The Beesleys did not consider that the number of states changed over time so the the number of Electors changed. This can create the possibility of ties within the Electoral College.
honestly the last 2-3 elections feel like that now whats your policy? none there ads = i hate the other person there ads supporting themselves on there policy = none
Yes! Now that the campaigns are over I can tell you more about why NOT to have voted for either candidate as opposed to why you should have. It's like picking the lesser of two evils according to all the ads. I've personally never been influenced by a campaign ad. They are a waste of time and money IMHO.
There are 23% mark popular national votes. When one candidate reach the 270 mark but the opponent had >23% more votes than that one candidate, they'll automatically break the 270 mark but in case of this distribution chasm they are very rare to happen.
@@rife_157 - I'm sorry but your poor sentence structure and grammar makes your comment unintelligible and as such, I'm sure as hell not taking your comment seriously and pray you don't vote.
Yeah, it's the extremely rare super-close calls that are a problem. The benefits of the electoral vote vastly outweigh the possibility of an occasional upset.
One thing the founders emphasized in the federalist papers (and something a lot of ppl don't hear enough) is the importance of avoiding a tyranny of the cities. If you go by popular vote or have representation solely based on population then places like san Francisco and new york would be the deciding cities and the candidates would never bother to try and connect with small flyover rural farmers in random towns in the Midwest. That's very important.❤
But there would never be a tyranny of the cities. This is a myth. In a state like California for example, you have huge swathes of the state that don’t vote like SF and LA do If you have “one person, one vote” then you’d have the many, many Republicans who live in states like Illinois and California actually having more of a voice. Their votes would combine with the votes of Republicans in states like Iowa, Arkansas, etc and actually have a lot of power
@coyotelong4349 well the purpose of the republic is about local representation not just a combined blob of Republicans or democrats from all the far flung places. Republicans in Omaha won't want everything Republicans in Florida want. We should vote in our local electors based on their policy not just mob together to elect whichever president had a more appealing camaign for example. I'm open to better voting systems but not open to a straight democracy like France established. It can become an elective dictatorship so to speak.
We also don’t campaign by train and take 30 days for newspapers to write a story. on the ground campaigning though significant is less so now. We are all getting the same information about candidates in real time. Some states and people haven’t seen a presidential candidate in decades, the electoral college equally ignores states as you say a popular vote does. A Democrat might actually campaign in red states if it means they may pick up 5million votes . I could pass through the Bible Belt.
@@Knightowl1980 No, we are not. Some "news sites" claimed that the Hunter Laptop was Russian Misinfo, when it was NOT. And when THAT was challenged they shut those voices down, acting as a "collective". Voices clamored that they were "allowed" to silence voices because they were "private enterprises". Elon buys the largest site and inverts the status quo, and NOW that's a problem? We had ONE State try and remove a chosen candidate from the ballot based on "media lies", the SCOTUS had to involve itself because it would affect the "integrity of the greater electoral process". So, NO. This candidate has not only won the electoral college, he has won the national popular vote.
And in a House election for the president, each delegation from a state has one vote. So only 50 votes are cast, not 435. In the Senate, each senator votes independently for VP. Also, it is the new Congress that considers the matter in January. If the House ties, they keep voting until they have a majority. If inauguration day comes and the House is still tied, the VP elected by the Senate would be inaugurated as president.
@@LyleFrancisDelp trump is a wannabe dictator. only vote trump if you dont want to keep american democracy. vote blue and vote harris if you want to keep the democracy. stop being brain washed
Pennsylvania was THE swing state that mattered most and it proved to be the one that decided the election. This was a landslide victory - no surprise if you understood the top issues that really mattered to the American people
@@wilhelm-z4t the Only States that Kamala Harris won Do Not require voter ID... I believe the landslide should have been even bigger, if not for the box trucks showing up at 3am...
Elections are actually easier to predict than most things (even football games of stocks). I knew by the early voters turnout that Trump would win. I estimated a 7% margin (popular vote); it ended up being 5%. Talking to people about their struggles also helps. Democrat voters got killed in the 18-39 age demographics (down -30%).
@@vladimirofsvalbard9477 Not sure how you can state margin for popular vote when more than a few states are still counting ballots. Think CA just broke 80% -- maybe CA can finish by Thanksgiving. (Last I checked, less than 3 million difference in popular vote.)
@@GlobalCitizen_y2k Because you can use age demographics based on previous election and current early voting patterns to deduce a likely turnout; therefore predicting a likely 'total vote'. It's different if you're going to predict state by state.
His analysis of the weight of electoral votes is quite a bit off. Each state gets 2 votes automatically (presumably to match the number of aenators) and the rest are assigned based on population density. That is why the Republicans are always trying to get a citizenship question added to the census. Without it starts like California with high numbers of non-citizens can get more electoral votes based on their total population, when the census should only be counting voters not people. And yes I understand that this also means texas, Florida, Arizona and many other high immigration locations also can pick up extra votes. But those extra votes disenfranchise places like north dakota and Iowa and Alaska.
This would confuse Brits because red is the color of Labour party which would be Democrat here and blue is the color of the Conservative party/Republican here.
One advantage of the EC system is that you can’t pander to only rural or only city people. Since you have to win or lose the whole state, you have to run on policies that cater to both groups. If it was pure popular vote, you could focus on just winning the large city populations, ignoring the needs of all the people who grow the food, mine the coal, et cetera. Or cater to them and ignore the large factories and white collar workers.
I wish the states would change. Instead of winner takes all in the 48 states, I think all states should be like Maine and Nebraska and split electors by district.
Honestly I think they should implement the EC within the states themselves. States like California and New York have NYC and southern Cali decide the entire state.
@ and thus does logic lead one down the path towards (but not necessarily to) anarchocapitalism or voluntarism. The smaller the unit of decision making, and the more units negotiating, the better the outcomes.
@@JasonJrake while the idealist in me may agree with this statement, the realist knows it's not in human nature to operate this way - we like having a strong, central figure at the helm too much despite our own protests. But hey, I love the cactuar.
The reason many want to keep it 😮is so rural areas will not be ignored. Otherwise, candidates would just run up the vote in the top few cities and not represent all Americans. Slavery was one of the original reasons. However, it was not the only reason. Just one more check to ensure everyone had a voice, not just a majority. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. Compromises ensure the country stays together.
That excuse is fine on paper, but it totally ignores that EVERY STATE, including California and New York are predominately right leaning outside the cities you all are so afraid of. California for example has more republicans than any other state BY FAR, and under the electoral college, their votes are entirely meaningless. But under the popular vote, they would actually have significant sway. The whole “rural vs. cities” argument completely falls apart to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, but of course one side will never admit that because they feel like they can only win with the EC in place.
@@ninja_tony That California has more Republicans is sketchy at best, and entirely dependent on point in time, plus ignores the many rural Democrat voters. The net vote in CA isn't ever close. If I were to look at 2016, a) California didn't lead among Republicans, and b) the net-Dem vote there was over 1 million larger than the national popular vote difference. And if it was that important to their sense of fairness, California could decide to divvy up their electoral votes by district, the way Nebraska and Maine do. But they opt not to. As for EVERY STATE? You haven't been to New England have you? Look how many congressional seats in MA didn't even have a Republican running. Rural Vermont has to be one of the bluest states there is when voting for President. The other issue everyone ignores is that those Republicans (or Democrats) aren't voiceless at a federal level - they can (and do in many places) decide the winner for their representatives in the House. But you can't vote for those offices if you decide not to show up because your "vote doesn't count" on the Presidential line of the ballot.
@@karenwellington8569The short of it is that some Karen made false animal abuse claims from out of state. The New York state Department of Environmental Conservation (at least I think that's what the acronym stands for) in a case of gross government overreach confiscated the both Peanut and Fred from the animal rescue and had them both killed to check for rabies. This was done allegedly because Peanut bit an officer during the confiscation, this is still unconfirmed as the officers has their body cams turned off when this supposedly happened. The only way to test for rabies requires physically examining the brain as far as I'm aware. Which unfortunately means the animal must be killed beforehand. But here's the thing, Peanut had lived with this family that ran the rescue for 7 years, inside the house. The chances of him or Fred being infected by an animal already carrying rabies is laughable at best, nevermind the fact that there has never been a case of a human being infected by rabies via a squirrel. Let alone a perfectly healthy indoor pet squirrel. TLDR: A Karen gives the government casus belli to raid a residence, which makes everything worse. Directly leading to the stealing and killing of two pets (which were social media stars) for alleged public good.
Your love for my country is beautiful ❤️😍,as are you guys! I always watch your videos. Thank you so much! I think everyone will be glad when the election is done. It's been stressful.
QUICK CLARIFICATION ON SOME THINGS Democratic Party [roughly equivalent to the Labour Party in UK, although the Labour Party is generally more to the left] Kamala Harris is the candidate Republican Party [roughly equivalent to the Conservative Party in the UK, although the Republican Party is generally more to the right] Donald Trump is the candidate ** Each state gets 2 senators no matter how many people live in it. ** Each state gets at least one representative [similar to an MP] and then maybe more based on the population of the state, with a current cap at 435 total members. Once 435 are allocated, it doesn't matter how many more people large states may have over the smaller ones. Congress can up the number if they wish, but haven't chosen to do so since the 1920s, so there is a huge imbalance in representation in favor of less populated states. ** Unlike most democratic-oriented countries, the USA does not consider the person with the most votes the winner. The winner is whomever wins the highest number of electoral votes. Each state is assigned a number based on their number of representatives plus their 2 senators. Here are the current electoral votes per state and a note on how they have usually voted in recent elections. California 54 votes [Democratic] Texas 40 votes [Republican] Florida 30 votes [Republican] New York 28 votes [Democratic] Pennsylvania 19 votes [Swing State] Illinois 19 votes [Democratic] Ohio 17 votes [Republican] Georgia 16 votes [Swing State] North Carolina 16 votes [Swing State] Michigan 15 votes [Swing State] New Jersey 14 votes [Democratic] Virginia 13 votes [Democratic] Washington 12 votes [Democratic] Arizona 11 votes [Swing State] Tennessee 11 votes [Republican] Massachusetts 11 votes [Democratic] Indiana 11 votes [Republican] Missouri 10 votes [Republican] Maryland 10 votes [Democratic] Wisconsin 10 votes [Swing State] Colorado 10 votes [Democratic] Minnesota 10 votes [Democratic] South Carolina 9 votes [Republican] Alabama 9 votes [Republican] Louisiana 8 votes [Republican] Kentucky 8 votes [Republican] Oregon 8 votes [Democratic] Oklahoma 7 votes [Republican] Connecticut 7 votes [Democratic] Utah 6 votes [Republican] Iowa 6 votes [Republican] Nevada 6 votes [Swing State] Arkansas 6 votes [Republican] Kansas 6 votes [Republican] Mississippi 6 votes [Republican] New Mexico 5 votes [Democratic] Nebraska 5 votes [*they divide their votes with 2 going to whomever wins the state and 1 each for whomever wins the local districts; 2-Republican, 2 districts-Republican, 1 district-Democratic] Idaho 4 votes [Republican] West Virginia 4 votes [Republican] Hawaii 4 votes [Democratic] New Hampshire 4 votes [Democratic] Maine 4 votes [*they divide their votes with 2 going to whomever wins the state and 1 each for whomever wins the local districts; 2-Democratic, 1 district-Democratic, 1 district-Republican] Montana 4 votes [Republican] Rhode Island 4 votes [Democratic] Delaware 3 votes [Democratic] South Dakota 3 votes [Republican] North Dakota 3 votes [Republican] Alaska 3 votes [Republican] Vermont 3 votes [Democratic] Wyoming 3 votes [Republican] District of Columbia 3 votes [Democratic; the district gets 3 votes] ** Note: Citizens in U.S. territories do not get to vote for President [Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands---only in the presidential primaries run by the parties]
Also note that the Republicans kinda got screwed this year and there is a way for Trump to win that could be decided by the Supreme Court. Technically Florida should have more electoral college points and New York lost some due to census.
Damn right. It’s crystal clear where our country would go if NY, LA, and Chicago dictated elections through popular vote. What a nightmare it would be.
A tie is actually a pretty interesting scenario in the event of a tie the house picks the president and the senate picks the vice president but theres no rule saying they have to agree on party so its possible to have a republican president and a democrat vice president or vice versa.
It's important that swing states aren't static. Florida was a swing state in 2000. Now it's a solid Republican state. California was represented by both Regan and Nixon. Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of CA as a Republican. Now CA is firmly a Democrat state.
Yeah, it changes over time as people come of age, die, or just move in or away. My state of Ohio used to be a swing state too, to the point where it was said a candidate could not win without winning Ohio, but it's been solid red for a while now. We also used to be worth more electoral points. 21 when I was a kid, and now we're down to 17.
@@Anon54387 ugghhhh. Of course you would say that, because Arnold is one of the best republicans in the party, and one of a small handful that actually has enough sense to put the country before the party or one man.
@@fergalstackstreamsalso rarely a really popular governor or president will change the views of said state to more of one side or other. Making it for a time not a swing state, like DeSantis did a lot in florida.
Nebraska and Maine are the only two states which split their Electoral College votes into separate districts. Every other state is a winner-takes-all vote.
Beesleys: the swing states don’t decide the election- ALL electoral votes decide the election It’s just that most of the votes are locked up based on voter registration and trends. These 7 states simply have the right numbers to classify as swing states
Swing states decides the election, like he said they don’t campaign or address the issues in your state. I lived in the Midwest but was born and currently live in PA. The attention and spending here is outrageous. The electoral college needs to go asap
@@ThePhillyspadethat’s interesting. I didn’t realize they were ignoring the votes of the other 43 states and other territories who have electoral votes. So the election is only 7 states eh? Wow. That’s new information. Also the electoral college is going NOWHERE. You’re completely uneducated on this topic. You’re emotional because you didn’t get the outcomes you wanted in an election in 2016. Therefore, it must go! What about the senate-are you going to get rid of the senate?
@@ThePhillyspadeno, swing states do not single-handed decide the election. But they are very important in helping to decide the election. The electoral college is necessary so that huge states like California, New York, and Texas don’t decide every election without any input whatsoever from the smaller states. In other words, the electoral college helps ensure that the smaller states have a voice that actually counts in the election results. That is why the Constitution’s framers set it up. They did not want a system of pure democracy where majority rules, because that eliminates the voice of the minority. Remember the last time that happened? The last time it happened in this country, every single person had to get the COVID jab because the “majority” said so. It didn’t matter if you were allergic to the shot, you had to get it anyway. That’s majority rule and it’s tyranny and the electoral college helps to prevent that from happening where elections are concerned.
Just like the British have swing ridings or seats, Americans have states that can swing from one election to another... America is not a TINY nation like the UK or France where one large metro city dominates politics and the government...
@@ThePhillyspade I disagree... The Connecticut Compromise of the US Constitution has been ratified by every state that has entered the union. To change the constitution will require three fourths of the states, a super majority to amend it. Our founding fathers created a constitutional republic, three equal branches of government, not a parliamentary democracy...
@@TheJohmac maybe because campaigns don't have a crystal ball and can foreseen Trump will get all 3 rustbelt swing states? By focusing on Nevada and Arizona it will give Trump another path to 270 if he loses Pennsylvania, giving yourself another option is always a good idea.
In the event of a tie the House of Representatives decides who will be president. Each state gets one vote. There are more red states than blue. This has actually happened before.
Allow me to elaborate for our fellow citizens sake, but before I do remember the U.S. House elects the President, and the Senate elects the vice President: The U.S. House of Representatives vote is determined by the majority party of each State's House of Representatives (FYI - Nebraska is the only State to have a Unicameral Legislature, too complicated to explain here, something you need to research on your own), if the State's House is 'blue', then the U.S. House members that represent those 'blue' State Houses, are Constitutionally bound to cast their 'vote' for the State they represent, likewise for Red States, obviously. Having said all that, and in the same vein, Jamie Raskin has publicly said that he and others in the Democrat party will NOT certify the Election if President Trump wins.
This guy is a little off. Montana does not have 26 electoral votes. Electoral college is designed to keep small states from being Dominated by a few large population states. We have a Republic not a Democracy. This forces a president to pay attention to all the states large and small. States used to select electors in the legislature then Electors were chosen by popular vote only two states apportion Electors on a proportional Basis.
There are two kinds of states when it comes to American elections. Safe states and Swing states. Safe states are either *definitely* going to vote republican or democrat. Swing states are states that can go either way.
@@Me-wk3ix well first closing down the boarder is a good start... im all for immigration but you have to do it legally so we know exactly who we are letting into our home. But i do also really like the possibility of him amending the constitution to implement term limits for congress just like there are term limits for president. Corruption has plagued our system and one of the big causes of that are life long politicians who have never worked a job outside of the government in their entire lives. Joe Biden voted against integration and for Jim crow laws, thats how old he is, and there are many like him who have been in power way too long.
@Me-wk3ix let me put it this way, he hasn't even been in the office and putin said "he is interested in trump's proposal for ending the war", iran is saying "they are going to matain peace with houthis and their conflict was merely defensive", "stock market went up significantly","UN proposed that they'll buy their oil from US from now on instead of russia" and he isn't even in the office and this already happened within a day, so just imagine now
I live in Wisconsin which is a swing state and I'll be happily voting tomorrow on Tuesday. I'm looking forward to the election being over since I'm tired of the political ads. My polling place is near the mall and I plan to walk in the mall afterwards. Haven't done that for months and there's been a lot of rain here lately so that should be fun.
As a guy in Phoenix I totally understand what you mean on the political ads. I drive a lot for work and the radio has ad's every break all break long. Also its the exact same ad. Really annoying.
@@codyrafferty9659 as a guy in Nebraska i can say this is true and its on my work radio all dang afternoon- night also They really made our ballot look like a Dang 4 year old gave us a sheet and told us to color within the lines lol.
We have flaws and we aren’t any more special than anyone else in the world. You guys are super gracious with all the things you say about us and the judgement you withhold when you might disagree… thanks :)
The US Presidential election is every 4 years, but people may be voting for their state governor, state legislature, state propositions (laws that citizens propose and vote on), and representatives for the US Senate and House of Representatives too. If many people in a state show up to vote for one party or the other, this tends to affect how the state and federal legislatures go, as well as the presidency. Normally states have elections every 2 years, which can include voting for local mayors, lower offices, and local propositions, but special elections to repeal an unpopular official or replace one who has died or left office can also happen in odd years. Question for you 2: Why don't Jersey residents vote in UK elections?
@Persephonetoo Jersey is not part of the UK. So they can't vote in UK elections nor do they have a representative in parliament. I believe Jersey is considered a "dependency". I think they have an agreement with the UK to provide defense. Jersey is located in the English channel, closer to France than to Britain. And that is about all I remember. I am a US citizen who has lived all over the world, including the UK (Scotland) but I have never even been to Jersey.
Great content Beesley fam! Tomorrows election will be for electors for president and vice president, all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the U.S. Senate. Depending on the state, it can also have state and local government candidates as well (some states hold odd-year elections to reduce the influence of national politics and improve the focus on local issues). House elections are for two years and their voting districts are similar to your MP constituencies. The Senate elections also occur every two years but each senator is elected for 6 years and there are 3 groups of senators (numbering 33, 33 and 34 senators) whose election years are staggered by two years so that only 1/3 of the Senate changes in a single election (and no more than one senator from a state is up for general election at a time unless there is a special circumstance). Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures to represent state government interests but this changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment changed the system to a direct election in each state by popular vote of eligible voters. The founding fathers were not fans of pure democracy and used this system of checks and balances to stabilize the government. The House of Representatives with its frequent elections (every two years) represents the "passion" of the frequently changing popular sentiment of the time, whereas the Senate which is much slower to turn over its members and is meant to act as an anchor against overly quick change. Whether or not this has been the case for the history of our republic is up to anyone's opinion, but its "check and balance" design was intentional. Thanks for taking an interest in our system!
538 is a trash pollster. I wouldn’t give them much credit. Best way to get the best data, would be to take an average of all the polls and see what you get.
I give them exactly one bit of credit: Nate Silver has been consistent in saying his opinion that 57-43 Harris is not something you can confidently predict, and neither is 54-46 Trump. But I still feel like he's fighting the last war. Two elections in a row where Trump was underreported makes him think it's going to happen again.
@@johng4093I know. I was convinced this time that everyone voting for him was loud and proud and maybe people were being quiet on Harris's side as well? I miss a lot not being in an actual swing state. (I am still wondering how the man can poll at a predicted 7 point win and pull 14 in Florida though. This is legit one of the first election cycles in years that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in party registration in this state, but not by much. Why yes I'm referring to Florida. Most of the third party or no party registered voters clearly vote Republican every cycle.)
Ah, I remember those commercials. When I first moved to Oregon, it was still a swing state (although not a very important one, with its measly little electoral vote count that always came in late due to time zones!), and there were actually commercials for federal elections on the TV sometimes. Wild. That was a long time ago, though. Haven't seen one of those commercials since...well, since the 2000 election. After that, the state stopped swinging, and the commercials vanished along with the swing.
and they put so many things to vote for or against on the ballot that the ballot looks Like a 4 year old conjured it up and told you to color in the lines! lol.
The number of electors is mostly based on population. It the number of Senators (two per state) plus the number of representatives in the House (based on population).
this^ i still think after the 2024 election that the Electoral College and Two Party system should be abolished or very least modernized. to truly hear from Our American People and Leaders.
One thing that the General may not have made clear is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which divide their electoral votes up regionally, the states are assigned as one big lump. They aren't proportionally divided, so you don't get anything for coming in second, no matter how close the vote count came to a tie. If 50% less a single person in Michigan votes Democrat while 50% + 1 person votes Republican, then the Republicans get _every last one_ of Michigan's 15 electoral votes. That's the reason that third parties don't matter very much in presidential elections, except as spoilers or protest votes (and I say this as someone who does vote for third party candidates not infrequently, so I'm not saying this as an insult, just a fact). The chances of a third party candidate coming in 1st in an entire state in this election is pretty much nil. The last time a third party candidate won any electoral college votes was 1968.
But if you live in a swing state, you have the incentive to vote precisely because your vote may have an outsized effect on the outcome. Your one vote may make the difference between 15 electoral votes going to one candidate or to the other.
@@RogerWKnight Precisely. I haven't lived in a swing state for decades, so there's usually no strong incentive for me to vote for one of the two major parties when I'm feeling immensely displeased with them. If I lived in a state where it was likely to be a close call, on the other hand, then I'd surely feel the need to forego the opportunity to protest and instead just hold my nose and pick one a lot more often!
While there are other candidates that are running besides Democrat and Republican, the voting pool for those other candidates are so small but likelihood of them winning is minuscule. Also the other parties don't campaign or advertise as much as the two major parties. There are usually about 6 or 7 other presidential candidates on the ballot along with a write-in section, that is why a lot of people have voted for Mickey mouse.
The reason that most third parties do not engage in the needed advertising is the lack of funds. Further, the two major parties routinely cannibalize the ideas of third parties once they gain enough prominence. The Republicans just did that to RFK's campaign, though there was already a strong trend in that direction. The Democrats in 2004 practically stole the 2000 party platform of Ralph Nader and included it in theirs.
First past the post makes third parties spoiler candidates who gauge dissatisfaction rather than viable candidates nobody would waist their vote on them unless they could win and they can’t win because nobody waists their vote on them
There are a handful of 3rd party candidates (Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution). Between all of them, they might get 5% to 7% of the nationwide vote.
Good message. I agree with that you shouldn't moan if you don't vote. In a democracy, decisions are made by those who show up. Our elections are confusing, so thanks for making the effort. And this is an important one, not just for America, but for the world. America is the most divided it's ever been (and that includes the Civil War), and we have to find a way to reconcile our differences no matter who wins. It's going to be very very difficult.
I don't agree that if you don't vote you shouldn't complain. I think there are tons of people who vote who shouldn't, many people don't know anything about how the country is supposed to work and if you don't know how something should work you shouldn't have a say on how to fix it or keep it working properly. I don't always vote in presidential elections, but I will still complain about who won, not because I think the other person should've won though. When I don't vote at all it's because I don't agree with either of the major candidates stances and think one is just as bad as the other. Two times I did the 'i'll vote for the lesser of the two evils' thing, but after the 2nd time I realised that I am just essentially saying 'yes I agree with evil choice 1 over evil option 2' and if I give my vote again it needs to be earned, not a vote against someone but for. If one of two bad things would always get my vote then there isn't any incentive for anything to change for the better. While I will be voting today, I cannot in good faith vote for either of the main candidates, because imo both are bad choices just in different ways. Btw, the USA was not created to function as a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. If it were supposed to be a democracy there wouldn't be an electoral college, it would just be the popular vote winner who is the president. The whole point of there being a Democrat party is to vote for the country to be run more as a democracy, and the Republican party for the country to be run as a republic. “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” - Aristotle
It's very simple actually: each State's electoral votes equals the number of members of Congress each state has. So, we essentially have 50 separate elections. If you get the most votes in that State, you get that States electoral votes. You need 270 to win. Most states vote the same way every time. Only 7 states aren't certain: PA, MI, WI, GA, NV, AZ, NC. Pennsylvania is the most important because it has the most electoral votes of the seven swing States.
There are anywhere from five to a dozen options for president in most states (a candidate has to qualify for each state separately, there is no national ballot).Most people, however, choose one of the major parties or one of the larger third-parties. The random people you've never heard of sometimes make the ballot but usually do not make much of a showing in the results.
You cannot view the electoral college from the perspective of the popular vote it is a State vote which IS based on the popular vote in that state. The USA is a Republic, which means States rights. The electoral college ensures that each state has the same representation in Presidential elections. BUT, population determines how many representatives each state gets in the lower house of congress, who are supposed to make the laws and, how many electoral votes each state gets. AND, each state gets the same number of members in the upper house (Senators). America is all about checks and BALANCES. The electoral college ensures that power centers, like New York city, cannot enforce their will on other states.
The actual threat to our system was destroyed, the actual threat to democracy are now and have always been democrats. Remember it was democrats that said the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments need to be overturned.
How can you worry about loss of democracy under trump when you are sad the candidate who hasn't win a single electoral or primary vote, who was handpicked first to be the VP, then the presidential candidate? I'd be much more worried about how your party didn't even pretend to be democratic in this primary cycle.
You’ll probably hear a lot about abolishing the electoral college. It’s not a good idea because if America simply went by the popular vote alone then all any candidate would have to do is campaign in places like California New York and other population heavy states and the rest of the country doesn’t even matter. The electoral college process is actually a pretty good idea. It gives all the states a voice in the election.
I live in a swing state and I dread election year, especially after the party nominating conventions because of the sheer amount of political advertisements. I visited my sister in law in Hawaii a big blue state: did not see a single political ad the entire week. It was bliss.
Also worth noting, people move. A lot people from NY have moved to FL and a lot have moved from CA to TX. That's why democrats think they have a chance at FL and TX.
They are delusional though. There is zero chance either go close for the Dems. A state like Arizona is a better example of what these "movers" are doing to a once heavy Republican state to now a toss up.
I just got back from voting and saw the video. Don’t you have a States Assembly there in Jersey to vote for? I still don’t understand why you and the other Crown Dependencies didn’t get to vote on Brexit but yet Gibraltar, which is only a territory, did get to vote on it for some reason. It affected you guys almost as much as it affected England, right? So why no vote for you?
@gregweatherup9596 I am definitely not sure about this, but I think Jersey has an agreement with the UK that the UK will represent them in international matters. It seems wrong to me, too, that they didn't get to vote on a matter that affects them. Mainly because that is why we (the US) rebelled against England. I imagine there is a mechanism in place where Jersey could vote to rescind this agreement, but they rely on the UK for defense. If I were them, I wouldn't want to lose that protection. Maybe James or Millie will respond when they have time.
To understand swing states you need a background in the electoral college. The best saying is’ a democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. A republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
FYI In the case of a tie 269 vs 269. Trump would win the US Presidency because each state in the House of Representives would only get 1 vote, but there are more states that are Republican. Oddly, the new US Senate would choose the Vice President, which they pick from the two top vote getters (for VP). The US Senate this election is almost certainly to be Republican, so J.D. Vance (R) would be picked over Tim Walz (D).
One of the few good things about living in a non swing state is you really can vote your conscience. Want to vote 3rd party go for it without worrying about affecting the election, as a protest vote.
Yeah the US doesn't have ONE direct democratic election. We actually have 31 separate ones- each state and DC. This year, I think Pennsylvania is the lynchpin for both candidates.
People can talk about politics without being hateful - or at least they should. But if someone leave nasty, disgusting comments, then the channel has every right to either call it out or delete and block the commenter.
As a Michigander, I'm certain we'll be the big decider of this election. I could see it being decided by a zero-point percentage. Trump won the state in 2016 and Biden in 2020, so anything can happen.
@@jesses5463 Well, I am a Trump voter, so I hope it's not close. Considering we had a naked statue of Trump following his "hateful" comments about Detroit, it's a coin toss for me.
@@lonewolfx499 I agree that Michigan was a coin toss (or at least close to it), but what I disagreed with was that MIchigan would decide the election. At most I could only see her winning 2 of the 7 battle ground states I saw absolutely no path to victory for her in AZ, GA, NC, or PA which would mean she had no path to the white house. Looks like GA will be a bit closer than I expected but everything else was as expected. I figured at best she could take Michigan plus Wisconsin or maybe Nevada (just because Nevada had never voted for Trump).
No other nation has an electoral college. The Founders did everything they could to keep America from having a democracy - majority rule. We are a Constitutional Republic - which affords representation for all citizens - and we’re keeping it that way! This has been the most consequential election in our lifetime and the world just witnessed the greatest political comeback in U.S. history.
Representative democracy, Representative democracy,is a type of democracy where representatives are elected by the public.Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), Germany (a federal parliamentary republic), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a federal presidential republic). This is different from direct democracy, where the public votes directly on laws or policies, rather than representatives.
Electoral votes aren't restricted to the two major parties. If a 3rd Party candidate were to win a State (or a large enough percentage of votes in Main or Nebraska, which can split their votes) they would get Electoral votes, and it has happened in living memory. And a note about the pre-election polls -- polling organizations generally only contact people who have landline phones, so they tend to skew toward the older population and rural areas where cell coverage isn't a thing. Both of those demographics tend to be conservative.
I've been meaning to tell you since mid summer. To get a better understanding of the distance from the East Coast to the West coast. I propose you rent an RV and take a road trip from Miami Beach Florida to Seattle Washington, that's about 3,300 miles, about 48 hrs drive time non- stop.Or a road trip from Portland ME to San Diego CA, that's about 3,100 miles about 46 hours drive time. I think you'd have a great adventure. I think driving 8 to 10 hours a day, I'm guessing it'll take you 5 days, or if you really turn this into an adventure, plan stops to see major sights while making UA-cam videos. You have plenty of time now to plan a trip to start in the spring.
The number of electoral votes per state ARE based on their populations. The elections are decided state by state, with the winner of each state receiving all that state's electoral votes. 🇺🇸
I am shocked to hear that in Jersey you can’t vote in the UK elections. I guess they didn't learn any lessons about taxation without representation. 😮😂
There's presently 7 swing States , Georgia, N.Carolina Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin Arizona Nevada America was not founded as a democracy by our Founding Fathers, it's a Constitutional Republic with an Electoral College that prevents the larger, more populated states from dominating the less populated States as if it were a democracy based only on popular vote.This prevents the more populated states,(10)which are mainly democratically controlled, dominating the other less populated (40) states in elections.
The electoral college votes insure that all states are represented and not just those with largely populated cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
That's a common misconception. The electoral college was created as a balance between Congress choosing the president, which was thought to have too much of a chance for corruption, or a direct vote in which a large number of poorly informed people would choose. The 3/5's Compromise factored in, as well as this was one of the last decisions made by the founding fathers who were thought be be exhausted and just wanted to get the Constitution on paper and to a vote. It's archaic and obsolete. If you vote for one candidate but the other wins, your vote goes to the winner. And several times the majority people have voted for one candidate but the other wins because states choose the winner, not the people.
There are also 2 other candidates running for President: Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket and Chase Oliver on the Libertarian Party ticket. They both do receive individual votes in the Popular Vote, but only rarely do 3rd-Party candidates ever receive Electoral College votes.
What also changes voting in each states by population is when people move/relocate from one state to another. People who are affiliated with a party bring their political beliefs and affiliation to the new state they will live in. That could change the numbers a bit, if many should move out at any one state.
When the Electoral College was created it was to prevent the probability of the bigger populations of states like Virginia (which in terms of size and population was the California of its time) and New York completely dominating smaller states like Delaware and Rhode Island in the choosing of the President. Today the Electoral College prevents California, Illinois and New York--states with big urban populations---from inevitably choosing the President by their own, usually Democratic Party, votes.
His explanation on the compromise the Founding Fathers reached on the Electoral College isn't exactly accurate. If you look at the first several election cycles there was no such thing as the popular vote when it came to deciding a president. Citizens of the individual states would vote for legislators who would in turn get elected to the state legislatures. These legislatures would then send electors to the Electoral College to select a President. The idea of a popular vote being used to appoint electors to the Electoral College to select a specific candidate for President evolved slowly. We held our first presidential election in 1788 but it wasn't until 1824 that the popular vote was used in elections as we know them today.
I would like to clarify something. The votes are still generally tied to population. They basically get the same amount of Electors as they have members in congress. So, the Senate gives 2 Senators to each state, making 100 senators. Whereas the House has 435 seats split up by population. So Texas gets 38 house seats, Cali gets 52, etc Wyoming gets 1(note states get a minimum of 1 because you cannot have half a person). There is 750k people per house representative in Cali whereas Wyoming has 580k per representative. So each state get's a guarantee of 2 because they should be represented, and 1 or more based on how many people they represent. So although, yes, Wyoming's vote matters more, it doesn't really make a difference. The only reason it counts more in the Electoral College is because every state get's a free 2 electors(just like the Senate). 52 becomes 54 for Cali and 1 becomes 3 for Wyoming. Mathematically, it is a significant increase for Wyoming, thus making their votes worth more, however, also mathematically everyone got an equal number of electors.
The number of electorial college votes are distributed as follows. 1 vote for every senator or congressman. Since every state regardless of population gets 2 senators a low population states, the min votes is 3 for 2 senators and 1 congressman. Texas on the other side of the coin has 38 congressman and 2 senators for 40 votes.
Arizona and Georgia's polls have had Trump ahead the entire time. The betting markets have him at nearly 70% chance of winning those two States. Even so, it comes down to Pennsylvania.
If there's a tie, the House of Representatives decides who wins the Presidency, the Senate will elect the Vice-President. The process is spelt out in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. In the House, each state delegation gets one vote. There are 50 votes. The delegation's vote presumably would depend on the majority vote of the representatives from that state who would probably vote along party lines. If, say, Indiana has 9 congressmen, and 5 decided to support candidate X, and 4 decided candidate Y, then the delegation's vote would go to X. A simple majority of 26 votes determines the President. In the Senate, each Senator votes. To win, you'd need 51 votes. Although the process has a little more to it, this is the basic idea. The Electoral College preserves the principles of federalism that are essential to the US's constitutional republic. It's a compromise that tries to balance the power of big states v. small states so big states can't run roughshod over smaller ones.
Note: Electoral votes do not have to go to who the people voted for in that state. They can give them to whomever they will, even if it is against the peoples wish. The US is not a democracy. A single persons vote is not the end all be all that most seem to think. For example Nebraska and Maine have both split their electoral votes in the past.
Also if you think the electoral college is weird, look up how the number of representatives each state is allocated is calculated lol. Population of state ------------------------------ Square root of (Next representative number for this state x (next representative number-1)) ===== Priority Value of state If another state's population is higher then it does not receive that representative. BUT: All states are guaranteed one representative to ensure representation. So all these numbers start at 2
The 538 total electors are from the total of the state's Representatives to the House (435) and the Senators to the Senate (100). Representatives are determined by population (as per the US Census every decade). Each state has 2 Senators. This totals 435 Representatives and 100 Senators = 535. Washington D.C. has no Representatives to the House or Senators to the Senate, but through the 23rd Amendment, was granted 3 electors for Federal elections. In retrospect, I feel this last-minute addition to what eventually became the 23rd Amendment granting 3 electors to D.C. was wrong. The District of Columbia is supposed to be the seat of power for the Federal government. It shouldn't have representation in that. It is "self-serving". The people who live in D.C. should still get representation and for that, they should be allowed to vote in the neighboring states of D.C. (from which D.C. was carved out of). Yes, having 538 total electors can theoretically create a tie, but it has never happened and is unlikely to happen. If D.C. didn't have 3 electoral votes, this wouldn't be an issue. Population changes keep altering how many electoral votes a state has as well as the demographics of the state resulting in the state leaning one way or the other or becoming more neutral, and therefore a swing/battleground state. E.g. a couple decades ago, FL was a swing state but has in recent years shifted conservative (Republican). Trump won FL in this election by a solid 13% points...as well as TX by 13% points. TX was touted in the last election as potentially becoming "purple" (swing state). The population of TX is growing rapidly with the influx coming from many liberal (Democratic) states, so TX may eventually become a swing state. As mentioned, there were 7 swing/battleground states in this election. As everyone knows by now, Trump won all of them with six of them being flipped from the last election. That was the "mandate" that was considered a "landslide". In truth, the 312 to 226 is not really a landslide. The 1984 election was a landslide. Reagan won with 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. Mondale BARELY won his home state (10 electoral votes) by 0.3% and won D.C. (3 electoral votes) by a "paltry" 30% (D.C. usually goes Democratic by 80%+). --- It might be an odd system, but it was wisely done by the Founding Fathers to ensure that no simple majority could rule on the Federal level. Simple majority is the "popular vote", and such a voting system eventually leads to "mob rule". Mob rule is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner. The answer is lamb chops. That's not good for the sheep. The Founding Fathers realized the dangers of mob rule where a simple majority could trample over the rights of minorities...where stronger states could trample over the rights of weaker states. So, the electoral college ensures that a candidate must have BROAD APPEAL across many demographics and among many states. Without the electoral college, candidates could pander to the coastal states and easily win...leaving the vast majority of the states and their people being ignored. Remember that the US is HUGE. Many states in the US are as large as or bigger than most countries in the world. So, each state has unique and diverse characteristics that a candidate must appeal to. This year, Trump not only had broad appeal (won the electoral vote) but also had popular appeal (won the popular vote). In 2016, Trump had broad appeal but was not the popular candidate (lost the popular vote).
If the electoral college is tied, it is then the House of Representatives that chooses the President with each state getting one vote. The Senate would choose the Vice President.
I'm sure someone else caught this and has already said something, but did he say, "Wyoming has 26 electoral college votes?" Don't know where he heard that, but they have 3 votes, I believe. lol
I honestly think the EC should apply to within the state as well. Like each county has a set of electoral votes based on their population. This would further ensure a candidate has to do what is best for the VAST majority of people. Currently, cities like New York decide what's best for the entire state of New York, despite the northern half being completely opposite to the NYC area.
@hitman9198 I actually nerded out and got ChatGPT to write me a python script to calculate out what this would look like for New York based on their counties. I did both 640 and 535 electoral votes based on different ways of giving "representatives" to the counties. Blue still won both, but I will have to try it with Minnesota. Going by representative districts is too unstable due to gerrymandering. Counties seems like a better measure to me.
@hitman9198 I just calculated it based on 435 max "representatives" + 2 "senators" for each county. Harris would've only gained 238 electoral votes out of 535 in this scenario.
The graphs shown at 12:55 are very insightful and everyone needs to go spend some time looking at them, regardless of your political views. Not to get political here, but they put to rest the claim often made by the Democrats that Republicans are "right-wing extremists." The facts show the opposite is the case. The median Democrat has shifted much further to the left today than just a decade ago, whereas the median Republican remains mostly unchanged. What this means is those who refer to Republicans as "right-wing extremists" have that perception because *they themselves* are so far shifted to the left that they perceive anyone who disagrees with them as "extreme," not recognizing that even the raw numbers show they themselves are the very definition of extremism.
A tie has happened in 1824. If it does, the Presidential race goes to the House of Representatives. Each state votes as a state, with the majority of Representatives in each state voting for one candidate or the other. So the tally could be 45 to 55. The Vice President is chosen by the Senate. So of course, it's possible for the President to ve from one party and the Vice President from the other.
There are two substantial undercurrents right now that will shift swing states around the map in the next couple elections cycles. 1 - populations are trending toward concentrating in towns and urban centers, whereas in earlier generations urban and non-urban populations were more evenly distributed. This results in more of the population seeking either a degree or specialized training, and increases the familiarity of individuals with people who are different from them. (That is, more education or training, and more exposure to people you view as valid but who are radically different from you in some way). 2 - a major shift to the focus of politics being social issues rather than economic or international affairs; all topics do matter of course, but social topics are dominating more and more of the political discussion with every one of the last several election cycles. Both trends tend to lean people toward less restrictive social policies (an angle that currently aligns away from a conservative/right-ish viewpoint). Previously, the economics of taxes & services and nature of international affairs were dominant arguments, but as social issues have become more dominant the demographics/groups who align with one party or another have started to re-align. Both trends are likely to continue into the near future, and it will be interesting to see how this is reflected geographically. We say "land doesn't vote, people do" but geography absolutely impacts how votes and political power are distributed.
In a tie or no winner (Requires a Majority not just the highest count that can happen with a third party or a state unable to determine because of an event or fraud) it goes to the house of of Representatives to select a POTUS that traditionally is the Speaker of the House as the candidates all failed to meet the required majority disqualifying both requiring someone who did not run.
Every race isn't final yet, but it looks like the final will be Trump 312 and Harris 228. Trump ended up winning every swing state.
312-226. There are 538.
odd that Kamala Harris only won in States that do not require voter ID...
The Beesleys did not consider that the number of states changed over time so the the number of Electors changed. This can create the possibility of ties within the Electoral College.
As someone who lives in a battleground state I am looking forward to not getting 10-20 texts a day telling me how bad someone's opponent is.
Amen
honestly the last 2-3 elections feel like that now
whats your policy? none
there ads = i hate the other person
there ads supporting themselves on there policy = none
Yes! Now that the campaigns are over I can tell you more about why NOT to have voted for either candidate as opposed to why you should have. It's like picking the lesser of two evils according to all the ads. I've personally never been influenced by a campaign ad. They are a waste of time and money IMHO.
@@RealDiehl99 it really is
@@RealDiehl99true true..
The electoral college isn't too complicated... but what happens in a tie is actually pretty complicated.
There are 23% mark popular national votes. When one candidate reach the 270 mark but the opponent had >23% more votes than that one candidate, they'll automatically break the 270 mark but in case of this distribution chasm they are very rare to happen.
@@rife_157 - I'm sorry but your poor sentence structure and grammar makes your comment unintelligible and as such, I'm sure as hell not taking your comment seriously and pray you don't vote.
Yeah, it's the extremely rare super-close calls that are a problem. The benefits of the electoral vote vastly outweigh the possibility of an occasional upset.
One thing the founders emphasized in the federalist papers (and something a lot of ppl don't hear enough) is the importance of avoiding a tyranny of the cities. If you go by popular vote or have representation solely based on population then places like san Francisco and new york would be the deciding cities and the candidates would never bother to try and connect with small flyover rural farmers in random towns in the Midwest. That's very important.❤
But there would never be a tyranny of the cities. This is a myth.
In a state like California for example, you have huge swathes of the state that don’t vote like SF and LA do
If you have “one person, one vote” then you’d have the many, many Republicans who live in states like Illinois and California actually having more of a voice. Their votes would combine with the votes of Republicans in states like Iowa, Arkansas, etc and actually have a lot of power
@coyotelong4349 well the purpose of the republic is about local representation not just a combined blob of Republicans or democrats from all the far flung places. Republicans in Omaha won't want everything Republicans in Florida want. We should vote in our local electors based on their policy not just mob together to elect whichever president had a more appealing camaign for example. I'm open to better voting systems but not open to a straight democracy like France established. It can become an elective dictatorship so to speak.
We also don’t campaign by train and take 30 days for newspapers to write a story. on the ground campaigning though significant is less so now. We are all getting the same information about candidates in real time. Some states and people haven’t seen a presidential candidate in decades, the electoral college equally ignores states as you say a popular vote does. A Democrat might actually campaign in red states if it means they may pick up 5million votes . I could pass through the Bible Belt.
@@Knightowl1980 No, we are not. Some "news sites" claimed that the Hunter Laptop was Russian Misinfo, when it was NOT. And when THAT was challenged they shut those voices down, acting as a "collective". Voices clamored that they were "allowed" to silence voices because they were "private enterprises". Elon buys the largest site and inverts the status quo, and NOW that's a problem? We had ONE State try and remove a chosen candidate from the ballot based on "media lies", the SCOTUS had to involve itself because it would affect the "integrity of the greater electoral process". So, NO. This candidate has not only won the electoral college, he has won the national popular vote.
@@coyotelong4349 A myth? The cities in California voted themselves the rain that falls on the farms.
If there’s a tie, then the House of Representatives votes for the president and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
also what's little known is the first election with the Parties the US ever had was literally 3 points from a tie. and were tied till Adams won.
And in a House election for the president, each delegation from a state has one vote. So only 50 votes are cast, not 435. In the Senate, each senator votes independently for VP. Also, it is the new Congress that considers the matter in January. If the House ties, they keep voting until they have a majority. If inauguration day comes and the House is still tied, the VP elected by the Senate would be inaugurated as president.
Not to get too political but the US election rn matters a lot more for the world than you'd think
Yes it does...vote Trump. No foreign wars, better economy. Trump is NOT what the DemonRATs say. He just wants the best for everyone.
@@LyleFrancisDelp trump is a wannabe dictator. only vote trump if you dont want to keep american democracy. vote blue and vote harris if you want to keep the democracy. stop being brain washed
@LyleFrancisDelp i said I didn't want to get too political but I certainly won't be against anyone else doing so and I couldn't agree more!
@@LyleFrancisDelp you sound fun at parties 🙄
@@LyleFrancisDelpOh you want to elect HITLER2. Good for you ASSHOLE. FASCHIST SOUTHERN TRAITOR!
Pennsylvania was THE swing state that mattered most and it proved to be the one that decided the election. This was a landslide victory - no surprise if you understood the top issues that really mattered to the American people
Yeah, it wasn't close at all in spite of being hyped that way for political purposes.
@@wilhelm-z4t the Only States that Kamala Harris won Do Not require voter ID...
I believe the landslide should have been even bigger, if not for the box trucks showing up at 3am...
Elections are actually easier to predict than most things (even football games of stocks).
I knew by the early voters turnout that Trump would win. I estimated a 7% margin (popular vote); it ended up being 5%.
Talking to people about their struggles also helps. Democrat voters got killed in the 18-39 age demographics (down -30%).
@@vladimirofsvalbard9477 Not sure how you can state margin for popular vote when more than a few states are still counting ballots. Think CA just broke 80% -- maybe CA can finish by Thanksgiving.
(Last I checked, less than 3 million difference in popular vote.)
@@GlobalCitizen_y2k Because you can use age demographics based on previous election and current early voting patterns to deduce a likely turnout; therefore predicting a likely 'total vote'.
It's different if you're going to predict state by state.
All Americans need to see this because many don’t understand the electoral college
Absolutely! Like Ben Franklin said, "a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
Gerrymandering in Nebraska and Maine sucks
I don't know how my car works mechanically but it still drives.
His analysis of the weight of electoral votes is quite a bit off. Each state gets 2 votes automatically (presumably to match the number of aenators) and the rest are assigned based on population density. That is why the Republicans are always trying to get a citizenship question added to the census. Without it starts like California with high numbers of non-citizens can get more electoral votes based on their total population, when the census should only be counting voters not people.
And yes I understand that this also means texas, Florida, Arizona and many other high immigration locations also can pick up extra votes. But those extra votes disenfranchise places like north dakota and Iowa and Alaska.
@@lonewolfx499and a republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote
All swing states went red.
YES
This would confuse Brits because red is the color of Labour party which would be Democrat here and blue is the color of the Conservative party/Republican here.
@@SamsungJ-xk9pt
James just explained that.
One advantage of the EC system is that you can’t pander to only rural or only city people. Since you have to win or lose the whole state, you have to run on policies that cater to both groups.
If it was pure popular vote, you could focus on just winning the large city populations, ignoring the needs of all the people who grow the food, mine the coal, et cetera. Or cater to them and ignore the large factories and white collar workers.
Someone who understands it, about time!
I wish the states would change. Instead of winner takes all in the 48 states, I think all states should be like Maine and Nebraska and split electors by district.
Honestly I think they should implement the EC within the states themselves. States like California and New York have NYC and southern Cali decide the entire state.
@ and thus does logic lead one down the path towards (but not necessarily to) anarchocapitalism or voluntarism.
The smaller the unit of decision making, and the more units negotiating, the better the outcomes.
@@JasonJrake while the idealist in me may agree with this statement, the realist knows it's not in human nature to operate this way - we like having a strong, central figure at the helm too much despite our own protests. But hey, I love the cactuar.
The reason many want to keep it 😮is so rural areas will not be ignored. Otherwise, candidates would just run up the vote in the top few cities and not represent all Americans. Slavery was one of the original reasons. However, it was not the only reason. Just one more check to ensure everyone had a voice, not just a majority. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. Compromises ensure the country stays together.
That excuse is fine on paper, but it totally ignores that EVERY STATE, including California and New York are predominately right leaning outside the cities you all are so afraid of. California for example has more republicans than any other state BY FAR, and under the electoral college, their votes are entirely meaningless. But under the popular vote, they would actually have significant sway. The whole “rural vs. cities” argument completely falls apart to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny, but of course one side will never admit that because they feel like they can only win with the EC in place.
@ totally disagree. I’ve been looking at it for 40 years.
@@ninja_tony That California has more Republicans is sketchy at best, and entirely dependent on point in time, plus ignores the many rural Democrat voters. The net vote in CA isn't ever close. If I were to look at 2016, a) California didn't lead among Republicans, and b) the net-Dem vote there was over 1 million larger than the national popular vote difference. And if it was that important to their sense of fairness, California could decide to divvy up their electoral votes by district, the way Nebraska and Maine do. But they opt not to. As for EVERY STATE? You haven't been to New England have you? Look how many congressional seats in MA didn't even have a Republican running. Rural Vermont has to be one of the bluest states there is when voting for President.
The other issue everyone ignores is that those Republicans (or Democrats) aren't voiceless at a federal level - they can (and do in many places) decide the winner for their representatives in the House. But you can't vote for those offices if you decide not to show up because your "vote doesn't count" on the Presidential line of the ballot.
Americans, remember Peanut & Fred when you cast your vote.
Peanut, Fred, and the millions of babies murdered every year across the nation.
What happened there, I hear what they're saying on the news, but that doesn't tell me anything.
@@karenwellington8569 ua-cam.com/video/_Gi-AmejnWc/v-deo.htmlsi=vorwjmdHFSBnl2Gn
@@karenwellington8569The short of it is that some Karen made false animal abuse claims from out of state. The New York state Department of Environmental Conservation (at least I think that's what the acronym stands for) in a case of gross government overreach confiscated the both Peanut and Fred from the animal rescue and had them both killed to check for rabies. This was done allegedly because Peanut bit an officer during the confiscation, this is still unconfirmed as the officers has their body cams turned off when this supposedly happened.
The only way to test for rabies requires physically examining the brain as far as I'm aware. Which unfortunately means the animal must be killed beforehand. But here's the thing, Peanut had lived with this family that ran the rescue for 7 years, inside the house. The chances of him or Fred being infected by an animal already carrying rabies is laughable at best, nevermind the fact that there has never been a case of a human being infected by rabies via a squirrel. Let alone a perfectly healthy indoor pet squirrel.
TLDR: A Karen gives the government casus belli to raid a residence, which makes everything worse. Directly leading to the stealing and killing of two pets (which were social media stars) for alleged public good.
@@terryhiggins5077 According to the Babylon Bee, squirrels wearing MAGA hats are in open revolt. They may march on the Capitol.
Your love for my country is beautiful ❤️😍,as are you guys! I always watch your videos. Thank you so much! I think everyone will be glad when the election is done. It's been stressful.
QUICK CLARIFICATION ON SOME THINGS
Democratic Party [roughly equivalent to the Labour Party in UK, although the Labour Party is generally more to the left] Kamala Harris is the candidate
Republican Party [roughly equivalent to the Conservative Party in the UK, although the Republican Party is generally more to the right] Donald Trump is the candidate
**
Each state gets 2 senators no matter how many people live in it.
**
Each state gets at least one representative [similar to an MP] and then maybe more based on the population of the state, with a current cap at 435 total members. Once 435 are allocated, it doesn't matter how many more people large states may have over the smaller ones. Congress can up the number if they wish, but haven't chosen to do so since the 1920s, so there is a huge imbalance in representation in favor of less populated states.
**
Unlike most democratic-oriented countries, the USA does not consider the person with the most votes the winner. The winner is whomever wins the highest number of electoral votes. Each state is assigned a number based on their number of representatives plus their 2 senators. Here are the current electoral votes per state and a note on how they have usually voted in recent elections.
California 54 votes [Democratic]
Texas 40 votes [Republican]
Florida 30 votes [Republican]
New York 28 votes [Democratic]
Pennsylvania 19 votes [Swing State]
Illinois 19 votes [Democratic]
Ohio 17 votes [Republican]
Georgia 16 votes [Swing State]
North Carolina 16 votes [Swing State]
Michigan 15 votes [Swing State]
New Jersey 14 votes [Democratic]
Virginia 13 votes [Democratic]
Washington 12 votes [Democratic]
Arizona 11 votes [Swing State]
Tennessee 11 votes [Republican]
Massachusetts 11 votes [Democratic]
Indiana 11 votes [Republican]
Missouri 10 votes [Republican]
Maryland 10 votes [Democratic]
Wisconsin 10 votes [Swing State]
Colorado 10 votes [Democratic]
Minnesota 10 votes [Democratic]
South Carolina 9 votes [Republican]
Alabama 9 votes [Republican]
Louisiana 8 votes [Republican]
Kentucky 8 votes [Republican]
Oregon 8 votes [Democratic]
Oklahoma 7 votes [Republican]
Connecticut 7 votes [Democratic]
Utah 6 votes [Republican]
Iowa 6 votes [Republican]
Nevada 6 votes [Swing State]
Arkansas 6 votes [Republican]
Kansas 6 votes [Republican]
Mississippi 6 votes [Republican]
New Mexico 5 votes [Democratic]
Nebraska 5 votes [*they divide their votes with 2 going to whomever wins the state and 1 each for whomever wins the local districts; 2-Republican, 2 districts-Republican, 1 district-Democratic]
Idaho 4 votes [Republican]
West Virginia 4 votes [Republican]
Hawaii 4 votes [Democratic]
New Hampshire 4 votes [Democratic]
Maine 4 votes [*they divide their votes with 2 going to whomever wins the state and 1 each for whomever wins the local districts; 2-Democratic, 1 district-Democratic, 1 district-Republican]
Montana 4 votes [Republican]
Rhode Island 4 votes [Democratic]
Delaware 3 votes [Democratic]
South Dakota 3 votes [Republican]
North Dakota 3 votes [Republican]
Alaska 3 votes [Republican]
Vermont 3 votes [Democratic]
Wyoming 3 votes [Republican]
District of Columbia 3 votes [Democratic; the district gets 3 votes]
**
Note: Citizens in U.S. territories do not get to vote for President [Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands---only in the presidential primaries run by the parties]
Great breakdown of some of the things the video didn't cover! Thanks.
Also note that the Republicans kinda got screwed this year and there is a way for Trump to win that could be decided by the Supreme Court. Technically Florida should have more electoral college points and New York lost some due to census.
This was an EXCELLENT comment
Isn't it odd that Kamala Harris only won States that do not require voter ID...?
The electoral college is a genius idea.
Pros and Cons.
It gets sticky.
Better than popular vote for sure.
The EC is antiquated and needs to be abolished.
It is smart as it takes into account the popular vote and still make sure it spread the need around.
Damn right. It’s crystal clear where our country would go if NY, LA, and Chicago dictated elections through popular vote. What a nightmare it would be.
The electoral college is a participation trophy.
A tie is actually a pretty interesting scenario in the event of a tie the house picks the president and the senate picks the vice president but theres no rule saying they have to agree on party so its possible to have a republican president and a democrat vice president or vice versa.
It's important that swing states aren't static. Florida was a swing state in 2000. Now it's a solid Republican state. California was represented by both Regan and Nixon. Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of CA as a Republican. Now CA is firmly a Democrat state.
Although Arnold is a RINO. If we don't wake up and stop voting for leftists things are going to get very bad here in California.
Yeah, it changes over time as people come of age, die, or just move in or away. My state of Ohio used to be a swing state too, to the point where it was said a candidate could not win without winning Ohio, but it's been solid red for a while now. We also used to be worth more electoral points. 21 when I was a kid, and now we're down to 17.
@@Anon54387 ugghhhh. Of course you would say that, because Arnold is one of the best republicans in the party, and one of a small handful that actually has enough sense to put the country before the party or one man.
@@fergalstackstreamsalso rarely a really popular governor or president will change the views of said state to more of one side or other. Making it for a time not a swing state, like DeSantis did a lot in florida.
@@fergalstackstreams Indeed. In the 1980s, Columbus was a marginally Republican city, but now it's been solid Democrat since the mid 1990s.
Nebraska and Maine are the only two states which split their Electoral College votes into separate districts. Every other state is a winner-takes-all vote.
Beesleys: the swing states don’t decide the election- ALL electoral votes decide the election
It’s just that most of the votes are locked up based on voter registration and trends.
These 7 states simply have the right numbers to classify as swing states
Swing states decides the election, like he said they don’t campaign or address the issues in your state. I lived in the Midwest but was born and currently live in PA. The attention and spending here is outrageous. The electoral college needs to go asap
@@ThePhillyspadethat’s interesting. I didn’t realize they were ignoring the votes of the other 43 states and other territories who have electoral votes.
So the election is only 7 states eh? Wow. That’s new information.
Also the electoral college is going NOWHERE. You’re completely uneducated on this topic. You’re emotional because you didn’t get the outcomes you wanted in an election in 2016. Therefore, it must go!
What about the senate-are you going to get rid of the senate?
@@ThePhillyspadeno, swing states do not single-handed decide the election. But they are very important in helping to decide the election. The electoral college is necessary so that huge states like California, New York, and Texas don’t decide every election without any input whatsoever from the smaller states. In other words, the electoral college helps ensure that the smaller states have a voice that actually counts in the election results. That is why the Constitution’s framers set it up. They did not want a system of pure democracy where majority rules, because that eliminates the voice of the minority. Remember the last time that happened? The last time it happened in this country, every single person had to get the COVID jab because the “majority” said so. It didn’t matter if you were allergic to the shot, you had to get it anyway. That’s majority rule and it’s tyranny and the electoral college helps to prevent that from happening where elections are concerned.
Just like the British have swing ridings or seats, Americans have states that can swing from one election to another... America is not a TINY nation like the UK or France where one large metro city dominates politics and the government...
@@ThePhillyspade I disagree... The Connecticut Compromise of the US Constitution has been ratified by every state that has entered the union. To change the constitution will require three fourths of the states, a super majority to amend it. Our founding fathers created a constitutional republic, three equal branches of government, not a parliamentary democracy...
Funny thing is the election was called before Arizona and Nevada were even called.
Why is that funny. Once they reach the 270 mark, it's over. Happens every election.
Because trump won Pennsylvania.....it was a wrap after that.
@@jburnett8152 Not laugh out loud funny, no, just the idea that so much attention was given these states that in the end didn't even matter.
Funnier is that Florida with a population 5x more than Arizona was able to finish the counting (by law, thanks to the 2000 debacle) within a set time.
@@TheJohmac maybe because campaigns don't have a crystal ball and can foreseen Trump will get all 3 rustbelt swing states? By focusing on Nevada and Arizona it will give Trump another path to 270 if he loses Pennsylvania, giving yourself another option is always a good idea.
In the event of a tie the House of Representatives decides who will be president. Each state gets one vote. There are more red states than blue. This has actually happened before.
The election of 1800. Hamilton used his influence in the House to give the election to Jefferson. It's why Aaron Burr shot and kill Hamilton.
The House would determine the President.
The Senate would choose the Vice President.
Allow me to elaborate for our fellow citizens sake, but before I do remember the U.S. House elects the President, and the Senate elects the vice President: The U.S. House of Representatives vote is determined by the majority party of each State's House of Representatives (FYI - Nebraska is the only State to have a Unicameral Legislature, too complicated to explain here, something you need to research on your own), if the State's House is 'blue', then the U.S. House members that represent those 'blue' State Houses, are Constitutionally bound to cast their 'vote' for the State they represent, likewise for Red States, obviously. Having said all that, and in the same vein, Jamie Raskin has publicly said that he and others in the Democrat party will NOT certify the Election if President Trump wins.
This guy is a little off. Montana does not have 26 electoral votes. Electoral college is designed to keep small states from being Dominated by a few large population states. We have a Republic not a Democracy. This forces a president to pay attention to all the states large and small. States used to select electors in the legislature then Electors were chosen by popular vote only two states apportion Electors on a proportional Basis.
Democrats are not more educated than Republicans. He implied conservatives are stupid which is bullshit.
There are two kinds of states when it comes to American elections. Safe states and Swing states. Safe states are either *definitely* going to vote republican or democrat. Swing states are states that can go either way.
I'm a Democrat and I voted for Trump this election. I have a lot of reasons, all of them for the betterment of this planet
Rest easy the good side won in a landslide
finally our country has a chance at a future... he won every single swing state
And the popular vote!
What policy are you most excited for him to implement when he gets into office?
@@Me-wk3ix well first closing down the boarder is a good start... im all for immigration but you have to do it legally so we know exactly who we are letting into our home. But i do also really like the possibility of him amending the constitution to implement term limits for congress just like there are term limits for president. Corruption has plagued our system and one of the big causes of that are life long politicians who have never worked a job outside of the government in their entire lives. Joe Biden voted against integration and for Jim crow laws, thats how old he is, and there are many like him who have been in power way too long.
@@Me-wk3ix definitely the his border policy but also deregulation
@Me-wk3ix let me put it this way, he hasn't even been in the office and putin said "he is interested in trump's proposal for ending the war", iran is saying "they are going to matain peace with houthis and their conflict was merely defensive", "stock market went up significantly","UN proposed that they'll buy their oil from US from now on instead of russia" and he isn't even in the office and this already happened within a day, so just imagine now
I live in Wisconsin which is a swing state and I'll be happily
voting tomorrow on Tuesday. I'm looking forward to the election being
over since I'm tired of the political ads. My polling place is near the mall and I plan
to walk in the mall afterwards. Haven't done that for months and there's been a lot
of rain here lately so that should be fun.
As a guy in Phoenix I totally understand what you mean on the political ads. I drive a lot for work and the radio has ad's every break all break long. Also its the exact same ad. Really annoying.
@@codyrafferty9659 as a guy in Nebraska i can say this is true and its on my work radio all dang afternoon- night also They really made our ballot look like a Dang 4 year old gave us a sheet and told us to color within the lines lol.
The first time I hear a political ad I'm tired of it. 😅
We have flaws and we aren’t any more special than anyone else in the world. You guys are super gracious with all the things you say about us and the judgement you withhold when you might disagree… thanks :)
Dang, that face at 5:20 she was so proud of that great analogy, but instead of a compliment she got roasted
I thought it was a great analogy. Good job, Millie. You explained it well.
The US Presidential election is every 4 years, but people may be voting for their state governor, state legislature, state propositions (laws that citizens propose and vote on), and representatives for the US Senate and House of Representatives too. If many people in a state show up to vote for one party or the other, this tends to affect how the state and federal legislatures go, as well as the presidency. Normally states have elections every 2 years, which can include voting for local mayors, lower offices, and local propositions, but special elections to repeal an unpopular official or replace one who has died or left office can also happen in odd years.
Question for you 2: Why don't Jersey residents vote in UK elections?
@Persephonetoo Jersey is not part of the UK. So they can't vote in UK elections nor do they have a representative in parliament. I believe Jersey is considered a "dependency". I think they have an agreement with the UK to provide defense. Jersey is located in the English channel, closer to France than to Britain.
And that is about all I remember. I am a US citizen who has lived all over the world, including the UK (Scotland) but I have never even been to Jersey.
Jersey is a crown dependency.
Love y’all’s channel
Great content Beesley fam! Tomorrows election will be for electors for president and vice president, all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the U.S. Senate. Depending on the state, it can also have state and local government candidates as well (some states hold odd-year elections to reduce the influence of national politics and improve the focus on local issues). House elections are for two years and their voting districts are similar to your MP constituencies. The Senate elections also occur every two years but each senator is elected for 6 years and there are 3 groups of senators (numbering 33, 33 and 34 senators) whose election years are staggered by two years so that only 1/3 of the Senate changes in a single election (and no more than one senator from a state is up for general election at a time unless there is a special circumstance). Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures to represent state government interests but this changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment changed the system to a direct election in each state by popular vote of eligible voters. The founding fathers were not fans of pure democracy and used this system of checks and balances to stabilize the government. The House of Representatives with its frequent elections (every two years) represents the "passion" of the frequently changing popular sentiment of the time, whereas the Senate which is much slower to turn over its members and is meant to act as an anchor against overly quick change. Whether or not this has been the case for the history of our republic is up to anyone's opinion, but its "check and balance" design was intentional. Thanks for taking an interest in our system!
538 is a trash pollster. I wouldn’t give them much credit. Best way to get the best data, would be to take an average of all the polls and see what you get.
I give them exactly one bit of credit: Nate Silver has been consistent in saying his opinion that 57-43 Harris is not something you can confidently predict, and neither is 54-46 Trump. But I still feel like he's fighting the last war. Two elections in a row where Trump was underreported makes him think it's going to happen again.
@@cypher515It did happen again.
@@johng4093I know. I was convinced this time that everyone voting for him was loud and proud and maybe people were being quiet on Harris's side as well? I miss a lot not being in an actual swing state. (I am still wondering how the man can poll at a predicted 7 point win and pull 14 in Florida though. This is legit one of the first election cycles in years that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in party registration in this state, but not by much. Why yes I'm referring to Florida. Most of the third party or no party registered voters clearly vote Republican every cycle.)
As a AZ resident I voted against the party that committed the unpardonable sin of unskippable youtube ads.
I'm in georgia and the bombardment of commercials is insane
Ah, I remember those commercials. When I first moved to Oregon, it was still a swing state (although not a very important one, with its measly little electoral vote count that always came in late due to time zones!), and there were actually commercials for federal elections on the TV sometimes. Wild.
That was a long time ago, though. Haven't seen one of those commercials since...well, since the 2000 election. After that, the state stopped swinging, and the commercials vanished along with the swing.
Dawg I live in Pennsylvania… you have no idea how bad the commercials are here 😂
and they put so many things to vote for or against on the ballot that the ballot looks Like a 4 year old conjured it up and told you to color in the lines! lol.
I am in Pennsylvania and the political commercials here are driving me mad.
@ it’s really bad here in Pittsburgh.
LOVE THE JETS SWEATSHIRT! Love always, a Jets Channel.
Fan for a long time.
The number of electors is mostly based on population. It the number of Senators (two per state) plus the number of representatives in the House (based on population).
this^ i still think after the 2024 election that the Electoral College and Two Party system should be abolished or very least modernized. to truly hear from Our American People and Leaders.
So thankful I live in a place where I can vote.
One thing that the General may not have made clear is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which divide their electoral votes up regionally, the states are assigned as one big lump. They aren't proportionally divided, so you don't get anything for coming in second, no matter how close the vote count came to a tie. If 50% less a single person in Michigan votes Democrat while 50% + 1 person votes Republican, then the Republicans get _every last one_ of Michigan's 15 electoral votes.
That's the reason that third parties don't matter very much in presidential elections, except as spoilers or protest votes (and I say this as someone who does vote for third party candidates not infrequently, so I'm not saying this as an insult, just a fact). The chances of a third party candidate coming in 1st in an entire state in this election is pretty much nil. The last time a third party candidate won any electoral college votes was 1968.
But if you live in a swing state, you have the incentive to vote precisely because your vote may have an outsized effect on the outcome. Your one vote may make the difference between 15 electoral votes going to one candidate or to the other.
@@RogerWKnight Precisely. I haven't lived in a swing state for decades, so there's usually no strong incentive for me to vote for one of the two major parties when I'm feeling immensely displeased with them. If I lived in a state where it was likely to be a close call, on the other hand, then I'd surely feel the need to forego the opportunity to protest and instead just hold my nose and pick one a lot more often!
While there are other candidates that are running besides Democrat and Republican, the voting pool for those other candidates are so small but likelihood of them winning is minuscule. Also the other parties don't campaign or advertise as much as the two major parties. There are usually about 6 or 7 other presidential candidates on the ballot along with a write-in section, that is why a lot of people have voted for Mickey mouse.
The reason that most third parties do not engage in the needed advertising is the lack of funds. Further, the two major parties routinely cannibalize the ideas of third parties once they gain enough prominence. The Republicans just did that to RFK's campaign, though there was already a strong trend in that direction. The Democrats in 2004 practically stole the 2000 party platform of Ralph Nader and included it in theirs.
First past the post makes third parties spoiler candidates who gauge dissatisfaction rather than viable candidates nobody would waist their vote on them unless they could win and they can’t win because nobody waists their vote on them
I appreciate you wanting to learn more about our country. 😊
There are a handful of 3rd party candidates (Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution). Between all of them, they might get 5% to 7% of the nationwide vote.
And ever so occasionally do get Electoral College votes.
First past the post
Good message. I agree with that you shouldn't moan if you don't vote. In a democracy, decisions are made by those who show up. Our elections are confusing, so thanks for making the effort. And this is an important one, not just for America, but for the world. America is the most divided it's ever been (and that includes the Civil War), and we have to find a way to reconcile our differences no matter who wins. It's going to be very very difficult.
I don't agree that if you don't vote you shouldn't complain. I think there are tons of people who vote who shouldn't, many people don't know anything about how the country is supposed to work and if you don't know how something should work you shouldn't have a say on how to fix it or keep it working properly. I don't always vote in presidential elections, but I will still complain about who won, not because I think the other person should've won though. When I don't vote at all it's because I don't agree with either of the major candidates stances and think one is just as bad as the other. Two times I did the 'i'll vote for the lesser of the two evils' thing, but after the 2nd time I realised that I am just essentially saying 'yes I agree with evil choice 1 over evil option 2' and if I give my vote again it needs to be earned, not a vote against someone but for. If one of two bad things would always get my vote then there isn't any incentive for anything to change for the better. While I will be voting today, I cannot in good faith vote for either of the main candidates, because imo both are bad choices just in different ways. Btw, the USA was not created to function as a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. If it were supposed to be a democracy there wouldn't be an electoral college, it would just be the popular vote winner who is the president. The whole point of there being a Democrat party is to vote for the country to be run more as a democracy, and the Republican party for the country to be run as a republic.
“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” - Aristotle
It's very simple actually: each State's electoral votes equals the number of members of Congress each state has. So, we essentially have 50 separate elections. If you get the most votes in that State, you get that States electoral votes. You need 270 to win. Most states vote the same way every time. Only 7 states aren't certain: PA, MI, WI, GA, NV, AZ, NC. Pennsylvania is the most important because it has the most electoral votes of the seven swing States.
There are anywhere from five to a dozen options for president in most states (a candidate has to qualify for each state separately, there is no national ballot).Most people, however, choose one of the major parties or one of the larger third-parties. The random people you've never heard of sometimes make the ballot but usually do not make much of a showing in the results.
You cannot view the electoral college from the perspective of the popular vote it is a State vote which IS based on the popular vote in that state. The USA is a Republic, which means States rights. The electoral college ensures that each state has the same representation in Presidential elections. BUT, population determines how many representatives each state gets in the lower house of congress, who are supposed to make the laws and, how many electoral votes each state gets. AND, each state gets the same number of members in the upper house (Senators). America is all about checks and BALANCES. The electoral college ensures that power centers, like New York city, cannot enforce their will on other states.
IT'S A GLORIOUS DAY IN AMERICA! Our prayers were answered, and we are taking our country back!
@@Triggerhippie70 You’re INSANE AND A TRAITOR TO THE CONSTITUTION
As a Michigander, the big reveal at the End 😮😅 .
May God bless us over the next 4 years that we stay a democracy.😢😢
Take a Valium and calm your butt down
The actual threat to our system was destroyed, the actual threat to democracy are now and have always been democrats. Remember it was democrats that said the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments need to be overturned.
How can you worry about loss of democracy under trump when you are sad the candidate who hasn't win a single electoral or primary vote, who was handpicked first to be the VP, then the presidential candidate? I'd be much more worried about how your party didn't even pretend to be democratic in this primary cycle.
You’ll probably hear a lot about abolishing the electoral college. It’s not a good idea because if America simply went by the popular vote alone then all any candidate would have to do is campaign in places like California New York and other population heavy states and the rest of the country doesn’t even matter. The electoral college process is actually a pretty good idea. It gives all the states a voice in the election.
I live in Pennsylvania. Being a swing State can suck due to the ridiculous amount of ads and mail we get from campaigns.
I live in a swing state and I dread election year, especially after the party nominating conventions because of the sheer amount of political advertisements. I visited my sister in law in Hawaii a big blue state: did not see a single political ad the entire week. It was bliss.
I live in a swing state, Michigan. what happens is we flip back and forth from democratic to republican
The planet explodes, go vote for Trump!
We trying to turn it red ❤❤❤❤@supernaught6733
Also worth noting, people move. A lot people from NY have moved to FL and a lot have moved from CA to TX. That's why democrats think they have a chance at FL and TX.
Only if the people who fled the peoples republic of CA are stupid enough to vote democrat.
Big facts
Also Democrats are clueless.
They are delusional though. There is zero chance either go close for the Dems. A state like Arizona is a better example of what these "movers" are doing to a once heavy Republican state to now a toss up.
They moved for a reason though their Democrat leaders are doing terrible so I do believe most will vote Republican
Not this election!!!
I just got back from voting and saw the video.
Don’t you have a States Assembly there in Jersey to vote for?
I still don’t understand why you and the other Crown Dependencies didn’t get to vote on Brexit but yet Gibraltar, which is only a territory, did get to vote on it for some reason. It affected you guys almost as much as it affected England, right? So why no vote for you?
@gregweatherup9596 I am definitely not sure about this, but I think Jersey has an agreement with the UK that the UK will represent them in international matters. It seems wrong to me, too, that they didn't get to vote on a matter that affects them. Mainly because that is why we (the US) rebelled against England. I imagine there is a mechanism in place where Jersey could vote to rescind this agreement, but they rely on the UK for defense. If I were them, I wouldn't want to lose that protection.
Maybe James or Millie will respond when they have time.
To understand swing states you need a background in the electoral college. The best saying is’ a democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. A republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
FYI In the case of a tie 269 vs 269. Trump would win the US Presidency because each state in the House of Representives would only get 1 vote, but there are more states that are Republican. Oddly, the new US Senate would choose the Vice President, which they pick from the two top vote getters (for VP). The US Senate this election is almost certainly to be Republican, so J.D. Vance (R) would be picked over Tim Walz (D).
One of the few good things about living in a non swing state is you really can vote your conscience. Want to vote 3rd party go for it without worrying about affecting the election, as a protest vote.
Yeah the US doesn't have ONE direct democratic election. We actually have 31 separate ones- each state and DC. This year, I think Pennsylvania is the lynchpin for both candidates.
*51
Ah yes. Can't forget about the Swamp itself can we?
@@Kosmokraton right. I mistyped.
@@trottheblackdog I figured. You can edit it if you'd like.
FYI
There is a Green Party also…lol
Now, if people get political in the comments, you better not say a damn thing to them. You did this video, so YOU invited it in.
People can talk about politics without being hateful - or at least they should. But if someone leave nasty, disgusting comments, then the channel has every right to either call it out or delete and block the commenter.
As a Michigander, I'm certain we'll be the big decider of this election. I could see it being decided by a zero-point percentage. Trump won the state in 2016 and Biden in 2020, so anything can happen.
Wishful thinking on your part. This election is not close.
@@jesses5463 Well, I am a Trump voter, so I hope it's not close. Considering we had a naked statue of Trump following his "hateful" comments about Detroit, it's a coin toss for me.
@@lonewolfx499 I agree that Michigan was a coin toss (or at least close to it), but what I disagreed with was that MIchigan would decide the election.
At most I could only see her winning 2 of the 7 battle ground states I saw absolutely no path to victory for her in AZ, GA, NC, or PA which would mean she had no path to the white house. Looks like GA will be a bit closer than I expected but everything else was as expected. I figured at best she could take Michigan plus Wisconsin or maybe Nevada (just because Nevada had never voted for Trump).
@jesses5463 Fair enough. :)
No other nation has an electoral college. The Founders did everything they could to keep America from having a democracy - majority rule. We are a Constitutional Republic - which affords representation for all citizens - and we’re keeping it that way! This has been the most consequential election in our lifetime and the world just witnessed the greatest political comeback in U.S. history.
Representative democracy,
Representative democracy,is a type of democracy where representatives are elected by the public.Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), Germany (a federal parliamentary republic), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a federal presidential republic). This is different from direct democracy, where the public votes directly on laws or policies, rather than representatives.
Electoral votes aren't restricted to the two major parties. If a 3rd Party candidate were to win a State (or a large enough percentage of votes in Main or Nebraska, which can split their votes) they would get Electoral votes, and it has happened in living memory.
And a note about the pre-election polls -- polling organizations generally only contact people who have landline phones, so they tend to skew toward the older population and rural areas where cell coverage isn't a thing. Both of those demographics tend to be conservative.
I've been meaning to tell you since mid summer. To get a better understanding of the distance from the East Coast to the West coast. I propose you rent an RV and take a road trip from Miami Beach Florida to Seattle Washington, that's about 3,300 miles, about 48 hrs drive time non- stop.Or a road trip from Portland ME to San Diego CA, that's about 3,100 miles about 46 hours drive time. I think you'd have a great adventure. I think driving 8 to 10 hours a day, I'm guessing it'll take you 5 days, or if you really turn this into an adventure, plan stops to see major sights while making UA-cam videos. You have plenty of time now to plan a trip to start in the spring.
The number of electoral votes per state ARE based on their populations. The elections are decided state by state, with the winner of each state receiving all that state's electoral votes. 🇺🇸
I am shocked to hear that in Jersey you can’t vote in the UK elections. I guess they didn't learn any lessons about taxation without representation. 😮😂
I am from Pennsylvania. I’m glad the election is over. Between the ads on TV, unwanted political texts and phone calls, and mailings I’m so over it!
There's presently 7 swing States ,
Georgia,
N.Carolina
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Arizona
Nevada
America was not founded as a democracy by our Founding Fathers, it's a Constitutional Republic with an Electoral College that prevents the larger, more populated states from dominating the less populated States as if it were a democracy based only on popular vote.This prevents the more populated states,(10)which are mainly democratically controlled, dominating the other less populated (40) states in elections.
The electoral college votes insure that all states are represented and not just those with largely populated cities like
New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Trouble is small states are over represented
Ensure, not insure - "The electoral college votes insure"
@@justinbarker8421 Not true! The number of electoral votes for each state is based on population of that state.
@ someone in Wyoming vote is worth more than someone in New York or Texas
That's a common misconception. The electoral college was created as a balance between Congress choosing the president, which was thought to have too much of a chance for corruption, or a direct vote in which a large number of poorly informed people would choose. The 3/5's Compromise factored in, as well as this was one of the last decisions made by the founding fathers who were thought be be exhausted and just wanted to get the Constitution on paper and to a vote. It's archaic and obsolete. If you vote for one candidate but the other wins, your vote goes to the winner. And several times the majority people have voted for one candidate but the other wins because states choose the winner, not the people.
There are also 2 other candidates running for President:
Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket
and Chase Oliver on the Libertarian Party ticket.
They both do receive individual votes in the Popular Vote, but only rarely do 3rd-Party candidates ever receive Electoral College votes.
Don’t forget vermin supreme
Looking back and seeing how off his prediction was is actually hilarious. Trump won all 7 swing states and the popular vote.
dude was hoping Trump would lose with his silly analysis
There actually was an electoral college tie once: back in 1800.
Ties in 1800 Jefferson /Burr. And 1876 Hayes/Tilden
What also changes voting in each states by population is when people move/relocate from one state to another. People who are affiliated with a party bring their political beliefs and affiliation to the new state they will live in. That could change the numbers a bit, if many should move out at any one state.
When the Electoral College was created it was to prevent the probability of the bigger populations of states like Virginia (which in terms of size and population was the California of its time) and New York completely dominating smaller states like Delaware and Rhode Island in the choosing of the President. Today the Electoral College prevents California, Illinois and New York--states with big urban populations---from inevitably choosing the President by their own, usually Democratic Party, votes.
Oklahoma is a republican strong hold.. Arizona went red.. Georgia.. North Carolina.. Wisconsin Pennsylvania .. I think Michigan voted red
His explanation on the compromise the Founding Fathers reached on the Electoral College isn't exactly accurate. If you look at the first several election cycles there was no such thing as the popular vote when it came to deciding a president. Citizens of the individual states would vote for legislators who would in turn get elected to the state legislatures. These legislatures would then send electors to the Electoral College to select a President. The idea of a popular vote being used to appoint electors to the Electoral College to select a specific candidate for President evolved slowly. We held our first presidential election in 1788 but it wasn't until 1824 that the popular vote was used in elections as we know them today.
I would like to clarify something. The votes are still generally tied to population. They basically get the same amount of Electors as they have members in congress. So, the Senate gives 2 Senators to each state, making 100 senators. Whereas the House has 435 seats split up by population. So Texas gets 38 house seats, Cali gets 52, etc Wyoming gets 1(note states get a minimum of 1 because you cannot have half a person). There is 750k people per house representative in Cali whereas Wyoming has 580k per representative. So each state get's a guarantee of 2 because they should be represented, and 1 or more based on how many people they represent. So although, yes, Wyoming's vote matters more, it doesn't really make a difference. The only reason it counts more in the Electoral College is because every state get's a free 2 electors(just like the Senate). 52 becomes 54 for Cali and 1 becomes 3 for Wyoming. Mathematically, it is a significant increase for Wyoming, thus making their votes worth more, however, also mathematically everyone got an equal number of electors.
Not true this time
I was glad to cast my vote to help ensure Trump won my swing state of Georgia.
As an Arizonan u knew he was dead wrong on my state and sure enough it’s a blowout
The number of electorial college votes are distributed as follows. 1 vote for every senator or congressman. Since every state regardless of population gets 2 senators a low population states, the min votes is 3 for 2 senators and 1 congressman. Texas on the other side of the coin has 38 congressman and 2 senators for 40 votes.
Arizona and Georgia's polls have had Trump ahead the entire time. The betting markets have him at nearly 70% chance of winning those two States. Even so, it comes down to Pennsylvania.
All went to trump
If there's a tie, the House of Representatives decides who wins the Presidency, the Senate will elect the Vice-President. The process is spelt out in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. In the House, each state delegation gets one vote. There are 50 votes. The delegation's vote presumably would depend on the majority vote of the representatives from that state who would probably vote along party lines. If, say, Indiana has 9 congressmen, and 5 decided to support candidate X, and 4 decided candidate Y, then the delegation's vote would go to X. A simple majority of 26 votes determines the President. In the Senate, each Senator votes. To win, you'd need 51 votes. Although the process has a little more to it, this is the basic idea. The Electoral College preserves the principles of federalism that are essential to the US's constitutional republic. It's a compromise that tries to balance the power of big states v. small states so big states can't run roughshod over smaller ones.
Note: Electoral votes do not have to go to who the people voted for in that state. They can give them to whomever they will, even if it is against the peoples wish. The US is not a democracy. A single persons vote is not the end all be all that most seem to think. For example Nebraska and Maine have both split their electoral votes in the past.
It’s a huge deal to do that. They avoid it at all costs. They are going against their states popular vote and well they wanna be reelected
Also if you think the electoral college is weird, look up how the number of representatives each state is allocated is calculated lol.
Population of state
------------------------------
Square root of (Next representative number for this state x (next representative number-1)) ===== Priority Value of state
If another state's population is higher then it does not receive that representative.
BUT: All states are guaranteed one representative to ensure representation. So all these numbers start at 2
In a tie, Congress decides who wins.
As a Texan, I can tell you we're REALLY opinionated. So, this system is needed to keep that in check.
The 538 total electors are from the total of the state's Representatives to the House (435) and the Senators to the Senate (100).
Representatives are determined by population (as per the US Census every decade).
Each state has 2 Senators.
This totals 435 Representatives and 100 Senators = 535.
Washington D.C. has no Representatives to the House or Senators to the Senate, but through the 23rd Amendment, was granted 3 electors for Federal elections.
In retrospect, I feel this last-minute addition to what eventually became the 23rd Amendment granting 3 electors to D.C. was wrong. The District of Columbia is supposed to be the seat of power for the Federal government. It shouldn't have representation in that. It is "self-serving". The people who live in D.C. should still get representation and for that, they should be allowed to vote in the neighboring states of D.C. (from which D.C. was carved out of).
Yes, having 538 total electors can theoretically create a tie, but it has never happened and is unlikely to happen. If D.C. didn't have 3 electoral votes, this wouldn't be an issue.
Population changes keep altering how many electoral votes a state has as well as the demographics of the state resulting in the state leaning one way or the other or becoming more neutral, and therefore a swing/battleground state. E.g. a couple decades ago, FL was a swing state but has in recent years shifted conservative (Republican). Trump won FL in this election by a solid 13% points...as well as TX by 13% points. TX was touted in the last election as potentially becoming "purple" (swing state). The population of TX is growing rapidly with the influx coming from many liberal (Democratic) states, so TX may eventually become a swing state.
As mentioned, there were 7 swing/battleground states in this election.
As everyone knows by now, Trump won all of them with six of them being flipped from the last election.
That was the "mandate" that was considered a "landslide". In truth, the 312 to 226 is not really a landslide.
The 1984 election was a landslide. Reagan won with 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. Mondale BARELY won his home state (10 electoral votes) by 0.3% and won D.C. (3 electoral votes) by a "paltry" 30% (D.C. usually goes Democratic by 80%+).
---
It might be an odd system, but it was wisely done by the Founding Fathers to ensure that no simple majority could rule on the Federal level. Simple majority is the "popular vote", and such a voting system eventually leads to "mob rule". Mob rule is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner. The answer is lamb chops. That's not good for the sheep. The Founding Fathers realized the dangers of mob rule where a simple majority could trample over the rights of minorities...where stronger states could trample over the rights of weaker states.
So, the electoral college ensures that a candidate must have BROAD APPEAL across many demographics and among many states.
Without the electoral college, candidates could pander to the coastal states and easily win...leaving the vast majority of the states and their people being ignored.
Remember that the US is HUGE. Many states in the US are as large as or bigger than most countries in the world. So, each state has unique and diverse characteristics that a candidate must appeal to.
This year, Trump not only had broad appeal (won the electoral vote) but also had popular appeal (won the popular vote). In 2016, Trump had broad appeal but was not the popular candidate (lost the popular vote).
If the electoral college is tied, it is then the House of Representatives that chooses the President with each state getting one vote. The Senate would choose the Vice President.
I'm sure someone else caught this and has already said something, but did he say, "Wyoming has 26 electoral college votes?" Don't know where he heard that, but they have 3 votes, I believe. lol
I honestly think the EC should apply to within the state as well. Like each county has a set of electoral votes based on their population. This would further ensure a candidate has to do what is best for the VAST majority of people.
Currently, cities like New York decide what's best for the entire state of New York, despite the northern half being completely opposite to the NYC area.
@hitman9198 I actually nerded out and got ChatGPT to write me a python script to calculate out what this would look like for New York based on their counties.
I did both 640 and 535 electoral votes based on different ways of giving "representatives" to the counties.
Blue still won both, but I will have to try it with Minnesota.
Going by representative districts is too unstable due to gerrymandering. Counties seems like a better measure to me.
@hitman9198 I just calculated it based on 435 max "representatives" + 2 "senators" for each county. Harris would've only gained 238 electoral votes out of 535 in this scenario.
The graphs shown at 12:55 are very insightful and everyone needs to go spend some time looking at them, regardless of your political views. Not to get political here, but they put to rest the claim often made by the Democrats that Republicans are "right-wing extremists." The facts show the opposite is the case. The median Democrat has shifted much further to the left today than just a decade ago, whereas the median Republican remains mostly unchanged. What this means is those who refer to Republicans as "right-wing extremists" have that perception because *they themselves* are so far shifted to the left that they perceive anyone who disagrees with them as "extreme," not recognizing that even the raw numbers show they themselves are the very definition of extremism.
Four more years of hell for us.
A tie has happened in 1824. If it does, the Presidential race goes to the House of Representatives. Each state votes as a state, with the majority of Representatives in each state voting for one candidate or the other. So the tally could be 45 to 55.
The Vice President is chosen by the Senate. So of course, it's possible for the President to ve from one party and the Vice President from the other.
thank you for saying nevada right.
There are two substantial undercurrents right now that will shift swing states around the map in the next couple elections cycles.
1 - populations are trending toward concentrating in towns and urban centers, whereas in earlier generations urban and non-urban populations were more evenly distributed. This results in more of the population seeking either a degree or specialized training, and increases the familiarity of individuals with people who are different from them. (That is, more education or training, and more exposure to people you view as valid but who are radically different from you in some way).
2 - a major shift to the focus of politics being social issues rather than economic or international affairs; all topics do matter of course, but social topics are dominating more and more of the political discussion with every one of the last several election cycles.
Both trends tend to lean people toward less restrictive social policies (an angle that currently aligns away from a conservative/right-ish viewpoint). Previously, the economics of taxes & services and nature of international affairs were dominant arguments, but as social issues have become more dominant the demographics/groups who align with one party or another have started to re-align.
Both trends are likely to continue into the near future, and it will be interesting to see how this is reflected geographically. We say "land doesn't vote, people do" but geography absolutely impacts how votes and political power are distributed.
The economy and living conditions still beat out social issues.
In a tie or no winner (Requires a Majority not just the highest count that can happen with a third party or a state unable to determine because of an event or fraud) it goes to the house of of Representatives to select a POTUS that traditionally is the Speaker of the House as the candidates all failed to meet the required majority disqualifying both requiring someone who did not run.