The First Step to Fixing the Electoral College | Robert Reich
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2023
- Swing state voters will have more say over the 2024 election than the 80% of Americans in other states.
Does that sound like democracy to you?
Here's how we fix the Electoral College.
If you want to know more or get involved, click the link below to read about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
www.nationalpopularvote.com/
If your state is not already a member, I urge you to contact your state’s senators and reps to get your state on board.
Watch more videos about strengthening democracy ►► Ranked Choice Voting • Ranked Choice Voting E...
Imagine not wanting this because you know you're never going to win the popular vote!
Repressing votes and making votes count less is the GOP's main strategy when it comes to getting votes.
@@Zach-ju5vi that’s an overused and illogical argument. If electing president by popular vote is tyranny of the majority, then electing a president by electoral college is tyranny of the minority or majority depending on which way the states align. Face it - popular vote elections doesn’t just make the president a dictator, all it does it remove the ability of small states to dominate over more populous states. We still have a constitution, the president isn’t a dictator just because they’re elected through a popular vote.
Imagine being the winner in a true democracy, but consigned to lose and not really caring because both parties care only about their donors, who are largely the same people.
@@sisjsjwjwjsjsmjsjssj6285 Basic American Civics: The people do NOT elect the President, the States elect the President. The ONLY reason the people get to vote is because the individual States decided that was how they would choose which candidate to vote for. If the Electoral College were done away with then handful of Urban centers would have perpetual control of the Presidency. Fortunately, the only way remove the Electoral college is through a Constitutional amendment which the smaller less populated States (very type of state the E.C was created protect) will never agree to.
@@pwp8737 Imagine posting on a thread about the Electoral college and no knowing basic American civics. Like the fact the President is NOT elected by the people, but rather by the States.
UPDATE: Since we made this video, both Minnesota and Maine have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That brings the total electoral vote count of each state in the compact to 224. We are getting closer and closer to the magic number of 270.
That violates the constitution. Its spirit and letter. Trump violated the constitution so now we all are going to do it. Just to get our way. Sorry we know the rules play by them.
And Michigan just got a Dem trifecta, AZ’s set to get one too and Wisconsin is about to slowly dismantle its Republican legislative majorities with the gerrymander now defanged by its now-liberal supreme court majority.
Good News!!! I just contacted my state reps here in Montana, urging them to pass National Popular Vote legislation. If we all contact our representatives about this issue, we can make a real difference in our presidential elections.
Your math is off. That number would be 209.
@@davemal15It doesn’t violate the constitution at all.
In a country that only has two parties, the fact that it isn’t a simple majority is astounding
This is NOT a democracy. Our founders thought "democracy" was a dirty word. They set up a system that tried to protect the interests of the less populated areas of the country. With your plan, Presidental candidates would only have to campaign in, maybe, five large cities and high population density areas. The rest of the country would be easily forgotten as irrelevant to the election.
It's designed for the modes of transport and communication that where available in the 18th Century. back then once you had your state election results someone really had to get on a horse and ride to Washington to report them.
@@KonradZielinski That's simply not true. Any type of election results could be carried by carriage, buckboard, or horseback. For FACTS do a Google search for eleccoll.pdf. That should take you to a result : Delaware Department of Elections (.gov)
elections.delaware.gov › pdfs › eleccoll. This gives a downloadable PDF that seems to be authoritative.
Mind you, Konrad, This is a fairly long, detailed essay, so it may be beyond the limits of your attention span. 😅
Two MAJOR parties, lots of smaller parties exist, but are minor ones on big elections.
The reason for this is that we are the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. As it is, the Electoral College and the House/Senate are part of the "Great Compromise" between those Founding Fathers that wanted the states to have more influence and those that wanted a National Government with one "man one vote". By the way, notice that it's the blue states that have passed these measures. That is because we are the ones winning the popular vote.
All my life since I’ve understood politics, I’ve said the vote should go by the popular vote and note some dumb electoral college vote. That truly undermines people’s vote, which is why so many people think their vote doesn’t count which I truly agree with.
The electoral college is so far beyond your understanding you still don't understand politics, ask yourself why the founders of the greatest country to ever exist would choose this system, then ask why these people (mostly far leftists) want to get rid of it
If you’re R in CA/NY or D in TX/FL your vote doesn’t matter. I used to think everyone should vote no matter what but the older I get i can see why many don’t.
All of us Non-Americans are baffled by how stupid and undemocratic that Electoral College thing is!
Well you can thank European colonization and capitalism for making our system this way.
@@Zach-ju5vi Just watch the video for God's sake I can't handle the typical tired statements defending that absurd system. The electoral collage doesn't offer any of the alleged "benefits" that they brainwashed you into believing.
@@girlishgamer1 well Europe colonized zillions of countries and none of them have this stupidity!
@@Zach-ju5vi Explain to the rest of us just how that works, please🤭
Zach, I don't even think you know what you mean.
I want popular referendums we should be able to vote directly on issues like reproductive rights, firearms and immigration
Why should you be able to vote on firearms? The 2nd amendment specifically forbids the federal government from making laws there.
@@blurglide The US already stops under 18s from purchasing firearms. Didn't you know that?
You are right!! I'm trying to tell Americans about Robert Kennedy Jr. running for office. He's a bit of a conspiracy theorist,has hung out with Michael Flynn and others in Maga, and would hand Ukraine to putin. The Kennedy family will be voting for Bieden. As soon as Americans heard the name, they jumped on board with all the nostalgia in their hearts, warm fuzzy, definitely wanting to vote for him. And yes, he is talking a lot about his beloved father and uncle who yes we all loved and respected both of them. Robert Jr. Is not his father or uncle, he's the opposite. I urge people to be informed as much as possible and not be fooled by another lawyer. He's not much for science and wants to go after fouchi. He fights for the environment, that's not good enough for me to vote for him. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
@@chrisoneill3999 ...and? They're not adults.
@@blurglide But that is a RESTRICTION on Gun Ownership. How is ONE restriction OK but not possible others?
Maine just came on board with the compact within the past week.
this is why sippy cup Joe will win Maine.
Up to 209.
Maine one of the two states that split their electoral votes per district... You know what would have happened if every state voted that way? Trump would have won the last election. So instead Maine says F U to the 2nd district vote voted for trump twice and would most likely again and tell them their votes don't matter any more.
@@chance4771 Great
Maine's republicans aren't Christo-facists. They're pro hunting/fishing republicans. Much easier to deal with.
As a German with German voting rights, my opinion is: It would help if the electors of a state were no longer forced to choose the winner in the state, but voted for the candidates in proportion to how they performed in the respective states.
So if candidate A won 30% and candidate B 70% of the vote in California, not all 50 electors should go to candidate B, only 33 to B and the other 17 to candidate A.
There are a few states that follow this system of proportional representation.
you have no opinion here foreigner.
@@user-db3ps6po7i evidently he has a opinion. If you want your country to be a superpower that gets to influence the whole world get used to foreigners having opinions about you interal affairs.
Something like this could also foster a multiple party system. I can add that here in Norway the system is similar, except that if you get enough votes nationally (I think the minimum limit is 4%), you will atleast get one representative, no matter how it went in the respective districts
As an American with American voting rights, for years I've advocated your idea with the proportional assignment of electors, since a ranked-choice system practically has no chance of gaining traction nationwide. In Florida where I live, for the 2020 presidential election, Republicans won 51% of the popular vote and the Democrats won 48%. However, all 29 of Florida's electoral votes went Republican, which essentially disenfranchised 5.3 million Floridians. "Winner take all" at the state level often misrepresents the true will of the people.
I was thinking that this video would be about that. Proportional representation would make the votes on every state count and be way more fair than the way proposed on the video.
It's not like it's impossible, since some states already do it.
We also need ranked choice voting while we're at it.
We absolutely do. I wish more people like Robert Reich would talk about this.
@@jasonf.4107 He has:
czcams.com/video/7P6aYbUo19U/video.html
@@Zach-ju5vi it's not rigged. just look at Australia, they had RCV and their democracy index is much higher than us.
I would recommend approval voting as a halfway point towards RCV (states wouldn't even have to redesign their ballots to support it). Single-vote plurality is literally the worst method in every comparison, yet people cling to it with religious fervor because they're too entrenched to see its failures.
@@Zach-ju5vi Ranked choice is demonstrably useful for getting rid of loud but unpopular extremes on both sides. If anything, it would be helpful for Republicans because they can't win a primary without aligning themselves to the former president, but in a LOT of states, they cannot win a general election with him. Democrats literally helped promote candidates who aligned themselves with him in the midterm primaries because they thought they would be easier to beat... AND IT WORKED. They won those elections in I believe every state where they employed that strategy. Personally, I'm not in favor of that and consider it awful politics. Ranked choice destroys that strategy completely, while also pushing extremists out of the way. Also, it really helps give third parties a proper chance because there's no more splitting the vote (or "throwing your vote away") by voting for that third party. Maybe they can even win and get us away from less responsive goliath parties like we have now. The only people who do not benefit from ranked choice voting are extremists and the big political parties themselves.
If you're against it, you are most likely an extremist yourself and maybe should take a good long look in the mirror, or you're very strongly aligned with a specific party and thus have a stake in keeping third parties out of the equation, or you have been fooled by propaganda coming from those other two groups and again might want to re-evaluate where you get your information and how you form your opinions.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
@@Zach-ju5vi Triggered as always huh little Zachoff?
Great quote! Gerrymandering and a corrupt system are the only way they win elections. Sick of it!
Exactly so.
@@Zach-ju5vi when all else fails
Galbraith was always wrong at the top of his voice. It's easy to be a Keynesian in an ivory tower. You're assumptions are never put to the test.
A huge thank you to Robert Reich for his tireless work to promote practical ideas for preserving our democracy. We should all contact our representatives to press for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and to implement Ranked Choice Voting. Those two changes would make a huge difference in the smooth functioning of our democracy.
We were never meant to be a democracy.
@@Frenite It's hilarious ... the Republicans loved democracy every time they won an election. But now that they are losing the popular vote, they suddenly decide America was never a democracy ... LOL. You can quibble over the meaning of the word "Democracy" all you want. America has always been a representative democracy. And the majority of Americans won't allow you to take that away from us. If Republicans pull another 1/6, you will never again win the White House.
@@Frenite Good bye, comrade.
Jus found this channel but I’d be happy to become a citizen of Robert’s Reich
It's worth mentioning the right's continued obsession with restrictions on access to the ballot and a general tightening of voter laws.
Yeah, we need an amendment establishing federal voting guidelines and rights (although that might possibly, simultaneously rule out the compact).
As AOC put it, Georgia is not a red state, it's a voter suppression state. And for that matter same goes for Florida, the Carolinas, and even Texas.
they believe in 1 "legal" person, 1 "legal" vote.
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf Then explain to me why so many young voters are getting denied access to the polling places by those unreasonably restrictive voter id laws? are Republicans afraid that much of young voters because they're heavily Democratic?
And yet its the left continue to restrict news from the people.
Another idea that I think should become more mainstream is ranked choice voting. This simple fix may not only ensure that the popular vote winner becomes the president, but it will effectively dismantle the two-party system and ensure accountability of elected officials, something we desperately need in this country. I would like to see more push for ranked choice voting.
Me too- well said.
We have that in mass, it's the best way to go..
@@irishlady30 Where in mass? Remember it being voted against in 2020.
Might be the way forward even for the more advanced democracies like Netherlands, Canada, Germany and Scandinavia.
We have rank choice in Alaska. As a result, instead of Sarah Palin as our representative we have Mary Peltola a native woman. Lisa Murkowski was also able to defeat the trump backed candidate for senator.
I’m Canadian and who gets the most votes wins. Period
What a unique concept! You mean they don't declare Quebec a swing province and have them decide every presidential election? Wonder how the other provinces would like being told they are not relevant?
The GOP will never allow this to happen. Only in America can two candidates lose by a combined three million votes and still be declared the winner.
Getting rid of the electoral college is actually a good thing for America’s future.
Going to the popular vote handicaps states that have lower populations.
@@Zach-ju5vi No - you NEED to LISTEN: IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SUPPRESSION❢ Counting EVERY vote means that the one with the majority of Americans supporting them ACTUALLY WINS❢❢❢
You really should think BEFORE posting🙄!!!
Your low population is not our problem. You don't get to have a super vote.
@@gilbag What if the twelve people who live in Wyoming moved to another State. Should the completely empty State of Wyoming still get 3 votes for President?
@@gilbag No it doesnt. It would make every vote count. I have voted in two elections where my vote didn't count because I voted contrary to the votes of the majority of other voters in the state. While the most number of votes were to the loser. Explain that to me then. How does the person with the "MOST" votes lose?
Any presidential candidate running for a 2nd term should be required to win the popular vote. If you can't do that after 4 yrs in the White House, you don't deserve to be president.
Presidential elections should be based on the popular vote, period.
Every presidential election.
@@Zach-ju5vi
That's nonsense. It's exactly what democracy is. If no one can beat a Democrat, that's their own fault for not offering enough to voters to sway their vote. You are also admitting that the current system is not democratic.
@@Zach-ju5vi 🤣🤣😂😂 thanks for the laugh bud, I really needed that.
@@Zach-ju5vi Quite telling that you admit that Republicans SUCK so hard that they can NEVER win a Popular Vote.
I just clicked on the link Professor Reich provided for the national popular vote organization, and I used their contact form to send emails to my state representative and senator. It was very fast and convenient. You can do this in literally less than a minute. Let's all contact our representatives to urge them to pass legislation giving our state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Just do it! Make yourself proud!
That's not how it works
@@hint0122 Good bye, comrade.
This will kill the republican party!
The Republican Party is committing suicide in the long run.
Yes, there should be direct election of the President.
They are supposed to be the President of all Americans, not a super-governor of the states.
They technically live in the white house and are states-less and working for all Americans. The electoral college is an anachronism that needs to go.
Right now he's just a confused old man
@@NathanHedglin try to focus
@Nathan : Let's not pretend that the one before JB or any other POTUS' weren't confused old man. That's what happens when the capitalist elite gets to pick their candidates and we get to choose among the two sh!ttiest left.
@@NathanHedglin Stop listening to Republican nonsense, and see the real world.
I totally agree. The electoral college has given us the 2 Worth President in modern history. If we get rid of it, gerrymandering would be nonexistent and everyone would be able to vote fairly
how would abolishing the electoral college erase gerrymandering??
Gerrymandering would still exist because those districts, among many things, control who each state sends to the House of Representatives.
Here's my solution:
• 50+1% simple majority popular votes system for Presidential Election
• Proportional representation system for Legislative Election
@@k-sooyaalove206 nt jewbani
The electoral college isn't influencing gerrymandering... State borders aren't redrawn just to help one candidate win.
The problem with a two party system is that it becomes a shared dictatorship, each side knows that they're the next winner no matter what. Most other countries have many different choices or at leas a third party choice. In Canada we have had the same two parties ruling federally since 1867, so it's been a shared dictatorship her too even though we do have other choices , people don't like change I guess.
Funny enough America is NOT a two party system. People are just too stupid to understand DEMOCARCY ! And because of corrupt politicians and your turbo capitalistic system its gettign worse every year. Plus the Repbulican gerrymandering ! Easy to see, really. #fightfashisms #fightcorruption
I'm so happy to see more people pushing for this!. Great information. It's nice to know this is happening..
This is communism. Open your eyes idiot
Don`t worry we the MAGA are pushing back.
Yes, Democrats would win every election without fear of losing to Republicans ! Whats to lose?
At the very least we should stop giving all the electoral votes in a state to one presidential candidate. This creates the illusion that states vote completely for one party. It silences, obviates, and disenfranchises political minorities by erasing their voice.
A more fair electoral system would, at the very least, automatically award electoral votes to candidates based on the percentage of that state's popular vote that the candidate received. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes then a presidential candidate would get one electoral vote from that state for every 10% of that state's popular vote the candidate received. The last electoral vote would go to a simple majority of the remaining 10% of the popular vote. In this way each state's electoral votes would be split fairly between the presidential candidates. That would break the illusion of "red" and "blue" states.
Just like the Urban centers in New York, California, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, and Pennsylvania along with others silence, obviate, and disenfranchise the rural populations in their states.
A candidate could win the vote in a state by one vote and get all the EC votes. That’s always seemed crazy to me. It means all those votes on the losing side meant nothing.
Nebraska actually does divide our five college votes. Very fortunately. We sent one dem vote to Joe Biden. That helped him trounce the other guy even better. And naturally, there was a movement to stop this. As far as I know it went nowhere. There might be one other state who divides their college votes as well. It's tough being a blue dot in a sea of red.
@@tobytoby6578 How is popular votes system "crazy"?? Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Brazil, and The Philippines, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th largest democracy in the world, all use simple majority popular vote system to elect their president. And they all (except Nigeria) have high turnout rate, much higher than our last election. The 2019 Indonesian general election and The 2022 Philippines presidential election both have a 82% turnout, the last Brazilian presidential election also had a high turnout, over 78%. Except for Nigeria, all of these countries have stable democracy, none of them (except Nigeria) have political instability like you said.
This would help, I agree. But unless every single state adopted that measure at the same time, it would only serve to benefit one political party over the other. If, for example, California decided to adopt a proportional distribution of votes, it would dilute its 54 democratic electoral votes, but unless a place like Texas did the same, then it would just hand more votes to the republican candidate, making it easier for them to win.
And since it would also take a constitutional amendment to mandate proportional distribution of electoral votes, you might as just go all the way and abolish the college entirely. No point passing an amendment that's just a bandaid if the process is going to be just as cumbersome and difficult.
The constitution doesn’t have political parties mentioned once, and this method is one of the reasons factions have become a fourth unchecked branch of government. Just as George Washington has warned us that it would.
GW also warned against foreign entanglements, and today somebody can’t pass gas on the other side of the world without America butting in saying: “In this house we believe…”, or send troops in to edify them on how to better pass said gas.
@@augcaes 🥱!
@@BoogEOogEWoogE so eloquent.
@@augcaes he also warned of the civil war - and Trump himself… FN Nostradamus!
@@NoName-OG1 so insightful!
I'd love to see this become a thing nationwide. As a moderate-to-liberal person living in a red state, it sucks knowing that my vote for president doesn't count. But it's sad knowing that red states like mine will never, ever go for this because the only way a Republican can get elected president is through the antiquated Electoral College system. Aside from 2004, no Republican candidate for President has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush in 1988.
If you're from Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina or Georgia. You better be calling your state rep right now!!
We need to protect our democracy before it's gone.
The USA is not a democracy, it is a Republic!
An even simpler method would be to eliminate the all-or-none for the electors in a state, thus allowing each state's electors to be split up close to the actual percentages that a candidate wins in each state. While not 100% fair, it is closer than what we have today.
There are one or two states with that system, but they are really small so it doesn't really have an impact. Still, it's a good idea.
Electoral college votes will not be proportional to population. Compare CA with 39 million get 54 (722,000 per elector) and WY with 577,000 get 3 (192,000 per elector). GOP will always say eligible voters (like parents don't vote in their kids interests). The compact means get out and cast your ballot because it all counts in the national vote.
Because each state gets two senators, the equalizing effect of this would be blunted.
I've been saying that for years this makes every state matter and you would actually ses candidates campaign in most every state!!!!!!!
That would effectively make many states have either one or zero electoral votes depending on if they have an even or odd number in total. Essentially, the more deeply blue or red a state is, the more electoral vote sit would have. Pennsylvania might be split 10-9, and effectively having 1 electoral vote, while Tennessee might split 7-4, giving it 3 times as many effective electoral votes.
1 very important note is that the compact doesn't take effect until enough states have joined to have 51% of the electoral college vote. This means states can join and keep voting like normal until they hit 51%. It makes the burden to join much easier initially.
Secondly I am glad he mentioned the democrats in Alabama. This is probably the thing I hate most about our system is that a vast majority of people's votes don't matter because they live in a state that always chooses the opposite party.
Yep, CA is red outside of LA & SF...where the rural agricultural votes are neutralized.
@@shomechakraborty Why?
@@shomechakraborty That makes it seem like it would require approval. However the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that "the Consent of Congress" doesn't necessarily need to be explicit. And does the NPVIC even technically count as a Compact between States? All the States in it are doing are appointing their own Electors in a certain way.
The Library of Congress seems to be of the opinion that whether or not the NPVIC requires Congressional approval to take effect is not a settled legal question.
Of course I'm sure the current Supreme Court would say it does require approval since that benefits the Republican Party. They might even make up some nonsense to claim it's not Constitutional even if approved.
@@travisford3660 You forgot San Diego, but those three cities make up like 70% of the state's population. Land doesn't vote.
@@freeasinbeer But the people in those areas votes should matter as much as those in the 3 major cities. People with similar lifestyles typically vote the same. The farmer should count as much as large metro groups.
That is why a 1 Vote per state Electoral College is the right way. You have to appeal to the most of AMERICA....not the most AMERICANS. You'd need to work as hard in rural Kansas as you do in LA or Detroit or NYC, etc.
Maine is now joining the compact (hopefully). Michigan may be next.
I'm in Florida... I'm not gonna even waste my time contacting Rubio or Scott 🤷🏾♂️😂😂😂
They aren't your state senators. They are your federal senators
Minnesota just passed it officially passing 200 electoral votes, only 65 more needed
So far the NPVIC has 205 electoral votes. The total Electoral votes of the states where it is currently in committee add up to 101. This brings it up to 306 Electoral votes more than enough for passage. But when you subtract the Electoral votes of the states where it is in committee but has zero chance of passage this subtracts 42 Electoral votes bringing the total 264. Not going anywhere anytime soon. Not even up for consideration in my state. SOL
28 out of 34 required states have signed on to an Article V constitutional convention, and KY, ID, and MT look like good targets to reduce that gap to three. Such a convention would has pretty much no additional rules spelled out by the Constitution. Money poured into it could influence who is chosen to serve as delegates, and what amendments to make, including what rights to throw out and what powers to enshrine.
Maybe it's time to combine the Dakotas into once state to warrant their wildly disproportionate representation in the Senate--or Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
@@cdorman11 states have been split from others before but never merged. And they know they’d be sacrificing some power
As bad as the Electoral College is it shows something about politics, that if your area is loyal to a party you get neglected but if you live in a divided area, the politicians will have to fight harder for your vote.
Although after you vote, no matter who is in office you can expect that nothing will be done for you
Sad but true.
I agree with you. No matter who is in the office, nothing will be done FOR us.
The Electoral College exists very simply so that rural voters won't get steamrolled by metropolitan voters who do not share their beliefs, values, or identity.
Of course, if any of us really cared about democracy, I think that we would understand that decentralized authority is one of its central tenets for a reason, and that the Electoral College is part of a careful system of Constitutional checks and balances to that end.
In other words, *we aren't meant to be obsessing over presidential elections, because we have a president, not a king* .
Also, please take note that Robert lied about Article V of the Constitution. Please read, and make note of the word "or":
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, *or* , on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
@@captaincarl8230 As long as FOR doesn't mean a handout. I'm tired of folks voting for the politician that promises to give them something. Just political prostitution in my opinion. People should vote for the person most qualified for the position with high moral character and possessing of leadership skills and wisdom. Unfortunately, our system has devolved such that it encourages the exact opposite sort of people to apply - regardless of party. Basically a popularity contest with most effective smear campaign.
@@JasonTaylor-po5xc I meant for us as instead of for special interest groups and lobbyists.
Your point is totally valid and compelling. Current system disenfranchises a massive number of voters.
At least as big of an issue is Senate representation. Wyoming, with a population near 600,000 gets 2 Senators, so does California which has 39 million people. The founding fathers came up with a pretty effective system for the circumstances at the time, but the circumstances have changed greatly.
Agreed, the population disparity was far less back then compared to now and the Senate should change to represent that as well
The Senate is a quota system, created to give a less power group (small states) a disproportionately large share of power. In 1789, it was created so Virginia and Massachusetts would not run the federal government by themselves. Today, its California, Texas, and Florida.
Any U.S. Senator who complains about preferential quotas for the disadvantaged is inherently being a hypocrite.
And then, on top of that, there's the super majority needed to pass most important legislation making an unfair system even more unfair
That's the whole point of the Senate.
Go back to a history lesson; the Senate was created to represent the state governments. The House is to represent the people.
The electoral college was less about protecting small states than it was about protecting slavery. The 3/5 clause said slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a person, even though they really had no rights as citizens. This gave undue power to the southern, slaveholding states that they used to exert control of the Senate and the presidency. The electoral college should be abolished and let the people really decide who governs. It would make presidential candidates compete for every vote in every state, rather than just focusing on the few tossup states.
Also, the electoral college was a way to allow the government to choose its president. By not receiving enough electoral votes the election is then determined by the house. The founding fathers did not see just two major political candidates, but multiple candidates running for office like in the 1824 election.
Mr.Reich, thank you for bringing this to people's attention. I've been advocating for it since 2015. It would make a huge difference.
@@Zach-ju5vi The aforementioned "opposition: win the Presidency with a MAJORITY of American votes, thus ruling by the well known "tyranny on the minority". The United States is the only modern Democracy where this slave era aberration takes place. This is one of the clearest, historical indications of true Fascism.
Stop showing your ignorance of political history and terminology by your ridiculous, inaccurate trolling. It is very annoying.
@@Zach-ju5vi That is laughable you Zackoff. But expected projection from this channels sociopath fascist troll.
@@Zach-ju5vi Zach, are you drunk?
@@waterfuntimes Or stupid?
@@waterfuntimes Or just a pointless troll?
Thank you for the practical advice. Please keep hammering Home what the average American can do to return democracy to this country.
Within 10-15 years of the ratification of the Constitution, the EC had already stopped working the way the founders intended, the way Hamilton described in his Federalist Paper essay. Voters in the early 1800s fully expected Electors to vote for a specific candidate, not vote their conscience, because it was publicly known who each party had nominated. So this country has had an expectation of citizens choosing their President for over 200 years, it's just that we can't seem to kick this EC system to the curb.
As a UK observer, this sounds like an excellent idea to me. We have similar problem with ‘first past the post’ in the UK but increasing numbers of people are fighting for proportional representation. I shall watch developments in the US with great interest.
You'll, sadly, be watching for a long, long time. This has been something that's been attempting to get off the ground for almost 20 years now (the first states signed onto this in 2006. And, over those years, the combined voting power of the states that signed on actually went down due to census data pulling electoral votes from those states and reapportioning them to other states.
The latest state, too, to join onto this proposal was in 2019. It's currently pending in 11 other states, but with some of those states being places like Texas and South Carolina, I wouldn't expect much from them.
There’s a reason we kicked your kind back across the Atlantic. Our entire Constitution is written to limit our government and prevent another tyrant like King George III from enslaving us again.
@@anthonydelfino6171 Aaargh…what happened to making the world a better place? I will try to be positive - I probably won’t be around, but maybe in another 20 years, it will happen…assuming we haven’t been fried or drowned by then.
@@janetbayford133 I mean.... I'm holding out hope too... but can't help the ingrained cynicism. You're from the UK, you get it ;)
@@anthonydelfino6171 Sure do!
One of the major problems is that the "first past the post" gets all the electoral votes from a state.
To align it more with a national popular vote, while still giving power to smaller states, each state has a number of electoral votes equal to their Representatives in the House, plus two to count for their Senators. The electoral votes from the Representatives are awarded according to proportion of the popular votes per candidate. Then, the candidate with the highest popular vote in that state also gets the two electoral votes from the Senate.
This way, there are still incentives to actually win in a state, but having a sizable-but-not-winning presence in a state is also taken into consideration.
Prior to 2000, something like 15 or 16 states had proportional Elector voting, though they still voted in a bloc by custom. After Bush v Gore, that total went to 20 or 25 states allowing proportional voting, although they STILL vote in a single bloc by custom. That was as of 2008, 2012, or 2016. It's possible some have changed back. I have not kept up with it since.
The problem with national vote is the smaller states loose power and campaigning only happens in the most populous states, as you mentioned. Also, this is not a direct democracy, or a democracy in general, we live in a republic (with the prefixes of constitutional and democratic depending on the definition). We The People are in charge, through our elected representatives and our president.
I agree. Get rid of the "Winner Takes All" system and replace it with this or have it so each representative district gets their own vote.
@@thedoctor4637 I think people have progressed past the smaller state left behind mentality. Just like the industrial jobs that left them and others, they can progress past the said need and find different avenues to run up revenue every election cycle, particularly paying attention more to state and local government at hand.
Up until now, the smallest states have disproportionately more power than they should. Now is the time to balance the scales. Those states are quick to suck financial help from the larger States when disaster strikes, but when individuals need help they're told to pull yourself up by your bootstraps by the same hypocritical red-state mentality. Every vote to have equal weight,pireod.
I personally believe District Electoral Vote would be a good way to improve our electoral college system. This is what Maine does, and functions similarly to NaPoVoInterCo, except whoever wins the majority of votes in an electoral district gets that one district’s vote got president. So states would split their votes based on districts, and voters in non swing states would become enfranchised. Plus. Swing districts could pose to shake up how campaigns are run
This is now up to 17 states/jurisdictions and 205 electoral votes per the NPVIC website.
The problem with getting any sort of major electoral reform passed is that the people who are currently voted into power would have to acknowledge that there's a flaw with the system that voted them in in the first place.
There are lots of people currently elected who do acknowledge the system is broken. There were enough members of the House and Senate willing to approve Sen. Birch Bayh’s proposed amendment back the ‘60s that would have ended the Electoral College altogether, and used popular vote to elect presidents.
But racists led by Strom Thurmond filibustered or tabled it each of the 10 times it was up for vote. They wanted to give George Wallace’s presidential campaigns the chance to win enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House, where could bargain with the Dem or GOP candidate. Wallace’s strategy was to offer southern House members’ votes in exchange for the Democratic or Republican winner’s agreement to rescind the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws.
Wallace fell short of winning enough EVs to pull that , but the collateral damage was that we’re stuck with the Electoral College monstrosity. Southern segregationists still rule, from the grave. 👎
B I N G O !
you Got it. MAGA. Trump 2024.
@@user-db3ps6po7i Absolutely not. There's a difference between trying to reform a flawed system and breaking the law. Trump is firmly in the latter camp.
One issue that has been raised with this system is ways in which bad actors could make it difficult to determine who won the national vote. In Alabama, for instance, they are working to restrict the announcement of popular vote counts in their state until after the national electors vote, which would force any states in the pact to either ignore the voters from Alabama or else to divide up Alabama's contributions to the popular vote some other way without knowing the exact votes.
Don't get me wrong, I like the workaround to get rid of the Electoral College. But there are some roadblocks we will need to find ways around before it goes into effect.
" In Alabama, for instance, they are working to restrict the announcement of popular vote counts in their state until after the national electors vote, "
national electors vote dec 12 or so.
be kinda hard to not release voting results for a month.
esp since state legislatures have to certify electors.
@@vforwombat9915 - On the contrary, it would be simple. There's no requirement for a state to publicly announce the numbers of the popular vote for presidential electors. Or, for that matter, to even have a popular vote for those electors. It is conceivable that a single state could scupper the whole thing by simply having its legislature choose its slate of electors, and not having its citizens vote for them at all.
@@gdxpr "and not having its citizens vote for them at all."
which they used to do.
leaving aside state constitution questions, if they did that, then the compact would still work, because it goes by th winner of the popular vote.
not have a popular vote in some states doesn't get rid of the popular vote in all states.
hiding the results would be trickier, because they have to certify electors beforehand, and the parties choose the electors, and those electors are usually bound by law to vote a certain way.
also, politically , a state not reporting its vote tallies would have enormous pushback.
could they do this? maybe, but that seems a devil in the details thing that might easily be defeated.
@@vforwombat9915 to take your example, Alabama has a total population of just over 5 million people, 3.9 million of whom are of voting age. If Alabama didn't report its numbers, and the margin between the candidates is more than 3.9 million, then you don't need the numbers from Alabama to determine the winner.
Yes, more states than just Alabama could pass laws not releasing the number until later on... but even then they must certify the election results eventually, they can't hold the numbers secret, at which point the remainder to the states with laws that create the national popular vote winner can send their proper electors. Though to be honest there, too, once the states that have enough electors sign on to this proposal, they could also just sue Alabama and other similar states for withholding information vital to the determination of the winner.
The Electoral College exists very simply so that rural voters won't get steamrolled by metropolitan voters who do not share their beliefs, values, or identity.
Of course, if any of us really cared about democracy, I think that we would understand that decentralized authority is one of its central tenets for a reason, and that the Electoral College is part of a careful system of Constitutional checks and balances to that end.
In other words, *we aren't meant to be obsessing over presidential elections, because we have a president, not a king* .
Also, please take note that Robert lied about Article V of the Constitution. Please read, and make note of the word "or":
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, *or* , on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Yes yes yes! Every vote counts! This should be supported!! National Popular Vote Interstate Compact *NPVIC*
Robert Reich has always made sense. That must scare the gops.
Way more important than a popular vote is (in no order): ranked choice voting especially in primaries, all primaries on the same day or at least in 2 or 3 groups, electorates awarded by country not winner takes all, criminalize all forms of voter suppression and intimidation, increase access to voting, ensure there's hardcoded paper trails for votes, ban reporting on vote tally's until after all polling has closed, repeal citizens united, I'm sure there's more.
Abolish most primaries where uninformed voters ruin our system ... most states had no presidential primary prior to 1972....
Actually that's wrong. The popular vote is the absolute most important thing to enact. Almost all the voter suppression and election trickery comes from the lack of a popular vote. Trump lost to Hillary by over 3 million votes but unfortunately some votes are worth more than others.
All the others things need to happen but they should come later.
I think after the popular vote I think automatic voter registration should come to lower the barrier to entry.
I also think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Especially considering they are 2,4 million strong. Prisoners are the people who were failed by society so their votes matter a lot. Not to mention giving prisoners the right to vote would do a lot to combat the nihilism and aggression in American prisons.
I think voting right should be made inalienable from citizenship with no exceptions. That the voting right is something that can never be taken away from an American citizen no matter what. That way the only possibility for voter suppression is to suspend people's citizenship.
I live here in Colorado and we voted for it on the last election. I'm glad I voted for it
I'm in CO too and I think it was an abysmal decision. Just imagine the day when the people of CO vote for candidate A only to have the state give its electoral votes to candidate B ... because that's who CA likes. This basically makes us a colony of CA.
@@jimhenderson6081 the boats go to the winner. That's it as it should be majority rules. The Republican party is only 30% of the people in this country. The Democrats are only 45% of the people in this country. The rest of us are independents and we are fine with the majority rule
@@jimhenderson6081 No, it makes Colorado a part of the entire United States, where the entire US decides.
You know, imagine the following situation:
People across the globe realise that some issues in the world could be better solved if there was a unified body of legislature who could overtake some matters of domestic policy in every country.
With popular approval of 80% of the entire globe, the UN general assembly thus gains very limited legislative power in matters concerning international trade, and preventing egregious state abuses of human rights.
Over time, the UN gains more and more power, as people start to demand that it do more.
But after some time, people start thinking. If a country's UN representative is that powerful, then shouldn't they be elected directly by the people of their country?
As such, over the next few decades countries across the globe switch to a system where instead of UN representatives being appointed by legislatures, they are elected via majority vote.
Naturally, international political parties form to facilitate the campaigning of UN representative candidates.
Due to the way electoral systems naturally progress, these political parties eventually coalesce into just 2 parties, both representing roughly half the counties on Earth.
The UN general assembly now swaps between the 2 parties every 4 years, as about a dozen swing countries flip-flop between them.
All other countries are solidly behind either one or the other political party.
As such, the political parties spend all of their time campaigning in swing countries, while solid countries get consistently shafted by the UN general assembly, because they don't matter in maintaining power.
People eventually also wise up to the fact that when counted by global popular vote, one party only consistently achieves 30% of the vote.
The UN has meanwhile become so omnipresent due to the steady expansion of its powers that it becomes impossible to do any business without their permission and oversight.
But people eventually realise that according to the UN constitution, countries still have the power to appoint UN representatives however they want. And so the people start advocating for the "Global Popular Vote Internation Compact".
It's quite popular. Of the 193 members of the UN, 90 join. This represents 65% of the world population.
However, there are 13 countries which refuse to join, because if they did, the two major political parties of the world would stop always campaigning in their favour.
There are also 90 countries which refuse to join, because they only represent 25% of the world's population, and so would lose all their power in the UN if they joined.
The Global Popular Vote Internation Compact never gains enough members to come into effect.
This is the exact situation the US has found itself in since more than 200 years ago. The founding fathers never intended for the US federal government to become as powerful as it is. The founding fathers never anticipated that interstate political parties would form. The founding fathers didn't intend for there to be such a thing as a "presidential candidate". The electors were supposed to come together and negotiate who to lead the nation. Not pledge themselves to a candidate 6 months prior and campaign on the promise of getting that specific candidate into office. Nowadays they don't even need to campaign. Do you know the names of your electors? Of course not. The ballot only has the name of a presidential candidate on it.
The US federal government was supposed to help states cooperate with each other, not to facilitate these strange power games.
The founding fathers were naive, obviously. But who wouldn't be? Democracy barely existed back when the constitution was written. Obviously they'd get it wrong.
Thank you so much Dr Reich for bringing this pivotal movement to national audience. Ralph Nader and the organizers of this movement have been toiling relentless with mixed success. My state is already in the compact. Let’s get those 75 votes and CREATE real significant change!✌🏿🙏🙏✌🏿🙏🙏🤗
Agree completely.
Oh yes his name is REICH. Hitler hated every thing about America and that`s why this dr 3rd REICH hates the electoral colleges.
why? so sippy cup joe can stay in office for the rest of his natural life and contiue to destroy this nation?
I weep. NC used to be a swing state. It is no longer and I want to move but can't. Thank you Robert. Sharing
FL as well.
It is though? It will probably flip blue in '24.
1.7% In 2020. i think its swingy.
if cal cunnningham didnt have a scandal, he wouldve won
I'm with you. I told the republican for my district to never contact me again via mail or otherwise.
@@thegamerboytgb4350 Which? NC gerrymandering just got locked in with the state Judiciary and our Dem gov lost the veto and the GOP gained the super majority
It's troubling that while we want to preserve our democracy, there are many millions of Republican voters and politicians who no longer want a democracy. As a minority party, they feel they don't benefit from a democracy, with many said to believe violence would be acceptable to take control - "if necessary."
In August Minnesota joined so it's now 205 electoral votes
You can also diminish the Electoral College’s power by making the state electors proportional to the state popular vote (as in Nebraska and Maine). This would better reflect the popular vote, eliminate the winner-take-all aspect, and wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment,
Those two states don’t use a proportional system they use a system of tying electoral votes to the way the congressional districts voted
@@hs5312 Oh, I misunderstood. Thanks.
The electoral votes should be distributed proportionally if we want to reduce the power of the Electoral College.
@@hs5312 you’re partially correct as they do a mixture. They allocate the votes in a congressional district to the winner of that district and the two votes associated with senators to overall state winner. Not exactly what I’d like. I’d prefer to allocate all of the electoral votes proportionally based on the overall state vote.
Yeah, I think for it to truly work it has to be assigned based on how the whole state voted, not each district. Gerrymandering is already used to split congressional districts to disenfranchise people, this system would need to be able circumvent that to be effective.
Nebraska and Maine are partially proportional.
I’ve been following the NPVC movement for more than a decade. I’m glad to see it’s still going.
Hold on to this comment. You can recycle it every election cycle because it will never happen.
The majority of Americans supported direct vote even back in the 19th century. This movement isn't new. And it ain't going anywhere.
What, already a decade?. Good luck.
Just get rid of the "winner takes all" systen and let the popular votes in each state decide the number of electors for each candidate
I don't think this would survive a challenge in the courts, especially with the current Supreme Court. As much as many people hate the EC today, it was an important compromise at the constitutional convention where our constitution was written that helped it earn enough support to be ratified. While it is also true that the constitution also says states can choose to award EC votes however they see fit, there is no evidence that anyone at the convention thought this is how states would choose to do it. I don't see the originalists on the SCOTUS allowing an end run around the Constitution like this without going through the whole amendment process.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the EC abolished, by whatever means necessary. But I think this is a waste of time. I think the political effort would be better spent on gaining broad-based, bipartisan support for an amendment. Yes, that will be difficult and maybe even impossible in the current political environment, but I think its the only way forward.
The Popular Vote Compact passed the Nevada legislature but was vetoed by the governor. However, the US Constitution explicitly states that it’s up to a state’s LEGISLATURE to decide how electoral votes will be allocated, not the state government in general. I would urge anyone who can claim to have standing to bring a federal lawsuit arguing that Nevada has already joined the compact and that Sisolak’s veto had no effect.
I am fascinated by this "the legislature has sole authority" concept. Been wondering for a long time if the so called plenary and exclusive power to choose electors belongs to the state or to the sitting state legislature. If it belongs to that legislature, I don't see how a six month black-out period can be enforced. Without the six month blackout period, the whole compact may fail.
@@brianshank1343 Interesting. I think the argument would be that the legislature can choose to make a limited delegation of power to an executive agency, but that the agency in question only exercises that power at the legislature's pleasure. That's actually how quite a lot of the system of checks and balances works in general.
@@aperson22222 I missed your point in that last comment. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I am suggesting that a sitting legislature could remove their state from the contract/compact in the middle of a campaign season. That would wreak havoc.
I live outside the US now, and my last address in the US was in Massachusetts, so there's no point in me jumping through all the hoops for the privilege of casting a vote that effectively doesn't count. If enough states agree to this, I would finally have an incentive to participate in a presidential election again.
But it is even more important to vote for down-ballot candidates in the state you are registered in, since they make the actual laws. When Ted Kennedy died the Democrats ran dead fish Martha Coakley in the special election who lost to Republican Scott Brown. I would argue that this loss compelled them to run a much better candidate in Elizabeth Warren. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent you can recognize that this change of party for 3 years in the middle of Obama's fight for national healthcare made a difference.
I still think it's important to have large margins even if it doesn't give extra representatives. The margins inform the other side which policy agendas are completely repudiated vs which policies still has a place.
Talk more on Ranked Choice Voting please, this is how we dismantle the two party system and put electoral accountability back in politics
I think we wouldn’t have had Donald Trump as a president, and George W. Bush is a president if it weren’t for electoral college! The college we can, and should do without!
You are absolutely right.
This would be a start, but the ideal would be a ranked-choice vote for president, along with a mixed-member proportional system for Congress like what Germany and New Zealand has
Modernize: Make elections fair, transparent, and equitable ...
#Fair: Every tax-payer gets ballot in mail - a say in how $ are spent
#Transparent: Every submitted ballot online - all can verify results
#Equitable: Qualified Rep's vote shares proportional to % of vote times the population of their district.
@@richardgreen7225 If we're basing it on tax payers, does that mean billionaires don't get to vote any more? :D
Using RCV for each state, or are you suggesting a popular vote across the whole country with RCV? All ballots will need to be transported to a central location for the tally. I can't imagine that that is feasible. Sending electronic versions to a central computer would definitely not be accepted by very many people.
And Ireland and Malta...
Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
I remember having this discussion in 1968 during my senior civics class! The electoral college was a hedge against "mob democracy" initiated by the founders following the bloody French revolution. It made some sense since the original states were the former small colonies and had small populations. But as the country expanded west and states become bigger with the increase in population of the country plus better communications, it was really no longer necessary. Today with instant communications we don't need the electoral college at all! If we want to be a true democracy where the voice of the people really matters then we need to eliminate the electoral college!
Except the French Revolution hadn't happened by the time the constitution was written... the Constitution being written in 1787 and the French Revolution being in 1789. I can see them saying in hindsight "see? this is why!" but the framers didn't really believe in full democracy, just look at who they allowed to vote, and how they set up their house of lor... sorry, the Senate as being by appointment.
@@anthonydelfino6171 The Constitution was ratified in 1789. Yes, it was a flawed document; it didn't give women or people of color the right to vote nor outlaw slavery. The biggest flaw was that it favored the states with the most slaves and smallest overall populations and thus the electoral college.. The idea of "mob democracy" was a thing before the French revolution, as it was the defense used by royalists even before 1775.
@@bullettube9863 What is the logic of why it's not longer necessary today? Mob democracy is just as relevant. Those states with large populations will naturally mob out the votes of all the smaller states, so that no matter how the smaller states vote, it's no longer relevant
In fact, nowadays with the US's bigger population, mob rule is even more of an issue that it ever was before. There's just too high a concentration of people in a handful of states compared to the rest
@@marioluigi9599 which states might those be? Because last I checked... we have over 330 million people in this country, and even the most populous state, California, has 39 million. And to that end, California isn't even a monolith as there are many conservative areas within the state, the northern and central areas are highly conservative, for example, and even within liberal areas there are conservative voters. The college as is disenfranchises those voters the same way it does to liberal voters in places like Houston or Austin.
But even that not considered, the electoral college doesn't make politicians care at all about the needs of smaller population states. Last I checked, Florida and Ohio which typically receive a lot of attention from presidential candidates are are the third and seventh most populous states respectively, and they only get that attention because historically the vote there has been close. Literally the only small population state they care about is New Hampshire, which again, typically has a close race.
If your argument to keeping the electoral college is that it makes small states matter, then it doesn't, as politicians aren't incentivized to care about their needs any more than they care about the needs of the largest states, California and Texas, because they votes typically aren't close enough.
Another alternative would be to allocate delegates proportionally to the popular vote in state, instrad of winner takes it all. So of GOP gets 30% of votes in California, they get 30% of the delegates there. Same for Dems in Taxas. Each vote would count, regardless if you are in Alabama or in New York.
I really really hope there is someone that really cares about this fighting hard for us Americans
As the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gathers interest, the GOP busily pushes its majority of red state legislatures to organize a convention to amend the constitution.
Since constitutional conventions are not restricted to any agenda, GOP operatives plan to revise the entire constitution-- all without voter review and consent. The convention is to be a conservative ideological triumph, and a bulwark against "creeping liberalism" in the original constitution.
In effect, the GOP continues its efforts to "game the system" for powers voters never authorized.
How is it without "voter consent" when they won the legislatures via the vote? Article V is in the Constitution as a backstop to allow the States to reclaim control over the Amendment Process should the Congress become corrupt. The NPV compact on the other hand is specifically prohibited under Section 10 of the Constitution. So who is really seeking powers not authorized?
@@eaglechawks3933 "The NPV compact on the other hand is specifically prohibited under Section 10 of the Constitution. So who is really seeking powers not authorized?"
Section 10? You mean Article 1, Section 10? The section that "limits the powers of the states by prohibiting them from entering into treaties with foreign nations"? How on earth is that even remotely relevant to this conversation? This has nothing to do with foreign nations and EVERYTHING to do with states within the union. The compact is called the "National Popular Vote INTERSTATE Compact" after all.
Or did you mean the 10th Amendment? That says "...the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution" and powers not outlined in the Constitution are thereby granted to the states, or people. The compact is an agreement between states to align all electoral votes with the outcome of the national popular vote. I can't for certain say what exact legal challenges this faces, but from my quick refresher of the Constitution, this seems kosher as this is a power not afforded to the federal government and thus is a power given to the states. It's an implied power granted unto the states, a penumbra.
You obviously don’t know what the words “voter consent” means…
They'd still need three quarters of states to vote for it.
@@fred_derf Correct-- but that is like saying, "This liner is unsinkable, but if it does sink, we have the lifeboats." Even a 75% approval can be reached if the states do not put a time limit on ratification, and do not authorize a state to retract its approval.
For whatever consolation it offers, the constitution has been amended by only one method-- congress sending an amendment to the states for ratification.
Bobby makes a great point. The fact that you guys want to consider yourselves part of the Democratic or Republican party means that those party leaders and candidates will take you for granted. The only voters that really count are the independence because politicians actually have to fight for their votes. What needs to happen is everyone should drop their party affiliation so that they have to fight for every single vote because they won't know which way you'll go, but of course, that's never going to happen since we're so tribal in this country.
@@Zach-ju5vi Did he say that? No. He said "ALL Votes should be EQUAL"
Not "Party X should Win always"
@@Zach-ju5vi You seem to think that he is a Republican. I assure you that he is not.
The drawback to being a registered independent voter is that in some places you can't vote in the primary. So you wind up with a choice of someone else's candidates. We need to form a Progressive party and nominate our own candidates.
@@Zach-ju5vi look, I get it -- you know that *your* party sucks and has no worthwhile ideas and is literally running just on corporate prostitution, culture war nonsense, and spite and thus will struggle to win the popular vote.
Everybody who actually wants a fair and representative democracy doesn't give a shit.
@@markfinley3703 People's Party says, "Hello. Let me introduce myself."
This is the best explanation I've ever heard for doing away with the electoral college. It needs to be done it doesn't work anymore it needs to be amended
Wow 5 million people who didn’t count what a country and women lost the right to their bodies.
Let's reform the Senate too. So far, I've lived in voted in OH and CA. My vote has counted for around 25-30% of someone living in WY or SD.
Bragging time - MARYLAND was the first state to enact this law! As the Democratic Majority Leader I was the floor leader in the House. Then state senator (now Congressman) Jamie Raskin was the floor leader in the Senate. Let’s get this done people!
Every state should also be divided into equal population districts/zones for voting and end this gerrymandering rigging of the boundaries.
In the “swing state” maps at the beginning, NV/CO/MN/NH/VA/TX all stayed the same for each of those elections.
So if the criteria we’re using for “swing state” is if there’s at least one change in the last 4 elections, none of those listed above are swing states….
This is the first I've heard of this, and I was fully prepared to reach out to my politicians to request it, but then you showed that my state already has it! Yay!
Good for you! you must be a democrat. get ready to have your state in constant blue for the rest of your life. Oh and by the way, don't forget about the little towns.
I'd like to see the 'winner take all' system for each state go away. nothing in the constitution says that's how it should be done.
Agreed. A "winner round up" system would be much better. Multiply the winner's share of the state vote by the total number of electoral votes, then round up. Repeat for the second-place finisher with the remainder of the vote share and remainder of the electoral votes, and continue until no EVs are left.
Ross Perot would have actually gotten a decent chunk of EVs under this system, had it been in place in the 1990s.
@@KarlBonner1982However, what you're proposing is basically an approximation to electing the President by popular vote. Why complicate things? Just award the College votes to the candidate with most votes nationally.
You liberals are always blathering on about how the person with the most votes would win -- EXCEPT for states! Why is that?
Listen to this guy. He is 100% correct in every thing he says.
"No, no. My 80 foot boat is easily worth more (to me) than your 100 foot boat. If you want me to sign up to your deal, you have to agree with that. Permanantly."
Almost everyone, at the constitutional convention in 1787.
You are the best educator of all time. Succinct & easily understood ❣️
I'm so happy to see more people pushing for this!
30s germans were happy too.
@@phatmhat9174 Well luckily unlike Germany in the 30s we no longer have rules that allow for the LOSER of the general election to get a slightly lower position and then worm his way into power upon the death of the winner.
Question: how would you feel if in 2024, Desantis were to win the popular vote, but lost in your state? Would you be comfortable with having your vote against him ignored?
@@andrewreynolds9371 the president is the leader of the entire nation, not my state, not just the ppl who voted for him. he's the leader of the federal govt, not my state.
you have to think of our country as the united STATES, not just our country, like it's one thing, THE thing. it is not. i was designed to be bound to STATES.
but leftists hate being bound. they want everyone to do as they're told.
@@phatmhat9174 so, you're saying that if a candidate were to win the popular vote, you'd be okay with *your* state's electoral votes being given to the winner *even if you and your state did not vote by the majority for them?*
I want you to *say* that, not just babble generalities I already know.
so how about a straight-up answer?
I vote often. However, my presidential vote has not counted for the last 35 years. Literally thousands if not millions of votes do not have an impact on the election. I understand when our country was young the electoral system probably was the way to go, but in the modern era it is archaic.
A better idea would would be distribution of electoral college votes proportional to the popular vote in that state. That would give each state some individuality. It would also force politicians to try and win over republicans in New York or democrats in Arizona. If you simply elect based on overall popular vote, it means each state has no individuality at all.
I live in Texas. I can’t imagine them ever going for this.
We should have got rid of the Electoral College a long time ago. Thank you, Mr Reich, for sharing this video.
Good news Robert Reich, as of Mar 2024, we have 205 committed EV's and 101 pending EV's including my lovely state of AZ. Some Red states also. We are so close.
GQP doesn't want EC gone because campaigns would be more difficult, plus they can't win if it's by popular vote - in the last 20 years, two of our five worst WH residents lost the popular vote!
I have another idea. Abolish the "winner takes all" concept and replace it with a "proportional" system. Electors would be selected according the popular vote ratios in each state. If "state X" had 40% of the votes for candidate A. Then 40% of the electors are selected by candidate A's party, etc. Ratio's would be rounded to closest numbers. Not a perfect solution but it would equalize states with large number of electors.
The "winner takes all" is so unfair if Party A gets exactly 50.00001% of the votes, then they get all the electors. That disenfranchises the 49.99999% of that state's voters.
That would require almost every state to participate, or else the ones that did not would have a greater impact on elections. A candidate isn't going to focus on states where they can only swing one or two additional votes as long as there are winner-take-all states available.
It is so hard to allocate proportionally three EC votes across five or six candidates. We need to multiply by some factor across the board for a proportional system to work.
Proportional allocation of electors could be best of both worlds, allow states to be focused on as states while also making each state pretty competitive at least a lot more than they are now.
@@brianshank1343 There's only two candidates for president anyway. So that problem wouldn't apply
A state with a small number of electoral votes would lead to heavy rounding errors though, so it would still lack proportionality.
I live in NYC and have a small vacation cottage in NE Pennsylvania that I use occasionally. For medical reasons and personal needs I prefer to live full time in New York. Since NY is blue my presidential vote doesn't count or matter. If I were to move to Pennsylvania permanently and register there- bingo- my presidential vote has become instantly valuable and sought after.
Just do what Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his wife did - register to vote at your vacation home. According to sources, Mark never even stayed there, yet he voted by mail in that district. Of course you should notify the NYC Board of Elections of that change.
What we need in order to counter this is a non-partisan effort to abolish gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering, a tactic which *both parties use incessantly* , prevents many districts from having competitive democratic elections.
It is only in places where extreme gerrymandering has proved impossible that elections can possibly be competitive.
None of that has anything to do with the Electoral College.
Robert is barking up the wrong tree in my opinion.
@@ericfarina3935 the problem with ending gerrymandering is that it requires state politicians to vote against their vested interests. Politicians want to continue to select their voters, not vice versa.
Some states, mostly those with Democratic majorities, have established independent electoral commissions to create fair district boundaries. And in those states that allow initiative and referendum, the voters themselves can establish that type of commission.
@@broddr
Gerrymandering needs to be abolished, not managed.
If we understand that this is a change that requires a break from partisan politics altogether, and we agree that this change is necessary, every single word you just wrote is completely moot.
Stop making excuses.
If any of us actually took democracy seriously we would be talking about Article V, and one of the many issues on which a spirited debate would lead to a consensus is the issue of gerrymandering.
@@ericfarina3935 that’s a lovely sentiment, but we live in a reality of political partisanship. In most states only state legislators can change election laws. And it’s in their self interest to maintain the status quo. Until a majority of voters of a state’s majority party agree that gerrymandering is a critical issue, we’re stuck. And it’s incredibly difficult to get voters enthusiastic about an issue that only comes up once per decade.
as a non american living in europe, i aprove of this message😊
Get rid of electoral college to fix this country's huge list of issues. Popular vote is the only one that matters...
Thank you, Jamie Raskin for sponsoring this bill in Maryland! Our Governor O'Malley signed this back in 2007. We got the ball rolling; let's keep it going!⚽⚾🏀
This whole idea is completely unconstitutional. If it ever gets passed I can literally sue those states and defeat them in court myself, because the Constitution has a clear and unambiguous clause against states forming pacts and confederations.
We kind of fought a war over it once.
Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation."
It's almost as if none of you have ever read the Constitution...
@@ericfarina3935 Raskin is a constitutional scholar. What are your qualifications? Taking things out of context??
@@chrisharris7893 My qualifications are that I am capable of reading and that I don't give a furry rat's ass about accolades or titles.
By quoting a portion of the text of the Constitution (as opposed to the entire Constitution?), I am taking that text out of context by definition.
What matters is whether the contextual meaning of the text (which is as straightforward as can possibly be) remains intact, which it does.
I am not here to debate academic qualifications with you, and you are lucky I even dignified that ad hominem attack with response.
Maybe a good compromise would be the following:
- the "senate" electoral votes would go to the winner of each state
- the "house" electoral votes would be allocated nationwide proportionally
This would mean that the electoral vote winner is the popular vote all the time! 😊
The states that have joined this compact are all blue. But if Michigan joins the pact, and in an election where candidate A wins the state of Michigan, but candidate B wins the national popular vote, and thus the Michigan electoral votes go to candidate B, doesn't that invalidate the votes of the people of Michigan where a majority voted for candidate A? The best solution to this current disagreement over the electoral college should be that states slit their electoral votes based on who wins both the popular vote in the state and the congressional district, which is how Maine and Nebraska have it.
Another way to change it that would fix issues is to increase the total number of house seats to make smaller districts. If there were 1500 seats(850 to win!) The larger states would have the same representation as smaller states, and while Wyoming would go from 3 electoral votes to 5, California would go from 40 to 157.
Mr. Reich, You represent... "A Safe Port, In a Sea of Insanity". Once again, Thank You!!
3:31 I'd be interested to know the political breakdown of the states that support the Compact, as proposed by Mr. Reich in this video. It's certainly an interesting idea, though
Great plan. I sincerely hope my American friends can get this sorted. Hopefully it’ll break trail all the way to abolishing the electoral college.
The fly in the ointment, however, is the fact that some Americans, possibly a majority in some states, do not respect simple majority principles -that is, democratic principles; indeed, many of them think that minority rule is just fine so long’s the minority ruling is their own.
The ultimate question is: can this minority be somehow whittled down to less than one-quarter of US States?
Should the electoral votes not also go the way of Maine and Nebraska and be split proportionally?
Discrepancy between country-wide vote and EC winner is MORE likely under such a system, not less likely. In 2012, if we keep all popular votes the same, Romney would have been elected had all states used a district system like Maine and Nebraska.
That could be the best of both worlds, allow states to be focused on as states but also make elections, campaigning in each state more competitive than now.
That along with abolishing corrupted gerrymandered districts, by allowing independent commissions would go a long way to bringing back a system of best practices. Lastly, Federal funding of campaigns along with making unlawful, outside contributions would help make “public servants” accountable too those they represent.
Unfortunately independent commissions don’t work. I live in Ohio, where the people wrote independent commissions into our constitution… republicans still drew illegal districts, that our Supreme Court ruled was illegal, FOUR TIMES…and they refused to redraw. Now all of Ohio is using unconstitutionally illegally drawn districts. GOP are criminals and should all be jailed
It's only gerrymandering to the losers.
@@andrewschliewe6392 Where have you been? It’s Risk Management 101. Both Parties are guilty of tilting the scale where and when they’re able. We’re ALL the losers because, like Vegas, they’ve managed to reduce the risk. In this case, of losing their offices no matter the side.