to be red
“Good luck trying to get two thirds of Congress to agree on anything”
*Sad laughter*
I mean, do you want a congress that always unionsly agrees? (Cue in China)
Honestly it's a good thing, think about how bad it would be if they were able to continue pumping out more and more regulations without any hold up. Our nation would be gone in a week.
They can agree on raising their salary that is for sure
The two party system is a problem. Both sides just oppose and demonize one another no matter what. They will follow their party to hell no matter what.
We need more parties to make a better balance where compromises have to be made to get things done rather then nothing getting done because no on wants to agree with the other.
@@LordJaric Ranked choice voting would solve a lot of these issues, too.
Americans agree on a lot. Our representatives never do. Even if it's something reasonable, the system as it is now demands that they oppose the other party and pretend it's all of a sudden a morally relevant issue. Check 80% of polls on issues. If you ask about Americans' stances on ISSUES, we agree on a surprising amount.
That, and the party system means we're always voting _against_ something, rather than _for_ anything we'd actually like, as well as the fact that those we elect are heavily influenced by campaign contributions - so our system devolves into further dysfunction all the time, while never failing to pass legislation which favors the entities which already have (and "donate" plenty of) money.
It's dysfunctional for the people. It's working perfectly well if you're the right type of dollar-laden entity.
Short, sweet, and to the point, whether you like the point or not. Good video. Explained it well.
Both parties when they lose: gggrrrr I hate the electoral college!
When they win: 😁 this is awesome
The Democrats are against the electoral college and Republicans are for it.
XCodes it’s not a problem. Mob rule and populism have been the end of every democracy in history... probably including this one. Human beings respond to incentives and gov’t officials being humans especially respond to the incentive to increase their power, influence, and relevance.
@Vlavitir glutginskiya Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1992
@CommandoDude the problem at heart here is that mob rule is the destroyer of freedoms and the ender of republics like ours, and are fundamentally flawed in most every possible way. The electoral college is flawed, yes, but would you rather live with a system that has a few flaws or one that has flaws in every aspect of it's being?
@CommandoDude I wouldn't say bigger, but definitely as big a problem. This is why the electoral college is so good, it provides equal representation, unlike a direct democracy.
Why does america have an electoral college.
America: Because Im different and cool.
Or maybe because it’s more fair and they need it. Moron
@@randomeastasian347 calm down sir, its a joke :)
@@randomeastasian347 wrong again open a history book. The rules on the electoral college changed in 1820. So that means there has not been a fair vote since then.
@@mcgee227 Then explain how it’s not fair?
@@randomeastasian347 Calm down, he is joking
History Matters always hitting the spot on what people want to hear, before we even know 😁
Brilliant 👏 thank you again. I love this explanation! Merry Christmas 🎅 🎄 ❤
History Matters: Alexander Hamil-
Theater kids: *I CAME AS SOON AS I HEARD*
😠
youre either a bot, fatt dude without a neck or some weird 14 year old.
(For all the edgy people who didnt get why I said this: I was joking smh.)
@@mcj2219 yeah why hate?
@@WyattPriceTV He's probably a theater kid
@@mcj2219 lmao ok theater kid
Candidate with more votes: Did I win?
The Electoral college: Yesn't
The electoral College : Maybe.
California : we have more people, we decide your fate
West Virginia : how about no
The constitution: One person, one vote
The electoral college: Hey forget that last part
@@mansonsacidtrip6862
1. The constitution doesn’t say that
2. Every citizen gets one vote
0:34 read "Stars yo", laughed, went back to listen what was said
It's nice to learn things and get a laugh at the same time.
And ever since then there has been no populism, partisanship, or mob rule. The end!
Well said! I hear you!
Oklahoma in the thumbnail makes me want to die.
The fact that Germany has an electoral college gives me HRE flashbacks
It doesn't have one
@@basedonabsolutelynothing2076 read about how the HRE chose the Holy Roman Emperor
@@loganvurklemeyer1957 point is germany doesnt have one, not denying the prince electoral system of the long dead HRE
@@pequenoperezoso3743 oh
1:07 That’s very ironic, especially since the second (and the first) part was an intended thing the Founders wanted to avoid
You have no idea how much you made me smile by referencing Warhammer.
0:01
If you look closely
Vanuatu is highlighted
nice eye
"Good luck getting Congress to agree on anything" couldn't be more true. You could tell them water is wet and a quarter would launch an investigation into water, another quarter would try to rebel against it or outright impeach it. The 3rd quarter would claim that water had violated some right or another.....and the 4th quarter would try to make every molecule of water vote for them.
Accurate and amusing. I say this: if the mass media and 98% of the politicians in America told me water was wet, I'd have to check to make sure.
Democrat congressmen: "the sky is green!"
Republican congressmen: "no it's not."
Republican congressmen: "the sky is yellow!"
Democrat congressmen: "no it isn't."
Average layman/normal person: "the sky is blue!"
Congressman: "our education system sucks!"
History Matters, every single video you give me a new reason to love you. That Warhammer meme was tight but you being English I really should have seen it coming.
I need you version of Hamilton that has your characters and is just told by signs
*your lol
What about Hamlet?
We can have both
Why is HM's Hamilton white?
History Matters: Talks about the Electoral College
_CGP Grey has joined the chat_
As a persion who research sociology. A lot of CGP greys videos are relly one sided
@@josephlisowski6414 For example?
@@Hypogean7 in his video humans need not apply a lot of his statements fall under the lump of labor fallacy and he falsely compares humans to horses.
@@josephlisowski6414 well tbf hes not intending on representing all sides of the argument. Just his own. He never claims to do otherwise
More like CPG ghey . . .
And I do add that there was a property requirement in the states to vote in the first place when the electors were first implemented, so seeing it as a defense against the rabble would have been somewhat strange. At best it could have been deliberative within each state's capitols rather than a riot, but that would have required the electors to not have personal loyalties of any significant magnitude.
got a good laugh out of the Karl Franz cameo, well done. THE NATION CALLS.
0:45 FOR SIGMAR
For the God-King! For Azyr ! For the realms!
Reference to warhammer?
@@mikhailgorbachev7851 I believe it's Karl Franz, so yes
@@mikhailgorbachev7851 Warhammer FANTASY...
Now a patron for the first time ever. Love your stuff!
"It was meant to act as a protection against populism, partisanism and mob rule."
Yeah, about that...
0:45 "Summon the elector counts !" Good one.
0:46 well great, now I have to start referring to the electors as the Elector Counts, obviously in Karl Franz’s voice too!
On Election Night, My eyes are on Florida as an Early Indicator of what the mood might be
Who ever wins Florida is winning the election. They both need it bad.
@@lancemuller9556 If you rank the states by the polls and assume that a candidate, who wins a state also wins all, in which his polls are better, Biden could also win with Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the ones in which he is better.
@@0000-z4z I could see Wisconsin flipping to blue, but Pennsylvania I see trump holding because of Bidens flip flopping on fracking and saying that he will destroy the oil industry
@@lancemuller9556 If Trump wins Florida, that means he has a Chance, if Biden wins it, is over
@@0000-z4z and all of the toss ups except Ohio which Trump is really winning in is in the margin of error
I lost it at the politician narrowing his eyes at 'lovely day.'
the videos that credit the pastry section are always the best
Thank you for not interjecting your political views into this and for just presenting the facts.
Yes common sense and its failure to prevent a lying, unrealistic populist in 2016 really speaks for itself
@@Joesolo13 remember when you lefties said Trump was going to cause economic problems and high gas prices and start WW3? How's that turning out for you?
@@Joesolo13 I mean it’s an antiquated system
How do you know this is not his overal view? Congratulating an history channel for just presenting the facts seems patronising. As it turns out there's enough in the presentation to say how silly the idea is and how blind the American people are for not changing it with out having an agenda to it.
@@Joesolo13 I think you meant 2020. 2016 had a great president elected.
I love your videos HM, firstly, but there's a few issues that aren't well supported by the history we have. At one point in your video where you mention that the Electoral College "protects small states", but there's no document from the founding fathers stating that, at least, that's not the actual mechanism that protected small states. I've always assumed this is misconstrued from what we do know which is that it gave states the ability to choose how electors are chosen, so they could condense their votes for the most singularly popular giving them a harder edge in decisions, but it's a guess. In 1787, when what would become the 12th Amendment would be forming in the heads of the founding fathers, the idea of small states having the same power as big states was not popular (Delaware with the smallest population had the same voting power as Virginia with the largest). This was one of the problems going into the Philadelphia Convention.
In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton talks about how the electoral college would make it more difficult for foreign entities to inject candidates or influence Americans with their wants into the system. This is the same paper that he describes what is talked about at 1:20, but the one bit I'd add is that information was not readily available at the time. Electors were supposed to be men of good communication that could take the votes for a candidate, determine if the reason those people voted for that candidate were in line with the actual information available to the elector and decide if the people made a mistake and could fix it through a change in their ultimate vote.
To quote George Mason of Virginia at the time , "It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper candidate for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would be to refer a trial of colours to a blind man."
That doesn't happen today though, as though this is claimed to be the reason in No. 68 and No. 64 (by John Jay), within the first decade after 1800, all states had adopted laws that appointed electors solely based on party loyalty. This type of arrangement was intended to be avoided by banning all federal officials from serving as electors in order to enforce the independence of electors to vote mindfully with the people's vote as a suggestion, but was worked around. Thus, the EC had no impact ultimately on partisan politics.
This change in the early 1800's took away the ability of electors to refuse mob rule, because this protection was solely contingent on the elector being able to be an independent agent. That's why they've always been allowed to cast secret ballots as well, as pushing against mob rule is surely an action to get one's head cut off.
The EC was built to be about people not numbers. Nothing about the numbers of electors matters and they never were supposed to matter. The Federalist papers don't even mention them because everyone at the table assumed they would be proportional to the population in the same way congressional seats were assigned, because it had nothing to do with stopping a big group of people from swarming the smaller group. It was supposed to be the person casting that deciding vote to change their minds in the best interest of their fellow citizens. If they saw mob rule, they could say "sorry everybody, I can't let you tyrannize democracy." ... But secretly, y'know, cut head cutting offing.
Another problem is that from the records of that convention, we know that some small states voted against popular vote and the electoral vote because it didn't solve the problem of big states having more power than small states. The actual solution to that was the Contingency Election and necessary trigger: If a candidate does not possess a majority of votes (not electors, but their votes) for Presidency, the House will determine the winner of Presidency, Senate Vice Presidency. The purpose was to prevent a cluster of small states coming together and voting, but Virginia and New York both vote and get 42% and will swamp any combination of other candidate votes from the smaller states. That is the only record we have of small states complaining, and that solution is arguably a great idea.
If any of you are reading this and would like to know more, constitutioncenter dot org has a lot of great information and history of amendments. The Avalon Project also keeps records of those founding meetings, votes, and papers and is a fantastic resource.
I'm also very well aware I just wrote a book in a UA-cam comment section. I can accept how dumb it looks.
Very well redacted, avfusion! But, it’s not clear in my EU-mind how these 538 electors are elected by the 50 states (and 3 of them by DC). How can one be sure that, say a known republican elector, will respect the result of the popular vote in his/her state, if the majority of the ‘winner takes it all’-votes (except in Maine & Nebraska, where the proportionality valids) go to the democrats. I thought the electors are supposed to respect the popular majority, but there have been examples in the past of the phenomenon of ‘faithless electors’!
Is there a republican and/or democratic electoral college in the states? What are the guiding principles, what conditions have to be met to be elected as an elector?
Many thanks in advance for your clarifications.
@@RemySPROELANTS Thank you! Most electors are chosen directly from the pool of the national committees or state party committees. In that case, they're generally very loyal already. So there's not a party specific college per se, each party has a pool of electors they're more than ready to throw at the election.
This way, if democrats win, they choose only democrat electors from the democrat pool. Same with republicans. All electors are chosen after the election has been decided in the state.
On the point of faithless electors, while the identities of electors are purposefully unknown to the public, the state legislatures do know who they are and will know how they voted. Nearly every state in the union has faithless elector laws in place, and those have been upheld by the Supreme Court. While they still can vote independently of their mandate, they could face stiff fines or jail time for doing so.
Some of the more interesting discussions come out of how the number of representatives for each state (and thus the important number in how many electors each state has for the Electoral College) are actually determined. The very first presidential veto in US history was actually about this exact issue. If you want to know more about this, StandupMaths has an excellent video breaking down how the process used to work, why it works the way that it did, what it was changed to, and why the new (and current) one works the way that it does, and why they were chosen. Very fascinating. There is a similar one by CGPGrey where he steps through the current process for the states so you can see how each state received its elector if you go one-by-one, but he doesn't go into the math all that much.
As far as making the Electoral College better, I personally like the Cube Root Rule which says that the size of the House should be equal to the Cube Root of the US population, which at this moment would mean a size of about 700 instead of 435. But more importantly, it would increase the size of the House as population grows which should reduce the minimum requirements for getting elected.
the runner up being the vp seems like the best comprimise
Theoretically it would be if we had tamer candidates, but imagine Biden winning and having Trump as his VP
that WAS how it worked, but its kinda awkward. you get people from opposite parties working together
I did enjoy it...and very timely of you.
This is gonna be a fun comment section
Prepare for trouble
And make it double
To protect the world from devastation
To unite all people within our nation
As an Electoral College, I ask myself this every day
you really don’t know why we have an electoral college?
0:46
S U M M O N T H E E L E C T O R
C O U N T S
For the Empire!
I don't get this, please tell me
@@minecrafttree1676 the man in armor is a total war warhammer reference
@@trazyianajones456 oh ok
My main takeaway from this video is that Estonia has an electoral college. I lived in Estonia twice and speak Estonian but never noticed.
The electoral college is a magnificent creation and should never be repealed.
Video suggestion "Who opposed Soviet occupation durning WW2?" Include Estonia in this video.
3:13 James Bisonette
Why does he keep mentioning him at the start of his patreons? Did that dude donate thousands to him, or what? I know it’s some type of running joke.. but why?
@@hd-sf9li I mean, it's James Bisonette
I love how Oklahoma, I'm pretty sure the only state without a single blue county in elections, is blue in the map. truly the of all time.
Ruthefraud Hayes is more about him actually rigging the elections in South Carolina, where turnout was 101%.
And yes, “there were more people voting than there were voters” is a thing which actually happened, but in the 19th century, not 2020.