Supreme Court BANS Faithless Electors…………?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2020
- Uh oh, for NaPoVoInterCo? It's time for a quick casual-Grey explanation.
‣ Thanks, Patrons, for facilitating occasional casual videos like this: / 39182472
‣ Read the supreme court's decision yourself: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...
Related Videos
NaPoVoInterCo: • The Sneaky Plan to Sub...
How The Electoral College Works: • How the Electoral Coll...
Bonnie Bees
Steven Snow, Bob Kunz, John Buchan, Nevin Spoljaric, Donal Botkin, BN-12 , Chris Chapin, Richard Jenkins, Phil Gardner, Martin, Steven Grimm, سليمان العقل, Elliot Lepley, Colin Millions, David F Watson, Saki Comandao, Ben Schwab, Jason Lewandowski, Bobby , rictic , Marco Arment, Shallon Brown, Shantanu Raj, emptymachine , George Lin, Jeffrey Podis, Ben Delo, Henry Ng, Thunda Plum, Awoo , David Tyler, Fuesu , iulus , Jordan Earls, Joshua Jamison, Nick Fish, Nick Gibson, Tyler Bryant, Zach Whittle, Oliver Steele, Kermit Norlund, Derek Bonner, Derek Jackson, Mikko , Orbit_Junkie , Ron Bowes, Tómas Árni Jónasson, Andrew Bereza, Rebecca Wortham, Bryan McLemore, Bear , chrysilis , David Palomares, Emil , Erik Parasiuk, Esteban Santana Santana, Freddi Hørlyck, John Rogers, ken mcfarlane, Leon , Maarten van der Blij, Peter Lomax, Rhys Parry, ShiroiYami , Tristan Watts-Willis, Veronica Peshterianu, Dag Viggo Lokøen, Essa omar, Ryan Richards, Alex Simonides, Felix Weis, John Lee, Maxime Zielony, Melvin Sowah, Elizabeth Keathley, Christopher Mutchler, Giulio Bontadini, Paul Alom, Ryan Tripicchio, Scot Melville, Kyle Wayman, Julien Dubois
Music
David Rees: www.davidreesmusic.com
I love how every time Grey shows the Supreme Court they look wholly uninterested in whatever's happening at the time. 😂
When you have states like New York dumping dirt on an island to declare ownership, you get rather bored of petty shenanigans pretty quickly
If the Constitution almost completely forbade that you get fired (ya ya I know about Samuel Chase), would you still pretend to care about your job?
That's probably because they usually do, after all, most cases they handle are either _"tripe but necessary"_ or _"tedious and important"_
@@jacksonwilliams8971 heck yes. hint: not every job is mindless drudgery that no-one enjoys.
They just split Oklahoma in half over a child diddling dispute just 2 days ago.
Politics is like trying to bugfix someone's horrible code without them wanting you to.
A horrifying accurate analogy.
I FINALLY FOUND THE BEE
it's on the back of the train at 2:05
Damn. Nice catch
??? Is there like a bee comeo in every video or something?
I can’t beelieve it was there the whole time
@@patrickbaker7014 yeah he hides one in every video
@@TornadoHarry bruh that's sick, and also a perfect excuse to rewatch every video of his
I love the level of apathy showed by the Supreme Court Stick Figure.
Let me RANDOMLY recommend stuff,
cause why not?
Aaaand we're in a Quality-Drought (dont deny it!)...
Here:
-Veritasium.
-Its ok to be smart.
-Hbomberguy.
-Oversimplified.
-Krosmo.
-Viced Rhino.
-Believe it or Not.
-Redditor.
-Michio Kaku.
-Practical Engineering.
-Neil Red.
-Slevin Channel.
-Magma Musen.
*See title*
Me: "Ooooh, this could be interesting!"
CGP Grey: "Literally nothing has changed"
Me: "Oh..."
Indeed, this is the most CGP Grey video that Grey has made in some time. Complete with his signature deadpan.
CGP Grey: "But I did get a video out of it, so that's something!"
A lot has changed! States, too beholden to their political class, have been pushing to outlaw faithless electors. It used to be that faithless electors were an extra check against stupid voters who, when they discovered the election was actually between Kang and Kodos, voted for Kang. The electors could ignore the ballot count and vote for H. Ross Perot, the only actual human in the running. With this ruling, we’re stuck listening to the stupid voters instead of their intellectual betters: the electoral college.
Manannan anam What does China have to do with this?
I really hate when the federal powers pass responsibility down to the states for things that should obviously be consistent nation wide. Like grow a damn ballsack and just do something that isn't at a snail's pace already. See everyone in 2055 when the last southern state finally legalizes marijuana while half the country has been enjoying it legally. Or god forbid, if something like UBI gets passed and only certain states get to enjoy it. Medicare for all (and not just old people) etc.
grey: 'nothing happened'
me: 'i've learned so much'
Me, a Brazilian : I am a master in American politics now
Junior Matsuda come to America
I came here looking for such a comment dear Royce sir.
@@scuevas1 Brazil is on America
@@scuevas1 This is the pure definition of "Uno reverse card"
I'm assuming the "image missing" flag is a reference to the current Mississippi flag issue.
Probably. What about Tennesse though? And Georgia? Sorry, I'm Welsh, so I'm not sure if I got the state-flag combos right.
@@ericr.malice318 its mainly about Mississippi because they were the first to leave the union so its a hot topic down here.
@@dylandylan5814 South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union.
@@ericr.malice318 the issue is really only with the mississippi state flag, as it's the only current US state flag that contains the confederate states of america battle standard on it. Those other states you mentioned, do not, and as such aren't any issue.
to further expound on this, alabama and florida both use a red cross of st. andrews as the basis of their flag, and while it does invoke the confederate battle standard, it can also invoke the Spanish Cross of Burgundy, and is also just a really weird symbol to get touchy about (IMO) as it's like, also in other flags that have nothing to do with the confederacy
Georgia's flag is sometimes equated to the confederate stars and bars, the actual national flag of the confederacy, but honestly i'd take it over the flag georgia used in 2000 any day of the year. the one they use now is pretty damn close to the first ever official georgia flag anyway so meh
Hey Grey, this is a small point, but I'm colorblind, and the distinction between the orange and the yellow candidates is sometimes a little bit hard to see. For future work, could the contrast between the colors be increased? I think this would increase watchability/interpretability, even for non-colorblind people.
how about he just adds symbols for orange and symbols for yellow? that way, the issue of colourblind people is solved without changing the colours of the 'parties'
@@Dude-cf8hb Sure, that works. Just party 'A' and party 'B'.
Maybe upvote orange and downvote blue? =)
@@cogspace nah, to similar to red and blue. The current party colors
@@dmtha3rd Blue and yellow are the best possible colors for colorblind people you could also use white and black but that has... more issues
The court: hey states remember that things we agreed on like a few 100 years ago.
The states: yeah
The court: good just reminding you it exist
-we did a thing-
Brilliant
1000 SUBBS B4 COVID 19 no thank you
@@venttiktok2477, Maybe you should make some videos first before begging for subs.
@@venttiktok2477 يا حبيبي انت معرفش
I love the "image not found" for Mississippi's skirt 3:39
Glad someone else noticed it, was just about to comment that.
What's the joke there?
@@fdagpigj as of June 30th Mississippi doesn't have an official state flag since that part of their state code was removed by their legislature so the joke is that the flag image was not found because it does not currently exist
@@fdagpigj Mississippi just retired their old flag that had the Confederate flag as a part of it. They haven't decided on a new design yet, that I know of.
@@fdagpigj Mississippi currently has the confederate flag emblem on their state flag. They recently passed a vote to get the flag design changed. (If you're not American, the confederate flag is what The South used in the civil war and is seen by MANY as a symbol of racism and slavery.)
i like how grey is able to be so involved in politics on his channel and yet not give any information on his political views at all. i like it. keep it purely educational :)
He is just explaining how the system works. However, since he is clearly in favor of removing the Electoral College then it's also clear which side of the political aisle he fits in.
@@Miranox2 and that side off the political fence would be? i get mixed up sometimes with what sides stand for what
@@NexGenration99 In the popular left-right spectrum, CGP Grey is definitely on the left. He's probably center-left since he's more detached than the average person.
@@Miranox2 so like technically on the left but not enough to be considered a "leftist"?
@@NexGenration99 CGP is definitely no radical if that's what you mean. I wish more people on the left were like him.
The states are in charge of the voting process arent they? Why would the Supreme Court do anything else but say, "This is your job. Actually do it."
The question was on the authority of the states themselves though. Even so, the Court should have largely stayed out of the matter. If a bunch of electors were corrupted Congress can just not count their votes. The only thing the Court needed to do was say Washington couldn't fine people for their votes after Congress said they didn't have a problem with the votes cast. As you can see, the Court failed this simple task.
@666NedFlanders The states hold an election for President, not the federal government.
@@sanjicook08 The states also hold elections for their Congressional representation as well but it doesn't change the fact that it's a federal election. States have tried passing term limit laws for congressman but the courts have ruled these laws are unconstitutional.
@@sanjicook08 That has nothing to do with his comment.
@@eifbkcn Yes. Especially with a President who believes in states’s right to their own governments.
“Absolutely nothing has changed” - American politics in a nutshell
"It just works"
- Todd Howard
@@davidhong1934 Except it doesn't; see gerrymandering for example.
@@dr1zzled_d1ce14 If you take into account how large America is what do your expect?
@@dr1zzled_d1ce14 if by lazyness and tradition we mean corporate interest, personal gain and power politics of course.
@@mbogucki1 It does work, though; power is kept in the hands of the wealthy, and wealth is kept away from the masses. It just doesn't work like we are told it does!
Supreme court: this thing we already agreed on was agreed on
News outlets: is this large changes to how our country elects officials?
The news seems adamant in eroding faith and confidence in elections.
Well we can always go back to hereditary successors if that makes everyone happier (I doubt it would, I wouldn't be happy about it).
Interestingly, that's also exactly the story with the _Russo_ case the other week. They agreed on the thing last time and just reaffirmed that yes it still counts.
@@Marinealver The news definitely wouldn't be happy. You only get breaking news about royals when the previous one dies. Stability is pretty much their only virtue. According to UK precedent, there's a lot more boring filler about royal wardrobes though
@@mollistuff Ah yes, monarchies: historically a very stable system that never led to civil war since the succession was always very clear cut and respected by all.
Our media in a nutshell
“You had to be in the capital where it’s happening”
You mean you wanna be in the room where it happens?
hamilton?
ABSOLUTELY. Bring some snacks too.
the room where it happens. the room where it happens. the room where it happens. i gotta be in the room. the room where it happens.
🤣🤣🙃😂
@@Yal_Rathol no one else was in the room where it happens, the room where it happens, the room where it happens
FINALLY someone clarifies the difference between saying what the states CAN do and what actually happens.
I really appreciate him putting the effort in giving the states their own skirts and personalities. The cowboy hat and dual pistols on Texas is awesome
And then Wyoming riding the bison
And Mississippi not having a flag lol
Is there some reason why Rhode Island is stuck outside looking unhappy at 0:12? Or, for that matter, why only one (Michigan?) looks happy?
I think you mean DUEL PISTOLS!
_Yeehaws and shoots into the air while doing the prospector dance_
@@djhalling -- I'd guess that the electoral college was developed before Rhode Island became a state, or otherwise didn't get it's way.
We live in Strange Times when a court deciding that the status-quo still applies is headline news.
Gwallter Rixon that could be a newspaper title. Yeah, the Strange Times... I like it.
It is July, they need to make up some shit or some worse shit will happen like every other month in 2020
the media is filled with halfwits and liars
THAT'S what makes these times strange to you?
@@armedwombat6816 It's the craziest thing that has happened this year, I tell ya.
Whenever I was younger, I thought voting was pointless because there was a small group of people who chose the President, and our votes didn’t do anything. The fact that I was kind of right over 10 years ago is a little scary
Let me RANDOMLY recommend stuff,
cause why not?
Aaaand we're in a Quality-Drought (dont deny it!)...
Here:
-Veritasium.
-Its ok to be smart.
-Hbomberguy.
-Oversimplified.
-Krosmo.
-Viced Rhino.
-Believe it or Not.
-Redditor.
-Michio Kaku.
-Practical Engineering.
-Neil Red.
-Slevin Channel.
-Magma Musen.
@@nenmaster5218 wait why do this in replies???
@@AlphaCarinae The _states_ cast it, not the _people_ . The states are free to vote _however they want_ , even against the citizens (but this is rare)
@@AlphaCarinae Yes remove the middle man that is oh right, having a different person than the people wanted to be president be president, how horrible
There are other, better ways to interact with politics without just voting in elections.
"As for now, absolutely nothing has changed." Whelp that's the U.S. government for you
Hes really knocking it out of the park these days... Ive lost count of how many videos hes done this year! :O
i think 5 or 6 counting the pirate videos separately
Its insane!
I guess that's what happens when you're mandated to stay at home for 90% of the time.
@@funtainment777 I'd say 9? I looked it up.
Good for him!
I love how the music is a chill version of the “grey explains” music because *nothing* really happened
Should I quit youtube my friends keep making fun of me for it
@@MatthewMilton dude WTF?
Really? I'm gonna watch it again just to hear that ☺
@@MatthewMilton yes you should, absolutely
@@MatthewMilton yes. get your money up and your time up, and do what you want once you outta school or whatever
Question that will probably never be answered: How does this system with electors work if a state votes for an independent candidate, not connected to either party?
Then that party would send their own electors
@@MechanicalMarketer253 Independent. Not connected to "a" party. Sorry if unclear.
Silver oh I see. Well that probably isn’t very likely to happen, but if it did then the state would probably just create a party and electors and send them. They’d probably have to do that REALLY fast though.
Candidates appearring on a ballot have designated their nominated electors in advance. As far as the state us concerned, those nominated electors are the party.
In Illinois, the Presidential election that counts is the election for the electors. If a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but didn't run a slate of electors, that candidate would not get any electoral votes.
"Absolutely nothing has changed'
*Me, a Eastern European* :
"I didn't even know before what was that hadn't changed."
Big thumbs up for the "Top Sneaky" file
You would think NaPoVoInterCo girl would use the ‘boring documents pertaining to elections’ folder in the previous video.
I want to see it!
Top sneaky
Being interested in the NaPoVoInterCo vote, seeing this video pop up in my sub box gave me a momentary heart attack thinking that it was kaput.
The sneaky plan is a pretty dangerous plan. The scenario goes like this: One candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. A state decides that they will give their votes to the popular candidate despite the choice that their state made. It will head to the courts and both sides will probably claim victory. Violence ensues and factions form thus starting another civil war. The plan is basically very flawed and only has support from some states, it will only work if all states agree with it and that's difficult already.
*The Supreme Court has made a ruling: absolutely nothing has changed!*
Yeah that sounds about right.
Supreme Court: The state of Georgia cannot force Native Americans off of their property.
Andrew Jackson: You've made your decision, now try to enforce it.
The Supreme Court just a few days ago split the state of Oklahoma in half over a child diddling dispute. Imagine your Native American Nation being founded over child diddling.
Welcome to legal quantum state, Yes and No, no but yes. It serves to make sure the rules haven t changed. Very little, in the right direction, still pretty little
That’s actually really good to know. I got a little worried when I heard about it. Thanks for digging in
Props to Grey for getting this out so quickly. You must have been hustling.
I'm starting to feel that Grey is getting kinda obsessed with the EC
Ya think?
It is kind of an abortion of democracy.
anyone that's interested in political science should. This is something that should not work in modern time actually still working
@@Detahramet Well it wasn't supposed to be democracy... That was never the intention. As Grey stated in another video "working as planned".
No I think it's only a coincidence
Interestingly, I don't think state laws can actually invalidate a faithless vote, just punish the guy when he comes home.
They do/can actually. 33 (including DC) require by law that they vote for the democratically chosen. About 8 of those cancel the vote made by a faithless elector.
@@zachhopkins6162 they may say they do, but the supreme court has never actually said If there able to cancel the vote or not from my understanding there only able to place conditions on them becoming/beinging an elector, and they can't interfere with the vote after
@@zachhopkins6162 Well there are 8 states that don't follow recognized self defense rights, so states doing something doesn't mean they're supposed to.
@@Tinfoil_Hardhat I believe 35 states have stand your ground laws and don't follow recognized self defense rights.
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 I just don't like legalized southern white on black murder.
I think RUclips might be broken. I **just now** got a notification for this video
At the end, it's a breakdown of the theme music that you used in a lot of your early videos! Very cool! Do mi sol, sol mi do, ti mi la sol....
Wait, this is all a ruse!
The Supreme Court isn’t deciding on Faithless Electors.
They’re deciding on what to do with Tumbleweeds!
NOOOOOOOOOOO
We already decided on that one, we were going to deport them to reservations.
Now that you know the secret, we can’t let you leave
I saw a headline about that ruling and immediately thought, "But what about NAPoVoInterCo?" and thought about emailing Mr. Grey and asking and then he goes and makes another video to pass the info on. Thank you, my good sir!
The NPVIC has nothing to do with faithless electors. Faithless electors are people who break the law about how the state says they have to vote. Electors can be faithless (or required not to be) whether their mandate comes from a national election, a state election, an executive appointment, or the meteorological opinion of a groundhog.
Right I was worried this would make it federally illegal for states to activate NaPoVoInterCo...I wonder if they will be required to repeal faithless elector laws in order to activate it?
@@marcusroberts7669 it is illegal for states to withhold vote totals for any reason (3 USC 6), those laws have no teeth. Imagine if a state refused to release the vote totals, the electors all voted for Bob, then on January 22 the state reveals that the state vote was a majority for Alice. Waiting to announce vote totals until after the new administration takes power is a perfect environment for rigging.
@@marcusroberts7669 which states? Do they have actual laws, or is it just something they'll do? Does that mean nobody will know who won the election until after the EC vote?
In any case, there is federal legal requirement for state popular vote totals and the names of appointed electors to be provided on a Certificate of Ascertainment, on or before the date that the Electors meet. Failing to provide a legally sufficient Certificate before the deadline would be bizarre.
@@icedragon769 You sure that applies to the raw vote count, and not just to the identities of electors? NPV could theoretically get around it by just using whatever part of the national popular vote is known by early-December, so no state has a motive to not report their vote totals.
Keep us in the loop!! Very much appreciated
Respectfully I must disagree with that closing statement that "absolutely nothing has changed."
The ruling closed the door on those who hoped that the 32 states, who have made rules to ensure electors followed the will of the voters in their state, would have to rescind those rules/laws/governing guidance/statutes.
I consider that a good thing.
It’s more of the states can punish faithless electors. The elector still can be faithless in their official vote but the state can legally prosecute them .
It seems one side wanted those rules gone, so as to be able to bribe them to be unfaithful. SHAMEFUL.
@@onekerri1 The sad part of US politics is I cant tell which side that would actually be
@@aidanquiett668 Greed, the lust for power and the ability to resist such temptations, to put the needs of others ahead of ones own person, taking responsibility for ones own actions and failures...these are all traits of being human.
That is why it is important to judge every man and woman as individuals and not as a group.
The governance of society is too serious, in my opinion, to be viewed like a sports competition where one roots for one team and boos the other.
There a good Democrats who sincerely wish to have our country succeed and prosper, just as there are those whose only interest is personal wealth & power. The same is true of Republicans, Independents and politicians in general.
It has always been thus and always will be. It is human nature. It is why we must pay attention and evaluate who we vote for each and every time.
I could ramble on but I think I have made my viewpoint clear. 🙂
you just couldn't resist saying "nothing burger," could you?
I thought he was gonna spell an acronym for it, lol
What is with every politician and cable news pundit saying that phrase lately?
Muhilan Selvaa It’s been around for awhile
325th like (I think
@@325bpm6 yep lol
Grey: turns on member only
Me: sorts comments by new so he can chat
This is big brain time
Yeah
the intellect
Good idea
This is stolen and you didn't even care when you wrote this. What do you mean "He can chat"
W and H are not close, you wrote this only for likes.
@@AwesomeTheAsim It only implies the commentor what a 'he'. It was not a misspelling. He is a he.
LOVE your simpłe, but effective and entertaining stick figure animation that brings such fun to what would otherwise be fairly dry content. kudos to you, sir! Mérci
Let me RANDOMLY recommend stuff,
cause why not?
Aaaand we're in a Quality-Drought (dont deny it!)...
Here:
-Veritasium.
-Its ok to be smart.
-Hbomberguy.
-Oversimplified.
-Krosmo.
-Viced Rhino.
-Believe it or Not.
-Redditor.
-Michio Kaku.
-Practical Engineering.
Hello to my fellow people currently coping with the election.
Let me RANDOMLY recommend stuff,
cause why not?
Aaaand we're in a Quality-Drought (dont deny it!)...
Here:
-Veritasium.
-Its ok to be smart.
-Hbomberguy.
-Oversimplified.
-Krosmo.
-Viced Rhino.
-Believe it or Not.
-Redditor.
-Michio Kaku.
-Practical Engineering.
-Neil Red.
-Slevin Channel.
-Magma Musen.
Well this did accomplish one thing. Now no one can challenge the states when they punish or ban faithless electors, because the supreme court has recently given them updated permission to do it.
Yes. I find his explanation unpersuasive. This year, being the most contentious in my long American experience, needed a binding affirmation of our electoral principles. People find it difficult to have faith in the political process already. They don't need the possibility of faithless electors stealing the election adding to their grief. And we have a unanimous decision to boot. Certainty is a welcome change from the daily chaos.
The case originated from three faithless electors bringing suit for being fined for voting the wrong way in the 2016 election. The High Court held that "A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee-and the state voters’ choice-for President." They also stated that there is no language in the US Constitution granting electors voting discretion. That's not a "nothing burger" from my perspective. Electors are not free to vote as they see fit, and that principle is now backed by a 9-0 Supreme-Court mandate.
@@joesterling4299 Perhaps these certain people would benefit from actually learning about the political process rather than allowing corrupt party politics to continue warping it? Electors are free to vote as they see fit in any state that doesn't pass laws punishing them for doing so. Electors are supposed to be faithless. You are not supposed to elect the President, the states are. The same way you elect senators to represent your state in Congress, you elect electors to represent your state in the Electoral College.
You do not elect any of them to make the decisions you want to make. If you want to make decisions then you become an elector/senator/representative etc.
You elect them to make the decisions they think they should make.
The daily chaos exists because of people's ignorance and refusal to take a meaningful and HONEST role in the political process.
@Brandon Gibson be careful not to stray into other people's neighborhoods and try to change what you want.
@@joesterling4299 That's just it, though - it affirms the states' rights to punish faithless electors IF THEY CHOOSE. That, to me, gives no extra stability to this political climate, as now, if states choose not to punish these electors, SCOTUS has also affirmed the right for that to occur. It's a double-edged sword; in that, you cannot have one without the other, and if you have the potential for increased instability, you cannot then have stability.
That was literally already the status quo based off of a previous supreme court case. Nothing's changed except that now everyone is reminded of what the rules are.
It doesn't even allow states to prevent faithless electors. It just allows them to punish faithless electors after the fact. That's a critical difference, legally.
Doesn’t matter anyway. Even if being a faithless elector is legal in your state, it’s political suicide.
@@MechanicalMarketer253 a coup is always political suicide.... if it fails.
agreed, was just going to say this. Disappointed that Grey didn't make this clear.
AFAIK the case was separated into two cases; one about the states punishing faithless electors, the other about states removing someone who switched their vote and replacing them with someone who will vote as pledged. I believe the supreme court upheld both
@@ObeseYeti Yes, exactly. in 2016 there were electors in Colorado and Minnesota who tried to cast votes for Sanders but they got overruled and swapped out for alternate electors.
4:11
Elector: W-wait, who's that random guy up there?!
Supreme Court Justice: *completely disinterested in all things related to life* oh, that's just CGP Grey...he likes watching this chaos unfold.
*deep sigh of meehhhh*
NaPoVoInterCo, *please* get off my desk.
A "nothing burger" as it might be, it is useful in common law systems to affirm or reject old rulings to figure out where things stand today. If the last time a very serious but very situational question was asked was a long time ago, it's useful to make sure what the rules actually are today.
The best update video: teaches you something, while concluding that nothing has changed
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Big News from the political front: Nothing has changed!
He omits to say that it's actually a very important ruling for the NaPoVoInterCo. The compact would be much harder to implement if states can't “bind“ their electors.
November 2020: As a new US resident, this is sooo enlightening!! ❤ Thx so much CGP Grey 👏
Congrats!
"Absolutely nothing has changed."
That is damn near the official motto of the United States.
It is the motto of nearly every country, most especially conservative ones...
conservatism in a nutshell
Isn't that literally every place in the world? Social change doesnt just happen overnight.
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 Thats what you get from a system that is run almost exclusively by old people.
Is it normal to hate old people for being old when you hit 30?
@rudiger891 I was talking mostly about countries with very conservative cultures and governments... like monarchies...
people after are going to be so confused when the chat is empty and the comments make no sense
Like now for example?
For future people: gray turned on members only chat, and you essentially had to pay 5 dollars to talk in live chat.
@@jamesr.2017 Thank you for that clarification. I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as Members Only Chat on RUclips.
@@x--. You can see it on Pewdiepie streams
In the Federal Republic of Germany this way is more common at Presidential Elections than in the US ones!
The Federal Assembly (= Bundesversammlung) has from 840 to 1 338 members.
The Federal Diet (= Deutscher Bundestag) sends all its members.
Its uses a St. Lague (= Webster) System with is favoring the parties with fewer votes.
The State Diets (= Landtage) send in total a equivalent number of delegates, choosen by each State Diet seperately.
They use a d`Hondt system for this election, which is favoring the parties with more votes.
The FRGs Presidential Election is usually held in the Imperial Diet Buidlung (= Reichstagsgebäude) in Berlin [/West].
The voting is taken secretly.
The voting contains from 1; 2 or 3 rounds.
The absolute majority of all members is needed.
abstaining from voting: 76 to 187
invalid votes: 1 to 14
votes for candidates nominated by a different party: not exactly known!
This time there are 2 Federal Diet Elections between 2 Federal President elections.
currents estimation, based on voting results
CDU 397; SPD 330; GRÜ 174; AfD 166; FDP 135; CSU 93; FW 17; without caucus 7; BVB 1; SSW 1
Thanks for bringing this info to light, & thanks for uploading! See you next time!
I mean it seems a bit sad that though around 13k people are watching, two of them are members and its seconds before it starts. So it seems mostly non-members come early. This makes me think that members-only chat shouldn't be on so that people who come 20 min early can talk about the subject. Also, even the TWO members who are here. The one who was here 10 min early ONLY commented to say HE DOESN'T want Premieres. The other just said nappavointerco, which while it is a comment, a lot of other people might be able to have better discussions about the video.
Indeed
The members are too busy working 6 figure jobs to come early
Ye
In my region i cant be a member. Which sucks.
Bit weird IMO that things should become free just because people aren't paying or that (in this case) paying people aren't active chatters.
I'm assuming Grey is having it on Members-only as an incentive so people will support him.
I love how bored the Supreme Court character looks.
I liked the HTML tags surrounding the side note. Clever. And I’m still a big fan of Wyoming buffalo.
That's actually a really good supreme court decision. Letting the states do what they want about their own electors.
2,000 people here, members only chat, and the only chat message is “please stop using premieres”
Well this is just sad...
That's the price you pay for member-only chat
There is another
I am broke
I remember the video where he was at that missile test site
I used the chat twice. Twice. Slow mode is good enough.
This is what happens when you put up members only chat on a less than interesting video
props to grey for not adding a flag-skirt for Mississippi while the new flag is being made lmao 3:42
I am not from USA,who is the mississippi? and who's the blond one?
I came here looking for someone to say something about the missing flag. The broken image link was such a nice touch.
Mississippi is two 2 column 5
There are so many Electoral College videos that there needs to be a playlist.
Love the details with Hawaii and Utah, don’t get me started on [image not found]
*Everyone:* 2020 couldn't POSSIBLY get worse
*November:* _sweats nervously_
2021: sweats nervously
Yeah, it seems like no matter who wins come November, people are going to get stupid.
At this point, I think no matter the outcome, everyone will lose. xD
I'm not voting for the specific someone who wants to give up my tax money to non-citizens.
@@jamesklark6562 Hey who dat "someone" be?
That was a really roundabout way of saying that nothing has changed.
Ever read a statute? They're not exactly to the point.
The Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) would still write a decision about it whether they changed it or not...
No, he outright said it. The other stuff he said was explaining it.
The Supreme Court reaffirming a case from the 19th century is pretty interesting. I tend to think that in say, 1990, the court would have made faithless electors illegal, but the court is more small c conservative now. They aren’t in a mood for big changes to the interpretation of the law.
ya this comment did not age well
@@David-jt9nt you can say that again
I love how Wyoming gets a Bison to ride on, lol
So the supreme court just said "GET OUTTA MY COURTROOM I DID THIS LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO"
"Never in enough numbers to change the president"
I mean, that depends how you look at Colorado's role in the 1876 election
But that wasn't really faithless was it? It was the state legislature voting in absence of a general vote.
1876 in general was a mess. I think two states had their votes nullified, a couple more were threatened, and the governor of Oregon tried to sneak a democrat into the college (would have been to flip it)
@@Tytoalba777 It was in 1872 that two states had their votes nullified but the reason why the elector for Oregon was disqualified was because he was an elected official, who are barred by the US Consitution from becoming presidential electors.
1:26 I don't think I noticed before, but having sidenote text with a slash at the end of the segment was a reference to how HTML Tags work.
Yes, I know you probably don't care but it's still cool
"But for now, absolutely nothing has changed."
Yeah, that sounds about right.
3:39 There's one state with no flag since Mississippi removed its flag last month. Nice detail.
I should have just scrolled down instead of trying to figure it out myself...
Also why does one have blonde hair and why is another one wearing flowers? And which states are it?
@@JoJoModding the one with a flower is Hawaii and the blonde one is Utah
In addition to being blonde, Utah is also wearing a tie. 🙂
I'm missing the missippi person. edit: Had to scroll down for the directions
Need to cover the Supreme Court decision that just happened that basically says half of Oklahoma is Native American land and not in the jurisdiction of the state of Oklahoma, only federal jurisdiction above native jurisdiction
Cover it? It's been talked about all over the world. Even us here in Europe read about it. Isn't it pretty reasonable that the supreme court upholds a treaty that the US entered and has since never withdrawed from?
Yes, please do take about this issue!
Will it snowball into other states?
I'm hoping Canada will take notice and follow suit!
rymdalkis I’m not saying it isn’t being talked about. I would just like to see grey cover it. He’s great at fact finding and generally presents things in a fair and balanced way.
@@rymdalkis no, it's actually not reasonable, because it will affect hundreds of thousands of Oklahoman Citizens that suddenly no longer live in their state. It also has the issue of all of those people now owning Nstive land, which wasn't previously allowed. They created what is going to be a shit show. Our Supreme Court has far too much power. They should be making the kinds of massive, society changing decisions that that they have been making.
So yeah, looks like the Native Americans in Oklahoma are fans of Jeffery Epstein.
I love how done the Supreme Court looks with the states' BS.
I love how I dont live in America or have any connections to it yet I still watch these videos because of the grey cool explanation.
And not only does it not actively ban them, the ruling was just over whether states can punish faithless electors. The faithless votes still count regardless.
8 states have laws that say the vote is nullified, but it's unclear whether they can actually do that.
3:38 Middle row, 5 across. Ah yes, the good ol' State of File Not Found (and Providence Plantations)
That's Mississippi since they currently don't have a flag because they just resolved to change their flag to remove the Confederate Flag from it.
@@massiminitrains Thanks for the explanation. Can you explain why one state has blonde hair and wears a necktie? (I get that the one with the lei is Hawaii.)
@@danrobrish3664 Using the fact that these 32 states are in alphabetical order and then examining each of the flags, I deduce that the blonde state is Utah. The tie is probably a reference to the LDS. Don't know why she's blonde (and has slightly less curly hair) whereas the other states have black hair.
I can always rely on Grey to give me an easier pill to swallow when it domes to the news
Long distance communication was not a factor mentioned in the Federalist Papers or the Constitutional Convention debates. As far as I can tell, this is a modern imagining of why early Americans *might* have created such a system.
Right when this court case was decided I was wondering about NaPoVoInterCo and if Grey would do a video on it
He did.
@@macaroon_nuggets8008 oh thanks for telling me
NaPoVoInterCo is a horrible idea and goes against the fact that the USA is a republic, not a democracy.
Recent events should make the dangers of mob rule painfully obvious.
@@bbgun061 you can be both at the same time. besides, what even the point of a vote if barely anyone choice actually matters. Alos, in modern times people want a democracy, who cares what some long dead people wanted it to be?
@@darkpixel1128 People desired segregation until the Federal Government abolished it. Your point is?
Thank you for clarifying this! Whenever I heard the decision I was super confused on what it actually meant and I was getting vastly different interpretations of the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
"For now, absolutely nothing has changed" might as well be the epitaph on the American tombstone.
*hol up*
This came in my recommended 4 days after It came out
What are you hiding from me youtube
You're lucky they didnt' wait 2-3 months, or 2-3 YEARS.
@@AC3handle lol
WouLdn'T iT Be fUNnY if tHey HiD tHe cORPsE oF tHeiR CEO‽‽‽
@@eifbkcn I think you posted to the wrong thread.
@@eifbkcn dude i think ur in the wrong place
2:06 found a bee! i wonder were his friends are
Murder Hornets: Gone, reduced to atoms.
@@whoknows7968 The hardest choices require the strongest wills.
@@snowy_owl Hornet: I don't know whats hard about beheading bees, but I'm happy to make that decision.
The fact that we haven't had a podcast for over 4 months makes sense now that I see this video.
"Top sneaky"... Thank you for this.
I love this background music. I wish I could find an instrumental version to listen to
I love the way the supreme court always just looks so done with all the bickering between the states.
I'd be interested to hear Grey's thoughts on the recent SC decision regarding Oklahoma...
Agreed. I'm not sure exactly what it means tbh. I'm no legal expert, and the News is thoroughly unhelpful. Grey is a straight shooter.
What happened?
@@connorschultz380 Basically, the SCOTUS ruled that about half of the state of Oklahoma actually belongs to the American Indian tribes and NOT the state of Oklahoma. It had to do with some murder inside an Indian Reservation. But, the tricky thing is that they seemed to assert that the Federal gov't supersedes the Indian Nation(s). So, the murderer must be tried in federal court, not state court. Something like that. It's kinda confusing, so Grey should absolutely make a video about it.
@@rogen8094 it was a serial child rapist that started the case.
@@rogen8094 From what I know they gave jurisdiction over half of Oklahoma to the indian tribes but the land is still owned by the state. Meaning the state won't be able to prosecute crimes in that area commited by natives, still crazy if you ask me.
I took Civics in school, this is not what I was taught about the US electoral system. p-(-.- ) I was taught Electors are to vote according to what the states populations wants, not the Electors political party. Now that beings said they are often one and the same, but there is a distinction.
Both understandings are slightly wrong. Think of the electors like senators. They are voted in to represent their state but may cast their ballot how they see fit. Many states have rules regarding what the electors are allowed to vote, but these are all individual to the states.
Why do we even still have electoral college after all. Can we just get rid of electoral college??
@@edgardaspilcueta738 the ruling class thought regular people were too dumb to make decision like picking the US emperor so they set this thing up. People have more control on local and state elections than they do over who becomes president.
@@supermanXLThe "ruling class" didn't think that the average voter was too dumb. They designed the government and how it works/officials are elected via an educated view on history.
If you hand all of the keys to the majority, they're voices will be a tyranny to the minority.
If you hand all of the keys to the minority, they're voices will be a tyranny to the majority.
Pure Democracy has NEVER ended well.
Pure Oligarchy doesn't either.
The system was designed as a sort of in-between to (mostly) protect and empower both the majority and minority.
Also, the government was designed to INTENTIONALLY be (mostly) dysfunctional. That's why it's segmented as it is and why there's so many checks and balances.
This was done with the intention of limiting it's ability to exert control over the states and the citizenry.
Big government never ends well either.
It either collapses under it's own weight or it becomes tyrannical ... or both.
It's actually pretty ingenious how it was all designed.
Just functional enough to do what it needs to do but dysfunctional enough to limit it's growth and power.
Fun Fact: The founders of the nation constantly argued over the role of government and considered it a "necessary evil".
However they all agreed that the citizenry remain autonomous.
@@supermanXL that's because it's the states that elect the president, not the people. It's the United States, not the United People. The national November opinion poll is just the widely agreed upon method. People forget we're a union of states, not one cohesive nation.
I'm homeschooling starting this year and since my kids love you, I love you ... you just became one of their History/Econ/Social Studies teachers. Grats! ;)
Thank you for this! Definitely the best explanation in a non-legal-focused report of what SCOTUS actually ruled. I'm a non-lawyer SCOTUSBLOG follower and while their articles are very approachable for reporting mainly for other lawyers, they have a smaller reach than you do.
My candidate wins: "The system works just fine".
My candidate loses: "The system's outdated and needs to be fixed".
Anakin: "I don't think the system works."
Lmao
Not always. In UK politics for example the SNP is in favour of vote reform, despite the fact that implementing vote reform would be detrimental to their number of seats.
It's also something along the lines of the income lottery from Last Week Tonight: 'I know that the system is rigged, but that's what will make it so nice when I inevitably win.'
dolan trompt
youtube is slackin' on the notifications again. love to see that 2020 has at least brought one good thing: some extra CGP Grey
How I understood the ruling, the states can't actually directly compel elector votes, they can just punish them if they don't vote the way they were pledged to do so, or replace them if they indicate in advance they're intending to change their vote.
If the electors vote faithlessly when they actually get to the relevant vote, that vote would still stand (the elector could just be in an awful lot of trouble)
This is ten days in to the month in which the topic actually occurred. I did not, under any circumstance, doubt that you would address this topic with immediate fervor. I did completely doubt it would take anything less than two months.... I'm so proud of you. You can spend less than a year on a video before canning it. I mean publishing it. Love ya!
Since we’re all too poor to buy members we can just chat by sorting new
Oh yeah, this is big brain time
This may not be new as its 6 minutes old but you will be high as you get my like.
This is one of the best explanation of the electoral votes I've ever heard.
what did change is we have states being public that they dont have to even obey their populous and making the college even stupider
I love the conclusion:
But for now absolutely nothing has changed
How to farm engagement: turn on members-only chat so non-members have to comment.
we are all pawns in cgp grey's game
Quick I love how CGP puts the sidenotes in HTML formatting
It should be each elector votes for their region. I don't want California's electors all voting for someone I didn't vote for