How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
I attended high school before the Department of Education was established. I got a great education and they taught us all about the history and civics of our nation. We learned about the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. We were required to read them and the letters our founding fathers wrote to each other. We learned about the Electoral College and balance of powers. Our government is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
@@francispitts9440 It’s a Constitutional Republic and an electoral-democracy. Stop saying “it’s a republic and not a democracy” and actually say “it’s a republic and not a MONARCHY”.
@@alechinshaw5990 a democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting for what they will have for lunch. Liberty is when the Lamb is armed. Benjamin Franklin. If you were paying attention to my comment you’d understand why we are not A DEMOCRACY as a general definition for our government. We are not a pure democracy. Every single founding father wrote about the dangers of mob/ majority rule. It’s the reason we use the Electoral College and not popular vote. And it’s why we have a Senate with three branches of government. A balance of powers. If we were a democracy then the big cities would tell the entire country what to do.
They should but they don’t and probably won’t take the time to know. A lot of Americans don’t follow politics daily and maybe, maybe tune in a bit during election year and the vote while being under educated about their choices for president and other local and state issues on the ballot.
YES; as a lifelong citizen of a small state: Hawai’i, I wholeheartedly support the Electoral College; and the Founder’s Vision of Democracy for our Constitutional Republic.
the thing is, small states aren’t really supported by the electoral college. urbanism will continue whether you like it or not. small states are rarely helped in elections as well, as every single small state either leans democrat or republican. the states that get the most investment are swing states and their is less and less of them. Having it so the entire election is gerrymandered by states which have the most of a certain color is wrong and downplays the nuances of regions and counties.
@@alechinshaw5990Guam actually likes being part of the US, due to being liberated by the US and is one of the most patriotic regions of America. Although your point is still valid
@crowmob-yo6ry The US is a federation of 50 different states, wrapped into a Republic. That helps keep the bulwark against a powerful central authority.
The best way I always explain to people is this. Wyoming is the least populated state. 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. California is the most populated. 2 Senators and 53 Congressman. Senate is equal representation, and Congress is proportional representation. Wyoming may ony have 1/3 of 1% of the population, but they feed 15% of the country.
The better way of considering it is that the people do not vote for the President. Instead, the states are voting. This was the original intent when the selection of electors was done by the state legislature. All this was done to insulate the Presidency from the whims of the mob.
@@tallspicy Wait a second why don’t blue state senators argue for lower federal taxes, so they can levy taxes on their own residents instead and keep the money within the state. They are happy, we are happy. Unless they don’t actually care about tax deficits.
There is motivation to make sure that the Executive Branch is dominated by one party that gets most of the coastal urban votes. The Executive Branch makes it's own laws (regulation), collects its own taxes (fees), and can do all sorts of manner of unconstitutional things to you. Eliminating the Electoral College means one party rule in perpetuity, with those that might have a different culture than the urban costals being left without voice.
they do have a voice, they can vote and their vote matters just as much as the costal elites votes. in the quest of taking power from the individual and give power to the state you ignore that every citizen no matter where have their own morals and ideals and shouldn't be ignored. no state is a monolith of ideas and giving up your power of vote bc you feel like Republicans couldn't win elections anymore is laughable. the citizens deciding that a pro abortion, pro lgbtq, anti racism party should win isnt really shocking.
@@blcbirdy3229 It's the same reason we don't allow citizens in Europe to pick our leaders, or the Chinese. You end up being ruled by people who hate your culture and want to see you ruled from afar. What it might come down to is a separation. New countries that simply deal with each other with trade negotiations.
@@Grabthar191 no. citizens from those countries dont live in America so they have nothing to say on american ground. democrats do live in america so they have no matter what you say have a say on what Presidentwe choose. the focus of a popular system would now be people instead of land and as far as i know theres a lot of republican megacities that would need to be benefited by democrats due to the sheer amountof people. as to the hateful part america has even since its start hated for example black people, they are still necessarily powerless why did we stopped? we raised laws that would make the majority unable to treaten the minority. now tell me what's the costal elite looking to do with republicans? which laws are they going to raise to affect republicans negatively.
@@reverb508 Then they should be allowed to become their own country, and rule themselves, rather than be ruled by people 1000 miles away with a completely different culture.
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
Well, the intent of our newly woke founding gestational parents is to benefit far left radical democrats, so of course we would rage if it went the other way! 😡
yeah, I was hoping that Trump would win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote, and trigger the 'electoral steal' - I think it would be hilarious to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I'm sure the Dems would repudiate the electoral change.
Donald Trump is going make history as the first major party candidate to lose the popular vote three presidential elections in a row. Poor Adlai Stevenson finally goes free!
@@TFUJackLimbo God chose a master of slaves Abraham, blessed his chosen son Issac, the King of Jews derived from a gentle clan of prostitute descendants, Israel became a sovereign nation. ⬅️ Just example of God's brilliant work. You shall complain to God, the King of Jews. You shall worry about your destiny not ending up in🔥🔥
@@TFUJackLimboSome did, and then it stopped. Are you willing to work for the same when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn, the rights of parents, not chopping off the private parts of kids and adults, and not allowing kids to be sexualized in school?
The problem with the popular vote is that states like California and Texas have more population and they can control the election for the entire country.
Just like Las Vegas controls the vote in Nevada. LV has nearly twice the population of the rest of the state combined. And since Reno and Carson City usually go the way of LV, the rest of the states votes are pretty much meaningless. If LV goes blue, NV goes blue.
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
@@EtonR-kj4oq Since the electoral college is made up from the number Senators (2 per state, giving all STATES an equal voice) and the number of Representatives per state (based on population in congressional districts, with each district having nearly the same number of people, allowing all voters the same impact), it is the fairest way possible to represent both the states and peoples choice in the the aggregate. This also forces national candidates to campaign all across the country, because even smaller states and cities become important despite the large population states such as California, New York and Illinois, for instance. The larger population states, and in truth, the large population centers in those states such as Los Angles, New York City and Chicago would have an undue influence and would cause candidates for high office to campaign ONLY in those states/cities. Remember, majority rule by popular vote is 50% + 1. Where would you like that +1 to be from? LA, NYC, CA? Would you have half the country ignored by the vote of that 1? While the electoral college isn’t perfect (as it stands now, it is winner take all per state, with a couple of exceptions), it is better than a strictly popular vote. It at least gives smaller states with lower populations the ability to be heard and a number of them can balance out the high electoral votes of say, California and its 54 votes. Hope I explained this well enough, Eton.
Which is why, if every state adopted the Congressional District method of Nebraska and Maine, a *WHOLE* lot of people would be surprised at the results...and realize that most states are not as solid one colour or the other as they thought.
This right here is the exact problem. I lived in Nevada and it is a prime example on a small scale what would happen if you had National popular vote. It is interesting if you look at the color by county, the entire state is Red. The only two places that are not red is Reno and Las Vegas, two little slivers of blue on the left side of the state and the bottom. Guess what color the state becomes? Blue. Because the entire population of those two cities far exceeds the rest of the state. The issue is that the dominant income of those two cities is recreation and tourism. The rest of the state is mining and ranching. Allot of the people in mining towns got affected all the time by policies put in place by Reno and LV that it negatively affect peoples jobs.
@crowmob-yo6ry I don't know about that. I live in Bowling Green, I can count on one hand the number of Trump signs in the front yards around here. I have been all over town and have counted about 49 Walz Harris signs. When we go to Cedar Point, I see several Harris signs too when on highway 6. From what I see, most of even rural Ohio is Blue. Toledo, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton. They are all blue as well.
People vote, not square miles. Also, just looking it up, Denver city population is just over 700,000, state of Colorado is 5.8 million so Denver hardly decides elections by itself in Colorado. There are a LOT of Blue voters also outside the city limits of Denver
I’ve always looked at the electoral college like the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House is populated with politicians from each state according to their size (larger states have more representatives). The Senate treats all states the same (each state only gets 2 senators). This is intended to keep heavily populated states from ruling the rest of the country as if they are colonies. With a popular vote only, it would take only 4 states to effectively rule the rest of the country: California, Texas, Florida, and New York. This would not make a free country, as the us represented states would effectively become colonies and have rules and laws passed that could move resources (people and materials) to enrich the “ruling states”.
The top 4 states in population have only 1/3 of the total US population and that ignores the fact that not everybody in those states votes for the same party. NY and California rare blue states but TX and FL lean Republican, do you really think everyone from those 4 states are voting for the same party? Even in NY and CA 1/3 of the voters are Republicans. So no, what you said isnt true at all,
@@bigedslobotomyyou are correct, but it's worse than that. Large urban cities would decide presidential elections without the EC. LA, NYC, Seattle, Chicago and a small handful of others would rule under a pure mob based popular vote.
Thank you. Even in videos like this one, I feel like they don't put enough emphasis on this. I can't get people to fathom the fact that Las Angeles has more people than North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined. Heck I think you could even throw Iowa in there. In a popular vote, it would not matter if every single man woman and child in those states voted the same, their vote would be overshadowed by a single city in a costal state.
@@finalfant111 The city of Los Angeles has maybe 3% of the US population, so the idea that 3% of the US population overwhelms the rest of America is beyond absurd. But I know, "real Mericans" only live in small states, those who live in big states or big cities (even not in CA or LA) aren't "real Mericans"
@@finalfant111 tell people to look at, or show them the 2016 EC map - drilled down to county level. Hillary won the popular vote by carrying LA, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Miami, New York, etc. Basically all the coastal corridor cities in the east and west. The major cities overwhelmed the rural counties turning most of their states blue. If not for the EC check against the power of the mob vote, these cities would have elected Hillary.
Except that most people who work the elections don't want to deal with the hassle, they just want to get home quick, and get paid as soon as possible afterwards. (Yes, even if it's just reporting the final tally and let computers do the work, it's still an effort for some.) Seriously, I've worked the polls up here in Ontario, Canada. I once saw the DRO (Deputy Returning Officer) at another poll desk having to teach her poll clerk how to do his job, probably because he wasn't really listening at the training session. I also remember one time being called in as a replacement poll clerk, and the only things my DRO was concerned about was when she was getting paid (after I got there and we got through the backlog of voters who had been waiting, her first words to me were "So, I worked the municipal election two weeks ago, when do you think we'll get paid for that?") and how many smoke breaks she could get away with.
@@TommyBuskulic-u2k there shouldn’t even be an electoral college for the presidential election, let alone the governorship or local. Are you unaware of population density?
@@susanwojcickisnicetwin not really. The constitution allows states to award their electoral votes however they see fit which obviously includes awarding them to the national winner. It’s actually a relatively recent thing that the state popular vote determines the state’s electoral vote
@@susanwojcickisnicetwin again at least by the constitution that’s allowed. In fact in the early days most states didn’t even hold elections the legislature just picked the electors. You may not agree with it but it’s constitutional
@@luisfilipe2023 The loser gets the electors? Then why can't a State with a majority of Democrats in the State legislature automatically give their electors to the Democrat regardless of who wins any State? So California can give its electors to the Democrat even if the Democrat loses both the State popular vote and national popular vote? Then why have the vote to begin with? So much for believing in democracy.
Do you remember the year 2000, Bush vs Gore election? It was a razor thin race. It all came down to whoever would win Florida, that person would win the election. Within hours, every federal court was inundated with lawsuits, and every Florida court, state and local, were inundated with lawsuits. Without the Electoral College, those lawsuits would have been in every court, in every state, in every city, from sea to shining sea. That is because any one polling place could swing the election, if not for the Electoral College. It would not matter if a candidate had a 10 point lead in a state. When all that matters is the national vote, then that 10 point lead would not stop endless lawsuits in pursuit of more votes. But with the Electoral College, such lawsuits would serve little to no purpose, because it would not flip a 10 point lead. If there was no Electoral College, then the year 2000 lawsuits would never have been decided in time to declare a winner of the election, in order to know who will be sworn in on January 20th. And every other lawsuit being litigated would have been set aside, causing all kinds of issues where time was of the essence to resolve lawsuits that would have normally been happening.
That is kinda the response I gave in 2016 when people complained that "But Hilary won the popular vote, how is THAT fair?" I would calmly say "Well, she won California by four million, while he won Pennsylvania by seventy-seven thousand. Do you think it's fair to the voters in Pennsylvania for their votes to be nullified by a portion of the surplus votes in California?"
@@davegreenlaw5654 Consider that since Bush knew that he would not win California's Electoral votes, he therefore did not campaign in California. If the election was based on the popular vote, then Bush would have campaigned in California. He still would not have gotten the majority of the votes in California. But he could have swung over enough votes in California to win the nation-wide popular vote. The popular vote is irrelevant when the candidates are not seeking to win the popular vote. How the candidates campaign is based on the Electoral College. When people say "But the other candidate won the popular vote", it is because the person that won the election did not campaign in places to win the popular vote. Bush might have won the popular vote, if that is where he put his efforts. But it would have cost him the election. If there was no Electoral College, there would be election fraud on a scale 1,000 times more than we have ever had -- because any rinky-dink town would be able to swing the election.
Al Gore would have won comfortably without the electoral college in 2000 and there would have been no lawsuit because it would have been pointless, there were only ones in 2000 because of the EC
the issue is that we are thinking to small minded and not the big picture. states are growing more and more similar, with less and less cultural differences. the solution to the issue is to treat the election of the president like how it should be, nationwide and use star ranked choice voting or mixed member proportional resentation. This would be fairer for everyone as republicans which live in cities could get a voice in the politics more, preventing them from feeling alienated. Also the fact is that having the election be decided by a handful of states rather than everyone is bound to lead to disaster.
the electoral college is essential to maintaining equilibrium, without it lower populous states would not stay in the union. mexico has no electoral college....mexico has had 11 civil wars in the past 200 years
That argument makes no sense. That’s like saying “everyone who has said their first word has died, therefore if you never speak, you’ll never die” How is the electoral college fair for “maintaining equilibrium” when of a state votes for red, even if it’s 51 red to 49 blue, that 49 percent gets tossed aside and the republicans get all the votes of the state? Not to mention the largest states get the most votes anyway and smaller states don’t get that much attention.
This makes a NEW problem. NYC decides for NY, Chicago decides for IL, A few cities decide for massachusetts, michigan, texas, and georgia. We need a new system: either district or proportional voting
If you get rid of the electoral college, you might as well erase state lines on the map. Then it would no longer be the United States. You'd have to come up with a new name, because it would be a new country. The electoral college is bedrock to how this country works. We're a democratic country, but not a pure democracy. That's how it was designed, and has been the best system of government the world has ever seen.
The United States is a constitutional republic. Which is a good thing. Democracy is a poor system on a large scale. It suffers severely from tyranny of the majority. Democracy is only tolerable in small groups, where people can easily go elsewhere if they do not agree with the majority.
@@XJWill1 i'm so tired of hearing this stupid "tyranny of the majority" thing. how is it tyranny if it's what most of the people who will be affected choose? Bush and Trump lost the popular vote, which means more Americans wanted Gore and Clinton. But because of the electoral college system, we got the president that the MINORITY wanted. how does that make any sense?
@@PhantomSamurai97 How is it not tyranny when people tell other people what to do? If 51% of the people voted to beat you up, would you be okay with it?
@@PhantomSamurai97 How is it not tyranny if some people tell other people what to do? Would you be okay with it if 51% of the people voted to put you in jail?
“Without the electoral college, politicians would only need to spend time addressing those who are in a few of the largest cities in the country” *meanwhile politicians only spend time in a few of the biggest cities in swing states*
@@jeromemccollom936 The Electoral College exists to support states rights. NY and CA would run the country if we went to direct democracy. The Electoral College is in the Constitution. Making an end-run to get around it is unconstitutional.
@@billvojtech5686 LOL. So to support states rights we have to stop states from doing things we don't like. Do you know how stupid that is? You are like one of those generals in Vietnam who said we have to destroy a village in order to save it. The Constitution states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." It doesn't say except when Republicans in 2024 might not like it. Show me where any system of states delegating electoral votes as they wish is banned. Please show me. Show me where in the text because it is NOT there. Fine I get it, you don't want any kid of popular vote for president, whatever, but it isn't in the text!!!! Not at all. And by the way, CA and NY state combined have less then 20 percent of the US population, hardly would decide US elections so learn math and geography as you learn civics
@@donovandownes5064 I can see the winner of a state getting all the electoral votes from that state and I can also see proportionally distributing electoral votes between candidates, but I can't see a state giving all its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Let's say a Democrat wins by a landslide in a state, but the Republicans win the popular vote by a hair. Why should all of that state's votes go to the Republican? How does that represent the people of that state? It basically steals their votes.
I wish every State had a policy to award electoral votes based on Statewide votes, rather than awarding all to a single candidate. Perhaps because I live in California, and with 54 votes, dividing them could help swing the final tally. I had not heard about NPV before. Of course CA has signed on 😞
Could you imagine though, would California be capable of sending their electoral votes in for Trump if he gets the popular vote but would’ve lost the electoral college?! I’m sorry to hear California has made this horrible commitment to disenfranchise its voters but that would be a sight to see!
@@rwaggs2623 I too feel your pain as an Illinoisan. Our votes consistently get counted as Democrat because of Chicago and it’s burbs. Meanwhile, central and southern Illinois strongly and consistently favor more conservative parties. For that exact reason, most of the political decision making panders to Chicago and ignores the rest of the State.
@@DeutscheMongoose I'd be happy if electoral votes were allocated based on individual votes rather than winner take all which does not reflect the will of the people. Perhaps that's the real controversy about the electoral college - not the process itself, but the States' policy? I think there are some State who split their electoral votes already.
@@rwaggs2623 I think you hit it right on the head. My understanding is that there are indeed States that allocate electoral votes in the manner you describe. If this were the way electoral votes were counted for each State individually, I think it would be much more inline with the intent of the electoral college as designed by our founding fathers. We have advanced enough technologically that this level of accuracy should easily be achievable. I would also imagine that such a move would reveal that this country is much more evenly split on political preference by geographical region than the current maps show. Likewise, “swing States” would become much less of a focus.
Founders didn't want more populous state's from having more power/say over lesser populated states. Balance of power, the several states elect the president via the EC. People complain as it is that "swing" or "battleground" states get more attention during elections. Go look at the 2016 EC map, but drill down to the country level: large cities like LA, Portland, Miami, Seattle, Chicago would have elected Hillary effectively nullifying majority of counties, let alone states, country wide. No EC, and candidates will only court voters in large urban centers.
@@donovandownes5064 They don't. Each state has a weighted say based on population, but it is the fifty several states that elect the president. Knowing a direct popular vote would mean small states would end up with zero say, the EC was a brillant check and balance to mob rule power.
@@donovandownes5064 that is contrary to wording of the Constitution. When state and federal conflict, federal wins. Have you graduated from law school and had Con law as i have?
*Here's the flaw nobody sees or at least nobody acknowledges:* election offices _don't_ bother to count such as provisional ballots if they couldn't change an election outcome. A candidate winning the electoral count (and hence the Presidency) but loosing the popular vote may have in reality also won the popular vote because votes for them weren't counted since they won the electoral count anyway.
@@donovandownes5064 Much more costly to process and count such as written in selections (like "I vote for Kackle Marxis") so never done if couldn't possibly change who won. But certainly could change the result when crowing about how the loser won the popular vote.
What are the problems with her arguments? First, when the electoral college was developed, there were no political parties. It was designed for an open election in which anyone could run. The original design was for each Elector to vote for two candidates, one of which could not be from their own state. When tallied, the candidate with the most votes became President and the candidate who came in second was Vice President. That, of course, doesn’t sound anything like the EC we have today. In 1788 and 1792, George Washington was elected President unanimously. The election of 1796 was the first contested presidential election: John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Adams became President, and Jefferson became his Vice President, despite the fact they had campaigned vigorously against each other. These two men, who had worked so closely together on drafting the Declaration of Independence had, by the 1800 election, become bitter rivals. The 1800 election prove to be even more bizarre. Adams’ running mate was Charles Pinkney. Jefferson’s running mate was Aaron Burr. Adams’ private fear was that Pinkney might receive more Electoral Votes than he and he would become Pinkney’s Vice President. He need not have worried; Adams received 65 votes and Pinkney received 64. But that didn’t matter either because Jefferson and Burr both received 73. Now it was up to the House of Representatives to choose a president. It became even more bizarre after that, including 35 votes in the House before Jefferson was elected President, and Vice President Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. But all of the above, and more, were the consequences of the Electoral College as designed by the Founding Fathers. But let’s consider just one aspect of the arguments she presents: all states get a voice in who is elected. Eight states - Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington DC, Delaware, Vermont, and Alaska - each with three Electoral Votes, offer a total of 24 EVs. When was the last time you saw any major presidential candidate spend any time campaigning in any of those states? There are 21 states that offer 10 or more electoral votes that total 377. Those are the states that are campaigned in most vigorously, with some of the remaining 30 being practically ignored. So tell me again, how does the electoral college give those less populous states an equal voice? Any more than they would have with a popular vote?
Critics cry about small states gaining too much power but really when you looknat how the vote goes, without the EC, the majority of people in 85% of the country broken down to the county level would have no say in the choice for president. The high populations in LA and NY who currently vote the same, would pick our president. If that were the case today, deciding by the popular vote which is swamped by the people in 15% of the country by land, why would the people that live in thebother 85% of the country not want to cut ties to those areas? Our candidates would only need to campaign in NY and LA.
how would LA and NY (combined = 5% of the population) pick the president? Believe it or not, 5% is not enough to win under a national popular vote. And that's assuming the whole populations all vote for one candidate.
None can be made, it is completely constitutional, I find it so ironic that conservatives talk about states rights but when state do things they dont like then they want to get the federal government involved
@@citrused8571 Yes, I know the US a republic, but you can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. I think this argument comes down to a disagreement of what "democracy" means
I think there should be a 60/80 rule for state like New York. If 60% of the population is centrally located or within a small portion of the state any law that comes out of that portion must receive 80% of the overall state electors I have friends and family that suffer because of the rules coming out of the big city that is hurting the ruling areas.
@@SwornReaper that wouldn’t be a revolution. For it to be a revolution, you have to fight for something. All you’re fighting for something that’s already there. That’s called a resistance, not a revolution.
These separate state elections "cannot and do not interfere with each other", other then when the Republican Texas attorney general wants my vote in Wisconsin, plus votes in Pennsylvania and Georgia thrown out in the 2020 election because he didn't like the application of our state laws. So much for that "principle". By the way,, if a state did violate it's own state law, it's not the Texas AG or the federal courts role to jump in
Wonder why literally no other country uses this system. Somehow, none of the problems addressed in this video seem to bother politically-stable countries which elect their heads of state based on a national popular vote.
So instead of focusing on only swing states, presidents only focus on big cities? That just sounds like shifting the problem to me Me personally, I think a majority vote (AKA first-choice plurality, plurality, first-past-the-post, etc.) should be replaced with a more fair voting system, such as Condorcet (with a backup system due to condorcet’s tendency to sometimes result in ties)
Not only must we keep the Electoral College in place BUT we need to expand it to cities, etc., with over 1 million or so people. Big (usually liberal) cities are dictating the outcome of national elections for some states. It's ridiculous. The idea of the Electoral College was to keep things fair for people with different needs and situations. Well, places like NYC dictate the outcome of New work State's POTUS vote. Meanwhile, most upstate areas of NY are conservative and don't vote the same was as the city. It's now become an issue in Arizona as well, with Phoenix determining the outcome of the state of AZ. Phoenix is a liberal democratic city but most of AZ State is more conservative, Phoenix is dictating the vote for POTUS. Not only do we need to keep the Electoral College but we must expand it to take away the control of large cities in elections.
Your reasoning is flawed. "Large cities” don’t determine the outcome of an election, the VOTING CITIZENS determine the results of an election. It sounds as though you want voting to be weighted according to the amount of land a voter owns. The owner of a 100 acre farm in Upstate New York gets the equivalent of 100 votes, while an apartment dweller in NYC who owns no land gets the equivalent of zero votes?!?! If the liberal majority of the voting public lives in Phoenix, so what? They are still the majority. Just because the conservative minority is scattered doesn’t change the fact they are still the minority.
I'm coming at this from an outsider's perspective, but I always wondered why even those americans in favor of the EC because of it gives more power to small states wouldn't at least consider implementing something like the Maine system everywhere. As much as people like dunking on California, 6 million republicans voted there and I find it concerning that their vote counts for absolutely nothing. The European Parliament (for all its other flaws) is elected in a way that might preserve the things about the EC people like. It assigns more seats proportionally to smaller member states, but the composition of those seats is decided proportionally by the votes in those states. Under this system, a third of California's electors would be republicans, allowing those people to be heard.
@@Rockhound6165 no they wouldn’t. Isn’t this supposed to be a sovereign country? I don’t think those states are separate countries. The only thing the electoral college is there for is to elect the President. That’s literally it.
In order to do that they'd have to pass an amendment to the constitution and it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the voters to overturn the amendment.
Fact is, a national popular vote will basically mean all major cities in the US will become our "National Capitols" that will control the outcome of every election. This will mean that city people will determine what is best for farmers, ranchers, miners, and small towns across the United States. Congratulations, welcome to the hunger games, here are your districts and your capitol will be LA or New York. Anyone that is for a national popular vote need to stop and think for a moment one key point, that applies every where else in the US: Los Angeles has more people in one metro area of a single state than the entirety of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined. Let that sink in. That one city has more population than 4 ENTIRE STATES. That means the people of a coastal city where the dominant income comes from tech and tourism will determine the policies that will affect people in land locked states that are dominantly agriculture. Those people will have NO voice. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in those states could vote RED and it wouldn't matter. You want to talk about "My votes doesn't matter?" Well with a national vote, that literally would be the case.
According to the Constitution, Congress must approve of any interstate pact, so whether the NPV becomes valid depends on who controls Congress at the time as well.
@@jeromemccollom936 My point is that I think that this contract undermines the constitution and should be ruled as unconstitutional, but I don't know how to do it. States have rights, of course, but, as it is laid out in the Constitution, states only have powers over anything not expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution. The electoral college is detailed in the Constitution. While states have full authority over how to run the elections in their states, this does not permit them to bypass the Constitution because it's "inconvenient".
@@seanmetzer9575 It doesn't undermine the Constitution in the least, not at all. States can decide how to award how to award their electors, if they want to do it through an arm wrestling contest, flipping a coin or picking the best singer, they can. Show me in the Constitution which bans, or implies, to ban, states from doing this. I get it you don't like it but it is the system. I find it ironic those who talk about why we need the EC for "states rights" are all too willing to interfere with states when they award votes in ways they don't like.So again show me what part of the Constitution they are "bypassing" with a national vote awarding system. Show me
@@jeromemccollom936 part of the issue here is that most states have actual laws on the books saying that the electors must vote according to their parties nominees. There are actual punishments for breaking those laws. When I said we need to block that contract I didn't necessarily mean at the federal level. States already have laws in place. If we don't adhere to and enforce the laws that we put in place why do we even have laws at all? This contract violates the Constitution and also asks most states to break their own laws. They plan to get away with it by getting participating states to sign it in the "dark of night", so to speak.
@@seanmetzer9575 Because you change laws. Laws can be changed, do you think laws are written in stone and once they are written nothing can ever change them? You seem to think because that laws are written in a way they can't be changed. Any law that isn't in conflict with the federal constitution or laws or that state constitution can be changed. There is nothing sacred about any random law. Nothing at all. Again how does this violate the US Constitution, you STILL haven't answered that. Changing the law again, is not "breaking the law." So again how does this violate the US Constitution because your answers seem just to rationalize a conclusion that you don't like it. If you are going to say it violates the US Constitution, show how it does, back your conclusion because if it cannot be backed, why do you have that conclusion anyway?
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
Encourage coalition building, what are you talking about, politicians ignore 80% of the states for the 20%, and sometimes less, of states that are swing states. The vast majority of states are ignored and those states that are not ignored are more likely to have a bigger population then the average state, such as Georgia, Ohio or Michigan. It' like her ideology is more important then basic facts
We need to eliminate the Electoral College and with it the Senate. Why should a small number of people get an equal vote in passing laws? Simply establish text voting through the house like on American Idol. We can get it done! Majority rules through apps!
I think each state should be equally represented by the EC, not be based on population densities... Like this video explains, each state has differing rules and processes, so if cheating is, lets say, easier in California, why should they effect a less populated state like Indiana where it's, maybe, hard to cheat? I don't like it. Every state (+ DC) should get 1 electorate vote and 1st to 26 wins!
What I don’t understand is why it is a good thing that the candidate I want to vote for isn’t even on my State’s Ballot? When a candidate isn’t on a ballot, for all we know that can date might have won that State if he/she was on that ballot.
The arguments presented in video are not the typical ones in favor of the Electoral College, which is interesting, but I actually find them even *weaker*
Both legacy parties have won the presidency despite losing the popular vote in the past, so crocodile tears from either side don't impress me. Reforming the Electoral College is a good idea, but the real problem is that 48 states now allocate electors via a winner-take-all, party-ticket process that the framers of the Constitution viewed as an abomination should it ever come to pass. Unfortunately, despite their dire warnings, it eventually became the norm. Requiring states to allocate electors proportionally (as only Maine and Nebraska still do) would be much easier than abolishing the Electoral College altogether, yet would have the same effect. NPV is the exact opposite.
Does anyone outside NewYork City and Los Angeles want those voters to pick every national election winner? Because that is what the "popular vote" gives America.
The timing for Congressional consent is not specified by the Constitution, so consent may be given either before or after the states have agreed to a particular compact.
I still don’t understand it, call me stupid… but when I observe or watch a judicial or senate hearing… what I am observing is an intellectual civil war, of which democrats are manipulating the governing system, and what would be deemed as logical and of rational common sense- is now viewed as being pretentious or bigoted…. “archaic”. Of which a few politicians have pre-warned us regarding what was in the planning process… without using the term “democracy”, but referring to it as “communism”. However: Again call me stupid, but what I am observing is that these people are known as “intellectuals”, people who have the ability to gather information quickly, but never fact-check their sources, but claim they have fact-checked… thus intelligence plays no role in actual fact checking… FBI? CIA? No longer fact check investigations.
all this time she was bashing NPV instead of explaining what is an electoral college. to convey your message to the public is an art, this channel definitely doesn't know how.
Presidential candidates already focus on a select few states. Trump isn’t going to California and Harris isn’t going to Alabama. Why would they? But if the popular vote counted, then maybe candidates might go to those states and for the first time, actually run for president of all America instead of just swing states. When the Founders signed the Constitution, votes had to be counted by hand and as America grew and more people got the right to vote, they knew it would be almost impossible to ensure that every vote was counted correctly. So yeah, the electoral college was pretty useful because the federal government didn’t have to make sure every vote was counted; that was each state’s job. But now, we’ve got machines that can count a lot faster and more accurately than humans. And also, states are disenfranchising voters, practicing gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, and doing everything they can to keep certain people from voting. If federal elections became more federal, individual states wouldn’t be able to discriminate like that and all of our votes would count. It won’t matter if you vote blue in a red state or vice versa, your voice would be heard.
It wouldn't be necessary. Those large, deep blue population centers would have absolute, permanent election control. It would be an immediate and permanent end to any need to have a second party because it'll never win.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Did you understand the Electoral College before watching this?
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
@@EtonR-kj4oq you're doing a strawman, nobody is saying popular vote is not fair. The video pointed out its weaknesses, watch it.
@@EtonR-kj4oq So that was a “no”.
You did NOT understand the electoral college before watching this…
PragerU, we apparently have one dolt here who doesn’t understand the electoral college. So that answers your question.
Yes, actually I did, but far too many don't.
I attended high school before the Department of Education was established. I got a great education and they taught us all about the history and civics of our nation. We learned about the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. We were required to read them and the letters our founding fathers wrote to each other. We learned about the Electoral College and balance of powers. Our government is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
I attended high school during common core, and we did all of those things as well.
The founding fathers would weep at today’s new right republicans.
That requires not banning books you don’t like.
@@francispitts9440 It’s a Constitutional Republic and an electoral-democracy. Stop saying “it’s a republic and not a democracy” and actually say “it’s a republic and not a MONARCHY”.
@@alechinshaw5990 a democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting for what they will have for lunch. Liberty is when the Lamb is armed. Benjamin Franklin. If you were paying attention to my comment you’d understand why we are not A DEMOCRACY as a general definition for our government. We are not a pure democracy. Every single founding father wrote about the dangers of mob/ majority rule. It’s the reason we use the Electoral College and not popular vote. And it’s why we have a Senate with three branches of government. A balance of powers. If we were a democracy then the big cities would tell the entire country what to do.
Every U.S. American citizen should know about this.
They should but they don’t and probably won’t take the time to know.
A lot of Americans don’t follow politics daily and maybe, maybe tune in a bit during election year and the vote while being under educated about their choices for president and other local and state issues on the ballot.
YES; as a lifelong citizen of a small state: Hawai’i, I wholeheartedly support the Electoral College; and the Founder’s Vision of Democracy for our Constitutional Republic.
@@koreanelvis Hawai’i is a nothing more than an occupied country. It shouldn’t be a part of the US, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa.
the thing is, small states aren’t really supported by the electoral college. urbanism will continue whether you like it or not. small states are rarely helped in elections as well, as every single small state either leans democrat or republican. the states that get the most investment are swing states and their is less and less of them. Having it so the entire election is gerrymandered by states which have the most of a certain color is wrong and downplays the nuances of regions and counties.
@@alechinshaw5990Guam actually likes being part of the US, due to being liberated by the US and is one of the most patriotic regions of America. Although your point is still valid
Why would a state want to surrender the will of its people to another state? That makes no sense.
They don't. A handful of misguided politicians do. It makes sense, but only if the goal is centralizing power, which is bad.
…stupidity…
DNC doesn't believe in a Republic. Large central control is the goal.
After the 2020 election Republican state AGs tried to overturn the vote totals of Democrat states and got slapped down 9-0 by the Supreme Court.
@crowmob-yo6ry The US is a federation of 50 different states, wrapped into a Republic. That helps keep the bulwark against a powerful central authority.
Also, states like California shouldn’t decide what’s best for the resources in states like South Dakota, without representation.
@crowmob-yo6ry. Thank you Captain Obvious.
The best way I always explain to people is this. Wyoming is the least populated state. 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. California is the most populated. 2 Senators and 53 Congressman. Senate is equal representation, and Congress is proportional representation. Wyoming may ony have 1/3 of 1% of the population, but they feed 15% of the country.
So what? The blue states pay for most of the federal budget. What a silly analogy.
No, that's wrong. LOL
California is the biggest agricultural state in the country.
@@ji8044But the actual counties that grow the food are red, unlike the coastal blue cities.
The better way of considering it is that the people do not vote for the President. Instead, the states are voting. This was the original intent when the selection of electors was done by the state legislature. All this was done to insulate the Presidency from the whims of the mob.
@@tallspicy Wait a second why don’t blue state senators argue for lower federal taxes, so they can levy taxes on their own residents instead and keep the money within the state. They are happy, we are happy.
Unless they don’t actually care about tax deficits.
There is motivation to make sure that the Executive Branch is dominated by one party that gets most of the coastal urban votes. The Executive Branch makes it's own laws (regulation), collects its own taxes (fees), and can do all sorts of manner of unconstitutional things to you. Eliminating the Electoral College means one party rule in perpetuity, with those that might have a different culture than the urban costals being left without voice.
they do have a voice, they can vote and their vote matters just as much as the costal elites votes. in the quest of taking power from the individual and give power to the state you ignore that every citizen no matter where have their own morals and ideals and shouldn't be ignored. no state is a monolith of ideas and giving up your power of vote bc you feel like Republicans couldn't win elections anymore is laughable. the citizens deciding that a pro abortion, pro lgbtq, anti racism party should win isnt really shocking.
@@blcbirdy3229 It's the same reason we don't allow citizens in Europe to pick our leaders, or the Chinese. You end up being ruled by people who hate your culture and want to see you ruled from afar. What it might come down to is a separation. New countries that simply deal with each other with trade negotiations.
@@Grabthar191 no. citizens from those countries dont live in America so they have nothing to say on american ground. democrats do live in america so they have no matter what you say have a say on what Presidentwe choose. the focus of a popular system would now be people instead of land and as far as i know theres a lot of republican megacities that would need to be benefited by democrats due to the sheer amountof people.
as to the hateful part america has even since its start hated for example black people, they are still necessarily powerless why did we stopped? we raised laws that would make the majority unable to treaten the minority.
now tell me what's the costal elite looking to do with republicans? which laws are they going to raise to affect republicans negatively.
A state where there are more cows than humans shouldn’t have their voice amplified to the degree that is now.
@@reverb508 Then they should be allowed to become their own country, and rule themselves, rather than be ruled by people 1000 miles away with a completely different culture.
As a Canadian, I insist the USA's electoral college is the best thing since sliced bread.
As an American, I forget that Canada even exists. The electoral college sucks
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
@EtonR-kj4oq it has to do with the philosophical difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.
@@EtonR-kj4oqquit spamming
@@kahner93the Electoral College saved America from Hitlery Clinton.
I'm laying odds that the blue States would renege as soon as their votes would need to go to a red candidate.
Well, the intent of our newly woke founding gestational parents is to benefit far left radical democrats, so of course we would rage if it went the other way! 😡
yeah, I was hoping that Trump would win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote, and trigger the 'electoral steal' - I think it would be hilarious to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I'm sure the Dems would repudiate the electoral change.
Donald Trump is going make history as the first major party candidate to lose the popular vote three presidential elections in a row. Poor Adlai Stevenson finally goes free!
I did see a video on that sometime last month. You're right, some on the left would go ballistic if that were to happen.
@crowmob-yo6ry- I’m guessing it wouldn’t be necessary as no Republican state would sign the NPV contract.
It's not that they think they're wiser it's that they know they can more easily rig the system if NPV is in place
The Founding Fathers have brilliant minds.
The founding fathers owned slaves.
Couldn't agree more!
@@TFUJackLimbo God chose a master of slaves Abraham, blessed his chosen son Issac, the King of Jews derived from a gentle clan of prostitute descendants, Israel became a sovereign nation. ⬅️ Just example of God's brilliant work. You shall complain to God, the King of Jews. You shall worry about your destiny not ending up in🔥🔥
@@TFUJackLimboWhat's your point??
@@TFUJackLimboSome did, and then it stopped. Are you willing to work for the same when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn, the rights of parents, not chopping off the private parts of kids and adults, and not allowing kids to be sexualized in school?
The problem with the popular vote is that states like California and Texas have more population
and they can control the election for the entire country.
Just like Las Vegas controls the vote in Nevada. LV has nearly twice the population of the rest of the state combined. And since Reno and Carson City usually go the way of LV, the rest of the states votes are pretty much meaningless. If LV goes blue, NV goes blue.
and then the small states constantly rebel, wasting an endless stream of blood and treasure.
most of the national popular vote lead comes out of 2 places L.A. county and NYC.
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
@@EtonR-kj4oq Since the electoral college is made up from the number Senators (2 per state, giving all STATES an equal voice) and the number of Representatives per state (based on population in congressional districts, with each district having nearly the same number of people, allowing all voters the same impact), it is the fairest way possible to represent both the states and peoples choice in the the aggregate. This also forces national candidates to campaign all across the country, because even smaller states and cities become important despite the large population states such as California, New York and Illinois, for instance. The larger population states, and in truth, the large population centers in those states such as Los Angles, New York City and Chicago would have an undue influence and would cause candidates for high office to campaign ONLY in those states/cities.
Remember, majority rule by popular vote is 50% + 1. Where would you like that +1 to be from? LA, NYC, CA? Would you have half the country ignored by the vote of that 1? While the electoral college isn’t perfect (as it stands now, it is winner take all per state, with a couple of exceptions), it is better than a strictly popular vote. It at least gives smaller states with lower populations the ability to be heard and a number of them can balance out the high electoral votes of say, California and its 54 votes. Hope I explained this well enough, Eton.
Popular vote is a huge problem in blue states. I live in Colorado, most of the state is red, but Denver is blue so the whole state votes blue.
Which is why, if every state adopted the Congressional District method of Nebraska and Maine, a *WHOLE* lot of people would be surprised at the results...and realize that most states are not as solid one colour or the other as they thought.
I think that's the case for most (if not all) blue states, one or more big cities are blue but most of the state's geography is red
This right here is the exact problem. I lived in Nevada and it is a prime example on a small scale what would happen if you had National popular vote. It is interesting if you look at the color by county, the entire state is Red. The only two places that are not red is Reno and Las Vegas, two little slivers of blue on the left side of the state and the bottom. Guess what color the state becomes? Blue. Because the entire population of those two cities far exceeds the rest of the state. The issue is that the dominant income of those two cities is recreation and tourism. The rest of the state is mining and ranching. Allot of the people in mining towns got affected all the time by policies put in place by Reno and LV that it negatively affect peoples jobs.
@crowmob-yo6ry I don't know about that. I live in Bowling Green, I can count on one hand the number of Trump signs in the front yards around here. I have been all over town and have counted about 49 Walz Harris signs. When we go to Cedar Point, I see several Harris signs too when on highway 6. From what I see, most of even rural Ohio is Blue. Toledo, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton. They are all blue as well.
People vote, not square miles. Also, just looking it up, Denver city population is just over 700,000, state of Colorado is 5.8 million so Denver hardly decides elections by itself in Colorado. There are a LOT of Blue voters also outside the city limits of Denver
Now you know why the democrat handlers want this so badly....
I’ve always looked at the electoral college like the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House is populated with politicians from each state according to their size (larger states have more representatives). The Senate treats all states the same (each state only gets 2 senators). This is intended to keep heavily populated states from ruling the rest of the country as if they are colonies. With a popular vote only, it would take only 4 states to effectively rule the rest of the country: California, Texas, Florida, and New York. This would not make a free country, as the us represented states would effectively become colonies and have rules and laws passed that could move resources (people and materials) to enrich the “ruling states”.
The top 4 states in population have only 1/3 of the total US population and that ignores the fact that not everybody in those states votes for the same party. NY and California rare blue states but TX and FL lean Republican, do you really think everyone from those 4 states are voting for the same party? Even in NY and CA 1/3 of the voters are Republicans. So no, what you said isnt true at all,
@@bigedslobotomyyou are correct, but it's worse than that. Large urban cities would decide presidential elections without the EC. LA, NYC, Seattle, Chicago and a small handful of others would rule under a pure mob based popular vote.
Thank you. Even in videos like this one, I feel like they don't put enough emphasis on this. I can't get people to fathom the fact that Las Angeles has more people than North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined. Heck I think you could even throw Iowa in there. In a popular vote, it would not matter if every single man woman and child in those states voted the same, their vote would be overshadowed by a single city in a costal state.
@@finalfant111 The city of Los Angeles has maybe 3% of the US population, so the idea that 3% of the US population overwhelms the rest of America is beyond absurd. But I know, "real Mericans" only live in small states, those who live in big states or big cities (even not in CA or LA) aren't "real Mericans"
@@finalfant111 tell people to look at, or show them the 2016 EC map - drilled down to county level. Hillary won the popular vote by carrying LA, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Miami, New York, etc. Basically all the coastal corridor cities in the east and west. The major cities overwhelmed the rural counties turning most of their states blue. If not for the EC check against the power of the mob vote, these cities would have elected Hillary.
Each state should have its own electoral college to elect its governor.
Each local area should have its own electoral college to elect its executive.
Except that most people who work the elections don't want to deal with the hassle, they just want to get home quick, and get paid as soon as possible afterwards. (Yes, even if it's just reporting the final tally and let computers do the work, it's still an effort for some.)
Seriously, I've worked the polls up here in Ontario, Canada. I once saw the DRO (Deputy Returning Officer) at another poll desk having to teach her poll clerk how to do his job, probably because he wasn't really listening at the training session. I also remember one time being called in as a replacement poll clerk, and the only things my DRO was concerned about was when she was getting paid (after I got there and we got through the backlog of voters who had been waiting, her first words to me were "So, I worked the municipal election two weeks ago, when do you think we'll get paid for that?") and how many smoke breaks she could get away with.
@@TommyBuskulic-u2k there shouldn’t even be an electoral college for the presidential election, let alone the governorship or local. Are you unaware of population density?
Wouldn't the NPV agreement be unconstitutional?
@@susanwojcickisnicetwin not really. The constitution allows states to award their electoral votes however they see fit which obviously includes awarding them to the national winner. It’s actually a relatively recent thing that the state popular vote determines the state’s electoral vote
@@luisfilipe2023 how could a state get away with ignoring their own popular vote? Would that be a lawsuit waiting to happen?
@@susanwojcickisnicetwin again at least by the constitution that’s allowed. In fact in the early days most states didn’t even hold elections the legislature just picked the electors. You may not agree with it but it’s constitutional
…yes. But they don’t care…
@@luisfilipe2023 The loser gets the electors? Then why can't a State with a majority of Democrats in the State legislature automatically give their electors to the Democrat regardless of who wins any State? So California can give its electors to the Democrat even if the Democrat loses both the State popular vote and national popular vote? Then why have the vote to begin with? So much for believing in democracy.
Do you remember the year 2000, Bush vs Gore election?
It was a razor thin race.
It all came down to whoever would win Florida, that person would win the election. Within hours, every federal court was inundated with lawsuits, and every Florida court, state and local, were inundated with lawsuits.
Without the Electoral College, those lawsuits would have been in every court, in every state, in every city, from sea to shining sea. That is because any one polling place could swing the election, if not for the Electoral College. It would not matter if a candidate had a 10 point lead in a state. When all that matters is the national vote, then that 10 point lead would not stop endless lawsuits in pursuit of more votes. But with the Electoral College, such lawsuits would serve little to no purpose, because it would not flip a 10 point lead.
If there was no Electoral College, then the year 2000 lawsuits would never have been decided in time to declare a winner of the election, in order to know who will be sworn in on January 20th.
And every other lawsuit being litigated would have been set aside, causing all kinds of issues where time was of the essence to resolve lawsuits that would have normally been happening.
That is kinda the response I gave in 2016 when people complained that "But Hilary won the popular vote, how is THAT fair?" I would calmly say "Well, she won California by four million, while he won Pennsylvania by seventy-seven thousand. Do you think it's fair to the voters in Pennsylvania for their votes to be nullified by a portion of the surplus votes in California?"
@@davegreenlaw5654 Consider that since Bush knew that he would not win California's Electoral votes, he therefore did not campaign in California.
If the election was based on the popular vote, then Bush would have campaigned in California. He still would not have gotten the majority of the votes in California. But he could have swung over enough votes in California to win the nation-wide popular vote.
The popular vote is irrelevant when the candidates are not seeking to win the popular vote. How the candidates campaign is based on the Electoral College.
When people say "But the other candidate won the popular vote", it is because the person that won the election did not campaign in places to win the popular vote.
Bush might have won the popular vote, if that is where he put his efforts. But it would have cost him the election.
If there was no Electoral College, there would be election fraud on a scale 1,000 times more than we have ever had -- because any rinky-dink town would be able to swing the election.
Al Gore would have won comfortably without the electoral college in 2000 and there would have been no lawsuit because it would have been pointless, there were only ones in 2000 because of the EC
the year 2000 lawsuits were not decided in time. The Supreme Court arbitrated it in the end and stopped recounts etc.
the issue is that we are thinking to small minded and not the big picture. states are growing more and more similar, with less and less cultural differences. the solution to the issue is to treat the election of the president like how it should be, nationwide and use star ranked choice voting or mixed member proportional resentation. This would be fairer for everyone as republicans which live in cities could get a voice in the politics more, preventing them from feeling alienated. Also the fact is that having the election be decided by a handful of states rather than everyone is bound to lead to disaster.
thanks as always, PragerU and Tara Ross
I have heard of NPV, and I find it to be absolutely fascinating.
the electoral college is essential to maintaining equilibrium, without it lower populous states would not stay in the union. mexico has no electoral college....mexico has had 11 civil wars in the past 200 years
That argument makes no sense. That’s like saying “everyone who has said their first word has died, therefore if you never speak, you’ll never die”
How is the electoral college fair for “maintaining equilibrium” when of a state votes for red, even if it’s 51 red to 49 blue, that 49 percent gets tossed aside and the republicans get all the votes of the state? Not to mention the largest states get the most votes anyway and smaller states don’t get that much attention.
This makes a NEW problem. NYC decides for NY, Chicago decides for IL, A few cities decide for massachusetts, michigan, texas, and georgia. We need a new system: either district or proportional voting
Great information!
This is great information!
PRAGERU!!!!!
If you get rid of the electoral college, you might as well erase state lines on the map. Then it would no longer be the United States. You'd have to come up with a new name, because it would be a new country. The electoral college is bedrock to how this country works.
We're a democratic country, but not a pure democracy. That's how it was designed, and has been the best system of government the world has ever seen.
Pure democracy is the people deciding EVERYTHING, electing our President based on what candidate the people want more is not pure democracy
The United States is a constitutional republic. Which is a good thing. Democracy is a poor system on a large scale. It suffers severely from tyranny of the majority. Democracy is only tolerable in small groups, where people can easily go elsewhere if they do not agree with the majority.
@@XJWill1 i'm so tired of hearing this stupid "tyranny of the majority" thing. how is it tyranny if it's what most of the people who will be affected choose? Bush and Trump lost the popular vote, which means more Americans wanted Gore and Clinton. But because of the electoral college system, we got the president that the MINORITY wanted. how does that make any sense?
@@PhantomSamurai97 How is it not tyranny when people tell other people what to do?
If 51% of the people voted to beat you up, would you be okay with it?
@@PhantomSamurai97 How is it not tyranny if some people tell other people what to do?
Would you be okay with it if 51% of the people voted to put you in jail?
“Without the electoral college, politicians would only need to spend time addressing those who are in a few of the largest cities in the country”
*meanwhile politicians only spend time in a few of the biggest cities in swing states*
Praeger U does a great service to our country
I think you are missing a "dis" in your sentence
@@jeromemccollom936 I think you have your head up your azz and cant handle facts
This woman is a national treasure. God bless her.
Excellent.
Someone needs to sue the NPV organization, take it to the Supreme Court and nullify all the contracts.
Yeah so much for "states rights" when states do things you don't like
@@jeromemccollom936 The Electoral College exists to support states rights. NY and CA would run the country if we went to direct democracy. The Electoral College is in the Constitution. Making an end-run to get around it is unconstitutional.
@@billvojtech5686 LOL. So to support states rights we have to stop states from doing things we don't like. Do you know how stupid that is? You are like one of those generals in Vietnam who said we have to destroy a village in order to save it. The Constitution states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." It doesn't say except when Republicans in 2024 might not like it. Show me where any system of states delegating electoral votes as they wish is banned. Please show me. Show me where in the text because it is NOT there. Fine I get it, you don't want any kid of popular vote for president, whatever, but it isn't in the text!!!! Not at all. And by the way, CA and NY state combined have less then 20 percent of the US population, hardly would decide US elections so learn math and geography as you learn civics
@@billvojtech5686 states have the right to decide how their electoral votes are awarded. Should it not be that way?
@@donovandownes5064 I can see the winner of a state getting all the electoral votes from that state and I can also see proportionally distributing electoral votes between candidates, but I can't see a state giving all its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Let's say a Democrat wins by a landslide in a state, but the Republicans win the popular vote by a hair. Why should all of that state's votes go to the Republican? How does that represent the people of that state? It basically steals their votes.
I wish every State had a policy to award electoral votes based on Statewide votes, rather than awarding all to a single candidate. Perhaps because I live in California, and with 54 votes, dividing them could help swing the final tally. I had not heard about NPV before. Of course CA has signed on 😞
Could you imagine though, would California be capable of sending their electoral votes in for Trump if he gets the popular vote but would’ve lost the electoral college?!
I’m sorry to hear California has made this horrible commitment to disenfranchise its voters but that would be a sight to see!
@@rwaggs2623 I too feel your pain as an Illinoisan. Our votes consistently get counted as Democrat because of Chicago and it’s burbs. Meanwhile, central and southern Illinois strongly and consistently favor more conservative parties. For that exact reason, most of the political decision making panders to Chicago and ignores the rest of the State.
@@DeutscheMongoose I'd be happy if electoral votes were allocated based on individual votes rather than winner take all which does not reflect the will of the people. Perhaps that's the real controversy about the electoral college - not the process itself, but the States' policy? I think there are some State who split their electoral votes already.
@@rwaggs2623 I think you hit it right on the head. My understanding is that there are indeed States that allocate electoral votes in the manner you describe. If this were the way electoral votes were counted for each State individually, I think it would be much more inline with the intent of the electoral college as designed by our founding fathers. We have advanced enough technologically that this level of accuracy should easily be achievable. I would also imagine that such a move would reveal that this country is much more evenly split on political preference by geographical region than the current maps show. Likewise, “swing States” would become much less of a focus.
Founders didn't want more populous state's from having more power/say over lesser populated states. Balance of power, the several states elect the president via the EC. People complain as it is that "swing" or "battleground" states get more attention during elections. Go look at the 2016 EC map, but drill down to the country level: large cities like LA, Portland, Miami, Seattle, Chicago would have elected Hillary effectively nullifying majority of counties, let alone states, country wide. No EC, and candidates will only court voters in large urban centers.
why should 200 people spread out in a rural area have more say than 200 people living in an urban block?
@@donovandownes5064 They don't. Each state has a weighted say based on population, but it is the fifty several states that elect the president. Knowing a direct popular vote would mean small states would end up with zero say, the EC was a brillant check and balance to mob rule power.
The problem is that we're jumping right into the electoral college, when we should be starting with an electoral high school...
🤔
The key reason is the fact that the elections are decentralized. That point cannot be stressed enough.
This contract cannot override the Constitution. This will not succeed.
this video is 10+ years old, it didn't happen.
@@007kingifritwrong. It is as of today.
it doesn't override the Constitution in the least, not at all. Nothing in it doe
The states are allowed to divide up their electoral votes any way they want. What exactly is unconstitutional about it?
@@donovandownes5064 that is contrary to wording of the Constitution. When state and federal conflict, federal wins. Have you graduated from law school and had Con law as i have?
Preach it.
*Here's the flaw nobody sees or at least nobody acknowledges:* election offices _don't_ bother to count such as provisional ballots if they couldn't change an election outcome. A candidate winning the electoral count (and hence the Presidency) but loosing the popular vote may have in reality also won the popular vote because votes for them weren't counted since they won the electoral count anyway.
well then why not just count all the votes?
@@donovandownes5064 Much more costly to process and count such as written in selections (like "I vote for Kackle Marxis") so never done if couldn't possibly change who won. But certainly could change the result when crowing about how the loser won the popular vote.
What are the problems with her arguments?
First, when the electoral college was developed, there were no political parties. It was designed for an open election in which anyone could run.
The original design was for each Elector to vote for two candidates, one of which could not be from their own state. When tallied, the candidate with the most votes became President and the candidate who came in second was Vice President. That, of course, doesn’t sound anything like the EC we have today.
In 1788 and 1792, George Washington was elected President unanimously. The election of 1796 was the first contested presidential election: John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Adams became President, and Jefferson became his Vice President, despite the fact they had campaigned vigorously against each other. These two men, who had worked so closely together on drafting the Declaration of Independence had, by the 1800 election, become bitter rivals.
The 1800 election prove to be even more bizarre. Adams’ running mate was Charles Pinkney. Jefferson’s running mate was Aaron Burr. Adams’ private fear was that Pinkney might receive more Electoral Votes than he and he would become Pinkney’s Vice President. He need not have worried; Adams received 65 votes and Pinkney received 64. But that didn’t matter either because Jefferson and Burr both received 73. Now it was up to the House of Representatives to choose a president.
It became even more bizarre after that, including 35 votes in the House before Jefferson was elected President, and Vice President Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. But all of the above, and more, were the consequences of the Electoral College as designed by the Founding Fathers.
But let’s consider just one aspect of the arguments she presents: all states get a voice in who is elected. Eight states - Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington DC, Delaware, Vermont, and Alaska - each with three Electoral Votes, offer a total of 24 EVs. When was the last time you saw any major presidential candidate spend any time campaigning in any of those states? There are 21 states that offer 10 or more electoral votes that total 377. Those are the states that are campaigned in most vigorously, with some of the remaining 30 being practically ignored. So tell me again, how does the electoral college give those less populous states an equal voice? Any more than they would have with a popular vote?
Critics cry about small states gaining too much power but really when you looknat how the vote goes, without the EC, the majority of people in 85% of the country broken down to the county level would have no say in the choice for president. The high populations in LA and NY who currently vote the same, would pick our president. If that were the case today, deciding by the popular vote which is swamped by the people in 15% of the country by land, why would the people that live in thebother 85% of the country not want to cut ties to those areas? Our candidates would only need to campaign in NY and LA.
how would LA and NY (combined = 5% of the population) pick the president? Believe it or not, 5% is not enough to win under a national popular vote. And that's assuming the whole populations all vote for one candidate.
Jared Polis, Gov of Colrado signed the NPV as well
I wonder if a legal argument can be made that NPV is unconstitutional
None can be made, it is completely constitutional, I find it so ironic that conservatives talk about states rights but when state do things they dont like then they want to get the federal government involved
PragerU you’re wrong on this issue. No other democracy on this planet does an electoral college system. It’s whoever gets the most votes wins.
We aren’t a democracy though, remember that
And those other countries don't have much of a limit on government power, so they are less free and have more overbearing governments.
Scandinavia nations have more freedom than America even though their taxes are much higher and their social safety net is much stronger than America.
@@citrused8571 Yes, I know the US a republic, but you can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. I think this argument comes down to a disagreement of what "democracy" means
I think there should be a 60/80 rule for state like New York. If 60% of the population is centrally located or within a small portion of the state any law that comes out of that portion must receive 80% of the overall state electors I have friends and family that suffer because of the rules coming out of the big city that is hurting the ruling areas.
Each state has different needs and problems. The same problems in New York City or Los Angeles are not the same as rural Texas or Wyoming.
Which is why things like state legislatures and the senate exist. Why should this also impact the vote for president?
So, how and what do we do about this, NVP? Revolution?
@@SwornReaper that wouldn’t be a revolution. For it to be a revolution, you have to fight for something. All you’re fighting for something that’s already there. That’s called a resistance, not a revolution.
Even in the states it should be an electoral college system. Each County should have equal to the counties with large cities.
NVP doesn’t mean anything as inter-state compacts are illegal unless they are approved by congress
These separate state elections "cannot and do not interfere with each other", other then when the Republican Texas attorney general wants my vote in Wisconsin, plus votes in Pennsylvania and Georgia thrown out in the 2020 election because he didn't like the application of our state laws. So much for that "principle". By the way,, if a state did violate it's own state law, it's not the Texas AG or the federal courts role to jump in
Wonder why literally no other country uses this system. Somehow, none of the problems addressed in this video seem to bother politically-stable countries which elect their heads of state based on a national popular vote.
Most are not made up of individual states. I think the UK might be the closest.
@@melissadeloach8503 most countries have smaller jurisdictions like states. How about Germany for example?
@@donovandownes5064 Yes, which is why we need smaller federal govt and move certain things back to the individual states.
So instead of focusing on only swing states, presidents only focus on big cities? That just sounds like shifting the problem to me
Me personally, I think a majority vote (AKA first-choice plurality, plurality, first-past-the-post, etc.) should be replaced with a more fair voting system, such as Condorcet (with a backup system due to condorcet’s tendency to sometimes result in ties)
Not only must we keep the Electoral College in place BUT we need to expand it to cities, etc., with over 1 million or so people. Big (usually liberal) cities are dictating the outcome of national elections for some states. It's ridiculous. The idea of the Electoral College was to keep things fair for people with different needs and situations. Well, places like NYC dictate the outcome of New work State's POTUS vote. Meanwhile, most upstate areas of NY are conservative and don't vote the same was as the city. It's now become an issue in Arizona as well, with Phoenix determining the outcome of the state of AZ. Phoenix is a liberal democratic city but most of AZ State is more conservative, Phoenix is dictating the vote for POTUS. Not only do we need to keep the Electoral College but we must expand it to take away the control of large cities in elections.
Your reasoning is flawed. "Large cities” don’t determine the outcome of an election, the VOTING CITIZENS determine the results of an election.
It sounds as though you want voting to be weighted according to the amount of land a voter owns. The owner of a 100 acre farm in Upstate New York gets the equivalent of 100 votes, while an apartment dweller in NYC who owns no land gets the equivalent of zero votes?!?!
If the liberal majority of the voting public lives in Phoenix, so what? They are still the majority. Just because the conservative minority is scattered doesn’t change the fact they are still the minority.
Thank you for the clarification. NPV should never!! Come into force. If it does the American people are done for!!
Prager U is awesome.
Thank you 😎
I'm coming at this from an outsider's perspective, but I always wondered why even those americans in favor of the EC because of it gives more power to small states wouldn't at least consider implementing something like the Maine system everywhere. As much as people like dunking on California, 6 million republicans voted there and I find it concerning that their vote counts for absolutely nothing.
The European Parliament (for all its other flaws) is elected in a way that might preserve the things about the EC people like. It assigns more seats proportionally to smaller member states, but the composition of those seats is decided proportionally by the votes in those states. Under this system, a third of California's electors would be republicans, allowing those people to be heard.
Thanks for the info. Now what can be done to stop NPV?
If we didn't have the electoral college this country would be ruled by 4 states: California, NY, Massachusetts, Illinois.
Which since they pay for most of the budget, would be the right thing to do.
@@tallspicy y ou're really ignoring everything we say
@@tallspicy glad you said that. So does that mean you favor tax breaks for the wealthy?
@@Rockhound6165 no they wouldn’t. Isn’t this supposed to be a sovereign country? I don’t think those states are separate countries. The only thing the electoral college is there for is to elect the President. That’s literally it.
And we know how those states are screwed up.
Thank you for bringing this and other little known threats to our Republic to light
In order to do that they'd have to pass an amendment to the constitution and it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the voters to overturn the amendment.
The votes of the electors are automatically determined by the winning of the popular vote in their regions; so where's the conflict?
States also have different rules on electoral vote distribution (winner take all or proportional split)
Fact is, a national popular vote will basically mean all major cities in the US will become our "National Capitols" that will control the outcome of every election. This will mean that city people will determine what is best for farmers, ranchers, miners, and small towns across the United States. Congratulations, welcome to the hunger games, here are your districts and your capitol will be LA or New York. Anyone that is for a national popular vote need to stop and think for a moment one key point, that applies every where else in the US:
Los Angeles has more people in one metro area of a single state than the entirety of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined. Let that sink in. That one city has more population than 4 ENTIRE STATES. That means the people of a coastal city where the dominant income comes from tech and tourism will determine the policies that will affect people in land locked states that are dominantly agriculture. Those people will have NO voice. EVERY SINGLE PERSON in those states could vote RED and it wouldn't matter. You want to talk about "My votes doesn't matter?" Well with a national vote, that literally would be the case.
@@finalfant111 you forgot Chicago in that list
According to the Constitution, Congress must approve of any interstate pact, so whether the NPV becomes valid depends on who controls Congress at the time as well.
Thx
The idea of the electoral college is for the candidate to care after all and every single state of the union, not just those with lots of people!
3:00 You are literally arguing in favor of National elections here 😭
So, what do our votes do then? Do we vote for our candidate or are we choosing someone to vote for us? I'm just confused about how it works.
I've wanted to stop it for years, but how do we stop states from signing a contract? What law can we push through that can block this?
so you only care about state rights when state do things that you like? Is that it?
@@jeromemccollom936 My point is that I think that this contract undermines the constitution and should be ruled as unconstitutional, but I don't know how to do it. States have rights, of course, but, as it is laid out in the Constitution, states only have powers over anything not expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution. The electoral college is detailed in the Constitution. While states have full authority over how to run the elections in their states, this does not permit them to bypass the Constitution because it's "inconvenient".
@@seanmetzer9575 It doesn't undermine the Constitution in the least, not at all. States can decide how to award how to award their electors, if they want to do it through an arm wrestling contest, flipping a coin or picking the best singer, they can. Show me in the Constitution which bans, or implies, to ban, states from doing this. I get it you don't like it but it is the system. I find it ironic those who talk about why we need the EC for "states rights" are all too willing to interfere with states when they award votes in ways they don't like.So again show me what part of the Constitution they are "bypassing" with a national vote awarding system. Show me
@@jeromemccollom936 part of the issue here is that most states have actual laws on the books saying that the electors must vote according to their parties nominees. There are actual punishments for breaking those laws. When I said we need to block that contract I didn't necessarily mean at the federal level. States already have laws in place. If we don't adhere to and enforce the laws that we put in place why do we even have laws at all? This contract violates the Constitution and also asks most states to break their own laws. They plan to get away with it by getting participating states to sign it in the "dark of night", so to speak.
@@seanmetzer9575 Because you change laws. Laws can be changed, do you think laws are written in stone and once they are written nothing can ever change them? You seem to think because that laws are written in a way they can't be changed. Any law that isn't in conflict with the federal constitution or laws or that state constitution can be changed. There is nothing sacred about any random law. Nothing at all. Again how does this violate the US Constitution, you STILL haven't answered that. Changing the law again, is not "breaking the law." So again how does this violate the US Constitution because your answers seem just to rationalize a conclusion that you don't like it. If you are going to say it violates the US Constitution, show how it does, back your conclusion because if it cannot be backed, why do you have that conclusion anyway?
I’m in favor of NPV, although I appreciate this video! It’s good to learn about both sides.
So can any state of hat passes an NPV be sued to change this?
How is a popular vote less fair? In our electoral college a voter in Wyoming has 4x more voting power than one in California. And minority voters in solid red or blue states don’t get their voices heard at all. And most presidential campains will happen in swing states.
Encourage coalition building, what are you talking about, politicians ignore 80% of the states for the 20%, and sometimes less, of states that are swing states. The vast majority of states are ignored and those states that are not ignored are more likely to have a bigger population then the average state, such as Georgia, Ohio or Michigan. It' like her ideology is more important then basic facts
We need to eliminate the Electoral College and with it the Senate. Why should a small number of people get an equal vote in passing laws?
Simply establish text voting through the house like on American Idol. We can get it done! Majority rules through apps!
I think each state should be equally represented by the EC, not be based on population densities... Like this video explains, each state has differing rules and processes, so if cheating is, lets say, easier in California, why should they effect a less populated state like Indiana where it's, maybe, hard to cheat? I don't like it. Every state (+ DC) should get 1 electorate vote and 1st to 26 wins!
True democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.
the electoral college is 4 wolves and 6 sheep deciding what to eat for dinner, and the wolves get 3 extra votes because they live in Wyoming.
I'm the alpha.......🐺🐺....,,..,,,,,,,.
Wouldn't the NPV be deemed an unconstitutional code by the Supreme Court?
What I don’t understand is why it is a good thing that the candidate I want to vote for isn’t even on my State’s Ballot?
When a candidate isn’t on a ballot, for all we know that can date might have won that State if he/she was on that ballot.
maybe then the candidate would try to get on all the ballots? And try to appeal to people from other parts of the country?
If y ou don't understand why the electoral college is necessary... y ou're the reason.
Brilliant.
Americans still have to registrate to vote? In some countries like Portugal that's automatic.
So NPV incentivices each state to count each vote multiple times?
This is an important video!
Sorry, but this requires a constitutional amendment
why? The fed can tell the states how to distribute their electoral votes now?
The arguments presented in video are not the typical ones in favor of the Electoral College, which is interesting, but I actually find them even *weaker*
Both legacy parties have won the presidency despite losing the popular vote in the past, so crocodile tears from either side don't impress me. Reforming the Electoral College is a good idea, but the real problem is that 48 states now allocate electors via a winner-take-all, party-ticket process that the framers of the Constitution viewed as an abomination should it ever come to pass. Unfortunately, despite their dire warnings, it eventually became the norm. Requiring states to allocate electors proportionally (as only Maine and Nebraska still do) would be much easier than abolishing the Electoral College altogether, yet would have the same effect. NPV is the exact opposite.
Support and defend the Electoral College and govetnment issued photo ID requirement to vote in all elections.
The electoral college is DEI for rurals
We need proportional voting
This is so ridiculous.
Does anyone outside NewYork City and Los Angeles want those voters to pick every national election winner? Because that is what the "popular vote" gives America.
No, and that's what they're after is to ensure that the big deep blue cities have absolute, total control.
please explain how 5% of the population will pick the winner by themselves.
@@donovandownes5064 I think you're vastly under stating the number of people in those cities.
@@Triaxx2 please tell me the true population then and compare to the 333 million people in the entire US
@@donovandownes5064 You know what? Forget it. You're not going to change your mind and it's not worth my time and effort.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress. . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" - Article I, Section 10, Clause 3
The timing for Congressional consent is not specified by the Constitution, so consent may be given either before or after the states have agreed to a particular compact.
I still don’t understand it, call me stupid… but when I observe or watch a judicial or senate hearing… what I am observing is an intellectual civil war, of which democrats are manipulating the governing system, and what would be deemed as logical and of rational common sense- is now viewed as being pretentious or bigoted…. “archaic”.
Of which a few politicians have pre-warned us regarding what was in the planning process… without using the term “democracy”, but referring to it as “communism”.
However:
Again call me stupid, but what I am observing is that these people are known as “intellectuals”, people who have the ability to gather information quickly, but never fact-check their sources, but claim they have fact-checked… thus intelligence plays no role in actual fact checking… FBI? CIA? No longer fact check investigations.
I defend the Electoral College when someone disparages it.
How about we trade national popular vote for STRICT VOTER ID and in person day of election voting. No more vote by mail, one person one vote.
you know what, I think that is a good compromise. As long as IDs are also very easy to get.
@@donovandownes5064 you should have to be a CITIZEN for an ID
@@EshDerp1425_Monke depends on the ID but yeah the ones that qualify you to vote sure
@@donovandownes5064 👍
Not intrested in NvP wanted to hear about lectoral college
That’d be great if CA and NY selected my leaders .
Without the Electoral College NYC, LA , and Chicago would decide the election.
would love to know what makes you think that 7% of the population would be able to decide the election
all this time she was bashing NPV instead of explaining what is an electoral college. to convey your message to the public is an art, this channel definitely doesn't know how.
Presidential candidates already focus on a select few states. Trump isn’t going to California and Harris isn’t going to Alabama. Why would they? But if the popular vote counted, then maybe candidates might go to those states and for the first time, actually run for president of all America instead of just swing states.
When the Founders signed the Constitution, votes had to be counted by hand and as America grew and more people got the right to vote, they knew it would be almost impossible to ensure that every vote was counted correctly. So yeah, the electoral college was pretty useful because the federal government didn’t have to make sure every vote was counted; that was each state’s job. But now, we’ve got machines that can count a lot faster and more accurately than humans. And also, states are disenfranchising voters, practicing gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, and doing everything they can to keep certain people from voting. If federal elections became more federal, individual states wouldn’t be able to discriminate like that and all of our votes would count. It won’t matter if you vote blue in a red state or vice versa, your voice would be heard.
It wouldn't be necessary. Those large, deep blue population centers would have absolute, permanent election control. It would be an immediate and permanent end to any need to have a second party because it'll never win.
You should watch GCP Gray's video where it is possible could win the Electoral College vote with only 22% of Popular Vote.