Electoral College Pros And Cons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- The electoral college is the system used in the United states to elect the president and the vice president. In US presidential elections, people don’t vote for the president, they vote for electors who then vote for the president and vice president. There are 538 Electors divided out by state, with the states with larger populations getting more electors. Whoever wins the popular vote in each state gets all the electors in all but 2 states, for example when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in California in 2016 she got all 55 electors. What this means is that there isn’t really a single presidential election, there are 50 individual ones in each state.
Get Paid For Answering Surveys- No Joke, I got £30 off of this in a week- qm.ee/488B3739
SUBSCRIBE HERE!- / @thatswhytv
Where you can find me!
Twitter: / thatswhytv
Facebook: / thatswhytv
The biggest pro of the electoral college is that it supposedly prevents a demagogue getting into power. A demagogue is a leader who relies on people’s emotions and prejudices to get into power as opposed to using rational argument, and at the time the constitution was written, the founding fathers feared that if the president was voted in by an uneducated and uninformed population, people could fall prey to this kind of a person. When the constitution was being drafted the founding father james madison wrote about these fears in the federalist papers, arguing that the electoral college was needed, to act as a kind of middlemen between the population at large and government. Having just freed themselves from the tyranny of king George the founding fathers also wanted a system that provided a balance between an unelected king and complete democracy. The electoral college was thought to represent that balance, because it allows people to vote for the electors, but the electors the ones who actually vote for president.
Opponents of the electoral college argue that it is archaic and not needed anymore.
In response to the idea that it guards against an uninformed population voting in a demagogue, they would argue that nowadays people are a lot more educated. The electoral college also doesn’t respond to the will of the people, it’s undemocratic ,in two elections in the past twenty years, most recently in 2016, the candidate who lost the popular vote became president. The electoral college also reinforces the two party system which deprives people of choice as they are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, again and again. Oponents argue along these lines that as other parts of the constitution have been modernised with amendments such as by rewarding women and blakc people the vote,
so should the voting system be updated by replacing the electoral college with a popular vote system that accurately reflects modern times
Those in favour of the electoral college maintain that it is still a system that needs to be in place today because it provides a level of certainty that a system of popular vote would not. It prevents the need for recounts or run off elections. Also, in a popular vote system, candidates could just ignore small states and go to larger ones like california or texas to run up the vote, but because of the electoral college, they are forced to campaign in all states, leading to a more national campaign. Opponents of the electoral college reject this idea, arguing that instead it leads to candidates taking certain larger states for granted and campaigning almost exclusively in swing states like florida and ohio. Also because of the way electors are distributed, it leads to smaller states getting more electors, meaning votes in these states quite literally mean more than in larger states, which is hardly fair.
Overall it seems that the electoral college is favoured by some who see it as a moderating influence on american politics, because it gives smaller states more power, and it is designed to help prevent demagogues from getting into power. Opponents of the electoral college see it as archaic and undemocratic, they argue that people’s votes should matter, the candidate who gets the most votes should win. That’s the electoral college. please like, share and subscribe!
Tags:
electoral college explained,presidential election,popular vote,electoral college vs popular vote debate,electoral college debate,us election 2020,how is the president elected,republicans,democrats,congress,house of representatives,us constitution,voting,donald trump,joe biden,will trump win,who will win 2020 election,2020 election prediction,election map
the music kinda makes me tired
thank you for this video!
51 elections there's a district too
The electoral college needs to be revised:
Cities with populations larger than the population of the state it’s in should get separate electoral votes from the rest of the state.
first of all, america was never meant to be democratic as it is a constitutional republic.
Second of all???
@@thatswhytv second of all, good video
Thos are the same thing
@@californiaandwashington1377 after 2 years, they are still both different things
@@malekturner9877 nah what’s the difference because you both vote in them
1:03 well that didn’t work
Memememene
Heheheheh
It did, the democrats are the emotional, uneducated pieces of shit. Trump never looked to emotions, all policies.
the concept of complaining about swing states seems like a very flimsy argument to me.. swing states exist by design of the system. statistics dictate that the more people tend to congregate in an area, the more likely they will vote unilaterally....so the argument has to be that you dont want smaller states to have a say that is unproportional to their population,.so really it comes down to the idea that the union shouldnt be federalist, and the states themselves should have less autonomy overall. which of course all makes sense.. but is an unconstitutional concept
The Electoral College System was also meant to prevent states with large urban areas (whose cosmopolitan values tend to be at odds from the country at large) from dominating states with more rural populations. It was meant to create elections by states, not by individuals. In the same way that United Nation votes occur by nation (with no regard to the weight of populations in those nations), so was our system meant to be. If one wants to look at where the "democracy" lies, then it lies at the state level. You are elected by the popular vote but within your state. Everyone knows the rules of the election. If the rules were different, there's no guarantee that the elections of 2000 and 2016 would be different because all the candidates would have campaigned differently.
So do you think each state should get the same amount of electoral votes then?
@@thatswhytv States are not completely sovereign (like a nation is supposed to be). Historically, you could say that they were "semi-sovereign" to a large degree. The history of the United States is a history of the states surrendering power to the federal government. Someone might point out arguments to the contrary (like marijuana laws), but these are weak arguments. The federal government has not repealed any regulatory laws on marijuana and could enforce them any time they chose to do so. My point is that states are still "semi-sovereign" but to a lesser degree than they used to be.
My further point is that states could never demand equal representation within the current federal system. They had equal representation under the Articles of Confederation, but surrendered it when our new Constitution was ratified. The Great Compromise solidified the current system of representation as well as the Electoral College. Without granting smaller states the concession of Senators contributing to the Electoral College it is doubtful that many small states would have agreed to our new Constitution. Many people today do not see freedom the way most of the Founders did. They [The Founders] mostly saw it as freedom from something (like a powerful central government or even an overly powerful State government). Today, freedom is just as frequently seen as empowerment. I tax and transfer wealth from someone else so that I can get better healthcare, education, and a standard of living. This shift explains the growth of collectivist policies that form out social safety-net.
I'll admit that the country is at a crossroads. Do people still want to have states at all? Why have them if they are stripped of all significance? They are increasingly becoming merely administrative zones of the federal government instead of regions that can have very different laws from other states. It's part of the reason that people look at the Electoral College and say "What's the point?" or "Why have elections by states?" and "Why not have it purely by nationwide individuals?". As someone who has read about the transformation of government in our country over time, I can see the chasm of how the Founders set the country up and how it actually functions today. One might respond that "nothing stays the same." or "Everything has to eventually change." The problem with that way of thinking is that there is nothing truly foundational to hang ones hat upon. The next generation might grow tired of representative government if it does not give them the things they want. After all, would you want to live in under a more authoritarian government that gives you lots of things you want and like OR live under a democracy where the things you value are perennially snubbed and ignored?
Whoa! You're smart. That's all I have to say so have a nice day/night.
So what you are saying is it's specifically designed to make it so that the majority can be controlled and the larger number of people that will have to live with unpopular decisions are repressed. What you are saying is that the few million people that live in the far-flung and rural United States should get everything they want while the millions and millions that live in cities should be ignored. Also, it's not like the majority of people live far away from cities, according to the Washington post 80% (or 83% for 2020 census) of the United States live in cities. AND it's not like the presidential candidates go to small states because they still aren't worth it because they still don't have enough picking power. I want you to think about how much more influence rural America would have if they all counted at once instead of small parts being divided and conquered because most states give winner takes all so right now you can look at the voting maps for the election and see that around half of the people in every state are completely cut out of the equation.
also, the idea that smaller states are unfairly represented is not a good argument. It's almost like in a country that is brought into being by the words "we the people" care more about the people than the governmental systems made to serve and protect them, even though the ones that wrote the words "all men are created equal" also made the most unequal way to pick a president. The most deadly war in American history (civil war) was so bad because people were more loyal to the state than the country. This means that our systems will lean toward what most people want. The states we originally going to be separate mini nations but very quickly realized the flaw in that plan and gave up rights to form a more perfect union. And guess what, in a national election, no one cares where you are voting from, they only care what you are voting for and so the people that the electoral college is supposed to protect would actually have more power because they don't get drowned out by majorities. If we went to a national election (without changing our voting system) the peoples and minorities that normally get drowned out by voting districts and winner take all states would get to present their voice directly into the election. no matter where they are from.
And please do not hero-worship the founders, they did a lot of good but they were also sexist(in most cases), racist (in some cases), greedy(in most cases), and not very good at building a state for the people as it took them 20ish years to put any actual rights in and most of them were British rights on steroids. And They really had no way to ever imagine the world we live in so I would recommend staying away from using them as key pieces of evidence.
In the end, the electoral college does none of the things it is supposed to do and just give the corrupt a way to latch onto and control our election system. The only problems it solves are the ones it creates and it doesn't even solve them well.
anyways it's good to see other people are thinking about it and I am sorry for being an ass lol!
@@fletchermoffett84 Just a few points. In your first paragraph you say that a problem with the Electoral College System is that a minority can control and repress a majority. But the opposite is also true. A majority can repress a minority as well. This country could have forged one, unitary government had it wished to do so, but it intentionally created states. The creation of states (and voting AS STATES) is an intentional check against a national majority. Dictatorships (and tyrannical laws) can be willingly created by majorities and the Founders were well aware of the historical examples. The Constitution lists the powers that the Federal government has (thus naturally limiting them) AND provides a mechanism for "The People" to give the Federal government more power through amendments. I think one can easily argue that the Constitution has been largely ignored by Supreme Courts in recent history by simply creating new policy via reinterpreting the original intent of the document. The younger generation (and even many Baby Boomers) seem to be just fine with this as long as it is reinterpreted the way they want it.
You also mention that some Washington Post article mentions the fact that 80% live in cities. But this really doesn't provide much perspective. I was raised in a "city" of 150,000 in East Tennessee, but that city is culturally nothing like San Francisco, New York, or Chicago. This is important when you think of the fact that cosmopolitan areas like Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh (which all tend to vote the same politically) can virtually determine the political path that its entire state takes. States exist for a reason, just like nations exist for a reason. They seperate power not just according to geogrpahy (which can seem arbitrary) but also by culture.
Having a national election will NOT necessarily empower minorities. Minorities have more voting power within their state than they do natrionally. The problem with your argument is that if a repressive law is created at the Federal level it affects everyone, whereas bad laws passed at the state level only effects those living in the states. The Constitution was meant to limit the Federal level of government above all others.
The Electoral College System only makes it slightly harder for less populated states to impose their will on more populated states, but only slightly. As has been mentioned the vast majority of elections see the Electoral College and popular vote align. Some states are now splitting their electoral votes. Some are even considerering setting up systems where their electoral votes go with whomever the natrional popular vote winner is. I think that is asinine, but hey states can do stupid things if their voters want. The nice thing is that I can move to another state pretty easily. It's not so easy to move to another nation if my national government passes draconian laws.
If the founding fathers wanted candidates to campaign in every state then every state should've had the exact same number of electors regardless of population. Also well co-ordinated respectful and relevant debates are how you prevent "demagogue" candidates, not this politically driven excuse of a democratic process.
I think either way the vote can never be perfectly fair lol. There will always be some states where votes don’t really matter so we can’t just start asking to abolish the electoral college with the fact popular vote is bad too
"Awarding women the right to vote"....and we saw how well that went, let's maybe just leave things how they are, eh?
ironic how the electoral college gave us a demogogue
IDEA:
Some people insist EC is important for balance, others insist that it’s unbalanced and unfair...
What if candidates were NOT allowed to *physically* campaign anywhere? What if instead, every candidate was only allowed to campaign virtually, via the internet (i.e, put out official videos for people to watch)? That way, everyone [with internet access] has equal access to what the candidates are campaigning about, and the candidates must then market themselves based on this reality.
Furthermore, make it a requirement for any candidate to release a video for EACH individual state, discussing issues relevant to that state and how their presidency would benefit said state, so voters therein can make informed choices and hear issues that matter to them. This would be in addition to generalized, nation-wide videos.
Such a system would completely eliminate the “fly-over” factor for some states, and would allow anyone, anywhere, to see the same content for themselves - thus, a campaigner’s message would carry equal weight for everyone, and everyone gets to decide on the same content.
It’d also save TONS of $$$ on campaign costs considering no physical travel, venue rentals, associated costs, etc.
-
Thoughts? Praise? Flaws/pitfalls? What do people think? Is it at least a decent starting point of an idea that could be built upon or improved?
EDIT: regarding internet access, let’s be real: it’s 2020 and people should modernize/ get this if they don’t have it already; kind of a necessity in the modern world and that’s only going to become more true as time goes on.
Great idea! And I agree for the most part, however if reaching this information requires internet access, won't that be a disadvantage for poorer people?
@@calibribody5557 I agree that’s a limitation, but see my addendum at the bottom: I don’t think there’s any other way to distribute a modernized system without the internet, and we live in the modern world where internet is already required for so much. Anyone without internet in America is already at a disadvantage for other reasons. There’s potential ways to work around this and improve it for everyone, but still…
@@se7enthedge382 another limitation is the fact that one of the main points of in-person campaigning is to excite voters and rally people for your side. It's much trickier to strike emotion and energy to voters through a screen. Maybe a mix of both in-person and virtual would be best? Some tactics such as spreading emotion through in-person, and more information based tactics through virtual, for example. (I'm pretty sure candidates have already done this before however; Didn't Biden do a lot of virtual campaigning in the 2020 election?). Again, this does prove as a disadvantage for poorer people and more generally, people without internet access. Perhaps there should be a system in place where internet access is more accessible, but that's a whole other issue.
I don't think that this would change the political system that much, it would just change it by a little.
Regarding your first point, everyone (who has access to the internet) already has the ability to watch the candidates performances in other states. And sure, you are going to force them to campaign on the internet, but that does not mean that they will refrain from making political ads that pander towards swing states. And also, that whole internet campaigning already has been an important part of the political system, even during the 2020 election. Biden put a major emphasis on his online campaign, as he knew that young voters have a major presence on the internet. This is already a trend that is going to happen, putting regulations on this would just bring an unnecessary political scandal.
Here also comes the problem with your second point. If every candidate has to make a video for every state, what is keeping them from spending a lot of resources and time on videos for swing states and little time and resources on politically established states. They are just going to make a 5 minute video for Iwoa and a 20 or 30 minute video for Florida. Furthermore, they are simply going to repeat the same talking points for a politically established state, because they know that it's not important to them. Ex. Biden just would put out a simple, short video for Utah, where he just states his overall points for the nation. Trump would do the same, just with a bit more intensity. Trumps and Bidens approaches would only change in the fact that they have to spend a small amount of time on a state that Trump knows he is going to win and Biden knows he is going to loose. Sure, the citizens of Utah would see both sides, but they already know which way they are going to vote. That is the reason why they are not considered swing states.
Your proposal either is too weak to change anything in a meaningful way because the candidates would continue with their poltical agendas or it's too weak and should be more restrictive, as in requiring candidates to make a 1 hour video per state (a video that is exactly 1 hour long), just 1 video and nothing more (no additional ads on social media), and that that video be played a certain amount of times at certain dates and hours. But nobody would agree on this.
I think that is a great idea
It’s not working )-:
Loving the Adobe spark watermark
It costs to get rid of it x
what is the music in the background?? pls
no clue it's just ambient stuff i found
@@thatswhytv oh cause that it would fire to sample 😂. thanks any way and great video too
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🎊
If you live in California, or Kansas, you might as well stay home on Election Day. If you don’t live in a swing state, your vote does not matter.