I don't know much about voting and stuffs. But I think North Korea has the most fair system of voting. You can only vote for one person. No tension no stress. You already know has won even before results are declared
Politicians should not be allowed to announce their party and if they do, they should be removed from the race. This would force politicians to address issues and talk solutions vs. riding the coattails of a given party. It would also force the people to understand the issues and vote for people based on merit, not party. Suppose Mr. Joe Blow was running for POTUS, what's the first question people ask? Is he Dem or Repub. Then they essentially make their choice at that point, which is very lazy. Mr. Joe Blow should give his stance on Defense, Economics, Workforce, etc. without ever indicating his party.
You might be on to something. It would help to reduce tribalism. Too many people make quick judgments for either side. Beingnforced to research issues and stances could help.
actually this happened in the UK as well last elections, dramatically really, the conservative party had the absolute majority, 50,6% of the MP's and didn't need to form a coalition... however, they did only have 36% of the votes, still being the largest party of course but a party that only 36% of the UK voted for... RIP democracy
I still have no clue how voting works I say we just have the candidates have a fight to the death these replies got too.. political for me. for clarification, this is a joke
@★ Froggie Animation ★ Republicans you predict are going to lose 3 States?! That's what you wrote. That means they're going to win 47! Wahoo!! Party on!!
@@egitovellez yes but in other hand, ignorance becomes a very lucrative high commodity, what can make cases that the entire nation follow extreme ignorance, like you know flat earth and crazy conspiracies like that, basically only have their origin in those places
@@jonahlevi3178 Each state government picks someone to cast the electoral vote. They can pick someone who will NOT cast it in the way people in that state wanted. In addition, the electoral representative can vote for whoever they feel like.
Okay so basically it's two "things" that matter: 1. Vote and hope that your state wins the majority of the party you voted for 2. Hope that the amount of electoral votes will add up to 270 or more.
@@JumpinJew Yep, and California has a huge amount of Republicans, many of whom I'm sure don't vote because they feel its useless. If we had a popular vote system rather than electoral it would be beneficial for both bases and overall more people would have their vote recognized
@@aaronbarnes2550 why? If a voting method contradicts the people's actual opinion that's pretty bad. That's like the one thing it's supposed to be able to do.
Brandon Myers I don’t think they were trying to say that we should change when we do the census... I think they meant that we should focus more efforts on it
Not necessarily. I’m from California our electoral votes will always be high. So if some people slack off during the census it may be come out to 53 votes for the state. If more people participate it’ll be 55. In the grand scheme of things those two points don’t even matter if your party doesn’t win. So I think the vote itself is way more impactful than just focusing on the census still... though the census is very important.
For every State you get 2 per state Representing Senators, and whatever the portion is of the population of American citizens allows you, EXCEPT, if your state is so small, (Wyoming has a total population smaller than most cities in California), where you might work out to having a part of a fraction of an elector, they call it one and work with it. (No sense in amputating an Wyoming's elector's arm and leg to match the 3/5th calculation). And as mentioned, Washington DC gets 3. The Census just determines what the Population is in the state, so that they can adjust Congressional seating, (and electors). But the fact remains the same. You have a right to vote, and a responsibility to make it as educated and intelligent as possible, because this is what you do for America, not what America does for you.
People commenting that they should teach us this in school, comment. People that were taught this in school, hit like. I for one, definitely learned this in highschool lol
Yes, you were taught this in school...and you were not handed the real story which is this: ua-cam.com/video/ens2iy3bMAA/v-deo.html Now try to learn from some of us making correct comments instead of getting angry and lashing out at me. Time is running out on willful ignorance. Please do not count yourself among the willful, now that someone has clued you in. Try to prove me wrong...but first look into the issue yourself. Here is an all encompassing link that provides the college education many pay through the nose and do not get. www.expose1933.com/
I think a better system would be having both candidates duel each other in a Children's Card Game. Edit: dang! 2k likes. Thanks you guys! 😄 Edit again!: 3.5k!!
@@sloopfan3706 Large states already boss around the smaller states the video literally said a president can win over North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and West Virginia and still lose the race while the second candidate could get Florida, California, and New York and add some slightly smaller states and win even though more states want the other. The larger states literally matter more because they have the most electoral college votes
kevin khan the 49% lost the vote. that’s like saying if we were electing via the popular vote and the results were 49:51 that 49% don’t matter to America anymore. Not a good argument.
Me. I have a friend who is very into politics and knows alot...but he's very far out left and I have to find things concrete to add to the discussion bc I know little. I know our system is corrupt in many ways, but things like this Im more hesitant on....
Well really no not your individual vote because if you as in one person didn’t vote then it would technically change nothing but as people yes it does because they add up. Plus 100 000 fake votes for Biden makes your vote even less effective to the election.
So long as you're making sure to only Count US citizens and not count illegal aliens. Otherwise California and New York have an unfair advantage too many illegal aliens being counted
Exactly. I've been more interested in how this actually works in the last few months and looking at this video, there is some misleading going on. For the presidential election you the voter, have no say in how the president is elected. Your state can be a blue state but if the electors side with and vote Republican, then guess what, your state just became a swing state. Everything I keep reading points to all the power really being in the hands of the electors. That's why you can have a president that lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and he still becomes your president.
According to the video, If you vote in your state's election, then you contribute to whether your candidate will win that state and get the electoral votes. So your vote counts. Unfortunately, you might be outvoted by other states.
@nameunselected actually Bush Sr. got California in 1988, right after Reagan, but I don't see California going Republican anytime soon. However, 2016 was pretty interesting, because Trump won Wisconsin. Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican since Reagan won 49 states in 1984, and even California has voted Republican since then (Wisconsin was also the tipping point state).
4 роки тому+317
Whoever wins, poor people still lose. 50.1% of Congress are millionaires... we don't even get represented.
@ Biden? how could such a smart person be pro biden? or even anti Trump? you literally stated 3 conservative, pro Trump arguments, then said you dont like him? im not mad, just, confused.
D Large meaning if you live in a state whose voted for the same party for the last 9 elections, you’re vote is essentially worthless. A voter who wants to vote for A democrat in Alabama essentially meaning NOTHING . Considering the state is almost exclusively republican.
Bottom line: Electoral college) makes the decision of who becomes President. People's vote is just to see who is more popular among the Public At large to see how people can be manipulated using specific face to satisfy specific socio-political and economic private plans. Simple.
Yes! Well said. So voters should keep this in mind in the end. So no matter who wins, there is no need to attack those who voted opposite of you. Keep the peace and remain calm. You only helped to decide who is most popular.
But what if it was the other way around? Or what if the most suited and who arguably has the more geuine conscience loses because of this compromising system is at play? Isn't it just unfair?
A president no matter how chosen is not allowed to violate the law or violate anyone's civil rights. The wolves may have elected a wolf as president but no president be they wolf or sheep has the power to make the sheep dinner.
You missed some- "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ... Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
@@robertjarman3703 A popular vote doesn't mean the same thing as an informed vote. and a popular candidate doesn't mean the same thing as a good candidate.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 And a good candidate isn't necessarily a good president (or senator or governor or whatever). What makes a good candidate isn't the same thing as what makes that person good at the job he or she is running for.
I just don't understand why electoral votes aren't distributed by percentages. For instance if California voted 60% republican and 40% democrat, 32 votes out of their 54 be cast for the republican candidate and the remaining 22 be cast for the democratic candidate (rather than all 54 for the republican candidate). This would be an easy amendment to pass as opposed to the overall abolishment of the electoral college and would give power to all voters, even in safe states, while still respecting the balance of state votes based on population and constitutional integrity.
+Mark Rebok YES. THIS. Why not this, America? Further thought: I think under a system that doesn't distribute state votes as all or nothing might also mitigate the problem of other parties being a non-presence in American politics by giving them the minor amounts of representation that they do earn.
+MegaKaitouKID1412 I live in Brazil, in America. We count the number of total votes, without a college or something. If a candidate gets 50%+1 votes, it wins. Plus, we have much more big parties, which contribute against rotation.
Felipe Vasconcelos Here in Canada, we do kind of have districts, but one district = one vote to a specific local candidate to represent your district in the house of commons, and then whatever party gets the most representation in the house of commons of all of the parties, the head of that party becomes the prime minister. A majority is not required, as we have three major parties in Canada-- Liberal, Conservative, and NDP-- plus a few of the little guys tend to get one district somewhere.
Greasy King Democratic republics can decide their presidents by popular vote. Why not? Just look up for other republics around the world. Most of them do popular vote!!
tommymolek Because those other republics are not federations of semi-independent states. Do you know the first thing about how the US was founded and conceived?
no that’s a horrible idea 😂 there’s a reason why electoral college remains a thing and it’s so that politicians can’t prey on the uniformed. If the popular vote decided president it would be extremely dangerous as a candidate can campaign using false information and sway the public. Leaving it to representatives allows candidates to have to persuade the extremely knowledgeable
There are never more than two viable candidates. That's the problem. There can't be only 2 mindsets on issues in this country. Damn, we get 50+ choices for Miss America!? Two choices are way easier to manipulate.
There are usually only two viable candidates because only two parties have made themselves and their respective platforms appealing to a broad array of voters across the nation. Smaller third parties are usually single issue and only appeal to small segments of the electorate.
No, we have two parties because too many people (such as yourself) say "it's a waste to vote for 3rd parties" so they keep voting for terrible candidates from the other parties. The media, happy to simplify their lives, supports this by only inviting the 2 candidates, only talking about the 2 candidates, etc.
+secretspy1: A) I don't think that 3rd parties are generally more tied to democrats -- that may be true of the Greens, but that's not true of Libertarians, Constitution Party, etc. Therefore any suppositions made on this flawed assumption is likely wrong B) Voting for a 3rd party may work out similar to not voting in terms of actually deciding the electoral vote outcome in the state, but that's NOT the same as not voting. I've done my civil duty, I've voted for a decent candidate (vs one of several bad choices), I've sent a message (admittedly small) that we're not all sheep who will always vote for whatever morons the 2 main parties put up, and I've increased the likelihood (ever so slightly) of some 3rd party candidate having a chance in the future C) Voting for a 3rd party candidate is certainly NOT the same as voting for the other party -- it's proclaiming that I refuse to vote for either of them. D) There was never ANYYYYYYYYYY chance I was going to vote for Hillary regardless. If she, Hitler, and Satan were the only ones on the ballot, I'd write-in someone (anyone) else and hope that my 3rd party vote decided things.
+secretspy1: I get what you're saying, but ultimately decided another way. Honestly, if Trump and Hillary were polling super close in my state, I'd be more likely to vote for Trump on the off chance that my 1 vote could make the difference. However, that's not the case, so I chose to use my vote to protest the parties' decision to nominate morons and expect me to vote for one of them.
Ivan Nava That's exactly how I feel. For example, if California gets a million votes for a Republican nominee, and get a million and one votes for the Democratic nominee, all of their 55 of their votes shouldn't automatically go to the Democratic nominee. And for what it's worth, I'm a Democrat saying this. The number of electoral colleges votes should reflect how the people actually voted, like in Maine and New Hampshire. Otherwise, you get into situation like this election where a candidate can win the overall popular vote, but still lose the election because they didn't get enough electoral votes. Our current process contributes to the "my vote doesn't matter" mentality.
MrSaxmanJones but your vote does matter because like you said in your example that one extra vote can dictate who wins the entire electoral vote for that state.
+jmommie23 using that same example though, the other 1mil didn't count bcs the other party got 1 more... so her vote only counts if it's in favor of even the tiniest majority
+EqualsThreeable Depends on your state. Most states require the Electoral College to vote in accordance with their voters. And there are very very very few instances in American history where an Electoral College voter has gone against his voters.
+Neighborbob No, not in "very very very few instances". The electoral collage has voted against their voters over eighty times. Thats eight*y*, 80, not eight. That high number certainly doesn't need three "very"s to emphasize how small it is. I am to lazy to do primary reseach, but I get this from Adams Ruins Everything's video "Why The Electoral Collage Ruins Democracy", hosted on youtube by collage humor. CPG grey also did a fantastic video on it.
80 out of tens of thousands of electors. Of the last two of this decade, one was an accidental misvote and one was in protest of DC's lack of a vote in Congress. Every 4 years 538 electors are selected. And most years not a single one goes against their pledged candidate.
Neighborbob On average there are 1.4545(repeating) "misvotes" every election. To be fair, most of them are probably back when the electoral collage actually had a purpose, when transportation was slower and some time could pass before the election and a new president was inaugurated, and the situation could change in that time.
@@orionm4254 How do you figure the will of the People is an "Unlawful (one L thanks)Judgement and control of the People when we have 2 other Branches of Government to prevent it-and it will truly represent the will of the People. Don't you mean the Will of the Republican Party? Don't you?.
@@vernonsheldon-witter1225 direct democracy would not be fair considering it is a mob controlled government. "It is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives" in which case majority is the winner. I my self am not a republican or Democrat, I simply have reasons in which case I am independent.
We can keep it easily.....the people’s republic is protected by the armed percentage of the American people....when the American government falls,”We The People” will not only still be standing but still moving forward.
More than electoral college, it's the "winner takes all" system that is problem. I think they should just share seats in electoral college of the state based on proportion of votes for each party. This way each vote will be valued, all states will be important, and also a third party can participate and have impact
that would fix a lot of problems. the biggest issue isn't that the president can lose popular and win anyway, it's that there are tons of disenfranchised voters. think of how many people are democrat in texas or republican in california that aren't voting because they already know the states are going to vote X way. make it proportional and i guarantee a lot more voters would go out.
TJ Estelle It’s not unconstitutional; read the Constitution before talking. It says “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,” so it limits the maximum amount of Representatives that a state can have, but the only minimum that it guarantees is one Representative per state. Don’t spread misinformation
Rayan Rahmani if it is misinformation, it is coming from the US government. www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf. Also from the House of Representatives website. history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/
TJ Estelle Where exactly did either article say that it was unconstitutional? I was just skimming, but I didn’t see any mention of unconstitutionality. Even if they did, it doesn’t mean anything, read the portion of the Constitution that I put. It clearly only guarantees a minimum number of one Representative, and only limits the maximum number.
Basically, like I live in RI which is a blue state and we rarely vote republican, so Hillary is pretty much guaranteed to get our Electoral Votes, so over here a vote for Trump is basically worthless because the outcome is almost certainly going to be in Hillary.
I would disagree with that as well. While it may be all but given that RI's electoral votes will go to Hillary, the percentages within your state and in the nation as a whole still send a message. If every Trump supporter stays home, Hillary will get 100% of the popular vote in RI, RI will be seen as a blue 'lock' forever, and Hillary will claim more of a mandate.
San Jose Sharks you obviously don't know what a "safe state" means. It doesn't go by every YEAR. President's are elected every 4...therefore a state is considered "safe" if since 1996, they have been a republican or Democratic Party winner. Ex : Kansas has been a safe state for the republicans since every election since 1996 it has gone to the Republican Party by electoral votes
*"If your vote didn't count, they wouldn't try so hard to take it away. Don't vote because we want you too. Vote because they don't" - Samuel L. Jackson*
Actually, the democrat party has proven today that they dont care about votes. They dont even try to get people on their side anymore. They dont care. Why? Because they have discovered its much easier just to manipulate the elections than to rely on the constitutional demoratic republic form of government we used to have.
Australia uses the Westminster system, doesn't it? So where's the question of using a national vote to elect a President or even a Prime Minister for that matter?
+Ifan Dafydd Actually not all that different from the UK's system. The House of Commons does double duty as a legislature and an electoral college, which is to be expected when the executive sits within the legislature.
+Ifan Dafydd The system is the way it is because the US isn't a single unified country in the same way as most others. The states hold a pretty significant degree of power, each one having a fully functional government and military capable of operating completely independently of the federal government.
TJ Cassidy It's not an electoral college. It's one member per constituency. Albeit much, much larger, the US states are essentially just fifty constituencies. And the fact that the constituencies in the UK are divided by population. And therefore much fairer because the constituencies actually have one representative per allocated percentage of the population, not up to fifty-five, like California, which must all be the same party.
Same here Patricia. I can't stand the fact that 3 times in history(I'm pretty sure 3) the popular vote was higher than the electoral vote. Electoral votes count, popular votes do not. Seems wrong to me. I can't get it through my head why we can't have just a popular vote system?
CV N because in this way presidents would totally ignore small population states. Their voices would not be heard at all. Why go to South Dakota if there’s not enough votes to matter? That’s why we do not have just a popular vote...
@@williamessick363 No, they wouldn't. Each person's vote would count equally no matter where they lived. Getting people to vote for you in South Dakota would be just as important as getting people to vote for you in The Bronx. Big states would not be voting as one bloc. Each person in that state would be voting how they chose. That means if 52% of the people in Iowa voted for the Republican and 48% voted for the Democrat, that 48% for the Democrat would still count in the big picture. As it stands now, states do vote as one bloc with only the votes for the winner of that state actually counting in the big picture. The two exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where the electoral votes are split by district. So it's sort of like Nebraska votes like three states and Maine votes like two states.
To me, the biggest problem with the Electoral College isn't that it gives more weight to smaller states but the "winner-take-all" method that most states use to pick partisan electors with. Change _that_ and you change the system. (Maine and Nebraska, for example, only award +2 electoral votes to their popular winner; the rest get awarded per each district's local popular winner.)
I would be a strong advocate have a national compact we're each state would agree to go away from winner-take-all and towards a proportional distribution by the popular vote.
The unfortunate thing about popular vote also has to do with population. Prime example is Colorado: Western and Southern areas are mostly Republican/independent votes. Denver outnumbers them. Denver isn't the voice for the rest of Colorado, and without the representation from the electoral college their voices literally go unheard. Popular vote is not good representation.
@@treeneebeenee16 In 2020, Colorado had 9 EVs in the presidential election, which could hypothetically represent its popular vote to the nearest interval of 11%. The statewide popular vote was split 55-41, which could obviously yielded 5-4 EVs (by population), or 6-3 (using Maine's district method: 4-3 per districts + 2-0 for the winner = 6-3 overall) EVs. Instead, the winner-take-all method meant Colorado contributed 9-0 EVs for one candidate only. Again, the Electoral College is not the _biggest_ problem in the system, that goes to the "winner take all" method of states representing ONLY their popular winner.
Exactly. Winner-takes-all electors in each state is very bad. The system should allow electors to represent a percentage of state voters (or represent a small region in a state) in order to represent voter's voices correctly.
@Jackie It's just closed to majority vote if US is not going to get rid of electoral college system. It's better than nothing. Otherwise, I think it's strange for ballots printed with candidate names but the actual voters are electors. And faithless elector can happen sometimes, it will create a huge dispute if they changed the result. 🤔
The video neglects to mention that the electors within the electoral college are not required to vote based on their constituency's votes (26 states and D.C. "bind" their electors with oaths and fines, but the rest do not). This allows electors in the remaining states to betray the voting public and vote against the candidate for whom the public voted. And in giving ALL of a state's electoral points to the majority (instead of apportioning points by the percentage of votes), those who are not in the majority see their votes become worthless, reduced to zero, and their voice is left unheard. The electoral college was a cobbled-together compromise at the time of its inception, as no other agreement could be reached between the concepts of a popular vote and allowing congress to elect the next president, and a better solution regarding suffrage (women and slaves not yet being allowed to vote) could not be found. Needless to say, things have changed, and this antiquated and now corrupt system should be abolished in favor of a popular vote. One citizen - one vote. No state worth more than another. Everyone's voice heard.
Much as I hate the EC, in practice this doesn't happen. iirc, there has been a total of 15 faithless electors (7 of which were in 2016), because of the way they are selected. Those singular votes aren't enough to change the college in any but the tightest of tight races.
Sounds like a solid idea until you realize that politicians would only pander to the masses in California, New York, and big metro areas. Then what happens to the needs of rural Iowa farmers who grow our food? Or the needs of the oil workers in the Dakotas who power our cars?
@@dominan7996 1, As opposed to now, where the majority of campaigning is done in the 9 swing states. 2, to win a popular vote. You need more than just the big metro areas. 3, this is why we have congress as the most powerful branch, and it's job is to represent the states with more granularity.
Actually an Electoral college is "America is an ever changing nation in size and value, so lets make sure the votes can reflect the change of our nations shape." It's a great solution.
The bottom line if a state has 55 electoral votes (California) and one candidate gets 30. The other candidate should still get their remaining 25. Otherwise if you among those who voted for the trailing candidate , (YOUR VOTE HAS JUST BEEN CHANGED)!!!!!
That's how it originally was, but as each state adopted winner-takes-all, the other states had to do the same to ensure that one party doesn't get an unfair advantage. Ask your state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact if they haven't already, and we can get rid of this stupid system.
Another thing that should be abolished.. Felons not having the right to vote. It's an archaic practice and needs to be revised. Especially in a country that is 40% felons.
+May Day Where did you get that piece of misinformation? Presidential electors did not ride their horses to Washington to cast their ballots for President. Electors met in their respective state capitals to cast their ballots and those ballots were sent to a joint session of Congress to be opened and counted. The electors may or may not have rode horses to their respective state capitals. The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of communication.
+May Day Once again, electors DID NOT ride horses to Washington to cast their ballots. The electors cast their ballots in their respective state capitals and those ballots were mailed to the Congress. Now, why do you think that the electoral college should be abolished? Do you have a better plan for electing the POTUS?
+May Day CGP Grey has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the electoral college. Grey doesn't even know what type of government the US has. Grey has based his entire argument on the fallacy that the US is or should be a so called 'fair democracy' . Grey then completely downplayed the federal structure of the US government. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
They missed the fact that the electoral college electors don’t have to follow their state’s popular vote. They are called faithless electors. Probably would have made their video too messy explaining that.
Interesting thought, however the alternative presented (National Popular Vote) would mean New York and Los Angeles would count for something like 40% of the vote, completely disenfranchising most of the populus. 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Not ideal, wouldn't you agree ?
@@Jamesleekirk But it is ideal that 40% of the people in the country can find their vote doesn't add up to as much political power (electors) as a much smaller fraction of the population wields? That would be just as unfair wouldn't it? So the EC actually DOESN'T make things fair... it just makes things unfair in a different way. At least with a 1 Person 1 Vote system then everyone has the same right: to chose their leader. With the current system 3 California voters need to speak up to be heard over 1 Montana voter. Millions of Republican Voters in 'Blue States' can't influence anything, nor Millions of Democrat Voters in 'Red States'... and that creates problems like politicians treating people as if they WERE states. Not just for electoral purposes but for political decisions. Trump, for example, has spoken constantly of Democrat Cities, Democrat States, Democrat Governors... but in those cities and states there were MILLIONS of America Citizens - Trump's constituents every bit as much as Americans in Republican Cities and States - who voted Republican at the previous election, voted for Trump... but they didn't give him any EVs, so they are 'Blue' to his administration. This is staggeringly corrosive to the nation.
@@KentRigeI It's called the united STATES of america. Each STATE holds it's own election. The STATES decide the president. NOT the people. That's the agreement. People decide their senators and congressmembers (legislative branch). States decide the executive branch. Seperation of powers.
@@Jamesleekirk but afterall, USA is United States of America - brothers and sisters. States may differ in judgement, they all win, and they all too suffer from their choices.
One possible solution could be rather than "winner take all" for a particular state, the electoral votes are distributed between candidates based on the percentage of popular votes they receive for that state. Some states already do this, and if all states did it would make the Electoral College more representative of the people as a whole.
@@jamiengo2343 i was thinking this. say its 50-50 Blue/Red Respectively. these numbers are low but same general concept. 501 Votes for Blue and 500 For Red. each party gets 1 vote, but the party that had the most votes wins the extra point........that or you could just pit both candidates ina fist fighting contest and then who ever wins gets the extra point.
I think they are awarded by population. It can change every ten years with the census. If the population of a state goes up, that state can get more electoral votes. If Dems or Republicans win a state with votes, they get all the electoral votes for that state.
jeff medvin each party for each state chooses electors who essentially swear to vote for that party's candidate. Whichever candidate wins in that state, the electoral votes go to their party. So for example, since Trump won popular vote in Florida, all 27 (or however many electoral votes) went to him, or the Republican party, meaning that the electors chosen by the Republican party now have the power to vote for president and vice president, and so they vote for him.
I still don't really feel like my vote counts. The only difference I feel now is that my vote counts less. In every explanation I see about this I find that they just repeat and beat around the bush, making it seem like it's sorta kind of okay.. when it's not. The worst part about this is that I know California is a very.. one sided state. I feel the same way about NY too but possibly a bit less. Anyway, I don't want them to decide the president regardless of what literally every other state everyone else has to say about it. I'm not saying cali and Ny shouldn't be counted for but I am saying we all should be counted for equally. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and I'll accept that if I am. But as of right now I feel this is complete BS.
I don't think states with fewer people should have the same amount of say as larger states. If the majority of people of a country want one candidate over another, then the candidate that accurately represents the most people should win. Some people say it's mob rule, I guess they're right, but having 20,000 people have the same power as 200,000 people (just random numbers) is awful. I agree, however, that I don't feel like my vote counts.
YOUR Avatar portrays a good art stylization of an attractive woman, better than these fucking anime weebs that put ugly anime girls in their avatars. kek
For anyone who was confused: Each state has a number of Electoral College votes assigned to it by population, if a presidential candidate wins a majority of a state they get all the votes of that state, in the end whatever candidate gets the most Electoral College votes is president.
I'd love to get some clarification here because I keep seeing it phrased this way: "IF a presidential candidate wins a majority of a state they get all the votes of that state." In my mind, that "if" implies that there is an alternative option and an alternative distribution of electoral votes (outside of a winner-takes-all system) for each state. I mean, is it not a winner-takes-all system where the candidate who wins the popular vote automatically receives all of the electoral votes and that is the only way this works? If so, why does this statement/explanation always have an "if," like there's another way this system works? THAT'S what I find confusing. It should just be "THE presidential candidate who wins the majority/popular vote gets all of that states electoral votes." Does this distinction only make sense to me? ...No? ...Mkay.
@@redvelvetcake813 yeh, it just means “if they win, they get all the votes, and if they don’t win, the other candidate gets all the votes” A potential alternate system could be one where they get a proportional amount of votes. So if one state had 20 votes was 75% democrat and 25% republican, the state would get 15 democrat votes and 5 republican votes
Garry Hall Ah ok. It doesn’t look like any states in the U.S. follow this rule specifically for general elections since the two states that don’t have a winner-takes-all system follow a “congressional district method” instead. Do you have any examples of a proportionate system like that here in the US or elsewhere?
@@redvelvetcake813 nope, it was just hypothetical I guess the reason they specify "If you win, you get all the votes" is because it could potentially work the way I suggested instead, but it doesn't! :-)
Do away with Electoral College. Do away with Popular vote. Introduce partial electoral college based on popular vote. A candidate gets electoral votes in a state in proportion to the number of votes cast for him or her in that state. It should not be binary.
+Sonny Corleone But the current system makes it even more important to win New York and California, because even if you only get 51% of the vote there, you get 100% of the votes that come along with them. Which makes them the game changers.
Because the bastards in charge would lose their power to elect who they choose. Your vote doesn't and never did count, this shit is rigged beyond your imagination.
What this video failed to mention is that candidates almost always ignore safe states, especially opponent's safe states because it is pointless to even try campaigning there. This is not how an election should work.
***** But it is incredibly rare. In most cases safe states are ignored or at best not focused on too heavily because it's a waste of time and money. That's not right.
Jesse Campbell People in fly-over states would still have their votes count though. As it stands, people's votes are being thrown away. For example, if you voted for Clinton in Florida, your vote means NOTHING. And this is happening on different scaled in every state where winner take all is a thing, which is 48 of 50. Unless you vote for the state winner, your vote is meaningless. It is literally a wasted vote. Not only that but people in North Dakota's votes carry more weight than people in California. Every vote should be equal, every vote should count. The electoral college is promoting a system where some peoples votes count more than others.
***** hold up, uh it's not possible to be racist against a white person, and what are you saying-- high school dropouts and the mentally ill's votes are insignificant? because that is 100% not the case. Every vote counts as much as the next one.
I still don`t understand why do we need the ELECTORS as PERSONS?! Why not applying the system automatically? Why do need persons to do something already decided?!
+EddyBud08 Huh? I meant exactly what I said. Please reread my comment. CGP Grey distorts facts and twists numbers and creates fanciful scenarios in order to deliberately warp young minds into believing that the electoral college is a really bad way to elect the President.
+D Smith But is it a good way ? Why would you f.e. have a winner-take-all/first-past-the-post on state level ? I see why you would apply first-past-the-post on a national level (even though I don't agree with it), its a simple solution that at least makes sure the candidate with the highest number of actual supporters gets elected. It doesn't has to be a one big national elections. Many countries have regional elections, the US is far from alone in this. What baffles me is why would you design a system based around first-past-the-post on a regional level. Why would you design a system where the people that voted against the winning candidate and even those who stayed at home and didn't take part in the election actually end up supporting the winning candidate in that state on the national level. Its like they designed the system to make winners losers and vice versa.
+Olvirki Good question. The states are free to appoint their respective electors in any manner of their choosing. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding FPTP, winner take all or popular election of Presidential electors. As far as FPTP goes, its simple. FPTP encourages a strong two party system. A strong two party system encourages political moderation. The electoral college was designed to ensure that the winning candidate enjoys a broad distribution of support nationwide rather than having all support concentrated in a few densely populated coastal urban areas. I hope this all makes sense to you.
D Smith Thanks. I might make some counter arguments :). A pure FPTP on a national level is simple, the guy with the most votes wins. But in the vote has already been divided into a bunch of regional elections with voting power not directly tied with population and having the electors split on the state level by popular vote between candidates is not much more complex. Its still FPTP on a national level, the guy with the most electors wins, even though the state election is not FPTP, so a strong two party with political moderiation would still be encoureged (I would argue get rid of FPTP completely, many countries don't have it at all and do fine, but that is another argument) . Without the electors-as-a-group-are-selected-by-FPTP-part on a state level the boosted voting power of smaller states still exist, so having them all vote together prevents a candiate from gaining a lot of support in some places while getting little support in other places ? Unless there are more than two big candidates, which the FPTP on a national level ensures, this feature is useless, because candidate A is strong where the B is weak and vice versa, so neither has more widespread support than the other . You would have to have at least three candidates for FPTP on a state level to ensure widespread support.
I am completely against changing the Constitution. For me personally, this is the number one reason I was against Obama. But the electoral college is the one exception. Its supposed to work like this. The peoole of the US make their votes, and the votes eliminate candidates down to two people. That is what today was meant to be, but the media already decided for us a long time ago. The electoral college now comes in for the purpose of making sure we didn't make any mistake on a candidate that could ruin us, and back then, it was to mame it fair. We choose two candidates, then the electoral college can only vote for the 2 people we have chosen. So in a sense, your vote didn't count. But enough votes may influence your states decision. Its a pretty horrible system. Turn on a Democratic news channel and you'll see Hillary is in the lead. Now turn to a Republic channel and you'll see Trump is in the lead. That makes no sense. It is the game played to bring us down to two candidates. The game that decided a long time ago and why many candidates dropped out earlier in the game. Voting is still important to a degree, but yes, your vote was mostly a waste. Sorry
Charlene Tan because the popular vote wins individual states, if everyone in your party stays home, the opposing party wins your state, even if the state is owned by your party
Miister Josh you're against changing the constitution? okay. but how do you feel about any of the amendments? those were changes to the constitution...
They “couldnt” use traditional means of most voted for candidate wins because USA had slaves that could vote. Rather than letting those numbers sway tremendously, they settled for slaves counting as 3/5s to keep things more “fair”. Good ol politics of course -.- broken systems from the very beginning but we won’t ever truly fix anything.
Because if you don’t vote - and everyone else in your state doesn’t vote - then your state could swing to the other party. So yeah, every vote does count.
Joe Carroll but you don’t get to choose the president. Lol still useless, you vote and then what? Wait for a person who’s opinion really matter choose the president even tho they already lost
@@graceandtruth2413 Ya, Bachelor Of Arts, in India Classes 11 & 12 are Higher Secondary School, Bachelor of Arts/Science are College, Master of Arts/Science and above are University.
false, the electoral representatives are NOT required to vote for the popular vote in any state. so no matter what the voters choose, they can pick whoever they want(who is paying them the most)
Eh kind of. I mean, look at Texas. Texas might actually flip blue even though it's been a safe state for a really long time. I do understand your point but I don't think it's entirely true.
Sometimes take maryland for example the eastern shore of maryland is conservative and has a lower population while the western shore of maryland is liberal and has a higher population that means the conservatives are not represented because they are a minority and so their votes don't matter which in my opinion is very undemocratic
if you and 53% of your state votes Republican, then your electoral votes are Republican, therefore if, you live in say, California, and A LOT of people vote republican, then the states large number of votes is also Republican. it's an incredibly smart system
+SirThePickle You are correct! The election for Presidential electors is a state election just like governor or Senator. If a candidate wins 53% of the vote, do they win 53% of a Senate seat or 53% of the governors chair? Of course not!!
i hate the winner takes all approach of the electoral college. i live in louisiana so when i vote for a democrat my vote is basically void. the electors should be given out based on percentage of votes won in each state. so if u get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the electors in that state. that would definitely boost voter turnout because for years i never voted for the simple fact i felt my vote didnt count because of the state i live in.
I don't understand why this is still not implemented, probably because democrats or republicans think they would be giving the other an advantage. At the moment let's say you are a republican in California, there is no point in voting. It would even allow for third parties to maybe get a seat or two somewhere along the way
The maker of this video choose not to mention that the electoral college protect states with small populations in many ways. If the popular vote determined the election, then candidates would not campaign in states with small populations, they would not give much attention to small states when they are making laws, they would allow big businesses to do things in these states that may be unfair, the police may not be properly funded, hospitals will not be properly funded,. Government understructure will be neglected. They will just be neglected. Presidents will focus on large states while in office. The founding fathers understood this when they were putting the constitution together. Remember they saw the way England did business, taxation without representation. They were concerned about this and didn't want that to happen in the new America.
@@daniellerocha2808 what you say it completely true and valid. The question is why if you win a state with 65% of the votes why do you get all the electors and why don't you get only 65% of the electors of that state. Your entire argument is still valid when you use a procentual elector division as opposed to winner takes all.
@@blahvn HI there :) i suggest ya check out new documentary about us election system hacking ^_^ Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections (2020)
Thanks god I live in Latvia, out of thoes undemocratic "states". We count all peoples' votes equaly. There are no regions, where some peoples' votes are more valuable than others.
+Laughing Ape We have a few cities with more people living in them than in your whole country, Latvia is roughly the size of an average state, so of course it doesn't have "regions" lol. But I agree, the electoral college is stupid.
The votes are counted equally just some states need to get more votes because of their population. For instance if I live in Florida (I do) we NEED 29 votes but in the end all of it equals out into one person.
I'm super curious if there is a truly valid reason for the electoral college because I'm still not convinced. The reason that everywhere seems to give is "it makes it so that the majority can't control the elections" which makes it sound like the electoral college is providing some kind of balance. But when it gets down to it, the majority of the people SHOULD have more representation. I've heard arguments against the electoral college saying that it exists so that the poor population will not gain more voting power, and so far that seems like the most valid reason for it's existence.
Ketchme17 not to mention that the system is a winner take all making it seem like a state is deep red or deep blue when it fact it's more nuanced and often more purple, a person who voted blue in a red state doesn't get their voice heard because of the EC gives the votes to the majority, were as a one vote system would show the nuances and proably help third parties as well
The voting system, as it was originally intended, was never meant to have the most popular candidate win. It wasn't even meant to be decided by the people themselves, but by the states. You see, the founders knew that when the majority were in control that they would "customize" the country to their liking while ignoring or even outright oppressing the minorities. usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/Why-Keep-The-Electoral-College.htm
I think the electoral college is good state wide, for policies, so that the populated urban cities don't get whatever policies they won't. But for the national election, it should be popular vote
OverlordLucs No, the national election should not be decided exclusively from the popular vote. There has to be a balance somewhere to keep the majority from utterly overruling the minority.
God is Not Not Dead The problem is what majority and what minority? What I mean by that is when people bring up this part of the electoral college is this type of vague blanket statement is used "it's so the majority can't control the elections". But that concept isn't usually dissected very much. Say that the president only has power over economic powers and we look at the electoral college, clearly in this situation we'd get this measurement of majority and minority from levels of income. In that scenario, the argument would be that if more people are wealthy then the president will only cater to wealthy people if it was a popular vote and not to the entire population. However, since the electoral votes are divided by state, not by state's average income ranking or anything like that, this "balance" is meaningless. With the electoral college, all that happens is a wealthy person's vote in one state can be worth less than a wealthy person's vote in another state. My point is, the electoral votes aren't divided by minority or majority of people's political views, so the "balance" that people refer to is totally meaningless.
Do you think it would be efficient if the electoral point system for states exists, but instead of representatives it is determined by the popular vote in those states? There could be rules so people from a largely populated state don’t change their residency so they can outnumber their opposition in another state. The electoral votes from this system could be distributed proportionally rather than all or none. I heard some states already do this, but with the current representative system.
The parties pick the electors for each state. So, in CA, for example, the CA Republican party picks 55 Republican electors, and the CA Democratic party picks 55 Democratic electors. The people then vote for which slate of electors get to cast CA's 55 electoral votes - the Republican slate or the Democratic slate (the Libertarians do the same, as to all the other minor parties, but they have never won). Yes, your vote counts - but you don't vote for president and vice president. You actually vote for a slate of electors. The electoral college has been essential to our republic for several centuries, and was a brilliant invention.
+Death to Truthers ...so why do they need actual "electors" and not just give them the number of electoral college votes automatically? That is like saying that they have an option, when they do not.
California's population divided by electoral votes 39,144,818/55=711723.9 Wyoming population divided by electoral votes 586,107/3=195369 711723.9/195369=3.64 So is someone from Wyoming worth more than someone from California Even less if your liberal and in texas or conservative in California
With all said and done this video was pretty good. You can tell that it was released in 2012 before politics became so bloody polarized. If it had been released now I expect it would demonize the electoral college completely.
@@ashutoshdwivedi4513 Ted-ed would try to be neutral it's hard to remove your bias when creating anything to be honest. especially something as polarising as the electoral college
I am looking for a way to recap last week's lesson in my American government and political science classes so we can proceed forward. this helps explain the basic issues and takes the focus off the drama, so thank you!
So essentially, the arguement that the electoral college gives small states a say is actually false. The only votes that matter are the those of the 11 biggest states. The fact that a candidate could lose 78% of the states, (39 out of 50) and still get elected shows a flaw in the system.
The Wolverine True and No. The electoral college is not one set of electors. There are actually 2 sets of electors, one set is republican to other set democrats. If the democrats win, then the democrat electors vote in the electoral college and the same if the republicans win the state. If electors vote against the states popular vote, the party will simply replace them. In the last election the were a few electors that voted for other candidates. Trump lost a couple votes and Clinton did also, but the were for third party candidates, not Trump or Clinton. Overall though, Clinton lost more electoral votes than Trump.
maybe you should do research in the last 10 elections and see which states have flipped or which states have been domaniant one part but have flipped a couple of times {see west virginia when bush won}
I like how this video remained neutral by mocking stereotypes and figures from both parties, really don't see this kind of stuff enough
Verbally it may have remained neutrally, drawing wise.... it perptutated stereotypes of both parties.
gamer epic lol true.
I find neutral education tasteful since it does not try to be used as a tool against us
If it's not neutral is basically fake news
@★ Froggie Animation ★ btw before you make a second comment NEUTRAL is the KEYWORD
I don't know much about voting and stuffs. But I think North Korea has the most fair system of voting. You can only vote for one person. No tension no stress. You already know has won even before results are declared
LOL
Perfectly put Anurag: exactly what Donald expects, you can all vote for who you like but I win always
* even before the elections are announced
No they have it even more easier they don’t even vote :)
They are so lucky there.
Video: on a rare occasion....
2016: hold my beer
More like, 'hold my fries'
@@jitensi maybe "hold my burger".
@@nuttynoah5342 or, or, hold my orange
Well it is rare sooooooooo
Yeah I had to look at the year this was posted when she said that.
Everyone is talking about the voting or whatever, but I’m still wondering why Wyoming is shaped perfectly!
Wyoming doesn't exist
@@giulianamoore6794 What do you mean...? It’s a state here in the U.S.A..
@@cody4824 No It Doesn’t Exist
It's the chunk error
Oh 😧
“Here’s where it gets tricky...”
Honey, we’re past that.
And we know how that turns out
I liked this just to make it “666” likes
As a Canadian, that's way past "tricky". Maybe watching it again will bring more clarity???
@@peforster6725 As an American who actively votes, it's very tricky.
I’m confused.tHis iS tRiCky
Politicians should not be allowed to announce their party and if they do, they should be removed from the race. This would force politicians to address issues and talk solutions vs. riding the coattails of a given party. It would also force the people to understand the issues and vote for people based on merit, not party.
Suppose Mr. Joe Blow was running for POTUS, what's the first question people ask? Is he Dem or Repub. Then they essentially make their choice at that point, which is very lazy. Mr. Joe Blow should give his stance on Defense, Economics, Workforce, etc. without ever indicating his party.
And voting ballots should only have a write in space. No names should be printed on it. This would require critical thinking to vote
Except the second you talk gun control or abortion it would become clear.
You might be on to something. It would help to reduce tribalism. Too many people make quick judgments for either side. Beingnforced to research issues and stances could help.
Honestly though, even if a politician did not announce, I think the public and media would do it for them. There's a label for everything these days.
@@josesosa3337 I think people enjoy being on one side or the other.
You know what a "popular vote" is called in other countries? A vote.
You know what pure democracy is called? Mob rule.
streglof IK right lol 😂 the current system we have is a joke how about we just pick who we the people want and count the votes
Richard Genck
you'd be surprised how well it works...
actually this happened in the UK as well last elections, dramatically really, the conservative party had the absolute majority, 50,6% of the MP's and didn't need to form a coalition... however, they did only have 36% of the votes, still being the largest party of course but a party that only 36% of the UK voted for... RIP democracy
And it works for many other countries in the world. The Scandinavian countries regularly have 80-90% voter turnout while America barely reaches 60%
When it's election day and you're on this video trying to figure out how scared you should be
Trump 2020
Yeah
@Pioneer Shark pretty sure you're getting 4 years of dementia.
@@ArtisChronicles bold of you to assume he'll survive another 4 years. Biden is basically a walking corpse.
@nelis klarenbeurger no no, just old.
I still have no clue how voting works
I say we just have the candidates have a fight to the death
these replies got too.. political for me. for clarification, this is a joke
hillbillies who eat roadkill decide the election as opposed to liberals who fight for social justice causes
Ones old and ones overweight what they gonna do?
@@hyuba2656 Biden doesn't look overweight.
Put ‘em in the octagon lmao
@@hyuba2656 they are 3 years apart they both old.
“Democrats can rely on Michigan”
Well, that changed
And it became a new swing State.
and I'm glad it did
a glitch filled with regret
I think that the orange-utan fliped it again...
And i hope S. Brown will become 47th potus.
@★ Froggie Animation ★ Republicans you predict are going to lose 3 States?! That's what you wrote. That means they're going to win 47!
Wahoo!! Party on!!
The states choose the president, not the popular vote. There is no national election. There are 50 separate state elections.
@@egitovellez yes but in other hand, ignorance becomes a very lucrative high commodity, what can make cases that the entire nation follow extreme ignorance, like you know flat earth and crazy conspiracies like that, basically only have their origin in those places
as it should be because it stops gang tactics making people vote for their candidate.
If a state gets the electoral vote, the state can decide to use it for the opposite party.
@@philliprogers964 really?????
@@jonahlevi3178 Each state government picks someone to cast the electoral vote. They can pick someone who will NOT cast it in the way people in that state wanted. In addition, the electoral representative can vote for whoever they feel like.
‘If Voting Made a Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It’
Mark Twain
Right
im confused
Yup
@@buzzcutseason142 what’s confusing?
So blame Russia lol.
Okay so basically it's two "things" that matter:
1. Vote and hope that your state wins the majority of the party you voted for
2. Hope that the amount of electoral votes will add up to 270 or more.
1. Live in Idaho and vote democrat.
2. Idaho hasn't voted Democrat since 1964.
3. Congrats your vote doesn't matter in the slightest.
@@LiliumPetal Same thing being a republican in California, or D.C.
@@JumpinJew Yep, and California has a huge amount of Republicans, many of whom I'm sure don't vote because they feel its useless. If we had a popular vote system rather than electoral it would be beneficial for both bases and overall more people would have their vote recognized
@@LiliumPetal the election of 2016 is the perfect example y we have the college system not popular election
@@aaronbarnes2550 why? If a voting method contradicts the people's actual opinion that's pretty bad. That's like the one thing it's supposed to be able to do.
Just get all the candidates to play a Kahoot game and whoever wins will be the president
So basically a digital debate that is multiple choice?
Sally that’s debatable.
I am actually down fo that. Definitely better than the shitfest that was the presidential debate yesterday.
If it’s on American history I already know who would win
True!
Very informative. Ok, so instead of pushing the "go out and vote" chant, they should really be focusing when it's time to do the census.
It is constitutionally mandated to be once every 10 years. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment.
Brandon Myers I don’t think they were trying to say that we should change when we do the census... I think they meant that we should focus more efforts on it
Not necessarily. I’m from California our electoral votes will always be high. So if some people slack off during the census it may be come out to 53 votes for the state. If more people participate it’ll be 55. In the grand scheme of things those two points don’t even matter if your party doesn’t win. So I think the vote itself is way more impactful than just focusing on the census still... though the census is very important.
For every State you get 2 per state Representing Senators, and whatever the portion is of the population of American citizens allows you, EXCEPT, if your state is so small, (Wyoming has a total population smaller than most cities in California), where you might work out to having a part of a fraction of an elector, they call it one and work with it. (No sense in amputating an Wyoming's elector's arm and leg to match the 3/5th calculation). And as mentioned, Washington DC gets 3.
The Census just determines what the Population is in the state, so that they can adjust Congressional seating, (and electors). But the fact remains the same. You have a right to vote, and a responsibility to make it as educated and intelligent as possible, because this is what you do for America, not what America does for you.
Just kill the electoral college
People commenting that they should teach us this in school, comment.
People that were taught this in school, hit like.
I for one, definitely learned this in highschool lol
Learned this in middle school
lmao i’m watching this for school
I wasn’t raised in the US so I didn’t learn this. Still totally putting my comment here 😁
Learned in school but teacher didnt teach me well
Yes, you were taught this in school...and you were not handed the real story which is this: ua-cam.com/video/ens2iy3bMAA/v-deo.html
Now try to learn from some of us making correct comments instead of getting angry and lashing out at me. Time is running out on willful ignorance. Please do not count yourself among the willful, now that someone has clued you in. Try to prove me wrong...but first look into the issue yourself.
Here is an all encompassing link that provides the college education many pay through the nose and do not get. www.expose1933.com/
I think a better system would be having both candidates duel each other in a Children's Card Game.
Edit: dang! 2k likes. Thanks you guys! 😄
Edit again!: 3.5k!!
Yu gi oh
Or just pick high cards.
finally, some smart policy.
Yes, settle this like adults.
Uno
Okay so basically: Your vote does count, but not as much as it should.
@@sloopfan3706 Large states already boss around the smaller states the video literally said a president can win over North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and West Virginia and still lose the race while the second candidate could get Florida, California, and New York and add some slightly smaller states and win even though more states want the other. The larger states literally matter more because they have the most electoral college votes
Garrett Gould Yeah of course which balances it out a bit because of the populations.
kevin khan the 49% lost the vote. that’s like saying if we were electing via the popular vote and the results were 49:51 that 49% don’t matter to America anymore. Not a good argument.
@Chris Agnew yea. It counts just on paper. Lol kinda worthless
So does that mean our president will always be what the bigger states decide? Bruh
Who’s here after the first 2020 presidential debate
Me. I have a friend who is very into politics and knows alot...but he's very far out left and I have to find things concrete to add to the discussion bc I know little. I know our system is corrupt in many ways, but things like this Im more hesitant on....
i am. i keep forgetting how this insanity works.
Mizz Lynzz then he doesn’t know a lot lol
Yea, I was confused on what it was but I already knew what it was, just not the name.
😁
"Does my vote matters?
"Uhhhhhhh, yesn't."
Well yes, but actually no
Too funny
Your vote is suggestion. Lol
Well really no not your individual vote because if you as in one person didn’t vote then it would technically change nothing but as people yes it does because they add up. Plus 100 000 fake votes for Biden makes your vote even less effective to the election.
Toxic comment 🙄
And this is one of the important reason to have accurate census counts for US citizens!!!!!
So long as you're making sure to only Count US citizens and not count illegal aliens. Otherwise California and New York have an unfair advantage too many illegal aliens being counted
Wow man. There are also legal foreigners living in those states, sir. There are not only illegals.
@@Sergio-rl8wb they have no business voting either
@@russellpearce3749 even though they live there? They should have some say in how the country that they live in is run
@@me_myselfand_i2099 Shouldn't they come in legally first? We surely don't *want* people to break the law?
So what happens when an electoral college from a state is corrupt or incompetent of doing it's job right?
“Corrupt” meaning not giving into the communist Democrats
What happens we get Trump as president.
Ya, what if an electoral college is corrupt of doing it is job right?
Had Hilary won because of the electoral college then none of you geniuses would be complaining about it
Referring to unfaithful electors? Different states have different consequences for such, but to date no elector has gone that route.
This is the number of people here whilst waiting for the 2020 US presidential results.
👇
Me!
Me!
Me!
And !
Lmao same
Thank you for this video, this is the first time I am actually understanding how it works. No one seems to be able to explain it so clearly
The fact they had California vote republican lol
Lol yeah back in the day maybe
@@kbanghart Only 9 years ago they had a Republican governor. New York City elected Rudy Guiliani, Trump's current lawyer, twice.
@@robertjarman3703 A Democrat has to really screw up for GOP to win in those places.
@Tamrielic Empire bingo
@@caiawlodarski5339 for which part?
This completely bypassed how the Electoral College got started or if a person's vote actually counts.
Exactly. I've been more interested in how this actually works in the last few months and looking at this video, there is some misleading going on. For the presidential election you the voter, have no say in how the president is elected. Your state can be a blue state but if the electors side with and vote Republican, then guess what, your state just became a swing state. Everything I keep reading points to all the power really being in the hands of the electors. That's why you can have a president that lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and he still becomes your president.
Simply put, we have a representative republic, you vote for electors who who then vote based on policies in place.
Andrew Wright that part. You got it right
Yep - tiptoed right around that!
According to the video, If you vote in your state's election, then you contribute to whether your candidate will win that state and get the electoral votes. So your vote counts. Unfortunately, you might be outvoted by other states.
"On a rare occasion, like on the year 2000, someone can win the popular vote, but fail to get 270 electoral votes."
Oh, dear....
It has only happened four times so it is still quite rare, statistically.
This confuses me. I did watch the video, but will you explain it in another way?
ew That’s about a one in ten chance, that’s not very rare at all
@@theresat1776 It's more like 7% but yeah. I mean, it's subjective but it does happen from time to time.
@@8is Actually its happened five times, so
Showed a Republican winning California for an example, lol.
3rd most votes for a republican by state
Ronald Reagan has entered the chat
@@bluegill0133 underrated reply
@NippleGuy California is LONG gone from those days. It's hardcore liberal, trust me
@nameunselected actually Bush Sr. got California in 1988, right after Reagan, but I don't see California going Republican anytime soon. However, 2016 was pretty interesting, because Trump won Wisconsin. Wisconsin hadn't voted Republican since Reagan won 49 states in 1984, and even California has voted Republican since then (Wisconsin was also the tipping point state).
Whoever wins, poor people still lose. 50.1% of Congress are millionaires... we don't even get represented.
Become a member of congress then
@@KnockManJo How about term limits and proportional representation and economic diversity in government instead.
@ what a smart individual you are, let me guess, Trump? or Jorgensen?
@@aidenaune7008 None of your business because it's a secret ballot for reasons of privacy, but ... smart enough to not support either one.
@ Biden? how could such a smart person be pro biden? or even anti Trump? you literally stated 3 conservative, pro Trump arguments, then said you dont like him?
im not mad, just, confused.
Summary : electoral college decide the president . Voting at the polls is just a suggestion of who we want to win .
Then wtf loool
To get the electoral vote the candidate must get the majority vote for that state.
D Large meaning if you live in a state whose voted for the same party for the last 9 elections, you’re vote is essentially worthless. A voter who wants to vote for A democrat in Alabama essentially meaning NOTHING . Considering the state is almost exclusively republican.
@@Reggie2kj unfortunately
to put it simply yea. the e.c voted for president. not the ppl. ur vote is like a poll but they don't have to vote for who you tell them to vote for
Bottom line: Electoral college) makes the decision of who becomes President. People's vote is just to see who is more popular among the Public At large to see how people can be manipulated using specific face to satisfy specific socio-political and economic private plans. Simple.
I'm stealing this
Well said
That part!!
Yes! Well said. So voters should keep this in mind in the end. So no matter who wins, there is no need to attack those who voted opposite of you. Keep the peace and remain calm. You only helped to decide who is most popular.
But what if it was the other way around?
Or what if the most suited and who arguably has the more geuine conscience loses because of this compromising system is at play? Isn't it just unfair?
Who’s watching this in 2024?
me
Me!!!@@EmanToledo-q6v
Trump won again
Its ok, Trump won popular vote too
ted ? No one if they are actually educated.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-Benjamin Franklin
A president no matter how chosen is not allowed to violate the law or violate anyone's civil rights. The wolves may have elected a wolf as president but no president be they wolf or sheep has the power to make the sheep dinner.
You missed some-
"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ... Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
@@robertjarman3703 A popular vote doesn't mean the same thing as an informed vote. and a popular candidate doesn't mean the same thing as a good candidate.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 Neither does it mean that the less popular candidate is the better one.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 And a good candidate isn't necessarily a good president (or senator or governor or whatever). What makes a good candidate isn't the same thing as what makes that person good at the job he or she is running for.
I just don't understand why electoral votes aren't distributed by percentages. For instance if California voted 60% republican and 40% democrat, 32 votes out of their 54 be cast for the republican candidate and the remaining 22 be cast for the democratic candidate (rather than all 54 for the republican candidate). This would be an easy amendment to pass as opposed to the overall abolishment of the electoral college and would give power to all voters, even in safe states, while still respecting the balance of state votes based on population and constitutional integrity.
Yes that would be ideal. A couple of states have a system like that such as Nebraska.
+Mark Rebok YES. THIS. Why not this, America?
Further thought: I think under a system that doesn't distribute state votes as all or nothing might also mitigate the problem of other parties being a non-presence in American politics by giving them the minor amounts of representation that they do earn.
+MegaKaitouKID1412 I live in Brazil, in America. We count the number of total votes, without a college or something. If a candidate gets 50%+1 votes, it wins. Plus, we have much more big parties, which contribute against rotation.
Felipe Vasconcelos Here in Canada, we do kind of have districts, but one district = one vote to a specific local candidate to represent your district in the house of commons, and then whatever party gets the most representation in the house of commons of all of the parties, the head of that party becomes the prime minister. A majority is not required, as we have three major parties in Canada-- Liberal, Conservative, and NDP-- plus a few of the little guys tend to get one district somewhere.
MegaKaitouKID1412 Does that mean that you have indirect elections?
People love to forget that the US works as a federation of states instead of a centralized country.
Correct. Not a 'pure' democracy, but a democratic republic.
Greasy King Democratic republics can decide their presidents by popular vote. Why not? Just look up for other republics around the world. Most of them do popular vote!!
Then why would you use FPTP and a system where electors can vote for whoever they want?
tommymolek Because those other republics are not federations of semi-independent states. Do you know the first thing about how the US was founded and conceived?
LesPaul2006 USA isn't a federation, a federation (proper), a conventional federation is like that of Switzerland or Russia, USA is a centralised union
It will just make more sense if they just use everyone’s votes and see who got more
no that’s a horrible idea 😂 there’s a reason why electoral college remains a thing and it’s so that politicians can’t prey on the uniformed. If the popular vote decided president it would be extremely dangerous as a candidate can campaign using false information and sway the public. Leaving it to representatives allows candidates to have to persuade the extremely knowledgeable
@dead shot its the other way around.
@@christianrichmond4884 no it isn't wtf
@@alexyepiz2448 isnt that already happening 😂😂😂
@dead shot it is the misinformed simple minded people that is the majority, hence the popular vote.
Media: Your vote counts, go out and vote!
Americans: I'm going to make a difference and vote!
Electoral College: lol
Exactly!
There are never more than two viable candidates. That's the problem. There can't be only 2 mindsets on issues in this country. Damn, we get 50+ choices for Miss America!? Two choices are way easier to manipulate.
There are usually only two viable candidates because only two parties have made themselves and their respective platforms appealing to a broad array of voters across the nation. Smaller third parties are usually single issue and only appeal to small segments of the electorate.
Nonsense. There are two parties because we use a plurality electoral system that makes it a waste to vote for third parties.
No, we have two parties because too many people (such as yourself) say "it's a waste to vote for 3rd parties" so they keep voting for terrible candidates from the other parties. The media, happy to simplify their lives, supports this by only inviting the 2 candidates, only talking about the 2 candidates, etc.
+secretspy1:
A) I don't think that 3rd parties are generally more tied to democrats -- that may be true of the Greens, but that's not true of Libertarians, Constitution Party, etc. Therefore any suppositions made on this flawed assumption is likely wrong
B) Voting for a 3rd party may work out similar to not voting in terms of actually deciding the electoral vote outcome in the state, but that's NOT the same as not voting. I've done my civil duty, I've voted for a decent candidate (vs one of several bad choices), I've sent a message (admittedly small) that we're not all sheep who will always vote for whatever morons the 2 main parties put up, and I've increased the likelihood (ever so slightly) of some 3rd party candidate having a chance in the future
C) Voting for a 3rd party candidate is certainly NOT the same as voting for the other party -- it's proclaiming that I refuse to vote for either of them.
D) There was never ANYYYYYYYYYY chance I was going to vote for Hillary regardless. If she, Hitler, and Satan were the only ones on the ballot, I'd write-in someone (anyone) else and hope that my 3rd party vote decided things.
+secretspy1: I get what you're saying, but ultimately decided another way. Honestly, if Trump and Hillary were polling super close in my state, I'd be more likely to vote for Trump on the off chance that my 1 vote could make the difference. However, that's not the case, so I chose to use my vote to protest the parties' decision to nominate morons and expect me to vote for one of them.
sooooo.... what's the point of ppl actually going out and voting?
thx man, I got it now :)
why cant they each get some electoral votes if it's 51% to 49%? why do the 51% take the whole thing?
Ivan Nava That's exactly how I feel. For example, if California gets a million votes for a Republican nominee, and get a million and one votes for the Democratic nominee, all of their 55 of their votes shouldn't automatically go to the Democratic nominee. And for what it's worth, I'm a Democrat saying this.
The number of electoral colleges votes should reflect how the people actually voted, like in Maine and New Hampshire. Otherwise, you get into situation like this election where a candidate can win the overall popular vote, but still lose the election because they didn't get enough electoral votes. Our current process contributes to the "my vote doesn't matter" mentality.
MrSaxmanJones but your vote does matter because like you said in your example that one extra vote can dictate who wins the entire electoral vote for that state.
+jmommie23
using that same example though, the other 1mil didn't count bcs the other party got 1 more... so her vote only counts if it's in favor of even the tiniest majority
Never answered the question in the title. Does your vote count? I could infer no.
+EqualsThreeable Depends on your state. Most states require the Electoral College to vote in accordance with their voters. And there are very very very few instances in American history where an Electoral College voter has gone against his voters.
+Neighborbob No, not in "very very very few instances". The electoral collage has voted against their voters over eighty times. Thats eight*y*, 80, not eight. That high number certainly doesn't need three "very"s to emphasize how small it is.
I am to lazy to do primary reseach, but I get this from Adams Ruins Everything's video "Why The Electoral Collage Ruins Democracy", hosted on youtube by collage humor.
CPG grey also did a fantastic video on it.
80 out of tens of thousands of electors. Of the last two of this decade, one was an accidental misvote and one was in protest of DC's lack of a vote in Congress. Every 4 years 538 electors are selected. And most years not a single one goes against their pledged candidate.
Neighborbob On average there are 1.4545(repeating) "misvotes" every election.
To be fair, most of them are probably back when the electoral collage actually had a purpose, when transportation was slower and some time could pass before the election and a new president was inaugurated, and the situation could change in that time.
Olvirki And in the last 20 years there were 2. Its not a major issue.
"A Republic, if you can keep it".
Yeah, look at pelosi the alcoholic.
She is a caveman.
If america were to form into a direct democracy, the nation will fall and there would be unlawfull judgement and control of the people.
@@orionm4254 How do you figure the will of the People is an "Unlawful (one L thanks)Judgement and control of the People when we have 2 other Branches of Government to prevent it-and it will truly represent the will of the People. Don't you mean the Will of the Republican Party? Don't you?.
@@vernonsheldon-witter1225 direct democracy would not be fair considering it is a mob controlled government. "It is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives" in which case majority is the winner. I my self am not a republican or Democrat, I simply have reasons in which case I am independent.
We can keep it easily.....the people’s republic is protected by the armed percentage of the American people....when the American government falls,”We The People” will not only still be standing but still moving forward.
More than electoral college, it's the "winner takes all" system that is problem. I think they should just share seats in electoral college of the state based on proportion of votes for each party. This way each vote will be valued, all states will be important, and also a third party can participate and have impact
P R that and they have also limited the size of the House of Representatives (unconstitutionally I think). It should be much larger.
that would fix a lot of problems. the biggest issue isn't that the president can lose popular and win anyway, it's that there are tons of disenfranchised voters. think of how many people are democrat in texas or republican in california that aren't voting because they already know the states are going to vote X way. make it proportional and i guarantee a lot more voters would go out.
TJ Estelle It’s not unconstitutional; read the Constitution before talking. It says “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,” so it limits the maximum amount of Representatives that a state can have, but the only minimum that it guarantees is one Representative per state. Don’t spread misinformation
Rayan Rahmani if it is misinformation, it is coming from the US government. www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf. Also from the House of Representatives website. history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/
TJ Estelle Where exactly did either article say that it was unconstitutional? I was just skimming, but I didn’t see any mention of unconstitutionality. Even if they did, it doesn’t mean anything, read the portion of the Constitution that I put. It clearly only guarantees a minimum number of one Representative, and only limits the maximum number.
Anyone here for 2020 election guide?
yes
yes
Yes
Well, after almost triggering ww3, getting WHO out during pandemic and lot of such stuff in one year, I ain't surprised about it
@Fedor Scheglov yes
So, if you live in a "safe state" the answer is no you vote does NOT count.
Basically, like I live in RI which is a blue state and we rarely vote republican, so Hillary is pretty much guaranteed to get our Electoral Votes, so over here a vote for Trump is basically worthless because the outcome is almost certainly going to be in Hillary.
hillary's gonna win unfortunately
I would disagree with that as well. While it may be all but given that RI's electoral votes will go to Hillary, the percentages within your state and in the nation as a whole still send a message. If every Trump supporter stays home, Hillary will get 100% of the popular vote in RI, RI will be seen as a blue 'lock' forever, and Hillary will claim more of a mandate.
San Jose Sharks you obviously don't know what a "safe state" means. It doesn't go by every YEAR. President's are elected every 4...therefore a state is considered "safe" if since 1996, they have been a republican or Democratic Party winner. Ex : Kansas has been a safe state for the republicans since every election since 1996 it has gone to the Republican Party by electoral votes
It doesn't count regardless. If you happen to vote for candidate that won your state, you win the illusion of feeling your vote counted lmao
*"If your vote didn't count, they wouldn't try so hard to take it away. Don't vote because we want you too. Vote because they don't" - Samuel L. Jackson*
You are really quoting a sell out actor who is part of an occult and has zero wisdom?
Actually, the democrat party has proven today that they dont care about votes. They dont even try to get people on their side anymore. They dont care. Why? Because they have discovered its much easier just to manipulate the elections than to rely on the constitutional demoratic republic form of government we used to have.
The problem is that people think actors are their teachers
Interesting!
I still don't know how my vote counts.
It doesn’t, unless you’re in Florida, Ohio, or Georgia.
Biden is about to win the popular vote and Trump is about to win the electoral vote.
I think that answers the question by itself, it doesn't.
Simple. It doesn't matter at all.
"nice" video, but failed to really expand on what is actually going on and why.
@@Goombario37 Biden is about to win both now. Exciting.
I live in Australia! We do the popular vote. Fair and simple!
In Namibia also. It's a simple, democratic process
Australia literally is a dictatorship
Australia uses the Westminster system, doesn't it? So where's the question of using a national vote to elect a President or even a Prime Minister for that matter?
I think it should be that way in the US too. Just make it simple smh
@@janel-christine ok well then California and New York would just dominate the elections every year and small states would never get a say
5:04 "What is up Drama Alert Nation, I'm your host Killer Keemstar. Let's get right into the neeeews"
Was thinking the same lmao
Was looking for this comment XD
Actually more fucked up than the UK's system
+Ifan Dafydd
Actually not all that different from the UK's system. The House of Commons does double duty as a legislature and an electoral college, which is to be expected when the executive sits within the legislature.
+Ifan Dafydd The system is the way it is because the US isn't a single unified country in the same way as most others. The states hold a pretty significant degree of power, each one having a fully functional government and military capable of operating completely independently of the federal government.
TJ Cassidy It's not an electoral college. It's one member per constituency. Albeit much, much larger, the US states are essentially just fifty constituencies. And the fact that the constituencies in the UK are divided by population. And therefore much fairer because the constituencies actually have one representative per allocated percentage of the population, not up to fifty-five, like California, which must all be the same party.
Ifan Dafydd
It's an electoral college as far as supporting any executive from within its chamber goes.
+Ifan Dafydd I think it's the other way around.
Am I the only one that watched this multiple times and still didn’t fully understand?
Same here Patricia. I can't stand the fact that 3 times in history(I'm pretty sure 3) the popular vote was higher than the electoral vote. Electoral votes count, popular votes do not. Seems wrong to me. I can't get it through my head why we can't have just a popular vote system?
CV N because in this way presidents would totally ignore small population states. Their voices would not be heard at all. Why go to South Dakota if there’s not enough votes to matter? That’s why we do not have just a popular vote...
William Essick Now THAT does make sense, but there seems like there should be a better way to accomplish the desired results. 🤔
@@williamessick363 No, they wouldn't. Each person's vote would count equally no matter where they lived. Getting people to vote for you in South Dakota would be just as important as getting people to vote for you in The Bronx. Big states would not be voting as one bloc. Each person in that state would be voting how they chose. That means if 52% of the people in Iowa voted for the Republican and 48% voted for the Democrat, that 48% for the Democrat would still count in the big picture. As it stands now, states do vote as one bloc with only the votes for the winner of that state actually counting in the big picture. The two exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where the electoral votes are split by district. So it's sort of like Nebraska votes like three states and Maine votes like two states.
dmnemaine sure. But again as a politician are you going to travel to South Dakota? Or would you rather campaign in a more densely populated area?
Sad part is party’s only want their candidates to win, they aren’t really voting for what’s correct, they just want more members.
To me, the biggest problem with the Electoral College isn't that it gives more weight to smaller states but the "winner-take-all" method that most states use to pick partisan electors with. Change _that_ and you change the system. (Maine and Nebraska, for example, only award +2 electoral votes to their popular winner; the rest get awarded per each district's local popular winner.)
I would be a strong advocate have a national compact we're each state would agree to go away from winner-take-all and towards a proportional distribution by the popular vote.
The big problem is the American citizens vote doesn't matter
The unfortunate thing about popular vote also has to do with population. Prime example is Colorado: Western and Southern areas are mostly Republican/independent votes. Denver outnumbers them. Denver isn't the voice for the rest of Colorado, and without the representation from the electoral college their voices literally go unheard. Popular vote is not good representation.
@@treeneebeenee16 In 2020, Colorado had 9 EVs in the presidential election, which could hypothetically represent its popular vote to the nearest interval of 11%. The statewide popular vote was split 55-41, which could obviously yielded 5-4 EVs (by population), or 6-3 (using Maine's district method: 4-3 per districts + 2-0 for the winner = 6-3 overall) EVs.
Instead, the winner-take-all method meant Colorado contributed 9-0 EVs for one candidate only.
Again, the Electoral College is not the _biggest_ problem in the system, that goes to the "winner take all" method of states representing ONLY their popular winner.
@@treeneebeenee16 Good point the reason why Nigeria is suffering.
The problem is not the electoral college system, the winner-takes-all system is.
Exactly. Winner-takes-all electors in each state is very bad. The system should allow electors to represent a percentage of state voters (or represent a small region in a state) in order to represent voter's voices correctly.
@Jackie It's just closed to majority vote if US is not going to get rid of electoral college system. It's better than nothing.
Otherwise, I think it's strange for ballots printed with candidate names but the actual voters are electors. And faithless elector can happen sometimes, it will create a huge dispute if they changed the result. 🤔
That's why the congress and senate are good though. Its not necessarily a winner takes all between the two parties (hence ideas)
yeah 4 million people in cali voted for Donald but their vote doesn’t matter because it controlled by democrats
The video neglects to mention that the electors within the electoral college are not required to vote based on their constituency's votes (26 states and D.C. "bind" their electors with oaths and fines, but the rest do not). This allows electors in the remaining states to betray the voting public and vote against the candidate for whom the public voted. And in giving ALL of a state's electoral points to the majority (instead of apportioning points by the percentage of votes), those who are not in the majority see their votes become worthless, reduced to zero, and their voice is left unheard.
The electoral college was a cobbled-together compromise at the time of its inception, as no other agreement could be reached between the concepts of a popular vote and allowing congress to elect the next president, and a better solution regarding suffrage (women and slaves not yet being allowed to vote) could not be found.
Needless to say, things have changed, and this antiquated and now corrupt system should be abolished in favor of a popular vote. One citizen - one vote. No state worth more than another. Everyone's voice heard.
I agree, well said👍🏽
Agreed!
Much as I hate the EC, in practice this doesn't happen. iirc, there has been a total of 15 faithless electors (7 of which were in 2016), because of the way they are selected. Those singular votes aren't enough to change the college in any but the tightest of tight races.
Sounds like a solid idea until you realize that politicians would only pander to the masses in California, New York, and big metro areas. Then what happens to the needs of rural Iowa farmers who grow our food? Or the needs of the oil workers in the Dakotas who power our cars?
@@dominan7996 1, As opposed to now, where the majority of campaigning is done in the 9 swing states. 2, to win a popular vote. You need more than just the big metro areas. 3, this is why we have congress as the most powerful branch, and it's job is to represent the states with more granularity.
I think if the president can’t do at least 20 push-ups and pass a high school history end of year test they can’t be president
@Ares you mean in the future
secret is to make every state a swing state.
lol
So.... chaos
@@sleepysingularity yea and let the uneducated masses take over everything
As it should
or if your vote aligns with the majority of voters in your state
This didn’t answer my the question
Victor Perez electoral college is basically
“well yes your vote counts but actually no”
Actually an Electoral college is "America is an ever changing nation in size and value, so lets make sure the votes can reflect the change of our nations shape." It's a great solution.
Or did it? Lol
The answer is no
The future is hazy. Ask again later.
The bottom line if a state has 55 electoral votes (California) and one candidate gets 30. The other candidate should still get their remaining 25. Otherwise if you among those who voted for the trailing candidate , (YOUR VOTE HAS JUST BEEN CHANGED)!!!!!
That's how it originally was, but as each state adopted winner-takes-all, the other states had to do the same to ensure that one party doesn't get an unfair advantage. Ask your state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact if they haven't already, and we can get rid of this stupid system.
Another thing that should be abolished.. Felons not having the right to vote. It's an archaic practice and needs to be revised. Especially in a country that is 40% felons.
+May Day Where did you get that piece of misinformation? Presidential electors did not ride their horses to Washington to cast their ballots for President. Electors met in their respective state capitals to cast their ballots and those ballots were sent to a joint session of Congress to be opened and counted. The electors may or may not have rode horses to their respective state capitals. The electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of communication.
+May Day Once again, electors DID NOT ride horses to Washington to cast their ballots. The electors cast their ballots in their respective state capitals and those ballots were mailed to the Congress. Now, why do you think that the electoral college should be abolished? Do you have a better plan for electing the POTUS?
+May Day CGP Grey has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the electoral college. Grey doesn't even know what type of government the US has. Grey has based his entire argument on the fallacy that the US is or should be a so called 'fair democracy' . Grey then completely downplayed the federal structure of the US government. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
They missed the fact that the electoral college electors don’t have to follow their state’s
popular vote. They are called faithless electors. Probably would have made their video too messy explaining that.
Why can’t we just use the popular vote? Every vote counts the same period.
Interesting thought, however the alternative presented (National Popular Vote) would mean New York and Los Angeles would count for something like 40% of the vote, completely disenfranchising most of the populus. 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Not ideal, wouldn't you agree ?
Those two cities combined have about 9.4% of the population.
@@Jamesleekirk But it is ideal that 40% of the people in the country can find their vote doesn't add up to as much political power (electors) as a much smaller fraction of the population wields? That would be just as unfair wouldn't it? So the EC actually DOESN'T make things fair... it just makes things unfair in a different way.
At least with a 1 Person 1 Vote system then everyone has the same right: to chose their leader.
With the current system 3 California voters need to speak up to be heard over 1 Montana voter.
Millions of Republican Voters in 'Blue States' can't influence anything, nor Millions of Democrat Voters in 'Red States'... and that creates problems like politicians treating people as if they WERE states. Not just for electoral purposes but for political decisions. Trump, for example, has spoken constantly of Democrat Cities, Democrat States, Democrat Governors... but in those cities and states there were MILLIONS of America Citizens - Trump's constituents every bit as much as Americans in Republican Cities and States - who voted Republican at the previous election, voted for Trump... but they didn't give him any EVs, so they are 'Blue' to his administration.
This is staggeringly corrosive to the nation.
@@KentRigeI It's called the united STATES of america. Each STATE holds it's own election. The STATES decide the president. NOT the people. That's the agreement. People decide their senators and congressmembers (legislative branch). States decide the executive branch. Seperation of powers.
@@Jamesleekirk but afterall, USA is United States of America - brothers and sisters. States may differ in judgement, they all win, and they all too suffer from their choices.
One possible solution could be rather than "winner take all" for a particular state, the electoral votes are distributed between candidates based on the percentage of popular votes they receive for that state. Some states already do this, and if all states did it would make the Electoral College more representative of the people as a whole.
But what if the electoral votes in a state were saying 3, and a candidate gets 46% of the vote? Do we go into decimals?
The Keeper of the High Ground so 48% of voters could potentially gain 66% of electoral votes
@@jamiengo2343 I think going to decimals would be fine?
@@jamiengo2343 i was thinking this. say its 50-50 Blue/Red Respectively. these numbers are low but same general concept.
501 Votes for Blue and 500 For Red.
each party gets 1 vote, but the party that had the most votes wins the extra point........that or you could just pit both candidates ina fist fighting contest and then who ever wins gets the extra point.
Chris Jones No it wont. The results in the end will basically be the same
i think you left out the part about how electoral votes are won or awarded
jeff medvin that's what I'm trying to figure out... I want to know who exactly gets selected for the electoral college too.
I think they are awarded by population. It can change every ten years with the census. If the population of a state goes up, that state can get more electoral votes. If Dems or Republicans win a state with votes, they get all the electoral votes for that state.
jeff medvin each party for each state chooses electors who essentially swear to vote for that party's candidate. Whichever candidate wins in that state, the electoral votes go to their party. So for example, since Trump won popular vote in Florida, all 27 (or however many electoral votes) went to him, or the Republican party, meaning that the electors chosen by the Republican party now have the power to vote for president and vice president, and so they vote for him.
they could potentially change it though, right? They could make Pence President if they wanted.
U have to win the popular vote in the state to receive their electors.
1 - so your vote matters more in swing state than in safe state?
2 - does your vote even matter in safe state?
I still don't really feel like my vote counts. The only difference I feel now is that my vote counts less. In every explanation I see about this I find that they just repeat and beat around the bush, making it seem like it's sorta kind of okay.. when it's not. The worst part about this is that I know California is a very.. one sided state. I feel the same way about NY too but possibly a bit less. Anyway, I don't want them to decide the president regardless of what literally every other state everyone else has to say about it. I'm not saying cali and Ny shouldn't be counted for but I am saying we all should be counted for equally. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and I'll accept that if I am. But as of right now I feel this is complete BS.
I agree with you.
Personally I feel as if you should have to take an IQ test before you can vote, though, too.
garnet1223~ Agreed! All voters vote should count!
now i understand how trump did won while hilary has big number.
I don't think states with fewer people should have the same amount of say as larger states. If the majority of people of a country want one candidate over another, then the candidate that accurately represents the most people should win. Some people say it's mob rule, I guess they're right, but having 20,000 people have the same power as 200,000 people (just random numbers) is awful.
I agree, however, that I don't feel like my vote counts.
YOUR Avatar portrays a good art stylization of an attractive woman, better than these fucking anime weebs that put ugly anime girls in their avatars. kek
For anyone who was confused:
Each state has a number of Electoral College votes assigned to it by population, if a presidential candidate wins a majority of a state they get all the votes of that state, in the end whatever candidate gets the most Electoral College votes is president.
I'd love to get some clarification here because I keep seeing it phrased this way:
"IF a presidential candidate wins a majority of a state they get all the votes of that state." In my mind, that "if" implies that there is an alternative option and an alternative distribution of electoral votes (outside of a winner-takes-all system) for each state.
I mean, is it not a winner-takes-all system where the candidate who wins the popular vote automatically receives all of the electoral votes and that is the only way this works? If so, why does this statement/explanation always have an "if," like there's another way this system works?
THAT'S what I find confusing. It should just be "THE presidential candidate who wins the majority/popular vote gets all of that states electoral votes." Does this distinction only make sense to me? ...No? ...Mkay.
Welp I just learned that two states don't have this "winner-takes-all" system so...yeah. I'm just gonna leave that there. Lol
@@redvelvetcake813 yeh, it just means “if they win, they get all the votes, and if they don’t win, the other candidate gets all the votes”
A potential alternate system could be one where they get a proportional amount of votes. So if one state had 20 votes was 75% democrat and 25% republican, the state would get 15 democrat votes and 5 republican votes
Garry Hall Ah ok. It doesn’t look like any states in the U.S. follow this rule specifically for general elections since the two states that don’t have a winner-takes-all system follow a “congressional district method” instead. Do you have any examples of a proportionate system like that here in the US or elsewhere?
@@redvelvetcake813 nope, it was just hypothetical
I guess the reason they specify "If you win, you get all the votes" is because it could potentially work the way I suggested instead, but it doesn't! :-)
Who watching this on election day 2016?!
I fell asleep, but my dogs are
tyrantdawn V Me dude
watching this for some bullshrimp ass difficult class. sorry ms byrd I cant keep up!
tyrantdawn V me!
Am watching this while trump will grab u by the ass. hhhhhhh
Since I live in Europe, my vote does not count (towards the American presidential election).
Consider yourself lucky.
and since I live in India my vote also does not count in America
Do away with Electoral College. Do away with Popular vote. Introduce partial electoral college based on popular vote.
A candidate gets electoral votes in a state in proportion to the number of votes cast for him or her in that state.
It should not be binary.
Here the funny thing, if you are an American living in Europe you can vote for president but if your an American living in Pueto Rico you can't.
If you not an American citizen, you do not even get to vote in any American election.
5:01
What's up drama alert nation i'm your host KILLER KEEMSTARRR LEEEEEEEET'S GET RIIIIIIIGHT INTO THE NEWS!
😂
Rome oh come on
Rome omg 😂😂😂😂😂
Lmao I knew that sounded familiar
So why don't we just have 1 vote = 1 vote. Like most countries.
What you mean
+austin hubbard No electoral college to "filter" the votes. Every vote counts equally, undiluted.
+Sonny Corleone But the current system makes it even more important to win New York and California, because even if you only get 51% of the vote there, you get 100% of the votes that come along with them. Which makes them the game changers.
Because the bastards in charge would lose their power to elect who they choose. Your vote doesn't and never did count, this shit is rigged beyond your imagination.
well i guess we could just go back to having a king........in which case i offer my services.
Best illustration on youtube.
so why the fuck did i even vote?
so Trump could win
BroFessor Sqrl Harambe
Not true. The electors do not have to go with the majority. They can simply go against them, which has been done numerous times in the past.
Antone'a taylor What's your source?
Correct. It just carries a small fine if they choose to.
What this video failed to mention is that candidates almost always ignore safe states, especially opponent's safe states because it is pointless to even try campaigning there. This is not how an election should work.
At times,they do campaign in their opponent's state,mostly due to a major increase in distrust in their selected candidate
***** But it is incredibly rare. In most cases safe states are ignored or at best not focused on too heavily because it's a waste of time and money. That's not right.
Jesse Campbell People in fly-over states would still have their votes count though. As it stands, people's votes are being thrown away. For example, if you voted for Clinton in Florida, your vote means NOTHING. And this is happening on different scaled in every state where winner take all is a thing, which is 48 of 50. Unless you vote for the state winner, your vote is meaningless. It is literally a wasted vote.
Not only that but people in North Dakota's votes carry more weight than people in California. Every vote should be equal, every vote should count. The electoral college is promoting a system where some peoples votes count more than others.
Trenton Pottruff Agreed
ua-cam.com/video/V6s7jB6-GoU/v-deo.html
The drama alert music hahaha
4:51
Well yeah it's stock so yeah
It's time for Tube-News
So who’s here on Election Day?
If voting changed anything, they would not let you do it.
fax man
Well let's vote just in case.
exactly
wow, you are so wise. You should be president.
Facts
POV: your at school watching this in social study’s.
What school you from? I’m from poynter
@@stormygames644 same lol
@@stormygames644 powdersville
I actually am, lol.
Ours is called World Studies but yeah
I might sound ignorant here, but what was wrong with popular vote?
to prevent crazies from becoming prsident, i think
Hillary is about to win the popular vote 😂😂
Pabs Well that went kinda backwards didn't it
if it's supposed to prevent crazies from taking office, then i think the electoral college is broken
***** hold up, uh it's not possible to be racist against a white person, and what are you saying-- high school dropouts and the mentally ill's votes are insignificant? because that is 100% not the case. Every vote counts as much as the next one.
I still don`t understand why do we need the ELECTORS as PERSONS?!
Why not applying the system automatically?
Why do need persons to do something already decided?!
CGP Grey's video is better.
CGP Grey's videos are better at distorting facts and giving misleading misinformation.
+EddyBud08 Huh? I meant exactly what I said. Please reread my comment. CGP Grey distorts facts and twists numbers and creates fanciful scenarios in order to deliberately warp young minds into believing that the electoral college is a really bad way to elect the President.
+D Smith But is it a good way ? Why would you f.e. have a winner-take-all/first-past-the-post on state level ? I see why you would apply first-past-the-post on a national level (even though I don't agree with it), its a simple solution that at least makes sure the candidate with the highest number of actual supporters gets elected.
It doesn't has to be a one big national elections. Many countries have regional elections, the US is far from alone in this.
What baffles me is why would you design a system based around first-past-the-post on a regional level. Why would you design a system where the people that voted against the winning candidate and even those who stayed at home and didn't take part in the election actually end up supporting the winning candidate in that state on the national level.
Its like they designed the system to make winners losers and vice versa.
+Olvirki Good question. The states are free to appoint their respective electors in any manner of their choosing. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding FPTP, winner take all or popular election of Presidential electors. As far as FPTP goes, its simple. FPTP encourages a strong two party system. A strong two party system encourages political moderation. The electoral college was designed to ensure that the winning candidate enjoys a broad distribution of support nationwide rather than having all support concentrated in a few densely populated coastal urban areas. I hope this all makes sense to you.
D Smith Thanks. I might make some counter arguments :).
A pure FPTP on a national level is simple, the guy with the most votes wins. But in the vote has already been divided into a bunch of regional elections with voting power not directly tied with population and having the electors split on the state level by popular vote between candidates is not much more complex. Its still FPTP on a national level, the guy with the most electors wins, even though the state election is not FPTP, so a strong two party with political moderiation would still be encoureged (I would argue get rid of FPTP completely, many countries don't have it at all and do fine, but that is another argument) .
Without the electors-as-a-group-are-selected-by-FPTP-part on a state level the boosted voting power of smaller states still exist, so having them all vote together prevents a candiate from gaining a lot of support in some places while getting little support in other places ? Unless there are more than two big candidates, which the FPTP on a national level ensures, this feature is useless, because candidate A is strong where the B is weak and vice versa, so neither has more widespread support than the other . You would have to have at least three candidates for FPTP on a state level to ensure widespread support.
this doesn't explain why people should vote if electoral college is what matters
I am completely against changing the Constitution. For me personally, this is the number one reason I was against Obama. But the electoral college is the one exception. Its supposed to work like this. The peoole of the US make their votes, and the votes eliminate candidates down to two people. That is what today was meant to be, but the media already decided for us a long time ago. The electoral college now comes in for the purpose of making sure we didn't make any mistake on a candidate that could ruin us, and back then, it was to mame it fair. We choose two candidates, then the electoral college can only vote for the 2 people we have chosen. So in a sense, your vote didn't count. But enough votes may influence your states decision. Its a pretty horrible system. Turn on a Democratic news channel and you'll see Hillary is in the lead. Now turn to a Republic channel and you'll see Trump is in the lead. That makes no sense. It is the game played to bring us down to two candidates. The game that decided a long time ago and why many candidates dropped out earlier in the game. Voting is still important to a degree, but yes, your vote was mostly a waste. Sorry
Charlene Tan because the popular vote wins individual states, if everyone in your party stays home, the opposing party wins your state, even if the state is owned by your party
Miister Josh you're against changing the constitution? okay. but how do you feel about any of the amendments? those were changes to the constitution...
Uh, because individual votes are what determines what electors go to the electoral college and who they'll vote for
majority in each states dictates were electoral college will go... so it matters.
4:11 "Democrats could count on states like Michigan"
The video came out in 2012.
@@davidstorrs That's the point, it's ironic. Several states that voted Obama in 2012 went for Trump in 2016.
@@SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath Doh. /me/woosh. Thanks.
"Hey democrats! Bad news..."
2020 is gonna be super interesting, can’t wait to see the results
me (a non american) trying to figure out y tf did they use this system and how to follow live results of trump v biden
The electoral college works in a way that makes it so that the most extreme elements or candidates don't get elected.
They “couldnt” use traditional means of most voted for candidate wins because USA had slaves that could vote. Rather than letting those numbers sway tremendously, they settled for slaves counting as 3/5s to keep things more “fair”. Good ol politics of course -.- broken systems from the very beginning but we won’t ever truly fix anything.
i know how it works i was just making a joke 🌚
"The most successful one party system is disguised as a two party system, given the people an illusion that they decide" - Stalin
do you remember that Stalin was batshit insane and killed millions plus sent anyone rumored to be a political rival to the gulag.
I smell a little communism
@@Idk-ky4kb do you remember that quote is still accurate.
Hes just mocking them
@@gingerale2131 I smell a little conservatism.
Basically what I'm getting is that the only vote that truly matters is the electoral vote. So what's the point in even voting??
Saaaame
EXACTLY!!! They need to get rid of that
Because if you don’t vote - and everyone else in your state doesn’t vote - then your state could swing to the other party. So yeah, every vote does count.
Joe Carroll but you don’t get to choose the president. Lol still useless, you vote and then what? Wait for a person who’s opinion really matter choose the president even tho they already lost
Yo be socially accepted
I learnt more about the US Presidential election in this video than I had learn/studied in my BA Political Science Honors 😂😂😂
Nuh uh? Lol. BA? Like College?
@@graceandtruth2413 Ya, Bachelor Of Arts, in India Classes 11 & 12 are Higher Secondary School, Bachelor of Arts/Science are College, Master of Arts/Science and above are University.
It still doesn't explain who appoints the electoral college and who the electors actually are. I never understood that.
Answer: “your vote counts, but only on swing states”
Sounds fair ? Or what do you think
False, Trump won Michigan...
false, the electoral representatives are NOT required to vote for the popular vote in any state. so no matter what the voters choose, they can pick whoever they want(who is paying them the most)
Eh kind of. I mean, look at Texas. Texas might actually flip blue even though it's been a safe state for a really long time. I do understand your point but I don't think it's entirely true.
@@simonquemo7525 How you can see that statement and say "sounds fair" is beyond me
So no, an individual's vote doesn't count at all.
Sometimes take maryland for example the eastern shore of maryland is conservative and has a lower population while the western shore of maryland is liberal and has a higher population that means the conservatives are not represented because they are a minority and so their votes don't matter which in my opinion is very undemocratic
Yes...the US is the land of the free...why would you say otherwise?
Jennifer Shelley it does because in many states the electors are made to respect the popular vote
if you and 53% of your state votes Republican, then your electoral votes are Republican, therefore if, you live in say, California, and A LOT of people vote republican, then the states large number of votes is also Republican. it's an incredibly smart system
+SirThePickle You are correct! The election for Presidential electors is a state election just like governor or Senator. If a candidate wins 53% of the vote, do they win 53% of a Senate seat or 53% of the governors chair? Of course not!!
i hate the winner takes all approach of the electoral college. i live in louisiana so when i vote for a democrat my vote is basically void. the electors should be given out based on percentage of votes won in each state. so if u get 40% of the vote you should get 40% of the electors in that state. that would definitely boost voter turnout because for years i never voted for the simple fact i felt my vote didnt count because of the state i live in.
I don't understand why this is still not implemented, probably because democrats or republicans think they would be giving the other an advantage. At the moment let's say you are a republican in California, there is no point in voting. It would even allow for third parties to maybe get a seat or two somewhere along the way
YES! This confuses me sooo much.
The maker of this video choose not to mention that the electoral college protect states with small populations in many ways. If the popular vote determined the election, then candidates would not campaign in states with small populations, they would not give much attention to small states when they are making laws, they would allow big businesses to do things in these states that may be unfair, the police may not be properly funded, hospitals will not be properly funded,. Government understructure will be neglected. They will just be neglected. Presidents will focus on large states while in office. The founding fathers understood this when they were putting the constitution together. Remember they saw the way England did business, taxation without representation. They were concerned about this and didn't want that to happen in the new America.
@@daniellerocha2808 what you say it completely true and valid. The question is why if you win a state with 65% of the votes why do you get all the electors and why don't you get only 65% of the electors of that state. Your entire argument is still valid when you use a procentual elector division as opposed to winner takes all.
"Does your vote count?"
Chinese and russian hackers: "well yes but actually no"
Or I didn't vote but my vote got counted...
@@gopsda are you serious ?
@@davidedmundtochi5228 "Or I didn't vote but my vote got counted..." says the hackers. Thought that was implicit.
there's no hacker that can break in that easily, stop eating fake news
@@blahvn HI there :) i suggest ya check out new documentary about us election system hacking ^_^ Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America's Elections (2020)
Girl why can't Charli Damelio just do an Instagram poll and ask "Biden or Trump"
Lemme Leave Chile I think she’ll get canceled for sharing her political opinion considering how famous she is 😂🤣
Dame now if that's how people are going to start voting then this world is beyond fixing
Who
Most youth are progressive (I was before I turned 18 some months back) and most will vote Biden
Who tf is Charli Damelio?
Thanks god I live in Latvia, out of thoes undemocratic "states". We count all peoples' votes equaly. There are no regions, where some peoples' votes are more valuable than others.
+Laughing Ape We have a few cities with more people living in them than in your whole country, Latvia is roughly the size of an average state, so of course it doesn't have "regions" lol. But I agree, the electoral college is stupid.
+Justin “Credible” Love We do have regions. We don't have regions that have different value for peoples' votes. :)
+Laughing Ape ✌
Latvia is smaller than New Jersey. It has to be easier to deal with politics in a smaller, less populated nations. We have too many nuts here.
The votes are counted equally just some states need to get more votes because of their population. For instance if I live in Florida (I do) we NEED 29 votes but in the end all of it equals out into one person.
I'm super curious if there is a truly valid reason for the electoral college because I'm still not convinced. The reason that everywhere seems to give is "it makes it so that the majority can't control the elections" which makes it sound like the electoral college is providing some kind of balance. But when it gets down to it, the majority of the people SHOULD have more representation. I've heard arguments against the electoral college saying that it exists so that the poor population will not gain more voting power, and so far that seems like the most valid reason for it's existence.
Ketchme17 not to mention that the system is a winner take all making it seem like a state is deep red or deep blue when it fact it's more nuanced and often more purple, a person who voted blue in a red state doesn't get their voice heard because of the EC gives the votes to the majority, were as a one vote system would show the nuances and proably help third parties as well
The voting system, as it was originally intended, was never meant to have the most popular candidate win. It wasn't even meant to be decided by the people themselves, but by the states. You see, the founders knew that when the majority were in control that they would "customize" the country to their liking while ignoring or even outright oppressing the minorities.
usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/Why-Keep-The-Electoral-College.htm
I think the electoral college is good state wide, for policies, so that the populated urban cities don't get whatever policies they won't. But for the national election, it should be popular vote
OverlordLucs
No, the national election should not be decided exclusively from the popular vote. There has to be a balance somewhere to keep the majority from utterly overruling the minority.
God is Not Not Dead The problem is what majority and what minority? What I mean by that is when people bring up this part of the electoral college is this type of vague blanket statement is used "it's so the majority can't control the elections". But that concept isn't usually dissected very much. Say that the president only has power over economic powers and we look at the electoral college, clearly in this situation we'd get this measurement of majority and minority from levels of income. In that scenario, the argument would be that if more people are wealthy then the president will only cater to wealthy people if it was a popular vote and not to the entire population. However, since the electoral votes are divided by state, not by state's average income ranking or anything like that, this "balance" is meaningless. With the electoral college, all that happens is a wealthy person's vote in one state can be worth less than a wealthy person's vote in another state. My point is, the electoral votes aren't divided by minority or majority of people's political views, so the "balance" that people refer to is totally meaningless.
Do you think it would be efficient if the electoral point system for states exists, but instead of representatives it is determined by the popular vote in those states?
There could be rules so people from a largely populated state don’t change their residency so they can outnumber their opposition in another state.
The electoral votes from this system could be distributed proportionally rather than all or none. I heard some states already do this, but with the current representative system.
So.. Your vote dosent count..? I still didn't get it, and who gets to be part of the electoral college and how do they pick in who to vote for?
The parties pick the electors for each state. So, in CA, for example, the CA Republican party picks 55 Republican electors, and the CA Democratic party picks 55 Democratic electors. The people then vote for which slate of electors get to cast CA's 55 electoral votes - the Republican slate or the Democratic slate (the Libertarians do the same, as to all the other minor parties, but they have never won). Yes, your vote counts - but you don't vote for president and vice president. You actually vote for a slate of electors. The electoral college has been essential to our republic for several centuries, and was a brilliant invention.
*Hint* it wasn't a brilliant invention DTT
+Death to Truthers ...so why do they need actual "electors" and not just give them the number of electoral college votes automatically? That is like saying that they have an option, when they do not.
California's population divided by electoral votes 39,144,818/55=711723.9
Wyoming population divided by electoral votes 586,107/3=195369
711723.9/195369=3.64
So is someone from Wyoming worth more than someone from California
Even less if your liberal and in texas or conservative in California
Sam Kemp
LET'S GET RRRRRRRRRRRIGHT INTO THE NEEEEEEEEWWWWWWSSSS!!!
With all said and done this video was pretty good. You can tell that it was released in 2012 before politics became so bloody polarized. If it had been released now I expect it would demonize the electoral college completely.
Ted ed would always be nuetral.
electoral college is not at all democratic tho so yeah lets burn it to the ground
@@ashutoshdwivedi4513 Ted-ed would try to be neutral it's hard to remove your bias when creating anything to be honest. especially something as polarising as the electoral college
I am looking for a way to recap last week's lesson in my American government and political science classes so we can proceed forward. this helps explain the basic issues and takes the focus off the drama, so thank you!
So essentially, the arguement that the electoral college gives small states a say is actually false. The only votes that matter are the those of the 11 biggest states. The fact that a candidate could lose 78% of the states, (39 out of 50) and still get elected shows a flaw in the system.
I feel like theyre still trying to account for the population in those states lol
Most definitely
Shawn Smith
11 is better than 2. CA and NY would decide the based on popular vote and candidates would only campaign in those states.
No it does not, because if it were a direct democracy that "flaw" would be even bigger.
The Wolverine
True and No.
The electoral college is not one set of electors. There are actually 2 sets of electors, one set is republican to other set democrats. If the democrats win, then the democrat electors vote in the electoral college and the same if the republicans win the state. If electors vote against the states popular vote, the party will simply replace them.
In the last election the were a few electors that voted for other candidates. Trump lost a couple votes and Clinton did also, but the were for third party candidates, not Trump or Clinton. Overall though, Clinton lost more electoral votes than Trump.
Your vote only matters in battleground states
In this video Michigan is considered a safe state
Michigan voted Republican this year however
Adrian Duran by 10 000 votes and they r still counting
Remember when california was red with regan?
ua-cam.com/video/V6s7jB6-GoU/v-deo.html
maybe you should do research in the last 10 elections and see which states have flipped or which states have been domaniant one part but have flipped a couple of times {see west virginia when bush won}