DC works for themselves, not the people they claim to represent.
@dkBybee
5 ай бұрын
And DC isn’t even a state. Not cool!
@SG-js2qn
5 ай бұрын
DC runs the Democratic Party from behind the curtain. Biden, Pelosi, etc. don't write the laws or read them. They simply vote on them as told. In return, they can run petty crimes without fear of prosecution.
@messagesystem333
5 ай бұрын
Just wish the states had something similar so big cities wouldn't have total power to the whole state!
@АлександърСпасов-ъ3ю
5 ай бұрын
Nebraska and Maine have that. They vote by congressional district. Someone made a map of the 2020 election if all states voted by congressional district and he found that Trump would’ve won.
@industrialathlete6096
5 ай бұрын
At one time they did but that was ruled 'unconstitutional' by a Supreme Court decision June 15th 1964!
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
big cities dont have power over anything. the corporations do. also the cities are too small to do that. EC defenders failed math class
@kungfugirevik657
5 ай бұрын
@@industrialathlete6096 I'm not surprised that decision came out of the Warren Court, the most activist era we've ever seen. The dissenting opinion by Harlan was correct, that the court was rewriting the Constitution rather than waiting for the amendment process. Still, even apportioning electoral votes by congressional district under the current rules would serve to break the hold of the big cities to an extent.
@chrisschembari2486
5 ай бұрын
Yeah, if Illinois voters could vote on it county by county, they probably would have spun Chicago off into its own separate new state, and the rest of the existing state would turn solidly conservative overnight.
@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625
5 ай бұрын
"but but the Electoral College restrains the Democracy of the election" The founding fathers: Yes, that's based.
@HappyBump-ts2gw
5 ай бұрын
Based because slavery was legal at the time.
@Drakkonemus
5 ай бұрын
Founding Fathers: but there are amendments that can be made to change the system if change is needed.
@HappyBump-ts2gw
5 ай бұрын
@Drakkonemus the Republicans don't want this of course. Because they can't win the presidency legit.
@Letwoo67
5 ай бұрын
Not entirely true, Madison, Jefferson and many federalists opposed the electoral college.
@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625
5 ай бұрын
@@Letwoo67 Like I care
@Jinxx9081
5 ай бұрын
It’s just annoying how large cities often control the vote for the whole state. I’m from Alaska and most people throughout Alaska vote red, while the city folk in anchorage vote blue, I understand that they have more people, but it’s like they don’t realize how their votes affect those who live differently from them. This happens to farmers a lot, who don’t have a lot of voting power and live in rural areas. People in cities often just don’t think about people who don’t live in cities, the electric vehicle policies is a great example. I know it was good intentions, but they only think about having an electric car in a city and don’t realize how difficult and impractical that Is for most of rural America.
@johnschuh8616
5 ай бұрын
Selfishness is the weakness of all political decisions. A monarch focuses on the fortunes of his family. A republic on the interest of the elites; a democracy on the needs of the majority. A mixed government is the best of all. Our Constitution seeks a balance of power. Until after 1914. despite the Civil War, most governmental power still rested with the States and their localities. The short interlude of a consentration of power from, 1917-19i9, ended with the war. But the New Deal and world war 2 and the Cold caused a huge concentration of power in the Central Government. Ironically, the end of the Cold War has only led to an even greater increase. We new see a great concentration of power in the Nation’s capital.
@elroyla227
5 ай бұрын
But Alaska is a red state??? So if anything it’s like the rural voters override the people in anchorage
@Jinxx9081
5 ай бұрын
@@elroyla227 I’m talking about local elections and the type of policies that effect Alaskans the most. The presidential elections don’t effect Alaskan as much because we don’t have a lot of voting power either way.
@racool911
5 ай бұрын
@@Jinxx9081But why should rural people be the only minority who gets special privileges? You can find many different types of minorities that overwhelmingly tend to vote one way, but all of those groups don't get special rules so their party can win without a majority.
@Jinxx9081
5 ай бұрын
@@racool911 you are kidding right? The left wanted to not enforce voter ID laws for some ridiculous notion that black people couldn’t get an ID. Literally most people on the left would rather listen to anyone else rather than farmers. When farmers try to explain why their “environmentally friendly” solutions aren’t real solutions, they just get pissed off and say that the right just doesn’t care about the environment or animals. I’ve seen it enough to know for certain that the left would rather feel good about themselves than actually do good.
@scotthill2567
5 ай бұрын
Those who fail to understand a system are always the first to want to change it without understanding the consequences.
@wjdyr6261
5 ай бұрын
The change is inevitable and it's for the worse bc some states will count the 10s of millions of illegals for purposes of representation and electoral votes.
@NemisCassander
5 ай бұрын
Chesterton's Fence is a good rule to apply in these situations. :)
@SaylerT
5 ай бұрын
Like firearms...
@lonestar2078
5 ай бұрын
that is exactly Chesterton's Fence
@joshuaestep9000
5 ай бұрын
Those that benefit from a systems' corruption are always the first to defend it.
@kevinaguilar7541
5 ай бұрын
People from smaller states are still ignored like wyomming, idaho, the dakotas, and west cirginia.
@Giovannytru
5 ай бұрын
That's not true. They have their 2 senators like every other state.
@kevinaguilar7541
5 ай бұрын
@@Giovannytru I'm talking about the electoral college not the senators
@Giovannytru
5 ай бұрын
@kevinaguilar7541 Well, the Electoral College is based on the number of members of congress each state delegation has and that is based on it's population. So, no, they aren't being ignored.
@kevinaguilar7541
5 ай бұрын
@@Giovannytru in presidential elections, you don't see the president really making much of an effort in appealing these states besides some generic statements. I was referring to how the electoral college does not do what people claims, that being it brings attention to non-populated area.
@Giovannytru
5 ай бұрын
@kevinaguilar7541 oh definitely but not just smaller states. Nobody pays attention to Tennessee or Texas, let's not talk about Massachusetts or California
@thomasmcbran6168
5 ай бұрын
The EC only shows the genius behind the founding fathers they knew what they were doing
@Shadowdoc26
5 ай бұрын
They really thought ahead, or they just had common sense. Same shit different day. Even in 2024 with computers and internet, human beings are still zero sum mentality, my way or the highway.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
not really no, considering the Ec is broken and absurd
@c.galindo9639
5 ай бұрын
Separation of powers is exactly why its structured in such a way. Overall only one wants power over the other which is why the ones demanding to structure the government a certain way want to sweep the board clean to enact their devious schemes to push onto the ignorantly and gullible masses that praise them as if they have well meaning intentions towards them all
@nathansmith7686
5 ай бұрын
Why do people treat the founding fathers like gods. Like for fuck sakes, they were men, who while brilliant, came up with some terrible views. Doesn’t change their contributions, but it does mean they are immune from criticism.
@protorhinocerator142
5 ай бұрын
@@nathansmith7686 I think it's mainly a comparison between the typical nitwits and greedy degenerates we often get today in politics.
@AmericanActionReport
5 ай бұрын
John C. Calhoun said that one difference between a democracy and a republic is that, in a republic, the majority rules, but only to the extent that the rights of the minority are protected. For example, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are so fundamental that no one, even a majority of 99%, has the right to take them away.
@rivenoak
5 ай бұрын
Hellenic Republic = Elliniki Dimokratia = Greece if your _res publica_ is not _dimos kratia_ it is not a republic, sorry
@DieFlabbergast
5 ай бұрын
Er ... all republics are democracies. You can have a democracy that is not a republic, but you cannot have a republic that is not a democracy. ("All colonels are soldiers, but not all soldiers are colonels.") Now, if you want to change the US into a monarchy or dictatorship, then go ahead, but it will be neither a republic nor a democracy.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
an irrelevant quote. wrong since every democracy on earth protects minorities as well (to varying degrees). the netherlands legalized gay marriage 15 years before the US did. "For example, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are so fundamental that no one, even a majority of 99%, has the right to take them away." and yet those in power do take them away. torture, patriot act, guantanamo bay etc.
@AmericanActionReport
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 You're conflating rights with freedoms. Each person everywhere has rights even under regimes that deny people the freedom to exercise those rights. Further, government offering certain "protections" as a matter of policy isn't the same thing as government recognizing and safeguarding a right that exists prior to, and independent of, government. Rights don't come from government. If government "granted rights" (an oxymoron), that same government can take them away.
@johnbaldwin2948
5 ай бұрын
Oh please...you have no rights beyond what some government official allows. The truth is censored. And .gov tramples every other "right" you THINK you have.
@cubano100pct
5 ай бұрын
I would to see a video on the 17th Amendment; direct election of Senators, instead of being elected by the State's legislatures. I think the States gave up oversight of the Federal government, since the Senators don't have the state's interest anymore.
@G00GleIsACr33p
5 ай бұрын
I would say it didn't take long for the federal government to get out of control after the passage of the 17th Am. Thank you Wilson.
@hubertwalters4300
5 ай бұрын
I agree,the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
@dustythurman5426
4 ай бұрын
Yes, the combination of the 16th, direct taxation, and the 17th, popular election of the Senate, completely neutered the States as a check on federal power. Unquestionably true.
@rt_huxley9205
5 ай бұрын
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
@RandyGiven
5 ай бұрын
Good example. I'll have to remember that.
@KenH60109
5 ай бұрын
That’s why most every advocate for it isn’t asking for unrestrained democracy
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
ridiculous analogy that means nothing and falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. first, wolves must eat sheep to survive. second, wolves are naturally superior to sheep while your average human voter is the same as another for the most part. third, this presumes that the losers get eaten, which they don't and weren't.
@robertshank8412
5 ай бұрын
Thanks, Nick. I'm Canadian and I do not fully understand how American elections work. This helps.
@johnharris6655
5 ай бұрын
As a Canadian, you should see what happens when your Government and an idiot like Trudeau is put in power by just a few large population centers.
@racool911
5 ай бұрын
It shouldn't help at all. Nothing he said makes any sense at all unless you're living in the 1800's.
@Radioman.
5 ай бұрын
@@racool911 I thought I was the only one laughing at this nonsense.
@ShadowDior
5 ай бұрын
@@Radioman.the United States is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Never was intended to be. Tell me you would fail a middle school US government exam without telling me. The people who wrote the constitution had Rome and Greece to base off of, and our system is the foundation of a lot of systems worldwide because it’s the first system that works, the only reason it’s failing right now is because people are greedy for power and sheep like you let them have it.
@dustythurman5426
4 ай бұрын
@@racool911 Just because you're to ignorant too understand doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Let's make it easy...no electoral college, all of middle America secedes because the coastal States are unfit to rule us. We are a FEDERATION of SOVEREIGN States. This is very similar to the EU. The federal government is the EU, the States are the individual European countries. If the most populace European countries simply drown out the wishes of the smaller ones, the smaller ones will no longer remain in the union.
@chrisrankin5730
5 ай бұрын
Without the EC, a politician can offer a region an incentive that doesn't benifit the rest of the nation to garner a large percentage of the vote in that area. Lets say they offer citizens in Gulf States a percentage of oil revenues from the Gulf of Mexico. This results in winning 70% of the votes from those states tipping the popular vote of the nation in their favor. With the EC, 51% of the vote in these states gives them the same result as the 70% forcing a candidate to pay attention to the entire nation.
@MikeBradleyJ
5 ай бұрын
This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you, that was helpful. Something like this should have been said in the video.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
which would be ridiculous impossible nonsense. first, promises don't really eventuate much unless you have a supermajority, and voters would know this. second, this already failed when bernie ran twice and lost twice, even though he promised 100% of americans guaranteed universal healthcare and education. 100%! and he still lost! so what possessed you to believe this? already the EC doesnt force one to pay attention to the entire nation. just 5-6 swing states.
@racool911
5 ай бұрын
If anyone tried that they would lose an extreme number of votes from every other state. And since they can't win entire states with only 51% of the votes, all those lost votes stack up. However in the electoral college, they don't have to give a fuck if they lose votes in states they're definitely gonna win anyway. So that actually makes it easier to pull shit like this.
@robertmiller6444
5 ай бұрын
Perhaps the greatest threat we can face his ignorantly of the the basic fundamental principles our county is built to upon. If there was ever a time and place for "Chesterton's Fence" (don't tear down that which is was built by others in the ignorance of why it was was built to that way in the first place) it is here and now vis a vis the ignorant screeching and the pitching a fit to tear down those crucial foundations.
@howardrichburg2398
5 ай бұрын
I live i Eastern oregon. We are at the mercy of portland/ salem area. They have the numbers andcwe get stuck with stupid laws and regs that make no sense whrre i live.
@SmallSpoonBrigade
5 ай бұрын
You don't have the numbers, otherwise you wouldn't be "stuck with stupid laws." The folks in Eastern Washington say the same thing, but again, they don't have the numbers, so they don't get their laws passed.
@jimr3751
5 ай бұрын
I live in northeast Colorado, and we basically have to live with the decision made by the Denver metro area so we get screwed alot.
@captaincarl8230
5 ай бұрын
That's why some of the counties in eastern Oregon want to cede from the state and join Idaho.
@jawar5673
5 ай бұрын
@@SmallSpoonBrigade No shit, that's the problem.
@monkeymouse1403
5 ай бұрын
Not only that, but you folks want to make your areas roll into Idaho and Oregon says "hell no you won't". And you wonder why people are really worried about Civil War sometime this year or the next...
@SphincterOfDoom
5 ай бұрын
I always ask people who are for abolishing the Electoral college by asking them this: "Given how the SCOTUS is selected, why should Texas or California have more say in a dispute between North and South Dakota than those states themselves? "Given how treaties and national borders are determined, why should Texas have more say over a treaty with Canada than Michigan or Washington, or New York more say over a treaty with Mexico than Arizona or New Mexico? Their answers typically indicate they hadn't considered that, or that they just don't care, as they often amount to, "So what" or "Because democracy". However, for the latter I remind them that every state entered the federal union *democratically*, so the rules by selecting the federal government are in line with democracy. They're just not in line with majoritarianism, because *federate republics* aren't majoritarianism. In fact, the overwhelming majority of modern democracies don't select their head of government or head of state by a simple popular vote. They're selected by either the legislature like in parliamentary republics, or an analogue to Electoral College like in Germany for head of state, while their head of government (Chancellor) is selected by the Legislature.
@gregoryturk1275
5 ай бұрын
The problem is that a vote from Wyoming is much more valuable than a vote from California or Texas.
@ljss6805
5 ай бұрын
Utter nonsense. The vast majority of heads of state are elected directly by the people through democratic elections. Where did you go to college? Trump University? If so, you might be eligible for compensation as part of a class action lawsuit for having been defrauded with the illusion of an education.
@SphincterOfDoom
5 ай бұрын
@@gregoryturk1275 Not really, and not inherently. You can expand the house to address that. Further, why all residents for apportionment? Why should states with more non citizens or more minors get more votes? California has far more non citizens than Montana. Utah has far more minors than Vermont. Maybe be like Germany(which also uses the equivalent of the Electoral College btw) and have apportionment only apply to voting age citizens, since including anyone else for apportionment *artificially increases the value of those votes*. It would also increase the incentive for naturalization to boot. Fun fact, if the number of representatives were to be expanded using the Wyoming Rule, Trump still would have won in 2016, and by a larger margin. This is because he won most of the key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The reality is that states except Maine and Nebraska CHOOSE to be all or nothing for electoral votes, which dilutes the impact of the minority votes in that state. 30% of California voters voted for Trump in 2016, but NONE of their votes counted for him, and instead "counted" for Hillary. The majoritarian bent towards that is all about maintaining power in that state. Another fun fact, if every state did the district method like Maine and Nebraska, Romney would have won instead. Trump still would have won in 2016, but by a smaller margin. Another fun fact: the majority of the entire US population is found in only 10 states. The US is not unique in this AT ALL. Most modern democracies don't elect their head of state or head of government by popular vote, and in the Senate, all states are equal. No one is saying the UK is anti-democratic because PARLIAMENT chooses the Prime Minister-like every other PARLIAMENTARY republics. The USA is not a unitary state. It is a FEDERATED republic. People who call for a national popular vote aren't for democracy-they're for majoritarianism. They're the same kinds of people who call supermajority requirements anti-democratic because needing a more robust and diverse consensus is somehow *bad* for democracy. They either misunderstand the math or sincerely just care about what is most expedient to get their way. They also don't seem to care too much about all the democracy that formed the rules in the first place.
@SphincterOfDoom
5 ай бұрын
@@gregoryturk1275 Same goes for apportionment in the House: states with more people ineligible to vote(non citizens, minors) get more voting power per voter. Germany is a federated republic like the US and uses basically the same system as the Electoral college, and it only include voting age citizens for its apportionment. Again, the Electoral college is not unique to the US, and a popular vote is not the norm for the head of state/government in modern democracies. You need more of an argument than majoritarianism for the sake of it.
@gregoryturk1275
5 ай бұрын
@@SphincterOfDoom Just because it isn’t unique doesn’t mean it is a good system.
@Blublod
5 ай бұрын
Decentralization of power is essential to the survival of the American Republic, but as we can see, those who want bigger and more government don’t see it that way. Think about this the next time you head to the polls.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
oversimplification. the debate is and always has been, how much government in each specific area/issue. progressives want universal healthcare and universal education, which you can call "bigger government'. but less government in virtually every other issue. some things should not be left up to profit, and health is one of them.
@Blublod
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 - Single-issue people lose all common sense. The problem is bigger than you think.
@Douglas-nt7jd
5 ай бұрын
@@Blublodwhen you have a chronic condition that allows health insurance companies to not cover your healthcare, and your kid inherits the condition, you become a single issue voter very quickly.
@tritium1998
3 ай бұрын
The EC disincentivizes more people on either side from voting which cements the state differences.
@josephryan9230
5 ай бұрын
Thanks, Nick. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton, 1887)
@nicks40
5 ай бұрын
On the other hand 'all power delights, and absolute power is absolutely delightful'. ( I think it was David Friedman said that, though I may be wrong).
@Anon-nv7bp
5 ай бұрын
It's a good system, to allow for regional representation. I think more countries ought to adopt something similar. In fact I believe Germany's system also has strong regionalism. The problem in the US is the lack of proportional representation and the current winner takes all (FPTP) system. The number of electors per state ought to be divided based on vote share, instead of entirely going to one candidate. Such a system doesn't reflect the vote and forces a two-party system. Hypothetically, instead of one party with 34% of the vote winning all 10 electoral votes of a state, and the other two parties with 33% each winning 0 seats, it should be that the state gives out 4, 3, and 3 electoral votes to these three parties.
@darkbringer1440
5 ай бұрын
No. That defeats the purpose of it being a Republic of Republics. You just suggested the majoritarian rule with one extra step. That's fundamentally opposed to the "good system for regional representation" you claim to be in favor of.
@NemisCassander
5 ай бұрын
I believe some states do actually apportion their electors in the EC based on the outcome of the popular vote as you describe. However, this is something that should be handled on a state-by-state basis.
@IsabelleExodus
5 ай бұрын
Yes, this would at least fix the "throwaway" votes of republicans in California or democrats in Texas. As it stands rn they might as well stay home.
@Donald_the_Potholer
5 ай бұрын
@NemisCassander Unfortunately, that's not true. The 2 states you're thinking of use a "districts" system where each congressional district has 1 elector who is assigned to the ticket that wins a plurality of votes within that district. The state's remaining 2 electors are assigned to the ticket that wins the statewide plurality. Maine will never have a 2-2 split; though, with Kennedy in the race, it could theoretically end up as a 2-1-1 split with Trump and Biden each taking a district but Kennedy winning the overall state without winning a single district.
@ljss6805
5 ай бұрын
No it isn't. It's an outdated system that serves no purpose but to keep the supermajority of minorities.
@lucaspoulsen8556
5 ай бұрын
As an outsider, I think the US's biggest problem is the lack of political parties. With many parties, they are forced to work together and find a compromise. Instead the US are extremely divided and radicalized which makes progres stall. A part of the solution to this is the removal of the “winner takes it all” principle.
@ctcv-to8kq
5 ай бұрын
Well, unfortunately that's how it used to work, and with only two parties. There used to be give and take, diplomacy and gentlemanly disagreements that would eventually...eventually lead to some sort of compromise. At least for now those days are behind us.
@SJR-1028
5 ай бұрын
There should be ranked choice voting to remove the spoiler effect.
@pogveteranar9415
5 ай бұрын
A multi party system would be even worse. That’s how you get a leader with less than 40% of the vote. See Canada for further.
@TheoHawk316
5 ай бұрын
We actually do have multiple political parties, including parties specific to one state, or even one county! The thing is, they're small. Our communist party (Yes, we have one) has ~5K members. Our Nazi party (Yes, we have one) has ~600 members. We have plenty of even more interesting parties. I personally find it entertaining to look through them. If there were more parties that were large, I think we could root out corruption.
@jedistudios19
5 ай бұрын
On the contrary the US has too many political parties. We should have 0. George Washington on his farewell address warned against political parties because they would only lead to division among Americans. He believed political parties would hurt national unity and sure enough he was right. Of course if you know US history we said "Thanks George for the advice!" and then immediately formed political parties.
@nicholastrudeau7581
5 ай бұрын
One of the saddest things about where our nation has gone, when it comes to our political discourse, is our INABILITY to dialogue and engage in discussions involving nuance. With nearly every issue of the day it inevitably turns into two points of view that overwhelming dominate the attention of the majority. And in this case it is either get rid of the EC or keep it exactly the same.😢
@MikeBradleyJ
5 ай бұрын
"Don't talk religion or politics" they say. But I think that talking religion and politics around dinner tables, in tavern rooms, and in small churches is a huge part of what birthed our country. I try and talk religion and politics, and I'm trying to get more people around me on board with that. So far with very little success 😀
@nicholastrudeau7581
5 ай бұрын
@@MikeBradleyJ yeah, I've experienced that if you try to keep the parties out of it and focus on the practical helps.
@reubenoakley5887
5 ай бұрын
The idea that the swing states determine elections and that all other states don't matter under the electoral college system is also idiotic. It ignores the fact that swing states change over the years, that parties rise and fall, and that the swing states are only relevant if the rest of the states are relatively evenly matched in voting power. It's like if you put two 50 pound weights on a scale, then you add a little sand to each side randomly, and say the sand had all the weight
@docsavage8640
5 ай бұрын
Every state would matter if places like California and New York didn't vote overwhelmingly one way and thus end up taken for granted. The last time anyone bothered campaigning for my state's electoral votes was 1992.
@jasonleetaiwan
5 ай бұрын
It's not that the electoral college needs to be abolished, it's that the electoral ballots should be distributed according to the support rate for each candidate. That way, it doesn't all go one way or the other. Candidates would have to campaign in small and large states to win instead of focusing only on swing states.
@papigringo5692
5 ай бұрын
That would make a lot of sense and we just can't have that
@machovalkarie7896
5 ай бұрын
Amen
@212ntruesdale
5 ай бұрын
That is abolishing the EC, effectively.
@hubertwalters4300
5 ай бұрын
@@212ntruesdaleI agree,who ever wins the state should get all of the electoral votes of that state.
@G00GleIsACr33p
5 ай бұрын
The Electoral College is one mechanism the States can use to keep the feds in check. The 17th Am. interferes with another mechanism. The States aren't any better. But if we have corruption checking corruption, then we have a better change keeping government in check in whole. Is there an episode regarding the 17rh Amendement?
@spektr4625
5 ай бұрын
I am in favor of abolishing the electoral college and have issues with the arguments presented here. Argument 1: The United States is not a unitary state, but rather a federal state comprised of 50 coequal states each with their own issues. The electoral college ensures that each state has a voice in electing the president. Correct, the United States is a federal state. But states do not elect the president, electors from each of the states do. The people from those states elect said electors. The way you describe it makes it sound like the state governments each cast a vote for president, which is not at all what the electoral college is or was. When the founders set this up, the thinking was that you couldn't trust the common people to elect the highest office in the country, so you had people elect electors, who were supposed to be these "high minded intellectuals" who supposedly had educated, well thought out opinions about who should be the leader of the country. However, the modern electoral college is beholden to the people. Most states have laws on the books preventing electors from voting for anyone who didn't win that state's popular vote. In many ways, the electoral college is merely a shadow of what it was meant to be. Instead of coming up with a cabal of intellectuals to elect the president, we elect the president based on the popular votes of individual states, in a winner take all system with a pointless middleman. The winner take all system doesn't help things either. The hardest pill to swallow for the electoral college is this: if you are a Republican in California, your vote does not matter. If you are a Democrat in Mississippi, your vote does not matter. To the electoral college, everyone is either red or blue, fueling political polarization. I see no point in keeping the electoral college around just so that we can pretend it's the states who elect the president. Argument II: The United States was never meant to be a purely majoritarian system. This is a complete non argument, just because the US wasn't set up that way doesn't mean that setup was "good" or "correct". By that logic, the way the electoral college was supposed to function is the right way to do it, and the people shouldn't be voting for president at all. If you support the electoral college, you are ok with minority rule. You are ok with someone in Wyoming's vote for president counting more than someone in California's vote for president. This video completely sidesteps that issue by making an argument from authority. They then claim that the electoral college disperses power. The only thing this system does is consolidate power towards the minority. Would a national popular vote seek to consolidate power in the big states? Not necessarily. The electoral college is ultimately dependent on a few swing states, because it's a winner take all system. In the electroral college, it doesn't matter if Ohio is 51% Republican or 67%, they still get all those votes. If it was instead reformed to a proportional system, then those votes would matter. It would force candidates to campaign across all states, hearing the interests of Democrats in Arkansas and Republicans in California, to get those votes because in a proportional system because those votes matter. The electoral college, in its current state, allows for minority rule while paradoxically making sure that the voices of the minority in each state are neglected. I am in favor of either abolishing the electoral college completely and doing a national popular vote (with either ranked choice voting or runoff elections) or reforming to a proportional electoral vote system.
@DEmersonJMFM
5 ай бұрын
The big point here is that the citizens of states are supposed to (through their state election systems) elect people who will represent the state's/individual's interests and will make the best decision for that state. The citizens of the country shouldn't elect the President directly because doing so ignores the interests of the states (as well as a state's "check" on the presidency). If there's a "problem" with the Electoral College, it would be the fault of the states for forcing electors to vote for a specific party versus the electors considering the needs of the people that voted for them (such as electors for districts) as well as the state's individual needs. The country isn't ran by one branch of government, each branch is elected in different ways. The House of Reps is for the people, Senate for the states, Presidency for both, Judicial for all. Part of the "minority rule" problem is again the result of state's setting up their electors "poorly." Republicans in California could have a larger electoral vote if Republican areas voted directly for electors that would then vote in a way that aligns with them and the state (with the state not forcing party voting). Same with other states. You could say the states themselves took more power away from the people in their effort to consolidate all their electors to one party to better "compete" with other states. A national popular vote goes to the other extreme by ignoring all state interest completely for the interest of individuals. Individuals should primarily be focused on local and state, where issues more directly effect them specifically. They are directly represented in the House. The federal government more directly effects the states so they should naturally have a say in the executory.
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
If we get rid of the E.C, then we should be a parliamentary system like Australia. Read why Socrates hated Democracy. I fear that, if we dump the E.C. but keep our presidential system, the U.S. would have a Jan. 6th every 20 years. Do not forget the strong regionalism, as well as the strong individualism of people in the U.S. it runs deep. Very deep. We already had a civil war, a woman's march, and Jan 6 because certain people got elected. Get rid of the E.C? Fine, but replace it with a parliament. Get rid of the E.C. but keep everything else the same? No. Just no. You can say "the Senate is enough to keep big states from overpowering small states.". I dislike the Senate more than I dislike the E.C. without the Senate, slavery might have been abolished earlier. And the Senate is for legislating. The E.C. is for electing. There is a difference. When Lincoln won in 1861, the slave states wanted to leave because they felt "left out;" that the North was too powerful. Well, get rid of the e.c. and watch what happens. There are places all around the country within states that have felt "left out" because of the "urban elites" in their state. For instance, parts of New York considered leaving Albany because of our liberal governor's harsh fracking regulations. Now, here is where you are right: New York will almost always go Democrat because of NYC, so what about all the counties in the West that feel unrepresented? Yes, why should they vote in the presidential election at all if they know NYC will just swallow them up, making their votes "meaningless?" Ultimately, their votes should count. Reform the E.C so their votes count, or switch to a parliamentary system. Do NOT have a national popular vote. I think the "people" will always vote on emotion rather than thought, and that is why, I think, in the end.... The democratic process sucks.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
@@DEmersonJMFM no. individuals should primarily be focused on by everyone. the entire government. states cna only go so far. one individual is not superior to another individual as the EC tries to suggest.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
@@italia689 the democratic process is wonderful. democracy is the best and most successful system in human history. of the top 20 most peaceful nations on earth, 17, if not more, are democracies. are you trying to suggest socrates would have liked the EC? which is still democracy but in a roundabout flawed setup, rather than simple "more votes wins". and why do we care what he thought? appeal to authority fallacy. "I fear that, if we dump the E.C. but keep our presidential system, the U.S. would have a Jan. 6th every 20 years' for no reason. you completely made that up out of thin air based on nothing. "When Lincoln won in 1861, the slave states wanted to leave because they felt "left out;" that the North was too powerful. Well, get rid of the e.c. and watch what happens." nearly 200 years ago. times change. partially thanks to the civil war, people no longer feel more loyal to their state than their country.. whenever some lib says "man the feds are corrupt. i wish cali would just up and leave", they are called traitorous and conservatives demand that they move to cuba. so in what scenario could this ever happen? and why would the states feel left out? that's not possible because they'd have no good reasons to feel this way. "Yes, why should they vote in the presidential election at all if they know NYC will just swallow them up, making their votes "meaningless?" because they are by definition not meaningless. they aren't numerous but not meaningless either. thanks to the popular vote counting every single vote from everywhere, no one from anywhere is "swallowed up". the EC does that. but not the popular vote. people from remote areas might feel like not voting. but they should anyway in case we get another JFK vs Nixon election where it is extremely close and comes down to a few thousand votes as the difference. " think the "people" will always vote on emotion rather than thought" which means you are an elitist and your plan is to screw them all over, 350 million of them, because you arbitrarily made up out of thin air that no one votes based on thought. which you have no good reason to believe unless your plan is to permanently rig the system in favor of the rich 1%.
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.
@thomasvantiem2274
5 ай бұрын
The Electoral College benefits underpopulated, largely rural states that just so happen to lean Republican. It is inherently unfair, where a candidate preferred by the majority of Americans loses. In what other case does the person who finished second, win? As I read the comments, I notice many people are complaining that there minority views should take precedence over the majority's. Small states are already overrepresented in the Senate. My state of Michigan has 10,000,000 residents. Wyoming has less than 800,000. Both states get two Senators. That is hardly democratic.
@michaelhale2594
5 ай бұрын
Two additional reasons to keep the Electoral College are that (1) some cities and states currently encourage non-citizens to vote, even in federal elections, although this is illegal, and (2) some states fail to adequately safeguard their voting systems to ensure that only legal votes are included and counted. These practices allow the offending states to inflate their voting numbers. The Electoral College puts some brakes on the extent that illegal voting influences the outcome of federal elections.
@HollyMoore-wo2mh
5 ай бұрын
As WE are seeing NOW. Thank you for the easy way to understand the Electoral College.
@jeffdege4786
5 ай бұрын
We really need to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments...
@neverletmego1948
5 ай бұрын
This is why people should be better educated about the political and constitutional history of their country.
@brianlane3715
5 ай бұрын
Can you do a show on convention of states COS. That should show the population of the way the constitution has avenues for keeping the federal government from having to much power. Thank you
@barfo281
5 ай бұрын
@brianlane3715 That is absolute NONSENSE. There is no such thing as a "convention of states" as an avenue for keeping the federal government from "having too much power." You are being lied to by lying liars like Mark Levin, who really hates the Constitution and thinks he can rewrite it better than the Founders/Framers. Go read the writings of the Founders and Framers; NONE of them ever said that Article V was designed as a means to prevent federal government from assuming too much power. The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be re-read and followed. The COS project is a group of scammers trying to convene a Constitutional Convention where everything is on the table, including getting rid of the current document completely and replacing it with something entirely different. The avenue for states keeping the feds in check is the 10th Amendment, which preserves the right of state nullification of federal acts. The problem is that states do not want to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, because they want to keep unconstitutional federal funding pouring into their state treasuries. Stop being so gullible. There is NO SUCH THING AS A CONVENTION OF STATES. Read Article V: It is about AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION, and it specifically says that CONGRESS proposes amendments or CONGRESS CALLS A CONVENTION. The only thing states get to do is ASK CONGRESS to call a constitutional convention. And the only state conventions mentioned in Article V are for RATIFICATION. STOP BEING GULLIBLE.
@gmanplaysgames256
5 ай бұрын
Also, this may be an unintended but definitely beneficial side-effect, but a majority is not always right. Packing too many people together in one space seems to make them all collectively dumber or at the very last breeds a disconnect form one another and from basic necessities they now take for granted. the Holodomor happened in Ukraine during the Cold War because the Bolsheviks and their followers (a majority at the time) seized land from farmers and in doing so eliminated the people who knew how to work the land effectively and 10 million people starved, similar situation went down in South Africa fairly recently. Majority =/= right, majority =/= smart, those who consume do not get to boss around those who produce.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
no one ever said the majority was always right. but i would rather have the people in charge than a small corrupt minority of rich old politicians. i stand with the people. not sure who you stand with
@simonrooney2272
5 ай бұрын
"democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried" -Winston Churchill
@gmanplaysgames256
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 hence why we have division of powers, checks and balances and a bicameral legislature with one house representing population and the other representing states equally. the office of President is not all-powerful.
@johnharris6655
5 ай бұрын
The Senate works on the Same Principle as the Electoral College, it protects the right of smaller states. Should Wyoming have the same number of Senators as California, yes. The only mistake was the 17th amendment.
@seanmonetathchi1060
5 ай бұрын
No lies detected.💯
@Letwoo67
5 ай бұрын
No lies, just bad arguments.
@ljss6805
5 ай бұрын
Just stupidity and gaslighting.
@johnbaldwin2948
5 ай бұрын
50 states...50 votes for president...first one to get 26 "electoral votes" wins. CA having 54 votes knocks out 14 states with the lowest number. Each state gets 1 vote depending on how their population voted. A parent with 8 kids doesn't get 8 votes while a parent with 1 gets 1...so why do populous states get more votes? The EC should be more like the Senate as opposed to Congress. I would personally like to see the EC made up of counties. Why should a concentrated city have so much influence when it doesn't represent the majority of the "area" of the state. Even California is mostly "conservative"...it's the cities that are liberal. Or let the states go back to proportional division of electoral votes. Let CA submit say 28 D and 26 R...instead of everything going for the Ds because they got 0.05% more votes.
@Donald_the_Potholer
5 ай бұрын
An idea for you: A video on how the Electoral College of today is so dramatically different from the Electoral College that Alexander Hamilton envisioned in Federalist 68. The latter effectively being a Council of "Elders", chosen from amongst the voting populace, sitting for the _sole_ purpose of choosing the President and Vice President. The closest analogy in modern times is how the NCAA has a committee to determine schools that qualify for Basketball and Football tournaments, but anyone who can vote in a State election is eligible to be an Elector on this committee and said Electors are elected by their fellow citizens, not _appointed_ by outside bodies (e.g., State Legislatures in the antebellum era, State chapters of Political Parties in modern times).
@adamfillman9020
3 ай бұрын
Tell me it’s an election year without telling me it’s an election year
@AllenUry
5 ай бұрын
The Electoral College system made some sense when states were, in fact, distinct and independent political and cultural entities. People from Kentucky considered themselves Kentuckians more than they did Americans. Same for New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders, etc. That attitude went out the window after the Civil War when the phrase "these United States" was replaced with "THE United States." I was born in Illinois, went to college is Wisconsin, lived two years in Florida, and have been in California since the early 1980s. When I go back to Chicago to visit, I can eat at the same McDonald's, shop at the same Walmart or Target, watch the same TV shows, and get on the same Internet I do in California. We are now a basically homogenous country...even our regional accents are flattening to sound like we're all from Nebraska (the standard TV news anchorman accent). Getting rid of the electoral college would hardly be a "disaster." Every other industrialized democracy manages to elect leaders through direct majority elections and they do just fine...and they all have the same kind of regional differences we do.
@daneczaplewski9460
5 ай бұрын
So you are saying that the rest of the country has to abide to all the what the biggest city's want. No thank you
@AllenUry
5 ай бұрын
@@daneczaplewski9460 There are currently millions of registered Republicans in big cities who are being disenfranchised by the Electoral College and the winner-take-all system of all but a handful of states. If 50.01 percent of a state votes Democratic, then the 49.99 percent of Republican votes don't count. Is that fair?
@BrianAper
4 ай бұрын
The word these is a pronoun and the plural of this. The word the is the definite article and can be either singular or plural. In the phrase "The United States" the key word is states, which last time I checked was a plural word.
@Alarcahu
5 ай бұрын
Relative size of states is an issue. In Australia we dealt with this by giving states equal representation in the Senate. The lower house (= your Congress) is representative.
@darrenmclaughlin1362
5 ай бұрын
In the U.S.: "Lower" house = House of Representatives (apportioned base on population, each state gets at least 1 vote) "Upper" house = Senate (2 votes for each state) House of Representatives + Senate = Congress. Not much different.
@derekrequiem4359
3 ай бұрын
How do other countries fare without the electoral college?
@liamcollins9183
5 ай бұрын
States should allocate votes proportionally instead of winner takes all, as most currently do. This way, rather than having about 10 swing states who can decide an election, and thus candidates focus almost all their time and resources, all states are at least partially up for grabs. If Republicans are 40% of California voters, then rather than being ignored by Republican Presidential candidates because its not worth trying to win in California, they could get 22/55 Electoral College votes. And in reverse, if Democrats are 45% of Texas, they could still get 17/38 EC votes. This way, a handful of close state results won't skew the whole election, but smaller states still get greater representation than their population alone would give.
@justbecause4557
5 ай бұрын
I think we should do away with winner take all rules
@avishevin1976
5 ай бұрын
The EC exists because the Founding Fathers did _not_ want POTUS elected by popular vote. That's all. However, they also didn't want political parties and they didn't want the VP to be an afterthought, rather than the runner-up of the EC vote. The political and legal landscape is vastly different than it was when the Constitution was ratified. It's time elections reflected those changes.
@johnnygambill4477
5 ай бұрын
Blah Blah Blah
@dustythurman5426
4 ай бұрын
I have a point of nuance. It IS in fact a popular election, except the constituents are the STATES, not individuals because the design of the Constitution prevents the federal government from affecting our daily lives. It simply was not granted those powers. The federal government was for governing interactions between the States, which is why the States are the constituents. Senate - elected by States. President - elected by the States via electoral college, which doesn't even require a vote, much less a vote by citizens SCOTUS - affirmed by the Senate - see Senate above That leaves the House as the lone odd-man-out as a voice of the people. We've allowed them to turn it all on its head and rob the States of the ability to be a check on federal power.
@avishevin1976
4 ай бұрын
@@dustythurman5426 The term "popular election" refers to an election by the populace, not a special subset of the populace chosen by a subgroup of the populace.
@dustythurman5426
4 ай бұрын
@@avishevin1976 When the States ARE the populace in question, then a vote by 50 states would be a popular election. That's entirely my point. The States are SOVEREIGN in a voluntary federation, so they can be considered the same way as people as having agency in the federation. A similar example might be universities voting on NCAA topics. The universities vote, not the students or even the whole staff of the universities.
@avishevin1976
4 ай бұрын
@@dustythurman5426 You are missing the point. The term "popular vote" has a meaning. A vote by the states themselves, via their electors, is not what the phrase means. That's all. You want to be pedantic and have me write out "the president is not elected by a vote of the eligible voters, but rather by the electors the states appoint"? Well, too bad. Literally everyone else already understood that from my first comment, because I used the term in the way everyone understands it.
@KenH60109
5 ай бұрын
You’re aware the electoral college doesn’t even do the job you already claim it should. Most every presidential visit is to high-population swing states, destroying the electoral college merely reduces innacuracies in what the system allows. It doesn’t even do the job you want it to, that was originally out of fear of early states encroaching upon one another, which is why the system originally existed, however, the federal government’s own power already allows us to counteract these issues with what we gained after the civil war. It’s lost it’s purpose, valuing one vote over the other based off of land, which destroys the entire “one person, one vote” concept, a desperately needed aspect of both republics and democracies.
@AndThereYouGo
4 ай бұрын
The State of Indiana gave the world the Washing Machine, something people use every day; but w/0ut the College--IN'd be washed away
@chrisoneill3999
5 ай бұрын
Getting rid of the Electoral College would destroy the Republican Party.
@jasoncox4640
5 ай бұрын
Thank you, it is cool to learn more about the opporation of the government.
@broark88
5 ай бұрын
It's not just representation in campaigns but political concern that would falter without the dispersed nature of the EC vote. It could be improved though; for instance instead of the winner-takes-all method of choosing electors, all the states could use a method similar to Nebraska or Maine, where electors are chosen by district or even a method in which the two electors representing the state's Senate seats are chosen based on the popular vote in the state and the others are chosen in proportion to the vote, so voters in a reliably red or blue state won't feel like their votes don't matter.
@jchrist9800
5 ай бұрын
This guy sure talks a lot without saying anything. The argument for maintaining the electoral college boils down to essentially: 1) In order to prevent tyranny of the majority, we need to allow tyranny of the minority 2) Some guys in their 20s from 250 years ago said it should be this way, so it should be this way. The electoral college gives far less power to the average voter and far more power to politicians and powerful party apparatuses. I prefer a system where politicians running for federal office have to fight for *everyone’s* vote and convince Americans in every state, as opposed to a handful of voters in strategic pockets. Instead, federal politics is treated like a weird and silly board game. Moreover, if you live in a safe state for one party but support another, your voice and your vote are completely and utterly meaningless. This is being exemplified lately with masses of people now moving states based on political ideology, which creates ‘two Americas’ and divides the country further, which the man in this video appears to be concerned about.
@McMillanScottish
5 ай бұрын
Democracy has almost no place in a republic. Only on the smallest scale does voting work well. And by smallest, I mean least important to the individual. Law is never up for a vote. Statutes and codes are voted upon, because those are corporate rules, which do not apply to living human beings, unless they identify as corporate property, like US citizens do. that's why I don't live in the US citizen. I'm an American national, nonresident, alien to the United States corporation. People need to learn this stuff.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
democracy has a place everywhere, given it is the best and most successful form of government in human history. a republic is a type of democracy
@jkg6211
5 ай бұрын
VERY well said!
@Pan_Z
3 ай бұрын
Still, it would be nice if every state adopted the system used in Maine & Nebraska, the Congressional District Method. The Winner-take-all system in nearly every state isn't representative of how people voted.
@arlo0011
5 ай бұрын
You nailed it! I wish more people understood the nature of the country they live in. Don't the schools teach this stuff anymore?
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
he nailed nothing. the video is nonsense
@Dagot1948
5 ай бұрын
No, the schools don't teach this anymore. They don't teach history and they don't teach civics, so kids don't understand how the system has worked over two centuries and why it has worked so well. The same people who want to eliminate the Electoral College are the same people who want to pack the Supreme Court, create new states to create super-majorities in the Senate, etc. It's all about determining outcomes and destroying any restraints on creating a one-party state.
@ljss6805
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091Exactly.
@adamdrouin2295
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091no explanation? Just a lame dismissal of his 3+ minute explanation? You have no argument
@aaronholcomb237
5 ай бұрын
The polls close at different times in each state and they close later on the West Coast. Some states (e.g. Texas, Florida and 4 counties in rural western Kansas) have different closing times from the rest of the respective states. If you follow the election and it were based on popular vote, a Republican may lead until all of the West Coast polls close (except maybe Alaska) and the Democrat would run away with the election from there. Having it based on the Electoral College would keep it interesting until the last votes are counted.
@theyoungcentrist9110
3 ай бұрын
The Electoral College was actually a last minute compromise because the founders were tired and just wanted to go home as they couldn’t agree on the best method to elect a chief executive. As some of the framers such as James Madison wanted the Congress to elect the President, others wanted a popular vote, and also some wanted state legislatures to elect the president as well. They agreed on the Electoral b/c they believed it work best during their time. But this is the 21st century and the country has changed both culturally and politically. I believe we should abolish the Electoral College, and move to a parliamentary system in which the House of Representatives elects the President and Vice President in which representatives are elected through any system of proportional representation (though I prefer a party list system). Where the number of votes a party gets in one state determines how many seats they get in the lower house of Congress. This will allow third parties to have greater influence helping to form the government as they can make demands to one of the major parties that we will help you in forming the government; but you have to give us something in return such as the first Supreme Court seat that opens up or gives us some cabinet appointments. A parliamentary system will still preserve the federal system that our country is built on.
@johnjdumas
5 ай бұрын
Negative voting (voting against the candidate you dislike the most option) could work. Negative voting would give each voter twice the power to select a preferable candidate.
@jeffputman3504
5 ай бұрын
The Electoral College forces candidates to focus on states where the voters are evenly split. Abolishing it would push candidates to be more extremist to fire up the voters at the ends of the political spectrum.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
no it wouldn't. you made that up. the Ec is what is forcing candidates to the fringes. the popular vote would cause them to be more centrist so they can appeal to the majority and win.
@MikeBradleyJ
5 ай бұрын
Oddly enough, I like both the original argument from @jeffputman3504 and the counter argument from @godemperorofmankind3.091. Good stuff.
@captaincarl8230
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 The popular vote would send the candidates to the most populated areas and the rural areas would be left behind.
@kevinaguilar7541
5 ай бұрын
@@captaincarl8230the rural areas are already left behind with EC.
@captaincarl8230
5 ай бұрын
@@kevinaguilar7541 How so? It is the current political system and the political machines at fault, not the EC.
@RandyGiven
5 ай бұрын
Have they ever heard of the "tyranny of the majority"? If they have, have they thought about it?
@jackalnerf6230
5 ай бұрын
HMM... its almost as if we shouldn't have a massive overarching empire controlling vast and diverse cultures that all have their own needs.
@Outofbox11
4 ай бұрын
Ran into this channel today. Very informative.
@tzzlite
5 ай бұрын
The Electoral college is uniquely American, part of our history & Constitution so it MUST stay!!
@Caboose575
5 ай бұрын
Just like slavery, right?
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
that's not a real reason. so is democracy and the EC stifles it
@Aussie4Freedom1
5 ай бұрын
In Australia the whole country is an electoral college. We don’t go out to vote for the Prime Minister. We vote for our local MP’s and the leader of the party with the most MP’s wins.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
in all but name, you are essentially voting for the PM because at the end of the day, hes gonna be the one with all the real day to day governing power.
@AD-1138
5 ай бұрын
Whenever people talk about "Why does land get a vote" meaning, why does a large space of land with very few people get the same vote as a spot a land with a high density of people. Lets look at the map California made when they entertained the idea of succeeding from the US. How they would "give" the entire east portion of the state that would border the US to Native Americans. Those people who live in that land would lose their homes because of where they live.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
so the popular vote is bad because of some irrelevant hypothetical about an entirely different issue?
@AD-1138
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091Is that what I said? Lets look at what I wrote...... Nope, never said anything about that popular vote being bad. I kept my point relevant and used an example why "land" should get a voice. So my point is not irrelevant as people like to use the argument that certain states should not have the same vote as they are not densely populated. Why should people who live in a densely populated area dictate what everyone gets? (In case you don't get it, the densely populated area would be the popular voice or vote due to the higher population). People live out in the land and should have an equal voice in the conversation. Popular doesn't always mean it's right or the best option.
@mistersiemsen8090
5 ай бұрын
How do rural states benefit in an electoral system college if presidential elections are really focused on just 4 states?(Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona Virginia and Florida receive the most visits and campaign funding, north Carolina and other big states don't lag behind much). Electoral college doesn't benefit rural areas, it benefits swing states, typically bigger swing states at that. Furthermore, sure the U.S. wasn't set up to be 'majoritarian' as you put it, so why can't it be now? We don't need to just loosely follow what the founding fathers intended, and you're right this puts more power in bigger states... But bigger states have bigger populations and currently they are being misrepresented (not being given proportional votes to their population) by electoral college. Big states have bigger population and the whole point of democracy is to sway more population because it's a POPULAR vote.
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
The U.S. is not a "democracy." I wish people would stop using that term. It is a constitutional republic.
@mistersiemsen8090
5 ай бұрын
@@italia689 You're right, but that's not a point. We aren't by definition a traditional democracy, so does that mean we shouldn't strive to be one??? We should be aiming to increase representation and strengthen our democracy, not simplemindedly continue what the founding fathers intended,; times have changed
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
@@mistersiemsen8090 Democracy equals anarchy, my friend. There are no "democracies" on all planet Earth. If the U.S. we're a democracy,, a direct democracy, it would fall apart. People would be petulant about losing. Look up why democracy is always doomed for failure. A national popular vote without some kind of check on it will breed nothing but petulance and division, because sore losers would not get their way. More Jan 6ths. More women's marches. Maybe even a second civil war. This country has a FEDERAL system. The states have considerable autonomy, and it is important that South Dakota's vote counts as much as New York's. That is what the E.C. does. Even if we get rid of the E.C, my vote for the Republican candidate would mean nothing in the end. It would be swallowed up by the tyranny of the majority (in New York State) any way. Again, this country is not like France, where it is heavily centralized. We are a federal nation of fifty semi-independent regions I do think if the U.S. gets rid of the E.C, it should switch to a parliamentary system. We must NOT have an absolute tyranny of the majority under any circumstances, period. A national direct popular vote would cause division. The E.C. equalizes the regions of this country. That is why it is needed.
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
@@mistersiemsen8090 No. Democracy leads to mistrust and division. Look up why democracy always fails.
@ifrit1937
5 ай бұрын
@@mistersiemsen8090 Look up every country that was a 'democracy' and you'll see pretty much all of them have failed even though most where made AFTER the US. The US's system of government has been around for 200+ years because it works and most of the issues we see nowadays are because Dems for the most part are trying to shove aspects of failed Democracies into the US (such as Socialism and Communism of the Soviet Union, WW2 Germany, WW2 Japan, current day China, current day Russia, Current day North Korea, etc (and all are by definition still Democracies) or as for non Dictatorships aspect of countries like France which has had roughly 10 or more democratic aligned governments and other styles since the US has formed. The fact the US is still using the same government system it has used for the past 200 years means it works better than all of these other Democracies that Dems love to push as all of them failed at one point. Hell the only scenario that Socialism and Communism may work would be in incredibly small population centers of about 100 to 1000 people max where all of the people are too busy doing their respective job and don't really have competition thus no other self interests that could collide with their business/livelihood and everyone would be far too busy surviving day to day without that much extra time to feel bored enough to want more than just the basic necessities. The moment the population gets too large too many interests start colliding (people in the same field vying for the same consumers, more politicians needed to help run respective districts thus political division will become inevitable as different needs from different districts clash, more violence and theft by people that are either lazy or can't find jobs, and so on. Ocne all this starts the core aspects of what is supposed to be true Socialism/Communism get corrupted and the politicians/army start taking a bigger power trip than even the US's Capitalist Republic systems and young et Dictatorships like Nazi Germany, WW2 era Japan, Current Day Russia/China/N Korea, etc as those systems don't have the checks in place to stop the government overreach to the degree the US system has. Also nothing anything the Dems propose strengthens a Democracy much either and has only caused more tension than anything else. Most of the policies they're pushing are either crap that will waste money we don't have, screw over our energy bill, are redundant as laws already exist that address the issue (but I guess don't go as far as they want...basically all of these Civil rights Bills/policies that would just give minorities more power than whites and toss equality out the window or give them reparations when we don't have the free cash right now, probably never will either, to throw out all the cash they want. The Civil Rights Bills/Amendments were passed and already fixes the issue IF the States and Federal government follow through with the laws as they're written...if they're not than the people you voted in aren't following those laws to begin with and are part of the problem for failing their jobs so how about you make sure the people you put in actually follow existing laws first before demanding they make laws that already exist but they ignore (they probably want the law made to push some extra BS into a bill and that's it...whether it's an addition that would unjustly benefit a single minority group or some funding for some pet project)). Oh and like what was said we're not a Democracy either so fuck that comment of yours for that reason too.
@Troy_Built
5 ай бұрын
I've been telling people for decades a straight popular vote would guarantee a quick break up of the country if not a civil war.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
no it wouldn't. you totally made that up.
@captaincarl8230
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 How about one state, one vote, and the one with the most states wins?
@89Awww
5 ай бұрын
It could be replaced by single transferrable voting or mixed proportional representation.
@queenbunnyfoofoo6112
5 ай бұрын
Frankly, individual states should have an electoral college for state offices. Would solve alot of problems in NY and California.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
no it wouldnt solve anything. since the EC is broken, absurd and undemocratic. also interesting you didn't demand an EC for alabama or wyoming.
@queenbunnyfoofoo6112
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Because NY and California are prime examples of what happens when smaller population areas are fucked over by large urban centers. The very reason the Electoral College was created in the first place. But you wouldn't know that because you slept thru civics.
@caseclosed9342
3 ай бұрын
To be fair, the closest the US ever came to abolishing the electoral college was in the 1960’s and they wanted to replace it with a two-round system. While I personally oppose abolishing the electoral college, it was an interesting idea.
@MikeBradleyJ
5 ай бұрын
I want to agree with you but I need the dots connected better. With the electoral college, my Californian vote doesn't seem to matter much. With a popular vote, it would count more. But you say it would actually count less. I think you're right, but I can't figure out why. Walk me through a scenario. Similarly, the current system seems very gamed. It would seem like it would be harder to game a popular vote, but you think it would be easier to game a popular vote. Why?
@MikeBradleyJ
5 ай бұрын
To say it another way: The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. I get that. But our country seems to be heading to a tyranny of the minority, which seems to be worse. Unless states can find a way to prevent majority rule within their states OR unless we go back to small fed gov't AND smaller state gov't which allows for significant differing rules county by county and for county vs city, it would seem like a popular vote is the common man's next best option to push back against the anti-American minority. I think that argument is most likely wrong, but I sure can't see why it's wrong. For example: If it were up to a popular vote, I imagine we'd lose some gun rights, but I also imagine we'd win school choice rights, abortion would likely be illegal for 2nd and 3rd trimester, etc. I don't know definitevely which is worse or better, but this video doesn't make the choice easier for me.
@uncaboat2399
4 ай бұрын
The concentration of power in the Federal Government could be mitigated by repealing the 16th Amendment.
@mattbleiler7294
5 ай бұрын
Getting rid of the EC would just give each state 1 vote. It would actually hurt bigger states and give small states even more power.
@leocordeiro81
5 ай бұрын
I have a nagging suspicion that if electoral college favored democrats instead of republicans we would be getting a very different video.🤔
@patrickk5806
5 ай бұрын
You never talked about the Winner Take All System, a major topic in the debate over the Electoral College
@AusFirewing
5 ай бұрын
Not only is the Electoral College necessary on a federal level, it has now become necessary at the state level as well.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
no its not necessary for anything. its broken,. absurd and undemocratic
@moralityisnotsubjective5
5 ай бұрын
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 If you don't understand why it's necessary you shouldn't be talking about getting rid of it until you do.
@rexburman48
3 ай бұрын
The best way i could describe the electoral college to people when i lived overseas was to use a sports analogy. LA Lakers vs. Chicago Bulls in a best of 7 Finals. The Lakers win the series 4 games to 3. The games represent the state. In the 3 games the Bulls won, they beat the Lakers by 10 points. In the 4 games the Lakers won, they beat the Bulls by 1 point. The points represent the voters. So technically, the Bulls scored 26 more points than the Lakers, but the Lakers won the most games, thus winning the championship.
@stephenguilfoyle5737
5 ай бұрын
It was also to keep the voices of the less educated majority from having too much power. Now, less educated doesn't mean school educated, it's talking about the majority of Americans who don't understand how their government works or how the other half lives.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
what could possibly qualify you to determine who's educated and who's not? state by state, blue states seem to dominate in terms of having the best and most successful education. again there's no way to properly quantify that due to polling on those issues being so rare and uncomprehensive. sounds as if you're just trying to rig the system against the will of the people based on personal misgivings, not data or evidence.
@blackxiii4268
5 ай бұрын
We used to be refered to as 'These United States' as in governments gathered together for a common goal.
@JonBowe
5 ай бұрын
Thanks for clarifying from a none US citizen. If voting actually did something we would not be allowed to do so, it makes people think they did their part.
@TonyShumway-hc8qj
2 ай бұрын
Yeah as I read in a book sometime ago I learned and proven as a young man that power was my weakness and temptation power was something I could not be trusted with. Hence why we the people need the Freedom and Salvation that was purchased for mankind on the cross the century the early church began years before Christopher Columbus discovered North America in 1492 before the founder fathers of this country would be born.
@danieldishon688
5 ай бұрын
Except Virginia does rule over Road Island. The majority of all presidential campaign attention is spent on Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania and no attention is given to Road island despite the current system "protecting small states". You're not protecting small states, your just protecting an elite small ruling class that knows how to dominate a few counties in a a very small group of states deemed more important that all others. A candidate can theoretically win the presidency with only 22% of the popular vote, with 78% of the country voting against them! Oh but "were a republic", a republic for what the political parties who can rest easy knowing they can always be elected the lesser of two evils because 3rd party options are just not possible without a ranked voting system? Your state has repeatedly tried outlawing free market gambling so they can monopolize it and get more money off the backs of the poor with their regressive tax and you do nothing to speak up against it. You just chime in when political movements grow that could hurt one of the two big political parties monopoly on power.
@arthuradonizio7762
5 ай бұрын
Oh, now I can see how the current system doesn't breed radicalism. Bullshit! Every vote should have the same weight.
@roberthunter6927
5 ай бұрын
Populations are rarely distributed evenly over a country's geography. But there are other ways to protect the few against dictatorship by the many than the electoral college system. One such system is already in place, the US Senate. No matter what the differences in the populations in different states, they still get to send the same number of Senators to Congress. This next one is going to be controversial for some Americans, and sounds fascist, but it is really not. It is counter-intuitively fair and more representative. Here it is: Compulsory voting. The benefits are manifold. First, representatives will KNOW the preferences of voters, so they will have to represent, rather than rule. Second, when a government achieves power, both it and the people know that they have a mandate to govern. Third, it is hard to commit voter fraud. And that is just for openers. Next, PREFERENTIAL VOTING. Not everyone will align with Democrat or GOP policy, and independents are usually all over the place, and rarely get into a position to influence the government of the day to any significant extent. Politics is not about merely "left" or "right" that is a vast, and inaccurate over-simplification of the real situation. And as an aside, and as an admirer I mean this with respect. The US does not have a "left" by international standards. In fact anyone who is left or progressive is straw-manned as being a communist. The fact is that the US has NEVER, and not now have a domestic far left threat. not even close. And yet the mass media can sell this delusion very easily. present times, and in the days of McCarthy hysteria back in the 1950's are good examples of this. People imagine "reds under the bed" ,and it is quite laughable, especially to those who have actually suffered under Stalinist type regimes. So knock it off. Preferential voting means that no one's vote is wasted. You list the candidates by preferences, and chances are, if you don't get your first choice, at least you get someone who is closer to you policies. This is also good for the body politic, because politicians know voter opinions even more accurately. These measures will also introduce the possibility of real multi-party politics. Many politicians hate this, because they are lazy and just want to spew out over-simplified sound-bites. Slogans. Not policy. They will have to actually work to sell their policies. Multi-party systems are usually more stable, and drive policy to the center, because left and right wing loonies will cancel each other out. Also, multi-party systems will often require coalition governments, and that means a blend of nuanced policies that are inclusive rather than exclusive. With the Federal system, central and state governments do not have to be at war. And they usually are at war because politics is straw-manned as either being Dem or GOP. People can have all sorts of different attitudes. A fiscal conservative, but socially progressive, a left-wing anti-environmentalist, a pro-science religious person, a billionaire that is a hard core environmentalist, etc, etc. This is how real people think. But the two party system in America forces them to think in terms of only "them" or "us". Realistically, at the POTUS level, a candidate will be either Dem or GOP. But they will just have to work harder to get consensus support. Which boils down to the politics of inclusion. Leave no one behind. And the US system is already riddled with check and balances at the Fed, State and Local levels of government, with Executive, legislative and judicial branches. So there is no need to an electoral college. Suck it up, and propose sane, evidence-based policies, and you will be OK. The only whiners in such a system will be the people who think that they deserve special privilege. And fun fact. In a federal system the states do lose a little sovereignty. This is a general feature of government. The idea is the social contract. We sacrifice a bit of our freedom, for the common good, so that we can enjoy the great benefits of community and unity.
@jettmgoss
5 ай бұрын
I just think its a matter of reforming the electoral college. I think the congressional district method should be used in all states.
@johnjdumas
5 ай бұрын
Why void the contract that holds the US together? An amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States. About 30 states have less than average population so an amendment is a no-go. Negative voting (voting against the candidate you dislike the most option) could work. The big flaw in ranked choice is you could end up with the person most people did not want which is the opposite of negative voting. Negative voting would challenge political base voting which has been so divisive.
@godemperorofmankind3.091
5 ай бұрын
it doesnt hold anything together, when only about 30% of the population actually likes it anymore. abolishing it would unite the nation much more than keeping it
@timmothy58
5 ай бұрын
...the bay and southern kalifornia areas rule kalifornia...how would you like that...?...
@JohnSmith-zw8vp
5 ай бұрын
Would those who want to go popular vote only be okay with only a plurality (most votes) being needed to win? I ask because we had three elections in a row (92, 96, 00) as well as several others where no candidate got a majority (>50%) of the popular vote (remember that's what the Electoral College requires, a majority, not just a plurality). Would they really be okay with those elections being decided in the House/Senate? Or if we had to do a second run-off vote between the top two candidates? They might want to be careful what they're wishing for.
@tcschenks
4 ай бұрын
We should go back to having the State Legislatures elect the US Senators. Changing that was a big mistake. Even the Ancient Greeks who “invented” Democracy deplored mob rule.
@richardfarris2227
5 ай бұрын
Because we in the small states and rural areas aren’t going to be filled by a bunch of leaches in the cities and we are prepared to back that up. So they’ll regret it if they try.
@seamusoneill99
2 ай бұрын
This argument isn't really persuasive because abolishing the electoral college would not "concentrate more power in the hands of the federal government." Abolishing the electoral college would not weaken the power of state governments relative to the federal government in any way, except with regard to the rather arcane process of selecting electors. The powers of the federal government are what they are, and it is no secret that presidents of both parties have expanded them over the past 200 years, regardless of their ideology. This goes for "small government" conservatives like Reagan and Bush, too, who with their allies in Congress ballooned the size of the DoD. Abolishing the electoral college would have no impact on the power of the states relative to the federal government, because abolishing the electoral college would not inherently restructure the federal government in any way. It would just make our electoral process more democratic. Another argument that doesn't really hold water is that small states would see their interests trampled by larger states. Given the nature of the U.S. federal system, state governments actually hold quite a bit of power over most issues that affect the state population directly. At the federal level, policy is mainly dictated by ideology rather than whether someone comes from a small state or a large state. For example, big New York and small Connecticut largely agree on the policies decided at the federal level. Likewise, small Wyoming and big Texas are also aligned on most federal issues because they share a common ideology. When it comes to the interests of individual states, a far better check on the dominance of a few large states is an almost evenly divided Congress. That way, small state legislators from either side of the political aisle can make greater demands of their respective parties, since they can torpedo the party's whole agenda if their interests are not considered. This also gets us to another very interesting topic. Indeed, the U.S. is a diverse country and each state has its own identity. But some states are so big that they contain multiple groups of stakeholders with very different interests. For example, why should liberal Los Angeles and the Bay Area dictate policy to the rural, conservative Central Valley in California? Likewise, why should the conservative-dominated ranch and suburb areas of Texas dictate policy to huge blue cities like Houston, Austin, and Dallas? The cultural differences are vast, hardly touching on the issue of political interests. Maybe we would be better served breaking up some of the larger states so their underrepresented groups and regions actually have a say at the state level. It is true that the U.S. is a federal republic, but it is totally arbitrary to say that authority should be in the hands of the states. Why not the counties? or the cities and towns? Or the neighborhoods and block groups? Of course, after a certain point this exercise becomes ridiculous and you lose economies of scale for the provision of public services and protection of rights -- which is the basic function of government. But there is a legitimate argument to be made that, say, Bergen County, New Jersey with its nearly 1 million residents deserves an equal say in the electoral college and the U.S. Senate as South Dakota, which has about the same population. What does affluent, suburban, ethnically diverse Bergen County really have in common with somewhat less well-off, rural, ethnically homogenous Sussex County? Can one state truly represent all these diverse interests? And New Jersey is, by geographic standards, a small state! There is really only one argument which I can see in favor of the electoral college, which is that it protects the interests of a core group of Americans who really are fundamental to the survival of this nation but who are generally underappreciated and often disrespected: farmers. Ideally, we could say that the current electoral college system gives equal representation to farm states like Iowa, Kansas, and Mississippi as it does to urban-dominated states like New York and California. Under this system, we would assume that family farms -- what Thomas Jefferson considered the backbone of the Republic -- would be doing well and have their needs answered. It is true that American farmers benefit from some unique generous policies, such as subsidies for numerous types of crops to stave off foreign competition and keep U.S. ag exports price competitive. This might not be the case if there was no electoral college. But are American family farms, on the whole, thriving? Are American farmers as prosperous as ever? Unfortunately, no. Big commercial agriculture corporations and non-ag billionaires like Bill Gates are snatching up U.S. agricultural land at an astounding place, and this has been going on since at least the 1970s. USDA estimates that around 30% of all U.S. agricultural land is owned by "non-operators" who rent it back to tenant farmers; these are often conglomerates or other people who simply own the land and act as landlords. Interesting, around 58% of U.S. agricultural production comes from large farms (both corporate and commercial farming companies run by specific families, which are still counted as "family farms" by USDA). Long story short, for a variety of reasons old McDonald has been forced out of business over the past half-century, and the U.S. ag industry has gone unprecedented consolidation with more and more land falling into the hands of fewer and fewer (and richer) people. Are the interests of big corporate farmers really the same as small farmers? Sometimes, but when it comes to monopolistic behavior, I would think not. The electoral college has not protected farmers from the predations of monopolistic capitalists, nor from the merciless logic of market dynamics, nor from any of the other issues that have made being a small farmer much more difficult in the United States. If the electoral college can't even protect the people it is supposed to support most, there is really no good reason to keep around an antiquated and inadequately democratic system that privileges the attention (but rarely the actual needs) of a handful of swing voters in a handful of states. The reasons to abolish the electoral college "seem compelling" because they are.
@hughjass1044
3 ай бұрын
You always hear this and always from the losing side. Whenever they can't win an election fair and square, their first instinct is to call the system unfair and seek to change it but it's curious how fair and efficient the system becomes when it produces a win for them.
@nhjhbmkuy7173
5 ай бұрын
This is a flawed argument as it assumed each state is either completely liberal or conservative. Take New York which despite being majorly liberal thanks to nyc has a lot of conservative support in the north whose voice is hampered by the electoral college, another example is California who also has conservative support in the north that gets crushed by the electoral college. The true is Americans share political views across state lines and that is something the electoral college doesn’t take into account. So the agreement that the electoral college is helpful is just false.
@simonrooney2272
5 ай бұрын
isn't the whole point of the Senate to ensure that smaller states and less populated areas are less represented? I think it would be a lot better if the present was decided by the popular vote of the entire country, and then whoever was President would be the person who was backed by the most people in the country, but would still be restrained and forced to care about the opinions of smaller states and rural populations by the senate
@italia689
5 ай бұрын
The Senate is for passing legislation, not voting for the president.
@eikopoppy29
4 ай бұрын
You're conflating two completely different issues to make a point that doesn't follow. It's 100% true that the federal government (all three branches of it) have usurped power that they shouldn't have. This is mostly the fault of the supreme court failing to do its job, and is one reason that the justices should have term limits and be subject to popular recall votes. But the EC has nothing to do with that. The original constitution had state governments directly appointing their senators too, for the same reasons you're championing in this video. Originally, only landowners could vote. Do you support going back to that? The EC doesn't help to distribute power to the states, it helps to keep power in the hands of the rural land-owning elites, which is what the founders all were. They feared the lower classes who mostly lived in cities getting too much power, and so they wrote the constitution so that the votes of people who lived in cities counted for less. That's the only outcome of the EC and the intended one, to make it so that rural people get to rule over city people, which is how we live today. It's unfair. As a counterexample to your assertion that society would collapse if we gave all people a fair vote, just look at Canada. They're essentially the same people as the US: very similar in culture, history, and values. But they don't have an electoral college. Seems to me like civilization still exists up there.
@torbene.3858
5 ай бұрын
Let's see what the defenders of the Electoral College say when the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact comes into action...😊
@RockSmithStudio
5 ай бұрын
What many popular vote proponents also forget is that unlike most of Europe, the US is not a unitary state but rather a federation. If the US was a unitary state, then popular vote would make more sense. With that, electoral college makes more sense in a federation
@BrianAper
4 ай бұрын
Even most european countries don't elect their head of government by direct popular vote.
@bigbootros4362
5 ай бұрын
Systems can change. Laws can be changed. If it doesn't work it can be changed. However if it works well then no need to change it.
@ScoutHare
5 ай бұрын
Can you please do one about why Washington State has a very bad reputation in economy and such?
@akman7826
5 ай бұрын
Got a question for supporters of Electoral College: would you be okay with splitting large states like Texas and California into multiple states with a few more electoral votes? Not meant as an own but I wanna know the take, since imo the state borders seem to be drawn on purely historical reasons instead of practical grounds: like how TX is only a single state because that’s how they got annexed, or how New England is 6 because of Thirteen Colonies, even though TX has just as much practical claim on those 10 extra electors as New England (and TX is both physically larger than NE and more populous)
@toomaskarmo9435
Ай бұрын
Well, I dunno about this. The idea of rights for states (urged here as an argument in defence of the Electoral College) would have credibility if states were allowed to secede from the Union. An analogous right does exist in Canada, where it is understood that a province has the right to leave Confederation. It was on the basis of that understanding that Québec conducted its two referenda on independence. The same analogous right exists in the United Kingdom, where it is tacitly understood that Scotland would be allowed to secede if the SNP secured a convincing referendum win. (A referendum was duly conducted in 2014, with a loss for the SNP.) As it is, American states, in contrast with Canadian provinces and UK constituent nations, do not enjoy, or at any rate do not in politically real and practically meaningful terms enjoy, the right of secession. To THEN argue, as this admittedly informative and clear and interesting video does, that the Electoral College undergirds the right of states is unconvincing: the Electoral College is an inadequate remedy for an underlying constitutional injustice. - (signed) Toomas Karmo, writing as amateur observer of American, Canadian, and British affairs in Nõo Rural Municipality, south-central Estonia
Пікірлер: 1,2 М.