Question to everyone on the voting age (which seems to be the main source of strong feelings here) - Do you think we should also change the age requirement for serving in the House (age 25), Senate (age 30), and President (age 35)? Why do you think the Constitution has those minimums for office?
@pablo2448
Жыл бұрын
I have voting age but in Brazil so I can't give a insight about it love your videos
@crusader2112
Жыл бұрын
I think there should be a cutoff. Once one is 70 or older they should be barred from running. Is this too radical and does anybody agree?
@HappyMan0203
Жыл бұрын
It feels very arbitrary. I'd have it set across the entire govt. at the House age of 25.
@BeamiestApo11o3
Жыл бұрын
@@crusader2112 completely agree
@crusader2112
Жыл бұрын
@@BeamiestApo11o3 Thanks. 👍
@iammrbeat
Жыл бұрын
It was such an honor for us to get to hang out with you and Mrs. VTH!
@stevemiller4292
Жыл бұрын
Watching two people engage in thoughtful and civil debate is refreshing!
@kahner93
Жыл бұрын
Did you explain to him why the electoral college is garbage?
@daisythewonderfulretriever6289
Жыл бұрын
@@stevemiller4292 agreed
@jordandennis6794
Жыл бұрын
Letting 16 years old vote is stupid
@powerfulstrong5673
Жыл бұрын
DC CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT “Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall be entitled to have two Delegates who shall be chosen every second Year by the residents thereof, No Person shall be chosen to hold the Office of the Delegates unless such Person shall be a citizen of the United States and shall attain to the age 25 years. (provide that No Person shall be qualified to be an elector who shall be entitled to vote by ballots in choosing the Delegates thereof unless such Person shall be a citizen of the United States and shall attain to the age of 18 years) . Section 2. The Times and Manner of holding Elections for such Delegates shall be prescribed by Congress. Section 3. Without consents of both of the two aforesaid Delegates, No tax shall be collected under the Authority of the government of the United States from the residents of the said District. Section 4. On all questions and matters related to the said District, the aforesaid two Delegates shall entitled to debate and vote in both Houses of Congress as if they would be considered as members to be entitled to Represent in both Houses of Congress.”
@itsmealex8959
Жыл бұрын
Very important to remember that the reason 18 is the voting age is because that's the age when you can legally be conscripted. It never made sense that someone in a democracy could be sent to war before they could have a say in the government sending them off.
@WinginWolf
Жыл бұрын
yeah that's probably one of the biggest reasons it ought to stay at 18. big tradeoff
@Somebodi346
Жыл бұрын
To be fair, the vlogging guy here didn't mention his views on conscription as it relates to voting. Maybe he'd make an exception for them? Kind of like starship troopers, where you go off to fight in order to get the vote. Or maybe he thinks veterans need to pass a civics test in order to vote too (like he mentions at 10:38), which would be kind of messed up...though I'm not sure any kind of logic would be able to account for one having to pass a test, and another not. If you prevent veterans from voting based on their literacy tests, that just seems messed up on the face of it since they're literally offering up their bodies to defend a country they can't participate in the governance of. But fighting in a war isn't exactly a civics education either, so giving them the vote without the proposed literacy test just seems to say the literacy test itself is arbitrary and used to disenfranchise people who might not vote the way you want them t-...oh.
@juanpabloibanez1538
Жыл бұрын
@@Somebodi346 Making untested assumptions of a person's vision, huh?
@Somebodi346
Жыл бұрын
@@juanpabloibanez1538 Do you have an alternative read of "I think less people should vote, and we should require tests for them to do so", that doesn't; 1) Disenfranchise voters (like veterans) who fail the test. OR 2) Render the logic of the testing itself arbitrary (voter's don't need to understand civics)?
@modernjosephus356
Жыл бұрын
Raise the draft to 21.
@doc_adams8506
Жыл бұрын
#6: Term limits are so needed, but again, good luck getting a body of incumbents to pass this.
@ray495903314
Жыл бұрын
Convention of States
@aidendolezal3190
Жыл бұрын
Term limits aren’t needed, the limits are voted by the voters, voting for their candidates
@WoogietheWoogie
Жыл бұрын
At least a Mandatory Retirement Age.
@doc_adams8506
Жыл бұрын
I would agree if the incumbency rate was not so high.@@aidendolezal3190
@arlonfoster9997
8 ай бұрын
I would like to have a law that says that for government officials that the retirement age is 65 and those over their 60s shouldn’t run for president.
@vodyanoy2
Жыл бұрын
The main issue I have with the voting age is this: If I am able to be drafted, be criminally tried as an adult, have to pay taxes, etc... I should be able to have a say in government.
@adamled99
Жыл бұрын
Most people should not be allowed to vote
@darthmitsurugi
Жыл бұрын
@@adamled99 And who gets to decide who has those privileges?
@adamled99
Жыл бұрын
@@darthmitsurugi me preferably
@Geistmeister6
Жыл бұрын
Dudes mad the red wave didn't come. I hesitated to watch this video because of this.
@jonathankrivec9907
Жыл бұрын
@@Geistmeister6 some wave lol
@Nimroc
Жыл бұрын
I'm not really convinced that raising the voting age would have any significant impact on ignorance among voters, that is a problem among a lot of older voters as well.
@Jeffreyscollection
Жыл бұрын
Some of the most ignorant people I know are the oldest I know
@1krani
Жыл бұрын
It wouldn't. If anything, older people who still rely on one or two TV sources for their news are more likely to be ignorant than someone who goes online and picks up headlines and events from a greater number of sources, both corporate and independent.
@jacobite2353
Жыл бұрын
Nah all it would do is piss of the younger population and make them stop caring about politics
@DesertEagle093
Жыл бұрын
That's why I would think some kind of civics test every time before you vote should be required.
@ashenwolf98
Жыл бұрын
@@DesertEagle093 I agree. However, the test itself as well as the literacy level required to take it *must* be easily accessible to all. And I agree that a voting age of 16 makes no real difference in terms of voting competency. Among the 16-25 year olds that are incapable of making an informed vote, there are just as many (if not more) 55+ year olds, and there are still just as many 25-55 year olds in that category as well.
@ErdTirdMans
Жыл бұрын
Love when me - an atheist - finds common cause with a pastor. Agreed on your responses to every one of these
@someperson3883
Жыл бұрын
Jesus Christ is the Lord
@connorclarke1708
Жыл бұрын
@@someperson3883to some
@BenTheJMen
Жыл бұрын
I hope you find Jesus. Do you have any questions about Christianity, Roman Catholicism, or religion? I'm happy to answer.
@areafurrynone1913
10 ай бұрын
@@BenTheJMenDude I’m Christian and I’m gonna be honest. Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they need Jesus. I come off as a bit patronizing and it rubs people the wrong way.
@Wilsontripplets
9 ай бұрын
I just think the Johnson amendment needs to be properly enforced to many pastors and chruches have been pusing for candidates and parties when they really should not be.
@gentlemans7579
Жыл бұрын
If you want to raise the voting age, then you better raise the age of military enlistment. If you don't think they should vote, they absolutely shouldn't be fighting.
@spencerhansen2927
Жыл бұрын
Taxation should also be included here.
@gentlemans7579
Жыл бұрын
@@spencerhansen2927 I could get behind that. Or at least a reduced rate. There's an argument that some amount should be taxed to support social programs and municipal efforts.
@stephenjenkins7971
Жыл бұрын
Why? It takes some intelligence to fight, but you're not in command of other people's lives until you rise up the chain of command. Meanwhile votes is effectively changing the fates of other citizens. There is a difference
@marco8414
Жыл бұрын
I would agree with you if you said the age of conscription. Raise the age of voting and the Draft to 21, but you should be able to voluntarily join the Armed Services at 18 if you like. That being said, I think the Draft is wholly unconstitutional and should be wiped from existence.
@stephenjenkins7971
Жыл бұрын
@@marco8414 In what regard is the Draft Unconstitutional? It violates nothing of it, nor can a state ever wipe Drafts from existence. It needs them in the case of an emergency, after all.
@dwhyrock
Жыл бұрын
As a 21 year in Florida who has many things taken away on both the federal and state level whilst growing up, I think that there needs to be one age for everything. If I have to pay taxes then I should vote on where my money goes. If I can carry a weapon in a war I should be able to buy one if the proper background check is passed. If I can be tried as an adult in court I should be able to buy tobacco and alcohol if I wanted to.
@adamogden5212
Жыл бұрын
Dalton Weilhrauch I agree whatever age they wanna set that need to be the definitive age. for a lot of people adulthood hits early I bought my house at 20 years old so had a mortgage at 20 but I have to wait until 21 to drink or 25 to vote? if a student can pay taxes on income fight in pointless wars and get 100,000 in debt for a degree they might get or use then it's the school's job to show the importance of voting.
@Nikephorus
Жыл бұрын
Yeah it's always seemed stupid to me that your old enough to join the military and get blown up, but not old enough to buy a beer.
@otisdylan9532
Жыл бұрын
Everybody pays taxes, so if paying taxes should give one the right to vote, that means that there should be no minimum age for voting.
@CarterElkins
Жыл бұрын
@@otisdylan9532 This is true, and it's the flaw in that line of logic. Everyone pays sales tax. The real question should be what constitutes an adult. Children should not be contributing to the government, no matter the topic. To me, 16 is still a child, in this day and age especially.
@charlestownsend9280
Жыл бұрын
The fact that you can be in the army and be married for years and before you can have a beer is just crazy, where I live you can drink when you're a kid under certain conditions. Why is having a beer so high, it's kind of crazy. But yeah really if you're responsible enough to do one of those things then you are responsible enough to do everything else, it's ridiculous to say that you are responsible enough to fight in a war or raise a family and pay but not to have a beer and vote.
@halite_g
Жыл бұрын
2:58 I think what's more remarkable is that in spite of how difficult it is to amend the constitution, it's proved itself incredibly flexible over the past 235 years.
@Niel2760
Жыл бұрын
True but it seems that its flexibility now relies on whatever 9 members of the Supreme Court decide rather than by amending it by a more traditional route. The Supreme Court is probably the most undemocratic part of the government.
@yusted1
Жыл бұрын
The supreme court does have problems but thats a specific topic
@mikeoxlong3676
Жыл бұрын
The courts reinterpret it to fit their needs.
@normalguy4548
Жыл бұрын
Here’s a fun fact to do with the constitution: Birch Bayh, a Senator of Indiana from 1963-1981, is the first person since James Madison and only non-Founding Father to have authored and passed more than one constitutional amendment.
@chasemoss4484
Жыл бұрын
@No the amendments passed. If I remember correctly he authored the 25th and 26th
@PlatinumGrande
Жыл бұрын
@@chasemoss4484 and I believe he at least co-authored the ERA, so if it passes, he will have authored 3.
@noskpain2792
Жыл бұрын
I don't think anyone will ever surpass that. It's so as it is.
@williamowsley9771
Жыл бұрын
Another fun (or maybe not) fun fact about Birch Bayh. Although very popular in Indiana, he was swept out of office in the Reagan landslide election of 1980. The candidate who defeated him for re-election that year was none other than future Vice President Dan ("You're no Jack Kennedy") Quayle.
@user-df1ns1ob8y
Жыл бұрын
@@williamowsley9771 Damn, Bayh was based (bayhsed?), and he was replaced by Dan Quayle of all people, awful
@CristinaMarshal
Жыл бұрын
I think there are few more personable, sincere, and warm people on this platform than Mr. Beat. the combination of his stellar music, his humor, and his presentation style truly needs to be sung in praise for how great it all comes down to. Mr. Beat, you do sincerely have our cheer and compliments!
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
And he's the same way in person. A genuinely good guy.
@Krafanio
Жыл бұрын
He has become way more political than usual, that´s gonna to divide people. Always.
@colton2680
Жыл бұрын
@@Krafanio no he hasn’t. He’s always been the way he is.
@Scoopulus
Жыл бұрын
He comes off as a typical liberal in this video: Condescending, arrogant, and with the desire to control those that don't agree with his viewpoint.
@cervanntes
Жыл бұрын
I realize I am running a bit later on this but figured I would weigh in on the voting age argument. I think there are good points on both sides of the debate. I have trouble justifying 16 regardless of how intelligent or well educated. Experience and maturity are also factors to consider. On the other hand, if someone is old enough to die for their country they should be old enough to have a say in its governance. The voting age should not be higher than the selective service age. As far as income taxes and voting go, I am more inclined to think that rather than lowering the voting age to cover everyone who pays income taxes (which can do below even 16 in some cases) it might be more reasonable to exempt or otherwise reduce the income tax burden on people not yet old enough to vote if pre-voting-age income tax if this is perceived to be an issue
@SidewaysR
Жыл бұрын
Mr Beat does make a fair point about teenagers paying taxes. My teen son has a paycheck job and is taxed on his wages without representation. If the working teens can't vote on how their taxes are spent then maybe they shouldn't be expected to pay taxes
@defendska2158
Жыл бұрын
Children are the responsibility of their parents...and their parents vote. They are represented.
@SidewaysR
Жыл бұрын
A nearly identical argument was used to "explain" why women shouldn't vote, because they were represented by their husbands and fathers. And of course they shouldn't have a different political opinion then the men who were responsible for them. Women were also told they weren't mature enough to vote.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
@@defendska2158 slaves are the responsibility of their masters and their masters vote, so the slaves are represented. Women are the responsibility of their husbands and their husbands vote, so the women are represented. See how easy of a parallel that is?
@lesalbro8880
Жыл бұрын
@@defendska2158 Not after they're 18.
@michaelwicklund
Жыл бұрын
Or we can make it that until they are eighteen they can not be taxes for their paychecks and they aren’t allowed to tax for previous paychecks once they are 18
@RaulV22
Жыл бұрын
I am elated to know that you met Mr. Beat. Like you both constantly remind us, we all have our biases, and you both are so good at showing us, the viewers, what it’s like to have your own ideas, opinions, and biases and still be respectful, knowledgeable, and willing to teach with charisma, enthusiasm, and straightforwardness. Maybe someday, if you haven’t done it yet, could do a collaboration!
@elinorris1739
Жыл бұрын
i know of one collab they did where they made a tier list of every us president. it was pretty good and like 4 hours long
@Silk_WD
Жыл бұрын
The electoral college is really weird to me as an european. Why is your president elected by the states, and not the people? I get that you want all parts of the country to be represented, but isn't that the point of the Senate? Is the difference between states really that much bigger than the difference between regions within states? Also as a convinced democrat (not the party), I really can't agree with anything that makes voting harder. Especially not some kind of test to gatekeep power from the unprivileged. In the same vein I really dislike disenfranchising young people because "their brains isn't fully developed yet" or that they lack responsibility. This is an unfair analogy, but that's exactly the kind of arguments that was used against women's suffrage. Or even poor or non-landed males voting for that matter. Democracy is the will of the people and the more the electorate differs from the general populace, the less democratic the system is. I would personally vote to lower the voting age in my country to 16. Partly because I think representation is important. But mainly because I think politics is important, so I see political apathy as an issue. Education is of course important for this, but having the youth actually participate in the system would likely increase their motivation. On a different, but related note. The 2020 election had a record breaking voter turnout, but you still only reached 66%. You can't really compare it directly, but my own country Sweden had a turnout of 84% in the last election (2022), and hasn't been below 67% since before 1928 and not below 80% since 1960. Again different systems so not directly comparable. Still it really feels like you should work on increasing the incentive to vote, and if anything making it easier instead (it's telling that the record year is the same year that vote-by-mail was promoted).
@jgfina
2 ай бұрын
Sweden's population is much smaller. Don't compare apples to oranges
@jonbooker6359
Жыл бұрын
It’s so cool you hung out with Mr. Beat. He’s a big reason I became a social studies teacher and I’ve really been getting into your reaction videos lately. As someone who is willing to admit they lean a little left on the spectrum I really enjoy looking at your channel and opinions.
@fruitbythefoote
Жыл бұрын
The issue I have with making voting laws stricter are that it opens the door from restrictions turning into ways to oppress the masses. For example, Jim Crow Laws having literacy tests.
@arizona_anime_fan
Жыл бұрын
every illegal vote disenfranchises a citizen of their representation. I too think voting should be easy and availible, but it needs to be secure as well. It's illegal in every state in the country to wander around in public without state issued identification. the idea that a DL or State ID being required to vote is somehow "racist" or "jim crow" is some of the most low key racists bullshit i've heard. find some african americans and ask them if they don't have a state issued ID. they'll look at you like you're a moron. I was homeless for 3 years and every homeless man/woman i met had at least a state issued id. no other way to get food stamps, and EVERYONE who was homeless had foodstamps. As for "Mr Beats", he's a moron, and 8 or 9 of his proposals are either completely stupid or not thought out well. no.10 - awful idea, never expand the right to vote to people who don't pay taxes or don't fight in wars. granted this was a similar argument against women getting the right to vote but women could of paid taxes even in 1919. 99% of 16yo don't work. and probably will never work as long as compulsory education is until the age of 18. no.9 - exposes his stupidity. any law that singles out people based on STATUS is already illegal. What he really means is "all laws passed by congress upon themselves or to the people must apply both ways, this would remove congresses ability to grand themselves cushy privilidges. that's what he really wants. but he words it wrong. no.8 - this will force the draft on women. he's ignoring this fact, because he's a duplicitous liar. no.7 - when you limit how and how much money a candidate can spend you grant inordinate power to the press, and frankly, right now, the press has no trust for such power. no.6 - not terrible. the first not terrible suggestion. no.5 - it should be hard to amend the constitution, i do not agree with this. no.4 - torn on this one, i do prefer this being resolved via constitutional amendment rather then the state cartel that's trying to make this happen. but I'm not convinced this is good. ranked choice voting is AWFUL and he been proven awful in every nation or state it's been used. Approval voting is slightly less awful. no.3 - eh... he's confused. either you're for more democracy or you're against it. I don't understand the logic of someone against the electoral college and for the approval of senators by the states. no.2 - this is the first proposal that makes sense. though i would go further. the house was supposed to seat 1 member for every 30000 citizens, i would go back to that ratio. this would mean your representative would be someone you might know personally. no.1 - political jerrymandering was created to give minorities more representation in congress. what he's really after is the end of jerrymandering. which i agree with, but i don't like the wording of that amendment.
@jordandennis6794
Жыл бұрын
Literacy tests aren't a bad thing
@StrongandStable17
Жыл бұрын
@@jordandennis6794 If a certain subsection of the population has diminished access to education (as was the case when these tests were a thing) they definitely are. Not to mention that certain jurisdictions did not require white voters to conduct such a test. Or the simple fact that the questions contained in these tests weren't actual literacy questions as much as complex deliberately vague world problems. The time alloted to do these tests were also very short. And in some of these tests only one wrong answer would result in a fail. In fact as a part of a study done several years ago Harvard Students were given the 1964 Lousisana Literacy test, no one passed. The tests were a deliberate suppression effort simple as that. In terms of a modern version of the test (which wouldn't have the same deliberate racial inequality as it's intial incarnation) if you agree that those who fail should be tax exempt then I don't think it's the worst idea ever conceived though I still personally disagree with it. Another issue in my view is the potential partisanship in whatever commission etc is established to run such tests.
@Crazy_Broke_Asian
Жыл бұрын
There should be literacy tests, IQ tests, bring land owning requirements back, raise the voting age, and national voter ID laws
@Thyne_whom_jests
Жыл бұрын
@@Crazy_Broke_Asian Is this serious
@toddtheodd
Жыл бұрын
The voting age thing is one thing but the point about a potential test is the one i would take the most issue with. We have done tests before for voting and there is good reason that became illegal. There's an enormous ability by the people making the test to exclude people based on how they make the test. And it's pretty obvious that the people who will be excluded by such a policy will be the very people who already have less power in our society, people who didn't have access to as good of education or jobs
@FaithRox
8 ай бұрын
Suppose we can just let anyone become doctors or pilots. Sure they didn't have access to the same education. It's shit that not everyone has equal opportunities. That does not mean that uninformed should have the same weight as people who are.
@MegaHariboboy
2 ай бұрын
It's pretty clear that he's quite a hardline Conservative. It is in their playbook to try to restrict voting rights to people - because restricting voting rights typically affects minorities, who vote Dem in quite a large majority.
@ablazescarf3328
2 ай бұрын
@@MegaHariboboy Yeah he seemed fair in some takes, but as someone more on the left, hearing he'd prefer to limit voting was pretty shocking, but typical. There is a reason conservatives want to limit / eliminate the ballot vote, and just the vote in general, conservativism will just benefit from it. It's honestly a crazy take. They can just make tests be impossible for areas in which education is already lacking, it'll just eliminate the poor representation.
@MegaHariboboy
2 ай бұрын
@@ablazescarf3328 And his defence of the Electoral College. I know that very very few nations directly elect their leader, but to have a system where one candidate can get 4 million more votes and still lose is not democratic in the slightest. Not to mention that the whole point of the EC with weighted voting is now redundant - Wyoming has far more EC votes in relation to their population than Cali does (193,000 people per vote in WY vs 709,000 in CA)
@jonwalter6317
Ай бұрын
@@MegaHariboboy "Not democratic in the slightest." You may feel that way because we don't live in a democracy, we live in a (constitutional) republic. The founders hated the idea of democracy. The whole idea of a republic is to prevent the powerful members from dominating the less powerful. If you don't want Wyoming to have so much power, then (1) don't let them into the union, or (2) move to Wyoming to change their vote. The republican form of government prevents one faction/party from lavishing gov't largesse on a small group/single state in order to buy their votes, and in the process make that voting block large enough and monolithic enough to control national elections. As an extreme example but to illustrate the concern - if California voted 80% for one party, and the rest of the country voted 51-49 the opposite way, California's 7.8 million vote margin for that party would offset the 6.6million opposite margin for the rest of the country. So you have 49 states vote one way, and the one state's preference win. You may be ok with that, but that is the concern.
@yocraigst
Жыл бұрын
I distinctly remember saying this back when I was in high school (I'm 60 years old now) and I'll say it here too: "Stupid" people deserve the right to vote too. They pay taxes on their earnings, can suffer casualties in our wars, and suffer the consequences of w/e illegal activities they might be involved in. This is their country also. While I understand the sentiment that voters should "know what they're doing", I believe that should be a personal responsibility, not a legal requirement.
@nicholasbourcier
Жыл бұрын
The age to vote should be risen to minimum 21. As well as military service.
@SpencerKelly93
Жыл бұрын
I agree to an extent. Unfortunately though, individuals who are not educated on the issues, their votes carry the equal weight of individuals who do know. This isn't a "right" or "left" problem either. There are huge swaths of people on both sides who don't know what's going on or that have even a remote understanding of American civics. The interesting thing is, I've found in my experience, that the two groups that seem to be woefully ignorant to what's really going on are opposites in terms of where they are in life. Young (18-24) "progressives" and "liberals" are the most uneducated on the "left" side of the spectrum. On the other end, middle aged (40-55) "conservatives/republicans" seem to be the most uneducated. When I say "uneducated", I mean they have a concerning misunderstanding of the powers of the Federal Government vs State Governments, the role of the President and just basic knowledge of things going on in the world...things people should know about. Interestingly, young conservatives/republicans and older progressives/liberals seem to be able to understand these things to an acceptable level and they cant tell you their positions and have a meaningful conversation about them. Personally, I think for young conservatives they feel the need to be informed because people expect them to be "liberal" at their age. When they reveal they aren't, they feel they need to demonstrate capacity to explain their view and then defend it. For progressives, it's usually middle aged people that do very well at demonstrating capacity of understanding the role of government, they just differ with conservatives on where they feel the majority of power should be vested. These middle aged progressives have typically had these beliefs for a long time and now feel like the culture is beginning to shift in their direction, so they feel validated in their beliefs and therefore don't need to demonstrate as much. Though, because of their interest in politics, usually at an early age, they do understand the role of the government and can demonstrate that knowledge if pushed to do so. I personally think increasing the voting age to 21 and subsequently the age to enlist in the military or pay taxes makes sense. I don't think it would be a poll tax if it's applied equally across the board. Vivek Ramaswamy, a conservative candidate for President, has an interesting take on this. I think his position takes things too far by setting the age to vote at (I believe) 26 UNLESS someone demonstrates capacity by passing the same civics exam we give to immigrants seeking citizenship or you serve a minimum service length in the armed forces, or 6 months as a first responder. Again, I think 26 is too old and that's politically toxic BUT requiring people take the civics exam to vote? I don't have as much of a problem with that.
@anderskorsback4104
Жыл бұрын
Yeah. Also, even if it were possible to somehow restrict the vote to the most qualified in an unbiased way that would not be open for abuse, another issue remains: What if the fraction that is eligible to vote won't use the privilege for the good of everyone, but rather to advance their own interests at the expense of the non-voters?
@yocraigst
Жыл бұрын
@@anderskorsback4104 I don't think we even have to ask whose interests the eligible voters would be voting for; they'd vote for their own interests.
@cockoffgewgle4993
10 ай бұрын
Women have had the vote for about a century without having to register for the draft.
@tatedavis2016
Жыл бұрын
Mr. Beat has a terrific series on every presidential election in American history. Looking forward to the Belgium videos! Keep it up!😊
@gregpetridis3762
Жыл бұрын
I like his number 7 a lot. When I was a union member, I had absolutely no problem being a member of a union and having that union protect our rights as workers. But why did I have to contribute to a political candidate that I don't even necessarily agree with? I also really like his ideas about term limits and expanding house terms to four years A LOT! The term limit idea really hits home where I live, because Mayor here is unlimited and we have had two mayors in 60 years!
@blackpenman
Жыл бұрын
Your union leadership is democratically elected, no?
@RedXlV
Жыл бұрын
Frankly, I'd go in the opposite direction and reduce the length of Senate terms to 4 years. I get the objection that 2-year terms result House members basically starting their reelection campaign the moment they're elected. But a longer term means less accountability to voters. Which is already a problem with Senators. You can have a Senator who's massively pissing off their constituents by voting the opposite of how they promised they would to get elected, and voters can't do a damned thing about it for a whole 6 years.
@Golladan
Жыл бұрын
@@RedXlV I would just like to point out, once that election day comes, these contituents that are pissed at their Senator end up re-electing them anyway.
@SaxSpy
Жыл бұрын
uhh... it says citizens can contribute and then publicize their info. thats how you target citizens
@jonwalter6317
Ай бұрын
His #7 wouldn't fix your union gripe - his proposal only affects "for profit businesses" so unions would not be included. Basically he wants to take away the power of corporations to get involved in elections but preserve the right for unions and other non-profit groups to continue. It shows you his bias.
@js1423
Жыл бұрын
Good to see people of different political viewpoints being able to agree and disagree!
@stephenperkins2210
Жыл бұрын
I am extremely conflicted about his proposed amendment. I am 17, work full time and get 20% of my paycheck taken by the IRS, I drive, I ENLISTED IN THE ARMY A FEW WEEKS AGO!!!! but I can’t vote? Are you serious? I can die for my country but I can’t vote for my leaders? But then again I don’t even think 18 year olds should vote. I think that 21+ should vote because if you can’t drink then why trust you with the power of election. But there should be some kind of waiver for armed forces, or people who pay at a certain tax bracket. Not sure honestly, I think I should be able to vote but I’m also 17. Love you Chris!
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that paying taxes is what makes you eligible to vote. The nativists would go ballistic, of course.
@anyrealitybutthisone804
Жыл бұрын
I'm paused at like 6 mins in and it's just so fun to hear the way you and he talk about the bill of rights and the stability that the amendment process offers. The tone of your two reactions is a perfect (and rarely wholesome) juxtaposition of liberal vs conservative mentality. Love this channel, glad you made some new friends!
@seanspreckelsen3496
Жыл бұрын
They agreed, entirely, on the stability a constitution upholds. In what way did you see a liberal vs conservative reaction there?
@metaldialgia1998
Жыл бұрын
@@seanspreckelsen3496 Yeah. They both seem fairly conservative to me.
@kevincastro8617
Жыл бұрын
@@metaldialgia1998 they both try to hide their bias but by reading between the lines so to speak, you can make out that Mr. Beat leans liberal and VTH is conservative. For example, getting rid of the electoral college is something liberals are typically more in favor of and conservatives vehemently are against. Expanding voting rights and having more people vote, like by reducing the required age, is also something liberals are typically for and conservatives against. Making it easier to make changes to the constitution is a liberal/progressive view
@Nimish204
Жыл бұрын
If you raise the voting age to 25, no taxes on anyone below 25, no draft on anyone below 25, all child labour laws apply on people below 25, all people arrested for crimes will be treated exactly like children.
@MightyDrex
Жыл бұрын
Ur arguments don't really make sense. Especially the taxing. Everyone gets taxed no matter their age. If what u were saying were true, then parents would just give their kids cash to go buy groceries tax free.
@PedroToledo.
Жыл бұрын
@@MightyDrex Sure. Sales tax obviously apply, but payroll taxes won't.
@itsakin6418
Жыл бұрын
@@MightyDrex sales tax and income tax should be separate
@MegaHariboboy
2 ай бұрын
We saw the reason why this would be an utterly stupid law in the UK with the Brexit referendum. 16 and 17 year old's were not given a vote, even though leaving the European Union was going to have a MASSIVE impact on their lives. 16 year old's will turn 18 during the presidential term if they are able to vote, and increasing it to 25 is just insulting to younger people. You can get through college, and get a Masters by 25. Hell, some people get a PhD by that age as well. To be honest, it just seems like VTHs bias is that if you decrease the voting age, those voters overwhelmingly will vote Democrat. Increasing the voting age drastically decreases the pool of voters for the Dems too.
@TheMasonK
Жыл бұрын
The stability is something really important. I have a coworker from Kenya and their constitution can be changed entirely after the election of a president. In other words it’d be extremely easy to take dictatorial power there as the sitting constitution has little to no power.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
It’s a careful balance. You don’t want it to be too easy to change, but you also want to ensure that bad systems like the electoral college are not retained just because of tradition. (It’s an inherently antidemocratic institution - that was the intent.)
@NWA744
Жыл бұрын
@@Justanotherconsumer The idea that the electoral college is undemocratic is simply untrue and stems from a general misunderstanding of the system. We have the electoral college because the presidential election is not one monolithic national vote, but is 51 individual elections simultaneously held across every state and DC, and each has their own separate election laws. The Constitution clearly gives the States the authority to elect the president, and not a shared popularity vote. To be elected president, you must win the majority worth of state representation.
@anderskorsback4104
Жыл бұрын
I would be interested in hearing more about why you want the Electoral College to remain. It very much seems to me like a remnant from the time when different states had different voting rights laws, and thus no unified national direct election was possible. That, and the logistics of arranging a national direct election. If the point is to give less populous states an equalizer against more populous ones, that could still be done in a direct election system. For instance, let every state get electoral votes in the way they currently do, but have all states allocate their electoral votes proportionally to votes cast in that state. That is, make every state do it like Maine and Nebraska do it.
@jonwalter6317
Ай бұрын
Then there is no reason to have the Electoral College. Your proposal is just a different form of popular vote counting. Its purpose had nothing to do with voting rights and ease of running elections, it was solely to prevent more populous states from dominating less populous states.
@anderskorsback4104
Ай бұрын
@@jonwalter6317 true, the same result could be achieved by having a direct election and just multiplying the votes of each state with a weighing factor. That kind of reform would be more politically feasible than the usual proposals for abolishing the electoral college, since it would retain the equalizer that less populous states have.
@brendannichol3490
Жыл бұрын
I think there should be an amendment to revise the 13th to completely outlaw slavery. I think that in this day and age slavery can be seen as a cruel and unusual punishment.
@tastyfalcon1788
Жыл бұрын
Personally I disagree. Prisoners are expensive, and forcing them to do work to better the community is much more beneficial to society than locking them in a cell where they can only do things that benefit themselves.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
@@tastyfalcon1788 so exploiting slave labor is fine if it saves you money? Partially it’s a question of what prisons are supposed to do. If they’re there to “punish bad people” as opposed to actually attempting reforming those people to productive members of society.
@anonymousanonymous4690
Жыл бұрын
@@tastyfalcon1788 the American fascist everyone
@tastyfalcon1788
Жыл бұрын
@@Justanotherconsumer In my opinion, the purpose of prisons are punitive. But its objectively better if the punitive measures benefit society rather than merely harming the offender
@tastyfalcon1788
Жыл бұрын
@Denavio Leeks How is forcing someone to work without consent any different than locking someone up without consent or executing them without consent?
@Blacksheep-uy3qv
Жыл бұрын
I'd like to see you talk about the elector college btw. As for the voting age, in the US we just pick what ever age we like. It's 18 to buy a rifle but 21 to by a hand gun. 21 to buy alcohol but 18 to join the military. With 16 being whne you learn to drive. My brother at 21 could rent a plane but couldn't rent a car. Personally I think we need to pick an age that says you're an adult, you can buy anything like anyone else, do anything like everyone else but you'll be held responsible just like anyone else. 18 seems to be a okay age for now since that's when publicly funded school ends.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Marriage, too. Child marriage still being allowed is… yeah, not so good.
@Blacksheep-uy3qv
Жыл бұрын
@@Justanotherconsumer yeah I think it's allowed as far back as 16? Which tbh 16 was for a long time considered an adult.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
@@Blacksheep-uy3qv it varies by state. Since 2000 there are records of kids as young as 10 (all in Tennessee) getting married. Plenty of marriages once you hit 14, though.
@darthjarjar_7918
25 күн бұрын
I’m 17 and I definitely think the voting age should be 21+. So much to learn about how the country works and a lot more to experience. Most people under 21 do not have that level of understanding and could potentially be harmful to everyone else that their uninformed votes impact. I consider myself to be well educated but there’s still a ton that I don’t understand and would not feel good about voting with that in mind
@BWeb
Жыл бұрын
I don’t always agree with a lot of what you say but I always respect what you have to say. I found myself wanting to pause and debate but then I remembered this is a recorded video 😂 great video Chris and (OP Matt!)
@beophobic9653
Жыл бұрын
Pit stunk ..
@meganoob12
Жыл бұрын
you see, this is what has been forgotten in the modern political climate. You don‘t always have to agree with everything another person thinks, that‘s democracy. The point is that niwadays you only hear sndcread the extremes snd everyobe starts demonizing the other side. At least in this community oeople obviously still remember how democracy works which is pretty refreshing
@BWeb
Жыл бұрын
@@meganoob12 agreed.
@palmtoptwilight
Жыл бұрын
It's always really fun listening to other people's political views and how most issues can be tough to choose one side or another. Everyone has different experiences, and therefore different views. I am glad I have been able to get into Matt's content, as well as yours, as I only turned 19 a week ago and this year was my first experience with voting.
@clayschwartzwalter382
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for being a voter!
@nateclause6877
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting discussion on expanding the house. I'm actually a math PhD student and have close ties with some of the mathematicians at OSU who were analyzing redistricting plans for the Ohio Govt. Some of the techniques they use are closely related to my field of research and I could understand a good bit of their explanations. I may bring up the idea to one of them and see what their take is on how an increased number of districts would affect gerrymandering, from a more quantitative/mathematically well-defined viewpoint. Love the video!
@glynquigley4364
Жыл бұрын
Hney Chris, I want to link a couple of your points.. Firstly, here in the UK, constituency boundaries (areas served by a single member of Parliament ) are drawn up by an independent non partisan body clalled The Electoral Commission . The work is based on Cnesus returns and changes to ensure that each constituency contains a roughly similar number of people.. This eliminates direct gerrymandering but will still lead to pronounced benfits for certain parties at certain times. The other point is about your wish to extend the voting age as the youth don't have the "world wisdsom" for it.. In 2016 we had the Brexit referendum and most of the people who voted leave were in their 50 and 60s. The day adter the vote the top trndig internet search in the UK was "What does Brexit mean?" At least one Yeas voter told me the only reason he voted for it was "Well I didn't vote to stay in i Europe in 1974" Age does not inevitably equate to worldly wisonm
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Experience is what matters. I had a great uncle who never went more than 25 miles from where he was born, as family legend puts it. Farmer, didn’t serve in any wars because, well, people always need to eat. Never got an education beyond country school, met very few new people because of his rural lifestyle. Probably a great person to talk to if you wanted a history of farm equipment, but his politics were entirely informed by talk radio and the very limited number of TV channels he could get. Wonderful man, but the exact opposite of worldly wisdom.
@ChargingStag
Жыл бұрын
As a fellow Brit, in regards to the Brexit referendum I feel that people across the board were going to be about as educated as they could be on the matter (whether you believe they were taking the bait of propaganda or not). I felt the run-up was huge, maybe even more so than a general election. That top internet search - while interesting to see - can be hugely subject to bias. Why was it there? Was it leave voters not knowing what they voted for? Remainers trying to find out what Brexit means for them now that they lost? Trolls just trying to make Brexit voters look stupid by making a trend (very very easy to do on the likes of Twitter, for example). Basically we can't know why that term was trending, and I do personally think the electorate had every chance to become informed on this one. But that is just my opinion of course :)
@sam1111979
Жыл бұрын
I think the best argument in favour of 16 as the voting age is that young people tend to either inform themselves or not vote at all. It's old people who turn out to vote even if they're pig ignorant. That was made worse in the EU referendum when people were asked to choose between the status quo and a fantasy that wasn't challenged.
@Matthew-zn3zm
Жыл бұрын
@@sam1111979 Old people don't vote because they are more engaged or wise. They do it because they have more free time and its sport.
@Charles-js3ri
Жыл бұрын
Great reaction video choice. Constitutional issues are fascinating. I'd certainly be up for increasing the number of representatives. It would certainly make it easier for people to be represented. I think that's my favorite of Mr. Beat's ammendment wishlist.
@MeanBeanComedy
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, probably his only good one!
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Could always ratify the amendment originally proposed, which would cap the number of people represented by any specific member of the house. The objective was to ensure that representatives did not see themselves as the rules of the people by intentionally decreasing their status.
@twostate7822
3 ай бұрын
#7 - Basically, this is codifying that corporations are not people, although under today's supreme court, corporations are super people with rights far greater than actual people. This should also apply to religious organization, or basically any organization. BTW, the impetus for this is probably the horrendous decision by the supreme court in citizens united which basically took the caps off political spending.
@Fortisfox
Жыл бұрын
Hey, really appreciate your content and have learned a bunch from your channel. That said, I have to strongly (and respectfully) disagree with the idea of raising the voting age. The idea that a person could fight for their country or be conscripted to do so under federal law but not allowed to vote for their representation is ridiculous and borderline tyrannical; you can be sent to fight and die for your country but not vote for the people who send you. I'm not necessarily advocating for the age to be 16 though I will say that the fact that a 16 year old can legally work and be taxed does violate the American spirit of "No Taxation without representation" haha. Even the idea that they should know "certain things" or pass a citizenship test is problematic since it would be completely subjective and liable to corruption/manipulation. At its best I could see it making a more informed voter, at its worst it would be another barrier to entry for the poor and disenfranchised even possibly harking back to Jim Crow "Literacy tests". If there is concern with how knowledgeable a person is regarding civics when they become of voting age, maybe we should be investing more strongly in public education.
@Jwerp616
Жыл бұрын
Voting at 18 needs to be a right given the other implications of turning 18. Being charged as an adult for crimes, right to marry, credit card application, medical and financial decisions, sign contracts and being financially independent from parents. There are too many things that happen at 18 to exclude participation in our democracy until 21, or 25, as suggested. "Not being informed enough" is, and has never been, a requirement to vote.
@painkiller66
Жыл бұрын
That's exactly right. The threat of punishment for voting a certain way goes away at 18. It's about autonomy, not being informed.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Definitely. “Not informed enough” easily translates to “not brainwashed enough.”
@Jwerp616
Жыл бұрын
@silverfoxeater Yea and requiring certain types of tests or knowledge requirements are created with biases that could disenfranchise certain groups. Like it's pretty well established that trying to limit voting to those who are "educated" in a certain way is a bad idea.
@turnip1744
7 ай бұрын
I’m 17 and please for the love of God I hope the voting age is never lowered, kids my age are absolutely autismic. Mr Beat has probably never been around gen Z lol.
@Cam-rm1wn
7 ай бұрын
You’re a smartie! I can’t imagine having the right to vote when I was 16 good lord
@rickmarkell9725
Жыл бұрын
Here's a radical proposal: prohibit candidates from advertising on radio or TV. The precedent is already there with the prohibition of cigarette advertising. Not only would it make a huge dent in the mount of money needed to run but would also eliminate emotional soundbites, leaving the candidate with interviews, mailings, and personal appearances.
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
I would have no problem with this.
@andrewjollett8112
Жыл бұрын
Arguably, this would give incumbent candidates an even larger advantage than they already have.
@MomoKawashima5
Жыл бұрын
The issue there is that ads can give people exposure to candidates. I didn't even know who was running in my district until I was watching football 3 weeks ago. It also gives the incumbent a huge advantage since he/she is in the political light while their challenger is less so. I hate all the ads on TV and radio but they tend to be helpful more than I care to admit
@gmwdim
Жыл бұрын
We should just have publicly financed elections and campaigns.
@MeanBeanComedy
Жыл бұрын
@@andrewjollett8112 Good point. People always neglect that.
@Janthdanl
Жыл бұрын
If they’re old enough to pay taxes, they’re old enough to vote. After all, taxation without representation is the reason America broke away from England (allegedly)
@FazeParticles
Жыл бұрын
location was also a big factor. the the king was too far away to govern the colonies effectively and functionally.
@shgh2695
Жыл бұрын
My stance on voting age: I think that the age you are subject to certain responsibilities and have certain privileges should be the same. I think that 18 or 19 years old should be the age you can vote, and also the age you can be drafted, fight in a war, own a firearm, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, pay taxes, etc. If I am able to be sent to war I should be able to vote and I should be able to drink a beer or smoke a cigar.
@cockoffgewgle4993
10 ай бұрын
Women can't be drafted, only men can. Yet they've had the vote for over a century.
@Janthdanl
Жыл бұрын
Problem with requiring tests to vote, you are opening Pandora’s box on exclusion, it’s been proven poll taxes and tests have been used to specifically discriminate against certain peoples. It cannot be a democracy if the most basic right of the democracy is limited to people above a certain line. Love the vid and glad we can all discuss these topics classily
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Conservatives love that Pandora’s box - it gives the government the ability to choose the voters and protect itself from popular opinion.
@tompatterson1548
Жыл бұрын
I mean you could require people born here to take the same citizenship test as immigrants.
@Janthdanl
Жыл бұрын
@@tompatterson1548 and what do we do when they fail? Lol because I guarantee a majority would fail that test. We let the educated majority only be able to vote? Then we’re just back to where we were in the 1800s
@tompatterson1548
Жыл бұрын
@@Janthdanl Everybody should have the same standard for citizenship.
@Serocco
Жыл бұрын
I don't like the image of an older white man advocating for making it harder to vote either
@So_Uncivilized
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree that it should be difficult to amend the constitution. Despite the difficulty in doing so, prohibition still got ratified. And look how good that went.
@cragnamorra
Жыл бұрын
The funny thing about Prohibition is that it got the necessary support to ratify...and then just barely over a decade later the necessary support to repeal. So it's not like it was an outmoded thing changed many generations later...basically the same folks collectively agreeing "okay, so that turned out to be a bad idea we all had a few years ago".
@derekfnord
Жыл бұрын
Two-thirds *_seems_* to me like it would still be a high enough bar to reach. It would still be very difficult, but might be possible for a good enough reason. My concern is that we could *_never_* get three-quarters anymore, no matter what the reason. I don't think we could get three-quarters of states to agree that "Water is wet" or "Bad things are wrong." 😉 However, I also recognize that the political environment has not always been as polarized as it is now, and there's no reason to believe it will remain this polarized forever. Once this bar is lowered, I think it would be all-but-impossible to re-raise if we decided lowering it was a mistake. So I'm okay with taking a conservative approach on this. (in the general sense of the word, not as a political term).
@CarterElkins
Жыл бұрын
@@derekfnord You are exactly right. This proposed amendment exists solely because of the current highly-polarized nature of politics. This polarization ebbs and flows over generations, and when politics is in this state, I think it ought to be harder to make changes. It's not a bug, it's a feature. It's the political application of the saying that you shouldn't make life decisions while in a fit of rage. This political climate will soften. It'll take time, but it will happen eventually. And when it does, we'll all be more capable of having cogent conversations before we go changing the Constitution, lol.
@Karynthian
Жыл бұрын
I'd like to see VTH make an extended video defending the electoral college.
@jordanhooper1527
Жыл бұрын
Wow only 435 seat?! In the UK we have 650 MPs, each one generally represent a city and its local district. That's crazy
@chris2625
Жыл бұрын
If we did that, we'd have thousands from just a single state 😅
@jordanhooper1527
Жыл бұрын
@@chris2625 or you could have each state with its own parliament which then sends leaders from each of those to a national parliament. (Using parliament because I'm not clear on US terms)
@chris2625
Жыл бұрын
@Jordan Hooper that's how we used to have it, as VTH Chris mentioned in his video. Each State in the US has an upper and lower chamber of State Legislature (typically named a State Senate and State House of Representatives). Each of them, up until the 17th Amendment, would appoint the two US Senators to represent them while voters would elect the House of Representatives. Now it's voters who choose both US Senators and US House of Representatives. Congress had put the initial cap on House of Representatives size so as to not have to constantly do construction and remodeling of the chambers.
@sam1111979
Жыл бұрын
@@chris2625 Proportional to population it would be like the US having about 3 and half to 4 thousand representatives. A bit too many, but nothing wrong with the US having slightly more than we do here in the UK.
@martinpascual3558
Жыл бұрын
I've been all for the removal of tax exemption status for churches. Your point that it would allow churches to speak their mind is something I had not considered before. It does make the need to do a little more digging into that to fully understand before I would feel I had anything worthwhile to say. Also wanted to add that I love your content. Appreciate that you bring your level of knowledge to these videos that help to better explain some of the information. I also appreciate that you are open about being conservative and religious but don't allow that to change your views on historical events.
@TheRealGras
Жыл бұрын
The people who advocate for removal tax exemption for Churches somehow think that the government will somehow use that money more effectively than the church could.
@sonochamp
Жыл бұрын
Tax exempt status haven't stopped many churches from speaking their minds and getting involved in politics in recent years. Some candidates even got to campaign from the pulpit. If we're not going to strip these churches of their tax exempt status, what is stopping other churches from doing the same? If we're not enforcing the law, we may as well get rid of it. Keep religion out of politics and keep politics out of religion. Both institutions will be better off without the other.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
So many of them skirt the line anyway that you can kinda tell which ones are just divine sanction propaganda for political causes and which ones are interested in this Jesus fellow. He’s really quite interesting!
@Pete_Partak
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely love your channel. I've always been a lover of US History and going forward with that a degree in Political Science/Economics. Constitutionalism sadly has been under attack the last 40 years. To fix gerrymandering honestly a non-partisan committee could draw up districts using an AI algorithm to take data into account in regards to income level, occupations, age of constituents, cost of living and population density. Cities would be more isolated and not spill over into rural areas, suburban areas wouldn't spill over into rural or metropolitan areas as much. I'm from NY and for years Albany has been thrown into the same district such as Saratoga, Rensselaer, Glenn's Falls etc to drown out their more moderate right votes. Don't even get me started on how much NYC drowns out Upstate NY every election in senatorial, gubernatorial and presidential elections. If NYC was out of the picture NY would vote closer to how Ohio votes.
@barno2
Жыл бұрын
Hope you had a good trip 🎉 glad to have you back
@jojomazzocchi8968
Жыл бұрын
Mr Beat is a incredibly smart man with great character even tho I may not agree with him politically from time to time I really admire the man and hope he has all the success
@CStone-xn4oy
Жыл бұрын
He is a smart man but he is wrong about the electoral college.
@Haywood_Jablowmi420
2 ай бұрын
I remember when our teacher asked the class to raise their hand is they thought the voting age should be lowered to 16 and nobody in the classes raised their hand. And she was surprised.
@MrMiniman629
Жыл бұрын
It seems greatly expanding the House size can help produce third party Representatives. Grassroot parties can take hold of a MUCH smaller population size. Think about it. A third party will have an easier time winning a 60,000 population community instead of a near 800,000.
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
Great point.
@PekzLed
Жыл бұрын
Regarding the citizen test to vote, I agree with you, I would like that only people who knows what they are doing to vote, but the problem is if government start to restrict voting, this could be used by a potential tyrant to "choose" who could vote and would in the end undermine democracy. Democracy means that even the idiots get to vote :D
@Sprayber
Жыл бұрын
The question is who comes up with the questions? As long as two political parties monopolize the process those questions and the answers to those questions will not be worded without political bias.
@miab3694
Жыл бұрын
Yeah I would be worried that it would become a slippery slope of voter suppression real fast for underfunded education areas
@shapexon3322
Жыл бұрын
To be fair, the country was founded with only the smart land-owning people allowed to vote, and as a republic, not as a democracy. Not saying that all of the voting restrictions over the years have been good, but our "democracy" was founded with mob rule as a huge fear. Not saying all of those fears are valid today, but it is something to consider.
@williamowsley9771
Жыл бұрын
I think we should require the candidates to pass the citizenship test instead. I can definitely think of some who would flunk.
@MidwestArtMan
Жыл бұрын
I think all you have to do is remove party affiliation from the ballot, as well as the "incumbent" part. Then, people would have to be informed enough to pick out their candidate from a list of names. Getting rid of mail-in ballots (not absentee) and shortening/ending early voting would also be small hurdles for the average voter, but too much for people who hardly care.
@XcessPain
Жыл бұрын
There needs to be one single age of adulthood for everything. voting, being charged as an adult, being on your parents insurance, smoking, drinking, gambling, and being drafted. They can decide if it's 15 or 30, but it needs to be one single age.
@hullmees666
Жыл бұрын
people dont mature in different categories at the same time.
@XcessPain
Жыл бұрын
@@hullmees666 different people don't mature at the same time nevertheless we need an age where we consider people adults. It's a mess right now and should be cleaned up.
@hullmees666
Жыл бұрын
@@XcessPain wouldn't be against some cleaning up but one age for everything is going too far imo.
@keithtimmons378
Жыл бұрын
Your channel, Mr. Beat, and Cynical Historian are our trifecta of KZitem History Channels.
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
Not sure if you have instagram but if if you do, did you see the picture of the three of us i posted?
@FazeParticles
Жыл бұрын
CH is pretty based on how bad Reagan was.
@samanthamccloskey6369
Жыл бұрын
Don’t forget Mr Terry 😊
@dcrggreensheep
2 ай бұрын
@@samanthamccloskey6369 Yeah Mr. Terry deserves a spot
@Fitz0fury
Жыл бұрын
I think I have a rough idea of how I'd draw out new districts if we were ever allowed to... You use an algorithm that takes the densest area in each state, and draws the smallest possible region it can. The algorithm would give weight to local governmental lines when determining this district. It use would census data(not data including voter party registration) to hit the target population number for a district. The algorithm would then draw the bordering districts to the first using the same rules. This would happen all the way out to the borders of the state. Once the borders of the state are hit you would end up with a few areas small areas it could not draw into the final districts and hit the population goal(like little islands). It would draw these islands into the nearest local municipality to them. This would probably leave you short a few represtentative districts. The algorithm then looks for clusters where you have the newly overpopulated districts next to larger geographic districts and creates a an additional district from them where the rules are to generate the a new district, that causes the lowest range(difference between largest and smallest district population), while applying the least possible deviation from local government (city/county/parish) lines. This may leave some odd lines or stretches in districts which can't be entirely avoided, but it may be a good idea to try a final pass where it tries to reduce the districts by perimeter. This MIGHT help cut out some odd peninsulas and things of that nature.
@lukeb1663
Жыл бұрын
I absolutely agree with the fact that each representative represents far too many people and that they can’t possibly represent them properly. I also know that one of the major reasons why they don’t add more members to the house is because the amount of time needed to debate anything would be increased as well. Ultimately, the only way to get around these issues, is to make the number of things needed to be debated by the increased number of representatives smaller. The best way to do that is decrease the amount of power held by the federal government.
@perpetual_suffering1458
Жыл бұрын
Hi chris. Just want to share my perspective on the voting age of 25. I dont agree that voting should be something thats earned because you pass a critieria of a developed enough brain. At the age of 18 im working full time, earning a wage, and contributing part of that wage to the government im taxes. Im also allowed to fight in the military AND im legally obliged to answer my call to conscription in war time. I absolutely think i deserve a voice considering all my responsibilities to the United States.
@MeanBeanComedy
Жыл бұрын
#6 is interesting. I'd say go for it if you remove the Supreme Court restriction. The Reps running every 4 years on off-year elections is clever!
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Would also really diminish the strength of the presidency - it becomes equal to the House in importance rather than being more important. Destroying the imperial presidency and burning the remains is critically needed. Way too easy for a president as powerful as it is in the US to jump to dictatorship.
@Allaiya.
Жыл бұрын
My two favorite history KZitemrs! Interesting discussion for sure.
@mclovin9148
Жыл бұрын
The Extreme Centrist and the Monarchist back on a video together. i love it
@venomousstriker4715
Жыл бұрын
2:41 not only did he not have a problem with it he literally thought it should’ve been shredded every 20 years and completely rewrote
@emeralddragon2980
Жыл бұрын
So, on that age-of-voting thing, I have a different opinion/argument, and frankly, I think it can go one of two ways. First, if citizens are expected to go to war if drafted, to fight, kill, and potentially die for their nation, why aren't they allowed to say who should go to office? I feel that their votes should count, as well. On the other hand, if they're not cognizant enough to make a well-informed decision on who should be in office, then I wouldn't believe that they're cognizant enough to go into an active warzone, watch their friends and comrades die while also having to kill other human beings, and then get sometimes minimal- if any- treatment for whatever mental issues they come home with. So, my conclusion is that they may be drafted at eighteen but must also be able to vote, or they can't vote or be drafted at eighteen. I think these are fair compromises.
@williamsutter2152
Жыл бұрын
Funny, here in Oz we had an issue with gerrymandering in the 20th Century. We got rid of that issue by having independent commissions draw the electoral boundaries and those districts are seldom, if ever, questioned in court. Not sure why it's such a big issue in the US.
@thegodofimagination
Жыл бұрын
Honestly the are quite few issues the USA is plagued that I am like "hay look USA another country did thing that could help you in quagmire maybe try it or something"
@socialistcroceater5815
Жыл бұрын
I’ll agree that there are ignorant people who probably shouldn’t vote, but in a democracy, we have a right to make our own decisions, dumb or not. Good vids from both of you btw,❤
@caydcrow5161
Жыл бұрын
See then that is a major flaw of democracy. Your democracy is only as good as the education system within it. I think restricting the vote via a test that is administered by a independent body would be totally acceptable.
@cat_omaha732
Жыл бұрын
@@caydcrow5161 that’s so dangerous and could be highly ableist- preventing anyone with mental issues- severe autism , Down Syndrome, etc from being able to vote for people that are pushing to support these people.
@masterguns1750
Жыл бұрын
@@caydcrow5161 What makes you think this wouldn't be abused like it has been in the south historically? What type of questions would be asked in your test? At what point is someone too dumb or uneducated to vote? This is a slippery slope that will lead to people in areas with a bad education system to have their vote taken away from them and ignored by legislatures.
@jaded9234
Жыл бұрын
That's why we have a republic. Everyone has the right to make dumb decisions, but we should try to make an effort to safeguard others from the consequences of a decision they did not make.
@caydcrow5161
Жыл бұрын
@@masterguns1750 I think we ask standard civics questions and we could have a completely new body preferably a non-profit that grades the tests. If you don’t get above a 80% on let’s say a 25 question test then you don’t get to vote. If you’re uneducated you can destroy a healthy democracy. If you are worried about losing the vote then study extra hard. It isn’t a crazy thing to ask
@jsl1010
Жыл бұрын
If the argument for raising voting age is mental development/acuity, would you then also then support a max voting age due to the cognitive decline that can generally be anticipated with aging, and well, the fact that people who aren’t going to be around for much longer are deciding things for people who will be left stuck with their choices?
@FluffyBunny9002
Жыл бұрын
Very good question. I would like to see the voting age increased too, but this wasn't something I considered. Now that you mention it, I think 85 sounds like a good cap on the age.
@cyndiebill6631
Жыл бұрын
Term limits I totally agree on. You have people there that have been there so long they are out of touch with reality. New times means new ideas. Old men shouldn’t be making decisions for the new generations. This goes for everyone Supreme Court included!!
@Sprayber
Жыл бұрын
Term limits is the acknowledgement thst democracy is flawed. Career politicians don't just happen. We are basically saying that voters cannot be trusted with that decision. I don't like seeing the same people over and over either but as long as we allow only two political parties to monopolize the process Term limits aren't going to be a magical cure all.
@derekfnord
Жыл бұрын
In theory, every holder of every office is already limited to one term: their current term. If they're not doing a good job, then they shouldn't be re-elected. By the same token, if they are doing a good job, I (as a voter) don't want to be told I can't "re-hire" them for the position. But I recognize that's all just in theory. In practice, it's painfully obvious that WAY too many incumbents easily win re-election despite clearly not deserving it, and voters in general are not nearly critical enough when evaluating who should represent them from one term to the next. So even though I see term limits as something that protects us from our own bad decisions more than it protects us from government corruption, it's hard for me to argue against it.
@mkhedart0mt0avari
Жыл бұрын
The evidence is generally pretty clear that term limits for legislators actually do more harm than good. They increase the power of lobbyists and interest h groups, diminish the effectiveness of policymakers, and weaken democratic accountability. Reform campaign finance laws and ensure our electoral system is as responsive as possible to voters themselves, and elections will serve as natural term limits.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Definitely agree that it sends the right message, but make it so that someone cannot serve in the house, then the Senate, then etc… Politics should be a temporary duty, not a lifestyle.
@clayschwartzwalter382
Жыл бұрын
We already have term limits: elections.
@TheGermanKnowsBest
Жыл бұрын
Came across this during my spare time, but as a Senior Certified Law Student who specializes in Constitutional Litigation and Criminal Prosecution, these are nice wish list items but legally are difficult to sqaure. For example, with the ERA amendment, I guess what is going to be the new legal standard for discrimination based on sex? Because for almost 40 years and including the VMI case it has been intermediate scrutiny that mimics strict scrutiny analysis i.e. very hostile to discrimination. With going off of just what he said alone that legal frame work no longer exists because prior case precedent did not deal with the backdrop of an ERA amendment. Another issue with the ERA that he only spoke about, where is the amendment's enforcement provision? Usually we refer to this like the 14th Amendment's §5 enforcement power. But there doesnt appear to be one here. So is Congress going to enforce this through the Interstate Commerce Clause like Civil Rights and a lot of Race Based discrimination? Necessary and Proper Clause? Or are the States going to enforce it through public accomodation laws? And even if they do, do not forget there might be valid First Amendment challenges to those public accomodation enforcement's (see Masterpiece Cake Shop & 303 Creative). Just food for thought.
@Jacorn_IDK
Жыл бұрын
as a 16 year old student, I am ABSOLUTELY in support of raising the legal voting age to 21. The kids in my class are so naive, i think they'd just vote based on the party they affiliate with, instead of voting based on the merit of those running for office, or voting for who would best lead our country. Especially now, with the mass-polarization of the American public. Maybe not 25, but raise the voting age to 21 at least.
@chrisbeer5685
Жыл бұрын
Wait until you find out how naive most adults are, let alone senior citizens.
@brandonf1260
7 ай бұрын
As someone who is 18 I respectfully disagree. I a confident that 18 year olds still should have the right to vote based on what is expected of them at that point. Also don't kid yourself if you think that naivety goes away with age. I've seen far too many of the older generation fall easily for lies of politicians. When you are 18, you will probably think differently as well. I know I did.
@Meow_Zedong
Жыл бұрын
I would love to see you react to his video on the electoral college. He makes a very compelling argument, and because you don't agree it would be cool to see your responses.
@DieNastyFootball
Жыл бұрын
The problem with just doing terms limits and not fixing the corruption and money in politics issues is that it basically just says you can be corrupt for xxx numbers of years and when they have to retire anyways then they can do truly terrible things and have no consequences.
@robertortiz-wilson1588
Жыл бұрын
Let me just say, I'm in near total agreement with you concerning each proposal!
@theinsanepumpkincarver
Жыл бұрын
Please do a video on his video of the rural-urban divide in America! I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
@PavelD83
Жыл бұрын
Funny how a lot of people discuss raising of the voting age, always adding "I don't mean to be partisan here", but fail to acknowledge it would be an INCREDIBLY partisan move based on voting preference of younger demographic. PS: interesting reaction video, food for thought from both the original video and the reaction, even if I don't agree with some of the proposed changes.
@Rhbrehaut
Жыл бұрын
My argument is just for consistency. Either raise the age to vote or lower the age of all the things over 18s cant do. You are either an adult or you are not legally speaking.
@PavelD83
Жыл бұрын
@@Rhbrehaut I'd much prefer to expand the rights granted to the people, rather than reduce them. If you think the younger generation is not educated in civics to be a responsible electorate, why not fight for improved education instead of trying to strip their rights away? The arguments used by many people about young people here are the same ones used in the past to prevent women and black people from. voting.
@john_molden
Жыл бұрын
Nice to see a mention of the Napovo interco plan. You are right, it would be fought out in the supreme court but it would make for some pretty interesting entertainment
@vibhav_m
Жыл бұрын
A surpising video to react to for sure, but a welcome one!
@robnielsen4121
Жыл бұрын
The idea of administering something along the lines of the citizenship test in order to vote is one of those things that seems like a great idea on the surface, but it raises a lot of questions and each answer seems to beget even more questions. For example: How do you administer it? Is it only done when the voter registers or is it administered before/during each election the person participates in? It makes little sense to just be a one time thing, nor would it make sense to only do it for federal elections when state and municipal elections are sometimes more directly impactful to you and your neighbors. Also, is the citizenship test (which I see as the most commonly held up example) the best measure of knowledge going into every election? We had a referendum a few years back on a financial package to construct a new aquatics center where I live. I think financial literacy was much more relevant to that ballot question than knowledge of basic federal-level civics and surface-level U.S. history. Wouldn't it make more sense to test for knowledge of the issues/candidates at hand in each election? And that just drags us further into the weeds. How do understaffed state and municipal offices come up with a fair test and administer it for every single election? Are there chances for retesting? I suppose you could make the test part of the ballot. But so many issues have answers too nuanced for a multiple choice question, so it would likely have to be a separate item that needs to pass the eye test to be a real measure. How would you efficiently count ballots and check homework with electioneering staffs that are already hard to assemble and just as susceptible to ignorance and bias as anyone else? (We think it takes a long time to count in places now. And that's really just scratching the surface of the problems with mandating a test to vote. I didn't even get into how we've already had poll tests in the past and how it would be exceedingly difficult to prevent similarly selective tests with more nefarious purposes from being administered. It is certainly bothersome that there are people voting whose knowledge on a subject or candidate can fit on a bad bumper sticker, but at the end of the day, ignorance, just as it knows no party, knows no age and isn't always cured by "life experience." Making it harder to vote isn't going to tackle that issue.
@TheFinalChapters
9 ай бұрын
This is actually easily solvable. You just have multiple paths to eligibility. In other words, if you pass a basic civics test, OR reach the age of 16, you become eligible to vote until the day you die.
@svenrio8521
Жыл бұрын
You two definitely need to do more collabs, the President ranking live stream was the best. 😀
@billy9497able
Жыл бұрын
18 is fine. You are a legal adult then. And the decisions that politicians are making directly effect you. 25 is too high.
@eliplayz22
Жыл бұрын
I wouldn't raise or otherwise restrict the voting the voting age. Remember, the South had what you were talking about but called them literacy tests during the Jim Crow era, which were not only against the 14th Amendment, they were also used to oppress African Americans. To be blunt, it makes me upset (I can still be civil here, though, ofc) inside for you to say stuff like that when conservatives are making more strict voter ID laws (and all based on a lie) and also want to raise the voting age when that would hurt minorities. At the risk of repeating other comments, if I'm old enough to be drafted, be tried as an adult, buy, sell, and own property, etc, then I should be old enough able to vote in and out the people who determine those things.
@benrandall89
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video from Mr Beat, entertaining reactions from VTH! Taxing the church is something that doesn't make much sense to me. If we're taxing the church, are we taxing all non-profits? Does that mean that non-profits turn into for-profits? And if they're for-profits, are they owned by individuals who then can legally keep the profits for themselves? "Tax the church" takes us down some weird and unethical roads.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Given that many non-profits are little more than tax shelters, it’d be a change. Makes it a lot harder to run a charity, though, and that’d hurt a lot of people that can’t take much more of a beating. No easy answers there.
@CarterElkins
Жыл бұрын
@@Justanotherconsumer I think many people are also not aware of just how much of a role most churches play in funding/supplying charities, and in many cases performing the charity themselves. There would be a lot of unforeseen consequences to messing with that. This is because churches do not (typically) generate profit, and most operate solely on the donations of churchgoers. I really don't see the logic in revoking that status, when the point of it is to encourage charitable organizations to exist and grow.
@Lirleni
Жыл бұрын
@@CarterElkins Regarding taxing of churches: A lot of the issue is pointed at the MEGAchurches. And even more specifically the ones who aligned with the Prosperity Gospel. Churches are currently presumed to be non-profit / charity institutions. They don't technically even have to register / file taxes at all. Have them file taxes, taking deductions for their charitable works. Let them pay property taxes on real property / personal property that non churches do. Again with deductions for verifiable charitable uses.
@CarterElkins
Жыл бұрын
@@Lirleni You know, those are good points. I would get behind that, so long as the deductions covered your average small church sufficiently, and therefore avoided penalizing charities indirectly. Mega churches could pay taxes without being impacted at all, in most cases. Plus, that would encourage them to get back into the charity game, which it seems many of them have slacked on (they see themselves as charitable causes lol).
@sithersproductions
2 ай бұрын
@Justanotherconsumer lots of churches are scams, lots of churches are indispensable to their local communities. I think the government should err on the side of caution.
@bumgop
2 ай бұрын
Honestly, as a 22 year old i gotta say that the way that i analyze and interpret politics has changed A LOT since i was 18, let alone since i was 16. While i understand the idea behind letting all tax payers (including 16 year olds paying income tax) vote, i feel like the younger people are, the more influenced they are by their social circles. I would prefer voters to vote based on their understanding of what and who theyre voting for, and not based on who their friends say is the best pick. I would say 25 is the best age for this due to our modern understanding of brain development, but as im not 25 yet i can only really say that 21 as a voting age is much better than 16
@claytondosier6197
Жыл бұрын
I had a lot of thoughts on many of them but I wanted to touch on #7. I agree with limiting campaign contributions and spending. Other than that I disagree with the amendment. Some of the language seems like it would open the door to further government authority in business and I don't like writing blank power checks to the government. Another issue I have is if businesses can no longer be considered entities then most corporate protections would go away. For example, if there is a lawsuit then the business entity is the one being sued. Some people would say it's ok because it will stop rich people from getting away with things. Most business entities are owned by average people without a legal team. This would open up average Americans to potential problems. This is just one example of how it would be bad to stop considering corps., LLC's and other organizations their own entities.
@alyssadanielle1017
Жыл бұрын
mr beat and VTH collabs are my favorite 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 are y'all planning on doing another video together in the future?
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
Yes it will definitely be happening.
@alyssadanielle1017
Жыл бұрын
@@VloggingThroughHistory excited to see what you guys have planned!
@Jamessmith-xk3fh
Жыл бұрын
In my district in Louisiana the representative has a large district because its mostly rural parishes but the big city ones have smaller areas to represent
@historyking9984
Жыл бұрын
They shouldn’t make it harder to vote. What needs to be done is to educate more people. It should not be hard for anyone to vote as they have a voice but what needs to be done is to get them informed and involved.They already make it harder to vote and not in any ways that make people less ignorant but that keep informed people from voting.
@tastyfalcon1788
Жыл бұрын
You can't teach people who aren't willing to learn. Most young Americans do not care about politics, and most Americans in general do not care enough to do any research. I don't think education is the solution, is what I'm saying.
@defendska2158
Жыл бұрын
Voting is insanely easy everywhere, bruh
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
@@defendska2158 is it? The stories of people waiting in line for hours definitely give the other impression. That people are showing up at polling places armed is also problematic - pushing the line on voter intimidation should be smacked down, harshly.
@historyking9984
Жыл бұрын
@@defendska2158 it definitely is not especially in Republican States. Brian Kemp after 2020 introduced a bill which including shortening the window during which voters can request and return an absentee ballot, drastically reducing the number of ballot drop boxes and eliminating hundreds of hours of drop box availability, making it much harder to vote by provisional ballot, and making it a crime for volunteers to hand out a bottle of water or snack to voters waiting in long lines. He also purged hundreds of thousands of Georgian voters
@historyking9984
Жыл бұрын
@@Justanotherconsumer Republicans in Georgia and many other states passed a bill making it illegal to give water or snacks to people waiting in voting lines. They’ve purged tons of people who want to vote. There’s tons of examples of sudden changes in voting locations and very few in minority areas or changes to time available to vote. There’s tons of examples of voter suppression by Republicans. They’ve said so
@aaronrodgers696
Жыл бұрын
Always love a VTH/Mr Beat combo! Love both your channels-keep up the collabs and video reviews!! One question (and by the way, I wholeheartedly agree the electoral college isn’t going anywhere): in and of itself, why is it a good idea? To me it’s always seemed nonsensical on its face-that is, I don’t understand why someone’s vote in a given state should in essence have more electoral weight by virtue of the state that they live in, or why republicans in cali will never cast a meaningful presidential vote. Would love to hear you flesh that out a bit! And to understand the rationale a bit more given that we’ll have it likely forever, as you say! Thanks, and keep up the great work!! Love this community
@MightyDrex
Жыл бұрын
The electoral college is our best defense against stupid people voting. Today, most people who vote are not very well educated on history or how our government works. They can still have a say, but the final decision is made by individuals who are chosen and adequately educated in American politics. And don't count out republicans in California. Arnold was the Republican governor of California from 2003-2011.
@ParanormalEncyclopedia
5 ай бұрын
There's a great speech in the movie With Honors that sums up the true brilliance of the US constitution where Joe Pesci puts it perfectly. The brilliance of the Constitution, what makes it great is that it was created in a way that future generations coculd change it. I absolutely agree with you that it's good doing so isn't easy but yeah having the foresight to go "you know what we need to build in a way to make changes" really shows how smart the founding fathers were.
@lampcrow5453
Жыл бұрын
Mr. Beat: “We should lower the voting age to-“ VTH: “N O P E” Lol
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
Liberal, conservative. It’s often little more than that - young people tend to vote liberal so conservatives are eager to have them not vote and vice versa.
@FazeParticles
Жыл бұрын
if anything we should raise the voting age to 25. lmaoo. that would crush all this hippie loving ideology. once they've been paying taxes for a few years and having it eat into their checks they'll change their whole mentality regarding politics.
@gogameing5657
3 ай бұрын
If you're able to die as a soldier you're able to vote
@DavidAdarmases12
2 ай бұрын
To me, the real argument regarding voting for 16-year-olds is not necessarily the educational quality, but rather the fact that they pay taxes. If you're a citizen and you pay taxes, you should be able to vote. Period.
@michaelcain8887
Жыл бұрын
A good amendment to consider would be to alter the Electoral College to do away with the “winner take all” format of counting each state’s points. Pennsylvania, for example, could be split 13-7, rather than a candidate collecting all 20 points. This would encourage more focused campaigns in forgotten regions within each state.
@rickwiles8835
Жыл бұрын
Agree not only would the repeal of winner take all encourage more focused campaigns in forgotten regions within each state, but it would also encourage more people to vote. If you are a liberal in Texas, Alabama, or Mississippi or if you're a conservative in New York, California or New Mexico your vote doesn't count because of the tradition of winner take all. Take away the winner take all method of counting votes and far more people will show up at the polls.
@Greybeardmedic
Жыл бұрын
This is how you reform the Electoral college without getting rid of it. Eliminate the winner take all process and break the results up into district by district.
@TriSticle
Жыл бұрын
I agree with that, think it would probably have to be left up to the states to decide themselves though. I don't agree with Beats idea of ranked voting or any of that though. Pick best candidate on both sides, and let them face eachother.
@CarterElkins
Жыл бұрын
This is a great idea, and would address the downsides of the electoral college while retaining it's obviously-critical purpose. Repealing the college in total will never happen, and I think any change is unlikely, but at least this suggestion is not ridiculous, like most others are.
@ryanpm6055
Жыл бұрын
I would agree but it would just give more power to gerrymandering. The only way to really divorce ourselves from the problem of gerrymandering and votes not being equal to one another is to have a direct vote like we do for every other election in this country.
@PikeProductions23
Жыл бұрын
It was great meeting you in Denver! I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on why the electoral college is a good thing and worth keeping. Most of the pro-EC arguments I've heard seem to be inspired by partisan opportunism (the same could be said for anti-EC arguments.)
@VloggingThroughHistory
Жыл бұрын
It's simple. The reason we are a Federal Republic is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That's why we keep the EC.
@willd7596
Жыл бұрын
@@VloggingThroughHistory Yes! I would also argue it's important for resource production balance. I comment on it above... but once you realize that the EC is vital for balancing representation in proportion to resource production, you realize how truly important it is.
@loenk2651
Жыл бұрын
@@VloggingThroughHistory Wouldn't a system of proportional representation also work? It tends to prevent one party from gaining an absolute majority, which means that no single party gets to do "tyranny" over all the others. Because right now the US regularly has one party completely in power. And sometimes the party with less votes wins the presidency and the senate, which would make it closer to a tyranny of the minority. Of course, proportional representation has many other advantages too, such as more accurately representing the specific beliefs of the population and giving the main two parties some competition. It also means that, because parties have to form varying coalitions and work together, it is in each party's best interest to not demonise all the other parties, which makes the political environment less toxic.
@GageEakins
Жыл бұрын
@@VloggingThroughHistory So the tyranny of the minority is better? That logic does not hold up at all. The constitution prevents the tyranny of the majority by having certain rights that are not allowed to be changed by simple legislation. The electoral college doesn't support equal rights, it does the opposite. It makes some people's votes count more than others.
@historyking9984
Жыл бұрын
@@VloggingThroughHistory I couldn’t disagree with you more on Direct voting is needed . The electoral college actually does what you fear it’s protecting from. A minority party or group in any individual states votes don’t matter in an electoral college . For both parties. Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas . With the electoral college their votes don’t matter in a national election because they’re the minority in that state .Having direct elections mean their votes still matter on a national level an election even if they’re a minority in their state. It would mean that politicians wouldn’t just have to focus on winning the majority in a certain state but votes in all states even ones where their party is a minority group would be important.First the electoral college means that someone literally can win with only specific states. The amount of votes don’t correlate to the populations as well. A vote in a state with 500;000 people is worth more individually than one from a state like texas or California. A vote shouldn’t matter where it comes from in the national election. You have to look at the founders situation and extreme bias . All were elite rich white men who feared the masses, so of course they will have extreme bias towards some imaginary fear of. the mob or the tyranny of the majority . If tyranny of the majority matters then it should the minority and vice versa . People in extremely small states have far more influence than they should have in things that affect a majority of the people. A government is something for everyone . Smaller states have representatives to represent them but it should be proportional. It hurts states right and left. Also fears of tyranny by the majority ? There’s been plenty of that in this country but only on a racial level. And there’s countless examples of elections where it’s direct democracy just that go completely fine around the world . Anyways you shouldn’t build a system over what you fear might be or could be but what is and the reality of the world
@ElijahCook-n6u
9 ай бұрын
I completely agree with you on the electoral college! It was meant from the very beginning to create a balance between state governments and the federal government. It was understood by the founders that if the federal government was too powerful, this would create tyranny. However, if the federal government was too weak, there is no way we could’ve been one United nation. That’s why we’re not a direct democracy or a confederation, but rather a constitutional republic.
@LBF522
Жыл бұрын
The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because many felt that if you can be drafted at 18, then why shouldn't one be able to vote for the people sending them to war. 16 or 17 is not a good idea.
@lenny7822
Жыл бұрын
And why is that? Can you include any premises to support your conclusion?
@c3schwab1
Жыл бұрын
Definitely a mixed bag. He brings up some great points and some interesting things to ponder. I do agree with expanding the house. Only problem is it would require a major construction project on the capital which if I am not mistaken is a reason we have remained at the magic number of 435. They would also have to double the office space. For anyone who has visited DC this is not a small project. But love the idea.
@gmwdim
Жыл бұрын
Spending taxpayer money on offices and amenities for congresspeople sounds like something congress would be okay with.
@c3schwab1
Жыл бұрын
@@gmwdim Most definitely. They love spending money on themselves. But they won't if it means diluting their power which this would do.
@zainsalhani4705
Жыл бұрын
@@c3schwab1 that’s absolutely the reason why. Dems and Reps can’t agree on many things but their clutch to power.
@moralhazard8652
Жыл бұрын
About the method to avoid partisanship when deciding district lines there is the split-line method, to divide any state or region into the required number of sectors with the shortest possible straight lines. This might get some people of completely different lifestyles into the same district but it would be an objective standart that noone could accuse of bias.
@joeymac4302
Жыл бұрын
When Chris (VTH) mentioned Bipartisan, it reminded me that many countries use proportional representation to apportion representatives. It requires some degree of planning, and establishes parties as a central feature, rather than particular candidates, and can be done any number of ways. We have a stable enough country that we could pull it off. For Cripes sake, Brazil can do it.
@rainbowappleslice
Жыл бұрын
While it’s true that peoples brain aren’t fully grown until their mid 20’s and you can argue that would impede their ability to vote properly I would argue that cutting our youngest adults out of voting on things that by and large are going to affect them for by far the longest and probably affect them a lot in general doesn’t sound like an amazing idea.
@Justanotherconsumer
Жыл бұрын
People’s brains aren’t fully grown until they die of old age. What changes the ability to vote intelligently is experience, and age is no guarantee of experience.
@jaded9234
Жыл бұрын
They would get their vote a few years later, by which time, they would have their say in the effects like everyone else. If they were to be made exempt from the various responsibilities that necessitated their vote in the first place, then they would not have the cause for discontent. Seeing as a person's headspace tends to lead toward excessive discontent in their late-teens to mid-20s, it would probably help for them to be exempt from many direct responsibilities be allowed more time to get a better handle on how things work (Both, to learn how the adult world works and how those rules will affect them when they actually apply). Rather than chucking them head-first into the fire and hoping they can survive.
@Pan_Z
Жыл бұрын
Completely agree regarding voting age. The reason the US lowered it was due to 18, 19, and 20-year olds being drafted for the Vietnam War, but unable to vote. What should've happened is the conscription age being raised to 21. Alas, the government needed bodies for its unconstitutional war.
@Kyle_116
Жыл бұрын
The Vietnam War can be described as many things, Unconstitutional is not one of them.
@Pan_Z
Жыл бұрын
@Kyle_116 The President sending conscripted soldiers to the other side of the planet to fight a multiple year long war, all without an official declaration from Congress. Just as the Founders intended.
@ihaveachihuahau
Жыл бұрын
It was FDR in WW2 who pushed for 18 year olds to vote. WW2 was the first time the draft was lowered to 18. Not vietnam.
@cockoffgewgle4993
10 ай бұрын
Women have never been subject to the draft, but they've had the right to vote for over a century.
Пікірлер: 3,2 М.