I watched this many years ago now, but this might be one of the most important videos of my lifetime honestly. Every political discussion in my life ultimately has ended with showing and sharing this video with friends and family.
+BruceWillakers Just saw this for the first time from your twitter feed. Gonna show this to my parents so they finally understand my frustration with the political system. Thanks Rob!
+BruceWillakers It is so frustrating that so many people don't realize how terrible this voting system is or even that any other voting system can exist.
Certainly gave me some insight on why we're so screwed here in England right now. First the Lib Dems, then UKIP, and SNP came along and put the final nail in the coffin for ever escaping the conservatives.
but in India, there are lots of regional parties......difficult for them to come in center but still spider, owl, tiger and the rest are not out of business. Still not perfect, need to improve......but damn can't have Congress running our country at the moment.
@James Clark India & Pakistan are young democracies and haven't had that many election cycles yet. In FPTP the number of parties tend to decrease over time until only 2 major parties are left. Give it another 50 years. One of the few ways how small parties can survive for a longer time in FPTP is by being extremely region specific like the SNP in the UK.
@James Clark There are two reasons why the US is a two party system: The first is that it has presidential system. Meaning that the president is the most important figure in the government, compared to prime ministers in other countries (UK, Germany etc.). This means that a coalition between parties is not possible, because the office can only be held by one person. Even if more parties would make it into Congress, they wouldn't have as much influence, because the bigger parties wouldn't need them to govern. In countries with a parliamentary system coalitions are almost always necessary, because otherwise it is very hard to govern. And the second reason is the districting. In countries like the UK you have 650 seats. That means that you need a lot less of support to gain at least some seats. And remember from the last point that these seats have more potential influence than the seats in US Congress. In the US there are only 50 states you can win to make a difference. And with the spoiler effect mentioned in the video it is not helpful to run as a third party (lookup Ross Perot). So with a mix of first past the post voting and a parliamentary system, the US has become and will almost certainly stay a two party system.
@James Clark first-past-the-post is actually almost certainly one of the major contributing factors as to why we have such an entrenched two-party system here in the United States. For example as to why all you have to do is look at other nations with a first-past-the-post system such as Canada or the United Kingdom, which while not having literally only two parties, do both have only two parties which could ever realistically form a majority in the legislature. Both of these two parties will normally have such a large percentage of the population driven towards them that it's not even that uncommon for them to be able to form majority completely on their own (see the Canadian liberals after this most recent election, and the British conservatives after 2015). So even if there are other parties participating, only two of them are ever really competitive at any given time, and that is because of first-past-the-post. the only difference in the u.s. is that we have the effects of first-past-the-post stacked on top of the effects of gerrymandering and the Electoral College, which form something of an Unholy Trinity which combined make fair and representative elections impossible in the country.
Technically, the United States does not have a First-Past-the-Post system. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. This isn’t necessarily better than a First-Past-the-Post system however. In 1824, no candidate had a majority, so the House of Representatives actually ended up picking the candidate with the second most electoral votes.
I just realized the animals used in video were chosen intentionally Owl voters are neutral Gorilla, monkey, and turtle votes are all less aggressive, with Gorilla being reserved but tough and turtle being extremely non-confrontaltional Leopard, tiger, and snake voters are more agressive, with Leopard being a predator yet sluggish and snake being extremely confrontational
This is quite possibly the most important and underrated political video on the entire Internet. You explain why FPTP must be abolished more clearly than, I think, anyone else ever has. This deserves to be shared far and wide. Frankly, it's criminal that this video series is not taught in every high school civics class in America.
Adam Smith If you want to eliminate FPTP, fine, but do it with run-off elections, not STV or AV because people simply do not have transitive voting preferences.
I also discovered this video years ago, but I have used it countless times to explain our voting system to other people, and I just wanted to thank you for creating something so detailed and informative yet simple and easy to follow. Every time I show it to someone I end up rewatching it myself and am always amazed at how effectively it conveys it message. Beautiful work.
@@beatthegreat7020 he wanted a no party state, AKA "Were all adults here let's discuss this like adults and get things done even if we don't agree on everything"
What if I told you it was already relevant but more people are seemingly noticing. There is some good news. Ranked choice voting has expanded and is being talked about somewhat now.
Please start lobbying for change. Electoral reform would go a long way to healing both the UK and the US. The major parties will never bring this up. The system actively supports them. The change has to come from the outside.
You explained perfectly why I hate America's system. Most people vote against a party they hate instead of for one they like . And because your party knows you have no other choice they have no incentive to actually listen to the needs of their voters
I couldn't put my finger on why I disliked politics and voting until I watched this video. You can't understand how this important this video is to me gcp. Thank you I could feel my brain growing just watching it!
@@JohnDoe-fs6tk I'd say that one person one vote lowers representation. people don't really vote FOR who they want, but against who they don't. You're voting with a negative feeling, which I think leads to dissatisfied voters a lot. At least for me. Really the whole concept of making voting a right is ultimately not the best, but that's another conversation
FPTP is your typical British political idea: sounds great on paper, generates dire consequences. The aim of it was to generate governments with strong majorities to implement their plants, which in theory appears wise enough. The actual result is parliaments that are totally unrepresentative of how people vote, consolidated around 2-3 main political parties while the rest are relegated to the fringes regardless of their share of votes. It generates disenfranchisement as people begin to realize their vote amounts to nothing unless they vote for one of the major parties.
This is teaching me better than school ever could. I'm just randomly tapping on this guy's videos and it helps with visual learning, repeats the demonstration (sometimes in a slightly different way as it could play out differently), and explains fully.
Dear Grey, A friend of mine from Russia wanted to know why we only have two candidates in America. This was a question I actually didn't fully know, but this video helped me explain why their is only the Democratic and Republican party and why we don't have third parties. Thanks you for making this video.
Simple. Yes. That highlights another issue: An EDUCATED, INFORMED POPULATION is needed for democracy to work. Voters need to KNOW THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, and vote accordingly. They need to know the issues. Otherwise the vote becomes swayed by other stuff: tribal antagonism, or shallow esthetic preference, or temporary outrage, or conspiracy-minded thinking. The list goes on.
This video, and the rest if this series, deserve to be the most viewed videos on UA-cam. Most useful and entertaining video in exsistanse. Years later I still find myself coming back to it on a regular basis, even more than the other great videos on this channel.
@@jerryz2541 And? That means the system has an inherent flaw to what most people want, more democratic elections. Who cares if a bunch of dudes 200 years ago didn't intend the system to be democratic? that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion and you admit our point that the us election system is corrupt and undemocratic
@@angrypepe7615 @Filip Wolffs @ThatPCGamer - FYI - each State is a democracy, but the way the President is elected is configured so that smaller States have a say in who becomes President. Without this electoral safeguard, 3 or 4 States would always elect the President and the rest would be ignored. You guys need more education about what is considered equality for ALL... @ThatPCGamer - Clearly, your government has failed to educate you past the 4th grade.
Furballs Bizzae Even the Electoral College system is still a subset of the FPTP. Remember, the electoral college is all or nothing (except for Maine and Nebraska), so the electors almost act as a single unit. One party with 51% of the votes wins 100% of the electors, not 51%.
Kevalry Replacing it with Instant-Runoff Voting with compulsory voting would do wonders for the US. It works in Australia. The disinterested voters act as a moderating counterweight to keep the extremists out.
I immediately thought of this video with an election that happened yesterday in the town of Fall River, Mass. There, the citizens had a special election asking if they wanted to recall the current mayor and who they wanted as their new mayor. Despite 60% of all votes saying they wanted the mayor to be recalled, he still won the election as he was on the ballot of "who do you want to be the new mayor" with a vote of 35% because no one else got as much
I have to say that I like the design and style of these videos. 5 years later (on the internet no less) and it does not look dated. A tiny bit like a powerpoint presentation, but there is a certain timelessness of powerpoint presentations, which I'm going to attribute to nostalgia and my middle school and high school computer classes but still believe to be valid (making terrible school project powerpoint presentations is almost an American rite of passage).
...oof, learning about the First Past the Post system can really take the hope out of you, for finding a candidate that closely aligns to your values. Seems like a better voting system would possibly be better for the United States and other countries.
Thank you. This explains it better than anything else I've seen or heard. OK, I'm off to watch your videos on gerrymandering and election alternatives.
Revisiting this after the 2019 Canadian election - still surprising how Canada seems to be able to support smaller parties despite the supposed inevitability of a two party system in FPTP... (though I would personally much rather STV).
@@Bionicleforever It's the only reason the LPC or CPC get a majority ever. Center voters decide when to fire the leader they get disappointed with and vote the other big party. It's complete garbage. Neither of those parties wants to change the system.
These voting-systems and gerrymandering videos are probably among the most important content on youtube. It's a shame, that this still only has 5 M views. Every student in every country should be required to watch them (or something similar) at least twice
If enough people vote Third Party then the establishment would notice and might even introduce the Alternative Vote to win back those votes, in an ideal world.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't that 3rd party candidates are bad. The point is that the system is broken and undemocratic. Our votes really are meaningless because we're powerless to elect the people that are best to lead us. It's impossible to actually achieve change. The status quo will continue forever until we FORCE our governments to fix our voting systems and restructure the balance of power. And we can't rely on them to do so fairly because they want nothing of the sort. The ones in power understand that the system works in their favor. They wouldn't want to actually make it fair because they know that will take them out of power and cost them buttloads of money. The 3rd party candidates likely are better for your nation, but they'll never be able to get elected. In Canada, we're supposed to be electing local representatives from our districts to represent our interests. Instead, these representatives have formed political parties and are forced to back each other in order to remain in power. This enforces that instead of representing the people in their district they represent their political parties. This cripples the system and makes it undemocratic. The USA has an even worse system from the sounds of it. We all need to get involved, recognize that our systems aren't working, and keep fighting for the changes needed to make our votes actually count. And expect that every step of the way the people currently in power will be trying to sabotage that process, no matter how convincingly they sound like they support it and support you.
After this election I have actually realised something. Voting third paty is the only way to not waste your vote. HRC got the popular vote but didn't even win the Presidency, it was the elctoral college. So no matter what you chose, especially if your in a Red or Blue state, your vote didn't mean anything... Unless you voted Third Party. Main political parties don't need popular votes, they need electoral college votes, but the third parties do. At 5% they can get Federal Funding for the next election. At 15% they earn a place in the National Presdiential Debates. This doesn't matter for Democrats or Republicans but is very important for third parties. Vote third party, actually matter.
This is why we (U.S.) have Hillary and Trump! The question for CGP Grey and fellow viewers is, how can we change are voting system? Might be a good video topic CGP. "Can the U.S. change voting systems?"
Grassroots action is the only way. The two parties benefiting from it sure aren't going to take the initiative to stop it. We can use this abysmal election to get these conversations started, but we need to get the whole nation talking about it.
Absolutely. It would take a lot of work and probably a constitutional amendment, but our government is set up to allow these kinds of changes. Eventually. See "hard work." I'm honestly okay with choosing the lesser of two evils in this election (especially because the gulf between her and the greater evil is so damn wide) but we can't just forget this as soon as our new President is sworn in.
The more I think about this the more I believe that the start of the grassroots movement is simply to stop voting out of fear. This election (if not in all elections) we seem to be faced with a choice of evils, with so many voting for the lesser of the two and people disagreeing about who the lesser is. If all of that group of people who vote for the "lesser of the two" would choose to do a third party or a write in campaign. It would send a powerful message that there is a majority who are not satisfied with the status quo of either of the big parties.
The answer is easy and harder than you think. Vote third parties into Congress. The more third parties you have in the Senate and the House, the more they are known. Get them elected and grow in Congress. This may take a few terms. But if you get enough in there two things will happen: 1) Enough people will join and support the third party so that they will actually be backed for a presidential candidate. or 2) they get so powerful the take over one of the parties already established. Does number two sound familiar? It should......
This system is honestly ridiculous. In my country there's a system where when you get 23% of the vote, you get.... 23% of the seats in parliament! Wild concept, I know.
@0:14: Excepts lions don't even live in the jungle, much less rule them. That honour goes to the tiger, who reigns over both the jungle and the Siberian arctic.
Strongly disagree about the tiger having reigns in the jungle, because that honor actually belongs to the Gorilla, who is the true supreme animal in that realm. I do agree with you that the domain of tigers is the Siberian Arctic.....definitely tiger turf.
So....my problem with this analysis: What about Canada? In Canada we have a growing number of parties. We started with 2 main ones - currently called the Conservatives and the Liberals. At some point the largely conservative leaning Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party that runs exclusively in Quebec and thus can never actually win the election and the largely Liberal-but-more-so New Democrat Party joined the fray. Over the course of the last 20 years, a fifth party, the environmentally focused Green party has gone from being a couple of people who run in elections and lose to having the required number of seats for official party status. While it's true that the two original parties are the only ones that have ever been in power, it's worth noting that the NDP and Bloc have both had significant power in various minority governments over the years. Canada's universal healthcare system is a concession that was demanded by the NDP for their support, for instance. And the NDP has even been the official opposition party at one point, as the Liberal party was quietly self destructing in a corner after Paul Martin's term. And yet, every time voting reforms come up, enough people either just buy into the "it's complicated, you won't understand it" mantra, or they offer up so many different systems that none gets the required majority for significant voting reform to occur, thus defaulting to the status quo. We're still FPTP.
+Matt Bingham you only have to have over 50 percent of the *electoral* votes, which is a different beast. Each individual election for each state is still FPTP
I would say we have both the electoral college AND FPTP as within every state it is one person one vote. Both are both barriers to breaking the 2 party system.
@@ShrunkedDude For the first 5 years, their hands were tied by the limp dumbs. For the next 5, they still had a very small majority (and ultimately lost it), meaning they couldn't do much. It's only now that they have a comfortably majority, can they really implement what they want. Although most of this year has been taken with the COVID distraction.
Ranked Choice voting is a question on the ballot in Massachusetts in November. There's no explanation to show why it might be a good idea. If you know anyone voting in Massachusetts it might be a good idea to share this video. Thanks
Very true. I like the idea of using proportional representation for both the legislative and executive branches, the way Switzerland does. There's no reason to handle all the power to a single representative or chief executive when power can just as easily be shared.
@@a2falcone yeah you're right. You can change the state law to get rid of FPTP, like Maine and Alaska already did. Maine had its first STV vote in 2018, Alaska will start from 2022.
Particularly Trump. If the Republican rank-and-file had all had equal power over the nomination, Kasich would have beaten Trump. It's not as clear for HRC, because only Bernie ran against her, and in a two-candidate election, FPTP is as good as any other system.
@@williamwaugh8670 Only problem is that FPTP is NOT "as good as any other system" in a two-candidate election IF FPTP is the reason WHY you have only two candidates....
This video has never been more important. We must change our electoral system in the USA!!! We need to demand a constitutional amendment!! Get this video series out to everyone you know! Stop just voting for Republicans or Democrats, instead vote third party to raise awareness and then share this video! Tell your friends and family! It's the only way we will EVER see real change in this country. This is straight up math, it cannot be denied.
If you go to 1:12, you can see the percentages. Under the new system, the percentages of the candidates are added from top to bottom until we get 50% or over. So cheetah (20) + Guerrilla (19) = 39% still not 50%. Add the monkey vote (18) and you get 57%. Owel, snake, and turtle are eliminated. Most turtles vote for monkey (18 + 7) since he's the softest. However, 2% vote for gorilla (19+2) since they feel that he can stand up to cheetah. The tigers (15) vote for cheetah (20 + 15). The owls are pretty neutral and their votes go to monkey (25 + 1), gorilla (21 + 6), and cheetah (35 + 6). Now we add cheetah (41) + gorilla (27)= 68% monkey is eliminated. Monkeys vote for Guerrilla (27 + 26) and we get 52% of the vote going towards Guerilla making him the victor.
As someone who lives in Australia, which has preferential voting, it absolutely astonishes me that other countries don't... the teetering of democracy is a scary thought...
Im surprised there isnt a flood of comments on here. ... Everyone's calling for the downfall of the electoral college, but offers nothing up as a replacement.
The quality of these videos is great! I think it'd be great if more people got to see this video in particular. The recent ''3 rules for rulers'' video was also very good, I've just found your channel and watched like 6 videos and all really liked them. Glad to have found this channel :)
we have first past the post here, and we still have 7-ish parties, though it varies, sometimes more sometimes less, but it's never boiled down to just 2 parties...
Yes it has, no one takes any party seriously other than Republicans and Democrats, no other party has a chance to win anything important, or usually anything at all
Nah, Jill Stein or probably more likely Gary Johnson judging by the polling at the moment. Tho maybe fifth guy that just got in might get momentum... or maybe he'll be the spoiler spoiler. XD
az929292 I think you mean "Jeb Bush rigged the ballots and the supreme court was like 'eh fuck it, W wins no recount' and everyone accepted it because back then the middle class existed"
I'm still so fucking annoyed that nobody's fucking talking about trying to rally to change this system after we keep Orange Hitler/Toupee Kefka from entering the White House by voting in favor of 90s Democrat: The Movie. We need to fix this system, and all young progressives worth their salt need to get on this shit.
...If you're only looking at the labels, instead of the stated polices like you SHOULD, sure, not comparable, but since that's an idiotic and ignorant method of going about things, we can ignore it.
Maine implemented this for the first time in a national senate and house race in the Mid Terms yesterday, and its use is impacting the outcome. So exciting.
Democracy should only really exist on a small yet spread out scale. Even with 51% vote in a 1v1 election, 49% of the people displeased with a ruler (or whatever the elected position is) is far too many.
Why is it called first past the post anyway? If you are elected with a minority vote what post did you pass? It only makes sense to call it first past the post when you actually need a 51% of votes to get elected.
+CPTANT Comes from the horse racing apparently. First past the finish lines wins all. Meaning as long as you are even inch ahead of others you win. Meaning there isn't a fixed result you need to get, you don't need to have 50% as long as you are in front of others.
The very math models that are the basis for CGP Grey's videos on voting system, also would seem to suggest that it's also impossible to get out of an FPTP system.
Either it means Congress voting against their own interests (ha ha), or some massively well-funded campaign to take on the super PACs on a state by state basis (ha ha).
Nearly impossible, yes. It would have to start at the local level and slowly move up the food chain. And it would require legislatures to vote on making their jobs less secure...so yeah, nearly impossible. The only way I see it happening is if one of the two major parties starts to do REALLY poorly, creating an existential crisis that makes this type of election reform appealing as a means of breaking the power of the dominant party. I know I would cross party lines to vote for this type of change.
Why? The video is full of prejudicial bias. This is not a math issue as he claims. This is just a matter of psych warfare at this point. Think of the Bugs Life clip "Bug's Life Then they ALL might stand up to us." We made a video refuting this one.
+No More 2 Party System Did you even watch the video? The whole point _is_ that the system is bad :-P If you'd check his other videos, he talks about some other voting systems and cons and flaws about them.
No More 2 Party System Yeah, here's my thoughts on that: (Stuff in quotes is what I think you meant, not exact quotes) "The system in this video isn't exactly like the one in the US" and "He ignores other unfair laws, and the brainwashing of media" From what I understand, this video _isn't_ about the system in the US specifically, and is more to showcase the general idea behind the system and why it's bad. If you want something on US specifically, he has made some videos about the Electoral College too, I think. "The video ignores the fact that not everyone only votes for the two people" and "He makes it seem like there's no chance for change" I think the video is more about why the system is bad, rather than to make people not vote third party. "He says that voting for a third party makes it more likely for a party you dislike will win" Because it does. He doesn't say "don't vote third party", he says "the spoiler effect is a flaw of the first past the post system". He's not calling you a spoiler for voting third party, "the spoiler effect" is just the name of it. There can be other positive outcomes from voting third party, like changing the system, but that's not what the video is about :-P
ITR I appropriate your thoughtful reply. 1) Many US voters use this video as an excuse to not vote 3rd party 2) We have no data on how many people who vote 3rd party view Ds and Rs more as equally terrible vs lesser oe evil - but we have plenty of Pew/Gallop data showing how much Americans dislike Ds and Rs 3) Intentional or not the video comes off as anti-alt party but I understand that perception is subjective. 4) The failed 2 party system of Ds and Rs is already garbage so how does one spoil what's already garbage?
The addition of an option to vote directly against any candidate that you can vote directly for solves the "unavoidable two party system" problem. It's still a bad system, but the addition of such an option vastly improves any voting system which otherwise lacks such an option.
Many commenters are missing the elephant in the room when lauding proportional represenation. The winner-take-all system creates a 2 party system with 2 parties that generally have broad ideologies, which means that they represent many different political viewpoints. In proportional representation, ideologically narrow political parties form coalitions to take control of government. In the U.S. system, the ideological coalitions are already formed at the party level. So the reality is that the 2 party system has similar coalition building properties as the proportional representation system.
I wonder if the UK's recent coalition will decrease the spoiler effect? If people think they can prevent any party getting enough of the vote to rule by itself they might vote third party more hoping to force a coalition (again in a FPTP system)
But you also have to take into account the primary voting system. In that phase of voting, the most ideologically-pure candidate is the one chosen to represent the party at the general election. What you end up with is every election cycle the two parties drift further and further apart as only the most extreme of their parties is elected and they refuse to work together.
tbeller80 That's just been in the last 8-10 years. The American electoral system has actually experienced relatively little partisanship since the Civil War.
Our electoral system has gone through quite a few changes since 1865. I would compare our system since the 17th Amendment to look at partisanship. The partisan polarization is a big deal today, but seems to have been growing for at least a few decades and feeds on itself with each election cycle.
tbeller80 Proportional representation is fundamentally no better at preventing partisanship. Partisanship is a function of cultures. If you compare Congress to parliaments in Europe, American politicians are far less dedicated to their party and much more frequently vote against their party. Even a 90% party voting record would be low in many European parliaments. So one has to keep in mind that partisanship is relative.
I watched this many years ago now, but this might be one of the most important videos of my lifetime honestly. Every political discussion in my life ultimately has ended with showing and sharing this video with friends and family.
+BruceWillakers Just saw this for the first time from your twitter feed. Gonna show this to my parents so they finally understand my frustration with the political system. Thanks Rob!
+BruceWillakers It is so frustrating that so many people don't realize how terrible this voting system is or even that any other voting system can exist.
+BruceWillakers Its helpful when little kids bother you to go somewhere. One going one way, the other going the other. :3
Certainly gave me some insight on why we're so screwed here in England right now. First the Lib Dems, then UKIP, and SNP came along and put the final nail in the coffin for ever escaping the conservatives.
So true. So true.
Can we talk about how this poor lion Queen has a new husband every four years? Talk about divorce court.
I like your priorities. Have an upvote.
Dylan Darkness
I think the old husband is the real loser here.
Pokemon & DBZ fan don't judge no since he is the one she keeps trying to replace
A lion and a gorilla sharing a bed... hmmmm
The king and queen aren't always married. He said this in another video.
Very true! In India we follow FPTP and now we are left only with 2 major parties and little choice. Time for a revamp.
We have to learn from this catastrophe.
Same in America, and polarization is excluding more people daily.
And, racism in case of America!
It was reply for *****...
but in India, there are lots of regional parties......difficult for them to come in center but still spider, owl, tiger and the rest are not out of business. Still not perfect, need to improve......but damn can't have Congress running our country at the moment.
Depressing modern relevance aside, it’s kind of incredible how well this video holds up a DECADE later
Incredible... or sad? :D
@@jakubaipldauer2786 Both
I love this video so much
It's been true since the invention of democracy
Australia doesn't use FPTP! 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺!
Watching this at work, my coworker exclaims "zootopia lore is weird"
I love your coworker
@@trueaidooo I wish I could remember which one I was talking about 😂
Show them the fanfics and they'll stop bothering you about it
@@sinception5034 Better yet, show them the R34...
Lmao
Oh, I never understood why the US only has two active parties... That explains a lot
@James Clark India & Pakistan are young democracies and haven't had that many election cycles yet. In FPTP the number of parties tend to decrease over time until only 2 major parties are left. Give it another 50 years. One of the few ways how small parties can survive for a longer time in FPTP is by being extremely region specific like the SNP in the UK.
@James Clark There are two reasons why the US is a two party system:
The first is that it has presidential system. Meaning that the president is the most important figure in the government, compared to prime ministers in other countries (UK, Germany etc.). This means that a coalition between parties is not possible, because the office can only be held by one person. Even if more parties would make it into Congress, they wouldn't have as much influence, because the bigger parties wouldn't need them to govern. In countries with a parliamentary system coalitions are almost always necessary, because otherwise it is very hard to govern.
And the second reason is the districting. In countries like the UK you have 650 seats. That means that you need a lot less of support to gain at least some seats. And remember from the last point that these seats have more potential influence than the seats in US Congress. In the US there are only 50 states you can win to make a difference. And with the spoiler effect mentioned in the video it is not helpful to run as a third party (lookup Ross Perot).
So with a mix of first past the post voting and a parliamentary system, the US has become and will almost certainly stay a two party system.
@James Clark first-past-the-post is actually almost certainly one of the major contributing factors as to why we have such an entrenched two-party system here in the United States. For example as to why all you have to do is look at other nations with a first-past-the-post system such as Canada or the United Kingdom, which while not having literally only two parties, do both have only two parties which could ever realistically form a majority in the legislature. Both of these two parties will normally have such a large percentage of the population driven towards them that it's not even that uncommon for them to be able to form majority completely on their own (see the Canadian liberals after this most recent election, and the British conservatives after 2015). So even if there are other parties participating, only two of them are ever really competitive at any given time, and that is because of first-past-the-post.
the only difference in the u.s. is that we have the effects of first-past-the-post stacked on top of the effects of gerrymandering and the Electoral College, which form something of an Unholy Trinity which combined make fair and representative elections impossible in the country.
It’s ironic that there’s 538 likes on this comment
Technically, the United States does not have a First-Past-the-Post system. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide. This isn’t necessarily better than a First-Past-the-Post system however. In 1824, no candidate had a majority, so the House of Representatives actually ended up picking the candidate with the second most electoral votes.
I just realized the animals used in video were chosen intentionally
Owl voters are neutral
Gorilla, monkey, and turtle votes are all less aggressive, with Gorilla being reserved but tough and turtle being extremely non-confrontaltional
Leopard, tiger, and snake voters are more agressive, with Leopard being a predator yet sluggish and snake being extremely confrontational
Also gorilla and leopard are natural enemies in their habitat
Herbivores and carnivores as far left and far right too
monkeys and gorillas are both in the primate species while tigers and leopards are both big cats, so there's another layer.
This is quite possibly the most important and underrated political video on the entire Internet. You explain why FPTP must be abolished more clearly than, I think, anyone else ever has. This deserves to be shared far and wide. Frankly, it's criminal that this video series is not taught in every high school civics class in America.
And the Hillbots WANT this system! If you are going to reform the EC either pick something like STV or Alternative Vote NOT FPTP!
This has nothing to do with the Electoral College.
Though that ought to go too.
There are high school civics classes?
People do things for reasons. How would showing this video in government schools benefit the government?
Adam Smith If you want to eliminate FPTP, fine, but do it with run-off elections, not STV or AV because people simply do not have transitive voting preferences.
Who cares about Trump or Hillary, I'm voting for Turtle
Johnson?
vote for Harambe XD
I LIKE TURTLES!!!!
i vote for snake because im a slithery snakr
#TURTLE4KING
I also discovered this video years ago, but I have used it countless times to explain our voting system to other people, and I just wanted to thank you for creating something so detailed and informative yet simple and easy to follow. Every time I show it to someone I end up rewatching it myself and am always amazed at how effectively it conveys it message. Beautiful work.
Washington, on his deathbed: Please don’t make a two party system.
Hamilton and Jefferson: Mhm, mhm, we won’t. 🙂
Guess what happens n e x t
It's (two) party time!
@@PitLord777 The End of Democracy: You Can (Not) Vote Third Party.
Didn't Washington want a one-party state?
“Let’s split up gang!”
@@beatthegreat7020 he wanted a no party state, AKA "Were all adults here let's discuss this like adults and get things done even if we don't agree on everything"
It's scary how almost a decade into the future this is the most relevant thing about the 2020 election.
A little depressing right? After all this time nothing has changed. I wonder if it ever will
What if I told you it was already relevant but more people are seemingly noticing.
There is some good news. Ranked choice voting has expanded and is being talked about somewhat now.
Massachusetts ballot question 2
@@chidzhustle3570 bro it’s been this way for over 200 years. You think from 2010-2020 it’s going to get magically fixed?
Please start lobbying for change. Electoral reform would go a long way to healing both the UK and the US. The major parties will never bring this up. The system actively supports them. The change has to come from the outside.
You explained perfectly why I hate America's system. Most people vote against a party they hate instead of for one they like . And because your party knows you have no other choice they have no incentive to actually listen to the needs of their voters
Ditto for the UK
And will do whatever they need to do to keep it this way and have convinced enough of their base to be against any effort to change it.
I wish people knew more about other voting systems. Everyone is dissatisfied regardless of ideology. Plurality is unrepresentative and unfair!
Approval voting ftw
I couldn't put my finger on why I disliked politics and voting until I watched this video. You can't understand how this important this video is to me gcp. Thank you
I could feel my brain growing just watching it!
you mean shrinking, this is taxation without representation. Make America Free Again
@@JohnDoe-fs6tk I'd say that one person one vote lowers representation. people don't really vote FOR who they want, but against who they don't. You're voting with a negative feeling, which I think leads to dissatisfied voters a lot. At least for me.
Really the whole concept of making voting a right is ultimately not the best, but that's another conversation
FPTP is your typical British political idea: sounds great on paper, generates dire consequences. The aim of it was to generate governments with strong majorities to implement their plants, which in theory appears wise enough. The actual result is parliaments that are totally unrepresentative of how people vote, consolidated around 2-3 main political parties while the rest are relegated to the fringes regardless of their share of votes. It generates disenfranchisement as people begin to realize their vote amounts to nothing unless they vote for one of the major parties.
This video needs more views.
+Slimy Weasles ...especiall by civics/government classes everywhere
Share it any time it's relevant
Many many more views
MORE
This is teaching me better than school ever could. I'm just randomly tapping on this guy's videos and it helps with visual learning, repeats the demonstration (sometimes in a slightly different way as it could play out differently), and explains fully.
Dear Grey, A friend of mine from Russia wanted to know why we only have two candidates in America. This was a question I actually didn't fully know, but this video helped me explain why their is only the Democratic and Republican party and why we don't have third parties. Thanks you for making this video.
I would have thought that a Russian would have asked why the US has AS MANY AS two candidates...
we have third parties, but they arent as strong, the most notable is the Green Party.
@@grantss1 they have more Putin, Putin and Putin are the three main candidates
More relevant now than ever.
Brightest Light
Just you wait till 2020 buddy
It’s not even a now-more-than-ever it’s just fucking relevant
It’s becoming more relevant as time goes on
relevant now as well
Tiger 2016! Tiger will build a wall! And Turtle will pay for it!
+6988kid You filthy feline, vote Gorilla! Gorilla 2016! Down with the queen's system!
6988kid Tiger hates the squirels for practcing their "nutty" religion. It's a free jungle.
Mlyt
+6988kid I propose we make a temporary ban on snakes entering the country.
Those damn turtle
THIS! That's why everyone is fed up with politics in the US. It's a completely broken system
Still sucks in the future :(
The us doesn’t use first past the post
T.J. SnackAttack Yes, it does. Members of Congress are elected using the FPTP system.
and the president is just a slightly better one, since the team that gets the I forget how many electoral votes necessary to win already has majority
@@t.j.snackattack1237 The US does, indeed, use a first past the post system.
Man. Life in the jungle is so complicated!
FPTP simple, fair and logical, minus the fair and logical
Simple. Yes. That highlights another issue:
An EDUCATED, INFORMED POPULATION is needed for democracy to work.
Voters need to KNOW THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, and vote accordingly. They need to know the issues. Otherwise the vote becomes swayed by other stuff: tribal antagonism, or shallow esthetic preference, or temporary outrage, or conspiracy-minded thinking. The list goes on.
@@lexprontera8325 explains why so many Americans are not educated lol
this was NINE years ago, it's amazing how much it holds up, it's just the current videos minus a little bit of snark
This video, and the rest if this series, deserve to be the most viewed videos on UA-cam. Most useful and entertaining video in exsistanse. Years later I still find myself coming back to it on a regular basis, even more than the other great videos on this channel.
Or: an introduction to British politics!
Or the politics of any former British colony.
Australia has preferential voting. :) ...shit we don't have crappy voting systems to blame for our bad leadership :(
Shit man. You ok bro? that cracked me the fuck up.
We have preferential voting, but winner takes all still applies.
Except for the Senate where you have STV so that chamber is more representative with more smaller parties that have more seats.
Should be required viewing for those complaining about the "corrupt, two-party system."
The system in the US was NEVER meant to be democratic!
@@jerryz2541 You've been brainwashed by your government to love the fact that your democracy is failing.
@@sakawi Agreed. People say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, but just because it's intentional doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
@@jerryz2541 And? That means the system has an inherent flaw to what most people want, more democratic elections. Who cares if a bunch of dudes 200 years ago didn't intend the system to be democratic? that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion and you admit our point that the us election system is corrupt and undemocratic
@@angrypepe7615 @Filip Wolffs
@ThatPCGamer
- FYI - each State is a democracy, but the way the President is elected is configured so that smaller States have a say in who becomes President. Without this electoral safeguard, 3 or 4 States would always elect the President and the rest would be ignored. You guys need more education about what is considered equality for ALL... @ThatPCGamer - Clearly, your government has failed to educate you past the 4th grade.
We need to get rid of the First Past of the Post system in America.
Kevalry We need to get rid of the First Past of the Post system.
We use The Well Electoral College system
Furballs Bizzae To elect our president. We use First past of the post to elect our Senators and Representatives.
Furballs Bizzae Even the Electoral College system is still a subset of the FPTP. Remember, the electoral college is all or nothing (except for Maine and Nebraska), so the electors almost act as a single unit. One party with 51% of the votes wins 100% of the electors, not 51%.
Kevalry Replacing it with Instant-Runoff Voting with compulsory voting would do wonders for the US.
It works in Australia. The disinterested voters act as a moderating counterweight to keep the extremists out.
Great video, CGP Grey. We're pointing our supporters to this video to learn more about the problems with First Past The Post.
I immediately thought of this video with an election that happened yesterday in the town of Fall River, Mass. There, the citizens had a special election asking if they wanted to recall the current mayor and who they wanted as their new mayor. Despite 60% of all votes saying they wanted the mayor to be recalled, he still won the election as he was on the ballot of "who do you want to be the new mayor" with a vote of 35% because no one else got as much
Ignoring the absurdity of the situation in general... 40% didn't want new mayor, yet only 35% voted for him?
@@jakistam1000 the 5% doest really like him but not at the level to want a special election
@@jakistam1000 5% were probably like "I don't want a special election, BUT if we are having one, I guess I would like this other person better"
Thank you for making this. I've been citing it a lot lately.
I have to say that I like the design and style of these videos. 5 years later (on the internet no less) and it does not look dated. A tiny bit like a powerpoint presentation, but there is a certain timelessness of powerpoint presentations, which I'm going to attribute to nostalgia and my middle school and high school computer classes but still believe to be valid (making terrible school project powerpoint presentations is almost an American rite of passage).
5 years since your comment and this decade old video still holds up well
...oof, learning about the First Past the Post system can really take the hope out of you, for finding a candidate that closely aligns to your values. Seems like a better voting system would possibly be better for the United States and other countries.
Every 4 years this video explodes again. It is just amazing
Please put all these political videos into a playlist! EVERYONE needs to watch them, great stuff! Thank you!
Saw this about 9 years ago. I still link it to people about 4 times a year.
In Ireland we use the s.t.v system and we get a much wider range of parties
Thank you. This explains it better than anything else I've seen or heard.
OK, I'm off to watch your videos on gerrymandering and election alternatives.
Love this video man, I've been able to explain this problem to my friends so much easier now because I can show them this video. Keep making these!
Very odd. I could have sworn you had a playlist before. I'd bookmaked it, but now it's gone.
Glad you still have the videos at least!
Damn this is some serious stuff man. I mean this basically social choice theory explained beautifully.
Revisiting this after the 2019 Canadian election - still surprising how Canada seems to be able to support smaller parties despite the supposed inevitability of a two party system in FPTP... (though I would personally much rather STV).
Yea I hope they change the system. Doubt it though since the only reason liberal won was because of this system
@@Bionicleforever It's the only reason the LPC or CPC get a majority ever. Center voters decide when to fire the leader they get disappointed with and vote the other big party. It's complete garbage. Neither of those parties wants to change the system.
YES YES GOD YES. I have to watch this for a college class IM SO HAPPY I LOVE THIS CHANNEL.
These voting-systems and gerrymandering videos are probably among the most important content on youtube. It's a shame, that this still only has 5 M views.
Every student in every country should be required to watch them (or something similar) at least twice
Somehow this video got lost in today's political situation, and everyone thinks 3rd party is the best idea ever...
If enough people vote Third Party then the establishment would notice and might even introduce the Alternative Vote to win back those votes, in an ideal world.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't that 3rd party candidates are bad. The point is that the system is broken and undemocratic. Our votes really are meaningless because we're powerless to elect the people that are best to lead us. It's impossible to actually achieve change. The status quo will continue forever until we FORCE our governments to fix our voting systems and restructure the balance of power. And we can't rely on them to do so fairly because they want nothing of the sort. The ones in power understand that the system works in their favor. They wouldn't want to actually make it fair because they know that will take them out of power and cost them buttloads of money. The 3rd party candidates likely are better for your nation, but they'll never be able to get elected.
In Canada, we're supposed to be electing local representatives from our districts to represent our interests. Instead, these representatives have formed political parties and are forced to back each other in order to remain in power. This enforces that instead of representing the people in their district they represent their political parties. This cripples the system and makes it undemocratic. The USA has an even worse system from the sounds of it. We all need to get involved, recognize that our systems aren't working, and keep fighting for the changes needed to make our votes actually count. And expect that every step of the way the people currently in power will be trying to sabotage that process, no matter how convincingly they sound like they support it and support you.
After this election I have actually realised something. Voting third paty is the only way to not waste your vote. HRC got the popular vote but didn't even win the Presidency, it was the elctoral college. So no matter what you chose, especially if your in a Red or Blue state, your vote didn't mean anything... Unless you voted Third Party.
Main political parties don't need popular votes, they need electoral college votes, but the third parties do. At 5% they can get Federal Funding for the next election. At 15% they earn a place in the National Presdiential Debates. This doesn't matter for Democrats or Republicans but is very important for third parties.
Vote third party, actually matter.
This is why we (U.S.) have Hillary and Trump! The question for CGP Grey and fellow viewers is, how can we change are voting system? Might be a good video topic CGP. "Can the U.S. change voting systems?"
Grassroots action is the only way. The two parties benefiting from it sure aren't going to take the initiative to stop it. We can use this abysmal election to get these conversations started, but we need to get the whole nation talking about it.
Alternative vote.
Absolutely. It would take a lot of work and probably a constitutional amendment, but our government is set up to allow these kinds of changes. Eventually. See "hard work."
I'm honestly okay with choosing the lesser of two evils in this election (especially because the gulf between her and the greater evil is so damn wide) but we can't just forget this as soon as our new President is sworn in.
The more I think about this the more I believe that the start of the grassroots movement is simply to stop voting out of fear. This election (if not in all elections) we seem to be faced with a choice of evils, with so many voting for the lesser of the two and people disagreeing about who the lesser is. If all of that group of people who vote for the "lesser of the two" would choose to do a third party or a write in campaign. It would send a powerful message that there is a majority who are not satisfied with the status quo of either of the big parties.
The answer is easy and harder than you think.
Vote third parties into Congress. The more third parties you have in the Senate and the House, the more they are known. Get them elected and grow in Congress. This may take a few terms.
But if you get enough in there two things will happen: 1) Enough people will join and support the third party so that they will actually be backed for a presidential candidate. or
2) they get so powerful the take over one of the parties already established.
Does number two sound familiar? It should......
I love the way this is made it makes it super easy to take in information with it feeling boring ty grey
This system is honestly ridiculous. In my country there's a system where when you get 23% of the vote, you get.... 23% of the seats in parliament! Wild concept, I know.
@0:14: Excepts lions don't even live in the jungle, much less rule them.
That honour goes to the tiger, who reigns over both the jungle and the Siberian arctic.
Strongly disagree about the tiger having reigns in the jungle, because that honor actually belongs to the Gorilla, who is the true supreme animal in that realm. I do agree with you that the domain of tigers is the Siberian Arctic.....definitely tiger turf.
So....my problem with this analysis: What about Canada?
In Canada we have a growing number of parties. We started with 2 main ones - currently called the Conservatives and the Liberals. At some point the largely conservative leaning Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party that runs exclusively in Quebec and thus can never actually win the election and the largely Liberal-but-more-so New Democrat Party joined the fray. Over the course of the last 20 years, a fifth party, the environmentally focused Green party has gone from being a couple of people who run in elections and lose to having the required number of seats for official party status.
While it's true that the two original parties are the only ones that have ever been in power, it's worth noting that the NDP and Bloc have both had significant power in various minority governments over the years. Canada's universal healthcare system is a concession that was demanded by the NDP for their support, for instance. And the NDP has even been the official opposition party at one point, as the Liberal party was quietly self destructing in a corner after Paul Martin's term.
And yet, every time voting reforms come up, enough people either just buy into the "it's complicated, you won't understand it" mantra, or they offer up so many different systems that none gets the required majority for significant voting reform to occur, thus defaulting to the status quo. We're still FPTP.
I usually probe the comments to answer things myself, but I don't know. CGP, you really need to come take a look.
So far the best video on FPTP system that I have watched ....thank u so much CGP Grey...
Your electoral system vids are extremely valuable, and I thank you very much, sir.
it is a quite interesting topic. could i translated the video to spanish? I fell that the info need to reach more people.
+Alejandro Rodolfo Mendez POR FAVOR!!!
lo hare. pero creo que ya tiene una chica para eso? no se, por eso pedí permiso por las dudas.
Just translate it via this video. Dont upload a new one
you can only do that with the subs.
Do it I am sure he wont mind.
I lived in California for 20 years & now Texas, & I have never been actually “represented”. I keep voting but often wonder wtf the point is.
This has been my favorite UA-cam video in over four years now.
So this is the same with the presidential election in the US right?
No. You have to have over 50% of the votes to win.
+Matt Bingham you only have to have over 50 percent of the *electoral* votes, which is a different beast. Each individual election for each state is still FPTP
***** that's what I said. And no, not every state is winner take all. Maine and Nebraska are proportional.
The Electoral College is *completely* different than First Pass.
I would say we have both the electoral college AND FPTP as within every state it is one person one vote. Both are both barriers to breaking the 2 party system.
Im here before british elections in december 2019 and this system of voting sucks.
@Nocturne1501 They been fucking us all up for 10 years, why can't you see people in England see that.
@@ShrunkedDude For the first 5 years, their hands were tied by the limp dumbs. For the next 5, they still had a very small majority (and ultimately lost it), meaning they couldn't do much. It's only now that they have a comfortably majority, can they really implement what they want. Although most of this year has been taken with the COVID distraction.
Ranked Choice voting is a question on the ballot in Massachusetts in November. There's no explanation to show why it might be a good idea. If you know anyone voting in Massachusetts it might be a good idea to share this video. Thanks
Uhhhh!!! As in, you tick it off and if a sufficient margin of people vote for it, a related legislation has to be treated? How did it go???
Absolutely brilliant illustration, and my go-to method of illustrating the issue to others.
Great job.
The Canadian election is wrapping up and here I am watching this again and sharing it to others.
I am watching this in my A-Level Politics class. 🦁
What ideologies do you study?
Every municipal building in the nation (USA) should be forced to play this on televisions in their lobbies on repeat 24/7, 365.
Köszönjük!
Very true.
I like the idea of using proportional representation for both the legislative and executive branches, the way Switzerland does.
There's no reason to handle all the power to a single representative or chief executive when power can just as easily be shared.
If you're watching this in 2020 in the United States, you now know why we need a constitutional amendment to fix FPTP.
No, you don't. FPTP is not in the Constitution, it's in state law.
@@a2falcone yeah you're right. You can change the state law to get rid of FPTP, like Maine and Alaska already did. Maine had its first STV vote in 2018, Alaska will start from 2022.
aaaand another five years of David Cameron :(
The True Fizz That's racist.
David Cameron is a fascist!!
The True Fizz Welcome to a policestate worse than the old nazi state! I wish you good luck :
MrProthall are you dumb
Tomas Thurston
dum*
SMH
Thanks, CGP Grey!! These videos are incredible!
Thanks again FPTP, you gave us Trump vs Clinton.
Particularly Trump. If the Republican rank-and-file had all had equal power over the nomination, Kasich would have beaten Trump. It's not as clear for HRC, because only Bernie ran against her, and in a two-candidate election, FPTP is as good as any other system.
@@williamwaugh8670 Only problem is that FPTP is NOT "as good as any other system" in a two-candidate election IF FPTP is the reason WHY you have only two candidates....
@@drmadjdsadjadi, Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you are right.
This video has never been more important. We must change our electoral system in the USA!!! We need to demand a constitutional amendment!! Get this video series out to everyone you know! Stop just voting for Republicans or Democrats, instead vote third party to raise awareness and then share this video! Tell your friends and family! It's the only way we will EVER see real change in this country. This is straight up math, it cannot be denied.
Jon Krieger wish all American were as intelligent as you 😩👌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Unfortunately the video explains why the third party plan would never work.
Spoiler Effect dude.
Did you not watch the video?
This should be aired on national television (UK). Should explain to people why we desperately need election reform.
this video was so awesome !! thankyou so much CGP Grey !!
Theres an error in the English subtitles at 4:43 where "eliminate" is spelt as "illuminate"
If you go to 1:12, you can see the percentages. Under the new system, the percentages of the candidates are added from top to bottom until we get 50% or over. So cheetah (20) + Guerrilla (19) = 39% still not 50%. Add the monkey vote (18) and you get 57%. Owel, snake, and turtle are eliminated. Most turtles vote for monkey (18 + 7) since he's the softest. However, 2% vote for gorilla (19+2) since they feel that he can stand up to cheetah. The tigers (15) vote for cheetah (20 + 15). The owls are pretty neutral and their votes go to monkey (25 + 1), gorilla (21 + 6), and cheetah (35 + 6). Now we add cheetah (41) + gorilla (27)= 68% monkey is eliminated. Monkeys vote for Guerrilla (27 + 26) and we get 52% of the vote going towards Guerilla making him the victor.
+jacob taylor lol
F
As someone who lives in Australia, which has preferential voting, it absolutely astonishes me that other countries don't... the teetering of democracy is a scary thought...
Excellent video!
Explained what I needed to know, clearly, and in few words. Brilliant!
This sure feels relevant, today.
Im surprised there isnt a flood of comments on here. ... Everyone's calling for the downfall of the electoral college, but offers nothing up as a replacement.
@@CleverGirlAAH
The Far left politicians in the US have been advocating for Ranked Choice Voting
It's as relevant as in any other US national election.
@@Kingdomkey123678 Far left on US standards, for the very reasons explained in the above video, but yes you are right.
I can't believe Grey predicted Harambe on the ballots 5 years before Harambe died. UNREAL
omfg this explains british politics so much
The quality of these videos is great! I think it'd be great if more people got to see this video in particular. The recent ''3 rules for rulers'' video was also very good, I've just found your channel and watched like 6 videos and all really liked them.
Glad to have found this channel :)
we have first past the post here, and we still have 7-ish parties, though it varies, sometimes more sometimes less, but it's never boiled down to just 2 parties...
Yes it has, no one takes any party seriously other than Republicans and Democrats, no other party has a chance to win anything important, or usually anything at all
drcool41 there are other countries than the US you know
where is "here?"
5:01 so, bernie's the tiger?
Yup, with a little of Stein & Johnson mixed in as well.
Nah, Jill Stein or probably more likely Gary Johnson judging by the polling at the moment.
Tho maybe fifth guy that just got in might get momentum... or maybe he'll be the spoiler spoiler. XD
Or Gary Johnson more accurately.
The T.C.
And Ralph Nader in 2000, whose spoiler effect sealed Al Gore's fate in both Florida and New Hampshire and thus gave the presidency to Bush :P
az929292
I think you mean "Jeb Bush rigged the ballots and the supreme court was like 'eh fuck it, W wins no recount' and everyone accepted it because back then the middle class existed"
THIS WAS MADE IN 2011 AND PERFECTLY EXPLAINS THE TRUMP/BERNIE/CLINTON ELECTION OF 2016.
magic
Sadly it will explain every election you're ever involved in. This shit gets old FAST
I'm still so fucking annoyed that nobody's fucking talking about trying to rally to change this system after we keep Orange Hitler/Toupee Kefka from entering the White House by voting in favor of 90s Democrat: The Movie. We need to fix this system, and all young progressives worth their salt need to get on this shit.
Not exactly, considering Bernie was running as a democrat.
Hillary's closer to Hitler, Trump is more like Mussolini.
I hate both, but I want to get the comparisons right.
...If you're only looking at the labels, instead of the stated polices like you SHOULD, sure, not comparable, but since that's an idiotic and ignorant method of going about things, we can ignore it.
Maine implemented this for the first time in a national senate and house race in the Mid Terms yesterday, and its use is impacting the outcome. So exciting.
Democracy should only really exist on a small yet spread out scale. Even with 51% vote in a 1v1 election, 49% of the people displeased with a ruler (or whatever the elected position is) is far too many.
If you care about the future of the Animal Kingdom, You'll vote TURTLE!!!
Why is it called first past the post anyway? If you are elected with a minority vote what post did you pass? It only makes sense to call it first past the post when you actually need a 51% of votes to get elected.
+CPTANT
That, in my opinion, is one of the worst parts of FPTP: its name is extremely misleading.
+CPTANT Comes from the horse racing apparently. First past the finish lines wins all. Meaning as long as you are even inch ahead of others you win. Meaning there isn't a fixed result you need to get, you don't need to have 50% as long as you are in front of others.
*****
But in horse racing you still actually have to reach the finish line, it doesn't get moved closer if all the other horses fail to reach it.
CPTANT Hey it is just a metaphor and analogue. It's not perfect.
First past the post means over 50% but that only works in a 2 party system but more parties than 2 is really a majority vote
Sharing this again since there is a mail-in referendum in British Columbia regarding a change in our electoral system so fingers crossed!
The very math models that are the basis for CGP Grey's videos on voting system, also would seem to suggest that it's also impossible to get out of an FPTP system.
Sadly, yes.
In the US, it would basically take a constitutional amendment. At least on a national level.
Either it means Congress voting against their own interests (ha ha), or some massively well-funded campaign to take on the super PACs on a state by state basis (ha ha).
Nearly impossible, yes. It would have to start at the local level and slowly move up the food chain. And it would require legislatures to vote on making their jobs less secure...so yeah, nearly impossible. The only way I see it happening is if one of the two major parties starts to do REALLY poorly, creating an existential crisis that makes this type of election reform appealing as a means of breaking the power of the dominant party. I know I would cross party lines to vote for this type of change.
Except for a process that runs on another level, like a revolution or a big war or something.
Damn, this video is almost 10 years old. It's probably older than most of the kids on youtube.
older than 70% of dreams viewers
I've had to show this to so many Stein and Johnson lovers lately...
Why? The video is full of prejudicial bias. This is not a math issue as he claims. This is just a matter of psych warfare at this point. Think of the Bugs Life clip "Bug's Life Then they ALL might stand up to us." We made a video refuting this one.
+No More 2 Party System Did you even watch the video? The whole point _is_ that the system is bad :-P
If you'd check his other videos, he talks about some other voting systems and cons and flaws about them.
ITR Yes, watched the video and refuted many of the nonsensical claims in it. Did you watch the video on our channel refuting the claims in this video?
No More 2 Party System Yeah, here's my thoughts on that: (Stuff in quotes is what I think you meant, not exact quotes)
"The system in this video isn't exactly like the one in the US" and "He ignores other unfair laws, and the brainwashing of media"
From what I understand, this video _isn't_ about the system in the US specifically, and is more to showcase the general idea behind the system and why it's bad.
If you want something on US specifically, he has made some videos about the Electoral College too, I think.
"The video ignores the fact that not everyone only votes for the two people" and "He makes it seem like there's no chance for change"
I think the video is more about why the system is bad, rather than to make people not vote third party.
"He says that voting for a third party makes it more likely for a party you dislike will win"
Because it does. He doesn't say "don't vote third party", he says "the spoiler effect is a flaw of the first past the post system".
He's not calling you a spoiler for voting third party, "the spoiler effect" is just the name of it. There can be other positive outcomes from voting third party, like changing the system, but that's not what the video is about :-P
ITR I appropriate your thoughtful reply.
1) Many US voters use this video as an excuse to not vote 3rd party
2) We have no data on how many people who vote 3rd party view Ds and Rs more as equally terrible vs lesser oe evil - but we have plenty of Pew/Gallop data showing how much Americans dislike Ds and Rs
3) Intentional or not the video comes off as anti-alt party but I understand that perception is subjective.
4) The failed 2 party system of Ds and Rs is already garbage so how does one spoil what's already garbage?
Excellent presentation. Very well done.
Some great insights on the problem with a FPTP system.
The addition of an option to vote directly against any candidate that you can vote directly for solves the "unavoidable two party system" problem. It's still a bad system, but the addition of such an option vastly improves any voting system which otherwise lacks such an option.
You can do that in Approval voting. Approve everyone except them. Mathematically equivalent.
Many commenters are missing the elephant in the room when lauding proportional represenation. The winner-take-all system creates a 2 party system with 2 parties that generally have broad ideologies, which means that they represent many different political viewpoints. In proportional representation, ideologically narrow political parties form coalitions to take control of government. In the U.S. system, the ideological coalitions are already formed at the party level. So the reality is that the 2 party system has similar coalition building properties as the proportional representation system.
I wonder if the UK's recent coalition will decrease the spoiler effect? If people think they can prevent any party getting enough of the vote to rule by itself they might vote third party more hoping to force a coalition (again in a FPTP system)
But you also have to take into account the primary voting system. In that phase of voting, the most ideologically-pure candidate is the one chosen to represent the party at the general election. What you end up with is every election cycle the two parties drift further and further apart as only the most extreme of their parties is elected and they refuse to work together.
tbeller80 That's just been in the last 8-10 years. The American electoral system has actually experienced relatively little partisanship since the Civil War.
Our electoral system has gone through quite a few changes since 1865. I would compare our system since the 17th Amendment to look at partisanship. The partisan polarization is a big deal today, but seems to have been growing for at least a few decades and feeds on itself with each election cycle.
tbeller80 Proportional representation is fundamentally no better at preventing partisanship. Partisanship is a function of cultures. If you compare Congress to parliaments in Europe, American politicians are far less dedicated to their party and much more frequently vote against their party. Even a 90% party voting record would be low in many European parliaments. So one has to keep in mind that partisanship is relative.
Primer did a really great Video on this subject!
9 years later and this is only more relevant...
Haha the script of this is brilliant. My favorite part is 5:51 aka how gorilla secretly funds the 3rd party
5:39 pretty much explains the 1992 us election
Our teacher showed us this video in school, and I had no idea it was you! Your voice and videos are completely different! oh wait this is 11 years ago