Is The Electoral College Unfair? - [Politics]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- Support the Channel:
www.subscribes...
www.buymeacoff...
All Social Links: bio.link/leath...
Questioning the existence of the Electoral College in the US had been especially in vogue these past few presidential elections, yet I think the question of whether or not the US should adopt the popular vote is moot and motivated by politics rather than with an eye towards real fairness.
How does nobody talk about the fact that in our supposed democracy, 80-90% of the votes for our chief executive do not count?
UA-cam: tinyurl.com/ts...
Bitchute: tinyurl.com/4d...
Rumble: tinyurl.com/4w...
Odysee: tinyurl.com/7e...
You should read the paper "testing theories of american politics" by Gilens et al.
It does not really matter what people vote for, elite opinions predict the behavior of politicians far more than what most people want.
Voting in California etc should be thought of as a vote of confidence, as it is in places like Singapore. Singapore is effectively a one party state. But they use the vote to see how happy the people are with them and if there is risk of instability. 90% for the party and 75% for the party are both no threat to their rule, but the second clearly shows that people are unhappy with the system and the party needs to change some of their actions.
I didn't know there was a paper that pretty much explained how my theory of modern US politics actually worked.
Nice, thanks for the reference
That paper was debunked
@@deus_vult8111 How so?
>Don Quixote
>Aristotle's Politics
>Dragonball
Hell yeah.
Truly, only the highest forms of literature.
He might be interested in Berserk if he likes manga, that manga is peak high literature.
It's a bit of a stretch to call a 49% a "minority" that will just keep on losing.
There's also zero empirical evidence that the electoral college has led to better socio-political outcomes vis a vis other popular vote systems.
While its true that the country was never supposed to be "a democracy" , you seem to conflate democracy with popular presidential votes. A democracy is specifically a system of sortition and direct popular participation in politics (direct democracy + allotment for leaders). Having a popular vote hardly gets us close to that.
6:25 Maine and Nebraska don't apportion their EC votes proportionally they portion them according to who wins the said congressional district.
Throw out the entire system of government. bring on The Games
YOUR FATE WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE GAMES
@@LeatherApronClubChannel next video explains The Games and the new order of government for the US lol
@@iZehta I'll do it. We'll need to work through some of the specifics
what are 'the games'? hunger games? haha
I think a more realistic/simple solution would be having the electoral votes be partitioned the same way as the popular vote. Like if a state with 10 votes has 60% vote democrat and 40% republican, 6 EVs go for Democrats and 4 EVs go for Republicans.
Makes too much sense, the establishment/owner$ would never go for it.
I don’t care what form of government we have as long as it’s homogeneous and for ITS Own.
"A minority-win is important for keeping people engaged with the system."
The current powers censor discussion to curb thought, dissent, and action, yet they can make - and have used - the same argument justify it's existence, such as, "Democracy and the free-world would be in jeopardy without censorship!" This argument that a minority win is good for the people because it keeps the system going presupposes that the system is good in-and-of-itself, and therefore it must be good for the people. Yet even as that statement says, the minority-win's purpose is not for positive outcomes, but for the preservation of the faith in the system. Thus, the system itself is fatally flawed.
Putting that aside, I think you should take a look at the series CGPGrey made on voting systems some years ago. Plenty of more valid points than the ones you've laid out in this video. However I'm to a point I think democracy is fundamentally flawed because:
1. Not all meaningful choices can be decided on by a vote, nor swiftly resolved, nor even allowed to be voted on in the first place
2. Devaluation of the vote through inflation of the voting supply
3. A lack of direct influence and mass plebbery devolves voting to gibs
4. Majority votes do not mean just outcomes (Me and my million friends have voted to take your stuff)
5. The masses are not leaders
6. The masses are not suited to control over shit they know nothing about
7. It's just a great way to trick people
I think it's telling that despite all the talk around how our system supposedly works we're still running things in the same way, but with a foreign power at the helm and an elaborate stage play for the plebs. I'd argue this covert control has been going on for thousands of years but I digress. Democracy seems suited only to places where things are stable and time is not an issue, or when the choices really don't matter such as deciding what to have for dinner.
If you live in a state that goes with the majority (i believe several blue states do this) it is possible for 100% of that states votes to be pointless
attack on titan fan takes on the electoral college
Without the electoral college, all the power would fall to the populated metro areas alone thereby, in effect, disenfranchising everyone else. Part of the wisdom of the US Constitution is the separation of powers and the plurality of ways representation is elected. Originally the Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. However, Senators became elected by popular vote by the 17th Amendment. This sort of tilted the power from State government to popular vote.
i like the way new hampshire does it, they have a huge state assembly. thoughts?
Why not just give votes based on districts won, like Maine and Nebraska already do
I think the implication that democracy is a good thing is overstated
Excellent content as always
The elite would primarily consider the cost of swaying votes in that system vs our current system.
Democracy proves that man cannot govern himself.
"Simpler" solution...Determine the size of Congress dynamically so that only one state can have just ONE representative. Then (less simpler) have a "Constitutional Convention" propose an amendment that each state would have district-based apportionment with the remaining two Electors determined by the statewide popular vote.
Yes. It was never meant to be fair.
I think a better fix would be for each state election to be scored by points based on percentage of votes, so instead of a 53% democrat victory in a state giving one vote they would get 53 points with the republican getting 47 points, that way your vote would still count even if your your party didn’t win the state election.
I think the problem with your fix is not necessarily what you’re trying to do but in the way your trying to do it.
If you did that that would weigh low population states super heavily over high population states
@@baylbhgynjf-jvyy-unir-cevi8499 not really, every state would only be able to get a maximum of 100 points, and a single state shouldn’t be able to have more voting power because more people live there
@@MannerdDesert7 I don't disagree with you I was just pointing that out cuz most people want the system waited towards population in some degree
@@baylbhgynjf-jvyy-unir-cevi8499 fair enough
Wdyt of CAV?
It was meant to outsize the influence of constituencies which would otherwise be crushed by larger ones. Say, if New York wanted high tariffs on agricultural exports, to keep South Carolina and Georgia from sending their raw materials overseas, defending their own manufacturing interests, SC and GA would have a disproportionate ability to stop that. The smaller constituencies would have to give the go-ahead on a protectionist policy. The consequences of having it are less dire than the consequences of not having it. If we have the electoral college, political action grinds to a halt. Frankly, I think we're all relieved when we hear that the government is shutting down. It means we aren't going to get crushed. That's the "worst case scenario". On the other hand, if we didn't, globalist politicians would be able to endlessly promote their own election by importing voters from other countries, then racially pandering to them.
R.I.P. TORIYAMA AKIRA
Pfp
I did the math on this for 2016 (I had the same idea), and it was a tie.
Any ideas?
Thoughts on the AoT ending? haha.
Monarchy
All the presidents are related and Jesuit educated. Definitely a monarchy.
I think I have a better idea; instead of changing the college itself at all, we could impose each state to have it's own college to pick which electors are chosen. For instance, we divided each state into 13 lateral stripes of equal size and each stripe has a popular vote election. Then whoever has the most stripes gets their batch of electors sent to choose the President.
Hm
What do you think about qualified sortation as a way of choosing executive officers (presidents, governors, heads of executive agencies)?
After all those who seek out power are those who should be trusted the least with it.
Losing the electoral vote of your state isn't "having your vote disqualified"
You are voting to decide who your state should support. Because if the state can't vote as a collective, it might as well not exist. There is a reason the union was deemed "United States" and not "United Individuals".
There are many positions of power that an individual can vote for and lose, but we mostly hear about the president since those in power want to never have to worry about who the commander and chief would be. Plus all the unconstitutional powers the president has now because the constitution died before we were born.
I have to admit as an EC defender, I was wowed by your assessment, but I disagree with the solution you propose as I feel it would be too complicated. I actually think keep EC votes as is BUT you win the proportion of EC votes in a state based upon the percentage you won in the state (rounding down or up depending on how the state would like to do it).
Isn't a republic a form of democracy?
doesnt have to be, you can have a n9n democratic republic (thats what rome was)
The electroal college is based on the old days when congressmen & sentators voted on the president. States & appointed electors only muddy the intent of the law. If each individual congressman had to vote for the winner of his district and the two senators votes went to the winner of that state that would get to the spirit of the system. Yes, we have to fix gerrymandering first.
Here's an idea. Assuming states are winner takes all... one way to make it count that people showed up to vote is if 50.1% vote for Executive X, then 50.1% of their electors get to vote. They all vote the same way, but only 50.1% of them vote. Let the head elector get the additional fraction... That way if a state votes 90% for Executive X, all those un-neccessary voters (beyond the 50.1%) still matter because 90% of their electors get to vote. I'm not sure that this gives a different result than LAC's suggestion, but I like it more. I think it would encourage greater turnout as a lot of people care a lot more about who is president than everyone else lower on the totem pole.
This solution also has the same problem of sounding unfair
I see some shingeki no kyojin too right next to your based books, just like me lol
that ending though
Is that attack on titan manga I see?
Based Yeagerist.
i like the electoral college to an extent because i’m from mississippi, and without the electoral college my vote would be meaningless (as if it isn’t already, but i digress). votes from new york, california, and texas would decide every major election.
i believe we’re a country that is built upon the idealistic notion that every person in this country has the ability to vote and effect how it’s run. but with as fucked up as our system has become, i find it hard to even believe in our “democracy.”
i believe that, through my studies of history, “representative” governments are always outpaced by governments where one person or a very small group of people make decisions and run the country. the biggest problem with our system is that there’s far too many people bickering over simple decisions and so to get anything meaningful done it takes way way longer than it should have.
"votes from california, new york and texas would decide every major election"
you mean the majority of the country would decide every major election? yes, very good!
He could condense this explanation. All these extra words can confuse people.
The
You are for once absolutely right, the first-past-the-post (or "winner takes all" as you word it here) is indeed the biggest problem with the US political system. Whether you keep the intermediary of electors or have a weighted popular vote seems like a pretty moot point, but it would be a massive improvement either way.
What you neglect to mention though in your talk about "the other side" is that were it not for the first-past-the-post system, there wouldn't be a two-party state to begin with, instead you would have a more natural amount of parties, maybe between five and fifteen, and coalition governments. After all, if votes don´t get thrown out then a party which can get 20% will have 20% of the seats and hence have real power even if that party does not supply the president. I don't know how long it would take for the US to get there, but it seems like a much nicer reality than the oligarchy of two bad choices that is being suffered today.
I like it 👍 it drives a political party to make inroads into the other party support. You have to want it bad.
I think small states can winner take all, but bigger states should split their votes. About 40 to 45 percent of california is ignored even though its the biggest state in the country.
Excellent video again
🔥♥️🔥
It never matters who wins, they will always work for Israel
good stand with isreal
Why not remove it? One person, one vote. The party getting propped up by the electoral collage just has to change. If it was removed it would put more incentive for the republicans to become better instead of just being the democrats but non-woke.
I think there are far more pressing issues to deal with in US politics. And since the EC hinders/benefits both sides of the isles, it wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway. But I'm glad you are taking a break from the usual white-supremacy neo-nzai stuff, so that's nice.
"white-supremacy neo nazi stuff"
way to oust yourself as unthinking lmao. being fallacious is only productive for subversive agents.
College should not exist
dont go then (clearly you didnt)
@jamesmohab college or higher education only serves to kill all ability of critical thinking (brainwashing).
Mark twain said "I never let school interfere with my education ".
There used to be laws about factual accurate text books, not anymore...
@jamesmohab don't has an ' between the n and the t by the way to the individual who can't get 3 grade English correct but calling out someone who didn't go in debt for a worthless degree.
My solution would be 1 vote per family. Have to be married and have two children and then you head of household can vote.
There is a foundational flaw in your reasoning, you a starting with a 2 party dictatorship wile in reality "democracy" has a plentitude of minorities both in interest and Ideals. You get rid of the majority dictatorship by just braking up the " majority"
I honestly think that we desperately need two things: (1) rank-choice voting for every elected office at every level of government and (2) state-level electoral college.
Beyond that, we need congressional term limits; the obliteration of the surveillance deep state three-letter agencies, NGOs, thank tanks, and "steering committees"; the outlawing of lobbying, stricter and more strictly enforced conflict of interest laws; the FairTax (including the eradication of the federal income tax; and a move away from a centralized national debt banking system to a decentralized national dividend banking system.
One state, one vote.
So tier based voting?
14:45 I'm not an engineer or anything like that so I don't know the specifics of how you would do this but the general idea is instead giving humans/politicians the power to determine the voting power of each state you could in theory assuming this doesn't get corrupted have a perfect Impartial A.I determine it based off of some criteria.
Bad Argument.... Not your best video
He is trying, also his videos inspire thought and dialogue