The roots of America's democracy problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2018
- Minority rule is a majority problem.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
Political systems depend on legitimacy. In America, that legitimacy is failing.
In an earlier version of this video, we incorrectly reported the population of New York. The state's population in 2017 was 19.85 million people.
Read more about how a compromise to unify our states is splitting our parties: www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
For more Ezra content check out the Ezra Klein Show Channel:
ruclips.net/channel/UCnxu...
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
If you want more analysis and insight straight from Ezra himself, subscribe to the Ezra Klein Show podcast! New episodes each Monday: bit.ly/2oiIsle
Please make more videos like that.😊
@@FethiDilmi Oh boy. Vox is still a propaganda. But I can assure you it's not the critical left that they promote. But instead, they, unconsciously, promote the establishment.
What establishment you might ask? Well, the disillusioning utopia of political correctness, identity politics, and global capitalism. What they have done is preserving the division instead. In the end, they are, in any way, a product of the elite's establishment
@@frontierteg lets agree to disagree. Right?
Hello, I am a Republican. Some conservatives are trying to form a new Constitutional Convention. What gets decided in that meeting becomes the new Constitution. The previous framework for the USA was the Articles of Confederation which was improved by the radical change of the Constitution. Do you really want another radical change?
Get this straight the US on the federal level isn't a democracy it is a representative republic,as well as most states are.... democracy only exists at the local or church level.....
You have to have respect for Vox on their political videos because they leave the comment section on
I can give them that.
You know what, I'll give them that. At least they have the balls to do that.
Yeah so true. But they've execute order 66
no......not when they are outright spreading lies
Lol
Don't kid yourselves. A nation with only two parties cannot be democratic.
Strahinja Radenković understands.
A nation with parties cannot be democratic.
Strahinja Radenković Democracy isn’t inherently good
@@hwfq34fajw9foiffawdiufhuaiwfhw I guess it depends on the definition of democracy.
I use the formal Herodotus's one (ie: direct empowerment of the citizens) over the current ad-hoc and circular one (ie: a democratic system is a system used by democracies...).
You cannot add political parties (with their own hierarchy) to a democracy without instantly turning it into an oligarchy.
Strahinja Radenković We have more than 2?
“The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them” - Julius Nyerere
100 years ago, GOP and Democratic are both conservative parties.
Now we have 2 political zombie alliance.
its the mes vs the mores, and thats putting it nicely. im not sure which is which anymore. hey so long as im free to call the political parties horrible names i guess its working.
I love this. I was looking for just this comment, to call out the west for hating on Tanzania and other countries that have aimed at a one party or no party system. Julius Nyerere is a legend.
Now the US's system is outdated. We need more pluralism, and a new party, a good one.
@@yenvuong7650 with both parties leaning strongly towards authoritarianism we need a middle ground anti-authoritarian party to restore balance, a down on the political compass. i think the libertarian party covers that base.
To become a democracy, several different political parties are needed, and not 1 with 2 different names.
well us is not a democracy
@@rondaldeuley5043 it’s a failure
‼️‼️‼️
Well ranked choice voting gives what the public wants at least chance at winning. In our plurality system, 3rd parties will never be noticed because they have no chance to get enough votes.
Exactly. Us has never been a democracy. If it was, you wouldn't have a dumpty Trumpty for a leader.
How does this guy look both 26 and 56 years old at the same time?
true as hell
His posture is terrible
He is 26 but behaves like 56. It's called wisdom my friend...
@@Albanez39 I said "look", not "behave". Perhaps this will provide you with enough wisdom to read carefully and not make this same mistake again :)
@@---GOD--- It wasn't a mistake dear, it's just my own interpretation. That's why he might "look" 56, because you also take into account what he says and how he says it. The shirt, glasses together with his calm and well mannered attitude also contributes to that impression.
I bet most people would think he's just a youngster by looking at his picture (without glasses and a t-shirt).
It's all a matter of appearance, but appearance is incredibly influenced by verbal and non verbal communication. And the way we dress is also a form of communication, it's the way we present ourselves and that's why we give it a lot of thought every morning...
Ranked choice voting is the most important change because winner takes all elections mathematically and inevitably lead to two parties. Ranked choice voting gets rid of the spoiler effect. Want more independents, libertarians, socialists, other third parties? Implement for ranked choice voting. You can truly vote for who you want, not against a party you hate.
Not exactly, in the UK we have winner takes all elections, and we have the greens, Lib dems, conservatives,labour and UKIP, all represented at the national level st in England.
If you count the rest of the nations there is another six parties that don't tend to stand in Britain
Other countries that exercise first past the post also, have a greater variety of parties.
Although I agree with the thrust of your post, it is something to do with the US culturally that is generating such extreme monopolism and partisanship to maintain two parties
Cppgrey says that that also leads to a two party system it only gets rid of spoiler effect.
@@dannywaring4417 Note that UK has a Parliamentary system
Gindisi - Implying that one or two socialist representatives being elected would mean you instantly die? Talk about overly dramatic...
Jay Strange - Getting rid of the spoiler effect is enough. Because then people could vote for the parties or candidates they actually like, and yes it might make a two party system still, but those two parties might not be the dems and reps, as people in the middle finally can choose to NOT vote first for the loony bins on either extreme...
A binary democracy, or a more accurate description "two-party system" is a democracy if you have a very broad definition of democracy.
It's like choosing between two different fruits, what if you don't like either.
If you are 'better' than china....the problem is ,,, you are much much worse than china in term of capitals control a country
Once everyone understands America is not a democracy. We will be better off.
@@leeadickes7235 exactly were a constitutional republic.
One party from an autocracy.
I hate the appeal to "The founding Fathers wanted x"
The founding fathers were great men. But they represented an extremely diverse group of political beleifs. The nation was hammered out on compromise and concensus between them.
When you say the founding fathers wanted x , it gives you the impression of trying to couch your own views in their mouths
The founders were also educated versus the population at the time and had a diverse range of occupations.
The thing that annoys me more is that it doesn't really matter what they wanted. We should think about what we want.
@John Smith That is like a monarchy lol
Conservatives often argue that electoral college is sacred because the founding fathers created it😬... but 200 years ago, 90% populations were rural, while nowadays 90% populations are rural🙄
Learned something today thanks. You are right. They all had a different thought but that's why we need to always need conversation.
we need 6 parties, one of the parties is at my house
What's your party's stance on Marijuana?
@@willofdodge1 yes
I heard that! Our vote doesn't matter.
25k Subs with No Videos Challenge can I come?😕
Am I invited
"The founding father thought [political parties] were bad, or at least, they did before they started some." Living for factually correct shade.
just plain_name
That doesn’t make them right automatically, the constitution was a heavily flawed product of its time.
@just plain_name Too bad Congress no longer has any conservatives left.
@just plain_name
Grants "Freedom of Religion" yet only branches of Christianity received support.
Calls "all men equal" yet did nothing about legal discrimination and deliberately excluded women.
Inexplicably cuts America into states even though it's one country.
Each state gets two Senators and thus two votes regardless of population size.
Impeachment inexplicably can't punish past removal of office no matter how awful the crime.
And that's just from the first three sections
just plain_name you realize it was amended many times, due to its supposed flaws.. right?
@just plain_name Their idea of it at least .
"democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried" -Winston Churchill
"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." -Winston Churchill
@@amihart9269 touché
“im about to do whats called a pro gamer move (starves 3 million people in bangladesh)” -Winston Churchill
Should we really listen to anything Winston Churchill says?
"The answer is simple, we must move" I'm thinking of moving to Europe.
Honestly, its not so good here. EU provides a looot of bureaucracy, while handfull of countries are actually democratic. Out of them you must drop those with migration problems, and you are left with very few choices to go.
Lol
Move to sweden. Everybody understands english.
@@edgararrhenius8562 I have heard norway is good too... finland is good too ignoring the whole russia border thing
@@craniumtea5137 yeeee but those countries are kinda lame.
No national amendments have gotten through lately because you need two-thirds of both houses to agree on a bill - and that means only bipartisan bills will pass through to the state approval stage - good luck finding anything with two-thirds approval in this day and age
Salary hikes for Senate members should do the trick...
No "national amendments" (whatever that's supposed to mean) haven't gotten through in the last 15 years because Senators use something called "sample legislation" now. They're not writing bills, lobbyists are.
Dont forget that 2/3rd of the states have to ratify.
MrCauseEffect *3/4ths of states
@@jwil4286 your right its 2/3 of the senate and 3/4 of state legislatures.
I'm German and I think your biggest problem is first past the post. A proportional system on national level would lead to more parties and every single vote would count. Voting turnouts of 40% are actually not normal or okay in any western European state but I can understand people who dont vote in their 100% one party state or even district. If you worry about local representation getting lost, look at our German voting system. We have two votes, one for our local representative and one for the actual power division in parliament. Half of the seats are elected directly by the districts via the 1st vote, the other half is filled to match the 2nd vote's outcome as close as possible. So everyone is represented in parliament (except the minor parties below 5% to prevent fragmentation) and even Gerrymandering is obsolete. And please, get rid of the electoral college and allow run-offs for presidential election. Byebye two-party system and minority rule :)
Qualle Yeah... A lot of European countries should already be forgetting many parties that have existed and continue to exist. Meanwhile the US should come up with at least as many parties the US has. Though, I doubt it would work the same way with a loy of stuff existing in the constitution. At the end they'd pribably be lost with most of the stuff, just like dictatorships are lost after getting "freedom" and "democracy"
Qualle I love the German system because it forces everyone to work together and destroys any chances of having dictatorships or fascists in power
Abolish the electoral college gerrymandering and the senate NO MORE STEALING POWER BY SMALL STATES, people matter NOT STATES, LAND DOESNT VOTE SO SIT THE FCK DOWN MISSISSIPI AND STOP COMPLAINING AND GET more people to have more power
You guys should really get rid of your 5% rule. Seems really silly to have 700 seats if you're only admitting groups with at least 35. Embrace a little more fragmentation. It's good for democracy, getting a more granular choice. Parties should realise that they all work for the best of the country and for that need to work together and compromise.
Unfortunately neither Republicans nor Democrats will pass those ideas because that means more competition and they'd actually have to come up with ideas. I mean even allowing a third party would change things drastically (especially in swing states): You'd really have to compete and perhaps even have to go into a coalition to fight for majorities.
Who's watching this after the chaos at the Capitol?
me
Me
Apparently you
The great assault on democracy wish it succeeded
Well the 1st problem with America's democracy is Here in America we dont have a democracy... Its a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States.
Face it America needs a multiparty Parliamentary System. With a cap of any corporate donations or any donation from rich wealthy people. One time donation cap. The rest will be publicly funded.
america also needs to turn corporations into worker cooperatives and dismantle the profit motive.
i don't necessarily think that the fused powers of parliament and PM are the best choice, because parliament voting on an executive is still very majoritarian. maybe if they gave the shadow government veto power, it would push it more towards a consensus model.
i also think that we should have zero corporate donations, a $5k (per person) cap on individual donations, and actual jail time for people who are doing corrupted things like both clinton and trump have been found to be doing.
america's whole system was founded by property owners looking to preserve their status. i think we need an actual revolution to ever have a chance at true democracy.
Veto power to the shadow government, love that idea. I mostly like the multiple accountability of the prime minster from all angles that the Parliamentary system offers
no donations
PERIOD
corporate donations - the problem is a govt that granted itself so much power that the corporations line up to make donations to curry favor. Eliminate the power and you eliminate the corp control by accident.
If only they worked....
The whole republicans vs democrats is complete BS. It’s more about the parties and their power than actually representing people, here’s an idea get rid of party labels and vote for candidates based on their ideas and values, not on whether is red or blue.
That still would lead to some ideas that are supported by the majority will never become a law, cause representatives have unequal constituents.
You could elect a President with less than 20% of the popular vote for example, just based on the makeup of where those votes come from.
@@duelvector9192 That's impossible. You have to run as either a Democrat or a Republican if you want to stand a chance, and being forced to run in a party that you disagree with is just dysfunctional.
@@TBFSJjunior I did some maths on that and it came out to be about 5% of the popular vote in worst case.
Unfortunately, under FPTP, that's never going to happen.
Imagine how utterly clueless you would have to be to still not understand that political parties have political platforms and that voting for a suite of policy proposals implies voting for a political party.
Yeah Lester, you go ahead and vote for all those Republicans supporting universal healthcare and bank regulation. Let me know how many you come up with.
"When they hit hard, we hit harder" - I couldn't agree more.
Sad that the US has become so utterly dysfunctional..
I have a biology test tomorrow but the nuances of America's messed up democracy seems far more interesting right now tbh
Abolish the electoral college gerrymandering and the senate NO MORE STEALING POWER BY SMALL STATES, people matter NOT STATES, LAND DOESNT VOTE SO SIT THE FCK DOWN MISSISSIPI AND STOP COMPLAINING AND GET more people to have more power
I'm a biology teacher (in Germany) and I second that.
If you had a Poly Sci exam you’d be watching a bio video :)
@@shoulders-of-giants Oh Hallo, interessant wie viele Deutsche hier sind ;)
good luck, I have geology tomorrow and messed up american democracy is what I'm wasting time on
It all started when Hamilton and Jefferson couldn’t get along.
Nationalists vs True Federalists
Luke Porras No? it eas democratic republicans vs federalists
Jacob Daniels republicans are nationalists atleast most
They couldn’t keep it together for the children. We also can blame Aaron Burr for filibusters
After we ditched the Articles of Confederation.
"The further get from the founding the more afraid we are to touch the system."
Wrong. We want change. Change has been proposed many times. The problem is that change is fought tooth and nail by powerful lobbying groups that are bought and paid for by entities that do not want to relinquish power and control over the systems that keep them funded and influential to public policy and industry regulation. Change dies in committee before it is even born. Change from the streets is vilified and disparaged. A non establishment candidate won't even be allowed to attend a presidential debate unless invited, regardless of polling numbers.
Any change to the system that would result in addressing and correcting the inherent socioeconomic, educational, judicial disparities of our society is a threat to that power.
WE are not afraid to touch the system. We are not afraid to try.
THEY are afraid of what would happen if we did.
THEY are afraid of becoming one of US.
Agree! Bravo! So, how do we do it? How can we get Americans to stop thinking outside the box, to start this new process, and how can we bring down the 1% that will do anything and everything in their power to keep their power? I'm with you.
@@KMHrock89 unfortunately, as would be expected, I do not have the solutions. All I can offer are suggestions and point out what I anticipate the reactions would be to those suggestions. Individually, we have no power but collectively our ideas can flesh out the frame work for change. Collectively, our needs and expectations can be articulated.
First thing we would have to do is acknowledge that there is legitimacy to the fear of broaching the subject of wealth redistribution. It is understandable to be weary or apprehensive of normalizing the power of government to include the ability to determine what is enough for an individual or family. Once the line is crossed, where does it end? Who decides? Based on what criteria? At the same time we would need to also acknowledge that the system as it stands is unsustainable and nothing short of a radical shift of wealth, forced or voluntary, with the latter not being likely, would be necessary to reinvigorate the economy, the job market, and raise quality of life for everyone; access to resources such as health care, education, trade skills, food high in nutrition, clean water, ect.
The question would be "how do we meet the basic needs of everyone while also incentivizing growth and prosperity AND also deincentivizing exploitation?"
What our system lacks, fundamentally, is an approach that incorporates compassion and dignity.
One side feels that hard work and loyalty will pay off. Tightening the belt and picking oneself up by the bootstraps will lead to success. They fear that the other side will only take advantage of generosity and has an attitude that the world owes them something.
The other side feels that they are trapped in cycles of systemic oppression stemming from greed and entitlement. They fear that the other side will stack the deck in their favor no matter what is purposed and that racism, classism, and discrimination are so pervasive and impossible to weed out completely that it can't be done effectively.
Sadly, both sides are right. Yet they are both wrong at the same time.
I do not claim to be smart enough to provide any effective solutions to our problems. I wish I could though.
An interesting aside is the story of the first Liberty Bell. The first time it was rung as a test it cracked. It was repaired twice and eventually cracked again before cracking a third and final time beyond repair and being retired. I have always seen this as a metaphor for the founding of the country based on the premise of "self evident truths" of freedom, liberty and equality for everyone and an omen for its future.
To me it symbolizes the flaws in our foundations. The way we have patched over the cracks and powered on proclaiming liberty, justice and equality for all while not actually working predeterminately and deliberately to the spirit and letter of that ideology. For believing that the problem will fix itself or go away, or acting as though there is no problem at all
What the bell stood for never rang true and the bell paid the price for it. Will we allow the same thing to happen to our country? I certainly hope not. We have the capability to be better than that but do we have the zeal?
Don't lose yours!
These two comments have got to be some of the most well reasoned thought political comments I have ever seen to come out of a RUclips coment section.
@@abbyalphonse499 You just made my day! Thank you for your kind words.
@@mobiledevice9546 I agree with Abby, thank you. :)
The answer is simple: Semi-Direct Democracy. The people have the final vote on what passes, not these corrupt politicians.
Sounds like mob rule. The founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny from the majority
If we had ranked choice voting and multi-membered districts, we wouldn't be seeing this polarization right now. Winner take all systems are antiquated and divisive, and unrepresentative. Other countries have better voting systems that are proportional, and they're seeing more stability and higher voter turnout.
EDIT: Plus, reducing the number of districts(by electing multiple people per district) would make gerrymandering essentially useless. The only reason gerrymandering works is because we have winner-take all single member districts that waste a lot of peoples' votes.
It worked out pretty well for Maine, so I hope it catches on with other states.
What countries? Please guide me, what country with the level of cultural diversity like ours has a better system? In what other country can you have a Muslims and Jewish living in peace, as an example.
@@torta122 New Zealand has a proportional system (each political party gets the % of seats in the house to match the % of votes they got) - it also has huge cultural diversity with substantial minorities of Chinese, Samoan, Indian, Dutch, Italian, not to mention the Native Maori people, and a comparatively wealthy society to the US.
@@torta122 What does cultural diversity have to do with not implementing electoral reforms? Why do you feel the need to make irrelevant excuses to not move forward?
Just about to comment this! It encourages and facilitates unity and diverse candidates, as well. I think it would be a great solution!
It’s actually funny that many American politicians think that the enemies of US are outside and far from its borders. But when you see this as an outsider you sadly start to think that US is not anymore what it used to be. And of course a lot of American citizens are following and enjoying the show that their politicians have created in order to keep them distracted from the real problems. Although US is a very important country is not any more ”the most important country”, so the world is growing up while your politicians are playing.
And it use to be what exactly?
The USA is literally the greatest country the world has ever know, and upholds the ideals that have transitioned our world out of chaos. through economic and military strength as well as in its ideology. Are certain American parties corrupt? Yes. Are certain politicians corrupt? Yes. Are certain American citizens terrible dispicable human beings? Yes. But do not be stupid in believing that the biggest enemies are whithin. The greatest threat is that of our sovereignty and ideals being eroded by communism and it's spreading like a cancer.
Or at at least it seems that way depending on which media consume
@@MrEkaler YOU MEAN Thanks to Communist Movement of 1929 through to Mc Carthy and then again to Reagan!!!!! Since then, it's been going back to what it was before 1929 when it was basically a third world nation from the workers point of view. READ A HISTORY BOOK read THE JUNGLE before eat at a MC Donalds type restaurant again !! What do call a nation that control production and Consumption of it's economy ? WW2 USA Totally COMMUNIST no way could you call it capitalist .
@@MrEkaler
"...being eroded by communism and it's spreading like a cancer."
Look ma' another lunatic thinks commies still exist or even existed. No. The only thing that exists is fascism and authoritarianism. Communism is a facist's boogeyman to try and scare people into letting "strong men" rule. You're either severely misguided or a Russian troll. Neither make me think you're an intelligent person.
Despite what the right says, I think if most of the founding fathers were to come back today they'd actually be extremely disappointed that the Constitution had changed so little. They INTENDED it to be a flexible system that could be updated, not "set in amber" as the video states.
Thomas Jefferson wanted it to be rewritten every generation, he said otherwise it would be undemocratic because laws written by dead people would be controlling the lives of living people: _"the earth belongs in usufruct to the living"._
Almost like we have something called amendments to do this very thing
The constitution was not actually supposed to change that much just the application of it which has changed massively
Well, it's the people's fault for not changing our Constitution and with it our Political system. The problem is very few of us understand the underlying problem with our Political system. Most people want change just to settle a score with the 2 Party's. Which is unnecessary based on my research.
Guess what, the amendments can change if enough people wanted them to change. Guess what, they haven’t changed much recently because enough people don’t want them to change…
The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic but turning out to be a corporatocracy.
The problem with America is they took me out of their schools.... just kidding, it's Trump... Trump is the biggest problem with America, right now. Also, the electoral college and the two party system.... also prisons.
Lol, I can almost hear your voice through the comment.
*god is on our side boys*
,but I will never kick you out of my home whenever we need to party and get drunk. HECK YEAH!!!!
Everyone knows you entered the capital *on a donkey* Jay... not on an elephant.
Blasphemy.
Democrat or republican, how can you not love this guy? His leaning towards the camera game is strong 😎
Man's passionate huge respect
passion brah, passion.
...no it's not, it screws up the lighting and the focus
Top shelf comment right here
@Dr.Science then you are more stupid because you replied to the comment made by one of those stupid people who didn't listen.
"When they go low we kick 'em" love it!
1:50 I'm pretty sure Clinton lost Kentucky...
1 guy for 700k is ludicrous. needs to be per 250k at least.
I’d rather 250k for 1 guy
Sounds hot
More people in the House doesn't really help it. Especially if you leave the door open for gerry mandering it will just make things worse..
Though I agree, the solution I see is that no sovereign country should have more than ~20 million citizens.
Carewolf or you could just focus on state government and not worry about imposing your will on the other 49
@@austinsylvester7717 Tell that to the "state's right republicans" who are trying to deny the state's rights to better environmental protection, health care and net neutrality.
Carewolf there is no such thing as a “right” to a service provided by others. Nor is there a right to whatever “better environmental protection” means. Those are made up rights, enumerated in no legally binding document
Thomas Jefferson said that the Constitution should be re-written every generation, so maybe it's time for a second Constitutional Convention.
Jeff High what do you mean consensus?
Why because you didn't get your way?
But it should be NOT based on feelings
Maybe we should just be ruled by communism or maybe even a dictator! I’m kidding obviously this is stupid.
MInd Remote There has to be a level of broad agreement as to remedying these problems. Neither side is willing to come to the table to discuss solutions. That’s what is meant by “consensus.” Part of that is due to blind partisanship and part of it is because we have a class of oligarchs who are running the show.
Also, a constitutional convention would mean that all the current rules and amendments would basically be thrown out the window. For that reason a constitutional convention is a really terrible idea. While it certainly would be noble if handled by those who seek genuine positive change for the common good, politics tends to attract a lot of unsavory characters and interests
US government: we heard you, abolishing democracy now
I don’t see why Americans:
1. have a low voter turnout
2. vote for a third party option
especially if they are so sick of the current system. If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. If you vote for corrupt politicians, then as George Orwell said ‘you are not a victim, you are an accomplice’, irregardless of your ideological beliefs
We can start with ranked choice voting. It would allow us to pick better candidates and avoid the risk of “wasting” your vote on the candidate you think is best but who might not be able to win.
Then, we need some form of non partisan redistricting. Red or blue drawing the lines for the next decade creates an unworkable winner takes all scenario that doesn’t serve anyone.
Finally, non partisan primaries. This allows any candidate to have a shot at the general election, not just the one chosen by a party. With a country of hundreds of millions, were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton really the most ethical and capable people out there?
If you have ranked choice voting in multi-member districts you get proportional representation (aka single transferable vote). If you have proportional representation as David Faris advocates gerrymandering ceases to be a problem because it becomes completely impractical.
Or we can havr all states have open primary election to all voters to vote. This way everyone gets a say on any party. I live in PA one of the close state.
The people in power don't listen.
@@dambar7486
That's the best idea. Just have a single district for each state and voters can rank the candidates and the first X depending on the state's population would get elected once all the defeated candidates' votes had been transfered in the previous rounds.
No separate districts, no gerrymandering.
Or have a representative system where you can have multiple winners instead of winner takes it all. Like if a state gets 50 representatives, the top 50 candidates win (like using D'hondt system). Or break the state into smaller pieces and each get like 1-5 representatives depending on population (so individuals could also represent smaller areas)
Most of those ideas (especially ranked choice voting) are great.
Which is why nothing will change.
Nothing will change because the system works. If it didn’t, wed change it.
@@austinsylvester7717 *Nothing will change because the system is broken. If it wasn't, then it would have been corrected as needed.
Look up Aumann's agreement theorem
@@austinsylvester7717 and we have, hence the amendments
Austin Sylvester - the system only works for the rich, greedy, and powerful. For the rest of us, it’s broken. But have hope...there are multiple organizations working hard at bringing changes to the country that yes, will take time, but will help start making things a bit more equitable.
Title: The roots of americas democracy problem
Me: well america has a lot of problems...
5:49 "We cant have an old compromise between states leading to a civil war between parties". This was easily foreseen, and I fear it is our destiny.
And I quote, "When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal,” Holder said. “But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young - you know, all those folks gave to us.”
Until liberals admit that abortion is murder they will continue to be enemy #1.
@@vivigesso3756 Even though I think that the issue, when viewed from the pregnant woman's standpoint, is fraught with too many difficulties to enable an outside person to feel certain about judging (the Old Testament itself recommends abortion at times), I also think your point is true. The Dems should acknowledge that and do all they can to resist and reduce abortion
Released 5 minutes ago with 15 dislikes. Mate, at least watch it until the end
But it's Vooooooooox!
And how many likes?
I watch most videos in 1.5x speed btw
Right wing trolls don't care about facts, they only believe whatever their cult leader says is true
Names don't matter even right wing trolls don’t wanna go near vox, its pure progressive propaganda
Watch at 2x speed.
Every democracy will eventually have only 2 parties,the ruling and opposition
Yes most of the time in democracies there will be 2 major parties (though not always, for instance in Canada there are 3 major parties), but in multiparty parliamentary republics without First Past The Post those 2 major parties rarely get majorities and need to form coalitions with other parties. Also the parties at the top rarely stay there forever. For instance in Germany according to most 2021 election polls the biggest party on the center left (the SPD) will be replaced by the Greens.
"A Republic if you can keep it"
-Benjamin franklin
I’m going to go out on a massive wing here
Maybe the founding fathers weren’t right
Maybe the constitution was a huge fudge
Maybe we shouldn’t just blindly follow what they wanted
Maybe it’s time for a major change and overhaul of the party system
maybe our founding fathers were wrong and that America shouldn't be a country and that states should just mind their own business and get rid of the federal system all together
They were right, for their time. The problem is that they couldn’t foresee both the vast changes in society and the apotheosis of themselves and their work, a phenomenon they would have been shocked by. The Constitution was brilliant and still can be but needs to be amended, a process which Ezra points out we’re dangerously shy of. Also, a party system cannot just be overhauled without concurrent constitutional changes because all parties are fundamentally organic organisations created in reaction to the constitutional system. Remember, the Constitution doesn’t even mention them. There have been a number of changes in the American party system since 1800, but none were codified.
But you won't reform ANYTHING, because the rich *always* win.
@@shoulders-of-giants ...until uncle Lenin comes back to life...
@@commentsandlikes9509 Yeah! Sounds like a great idea! Wait never mind we gave states more power than the federal government with the Articles of Confederation. Everyone was poor, their currency was worth nothing, everyone was starving and had no way of obtaining goods that couldn't be processed in each individual state. Businesses took over anyway since there was no executive regulation on them.
As long as we have a First Past The Post system, two parties are inevitable. Ranked Choice would be one. Good luck changing that though.
Especially changing the number of states. (50 is a nice, appealing number aesthetically)
Would be interesting to see more populous states experiment with Ranked Choice in their elections.
(Edit: Maine does ranked choice.)
Maine already has ranked choice
Yeah but Puerto Rico and DC should become states. Especially DC.
Canada and the UK are basically 2.5 party systems with first past the post, but to address your point, ranked ballots is NOT the only thing you need to do. You need multi member elections. This means at least three senators per state elected somehow at every election, and for the House, you should be aiming for 5 members per district, although 3-9 are acceptable (and in the absolutely smallest states where it would be absurd to try to make it a three member district, 1 is acceptable).
Also, Maine is using RCV.
US Maine does ranked choice voting. That's why the Democrat won the ME-02 House district. 3rd Party voters put the Democrat down as their second choice.
Maine did that
Take a shot every time he leans toward the camera to say something
It is disingenuous to state that one party is responsible to the decay in democracy, when BOTH parties play the gerrymandering game and are both equally corrupt and ignore the outcries of the people to change public policy for one that benefits the few to one that benefits the many.
I think any two-party system (where the "winner takes all") is inherently flawed and causes divisiveness.
It polorizes political views to the extreme and does not allow for the public to steer the political party into the direction they want.
There might be multiple ways to fix it, but the important thing is *choice*. A choice for the voters to steer the political message:
In my country we have a representative democracy, where the house is 150 seats and you simply need 76 seats to rule it. We have many parties, but many can also easily cooperate. So you have 2-3 parties working together to form a coalition. If we as a voter aren't happy with the course of a political party then we can easily vote for another party that's somewhat similar. This gives great insentive for the party that loses a lot of votes to change.
Aka: Democracy
In America you're voting who you hate least, in a very tribal "us vs them" mentality.
But when you're picking the "lesser of the two evils" you're always gonna end up with an evil...
Talking about the Netherlands?
Greetings from Germany
Witch country are you talking about? I'm guessing it's a European one.
Talking about the Australian Parliament?
Specifically the House of Representatives?
If so, the "choice" mentioned is our instant-runoff/ranked choice voting system where you never have to choose the lesser of 2 evils as your first choice but you can preference them over the party you're completely opposed to.
Unfortunately in practice most people I know either don't realise or don't care about this and think that they have to choose a major party that is the lesser of 2 evils (perhaps because of media influence from the US).
So what ends up happening is we technically have 3 parties that rotate power but 2 of them are in a long term coalition and don't compete in each other's electorates.
well said.
It would seem like a waste of time. The Republicans use to be Federalist but they changed their stance after the 1960s and took the democrats role and vice versa. Those two parties are tied to the US's founding. Yes, there has been the progressive party in the 1900s lead by Teddy Rosevelt but that like most third parties are a rarity.
From an outsider's point of view (an Australian) - surely the problem you folk have in initiating any meaningful reform is that the 'right' doesn't perceive any need to reform a system of government that is working well for them and theirs?
This is spot on. Sometimes outsiders are able to see things more realistically from a distance.
yup.
That’s a big part but I think it’s important not to overlook a core concept of conservatism: that government must be limited and is always a liability. If we represent ourselves and we’re doing it fairly, I see no problem with ‘government’ (the people) servicing themselves by changing systems, creating institutions, and even offering services. The market simply cannot address some problems in the way we need (climate, healthcare, energy, infrastructure). So my interest is in what cool stuff would we do if our politics worked but yeah conservatives have hounded this concept out of the discussion, so changing *anything* for the better is anathema to them, they just want to strip it all down... although not really, business subsidy and military support is their obvious hypocrisy.
@@jameseglavin4 before anyone rails against, "military support" i want you to take a look at who is providing the military support for the global trade economy, and nato, we also pay other countries entire military budget. it's exactly our naval fleet thay keeps lone crazies from one country attacking a trade ship from another country and grinding global trade to a halt.
Zak Snowden I’ve got no problem with a strong military or providing protection for our strategic partners. I was just pointing out that conservatives are obviously hypocritical when they advocate for government small enough to ‘drown in a bathtub’ but also want our military to continue (or increase) spending an inordinate amount of money.
“We must move”
Americans sitting in their chairs 24/7: *no no I don’t think I will*
And I, as an outsider, ask myself why it is still the "United States" when there is a dispute about everything. The people in the USA can't even agree on the most fundamental things. Like the age of the earth or the existence of the climate catastrophe.
So maybe it is better to declare the "United States" as failed and to found new (state) coalitions.
"Most people, including most Americans, would be surprised to learn that the word “democracy” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution of the United States of America (1789)."
We're a REPUBLIC. Go take a good history and constitution course. The Dhimmicrats are the champions of gerrymandering.
@ocasion18 we're a democratic republic, go research it. Look up Praeger University. There's no need yyominsukt people, but then you're clearly a Dhimmicrat and that's what your ilk does.
Primo
I think you both kinda get it wrong. The United States is a REPUBLIC otherwise known as a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, and there is a big difference. In an absolute democracy it is basically mob rules. The majority can do whatever they want. Even if it is 51% they have complete control. In a Republic (representative democracy) the other 49% is represented, and the majority cannot control the minority. That is why Congress is split into two houses. The House of representatives is based by population, and there, states like California and New York get more representation because they are more of the majority. However in the Senate every state only gets two representative, as to not discriminate the smaller states. This balance of the House of Representatives being based by population, and the Senate being based by state is what protects the minority.
The founding fathers wanted to escape the direct rule, where one person (or group of people) can control everything (i.e monarchy). This is why they made sure the majority cannot control everything just like a monarchy.
@@michaeljones7218 you are correct.
A system that's not first past the post [insert CGP grey voting system series] and has more than 2 parties will be most beneficial.
Nah, it'll make it easier for extremists to get in power and other nations to influence them, and soon the nation.
Having just 2 parties isn't necessarily bad by itself, so long as the parties are easily replaced and representative of the people. I'm not saying the current parties are, but just that we shouldn't let "number of political parties" be a determiner of voting methods.
This is deep. I enjoy Ezra’s brain a lot
The main problem is that it is not a Democracy.
It's too Democratic for my tastes honestly we need monarchy again 😎☝️
biggest problem. americans dont understand civics and government. we need better education. its a pillar of democracy.
ok but how do you plan on improving education. No matter which party is in power, education continues to get worse. I say abolish Dept. of Education, it was created in the 70s and this is exactly when the downward spiral in education started.
Look back when education was mostly privatized, back when people would pay for tutors. Education levels and disparities were so much worse.
@fourzy The thought of completely privatised education is daunting to me. Look at the greed already polluting your healthcare, defence sector and prison system, just to name a few. Not only would you be depriving underprivileged kids the opportunity of having a prosperous life, you would be placing the entire future of your country in the hands of companies who only care about the bottom line.
*Almost* every day-to-day human activity creates an opportunity for a company or individual to generate some form of revenue. It's constantly exploited and education is no exception, with this being a perfect example: ruclips.net/video/1DqdDfiHFQE/видео.html
Private companies cannot be trusted to act in the interests of the public because they must put profit above all else otherwise they will fail regardless of their quality standards. Don't let what is arguably the most important step towards developing your next generation be corrupted by profit.
True the ignorant and the stupid are more suspect to manipulation.
@fourzy privatisation doesn't work for everything. In fact it can make things worse. Utilities and basic education are some of the best examples. Privatising those create natural monopolies. You can't choose who you get water or electricity from. And you can't always choose the school you send your kids to. It would make common sense that if you are of an income disadvantage, proximity of the school to your home or job is priority. This makes it virtually impossible to choose schools. So if you privatise schools, you indirectly create a for profit entity with a natural monopoly to feed it. Guess what happens then.....
the 2020 election aged this well
Here in Canada, for a borough in Montreal, a major city, we have a representative for about 100'000, so this is a bit ridiculous.
Yeah but Conservatives won last election in popular vote but lost the election. That’ cause Alberta is like 999.9% comservative. And all this is debateable
U.S. must get Mitch McConnell out of the senate!!
That is not up to the federal union, that is the prerogative of the Great and Sovereign State of Kentucky alone and we have no right to infringe upon their sovereignty or upon the sovereignty of any state.
Costa Keith - Says you (with all due respect)
I recently heard someone say that the Founders did imagine a possible Trump, but they never imagined a Mitch McConnell
As a fellow Kentuckian, I definitely agree that McConnell needs to go. Unfortunately, it is up to Kentuckians who blindly vote for him ONLY because he's the republican candidate. Kentucky might have a democratic governor (who is doing a f***ing fantastic job, I might add), but Kentuckians HATE him! This is mostly due to COVID, but being a democrat doesn't help his cause. (Bevin would have destroyed Kentucky and we would have some of the highest COVID cases and fatalities, instead we have some of the lowest thanks to Beshear. I digress). Us democrats are present but are the minority I'm afraid. We're trying to ditch Mitch.
The idea that we trust current officials in office to upgrade our current government system is unreasonable for both sides now
We just need to get rid of the single district representation and move towards proportional representation on a federal level
I have an idea: let’s make every state have their own rules and then people vote with their feet.
Parties need to be abolished. Vote for people and their plans, not for colours
Parties don't need to be abolished, there should just be more of them
Do you have a proposal for how to abolish political parties? I don't think anyone who knows what their talking about approve of political parties in the US, but there isn't a way to get rid of them. Even if you were to outlaw political parties, politicians will still use labels and coded language to make it clear which party they belong to. Outlawing political parties would be the same impossible fight as outlawing hate groups like neo-nazis and white supremacists. You can do it, but it won't stop them
Maybe that's why politicians join political parties 🤔
Actually a terrible idea that promotes populist demagogues. It's better to use a parliamentary system where you vote for parties, and political professionals in the party choose their Representatives
How are you going to abolish them? When you have people grouping together for political advantage, you have a party. That's what the founders failed to realize; parties are inevitable.
Missed a chance to say Washington carried down the tablets from Mt. Vernon
Part of this could be fixed with term limits. It’s a bunch of senior politicians trying to keep their parties in power and not solving problems.
we live in a Republic.... I don't know why people don't know this...
*Seeing Ezra on the thumbnail*
I guess I just cracked the phone screen because of tapping so hard
Anindita K. Listya, I think Sam Harris would crack the screen for a different reason
I know! he needs to make more vids.
I’ve learned from this video that leaning forward on your knee helps you empathize a point you’re making.
_Emphasize,_ not empathize. If you empathize a point, it means you feel empathy for it lol. Emphasizing a point would be making it stronger or stand out more, which is what you want.
@@taylorbritt499 Typo. Thank you for pointing that out, though. Normally I don't make silly mistakes. If you were annoyed by my error, I empathize with you, and in the future I will emphasize correct grammar and diction in my RUclips comments.
@@duanebarry2817 Haha no worries, I was amused more than anything. It was a funny typo.
There are good reasons why the founding fathers made sure presidents were not elected by popular vote. America was never meant to be a Democratic state it is meant to be a Republic. When it comes to gerrymandering both parties do it without shame.
In every nation on earth, in order for a nation to be strong and vibrant, the people of that country must be mature. For the maturity comes with wisdom and understanding.
Well that’s America out of it then
As an American I’m very wise. I watch Tucker Carlson every night.
@@etahhcumosevahi You'll do even better, if you tune into the word of God, Holy Bible. He even gave us His words in writing. So, we can hear Him again and again, as often as one desire.
The Gerrymandering is worse among the GOP but merely looking at congressional districts in democratic states can tell you Gerrymandering is no small issue among them either.
As it turns out, both parties kinda like the status quo, and will rig things to their liking. But at least the Dems don't openly court racists...so there's a not so marginal difference, I suppose.
The two party system, coupled with legal precedents (and simple justice) demanding electoral districts are designed in a way in which minorities are not under-represented is partly to blame for this. A multiparty system of proportional (party) representation would allow all kinds of minorities, ethnic, racial, political, geographical, etc, to have representation without contorting electoral boundaries.
@@lukeroux4807
Who draws the maps then? It seems unlikely that the maps wouldn't need the approval of a plasticized entity at one point.
@@lukeroux4807 That's nice, but some sort of proportional system that's fairly immune to gerrymandering would make people's votes more meaningful.
'Who draws the maps then? It seems unlikely that the maps wouldn't need the approval of a plasticized entity at one point.'
In Australia for example it is done by non-partisan electoral commissions. As far as I know it's not perfect but it's infinitely better than the American system. I mean, some form of gerrymandering happens in a lot of democracies, but the US really takes the cake in that regard. In general there are just a lot of democratic processes and institutions in America that have either always been or recently become intensely politicized. The Supreme Court is probably the best example.
I'm pretty sure Michael Avenatti political chances are over.
He never really had a chance
Tom Luna why beat your opponents when you can beat women 😂
The Avenatti thing was a hoax put on by Trump supporter Harvey Levin, head of TMZ. It was manufactured horseshit from the start.
I say good honestly, trump already embarrassing the country, I don’t want a pornstar lawyer to be next
I hate trump but I don’t need someone like him in office either. With very exceptions (literally only Al Franken prior to his sexual assault reveals) I dislike celebrities running for political office especially for offices you’re clearly unqualified for. Like even if you’re passionate for government don’t jump straight for a position like president senator or governor start at house of rep or state level
I’d like to see a multiparty system, digital voting, and the decentralization of power.
Digital voting is a really bad idea
Digital voting is a very bad idea.
@@sisigs4820 thanks for the compelling argument
why is digital voting bad, lots of countries have digital voting
Ezra leaning so much can't be healthy
Being stupid, on the other hand, can actually kill. Just imagine a guy walking into an ER saying that he has pain in his crest and now he can't breathe right. The doctors tell him it's cancer and ask him why he did not come sooner, he must have been in pain. His reply, I didn't think it was anything.
Advocating for a fair, balanced reforms, instead of periodical power grabs is leftist? 4:29 - 4:38
I don't see him sideing with one side he's pointing out the true flaws in the system and to my eye test is staying unbiased
@@TheSquirrelbeast I think they're making a pun of sorts... Look at Ezra in the video. He keeps leanin over hella far. Bad for the back.
@@spage0 I think the original comment was edited. Or maybe I misread. Pretty sure I remember the word leftist, that's why I commented. If not, then my bad
I’m proud they keep the comment section open
Proud?
Glad: yes. Thrilled: sure. But proud?
How about taking over reliance on money outta the equation. That alone would make third parties, multi party, & grass roots politics easier.
America democracy ia not democracy.It`s a DEMOCRAZY.
Literally everyone in the US should watch this.
Unfortunately, lots of the people in the US are bigots.
Why? This video is what is wrong with our country. What we need to do is follow the constitution, and not give it lip service like we have for the last 100 years. If we actually followed the constitution, no one would care who was in Washington DC because the federal government would not have any impact on our lives. ALL, and I can not stress ALL any more, governing was to be done at the states level. The federal government was NOT supposed to have any direct impact on our lives, and was only superpose to make sure the states didn't punish us for exercising our rights.
So people would falsely think the US is a democracy? It's a republic and for very important reasons.
@@ericksonjustinAK we are a democratic republic.
@@linkplays2952 Correct. Not a democracy.
finally, Conservatives and Liberals can finally agree on something.
What exactly?
@@bvaldes3703 That we need to agree on something. Ironically enough, not everyone agrees on that, as the video showed.
Liberal and conservative voters can find coming Ground but the politicians can’t
2020 and have we moved an inch?
Apparently the queen had a long-term plan
You know it is going to be a deeply insightful video anytime you see Ezra Klein.
That said, the question is who will initiate the first move forward, without appearing suspicious to the other side?
Charles Uwakwe who will make the first move? Did you not watch the video? The GOP has been making the first move for YEARS now. The left has been asleep at the wheel. It’s time to fight fire with Fire
"That said, the question is who will initiate the first move forward, without appearing suspicious to the other side?"
I don't think you can. Even if democrats simply passed an amendment to implement some version of the Wyoming rule, Republicans would call foul just because it wouldn't benefit them. Ranked or plurality voting? Nope, benefits parties other than the republicans, so it's not fair. There's going to be disagreement no matter what, so we can't focus on avoiding that disagreement above all else.
1) Regulate election spending
2) Scrap the electoral college
3) Have non partisan commissions draw district lines - there's literally software which can do this now.
4) Change FPP to a more representive model
5) De-politicise the judicial system, ie. No partisan Supreme Court, stop electing judges and attorneys - coming from Europe that's the weirdest one.
Lewis Cullen I agree with all of your views except for one that would be 2. However I respect your opinion.
I find it interesting how liberals are advocating for scraping the electoral college. Not that I disagree, I agree 100% But it seems like they're only complaining about our system of republic representation when it benefits them.
@@jackredfield5993 True. The same goes for Republicans. It's pretty obvious that objectively speaking, the Electoral College is a joke, but Republicans will defend it because it helps them. A lot of Democrats probably don't even care why it's bad, they'll just repeat that because it disbenefits them. That's how Americans are; a bunch of partisan hacks who only care about themselves.
The Electoral college is actually fine. The senate EC votes aren't great but what really makes it suck now is that in 1929 they capped the number of seats in the house over political fighting. They were supposed to increase the amount of representatives every census based on population growth but they just stopped and it has warped politics in America slowly over time.
@@Danification9 Si
a system that you can elect but not select is not democratic
The easiest way to do something to combat two party is to change the way we vote. Ranked choice voting please.
We need a constitutional convention around election reform: public financing of all elections, the elimination of Super PACs, an end to political gerrymandering, better protection of voter rights, a national voting holiday, just to start.
His leaning towards the camera makes me feel safe.
I don’t care because I’m trying so hard to keep up with his brain
Patty J. Ayers that’s not hard at all
America's version of democracy is like that of the Borg from Star Trek.
"We are the Borg, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, you will become democratic"...
Hard to have a democracy problem when we are not a democracy
usa is a democratic constitutional republic
The problem with American politics is that everyone thinks the "other side" is the problem.
Vox is one of them
Another big problem with American politics is that some people think both sides are equally good or bad when their records clearly show they aren't.
TRUTH
A5harpie get used to it
The problem with idiots is they think both sides are equally bad when one is totally 100% owned by monied interests and corruption.
this might be the earliest I've been to in a Vox video
#MeToo
@@x87-64 lol
lol this video is from 45 minutes ago but your comment is 57 minutes old
Abolish the electoral college gerrymandering and the senate NO MORE STEALING POWER BY SMALL STATES, people matter NOT STATES, LAND DOESNT VOTE SO SIT THE FCK DOWN MISSISSIPI AND STOP COMPLAINING AND GET more people to have more power
@@franciscoacevedo3036 are you a child calm down
Founders hated Democracy.
Alexander Hamilton asserted that "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."
Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease…is DEMOCRACY.
Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.”
Thomas Jefferson,
“Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow - but the people will be right at last.”
George Washington,
"It is one of the evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled, must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work their own cure."
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton"If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."
John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
From The Founding Fathers of The United States of America
The 2016 presidential result is wrong, in the video at 1:52, it shows the state of Kentucky blue, meaning that it went to the Democratic candidate, but that is incorrect, the Republican candidate won the state of Kentucky
Let me sum it up for you people. All committees in charge of election boundaries and judicial system should be independent and non partisan. Election Day should be an off day and voting has to be compulsory so extremists on both sides don’t get to control the system. The high court needs to have terms and be more independent and non partisan. Make The system fairer towards workers and poor people to participate in and nominate themselves if they want.
How can you be both independent and bipartisan? You need to be independent and non partisan. Independent, IE your tenure is secure, you are approved from a wide array of people, you were selected based on merit or at least supposed by a specific group of the meritous, you cannot be removed except for actual misconduct, crimes, neglect, and corruption and can only be removed by the body that put you in there, and your funding and staffing is secure.
Robert Jarman yeh corrected it now
Workers and poor people can run -- they just (generally) won't win without money.
Also, you patronize like a Harvard government scholar, but your ideas are basic af.
@@robertjarman3703 If you're selected based on merit you're not elected.
Not actually a summary of the video
Every time ezra talks, I am captivated, this dude knows how to talk with emotion.
I studied political science at Harvard and have realized it’s about just chilling
This video resonates with me more each time I rewatch it.
the us has much more population than uk or germany and the number 435 on house of representative were f-up remembering house of common has 650 seats and bundestag has 709. 🙃
i'm not from the us and i'm confused why the us president more like monarch? has his wife represent him in multiple occasions, has his children running his business. is that normal before trump? or it's just trump thing?
i never see a news reporting angela merkel or theresa may husband running her thing or representing her.
it's normal for prince philip or charles to represent the queen if she really unable to attend because of her age. and i see the headline about melania trump touring africa representing trump/the us using tax payer money. imo that sounds like vacation and even monarchy wouldn't do that.
DIMAS AQIEL it’s normal, Michelle Obama did the same and every other president before. The wife (maybe husband one day) is called the First Lady and is more of a figurehead than anything else but some use it to create change or objectives, Michelle talked a lot about healthy eating to kids
Abolish the electoral college gerrymandering and the senate NO MORE STEALING POWER BY SMALL STATES, people matter NOT STATES, LAND DOESNT VOTE SO SIT THE FCK DOWN MISSISSIPI AND STOP COMPLAINING AND GET more people to have more power
@@thomasnewton8223 the job that the first lady from my neighboring country was only like decorations, appearing in his side and doing nothing. so the idea of the first lady representing the country on international level using taxpayers money were too far for me, let alone the children running government business that's way way too far
No, it's not normal for the Presidency to do most of what Trump's does, as far as those appearances.
Precedent is for the President to sign his estate into a blind trust. There are presently legal arguments that not doing so, etc. actually violates the President's Constitutional responsibilities.
I don't have the stats on how often or to what types of functions Michelle Obama represented her husband the President, compared to Melania Trump. But I suspect it wouldn't line up well either.
The thing is that Trump transparently fancies himself as some kind of larger than life power-house, and always has. So yes, it's easy to begin drawing parallels to conduct more resembling a monarchy than the Presidency.