Explaining The Electoral College | TRIP LIVE

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 18 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 17

  • @anonymoussource1
    @anonymoussource1 11 днів тому +12

    Rory's prediction at the end is hilariously awful. He's really a know-nothing guy about American politics.

    • @Sassssky
      @Sassssky 9 днів тому

      Do you think it's just american politics?

    • @anonymoussource1
      @anonymoussource1 9 днів тому

      @@Sassssky No, he's an across-the-board turd.

  • @WilliamSmith-mx6ze
    @WilliamSmith-mx6ze 9 днів тому +1

    Wikipedia: "Trump's 56% of the vote in Iowa is the largest percentage a Republican has achieved since the 1972 election."

  • @karmapolice6888
    @karmapolice6888 12 днів тому +4

    Oh dear Rory!

  • @Elitist20
    @Elitist20 11 днів тому +1

    The Electoral College was originally intended to be a genuinely deliberative body, but that quickly went by the board. And the 'winner take all' arrangement in each state isn't in the Constitution - it's just a convention that arose. Maine and Nebraska allow a split vote to reflect how their states actually voted.

  • @JelMain
    @JelMain 13 днів тому +11

    The only reason for the College was the poor communications at the end of the 18th Century. In the years which followed, electors proved faithless, and now we have fast communications, nothing has improved. I have no faith left in the US, perhaps the best thing is a Trump victory causing utter chaos.

    • @RobertoPenn
      @RobertoPenn 12 днів тому +2

      No individual state will give up there winner takes all electoral system because, if they're solid Democrat or Republican, they'll lose colleges to the opposition, and if they're a swing state they'll lose their importance and effectively patronage that comes with being an important focus in the campaign.

  • @argininealanine2786
    @argininealanine2786 13 днів тому +2

    Sorry Guys! Landslide for Trump!

    • @Elitist20
      @Elitist20 11 днів тому

      50.7% to 47.7% - a clear win, but hardly a landslide.

    • @utsmoke845
      @utsmoke845 5 днів тому

      @@Elitist20absolute and clear landslide, the people have spoken.

    • @Elitist20
      @Elitist20 5 днів тому

      @@utsmoke845 'Landslide'? Nope, a landslide is Reagan in 1984 (59-41), Nixon in 1972 (61-38), Johnson in 1964 (61-39), Eisenhower in 1956 (57-42), FDR in 1936 (61-37), or Hoover in 1928 (58-41). And the latest figure for Trump vs Harris is 50.2% to 48.2%.

    • @utsmoke845
      @utsmoke845 5 днів тому

      @ haha, nice try. Yup, landslide. User name definitely checks out.

    • @Elitist20
      @Elitist20 5 днів тому

      @@utsmoke845 You bet it does. I chose it because the word gets bandied about by people who, by any objective standard, are members of elites themselves. 'Nice try'? I gave you hard evidence, and you responded with 'la la la, not listening!', in typical MAGAt style.