Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College - Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States

29 318
1 892
 
The Trouble with The Electoral College: noburn.info/id/video/naumZZZ5l4R5a5w.html
How the Electoral College Works: noburn.info/id/video/tYm2atF-aJCamag.html
This vlog is a bit of a mess, but as the saying goes: "I would have written a shorter letter if I had more time." I needed to make this and upload this so I could stop thinking about it for now. Some day I will re-do "The Trouble With The Electoral College" video, but for now this is my mini update on why the Electoral College is a friend to no one.
And in case you wondering, this is my official position as for as the elections of individuals goes, now and forever: twitter.com/cgpgrey/status/796246936072261634
P.S. Way to go, Maine! www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/10/maine-became-the-first-state-in-the-country-to-pass-ranked-choice-voting
:: Sigh :: Illinois is colored wrong on the map.
Runtime: 04:43

Kommentarer

Pun Goblin
Pun Goblin - 2 dager siden
The year is 2029, the entire way elections work has been completely redone. Tom. He holds literally all of the votes and is the only one that matters. He is the most average American and all the presidents need to do is convince just him to win. He is constantly fed questions by US citizens so he always has questions prepared.
Seylem
Seylem - 21 dag siden
In other words: the whole election doesn't mean anything since every state's election could mean anything. Based on whatever the leader wants it to be...
Skintaro D
Skintaro D - Måned siden
Abolish the office of the presidency
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
Why? You need a commander in Chief
Mr.Fishstick _YT
Mr.Fishstick _YT - 22 dager siden
Yes we need to restore the monarchy
samiamrg7
samiamrg7 - Måned siden
This video sounds almost like it was made last month.
Dreagostini
Dreagostini - Måned siden
*Laughs in propotional election*
Enzo Rafael Souza Silva
Enzo Rafael Souza Silva - Måned siden
I simply don't understand the comcept of county, in brazil we only have citys and states
Andrey Pozhogin
Andrey Pozhogin - Måned siden
One week to go!
Stephen Decatur Jr.
Stephen Decatur Jr. - Måned siden
There are problems with it but we’ll have to ride it out for a while to ensure one party doesn’t rig the system permanently for themselves.
Christian Higginson
Christian Higginson - Måned siden
I mean, the president can only be elected by one group of people, insofar as presidents will always be bound to a party.
presidents are thus inherently unrepresentative in that they can't represent all parties even in the most diverse voting bases and large number of viable candidates. the real answer, is that the executive branch should be tied to the legislative, and broken up into small chunks, so that no one person can control the entire thing. that's insanity. it is a thing that simply shouldn't be.
Alexander Caruso
Alexander Caruso - Måned siden
I’m sorry but u get that these electors usually are bound by their party and almost never go against their party
Rishabh Dave
Rishabh Dave - Måned siden
Since NC, GA, TX, and PA were all swing states or are getting really close, it seems much more likely today than it was when this video came out.
John Johnson
John Johnson - Måned siden
This is why I dont like are system. A few city's decide what the laws are. They have no clue or care how it affects people outside the city. Also why we can't have a popular vote win. It won't change because one side holds the power and it helps them win
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
Except most people live in cities 😐
Bent Rod
Bent Rod - Måned siden
I feel like we should have an almost congress like system for the electoral college. Have one determined by population and one determined by each state. Have the electoral college voters be elected by the people to retain a sense of integrity.
CogitoErgoCogitoSum
CogitoErgoCogitoSum - Måned siden
Perhaps. But a popular vote is NOT the way to go. Two lions and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Popular votes do not protect the minority. Similarly at the state level, no state or minority set of states should decide election outcomes for the majority of others.
States are entitled to representation too, especially since they CHOSE to join the Union in the first place. How populations change since joining the Union should not significantly diminish the influence of the State.
Power does belong at the State level, not the federal level. This is not merely a difference in opinion. This is how the Constitution was written and how it was intended to work. The 10A repeats that sentiment. The independence of the states from the federal governments overreach is the whole point. It guarantees a degree of political diversity across a nation. States are supposed to be independent sovereign nations unto themselves to some degree; the purpose of the federal government is to defend against outside threats, form foreign treaties, and place the States own overreach of citizens and violating the Rights of the people in check.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 12 dager siden
@ooga booga people should directly pick the president
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 12 dager siden
@ooga booga if 1 person decided to kill 2 other people, is that the right of the minority?
ooga booga
ooga booga - 12 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy what does that have to do with anything? If 2 people choose to beat up another person, it's the will of the majority right? Also OP was talking about the states voting on behalf of the people.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
That’s what congress is for. To represent the minority
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
So the MAJORITY of people shouldn’t have say but the Minority?
IceBug1337
IceBug1337 - Måned siden
The new election system should have some hexagons in it.
Hasan Muhammad
Hasan Muhammad - 7 dager siden
Yes
Khalil Rahme
Khalil Rahme - Måned siden
Hexagon is bestagone
Roy Long
Roy Long - Måned siden
CGP should do a video on rank choice voting and preferential voting
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
He has
Roy Long
Roy Long - Måned siden
probably made this after 2016 became the latest election in which the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral vote.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
Yep
Rex Argentum
Rex Argentum - Måned siden
I'm against the Electoral College but this video is still flawed. In many states, electors are not allowed to vote against the party that won the popular vote. Additionally, in every single state, election laws state that the winning party will appoint their slate of electors. Even if in states that allow faithless electors the likelihood of a party appointed candidate voting against the party is slim.
Rex Argentum
Rex Argentum - Måned siden
@CitizensOfOmega it literally doesn't matter and never will. As more and more states create laws that punish faithless electors it becomes even less of a problem. Nowadays, there is not even a remote chance that faithless electors will change the outcome of an election. Sorry but this matter is trivial. It's a non issue. Just Google search faithless electors laws and you will see just how little of a problem this is.
CitizensOfOmega
CitizensOfOmega - Måned siden
​@Rex Argentum I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing here. Grey didn't say it's a likely possibility, just that the fact that the possibility does exist is frightening. Are you saying he shouldn't have brought that up since the possibility is so remote that we should all be ok with it? That there's a 0.0000001% chance that our votes won't matter at all? Do you not understand why it being a remote possibility doesn't really matter?
Rex Argentum
Rex Argentum - Måned siden
@Jakub Kozupa it's slim to the point of impossibility. Over half the states have laws preventing faithless electors. The states that don't have laws are majority non battleground states. The fact that some electors "could" vote against their party doesn't make the chance of an election turning the other way any more practical.
Jakub Kozupa
Jakub Kozupa - Måned siden
It’s slim, but the fact that it is a possibility is what is frightening.
Faisal Khan
Faisal Khan - Måned siden
I personally think a democratic meritocratic republic is the best solution.
Faisal Khan
Faisal Khan - Måned siden
Well racist people won’t agree with you here CGP.
Quarzonu 87
Quarzonu 87 - Måned siden
Love the video, one suggestion: perhaps discussion should precede destruction.
rymdalkis
rymdalkis - Måned siden
"If we don't have the electoral college then the densely populated coastal elites will control the country!"
...as opposed to the current system where the sparsely populated rural areas control the country?
MonKé
MonKé - 16 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy It's so stupid that a few states control the election, so I agree.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
@MonKé why should a select handful of states chose the president?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
@Abren I live in a very populated state in NJ. My family makes 70-90 k a year. Very small amount of property. How am I an “elite”? The people who live in cities are no different from people who live in rural areas
MonKé
MonKé - 16 dager siden
I'd say that more swing states control us
Abren
Abren - 21 dag siden
I'd rather have the rural areas control the country instead of the coastal elites controlling the country
AKA SGSVirgil
AKA SGSVirgil - Måned siden
As a lawyer who has a degree in political science, a J.D. and teaches Con Law, it amazes me that just about every word that you speak in this video in description of the intent and purpose of the Electoral College is completely wrong.
Dartowl1
Dartowl1 - Måned siden
3:09: wait, isn’t that what the national interstate compact does?
runcandy3
runcandy3 - Måned siden
This guy really doesn't like the electoral college. I think his contentions in this video are better than his last; however, his concerns have never been validated in almost 250 years with there being no likely chance of this happening in the future. His solution is this imaginary problem that has never happened is to simply break it. That's not a solution and continues to ignore the central reason for the formation of the electoral college system in the first place - to protect big states from tyrannizing the small, the rural from urban. I'm not saying that this is the best system - it isn't. However, I'm ready to have that discussion on how to change it, but no one is offering any alternatives.
Fernando Giubilei
Fernando Giubilei - Måned siden
What are you talking about? The problems he talked about came true shortly before this video
Ryan A
Ryan A - Måned siden
Don’t the state legislatures appoint the electors and the gov signs off on them? He left that part out which kinda invalidates the whole “the electoral college is bad for states” part. The States would be the ones appointing the faithless electors
corrado alamanni
corrado alamanni - Måned siden
It does not assure it but It facilitate it
Harry Mu
Harry Mu - Måned siden
welp faithless electors are getting harder and harder punishments..... I guess 2016 cgp grey is a lil outdated, Youtube
Original Tanner TM
Original Tanner TM - Måned siden
3:30 “please vote for orange”
I see what you did there 😉👉👉
Lluís Aymerich Gimeno
Lluís Aymerich Gimeno - Måned siden
wtf?
jasperzz
jasperzz - Måned siden
Kill the electoral college
I o
I o - 2 måneder siden
Without the electoral college cities would put ridiculous penalties and taxes on farmers and anyone in the whole of the US.
The U.S. government is not meant to 'give the people whatever it wants.'
But to make sure NO ONE is trampled by something 1/100th of the country wants. It is better if NOTHING happens at federal level than if you get a tyrant government and election fraud enforced by armed thugs in 6 cities.
Imagine if France or Engalnd governed all of Europe exclusively by popular vote.
Jakub Kozupa
Jakub Kozupa - Måned siden
Your assuming that every single person that lives in cities votes democratic.
jasperzz
jasperzz - Måned siden
Kill the electoral college
Daniel Manning
Daniel Manning - 2 måneder siden
Electoral college is fine. If you want democracy go live under the queens dress on the other side of the pond
jasperzz
jasperzz - Måned siden
It’s not fine tho. How can a president lose the popular vote yet win outright?
FakeNet
FakeNet - 2 måneder siden
he did. he has lived in britain for a decade.
CRIMSON HAWK
CRIMSON HAWK - 2 måneder siden
From New York area? That answers why you lean so far left.
ooga booga
ooga booga - 12 dager siden
CGP seems like a Libertarian Transhumanist based on his videos
Mr. Hat
Mr. Hat - Måned siden
Imagine believing that CGP grey is far left.
Dilpikl2
Dilpikl2 - 2 måneder siden
I believe the Cambodians solved this problem
Edin Hodzic
Edin Hodzic - 2 måneder siden
Cityzens: Abolish EC! We dont want our policies to be decided by countrysiders!
Countrysiders: Keep EC! We dont want our policies to be decided by cityzens!
A popular vote is needed.
Edin Hodzic
Edin Hodzic - 2 måneder siden
@I o the president can not make such a law, and states can not make such a law because state jurisdiction applies only in the state.
I o
I o - 2 måneder siden
Under that policy, a few cities can make laws that force THE REST OF THE COUNTRY to come pick up all the poop in their cities and spread it on their sidewalks. Or legalize drugs and stealing.
Liam White
Liam White - 2 måneder siden
An idea to put into law would be "Any state with a population above *arbitrary amount, let's say 500M for simplicity sake* the electors must vote in accordance with their state's population."
ie. If the state votes 60/40 blue, and they have 20 electoral college votes, the electors must by law vote 12 blue, 8 red. A smart politician could decide the arbitrary cut-off point on a specific number of electoral college votes.
Vikalp Yadav
Vikalp Yadav - 2 måneder siden
You are using strawman argument to argue against electoral college.
JCSkyKnight
JCSkyKnight - 2 måneder siden
It would be hilarious if in 2020 the incumbent president seriously considered trying to get electors to vote against the will of their people in an attempt to cling on to power after losing the electoral college and the popular vote! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Puget Sound Transit Blog
Puget Sound Transit Blog - 2 måneder siden
The scariest thing about the EC is that last part; it could easily be a ticking time bomb to a civil war, if the electors tried to ignore democracy and vote for the other candidate. If unfaithful electors actually caused a flip, there would probably be a coup.
Itsyaboi Tavino
Itsyaboi Tavino - 2 måneder siden
The year is 2028. The new election style is being tested. After some debate, it was agreed that political positions would be decided by a Mariokart Tournament.
Robert Strong-Morse
Robert Strong-Morse - 8 dager siden
Mario kart speedrunners become presidents and give the U.S to nintendo.
Sorow Fame
Sorow Fame - 18 dager siden
Nintendo uses this to take over the US, which leads to the rise of the Mushroom Empire as they conquer the rest of the world.
Ediolon Wyrm
Ediolon Wyrm - Måned siden
@Ultimate Ham Sandwich or the guy with a 6g prototype
Ultimate Ham Sandwich
Ultimate Ham Sandwich - Måned siden
And but of course it will be held not in person but online. Take a guess who would win, the one with an Ethernet cable, or Wifi.
AlejandroCOT
AlejandroCOT - 2 måneder siden
2020 Elections be like... this video aged well
Ross Orion
Ross Orion - 2 måneder siden
I'd like to see politicians have to actually consider and campaign for the needs of those people who live in flyover country in addition to the big cities. Only way I can think to do that would be to give every county 6 electoral votes and move to a ranked preference style of voting. The winning candidate in each county gets 3 votes, the second place gets 2, and third gets 1. This would allow more people to feel as if their vote actually mattered.
DeepClient
DeepClient - 2 måneder siden
Grey predicted Georgia going blue!
tim frawley
tim frawley - 2 måneder siden
Seems like a very opinionated video. 50 million of Biden's votes came from 14 states, you already only need the top 14 populated states to win, what does it matter
GamingNEWB [R293]
GamingNEWB [R293] - 2 måneder siden
All this electoral college debate is because many think its a big deal who the President is. Maybe just maybe if the President is such a big deal, he has too much power?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@GamingNEWB [R293] The president shall be directly chosen by the people
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@GamingNEWB [R293] not proportionally. California should have way more power in Washington than Wyoming. Seriously, California has 80 times the population of Wyoming and yet get the same power in the senate and if there’s 538 members in the EC, and 330 million people in the United States. And California has 40 million people. That’s 613,000 per person. 40,000,000/613k . That’s 65 electors in California but instead only get only 55? Same in the House. One house district in California represents 754k people yet one district in Wyoming represents 500k people. That isn’t fair. And back to the senate. We could split up California 80 times all slices having the same population and still likely have more people than WY each.
GamingNEWB [R293]
GamingNEWB [R293] - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy That question retracts from the real issue and that is the Federal Govermentment has too much power in particular the seat of the Presidency far beyond with that the Founders intended for it . You have more seats in the house of representatives than Wyoming which in turn gives you more power there to push legislation by your representatives that benefit you probably a Coastal resident in a city. Also you send more electors than any other to the Electoral college giving you huge sway over your preffered candidate (assuming you fall to the left of the political isle) Wyoming by itself doest hold more voting power over you with smaller electors.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Why? Why should one Wyoming voter get 5x for power over California?
Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry - 2 måneder siden
Okay so it's not a system that only lets states vote and it's not a system that is decided only by the majority it's a mix with states having a higher pop getting more of a day but giving smaller groups a disproportionately higher say. Also the electors part of the electoral college is eh alot of states already have laws making them vote for what they say to and that should be expanded the whole system was made when it was possible voters didn't have all the information about the election easily accessible and something big might have been happening nobody really knew about but with the internet and instant communication it's a bit redundant
Noah Kepner
Noah Kepner - 2 måneder siden
Thank You for your humble acknowledgment of a mistake. It is something we don’t see any more (anywhere). A real conversation that opens the floor for honest and polite discussion.
What’s your take on this scenario: all states move to Maine and Nebraska’s system? Would that solve the rural and urban problem? (Assuming we fix the faithless electoral was well)
TheLegend-E
TheLegend-E - 2 måneder siden
If this year's election gets overturned, that will truly cap off 2020 with a bang. Pure madness.
Fernando Giubilei
Fernando Giubilei - Måned siden
Seems like it's not going to be overturned for now
Blake Woods
Blake Woods - 2 måneder siden
Make the electors side with the majority vote or have the electors run for election.
Some level of continuity is likely to be needed to ensure everyone will accept any changes within the electoral college
AlphaSword456
AlphaSword456 - 2 måneder siden
we need something that allows for more types of representation but also doesn't boil it down to a simple popularity contest.
Thomas I.
Thomas I. - 2 måneder siden
I am confused why the main argument for keeping the electoral college is that "if it was up to the popular vote, the largest population group would win every time". Literally give ONE reason why the elected should not appeal to the will of the *majority* . Why should the person who most people in the country agree should lead, not be elected? What kind of ass-backward logic is this? Of course the person that most people agree with should be elected. What else is a vote for?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@Ryan Kasch so you prefer minority rule?
Thomas I.
Thomas I. - 2 måneder siden
@Ryan Kasch You know, it's funny. You remind me of my old thoughts about how I've felt the States should just be 50 countries. If you don't like the laws and culture of one, live in the other, that kind of thing. Though being a single country I suppose helps for intimidation to avoid confrontation, by military might. On the other hand, as a person who doesn't value culture so much, I have to wonder what's lost by letting the majority stance flourish and cannibalise the minority culture. Humanity will become what it tends toward, and the people will be happy about it. And don't forget, people need competition and conflict, so undoubtedly another pair of politico-cultural entities will split from this resulting majority group and social dynamics will not come to some boring end. But at least governance will suit the will of the most people. Maybe my way of thinking is too cold and mathematical but I'm weird that way.
Ryan Kasch
Ryan Kasch - 2 måneder siden
Because the US government has no justification for being then. I, a rural conservative voter, have no cultural ties to that of a liberal urban voter. While in Europe, and a lot of the rest of the world for that matter, there is some sort of ethnic/religious tie that binds together a nation. The electoral college and the Senate both attempt to make sure that the influence of the more populated areas with completely different cultural histories and attitudes is not imposed upon me. In a perfect world the federal gov't is a toothless institution so that the common defense and market stay but my state would have its choice on all other laws.
Zandor Felok
Zandor Felok - 2 måneder siden
4:09 - "This has never happened in American history"
2020 - HOLD MY BEER!!!
Don't get rid of EC... just change how it works. Require more then a majority vote (270). Require the EC be comprised of the elected members in Congress and they must vote according to their district and their state, individually... NOT as a whole state decision (i.e. - California is not a 55 vote win total.... it is subject to being split per district).
The purpose of the EC is to ensure the majority mob/popular vote does not rule.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Or just keep it simple and have a popular vote system
very good youtube channel trust me
Grey predicted that there would be a new presidential election in four years!
Zoe Hardee
Zoe Hardee - 2 måneder siden
every time i watch a cgp video all i can think is
>her
adbon
adbon - 2 måneder siden
Heres the reason I dont have a problem with that map right at the beginning. If those counties all voted against you, that would mean a majority of the population had picked this person, so it is a fair win. In current US politics, that would most likely mean a Democrat winning every time. This says something about the population, maybe the GOP should change its policy and voter base from rural America, to urban America like the Democrat party has. That map is not a problem, its democracy.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
It’s also unlikely that all 100% of those voters vote democratic
Ophir Wesley
Ophir Wesley - 2 måneder siden
1:39 was real close to being reality just now
Noel V
Noel V - 2 måneder siden
You should make a video on a replacement or improvement to the E.C.
Ethan Bates
Ethan Bates - 2 måneder siden
Your argument that the electoral college doesn’t represent the states is inherently flawed because the scenario you picked is entirely hypothetical. The president could also win with 23% of the vote but obviously will never happen. The fewest states that anyone has won an election with was 23 by Jimmy Carter. Only twice has the president ever won the election with fewer than 25 states meaning that essentially every election is decided where the winner wins the majority of states. Hypothetical arguments have no backing when they have never even been remotely true or close to happening in practice.
The piece where you said that electors can vote for whoever they wish is true except in 32 states. 32 states bind their electors forcing them to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state. In fact, faithless electors, as they’re called, have NEVER changed the outcome of an election and never will because of how few there are in any given election. Again, stop raising hypothetical scenarios when they have never even been remotely close to coming true in practice
Jiajian Hou
Jiajian Hou - 2 måneder siden
Popular vote wins the election. It’s that simple. Just make it like that. Why Americans so stubborn?
Julian Sloman
Julian Sloman - 2 måneder siden
"Time to have a discussion" - ends the video - where is that discussion?
Catbird
Catbird - Måned siden
Like he says in the video, there’s two possible answers - prioritize giving power either to the states or to the people, and there’s no right answer to that question. The discussion is to be had by the politicians first, but it seems as unlikely as ever to happen.
Duke Skibbington
Duke Skibbington - 2 måneder siden
Make the president the leader of the largest party in the Senate. Make a prime minister that's the leader of the largest party in the Representatives. Boom, fixed your system. A president picked by the states and a PM picked by the people.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
How about just complete popular vote? Whoever gets 50% wins if not the same goes into each choice voting. Do the same with the presidential primaries too
K Nguyen Nguyen
K Nguyen Nguyen - 2 måneder siden
Yeah but each state regardless of population has 2 senators, this is even worse than the EC
Crazzy Crisis
Crazzy Crisis - 2 måneder siden
Me 4 years ago: Uh oh
Me today: OH NO.
Eric Jones
Eric Jones - 2 måneder siden
In the United States, we are not a collaboration of people but States, the States are granted voting power in exchange for joining America, their population is also granted votes, and the vast majority of the votes. What Grey is proposing is to remove the States voting power, something that 3/4 of states would have to agree to, unlikely. Additionally, we do not have the right to vote in America by the Constitution, the Constitution only requires if the states allow us to vote, it must be fair, but the right to vote is granted at the state level. The last misinformation Grey wants to sweep under to rug, is even the electoral college does not "Decide" the President. Congress has the final approval of the President, and they can choose to select the president themselves if they wish, instead of certifying the electoral college selection.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Okay? But why should the states have more power than the people? They shouldn’t let 3/4th of the states chose. Because that can lead to minority rule. Have enough states with the largest populations pass it. Also there’s no way your getting 3/4ths of anything these days. I like the constitution, but it was written in the 1780’s, it’s now 2020. And you wouldn’t need Congress if we had complete popular vote.
Scared Of Ghosts
Scared Of Ghosts - 2 måneder siden
Just go by a simple forward popular vote n stop making all these obscure complicated rules to follow
Noobert Von Cobblestone
Noobert Von Cobblestone - 2 måneder siden
That’s not how it works. It’s theoretically possible but is illegal and if someone tries to do it most if not all state conventions meet early enough that they would just choose a different elector if they submitted wrong vote.
Edit: to be clear, there’s an argument to be made there should be no electors and the votes HAVE to be dispersed according to that states laws with no personal input on doing such. But i think it’s disingenuous to pretend like this is an illuminati situation where the elite determine the outcome. It’s illegal to do that and there are many checks against such
Anakin Jackson Films
Anakin Jackson Films - 2 måneder siden
Yooo! We grew up in the same area
Kyocus
Kyocus - 2 måneder siden
Hello 2020 peeps. This video happens to be very relevant.
ChickenTit
ChickenTit - 2 måneder siden
And welcome back to our show...”Where did the yt algorithm bring you this time!” hosted by Susan Wabbajack
MegaBigben86
MegaBigben86 - 2 måneder siden
The problem is the states passed laws its all or nothing for electoral. Vs the district by district voting ut should be.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Why not popular vote? And why let politicians gerrymander to the White House?
MegaBigben86
MegaBigben86 - 2 måneder siden
@Ossetepolv its clear you dont understand how it works, because 25% does not give you a majority. thats not how it works at all. Ironically the German system is a copy of the original American system before states required it was all or nothing, with modifications. so why use a watered down version of what works, when its the states faults for breaking it. Why rip out a system that works instead of removing what breaks it? that is pointless.
Ossetepolv
Ossetepolv - 2 måneder siden
@MegaBigben86 I see your concern about the minorities, but with that kind of voting system, you could in theory get a majority with only about 25% of the popular vote. There is a solution for that: The German voting system. In Germany, the people elect the **Bundestag**, which is like the House of Representatives. You have about 300 districts all over the country, and every one of them elects one **Abgeordneten**/representative. But in the end, the popular vote still counts. Every party gets additional seats (**Ausgleichsmandate**) so the percentage of votes they got matches the percentage of seats they get in the **Bundestag**. After that, the **Bundestag** elects the **Bundeskanzler**/president. Everyone in Germany has two votes; one for the **Abgeordneten** of their district and one for the popular vote. That means that the votes the parties get overall decide how many seats they get, so every vote has the same weight. But also every district sends one **Abgeordneten**, so local minorities have influence in the **Bundestag**. And to ensure that you can't just found a new party and get at least one seat in the **Bundestag**, you have to get five percent of the vote at minimum to get **Ausgleichsmandate**. So why don't we use the German system?
MegaBigben86
MegaBigben86 - 2 måneder siden
@Ossetepolv Because a popular vote is all or nothing, at that point your representatives for the districts might as well stop doing their job. Popular vote also pushes for popular leaders. Where is representational electoral voting allows for complex views to be represented. You can have people who want abortion, but not war, or more taxes, and no social medical. because on each subject they are represented by their district. the less areas that have weight, the less powerful a republic is and becomes a swamp of wasted effort. The only thing that needs to be fixed is that the states cannot vote all or nothing with their electoral. That's the whole point of a republic, so that the smaller districts still have a vote with their electoral. But they dont, and that's why this is a mess and not how the system was designed.
Ossetepolv
Ossetepolv - 2 måneder siden
Why not just popular vote?
Uncle Riktovan
Uncle Riktovan - 2 måneder siden
This is nice
keenan Hatfie
keenan Hatfie - 2 måneder siden
Anyone who thinks that arbitrary shapes should pick the president and not the people who live on those shapes is an idiot.
We were designed to be 50 different countries working together but that practice seems to only be preserved for the benefit of the people in power. If it isn’t beneficial all the sudden we are one country again.
Julianna H.
Julianna H. - 2 måneder siden
Approval voting option. You vote for your favorite and then vote for any other candidate you find acceptable. So your favorite gets 2 votes, your acceptable get 1 point, your unacceptables get zero.
Winner needs majority and plurality .
Scott102215
Scott102215 - 2 måneder siden
The electoral college is no perfect but we have not seen many faithless electors historically. What other options do we have? There has to be some type of balance so everyone feels there vote counts and that their community is represented. If you allow large cities to be the deciding factor you basically cause the rest of the states to be servants to the coasts, which tend to have the larger city areas. In addition, urban and rural areas have different problems and concerns. If we ignore one group we end up alienating large portions of the country.
Alan Gresov
Alan Gresov - 2 måneder siden
The electoral college exists to balance protection between popular vote and state vote.
And yes faithless electors can exist, but they take a huge risk doing that, and are unlikely to last long in office.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Or just have complete popular vote like how we vote on everything else......
OIi123
OIi123 - 2 måneder siden
And who should decide the outcome of that discussion? The people, or the states?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
The people
Isheian
Isheian - 2 måneder siden
Trick becomes how do you have fair system that represents the diverse people of the United States without mob rule where the 51% can do what ever that want to the 49%.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
But in 2016, 46% took away from 54%. That’s minority rule. What would you rather have? 49% don’t get what they want 54% don’t get what they want
Natibe_
Natibe_ - 2 måneder siden
That map of the 11 most populous states... he was right. GA is turning blue, FL and TX were not very red at all. Control by the top 11 is happening sooner than later.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
But Ohio is now a red state so 🤷🏻‍♂️
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Well Florida is getting redder. But yeah Texas and Georgia are shifting blue
klan voted FDR
klan voted FDR - 2 måneder siden
I believe that in most countries dead people aren't allowed to vote, might be a nice place to start.
klan voted FDR
klan voted FDR - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy you're being sarcastic, right?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Since when did dead people vote?
Sơn Nguyễn Hoàng
Sơn Nguyễn Hoàng - 2 måneder siden
Of course there'll always be Trumpets crying out for "justice" whenever their big orange daddy loses. Let's just say all those "dead votes" come from the victims of covid that your papa's been killing from the start of this year.
Thomas Benjamin Roca
Thomas Benjamin Roca - 2 måneder siden
The 2020 elections brought me here
MrManic52001
MrManic52001 - 2 måneder siden
You fail to understand it is a system of protections.........
Meaning. If only the biggest states voted for president they would never have legislation power becuase they would have maximum of 25 senators vs 75 for the other states. Also the house would be inverted to a super majority. Thus allowing the legislature to reduce executive power.
The EC is a true fail safe as it should be.
You just dont like the rules and clearly dont understand them.
MrManic52001
MrManic52001 - 16 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy you literaly just made the children's argument that judges should be voted in....... that is next level derp. Ask Russia how hard it was. Dont the dems want to stack the courts, bring in 2 new states, and get rid of the filibuster? Exact how many rules need to be changed for you to understand that is anti democratic?
MrManic52001
MrManic52001 - 16 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy wtf are you talking about potato.
MrManic52001
MrManic52001 - 16 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy so all NY and California vote to raise taxes to 90% north Dakota should just bend over becuase why? Mob rule? What about free speech? Same applies?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 16 dager siden
@MrManic52001 because you think we become tyranny if the majority chose the president yet with checks and balances. So congress can over ride it. And SCOTUS can block it. A one man dictatorship is hard to achieve in America.
MrManic52001
MrManic52001 - 16 dager siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy yes correct, so you do know details but are incapable of applying them. 2/3 vote can override a presidential veto. Why did you bring up presidential veto as some sort of argument?
Armontek
Armontek - 2 måneder siden
I totally agree that the electoral college needs to change, but I do not think the solution is to swap to a popular vote. Changing to a popular vote just shifts the problem, it does nothing to counteract it. You still have to worry about urban areas having total control over everywhere else, and you also have to consider that as of late urban areas are becoming increasingly biased towards one party in particular.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
The 100 hundred biggest cities in the United States only have 20% of the U.S. population
SAMUEL KING
SAMUEL KING - 2 måneder siden
I thought this was a non political channel...I was wrong.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Where did he get political
Brandon ZZZ
Brandon ZZZ - 2 måneder siden
We need a system that functions in the way that the electoral college is meant to that isn't the current EC. Tyranny of the majority is a seriously terrifying prospect in democracy, and even more so with a powerful media. I propose a decrease in federal power to make whichever outcome wins less scary for everyone.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@Brandon ZZZ One person one vote Whoever gets more votes wins Simple
Brandon ZZZ
Brandon ZZZ - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy What I am saying is that the EC was originally intended by the founding fathers to limit the dangers of direct democracy. I said that I do NOT want a direct vote for president because that leads to the population majority holding power over all others. I do agree with you that my argument is about the power of government and that I want to see it limited, but it is the same topic. How electors are currently selected is by the two national parties, I would like to see electors chosen by people in their communities. I am done arguing with you and your outlandish claims that "Tyranny of the majority doesnt exist". It does by nature of having a voting public. All I advocate for is that those people voting stop oppressing other people with laws and regulations, especially on a national scale. Every person should have the right to freedom and all other rights and laws should be derived from that. Consequently, no person or people shall restrict the right of another to freedom in their choices or lives, even in the exercising of their own freedoms. This is not a perfect or fleshed out system, but it is based on principles that I value in the personal autonomy of individuals and my disdain for the exercising of one's power over another human being. If you don't like my ideas that's fine. I am just stating my opinion about our current system and the flaws I see in it. I do, however, respect your opinion and I won't try to change it.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@Brandon ZZZ than we shouldn’t be arguing about the electoral college. You should be arguing about the difference between big vs limited government. Which is a completely different topic. Have the people directly chose the president dosent make you not have freedom.
Brandon ZZZ
Brandon ZZZ - 2 måneder siden
SuperThunderGoodGuy I am not advocating liberal democracy, which is a form of representative democracy, which is a form of governance. What I am advocating is a system in which the federal government does not have the power to tell people how to lives their lives, rather the people are free do as they please, as long as they don’t harm anybody else’s freedoms. I am for the reduction of federal government and the increase of local and individual autonomy, but it’s not my job to make you understand my world view or me to understand yours. Just please educate yourself on what the words you are saying mean before you say something like tyranny of the majority doesn’t exist: it is literally the basis of a representative democracy.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@Brandon ZZZ but are you fine with what happened in 2016? When 46% if Americans told the other 54% what to do?
Robert Ray
Robert Ray - 2 måneder siden
Now imagine that all the food for the blue areas is produced in the grey areas.
isaac libby
isaac libby - 2 måneder siden
Now imagine all the technology and advancements that are produced in the blue areas that are used in the grey
John Steed
John Steed - 2 måneder siden
I agree that the way the electors are chosen needs to be fixed, but I disagree that the system should be thrown out altogether.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Why?
OneBigBugga
OneBigBugga - 2 måneder siden
I know this is an old vid but I remember hearing someone talk about Texas. Texas seems to be slowly moving to the blue side. Every time a vote rolls around, more and more people Vote Democratic. If this were to happen and Texas because a reliable Blue state, and the other states don't move ( an no signs shows a Blue state going reliably red ) Then no republican could ever realistically be elected president again.
Nyatrue P
Nyatrue P - 2 måneder siden
Personally, this sounds like a bad thing. Also, the whole idea of boiling down politics to an “either/or” is reductive and counterproductive, our system needs to be reformed, maybe not all at once, but we need to make it work.
CynicalDriver
CynicalDriver - 2 måneder siden
Simple... Eliminate the people. Make it so that each district has a singular vote in the "electoral college." Each district's vote, must be cast for the candidate who won the popular vote in that district. Then just have a computer spit out the results once the final vote counts are in... Which would also provide the handy side-effect of no longer having to wait until December to see if there is going to be a political coup.
Districts should be drawn along population lines, with each state having an equal number of districts, to equally distribute the vote amongst the people and geography at the same time. These districts should be drawn on the 5's (halfway between census years) and be drawn by a computer modeling program that is programmed by individuals who sign a legal contract to abstain from all other political activities, for life. They can't volunteer for campaigns, they can't lobby for or against laws, they can't be related to a politician, they can't work for a politician or their family, they can't hold investments that political families own over 5% of, and more. This same district system could also be used for the management of HoR districts.
Each state would have equal power.
Each district would have equal power.
The popular vote would have direct influence.
The needs of "Rural America" would be equally important as "Urban America."
There would be no secret political pacts altering the decisions.
Candidates would have to campaign on a platform of cooperation instead of divisiveness.
Government would be forced to consider the lives of all "Americans" instead of just the ones they prefer, because gerrymandering for racial or political influence would be eliminated.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@CynicalDriver ;-;
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@CynicalDriver lol have a nice day :)
CynicalDriver
CynicalDriver - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy I'm done going in circles with you. It is a waste of my time and you are clearly incapable of grasping concepts that are more complex than "more iz bettah."
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@CynicalDriver so? More people live in Urban areas. Shouldn’t that mean they get more representation? Because there’s more people
CynicalDriver
CynicalDriver - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy you don't need to convince me of the benefits of RCV. I already said I support it, I just also pointed out the reality of it being a very difficult battle to win. That said, it would still be an urban vs rural contest if there were no EC to go alongside it.
Goliath117 Look up
Goliath117 Look up - 2 måneder siden
I do want to point something out. Some states do force the electors to go with what the popular vote of that state. However, in other states we can have “faithless electors” that’ll go with what they choose and not the will of the people. In some states these electors are punished to varying degrees, and even fewer are states that would force the electors to change their vote to match the will of the people within that state.
Andrew Casper
Andrew Casper - 2 måneder siden
The Supreme Court ruled that electors couldn’t vote against what the people voted for in their respective states. Chiafalo v. Washington.
Andrew Casper
Andrew Casper - Måned siden
nvm, you said may. Anyways, that is basically the same thing. The people elect the state legislature are the same people voting for electoral college votes, hence it basically has the effect that they are banned. Sorry about that, didn't realize you had bolded the "may".
Andrew Casper
Andrew Casper - Måned siden
Its definition
Andrew Casper
Andrew Casper - Måned siden
@Mr. Hat LOL. Look up what a "faithless elector" is
Mr. Hat
Mr. Hat - Måned siden
No that wasn't what ruling was, it was that states *may* pass laws that ban faithless electors.
Andrew Casper
Andrew Casper - 2 måneder siden
@Gezi5 But it is now
Jacob King
Jacob King - 2 måneder siden
I’m just confused, is this saying the cities SHOULD rule over everywhere else because there’s a gray area in the electoral college that’s never been used, and because, again though it’s never happened, it’s possible to win with only 11 states.?
The Solar Wolf
The Solar Wolf - 2 måneder siden
“BUT BUT THE CITIES WILL GET THE POWER AND RUIN OUR REPUBLIC!!”
As opposed to all those dying population areas basically deciding for the rest of us how things should go?
Dylan Br23
Dylan Br23 - 2 måneder siden
@Fluffynator it’s the ability to balance the majority and minority views
Peter S
Peter S - 2 måneder siden
People that hate the EC should look up why the right side of Canada wants to break off from the left. Montreal and Toronto decide the elections. The oil fields in Edmonton and Calgary fund the whole country but get no say. A majority of people in two cities run that country. The right side finances the left. Yeah theres your prime example.
Dylan Br23
Dylan Br23 - 2 måneder siden
@Gustavo Navarro we have had the electoral system for 244 years and it has worked quite well and it is a representative republic because the minority vote is given an even chance to win an election with the electoral college
Dylan Br23
Dylan Br23 - 2 måneder siden
@PhoenixFlame I agree we are a representative republic where both majority and minority need to be equally represented hence the electoral college
PhoenixFlame
PhoenixFlame - 2 måneder siden
Because if an entire, disparate culture of rural americans who comprise about 45% of the country can no longer ever be represented again, and this is clearly displayed to them, there will be a civil war or a revolution. It won't be pretty, either. It's not going to be north versus south this time, it's going to be cities versus country. Movement of goods will end. Services will stop. Supermarkets in urban areas will no longer have food, while rural Americans will no longer have power. Civilization as we know it will end until something fills the power vacuum and the whole western world will come tumbling down as its leader descends into chaos. It's going to happen, and it's going to happen in our lifetimes. The current status quo is trying to delay it as long as possible, but the center cannot hold.
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis - 2 måneder siden
I mean why not get rid of the electors, which are totally unnecessary and irrelevant and keep the proportional votes?
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
What to do you have against popular vote?
Lichkings Vault
Lichkings Vault - 2 måneder siden
Ok so the electoral college can be misused. Agreed. But it protects our republic. Without them we do have mob rule. Then it’s just 51% of the population voting to take 49% rights, stuff and possibly life away.
I vote we keep the electoral college.
Lichkings Vault
Lichkings Vault - 2 måneder siden
@Gezi5 ok. I can see your point with that. I’m not sure how that would be much different than the electoral college. Might greatly increase election security. Might also considerate too much power in major cities in some states. Possibly has same fix but the system might not work on a smaller scale. Might be to easy to move during election year to get your vote in a more important district. Just initial thought. Well worth looking into. Thank you for your input. I love finding new ideas like this. It’s like getting a new puzzle.
Gezi5
Gezi5 - 2 måneder siden
@Lichkings Vault ...if you are so adamant about no mob rule than having each district in each state count a specific amount of points proportional to its population
Lichkings Vault
Lichkings Vault - 2 måneder siden
@Gezi5 I’m confused by that statement but what system would be better? That’s much more interesting. I will have to do research on what ever system you think is better. I have only heard of popular vote, states Governors choose for you and the popular vote. If there are hundreds that could work in the USA I must have missed something worth looking into.
Gezi5
Gezi5 - 2 måneder siden
@Lichkings Vault oh i understand it all right, you don’t want the popular vote because you know that without it people’s votes in hard “red” or “blue” states would actually be counted and we can’t have that. Even if you don’t want popular vote there are still hundreds of better systems than the electoral college
Lichkings Vault
Lichkings Vault - 2 måneder siden
@Gezi5 it’s not voter suppression. It’s a compromise that keeps the nation functioning. It protects people’s liberties. I understand that you don’t like it. I just assume you don’t understand it.
wushu1984
wushu1984 - 2 måneder siden
if the Electors can take away the victory from an unsuitable candidate, why the heck didn't that happen in 2016?
the.abhiram.r
the.abhiram.r - 2 måneder siden
it actually happened in trump's favor
--
-- - 2 måneder siden
1:33 this was almost Biden's map, with the 11 biggest states. Texas and Florida almost went Blue, and Ohio is historically a swing state as well. All other highlighted states went blue. (Georgia is still recounting as of this comment).
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Florida is turning red. Ohio went solid red. Texas will still don’t know if it’s going blue yet. GA is blue. And NC went narrowly red. This wasn’t Biden’s map
Alexander Chippel
Alexander Chippel - 2 måneder siden
Really the only solution is to abolish the federal government.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Than the United States won’t exist anymore. Just 50 states or separate countries. Yes very smart idea
Alexander Chippel
Alexander Chippel - 2 måneder siden
@Tommy hasn’t seen star wars yet No, America will continue to exist, just on a state level. Instead of having some massive government holding the world hostage in a pissing contest with China, you'll just be a slave being occupied by china while the US is unconquerable because literally every citizen has multiple guns and it's physically impossible to conquer a population that is entirely armed.
Tommy hasn’t seen star wars yet
no more usa the world has progressed past the need for usa
Connor Miles
Connor Miles - 2 måneder siden
The way electoral college votes are distributed amongst the States is based partly on that State's population as a percentage of the country's total population and also partly on just being a State. So every State gets a default 2 electoral votes for being a State and additional votes from there based on population.
This system is designed to strike a balance between population density being the sole determinate of a State's power in the Presidential election and population not mattering at all.
The only reason why this is a controversial or debated issue is because most people (including most Americans) don't understand that the United States was not founded as 1 country, but as multiple States that each though of themselves as their own country working in concert on some issues too big for them to handle individually. Therefore any agreement they made had to consider both population size and also Statehood when determining how much influence each State had. If they based it solely on population size, none of the small States would agree. If they gave every State equal power, none of the big States would agree.
This is not a flaw like this video seems to imply. This is intended. The argument in this video that if everyone lived in CA and only 1 person lived in each of the other States then CA would still decide the election is pointless and simplistic. That would never happen.
If you alter the argument to a more reasonable assertion like "Half the U.S. population could live in 10 of the 50 States and a candidate would only need those 10 plus 4 more to win an election with 14 States out of 50", then that's also not a problem. The Electoral College was not designed to require a Presidential Candidate to win more than half the States. It was designed so that every State matters to some extent, but ultimately population also matters. Why should a Presidential Candidate have to win both more than half the States and more than half the total vote? Neither of these benchmarks is a goal of the Electoral College because the Electoral College balances both popular vote and State totals. So unless exactly 2% of the country's population lived in every State or a candidate won by a large margin, you would expect that often times the winning candidate will not win BOTH more States AND more total votes than their opponent. And guess what? That's OK. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. You don't win just by getting 51% of the population to vote for you in a Constitutional Republic. You win by meeting the requirements that everyone knows and agrees to before campaigning for political office.
The argument about Electors not having to vote based on the vote in their State is also made from a place of ignorance about the history of the U.S. The States decided on how many votes they each got in the Electoral College and then had the latitude to decide how they would determine which candidate got those votes. Most States made it a legal requirement for the Electoral votes to match the popular vote outcome of their State, others have other rules. Again, each state is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. And the beauty of it all is if you don't like how your State allocates its Electoral College votes because they don't have a law requiring that they match the popular vote (which hardly matters since that's almost always how they vote anyway), then you can move to a State that DOES have that rule. And if enough people move for this reason, the State that allocates its votes in the way you don't like gets fewer votes while the other States get more.
GCP Grey, and unfortunately most modern Americans, think of America as a Democracy where the mob should rule instead of 50 Constitutional Republics bound together under another Constitution with rules in place to take into account both Statehood and population power of the States to strike a balance between the two.
TL;DR When a European comments on American politics remind them we haven't had to listen to their opinion on our politics since 1776.
Rich TRiCKY
Rich TRiCKY - 2 måneder siden
The Constitution can be amended
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
@I o ?
I o
I o - 2 måneder siden
@SuperThunderGoodGuy Yeah, change the wording to exclude anyone who isnt BLs who M.
SuperThunderGoodGuy
SuperThunderGoodGuy - 2 måneder siden
Lots of things need to be amended
eclipsewrecker
eclipsewrecker - 2 måneder siden
Seems like your example of the 1 person in every state vs everyone else in California was evidence that it is for the people and the states; or did I hear that wrong?
If it were for the states California wouldn’t decide, and if it were for the people the popular vote would decide.
I believe that there are cultural/societal problems that could hurt the country in a state or popular vote.
It seems as though the electoral college is a compromise between the two.
The electors are a safeguard against a hypothetical “hitter.” Whether it works or not is to be seen.
Josh Nabours
Josh Nabours - 2 måneder siden
While arguing with random people on the internet I have found that too many people seem to think that the electoral college is what makes America into a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy like certain ancient greek city states. This is also not something the electoral college does.
Neste