Electoral college | American civics | US History | Khan Academy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лип 2011
- Courses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
How we elect our President in the United States. Created by Sal Khan.
Watch the next lesson: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Missed the previous lesson? www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
US history on Khan Academy: From a mosquito-ridden backwater to the world's last remaining superpower, the United States of America is a nation with a rich history and a noble goal: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Its citizens' struggle to achieve that goal is a dramatic story stretching over hundreds of years.
About Khan Academy: Khan Academy offers practice exercises, instructional videos, and a personalized learning dashboard that empower learners to study at their own pace in and outside of the classroom. We tackle math, science, computer programming, history, art history, economics, and more. Our math missions guide learners from kindergarten to calculus using state-of-the-art, adaptive technology that identifies strengths and learning gaps. We've also partnered with institutions like NASA, The Museum of Modern Art, The California Academy of Sciences, and MIT to offer specialized content.
For free. For everyone. Forever. #YouCanLearnAnything
Subscribe to Khan Academy’s US History channel: / channel
Subscribe to Khan Academy: ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
This is a very clear and concise explanation of the electoral college.
I remember how when I first subbed, it was just math and stuff, and now you're just giving more and more knowledge! It's great, thanks!
Everywhere else I go I get some sort of crappy video that is made for kids that is too cartoony, or has a bad explanation. This was perfect and straightforward, thank you for this. Keep making videos like these!! :)
可以把你们的视频翻译一份中文版本么~
I see. Thanks.
Right as I finish the Caucus video this one shows up. My day is just getting better an better,
This is great! I finally understand this
Hey Sal will you do a video comparing Canadian Government to American Government(Different Voting systems, Powers of Pres vs Powers of PM, 3 Major Parties vs 2 Major Parties and maybe some big laws that are different
Helped alot.
Quick question, is the winner take all part based on a percentage of the total votes counted by the whole state or is it based on how many candidates won. For example if a state had 10 electors and 6 of them from one party won but that party didnt get the popular vote in that state. Would that party get the electors or not?
How is the Electoral College of each State chosen?
hello
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...."
In practice, each party submits a slate of electors to the state, usually party officials, and the election determines which slate is actually appointed by the state. Bill Clinton was actually one of New York's electors in 2016 and got to cast an electoral vote for his wife.
@Steven Thury Steven, each state is broken down into districts by population. The number of districts in the state is how they determine the number of electors.
Could you please make benchmark review videos for civics????
You know I personally think that it should be more simpler and that every person should get a say in who they want to run there country.
I think the majority of us feel the same, but the EC is why 5 presidents have been elected while losing the popular vote. All 5 of those presidents were from the same party and two of those five elections took place this century.
9:34 'Because the candidates aren't silly..." Sal Khan had no idea five years ago Donald Trump and Jill Stein would be running
Kwan Hopkins lol
Kwan Hopkins racist
Kwan Hopkins I’m from the future: it’s not going well for you
09:21
@Mwaterfall agreed!
Thank you!
How do they vote in Canada?
What is the point for the overcomplicated system like this? Why couldn't it be " most popular person wins"?
Valdemar, because Southern slave states didn’t want to popularly elect the President.
Good like. Confusing but I like
Gosh I'm glad I live in Australia with our electoral system which actually makes sense.
If the US required citizens to vote like in Australia, we'd not see another Republican POTUS in the remainder of our lifetimes
Can someone explain the "At Large" electoral votes a little further for me? Thanks.
@@streetlevelvideo That's not an accurate definition, at all
@@B_Bodziak Wow, six years later. Anyway...how's this. A state governor is an At Large seat. All eligible voters in the state can vote for their candidate for governor and the candidate who gets the most votes wins. So Governor is an at-large office. How's that?
How about a French double ballot system?
how would it be possible the change this "winner-takes-all"-system?
Change to a proportional vote system like the primaries or reform to a popular election or Canada's system, where you vote on your Parliament Man or Woman and then whichever party has the most members of Parliament after the election their party leader becomes Prime Minster
@mrhnm Heh...well, since both politics and economics are practically a foregone conclusion...I guess we can safely presume that popular is probably right.
FYI, you don't need a majority of the popular vote to win that state's electors. A plurality is all that is necessary.
Just ask al gore
It’s all about checks & balance, it makes a lot of sense and voting does count. So go out there and vote 🗳!
Your vote just doesn't count as much in some states as in others.
If, in a particular state, there is a tie between the electors from different parties, in that they received 50% of votes in favor of candidate A and other 50% for B, will the "At large" votes come to the rescue to break the tie? For instance let's say there were 7 congressional districts in the state of Louisiana and electors A1, A2, A3 won their respective districts D1, D2, D3. Meanwhile, D4, D5, D6 got won by B4, B5, and B6 respectively. Now interestingly, district 7 had a tie in terms of the votes A7 and B7 earned, making them have 50% each. What happens now? You have 3 districts won by candidate A thru A1, A2, A3 electors, and 3 others for candidate B thru B4, B5, B6 electors. The 7th one being in a tie.
Can someone help me understand on what happens in such a situation.
It depends on the individual state's election laws.
But the EC is only used to elect the president of the executive branch, right? The legislative branch is elected by popular vote. I think they EC must be viewed in context with the other branches as well as the reasons for such a compromise. Say we elect an R president by popular vote, the both houses of the legislative branch could conceivably be controlled D and vice versa. The same if the elect an R president via EC, but elected D controlled houses of the legislative branch.
That's why midterms have historically been won by the party not in the WH.
Now at least I have a grasp of it..
The electoral college is a briliant and mis understood system. Its purpose is not only to deliver the most popular leader but also the one who best represents us as a whole thus there are two goals of the electoral college.
1) Ensure the winning candidate has enough popular support to govern.
2) Ensure that support is widespread enough so that the candidate can effectively govern all 50 states.
This prevents one or two populous regions from imposing their will on the rest of the states.
The Electoral College doesn’t do what you think it does. It can’t deliver the most popular leader when 7% of the time it’s given the Presidency to a loser of the popular vote. Also, it can’t ensure widespread support when a candidate can technically win with as few as 11 states, or win with as little as 22% of the popular vote... even in a race with only two candidates.
Plus, with the Electoral College, the only votes that truly matter are urban votes in moderate-to-large swing states. That’s where the campaigns spend the overwhelming majority of their time and money.
At best, the Electoral College is a security blanket for small states who think their marginal, but ultimately worthless boost in influence can make candidates care about small states. They don’t care. That’s not where the votes are, and no ethical system will change any of that.
I use this to explain the Electoral College to my Adult HSE students. It's good because it's not childish or a cartoon. It explains the EC simply in a way that everyone understands. So many people say, "I don't get why the person who gets the most votes doesn't win!". But now they do understand why that can sometimes happen. They also understand the idea of Electors and why making up "fake" electors is a CRIME!
How sure are the people then that the electors are voting for the vote of the majority?
EnslavedAndOppressed
Thank you for your response, it was very decent of you. I realised afterward my error in geography and gov. system, as I am originally from the DRC where rights is not a term we did use at all and has gone even worse today. DRC generals have taken over as war lords and dispense law and order as they see fit or understand or care. I am not sadly enough im my country of birth. We cannot estimate anything properly but it's mayhem. Voila but thanks for your response. Pierre
CPGray has done a similar video to this that is unfortunately a little more interesting to watch.
Your electoral college map hasn't been updated for the 2010 census.
Hi, with all due respect, they say the name you choose is the reality or identity you mirror yourself to. I am very curious to this. Could you advise me if the following be true:
Would notenslavedandoppressed not really be more you, as slaves or oppressed people certainly would never have been able to comment ! and yet you have. Pierre
@mdlittle5466 The arguments are long but fairly simple but where I end up is government intervention in the economy = bad.
Actually, can you confirm that. From the several videos I've watched, the electors are NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to adhere to their state's decision. I'm not American btw....
Its BS but they are not but if they don't they get fined(but most are rich enough to eat the fine so it doesn't do much)
In my opinion, I think that the Electoral College should be revised.
I propose revamping the Electoral College so that cities with populations over XX amount of people should have a separate number of electoral votes from the rest of that state.
Just as the electoral college exists so that 3 large cities don’t decide the fate of the entirety of the United States in a popular vote count, it’s not fair that a state like Illinois should be all blue because of Chicago.
thanks!..so does that mean that the US constitution allows for creation of new political parties...??..and technically it is also a multi party state in that sense??
Ron Paul 2012
It is very important to go deeper into WHY our founders created this system and the need to understand the history of democracies along with human nature.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in California. That's one of the main reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@Michael - Here is the WHY.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in California. That's one of the main reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
I like the app better!! Oh yeah!!!!!!
hey! a new playlist: american civics.
@mdlittle5466 What is popular isn't always right. It's been my experience that in economics and politics the opposite is true.
As described, what will happen if a candidate gets 50.1% of the vote in Texas? Will it be treated the same as the 50.1% in California, or is the method, e.g. significant figures used to determine it different? What about 50.001%, which is only slightly lower than 50.1%? Any ideas? Please include source used in reply for more effectiveness.
Your argument about how candidates may spend their time and money in swing states can be countered by if there is NPV, they'll do the opposite in the coastal populous states and ignore the 'flyover' states.
The electoral college system is stupid...it adds complexity to what should be simple.
*Note that I didn't say I was confused by it nor did I say it was too complex. But it is more complex than a popular vote and I've never heard a good reason as to why we do it.
Why vote by the districts? Even if someone wins in a district s/he may not go to Washington if the President is chosen fro the other side. In fact the candidate who got defeated will go ahead??????
The Constitution says that if a candidate does
not get a majority of Electoral College votes on the FIRST vote, the decision
to decide who is President is IMMEDIATELY (The word is only used twice in the
Constitution) goes to the House of Representatives. There each state gets one
vote. A majority of states are Republican majority in the House.
@mrhnm There you go, now you know where the source of our current existing problems are - special interest groups and corporate lobbyists - proceed from there.
My understanding of the reason we have an electoral college is because, in any election we always have MORE than two candidates, the two Major party candidates and how ever many minor party candidates that you most likely had never even heard of them until you saw your ballot. So, with a Popular Vote election, candidate A can get 46% of the vote, Candidate B gets 42% and Candidate C get 12% of the vote, that means that MORE people DIDN'T vote for candidate A than did and that means MORE people DIDN'T want Candidate A to be President than wanted him/her to be. So, The People have spoken and 54% of voters do NOT want Candidate A to be their President. So, how do you solve this problem. Electoral College. Where Electoral College goes off the rails is with the "pledged votes." It was NEVER meant or designed to work that way and should be absolutely against the rules, but it isn't.
Washington warned against parties, but the time he left office you already had parties.
I'm in Quinn's class!! Haha
Oppression and enslavement are relative. A sharecropper giving 70% to his landlord may either consider himself a slave, due to the financial oppression imposed upon him, or free, because he may leave if he chooses (though he would likely starve)
I don't deny the great freedoms and liberties I have at the present. But I also see great infringement on my rights and liberties, as well as on those of others.
I call it economic slavery with regulatory oppression, though not as great as it could be.
EnslavedAndOppressed I was thinking about how my “master” only takes some of my work. I get to move around fairly freely and choose the work I do . I should feel grateful for my “master’s” graciousness because some slaves definitely have it worse. But I should be free and no chains are the only chains I will quietly tolerate.
(you can win with 22% of the vote by winning just over half of small states that have a greater number of elector votes their population should imply, without winner takes all its still winning with less than 50, but its much less extreme)
This is not entirely correct. All a candidate needs to do to win all Electoral College votes in a given state -- save for Maine and Nebraska -- is to win the plurality of the popular vote, not necessarily the majority. Say, Clinton wins 40%, Bush wins 38%, and Ross Perrot wins 22%. It is clear that no candidate has won the majority. Nevertheless, having won the plurality of the popular vote, Clinton will win ALL of the Electoral College votes allocated to the state. Moreover, it is important to stress that 50% + 1 is majority, not 51%.
This, for example, is the 1992 state-by-state Electoral College map. For instance, see the way in which Bush won Alabama with only 47% of the popular vote. The map is at: presidentelect.org/e1992.html#state
I was just going to say the same thing.
Winner takes all in addition to the uneven vote distribution of the electoral college makes it theoretically possible to elect the president with only 22% of popular vote. The reasoning behind it is to cause the candidates to have to focus their efforts over a larger area rather than simply trying to win a large number in a small area. However, it fails miserably at this, as most presidents focus on the "battle ground" states, they have no reason to notice the states that already favor them.
you should have said why the us has it
I think the electoral college no longer works effectively today. We should definitely revamp to the system for more fluidity. I still hate how it is only A B or other. Two options definitely doesn't make an election system fair.
My friend who's been a lawyer for almost 40 years now said the Electoral College came into existence in 1968 and was invented by some guy who recently produced a play on Broadway and that he brought the Electoral College into existence "for deeply elitist reasons."
And PUTIN gave us Trump more than the Electoral College. You'll all find out and then you'll wish his daddy had ever laid eyes on his mama, you'll curse the day his mama ever laid down with his daddy.
Vicki Bee ... WTH are you on about with mommies and daddies?
Actually, the original intent was for each delegate to vote for who they felt was best. The founding fathers didn't like the idea of citizens directly electing people.
@mrhnm If you are not informed of world economics, then you are not aware of the large portion of our budget being sent to foriegn countries...not to mention 'American' corporations outsourcing literally every single manufacturing job to foriegn countries (...as well almost every single 'call center' job...). Foriegn aid was prior to Obama's election...the outsourcing of jobs was due soley via 'American' corporations. You must understand the source of the problem, before debating the issue.
I still can't understand how the electoral college works. May be because I am an immigrant, had not been born in the US. I am trying to study more than required to pass citizenship test.
This is why they don't teach you this in school. Thank you Mr. Khan for showing us the truth.
The US Constitution never even mentions the forming of political parties. It was an issue that the founding fathers never really thought to address. The parties can out of people taking sides on different opinions. We technically do have many other parties but their presence is really little and the US is still really bi partisan.
The system was meant to give small states a disproportionately larger say in the Presidential election, because the President's constituents really are 50 in number and not 300,000,000, and therefore the mere fact that a state is one of the 50 sovereign states counts for something. However, the freezing of the size of the House of Representatives at 435 has skewed the numbers far beyond what was intended, because it is now impossible for the House members to represent equal size districts.
@Mestilf22 No we should limit the government's power thus reducing the amount of damage they can do.
Corporations do much more damage than government in the USA! Why do you want to give the greedy class its head?
they can win over the state, but the winning of state depends on the electorals and not those minorities and social groups right? So why spend millions on convincing those regular citizens to vote? Khan needs to explain this system further.
Ifit goes to the House to vote on, why in 2000 did it go to the Supreme Court?!!
Jamie Hyneman for President!
What's the point of even having electors? Just assign a point for each elector and whoever gets the most points wins.
You poor thing, Ben Franklin once said " a republic, if you can keep it" shortly after the last Constitutional Convention, it's a Republic, not a democracy, glad you noticed it's not a democracy tho
I like Nebraska and Maine...... Two states have it right.
EnslavedAndOppressed, if every state did that, it would make the Presidency susceptible to gerrymandering.
For example, in Pennsylvania in 2012, Obama won the state’s popular vote with 52% and therefore all its Electoral Votes. However, if Pennsylvania did things like Maine an Nebraska, Romney would have won most of Pennsylvania’s Electoral Votes. Does that sound fair?
Also, under that system, Romney would have won the Presidency in 2012.
Pretty much. The only reason this system is in place was because of the fear that smaller states would get outclassed by the bigger ones back when the US first started.
It's obsolete now that we have the technology to count every citizen's vote.
but, I don't understand then why do the candidates spend so much time and money on pandering to the citizen votes? When they talk about "hispanic, black, etc. votes" why are these politicians spending money on all that if it's the electoral that matters? This is so confusing.
Because the individual voters CHOOSE the Electorates with their votes..
what is that Green Party about..Isnt US a bi-party state..?
Votes end up being more of a suggestion than a direct vote with the Electoral College. Kinda sucks.
@Mwaterfall They are elected in each state by popular vote. Whoever wins the popular vote in your state gets the electoral votes delegated by your party. The democrats hate it because they do not get enough votes that way. But it is a representative republic and how the constitution sets it up.
so wait, the people vote for the electoral and then the electoral votes for who they want to vote for? Why are the people voting for anyone at all? Won't the electorals vote for who they already were going to vote for? How does our vote change their minds?
@mrhnm It's 'the popular' that's digging us into this (w)hole? You are keeping track of world economics, yes? It's not 'the popular' (...or even the overall populace...) that's making this mess...
that's exactly how it seems on the surface, and i see your point. BUT, if states like New York and California, and other states with high populations, were all totally red or blue, then those states would have an unfair advantage over lower population states.
Why should a voter's vote in Wyoming count more than a voter's vote in another state simply because fewer people live in Wyoming? One person= one vote.
I'm sure there's probably some unexplained logic, it's a bit hasty to call this stupid outright, especially because in this video he did not explain the reasoning behind the many decisions that had to be made to come to this, but I will say this system is very convoluted and the logic certainly isn't very explicit or intuitive. I'm less concerned with this and more concerned with McCain-Feingold and the onslaught of political ads we are made to suffer through every fall
I have had it with this shameless product placement! How much is Honda paying Khan Academy??
Your vote still counts. The electors in the electoral college are required by law to vote with their states.This also was never withheld from you. it's common knowledge.
Ah. Now I know if my town votes for one party, than we send electors of that party to Augusta, I was wondering if we were just telling the electors who to vote for. I don't think it's an evil system. Democracy can be bad for Republics, especially federations like the US. We are not one state we simply have an alliance of states and the US should be governed like an alliance. So we should keep this system. It would be good to have a house in DC that represents state governments too.
I don't care what anyone says, this doesn't sound like democracy to me! A candidate should be elected by popular vote in each state, the direct number of people who voted for the candidate to be President.
@mdlittle5466 I'm aware of what you just said, I thought you were talking about the specifics of country C producing product P. And how that affects Market M.
I am aware of foreign aid and it is nonsense. Ultimately it is caused by a fucked up system of ethics in this country that states it is okay to take from one person and give to another.
@juliebork - That is why I honestly beleive that representational democracy should be replaced for direct democracy. We have the technology... let us have congress replaced for the people who all they have to do is go on their computers or through their cell phones, electronically vote for bills, et cetera... We have the technology and we are sitting on it! With a representational democracy, once someone is elected they forget the people and money is all they think about. America needs change!
for something that was supposed to be educational it was largely skewed. Again I rarely thumbs down anything, but you never discussed the original reason for the electoral college.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in California. That's one of the main reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@Mwaterfall I agree, but the powers at be are afraid of the populous.
Who the hell came up with this system?
God Bless Salman Khan ! & Khan Academy , Thank you So much !
I finally understood how the Electoral College works influences the US presidential Election.
finally after watching and taking notes from NBC, CNBC, TeDx, only the Khan Academy got it right.
Theoretically, is it possible for a Republican elector to vote for the democratic president ?
This is a constitutional republic.
Ma has 11 not 12
perpi
@Mwaterfall it is democracy coz they accepted it before by majority. and they still accepting coz nobody protested against it by large numbers in streets or media or anywhere.
*me just arguing :)
@x12danx
No, the system is not the stupid one, it is the majority of the people of the USA who allow this Plutocracy.