Today, the Electoral College system is very controversial, leading many people to question why it exists at all. What's one thing you learned from this video?
@Tony C Part of the propaganda exists in the current definition of Fascists. Fascist really are a Left wing phenomena, but are incorrectly skewed as Right wing...
I learned that National Geographic is now just another channel with a political agenda. Sad to think when I was growing up it was the famous magazine with beautiful pictures that explored the vastness of our planet...
@Tony C If NatGeo or UA-cam is "shadowbanning dissent" or "removing [counter-arguments] from comments", why do I see your, and other's, dissenting comments?
A republic is a type of democracy. Demo=people. The point is that power is held by the people. An elected official is a person from the community voted on by a majority. Why try and split these terms?
At the time of the beginning of our country the Founding Fathers did not recognize any difference between a Democracy and a Republic. The terms were used interchangeably in common usage to describe a form of government where the people choose their leaders, as opposed to a Monarchy. They did not recognize any significant difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
@@MrAhmerA democracy can be not republican, it might be some anarchist commune, or an ancient Greek polis. And a republic can be not democratic, e.g. the United States, especially before the property requirement to vote was lifted, and the Roman Republic.
The one thing that i noticed was that the video did NOT mention, was how to abolish the Electoral College. It takes the approval of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed Constitutional Amendment.
As someone living in Southeast Asia, it always baffles me that America, the country that's known for its freedom and democracy, still has a two party system, electoral college and winner takes all policy. Here we have 10+ political parties, several candidates, proportional parliament based on threshold and whoever gets the most votes becomes the president. And our country is just 75 years old with a long history of dictatorship that ended in 1998.
@Brent Gillham Yes and the Roman "Republic" elected their highest ranking offices (2 Consuls) by a simple majority vote (1st and 2nd highest becomes consuls). Edit: I realized that is was actually much worse. The Romans elected their consuls by allocating total votes (think electors) based into a person's wealth.
@Brent Gillham then stop bragging about freedom and democracy like youre the only nation in the world that has them. And tell your CIA to stop sticking their nose to other countrys politics.
That's why I don't like SCOTUS's ruling on faithless elector laws. At the end of the day, it is not state legislatures that elect the president, but the electors themselves.
@@glennruscher4007 I would have to do the research again. What I remember is based off of your state's laws the person can do what is called vote by conscious and go against the state's popular vote.
I'm less concerned about the electoral college and more concerned with that our politics today is 7 blue wolves, 5 red wolves, 1 green sheep and 1 yellow sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner.
And it was also put in place in a time when universal suffrage was not a thing. The founders didn't envision a democracy in the sense of every individual having equal say in elections. They were more concerned with balance of power between branches of government and between the people and the government. The closer we get to pure democracy, especially in a system of universal suffrage, the more that balance gets upset and distributes power across too many voters, most of whom don't take the time to inform themselves on the issues or candidates adequately. So, there are some fundamental principles we need to be clear on before just saying yeah, we need direct popular voting.
I think this is an overly simplistic look at the electoral college. I don't claim to know everything about it, but I think the founders were attempting to balance the influence of the states with the influence of individuals, so that the most populous states didn't dominate quite as much (although they still dominate). It seems like the influence of the individual states was important to the founders, in my opinion.
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 No, everyone in a state doesn't vote exactly the same, but I think that people from Wyoming will have a different point of view than people from New York. Have fun with your own nonsense...
@@landoncarter6452 And? Do you have an actual point? Nobody is saying New Yorkers should elect the Governor of Wyoming. But the fact is every citizen is entitled to an equal say in our leader's election. And the fact you lost doesn't mean you're being put at a disadvantage. You people need to grow up.
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 Who said anything about losing? I like the fact that there are 50 states, basically giving us 50 different experiments in how to run things. I think it's part of the genius of our system. Stop trying to divide everyone and start thinking of ways to include everyone.
In a democracy, the majority always rules, and that's not always a good thing. That's why the US is a constitutional republic where the minority also has a voice in how the country is run. This is a concept that many non-Americans don't understand.
@John Smith The key word is "representative". Meaning that the minority also has a voice. Hence the Electoral College and the United States Senate (where each state has 2 senators, regardless of size).
@John Smith Your solution still puts the majority at an advantage. The majority still can bulldozer through everything, and the majority is not always right or just. I prefer a system where people give and take through good faith negotiation.
@John Smith The majority will not lose to the minority, for the same token, the minority should not lose to the majority either. That's why there should be a compromise and the Electoral College serves that purpose.
🤣🤣🤣 I think I get it, so let’s say your in TX and they have 600 ppl vote. If candidate T gets more votes than Candidate K. Candidate T wins all the votes! Even the ones that didn’t vote for candidate T. Winner takes all! Whew 😰 😅😅 hope I helped
Seeing this made me realize it was most likely a great thing to have back then. But now, it’s awful. It makes small states votes count more. Once again in the USA not everyone is truly equal :/
Winning by the majority of the popular votes puts the power in just a handful of states. People who live in small states like Wyoming or Maine would have no say in electing a POTUS. The Electoral College is the most brilliant thing that the founding fathers of this country ever devised.
@@lancecahill5486 Maybe not the most brilliant but, vital especially today. Plus, it is true to the spirit of this freedom. If you want to sway small states power just move there and contribute to their economy instead of bloating states that are already heavily blue.
@@lancecahill5486 The stupidest thing they came up with, I would say. Presidents all around the world are elected by the popular vote. Little states are part of the same story in every country.
The problem with the college is some votes end up not counting at all. In 2016 it was shown 1 vote in Montana equals about 3.5 votes in California. No wonder so many people believe it's pointless to vote! Historically, the college was designed to allow the South more say in the government than it had free citizens.
@@jayMineGaming10 the point is that while Montana and Wyoming might had a more powerful singular vote, they have much less than a Californian. It’s like complaining that your brother received a $20 from your grandmother even though your grandmother gave you 20 $5 bills.
If it wasn't a democracy, you wouldn't be voting. Someone else would be setting the rules, like oligarchs. ...but to be fair, you're right, the US is not a proper democracy, because your vote doesn't mean much anyway in the end. It's a plutocracy. The politicians don't have the power. The corporations do because they buy out the politicians. That's also why it's the only western country where the regular people are being ripped off by rich corporations, especially when it comes to healthcare. It's insane that a ambulance ride in America can cost $10,000. In a proper democracy, it is free (whether or not you have a socialist healthcare system. It would always be free).
So ultimately I don't know why you think being a democracy is worse than a Republic. Democracy doesn't always mean mob rule. Look at the UK. It's not a Republic but a democratic constitutional monarchy So it's not mob rule either. The difference is that the constitution can easily be changed because it's a set of documents that have evolved over time, rather than a single rigid document. This also means that the prime ministers can easily be kicked out if they fail, which happens a lot, and which is a good thing. In the US you're forced to live under a very rigid constitution which is almost impossible to change, especially the greater the population becomes. You're also forced to live out the full term of the president even if he's the worst. There's no early elections ever, which is really bad especially if the government is in constant lock down which NEVER happens in the UK system.
In other words, constitutional Republics are too rigid because there is no parliamentary sovereignty. There's only sovereignty of the constitution, which is just an imperfect document under which the country is shackled. Thus, in many ways, it can be said that it's much better to have a politically neutral king (or a symbolic president) to represent the country and to which you swear allegiance, instead of swearing your allegiance to a constitution which is just a unliving, dead and OUTDATED document. The prime minister runs the country, but is accountable to the king and to the parliament. Every week he has to face them and report to them. In America, the president is accountable to nobody except his rich corporate donors. Sooo... how exactly is a Republic a better system than a Democracy? There's lots of types of democracy that are not Republic and are better than that, plus are not mob rule either. And I'm not saying the UK system was always better than the US. It wasn't. It was much worse in the past. But the good thing about it is that it's not rigid, so it can easily ADAPT to the changing times and evolve and become better. The US system is stuck in the past forevermore
Lol, the most important reason for electro college is to protect political minorities States to be ignored or oppressed by majorities. Without emphasizing this point, this video is missing out or biased.
@@lalos9782 the opposite of majority rule isn’t minority rule. The purpose is to allow the minority to still have a say at the table. Doesn’t mean they will be heard over the majority every time, just enough times that their input is worthwhile. As Ben Franklin once eloquently put, “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for lunch.”
@@howardbaxter2514 The president should be chosen by the majority. The electoral college doesn't do anything but give the minority the chance to take unfair power.
@@EldyPlaysMinecraft and something I think people need to understand, the opposite of majority rule isn’t minority rule. We do not operate under minority rule.
@@howardbaxter2514 ... which is not the case with swing-states and effectively just two parties. Also there's a reason the "minority" is a minority and elections are held.
This needs to be kept in place. It is the last bastion of states rights. It is what makes this country a union of states instead of a single state with administrative regions.
They left out a major part of the reasoning for the EC - the south wanted to secede because there were more voters in the north and the north was winning all the elections. The north conceded and allowed the south to count their slaves as 3/5 a person, but the slaves could not vote. So the electoral college was also about tolerating slavery to keep the union together. Today, it is not at all about minority population protections; it is about minority rule over the majority. It needs to go. We have no other system but straight majority vote in all other elections except for president. That makes no sense anymore.
@Will Williams Hmmm.... Maybe there seems to be more "idiots" in the populated areas because there are more people living there? Seems to me there are plenty to go around all over America these days mainly due to a lack of critical thinking skills taught in the schools. Bring back Education, make it available to all on an equal basis, and there will be a more united populace. Better than civil war...
Couldn't agree more. We have under educated our populace, and until we start educating them, we'll continue with the fiasco of the EC, and the belief that eduction, experience and knowledge aren't worth as much as BS and celebrity.
@@MrNew2tube I was paying attention, which is why I wrote I wrote, Meanwhile, you wrote something and said nothing. Maybe that's why they didn't want to give you the power of your vote...
If the USA is a true democracy, then the direct popular vote should be enough to elect a president. The electoral college is just a way for those who have money to dictate the election result.
Actually, if the US was a true democracy, we probably wouldn't even have representatives or senators. Getting rid of the EC wouldn't make the US a true democracy.
The electoral college is there to protect Rhode Island from Texas. Look up a population density map of the United States. Without the electoral college, Rhode Island's vote would hardly count. The states are semi-autonomous, and why would anyone vote in Rhode Island? They would say, "meh, our vote will be swallowed up by Texas; why bother?" Take away the E.C. and see what happens. Also, look up the election of 1861. The E.C. is a necessary evil.
@@BlackOpslover2828 I wasn't talking about the local government was talking about the federal government the same people that want to get rid of the Electoral College don't believe States should have 2 senators each
@@Poisonshady313 when you charge the rules to the game..not that granular, at least not yet. Deference between saying- now in chess pawns can move unlimited steps forward or now pawns can move in any direction like a queen. At a certain point your not playing chess anymore and it's something different
@@Poisonshady313 states are static. counties are reshaped by gerrymandering. this would call attention to this issue and allow states to still put forward a mix of electors - instead of 100% dem/rep
That's what this video was trying to do. Didn't you see how gleeful the old boomer Democrat was while talking about the electoral college being a bad thing?
@@remsencey He didn't really explain why though. This video just explains the history of the electoral college and how our founders came to make the decision to have one, but does not provide context for a modern perspective on how the electoral college effects us today.
James Wilson would love the system in place today. But he wouldn’t like the administrative over regulated country he sees. Over taxed and under represented. Quite literally we are what the British had
Sometimes they have good documentaries and useful information, like this one. I personally watch less than a quarter what they upload. It depends on the content.
Laws can be changed you know? Including the constitution. The founding fathers even said that the constitution needed to be revised and adapted over the years. If you have the opinion that laws should last eternally then we would have no reason to elect politicians.
Left out a few things, didn't you? Like how the vice president was chosen initially, and how the electors are proportioned to the states! Very sketchy presentation, if that!
Thanks Nat Geo 👍 The electoral college system is outdated. The EC was fine when our population was illiterate and it took week's to get news from our government, but that time has long gone. One Voice, One Vote.
And I think that's what most people cannot understand. I didn't get it until after 20 years in America. Each state must retain its own identity and sovereignty under the federal government.
maybe this idea makes too much sense but if 15million ppl vote republican and 10 million ppl in that same state vote democrat, why not split the electoral votes accordingly like give 20 votes for republican and 16 for the dems if that state is allocated 36 electoral votes in total?? Its really frustrating for us citizens to vote ,then find out that we have wasted our time because our vote more or less is erased when the other party takes all the state points which is how it works now.
This is sort of what Nebaska and Maine, do. Kind of. The states have all the constitutional power to do it the way your suggesting. States are sovereign with their electors. Always have been. The parties pushed for winner take all and won it in most states.
So far this is the only system which keeps america from not sliding down to authoritarian system... most prominent dictators almost always started by winning democratic popular vote, that is the reality...
@@TimeTheory2099 Trump is a dictator, he hasn't taken power from any other branch of government. In fact, the real reason we got undesirable candidates in 2016 is political parties. We should ban political parties instead.
@@onlooker774 I do have a solid understanding of what is going on and it is clear he has not taken any power from any other branch of government. The real big issues in my country today are political parties and lobbyists. These two things cause the vast majority of problems and banning them would do a lot of good. If you aren't aware of the damage these two do and blame it on Trump then I'm sorry to say you really don't have a fundamental understanding of how our government is being hijacked and where the vast majority of problems come form.
The direct popular vote may contribute to division, especially if certain states consistently oppose the elected president. In contrast, the electoral college serves as a better option, offering a balanced representation of states and helping to prevent regional isolation within the country.
Your vote should not have higher value just because you decided to live in the countryside. Also the electoral college literally allows you to win elections by bare majority in like 6 largest states. Direct election would actually give large states less power. President's decisions have impart in the entire country. In all states equally nationwide. So they should be voted equally nationwide.
Disagree with part of your opening paragraph about what one's vote means: 'You are voting for that person, but you do not have the final say' is the better way of putting it, I think.
Actually the explanation is heavily misleading. The state legislatures have total control over their electors so if they wanted to they could pass laws that would spilt % of the electoral vote with x and y political party but all but 2 states choose to have a winner take all system.
If there was no electoral college it would be pointless to even vote depending on what state you live in. California/New York would pretty much decide every election.
You think every Californian knows to surf? and smoke weed? and have long blond hair and tanned at the beach? maybe half of the state have some taste for the republicans even if they are black or latins. You should take a trip more often from your valley.
With the electoral college, not everyone's vote counts and not all states electoral judges have to vote by popular vote. It's outdated and inherently flawed. Time for change
The EC exists to ensure that less populated states can also have a voice in electing the POTUS. Without it, candidates can simply ignore smaller states and can still get the majority of the popular votes and win. As a matter of fact, the majority of the US population concentrated in about 18 states.
You are so right. The Electoral College also protects the several states against a rogue state which packs the ballot box. It limits the damage that can be done by a single state, like California which packed the ballot box in the last election with over a million illegal votes as it turns out. The worst that can be done is a limited total of electoral votes are involved. California was going to go for Hillary Clinton even without the additional illegal votes, but the illegal ones can't influence the rest of the country. They would in a "pure democracy" popular vote system. That is what the Democrats want, because they are the experts at packing the ballot box, including illegal votes and ballot harvesting after the fact.
That is because this video purposefully uses incorrect terminology (for example this entire video is about having a democracy versus a republic but doesn't use the terms democracy and republic) and it seems to purposefully mention the constitution as little as possible. I'm not sure if it's because they are trying to condense a complex historical and governmental lesson into too simple of terms or if they are being politically motivated. Regardless it is not a good video.
@Joeneyrd ~ I understand the electoral college. I was hoping for a better explanation for my grandchildren. BTW... some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have 8th or 9th grade educations.
False equivalency. You assumed wrong. The EC is even more needed today than it was when it was conceived by the founders of our Representative Republic. It, unlike the old English system of weights and measures, is purely American. There's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Everyone else has a system of mob, strongman or dictatorial rule.
actually they don’t have to win the majority of states, they have to win the few states with the most electoral college votes. A candidate could win just 11 states and become president even if they didn’t get a single vote from the rest of the nation.
Yes, its purpose was to prevent the mob mentality of voters, but even today weve seen a few instances of such. I do believe we should still keep it but there should be changes where people have a better representation of the people
Trust me americans... the electoral college is genius.. politicians in my country if they go for president never leave the capital/most populated region ... Your system needs to be barrowed by others
I seriously doubt the nation would survive a century without the electoral college and here’s why. With the electoral college it’s not about getting the most votes but getting the most votes in the most states meaning Presidential candidates, and therefore political parties, can’t just cater to certain groups or regions but have to campaign nationwide. Without it candidates don’t have to campaign nationally and can instead focus on regions where they have tons of support. Democrats will then just campaign in New England and the West Coast whole ignoring the rest of the country and Republicans will just focus on the South while ignoring the rest of the country’s views and needs. This system will inevitably force political parties to just focus on winning elections regionally rather than nationally. They will instead focus on their regions a power base and what they want and desire and not care about anyone else. This system will inevitably create regional cracks in our nations as people start to identify more with their region more than the nation as a whole Inevitably, given enough decades, America would break up along these regional lines and ceased to exist. The electoral college forced parties to care about the whole nation and not just regions. Getting rid of it will allow political parties to win elections by focusing on certain regions and ignoring other sand a system like that is j out sustainable which is why the founders didn’t implement it This is why I serially doubt the nations would survive a single century without the electoral college
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 did you not just read any of what I just wrote? Also not sure if you know this or not but John Brown was an American Patriot who loved America which means he loved our electoral system as well
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 the electoral college forces candidates to campaign nationally and care what all Americans think rather than just what their base thinks It forced them to care what moderates think. Without it the Parties would suit cater to their bases and not care about a one else which will fracture the National over time along regional lines
John Brown... literally everything in your comment is false. I could go point by point, but I won't. I will, however, point out that since Benjamin Harrison, we've had a nearly equal number of Democrat and Republican presidents and the EC deviated from the popular vote a total of only two times in that same period.
@@Poisonshady313 and the EC has forced all those Democrats and Republicans to campaign Nationally rather than regionally It doesn’t matter that the Democrats won 60% of the West Coast and New England each year. Because of the EC they have to care about people outside those states. Same thing with Republicans in the South. They can’t just cater to the South if they want to win National elections
For the longest time I defended the Electoral College as a good system, but recently I've come to understand how flawed the system is, and I uploaded a video explaining why the U.S. needs to abolish it.
We need the Electoral College more today than ever before. Contrary to the NG 's opinionator, a "direct popular vote" is the best recipe for "mob" rule. New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles would choose our Executives to the exclusion of all other people in all other states. A pure democracy never works because it inevitably results in mob rule. National Geographic would do well to review the histories of Greece and Rome who each tried to implement pure democracy, devolved into mob rule, and fell apart.
@@henk-3098 OK. Add in San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami. The point is, the massive population centers should never have more voice than the people in the so-called "fly over" land. That would be like the "cow pies" in the feedlot telling every(thing/one) else on the 10,000 acre Ranch what to do.
@@kerrychase4839 Even if you add the 100 most populated cities you don't get a majority. The idea that the electoral college protects small states is a myth, they don't matter in the current system either, and large states don't matter too. Only a handful of swing states decide the election.
@@henk-3098 You're wrong on all counts. You missed the salient point: pure democracy, "popular" rule, has never worked in any situation where it has been tried. It inevitably results in mob rule. Ours is a system of checks and balances which gives minorities a voice. We don't subscribe to the playground bully thesis of rule. If you like that kind of system, you'd love Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Try moving to one of those places and experiencing it first hand, then get back to us.
The problem with the electoral college system is that they require too few votes to vote in a president. Usually the Voting is done and the president is elected before the counting even gets to the Mississippi River let alone all the way out here to California. It feels almost pointless to vote for a president out here because we never get counted.
Guess we know where National Geographic stands. I thought this would be an unbiased look at the topic, now I know better. When you finish watching this video, describe the arguments in favor of the electoral college for modern times. Since they did not cover them, you'll probably have a difficult time doing so.
In many countries, the laws are the same from the northernmost to the southernmost border. The US has different laws and standards that matter to that state's population, geography/climate, time zone and other conditions. The electoral college preserves the state system, instead of concentrated populations in the Pacific, Southwest, Midwest and East coast dictating what the entire country needs and how the national budget is spent. Why would the government pay any attention to the local needs of Hawaii, only 1.4 million people in the middle of the ocean, under a popular vote system? They could just plant the military there and leave the rest of the state to rot. Instead, it's an important state for a presidential candidate with 4 electoral votes. Candidates have to campaign there and win the state's approval if the candidate or party wants those 4 votes again
lol its not like the constitution is some kind of untouchable holy text, things like the electoral college that are old asf and aren’t relevant should be changed for the better
@@RazaMK It's why a method for amending the Constitution was written into the Constitution. Otherwise women wouldn't have the vote and Prohibition would never have been passed and then revoked.
The short answer is to prop up the Republican party when they loose the popular vote. There's not really any need for further analysis. It's pretty obviously a system that makes it seem as if the country is far more conservative then it really is. You can disagree but the truth of the matter still stands. Two of last republican presidents lost the popular vote and still somehow were given the presidency despite the American people choosing someone else. Hmmm I wonder which party this system pretty much exclusively benefits? Hmmmm how to figure this one out? It's a tough one though.
We are a union of States. We are a republic, not a Democracy. The founders set up all branches of government to be in deadlock most of the time. This way, broad support must be given to laws, to directly prevent 51-49 law creation. If you want to talk about filibuster removal, we can have that discussion, but I will note that Democrats are the only party in history to do so. Please read Federalist 9 and 10
@@amelioratetoolate I believe the full title of what we have is called a Democratic republic. Beyond that point though. Clearly more rural areas in America that are statistically more likely to lean republican are given much more electoral power then more populated places in America. Which obviously gives more power to a minority then the majority. Like in 2016 and 2004 when a minority choose the presidency.
You should be focused then on the real problem. Political parties and lobbyists. I guarantee you getting rid of the electoral college won't solve anything major.
@@Roll587 Then you need to look a little closer. What happend during the last election? Didn't Hilary won the popular vote? The Democrats would love to eliminate the electoral college. Just Saying......
@@Al13n1nV8D3R She did, but that doesn't have anything to do with the video. It sounds like you have a partisan incentive to keep the EC, not that I have a partisan incentive not to.
Are you guys really going down this very one sided road? How about interview people of opposing views and let the public decide. This is not only propaganda, it’s lazy propaganda. Shame on you.
Today, the Electoral College system is very controversial, leading many people to question why it exists at all. What's one thing you learned from this video?
I learned that National Geographic is perfectly willing to misrepresent history and pump out propaganda
@Tony C
Part of the propaganda exists in the current definition of Fascists. Fascist really are a Left wing phenomena, but are incorrectly skewed as Right wing...
I learned that National Geographic is now just another channel with a political agenda.
Sad to think when I was growing up it was the famous magazine with beautiful pictures that explored the vastness of our planet...
@Tony C If NatGeo or UA-cam is "shadowbanning dissent" or "removing [counter-arguments] from comments", why do I see your, and other's, dissenting comments?
Thanks Nat Geo 👍
I found the report fair
and impartial.
lol "Candidate C"
I wish candidate c would win for once
Democracy : power is held by the majority
Republic : power is held by people and their elected representatives.
Autocracy: ???
A republic is a type of democracy. Demo=people. The point is that power is held by the people. An elected official is a person from the community voted on by a majority. Why try and split these terms?
At the time of the beginning of our country the Founding Fathers did not recognize any difference between a Democracy and a Republic. The terms were used interchangeably in common usage to describe a form of government where the people choose their leaders, as opposed to a Monarchy. They did not recognize any significant difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
Which is the reason why Austria is a Republic today and not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic and that is good.
@@MrAhmerA democracy can be not republican, it might be some anarchist commune, or an ancient Greek polis. And a republic can be not democratic, e.g. the United States, especially before the property requirement to vote was lifted, and the Roman Republic.
Ok but the editing and clips used for this video is surprisingly entertaining and fun to watch ^-^
Anyone else think this????
Yeah they did a really good job!! I kept forgetting it was by NatGeo lol
The one thing that i noticed was that the video did NOT mention, was how to abolish the Electoral College. It takes the approval of three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed Constitutional Amendment.
As someone living in Southeast Asia, it always baffles me that America, the country that's known for its freedom and democracy, still has a two party system, electoral college and winner takes all policy.
Here we have 10+ political parties, several candidates, proportional parliament based on threshold and whoever gets the most votes becomes the president. And our country is just 75 years old with a long history of dictatorship that ended in 1998.
Oh. Indonesia under Suharto was a very tense time for Indonesia.
@Brent Gillham Yes and the Roman "Republic" elected their highest ranking offices (2 Consuls) by a simple majority vote (1st and 2nd highest becomes consuls).
Edit: I realized that is was actually much worse. The Romans elected their consuls by allocating total votes (think electors) based into a person's wealth.
@Brent Gillham then stop bragging about freedom and democracy like youre the only nation in the world that has them. And tell your CIA to stop sticking their nose to other countrys politics.
because we are NOT a democracy... repeat NOT.
@@akhorr7560 lol, right like other countries including yours don't spy..... lololololololololololololol....
What they didn't say was that the electoral college from some states can vote for who ever they want to in the end.
Some?
That's why I don't like SCOTUS's ruling on faithless elector laws. At the end of the day, it is not state legislatures that elect the president, but the electors themselves.
@@glennruscher4007 I would have to do the research again. What I remember is based off of your state's laws the person can do what is called vote by conscious and go against the state's popular vote.
@@1991zaw I find that concept wrong in every way. They need to vote for who WE want, Not who THEY want.
those hamilton IMs were pretty genius
I'm less concerned about the electoral college and more concerned with that our politics today is 7 blue wolves, 5 red wolves, 1 green sheep and 1 yellow sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner.
No mention of 3/5 clause… really?
Humm…let’s just gloss over one of the biggest reasons for the support for the electoral college
And it was also put in place in a time when universal suffrage was not a thing. The founders didn't envision a democracy in the sense of every individual having equal say in elections. They were more concerned with balance of power between branches of government and between the people and the government. The closer we get to pure democracy, especially in a system of universal suffrage, the more that balance gets upset and distributes power across too many voters, most of whom don't take the time to inform themselves on the issues or candidates adequately. So, there are some fundamental principles we need to be clear on before just saying yeah, we need direct popular voting.
I think this is an overly simplistic look at the electoral college. I don't claim to know everything about it, but I think the founders were attempting to balance the influence of the states with the influence of individuals, so that the most populous states didn't dominate quite as much (although they still dominate). It seems like the influence of the individual states was important to the founders, in my opinion.
That implies that everyone in a given state will vote as one and that is patently ridiculous. You people need to stop it with this nonsense.
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 No, everyone in a state doesn't vote exactly the same, but I think that people from Wyoming will have a different point of view than people from New York. Have fun with your own nonsense...
@@landoncarter6452
And? Do you have an actual point? Nobody is saying New Yorkers should elect the Governor of Wyoming. But the fact is every citizen is entitled to an equal say in our leader's election. And the fact you lost doesn't mean you're being put at a disadvantage. You people need to grow up.
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 Who said anything about losing? I like the fact that there are 50 states, basically giving us 50 different experiments in how to run things. I think it's part of the genius of our system. Stop trying to divide everyone and start thinking of ways to include everyone.
@@landoncarter6452
You're the one dividing people by saying a vote in Wyoming is worth more than one in California.
In a democracy, the majority always rules, and that's not always a good thing. That's why the US is a constitutional republic where the minority also has a voice in how the country is run. This is a concept that many non-Americans don't understand.
@John Smith The key word is "representative". Meaning that the minority also has a voice. Hence the Electoral College and the United States Senate (where each state has 2 senators, regardless of size).
@John Smith The ultimate goal is to arrive at some compromise.
@John Smith Your solution still puts the majority at an advantage. The majority still can bulldozer through everything, and the majority is not always right or just. I prefer a system where people give and take through good faith negotiation.
@John Smith The majority will not lose to the minority, for the same token, the minority should not lose to the majority either. That's why there should be a compromise and the Electoral College serves that purpose.
@John Smith You keep repeating the same line over and over again. I'm done with this conversation. Good bye.
I can tell this was made for kids, and I STILL don’t understand it😭🤦🏻♀️ Come on brain!
🤣🤣🤣 I think I get it, so let’s say your in TX and they have 600 ppl vote. If candidate T gets more votes than Candidate K. Candidate T wins all the votes! Even the ones that didn’t vote for candidate T. Winner takes all! Whew 😰 😅😅 hope I helped
Me neither 😂
Seeing this made me realize it was most likely a great thing to have back then. But now, it’s awful. It makes small states votes count more. Once again in the USA not everyone is truly equal :/
So true and most people don't know or understand that a US president can lose the peoples vote and still become president of the US
Or that about 10-11 states have high enough population to win the majority vote.
Winning by the majority of the popular votes puts the power in just a handful of states. People who live in small states like Wyoming or Maine would have no say in electing a POTUS. The Electoral College is the most brilliant thing that the founding fathers of this country ever devised.
@@lancecahill5486 Maybe not the most brilliant but, vital especially today. Plus, it is true to the spirit of this freedom. If you want to sway small states power just move there and contribute to their economy instead of bloating states that are already heavily blue.
@@lancecahill5486 The stupidest thing they came up with, I would say. Presidents all around the world are elected by the popular vote. Little states are part of the same story in every country.
and that less than 1,000 individuals decide on it.
The problem with the college is some votes end up not counting at all. In 2016 it was shown 1 vote in Montana equals about 3.5 votes in California. No wonder so many people believe it's pointless to vote!
Historically, the college was designed to allow the South more say in the government than it had free citizens.
But, CA gets more Electoral votes, than 10 states put together!
@@bodyloverz30 because of population duh
@@jayMineGaming10 the point is that while Montana and Wyoming might had a more powerful singular vote, they have much less than a Californian. It’s like complaining that your brother received a $20 from your grandmother even though your grandmother gave you 20 $5 bills.
@@howardbaxter2514per capita Montanians have way more representation per capita than California's.
Meanwhile, a republican voting is California is effectively disenfranchised.
America and India are best friends and I love American love from india
Not Great Britain 🇬🇧 🙃
Yay for Modi and yay for India standing up to Pakistans behavior.
lol why? US will fall apart in the next 100 years
@@lolalolalola3801 lol sorry but no, maybe 500
That's why it's a republic and not a democracy
We are a democracy and a republic
If it wasn't a democracy, you wouldn't be voting. Someone else would be setting the rules, like oligarchs.
...but to be fair, you're right, the US is not a proper democracy, because your vote doesn't mean much anyway in the end. It's a plutocracy. The politicians don't have the power. The corporations do because they buy out the politicians.
That's also why it's the only western country where the regular people are being ripped off by rich corporations, especially when it comes to healthcare. It's insane that a ambulance ride in America can cost $10,000. In a proper democracy, it is free (whether or not you have a socialist healthcare system. It would always be free).
So ultimately I don't know why you think being a democracy is worse than a Republic. Democracy doesn't always mean mob rule. Look at the UK. It's not a Republic but a democratic constitutional monarchy So it's not mob rule either. The difference is that the constitution can easily be changed because it's a set of documents that have evolved over time, rather than a single rigid document. This also means that the prime ministers can easily be kicked out if they fail, which happens a lot, and which is a good thing.
In the US you're forced to live under a very rigid constitution which is almost impossible to change, especially the greater the population becomes. You're also forced to live out the full term of the president even if he's the worst. There's no early elections ever, which is really bad especially if the government is in constant lock down which NEVER happens in the UK system.
In other words, constitutional Republics are too rigid because there is no parliamentary sovereignty. There's only sovereignty of the constitution, which is just an imperfect document under which the country is shackled.
Thus, in many ways, it can be said that it's much better to have a politically neutral king (or a symbolic president) to represent the country and to which you swear allegiance, instead of swearing your allegiance to a constitution which is just a unliving, dead and OUTDATED document. The prime minister runs the country, but is accountable to the king and to the parliament. Every week he has to face them and report to them.
In America, the president is accountable to nobody except his rich corporate donors.
Sooo... how exactly is a Republic a better system than a Democracy? There's lots of types of democracy that are not Republic and are better than that, plus are not mob rule either. And I'm not saying the UK system was always better than the US. It wasn't. It was much worse in the past. But the good thing about it is that it's not rigid, so it can easily ADAPT to the changing times and evolve and become better. The US system is stuck in the past forevermore
Not to nit-pick, but direct election of the President would still make us a republic.
"This whole document is a compromise"
AND? I FAIL TO SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
Lol, the most important reason for electro college is to protect political minorities States to be ignored or oppressed by majorities. Without emphasizing this point, this video is missing out or biased.
So instead you have minority states oppressing majority states? How stupid lol
@@lalos9782 the opposite of majority rule isn’t minority rule. The purpose is to allow the minority to still have a say at the table. Doesn’t mean they will be heard over the majority every time, just enough times that their input is worthwhile.
As Ben Franklin once eloquently put, “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for lunch.”
@@howardbaxter2514 The president should be chosen by the majority. The electoral college doesn't do anything but give the minority the chance to take unfair power.
@@EldyPlaysMinecraft and something I think people need to understand, the opposite of majority rule isn’t minority rule. We do not operate under minority rule.
@@howardbaxter2514 ... which is not the case with swing-states and effectively just two parties. Also there's a reason the "minority" is a minority and elections are held.
This needs to be kept in place. It is the last bastion of states rights. It is what makes this country a union of states instead of a single state with administrative regions.
I love how they used Lin Manuel Miranda as Hamilton 🤣
Lin-Manuel popping up as Hamilton took me out!
They left out a major part of the reasoning for the EC - the south wanted to secede because there were more voters in the north and the north was winning all the elections. The north conceded and allowed the south to count their slaves as 3/5 a person, but the slaves could not vote. So the electoral college was also about tolerating slavery to keep the union together. Today, it is not at all about minority population protections; it is about minority rule over the majority. It needs to go. We have no other system but straight majority vote in all other elections except for president. That makes no sense anymore.
@Will Williams Hmmm.... Maybe there seems to be more "idiots" in the populated areas because there are more people living there? Seems to me there are plenty to go around all over America these days mainly due to a lack of critical thinking skills taught in the schools. Bring back Education, make it available to all on an equal basis, and there will be a more united populace. Better than civil war...
Were you not paying attention? There’s a reason why we don’t do majority vote
Couldn't agree more. We have under educated our populace, and until we start educating them, we'll continue with the fiasco of the EC, and the belief that eduction, experience and knowledge aren't worth as much as BS and celebrity.
@@MrNew2tube I was paying attention, which is why I wrote I wrote, Meanwhile, you wrote something and said nothing. Maybe that's why they didn't want to give you the power of your vote...
Its not super complicated on the reasoning of the electoral college, the purpose was to prevent 4 states from having all the power of the country.
Yet now conservatives only benefit from the electoral college. It’s bs it should be one person one vote.
Why can’t we just count the number of votes and whoever has the most wins
Because the most populated states would have more of a say than say some states in the Midwest.
@@hellsbells1262 no they wouldn’t
If the USA is a true democracy, then the direct popular vote should be enough to elect a president. The electoral college is just a way for those who have money to dictate the election result.
The US is a constitutional republic where the minority also has a voice. It was established that way to avoid majority rules, aka tyranny.
@@lancecahill5486
The United States is a
Democratic Republic that is governed by a constitution.
Actually, if the US was a true democracy, we probably wouldn't even have representatives or senators. Getting rid of the EC wouldn't make the US a true democracy.
The electoral college is there to protect Rhode Island from Texas. Look up a population density map of the United States. Without the electoral college, Rhode Island's vote would hardly count. The states are semi-autonomous, and why would anyone vote in Rhode Island? They would say, "meh, our vote will be swallowed up by Texas; why bother?"
Take away the E.C. and see what happens. Also, look up the election of 1861.
The E.C. is a necessary evil.
We aren't a democracy we are a republic
It's to ensure that 4 states dont dictate the government to the other 46
That's just false. We have local governments for a reason.
@@BlackOpslover2828 I wasn't talking about the local government was talking about the federal government the same people that want to get rid of the Electoral College don't believe States should have 2 senators each
It's actually the current system that gives all the power to a few swing states while all the other states don't matter.
@@henk-3098 yes I'd rather have swing States than California deciding who's the president
Not true. See CGP Grey's videos on the topic.
Here's an idea. Electoral college by county not state. Get more granular.
Get more granular... with a popular vote.
@@Poisonshady313 when you charge the rules to the game..not that granular, at least not yet. Deference between saying- now in chess pawns can move unlimited steps forward or now pawns can move in any direction like a queen. At a certain point your not playing chess anymore and it's something different
@@juice8225 you mean like the idea to have the electoral college by county not state?
@@Poisonshady313 states are static. counties are reshaped by gerrymandering. this would call attention to this issue and allow states to still put forward a mix of electors - instead of 100% dem/rep
Can we get a follow up video stating why we no longer need an electoral college? Please and thank you.
That's what this video was trying to do. Didn't you see how gleeful the old boomer Democrat was while talking about the electoral college being a bad thing?
We don't need much but it's nice to have good things like the electoral college. If you ask me, we should ban political parties and lobbying.
@@remsencey He didn't really explain why though. This video just explains the history of the electoral college and how our founders came to make the decision to have one, but does not provide context for a modern perspective on how the electoral college effects us today.
Get ready for civil War...
James Wilson would love the system in place today. But he wouldn’t like the administrative over regulated country he sees. Over taxed and under represented. Quite literally we are what the British had
Aha... Lin makes an appearance
Why are there so many people in the fringe subscribed to this channel?
Sometimes they have good documentaries and useful information, like this one. I personally watch less than a quarter what they upload. It depends on the content.
The channel is huge, casts a wide net, and has pre-internet name recognition.
What fringe are you referring to?
Get rid of it!!! Let the people vote who THEY WANT IN OFFICE!!!!!!!!
I didnt know National geographic was anti-constitution.
Laws can be changed you know? Including the constitution. The founding fathers even said that the constitution needed to be revised and adapted over the years. If you have the opinion that laws should last eternally then we would have no reason to elect politicians.
@@henk-3098 The electoral college needs to stay. The majority doesn’t matter it’s the union of the states that matters.
@@Nunyabeeswax777 I respectfully disagree, states are just arbitrary lines we've drawn in the sand. It's the people there that matter.
@@Nunyabeeswax777 Circular reasoning.
Law=/=morality
Law and doctrine can be changed. It isnt some ethos that defines you chump
The other side always wants to rewrite the rules when they are losing.
They just said, this that and the other thing, "and now we have the winner-take-all electoral college system"
I have an IQ of 160 something and even I’m like…uhhh wait what? 😅😂 let me do some more research 😂😂
face of true freedom
Everyone except Nebraska I guess, lmfao shoutout from NE btw!
Nebraska is unique. They have a different state government and I applaud them for being different.
Nebraska is also one of two states that are not winner take all style electors. Nebraska and Maine divide electors.
Popular vote is more prone to vote buying, take for example here in the Philippines
Yea corporations can't buy politicians votes in America.
The framing on this video is incredibly obvious
What do you mean
this video was super fair.
Left out a few things, didn't you? Like how the vice president was chosen initially, and how the electors are proportioned to the states! Very sketchy presentation, if that!
Does anyone else feel like National Geographic is turning in to Vox?
A rare video providing an objective view of the electoral college. Nice.
I want to know how to get rid of it!
I disagree with James Wilson. there is no way he could have known that there would be hundreds of millions of votes to manage.
One other objection to a popular vote (in favor of the electoral college) is that it goes against the idea that the US is a union of states.
What do you mean?
Majority rules can lead to tyranny. The EC was established to avoid that situation.
Saludos desde Argentina
Thanks Nat Geo 👍
The electoral college system is outdated. The EC was fine when our population was illiterate and it took week's to get news from our government, but that time has long gone.
One Voice, One Vote.
About 10-11 states have the population to win majority vote...getting rid of it's pretty much the same thing as having.
Which state do you live in? I guarantee you you’ll lose your “voice” to vote if your state’s population is too low
Small state compromise is why
Disenfranchise many to avoid disenfranchisement of a few. Got it.
electoral in the U.S. is based on a selection system in context with the representations from individual states.
🙌🏻😁❤America.
And I think that's what most people cannot understand. I didn't get it until after 20 years in America. Each state must retain its own identity and sovereignty under the federal government.
Here in Canada, the provinces (equivalent to US states) have no role to play in federal elections. That's as it should be.
maybe this idea makes too much sense but if 15million ppl vote republican and 10 million ppl in that same state vote democrat, why not split the electoral votes accordingly like give 20 votes for republican and 16 for the dems if that state is allocated 36 electoral votes in total?? Its really frustrating for us citizens to vote ,then find out that we have wasted our time because our vote more or less is erased when the other party takes all the state points which is how it works now.
This is sort of what Nebaska and Maine, do. Kind of. The states have all the constitutional power to do it the way your suggesting. States are sovereign with their electors. Always have been. The parties pushed for winner take all and won it in most states.
So far this is the only system which keeps america from not sliding down to authoritarian system... most prominent dictators almost always started by winning democratic popular vote, that is the reality...
You mean like tax dodging, emperor trump is trying to do right now?
@@TimeTheory2099 no, I mean you need to study history...
@@TimeTheory2099 Trump is a dictator, he hasn't taken power from any other branch of government. In fact, the real reason we got undesirable candidates in 2016 is political parties. We should ban political parties instead.
@@onlooker774 I do have a solid understanding of what is going on and it is clear he has not taken any power from any other branch of government.
The real big issues in my country today are political parties and lobbyists. These two things cause the vast majority of problems and banning them would do a lot of good. If you aren't aware of the damage these two do and blame it on Trump then I'm sorry to say you really don't have a fundamental understanding of how our government is being hijacked and where the vast majority of problems come form.
@@daveray5655 sorry, my feedback wasn't for you, corrected at the extend I could...
The direct popular vote may contribute to division, especially if certain states consistently oppose the elected president. In contrast, the electoral college serves as a better option, offering a balanced representation of states and helping to prevent regional isolation within the country.
Your vote should not have higher value just because you decided to live in the countryside. Also the electoral college literally allows you to win elections by bare majority in like 6 largest states. Direct election would actually give large states less power.
President's decisions have impart in the entire country. In all states equally nationwide. So they should be voted equally nationwide.
so the big question. Which elector IS national geographic voting for
Disagree with part of your opening paragraph about what one's vote means: 'You are voting for that person, but you do not have the final say' is the better way of putting it, I think.
Actually the explanation is heavily misleading.
The state legislatures have total control over their electors so if they wanted to they could pass laws that would spilt % of the electoral vote with x and y political party but all but 2 states choose to have a winner take all system.
@@daveray5655
States've done their best to render the original intent meaningless, IMHO...
Stopped watching NG's video after their opening gaffe.
If there was no electoral college it would be pointless to even vote depending on what state you live in.
California/New York would pretty much decide every election.
Yep
What about Texas and Florida?
No. Americans would decide. A majority of Americans.
You think every Californian knows to surf? and smoke weed? and have long blond hair and tanned at the beach? maybe half of the state have some taste for the republicans even if they are black or latins. You should take a trip more often from your valley.
Doesn't matter
The point is that the dense city ghettotroplois would decide every election.
With the electoral college, not everyone's vote counts and not all states electoral judges have to vote by popular vote. It's outdated and inherently flawed. Time for change
The EC exists to ensure that less populated states can also have a voice in electing the POTUS. Without it, candidates can simply ignore smaller states and can still get the majority of the popular votes and win. As a matter of fact, the majority of the US population concentrated in about 18 states.
You are so right. The Electoral College also protects the several states against a rogue state which packs the ballot box. It limits the damage that can be done by a single state, like California which packed the ballot box in the last election with over a million illegal votes as it turns out. The worst that can be done is a limited total of electoral votes are involved. California was going to go for Hillary Clinton even without the additional illegal votes, but the illegal ones can't influence the rest of the country. They would in a "pure democracy" popular vote system. That is what the Democrats want, because they are the experts at packing the ballot box, including illegal votes and ballot harvesting after the fact.
@@kerrychase4839 🙄
Nicely explained.
We're glad you learned from this video. Stay curious!
@@NatGeo I will
I have several advanced degrees and still walked away from this confused.🤦🏼♀️
@Joeneyrd 😂😂
That is because this video purposefully uses incorrect terminology (for example this entire video is about having a democracy versus a republic but doesn't use the terms democracy and republic) and it seems to purposefully mention the constitution as little as possible. I'm not sure if it's because they are trying to condense a complex historical and governmental lesson into too simple of terms or if they are being politically motivated. Regardless it is not a good video.
Yeah they didn’t really explain anything lmfbo
@ Kimberly P. Just read the comments. Hopefully, that will help you.
@Joeneyrd ~ I understand the electoral college. I was hoping for a better explanation for my grandchildren. BTW... some of the smartest people I’ve ever met have 8th or 9th grade educations.
THE USA is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. Look up the difference.
Maybe you should considering republics are democracies
Democracy
-Republic
--Constitutional Republic
Enlighten us please
*1 person 1 vote for 1 candidate. The electoral college must be abandoned immediately.*
Get rid of the electoral college or get rid of the voters? Politicians think the later.
I still don't get it
And I assume the electoral college still exist for the same reason as miles, and inches, and pounds, and gallons.
False equivalency. You assumed wrong. The EC is even more needed today than it was when it was conceived by the founders of our Representative Republic. It, unlike the old English system of weights and measures, is purely American. There's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Everyone else has a system of mob, strongman or dictatorial rule.
@@kerrychase4839 Did you drop out of school in 3rd grade?
The electoral college system is great, it requires a person to win the majority of states to be Pres
No, it's outdated and inherently flawed
@@kbilisoly9355 It's not flawed. The real problem is political parties and lobbying.
actually they don’t have to win the majority of states, they have to win the few states with the most electoral college votes. A candidate could win just 11 states and become president even if they didn’t get a single vote from the rest of the nation.
@@Idyllicfae Neat fact but it's never happened
Like natgeo 💕
This didn't explain anything don't waste your time watching this.
Yes, its purpose was to prevent the mob mentality of voters, but even today weve seen a few instances of such. I do believe we should still keep it but there should be changes where people have a better representation of the people
It needs to be remove asap. One vote for every person!!
is he the voice of TED?
Trump prefer Pays Taxes ni China but do not pay taxes in America. 🤣🤣🤣
Should maybe read that whole nyt article instead of just the first paragraph like everyone else.
Hello🙋♀️
Dear friends💖🤝
I watch slowly。。。😍
Thanks friends for the wonderful video👍249 🌹
Bless good friends good luck🙏
Wow funny how almost all of this is inaccurate
Sir i have a question
Trust me americans... the electoral college is genius.. politicians in my country if they go for president never leave the capital/most populated region ...
Your system needs to be barrowed by others
Sooo.... DON'T VOTE. Cause it doesn't count.
I seriously doubt the nation would survive a century without the electoral college and here’s why.
With the electoral college it’s not about getting the most votes but getting the most votes in the most states meaning Presidential candidates, and therefore political parties, can’t just cater to certain groups or regions but have to campaign nationwide.
Without it candidates don’t have to campaign nationally and can instead focus on regions where they have tons of support. Democrats will then just campaign in New England and the West Coast whole ignoring the rest of the country and Republicans will just focus on the South while ignoring the rest of the country’s views and needs.
This system will inevitably force political parties to just focus on winning elections regionally rather than nationally. They will instead focus on their regions a power base and what they want and desire and not care about anyone else. This system will inevitably create regional cracks in our nations as people start to identify more with their region more than the nation as a whole
Inevitably, given enough decades, America would break up along these regional lines and ceased to exist. The electoral college forced parties to care about the whole nation and not just regions. Getting rid of it will allow political parties to win elections by focusing on certain regions and ignoring other sand a system like that is j out sustainable which is why the founders didn’t implement it
This is why I serially doubt the nations would survive a single century without the electoral college
You should be ashamed of yourself. Using the image of John Brown while you argue against the basic human right to self determination. Disgusting.
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 did you not just read any of what I just wrote? Also not sure if you know this or not but John Brown was an American Patriot who loved America which means he loved our electoral system as well
@@obiwansherlockclousseau5107 the electoral college forces candidates to campaign nationally and care what all Americans think rather than just what their base thinks
It forced them to care what moderates think. Without it the Parties would suit cater to their bases and not care about a one else which will fracture the National over time along regional lines
John Brown... literally everything in your comment is false. I could go point by point, but I won't. I will, however, point out that since Benjamin Harrison, we've had a nearly equal number of Democrat and Republican presidents and the EC deviated from the popular vote a total of only two times in that same period.
@@Poisonshady313 and the EC has forced all those Democrats and Republicans to campaign Nationally rather than regionally
It doesn’t matter that the Democrats won 60% of the West Coast and New England
each year. Because of the EC they have to care about people outside those states. Same thing with Republicans in the South. They can’t just cater to the South if they want to win National elections
For the longest time I defended the Electoral College as a good system, but recently I've come to understand how flawed the system is, and I uploaded a video explaining why the U.S. needs to abolish it.
No, democracy is just mob rule... you don't want that. This video is incredibly slanted towards a particular opinion
@@thewaterwarrior9817 Republican?
@@thewaterwarrior9817 What!!!!
Ur a 🤡.
LoL
No thank you I would rather not have four states dictate the president thank you very much
@@Beofware hahah no I don't think so!
VOTE TRUMP 2020 or vote for the eventual downfall of America... 🙏✌️🇺🇸
We need the Electoral College more today than ever before. Contrary to the NG 's opinionator, a "direct popular vote" is the best recipe for "mob" rule. New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles would choose our Executives to the exclusion of all other people in all other states. A pure democracy never works because it inevitably results in mob rule. National Geographic would do well to review the histories of Greece and Rome who each tried to implement pure democracy, devolved into mob rule, and fell apart.
NYC, Chicago and LA only have 4.5% of the US population. A candidate would be pretty dumb to only campaign there.
@@henk-3098 OK. Add in San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Miami. The point is, the massive population centers should never have more voice than the people in the so-called "fly over" land. That would be like the "cow pies" in the feedlot telling every(thing/one) else on the 10,000 acre Ranch what to do.
@@kerrychase4839 Even if you add the 100 most populated cities you don't get a majority. The idea that the electoral college protects small states is a myth, they don't matter in the current system either, and large states don't matter too. Only a handful of swing states decide the election.
@@henk-3098 You're wrong on all counts. You missed the salient point: pure democracy, "popular" rule, has never worked in any situation where it has been tried. It inevitably results in mob rule. Ours is a system of checks and balances which gives minorities a voice. We don't subscribe to the playground bully thesis of rule. If you like that kind of system, you'd love Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Try moving to one of those places and experiencing it first hand, then get back to us.
The problem with the electoral college system is that they require too few votes to vote in a president. Usually the Voting is done and the president is elected before the counting even gets to the Mississippi River let alone all the way out here to California. It feels almost pointless to vote for a president out here because we never get counted.
EVERY FOUR YEARS February 29 , leap year
Guess we know where National Geographic stands. I thought this would be an unbiased look at the topic, now I know better. When you finish watching this video, describe the arguments in favor of the electoral college for modern times. Since they did not cover them, you'll probably have a difficult time doing so.
In many countries, the laws are the same from the northernmost to the southernmost border. The US has different laws and standards that matter to that state's population, geography/climate, time zone and other conditions. The electoral college preserves the state system, instead of concentrated populations in the Pacific, Southwest, Midwest and East coast dictating what the entire country needs and how the national budget is spent. Why would the government pay any attention to the local needs of Hawaii, only 1.4 million people in the middle of the ocean, under a popular vote system? They could just plant the military there and leave the rest of the state to rot. Instead, it's an important state for a presidential candidate with 4 electoral votes. Candidates have to campaign there and win the state's approval if the candidate or party wants those 4 votes again
anti-Constitutional material ugh.. another channel to unfollow
Criticism of a document doesn't mean you don't like the entire document. You sound so foolish.
Darth Yoda are you a Republican who relies too much on the electoral college?
lol its not like the constitution is some kind of untouchable holy text, things like the electoral college that are old asf and aren’t relevant should be changed for the better
@@Beofware except there is mainstream article saying we should change the constitution and get rid of it completely
@@RazaMK It's why a method for amending the Constitution was written into the Constitution. Otherwise women wouldn't have the vote and Prohibition would never have been passed and then revoked.
bogus
I have a master's degree from the Electoral College U.S.A. 😏
This is not accurate, timeline incorrect, explanation of why incorrect, very leftist.
"Very Leftist" - you only seem to hear such terminology in the US...as opposed to other Western/developed nations.
👍
This is why we need the electrical cottage.
It needs to go.
The short answer is to prop up the Republican party when they loose the popular vote. There's not really any need for further analysis. It's pretty obviously a system that makes it seem as if the country is far more conservative then it really is. You can disagree but the truth of the matter still stands. Two of last republican presidents lost the popular vote and still somehow were given the presidency despite the American people choosing someone else. Hmmm I wonder which party this system pretty much exclusively benefits? Hmmmm how to figure this one out? It's a tough one though.
We are a union of States. We are a republic, not a Democracy. The founders set up all branches of government to be in deadlock most of the time. This way, broad support must be given to laws, to directly prevent 51-49 law creation. If you want to talk about filibuster removal, we can have that discussion, but I will note that Democrats are the only party in history to do so. Please read Federalist 9 and 10
@@amelioratetoolate I believe the full title of what we have is called a Democratic republic. Beyond that point though. Clearly more rural areas in America that are statistically more likely to lean republican are given much more electoral power then more populated places in America. Which obviously gives more power to a minority then the majority. Like in 2016 and 2004 when a minority choose the presidency.
You should be focused then on the real problem. Political parties and lobbyists. I guarantee you getting rid of the electoral college won't solve anything major.
This is an impressively non-partisan video.
Non-partisan? At the end the guy said this system should be changed. So yeah he is biased toward one party.
@@Al13n1nV8D3R How so? Saying it needs changing doesn't mean it's politically motivated.
@@Roll587 Then you need to look a little closer. What happend during the last election? Didn't Hilary won the popular vote? The Democrats would love to eliminate the electoral college. Just Saying......
@@Al13n1nV8D3R She did, but that doesn't have anything to do with the video. It sounds like you have a partisan incentive to keep the EC, not that I have a partisan incentive not to.
@@Al13n1nV8D3R Also, I think you mean "Didn't Hillary *win*..."
Careful with your tenses. It can obscure your meaning.
Are you guys really going down this very one sided road? How about interview people of opposing views and let the public decide. This is not only propaganda, it’s lazy propaganda. Shame on you.