@@Eric19361 Well, monarchy had theoretical foundation which more or less went: "oh I'm the king, I was chosen by God to be just to my people and my will is the people's will". Soo...
Things changed very much. Now we're ruled by "representatives of the people" who continue to go to war every year but have a much higher life expectancy.
@sasasas asadadad I'm not defending monarchy, I'm saying that we aren't as different from a monarchy as we might think. I'm saying the system we have now isn't as representative as we might think.
+TheBadAstronomer Phil, I like Craig, but you would win in a fight. Doesn't the name wheezywaiter imply he has asthma? I'd place my bet on a bad-ass astronomer any day!
i follow politics pretty closely here in the US, and whats going on now is pretty interesting. one of the largest shifts in the last 40 years has been the radical de-unionization of the private sector. unions used to be, and to some extent still are, the main organizing force for the economic left (labor party) segment of the democratic party. since these unions have signficantly declined in power and membership, the democratic party has sought political support elsewhere, mainly from lawyers and the banking sector. on the republican side, the main mobilizing sector has been the church, mostly white, evangelical christians. through political organizations like fox news and conservative talk radio, the evangelical right wing has shifted radically right over the last 40 years. so significantly in fact, that the main faction of republican establishment (business republicans) are not conservative enough for a large portion of the republican base. this has led to a splintering of the party, the new republicans running under the banner of "freedom party" or "tea party" republicans. its pretty interesting really. you have a large decline in labor power, and a significant rise in ultra right wing conservatives, which has caused both parties to shift right signficantly. and yet, socially, the left (democrats) have mobilized groups like the LBGT, black lives matter and feminist movements, that have kept the party pretty left wing, socially, while the labor policies are allowed to shift dramatically right. for republicans, socially and economically the party has shifted dramatically right. this has left both parties in a precarious situation. the democrats have lost their organizing force on the ground, and so cant really win elections at the local and state levels (governorships and state/local legislatures are overwhelmingly republican). Yet, at the same time, the republicans have to cater to a small but powerful base that is way right of the vast majority of the american people, leaving them struggling to gain any momentum whatsoever at the federal level. it will be interesting telling my kids about this point in time. i think something big is coming politically, as so much of the base for both parties are disatisfied with their representatives, if not for anything else, that the two parties are being pulled in too many different directions and cant possible cater to all the wants of their drastically different constituencies.
I think you get one, very important, thing wrong. Conservatives didn't go radically right. Social issues and society simply changed at ludicrous speeds. The left and the coastal elites have just jumped leaps and bounds away from them. Transgenderism was completely unheard of in the public sphere just 8 years ago. Same sex marriage was little better.
+Fightneit 90 Wow u actually summed that up pretty well. That does seem to be the main goings on of our politics currently. I do wonder where this will soon lead the country.
Jeffy Samuel i really dont know. the party system is pretty in-grained in US politics, so more than likely what has happened in the past will repeat itself - the party positions will adopt the positions of third parties and attempt to include them within their platforms. with that said, there is a pretty deep streak of frustration that has been building for a while now on both the left and the right, and as the constituencies views continue to diverge, the ability to have an "inclusive" party platform becomes more and more difficult. there's a saying that goes something like "when peoples expecations diverge too far from the reality, revolutions happen". while i dont think a revolution in the typical sense will happen, i do think that another major economic crisis, or a failure to address the shrinking of the middle class in the US will lead to some unexpected shifts politically. you see it in portugal recently, where the communists, socialists, and green parties for the first time swept the conservatives. you see it in greece with the golden dawn party and syriza. these are results of economic anxiety, the likes of which are likely to spill over to the US soon (economists predict a downturn in 2016, especially as the US federal reserve tightens interest rates and chinese exports continue to fall).
The idea of a CC feud gave me the amusing image of how their studio is set up- one big room with the sets each taking a wall, and they're all throwing paper balls at each other
How come the US only has two major political parties? If you go basically anywhere else in the world, there are considerably more parties in each countries government? I live in Denmark, and we have 9 parties in our parliament, all with a seperate political agenda, spanning most of the political spectrum.
+zh11147 - I see, that actually makes a lot of sense. But that just makes think of another question. If the politician's own political agenda, is what majorly defines his politics, and not the party it self, doesn't that just inevitably end up being a popularity contest, to gather personal votes? I'm not saying this doesn't happen in Denmark, it does to an extent, but if the actual political party doesn't primarily define the individual politicians oppinions it, for me at least, quickly become very opaque and overly complicated, when you suddenly have to keep score of so many politicians, and their individual oppinions. How do you choose the perfect candidate, if they all stand under 2 banners and have to promote themselves, and not a party that, by and large, promotes their own political agenda.
+IchBinEin It is also inherent to the way our leaders are elected. All federal elections (congressional and presidential) are "first past the post" elections, which means whoever gets the most votes wins, no matter what. Statistically, this invariably ends up in a two-party system, as any vote for an ideologically similar to one of the main parties third-party candidate is a vote against said primary party candidate, or kind of a vote for said candidate's main-party rival. Voters are aware of this, and vote for one of the two parties, even if they like a third party more. CPG Grey has EXCELLENT videos on how elections and party systems work. I HIGHLY recommend them. They are clear, succinct, simple, and impartial.
It's primarily a mechanics issue. The first past the post system means that all political appointments go to whoever wins 51% of the vote. Therefore, there's no point to multiple political parties because no matter how many parties are running only one is going to receive any political power. The results is two coalition parties who form as broad support as possible, and a little less than half of the electorate, and then battle over the few undecided voters who remain to get that critical few votes to go over 50%. I don't know much about the Danish but for example Israeli political parties only need 3.25% of the vote in a national pool of voters to receive any political appointment. Generally the higher voting threshold the less parties you see. A great in between example is Turkey which has one of the highest voting thresholds of any parliamentary system and only has 4 major political parties.
+IchBinEin There is a third one emerging, libertarians. They basically want absolute freedom for the individual but it comes with some drawbacks. While it mostly matches republican views, the ones who want less government, it can match democratic views, an example would be gay marriage or marijuana legalization.
This has been probably the most informative Crash Course Politics episode yet! And it's 100% correct that parties change: I would've been a Bourbon Democrat!
I noticed that this video sidestepped the issue of what the Democratic-Republican Party was actually called back in the day ("Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican") because it would be a little confusing (it actually was the direct ancestor of the Democratic Party in 1828, while the Republican Party wouldn't be founded until 26 years later; one of the D-R splinter groups after the founding of the Democratic Party was the National Republican Party, which, more confusingly, was one of the ancestors of the Republican Party, but not the *main* ancestor, which was the Whig Party). The phrase "keep the ball rolling" did not originate with the campaign of William Henry Harrison, but instead had formed by the late 1700s: idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+the+ball+rolling However, the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe, and Tyler too!" was both the title of a campaign *song* and the inspiration for the title of a Disney film, "Winnie the Pooh, and Tigger Too"
We're currently transitioning into the 7th party system. The shift started way back in 2001, and I predict that decades from now the upcoming 2016 election will be regarded as the critically re-aligning election. For which we're long overdue.
Mason Shepherd, I’d argue it started in 1992. That’s when we really started hearing people get upset about “spoiler” candidates. People will look back and say, “Well, the solution was staring them in the face, but they just spent decades complaining and pointing fingers without even thinking to reform their flawed election process to fix the problem.”
I think it's interesting seeing the Republican Party fracturing between conservatives and nationalists, and the Democratic Party, to a lesser extent fracturing between centrists and "socialists". Also: the rapidly growing Libertarian Party.
John Green, I had an idea that I believe would be great for students (and citizens in general) throughout the nation. Could you make a crash course video about the current political candidates? I am trying my best to keep up with the ideas of each candidate, but as a student I find that I do not have much time to do the proper research necessary to understand who I would be voting for in the upcoming election, which I do not believe is not good citizenship. Hope you consider this!
notes - party systems (eras of political parties) - There were no parties during the first elections under the new Constitution in 1788 (afraid of parties/factions) - federalists (john adams) v democratic-republicans (thomas jefferson) - federalists (party) was different from the federalists who ratified the constitution
Hey, curious if you guys are planning on doing a video about primary and caucus voting in this lineup (I could have missed it?). I know these are mainly done ahead of time and released intermittently, but with January around the corner and caucus season coming up, I'd love to see you explore the topic.
Although two party dominance has been the norm, minor parties still were able to get elected to Congress. Of course, this was before the Big Two started pushing restrictive election laws designed specifically to make it harder for minor parties to even get on the ballot. Sadly, most people don’t even realize the lengths the Big Two have gone, and continue to go, to stifle political competition.
Pissed him off until we had a two-party system You haven’t met him yet, you haven’t had the chance ‘cause he’s been kickin’ ass as the ambassador to France But someone’s gotta keep the American promise You simply must meet Thomas. Thomas!!
+Jeffy Samuel there is a musical about Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson doesn't show up until Act 2. This is how they introduce him. Look up Hamilton The Musical. You're welcome
wait, YOU invented "doobly-doo"? YOU ARE AN INTERNET GOD !! O_O That being said, Phil +TheBadAstronomer does win on the head surface area dedicated to sending and receiving awesome indeas. And UV radiation.
Actually this is awesome! But I cannot fully understand all contents as English is my second language. It would be perfect if there is English sub ! :)
What is more interesting is despite Dems and Repubs not getting along, they both agree that a smaller parties are not good and don't want to acknowledge them for fear of giving credibility to their ideas and losing their own support.
+Zachary Sickles Me as a dictator obviously. Hail me! Early hailers will receive fast death compared to others. So if torture is your fetish then don't hail me yet.
+Zachary Sickles Personal speculation: Democrats go for large scale "economic engineering" (Cause calling it socialism is a bad idea) and Social Justice with a somewhat isolationist tone. Appealing to Minorities,Intellectuals and Activists while the Republicans stand for a free market system and a "Open Society" (No one really cares for social conservatism anymore) with a globalist agenda.
Great video overall. I imagine that third parties matter less than they are given credit for here and that their perceived importance is a case of conflating correlation with causation. While it's true that many issues that are part of third party platforms later become championed by mainstream parties, that probably has more to do with the fact that the issue itself was popular with or without the existence of the third party.
So you're telling me George Washington was the only thing keeping America from splitting because he was our golden child? And all we had to do was keep George Washington alive, and we wouldn't be this divided? Gosh I wish we knew that earlier.
oh look... Crash course didn't just save me in high school... They keep saving my grades in college :) What would I do without you all
that lil Pluto joke and Craig yelling “Whatever Phil!” Was enough to keep me going through this cram sesh
I miss the good old days where we were ruled by petty kings that went to war every year and life expectancy was 30 years old
Stannis The Mannis Baratheon At least back then we didn’t pretend that we were being represented by our government.
Stannis The Mannis Baratheon lol
@@Eric19361 Well, monarchy had theoretical foundation which more or less went: "oh I'm the king, I was chosen by God to be just to my people and my will is the people's will". Soo...
Things changed very much. Now we're ruled by "representatives of the people" who continue to go to war every year but have a much higher life expectancy.
@sasasas asadadad I'm not defending monarchy, I'm saying that we aren't as different from a monarchy as we might think. I'm saying the system we have now isn't as representative as we might think.
Craig's just jealous because I pioneered the "balding bearded middle-aged white guy" look on Crash Course.
+TheBadAstronomer Phil, I like Craig, but you would win in a fight. Doesn't the name wheezywaiter imply he has asthma? I'd place my bet on a bad-ass astronomer any day!
+TheBadAstronomer Didn't you guys debut almost simultaneously?
+TheBadAstronomer I'll be honest... I follow more Phil stuff than Craig stuff.....
+TheBadAstronomer I KNEW there was a reason Astronomy was my favorite Crash Course!
+TheBadAstronomer Bald-ING?
I cheered out loud when the Mongols came along
omg same I'm in whap & I died
+Lord Stronghold I LOL'd
+Lord Stronghold Just commented the same thing :D
So did I.
same, I squealed lol
FORGET "batman vs superman: dawn of justice". I want Craig vs Phil: Dawn of Political Astronomy!
I think who going to win :Craig
i follow politics pretty closely here in the US, and whats going on now is pretty interesting. one of the largest shifts in the last 40 years has been the radical de-unionization of the private sector. unions used to be, and to some extent still are, the main organizing force for the economic left (labor party) segment of the democratic party. since these unions have signficantly declined in power and membership, the democratic party has sought political support elsewhere, mainly from lawyers and the banking sector.
on the republican side, the main mobilizing sector has been the church, mostly white, evangelical christians. through political organizations like fox news and conservative talk radio, the evangelical right wing has shifted radically right over the last 40 years. so significantly in fact, that the main faction of republican establishment (business republicans) are not conservative enough for a large portion of the republican base. this has led to a splintering of the party, the new republicans running under the banner of "freedom party" or "tea party" republicans.
its pretty interesting really. you have a large decline in labor power, and a significant rise in ultra right wing conservatives, which has caused both parties to shift right signficantly. and yet, socially, the left (democrats) have mobilized groups like the LBGT, black lives matter and feminist movements, that have kept the party pretty left wing, socially, while the labor policies are allowed to shift dramatically right. for republicans, socially and economically the party has shifted dramatically right.
this has left both parties in a precarious situation. the democrats have lost their organizing force on the ground, and so cant really win elections at the local and state levels (governorships and state/local legislatures are overwhelmingly republican). Yet, at the same time, the republicans have to cater to a small but powerful base that is way right of the vast majority of the american people, leaving them struggling to gain any momentum whatsoever at the federal level.
it will be interesting telling my kids about this point in time. i think something big is coming politically, as so much of the base for both parties are disatisfied with their representatives, if not for anything else, that the two parties are being pulled in too many different directions and cant possible cater to all the wants of their drastically different constituencies.
+Fightneit 90 what do you think the change will be? rise of third parties?
+Fightneit 90 Very well put. A well summarized overview of current American politics.
I think you get one, very important, thing wrong. Conservatives didn't go radically right. Social issues and society simply changed at ludicrous speeds. The left and the coastal elites have just jumped leaps and bounds away from them.
Transgenderism was completely unheard of in the public sphere just 8 years ago. Same sex marriage was little better.
+Fightneit 90 Wow u actually summed that up pretty well. That does seem to be the main goings on of our politics currently. I do wonder where this will soon lead the country.
Jeffy Samuel i really dont know. the party system is pretty in-grained in US politics, so more than likely what has happened in the past will repeat itself - the party positions will adopt the positions of third parties and attempt to include them within their platforms.
with that said, there is a pretty deep streak of frustration that has been building for a while now on both the left and the right, and as the constituencies views continue to diverge, the ability to have an "inclusive" party platform becomes more and more difficult. there's a saying that goes something like "when peoples expecations diverge too far from the reality, revolutions happen". while i dont think a revolution in the typical sense will happen, i do think that another major economic crisis, or a failure to address the shrinking of the middle class in the US will lead to some unexpected shifts politically. you see it in portugal recently, where the communists, socialists, and green parties for the first time swept the conservatives. you see it in greece with the golden dawn party and syriza. these are results of economic anxiety, the likes of which are likely to spill over to the US soon (economists predict a downturn in 2016, especially as the US federal reserve tightens interest rates and chinese exports continue to fall).
The idea of a CC feud gave me the amusing image of how their studio is set up- one big room with the sets each taking a wall, and they're all throwing paper balls at each other
This "feud" between Craig & Phil amuses me! Crash Course Astronomy is pretty awesome as well, so I don't think I could takes sides.
How come the US only has two major political parties?
If you go basically anywhere else in the world, there are considerably more parties in each countries government?
I live in Denmark, and we have 9 parties in our parliament, all with a seperate political agenda, spanning most of the political spectrum.
+zh11147 - I see, that actually makes a lot of sense. But that just makes think of another question.
If the politician's own political agenda, is what majorly defines his politics, and not the party it self, doesn't that just inevitably end up being a popularity contest, to gather personal votes?
I'm not saying this doesn't happen in Denmark, it does to an extent, but if the actual political party doesn't primarily define the individual politicians oppinions it, for me at least, quickly become very opaque and overly complicated, when you suddenly have to keep score of so many politicians, and their individual oppinions.
How do you choose the perfect candidate, if they all stand under 2 banners and have to promote themselves, and not a party that, by and large, promotes their own political agenda.
+IchBinEin It is also inherent to the way our leaders are elected. All federal elections (congressional and presidential) are "first past the post" elections, which means whoever gets the most votes wins, no matter what. Statistically, this invariably ends up in a two-party system, as any vote for an ideologically similar to one of the main parties third-party candidate is a vote against said primary party candidate, or kind of a vote for said candidate's main-party rival. Voters are aware of this, and vote for one of the two parties, even if they like a third party more. CPG Grey has EXCELLENT videos on how elections and party systems work. I HIGHLY recommend them. They are clear, succinct, simple, and impartial.
It's primarily a mechanics issue. The first past the post system means that all political appointments go to whoever wins 51% of the vote. Therefore, there's no point to multiple political parties because no matter how many parties are running only one is going to receive any political power. The results is two coalition parties who form as broad support as possible, and a little less than half of the electorate, and then battle over the few undecided voters who remain to get that critical few votes to go over 50%. I don't know much about the Danish but for example Israeli political parties only need 3.25% of the vote in a national pool of voters to receive any political appointment. Generally the higher voting threshold the less parties you see. A great in between example is Turkey which has one of the highest voting thresholds of any parliamentary system and only has 4 major political parties.
Singapore effectively has 1 party. They get 75% of votes or more
+IchBinEin There is a third one emerging, libertarians. They basically want absolute freedom for the individual but it comes with some drawbacks. While it mostly matches republican views, the ones who want less government, it can match democratic views, an example would be gay marriage or marijuana legalization.
Can we just appreciate "I'm on your dolla dolla bill y'all" at 1:05
Do you think you could do an episode on party factions/divisions? I think the fact they're so internally divided is really interesting!
5:43 - "My daddy voted Republican 'til the day he died, and he's voted Democrat ever since!"
@Thomas Tonning you are ye yee gay. How man reply 4 year laayyate?
FINALLY! Someone talking about Alexander Hamilton without "Hamilton" references
I love this series
Same.
This has been probably the most informative Crash Course Politics episode yet! And it's 100% correct that parties change: I would've been a Bourbon Democrat!
How did Phil hurt you buddy?
Who knew there was such overlap in the Craig and Phil subscribers? Awesome.
instead of batman v superman, its craig vs phil
+Zoidberg Jesus Craig v. Phil: Dawn of Crash Course!
Yes
Having fun while learning something. Thanks!
"And we don't have time to go into how true that is." Oh, the shade on the south!
Don't make me choose between you and Phil !!!!! DON'T MAKE ME CHOOOOSE !!!
I noticed that this video sidestepped the issue of what the Democratic-Republican Party was actually called back in the day ("Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican") because it would be a little confusing (it actually was the direct ancestor of the Democratic Party in 1828, while the Republican Party wouldn't be founded until 26 years later; one of the D-R splinter groups after the founding of the Democratic Party was the National Republican Party, which, more confusingly, was one of the ancestors of the Republican Party, but not the *main* ancestor, which was the Whig Party).
The phrase "keep the ball rolling" did not originate with the campaign of William Henry Harrison, but instead had formed by the late 1700s: idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+the+ball+rolling
However, the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe, and Tyler too!" was both the title of a campaign *song* and the inspiration for the title of a Disney film, "Winnie the Pooh, and Tigger Too"
1:51 I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love
We're currently transitioning into the 7th party system. The shift started way back in 2001, and I predict that decades from now the upcoming 2016 election will be regarded as the critically re-aligning election. For which we're long overdue.
Mason Shepherd, I’d argue it started in 1992. That’s when we really started hearing people get upset about “spoiler” candidates.
People will look back and say, “Well, the solution was staring them in the face, but they just spent decades complaining and pointing fingers without even thinking to reform their flawed election process to fix the problem.”
I think it's interesting seeing the Republican Party fracturing between conservatives and nationalists, and the Democratic Party, to a lesser extent fracturing between centrists and "socialists". Also: the rapidly growing Libertarian Party.
I vote for Craig over Phil! Go democracy!
+Christian Akacro but i'll pick the green brothers anyday.
Well 3rd party could actually have a chance in the house you only have to win districts not entire states or the nation
Indeed, and it's happened even in statewide races--Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota is a case in point--but it's extremely rare.
The Progress party is influential in Vermont, as are independents.
House Districts tend to be gerrymandered to favor just one political party, making even a 2nd party victory unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who roots when the mongol scene appears! :D
Weezy you lie. You have an internet award, I was there when you won the Iron lungs for the supernote.
there should be a recap at the end of the six systems!!
Okay, I didn't know that Craig invented Dooblydoo. I assumed it was John Green or ze Frank.
I would like the point out the fact that at 3:43 the drunk guys gets run over by the rolling ball XD
I would totally watch Crash Course Interdisciplinary Feud.
doobly-doo is an award in itself, is that not intellectual property? Oh wait, that's a different series.
Craig is my favourite Crash Course host ever! Although the other ones are good too, of course!
But... you and Phil are my favorites. If you start a war, I don't know who to side with!
CC Astronomy rocks. I love Phil Plait. Politics and Gov is awesome too, but damn Astro is beautiful.
John Green,
I had an idea that I believe would be great for students (and citizens in general) throughout the nation. Could you make a crash course video about the current political candidates? I am trying my best to keep up with the ideas of each candidate, but as a student I find that I do not have much time to do the proper research necessary to understand who I would be voting for in the upcoming election, which I do not believe is not good citizenship. Hope you consider this!
Any chance for a video on FPTP?
i like john green this is what makes crash course fun
Really helpful video, thanks!
I wish crash course had math!
Doobly doo warrants an award.
3:18 Fox News is kinda like the modern version of a party news paper
notes
- party systems (eras of political parties)
- There were no parties during the first elections under the new Constitution in 1788 (afraid of parties/factions)
- federalists (john adams) v democratic-republicans (thomas jefferson)
- federalists (party) was different from the federalists who ratified the constitution
Hey, curious if you guys are planning on doing a video about primary and caucus voting in this lineup (I could have missed it?). I know these are mainly done ahead of time and released intermittently, but with January around the corner and caucus season coming up, I'd love to see you explore the topic.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! We should really have interdisciplinary crash course though.
Epic rap battle:Craig vs. Phil
Damn. I thought this was going to be about the two-party vs. multi-party systems.
+Liam Callahan Why? There has never been one here.
Although two party dominance has been the norm, minor parties still were able to get elected to Congress. Of course, this was before the Big Two started pushing restrictive election laws designed specifically to make it harder for minor parties to even get on the ballot.
Sadly, most people don’t even realize the lengths the Big Two have gone, and continue to go, to stifle political competition.
What do you want Social Equality or Freedom or Clean Environment
Im going to Shell's website after this.....the ad looks very interesting! For now. More Weezy!
Looking forward to Phil Plait's reply!!
I miss John Green doing these videos
I enjoy your videos far more than I'm comfortable admitting.
I hate politics but I love these videos :-)
I thing you hate politicians, not politics.
ShowALeitao can i use that
I'm sure it's not mine...
when is the next crash course history thing?
the first president was not George, was a pyton or something I don't remember the name but it was for a short time
+Marco Ferreira They did an episode on that misconception :)
Anyone else watching because of an upcoming final?? ^^ Mine's tomorrow haha
Pissed him off until we had a two-party system
You haven’t met him yet, you haven’t had the chance
‘cause he’s been kickin’ ass as the ambassador to France
But someone’s gotta keep the American promise
You simply must meet Thomas. Thomas!!
+Jessica Bagdovitz huh?
+Jeffy Samuel there is a musical about Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson doesn't show up until Act 2. This is how they introduce him. Look up Hamilton The Musical. You're welcome
Jessica Bagdovitz oh
wait, YOU invented "doobly-doo"? YOU ARE AN INTERNET GOD !! O_O
That being said, Phil +TheBadAstronomer does win on the head surface area dedicated to sending and receiving awesome indeas. And UV radiation.
I may be drunk. But I miss the Mongol-tage so f****** much I love you.
I just learned Alexander hamelton is real *mind blown*
Has this series ended?
Welcome for any well supported and reasonable disaproval for my opinion! Refuse ideological value-oriented quarrel!
We need an effective third party to rise up to prevent the current grid-lock we face
Actually this is awesome! But I cannot fully understand all contents as English is my second language. It would be perfect if there is English sub ! :)
At 6:51, the guys look like they were made of play-dough
did craig really pioneer doobly doo? wow nice
What is more interesting is despite Dems and Repubs not getting along, they both agree that a smaller parties are not good and don't want to acknowledge them for fear of giving credibility to their ideas and losing their own support.
Yeah! WHATEVER, PHIL!
BAHAHA! His wedding vows...
The people that are yellow and green look like they are made out of play-dough
I don't like to think there's a left or right but an up or down!
Alexander Hamilton? You mean the ten dollar founding father without a father.
You guys should do a video on Alfred the Great.
Could you provide a video on Voter turnout?
I wonder what the parties will look like in 50 years, because the current parties are leaving most people unhappy.
+Zachary Sickles Me as a dictator obviously. Hail me! Early hailers will receive fast death compared to others. So if torture is your fetish then don't hail me yet.
CapMurd how may i assist you my lord
+Zachary Sickles Personal speculation: Democrats go for large scale "economic engineering" (Cause calling it socialism is a bad idea) and Social Justice with a somewhat isolationist tone. Appealing to Minorities,Intellectuals and Activists while the Republicans stand for a free market system and a "Open Society" (No one really cares for social conservatism anymore) with a globalist agenda.
What was the word you coined?
I am a six systemer as well. All the southerner jump-shipped to the Republican Party when Democratic Party betrayed them in 1960s.
wheres john green ????
(Looks at the comments) oh snap there no flame wars yet oh the humanity
For the 50th episode if this lasts that long then the eagle should doge his punch and hit him
If there is one....I'm teaming with John Green
Ranked choice voting or proportional voting now. End the two party dictatorship.
Great video overall. I imagine that third parties matter less than they are given credit for here and that their perceived importance is a case of conflating correlation with causation. While it's true that many issues that are part of third party platforms later become championed by mainstream parties, that probably has more to do with the fact that the issue itself was popular with or without the existence of the third party.
@ 2:01 he skips the year 1812
Dear Crash Course,
Can you make a video on the Kingdom of Prussia? If so, add a Hetalia reference, thanks!
Didn't talk about anti-masonry :( they had the first party platforms and nomination conventions
So you're telling me George Washington was the only thing keeping America from splitting because he was our golden child? And all we had to do was keep George Washington alive, and we wouldn't be this divided?
Gosh I wish we knew that earlier.
I'm going to need for the Black folks to watch 8:10 to 8:37 at least 8 times and write that down.
Huh... you know I always wondered about dooblydoo..
Madison in 1812, not 1816. Monroe in 1816 & 1820, not 1824.
third party voting is gud
How about .... no party’s ?
did anyone ever told you that you looked like waiter wheezer guy from youtube
Good episode but he kinda butchered the story/explanation of the re-allignment.
good stuff - wish there was more on the 6th era!! (Maybe on why Trump won...)
Did I miss #40?
Wheezy, what distinguishes our society from a Plutocracy? When I looked it up; I became sad. Perhaps you can alleviate this.