Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why The Electoral College Exists
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2020
- Around 138 million people voted in the 2016 election, but 306 people officially elected the president by using their electoral college votes. Here’s why the Electoral College exists.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote, the justices announced in an order on Friday.
The justices said they will hear two cases brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her wins in those states.
Like most states, Washington and Colorado require their electors to follow the will of their states’ voters. But those laws are now being challenged by Electoral College voters who argue that such laws are unconstitutional.
A decision in the matter is expected by the end of June, ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the top court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year.
Historically, the faithfulness of Electoral College voters has largely been a formality. In 2016, 10 out of the total 538 electors attempted to cast ballots out of line with their state’s popular vote. But attorneys on both sides of the issue urged the top court to resolve the constitutional question before a crisis emerges.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/Subscri...
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedI...
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/Instagr...
#CNBC
Why The Electoral College Exists
Gotta hit that 10 minute mark
I’m unfamiliar with CZcams rules, does a video hitting the 10 minute mark mean anything specifically?
Lokeshfro Ignore the other dude, when a video reaches 10 minutes you can put 2 ads on it as opposed to 1 ad on say a 9:59 video.
@@sachin2842 to add onto that, when the 10 min videos gets recommended more often, it will be watched more often ,more ads will be viewed on the video, the video will generate more revenue.
@@FratboyOX you can actually put more than 2 ads if it's over 10
10 minutes is the new 270
“peaceful transfer of power for over 200 years”
my boy straight forgetting we had a civil war
@Krzysztof Milański not sure this is a sincere question original poster didn’t mention anything about political parties. Just the fact you can’t really have a continuous peaceful transfer of power if It caused a civil war ( secession started when Lincoln won). If Lincoln won when the electoral college was in effect saying 200+ years is incorrect. What do you know about the civil war? I’m actually curious.
@Thomas Quisenberry The civil war had far less to do with the transfer of power and far more to do with the condemnation of slavery. The transfer of power itself went smoothly. The war happened later.
www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-civil-war
straight up, the whole us civil war kicked off the moment southern states realised lincoln won. 1860 wasn't even over yet and they were rebelling.
@@OhNotThat No, unrest is not war. If that were true, America would be at war with itself now. And, that unrest was fomenting due to the reservation of the Southern states to condemn slavery, not the election of Lincoln.
Yeah, if it wasn't for the electoral college, trump would have conceded by now, 7 million is too big of a margin to say there is fraud
I now understand why people say that voting third party is throwing away your vote. When there's winner take all your vote doesn't matter.
It depends on the country. The more powerful two parties in the country are, the less third party votes matter.
On the contrary, third party votes matter a lot in most states as part of gaining ballot access for those parties. Here in NY, there was a massive 2020 campaign for the Working Families Party in order to help them survive an increase in the vote requirement for qualified parties, although almost all our elections utilize electoral fusion, and the WFP cross-nominated Biden in 2020. Still though, we got to see top Democratic leaders such as AOC, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders urge New Yorkers to vote on the WFP line instead of the Democratic line, so that's kinda noticeable
Wasn’t this supposed to be taught in middle school, dear god our school system is absolute sh*t
Instead, we're taught about Napoleon and Henry VIII, home ec, and the highly inaccurate and convoluted English measurement system. WHO. CARES. ABOUT. THOSE. I had to teach myself the metric system, how to do my own taxes, and how to cook my own meals. Tax money well spent, the school.
the irony of your statement is precious
@@commandercaptain4664 They really should dedicate more energy into composing mandatory classes that teach students how the flip to survive adulthood
This was taught in middle schools in 1958, when I was in 8th grade, but the Teacher's Unions and the Left Wing Liberals have seen that America's youth are taught a man can become a woman by simply changing his name, instead of teaching their students how the country works.
@@oldgysgt - lol. Why is you head so far up QAnus?
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 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 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 territories. 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?
The csa/kkk was just a 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?
the states wouldn't join the usa if there was a popular vote. that is what they said in 10 minutes
the *slave* states, you mean, the Electoral College was the compromise free states had to make to get slave states to join the union. The Electoral College at its inception was intended to protect slavery.
Daniel Silvers that is a lie. The three fifths compromise was for the slave states. The electoral college ensures all states have a voice and not just the elitist coastal states.
Daniel Silvers That’s such a wrong statement based on your wording. It was factor, but not main reason the EC was created.
Daniel Silvers now that’s a different spin. The three fifths compromise was the tool for getting the slave states to sign on to the constitution, not the Electoral College. The purpose of the Electoral College was to allow the states to elect the President. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster. Under a national popular vote, the people would elect the candidate who officers the most free stuff and that would lead to tyranny.
richard hill further, under the Original Electoral College, they were able to keep politics out of the Executive Branch. It’s a shame we no longer have that system.
This better not screw up my recommendations-
Lol I feel you
🤣🤣🤣
Why would it
@@TillTheLightTakesUs Because I like my recommendations the way it is.. And I only watched this for class. And I hate almost anything politics related.
@@vee4849 oh you can tell the algorithm to stop recommending based on a specific video, when it recommends you something based on that on the front page.
Once they are in office they forget those poor areas anyway.
Are you implying that the rural areas are poor?
@@jeremywhitt3108 I mean they are.
@@J0k3rl if you're homeless, why would you want to be in a rural area? Who are you going to beg for change?
I don't care what people say. A candidate that wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote is like a football team winning the Superbowl because of bad officiating. I would love to see America get rid of the electoral college. It just doesn't make sense.
How so?
@@TheBigdaddypickle
In my opinion the popular vote should always determine a candidate in an election. Sometimes the Electoral college voters will vote against the popular vote. Which in my book is cheating. Kind of like a bad call against a team that costs them the game. Also cheating.
As you probably already know it's the Electoral college voters that pick the president and vice president of the United States.
Get my point?
@@Doamino41It’s cheating when overwhelming masses of coastal city lazy welfare bums silence the less populated mid American farmers who are the nation’s economic backbones !!
And we don’t care what you think
@@user-db8uq4xo3f
A little late but I guess being late is normal if you're a MAGA idiot.
Wouldn't be a problem if education system wasn't lacking...
Nighteater It exists b/c we have an anachronistic completely outdated form and mechanisms of democracy but the corrupt established good ol' boy network sees no need to change. What we should have is an internet based wiki system wherein the people directly craft legislation and policies and where we vote directly on each issue and their appropriations. We also are upside down on this allegiance issue , it is not us that should be pledging allegiance to the burocrats rather we should have them stand , face around to US and pledge allegiance to each and every one of US. Everything is totally backward!
RogerWilco Shirley aww, someone is butthurt. This is a plan in operation, long before your birth, and it’s a plan that works. You lose the past 5-6 elections, and all of a sudden, it’s no good and has to go. Get over yourself.
@@brianpayne4549 There are good points on both sides. Discussion is needed and facts have to be adressed. I live in Alabama, so a vote for a Democrat won't help them much in our current system. The only states where my vote would matter are swing states. If it were decided by the popular vote, my vote would matter just as much as one in Florida if it were in Colorado or Georgia.
Will Abernathy but the system wasn’t based on the popular vote, and it shouldn’t be based on popular. In popular vote, individual states lose power, look at California, for instance: the population of California has the combined pop of the next 16 states combined (I think that was what I read, forgive me, it’s been a year or so...). That isn’t very fair.
@@brianpayne4549 and how is it fair that a state like north or south dakota can hold up the will of millions of Americans with a population of less than one million. Philadelphia alone has more people than north and south dakota combined. where is the fairness in that?
The main flaw with the EC is not the EC itself, but the "winner takes all" approach that most states use. It simply doesn't make sense that a candidate who only receives 51% of the votes within a state should get 100% of the EC votes for that state. EC votes for each candidate should just be cast proportionally to the popular vote within each state. If a candidate gets X% of the popular vote within a state, they get X% of the EC votes for that state. Simple to understand, simple to implement, every vote counts, small states still get their +2 representation, etc.
Do you round up and down, it also presents issues with recounts. Most states don’t do recounts even though the count may be wrong because the margin of error would probably not effect anything now you have recounts at every possible division of votes. This would also minimize the effect of small primary one party states
@@ashvinnihalani8821 I didn't say anything about rounding. Let the votes be fractional. I live in Arizona. We get 11 EC votes. Suppose in the upcoming election, Biden gets 45% of the votes. 45% of 11 is 4.95. So, Biden would earn 4.95 EC votes from Arizona. As far as recounts or other such issues, obviously new recount rules would have to be created. And I don't really know what you mean by "small primary one party states".
I agree with this completely, and it's something I've been thinking for years now. If we're going to keep the Electoral College, this is absolutely the best way to do it. Everyone's vote should matter. Your vote shouldn't be seen as invalid just because you're a democrat in a red state (like I am, unfortunately).
I think this would also largely solve the problem of people not voting "because their vote won't make a difference." I don't see a downside with this type of system at all, and hopefully if Biden is elected, we can inch closer to making it a reality.
I Love your idea, the Republicans would never lose ever again!
@@heyhey-by4xo That's not accurate. Obama would've still won in 2012 by this method. Trump would've still won in 2016, but it would've been a much closer race, by only about 2 to 3 EC votes. Being an independent myself, I'm not endorsing this system because it would benefit one party or another, but because I think it's a very fair system.
Someone forgot about the Civil War when talking about the more than 200 years of political stability 😂
@Krzysztof Milański Could you define a political problem?
@Krzysztof Milański bro politics is based on society and people. They are not 2 different things.
@Krzysztof Milański you just said they had a difference in social problems, but the south had different political views. 😒 Politics is the govt reflection of societal issues.
@@ajibadeadebiyi - You are confusing "severe differences of morality" with "different political views". Please consult a mental health professional.
.
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Terrorism is NOT a societal issue.
anyone else tryna finish an essay a day before its due that you haven't even started, and desperately trying to grasp quick knowledge?
thats exactly what im doing
I’m doin it rn, did u end up passing?
@@babycartesian944 nah man, I don’t do good in ap gov
I hope all of you information hungry students a cash money night
omg how did you know...........
You've been warned. Lots of ignorant comments below
Wow you weren't kidding. I gave up.
This it the internet, I don't need the warning, lol!
@Samael Yoda uhh? That makes no sense
LIBERALISM IS A DREADFUL DISEASE..
Proper progressivism is pretty new though and it’s absolutely hypocritical and obnoxious
Yes, We don't vote for president, we vote for who in the Electoral College is voting for the president.
Wrong. The candidate has to win the popular vote in a state to get that state's electoral votes.
@@taltalmilal5495 and even then they dont always vote in line with the states popular vote
@Sperup AD the electoral college is the closest thing to "one citizen one vote" if it was the system you want a huge part of the country would effectively have zero votes.
@@mayainverse9429 Except they would get exactly as many votes as they deserve. People vote, not land.
It's called the United States and the states vote, the only thing citizens vote for is how the state will vote.
1:10 Trumps son looks like he's ready to gtf back home and play Minecraft
of course. He's The Expert TM
👌😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
No you always look like that when you’re getting ready to settle in for another four years at the way home ! TRUMP ! 2020
@@ThreePhaseHigh thanks for ruining the joke
I don't want an electoral vote. I want my vote to count!
Debbie Daniels your vote wont count with the popular vote because the big cities would dominate every election
Papa John how would your logic work? If it’s popular vote (throw out the electoral votes because we’re not talking about popular votes get the electoral votes granted to the state), and California has a voter population of 29.6 million, and the entire US voter population is 250 million. That means, Californian voters contribute to 11.8% of the total vote.
The main question I have is Why does it matter what state you’re from if we’re using a national popular vote? States don’t matter when you count everyone.
@@jimkurth God damn it youre a genius! I'm serious btw.
@Papa John - The bigger question is why do YOU not know why the Electoral College exists? Why are you ignorantly repeating old bulshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
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!
@@jimkurth - Agreed.
Don't expect any kind of logic from Papa John. His head is firmly embedded up QAnus.
This is about seven minutes too long.
Your comment is 7 words to long.
Ryan Walker YOUR LIFE IS TOO LONG
@@denniswolff7300 this reply chain is too long
aMaze Ed I DISAGREE ......
@@denniswolff7300 are
Peaceful? Prevents recount chaos? This vid didn’t age well.
Time for change. Electoral college no longer represents the true will of the people
It never did.
@@MrLanghalee do you prefer swinging states dictate their will to the rest of the country?
@@MrLanghalee People's needs in California differ from people's needs in Kansas. So do you mean people living in California are not real people and their living should be dictated by the crowd living in Wichita?
@@bimi4057 I've played Cyberpunk enough to confidently say yes to this.
You take out the electoral college, you guarantee that US will forever have a democratic president.
Anytime you start playing with the constitution, it will never end.
It’s the way y’all didn’t address slavery’s role in the creation of the electoral college at all for me *yikes*
@Jesus Christ time to crack open the good book again. Talk to your daddy if slavery affected the electoral college. You’re divine but yet still human I forgive you for forgetting.
@Jesus Christ You should watch this one to know the slavery's role: czcams.com/video/ajavsMbCapY/video.html.
Basically the northerners did do it to appease the south to agree to the constitution.
@Jesus Christ incorrect the 3/5 compromise was introduced an adopted in the constitutional convention (mentioned in the first 2 minutes of the video!) and also was not brought forth by Hamilton. It’s time to retire and learn how to google. But let me help you as it seems I am more benevolent than you. Here is a link you can read to make it real easy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise. Between the start of the college up until 1868 the law was written so that disenfranchised slaves (generally blacks) helped boost the voting power of the enfranchised (generally whites) of that state. Th e representatives boosted in numbers by the disenfranchised (blacks) were not compelled to assist the well being of blacks (can’t be voted out or forced to follow a law). This created artificial power for slave holding states that held a friction creating the first and only American civil war to date (not sure how you would define a side note pretty big deal for me and for the millions of lives affected). Was the civil war all about slavery? Not completely at a high level it was a power struggle from two distinct side with conflicting view points of the direction of a young nation. Power from one side which was artificially inflated by the forcefully disenfranchised. Now the big question is how could have this information been placed in the video. Literally in the first two minutes were the expert talked about how it was a imperfect comprise from the constitutional convention (that’s when the 3/5 compromise was added as well Jesus!) a listing of everything wrong with the original agreement could have been read at the least. The video could have also listed all the times the electoral college radically deviated/changed from the original agreement. All of which would be aligned with the video without turning it into a “black facts force feed” media extravaganza. But one has to think that if you are going to ridicule a valid question about American and black history (haughty ignorance) then double down on some bs (Hamilton did it and side notes) makes me wonder if we should have a ton more of “black facts” videos. Side note: I find it hilarious that you come off as a vindictive ignorant incel and not the compassionate all knowing deity you name suggests. 😂 maybe there needs to be term limits or something. I’ll talk to your daddy while you google “blacks and the electoral college”👍
@Jesus Christ the original poster alludes to the fact of how slavery played a role in the electoral college. Cite the constitution and tell me otherwise. 🙃. I would tell you where it is but based on your reply I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t really look things up. It will be a good exercise for you. Also you can’t call the constitution revisionist. The only question is if you have the mental strength and fortitude to find the section. I honestly think you will reply by changing the subject. Regardless I’ll wait...
Thank you, CNBC, for making an unbiased video not just trashing one side.
Yeah, I must admit, I was surprised by CNBC's even-handedness in this case. Not what I expected, but appreciated.
this popped up after i watched the Prager U vid on the EC. i had to see if CNBC could be fair on the topic, and they were so good job to them
Cant deny that at all, it was actually good reporting.
Same here, in my mind I was telling myself "ok let's hear why they don't like the current voting system"
Good work CNBC
Still leans left because it doesn’t point out that it’s the left who wants to change this.
That’s why Census is so important, huh?
yes
Yep, and why we should have a census question that asks if you are a citizen. You don’t want non Americans to affect a state’s power and receive too much power from state representation and vote power. This is why many states that have a lot of non American residents (which are generally Democrat) opposed to the citizenship question because they could lose seats and power.
Texas is about to get 4 more Electoral votes as the state becomes more politically diverse. If it flips blue, it will refute any talking points about the liberal elitist cities argument. California is projected to lose one electoral vote as the state is too expensive. States like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Alabama, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and West Virginia are also expected to lose votes as agricultural jobs are dying and coal is less profitable.
If they stopped counting non citizens, California, NY and Illinois would be estimated to lose roughly 18 electoral votes combined. Yeah, non-citizens can't legally vote, but they still influence how much your vote counts.
Starforge1 they don’t count non citizens lol
Just imagine if we didn't have the EC today and somebody just proposed it. They'd be looked at as crazy.
I don't think so.
Without the EC campaigns would probably only happen in big cities with a big population.
What would be the point in campaigning in small states or small cities?
I'm not american, I don't like trump but think objectively the EC isn't a bad thing for the representation of people in the rural area.
@@Slithermotion , yes why don't they just give people in rural areas the right to vote 5 times? Same thing.
Those rural areas get massive over representation in the Senate. They are not ignored. Campaigns visit all 50 states and believe me they don't care about North Dakota's 3 electoral votes. Because of the EC, they give most of their attention to 10 States and the big cities within those States. Your argument does not reflect reality.
Slithermotion You could have made your point about the EC without interjecting your dislike of Trump. So, why did you?
@@chatman2a Often people like to frame an opinion.
Meaning he thinks X so of course he thinks Y and Z as well.
I wanted to make clear that I don't think the EC is good because it elects trump but it represents rural areas better.
And I don't see anything wrong in saying that I just don't like trump as a person that doesn't mean that I think everything is wrong that he did.
Neither was everything right.
So if you think that there was some kind of secret meaning in my statement....no I just pointed out that I don't like trump. That's it.
And just because the DNC lost to someone like trump doesn't mean that it's good to change an election system that worked as long as the EC.
Electoral college: Counting everyone's votes in a democracy is just SO HARD. Tell ya what, lemme just... take... all'a these right chah... aaaaand I'll decide for you okay deal.
Citizen: ... ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE A "COLLEGE"? Cuz you sound like a electoral kindergarten.
The Electoral College will elect BIDEN & HARRIS for 2020
no they won't
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Ptolemy 1 They haven't yet but are predicted to
@Ptolemy 1 yeah it will most likely be biden
What an historical comment !
"we've had a very stable government for the past 200 years"
Civil war: Yeah I don't think so
Him it’s Stable who said it wasn’t it’s just not good
You wrong. the civil war was based on another issue (slavery) not a voting/electoral issue. Hell, Lincoln was elected during the war and there was no issue about it.
*The USA Is the only Republic in the World where the LOSER by 3 million votes becomes A FAKE PRESIDENT.*
That’s not Democracy. We have no right to tell other nations to be Democratic because we are not a Democratic Nation.
Not stable at all since 1981.
Yola Montalvan good thing we are a constitutional republic not a democracy🤟
The folks against Voter ID laws also tend to be against the Electoral College.
The folks for Voter ID laws also tend to be for the Electoral College
Because they want to cheat
@@christopherhand4836 Voter ID won't fix a problem...because none exists as the 18, count that EIGHTEEN convictions in 2016 could NOT make a difference.
That's 18 across the nation
14 of those were absentee that no Voter ID will fix.
Voter ID is voter suppression
@Sir Walter Raleigh You don't have a constitutonal right to equal driving.
@Sir Walter Raleigh the Democrats dont want a voter Id because illegals cant vote then, plan and simple
How you feel about the electoral college depends on how you view the country. Do you see the US as a collection of states, or do you see the US as a nation divided into states?
You nailed it. It is a constitutional and philosophical discussion I have been having with some. But yes you are absolutely correct in that this is exactly what it come down to
@@bobbywise2313 would you mind explaining a bit further
@@Pocketrose3 I can try. Our founders were very weary of a central government to strong and believed the colonies could be united but be totally independent. Under the Articles of Confederation the central government was mostly symbolic and could not enforce anything. It was basically like the UN.
Some like Hamilton wanted most power to be in the federal government, while others like Jefferson was an Antifederalist. These two ideologies came together in a compromise in which the federal government has exclusive powers on certain things and guaranteed protected rights of all citizens. But all other powers not given to the federal government in the constitution is up to the states.
So essentially we are 50 countries United by this contract that defines the powers and limitations of the federal government. The states can govern how they wish as long as it is not unconstitutional.
Now this is obviously not exactly what we see today. The federal government has taken on powers that are not constitutional powers of the federal government. Over time it has become extreme. But the constitutional framework sets up an awesome balance of powers between the states and the union. We have just stopped following it..
A collection of semi independent sovereign states unified as a nation under one binding constitution.
Under our system of federalism it actually is more of a "collection of states". The federal government is not a typical central government like is seen in many nations in the world. The federal government in theory is only supposed to have powers afforded to it by the Constitution with the states otherwise retaining all other powers. So in theory power is mainly supposed to be at state level and does not flow down like central governments in other countries. Our federal government in theory is basically a quasi central government but is supreme to the states(Supremacy Clause) in the limited powers that the Constitution does give it.
As someone living in Southeast Asia, it always baffles me that America, the country that's known for its freedom and democracy, still has a two party system, electoral college and winner takes all policy.
Here we have 10+ political parties, several candidates, proportional parliament based on threshold and whoever gets the most votes becomes the president. And our country is just 75 years old with a long history of dictatorship that ended in 1998.
there are more than 2 parties but the 3rd party candidates usually get under 10% of the pop. vote. I do think the electoral college should abolished.
The two party system is a problem. The Electoral College is not. The EC guarantees equal representation for votes amongst ALL states, not just the ones with the highest population. In other words, you need to win each state based on regions, not just population alone.
04:29 in other words politicians don't trust the very people they represent to elect them.
Not in the slightest, that is just this guys ideas or perspective.
The founders werent all politicians, and definitely didnt trust all politicians.. thus the EC and constitutional-republic was rectified.
Whether you side with CNN or fox, it is quite obvious from both sides the power of persuasion...
Anti trump strongholds remained to be the urban areas where social/welfare programs are needed as there are more people than jobs and so many have a jobless friend/family...
Rural america is different, where there is less cash flow because smaller populations but are still heavily affected by taxes and how they are implemented. A $50,000 debt for a degree is not necessary to grow corn or soybeans, definitely not needed for harvesting them as for many jobs in rural areas.
Anyways point is that you cant expect the urbanites to care about rural areas and certainly cant hope their ideas will benefit those places but without the EC the rural wouldnt have a voice which is a very very bad idea that urban people tend to ignore.
That guy is an idiot. Note the network producing this video
@JM I agree with your comment, and yes I could see a small disagreement and just move on...lol. All I wanted to add is that most farms producing anything measurable these days, are operated by farmers with agricultural degrees and business degrees. They run 600 acre farms and employ hundreds of people and invest millions in equipment. Farming is much different these days.
@@mykolt I agree with you but still, those really large companies (who hire their specialists, not become the specialists) only make up about 45% of total farming production and still are only like 9% of the total farming workforce... the other 91% of farming operations are largely generational farmers, knowledge from books, family and local ag departments which provide more than enough information on modern growing practices and products.
@@mykolt another side note:
Often large farming outfits lease other farmer lands, equipment and possibly their labor to grow the crop.
For example: r.d. offutt, not all their potatoes actually comes from their own farms.. theres a hundred different farmers growing potatoes here and then r.d.o. harvests, stores and resells them.
It's all in the name: United States.
Alex Mercer True, but there wouldn’t have been a federal government without it. Basically, Virginia was the California of that time. The smaller states like Rhode Island did not want Virginians rolling over them. Today that would be a state like Wyoming, which feels the same way.
@tree man True. Some are American and normal while others are Democrat.
It should be called the Ducked-Taped Together States of Inconsistant Size and Power Distribution.
@@Surfbird11 A democratic election is based on the priciple that every vote counts the same. If you give the votes of people of smaller states a higher value, you abandon basic democratic principles.
Besides smaller states can't be overrun by a few big states, since the senate as the state representation could block nearly everything.
The US-System basically leads to a situation, were a few states are relevant to the election, because they are disputed, while the candidates basically don't care about safe states. In the past the states with the highest population like NY, Texas and California are the states that were the least visited by the candidates and nobody cared about them. And that's a big part of the voting population which got basically ignored. Thats not how democracy should work and is a big issue in the US.
European countries for example have established far better election systems in the past decades.
Hazard 464 But we are not and never have been a democracy. We are a republic that was formed by 13 newly independent nations (aka states) which agreed to bind to each other as a larger nation (United States of America). In other words, people have never voted directly for President. They vote for electors who then represent the states. It is states that actually vote for President. Hence the electoral college. If you don’t like it there is a procedure to change the Constitution.
Sound like the argument itself is confusing and not convincing.
It absolutely is dead simple: the people who grow food and raise animals to feed cities should not be absolutely ruled over by those city dwellers just because of the necessity of low population density associated with FARMING. It was true in 1783, and it is true now.
@@MrTsiolkovsky California has the agricultural production of any state, FYI.
@@MrTsiolkovsky If it didn't occur to you. All states have agriculture. This is no longer even close to a valid argument, if it even was 200+ years ago.
The electoral college needs to go away
Propose an amendment 36 states will agree with.
@BorsMann The compact clause of the constitution says no state can enter into a compact with another state without approval from the federal. So I doubt this will hold up. But if the SCOTUS rules in favor it will be ugly for all. If I live in Florida and the people chose candidate Bigger but my electors decided to pick candidate Slobber instead, I would be a little unhappy.
The states pick the chief executive and if unfaithful electors become common we will have a constitutional crisis.
I doubt this pact will hold up for 2 reasons though. As previously mentioned the compact clause will shoot it down.
But the SCOTUS has in the past ruled based on INTENT. If this pact changes an election or the current balance of power between the states then it will be brought to the SCOTUS. I suspect it will be the end of unfaithful electors when this happens. I pray it never comes to this. A lot of people in this country or very emotional right now and it seems it would not take much for things to get ugly.
The sad part is. We the people seem to think the chief executive is the be all in control of our lives. The reality is he or she is head of one branch of the federal government.
Unfortunately from the perspective of the states the regulation of commerce between the member states is one of the 2 basic functions of the federal government. This is why the member states need an equal voice in this selection.
But for mine, my neighbors or your day to day life the chief executive of the federal government is much less important than our mayor, city council and state legislatures.
Totally disagree
If electors can't vote against the states popular vote than why do they even exist? The position could be automated. And a winner take all system means that unless you are in a swing state your vote really doesn't matter.
I think it was because of how the country was setup at the time of the founding and an amendment has not changed the clause in the constitution. How do you reliably get information to Washington DC in 1789? Someone physically goes there. With communication today, you can do without the electors while maintaining the electoral college.
Also how electors are selected is done by the state not the fed since this is a state's decision.
Kevin Smith actually the winner of the state selects its own delegates (loyal to the party or candidate) this prevents (for the most part) people changing their votes, in some states it’s illegal to do so, but in most states they could change their vote, this is how Collin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle got electoral votes in 2016.
ThereIs NoSpoon And with a direct system, it’s if you live in less populated areas that your vote doesn’t matter.
If the electors could vote whoever they want, the candidate can bribe electors to make them vote who gave them money. This will make the popular vote useless.
Your personal preference doesn’t work even in the case of your city government.
Video Begins: “Why is the electoral college so important? Because we are a republic, not a democracy.”
-Video Ends-
We are a democratic republic. You really need to look up those words.
You haven't a clue what either words mean. You are just spouting right wing talking points.
A constitutional republic is a type of democracy. There are different types of democracies. wingnuts keep spewing this nonsense because deep down they are afraid of it. Make Election Day a federal holiday like the 4th of July or Thanksgiving then watch the significance of gaming the electoral college die.
@@johnsumser9743 Of course, you are right. I've run across this type before. They will usually spout some quote from somebody in the 1700s as to what democracy means. They neglect to note that words change in meaning and a definition in the 18th century may not be the definition in 2020. I've traced this notion, that we are a republic, not a democracy, to the John Birch Society in the 1950s and 60s. It indicates a lack of knowledge of basic civics in the 20th-21st centuries. We are, and have for a long time been, a constitutional democratic republic.
As I stated all republics are democracies. Also what does the stupid electoral college have to do with our nation being defined as a republic or not?
Hillary winning the popular vote never ceases to amaze me.
That doesn't take in account the fact that there was broad fraud on the part of Hillary's people.
Living Waters Fellowship of Watertown New York false. Trump created a commission to investigate fraud after he won and they didn’t find anything then disbanded quickly.
@@bascal133 Voter fraud is very real.
Hans Becker russia did interfere with our election though that’s not debatable. And they interfered to help Hilary and hurt Trump. It’s not true that Trump was in on it or organized it but they said hey we can help you and he said sure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Jru XO based on what? Trump and Q?
This system is outdated. We're going off a system that was created 200 years ago for how things were back then.
It's like using a telegraph to achieve telepathy.
@lol warrior Point is we should get rid of things that may have worked when they were introduced but no longer make sense to continue. Sorry if what I said went over your head and you misinterpreted it.
You've been indoctrinated to think that.
@@iloveme2ful seems like your own logic went over your head
@lol warrior Yes and why were at it let get rid of federalism and just be America. No states. Let DC totally rule our lives.
The founding fathers are smarter than this report.
you mean the tax avoiding slave owners.
They were so smart to hold on to their slaves and never anticipate a civil war. Buncha Kreskins, they were.
what of swing states?
@Greg - Those deified "founding fathers" were terrorists(slavers). They wrote a constitution which gives "free stuff" to terrorists(slavers). Wake up.
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:
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 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 territories. 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?
The csa/kkk was just a 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?
dont a lot of countries have peaceful transition without an electoral college?
not consistently for 200 years
@Jon Emery who are you kidding ? trump is gonna win by a landslide
The United States isn't 'a lot of other countries' and for good reason!
@@jimmybrice6360 yeah, LANDSLIDE BY KILLING MORE AMERICANS.. REMEMBER THIS BIRD BRAIN LOST THE POPULAR VOTE 🤔.. IT'S BEEN ALL ABOUT HIM EVER SINCE. IT'S NOT ABOUT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.. IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A REAL STRONG LEADER.. REBUBLICANS NO LONGER STAND BY HIS WAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE AMERICAN WAY..
Jon Emery I fantasize his departure will look Assange-esque
Can we really call 2020 a peaceful transfer of power?
Good point.
THE REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE...
The reason we have the electoral college is because the STATES weren't just big counties, they we're more akin to NATIONS. That why the United States were originally configured as a CONFEDERATION, similar to the E.U.
There. Saved you 9:30
@Eric - You have no proof to back up your idiotic 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 and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "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!
(There. Saved you from years of willful ignorance.)
Wow. That’s an awful lot of words just to demonstrate your historical illiteracy.
@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you saying the USA Constitution is incorrect? Are you saying the math in the USA Constitution is incorrect?
Are you claiming that many events in USA history never really happened?
Please prove me wrong. I would rather not live in a country with such a long history of terrorism, so PLEASE prove me wrong. Good luck.
@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you a citizen of the USA?
No dumdum...
I’m saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Personally I feel that the states should choose electors based on a percentage of popular vote rather than a winner takes all method
Personally, I think you should consider other factors.
I agree. The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is the winner-takes-all rules by 48 states (except two), as oppose to proportional to popular votes.
Centralized government is the causation of every empires collapse in history. Decentralize government, is imperative.
If it was up to me, each state would have 1 vote, regardless of population. To go even further, each county within a state would have only 1 vote.
The government would be "bottoms up" instead of how we have it now. The local levels would have the most say, the state even less, the federal government even less.
This would prevent cities from holding rural states as hostages, stopping them from forcing them against their will.
As someone who lives in Nebraska, I personally think that the electoral college would be much better if more states followed our system. In Nebraska, the person who wins the whole state gets 2 points (the senators points), and then each congressional district votes on who its vote will go to. This retains some emphasis on winning the state, but also allows for even more localism. If more states adopted this approach, I think that the founder's intention of making candidates reach out to more areas would be better achieved
@@derekkluck1120 Yeah and Omaha and Lincoln basically determine who wins Nebraska. You typically have 1 electoral vote at most going anywhere else in the state out of the 5. Its effectively the same system. And it cause Warren Buffets famous strategy in 2016 where he focused ONLY on Omaha for Clinton. It was an outlier like the 2016 election in general where Lincoln and Omaha didn't go the same way and basically carry the state.
Not to be picky or mean, but if you’re going to talk to “experts” you should probably read the notes from those at the Constitutional Convention, letters and pamphlets and so on from these folks about the Constitution they wrote and their intentions so that way you make sure these “experts” are presenting accurate, honest historical information rather than their own modern biases. All this information is available both online as well as in the National Archives for free to the public.
The Electoral College exists as a compromise by those writing it. But not as presented by modern constitutional “experts” be they biases politically right or left. It isn’t about slavery as those on the left presume or about ensuring candidates visit rural areas as the right presume. In the notes and letters as well as writings after the Constitution was adopted and the first real election happened after Washington declined to run again, these folks make it clear that there was debate about either letting the people vote directly for the president or to have Congress vote for the president. Each side had good reasons for their proposal and against the others. The Electoral College is the compromise. The idea the authors thought of was that the people wouldn’t vote for actual candidates, they’d vote for electors. The electors would be trusted people in the states who would campaign in electoral districts on behalf of their chosen candidates. People then would vote for the elector in their electoral district whom they felt had made the wisest decision about which candidate to support. Then those electors would go and cast their votes as they had told the people they would. The authors figured that this would mean that different electors in a state would vote for different people and they assumed that multiple people would be running, not just two, which is why the second place winner gets vice-presidency in the original version. They figured that because of this system as they were thinking of it, with candidates essentially getting a kinda proportion of the vote, this would lead to no one candidate getting a majority and thus that would lead to Congress actually choosing the president and vice president via votes as outlined in the Constitution for each chamber for just such a purpose. Thus the people would kinda vote for the president, there would be wise people to ensure that candidates were qualified via the electors, but Congress would have the ultimate final say which was to go with what the electors vis the people had chosen or go a different way. Once you read their notes, letters, etc you realize that elections like the one that saw the president become John Quincy Adams were much more like how the authors had intended them to go. Indeed, some of the authors bemoaned how things had turned out after the elections that followed Washington saw states and the American people operating it differently than imagined and forming into two political parties which they likewise hadn’t foreseen had the time of debating and writing the constitution. Interestingly they did not weigh in on suggestions to fix or change it, but rather left that to others. They seem only to discuss how things had differed from their intentions.
Great video, though. Very insightful. Just wish media would call out people and politicians when they talk about the Constitution and are not factual like these “experts” or even politicians making obvious misstatements about what the Constitution says. No one called out a Democrats or Republicans during the impeachment every time they kept using the phrase “the high bar the Constitution sets for impeachment.” There is no such high bar. The few paragraphs on impeachment are vague and the reasons given include misdemeanors. So technically the Constitution allows Congress to impeach over a speeding ticket if they want to. Likewise the Senate can find someone guilty and still not remove them. The language is vague in that it only says that the Senate, if they find a federal official guilty, may only choose to remove from office; it doesn’t say it has to actually do it. The “high bar for impeachment” mentioned by the esteemed Congresspersons is from precedent and tradition that Congress created and more often is higher for the president than the cabinet members, agency officials, and federal judges that Congress has impeached and removed over the 200+ years as a nation and the reason that people in Congress aren’t impeached is based on precedent and tradition based on the idea that both chambers set their own rules for members beyond what the Constitution says; indeed the Constitution grants the chambers that authority to set their own rules. I mean, we have the shortest constitution in the world so it’s pretty easy to read it and call people out when they’re saying it says something it doesn’t actually say. It’s small enough that you can make pocket size versions to carry and read on the go and even with all the letters, noted, pamphlets like the Federalist Papers, etc those still aren’t voluminous (though certainly not easily as pocket size...more like pocket New Testament size! Lol).
No leftists are going to try to refute this.
ganapatikamesh
That’s what scholarship is for! It’s why we see the opinions of scholars here as no scholar is going to defy the existing consensus that would result in a tremendous harm to their reputation among other scholars.
Lastly this is not a research paper. It’s a news story! It falls to viewers to do the research and scholars would never use this as a resource.
BTW language changes and we have been debating the meaning of concepts for centuries. This is one of those issues that is not debated. We understand its intent very well.
Repeal the 17th Amendment
While this debate will be ongoing it is my opinion that the Electoral College is the way to go in order to keep individual states on equal footing provided the electors go with the popular vote of each state also voter ID laws will continue to be hotly debated until evidence suggests large-scale fraud which is one thing that concerns me about California as they've already discussed giving the vote 2 illegals and do allow some of those illegal votes to be counted in local races
Most informative video I’ve seen on this, with sufficient explanations of not only how it works, but the thinking behind it, from US founders to present day, pros and cons. Thank you!
Except for the fact that they completely ignored the role slavery played in the creation of the EC
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
@@71nadra - Thank you for that insight. It most certainly should not be ignored.
Short story.
Having the electoral collage ensures that the candidates travel the country to fight for their votes and to know the specific issues in EACH state. If we went by the popular vote, then no one would go to all the states in the middle of the country.
you'd have to get rid of the winner takes it all principle... with that every vote would count, so candidates would have to campaign everywhere
Fun fact: in 2016, just 4 states (FL, NC, PA, and OH) received over half of the total visits, whereas half of all states didn't receive any, with 14 more receiving 3 or less. Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, DC, and New York were all in the 0 category, and Texas and California had 1 each, so it had nothing to do with big/small or urban/rural. What the electoral college actually does is make the entire election dependent on just a few swing states, forcing the politicians visit all of those a lot, while ignoring the safe states, not forcing them to visit all states.
@@mfrmospfr I think the percentage of the votes received for chief executive from each state should be added up and divided by 50. This guarantees every state equal representation but also gets rid of the EC.
Watch the cgp grey video on this. It does a very good job of explaining the problems and benefits. But your argument isn't the case
@@donald598 Thank you, that was a really good hint!
So, is there any wonder why people don't vote? That people don't feel that their vote counts? Very frustrating.
Doesn't matter if in the end your candidates opponent can go round the low population states and ring up enough electoral votes there that your vote literally doesn't count.
Individual votes *don't* count. Only the states votes do. Doesnt matter if more people voted for the same candidate as you if the states those people voted in either don't get enough electoral votes to matter, or more people *in that state* voted for someone else.
So no, your Individual vote doesnt matter in the long run.
Artemis Ameretsu because appealing to almost 40 states is easier than the top 11
@Chris L Except for when it doesn't and faithless electors do what they want.
If the majority of state A vote for candidate B then candidate B should get the electoral votes for state A.
One or two states aren't going to decide who wins, thank God above.
The electoral college isn't going away. A popular vote would put Government entirely in the
hands of California and New York (the densest populations). Not fair to the rest of us.
smart and beautiful, the best combination
Indeed well said.
What is fair is having everyone's vote carrying the same weight. Just because there are more people in California and New York, doesn't mean their voice counts for less. That is entirely undemocratic.
Wrong. People vote, not land. One person, one vote.
what the definition of your fairness? my lord. why do people like you have more election power than others who are living in more populated states?
repost
VieViaPaVria 21 hours ago
The debate for and against the Electoral College is really down to one thing: who between the people and the states should be given more power?
World's Netizen
1 second ago
in other words, the landlords win. people aren't too far from slaves(no real political power, their voice can't be heard) in the election.
A "government by the people and for the people" but you're not allowed to pick a candidate. Someone does that for you, and they don't have to pick who YOU want. What's wrong with this picture?
@@breakingthe4thwall260 The big picture is that they can still vote for whomever they want. That's not democracy.
@@breakingthe4thwall260 "For the people, and by the people" is democracy. How this country operates in practice is another thing. In fact, it operates as a fascist regime. And no, they are not required to vote for who won the popular vote, that's the problem. Not sure what your issue with socialism is. In practice, it just means taking care of everyone. Don't be so hung on labels. In practice, Jesus was a socialist, so take a hard look at what you're really saying.
@@breakingthe4thwall260 Okay... so what's your point? Just put up with it because Venezuela is horrible??
@@breakingthe4thwall260 Dude, if you're not aware that they can still vote any which way they want to, regardless of the popular vote, then there's no point continuing.
@@breakingthe4thwall260 I thought you were done. Bye.
I think we are in chaos now. You should interview that man again.
under the electoral college you can win by having 27% of votes in a specefic case , by winning all the votes in small states and winning big states by 1 vote difference
why would you need to win all the votes of a small state? just win small states by 1 vote and lose big states by all the votes. This general strategy will work because smaller (population) states have proportionally more electoral college votes per population.
Because let's just ignore the fact that most states are heavily leaning one direction, and that you also have another major opponent that should be able to see that and fight back.
@@alextheonewarrior The that's a way bigger issue. Whoever isn't aligned with their state outcome is not a voter in effect. It truly is a waste of time.
That's part of the argument for the popular vote system. It sidesteps both issues entirely and gives safe states back the right to vote. The current system may have safe seats where a minority is still winning. Because why would you vote for the opposition in a safe state? Wasted effort. So even if opinion shifts it'd have to shift so much that you'd win you need to beat the apathy. Hopefully polling gives some insight into that though. I haven't heard people bring that up so presumably that's not a big issue.
loo boo A mathematical black swan event. Trump pulled it off only because of a perfect opponent who couldn’t keep their mouth shut. After Trump is gone and the Democratic Party gets a reset, all will be back to normal.
@@starventure wont happen till 2024.
its so three states cant control the whole country....
So true . And every vote will count in every state I guess some people don't get it on the Democrat side.
@@surfblue7336 As it was said in the video, EC is not the problem. The problem is that in 48 of 50 states winner takes everything. EC votes should be shared according to the result of the popular votes in each state. This way every vote would count. Today if anybody wins any state by 1% for example, the votes for the opposing candidate are thrown into the bin. Millions of Clinton votes were thrown into the bin this way 4 years ago (same for Trump, but to a lesser extent). You could either be happy or sad about it, but it surely isn't fair.
@@sveda22 well we'll see if the Democrats will cheat or not. I am hoping Trump wins
Pro-slavery, pro-segregationist, prohibitionist, pro-evangelist, pro-gun lobby, pro-life. All of these people have always supported the Electoral College. See a pattern here?
The Pro-slavery, pro-segregationist were Democrat positions, get your facts right . Canada has no electoral college and 3 cities rule the country, this does not make for a country happy about how they are ruled, unless of course you are from one of the 3
I am pretty sure that no one wanted, in 1804, for people in New York to call foul on the people in Virginia from saying how did you cast 10,000,000 votes when your population is a couple hundred thousand. Shenanigans goes both ways, to say it doesn't is willful ignorance or stupidity.
My point is that all of these positions are held by a vocal, loud, and freakish minority of people- people who demand that what they believe should be the law, regardless of what silent majority may believe.
“preventing recount chaos”
Oh boy, that did NOT age well.
There's one reason to get rid of the system, Trump.
That is definitely a reason to get rid of it
Yep. 220 years should be thrown out the window because of one president. No overreactions to see here
Boo hoo
Then vote for Biden if he remembers what race it is, where he is and what year it is.
Electoral votes should be proportional to the candidates' votes in that state.
@cafemartini I love how you just assume hes a liberal. There are many Republicans that think this same way.
Phalanx you and I both know he’s significantly more likely to be a liberal so what’s your point? There will always be outliers in statistics... The vast majority of republicans support the electoral college and the rest of the constitution while the vast majority of liberals actively seek to undermine and destroy the electoral college and everything else in the constitution.
The only people against "The Electoral College" are those who's candidate lost the electoral votes and won the popular vote. If Hillary Clinton won the Electoral Votes and lost the popular vote do you really think Democrats would all yell WE DIDN'T REALLY WIN_!
Leech.......google this phrase....."THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" as it relates to the electoral college.
Not trying to give you a hard time. It would be good to read it for more info.
@@LosCristeros317 do you not see the hypocrisy in what you typed? This is the problem we see red or in your case blue and the bias begins.
Any one watching this because of School.
This could have been done in 5 minutes. The low information density made my head hurt
dude, as someone not from states, shut up, its useful
@@ogladaczr.t.3168 I didn’t understand any of it lmao
It’s hard to describe in the US situation but I think the UK does a decent job at fixing this issue.
The country’s spilt up into 650 constituencies with fairly equal populations in each one (60,000ish). This means constituencies in rural areas are geographically huge compared to urban constituencies, but it makes no difference since the population in each one is roughly equal.
Each constituency votes, whichever party wins that constituency gets to send someone from their party as a member of parliament (MP) to parliament (obviously).
Whichever party wins a majority of constituencies/MP’s (326), wins the election.
In the US, each state has different numbers of electoral votes and different populations. Tens of millions of votes simply don’t matter because they’re in safe states. 24 million people could vote GOP in California, but if 25 million vote democrat, the whole state goes blue. The opposite of this almost happens in Texas. Each UK constituency has equal numbers of people and equal number of seats in parliament, one.
The system isn’t perfect, but it prevents the popular vote losing the election.
But what if the U.K. was voting for a single position? i.e. a President? In the U.K., the leader (secretary-general) of the party becomes the prime minister who leads the country. In this case, we're talking about voting for a single person to become the President.
I am old enough to remember Labour winning the 1974 election, after failing to win the popular vote. But, you are correct, the UK system generally prevents such a thing.
And you have a comparably unstable government in the UK when it comes to the Head of State position. Prime Ministers, leave or resign all the time when their coalition collapses, the loose support in the party, are unable or unwilling to execute the will of the people (Brexit), when new elections happen. Our house of representative is set up exactly like your consitutenties and i believe we predate your system. We have our "parliament" change and possibly change the ruling majority every two years. While the senate which is equal representation based upon state is every 6 years. Apart from deaths or Nixon committing criminal acts we have never had a president leave office outside of an election.
@@imjashingyou3461 A president can resign just like a prime minister. It's just we've had plenty of them recently because of weak leadership.
@@joetaylor8602 and we have had 1 in 244 years. Because he was about to be removed because of crimes. Point is we are stable in the US. You are not. There is nothing in the US to fix. You also don't have the vastly different experiences in the UK you get in the US. Thats the point of the electoral college system. So that voters in New York, California, and Texas can't simply dictate with thier different needs and awareness on the issues to North Dakota, or Idaho. Its so also a political party doesn't move to one region form a slight majority off that region and then vote on thier issues and needs and completely disregard the rest of the nation. Even if a small majority says they want this president it must be broadly acceptable to the US.
Way too many people have no idea how our election system works. The president is elected by the states, not directly by the citizens. The citizens of each state elect that state's representatives of the electoral college who, in turn, vote for the president. Each state has its number of electoral votes based on its population. It's done this way so each state has a say in presidential elections. Issues important to large states and cities may not be as important to smaller states, and visa versa. The electoral college keeps one group from having total control over who becomes president. If the election were by popular vote, candidates would promise everything to half a dozen states with the largest populations in order to get elected, ignoring the rest of the nation. Many Democrats are against the electoral college because, while winning the popular vote, they lost the electoral college vote. I can guarantee you that had they won the electoral college but lost the popular, they would be all for the electoral system and it would be the Republicans against it.
Bryan McMillin I appreciate your brief explanation and neutral stance. Thank you. And as a moderate that is left leaning, I agree with your last statement.
So really it isnt about democrats or republicans. It's about one side winning using an unfair method and the other trying to fix the unfair method to be fair. So in other words the right/logical thing to do is to go by popular vote?
You seem pretty knowledgable in this. What are the cons of popular vote? And why are many people against it?
@@freeloguy3387 He mentionned it in his comment. It's the part about differing interests between different states. Essentially, it's to avoid a tyranny of the majority.
In the context of the US, it would be, for example, the differing interests between rural and urban areas. States like New York or California have a mostly urban liberal voter base as well as a higher population, and as such, respond well to policies such as the removal of tariffs, lax immigration laws and additionnal social benefits. Now on the other hand, more rural states, say Nebraska or Wisconsin, who have a largely industrial and agricultural worker voter base, would respond well to policies which correspond with their interests, such as protectionnary tariffs that protect their local economies, farming subsidies and harsher immigration laws.
The electoral college essentially forces presidential candidates to consider the interests of states with vastly differing demographics, and not simply base their campaign off a few, yet populous, urban states if they want to win the election.
Campagning takes time, effort and money, and if a candidate could garner a majority support by just campaigning in the few high density coastal states, you can bet that's what they would do.
@@freeloguy3387 The cons of using the popular vote is that a few states can determine the president for the entire nation. In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes. However, she won California by over 4 million votes. That means that Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by over a million votes. Basically California would have chosen the president despite the rest of the country having preferred Trump by +1million votes. Candidates would cater to a few large states because that's where the votes are. In 2016 one state would have nullified the collective wishes of the rest of the nation, as a whole. The government is set up so that the House is directly elected by and represents the citizens. The Senate is meant to represent the will of their state and the president is meant to oversee the entire nation as a whole and not just large population centers. Make it a popularity contest and flyover country becomes just that.
Each state would have a say without the Electoral College, it's just that that "say" would be proportional to its population. Bryan, think about what you favor. You favor that the vote for President of each Rhode Islander should be weighted twice as heavily as the vote for president of each Texan. Please explain to the Texan why that's fair. Let me get you started: "Texan, it is perfectly fair that Rhode Island gets twice as many electors per voter than you get because________(fill in the blank)".
You think that without the Electoral College candidates would be promising special favors say for the voters of Texas. What favors could those be? Right now with the Electoral College, candidates do face pressure to offer special enticements to toss-up, battleground states. Trumpy is a good example here. In 2016, he favored restrictions on free trade, that is, protectionism, believing that it would be helpful to him winning Michigan & Ohio. What Texas & Calfornia & New York and even Rhode Island & Delaware didn't enter the picture.
You favor discrimination against voters based on the voter's location. Do you also favor discrimination against voters based on race? Or how about occupation?
If getting rid of the electoral college i would suggest getting rid of two-party system of money donations and removing two-party label for each candidate for president only. Non-partisan and the character of the candidate for the country to vote who the president will serve well by popular vote.
That is socialism or communism.. so yeah... NO!
I agree the two-party system is a huge fault in the system, it causes such hard lines that have no point as so many are somewhere in the middle. A political party should be little more than a campaigning group with a given platform that candidates should fight for endorsements from base on what they stand for. This would allow people to find more common ground, and more diversity of thought in politics and society. This would require a more informed voting population, but that is needed as is. This would also have more transparency in what a candidate stands for between who endorses them and who they accept endorsements from.
Says 6 min in we've had a stable government for the last 200 years. Guess he never learned about the civil war.
If you round up from the actual length of 155 years...
10 minutes to explain the US isn’t a mob rule democracy haha
AmplifiedSilence ooh little salt eh
AmplifiedSilence haha 🙃
hahaha
Barry 🤙
Yes you are right. Democracy is mob rule. How silly to let people elect their own representatives. We should just let the rich and powerful make all our decisions. We are just children who need Daddies. You're an idiot.
It's not a bad conversation to have, but it's not the most productive, either. Ranked choice voting would have the greatest structural impact, and revoking corporate personhood and the free speech rights of dark money organizations right behind.
I 100% agree, Also the false dichotomy of our two party dominance system really pigeonholed a lot of voters.
It makes people feel like 3rd party votes are throw aways and give too much authority to the parties already in power.
@@maverick9708 True
“Revoking corporate personhood”
So they shouldn’t have to pay taxes?
@@jwil4286 Huh? They shouldn't be able to exist for longer than the term specified in their charter, or to engage in activities other than those detailed by their charter, in exchange for the limited liability they enjoy. Corporations paid taxes before they achieved personhood via Southern Pacific 1886, where the 14th Amendment was somehow interpreted to give corporations the same rights as people, including freedom of speech. Our founders specifically warned about allowing corporations to gain power beyond their originally limited scope. Look it up.
Hows that ranked choice voting working out in Iowa?
Very outdated, back then people couldn't follow on tv or basically had no idea who or what they voting for.
What does that have to do with the electoral college?
@@joseph4321 ..it's the subject on video.
A fair system for the US for its huge population (330 million) and vast area (almost 10 million km2). It’s been around for longer 200 years and elected 45 presidents.
People still don't know who they're voting for - or why. Many voted for Bush III because he seemed "like a guy you could have a beer with", and similarly folks back Trump because "he says what we all want to but don't". In both cases, Bush & Trump wouldn't wipe their ass with anything "regular Americans" had handled. It's all aspirational fantasy instead of realistic policy.
Although some of these new-progressives are just as clueless - where is all that money for Medicare or GND supposed to come from??
@@mandisaw many voted for obama just because he was black but he did 0 for blacks......
Can we get rid of the 'all or nothing' aspect then?
you miss the point of the College. Subdividing CA's 55 electoral votes would not be possible, you can't have fractions.
@@JustAnotherJarhead thank you !
@@JustAnotherJarhead you don't have to be so accurate to divide it in fraction.
@@truthseeker1934 the Constitution doesn't have any provision for anything but...an all or nothing approach. Its literally almost impossible to alter how its done. That isn't accidental either, the Framers wrote the guidelines with that in mind, to not be easy to change.
@@JustAnotherJarhead What OP is saying that if Canidate A wins say 40% of CA's total votes cast, then give them 40% of CA's EV's (and round to the nearest whole # to avoid fractions). That would be a good compromise between the Electoral College and a national popular vote. Remember Bush won FL in 2k by about 600 votes yet ALL 25 EV's from that state went to Bush, that didnt exactly accurately reflect the will of the people of FL, and giving the overall election to bush when 500k more wanted Gore obviously made the same mistake too. The EC is a sickness that needs to be put to pasture or at the very least modified.
It's amazing how these people didn't say what the "compromise" was. we all know what it was.
It's a great system, our founding fathers were brilliant
They were wise - enough to borrow & sew together the best pieces of several great societies. Not least of all the Iroquois Nation. A federation of 5 Native American tribes (later a 6th joined). They called themselves The Haudenosaunee. They also, naturally, where steeped in the western traditions of London, Rome and Athens. (Who learned their ideals from Academy in Alexandria Egypt).
Wise they were. We must still recognize that they could not know the future. That is why they knew the Constitution had to be a living document
@@elipeake7631 But it isn't a living document.
Jerry W In 1987, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document”. What do you think the word “Amendment” means? Would you want to go back to just the Bill of Rights?
The founding fathers believed that anyone elected president would have some decency. Trump proves them wrong. He has no decency or ability to serve.
So, the Founding Fathers just didn't want the people to vote
You got that right!
Basically, there’s also a sense of elitism.
Back then slaves counts as population but aren’t eligible to vote, so the wealthier states which owns more plantations and slaves gets more electoral votes even though they have less eligible voters.
Put in in layman's terms Trump didn't win the popular vote, Hillary had more people vote for her. But Trump had a wider spread of districts/ and counties vote for him giving him more electoral votes than Hillary. If we got rid of the electoral college and solely voted only with the popular votes only big cities with large populations would matter in an election. So it's an oversight not to have it as if you live in a small state/or small population area your voting power would be ignored or unimportant. Popular vote alone would let big cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco to decide what would happen for the rest of the country. It's by no means perfect but it keeps the small states and lower populations a say in the election.
I think from the map it opens up a bigger discussion on maybe where the democrats reached and where the republicans reached. The democrats were more popular in densely packed cities with high populations. They focused more there in the cities than say all the rural counties. I think that from the map democrats just need to do more to win over rural or lower population voters. The republicans don't do so good in big cities such as chicago, new york most of the time. But somehow managed to convince the people in lower population areas to turn out for them that day. I'm looking at this from a middle view, if the democrats plan to win this election they need to get all those many spread out districts and counties not just the cities to like them. The republicans on the other hand, probably aren't as socially adaptable to the urban and city people and should work on being more likeable to them.
This is just my thoughts on it.
Agreed!
Trump won 30 of 50 states and 70% of districts.
This made more sense to me.. thanks
This is utterly nonsense now... Because now you have minority ruling over majority you wouldn't like it if it was you... How do you think it's fair that 50 vote from California equals one vote from Ohio? This is not democracy this is nonsense... The white slave owners so-called the forefathers knew that one day they going to be minority and they going to all live in Midwest so might as well create a system to still control the country
first off, this is a very well written and respectful comment. Im glad you're thinking about it and stating how its your thoughts. This is just my point of view on it.
The EC was created to give a voice to the people in less populated areas, which is a good think and was needed in the past. The way voting took place would be a lot more difficult to get a general idea of how people felt in those areas. But now states are more connected than ever with the voice of the people being ever more present with the use of social media.
as much as i agree that the abolishment of the EC would lead to the focus on larger cities, the current state of how campaigns are ran arent much different. The candidates only go to a select set of states during the campaign trail, the swing states. If a Republican was running, he'd have more of an incentive to go to Florida than Alabama due to how the vote is almost guaranteed there and the same could be said for a Democrat.
and if we're talking about keeping power to even between the minority and majority, the EC is even short in that aspect. In a state, its usually winner takes all when it comes to electoral votes, even if the state is 60% red and 40% blue all of the electoral votes are given to the republicans. This kind of over shadows the minority of democrats in the state. I think if the winner takes all system of the states were to be abolished, the perception of the EC would be a lot more positive.
As much as i think the EC had its use and was needed in the past, i now believe it has become out dated and forces the majority of the people to be forced to live under the rule of the minority, which isnt fair either.
Now I'm just a freshman in college who admirably only started getting into politics this year but of what i learned, the EC is now seen as more of a hurdle than an asset.
The president need support from all the country not just california and new york. Thats the electoral college.
you mean uneducated people should choose an election?
texas is bigger than new york, so your talking point is stupid.
Actually, more people in california and new york would get a say if there wasn't an electoral college. So Republican's votes in states that always go blue would count and democrats votes in states that always go red would count. It is actually decided by new york and california now be if they always go blue thats automatic points for the democrats.
Anti democratic thats what it is
xCRAZYGHOSTx he means that the “educated” communists shouldn’t beat out the rest of the country
1828, 1876, 2000, & 2016. Four times the electoral college has defeated the popular vote.
Well, in my lifetime, the Electoral College has given us two obscenely rotten Presidents: Bush 2 and Trump. So I say, "Nice try, but let's see if something different works better..." I understand the original idea that the population differential between states with large metro centers and those with mostly rural areas affects the proportion of votes, but I agree with those who also said that the "winner takes all" approach is flawed. They should all count the percentage of state votes towards whichever candidate received them, not give all of the electoral votes of that state to whoever got more popular votes (like the 51% example).
when obama was elected 2 TIMES you didn't complain, you scoundrel
@@theradioramires Obama won the popular vote on both elections, Einstein.
Trump is a good president, thank God for the electoral college.
I personally loved and still have a certain fondness for President George Bush jr. It's interesting that when making scathing comments in regards to former presidents everyone seems to forget Clinton not doing a dam thing in response to the first attack on the World Trade Centers.
@@theradioramires Obama won the poular vote. Kind of wonder ing if the average I.Q is slipping to a new low. Perhaps we should give those witgh higher a I.Q.more weight to their vote. No, I'm not kidding.
Let's be real heal not everybody votes matter at all....
Oh it does. Look at how close the senate is. The republicans picked up in the house. And that is just in federal elections. The more important ones should always be local and state elections though.
@@bobbywise2313 but those top positions though....
You’re telling us in 200 years no one has had a better way to change this?
Yea. Lots of better ways. The problem is getting all 3 branches to agree at one time.
Here's a better way. Give each state 1 vote.
Not really, but you see how a debate can start. You have to understand that when the founders wrote the constitution, the states were considered sovereign nations that were joining a union. Think EU.
There is hope. Only within the last 100 years were we able to vote on our Senators directly. 50 years and counting of the Voting Rights Act. Many states are currently adopting independent redistricting commissions. Maine adopted Ranked Choice Voting at the state and federal level. Some states are giving felons their right to vote back. One step and one state at a time
Rick West that would be extremely disproportionate. California:Wyoming is 77:1
So wait, the Electoral College was created so candidates wouldn't neglect small places... Well, it hasn't worked where I live as no President has campaigned here in many years, over multiple election cycles.
Probably because where you are is insubstantial to their victory.
@@williamcleland2369 That is correct, I live in a deep blue state with few electoral votes, but my point is that ALL votes(which are representative of people) should matter, and if there was proportional awarding of electoral votes perhaps candidates wouldn't completely neglect the voters in my state, because even here the vote is usually split about 55/45.
Yep, unfortunately only mid to large size "swing states" like Florida actually matter to their victory. Which means they end up spending a disproportionate amount of time and money here in Florida compared to Vermont or Wyoming.
If we had it based on popular vote, there'd be reason to at least spend the amount of time and money proportionate to the population (and assumed number of changed votes), but as it stands it's 0%.
It's all about you...
@@Nojintt So....the Electoral college does exactly the opposite of what it was designed for? haha
Thank you for this. As an Australian I’ve heard about the electoral college, but knew very little about how it functioned and its history. I found this very helpful.
headline of "why the electoral college exists" doesn't touch on the real reason.
Al Gore won Florida until George's brother Jeb put his two measly cents right where it doesn't belong.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of my vote not counting!
We don't need the electoral college!!!
You clearly didn't watch the whole video, if it changes back to popular vote. You will have groups of large numbers controlling the presidential election. This goes for the KKK for example with at one time in the 1920s had 5 million people! In a time when there was only 100 million americans and 30 million voted.. thats a 30 percent control over the election!!! That means if the leader of the KKK tells his followers to vote for a candidate than, thats a large amount easy control over the election. But since we don't have that system, and the KKK is really only in 3 southern states. They can ONLY have power in those three states and not the entire 50 states, like it is now. They would have to change residency throughout all 50 states and vote in those states. Clearly that wont work because thats only 100k votes per state which won't make any difference when some states have a minimum of 3 million residence.
@@PainBlame , what a ridiculous example.
Mike Rothwell why because it makes sense?
@Bo Zo Maybe you should ask yourself why the people around you believe in the other party? Learn and do your own research. I'm not saying i'm a Blue supporter. Just saying you should ask them and why there is an doubtful correlation with Cities being blue and towns being red
@Bo Zo Your vote does count, it's just that far more people have a different opinion than yours!
You frame this as a matter of political power, as if your vote should have more value than that of people from the opposite side, so you cling to the electoral college because you know that if the government were to actually represent the majority of people's wishes then your party wouldn't be in charge.
crypto-fascist tier tactics
Anyone else ever notice that there’s only a controversy when democrats lose this way?
Do Canadians or members complain because they don't select the chief executive by popular vote? Their member states don't even get a say. We let our member states vote for our president. We even let the citizens of the STATES decide how their state votes for this person. Perhaps we should say screw the states that the president is supposed to represent and let congress vote for our chief executive like these other federalism do.
Of course I would be totally against that, but it seems most people are not happy letting the STATES vote for the One person, two if you count the VP, that actually represents All 50 STATES.
Since 1824 the Democrats are the only ones to lose this way... So yeah, that makes sense.
@@bobbywise2313 the delegates are not required to vote according to a state’s popular vote. Not so wise Bobby.
@@dustyodyssey the democrats did not exist until 1865 max out ignorance.
It's a controversy because no one should be able to win with 3 million LESS votes. Republicans can't win the peoples vote.
Your founding fathers didn't get that right; maybe that worked when they were around because most of the people were purely educated; but not in this century.
Pretty damn sad in this day and time need a news report on why the electorial college was put into the constitution. Says a lot about the education system today.
Not really. Its not only made for americans it is just as much made for europeans or other people from other countries than America, that want to learn about your voting system
I just wanted to see how they would represent both sides, mainly since they are owned by Comcast
Why do you think they took teaching Civics in the schools?
Do YOU understand it? It’s a lot more complicated than the average person can understand. Both sides accuse each other of fraud. That and caucuses and super delicates make it much more complicated
Mark Jenkins It’s not a hard concept. In my day they all knew both of those things and promptly forgot them because it had no immediate impact on their lives because the government itself had very few impacts on daily life besides periodic military slavery and after 1913 a math problem in advance of an annual robbery.
Start with reading and writing in English. Then teach them math, physics, and maybe chemistry. Then teach reading and writing in other languages. Everything else is a form of indoctrination. Best to keep government out of that business.
Wait so SF, LA, NYC and Miami should get to tell the rest of us who the president should be? No thanks. Keep the Electoral college please
ikr
yeah, I guess the votes of millions of other people wouldn't count based off of what your saying... basically like what happens already. Hmmmm,.. must be fair then.
Simple answer. To "creatively influence" the results of an election.
That's a stupid answer!
It’s more like “to convince the smaller states to be a part of the US in the first place”
Peaceful transfer of power for the last 200 years, well here comes Trump to break that record.
Bahaha!! The Obama administration weaponized the US intelligence agencies against a Constitutionally elected President. Go take that Mainstream Media load of garbage somewhere else!
The electoral college should be a “tie breaker” if the popular vote ends in a tie. It’s insane that we call ourselves a democracy and yet we don’t elect our leader
We are not a democracy.
An Actual Alien We do elect our leaders. It’s indirectly but we’re still voting for them.
If we are not a democracy, you shouldn't participate in the DEMOCRATIC process of voting.
@@phiksit You mean casting a vote and a delegate or super-delegate unilaterally deciding which candidate to apply their vote too. Yeah totally democratic... but you did put it in all caps sooo good for you, you tried.
Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The electoral college is few wolves voting on the rights that lots of sheep get
@@pramitvyas3747 actually no. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand how the EC works.
Keith Bucco it’s not, they just choose to bluntly ignore what’s best for other states and only care about their feelings of said candidate. Getting rid of the EC would result in the destruction of the country. States like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio would never be represented and all programs or laws moving forward would only benefit large urban areas. It’s not hard to understand that
@@ram76921 Laws are made by Congress so this is sort of a moot point. The States remain represented and so should the people.
You should be asking yourself whether you would like to vote your conscience or remain a choice between A or B and a country divided by two parties?
ram76921 How would they not be represented? there vote counts too.
“They didn’t want the people to elect the president...”
That explains it all
yes, people often form mobs that seek to destroy individual rights, our founder knew this to be true, so they set up a system to protect us from ourselves.
It's partly valid, though. Take a look at the populist movements around the world, and see how they turn out after they succeeded.
Who has to watch this for their school
Here😂
Did you do the homework??😁😂
"Extremely stable government for over 200 years"
Civil war: hold my beer
4 years out of 200+. He said stable, not perfect. Dolt.
@@uncletrick1 Stability wasn't because of the electoral college, Dolt.
@@BigMackWitSauce yes I think, in most of the democracies, problems starts with the ignoring certain people of certain area, because that have less numbers, this is how shia -sunni problems started in Iraq, how problems started in different parts of Europe, etc... There is a large amount of example for that, you are too ignorant to understand it...
Vineeth Mohanmc Comparison to a third world country: check
Personal insults: check
That the best you got?
@@BigMackWitSauce those countries remain third world because of that.... It's not a personal insult I'm just pointing out the stupidly of people like you.. and how the hell England and Scotland became third world country, Scott's always complaining that they were ignored by the ruling class in London!
Ignorance: check
Dude from the Heritage Center must have forgotten about the Civil War lol.
That wasn’t a war over a transfer of power though.
@@jasonmanning6317 it was a war fought as a direct reaction to the transfer of power to Abraham Lincoln. You're not exactly right.
@Jason Manning The straw that broke the camel's back was Lincoln's election. Making the broad statement that the US has always been stable isn't true. Moreover, the method of electing presidents doesn't really have anything to do with the transfer of power. An outgoing president could easily tell a duly elected successor to get lost regardless of the election method. Also, members of Congress consistently and peacefully transfer power, but they aren't elected via the EC. It's the public's expectation of a peaceful transfer and the checks and balances that have ensured stability, not the Electorial College.
monsterq6 True but it was more about the direction of the country’s laws rather than who was president. Lincoln didn’t even originally want to abolish slavery. Also Lincoln only won by 40% of the popular vote. If the president had to be elected by a simple majority of the popular vote back then rather than over half of the votes of the electoral college, slavery may have never been abolished.
idrumcolerain He’s not actually making the claim that the US had always been stable though. But the transfers of power have always been peaceful meaning no president has ever had to shoot his way into the White House, no coups. It’s also much easier to have a peaceful transfer of power for a congressperson rather than a President or Head of State. The congresspeople are much more representative of their specific region or district than the president ever will be. But to have a peaceful transfer of power now over 300 million people for every single president since George Washington is a big deal.
Do people not know we are a republic? We democratically vote for republic electors.
well yeah but that doesn’t mean it can’t change for something better
@@giggity2722 what could possibly be better than 50 Sovereign States United under one Constitutional Republic? Don't worry its only been the question of governance since the beginning of civil society.
@@abewiltfong9515 Yes the people know that but it is not 1776 anymore! States joining the union and having to give up their individual power is not the issue anymore so the Electoral College is outdated. 50 Sovereign States United under one Constitutional Republic hasn't been in question in over 100 years! I'm sorry Aberum _but things do change_ ! It's time to move on from the EC.
So, if the Electoral College was needed to entice smaller states to join the Union, how many states will leave the US if it is replaced by the popular vote today?
Sue Thornton About 46 out of 50 would leave.
Sue Thornton I don’t think any? Why would we not want our individual votes to count. I hate that if my state goes for A they get all the votes even though I voted for B
Your individual vote does count... in your individual state. Just as it has for 230+ years. People should be more careful/thoughtful before messing with things that work
Sue Thornton it hasn’t worked though, we got bush and Trump from the electoral college 😶 presidents the people didn’t want
Bacall, somebody wanted them, THEY WON! and they won the ACTUAL contest, not some fantasy contest they weren’t trying to win.
California & New York should NOT be the states that pick our President!
People who like to live on a farm in the middle of buttfuck nowhere shouldnt have more voting power than those who live in large cities. If you wouldn't let a table or chair vote why would you let a chunk of land vote because its size said it was big enough to vote?
Does a republican vote counts in California? No. Does a democratic vote counts in Texas? No. Candidate of one party don't need to campaign in some states, and some votes are worth nothing.
That's entirely due to the winner take all system most states have in place. If they didn't I'd wager you see a massive uptick in national voting as people in these lopsided states would know their vote carried some weight. If electoral votes in each state were cast as a ratio to their state's results I'd wager the electoral college would actually likely resemble what the framers had imagined. Smaller state's votes would carry more weight -which was the entire point- so candidates would have a reason campaign in them as much as any large state, but every person's vote still actually mattered!
Actually a Democratic vote in Texas is likely to matter a lot in 2020. All indications suggest the state might lose its Republican stronghold status either this cycle or the next.
Steven Don’t blame immigration. Assuming that what you are talking about is Mexican immigration. Mexicans are predominantly catholic and would be a conservative voting block. Even if you are talking about all immigrants who are just people. Instead blame the republicans and their policies.
And it would be worse in a pure Democracy. No votes would be courted or campaigned for - except in large population centers, and those would be breeding grounds for corruption and voter fraud. Swaying 1% of the vote in California would be the equivalent of 2 small states that are 50/50.
One VOTE =WHO WINS MOST VOTES=IS THE WINNER . ITS LIKE THIS IN REST OF THE REPUBLICS ACROSS THE WORLD. SHAME ON THE AMERICAN SYSTEM WHICH IS A LOAD OF BOLLOX .... IRELAND .... THE MOST VOTES = A PARTY CAN FORM A GOVERNMENT!!!!!
When a state "joined the union" one of the "enticements" for the smaller states was the electoral college. "Even though you are a small state you will get at least 3 electoral votes" was the promise that was made all those many years ago. To take that away would, in my opinion, be grounds for succession.
But…why would anyone secede in this day and age? Everyone wouldn’t want to leave the most powerful country currently existent.
@@Phoen1xGenthat's false. Even in Europe countries want to secede like Scotland and Northern Ireland or Catalonia
@@millevenon5853 Are those the most powerful countries in the world? No.
@@Phoen1xGen no but the principle still stands, constitutional, civil rights or political violation of a government of the nation towards a particular state (Scotland and Catalonia) can be grounds for secession. Personally, i'am against it but the right of the governed including those states must be recognized which is what Scotland did in 2014 with a close no for secession from the UK and what Catalonia did in 2017 with an overwhelming yes to secession but the latter was shot down by the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain.
most red states would be 3rd world countries in no time. If they try to go it alone many have economies that are smaller than the Dominican republic, Some southern states are on par with Uganda. If they do form a confederation , Texas isn't going to want to pay for them. Goodbye roads , schools , electricity. And when you come crawling back the US may not want you.
“We’ve had a stable democracy for 200 years...” I guess he forgot that little thing called the Civil War...
Obviously he meant AFTER the Civil War genius. Did you really expect people to say 155 years or 137 years or 241 years and 7 months when they give timelines?
It has been stable for well over 200 years. George Washington was first elected in 1789. That's 231 years ago. The civil war lasted 4 years (1861 to 1865). So there has been a stable elected government for 227 years.
People blow the Civil War out of proportion, the Confederate was too small to win and making them a big deal only gives power to the same people who share the same sentiment today.
Don’t say Confederates, it was the Democrats, Abe was a Republican, it wasn’t only the Democrat slave owners who also owned Scots and Irish, it was British Monarchy that were overthrown and gunned down.
Men, and only men, gave their lives, stop twisting history to be woke. Like u don’t love South Park, listen for a change.
Ozzymandias Your right. But alotta Americans died in that war. Like ALOT.
Don't mess with our constitution. The electoral vote remains. There are other reasons not mentioned here of why it is important and why it has always worked well, and in human history, better and longer than any other government. The founding fathers knew better. ;)
You know the constitution can be amended yeah? I think you Americans need an unwritten constitution like here in the UK. Your constitution takes too long to be amended, and most of it is just too old to hold in the 21st century.
Your founding fathers are not GODS!!!!!!
@Bruno56 Anytime bro!
@@philipehusani Have you ever wonder why England is no more? We can learn from UK's mistakes but it would be a mistake to implement their failing ways...
@@OnFire4Freedom 🤦🏽♂️
they wont 't change cause popular vote won't satisfy corporate needs
Popular vote is a terrible idea. That's nothing more than mob rule by 51% of the people. The most densely populated areas will have the most impact and THAT is unfair. We live in a Constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is bad. A winner-take-all approach for EC votes is not necessarily bad. If they were given out proportionally they would, again, scale with population and encourage candidates to focus on states with the most EC votes. In the current system all of the states matter, not just "swing states". You need 270 EC votes to win, regardless of precedent you don't NEED California or Florida etc. to win the Presidential race. Its just a big boost. If you still don't understand why a direct democracy or national popular vote is a bad idea then you are, frankly, extremely ignorant of the darker side of human nature and the ignorance of the masses. We have a good system and people are just trying to change the rules so their "team" can win. I find that quite reprehensible.
Are you american?
But other countries DO have popular vote. And the 51% argument doesn't work here because even if there is an electoral college it would still be a 51/49 split but now the 49 wins even though the majority doesn't want it. Its also feels like their vote mattters less for some people because the electoral college doesn't have to vote the thing their state voted.
So, instead we have mob rule by a minority. Brilliant. (SARCASM)