Fujin Yumi its called the United States not United People. California doesn’t speak for Rhode Island just as Florida doesn’t speak for Ohio. No state is more important than the other despite their population numbers. Thats why we all have 1 governor per state, state Laws, etc. The electoral college give states equal importance throughout the country.
While it doesn't work out that way, essentially that is the way the electoral college works. It's designed to let the states with smaller populations not become left out of participating in our great republic.
Democrats love to destroy-get rid of anything that this country was founded on. Just another example of democrats that are not for America and they do not have your interest at heart. They are completely consumed by power and will twist and bend any rules they see fit to advance their cause.
Trump lost the popular vote. The founders created the electoral college because the did not believe that the masses were not intellegent enough or informed enough to elect the president.
@@jesswebb2200 : Notice how the winner of the presidency had to get a majority (>50%) of electoral votes. Shillary did not get 50% of the popular vote. The Founders created the Electoral College & the Connecticut Compromise to blunt the highly-populated states & made candidates appeal to numerous demographics & numerous locales. The Senate was originally appointed by State Legislatures, which were elected by the People & those local people would appoint the next Senator. It wasn't because they thought we were stupid. They gave us the Peoples' House, which was apportioned by population & elected every 2 years. PS, I'm with the other guy who read your comment & thought the Founders felt that way for a reason.
@Professor Liberal Avenger haha you lost, get over it and take some meds for your trump derangement syndrome. liberalism is a mental illness. best of luck in 2020 with the lineup of mental patients you guys have. cant wait for the next circus, i mean democratic debate 🤣🤣🤣
I don't think many anyone is campaigning for that. I think they just see something very wrong with a system that allows a candidate to win the election while only getting 22% of the popular vote.
@brjema1 And it sucks that our elections are instead decided by Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, while states like Wyoming, Idaho, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, Utah, *California, New York, Texas,* and DC (not a state), plus others are ignored. The Electoral College literally ignores most of the country.
@brjema1 It does not work as intended. The writers on the Third Committee of Eleven at the Constitutional Convention anticipated the selection of the President to happen in the House. As Founder George Mason put it, 49/50 times the House would choose the President. In the Federalist Papers (I think 38 but I could be wrong) it was written the House would select the President "sometimes, if not frequently". They were dead wrong. The compromise to have the little states heard was based on the House selecting the President in a contingent election, which has only happened twice in history. One of the times it happened was such a bad political fiasco they quickly passed the 12th Amendment due to their mistake when writing the Constitution. Moreover, Electors in the Electoral College were intended to act independently. However, now they are just "rubber stamps" for the party. I believe this was specifically mentioned in a Senate Committee report circa 1838. Tell me again how it is working as intended? - Sincerely, a magna cum laude political scientist
@brjema1 Politicians running for President barely pay attention to big states like California, Illinois, New York, and, until recently, Texas is because they're solid to one party.
i guess cause its too close which is bullshit they just cant admit trump won a state which they believed was a solid blue wall. There are no breaks on trumps train.
AP has stated that they will not call one state if there is still a possibility of a recount. The time for both parties to indicate if they want to go forward with a recount of the state is soon approaching. After the time has passed AP will officially call it based on the current "unofficial" vote count. However, if either party requests a recount, we get to wait even longer. More to follow.
We are the United STATES of America. We are not the Republic of American City Dwellers. The Electoral College stays because the majority of the states want it. It's that simple.
@happy baby If the Electoral College is done with, the big urban states will rule the rest of the country while the rest of the country will rise up in rebellion against the big urban states. Think The Hunger Games!
@happy baby The irony is that the urban elites provoking the fracture of America are also the same people who (1) grows no food, (2) control no water supply, (3) produce no fuel and (4) hates guns hence having very few of them. You would think that they would be very wary about wanting to put their foot on the rest of the country. But, it seems that the reverse is true...
If you live in the country that doesn’t mean your vote should count for more. Plus I could put the Top 15 metro areas together and assuming every single person voted for one party it still wouldn’t be enough to win a majority. On the other hand by getting all of the small states a president could win with 21% of the popular vote. That’s just undemocratic.
@@davidg3183 Well, first of all the USA is NOT a democracy; she is a REPUBLIC. What you are complaining about is not so much the electoral college system -- more populaous states actually have proportionally more electoral votes -- but the fact that 96% of states (48 of them) have a winner takes all allocation of their electoral votes. States actually have a choice on that matter, but they overwhelming choose winner takes all because it benefits the importance of the state in national level politics. -- That you can win the presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote stems from the winner takes all allocation by most states. If those states you win you win by a little, but those you lost you lose by a lot, you can become president with less than 50% of the vote. Is that fair? Of course it is. It is just as fair as a congressman or senator casting his vote for the entire district or state even though he may only get 38% of that district state's vote in the election in a 3 way race, because the winner represents all.
Amazing guys they were. Glad they took years to figure out our system. Too bad they aren't around to see the results of the best governance system created so far.
You do know that the electoral college was a compromise right? Southern democrats were afraid of being constantly outvoted in national elections due to their small population and feared that the institution of slavery would come to an end due to this. The electoral college was directly opposed by many and was designed to benefit one political party (something that it continually does.)
Sorry but someone in Wyoming’s vote shouldn’t count for 4 times as much as someone in California, that’s undemocratic for a democratic republic. Plus the EC means that neither of those states matter since they’re not swing states
@@davidg3183 and why should a few big cities with no understanding of anything outside the city have complete say over the entire country, which is over 95% rural? And of course those states matter, they're already guaranteed seats for your party. If they didn't matter then they'd be for the other party or a toss-up...
And I agree that some rural people, like our farmers are absolutely essential to our nations success, but that doesn’t mean their vote should count for more. At the end of the day a citizen is a citizen regardless of their occupation, education level, or location.
we now have tyranny by the minority. soon, democrats will be winning by over 10 million votes and have the chance of losing the popular vote. there’s no reason why that should be. this goes the same with the house of representatives. democrats won the house popular vote by 5 million, yet they lost seats. this is how tyranny by the minority begins.
but why ? All that does it make it so people don't want to vote because their vote doesnt count...Shouldnt every vote count? Why dont we want government for the people by the people ?
@@SophieRutter It would take 10+ states entire voting populations to make up for a 66% - 30% voter spread in California. A national popular vote for the president means that people who live in rural states don't matter.
What people need to realize is that the Presidential election is not 1 election. It is 51 separate elections in 50 States and DC. If you exclude California Trump did win the popular vote in the other 50 elections. Do you really want 1 State dictating the way everyone lives? I know I don't, particularly if that State is California. Looking back at the last election is irrelevant because if it was purely a nationwide popular vote the campaigning would have looked very different. Both candidates would have spent their entire time in about 6 States and the rest would not have mattered.
It's all about the Small States vs the Big States. So would Sen Boxer ALWAYS vote for what a majority of constituents want REGARDLESS of her feelings ?
This professor's argument for the electoral college is basically tradition. We've always done it this way so why change it? The current system forces candidates to campaign in a handful of states while ignoring large swaths of the country. No-one went near the west coast or the northeast with the exception of puny New Hampshire. A giant swath through the center of the country was also ignored from Idaho in the northwest to Alabama in the southeast, entirely ignoring behemoths like Texas. Where did the bulk of the campaign take place? Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada. That's eight states out of 50. Tell me again that the electoral college works.
Havent heard much from her lately , she has shoved her foot in her mouth , now she can crawl back under her rock ,like a good reptillian and stay there.
We work all across America. We directly experience more than a handful of ideologies and cultures across this nation. A consensus needs to include the bulk of these ideologies instead of the more uniform urban perspective. The founders of this nation were very aware of the dangers of "group think". The Electoral College is their brilliant safe guard against propaganda and those who blindly follow propaganda because they lack perspective outside their urban existence. *The United States of America endures because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.*
The electoral college has gone against the popular vote in 40% of the presidential elections in this century. Can anyone please explain to me what exactly can California and New York vote for that "won't work" for the middle of the country? Aren't the blue states also the richest states? Don't they have the best education systems? Don't they have the best teen pregnancy rates? Don't they have the highest longevity? Don't their excess riches that they pay into the federal tax system subsidize all these red states' welfare systems? Hell Alabama and Mississippi have more people on welfare than working. It's obvious that the republican leadership there isn't helping their states. Maybe it's time to let the left coast liberals decide how things are run seeing as how they know how to make all the money.
***** So the candidate who gets the most votes being able to become president is fascism? Do you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about?
cheekymonkey We are a constitutional democratic republic. Democratically elected representatives are a fundamental and foundational tenet of the system. If you don't understand this, why don't you go somewhere you can find out. Why the hell do you think there is a vote held at all?
cheekymonkey Oh FFS, you are flagrantly missing the point. Democracy is when the people vote to determine how the government operates, either directly in a direct democracy, or indirectly in a representative democracy. *If you have a voter card*, that means you are a citizen who is voting to determine how the government will operate - in this case by electing a representative to act on your behalf in our representative government. *Representatives are determined DEMOCRATICALLY by voting*. So if you believe that democracy has nothing to do with our system, then why the hell do we vote at all? If it wasn't part of our system, then there would be no voting. You obviously know that we vote, and that those votes are tabulated to determine which candidate got the majority of votes. Therefore you know we have democracy, you know it's majority rule - yet you persist to claim that democracy has nothing to do with our system. You're either trolling or the biggest moron in the country - and that's a hard title to hold these days.
Alright, let's get straight to the point. Your main point is that we have the Electoral College to protect the "little people" and avoid mob rule, aka "tyranny of the majority". It's true that in the original vision, the "mob" would vote for someone who would then make an educated decision to choose the next president. However, you're ignoring an important detail. *Our Electoral College stopped doing this as soon as parties formed.* People now only vote for electors on a technicality. The reality is that the "mob" has been choosing the president for over 200 years. *The catch is that sometimes it's the minority mob that wins for no particular reason.* The parties that have formed resulted in a horrible, twisted version of what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They never intended for 80% of the population to be completely ignored. That's what we have now. Don't believe me? The presidential candidates only visited the three most populous states (California, Texas, and New York) a combined two times. This is all thanks to what the Electoral College has become! While obviously the popular vote also has flaws, it's simply ignorant to say that the Electoral College doesn't have the exact same flaws and then some. So, in summary... i.imgflip.com/1f41f9.jpg
Because it would ensure that where there is one less person somewhere else their voices would be completely silenced, is that what you want? Minorities voices silenced? That's why the Electoral College is the great equalizer. Of course you don't want the person to win that only wins in large Urban population centers because it ignores the rest of the country which comprises 99% of it. And believe it or not, there are people spread all across the fruited plain that have different priorities and different ideas about how the land that they live on should be used and taxed and do not want to answer to some Tyrant and some far-off rusting crime-ridden Metropolis. That's why they moved out there in the first place, and unfortunately you do have to appeal to them as well in order to represent all the people, not just the recent arrivals in the coasts with little round glasses and overpriced apartments and tiny, dsngerous electric cars. THAT is the minority of American life, even though it may seem like the majority if you're stuck on some godforsaken concrete Island that is nothing but mayhem 24 hours a day. You don't really know America if that is your grim soulless life. You know 1% of it and that's sad.
Of course. Just the fraudulent vote in California or New York is enough to overwhelm several low population states put together. The only way to make a popular vote system even fair enough to consider would be to require all states to adhere to the same election procedures in every aspect -- from ID to early/absentee voting/to voting hours/mail-in, etc. Effectively, that means nationalizing the election process, leaving no role for the individual states in federal elections.
cptmiller132 False. 2 million more republicans came out for Trump despite his high unpopularity. Since 2000 Republicans get anywhere from 58 to 60 million votes regardless of voter turnout. The reason there is speculation of voter fraud is because although turnout was lower, Republicans were able to gain 2 million more votes leaving Donald at 61 million.
Even Donald Trump said the Electoral College is disaster for democracy. And he won with it. Now he loves it, shocker. It's fair to say that people favor the system that helps them win. In over 200 years, only 5 Presidents have won without the popular vote. In the last approximately 120 years, only two Presidents have won without the popular vote; Bush and Trump. If the Electoral College was as vital as claimed, we wouldn't have two centuries of victories based almost entirely on popular vote. Rather, we'd have this constant debate over a slew of Presidents elected both with and without the popular vote. But that's just not the case at all. The EC is nothing more than affirmative action which means your vote is not the same as someone else's. If this system makes your vote count but a fraction, you probably don't like it. If your vote is worth someone else's many times over, you probably love it.
How about those 100 million Americans _not_ voting? I guess it's true that those immigrants are refusing to integrate into American society. They're voting! How unamerican is that!?
Simply this, You'd have to get both Houses of Congress to agree to *talk* about amendments to the constitution. Not gonna happen with Republicans in the majority. But the geniuses, the Founding Fathers, helped us with that. Conference of the States. 2/3 of the states (33 states)must call for a Conference to *talk* about amending the constitution. Again, not gonna happen. Then, *_IF_* you get that, you must have 3/4 of states (38) to agree on the Amendment. And that ladies and gentleman *WILL NEVER HAPPEN*. Not to mention, to the liberal crybabies calling for this ban. *WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, POPULAR VOTES DO NOT MATTER*
Dalton Brown i've been waiting on someone to say this. The only reason we even let people know the popular vote is basically just for show. *we are a constitutional REPUBLIC*
Those are not mutually exclusive. We could still be a republic and elect the president by popular vote, like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wanted in the first place.
***** whether he wanted a direct democracy or not is irrelevant now, since what we are left with is the EC. Thank God too, or California and New York would decide the presidency.
I don't get your point. You're saying other peoples' votes shouldn't count as much as yours because they happen to live somewhere else????? I understand that the system will never change but that doesn't mean it does a good job of representing people.
I totally disagree with this, and here's why. This man argues that if we get rid of the electoral college, centers of population would have more power than rural areas. But pieces of land don't pick the president, people do. So while areas with higher populations will have more power than rural areas of the same size, this makes sense because the population density is greater. Every person will have equal political power. Right now, with an electoral college, people in rural areas have up to 3x the political power as people in population-dense states.
There is no national popular vote! There are 51 elections for president, not 1. Extra California voters can have no bearing on the election in Texas... (fill in any 2 states you want).
CGP Grey is completely ignorant of how and why we have an electoral college. That is why he resorts to distorting some facts, ignoring other facts, toying with numbers, creating bizarre unrealistic fantasies of candidates winning with only 22% support, etc, etc. Grey would lose badly to this guy in a debate.
Ask the people in the small cities, small states and rural areas and you will see what they tell you. They will tell you that you will not silence them and tyranyze them this way!
One thousand likes, one thousand idiots who do not understand that the president should represent the people. We have senators and representatives to represent the states.
Its too late to change it now. Why? Because, for one thing, if the situation were reversed, Hillary bots would be all for the electoral college. You can't change the rules now. Gosh, if you could, why not just vote for Bernie Sanders, he is the won who should have gotten the Democratic nomination.
No electoral college means the only places that would count to politicians is the large metropolitan areas, i.e. the big cities. Everyone else would be left out in the cold. Majority rule...ugh 😣👎
Yes, let's all allow California to override the will of every single other state and have just one or two states decide every single election. That sounds totally fair.
Kate Richards . Go check again. Not every state is equal in the amount of electoral votes! Not even close. The state I live is worth 5 votes and what California is worth what like 20 or so votes. The Candidates don't even come to my state because it's not worth Their time!
Super Naught Yes I know that, but the number of electoral votes that a state is worth is pretty insignificant. What's important and what makes a state a swing state is whether or not it's considered to be a 'safe state'. California for instance is worth 55 electoral votes because of its enormous population, Texas is worth 34. Since however California is a democrat safe state and Texas is a republican safe state they're not as important as say, Iowa which has a total of just 6 electoral votes. This is because Iowa sometimes votes democrat and sometimes vote republican. If your state isn't being targeted it's because it's a safe state, not because it has few electoral votes. If it went by the number of electoral votes then California and Texas would be the primary swing states and politicians would target them instead.
It is always nice to hear someone that actually understands Civics and the Constitution. I so hate listening to the talking DemonRat heads on any issue. Thanks Professor.
what people seem to forget is that the united States isn't a democracy it's a republic and there is a very distinct difference. democracies are a individual voting system that rules in favor of the majority. republics vote by representation. the sad reality is kids don't understand that very distinct difference because it's not being taught to them.
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but people who are upset about Hillary losing really want to make a difference, instead of protesting and rioting, they could petition their state government to distribute their electoral college votes proportionally. Only 2 states already do this, the rest use winner-takes-all, so one candidate wins all of that stat'es EC votes. replacing winner takes all with proportional systems would make the electoral college results more representative of the popular vote without having to abolish it. it would also mean controversial situations where one candidate wins all of a state's votes by only a few hundred ballots (like in the 2000 election) wouldn't be as much of an issue, because miscounting by a few hundred would only make a difference of, at most, one electoral college vote. you've got one group of people who want popular vote to dictate the winner and another group who want the electoral college, when people could have both. But that would require to taking action and not just resort to slacktivism and protests that don't have any specific goal, so we all know it'll probably never happen.
You must not realize the motives at work here. For example, California has 55 EC votes and votes roughly 60% democrat and 40% republican. On a winner take all system, Clinton gets all 55 votes. On a proportional system, Trump gets 22 and Clinton gets only 33. That would be disastrous for the Democrat candidate, all without a single citizen changing their vote. This is why nearly every state uses winner-take-all.
がに that way republicans would win every election due to heavier turnout in more counties and widespread areas. Also a democrat will never win an election again if they don't get all of the CA and NY votes.
***** If anyone is petitioning to have Clinton given the presidency in violation of the rules that were agreed upon for this election, then yes, they are wasting their time. If they're petitioning for rule changes that will even out the significance of individual votes, then they're not just "stuck in the present", and they do aspire to have a better future. Although since America is likely to forget about the EC again in 3 months, their efforts will likely go to waste.
Thank you. Too many people are completely missing the more important point. This country elects politicians like Boxer, who know full well that her legislation does nothing, except garner support from voters who agree with her. Political pandering at the most ignorant of levels.
Let's just be clear. If there were a national referendum tomorrow on weither to abolish or preservie the electoral college, the abolish side would be completely cruched. As someone said in the comments below, the EC isn't going anywhere.
the popular vote really should be in question due to what we learned through Project VERITAS, and also the televised news where accounts were given stating that voting machines were switching votes from one candidate to another.
They stopped caring once it became apparent that the rest didn't matter to swaying the election. Even if every single vote left went to Hillary, it wouldn't have changed the election results.
C North Then those Michigan delegates will vote for whom? The vote of Michigan is INVALID then? I think they should add the 16 into the actual number of Trump's delegates.
Kreuzritter Geschäfter, I expect that Michigan will have its vote count certified in time for the Dec 19th process. And of course, still in Trumps favor.
I am Thankful for the wisdom graced to the Founding Fathers, Living here in rural Northern California, We are treated like a second class colony of L.A.
There are a total of 538 ECV available and the first to reach 270 wins...its a true, tried and simple process to ensure an individual win a top Executive level position in Government in this country.
do Wyoming who has about half a million people and California who has about 38 million people should have the same vote??of course not. Im totally fine with the electoral college as it stands.
***** Jealous about california (no cap)? LMFAO! A state with staggering deficits all the time and being invaded by mexicanos who end up forming gangs of narcos and terrorizing their own neigborhoods, A state that has earthquakes, droughts, wildfires, you name it. You can keep that freaks land to yourself. You californians (no cap) should separate from the Union and then you should see the biggest exodus of companies going to other states because their taxes will go up so much that they won't be able to do business there. Why? Because california (no cap) receives $billions in FEDERAL MONEY. One good thing too is the prospect of Mexico annexing you into their territory = No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment checks, no services, no SHIT. Boy, you gonna have fun! xDDDDDD
1:95 "What happens if the president can be elected from 10 pockets...." - How the EC works now the president is elected by around 14 states that are in play every election. Most states are already called ad the candidates never campaign there such Oregon, Washington, California, etc. States which such a large majority of one party's voters the other party never sets foot because getting votes from their supporters won matter. A popular vote means you can visit state X and every vote you get there, even if it isnt counted towards winning that state it is still counted in the national count and that matters.
For those who refuse to let go of the archaic electoral college system, transition instead to a system where the electoral votes are awarded proportionally, so that the people in each state have a chance to be represented, even if they make up a minority of the population. And instead of unfairly giving extra weight to the votes of poorly populated states and deliberately weakening densely populated ones, give each state the number of electoral votes that it truly deserves.
You don't realize how impractical this is. For example, California has 55 EC votes and votes roughly 60% democrat and 40% republican. On a winner take all system, Clinton gets all 55 votes. On a proportional system, Trump gets 22 and Clinton gets only 33. That would be disastrous for the Democrat candidate, all without a single citizen changing their vote. This is why nearly every state uses winner-take-all.
Takata Miyagawa It's not impractical at all. I'm not interested in what the Parties want. I'm interested in the people having their voices heard. If you live in California and are a Republican, what's the point of even voting? If you're a Democrat and you live in Alabama, why leave the house? It's probably the greatest cause of voter suppression in the country.
JVIPER88 Unfortunately, it's the parties that make the rules, not the people. Tell us: What motive does the democrat-controlled government in California have to change their rules in a way that would give the Republican candidate for president another 22 electoral votes, without a single citizen changing their vote?
Takata Miyagawa A Democrat-controlled government in CA might notice that while they would be surrendering 22 electoral votes to Republicans at home, the data has shown that such a system would have benefited the Democrats overall, seeing as how they won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections. Every state has to be on board for it to work. And the democrats, who always claim to want increased voter-turnout, should support a policy that would eliminate the biggest voter-suppressor in the country. Of course, this is all theoretical, and politicians are rarely capable of thinking long-term.
"Every state has to be on board for it to work." The US constitution gives every state the _exclusive_ right to decide how they allocate their EC votes, so you'll essentially need a constitutional amendment to get every state on board (or you could go the NPVIC route).
If we got rid of the Electoral College, the following states would elect every President, CA, MI, NY, IL. The rest of the states would not have a voice.
These men are avoiding one glaring historical fact, the reason why the electoral college was originally created. The original concept behind the EC was to gather votes locally and turn in the results. The popular vote could not be counted quickly (as it can be today). Votes could not be tallied in an efficient manner, so instead they were counted locally and the electoral college would meet to share who received the most votes in their respective districts. This system never claimed to be perfect nor was it ever intended to act as a check and balance to the popular vote. It was simply a useful mechanism by which a small population in a large country might vote as efficiently as possible. Imagine in 1787 trying to count all the votes in the entire US by hand quickly and accurately! If we could ever count the popular vote quickly, double and triple check for accuracy, and declare a winner before December eighth, the electoral college would be obsolete. Arguments that aim to protect rural voters from being outvoted by suburbanites are basically promoting the notion that rural voter's votes should count more than those of other Americans. I am a rural voter and this concept would benefit me, but it isn't ethical. Every vote should be of equal worth. Wether the voter is well educated, undereducated, black, white, male, female Christian or atheist. This is America and if you are an American your vote should count as much as any other American's.
When Hillary was campaigning for presidential election, I noticed she focused on the highly populated areas. Trump focused on the electoral. It seems Trump based his campaigning on the principles the Founding Fathers established. Hillary gambled on the urban populated area interests only. She paid the price. So, because the rules of the electoral college upset Hillary & Dems, even if it was wisely established for a reason, they believe it should "trashed"? Hillary & Dems believe, if things don't go their way, they should be able to change the rules or "trash" them.
I would support the end of the "Electoral College" if only Nancy Pelosi & the rest of the "SWAMP" agree to "TERM LIMITS" ACROSS THE BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are a constitutional republic. Not a popular vote democracy. The founding fathers even admitted that the popular vote was volatile. The electoral college has nothing to do with this, it gerrymandering of congressional districts.
California allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. From what I have heard, in LA, it is also easy to get all documentation necessary to register to vote.
The Electoral College and equal representation of every state in the Senate, are ingenious and essential parts of American success. These protect the geographic freedom of movement for Americans and prevent a few isolated areas of high population from ruling over distant swaths of the country.
The electoral college is a product of federalism. Federalism is integral to the system. Federalism is also where California gets the right to ban plastic straws and establish sanctuary cities. They ought to appreciate that state sovereignty.
One-half of the United States population is clustered in just 146 counties out of more than 3000 counties. Also around half of the US population lives in only in 9 states. Per capita income of these counties is much higher than the USA average, so obviously popular vote will favor those who focus on the concerns of these _well-to-do_ folks and manage to win their overwhelming support. The down-trodden and under-privileged will be further marginalized. Moreover, without the electoral college, anyone with substantial political influence and capacity to rig the voting machines in a few densely populated parts of the nation could potentially tilt the outcome to make one of his stooges the president every single time. And, with a victory guaranteed, the whole country could very well descend into tyranny very quickly. Also, we must not forget that voter fraud is a reality today. Sometimes the illegal aliens even admit that they do vote. There is no point pretending that voter fraud doesn't exist. A popular method could be disastrous for the USA. Another thing is, given the fact that densely populated counties in and around a metro city will result in bigger margins of lead that will take more than a few states to surmount (as has happened with this election also, without LA county Hillary's lead will turn into a deficit very quickly) and since it takes much more stamina and resources to campaign in 4-5 states than it takes to campaign in a few key counties with bigger population density, most candidates will only tend to focus on these few counties and the entire election result will hinge on one's performance in these counties. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where a sizeable portion of the population representing a multitude of states will become so fed up with being neglected and deprived of attention during election season, that they will stop voting which may further widen the gap to such an alarming extent that the entire system will break down completely. Furthermore, the national popular vote (NPV) is not the panacea for all the problems that plague the US political system. It doesn't solve the issue of _political apathy_ among the likely voters. For Hillary supporters now, it's just an expedient path to get Hillary into the office. In the case of a lower voter turn out, the NPV could lead to equally bizarre results. Now back to what happens in the current system, the candidate who wants to win the presidency is forced to campaign in various states, take into consideration the concerns of both the rich and the poor, and eventually wins a majority of electors (because EC awards electors based the overall performance in a state) to get elected, i.e. Donald Trump gets the presidency for winning the support of *30 states*. Why focus on winning a plurality of states, you ask? It's because, one, they represent a much broader cross-section of the country and, two, US is a federal republic. The strong adherence to _federalist principles_ is what has historically allowed the USA to function as a UNITED country despite having large differences among various groups in its population. A presidential candidate should act as the representative of as many cultural groups and states as possible, not just the most populous ones. That's not to say the current system could not be improved. One may argue that the states should not have this huge difference in the number of electors they send to Washington. Perhaps the problem is the "winner takes all" approach. Maybe, there should be a method for distributing the electors in proportion to the votes earned by each candidate. However, this will increase the chances of no-majority outcomes. Given the fact that sometimes in close races third party candidates will snatch more than a few electors. But there can be no substitute for giving the candidacy to worthy people something which didn't happen in 2016. Neither side was particularly happy with their pick. That is the root of the problem of relatively lower turnout. For example, Ms. Hillary and Mr. Trump both got roughly about 24.5% of the eligible voters. That is just ~1 in 4.
Eliminate the vote of LA County, CA, Cook County IL (Chicago), or NYC and Clinton loses the popular vote. Those three places all voted more than 70% for Clinton and make up over 8% of her vote total. Do you really want one of these three places determining the Presidency?
This wouldn't even be a subject if trump hadn't won. This is really important and we can't let it happen. The electoral college gives all states a say.
the electoral college is there because it represents everyone in the state, it makes it so everyone is represented based on average. 73% of the land voted for trump, 56% of the population is in the states that voted for trump. 26% of the land owned voted for Hillary, and 43% of the population.
LBJ will go down in history as the last Democrat to win both a majority of the taxpayers and a majority of the white vote.Never again will that happen.
Professor is wrong headed. If there is no electoral college then one vote in California is worth the same as one vote in Wyoming. Just because that one vote in California is clustered with millions of more votes in the same State, does not imply that the State elects the President. It is still the individual voters. With an Electoral College, then Florida is the swing State so voters in Florida decide who is the next President. Therefore one vote in Florida is worth a whole lot more than one vote in Wyoming. The the system is currently messed up. The purpose of the Electoral College was to keep manipulative frauds out of the White House. Which is Donald Trump's greatest attribute.
As a center-left Californian, I have to agree that the electoral college should stay. With solely the popular vote, we risk turning our country into a big echo chamber of rural versus urban, where no one really knows of the troubles that the other side faces.
That's exactly the case we have right now. And I would say that getting rid of the electoral college would make that problem much better, because it would allow for third parties, and thus centrism and alternate ideologies than just left and right.
Barbara Boxer hasn't done an honest day's work for Californians in 10 years or more. I believe, that it is a shame Californians in her District keep re-electing her.
People very easily forget that the Electoral College serves a similar function to the Senate in Congress. The House of Representatives is heavily favored by large states that elect several officials, and the Senate was set in place to check that power of large states with equal representation from all states for a diversity in political views. This is the same reason we have an Electoral College that, as Dr. Arnn pointed out, gives smaller states and other ideas in the USA a voice in the national conversation, and it avoids a democratic system where the populations of 10 states carry all the weight and the rest of the country act like colonies. California already have 55 electoral votes that are guaranteed Democrat. How much easier do you have to make it for Democrats to win an election? To call it hubris to want to overwrite a traditionally Constitutional Democratic-Republic government is very fitting. People often stake the claim that our system is "antiquated" as if using a smart-sounding word validates this thought, but what evidence is there to this system not serving the interest of our country; the fact that you lost to George Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016? That's not evidence: that's just crying. You have every right to be upset and the peacefully protest, but this notion of changing the electoral college system is absurd and anti-American. Donald Trump ran a smart campaign and reached out to groups of people that lost their voice and lost their representation in the government. If you can't win the electoral college because you run a campaign on the back of fear-mongering, hate-mongering, celebrity endorsements, George Soros' wallet, and the fact that you have ovaries, then you don't deserve to be President because none of those brainwashing tactics should give anyone power in the Executive Branch if we're still a country that demands the respect both domestically and abroad. Lastly, how are we making this argument now when Trump swept the electoral college? Regardless of the 1 million voter difference between Trump and Hillary, you could have made a much better argument for this back in 2000 when there was only a 5-point difference in the electoral vote. This is truly foolish.
without the Electoral college politicians would only have to campaign in the large cities and the rest of the country would be forgotten and left behind
If Hillary had become president we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Nope it will be business as usual.
Your exactly right.
Well she had more then 50% of the vote so no we wouldn't.
Trump Man RHEC SKIN! No, the point is that Hillary got more than 50% of the vote but still lost. How exactly is that fair?
Fujin Yumi its called the United States not United People. California doesn’t speak for Rhode Island just as Florida doesn’t speak for Ohio. No state is more important than the other despite their population numbers. Thats why we all have 1 governor per state, state Laws, etc. The electoral college give states equal importance throughout the country.
The Electoral College isn't going anywhere..
yes, to hell.
Cole's World . It would be nice if it was modified so every state had a equal say as in 1 vote per state!
no shit girl
While it doesn't work out that way, essentially that is the way the electoral college works. It's designed to let the states with smaller populations not become left out of participating in our great republic.
Democrats love to destroy-get rid of anything that this country was founded on. Just another example of democrats that are not for America and they do not have your interest at heart. They are completely consumed by power and will twist and bend any rules they see fit to advance their cause.
I can make a case for the Electoral College too. Trump won fair and square, get over it.
All right edgelord...
Trump lost the popular vote. The founders created the electoral college because the did not believe that the masses were not intellegent enough or informed enough to elect the president.
Jess Webb
After reading your comment I can see why the founding fathers felt that way.
You think a minority having more voting power than that of the majority is fair? Gtfo
@@jesswebb2200 : Notice how the winner of the presidency had to get a majority (>50%) of electoral votes. Shillary did not get 50% of the popular vote. The Founders created the Electoral College & the Connecticut Compromise to blunt the highly-populated states & made candidates appeal to numerous demographics & numerous locales.
The Senate was originally appointed by State Legislatures, which were elected by the People & those local people would appoint the next Senator. It wasn't because they thought we were stupid.
They gave us the Peoples' House, which was apportioned by population & elected every 2 years.
PS, I'm with the other guy who read your comment & thought the Founders felt that way for a reason.
The Electoral college is working exactly as intended...
Jon Duke true
@Professor Liberal Avenger haha you lost, get over it and take some meds for your trump derangement syndrome. liberalism is a mental illness. best of luck in 2020 with the lineup of mental patients you guys have. cant wait for the next circus, i mean democratic debate 🤣🤣🤣
Oops you lost
Oh you learned a new word? Impressive.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Nov 6, 2012
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
It's unfair to change the rules now. If trump knew it was based on popular vote then he would of campaigned differently
That's a great point!
Would have*
@Rita Social Democrats aren't the same as communists dumbass.
I don't think many anyone is campaigning for that. I think they just see something very wrong with a system that allows a candidate to win the election while only getting 22% of the popular vote.
it's the united States of America not the united *state* of America
brittany watts ~so perfectly succinct.
lol that was funny!
Well Libs must understand, this is not Liberal States of America :)))
digimaks another good one, that was funny!
你们真白痴哦
Someone in NYC, or California is NOT going to tell me what to do here in rural Ohio !!!! 👿
How about no. It has worked for centuries and should stay as it is
The Shadow Man Exept it doesn’t work...
@brjema1
And it sucks that our elections are instead decided by Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, while states like Wyoming, Idaho, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, Utah, *California, New York, Texas,* and DC (not a state), plus others are ignored. The Electoral College literally ignores most of the country.
@brjema1 It does not work as intended. The writers on the Third Committee of Eleven at the Constitutional Convention anticipated the selection of the President to happen in the House. As Founder George Mason put it, 49/50 times the House would choose the President. In the Federalist Papers (I think 38 but I could be wrong) it was written the House would select the President "sometimes, if not frequently". They were dead wrong. The compromise to have the little states heard was based on the House selecting the President in a contingent election, which has only happened twice in history. One of the times it happened was such a bad political fiasco they quickly passed the 12th Amendment due to their mistake when writing the Constitution.
Moreover, Electors in the Electoral College were intended to act independently. However, now they are just "rubber stamps" for the party. I believe this was specifically mentioned in a Senate Committee report circa 1838.
Tell me again how it is working as intended? - Sincerely, a magna cum laude political scientist
@brjema1
Politicians running for President barely pay attention to big states like California, Illinois, New York, and, until recently, Texas is because they're solid to one party.
Women couldn’t vote for centuries, what’s your point? One person, one vote
Why Michigan is still not called for Trump?
Don't know ask the media?
I have no idea. Seriously, anyone knows?
i guess cause its too close which is bullshit they just cant admit trump won a state which they believed was a solid blue wall. There are no breaks on trumps train.
AP has stated that they will not call one state if there is still a possibility of a recount. The time for both parties to indicate if they want to go forward with a recount of the state is soon approaching. After the time has passed AP will officially call it based on the current "unofficial" vote count. However, if either party requests a recount, we get to wait even longer.
More to follow.
Delta X
When is that deadline for requesting a recount?
We are the United STATES of America. We are not the Republic of American City Dwellers.
The Electoral College stays because the majority of the states want it. It's that simple.
.........and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands one nation under GOD
@happy baby If the Electoral College is done with, the big urban states will rule the rest of the country while the rest of the country will rise up in rebellion against the big urban states. Think The Hunger Games!
@happy baby The irony is that the urban elites provoking the fracture of America are also the same people who (1) grows no food, (2) control no water supply, (3) produce no fuel and (4) hates guns hence having very few of them. You would think that they would be very wary about wanting to put their foot on the rest of the country. But, it seems that the reverse is true...
If you live in the country that doesn’t mean your vote should count for more. Plus I could put the Top 15 metro areas together and assuming every single person voted for one party it still wouldn’t be enough to win a majority. On the other hand by getting all of the small states a president could win with 21% of the popular vote. That’s just undemocratic.
@@davidg3183 Well, first of all the USA is NOT a democracy; she is a REPUBLIC. What you are complaining about is not so much the electoral college system -- more populaous states actually have proportionally more electoral votes -- but the fact that 96% of states (48 of them) have a winner takes all allocation of their electoral votes. States actually have a choice on that matter, but they overwhelming choose winner takes all because it benefits the importance of the state in national level politics.
--
That you can win the presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote stems from the winner takes all allocation by most states. If those states you win you win by a little, but those you lost you lose by a lot, you can become president with less than 50% of the vote. Is that fair? Of course it is. It is just as fair as a congressman or senator casting his vote for the entire district or state even though he may only get 38% of that district state's vote in the election in a 3 way race, because the winner represents all.
The founding fathers come up clutch once again
Amazing guys they were. Glad they took years to figure out our system. Too bad they aren't around to see the results of the best governance system created so far.
Agree 100%. I believe they were divinely guided. We were truly blessed to have such inspired minds as our founders.
"God shed His Grace on thee"
You do know that the electoral college was a compromise right? Southern democrats were afraid of being constantly outvoted in national elections due to their small population and feared that the institution of slavery would come to an end due to this. The electoral college was directly opposed by many and was designed to benefit one political party (something that it continually does.)
Electoral College allows states to be represented fairly.
It allows many little sheep to escaped being preys of a few tigers, CA, NY. etc.
Really?
Sorry but someone in Wyoming’s vote shouldn’t count for 4 times as much as someone in California, that’s undemocratic for a democratic republic. Plus the EC means that neither of those states matter since they’re not swing states
@@davidg3183 and why should a few big cities with no understanding of anything outside the city have complete say over the entire country, which is over 95% rural?
And of course those states matter, they're already guaranteed seats for your party. If they didn't matter then they'd be for the other party or a toss-up...
And I agree that some rural people, like our farmers are absolutely essential to our nations success, but that doesn’t mean their vote should count for more. At the end of the day a citizen is a citizen regardless of their occupation, education level, or location.
The EC is also in place to help prevent tyranny.
we now have tyranny by the minority. soon, democrats will be winning by over 10 million votes and have the chance of losing the popular vote. there’s no reason why that should be. this goes the same with the house of representatives. democrats won the house popular vote by 5 million, yet they lost seats. this is how tyranny by the minority begins.
How?
Electoral college prevents big population centers (big cities) from dominating the election results.
but why ? All that does it make it so people don't want to vote because their vote doesnt count...Shouldnt every vote count? Why dont we want government for the people by the people ?
@@SophieRutter It would take 10+ states entire voting populations to make up for a 66% - 30% voter spread in California. A national popular vote for the president means that people who live in rural states don't matter.
What people need to realize is that the Presidential election is not 1 election. It is 51 separate elections in 50 States and DC.
If you exclude California Trump did win the popular vote in the other 50 elections. Do you really want 1 State dictating the way everyone lives? I know I don't, particularly if that State is California.
Looking back at the last election is irrelevant because if it was purely a nationwide popular vote the campaigning would have looked very different. Both candidates would have spent their entire time in about 6 States and the rest would not have mattered.
davva360 So you want that the election is decided by Colorado, Iowa, the Rust Belt and Florida?
davva....well said!
It's all about the Small States vs the Big States. So would Sen Boxer ALWAYS vote for what a majority of constituents want REGARDLESS of her feelings ?
Gee... Boxer... why am I not surprised? Another sore loser! Boxer stands for everything UNfair! Get a REAL job, Boxer!
The president is a representative of the people and should be elected directly by them.
Yes!
This professor's argument for the electoral college is basically tradition. We've always done it this way so why change it? The current system forces candidates to campaign in a handful of states while ignoring large swaths of the country. No-one went near the west coast or the northeast with the exception of puny New Hampshire. A giant swath through the center of the country was also ignored from Idaho in the northwest to Alabama in the southeast, entirely ignoring behemoths like Texas. Where did the bulk of the campaign take place? Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada. That's eight states out of 50. Tell me again that the electoral college works.
if Barbara Boxer is for it..then You know it is not a good thing...
She gave her oath to Protect the Constitution, now she should loose her seat... She has voided her Oath, out with her on a rail...
Havent heard much from her lately , she has shoved her foot in her mouth , now she can crawl back under her rock ,like a good reptillian and stay there.
Just imagine if Trump wins the popular vote and loses the Electoral College, that might be the end of America!
We work all across America. We directly experience more than a handful of ideologies and cultures across this nation. A consensus needs to include the bulk of these ideologies instead of the more uniform urban perspective. The founders of this nation were very aware of the dangers of "group think". The Electoral College is their brilliant safe guard against propaganda and those who blindly follow propaganda because they lack perspective outside their urban existence. *The United States of America endures because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.*
The electoral college has gone against the popular vote in 40% of the presidential elections in this century. Can anyone please explain to me what exactly can California and New York vote for that "won't work" for the middle of the country? Aren't the blue states also the richest states? Don't they have the best education systems? Don't they have the best teen pregnancy rates? Don't they have the highest longevity? Don't their excess riches that they pay into the federal tax system subsidize all these red states' welfare systems? Hell Alabama and Mississippi have more people on welfare than working. It's obvious that the republican leadership there isn't helping their states. Maybe it's time to let the left coast liberals decide how things are run seeing as how they know how to make all the money.
Uh, that's straight up fascism. No thanks.
***** So the candidate who gets the most votes being able to become president is fascism? Do you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about?
cheekymonkey We are a constitutional democratic republic. Democratically elected representatives are a fundamental and foundational tenet of the system. If you don't understand this, why don't you go somewhere you can find out. Why the hell do you think there is a vote held at all?
cheekymonkey You told me to turn in my voter card. Hmm...interesting. Why does anyone have a voter card?
cheekymonkey Oh FFS, you are flagrantly missing the point. Democracy is when the people vote to determine how the government operates, either directly in a direct democracy, or indirectly in a representative democracy. *If you have a voter card*, that means you are a citizen who is voting to determine how the government will operate - in this case by electing a representative to act on your behalf in our representative government. *Representatives are determined DEMOCRATICALLY by voting*. So if you believe that democracy has nothing to do with our system, then why the hell do we vote at all? If it wasn't part of our system, then there would be no voting. You obviously know that we vote, and that those votes are tabulated to determine which candidate got the majority of votes. Therefore you know we have democracy, you know it's majority rule - yet you persist to claim that democracy has nothing to do with our system. You're either trolling or the biggest moron in the country - and that's a hard title to hold these days.
Alright, let's get straight to the point. Your main point is that we have the Electoral College to protect the "little people" and avoid mob rule, aka "tyranny of the majority". It's true that in the original vision, the "mob" would vote for someone who would then make an educated decision to choose the next president. However, you're ignoring an important detail.
*Our Electoral College stopped doing this as soon as parties formed.*
People now only vote for electors on a technicality. The reality is that the "mob" has been choosing the president for over 200 years. *The catch is that sometimes it's the minority mob that wins for no particular reason.*
The parties that have formed resulted in a horrible, twisted version of what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They never intended for 80% of the population to be completely ignored. That's what we have now. Don't believe me? The presidential candidates only visited the three most populous states (California, Texas, and New York) a combined two times. This is all thanks to what the Electoral College has become!
While obviously the popular vote also has flaws, it's simply ignorant to say that the Electoral College doesn't have the exact same flaws and then some.
So, in summary...
i.imgflip.com/1f41f9.jpg
The electoral college keeps the big cities in check.
Yes, how terrible would that be that someone would be elected from places where most of the people are.
Because it would ensure that where there is one less person somewhere else their voices would be completely silenced, is that what you want? Minorities voices silenced? That's why the Electoral College is the great equalizer. Of course you don't want the person to win that only wins in large Urban population centers because it ignores the rest of the country which comprises 99% of it. And believe it or not, there are people spread all across the fruited plain that have different priorities and different ideas about how the land that they live on should be used and taxed and do not want to answer to some Tyrant and some far-off rusting crime-ridden Metropolis.
That's why they moved out there in the first place, and unfortunately you do have to appeal to them as well in order to represent all the people, not just the recent arrivals in the coasts with little round glasses and overpriced apartments and tiny, dsngerous electric cars.
THAT is the minority of American life, even though it may seem like the majority if you're stuck on some godforsaken concrete Island that is nothing but mayhem 24 hours a day.
You don't really know America if that is your grim soulless life.
You know 1% of it and that's sad.
Guys. 3/4 of states have to vote to ratify the constitution. States will never go for removal of the electoral college. It ain't happening.
Of course. Just the fraudulent vote in California or New York is enough to overwhelm several low population states put together. The only way to make a popular vote system even fair enough to consider would be to require all states to adhere to the same election procedures in every aspect -- from ID to early/absentee voting/to voting hours/mail-in, etc. Effectively, that means nationalizing the election process, leaving no role for the individual states in federal elections.
There is no reason to have the Senate if the Electoral College is dropped
Without the Electoral college, the states of California and Texas would decide the presidency every election
new york and a little bit of florida too
SonOfHanni Rual america decided the elections
ulysses cervantes rural america decided this election because less people voted this year than any presidential election in our history
cptmiller132 False. 2 million more republicans came out for Trump despite his high unpopularity. Since 2000 Republicans get anywhere from 58 to 60 million votes regardless of voter turnout. The reason there is speculation of voter fraud is because although turnout was lower, Republicans were able to gain 2 million more votes leaving Donald at 61 million.
ulysses cervantes 52% of america voted this year the previous record low was 54%
Toss the Electorial College??? NO WAY IN HELL WOULD I LET KALIFORNIA, NY, NJ, MASS, ELECT THE PREZZIES. NO FUCKING WAY.
Even Donald Trump said the Electoral College is disaster for democracy. And he won with it. Now he loves it, shocker. It's fair to say that people favor the system that helps them win.
In over 200 years, only 5 Presidents have won without the popular vote. In the last approximately 120 years, only two Presidents have won without the popular vote; Bush and Trump. If the Electoral College was as vital as claimed, we wouldn't have two centuries of victories based almost entirely on popular vote. Rather, we'd have this constant debate over a slew of Presidents elected both with and without the popular vote. But that's just not the case at all. The EC is nothing more than affirmative action which means your vote is not the same as someone else's. If this system makes your vote count but a fraction, you probably don't like it. If your vote is worth someone else's many times over, you probably love it.
How about those 3 million illegal immigrants voting?
How about those 100 million Americans _not_ voting? I guess it's true that those immigrants are refusing to integrate into American society. They're voting! How unamerican is that!?
Edwin Luciano Yeah! How dare they! Oh wait, their welfare is likely to be gone when Trump cuts funding to Sanctuary Cities.. oh wait.. that's right...
Jayce Ervin p
Jayce Ervin
Jayce Ervin
Simply this, You'd have to get both Houses of Congress to agree to *talk* about amendments to the constitution. Not gonna happen with Republicans in the majority. But the geniuses, the Founding Fathers, helped us with that. Conference of the States. 2/3 of the states (33 states)must call for a Conference to *talk* about amending the constitution. Again, not gonna happen. Then, *_IF_* you get that, you must have 3/4 of states (38) to agree on the Amendment. And that ladies and gentleman *WILL NEVER HAPPEN*.
Not to mention, to the liberal crybabies calling for this ban. *WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, POPULAR VOTES DO NOT MATTER*
Dalton Brown i've been waiting on someone to say this.
The only reason we even let people know the popular vote is basically just for show.
*we are a constitutional REPUBLIC*
Those are not mutually exclusive. We could still be a republic and elect the president by popular vote, like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wanted in the first place.
Yes , we do live in a Republic . It makes all states relevant , big or small in population .
***** whether he wanted a direct democracy or not is irrelevant now, since what we are left with is the EC. Thank God too, or California and New York would decide the presidency.
I don't get your point. You're saying other peoples' votes shouldn't count as much as yours because they happen to live somewhere else????? I understand that the system will never change but that doesn't mean it does a good job of representing people.
I totally disagree with this, and here's why. This man argues that if we get rid of the electoral college, centers of population would have more power than rural areas. But pieces of land don't pick the president, people do. So while areas with higher populations will have more power than rural areas of the same size, this makes sense because the population density is greater. Every person will have equal political power. Right now, with an electoral college, people in rural areas have up to 3x the political power as people in population-dense states.
There is no national popular vote! There are 51 elections for president, not 1. Extra California voters can have no bearing on the election in Texas... (fill in any 2 states you want).
Who else agrees that CPG grey can kick this guys ass?
me
CGP Grey is completely ignorant of how and why we have an electoral college. That is why he resorts to distorting some facts, ignoring other facts, toying with numbers, creating bizarre unrealistic fantasies of candidates winning with only 22% support, etc, etc. Grey would lose badly to this guy in a debate.
They just hate it because they lost. If they had one the college then they would be ok with it.
Ask the people in the small cities, small states and rural areas and you will see what they tell you. They will tell you that you will not silence them and tyranyze them this way!
One thousand likes, one thousand idiots who do not understand that the president should represent the people. We have senators and representatives to represent the states.
Watch CGP Grey's video on the matter.
i swear to god... both sides dont get it.. we arent a democracy, we are a representative republic , ffs
We’re a *democratic republic and being a “republic” doesn’t mean our elections shouldn’t be fair.
If it doesn't work for you change the rules, that is how the Democrat party works????😒
Correct.
Thats how the national socialist party works
Its too late to change it now. Why? Because, for one thing, if the situation were reversed, Hillary bots would be all for the electoral college. You can't change the rules now. Gosh, if you could, why not just vote for Bernie Sanders, he is the won who should have gotten the Democratic nomination.
you can in the electoral college system. But certainly not retroactivly. That notion is beyond ridiculous and childish at best.
Sure, don't win, just change the rules.
The electoral college makes the case for itself. CA and NY help make its case
No electoral college means the only places that would count to politicians is the large metropolitan areas, i.e. the big cities. Everyone else would be left out in the cold. Majority rule...ugh 😣👎
Only 8 states count right now...so My vote in Vermont didnt count but New Hampshire does? How is this fair ?
If it weren’t for the electoral college, California and New York (both liberal states) would decide every Presidential election.
Yes, let's all allow California to override the will of every single other state and have just one or two states decide every single election. That sounds totally fair.
Zankku Zann California😂 is far from Great!
You do realize that basically the same thing already happens... right?
***** Say that agin but in English this time.
Kate Richards . Go check again. Not every state is equal in the amount of electoral votes! Not even close. The state I live is worth 5 votes and what California is worth what like 20 or so votes. The Candidates don't even come to my state because it's not worth Their time!
Super Naught Yes I know that, but the number of electoral votes that a state is worth is pretty insignificant. What's important and what makes a state a swing state is whether or not it's considered to be a 'safe state'. California for instance is worth 55 electoral votes because of its enormous population, Texas is worth 34. Since however California is a democrat safe state and Texas is a republican safe state they're not as important as say, Iowa which has a total of just 6 electoral votes. This is because Iowa sometimes votes democrat and sometimes vote republican. If your state isn't being targeted it's because it's a safe state, not because it has few electoral votes. If it went by the number of electoral votes then California and Texas would be the primary swing states and politicians would target them instead.
It is always nice to hear someone that actually understands Civics and the Constitution. I so hate listening to the talking DemonRat heads on any issue. Thanks Professor.
This proves it . Not all professors or teachers are smart . This proves it .
what people seem to forget is that the united States isn't a democracy it's a republic and there is a very distinct difference. democracies are a individual voting system that rules in favor of the majority. republics vote by representation. the sad reality is kids don't understand that very distinct difference because it's not being taught to them.
We don't live in a democratic republic? For the people and by the people...
This professor used a brilliant analogy that I've been using for years -- The Hunger Games !!!! It's exactly what this country has turned into !!!
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but people who are upset about Hillary losing really want to make a difference, instead of protesting and rioting, they could petition their state government to distribute their electoral college votes proportionally. Only 2 states already do this, the rest use winner-takes-all, so one candidate wins all of that stat'es EC votes. replacing winner takes all with proportional systems would make the electoral college results more representative of the popular vote without having to abolish it.
it would also mean controversial situations where one candidate wins all of a state's votes by only a few hundred ballots (like in the 2000 election) wouldn't be as much of an issue, because miscounting by a few hundred would only make a difference of, at most, one electoral college vote.
you've got one group of people who want popular vote to dictate the winner and another group who want the electoral college, when people could have both. But that would require to taking action and not just resort to slacktivism and protests that don't have any specific goal, so we all know it'll probably never happen.
You must not realize the motives at work here. For example, California has 55 EC votes and votes roughly 60% democrat and 40% republican. On a winner take all system, Clinton gets all 55 votes. On a proportional system, Trump gets 22 and Clinton gets only 33. That would be disastrous for the Democrat candidate, all without a single citizen changing their vote. This is why nearly every state uses winner-take-all.
がに that way republicans would win every election due to heavier turnout in more counties and widespread areas.
Also a democrat will never win an election again if they don't get all of the CA and NY votes.
Takata Miyagawa see you get it.
***** It's not about this election, it's about future elections.
***** If anyone is petitioning to have Clinton given the presidency in violation of the rules that were agreed upon for this election, then yes, they are wasting their time.
If they're petitioning for rule changes that will even out the significance of individual votes, then they're not just "stuck in the present", and they do aspire to have a better future. Although since America is likely to forget about the EC again in 3 months, their efforts will likely go to waste.
lol what a laugh. You don't remove the electoral college through legislation! Such a joke!
Thank you. Too many people are completely missing the more important point. This country elects politicians like Boxer, who know full well that her legislation does nothing, except garner support from voters who agree with her. Political pandering at the most ignorant of levels.
Thing is, Boxer is a lame-duck and won't be around to carry her proposal forward. It's pure grandstanding.
Let's just be clear. If there were a national referendum tomorrow on weither to abolish or preservie the electoral college, the abolish side would be completely cruched. As someone said in the comments below, the EC isn't going anywhere.
Very well said Professor. ☺
the popular vote really should be in question due to what we learned through Project VERITAS, and also the televised news where accounts were given stating that voting machines were switching votes from one candidate to another.
Wow, I never knew how smart our Founding Fathers were. It's like they saw into the future or something.
Our Founding Fathers were certainly wise with discernment, insight and foresight. God bless America!
Hillary got 3 million illegal immigrant votes so really Donald got the popular vote too!!
Illegal immigrants can't fucking vote.
well they did..check out Alex Jones and many others and yes very sad and very illegal but it did happen even Obama said to do so research it
But hurt people, But you can't change the way the vote went after the election. So give it up.
What happened in Michigan? Not called yet? Why?
They stopped caring once it became apparent that the rest didn't matter to swaying the election. Even if every single vote left went to Hillary, it wouldn't have changed the election results.
C North Then those Michigan delegates will vote for whom? The vote of Michigan is INVALID then? I think they should add the 16 into the actual number of Trump's delegates.
Kreuzritter Geschäfter I think they're supposed to make it official in a meeting on November 28th
Kreuzritter Geschäfter, I expect that Michigan will have its vote count certified in time for the Dec 19th process. And of course, still in Trumps favor.
Mike Betts Very slow. Anyway. Thank you for the kind explanation.
I am Thankful for the wisdom graced to the Founding Fathers, Living here in rural Northern California, We are treated like a second class colony of L.A.
Popular doesn't always mean better,???🤔🤔🤔
There are a total of 538 ECV available and the first to reach 270 wins...its a true, tried and simple process to ensure an individual win a top Executive level position in Government in this country.
How about just one electorate per state? Whoever gets 26 or more wins.
Trump won 31 states so that works!
do Wyoming who has about half a million people and California who has about 38 million people should have the same vote??of course not. Im totally fine with the electoral college as it stands.
***** i dont live in Wyoming it's just the least populous state in the Us and i was making an example
Zankku. You have been reported.
*****
Jealous about california (no cap)? LMFAO! A state with staggering deficits all the time and being invaded by mexicanos who end up forming gangs of narcos and terrorizing their own neigborhoods, A state that has earthquakes, droughts, wildfires, you name it.
You can keep that freaks land to yourself. You californians (no cap) should separate from the Union and then you should see the biggest exodus of companies going to other states because their taxes will go up so much that they won't be able to do business there. Why? Because california (no cap) receives $billions in FEDERAL MONEY.
One good thing too is the prospect of Mexico annexing you into their territory = No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment checks, no services, no SHIT.
Boy, you gonna have fun!
xDDDDDD
The Electoral College did EXACTLY what our founding fathers wanted it to do.
The internal poll had Trump higher than Killary in the popular vote
1:95 "What happens if the president can be elected from 10 pockets...."
- How the EC works now the president is elected by around 14 states that are in play every election. Most states are already called ad the candidates never campaign there such Oregon, Washington, California, etc. States which such a large majority of one party's voters the other party never sets foot because getting votes from their supporters won matter.
A popular vote means you can visit state X and every vote you get there, even if it isnt counted towards winning that state it is still counted in the national count and that matters.
For those who refuse to let go of the archaic electoral college system, transition instead to a system where the electoral votes are awarded proportionally, so that the people in each state have a chance to be represented, even if they make up a minority of the population. And instead of unfairly giving extra weight to the votes of poorly populated states and deliberately weakening densely populated ones, give each state the number of electoral votes that it truly deserves.
You don't realize how impractical this is. For example, California has 55 EC votes and votes roughly 60% democrat and 40% republican. On a winner take all system, Clinton gets all 55 votes. On a proportional system, Trump gets 22 and Clinton gets only 33. That would be disastrous for the Democrat candidate, all without a single citizen changing their vote. This is why nearly every state uses winner-take-all.
Takata Miyagawa It's not impractical at all. I'm not interested in what the Parties want. I'm interested in the people having their voices heard. If you live in California and are a Republican, what's the point of even voting? If you're a Democrat and you live in Alabama, why leave the house? It's probably the greatest cause of voter suppression in the country.
JVIPER88 Unfortunately, it's the parties that make the rules, not the people. Tell us: What motive does the democrat-controlled government in California have to change their rules in a way that would give the Republican candidate for president another 22 electoral votes, without a single citizen changing their vote?
Takata Miyagawa A Democrat-controlled government in CA might notice that while they would be surrendering 22 electoral votes to Republicans at home, the data has shown that such a system would have benefited the Democrats overall, seeing as how they won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections. Every state has to be on board for it to work. And the democrats, who always claim to want increased voter-turnout, should support a policy that would eliminate the biggest voter-suppressor in the country.
Of course, this is all theoretical, and politicians are rarely capable of thinking long-term.
"Every state has to be on board for it to work." The US constitution gives every state the _exclusive_ right to decide how they allocate their EC votes, so you'll essentially need a constitutional amendment to get every state on board (or you could go the NPVIC route).
We need electoral college to make everyone else votes count !
How about start a petition to keep the electoral college and let’s see what happens
If we got rid of the Electoral College, the following states would elect every President, CA, MI, NY, IL. The rest of the states would not have a voice.
Wouldn't you need to amend the constitution, not submit legislation, to change or get rid of the electoral college?
These men are avoiding one glaring historical fact, the reason why the electoral college was originally created. The original concept behind the EC was to gather votes locally and turn in the results. The popular vote could not be counted quickly (as it can be today). Votes could not be tallied in an efficient manner, so instead they were counted locally and the electoral college would meet to share who received the most votes in their respective districts. This system never claimed to be perfect nor was it ever intended to act as a check and balance to the popular vote. It was simply a useful mechanism by which a small population in a large country might vote as efficiently as possible. Imagine in 1787 trying to count all the votes in the entire US by hand quickly and accurately! If we could ever count the popular vote quickly, double and triple check for accuracy, and declare a winner before December eighth, the electoral college would be obsolete. Arguments that aim to protect rural voters from being outvoted by suburbanites are basically promoting the notion that rural voter's votes should count more than those of other Americans. I am a rural voter and this concept would benefit me, but it isn't ethical. Every vote should be of equal worth. Wether the voter is well educated, undereducated, black, white, male, female Christian or atheist. This is America and if you are an American your vote should count as much as any other American's.
Let's get rid of the electoral college. Let's do one congressional district, one vote: majority wins.
The electoral college will never go away. Moving on.
With that said. Illegals can vote and citizens don't have a say.
When Hillary was campaigning for presidential election, I noticed she focused on the highly populated areas. Trump focused on the electoral. It seems Trump based his campaigning on the principles the Founding Fathers established.
Hillary gambled on the urban populated area interests only. She paid the price.
So, because the rules of the electoral college upset Hillary & Dems, even if it was wisely established for a reason, they believe it should "trashed"?
Hillary & Dems believe, if things don't go their way, they should be able to change the rules or "trash" them.
I would support the end of the "Electoral College" if only Nancy Pelosi & the rest of the "SWAMP" agree to "TERM LIMITS" ACROSS THE BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are a constitutional republic. Not a popular vote democracy. The founding fathers even admitted that the popular vote was volatile. The electoral college has nothing to do with this, it gerrymandering of congressional districts.
It will never work. Popular Vote would be the most unfair American way. Think about the smaller states, it just wouldn't be fair
California allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. From what I have heard, in LA, it is also easy to get all documentation necessary to register to vote.
The Electoral College and equal representation of every state in the Senate, are ingenious and essential parts of American success. These protect the geographic freedom of movement for Americans and prevent a few isolated areas of high population from ruling over distant swaths of the country.
The electoral college is a product of federalism. Federalism is integral to the system. Federalism is also where California gets the right to ban plastic straws and establish sanctuary cities. They ought to appreciate that state sovereignty.
One-half of the United States population is clustered in just 146 counties out of more than 3000 counties. Also around half of the US population lives in only in 9 states. Per capita income of these counties is much higher than the USA average, so obviously popular vote will favor those who focus on the concerns of these _well-to-do_ folks and manage to win their overwhelming support. The down-trodden and under-privileged will be further marginalized. Moreover, without the electoral college, anyone with substantial political influence and capacity to rig the voting machines in a few densely populated parts of the nation could potentially tilt the outcome to make one of his stooges the president every single time. And, with a victory guaranteed, the whole country could very well descend into tyranny very quickly. Also, we must not forget that voter fraud is a reality today. Sometimes the illegal aliens even admit that they do vote. There is no point pretending that voter fraud doesn't exist. A popular method could be disastrous for the USA.
Another thing is, given the fact that densely populated counties in and around a metro city will result in bigger margins of lead that will take more than a few states to surmount (as has happened with this election also, without LA county Hillary's lead will turn into a deficit very quickly) and since it takes much more stamina and resources to campaign in 4-5 states than it takes to campaign in a few key counties with bigger population density, most candidates will only tend to focus on these few counties and the entire election result will hinge on one's performance in these counties. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where a sizeable portion of the population representing a multitude of states will become so fed up with being neglected and deprived of attention during election season, that they will stop voting which may further widen the gap to such an alarming extent that the entire system will break down completely.
Furthermore, the national popular vote (NPV) is not the panacea for all the problems that plague the US political system. It doesn't solve the issue of _political apathy_ among the likely voters. For Hillary supporters now, it's just an expedient path to get Hillary into the office. In the case of a lower voter turn out, the NPV could lead to equally bizarre results.
Now back to what happens in the current system, the candidate who wants to win the presidency is forced to campaign in various states, take into consideration the concerns of both the rich and the poor, and eventually wins a majority of electors (because EC awards electors based the overall performance in a state) to get elected, i.e. Donald Trump gets the presidency for winning the support of *30 states*. Why focus on winning a plurality of states, you ask? It's because, one, they represent a much broader cross-section of the country and, two, US is a federal republic. The strong adherence to _federalist principles_ is what has historically allowed the USA to function as a UNITED country despite having large differences among various groups in its population. A presidential candidate should act as the representative of as many cultural groups and states as possible, not just the most populous ones.
That's not to say the current system could not be improved. One may argue that the states should not have this huge difference in the number of electors they send to Washington. Perhaps the problem is the "winner takes all" approach. Maybe, there should be a method for distributing the electors in proportion to the votes earned by each candidate. However, this will increase the chances of no-majority outcomes. Given the fact that sometimes in close races third party candidates will snatch more than a few electors.
But there can be no substitute for giving the candidacy to worthy people something which didn't happen in 2016. Neither side was particularly happy with their pick. That is the root of the problem of relatively lower turnout. For example, Ms. Hillary and Mr. Trump both got roughly about 24.5% of the eligible voters. That is just ~1 in 4.
David Kling Also check _bush v gore_ SC judgment.
Eliminate the vote of LA County, CA, Cook County IL (Chicago), or NYC and Clinton loses the popular vote. Those three places all voted more than 70% for Clinton and make up over 8% of her vote total.
Do you really want one of these three places determining the Presidency?
Goodbye Democrat Party, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This wouldn't even be a subject if trump hadn't won. This is really important and we can't let it happen. The electoral college gives all states a say.
I still say if the situation was reversed and Hillary got more electoral votes these people trying to get rid of it would think the system was fair.
the electoral college is there because it represents everyone in the state, it makes it so everyone is represented based on average.
73% of the land voted for trump, 56% of the population is in the states that voted for trump.
26% of the land owned voted for Hillary, and 43% of the population.
LBJ will go down in history as the last Democrat to win both a majority of the taxpayers and a majority of the white vote.Never again will that happen.
Professor is wrong headed. If there is no electoral college then one vote in California is worth the same as one vote in Wyoming. Just because that one vote in California is clustered with millions of more votes in the same State, does not imply that the State elects the President. It is still the individual voters. With an Electoral College, then Florida is the swing State so voters in Florida decide who is the next President. Therefore one vote in Florida is worth a whole lot more than one vote in Wyoming. The the system is currently messed up. The purpose of the Electoral College was to keep manipulative frauds out of the White House. Which is Donald Trump's greatest attribute.
As a center-left Californian, I have to agree that the electoral college should stay. With solely the popular vote, we risk turning our country into a big echo chamber of rural versus urban, where no one really knows of the troubles that the other side faces.
That's exactly the case we have right now. And I would say that getting rid of the electoral college would make that problem much better, because it would allow for third parties, and thus centrism and alternate ideologies than just left and right.
Barbara Boxer hasn't done an honest day's work for Californians in 10 years or more. I believe, that it is a shame Californians in her District keep re-electing her.
Okay, this professor needs to be fired. He didn't once mention feelings, just littered the landscape with facts.
People very easily forget that the Electoral College serves a similar function to the Senate in Congress. The House of Representatives is heavily favored by large states that elect several officials, and the Senate was set in place to check that power of large states with equal representation from all states for a diversity in political views. This is the same reason we have an Electoral College that, as Dr. Arnn pointed out, gives smaller states and other ideas in the USA a voice in the national conversation, and it avoids a democratic system where the populations of 10 states carry all the weight and the rest of the country act like colonies. California already have 55 electoral votes that are guaranteed Democrat. How much easier do you have to make it for Democrats to win an election?
To call it hubris to want to overwrite a traditionally Constitutional Democratic-Republic government is very fitting. People often stake the claim that our system is "antiquated" as if using a smart-sounding word validates this thought, but what evidence is there to this system not serving the interest of our country; the fact that you lost to George Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016? That's not evidence: that's just crying. You have every right to be upset and the peacefully protest, but this notion of changing the electoral college system is absurd and anti-American. Donald Trump ran a smart campaign and reached out to groups of people that lost their voice and lost their representation in the government. If you can't win the electoral college because you run a campaign on the back of fear-mongering, hate-mongering, celebrity endorsements, George Soros' wallet, and the fact that you have ovaries, then you don't deserve to be President because none of those brainwashing tactics should give anyone power in the Executive Branch if we're still a country that demands the respect both domestically and abroad.
Lastly, how are we making this argument now when Trump swept the electoral college? Regardless of the 1 million voter difference between Trump and Hillary, you could have made a much better argument for this back in 2000 when there was only a 5-point difference in the electoral vote. This is truly foolish.
Long live the Electoral College!
without the Electoral college politicians would only have to campaign in the large cities and the rest of the country would be forgotten and left behind
The electoral college makes voting pointless