Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 11. 2015
- All men are created equal, but their votes sure aren't. Adam explains how location impacts your voting power.
Subscribe: bit.ly/truTVSubscribe
Watch Full Episodes for FREE: bit.ly/1Rw2yzp
In Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover employs a combination of comedy, history and science to dispel widespread misconceptions about everything we take for granted. A blend of entertainment and enlightenment, Adam Ruins Everything is like that friend who knows a little bit too much about everything and is going to tell you about it... whether you like it or not.
truTV Official Site: www.trutv.com/
Like truTV on Facebook: / trutv
Follow truTV on Twitter: / trutv
Follow truTV on Tumblr: / trutv
Get the truTV app on Google Play: bit.ly/1eYxjPP
Get the truTV app on iTunes: apple.co/1JiGkjh
truTV
The New truTV Is Way More Fun!
Watch clips, sneak peeks and exclusives from original shows like Adam Ruins Everything, Friends of the People, Hack My Life and more - plus fresh video from hit shows like Impractical Jokers and The Carbonaro Effect.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy - Zábava
It's kind of upsetting how many people are (grossly over)paid to not-necessarily perform a job that has no real need to exist.
But tell me would you take there job.
Jonah Davis I'D TOOK THUR JEORRRRRRB!
I'd take their job, in a heart beat, because its a high paying job .
I know I feel bad for TruTV...
back then, the electoral college was extremely useful, as information took days, even weeks, to get from place to place. the electoral college was set up so that America didn't need to wait for every citizen to receive news of the election and vote.
now it sucks and should go.
The sheer elevation of this man's hair.
Jake Glenn MAJESTIC
It’s all the hot air in his head.
Better than mein president trumph
That's no hair, it's a space station
Attack the character not the argument, classic
Not-so-fun fact: Even Nixon tried to get the Electoral College abolished, but that bill was eventually killed off by a filibuster.
It was filibustered because the EC, it is necessary for a republic to flourish. Pure democracy never works, two wolves and a lamb vote on what’s for dinner. Two wolves voted the lamb, and the lambs vote doesn’t matter because majority rules in democracy. Checks and balances are so important in society so that there is not too much power in one place.
@@lonniesmith7580 but the electoral college also sucks at that...
@@lonniesmith7580 then why does every other Republic not use it?
@@bt3743 I have no clue. They should implement it in every republic because it is objectively the best system. There’s a quote from a wise man. “Government by the people, for the people…. But the people are retarded” so EC was implemented. Living in the 21st century does not mean that people are more intelligent, in fact I argue that people are dumber now than ever before. It would be stupid to let the pure majority decide what happens as they’re all STUPID. Can’t let morons dictate the govt
@@lonniesmith7580literally every other democratic nation uses a different system, such as Parliament, and they've all been doing fine.
"people in Ohio like LeBron James" "who? I don't know many actors"
Me in a nutshell.
He is a great actor with all the flopping he be doin lol 😂
This was said before space jam 2
The electoral college was designed to prevent the country being represneted soely by heavily populated areas that lean heavily one direction politically (HEM HEM CALIFORNIA)
Or Texas?
Each state has their own government and their own laws. That being said opinions of each state differ from others. For example states like West Virginia went Republican because a lot of people thought that a Clinton presidency would kill the coal mines, and that's a big source of income for many people. So the majority vote went to Trump because that is what most of the people in that state wanted. On the other hand states like California and Illinois went Clinton because of large cities which tend to go liberal. The problem is if we determined the election based on who wins the popular vote states like West Virginia would have very little say. So states that are more populated receive more electoral votes than states with a smaller population. States with a small population give fewer electoral votes than big states, but because of this votes from smaller states weigh more than states with a big populations in regards to how many are needed for a single electoral college vote. It's a balance of power to keep the large cities from solely deciding the elections.
It means stupid people in California and New York, would always vote Demarcate and win with popular vote.
***** Then what about Texas? Or the fact that California and New York haven't always voted Democrat and that as recently as 1992 New York and California didn't even vote for the same candidate?
What about the fact that New York, California and Illinois have enormous rural areas, covering more real estate and with more sparse country population than states like Wyoming or New Hampshire?
I don't believe in depending on just the swing states. Look what happened to Michigan and Pennsylvanian.
The people not knowing what a republic, a direct democracy and a representative democracy are should get out of the comment section.
But that would probably leave like 20 comments...
The fact the the U.S. is a democratic republic does not mean we have a good voting system.
@P S If that was presented by the government, over fifty percent of the population voted in favor of it, and their weren't any other branches of government or other countries that watched it critically, sure.
I'm not saying a representative democracy is wrong. What I'm saying is that our current system which allows gerrymandering and counts the popular vote as secondary is flawed.
@Corn Pop's Mutton Chops dude a lot of other nations have represantive democracy but their still manage it on person = one vote like my country of germany.
America is not a democracy. Democracy allows mob rule. A good politician should have a healthy balance so that down cities on the coast don't control the whole country
Well, I for one, am pleased that they are trying to educate themselves! Maybe you would prefer they didn't, so that you can continue to feel superior??
"Voting is meaningless"-George Carlin
Over 40 unless voting for third party
If George Carlin didn’t vote, he doesn’t get to complain about the outcome.
2016 proved that he was wrong. If voting was meaningless, Clinton would have won in a landslide.
Matthias Neidenberger he actually argued the opposite saying that if u voted for a guy that got in and messed everything up then you had no right to complain about it
Thats really not true and isn't a good mesage
Imagine thinking America is a Democracy
You're right. We are a republic. True democracy gives 51 percent more power over the 49 percent
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DUMB ASS. DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA IS A MYTH MADE UP BY THE DIPOCRAP POS IDIOTS YOU LOVE TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY.
STEVE MCGILL Stop, you’re such a phony. Us republicans don’t act like that. Idiot. That name tho. STEVE MCGILL.
Edit: Also, republicans are supportive of America being a constitutional republic. I also see that your account was made the same day you posted that comment.
@@Joey-ef8dh now you have 1% having the power of 99%! Good job mate! :D
Joseph Sanders Wait... why should the 51% rule over the 49%? Isn’t the alternative the 49% ruling over the 51%? I am just trying to understand why you think that any better.
"I don't know, many actors" lol, I see what Adam did there
haha! the flopper!
+Juan Borrero he was in a movie so he is an actor
That comma in your quote does not need to exist. Please delete it immediately.
+The rarest seal.
Normally, I detest grammar checkers but that was SOOOOOOO FUUUNNNNNY!!
"Please delete it immediately."
God, I don't know why, I'm still laughing at that. Lmao.
Terminate the comma. Free the grammar.
"Actually, in 24 states, they can vote for whoever they want."
Me: "Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, KANSAS?! GOD DAMNIT!!!"
IOWA GOD DAMMIT
As much as I love this fact and it's source, it doesn't help me explaining it to people because I live in California (not on the list)
Iowa tends to vote Republican and this is the time every 4 years to show the people of Des Moines who really runs the state .
Can, and most often don't. In most of those States the elector can be replaced if they attempt to cast their ballot against the majority vote of their State.
24 states! Add one more, and it’s literally half the country!
I don’t get how pointing out that we are a Constitutional Republic makes this any better. Constitutional Republics still place the power of government in the people and rely on the votes of those people to elect representatives, so a system that makes voting against the establishment pointless and takes power away from almost half the people of a state is still government breaking.
Nebraska and Maine clearly have a superior model. The founding fathers obviously didn’t want population to dictate the country, because then California and New York would rule the other 48 states. Nebraska and Maine’s model would eliminate swing states and Republicans and Democrats would get their equal worth of votes from California, Texas, and every other state, like they should.
@@aaronlandry3934 Only problem is, you'd either have to get a red/blue state to decide to give up half of it's safe electorates, some of each to promise to change their system by the next election, or abolish Winner-Takes-All all at once. The second is really hard to coordinate and the other two are just impossible
@@quentinthernize6678 I agree
The founders understood that absolute democracy is mob rule and tyranny of the majority. It seems that you people always forget that
There is a difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. In a Democracy in order for a bill to become law every citizen in the country would have to vote for the law. In a Republic citizens vote for someone to represent them in the government that then vote for laws. In a Constitutional Republic the government has limited power granted to them by the people.
1:40 this part cracked me up
“Hey I’m cooky, I have two turtles”
I thought Adam was going to say:
“It gets worse. I have three turtles.”
canonically he has 6
"I'm the Governor's rich Cousin" :-)
As someone who lives in Ohio, it's corn and cows
Welcome to 2020. You know the system is horrible but a bunch of people who refuse to progress and actually move on with the rest of the world say no
Because a 2 party system is all this country will get. It's ignorant to think 3rd part and libertarian can't get on debates without 10% of the vote. What if they earned that 10% on stage?
@@HinduSpartan it'll happen at some point. old habit die one way or another
@@randomboys1000 but at the cost of how many lives? Most Americans like me are just begging for affordable healthcare and at this rate it'll never happen
@William Dale most people are looking for affordable Healthcare but don't understand why it's unaffordable now. They just want somebody to make it more affordable, but that can't happen until we all accept what the problem is
Most people are turning independent.
+SpraxIAKS Don't most of them lean to democratic candidates? I go by libertarian and lean republican or somebody who actually thinks like a libertarian such as Rand Paul.
+'I'm an anti-social anarchist' Very true. I am Republican but I think we need stricter gun laws. And that we should let in Syrian refugees.
Conner Broeker Stricter laws on what?
TH3REDSP1R1T On gun control. The buying and selling of guns.
Conner Broeker Making them stricter won't help your issue trying to reduce crime rate. It'll just be harder for citizens to buy one and use one for self defense. Criminals never follow the law and they don't buy them legally and they do through the black market instead. So how would making stricter gun laws affect criminals? Also making them stricter is a violation of the 2nd amendment because it limits our ability to exercise our right.
CPGrey taught me this :D
+katten elvis Great channel,
+Asahiko Matsuda what's the name of the video?
+Asahiko Matsuda +Lionel Keys
Yeah Adam basically rehashes everything Grey said 3 years ago in this one
+katten elvis Backstory all the way!
SAME!!!!!!!
You had me at "I like bbq, Blake Shelton and abortions, y'all"
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” ― Benjamin Franklin
Well, we aren't a democracy sooo...
Tbiblaine23 it's just easier for ppl to understand
Tbiblaine23 exactly.
Actually, that's a BS right-wing talking point to justify the archaic system. This link should help: factmyth.com/factoids/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-democracy/
bmbc1310 were a representative republic... its to avoid mob rule. It means that we are represented to try and balance out what is best for the cultures, rather than people... if it were people, cities would rule as a consequence, and that doesn't represent every walk of life. It's an attempt to make it as balanced as possible to make sure a majority doesn't control.
People from similar areas tend to hold similar views on life, so it also dilutes those views to balance out perspectives on life. We don't want popular influence to have all the say. Just because a majority is ok with something, it doesn't determine the morality of it. It's the best method our founding fathers had to try and avoid this at all costs.
So no, were actually not a democracy and had no intention of ever being one since they saw what happens when influence and a majority's views are compared to the best moral interests of the people.
Same reason the senate is the way it is. Hope this helps :)!
bmbc1310 so it is silly to play with words. I read the article, and it says basically what I'm saying... just trying to play with words.
It works how it works lol. Nothing more to worry about it than that. So yes it has elements of a democracy, but that's in the representation aspect.
Republics fall to democracies that degenerate into despotisms.... point is it is still a republic formally
How does this have so many thumbs ups??? He's wrong in the first 7 seconds.
Travis Maz liberalism is a mental disorder
Aside from liberalism being a mental disorder, they're kids who've either never learned this stuff or have forgotten 6th grade.
Travis Maz well, mr. Technical I guess it's every 2 years.
LinusMLGTips you misspelled liberalism.
Lots of liberals feeling butt hurt because they LOST. They like stupid stuff that makes them feel good about themselves and their views (however wrong). Liberalism appears to be a mental disorder.
Yeah, throughout history pure democracies are very simple, and horrible; the founders were very aware of this when they decided upon how elections would be done.
@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, the Presidential election is defined by the Constitution - specifically, the Electoral College.
The states are responsible for determining who is in the Electoral College - no election necessary. That's right - there is no need for the hullabaloo over the Presidential election. It's not even a thing - as defined by the Constitution.
@@nothingbutathing8532 hilariously, defined in the constitution... because of the states. The smaller states wouldn't have ratified the constitution without the electoral college.
@@lagg_coreyt7625 There are many reasons why the Electoral College exists. The point is: a general election is not required.
They also thought it works for now and can be revised later, along with no parties. The US both formed parties and then didn’t really revisited the idea. You all are running the beta version, bugs and all
@@Nevertoleave Amendments are the revisiting part. Bugs are being worked out.
"But we're a republic."
Thank you 7th grade Social Studies for teaching me this.
+lilkimchim yeah mots of us were then forgot it by age 18
+lilkimchim There are billions of people outside of the USA who actually hears how it really works for the first time. All we've ever seen are red states and blue states, and we have no idea why Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are swing states every damn time.
+lilkimchim The quality of teachers in the USA fail to teach. Thanks to the leaders cutting education budgets. I know 60 year olds who did not know this.
+uhhh what Well I knew that really are doing is picking is you're elector
+techfan42 That is a good point. Of course we don't waste money on making the Queen have a great life when she really is just a figure head. If Hilary Clinton is President (look her up) I'll probably move to England.
What happens next?!?
+daniel cruz echeñique They probably just went back in time to post-Revolutionary War America when only property-owning white males could vote.
+daniel cruz echeñique Hopefully they make a follow-up video, but basically in the time of the Founding Fathers, only White males who owned land could vote meaning that the woman in the video couldn't vote and neither could Adam as he doesn't own any land. This didn't change until the 1820's when most states had universal white male suffrage, 1870 for non-white men, and 1920 for women.
+daniel cruz echeñique If you don't know, you don't really care.
+Lord H4773Rthe2nd True to the Greek Tradition of Democracy
+daniel cruz echenique They go back in time when the founding fathers were putting together the electoral college. Not everyone could vote then. It was only white males who owned land. They bring out an expert and he explains that the founding fathers had a lot to consider - they were a fledgling country and didn't know what was going to happen. They later go over the legal cheating that is gerrymandering. And Adam explains how the only other country with a system like ours is France. They may not put the rest of the episode up. It's on TruTV. I watch on Amazon.
The californian/texan impressions were actually quite realistic, from my experience.
Im with this 100%.. Every vote should count..
And it does.
@@joshdunham7167 -- not distributed evenly.
@@Supremax67 of course not.
So the moral of the story... don't vote.
i thought that was just common knowledge for ppl whom payed attention in highschool, least the video is a refresher for those that didnt
That's actually the antithesis of what Adam wanted. If you actually watched the whole episode, he says he did not want to discourage voting at the end.
thisissparta789789 Well maybe that should be included in the clips on CZcams, like, seriously 😑
Point to me where the word democracy shows up in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Is that the Mom from Boy Meets World?
Neuromancer yep!
Omg thank you!!! It was killing me I knew she looked familiar.
My god, she still looks so beautiful!
@@MadMarch25 same
America must be the only country in the world where a good chunk of the population loves the fact that their vote could be entirely meaningless.
You fair to understand the reasons behind the concept. See, majority of population lives in places like Cali and New york, usually a country(let's take India as an example since I'm Indian) has somewhat of a consistent population distribution and since there is no radical differentiation in opinions we can remain a democracy but the difference in ideas and lifestyle of people in Wisconsin and California is staggering. Since India's population is consistent the people representing their needs is directly proportional to the population but in America, take California for example, 4million people voted for trump and 8 million for Hillary but Hillary got all the votes just like in a democracy but other states with smaller states didn't.
We don't have a democracy. There's a reason we don't have a democracy. 🤦♂️
Do you know what a direct democracy is? Representative democracy?
@@sophiallama Direct Democracy was created in Athens and proved to be a sensational form of government in which any and every male citizen of Athens who had achieved a certain age could, at any point, attend meetings and vote on the management of the city-state. Unfortunately, the system developed a major flaw in the fact that the majority was easily able to overpower and oppress the minority. Any time those with enough influence or audience appeal wanted something that would either give them power or benefit, they could usually get it by convincing others to vote with them. This eventually led to the fall of Athens following major oppression by mob rule that severely marginalized the minority. To put it into perspective, if we had a direct democracy, we would never have freed the slaves nor would we have progressed to a point of giving equal rights to women or members of the LGBTQ+ community. A Representative Democracy was a form of democracy that was developed in order to apply the government concept to a national size. Clearly, not every citizen could come and vote across a nation and such votes took time. This system involved the people electing representatives to power to make decisions on their behalf and pass laws. This body of representatives also often selected a leader for themselves. This system too, however, does not really work so well because, again, majority rule could lead to oppression of the minority. Additionally, another danger with this system is that you already have the set up for an oligarchy, rule by a few, to form since you already elected a group of individuals to govern your nation and hold power. Corruption and violation of rights became rampant and this system too could only last so long. In the modern day, Representative Democracy gets tossed around to describe the American Government as well as others, but that's because we define the term as any government in which the people elect representatives. By that standard, any government with elections qualifies, and a republic is a derivative of such a model, but the key difference is that a republic is rule by law. By the time the Romans came around, they saw the merits and faults of these systems and created a Republic. In this system, the people again voted for representatives who held power to govern and pass laws, but they added a government document known as a Constitution. In this document, they set out the way in which the republic would work. This led to the defining characteristics of a republic being the protection of the innate rights of the citizens and the limitation of powers for government officials. It was a great and revolutionary form that addressed the issues of corruption and oligarchy in a representative democracy and the oppression and mob rule in a direct democracy. The Roman Republic fell, however, due to its constant changes to the constitution that eventually lead to the establishment of the triumvirate and an imbalance of power that led to the Roman Empire. The founders looked to the past and saw that a republic worked best, acknowledged its flaws, and made changes. They knew that the issue was an imbalance of power in the Roman state so they established three branches of government that checked and balanced each other, outlined a constitution that specifically limited the government so as to protect the people from tyranny, and established a Bill of Rights that protects the innate rights of the people. Those three things are characteristic of a republic and must exist for that term to be used, but they are unnecessary for democracy of any kind as a democracy can simply be any government where the people vote. The finer details are often overlooked and ignored, but they are also often the key to truly understanding why two things really are different.
@Movies&&Highlights!!! your comment operates on a complete misunderstanding of what our government is. As explained above, we are a republic. However, more than that, we are a Federal Republic: that is, a Federation with a Republican Central Government. What is a Federation? Put simply, it is a form of government in which a larger nation is made up of a centralized power as well as smaller member states that operate with their own autonomy. At the founding of America, we had 13 Colonies, all of which had their own unique reasons for being colonized, their own unique culture and values, and their own reasons for leaving England. Upon deciding to embark on the revolutionary idea that was the founding of America, one major concern dominated the thinking of the time: if we leave Britain and form our own government, then who will determine what is to be done in each colony? After all, their biggest complaint was that Parliament and the King were making decisions that involved the colonies without anyone being present to speak or represent the colonies themselves. Essentially, what went on in their local environment was being determined by men who had never once experienced the lives and cultures they had in the Colonies.
The founders wanted to ensure that everyone would be heard and that consideration would be given to the fact that each State would have their own culture, geography, ideals, and government with each requiring different things. When it came to the Legislature, they were able to easily resolve the matter with Representatives and Senators; allowing for the representation of population size and an equal voice for the States. Two Senators per state, and (initially) one Representative per 30,000 people. When it came to the presidency, they wanted to take the same issues into consideration. The President would, obviously, be the most important and powerful man in America. If he was selected merely by national popular vote, this would overlook the fact that populations might not be equally dispersed.
The fact is that people can only be expected to vote on issues based on their own experiences and environment. If a majority of the population was located in one environment, then they could only be expected to make a decision that is best for the situations within that environment. But what if there were three to five other environments with their own unique issues and situations in the country that simply didn't have many people living in them? They wouldn't have enough voting power, even unanimously, to overpower or even equal the popular vote. Similarly, simply saying that each state gets one vote would be unfair and inconsiderate since one state might vote in favor of a situation that is only present within their borders, yet a large part of the population may be within their state.
Now how does the President play into this? the President is meant to campaign on issues and the votes he receives is indicative of the fact that people believe that he presents solutions that best help their situations and environments. Thus, it was important to the Founders that the President be selected in a manner that guaranteed that the most amount of people and situations possible would be considered in the selection of President. So they designed the Electoral College to have the votes of each state equal to the number of representatives in Congress. This would thus give equal representation and consideration in the decision of President as each person has in Legislative decisions. Essentially, this system gives two votes indicative of the State and the rest are indicative of the people by district. Moreover, it takes into consideration that, as they did not plan on there being only two candidates each time, there may be a tie or that none may win an absolute majority that would be necessary to guarantee the best possible leader. To resolve any instances such as these, the Electoral College uses the House of Representatives, the House of the People, to decide who should win by a series of ballots where each state gets one vote. This series must continue until an absolute majority wins.
As demonstrated, this system is the best possible way to balance the interests of a federation to consider equality of member States and the interests of the people as a whole based on what a majority of the population experiences. Put simply, in the name of equality and preservation of rights for all, the Electoral College seeks to create a balance between population density and regional divide.
Now, are there perhaps some issue in the way these votes are distributed? Yes, however, such issues are matters of the State. The States were given the power to decide how their electors for president would be chosen and, thus, how their Electoral Votes would be distributed. Based on Madison's views, it would appear that he did not approve of giving all of the Electoral Votes to the Statewide winner, but rather, he appeared to be in favor of the System used by Maine and Nebraska. This system gives two votes, indicative of the Senators, to the Statewide winner and the rest are distributed based on district winners.
Based on these facts, it would probably be a more logical approach to adjust the system so that all States used the Maine and Nebraska system with some added features. 1) that the electors would be randomly selected from the voter population instead of predetermined party delegates. 2) that these electors would not vote until the predetermined electoral vote after election day. 3) that electors would be required to vote for the person who one their district if they won by an absolute majority (greater than 50%), else they would be free to vote for their choice in the event of a tie or if no one wins an absolute majority. 4) that electors would be required to vote for the person who won the State if they won by an absolute majority, that one State elector would go to each in the event of a tie, and that they would be free to choose if no one won an absolute majority (this would include a three-way tie because that would mean each got 33.333% of the vote whereas a two-way tie is 50-50).
This adjustment to the System is in line with the writings on the Electoral College by the Founders, their comments when seeing the system in use, and the fundamentals evident within the way the Electoral College is structured. Of course, that does not mean everyone has to like it. Just consider this, in a National Popular Vote, someone could win with 49% if everyone else had less. At least with the Electoral College, when a person is selected with less of a popular vote, they are selected with an undeniable regional favorability and broad appeal.
We may not always like who is chosen to lead, and it's okay to feel that someone should have more support, but we all have to understand that the person with the most support is not always what's best. The Founders designed this system with the intention of getting the person most appropriate to lead. By all logical perspectives, based on how our government works and structured, the best choice for president is found within the balance of State and Popular interests. We have to face the facts, California and New York do not know or understand what is best for Kansas or Texas, but someone running for office must consider what is best for all four if he wants to win their votes.
To give an example, imagine if the World were one government with the UN as the Legislature and the Secretary-General was the Executive. Let's now consider the influence that the Secretary-General has on subjects such as third world assistance. Finally, let's consider two methods of how he might be elected by the people of the world.
1) Popular Vote: two candidates run. one person wants to put more money towards third world assistance and the other wants to put the money towards other initiatives. Assume that nations like Haiti are in desperate need of these funds and that they will not receive benefit under the second candidate's initiatives. the first candidate appeals to as broad a base as possible, but the second appeals to the largest nations by population. The end result, despite losing many regional battles, the second candidate wins due to his appeal to larger, population-dense, countries.
2) Electoral Vote: Same situation, same candidates. In the end, the first candidate wins despite losing in popular support because his broad appeal and concern towards third world countries earned him many regional victories that helped to boost him to success. In the end, he may have had only 48% of the vote, but it's made up of the most diverse amount of support possible proving that he is supported by the interests of a majority of the different demographics in the world that will be affected by his choices.
To close off, yes, there may be some work to put in to improve the Electoral College, but abandoning it is an extreme that should not be encouraged or rushed into the moment things seem unpleasant. A quote from one show I've recently rewatched that fits here. I can't recall the exact wording, but the sentiment was this: Before abandoning something, first consider what alternatives exist. My proposed adjustment above is only one idea I believe would resolve the current rough spots and complaints, but it's by no means the only one. Just don't jump to the extreme of abandoning a system that works (and yes it does work) just because the person you liked lost. Sometimes you lose, that's just part of living in a Free Country. Having complaints about the system that you'd like to fix are also fine, but again, they are not a reason to abandon a system that still works.
@Movies&&Highlights!!!
The two have no connection or similarity. Slavery was an aspect of Southern Culture and Economy that benefited and became necessary for their financial growth and success. The Electoral College simply acknowledges that we are more than just one nation, but that we are a Federation. As I stressed this point in my previous comments, I can only surmise that it has missed your attention so I will further express it.
A National Popular Vote works and makes sense for places such as France because they are one Nation comprised of all people, but the United States is a Nation comprised of smaller nations.
A misconception that is present is that the different States within the US act simply as Administrative Regions to help improve government infrastructure, but that is simply not the case. In France, there are 18 regions that simply act as a vessel to manage the government of France over the Country's landmass more effectively. These regions are lead by the President of the Regional Council, but these officials do not have any power beyond administering the Government over that region. Regions have no legislative power and, by all intensive purposes, they act simply as vessels for national power.
In the US, however, a State is given much more autonomy. State's are allowed to select their own form of State Government, pass their own State laws, build their own militias (it's in the constitution), and overall operate with a sense of independence in the management of the society within their State Borders. Because of this autonomy and independence, the states within the United States are proven to be much more than simply Administrative powers or vessels of the National Government.
Each state acts independently to deal with their own affairs. After all, the idea of America was that they would be a country of states united for mutual benefit and protection, but separate for individual pursuits. Now, this comes to the point of why a National popular vote does not work for our system of States. Again, I've expressed this in the previous comment, but I can only assume that I was not clear enough, so let me remedy that.
As the President of the United States maintains a great amount of power and influence towards the Agenda that a Nation may pursue, his selection is of vital concern to the States. As mentioned, States operate with much Autonomy to pursue their own interests, and thus, they have their own problems as well as their own means and ideas of how best to fix their problems. if a president is selected who is in favor of a National Policy that would worsen a State's problem, or prevent the State from effectively pursuing their chosen course of action, then this president would hurt the State.
Since population may not be equally dispersed between the states, a National Popular Vote might not consider whether or not a President is best for these states. A majority of the population as a whole may want a President who is in support of on policy, but that policy might not be beneficial for a majority of the States. Now, many would agree that the interests of the People as a whole within this nation should not be ignored, but I believe that we can all also see that ignoring the individuality and independence of the States would lead to much more problems for much more people.
Therefore, again, I assert that the Electoral College was designed to balance the interests of the people and the States as the United States Election System is meant to specifically consider the unique needs of the United States. Stating that another Country uses the Popular Vote without issue is not a valid argument against the Electoral College unless the Country in question is structured the same as the United States. Broadly stating that the System is out of Date is also invalid as 1) you do not state how it is out of Date and 2) the Structure of the United States has not changed in this regard. We are still a Nation comprised of member states that operate with autonomy and independence to pursue their own interests. As for 2020: the only way in which the Electoral College System would not be used in that election would be if Congress spontaneously passed an Amendment to the Constitution that abolished the system by November. This is unlikely to occur.
In conclusion, I again remind you of the last point in my previous comment that we cannot operate on the mindset that we dislike something, therefore, let's get rid of it. If you have issues with the system then the best course of action is to first ask yourself why these issues are part of the system. Next, study and learn more until you find your answer. Once you've found your answer, rethink your position to see if you still disagree with the issue. If so, consider what solutions may be offered aside from removing the system as a whole. That's how you address problems and find solutions. Moreover, whether you like the system or not, you should still go out to vote in every election possible. Don't sit at home and sulk because you don't like something. Even with the Electoral College, every vote counts and you never know whose vote will determine the winner. Aside from that, if you don't vote, nothing can get better and you'll have no right to complain about the result because you refused to engage. The danger of blindly and broadly complaining about the Electoral College is that people are getting discouraged from voting which only leads to more problems.
@@mysticalarchives7821 wow thats was great
This is why I lost all interest in voting at the age of ten.
Lol I'm sure you had a thorough understanding of politics when you were ten.
I don't have a thorough understanding of politics now. I was excited about it when I was younger. The year 1988 was the first election year where I was old enough to have some grasp of what was going on and learning about the election process in school was fun. Then I learned about the electoral college which straight up told me that the popular vote was pointless.
Yo, local elections/and state elections matter. People like you are why we have a government that can't get anything done. IE: You have a majority of voters that basically can't be bothered but to vote during Presidential elections only, even though unless you live in a swing state your vote matters less.
I live in Florida so.. EVERYONE HAIL ME!!!! Lol jk
You had interest in politics before you were ten?
'Murica , Land of The "Free"
free salves
+Mohamed Elhaddade Not even the slaves are free, they cost money.
Huy Bii hhh lol thats true
+murmani khoshtaria "America, Land of the free?"
+Brandizzleizzle If your a Christian like me your losing a lot of freedom
That Texas democrat is the most accurate stereotype I've ever seen.
So I wanted to watch the full episode, link sends me to your website. So I try to find the episode. Turns out: you can only watch it with the app WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN MY COUNTRY....
WE. ARE. NOT. A. DEMOCRACY. WE. ARE. A. DEMOCRATIC. REPUBLIC
We are a republic with elements of democracy, not the same thing.
We are a constitutional Republic.
@@slydog1080 And an Indirect Democracy.
We will still be a Republic without the electoral college
You do realize we're not a democracy. Right? You do realize there are reasons for that. Right?
Aww, cute little kid just copying anything Crowder says.
And you wonder who the tools really are.
Kevin Rouse I've been saying this long before Steven Crowder did.
He's a conservative youtuber. He made a response to this video on the 3rd of December 2016, over a year later to this. I agree with his points, but making a video a year later is pathetic. These people coming over from that video acting smug yet never having seen this video despite it being out for 13 months looks sad and moronic.
Kevin Rouse Was there some information regarding our form of government that wasn't available to Adam a year ago? The reason we are responding to it now is because people are suggesting we get rid of it because Trump won. I say, we should correct all misinformation.
As a European every time I read about the US system I just scratch my head and wonder why people arent up in arms about this. Effectively if youre a Rep in a Blue state or a Dem in a Red State your vote pretty much doesnt count. How can you be OK with this ? In no other Democracy in the world will you be able to loose an election even if you win the popular vote.
The US isn't a democracy, stupid.
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.
Swing states shift. They are by no means static.
Yeah..... But the amount of swing States has drastically decreased since the 60's and there's no strong evidence that there going to increase in the near future.
@@bobbiddero9 Actually, in my lifetime, I've seen states become a swing state that had never been one before (in my lifetime). Your statement is pure conjecture.
@@gabb159 do you have any source to back your claim? I remember hearing about swing states decreasing from a journal article called The Contemporary Presidency: How The 2012 Presidental Election has Strengthened The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The article is a little old but was very informative. My main issue is that a lot of the candidate's campaign resources are almost focused on swing states alone.
Iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa
Only matters every 4 years
yes,that is true,but we dont have to care about ALL of the swing state,only 4 state:florida,ohio,pennsylvania,and virginia is enough.(those 4 state get 57% canidate visit and 55% adverytising money from the canidate)
Next up, Why the Dinosaurs are ACTUALLY extinct.
Next up: How politicians are actually dinosaurs.
Birds were more similar to dinosaurs than reptiles were.
LMFAOOOO " I don't know many actors..." GOT EEM'😂😂😂😂
Ace_421 stop
It's sad to see how lazy many Americans have become when it comes to their own rights and freedoms.
Our founding fathers would be appalled to see how little we have done with the small freedoms they fought to give us all. All of you in the comments that somehow think what was fine over two centuries ago should still be adequate now are truly reprehensible. It's ridiculously lame that what you most wish for is to continue supporting the rich who literally buy the laws they want (the laws that make them richer ofc) while we squabble around in the dirt fighting each other for the few _scrap laws_ they leave for us to fight each other for, all so we don't recognize how much more money they keep taking away from us.
For some reason they actually have you believing that less taxing of the rich will somehow make them give you back the jobs they sold overseas long ago. When the data is easily obtainable that in fact, our economy was the best during the times taxes for the rich were between just over 70% and 90%. The times during witch taxes for the rich were at their lowest were both right before the economy crashed during both the great depression 25%, the recession in the 90's right after the regan administration lowered them to 28% and later when bush lowered taxes on the rich right before the great recession.
How does that pattern not sink in with some people? These aren't people who are just making honest livings working hard like the rest of us. They make their livings forcing us to do all the real work for a pittance of what they make, while they buy law after law that allow them to further take advantage of us by taking away our homes, farms and educations.
From Tax Foundation.org aquilafunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Highest-Marginal-Tax-Rates-1913-2013.jpg
From Business insider i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
There's a bunch more, but search them yourselves, they all are the same. These are just well known numbers and they all corroberate each other.
images.dailykos.com/images/115497/large/Federal_Tax_Rates.jpg?1415654547
Taxing the rich and corporations passes it on to us. Put a tax on iphones, iPhone prices go up. Tax the "rich" 90 percent on 1,000,000 so they make 100 thousand and the pay politicians 500k to save millions. I believe in a progressive tax but the rich do not take from the poor.
@@eaglesports88 don't take from them? Maybe not directly. They still profit off the labor of the working class. Always have. Rich people didn't really early their wealth. Most of them earned it by family or stepping on the backs of other people.
@@eaglesports88 meritocracy isn't real. How you can 99 percent of the country working their asses off to barely get by. Meanwhile the rich get richer. How can you have a system that supposedly benefits hard working Americans and the American dream but only works for the one percent.
@@eaglesports88 yep it’s the government taking from the middle class.
Awesomeness.
I always thought that winning an election by electoral votes was stupid. That the idea of candidate getting more votes but still losing the election is ridiculous.
What more ridiculous is allowing the citizens of San Francisco to vote on the lifestyle of a lentil farmer from Montana. Have you traveled the US? It’s like visiting different countries and different time periods. These communities large and small have very different lifestyles, values, morals.
@@monkey3964 Instead, the lentil farmer is able to decide the lifestyle of the citizens of San Francisco. And this is better than the reverse, for some reason.
@@monkey3964 How about the San Francisco voter allowing the Lentil farmer to choose what lifestyle he wants? You know that Government doesn't dictate your will, right?
@@monkey3964 My dude, that’s what the house, senate, and state government are for
It isn’t if you live in a state that doesn’t have a massive population and actually want some say in presidential elections. The point is to give smaller states a say in national elections. It’s a feature, not a bug.
is this why trump???
won
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote
Mhm, 4th time the person with the popular vote lost because of the electoral college.
Presidential election of 2000 was even worse. Al Gore had 500 000 more votes but still lost.
Starting to notice how it's always the democrats who get the unfair shake in this "college" Get the most votes but still lose to this dumb system.
I loved it when he posed for the ad.
"The electoral college means candidates can ignore almost the entire country."
*gets rid of electoral college
"Now candidates can ignore almost the entire country in a different way."
Amnion that’s a ignorant statement to understanding freedom. The founders understood that 51% should not control the other 49%. They understood that in a free society every vote should matter therefore we have 51 individuals elections and the outcome of those elections decide the president so even the minority’s in every district isn’t dominated by a overwhelming elite group. Yes the popular vote does win. It wins district by district.
@@lancebaize1136 California and New York will always decide presidential elections if you get rid of the EC.
Mario Badia exactly what I said but in a more historical way
@@mariobadia4553 I might be ok with getting rid of the electoral college, but only if California and New York get no votes for being garbage states
@@mariobadia4553 Can you please explain your math to me? As far as I can see, about 48 Million Americans live in either NY or California. That's less than 15% of the US population. You can't win a popular vote plurality with 15% unless there are like 7 major candidates running.
The funny thing about this episode is that I learned all these facts already from my 8th grade American History class
Only thing he didn't bring up in this clip is gerrymandering and campaign finance. I'm sure it's in the rest of the episode
We aren't a democracy, we are a Republic. The founders wanted the small states to have a small advantage based on population. Not only that 90% of the time the popular vote and electoral vote have the same outcome.
that is still 10% of the time where electoral vote gives you the wrong president
Loke Ho Not wrong, its how the system was set up so small states don't always lose to the bigger states. It's a good system that we should keep
Jesse Norwalt bc of gerrymandering politicians only care about swing states anyway
Loke Ho Gerrymandering literally has 0 to do with the presidential election. It only affects congressional races. But because of the electoral college candidates only go to swing states. But it makes sense because they are the people in between so our candidates should have to appeal to them.
Loke Ho That's not true. They worry about states like New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa. they only worry about swing states, some big some small. The founders didn't want a direct democracy, they wanted a republic where people elect people who make the decisions. That's how it should be in my view.
This guy needs to get his facts straight. The purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a voice. If not for the electoral college, the president would always be what California and new York want.
But why should Wyoming have more power then California
Fun fact: Did you know that they are republicans in California and New York and democrats in Wyoming and Alaska
while this series is more "Comedy" then "History" 2:10 is a point I agree with.
it's meant to be a educational comedy, but it sometimes leans a bit too much into one side or the other
I gotta get out of this country.
+Dave Beeen head straight for mars
well bye then but watch the whole videos end
or move to rhode island
+Treven Stanley explain please
bangasou12 You would have more power in Rhode Island because it would be the smallest state in the country so that would have the most power
The reason why the electoral college was created, was so that smaller states had more of a say in how our country is governed. Also America until the western states started passing universal male sufferage laws, often only allowed a small percentage of men to vote. America was more of a Republic, than a Democracy in it's early days, and the electoral college is a legacy of that.
why do you deserve more of a say in how our country is governed than do people living in populous states?
@@mitchellseymour1090 Aren't you assuming he's from one of those smaller states rather than just explaining it in general?
@@mitchellseymour1090 because democracy is the rule of majority the majority can't always be right
@@mitchellseymour1090 it's so California, for example, cannot force their policies on Arkansas. So maybe ppl in Arkansas don't agree with paying for Healthcare and Housing for Illegal Aliens, etc. Just because you have a bigger population doesn't mean you should be able to force PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS such as CRT, LGBTQRSTXYZ, ETC, on other ppl. If you do not like Arkansas or any other state, MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU FEEL YOU BELONG!!
@@mitchellseymour1090 cities need rural populations to survive, yet urban policy regularly punishes and hurts rural communities. Since a majority of people live in cities, urban policy would always pass without representative systems like the electoral college, thus hurting both rural communities and urban communities in the long term. By giving the little guy a bigger voice, the system actually is more fair this way
The electoral college was made for farmers not just people from the city
Yeah it was meant as a way to allow land owners to vote on behalf of all their land which also gave a huge advantage to rich land owners, plantation owners etc. It's messed up. Your land doesn't vote, you do.
Except for the fact that your land votes. And you just pick folks to represent it.
@@Imtrappedintheinternetsendhelp essentially yes but the land doesn't have a voice... the people do
Key word made for farmers it wasent made for cities
He mentions that in the full episode.
So what season and episode is this, so that I can see the whole scene?
Adam runs voting season 1
the electoral college stops people in rural areas from being ignored. if politicians only had to get the votes of people in the cities then they would introduce more laws that benefited inner cities and negatively impacted farmers
Swing states differ from election to election. 2016 is a very good example, Trump won both Wisconsin and Michigan. Both were considered Democrat safe.
The 2016 election is a perfect example of the why electoral works.
if hillary won california by just one vote instead of 2.5 million, then trump would've won the popular vote by 2 million and the electoral outcome would remain the same
For everyone who thinks they are being clever:
1. A Republic can be a Democracy. They aren't different forms of government. They are just words from different languages (kind of like Freedom and Liberty). We get the word 'Republic' from the Latin 'res publica' and we get the word 'Democracy' from the Greek 'demos kratein'. The first means 'the public thing' and the second means 'people power'. The Roman Republic did not feature any significant representative institutions. The Senate did not represent the people, the Senate was filled by the rich. All the rich people, it wasn't representative. If you had Senatorial rank you could attend the Senate. End of story. The public assemblies which elected the tribunes were also non-representative. Everyone who wasn't of Senatorial rank could go. The Athenian democracy on the other hand did have a significant representative aspect, the Boule, which handled the majority of government business, on account of the fact that it was a hassle to bring everyone in to the Assembly every day (most of the citizens were farmers or merchants who had to be out of the city most of the time). So that talking point you are repeating about us being a representative republic not a democracy is doubly wrong. You can be a Republic and a Democracy, and there is nothing undemocratic about representative systems. They have literally been part of democracy from the beginning.
2. So why do so many people think Republic=Representative and Democracy=Direct rule by the people? Because some key founding fathers thought that is what the terms meant. But the fact is the founding fathers weren't all that knowledgeable. Its not their fault. They did the best they could in their situation, but relative to Europeans the American colonists had far weaker institutions of higher learning and less reliable access to books. Princeton, for example, vaulted ahead of every other American university by hiring a single guy, John Witherspoon, who was a completely unremarkable intellectual from Scotland, but automatically became the most educated person, by far, in the Atlantic colonies. But even the European universities wouldn't have been able to give their students a particularly good education about the history of politics. For the most part key texts had either not been translated or had been poorly translated. And even the key texts only gave you a very poor idea of how actual politics worked. For example, if you were basing your beliefs about the Roman Republic off of Cicero (which is who most political thinkers were using to understand Republican institutions) you got a sense of how a single very rich Roman who was actively engaged in a political struggle against a populist political party thought about politics. His writings don't give a comprehensive view of Roman government and are heavily biased against the poor. We know way more know about how Roman society and government operated than people did in the late 1700s. Your average community college professor working in history or political science knows more about political history than your average founding father. There were some really bright guys among the founding fathers (Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison in particular) but no one can overcome the general lack of available information.
3. Also the Framers were rich guys involved in trying to take power away from common people when they wrote the Constitution. Their defenses of the governmental institutions they chose were informed by the fact that they were trying to avoid things like paper money and debt relief for veterans of the Revolution (two major legislative initiatives gaining ground in state governments at the time). So when they talk about the mob what they are talking about is ordinary people trying to avoid getting screwed by people like Hamilton (who bought up the IOUs given to revolutionary war soldiers as pay, at pennies on the dollar when the Continental Congress wasn't paying any of its debts through lack of tax revenue, and then, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, demanded that the new Federal government pay them off at full price). In short, the attitudes the Framers had to the people at large are another of their great moral failures (like slavery) that they wrote into our Founding documents.
4. Also no one could agree on how to elect the President at the Constitutional Convention. It was the last major issue decided before the final draft was written, and the Electoral College was literally picked because it was the last thing suggested by a subcommittee that had been given the job of figuring it out. Everyone just wanted to get out of town and no one thought that the Electoral College would ever actually decide anything. They thought no one would ever get more than half the electoral college votes and so the elections would always be decided by the House of Representatives (which is what Madison wanted originally anyway). If you don't believe me go check out Madison's Convention notes.
A Republic can be a democracy, but a pure democracy is mob rule. It lets the majority decide what happens to the minority.
1. A republic can be a democracy, but it is not a pure democracy, because pure democracies can be easily abused and tend to end in communism/socialism and then everyone starts dying.2.A pure democracy does mean direct by people, every person gets a vote and they are all equal no matter who or where you are. We don't want that, or all the smaller states would be screwed every election.3.The framers were brave geniuses who fought to create our country. They did everything in their power to limit power and give more power to the people. Free speech, the right to bear arms, the three branches of government, the list goes on.4.Just Madison's opinion doesn't matter when many other framers had different opinions from him. They still put a lot of thought into it and it is a necessary system that has worked for our entire existence. You get rid of the electoral college and it is the rich, elites in New York City, and other big cities who will be choosing the president every time. Almost half the states in the country wouldn't even matter.
The difference is that we’re a federal republic, we have a founding document that contains unalienable rights, and the electoral college exists to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority. It’s NOT just a language difference, our republic is fundamentally different from a democracy; the majority is not always right. Just because you democratically vote for slavery doesn’t make it right. Just because you democratically vote to kill of someone doesn’t make it right, this is why the electoral college exists, to make sure smaller states don’t get engulfed by the bigger ones. Btw, swing states are constantly changing.
Why does demos sound like Demons which is also Greek?
Does anyone know ANY way for a Canadian fan to watch full episodes? The clips are fine but i miss SO MUCH DETAIL and i dont get the full episode story....
2:01 all I can think about with the music is sims
25.6% voted for Hillary Clinton - 25.5% voted for Donald Trump - 1.7% voted for Gary Johnson
46.6% didn't vote
Enjoy Trump!
thedreameater I am
lickit yuh mame one policy he has done with majority approval
whenever people ask why we need to have a whole class that teaches civics i point them to videos like this
The doctor from scrubs keeps coming to mind when he said... "Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong, you're wrong!"
I can kinda see where you're getting this all wrong
I love this show
Adam is my wife.
+Odnetnin This show is my favorite anime...
+Odnetnin Adam is your wife? I'm pretty sure he didn't go Bruce Jenner
same.
+BUNGIE halo Me 2 and Im not an adult
It’s funny when people think america is a democracy.
That's what we keep being fed. I keep hearing that america is the greatest democracy of all time. Can't bkame people for thinking that after being bombarded by all the propaganda.
It’s a republic
Imagine not understanding the very fabric of the government you live in
Is this about democracy versus direct democracy?
"I'm cooky I have two turtles" lmao :,D
Giving smaller states a fighting chance against their larger counterparts is necessary IMO. Giving the smaller states a voice helps national cohesion. The differences in attitudes and beliefs varies widely among them and it would be catastrophic IMO if a whole region were snuffed out by one distant city (LA for example).
Let's not forget how dependent places like California are on other states to maintain the resources fueling that massive population.
Plus he took the "John Ewards" debacle out of context..anyone who knows anything about the EC knows that they vote for one president and one vice president, and they have to vote for someone not from their state
I agree with him, it is not a perfect system and it has flaws but I believe the concept is sound. Regardless of your opinion of people in less populace states, they are United States citizens and they are guaranteed a vote and because there is simply less of them they would never have a chance in any election in any bigger state. Places like California and New York already command a great deal through their enormous economies. This about protections for the minority. This is a concept that been in democracies for a long time. The majority will always overwhelm the minority so they must balance out. Imagine (in an alternate universe) That different cultures and races of people lived in distinctly different places (this still happens today) One could easily dominate the other if it had a greater population and put its interests first every single time an election comes around because the minority would never ever win. In this system, R and D are about 50% win/loss ever few years.
Should be 1 person has 1 vote in a national scale. It is the fairest you can go.
From there, you follow state rights.
Another thing to think about is the natural desire for the majority to oppress the minority (I'm referring strictly to political views here, not ethnic groups). Consider this:
Without the system of representation for smaller states, one could get a large enough group together (through media manipulation, fundraising, donations, et cetera) and exercise absolute control over who gets elected without challenge. Such a situation would inevitably lead to tyranny as the governing body would be free to elect only officials and execute legislation that followed it's agenda. That situation would lead to a breakdown in our society (civil war/coup/unrest) that would leave our country vulnerable.
Having opposing political views (even if they're unpopular) is good since it stimulates discussion. No political group should feel comfortable in office. The majority can be bought, fooled, convinced, or scared. The popular opinion isn't always the right one.
Anyone knows where can I watch this entire episode for free?
Nothing undemocratic to me about the electoral college, especially when you consider larger states’ representation in the House. I don’t want CA and NY deciding every presidential election.
They won't.
Do a video on using too much hair gel.
I really enjoy A.R.E., but i gotta say on this one, the math is simply incorrect. Adam mentioned he doesn’t like the idea of a few swing states choosing who wins an election, but were it not for the EC system, California and New York would end up deciding all presidential races. And to say Cali’s 55 votes is unfair compared to Wyoming’s 3 is ludicrous. California is still responsible for almost 20% of the total votes needed to win, where Wyoming is responsible for just over 1%…I love the Lie Detector episode!!! Absolute Favorite!!!
That’s just not true.
If you somehow get 100.00% of all of California and New York’s population, you’d still have only 17% of the vote. Where did you get 20% for just California from?
And secondly, the EC doesn’t help small states, you can still win the EC with the 11 biggest states.
Thirdly, under a national popular vote system, regardless of your party (unless your a third party voter), your vote will matter. Democrats in Oklahoma and Republicans in New York won’t have there votes not matter because they are in a heavily blue/red state since there isnt a winner-take-all system like in the EC.
@adamruinseverything Hi, where did you get your data facts from? I'm doing a thesis on gerrymandering and would love to be able to site some of the date you mentioned!!!
I FOUND IT ON THE WEBSITE, your the best!
On the top corners of the vid, whenever he said something, he would site his source there
Part 2?!?!?
Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2!
Wait... so part two is on TV cuz if so i've already DVR'd his series
Oh man our represented republic is undemocratic!!!! who would have thought that.
James Smith lol
You are right. It isn't a pure democracy because those have been proven not to work and to be corrupt. If we didn't have an electoral college, the smaller and center states would have zero say in presidential elections. The country would be ruled by the often corrupt and rich people in states like New York and California who would just keep voting in people that screws over working people or people that most states don't want. The presidential election is an election by the states more so than the citizens. And the president isn't always the winner of the popular vote to keep us safe from the tyranny of the majority and to help keep really bad people out of office.
@@dragonninja3655 thing is, sometimes it doesn't even matter what we choose. As stated our reps don't always vote toward what we want so... Yeah we may as well not even have a voice. Winner take all is also an issue... if gerrymandering isn't an issue in itself this is
To those who say that America isn’t a democracy. You are right, and that’s what we want to fix.
We were never meant to be a full on Democracy.
@@Jarred-J254 ya ever think that maybe the slave owners in 1768 who purposely designed the constitution to be changeable didn’t want to be and probably shouldn’t be the end all be all of the state of the nation?
@@memeosaurusrex3382 The Founding Fathers knew the evil within Democracy, even the Romans knew the flaws of Democracy and how it turns into Authoritarianism. In Democracy the majority would slowly oppress the minorities, if we went by popular vote most everyone across the USA would become oppressed by a handful of heavily populated cities and they would determine who the president is and presidential candidates would only focus on those handfuls of cities. What the braindead easily offended leftists that want to abolish the Electoral College don't get is the Electoral College ensures EVERYONE and all states has at least some say in the elections, not a few big cities, which I fully support, I don't want every president being determined by the douchebags that live on the other side of the USA in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and being forced to live how they say.
Democracies fall. It’s 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
in ohio, we love soybeans and tomato products. why? ehhh
No we like that disgusting Skyline Chili!
i dont really like soybeans and ketchup is ok with fries. otherwise meh. i love chocolate and steak.
Ohio is weird, and im saying that from ohio Its like if you combined cultures from pretty much everywhere into one state, Although one thing will stand true for all of ohio: We will always rival michigan
ITS THE MOM FROM BOY MEETS WORLD
THANK YOU!!!!!
"I love BBQ, Blake Sheldon, and abortions" hahaha dead.
Hey where's part two ?
Except.... we're not a Democracy. And there's a very good reason we're not.
Let's say that we didn't have the electoral college - that every vote counted for exactly one vote and who won won, regardless of population or location. Now let's we're electing a new president - tell me, where is most of the population located?
The large cities, and the coats. Nearly half the USA's population lives in 2 dozen or so counties scattered in New England, the larger cities, and the West Coast. The midwest has the lowest population density of all. So judging by that standard, if we eradicated the electoral college and the way of balancing power, we eradicate the voice of the places with lower population. States like Montana and Wyoming that are barely at 1 million people or less will be run by states like California, who has no idea of how our agriculture and economy works, and no idea of what our biggest issues are. We've been trying to get regulated logging back in for years on Montana to help boost the economy and clean up forests that are a huge fire hazard, and every time we push for it we get shut down by people from CA just because we're in the same court district as them. Can you imagine how that would go, should we not have the electoral college and not have a balance of power?
Firstly, if you combine the Top 100 cities in the US you would still not reach 20% of the population. And Secondly, The Electoral College doesn’t protect small states. You can win the Electoral College with the 11 biggest states. Thirdly, the Electoral College as said in the video gives swing states the most attention. Because the candidates don’t need to go and campaign in places where they are already 99% likely to win that state. In 2016 California had no campaign events, while Florida had 35 or more from both candidates.
where's the sequel where you go back in time!?
on TruTV, they just upload clips here. Full episodes are there (and you need to pay ofc...)
Not there anymore, all the episodes are down except the election special.
Hey can someone here tell me where to find the video's he did like in 2008 or 2012 after both elections? I cant seem to find them anywhere? hmmmmm..
Survival of the Fittest I think the Adam ruins everything show originally came from collegehumor. I would check there.
it was a joke they dont exist, but thanks anyways!
Survival of the Fittest
haha I'm a dork, sorry!
Your all good, we all dorks =D
Barack Obama won both the electoral college and the popular vote
Sometimes, messed up keeps the illusion of civility straight
Why not try to get the real thing instead of keeping an illusion?
1:15 "I think the fact that the entire election is determined by just a handful of states is really messed up. For one thing, it means presidential candidates can ignore almost the entire country. " That's hilarious Adam, let's look at some 2016 election statistics.
2016 Elections County Results:
Trump: Around 2600 counties
Hillary: Around 500 counties
Yes, because if we had it where only the popular vote mattered, everything would be balanced and not at all determined by the big cities only. I mean, some of those counties that Hillary won are the most populous counties many of which have some of the top 30 cities such as NYC, LA, and Boston. Heck, even cities in Republican states, such as Dallas, Houston, and Austin, and Louisville voted democrat. The largest city, isolated from its county/counties, to vote for Trump was Oklahoma City, number 27 of the most populous US cities. The counties for Jacksonville and Fort Worth also voted for Trump, and are higher on the list, but the cities themselves voted for Clinton and the other areas in the counties won the vote for Trump.
The point is that if we solely depended on the popular vote, then a candidate only needs to appeal to the cities to gain a serious lead, and doesn't need to appeal to the rural areas as much, meaning we could potentially run into a situation similar to Russia's where the government only really cares about the European part of the country, and doesn't really care about Siberia, because the population is in Europe, not Siberia.
@The Flexsealist "Watch this other guy moan about electors and address the big cities issue half-assedly in other video."
Look at Meichigan Clinton thought it was for her....but they stooped the trend
Actually, a study showed that if it was "who got more votes in terms of people and not cities", Hillary would have won. This said, I dont think she would be a good president anyway, not that Trump is doing a great job, either way, but there were more candidates we should have payed more attention to
and the counties matter why to you? Hillary in the end won more people what you are basically saying is that trump deserved to win even though he got less votes but the people who voted for him were more spread out. thats not people getting the decision thats land.
@@rouge1ful yep with all those dead people voting
No, The electoral college doesn't ruin democracy. It keeps it in check
How excactly?
You're saying it exists to make sure that democracy doesn't become... _too_ democratic?
***** that's a good way of putting it
Actually, yes. Adam's point would be valid IF we lived in an actual pure democracy. Which we don't. And never have. And were never intended to. We live in a representative republic and always have.
I don't think you understand what a direct democracy is.
I'd rather get rid of the electoral college so that voters in red and blue states will feel like their vote will have as much impact as someone in a swing state. Otherwise, some Texas Democrats and New York Republicans may just stay home during elections.
Exactly what I'm trying to say. I agree with you Amanda.
Do_odle You obviously don't get it doodly head
Do_odle The point she was trying to make, which I agree with, is that with a popular vote as the determinant for the winner, more if not all people will go out and vote because their vote in all essence of the matter, would "count". Literally. You say she knows nothing about it but she knows a thing or two about it with the valid points she makes. Right now and for the past decades, many people don't vote because their State would always go one way. And with the electoral college with the way it is, with a winner-takes all method, whoever wins would take all of the electoral votes of that state.
I agree with Tagatta Maoi as long as only Citizen and Permanent Resident are allowed to vote. Nobody on a temporal Green Card or Work Permit Green card shall be allowed to vote on the future of a Country that they might not be there to experience the outcome.
So you want that cities with most population will decide for rest of the country how to run things?
Thanks for this video. Needed a reference to give to Trump.
Adam, it doesn’t. The entire idea around the electoral college was to give the smaller states a voice. The population difference is so immense that states like California and New York would dominate the election.
okay but we are not living in 1880 where you live doesn't change your life that much just because they have population density doesn't mean they aren't still people just because they live close together that their vote shouldn't mean just as much. US culture has become much homogeneous and the figurehead that runs the entire country should be elected by every person. And we would still have the Senate to give smaller states with lower populations hire representation in Congress anyways
Max Williams did you just say “where you live doesn’t change your life that much” yeah I’m pretty sure there’s a small difference between rual Indiana and LA
@@m.w.2185 Where do you think we get the number of electoral college votes from? We get them from adding up the seats each state has in both the House and the Senate. The exact "misrepresentation" that you are concerned about comes directly from the mere existence of the Senate.
Besides, you don't vote for President. The *states* vote for President. You vote for who you want your state to vote for. The main focus of the US governance wasn't supposed to be the federal level so much as the state level, because local government are going to be easier for you to reach, easier for you to influence, and more in tune with your local needs, than anyone on the federal level ever will.
@@Mario-gd5qk that would be a great argument based for voting districts but the logical fallacy you state there is those are completely different tribal structures a better argument would be say LA county versus Indianapolis which despite being different states would have much closer lifestyles. And not to mention a fact that as stated earlier the culture is much more homogenous than these systems were set into place. You don't have somebody in rural Indiana who's never left their city for the entirety of their life. And it comes to a matter of fact the unlike 200 years ago I can travel or move halfway across the country in as little as a week. Growing up in Wisconsin, one are most important states in the Union army I saw several Confederate flags scattered throughout my rural town. So you know several thousand miles away from where any Confederacy would have ever taken place.
If that doesn't speak to a mixture of US culture I don't know what does
The electoral college made sense at the time of it's inception. Back then, news didn't travel as fast, so the chances of us seeing the full picture of the candidates' campaigns were lower than they are now, in the age of live broadcast radio/television, and on-demand information via the internet. It was safer to put the voting power in the hands of experts, but they still gave us the popular vote in the hopes that our voice could still be heard.
Or at least, that's what I learned in 7th grade social studies class.
You are correct, but I will add to it.
m.czcams.com/video/sBJmogy9d6U/video.html
That is wrong. The electoral college makes just as much sense today as it did at its inception. Remember The United States isn’t a democracy we are a constitutional Republic. Our nation is 50 individual states united under one federal banner which is why we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. In regards to elections states are responsible for state level elections and federal elections. There are technically no federal elections. Each state holds elections and votes on a president. Each states gets assigned a number of electors based on population and whoever that states citizens elect as president their electors or the votes they are assigned goto who that state elected. That’s a super simple explanation.
The reason why this is better then a straight popular vote is using our system a candidate has to get elected by more then one section of the country. Remember people in the South have different needs then people out west And in the northeast. People in the Midwest have different needs them those In the South. With a popular vote system a candidate can focus on basically California and New York ignore the majority of the country and still be president. That being the case what will keep a president from ignoring the low population states referred to by libs and democrats as fly-over states. The electoral college forces a presidential candidate to campaign and to take the issues of low population states seriously.
@@derekjuarez9762 There are two big differences between the electoral college and a direct democratic election, the one you stated is debatably needed today, but the other simply no longer has a place. The debatable one is smaller states having more power per person, and that's a whole debate in and of itself, but the other issue is a far simpler one. The far less debatable difference is electors not having to abide by the votes of their constituents, there's simply no need for electors to have such autonomy in the modern day and age. Even if the electoral college system is kept, electors should still be gotten rid of, and the electors' votes should simply be decided by the votes of their constituents.
@@giorgitsiklauri1283 as far as the electors go that’s more of a procedural thing, they always vote the way the constituents. That’s not really an issue.
Regarding that, it’s Democrats and liberals that try to over turn legally elected or appointed people based on their feelings then cry foul when republicans do
It back to them.
Democrats In 2016 all challenges trumps win same as he did to Biden. When they do it, it’s patriotic republicans do it and it’s a coup attempt. Same with SCOTUS Biden actually started the idea of
A president not electing court members during election years, and stopped a republican nominee that way, then they cried corruption when republicans did
It back to them:
Our system and laws work as long as the people in power don’t get in the way and enforce the system and laws properly, and not down party lines
@@derekjuarez9762 While faithless electors are generally not very common, only 16 in total throughout American history, a whopping 7 of those were during the 2016 election. 2 electors changed from Trump to Clinton, and 5 changed from Clinton to Trump. This of course was not enough to change the outcome, but if it had been a closer race it may very well have been enough.
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
By the way, Michigan and Pennsylvania say hi. So much for the "only a few states matter" argument. Ignore a state long enough and it becomes a swing state.
And Wisconsin
Wisconsin too. Minnesota almost went red as well, and they didn't even go red for Reagan's second term.
Walter Mondale was from Minnesota. That probably had more to do with it.
Mondale is old and irrelevant. I look forward to having a red Minnesota in the near future.
TheAngryGreyhawk Some Somalis may have to be removed first.
I like how he had a time machine available
I enjoy a lot of your videos, Adam, but if not for the electoral college, about 10% of the US's land mass would control 100% of the people. The same things that are important to someone in NYC or LA are not the same things to someone in Nebraska or Tennessee. The electoral college gives rural Americans a voice. If it was majority rule, their vote and their voice would be crushed.
@Micheal Carney
Not everyone in the US does vote though
@Micheal Carney
his vote isn't exactly invalid there are more cities than rural areas in the country or at least those places are more populated which I think is the point he makes
@Micheal Carney California (State) has 40 Million people, New York (State)has 20 Million people. States that typically (Unfortunately) vote Democrat. Choosing only two cities, NYC and LA, that have a combined population of 13 million(you got that part right) have more people than Nebraska and Tennessee combined (about 9 million). Lets throw in Kansas and Oklahoma..then San Fran and San Diego. 4 Cities in one State having the same population as 4 entire States. Here's one for ya..Wyoming has the lowest population with 563,626 people, Vermont's population is 625,741, North Dakota has 672,591, Alaska has 710,231, South Dakota has 814,180. 8 States that have a combined population less than 20 million which is less than the State of New York (1 State). Wondering if you stopped and thought before you posted?
Yay! I live in Ohio, so my vote actually counts! Awesome!
The Black Hat did you not see the video? lmao
metalsquirrelgamer Yes. I was being completely facetious. I know my vote doesn't count.
The government should watch this stuff
Somehow I'm quite sure they already know this...
They created this whole system they know it's unfair
Whoo democratic republic!
It's a republic, not a democracy, and that's by design. Pure democracy is mob rule wherein the large cities drown out the rural population.
Besides, liberals never try to demolish the EC when it works in their favor.
The founding fathers weren’t building g a democracy they were building a republic😂
Why not just make it whoever has most votes by the people. Like just get all the people's votes and find out who got more.
It's good to see so many people shitting on this guy for thinking America is a democracy, but I don't understand why there are so many likes. I expected all thumbs down.
It's called being in an echo chamber. Glad you got out of your bubble a little bit, though.
Mr. Beat's Social Studies Channel Wow way to really cut to the core of the issue. If people are liking the video then why does an echo chamber exist? Presumably..der..der...der...the people liking the video would jump in and offer a counter argument. Like you. You could offer a counter argument to help break us all out of our "bubble". Assuming you have one and it isn't really you in the "bubble". Which, let's be honest, it probably is.
Well, if you check out my channel I have plenty of video arguing against the Electoral College. I also have a video about how to get out of your bubble. CGP Grey has a fantastic video as well about how much the Electoral College sucks.
Mr. Beat's Social Studies Channel I'm not checking out your shitty channel. If you can't put up a few pointers here that's enough evidence for me that you've got no argument.
My channel is awesome, not "shitty", thank you very much. Since you're being lazy. Basically, the arguments against the Electoral College are that it promotes the tyranny of the minority by giving small states and rural areas far too much representation, it establishes that electors, not citizens, actually vote for President, and its original purpose is now embarrassingly out of date. Duh, we live in a republic, but there are better ways to elect a President. To blindly accept the EC and not even consider reform is baffling to me. Check this site out, if you're not feeling too lazy. www.myhistorymatters.com/area-history/winner-take-troubled-history-electoral-college-popular-vote/