Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College - Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 11. 2016
- The Trouble with The Electoral College: • The Trouble with the E...
How the Electoral College Works: • How the Electoral Coll...
This vlog is a bit of a mess, but as the saying goes: "I would have written a shorter letter if I had more time." I needed to make this and upload this so I could stop thinking about it for now. Some day I will re-do "The Trouble With The Electoral College" video, but for now this is my mini update on why the Electoral College is a friend to no one.
And in case you wondering, this is my official position as for as the elections of individuals goes, now and forever: / 796246936072261634
P.S. Way to go, Maine! www.boston.com/news/politics/2...
:: Sigh :: Illinois is colored wrong on the map.
i wonder if people will realize Grey doesn't give a shit about the candidates, he only cares about the system
judging by the peopel who are saying he's bias or salty id say a lot.
Republicans are bad winners. Democratics are bad losers and the entire thing is a shit storm
Christopher Birnbaum As long as Grey gives the correct information regarding the system he can care however he wants about the candidates.
Christopher Birnbaum I guess you didn't hear the butthurt in his last video.
Of course he does. Do you really think he'd make the last two videos if the situation was reversed?
The year is 2028. The new election style is being tested. After some debate, it was agreed that political positions would be decided by a Mariokart Tournament.
And but of course it will be held not in person but online.
Take a guess who would win, the one with an Ethernet cable, or Wifi.
@@ultimatehamsandwich734 or the guy with a 6g prototype
Nintendo uses this to take over the US, which leads to the rise of the Mushroom Empire as they conquer the rest of the world.
Mario kart speedrunners become presidents and give the U.S to nintendo.
I’m not even joking I’d be in favour of that.
The new election system should have some hexagons in it.
Hexagon is bestagone
Yes
gets chaotic when differently sized areas are needed
@@My1xT no, just use small enough hexagons
@@IceBug1337 that's not how stuff works as disctricts need to have a roughly similar number of people
I propose I personally pick all US leaders from now on.
Agentes in Rebus lol
I trust you Reharl
I mean, why not?
I give u $5 to make me president, and all the senators, and all the representatives of every state in the United states, and DC and puerto rico.
@@blakehunley5245 that sounds like a great deal
Everybody is talking about how biased this is when
1: Grey lives in Europe
2: He made an anti-electoral college video 5 years ago
3: It doesnt even mention trump or hillary
John Hugon
You're ignoring his last video then?
VariantAEC
doesn't his last video just reiterate points he's already made, in the video from 5 years ago?
All that video did was update the statistics from his old video with the new election data. I don't think anyone can interpret that as politically biased one way or the other.
Halcyon his last video was him bitching about the results
VariantAEC you mean just to update that 5 year old video?
I don't understand people who think this video is pro-Hillary. Grey didn't offer an opinion on what should replace the EC, and some options, such as giving the presidency to the candidate who wins in the most states, would have made Trump the winner with 29 states.
Definitely. Trump supporters love to complain about liberals. They really are the people I've seen get "triggered" the most online about the most inconsequential bullcrap.
If he wanted to seem credible and unbiased he shouldn't have released the video immediately after Trump was elected using this system.
And basing it on the number of states won would be a hundred times worse. That would mean people's votes would be worth many times less if they lived in a large state. What a retarded comment.
and the true irony is that our Founding Fathers were Liberals.
Yeah a guy from fucking Europe is pro-Clinton when he doesn't even mention her in this video.
He can release it whenever the fuck he wants. It's his channel.
Personally I'm in favor of giving preferential voting a try, would make it much easier to get people to consider third parties if they knew that if that candidate didn't get a lot of votes their vote would move on to their second pick
The Green Party would definitely get a huge boost from Dems and eventually independents.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 yeah probabally
Or ranked choice voting
@@christopherhardesty-crouch1119 thats the difference? always thought they were the same
@@Ebolson1019 Sorry, you're right. I misread your comment.
The CZcams algorithm has a funny sense of humor.
Yes
true
Signed
True
Or maybe it's just totally random and a coincidence
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” -Churchill
and "The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Churchill
You'd like a dictatorship instead? What else is there.
No. You seem to not understand these quotes. The first acknowledges democracy's faults while saying it is the best we have. The second is Churchill just kinda being sarcastic dick, lol.
There is a reason most families don't talk about politics at the table. I mean some of a candidates most ardent supporters are the most unreasonable and the undecided ones just seem so apathetic and lazy. of course these are just generalizations.
That's is the point of the quote there is no perfect system. Democracy is a shitty system but it is the "least" shitty system we have right now.
SylvesterrSan That's exactly what he was saying.
what kind of democracy grants the person with less votes the winner?
One that understands that "mob rule" does not equal "fair rule"
I understand the problems with mob rule, but how does giving the slightly smaller of two mobs all the power fix that issue?
It's either electoral or only the 4 biggest states get to dictate the prez.
The democratic process lies in the mid-term.
shivore ah yes, because instead of mob rule we now just have a voting system in which some states have 3 times the voting power per person than others, yes, that is indeed the fair rule we would be looking for.
if you think the system we currently have is "fair" then you're nuts
Also, the electoral college makes it extremely difficult for third parties to even have a chance at winning
It's not just EC but FPtP voting
@@MrHat. And the fact that, in many states, it's harder to even get on the ballot if you're not a Democrat or Republican. In most cases, a third party would be unlikely to win the presidency since, kind of by definition, a _third_ party has less than a third of the vote. But even with FPTP, you'd expect more parties in Congress if the system was set up fairly. Look at the UK parliament, for example: parties other than the main two have 13% of the seats in the Commons, compared to 0.2% in the US House (i.e., one Libertarian).
That's actually rather the result of a winner-takes-it-all voting system.
@@TheWSYNkatevy153 Do you even know what a direct and indirect democracy is? A direct democracy means that the people itself votes on all issues like law. A parliament (or house of representatives) is what makes a democracy indirect, not an electoral college. The United States would still be an indirect democracy even if the EC was abolished.
@@TheWSYNkatevy153 more parties doesn't mean direct democracy. As there has also never been a true direct democracy
One of those classic comment sections where every comment is people complaining about comments that complain about the video that I can’t find anywhere
Ah yes
ah man this comment section is a warzone amirite
Now this comment is complaining about comments complaining about comments complaining about the video. And my Reply is complaining about a comment complaining about comments complaining about comments complaining about the video.
Accurate af
You can thank youtube's comment algorithm for that!
Okay, so if the majority of citizens live in cities, shouldn't the majority of citizens still get the vote, because cities will then represent the lifestyle of the majority of Americans?
LetterD You need to learn about mega cities.
Again, the majority of citizens will live in mega cities. So they should get the majority vote.
LetterD But what about the others? Even if the government represents, say, 55% of the people in a country, who represents the other 45?
The goal of a democracy is to represent the people, not 51% of the people.
If you create a situation where cities are in such control over outlying areas that no one outside of that city has a vote, then you have to create a new country to represent them.
If we make votes based on populous, it has to pass with two thirds approval.
yeah but the original intention was so that canditates didn't just ignore the irrelevant places with no people. Otherwise they'd just jump from mega city to mega city.
Very insightful video, glad there isn't any political bias. With that I agree. The electoral college is a device of the past, and reform is necessary.
well then at least make it so the votes in rural areas dont count more than urban ones so you need the popular vote to win. I don't like Trump OR Hillary but no matter who wins this election shows the system needs to be fixed
Given a choice between removing the Electoral College or keeping it, removal is still the lesser of the two evils by miles.
Brandon Thompson I disagree; the idea that less populated areas should have tools to prevent bullying from more populous areas is a good one. US rural communities have been far too neglected for too long. However, as Grey explains in the video, the current system doesn't ensure that; it just happened by accident that it did so this time, and thus the electoral college is in itself fatally flawed and incapable of fulfilling its only purpose.
All the video did was confirm for me that we still need the electoral college. After all, the "will of the people" ended up giving us Hillary and Trump, clearly we shouldn't trust ourselves with the decision.
+
"..to have a real discussion.." well good luck with that!
I mean could just burn it all down too. That option is seemingly not off the table.
Ssssooo....id suggest that talk might be helpful
"taking away every mechanism that gives us an unfair advantage is a scheme by our opponents to steal our elections"
I think that if he wants a real discussion, then he should have chosen a different format than a couple of five-minute-long CZcams monologues. He should feature somebody whose reasoning and judgement he generally respects, but happens to disagree with him on this issue, and then literally _discuss_ the idea over the course of a couple of half-hour sessions.
Despite this video's definitive attitude, the arguments in it certainly are vulnerable to criticism. It would have been nice to hear them expressed and addressed instead of CGP assuming that they don't exist.
@@mvmlego1212 its cause most of the democratic world already knows they exist. But that the FPTP system id inherently even MORE flawed and generally trash. Along with two party politics and electoral college in general.
For the time it was used it had logical reason to exist. Now not so much
@@drizzt102 -- There's another issue with CGP's videos. It's There are at least a few distinct objections to the electoral college:
1) A state's representation should be directly proportion to its population.
2) States should not be allowed to allot their votes in a winner-take-all fashion.
3) Faithless electors should be banned.
4) The voting system should be something other than FPTP.
None of these changes require the others, so this video and other criticisms of the electoral college seem to present the false binary of A) keep everything about the electoral system the same, or B) replace the electoral system with a direct vote that uses an unspecified voting method. CGP's "discussion" hasn't helped correct this problem with the way that the subject is framed. If anything, he's made it worse.
Here's two reforms: 1) Remove the electors and the December election entirely. The vote is binding once certified by each state. 2) States allocate their electoral votes proportionally instead of winner-take-all
Or whoever gets the majority of votes wins?
Still disproportionately favor smaller states, as electoral votes for smaller states represent fewer people than larger states, meaning in smaller states people's votes count for disproportionately far more in the election
That's...just popular vote. Not a criticism, just a fact. In 99.9% of cases, elections under this system would be indistinuishable from elections using popular vote.
The only situations which would meaningfully change would be in cases where a large number of 3-vote states get 25-75 or 50-50 splits, in which case it could conceivably make the difference between getting a majority or not
No point in that 2nd proposal because you’re just creating a popular vote through the EC
Sorry, but voting per state is absurd. The goal of a democratic government is BY DEFINITION to represent its people. Arbitrary landmasses don't substitute for people.
(EDIT): to those saying "America is a republic"... a republic IS a democracy. You vote for a government, you're in a democracy.
***** I didn't say that. As in, at all.
Its a representative republic. Not a democracy. Similar but the design of the republic is to give the minorities/ rural Americans a more equal say.
+
It is not a democratic government, it is a republic. Also, it is a union, with *separate* independent nations ceding some of their sovereignty *for their own benefits*. It is not a country, but a union of countries. They EU is not a country and neither is the USA. It's just that the countries inside the USA have less control that in the EU. Read your fucking constitution.
Debries think you missed the point, the US *doesn't have* a democratic government, so it won't be pursuing that goal. Voting per state is a suggestion to replace the electoral college, not a means to pursue a democratic government
"well if we used the popular vote then they would just focus on the cities!"
as opposed to how it works now where candidates just focus on the swing states...
@@TheLuckyDime That is a very Liberal way of thinking and I don't mean that in a good way.
@@TheLuckyDime The idea that competition is this magical force that means the best possible outcome for everyone is mostly of benefit to those who have the power to make sure their preferred outcome gets out there and sticks.
@@TheLuckyDime Maybe there's a reason those people vote for democrats. From what I've seen the Republican party are just capitalist die-hards that refuse to ever put the blame on the system of capitalism and instead find scapegoats in immigrants and various other things.
@@TheLuckyDime The "just illegal immigrants" thing, while that may be believed by Republican voters, Republican politicians regularly vote for making the legal avenues more and more impossible. The whole "we just believe in small government" thing only seems to be the case when it would get in the way of private interests when it comes to the Republican politicians.
@@TheLuckyDime so I do find it weird how the argument against "majority wins" is to protect the smaller states from big state dictatorship or something in that direction, but if you take the statement and flip it, you get the current system allows minority groups to dictate over the majority groups, how is that not actually worse? I guess people don't really take notice because it likes to swing
but also like he said in the original video, the EC allows for a minority win, and it has done several times in the past, and weirdly always favouring the Republicans (not to mention the one time where the electoral winner didn't even win the election), and also considering the last 2 Republican wins were solely due to the EC being broken and allow a minority win, that, to me at least, seems wrong
now I do think the EC is not the worst part of what causes the issues, but is the main factor that keeps the system from solving those issues, the main issues are: the big political divide that causes the political extremism, and the 2 party system that prevents centrism and political compromising
Whoever made that county map at 0:53 is apparently so fixed on the electoral system that they forgot that people in the same place don’t always vote for the same people, especially in big cities, and that you can have a system that isn’t winner-take-all
This is why no presidential candidate cares about California, New York, Texas or the Deep South. Their votes are for taken for granted by tradition.
It also doesn't make sense. That picture is just a map of a piece of rock. The land doesn't decide who gets to be President; the people living on it do.
Is it implying that an empty desert should have more representation than a densely populated city?
@@EightThreeEight Actually, kinda yeah. A lot of the emphasis on physically larger but smaller by population states by the founders was also theoretically in service to representing the literal land itself. It seems absurd now, but if you imagine yourself 250 years ago, designing a government for a country where 98% of people were subsistence farmers, it kinda makes sense that you would place more emphasis on land management (this is of course also before things like the Forestry Service and Bureau of Land Management). Now, whether or not these principles still apply today is up for debate. After all, we are living through a time in human history where it is *really important* to consider how we treat the environment, so maybe governmental representation for land is actually a good idea, I can't claim to know the answer, but regardless, we are all left with the relicts of this idea in government today, and so we all have to make decisions about how to best enforce and/or get around them.
No one is claiming that every person in a county votes for the same person/party. But it is statistical fact that people who live in more rural counties tend to vote Republican, while people who live in more urban counties tend to vote Democrat.
@@finris1 but how many candidates are actually visiting predominantly rural states? They only visit swing states. That's all. They don't care whether the population of swing states is predominantly rural or urban. Atleast in npv, candidates care more about the states which have most population(so voices of most of the citizens are heard) instead of states where there is no significant voter base.
Me: well screw states i live in canada!
CGP Grey: that goes for Canada too.
Me: 0-0
Phantom Forces Boi Canada basically has states just different name
Where does he say canada
Ridings are way smaller though. It's much more reasonable to believe your vote matters within your riding than that it matters for a state.
Canada doesn't have an electoral college..
@@mallow5828 Arguably our system is less democratic. Parties decide their leader basically without any input from normal people. Per person representation in parliament can vary from 1/26,000 to 1/132,000 so a Labradorian's vote is worth about five times a Brantfordian's.
I'm getting the impression that there's Trump supporters suggesting that Grey is biased. I should remind you that your candidate had a Twitter rant about the injustice of Obama getting reelected and how the Electoral College should be done away with. *sips tea*
dont even try, their memory only goes back a few seconds and they simply cant comprehend irony.
Rez anyone who criticizes trump is gonna get tons of anger their way.
I'm actually extremely tired of the mud tossing war between "left and right" it just shows how immature the majority of both sides are.
Seriously America, grow up already.
coolnobodycares Yeah it's disgusting. The Clinton supporters are acting like it's armageddon and the Trump supporters are being smug and arrogant assholes. I went to a vid of her supporters crying and the comments from Trump supporters. Both sides are the reason why this country is in such turmoil.
Rez Are you an adult? because you don't sound like it.
That's why I'll again say USA should consider the system used in Switzerland for Referendums of Constitutional Amendments, where a popular and a cantonal (cantons are for Switzerland what states are for USA) majority are needed. This means a direct election of the President by the people, with no Electoral Colleges, while ensuring the federal model of USA. A candidate needs 50%+1 vote of the popular vote and at the same time 26 State votes (where a "state vote" is determined by the candidate who accumulated 50%+1 in that state).
dimiou13 you have to understand why it's like this, it's because the smaller populated states need an equal say because by the nature of them they have to be less dense, they grow your food, they gather the resources for the products you buy, they tend to have the production lines, so they need the land they need the people spread out so you can eat, and if it's just the most votes win well how does someone in NYC California knows what better for the farmer the miners the production line worker, they can just cater to the big cities and all the rest would be left in the dust, making it harder for them to keep America running. you need food, you want things, they don't just magical appear at the store.
M8, Switzerland's system already guarantees the same to its rural states. As he said, in order for a law in Switzerland to be passed by a people's vote, 50+% of the voters and 50+% of the cantons (states) need to approve it.
In a presidential election, this would mean that to become a president, you'd need 50+% of the voters and 50+% of the states to vote for you.
Of course, this wouldn't work just like that, you'd have to have people vote for several candidates in order of preference, eliminate the one who got the least votes if no candidate gets 50+% and choose the next highest preference for all people who voted for that candidate. And if you still can't choose someone by then, have re-elections or have congress decide, etc.
Switzerland's direct democracy would just mean more demagoguery. There's a reason why most democracies are representative. Besides not enough people can be bothered to take part in direct democracy, meaning it is less representative of the people.
Dracula Nova No one was even suggesting turning the USA into a direct democracy.
The suggestion is to use a similar system used in Switzerland's direct democracy for the US presidential elections and only the presidential elections!
that actually sounds really good way to elect whatever you are voting for. On top of the electoral college, i find it stupid that you can win the state with less than 50% of the votes, meaning that the votes that the 3rd party member got would have gone to the other candidate possibly changing the outcome.
btw, good job Switzerland on being imo the best country in the world (I'm from northern europe)
I genuinely don’t understand what’s the problem with 0:53 if the majority lives in a smaller number of counties why does it matter
Another thing to keep in mind about that picture:
It assumes all the people within those counties will vote for a politician simply because they showed up during the campaign period....
There is also a trend towards liberalism in larger cities/population centers, so if you turn to a pure popular vote there is a proportionate swing towards 'favoring' liberals/'balancing' towards that point. The founders designed the system so that the minority was not ruled by 'a tyranny of the majority'.
Visits don't necessarily mean anything, but the incentive would become policies that completely favor cities, in which case why even have the rest of the country (mild sarcasm in that last part)?
@@Arturius_Rex_8 - Reforming social security is not a "policy that completely favors cities". Neither is health care. Nor military spending. Nor education. Nor climate change. _Presidents_ don't run on policies which directly impact cities; that is a state electorate issue - mayors and governors.
@@gatsbylight4766 My assertion is that a shift to a pure popular vote would mean that presidents run on policies preferential towards cities in the majority, because as of the 2010 census over HALF of the U.S. population resided in 25 metropolitan areas. Granted, this includes things like suburbs, but I still don't want the leader of the country decided based on that. Again, that leads to the tyranny of the majority that the founders were trying to prevent.
@@Arturius_Rex_8 - A) Your first problem is when you say "metropolitan *areas* ". When an _area_ is that large, what you're actually describing *is the country.* A metropolitan area inlcudes all the *millions* of voters which comprise this country - urban, suburban, and even areas which are rural to _those_ metro areas.
B) "Tyranny of the majority" is a fictional idea. Does anyone seriously believe that *every* voter, in *every* one of *all* of the *25 largest metropolitan areas* are *all* of one party?!?? Come on now.
*However, tyranny or rule by the minority is real* - and is exactly what we have right now in 2019, where the *majority* of the country voted for one candidate, *yet* the candidate with the least number of votes is president.
C) Again, said another way: There is no such thing as the tyranny of the majority.... if it's the choice by the *majority* , that's called *democracy* , not tyranny.
D) Do you *seriously* believe that it makes sense that if candidate A got *78 million* votes, and candidate B got *22 million votes,* that candidate B should be president?!? That system sound good to you?!? Because that is exactly what our current system - the electoral college - enables.
@@gatsbylight4766 I definitely wouldn't want a scumbag like Hillary Clinton in the highest office in the land. She hid what Bill Clinton was doing for years and then tried to frame herself as some kind of suffering champion for the oppressed.
Tyranny of the majority could definitely be a thing. Just because a majority vote to do something doesn't make it right. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. 100 people have to cast a vote on whether the richest person out of that 100 has to give up all of his money to the rest of them (how it gets divided doesn't matter right now). 49 of them say, "It's not right to take everything from this guy just because you voted on it," and vote no. 51 say, "We have the majority," and vote yes.
Given this rather easily established example, do you really want to continue saying tyranny of the majority can't be a thing?
As a European, I don't really get why this shit was invented in the first place. Why not just let every citizen vote, count the votes and the candidate with the most votes wins? Simple as that.
Because we are a country of 320 MILLION people with almost 3x the land mass of the European continent (excluding Russian part and Scandinavia. Also the absentee ballots takes awhile so Trump might actually have the majority (unless they got "lost" like the pro-Romney ones did in 2012 -_-)
Yeah, it's a hallmark of an older time, where rich white slave owners wanted to keep things the way they were.
+crocidile90 I understand your point, but what's the point of saying 3x the land mass but only by taking away significant portions of Europe's land mass? Especially since with those two all of Europe is actually larger in land mass.
+crocidile90 - Yes, so? Population and geographical size are irrelevant, because these systems scale perfectly, as attested to by the fact that direct popular vote without any electoral college-esque institutions is used in democratic systems ranging in size from that of Nauru (10,000 people) to that of Indonesia (260,000,000 people). If it can scale to accommodate a 26,000-fold increase in population, you're not going to tell me that it can't accommodate that last little gap between the population of Indonesia and the US. If you are going to argue that, then we just have to wait until India abolishes its electoral college, and you can explain to me then how such a system works for a country with 1,300,000,000 citizens, but not for one with less than a quarter that many.
Because America was founded by a bunch of wealthy Elites who wanted to stay wealthy elites, and so they designed the system to always favor the Elites.
tfw some dudes that live in the middle of nowhere get to decide everyone's fate.
Swing states ruin the system. We need to get rid of them.
I agree; we should physically destroy swing states -- burn the cities, eliminate the population, dig up the earth and fill it with ocean -- because they are the problem. The Electoral College is great, though, and should remain unchanged.
tfw two districts decide the whole country's fate.
tfw people who live in shithole cities aren't allowed to decide the fates of people who farm the food they eat for them
Feel free to starve or go bankrupt from importing gratuitous amounts of food if you guys ever decide to leave us.
What does tfw mean?
People vote, not land. So people should be represented, not land.
Exactly. Living in a big city doesnt mean you deserve less of a say
Thanks for algorithm to let me recall this video. Now it's 2024, and 7 years later now. I wonder how extreme the graph would look right now.
I'm with Grey. He has been consistent. My real problem is with some people crying when the results aren't what they want. When Brexit happens, popular votes system should be invalid. Now electoral college must be abolished, when their candidate lost. Electoral college should be an issue, but I don't see either side bringing this up only until now. If they truly care, shouldn't it be in their campaign agenda?
I've been saying it should have been gone for long before this election. I think most Americans either didn't know it existed, or how it worked. It's not so much about "my candidate didn't win" as it is about "wait, my candidate got more votes and yet didn't win?"
People where talking about this way before this election...last time was 16 years ago. That was the last time someone who won the popular vote lost the election
Well this is the first time in modern history that two elections with popular and electoral vote split have been so close together (16 years). People are understandably annoyed as quite a few voters remember the 2000 election. When a system doesn't work the way people assume it to, it results in calls for changing the system.
All the candidates has agreed to this electoral college rule when the campaign season started. Reforming the election process should have began, way way before this election. Any last minute changes now it will cripple the entire country. They should aim for reforming the next electoral process.
You're for abolishing the electoral college, but I would really like to know with what you will replace it.
If its a raw popular vote, would you have a requirement of certain percentage of the vote to be met?
If not, then do you really think its not a problem to have a president elected with just over 25% of the vote (if there were to be say 4 relatively equal parties)? I know that sounds extreme, but thats the kind of thing that can potentially happen with a raw popular vote system.
One way to gaurd against that is to have congress break ties if say the vote for the winner isn't over an arbitrarily set threshold: 50%, 45%, ect. But then you essentially have a psuedo electoral college because if we get rid of the electoral college that is very likely to strengthen third parties substantially since the "all or nothing" electoral college will no longer be around.
So that means that it is still technically possible for Trump to lose?
Yup
Yeah, if you can somehow convince the electors to switch there votes
You know how liberals are rioting because they lost fairly?
Imagine the right, the people with all the guns, doing the same thing 10x worse because they lost unfairly.
Yes, it is still possible and completely legal.
Coke There's a fine line between riots and protests.
It's crazy how much more likely that "unlikely" electoral map has become in only five years 😮
I don't get what the map supporting EC is supposed so achieve. "Imagine living in the grey area and the blue area votes against you" yes, that means half the population votes against you. If the blue area as a whole votes one way, their candidate has a majority (at least in theory). That's how democracy works.
Democracy sucks. That's why the electoral college is important.
@@gofish7388 stellar argument. Democracy sucks thats why we prefer oligarchy, thats never gone wrong. Also while we are at it lets use the stupidest voting system imaginable and have basically no effective corruption laws.
I suppose letting the rich and wealthy decide is better than letting the people decide if you are rich and wealthy.
Its playing on the same fallacy as a tall thin bottle seeming to hold less than a short fat bottle.
You can watch the original video CGP Grey made that this one is referencing to. The supposed argument is that the government will more likely spend money on urban areas and neglect the rural areas since you only need to win the popular vote. If you make the assumption that those who live in urban areas are wealthy and those who live in rural areas are poor, then it feels like there's going to be inequality.
@@arizahmad9850 ok, that is a reasonable fear. EC won't ensure that this won't be the case, but I can somewhat understand why this argument was made
Its okay guys, this isn't the first time that Trump has pushed a black family from their home
How many times are people going to repost this damn joke?
Such diffamation are the reasons he got elected. People see through it and are inclined to react in favor of the target of the diffamation.
Not enough cuz this is the first time i heard it
that's a joke from snoop dog
You forgot to credit who you stole that joke from xD
Even if people believe that the electoral college is the way to go about electing the president the Winner-take-all approach that most states use is absurd. Every state should follow the example of nebraska and maine and make it porpotional.
nebraska and maine aren't proportional, its more like first past the post within multiple districts
And that makes america more of Democracy
Nathan Swigg ur right.
Putting it by Congressional Districts, like NE and ME, will only make gerrymandering an even worse problem to deal with. Unless a truly competitive district is drawn, odds are that the districts will be drawn to benefit one party over the other. if you concentrate the vote of a party to a few districts, even if they win the popular vote, they would get peanuts. PA Republicans had that plan in 2011. With the map as gerrymandered as it was, Obama could have won the statewide vote (2 EC votes) and 3-4 of the state’s 18 districts for a total of 5-6 EC votes, compared to Romney’s likely 14-15 votes due to the congressional districts he would have won.
In other words, by making it be awarded by Congressional Districts, you can gerrymander the presidency (and because the EC electors are most likely party VIPs, they have no incentive to use logic when casting the state’s vote, no matter what the margin of victory was for a candidate or how unfair the awarding is).
@@einsteinboricua My bad, i thought they did it proportionally. I realise the dangers of gerrymandering and i see how nebraska's and maine's system is even more subpar.
Within the state, there should be proportionality.
Compared to the newer videos, this old one sounds like its been recorded through a mask. Obviously Grey would remove his mask when traveling back in time to record a video, right?
You wouldn't want accidently spread the virus four years earlier
We could get rid of it and have that discussion, but unfortunately the polarization of today would result in a debate of which side get to rig the game for their team.
But even then a new system would have to be thought up in order to truly represent the people but in so doing would open the doors so to many risks of losing further representation.
It's impossible to rig a popular vote system
We are not a democracy. I repeat, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a REPUBLIC. Removing the electoral college would serve only whomever holds the majority of the influence. Minority groups would always be overshadowed by the majority, and we all know what happens when people feel underrepresented.
That's what the senate is for. Every state has 2 senators regardless of population. That would keep minority groups from being overshadowed.
That's literally how the government is working currently.
We are a democracy, I repeat we ARE A DEMOCRACY. Democracies and republics are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Our representative form of government makes us a republic, voting for our representative makes us a democracy. And removing the Electoral College wouldn't change the fact that we still possess a bicameral Legislative branch and a Judicial branch to balance out the Executive branch.
but isn't contradictory to say that majority rules on the popular vote when majprity rules on state lvl... and gives 33 ev to a candidate bcs majority decide that way.....i live in texas and my vote was overshadow isn't that contradictory
Literally from the first sentence of Wikipedia: "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states," so no, it;s NOT a democracy. if it was, Clinton would technically be president (if she still has the popular vote), and ANY measure or vote agreed upon by more then 50% of the CITIZENS would be approved, no matter what (such as if a vote to ban crabs got more than 50% support- we'd ban crabs immediately). that is a pure democracy, a refined form of mob rule. The USA is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC.
We've been screwed FOUR times now by the electoral college! It needs to GO.
lol so it can stay when it works in your favor, but has to go when it doesn't? grow up
When has CPG Grey ever suggested it can stay?
lol. No, it should go because it doesn't always accurately represent The People.
How sad, that you need that explained for you.
How sad that you don't care that the majority opinion is supposed to rule.
The electoral college has fucked The People over FOUR TIMES now.
Like getting marooned on the side of the road? How about four times? Get it yet?
+MysticDragons who ever said it should stay?
MysticDragons Naw, what I believe doesn't matter, I just hate this system so much.
What bugs me about that graphic is that it uses the area of the two halves to imply that Grey is a majority being oppressed by the Blue minority. They're not though, they're two equal halves.
And that’s the crack in the argument, beautifully exposed. Nicely said.
Many people are obsessed with the idea they are somehow a silent and/or moral majority. Right because they have to be because of the opinions they see as indisputable fact, or agreed on by more people than would say it, because those (non-majority) views are "unpopular" to say out loud. I initially wrote this as being a one-sided issue, but honestly the former is universal after thinking about it, at least at the extremes of either side.
The electoral college made sense when the Constitution was written. If electoral power was 100% based on population, the then-independent small states would never agree to ratify it since they'd be powerless against the large states. Similarly, if each state had 1 vote, the large states would cry foul as they would be giving voters from small states vastly disproportionate representation. Furthermore, in the late 18th century it would be very difficult to run a national vote and it was assumed that possibly illiterate voters far from the seat of government might know their local delegates better than any presidential candidate.
All of these concerns are less pressing in the modern day. More people feel a greater connection to their country than their state. Few feel that the states are independent. With mass media, most people will hear more about the president than any state or local leader even though the policies at the state and local level are more likely to directly affect them. We also have a better capacity to handle nationwide elections.
The president was not that powerful to begin with and their powers were intimately checked by a senate that is equal. It would not be very useful to keep both a president and a senate that are malapportioned against the population´s actual distribution.
Why should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Maybe they shouldn't, but if you don't have some kind of system to adjust the balance then rural voters are effectively disenfranchised.
He explains why in the video.
Bigus Dickus because urban voters are so god damn dumb they think their food comes from the fucking grocery store
Until the farmers quit farming and everyone starves to death.
Okay, but then, why should voters in Wyoming get effectively 3.2 votes for every voter in Texas? It's a fixed sum game as far as I can tell. If you super-enfranchise some voters it inherently means disenfranchising others. Why should population density be the reason for doing that? It all seems intensely arbitrary but for the Jefferson/Madison factions' almost superstitious distrust of densely populated areas and utterly ideological belief in the virtues of rural life.
Thanks for doing a correction. I take people who do corrections more seriously, because it shows that you are able to take in new information or new arguments, and rethink your own argument. A+ I like your videos.
Too bad the piece of shit only does it twice. UK Monarchy video is still a big lie.
C L Why do you feel the need to call him that? While yes the UK Monarchy video may be wrong it’s still not a precedence to be this hostile to someone. Besides how the UK Monarchy works isn’t that important of an issue and is more for people who are interested in the subject, thusly any misinformation from that video can be easily rectified by just doing your own research. It’s more important for Grey to do correction videos on more relevant and impactful topics so chill.
@@n.m.8802 That's not really true, is it? Nobody comes to the UK just to see the queen. Arguably you could bring in more without her, because all the palaces etc. could be opened to the public. Just take a look at how many people visit the palace of Versailles each year. (And you know what happened to the last monarchs who actually lived there)
@Bentley - Here are some old facts which will likely seem new to you, and others.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
@@cl8804 Being hostile won't motivate him to make a correction. It just makes you look like a pedantic jerk with anger problems.
I think even with all the logic, the winner take all is the biggest issue with electoral college. You could be voted by 52% of a state and get 100% electors which is unfair. Make the electors proportionate to the votes and that will fix many of the issues we see.
That doesn´t produce a very useful result though, more than just a direct vote.
Also, what happens if nobody gets 270 electors because they are tied or because more than two candidates run like what happened in the 1990s with the third party guy?
While it is true that electors are free to elect whomever they want, they are free to do that at a federal level. In many states, there are laws against voting unfaithfully, though still not very much. In 2016, there were 3 out of 10 unfaithful votes that were rescinded by the state government. Though a lot of states have these laws, not nearly enough have them though.
I was looking for this comment. Idk if he was misinformed, or intentionally mislead. But the majority of electors can not just pick who they want. And has you’ve stated even the few that have the power to do so rarely do. And it has never changed an election.
@@jbdismuke Actually only fourteen states have laws against faithless electors. the rest just give a fine, so the electors of the mayority of the states can vote for whomever they want.
@@jbdismuke The question remains, why keep a fucked up broken system? Unless you actually _want_ these people to able to completely ignore the will of the people, there is no reason not to change it imeadetly. I have never been in a car accident, does that mean I don't need to worry about using my seatbelt? Of course not.
@@TheSaltyAdmiral I’m not against reform, but there’s a difference between making something better and treating a non-issue like it’s going to destroy the country. Using your example, that’s not putting on a seatbelt (because A LOT of people have died from car accidents. It would be more like changing mediums in the road because it’s possible to cross over into the wrong side. Sure we can talk about reforming roads, but is it our biggest concern right now?
The biggest problem you have is the "winner takes all"principle. This fucks you right up!
Thats what is was thinking earlier. I think we should have a system where the percentage of votes you get in a state is proportional to the percentage of EC votes you get. This would make people feel like their vote actually matters. If you barely win a state you shouldn't take all the votes. I feel this is the perfect balance between the popular vote and the EC. The math will be super tedious though.
exactly, as it stands now if you live in. a state that goes against your political preference your vote doesnt really matter
This is how it should work. Too many people want to just tear down the system and start over when if you adjusted and reformed it then it would be much more efficient and easier than building from scratch. Proportional EC votes by percentage in each state is how it should go
In the electoral collage, each state get 2 + (Some # as by population) votes. The first two are representative of the senate and therefor the states. The rest are determined by population size, and can be thought of as representing the people. I also think that electoral college votes should be largely proportional so here's my suggestion:
> 2 votes go to the winner of the state as a whole
> The rest are dived by how the population voted in the state
You may ask the question, why add an extra layer of complexity to an already complex system? Because as I see it, the electoral collage is an (imperfect) compromise to the two types of thought CGP Grey discussed in his video, national government vs state government. I feel that because of the two votes per state locked to how the state goes I keep this compromise.
Now some of the problems with my system.
1. How do you round? While you may be able to split most of the votes proportionally without problem there will always be one where you have to round. While you could round normally (whoever get a larger proportion of that last little bit gets the last vote) that would likely further benefit the person who won the state. You could also round against the person who won the state but, at what point do you give it too the person who won the state? When the runner up only got 25%? 10%?
2. Some peoples votes are still worth more ("more equal") than other peoples votes
3. What about the electors? Are faithless electors (electors votes against the candidate their state voted for) still allowed?
It is true that the electoral college can be mitigated by state laws binding delegates to vote as their states require with harsh penalties for those who don't, and a proportional system for each state (Hillary get's 50% of the vote in Texas means she gets 19 EC votes and Trump getting 30% of the vote in Minnesota means he gets 3 EC votes), probably using the D'Hondt formula, but it is not a substitute. A real direct election for an executive should mean something like instant runoff voting at a bare minimum (although knowing the US, you'll probably go with a two round system or a direct first past the post), or score runoff if you can, ideally having a system of democratic voluntary cooperatives to invest the utility of a government in but avoid taxes and statism and abusive police.
#Replacetheelectoralcollege
You know what's funny? Back in 2012, Trump was complaining on twitter about the electoral college.
Evan Bollschweiler +
#FairVote
Shorter and there's an organization already working toward it. Look them up.
Please Don't Watch This isnt that democracy?
Evan Bollschweiler
The guy is not a politician
America is not democracy
Evan Bollschweiler I wonder if he deleted that tweet?
"This combination seems unlikely"
Blue states and swing states
Man how fast the times change
Yeah, to be fair, two of those "swing states" didn't become swing states until about a month ago.
@@cvrator I think Florida and Ohio won't be swing states any more. Well, Texas will become tho.
@@cvrator thats what he gets for insulting mccain the man had braincancer for gods sake
I still don't understand how anyone can argue that 1 vote shouldn't = 1 vote. So a group of people thinks differently than you. That doesn't make their opinions any less important?
Electoral college is proportional to state population. The only disproportion is the minimum of 3 electoral votes for all states.
CGP Grey states only facts, yet is still accused of bias. Worse, he is accused of bias within the current political climate, when everything he stated is in essence the same as what he stated 5 years ago with a practically opposite political climate. Even worse than that, people assume the politics toward which is he biased is not even that of his own home country. Seriously? #ImWithGrey #FactsMatter
Addendum: Obviously my hashtags were tongue-in-cheek, but some people apparently didn't understand that. At least they had the decency to PM me instead of publicly argue here. In any case, there are two more items that should probably be pointed out:
1. He stated quite clearly that the "EC vs no-EC" argument has no correct answer, and is simply a matter of opinion of how a government should be selected.
2. I'm quite confident that he still would have made these videos had the voting results gone the opposite way, as long as the EC vote was still mismatched with the popular vote. Because, quite plainly, that is exactly the issue he already addressed 5 years ago.
He still has bias regardless of what you say.
He can still have bias, but it's not shown in this video towards any candidate. His bias is to move from the Electoral College system.
Make the Electoral College function like sworn delegate in the DNC/RNC primaries. Problem fixed. (and get rid of the super delegates in the dnc, that shit screwed bernie something big because the witch was the Darling of the establishment)
Agreed, and clearly these videos are specifically to explain why. What I am annoyed by are those people assuming that he is pushing a particular party or candidate in a particular election, when he is clearly calling for a change in the system itself. It's similar to his recommending a voting method other than majority or plurality (ref. videos about Single Transferable Vote, for example); those videos doesn't mean he is against any particular parties in any specific bipartisan system.
Now that I think about it, the accusations of a Clinton-bias should in fact be completely the *opposite*. He shows plainly that the Trump presidency can be overturned by the existing system, and he explicitly states that such a thing should *never* happen.
Is it bad that I almost want the December vote to contradict the November vote just to expose this massive problem?
This year, yes.
Maybe next time. Not this year.
There is no massive problem. If you ever read the actual reason for the system instead of watching a woefully incorrect youtubers biased video you might understand why it exists.
MrManic52001 can you elaborate on why the video is incorrect?
@@twinkiesmaster69 i already stated it. You would have to go through the constitution and the papers writen by the founders.
The main reason is the lack of awareness about how the EC is a protective barrier against the 51% majority. The EC was designed to be able to over ride the "will of the people" and that is a great thing in the event of a candidate so bad and needs to be overturned because of the idiocracy created by a party. The state chooses the legislature which choose the EC and will be voted out..... for doing it. You can not honestly go over the EC without going over all the aspects of it.
He fear mongers about how 13 states could forever choose the president but fails to understand how the senate and house counters that monopoly.
Just too many nuances to go over. I am no expert but i am honest and i understand the basics, which is more than i get from this video.
Just for those who want to know:
If all people are in one state and all other 49 states have the minimum 3 votes
538 - 49×3 = 538 - 147 = 391
meaning that the 49 States with 1 person each are completely irrelevant and through the winner takes all system all that would matter would be to win a plurality of votes in the populous state
1:38
“And while this collection of states seems unlikely...” well it’s now possible for all of them to go to one candidate.
True, the rust belt states could definitely go for Biden, the south eastern states (while unlikely to turn in this election) have been democratic targets for years and Texas is more blue every year with it’s increasing Latino population.
@@kitparsons7779 *Texas is more blue with its increasing Californion population
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@kitparsons7779 😂😂😂😂😂 dude so wrong.
wait so if I heard this correctly, even if the president is elected in November he can still lose on December!? Why haven't I heard this piece information before feel like they should have taught this in government class?
'Cuz it never happens and probably never will.
'probably'
doesn't that suggest there's a chance of it happening? so it should be taught.
psych96 is this your first year in politics?
+psych96 It was taught in my high school government class (Problems of Democracy, which has since been replaced with watered down patriotic hogwash). The founding fathers believed in having some checks against mob rule, which is why we have the electoral college. The whole hoopla about how those votes were divided up is what was controversial. Only quite a bit later did a number of states change their mind and make laws against so called "faithless" electors. These have pretty much not been applied though and probably wouldn't stand up in court.
Because liberal professors never tell their students the whole story..
Relax people, Grey is still around. He said on one of his podcasts that a family emergency halted the video making process. He's fine now and he'll be back let's just hope the best for him!
Daniel C I don’t remember that happening.
This brings us back to the Democratic-Republicans vs the Federalists.
If you like the electoral college then you are perfectly fine with a president who wasn’t elected by the majority
Correct that is literally the electoral college's job. We arn't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
@@bigzcutler1594 nobody's saying we're a democracy. but the idea of a "constitutional republic" is retarded. we *should* be a pure democracy.
Pure democracies have the risk of becoming oligarchies. As the saying goes "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner".
Bigzcutler you actin like that’ fuckin matters, because last time a checked a republic is a representative democracy, and when less than a majority vote for the winner, it ain’t representative
@@zucchinibread7472 the majority of the country voted against donald trump
Actually, regarding the claim at 4:07 something along those lines *did* happen: Election of 1824.
Andrew Jackson got 99 electoral votes while John Quincy Adams got only 84 but because no one got the 131 votes needed it was sent to the House of Representatives and despite having less electoral votes they choose John Quincy Adams as President.
That was down to the tie-breaking process, not the EC.
But 99 is not equal to 84 so strictly speaking it wasn't a "tie".
Bruce Grubb True. But that was only because of them not getting the EC majority; if that wasn't in place, it would've gone to Jackson regardless.
Eight-Three-Eight Except it didn't go to Jackson...it went to John Quincy Adams. So it went to the man with _fewer_ EC votes then Jackson.
that's not the EC though
You know I think the Electoral College is BS, and Grey probably shares my opinion. However I understand that changing the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College at this point is virtually impossible, I would be interested in seeing a video where he could perhaps go over ways to reform the Electoral College and pros and cons of each method (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, assiging electors proportionally, assigning electors by congressional district, etc). If enough people see those perhaps they could push their legislatures to enact those reforms?
It probably would be replaced by a national popular vote because the call would be based on the idea of simplifying, and it won't happen until a Republican candidate loses in this way, where they win more votes but lose the electoral college. But that still could happen
Aron puma Only reason I think it would be easier to have states proportionally distribute electoral votes is because it seems easier to do things at a state level instead of at a federal level. I could see such a change gaining support in a swing state.
Also I would like to see the Wyoming Rule mentioned.
There's a lot of headway towards fixing it at a state level: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The idea is that states agree to elect the actual majority winner and skip the electoral college nonsense entirely. When enough states sign into the compact, they will have a majority and can force that result.
It already has 165 of the 270 electoral votes required - if your state isn't on there yet, look into what you can do at a more local level!
Seeing as how no state currently awards electoral votes proportionately and that only 2 award them based on congressional district, when I contacted my state level congressmen, I voiced my support for the national popular vote interstate compact. Among the top reasons I gave for supporting it is taking power away from swing states.
And what is this "Wyoming Rule" you speak of?
+Aron Puma
Don't be too pessimistic as support of the NPVIC is bipartisan. It turns out that swing states are nearly universally hated.
The thing with the map is that if the blue counties voted all the same way, that means the person they voted for won the majority of the votes!
That's what I came to say! Just because a person has more real estate between themselves and the next voter doesn't mean they should get more votes!
The map is also skewed because it suggests that everybody in urban counties vote for one party and everybody in rural counties vote for the other. That's very far from the truth: there are very few places where one party gets more than 60% of the vote.
To scar, the point is not real estate it is about identity. The people of Idaho are different than the people of Texas, yet we are both equals as states. It is like the us is equals with england even though we have 5 times as many people as england. With being equals comes equal rights. The problem is equal rights will not ever be protected if there is not equal voice. The people were never meant to elect the president, it was the states, and everyone will always naturally work in their own self interest, so the question becomes how to make sure that the self interest of the majority does not violate the rights of the minority. The best way is to give both an equal voice. And everyone individually is a minority in of themselves, and this includes states. That is why I am for state nullification.
@@johnphipps4105 - Please shove that crap up QAnus.
You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
I am sorry, but you are totally wrong. The alternative to the 3/5ths compromise was to have the slaves be counted as whole persons, thus allowing the slave states to dominate the federal government. The free states wanted the slaves to not be counted at all. The slave states threatened to leave the union if that happened, which would weaken the country and eventually cost everyone their freedom. So the 3/5ths compromise was made, which gave the slave states some extra representation without totally dominating the general government. You should have learned that in 5th grade. I sure know I did. Also you should be reading more about governments throughout history, if you do not know the past you are doomed to repeat it. The is constitution is the greatest in history for the simple fact that it was able to give both the people in terms of individuals representation, with the house of representatives, and people in terms of the groups they were apart of(i.e. states) representation with the senate, and secured every people group(i.e. state) self government over their own individual self. Most governments throughout history either had tok much of one or the other, thus causing centralization of power, leading to tyranny. Just look at Athens, the ottonian empire, the zhou dynasty, the french revolution. And on your second part about which part of the country supports the electoral college? It is not the slaveholding states, it is urban vs rural. The urban is not fit to rule the rural, and vice versa. The point of the electoral college is to force a compromise amongst all the states, and in this day and age that means a compromise between urban states and rural states.
Electoral College was great in the past, when communication over longer distances took time.
It was revolutionary... Was.
Trump said in 06 that the Electoral College was bad for a Democracy
Edit: 2012, not 2006, but November 06 2012.
Isaac J 2012 actually
It was 2012
Dang! So he hasn't even had that much time to change his opinion on the matter
You realize he says whatever you wan't to hear not what he means
Isaac J Do you have a link to him saying it?
Well if not now then when? Take away the presidency from Trump.
That would be so incredibly stupid. I mean, I don't like Trump either but imagine the shit storm.
SquatchingYou maybe the shit storm will eventually bring real democracy to America.
more likely a civil war
So you want a _small group of people_ to take away the presidency of someone who got there via a _reasonably_ democratic process because you don't like that person, right? Isn't that a little hypocritical?
MtyEJQuinn that should already be happening.. Considering trump is fucking President.. They won't rebel. They are too lazy for that..
That map of the 11 most populous states... he was right. GA is turning blue, FL and TX were not very red at all. Control by the top 11 is happening sooner than later.
Well Florida is getting redder. But yeah Texas and Georgia are shifting blue
But Ohio is now a red state so 🤷🏻♂️
The electoral college is a stand in for congress, originally Congress was going to elect the President, but instead they used the same representation rules and made a separate body.
Isn't this like a parliamentary system
what would happen if instead of winner takes all electoral votes it's spit up, if you get 40% of votes in california = 22 of 55 votes. Why wouldn't that system be better?
If you're gonna do that, then what's the point of having the electors in the first place?
The electors give more power to the small states. If montana's people per vote was equal to California's, California would have 100+ electoral votes.
TBH, this obsession over states is starting to really fuck up the country. We either need to go back to the USA being an alliance of states or just forget the states all together, because straddling the line is letting rural people run the country, and that's why most politicians seem to think they grew up on a farm.
I ran a spreadsheet on this, with some rounding errors, but I fully support this solution: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mZWMl176ly8iT8EKsiNRORKFmrNQt5F9cYRlySvtoHM/edit?ts=58249f89#gid=0
+Sam Mcfarlane
holy shit... thank you for taking time out of your day to do this. [bigly yuge hug].
Thanks! Would you mind if I used this in a video I'm making? With credit, of course.
I think CGP grey got super depressed after the election...
the only thing he doesn't like is result of election.
where is yor proof. and even if you find proof the electoral college is still shit, his argument is still valid.
His first videos opposing the electoral college were in 2011.
Because they are STILL using this broken system.
This was the most politically neutral argument against the electoral college I could possibly imagine.
That graphic at 0:55 is so smugly assured that it's right, but it's so wrong. The blue zones and the grey zones should both count as 50% because each contain 50% of the people. People shouldn't get more votes just because they live spread out, and people shouldn't get less votes because they live close together. It only takes 10 seconds of thought to realize this, no Civics class required.
But going off of population alone ignores economic importance and disproportionally represents cities relative to their importance.
If LA & New York controlled the government I give it 5 years before the whole thing collapses because citizens there do not understand how to write laws for agriculture & industry.
@@Xeonic97 Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't turn us into a direct democracy, where every law is publically voted on. Whoever we elected as president would work with the dept. of agriculture and congress to decide what to do in regards to agriculture and industry, same as now.
Also LA and NYC contain less than 34 million people (even using the metro areas instead of the much smaller city boundaries). That's around 10% of the US population, not 50%.
Third, the same argument could be made that people in rural areas do not understand how to "write" laws for things important to city dwellers.
@@Xeonic97 on the flip side of that, most rural areas would not be able to finance anything or collect any tax revenue. Most of the conferred importance of cities is they make the money.
Good point. Also, this argument in favor of the electoral college just assumes that the population of a city behave like a hivemind and they all agree on everything about politics, but it's actually the electoral-college+winner-takes-all system that treats people like that.
@@Xeonic97 your comment is nothing but divisive
Who else is here while the ballots are still being counted
People in 2030: "yes"
How about we not choose the two extremes and compromise. Reform the Electoral College.
I mean, no other country in the world uses the electoral college. Why bother keeping an outdated form of election process when there are so many others the US could just use for their own.
LOL Sanders
imo sanders' policy is not good, but thats just my two cents
Othe countries are pure democracy's which is actually a bad thing. That means the majority can always oppress the minority.
proportional electors to the population that voted, AT A MINIMUM
The part about November vs. December was particularly interesting.
I wonder if it'd actually happen.
Apparently, it'd be the first time if it did.
It would be beyond hilarious should they take it away from Trump and give it to Gary. LOL.
+Some Stupid YTPer
Are you serious? You have to be joking. People like you accuse Clinton of being arrogant, greedy, and self-aggrandizing, yet you also claim she wants to destroy the world with a nuclear war? Why would she threaten her interests, and the interests of her corporate donors, in such a ridiculous and futile way?
I would ask this question that I don't think is being considered:
Are EXISTING cities getting bigger, or are more townships getting urbanized? For example, is New York, New York getting a denser population, or is Spartanburg, SC looking more like NY, NY? I would hypothesis the latter. It's less American megacities getting bigger, and more smaller cities are getting bigger, either one at the cost of rural areas.
@Da - Why does such an irrelevant thing deserve consideration?
In general, the increasing urbanization does have to do with more people moving to existing large cities. Examples: Seattle, San Antonio, Denver, Atlanta. It isn't necessarily that the downtown regions are getting more densely populated (although many are, including those I listed), its that more people are living in the surrounding suburban regions. Again, this is speaking in generalities. The primary driver of this is that over the last forty years jobs have become increasingly concentrated in and near major cities to take advantage of the large labor forces that exist there. This creates a positive feedback loop of more people moving to cities to get jobs, further incentivizing businesses to open new factories, offices etc. near big cities. I will note, when I say "near" I mean like a 75 mile radius of downtown. So formerly isolated "cities" can see their populations boom as they get absorbed by the suburb line of the central city. As an example Marietta, Georgia outside of Atlanta has seen its population double in the last 40 years from 30,000 to 60,000.
Correct yes. I live In such a community.
Sometimes it feels more like major cities are expanding out and swallowing the smaller areas around them.
My anecdotal experience is that I grew up in a decent but not large town a county away from Houston, Tx. Lots of open pastures, fields, 2 lane roads, that sort of stuff. Within the last 10 or so years, it’s grown out to numerous shopping centers, town house plots and apartments everywhere, expansion of 4 lane highways and overpasses, etc. Land developers buy up land, city dwellers flee the city for a more suburban to ‘country’ life, and businesses follow those people there.
What’s sort of crazy is despite the 1-2 hr commute both ways, people still work in Houston every day cause they want the money but not the city hassle. Can’t tell ya how many places I pass that were just cow pastures and rice fields now numerous businesses and homes. Eventually the previous laid back, country style turns to a little rat race as well and the red eventually turns blue.
As somebody who grew up in the “New York Metro Area” in a small rural town metro areas are hella confusing.
The liberal social media salt mine has so far, been glorious.
So salty in fact, that Grey made his first video condemning the elctoral college 5 years ago! Which can only mean that, a) he's psychic, b) he has a time machine, or c) this probably isn't actually about picking sides....
Ronald Macdonald
People speaking out against corruption oh the lovely salt.
Mate, he literally said in the video that the real issue with the electoral college is that Clinton could still be elected. He didn't say that it should be popular vote, or that it should be number of states. He said that the issue is that despite Trump "winning" the electoral college could still elect Clinton.
Ronald Macdonald I've been binge watching the sad media.
I guess they won't get the money promised by Hillary
Yeah, how dare those people be afraid of Trump actually following through on his campaign promises to remove their civil rights? What kind of pussy cares about their own personal freedoms, am I right?
The electoral college, back when it was designed, made sense. The fastest way to send information was by horseback, and even that took days, if not weeks or months. And in the time between the public election and the electoral college vote, scandals could be revealed. The electors were in Washington DC so that, if the people voted for someone who, during the time the votes were being counted, turned out to be a monstrous dick, they could vote against him because nobody who actually knew the truth would vote for them.
However, in today's world, we can know the results of the election literally by the end of the day of the election. The entire nation can know, all at once. There once was a need for the electoral college, but that time has long passed.
Sadly, many people either ignore this fact entirely, or are unaware of it. They truly believe that it was specifically designed so that densely populated areas don't "decide the election" for everyone else. I'm curious how many of those would be for a change if the EC was benefiting the other side instead of their own.
BMGipe45 if you think of America as a unitary state, then yeah, it seems weird.
But if you think of America as a federal compromise between a unitary state and a confederal alliance, then it makes more sense that it wouldn’t quite be “one person, one vote” or “one state, one vote.”
Also, even though we’ve had faster communication for awhile now, it’s only been recently when the idea of abolishing the electoral college has really gained traction.
SwiftrunnerXXY america has changed but the electoral college still gives power to the states swing states powers states have to swing the election and besides the point we are a republic and a system that gives states governments powers
@Dex4Sure I´m not quite convinced this system workes as intended...
@Dex4Sure Please explain further why you can't trust a simple democracy? it seems to work well in literally any other developed Democratic Country.
While arguing with random people on the internet I have found that too many people seem to think that the electoral college is what makes America into a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy like certain ancient greek city states. This is also not something the electoral college does.
Yes. It is.
We here in Finland got rid of the electoral college in 1994 and now we are way happier because the presidential elections are now simpler and represent the people better. Believe me, a direct vote is much better than an electoral college!
Im surprised people still watch this video
@@synnox9246 Me too
A lot of people really do seem unable to differentiate between statements of preference about the current political climate and fundamental systemic criticism. If you criticise CGP Grey for making this video because he does not agree with the election results, it is likely that you yourself would have adored him for doing it after a minority vote Clinton win.
Regardless, this does go way beyond the current election. I think there is no reasonable argument to be made for overrepresenting rural states. In a fair democratic system, every vote should have the same weight. Your vote should not be worth more or less based on you gender, race, religion or profession and it should not be worth more or less based on your chosen place of residence. The popular vote is the literal will of the majority and if you disregard that and instead go with a minority-backed government you are not representing that will. That should not be how a democratic system operates.
Slight issue when you mention "will of the majority" is that the current system when a candidate does get majority electoral vote and wins the popular vote is that the popular vote may not necessary be in the realm of a majority. Look at the 1996 election. Clinton won the electoral vote but did not get the majority popular vote.
The same can be said for New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado where neither Hillary or Trump hit 50% in any of these states. The term you are looking for is plurality.
Zeldagigafan They didn't hit 50% because of 3rd Party candidates and write-ins.
It's like the Republican primary, multiple candidates will lead to a lower threshold to win.
***** So by your logic....
Rich Old White Guys should not be able to vote then, because they would have an advantage over the total population, the candidate just has to be a Rich Old White Guy.
Sarcasm aside... every demographic(race, religion, social/economic status, etc.) had different issues/factors that are important and/or affect them personally. So voters lean towards candidate of a similar demographic because that person is more likely to be sympathetic to what's most important that voter.
***** You should really engage with the issues you are talking about before jumping on an ideological bandwagon.
Race is not just a "social construct" according to "leftists", but, more importantly, according to biologists. The term "race" has been out of use as a scientific term for decades, and not because it is "politically incorrect". Race is a very specific classification for a very specific degree of relation between two organisms. Different human ethnic groups are too closely related to each other, hence applying the term "race" to them is simply a misnomer. Instead, biologists speak of phenotypes.
Ironically, you are the one using "race" as a social term, thus you are perpetuating its existence as a social construct.
Furhtermore, calling something a "social construct" does not mean, as you seem to think, that it is invalid or has no effect on reality. Marriage is a social construct, but it is still an important institution that has large ramifications for the workings of society, politics and culture (e.g. married couples having certain interests as a voting group that candidates should cater to).
What's more, you seem not to understand why the demographic developments you are talking about are taking place. As a general rule, people tend to have less offspring the more well off they are financially. You can observe that by comparing poor countries with rich ones as well as by looking at statistics of how birthrates go down if a country starts to become progressively more industrialised and wealthy.
On average, black people in the US are less well off than white people financially. Hence, they are having more children. There are many factors that contribute to this, not the least of which being the fact that blacks were at a severe economic and societal disadvantage for most of the 20th century. The legacy of segregation still has massive implications for the economic standing of black people. Many black families have still not managed to leave the cycle of poverty they have been born into. Stereotypes and pre-conceived notions (such as a lack of education and willingness to work hard) become self-fulfilling prophecies as, for example, teachers might expect black students to do worse from the get-go and employers might be more hesitant to hire a black applicant. White people are, and this is on average still true, more often in influential positions (such as teacher or employer) where they, in effect, are able to decide the fate of black people who are being scrutinised by them. Thus the cycle continues. On a side note, this is also why racism against whites (which certainly does exist, don't get me wrong) is oftentimes less harmful: if you are white and your employer is white, the black guy applying alongside you can be racist against you as much as he wants - it doesn't do anything to help him get them job. On the other hand, if your employer is racist against black people, that job sure as hell is going to you and not to the black guy.
The easiest solution would be to help black people achieve a more solid economic standing. Their birthrates would go down on their own. But instead the right cries about "the white race dying out" and tries to turn back the clock to the 1950s. But by doing that you just ensure that black people continue having more children than white people an then you just cry some more and try to oppress them harder to make it stop. Surely you see how this is going nowhere?
By the way: I consider myself square in the middle of the political spectrum and hate most of what's coming from the extreme left and right equally. Granted, I am European and what's moderate here is probably a fair bit to the left in the US, but still.
Gideon L. Dam man, couldn't have said it better myself 👍💯
Excellent analysis on US race relations, as a European you have a better understanding then many Americans 🙌
Man, I still wanna see that Settlers of Catan video... The election has me bummed, and I think we all need an uplifting documentary on board game design.
This video still needs to happen
When writing code there is one thing worse than being wrong: being right by accident. If you _want_ to have the president elected by the states, that is fine, that is your political choice. It is not a system I would choose, but at least it is a valid opinion. If you hold that opinion you should be advocating to abolish or change the EC.
So the only proponents of the EC seem to be people who misunderstand it.
This is making me reconsider my position, thanks for the vid!
Presidental election: Ranked ballot, direct popular vote
House of representatives: STV with congressmen representing entire state
Senate: Ranked ballot, with senators representing entire state.
Conversation done.
but representative's are not supposed to represent an entire state, they are supposed to represent a portion of the population of each state, that is why they are based on population.
Do you even know what the House of Representatives is? They don't represent the entire state.
Right... I understand how it's "supposed to" work at present.
What I wrote are proposed changes... and like most proposed changes, they're different from how things currently are.
just toss out congressional districts and have some top 10 race, the 10 people with the most votes become representatives
Jon
And that's how you can rig the elections and get dictators
Perhaps the biggest issue with all this is that it takes several videos to explain how voting works! Surely any such system should be far more accessible and clear
an understandable position but often the simpler systems are mathematically flawed like first past the post but yeah it should definitely be easier to understand.
STV is best system.
It's outlined, completely accessible, and clear in Article 2, section 1, Clause 2 (amended with the 12th Amendment) in the United State Constitution. It doesn't take several videos at all.
Clause 1 intended for the P and VP to be elected separately. WE stopped that.
Clause 2:
"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"
What does that mean? The constitution doesn't spell that out.
"but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit"
or Profit? what does that mean?
And clause 1 and 2 are designed to also work with clause 3, which the 12th removed. SO it's a system based on the premise that voters have no access to education, and one we have broken, but keep using.
The 12th is convoluted, and could have just been 'in case of a tie, toss a coin' But again, since the voting process in the constitution was subverted with this stupid P/VP on the same ticket bullshit.
"it takes several videos to explain how voting works!" - It's a *gimmick* to skew the presidential election & deny the majority's will.
4:07 it might just happen this year!
Edit: I'm quite happy that it didn't happen.
it wouldn't surprise me....
Honestly, that qould make 2020 more legendary that what alredy is, confirming the theory that every 100 years, in the 20's, somenthing big happend
Anybody remember that 2019 theory?
This became extremely relevant
a new video already? 0.0 the apocalypse has come upon us
Lol
Ruvin Eric Perez Grey is trying to give the world his best before Trump decides to launch the nukes
Ruvin Eric Perez Apocalypse:
1 a revelation of a violent struggle in which evil will be destroyed
2 a disastrous event,esp.the end of the world
Webster's New Dictionary
Apocalypse can take place within 1
or manifest without 2(sixth extinction).
Lol
Beyond that, I find it really hard that anyone can defend a system in which the residents in one state get LESS say in whom their president is than those in a less populated state.
How can anyone defend a system where by mere geographical location determines the weight of your vote disturbs me.
And please don't say, "You can just move to another state!" There should be no need to explain how impractical/unrealistic that is for many if not most people.
some people think the USA is a Republic of States, mainly because the original Articles of Confederation said that. However, the US Constitution is a federation of the citizens of the states - which is why it says 'We the people of ...' as against the Articles of Confederation saying 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of ...' - The electoral college was the sop given to the state politicians to have some sort of control over the power of the federal government. It was designed for a society that was basically agricultural, and it worked for them. But times have changed and the system hasn't.
Why? Because you guys vote in such a way to destroy each other while being virtuous about it. Sometimes an unjust correcting intervention is needed.
+Dzonatan Gavert, Then the question is, Who gets to decide what is and what isn't just? The system can just as easily let evil win as much as it can let good win, so using that as an argument is faulty unless you can define "just" and "unjust" in objective terms that no one can disagree with. [which you can't]
That's because aliens did. They were alien to the Americas and not Native Americans.
Few of these videos are so eerie to watch years later
Even with urbanization. The winner take all argument is undefendable
so let the MINORITY population win? WRONG!
I guess Trump was right when he said the election was rigged.
I love how smart our president is 😂
It's funny that he profits from it himself
Except Mrs. Clinton attempted it. Along with Mr. Obama encouraging non citizens to vote.
Zoe Except you just made that up
Zoe Clearly not. Don't lie.
Quck question, would you have been doing this video is Hillary had won? Something tells me you wouldn't have.
He's been doing electoral college videos long before the election.
If the situation was the other way around (Trump won by popular vote, Clinton by EC), yeah I think so bc it'd still show the problem with EC.
Wanderer628 yea kid he has done it for years , the problem is whether trump of hillary won its a shitty system
/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
This is his original Electoral college video, Uploaded on 7 Nov 2011. This is when OBAMA was President and before Obama won AGAIN.
He made an anti EC video a while back
Surely no electors would ever conspire to elect a president who lost the election..
I for one, think the president should be decided by rock paper scissors.
THEN THE U.S SHALL MOVE TO FIRST PAST THE POST, THE MOST PERFECT VOT- oh
Scott Farley Alternate Voting works much better than FPTP if you have to elect one candidate.
@Scott Farley that was a joke he just said
@@tomasroma2333 that was also a joke he just made
@Scott Farley - In the USA, national elections determine the flow of trillions of dollars. The USA can afford to have a runoff if necessary. A runoff is a hell of a lot better for the USA than the corrupted Electoral College.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
@@rb032682 Calling slavery terrorism is the most idiotic claim I have ever heard. You have called people going back to the days of Mesopotamia terrorists. Slavery is not and cannot be terrorism if it was a constant in human history until the 19th century, at least for Western civilization. Calling the founding fathers terrorists is so factually misleading and completely besides the point of this video, unless you believe the United States is a nation unjustly formed from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Which also had slavery and therefore would also be a group of terrorists. These are not facts. These are opinionated claims that you keep reposting and are dodging the sources question by saying "these are from events in U.S. history." I urge you to stop your shit posting and go find a place of employment.
I was about to draw issue with your closing statement, because what I often hear is people saying that the electoral college should be eliminated, and... nothing. That's it, they think that will solve the problem. But I agree, the electoral college as it is is bad, and it would be better to do away with it and start fresh with a formal and long discussion about how the government of the US should function in this modern era.
But the probability of a fruitful discussion not clouded by biased polarized politics is very minimal especially with the amount of issues surrounding the system not including the Electoral College and even if it were to happen the chances for further issues is a very high risk to take in reorganization of the Government.
Watching before my political science class on election systems. I am already ready for it, as I memorized the stuff.
Thank you for bringing this to people's attention.
Or you can just, you know, elect someone who got most votes.
thats too hard. -United States election system.
Jemiide If that were the case, then most states wouldn't get much of a say in the vote. I think each state should only get one vote.
Dragonofshame that's even less representitive of the population
Then the majority of states would not have a say whatsoever. We need to work on our electoral college, but getting rid of it completely would be bad.
Jemiide
51% screws over 49% of people AND people are stupid. Socialists would've been elected always (Bernie Sanders e.g.)
earliest i've been to a grey video
Mitchell Durand same I think.
The last time I came this early my girlfriend left me
Aye, same
Me tooooooooooo
Mitchell Durand
Same
"This tweet is no longer available"
Would be good to hear your opinion on what could happen now that the results of this year’s elections are so narrow