'Run the presidential election the way we run every other election.' We do. In every election, you vote in your state. The states elect the president... of the United STATES. This isn't hard. The whole point is you run your state how you like, and I'll run mine. Top down nationalized everything is a recipe for conflict, not peace. The 49% isn't trying to boss you, dude. The 49% wants to be left alone, as they have the right to be.
Is Chris Hayes willfully ignorant or simply incapable of more thoughtful analysis? It's childish to be so dismissive of the Founders, those individuals who investigated the various options available for electing the President. It's also incredibly arrogant to be so dismissive of the Founders. Chris puts his thoughtlessness out there for the entire world to see.
You really believe GOP can turn back the clock of time! It`s this sought of trash talk that hastens GOP to the dustbin of history. Angry, non-college white men won`t be enough for the GOP to win Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Georgia and Pennsylvania.
@John Hurley I think a traitor is one who seeks help to win elections from foreign adversaries such as Russia. The last time I checked Schiff has stood resolute in defence of the American constitution whilst Trump have been busy soliciting foreign help..... By the way, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are going the Californian root, that is turning blue for good. As from 2020, it will be near impossible for GOP to win Presidential, Congressional and Senate elections.
I'm sitting here thinking that 88% of Congress is up for re-election while everyone is talking about the presidential race. Shouldn't the media put alittle more focus on those elections?
Most people don't even know who their own congress person is - much less go out and vote. And actually it's the state and local electors that effect your life even more and almost no one pays attention to those races nor participate in them.
This is exactly the argument why the Electoral College is important. People have lost focus of what's within their control and that is their State. We keep giving more power to the President.
Alot of things that arn't in the constitution are not unconstitutional. Just cause something isn't in it doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.
It is a fair thing to say. What makes something unconstitutional is not whether or not it is present within the constitution but whether or not it is in violation of or inconsistent with the constitution. For example, the date of presidential elections is not in the constitution, but that doesnt not make an election day of the 2nd Tuesday in November unconstitutional. So it's valid in diction, whether you agree with the essence of what he is saying or not.
"Hayes: We Should Run The Presidential Election The Way We Run EVERY Other Election. " Interesting, because we already run the Presidential election the same as other elections. Each state determines the election laws within its boundaries. That applies to dog catcher up through President. Each state votes for its own Senators and Representatives, same as it votes for its electors for the President. Hayes is pushing a change which will treat President elections apart from all other elections. What concerns me is the entire lack of education displayed by Hayes and so many people around the basics of the US government and elections. Has our education system fallen so far so these simple principles are not taught?
Apparently "every other election," means we should run our presidential elections like an elementary school voting for its class president, sure sounds a lot like the way they see normal everyday people in reality either way.
You guys are completely misrepresenting what he said. He explained all of this. Don't waste your time distorting the video. Don't act dumb. All he means is that the electoral college takes away the value of the idea of voting to begin with. What is the point of voting if you know that there is the chance that the minority of votes wins over the majority of votes. We are picking someone to represent and work for ALL of us across the country at once. Our votes should reflect that. Period.
@@Proghead88 No, we know exactly what he said and we are making fun his stupidity. He is poorly educated about elections, or he is lying to his audience. Either way, he is advocating treating the Presidential election differently from every other election
@@nateasonjames Enumerated powers are built on the dame principles. Remember the president commands the military directly. Hitler broke a lot of laws but had the military willing to do it.
@@lewisbilly12353 Hitler also wasnt elected by popular vote - he was appointed by a president, who also wasnt popularly elected. More to the point, I dont know how anyone with a straight face say rule by a majority is tyranny. Well set aside the fact that it isnt a 51/49 split (it's actually a 65/35 split), but if rule by majority is tyranny, as the video states, what does that make rule by a minority? What does it mean when a minority of folks get to stop the things the majority wants? Also, if the main problem is the military force commanded by the president who might be 51% elected then perhaps the actually challenge should be to remove military command from the dictates of a single person. We have the president as CIC because of civilian control, but if that president doesnt represent the views of the majority of Americans, how much civilian control is it, really? Last point - bipartisan agreement. How does one determine when agreement has been met? If it's anything less than 100%, well then nothing would move, and it would still be "tyrannical" to the minority. Our entire federal system would be paralyzed in gaining "bipartisan agreement". Unless the arguement here should be that we something more than 2 opposing forces (which I agree with but is impossible under our current system for myriad reasons) so that we can reach coalition governance. But even in a 3 party set up, if two agreed and one did not, is that not still tyranny over a minority? No matter how we slice it, if the principle you care about is avoiding tyranny, then what is actually being advocated for is a government with no feasible way of achieving most anything at all.
@@lewisbilly12353 - Why are you so willfully ignorant? The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@V K - And you would be removed for extreme willful ignorance. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
No, he wouldn't. He's right. Stop arguing that your vote should count more than other people's vote just because you're outnumbered. "real audience" you mean like those MAGA moron rallies? haha
RB What are you talking about? When the constitution was written black Americans were not allowed to vote. So why would they make the electoral college to suppress the black vote?
We NEVER vote in a federal election. your SENATORS are state elected, your REPRESENTATIVES are state elected, your PRESIDENT is elected by STATE ELECTORS. We vote at the state level. So yes we vote the same way for the President as we do for everything else.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
If the First Amendment wasn't in the Constitution, free speech would also be unconstitutional. You remind me of preacher. Your audience might as well have had their palms raised screaming, AMEN!
@mice& rabbits you still don't get the point. What is better and more fair, period: The majority of the country selecting a leader or the minority of the country selecting a leader? Choose.
That's really not a good argument for the EC. Many of you conservatives repeat that argument all the time. But all you're really doing is 1) admitting that you're outnumbered and 2) that you think your vote should count more than others because otherwise you cannot win an election. That's not very patriotic. LoL
This man intentionally misrepresents the founding fathers arguments, if he actually read what they had said. Like he quotes the first half of a sentences, despite the second half directly contradicting him.
This is very poorly thought out. I expected better. The reason the electoral college exists is to thwart the tyranny of the majority so that 51% don't get to tell what the other 49% must do. This doesn't mean the inverse is true, it's simply a way to thwart tyranny. We are also a collection of states and we elect the president by popular vote - by state to ensure interests are applied as such. You don't allow Californians to vote for Texas representatives for instance. How did you misinterpret Hamilton? Power is conferred to the federal government by the states themselves. How do you miss this key fact of how our election system functions?
One, very major, point was missed by Mr. Hayes. The Constitution recognized the rights of two, key, constituents. Individuals and States. The Electoral College is the confluence of the rights of these two. The votes of each state determine the Electoral Vote of each state. Oh, and another fact. The 2004 election was not lost by Bush in the individual vote. He won by about 3 million votes.
The electoral college does not recognize the rights of the individual, if it did, Wyoming voters wouldn't have 3x the voting power of California. And yes, that was the 1 time he mentioned Republicans won. If you go back to the graphic, 2004 is red.
@@metra34 What individual right are you referring to? From my understanding, the electoral college is place to ensure a minority is not always overruled by a majority.....
@@metra34 Wyoming voters don't have 3x the voting power. They have power equal to their legislative representation by state. California has electoral votes equal to 10 red states, basically everything west of the Missouri River except Texas. In California, the state essentially steals water from rural areas to accommodate the urban areas through regulation, etc. That's just within state government, due to the outsized influence of LA and SF. The college exists to make sure those cities don't decide to cast their gaze eastward and seize the assets of those other western states. Or, you know, we *could* just not give the federal executive branch obscene amounts power and control over the lives of individuals...
@@metra34 If the electoral college doesn't recognize the individual then each state would have 1 electoral vote each. The reason some state get more electoral votes is because they have more people. Our country is a constitutional republic. The electoral college does just that; it's a collections of representatives who vote on behalf of the people.
consider that we are done playing this game-did we not revolt at least in part due to the fact that we felt it unfair that we did not have adequate representation in government?
iAm Brodyy to be embarrassed like the clown he is by a not even particularly wise or knowledgeable Rogan. At least Rogan has common sense. All Hayes has is pathological lying and emotional appeals
You gotta love how the accusation, that the terrible electoral college only exists because the founders thought everyone, but them, were dumb, is preceded by Hayes saying that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
@Tyler - Why are you so confident in your willful ignorance? The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Shove your willful ignorance far up QAnus. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
The Founders pretty much did think that the people were clueless. That's why only white males could vote, and those were the ones that owned property. The majority of people did not have voting rights. That later changed. Just the way the 3/5 compromise was eliminated. Just the way the electoral college will eventually be eliminated. Just the way we've had amendments to the constitution.
@@metra34 and by "educated" you mean stupid enough to go 400k into debt for a degree that qualifies you for a job you say "would you like fries with that" all day?
Hahahaha go spend a weekend in LA. They can't have basic interpersonal interaction without getting offended. Values have gone so far out the window that depravity and mental illness is encouraged in children. Then go spend some time in the Midwest and tell me you want either group deciding what the other one gets to do.
Bastardizing Hamilton's position in Federalist 68 in order to make a beleaguered point about the electoral college is certainly a tremendous low. For those who would like to know that Hamilton actually says about selection of the electoral college as a voting agent: "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
@Joe - I don't give a f'k what Hamilton said. Look at events in USA history. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 I agree, the terrorist Democrats that lost the first civil war want to have slavery back by gerrymandering. This can not happen. This is the same party that advocated for Jim crow laws and now wants segregationism back in the form of a privilege class power struggle. Please arm yourself. The Democrats are pushing for another civil war... Democrats lost the first civil war and they will lose the second one. They cannot have power ever again; disgusting statists.
Hamilton's argument translates to: 'Since we KNOW that the 'average citizen' is too ignorant of the big picture to be able to understand how the country really works, we will let a few (more educated and informed) individuals, chosen by their working class 'neighbors', to make that important choice for them. It is in their own best interests, after all'. Information is much more readily available to people now, they can verify and learn facts when needed. Vote counts can be made verifiable and therefore accurate for large populations now. It does make sense to revisit the justifications for having an electoral college in this day and age.
@@doloresreynolds8145 That isn't at all what his argument translates to. Adding to that, delegates to the EC are selected by their peers without prerequisite of some form of intelligence requirement.
“If it wasn’t [sic] in the Constitution specifically for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.” at about 3 minute mark lol you guys are deep thinkers
@crimson ph34r this entire video is about promoting the notion of "one person = one vote". Are you that deluded that you think that is an usurpation of power?
That was a humorous comment meant for Chris's audience who knows that some people on the right need to be spoon-fed facts so they digest better.
5 лет назад+4
@@Proghead88 it would very much usurp the power of states self determination. A division that has been eroded over time. End the EC and tell most Americans they most bow to the elites of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts and see what happens. It is a guarantee for Civil War, round 2. And the Republican side will win that rematch.
In the US the person with the most votes wins as well. We are a series of states and the states vote on the president. States receive a number of votes based on their population and the candidate with the most state votes wins
@Ben McKean and they got twice as many seats as the party with 32% of the votes. 184 to 99. 4X as many as the party with 20% of the vote who got only 44 seats. But according to the comment-section consensus, every non US country has simply one person, one vote, and every vote is equal in electoral power.
@@stanislausklim7794 In some ways, not in others. 'The Dominion of Canada' is the personal property of the Queen of England. Canadians can't legally own land, only lease it from the Crown. She is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and elections cannot be held, a government formed, or a law passed without Royal Assent.
Good speech Chris, now first apply those same principles during the Democratic primary election. Cover it fairly. Ensure each candidate get the same air time. Make sure you point out when one candidate is unfairly treated by the DNC. It might help if you stand up to your superiors at MSNBC and make sure you cover a candidate's speech instead of covering an empty podium.
@@Luckysquirrel1256 This is exactly what I came here to say. No more double standards, please. The speech was well made, but turned a blind eye to the problems that are in front of his face. It is good to point out that the system being used is defunct, but also point out the things what is wrong your own group's systems. I am a Democrat, but it's easy to see the biases of the party and large media corporations.
Wait a minute, a city which is 60 percent black is divided into districts with EQUAL representation? You literally just made the case for the electoral college, because a large portion of the country does not live in big cities, and regardless of ideology, THINK different, LIVE different, and have different CONCERNS that would be shoved into one "district" by essentially taking away their voting power. You live in a state, you participate in your state, the states deal with the federal government. It's odd that we even vote for senators, that is a recent innovation. Your representation in the federal government was originally restricted to your representatives, WHO YOU VOTE FOR. Why does anyone need ultimate say as to who passes FEDERAL laws, you live in a STATE.
Journalist at the top of the "Who's That?" list and 6,000 up-voters completely fail to understand that the STATES elect the President. That is an epic amount of sleeping through your high school civics class.
Being elected to the congress or the senate should not be a career path. It should be a time-limited public service (a maximum length of service of 12 years) where the only considerations are what is in the best interests of the world, the country, and their constituents. A politician's personal career should not be a consideration.
@ Your assumption that that the tail wagging the dog is analogous to the electoral college is erroneous. When one has to resort to cliched generalizations, you are demonstrating your lack of comprehension.
J Austin Your ignorance is astounding. Not all states (yes they are different) award electoral votes the same way. Some are winner take all. Some are divided by districts. Further- we are the United States, not the united individual. The will of New York and Cali dont get to decide what is best for Delaware or NH. States, under the Constitution are equal. If majority were the rule then whoever is in the majority would simply change everything to their own interest. Blacks could be slaves again, women could lose the power to vote, and LGBTQ community rights could be persecuted at the whim of the mob. Thats not how liberty works. You really should try more study and less drivel.
women were allowed to vote before universal suffrage.. suffrage allowed non property owners to vote.. what was that about you being better educated?? lol, go learn something
@ Do you really want California to dictate the laws to every other state, just because they have the most people? States themselves are sovereign, and the federal government mediates over them. That means it's the states that vote, not the bulk volume of people. A law passed in Mississippi has no bearing on laws in New York, and vice versa. That's why the electoral college is relevant and even IMPORTANT. If only bulk numbers mattered, then politicians would only campaign for the interests of California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Since those 4 states have the plurality of people, they can happily ignore the other 46 states' interests and priorities. The other states don't have enough people or enough money to matter. And that would be a terrible way to run the government. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the midwest just seceded. After all, it's not like they would be represented. The USA is not one big country. It's 50 smaller countries that work together.
@ You missed the point. It's not about the people, it's about the regions. Populous states do have more representatives because they are more populous and requier better representation, but you're extremely incorrect if you assume the priorities of Wyoming are the same as the priorities of Florida. If all votes are counted on a 1:1 basis and it's the mere plurality that determines the outcome of a national cross-state election, then low population areas just don't matter. They are still not necessarily represented by the like-minded people in California, because the priorities of the REGION are different.
5 лет назад
@@Koop784 Like what? What's so different they need to be treated any differently person for person?
First of all there shouldn't be any party whatsoever, just people we vote for in our district to represent us. And secondly, why an Electoral College if only a few States count in order to swing the vote? Get the money out of politics, get rid of lobbying and make voting a requirement. And lastly, and most importantly, don't allow someone who's not at least familiar with the law, civics, history, government and the Constitution of the United States of America run for the highest seat in the land. 🌹
Shin+ The fact that this "only" applies in presidential elections is a fact. It's not open for interpretation or debate. So in all other elections in the US--mayor, city council, sheriff, county freeholder, governor, state assembly, state senate, board of education, selectman, attorney general, US Senate, US House--and on and on and on--it does NOT apply. So again, the "only" is appropriate. :)
@@PerthTowne Yeah, it's "only" the most important thing. So who cares? I'm going to work and everything is perfect. It is only the money I don't get. So the "only" is totally appropriate and my worksituation is perfect. And the greatest in the world ;)
Shin+ I'm not sure why you feel the need to nitpick the word "only." Are you just being deliberately obtuse? Maybe it's a language comprehension thing, but at this point it just comes across as silly and argumentative. "Only" means, it's the ONE TYPE of election where that occurs. If you want to load some other type of meaning onto it, that's on you.
Why are you confused? He showed that Bush won the popular vote. He also showed that Bush wouldn't have had a second term because if the people were truly in charge, then Bush would have never had a first term to begin with. Republicans do not win Presidential elections with the people's backing. Ever.
@@safari9258 Because it is dishonest factually and intellectually. He is trying to promote the use of elections through the popular vote---the person who gets the most votes, is he not? They Republicans didn't get 3 elections out of it, they only got 2 as Bush fairly got the popular vote percentage in his 2nd election---50.7% (regardless of what happened in his first election and you are making some big assumptions)...In the same bs logic you used, I can say, Clinton never won the popular vote as well in either of his Presidential elections because Clinton was always less than 50% (43% in his first election in 92 and 49.2% in his second election in 96) and for one to get the "popular" vote, one needs to break the majority threshold of 50.01% mark.....You can't just add assumptions/inferences to your argument whenever you feel like it is convenient for you, it turns people off.
Sorry, but for some one that insults logic, your arguments are just bad. "In the same bs logic you used, I can say, Clinton never won the popular vote as well in either of his Presidential elections because Clinton was always less than 50%...). NO, you actually cannot say that. The popular vote is simply a requirement that each individual vote counts equally. Bill Clinton received more popular votes than each of the other candidates he ran against in 92 and 96. This is why we say he won the popular vote. Your 50% standard is an artificial measure that might have more meaning if the Presidential elections were only between two candidates, which they are not. I think you're the one being dishonest here. In the last 7 Presidential elections, Republicans have only won the popular vote once. Overall, your vote should not count more than mine. My vote should not count more than yours. Simple as that.
" if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional" lol.. in other words, "if it wasn't Constitutional, it wouldn't be". lol.. If it wasn't in water, it wouldn't be wet. If it wasn't on fire, it wouldn't be burning. Who is this laughable sentence meaningful for?
@Wayne - The E C is a "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers). After it caused the civil war, the E C has been used as a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. Why are your sentences so ignorant? Please remove your head from QAnus.
J Austin Of course, we can change the Constitution anytime we want. It’s a very high bar to do so though. And to compare the EC to slavery is ridiculous, very sophomoric.
@@a_c35 Not after those 10 cities control Congress by eliminating the Senate, control the White House through sheer votes, and control SCOTUS by raising the number of justices until they can pack the court. Then they can do whatever they want to everyone else in the country, including revoking the Second Amendment and outlawing firearm ownership. And yes, there'd be fights, but they're fine with that. Do you really think sneering elitists like this guy care about dead bumpkins in flyover country, killed while resisting gun confiscation? Look at how they celebrate whenever a prominent conservative dies. Look at how many people smeared H.W. Bush and David Koch. They can't wait until we die. They dance on our graves. They're looking forward to the day we get blown away trying to defend a right that they can't wait to revoke; we're the enemy to them.
I have told my congressional representatives that if I do not see something that they are doing to eliminate the electoral college, I will never vote for them, again.
@@chadjustice8560 I agree. We will never see it go away. But don't you think that one person, one vote, is a better idea? I also like rank choice voting. Do you like the Electoral College, Chad?
@@jlshoem Yes I like it because I'm from Ohio. If you do away with it then highly populated areas would determine the president and I don't want the leftist hippies in California telling me who should be president.
jb what? That is the exact point of it all. Imagine each of those counties as a bar graph in the shape of the US. Higher population counties would have higher bars over them. The majority of high bar (high population) counties would be blue! It's simple. It's pretty much obvious actually. But if one thinks two dimensionally at a flat map, it does look like the majority of America is red. Trump wants you to think two dimensionally.
@@summertime69 people in one community will have similair and divergent interests from a different community. The US is built on that premise. Considering the baseline of the constitution was generslly towards freedom and limited gov, making changes to that would require broad agreement.
I don’t think Mr Hayes has studied this issue as well as he’d like to think. When you vote in your state for a presidential candidate you’re not voting directly in a single election it’s technically 50 different majority rule elections. Also as a note to the “51%” try to think of a time when you’ll be the “49%” again. It’s called empathy. The framers of our republic knew we’d have to be forced to talk to one another which is the whole point of the electoral college and the senate.
Exactly. And that's why 1% of the population owns 80% of the wealth. Truthfully probably more like 10% of the population rules the other 90%. Because money is power.
umm. Money equates to power in many cases, true... but what is this insinuation that disparity of holdings is relevant in a negative way? Compare any nations you want, except those who impose LAWS to prevent gaining wealth based on caste or class - eg, Japan. The disparity between the central earner and the highest reflects the living standard of the poorest. In other words, the More disparate the wealth between the middle-earners and the wealthiest, the richer the poorest are. That's why the poorest in the US ($0 earnings / year) have a higher living standard than 2/3 of the people on Earth.
Since you are such a Constitutional scholar...how many times is democracy referred to in the Bill of Rights and Constitution? Which article is it that the Senators are to be elected by the State Legislator and not by a democratic election. Democracies fall into tyrannies as the majority will crush the minority. The United States is not a democracy, it was crafted to not be a democracy and is a republic. Maybe you should actually read the founding documents...and try to understand them...but apparently they are above your grade level. I want my State to dictate how I'd like to see government run, not some central authority that does little to represent me. If I can't change my State governance through elections and it shifts, I'll move to a State that more represents my values. That is how its designed to work...but still its above your grade level to actually figure out.
@Moro - Please remove your head from QAnus. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@Morokiane - The rights of individual citizens are protected by the constitution. The states are adequately represented in congress. WHY are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
Also, "Presidential Pardons" don't make sense to me... If the law found someone guilty, why is a President overriding it? That makes the law useless, doesn't it? It means "someone" is above the law after all.
This is a completely misinformed take. Hayes should read some history, philosophy, and the Federalist papers. The argument about Hamilton is a strawman... One that shows his lack of scholarship on the topic.
Not only Republicans enormously benefited from the electoral college system, but they wanted more, so they mastered gerrymandering, redrawing the electoral map to their benefit.
Gerrymandering and the electoral college did not benefit the republicans, Hillary's inability to campaign where it mattered benefited them greatly though.
Really? Which party and its followers is more likely to level false accusations of something like, I dunno... being a fascist, being "homophobic", being racist, being "islamaphobic", etc.? Oh, yeah. Not the Republicans. Pretty sure the Dems are worse than the McCarthyites ever were.
Also. Its the UNITED STATES of america. Where ultimately they wanted the states to run their own business, not the federal govt for them. It is NOT the united people of america....its the united states.
....and the other issue is news agencies "calling " a state winner with a very small percentage of the vote in. I lived in Hawaii for years and did not vote because the election was essentially over. By not going to the polls other issues do not get voted on. Popular vote and keep the news out of "fixing" or calling winners before the polls close.
Absolutely AGREE! No state "winner" should EVER be *"called"* until the vast majority of votes are counted (and the number uncounted could not possibly change the outcome even IF each of them voted identically) . *Federal elections should NEVER be "called" until :Hawaii and Alaska have voted* (although their voting time should start and stop EARLIER than on the continental 48.... I suspect those people would be willing to put up with "less convenient" times, IF it was felt that THEIR own vote matters?!).
Only because the representatives vote among each other. It can still be considered antithetical to democracy if the representatives themselves aren't democratically elected. At no point were representatives appointed by the people in Rome. Roman senators were appointed by consuls and censors, not the people.
Shove your willful ignorance up QAnus. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@Ben - He'll never be as stupid as you are. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 I've replied to this exact same comment from you in another post. Your argument is laughably inaccurate. Please respond to my other rebuttal to you.
Town council - represents the people in that Town. What if you were running for board of directors? Same voters and result? Because the President doesn't represent your town either. The problem is that the people who Think they're making an argument in this, are just showing that they flunked every civics/history class they ever had - because they somehow failed to learn the difference between the office of.. President of the united STATES - which represents the collective STATES As States. And Congress - which represent the PEOPLE of their individual States. And if someone wants to argue about Impacting Everyone - they all do. But we still don't let someone in Texas vote to decide who goes to Congress for California, despite their vote impacting Texas just as much as the Texas Congressmen's votes do.
Abolish the Electoral College, and all you'll need is...New York and California. Chris is right, the idea that people in less populated areas of the country should influence who becomes President is bizarre. Once the Electoral College is abolished...NY, CA and other more urban states will take control and we will no longer be held hostage by states with smaller populations.
Senators represent the states NOT the people. The real problem is that not a single permanent seat has been added to the house of representatives in over a hundred years. The US population has tripled seen 1917. But have the exact same number of representatives.
i mean I guess i makes sense... people concerned their dwindling numbers mean that they will no longer have disproportionate representation in the federal government
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
LilFatherFigure Lol I’m watching progressive propaganda at the very least, from people who support tyranny and fascism. But you geniuses can’t do anything right, since you can’t understand what a State is, or what population density is. You need to subvert human rights, constitutional law, and the sole privilege of American CITIZENS to vote, in order to produce a democrat victory
@Johto I lived in Southeast Ohio, Appalachian territory, for six years. I understand rural life and I respect the people who live there. One's capacity to be an American doesn't depend upon where one lives. Whether it's West Virginia or California, New York or North Dakota all those regions - rural and urban - represent the UNITED States of America.
"There are all kinds of people who will tell you, [banning the electoral college] is good for all sorts of reasons, and they are all wrong"... Clarified that for ya....
This should be taught in SCHOOL from day 1 , we were to born to be used as PAWNS , LIFE is not a GAME , it is a BLESSING .
5 лет назад+5
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. There's a reason the creators of the longest lasting government currently in existence designed as a constitutional republic, put massive priority to states rights and calles it The United STATES of America. You vote in your state and your state votes in the election for a reason. It was a check against tyranny of the majority. Note the fairly even distribution of opinion on both sides of the aisle in Presidents and congressional representation. That was by design. Such bad argumentation, cherry picking of the federalist papers and terrible understanding of the structure of this country. Just like a child, "I didn't win so we need to change the rules of the game!"
Here i am a Swede shaking my head, Chris Hayes seems to know less about the USA then i do. The Electoral College is there because the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. How badly educated can a person be?
Daniel Lassander ...Spot on Daniel. It’s heart breaking listening to Liberals. The Founders gave us a Republic if we could keep it. Increasingly that appears unlikely.
Annemarie Weise ...as between direct democracy and a constitutional republic I choose the latter. And believe me, you do too although you don’t know it. Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Maria Hammarström ...fools say they prefer a direct democracy, fools and ignorants. Those individuals comprise the hateful Left so while it doesn’t surprise me to hear someone say it, I give them no consideration.
'Run the presidential election the way we run every other election.' We do. In every election, you vote in your state. The states elect the president... of the United STATES. This isn't hard. The whole point is you run your state how you like, and I'll run mine. Top down nationalized everything is a recipe for conflict, not peace.
The 49% isn't trying to boss you, dude. The 49% wants to be left alone, as they have the right to be.
Outstanding response!
"There are all kinds of people who will tell you, [banning the electoral college] is good for all sorts of reasons, and they are all wrong"...
Came here from you video Matt to voice my opinions very politely.
Is Chris Hayes willfully ignorant or simply incapable of more thoughtful analysis? It's childish to be so dismissive of the Founders, those individuals who investigated the various options available for electing the President. It's also incredibly arrogant to be so dismissive of the Founders. Chris puts his thoughtlessness out there for the entire world to see.
@@blippacg Willfully ignorant towards an audience full of willful idiots.
“If it wasn’t in the constitution it wouldn’t be constitutional” Every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes.
Wow; if I take the trash out, *_there won't be any garbage in the can._* Hmmm...
You really believe GOP can turn back the clock of time! It`s this sought of trash talk that hastens GOP to the dustbin of history. Angry, non-college white men won`t be enough for the GOP to win Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Georgia and Pennsylvania.
@@caesarmdaya4212 Stereotype much? Bigoted a little??
@@caesarmdaya4212 Why would the GOP need to turn back the clock? What are you talking about?
@John Hurley I think a traitor is one who seeks help to win elections from foreign adversaries such as Russia. The last time I checked Schiff has stood resolute in defence of the American constitution whilst Trump have been busy soliciting foreign help..... By the way, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are going the Californian root, that is turning blue for good. As from 2020, it will be near impossible for GOP to win Presidential, Congressional and Senate elections.
@John Hurley - Wow. You are a special kind of desperate, willfully ignorant fool.
I'm sitting here thinking that 88% of Congress is up for re-election while everyone is talking about the presidential race. Shouldn't the media put alittle more focus on those elections?
Most people don't even know who their own congress person is - much less go out and vote. And actually it's the state and local electors that effect your life even more and almost no one pays attention to those races nor participate in them.
@Jewels Star Why should the media focus on the Senate?
Smart people will sneak up and run for Congress. The next class of Congress will be the change agent, not the next president.
Sistah W. Agent Orange is the most dangerous individual 1 for a reason: Putin is behind him.
This is exactly the argument why the Electoral College is important. People have lost focus of what's within their control and that is their State. We keep giving more power to the President.
This is almost entirely misinformation
This is entirely misinformation
fixed it.
Learn to accept the truth even when it's not in your favor.
@@davedee6745 exactly
"If the electoral college wasn't in the constitution, it would be unconstitutional". Wow Chris, thanks for explaining that one.
Alot of things that arn't in the constitution are not unconstitutional. Just cause something isn't in it doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.
@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 But bec it is in the constitution, that is why it is constitutional. See why Chris does not have to say this line?
If robing a bank wasn't illegal, it would be legal.
It is a fair thing to say. What makes something unconstitutional is not whether or not it is present within the constitution but whether or not it is in violation of or inconsistent with the constitution. For example, the date of presidential elections is not in the constitution, but that doesnt not make an election day of the 2nd Tuesday in November unconstitutional. So it's valid in diction, whether you agree with the essence of what he is saying or not.
@@mightywizard7475 not the same thing
"Hayes: We Should Run The Presidential Election The Way We Run EVERY Other Election. "
Interesting, because we already run the Presidential election the same as other elections. Each state determines the election laws within its boundaries. That applies to dog catcher up through President. Each state votes for its own Senators and Representatives, same as it votes for its electors for the President. Hayes is pushing a change which will treat President elections apart from all other elections.
What concerns me is the entire lack of education displayed by Hayes and so many people around the basics of the US government and elections. Has our education system fallen so far so these simple principles are not taught?
Apparently "every other election," means we should run our presidential elections like an elementary school voting for its class president, sure sounds a lot like the way they see normal everyday people in reality either way.
Agree completely. Our future is very dim
You guys are completely misrepresenting what he said. He explained all of this. Don't waste your time distorting the video. Don't act dumb. All he means is that the electoral college takes away the value of the idea of voting to begin with. What is the point of voting if you know that there is the chance that the minority of votes wins over the majority of votes. We are picking someone to represent and work for ALL of us across the country at once. Our votes should reflect that. Period.
@@Proghead88 No, we know exactly what he said and we are making fun his stupidity. He is poorly educated about elections, or he is lying to his audience. Either way, he is advocating treating the Presidential election differently from every other election
@@57ditchdigger No, you´re showing your own ignorance and stupidity.
One thing Chris left out: Introduce preferential/alternative/instant run-off voting so the vote can't be split between two similar candidates.
👍 Send him a message/tweet.
"If we take away the oppositions right to vote...then we will win!"
Spoken like a true tyrant.
More like if the opposition is built on 51% rule instead of consensus agreement, then there will be tyranny.
Edit: -bipartisan- consensus.
@@lewisbilly12353 not if you believe in enumerated powers
@@nateasonjames Enumerated powers are built on the dame principles.
Remember the president commands the military directly. Hitler broke a lot of laws but had the military willing to do it.
@@lewisbilly12353 Hitler also wasnt elected by popular vote - he was appointed by a president, who also wasnt popularly elected.
More to the point, I dont know how anyone with a straight face say rule by a majority is tyranny. Well set aside the fact that it isnt a 51/49 split (it's actually a 65/35 split), but if rule by majority is tyranny, as the video states, what does that make rule by a minority? What does it mean when a minority of folks get to stop the things the majority wants?
Also, if the main problem is the military force commanded by the president who might be 51% elected then perhaps the actually challenge should be to remove military command from the dictates of a single person. We have the president as CIC because of civilian control, but if that president doesnt represent the views of the majority of Americans, how much civilian control is it, really?
Last point - bipartisan agreement. How does one determine when agreement has been met? If it's anything less than 100%, well then nothing would move, and it would still be "tyrannical" to the minority. Our entire federal system would be paralyzed in gaining "bipartisan agreement". Unless the arguement here should be that we something more than 2 opposing forces (which I agree with but is impossible under our current system for myriad reasons) so that we can reach coalition governance. But even in a 3 party set up, if two agreed and one did not, is that not still tyranny over a minority? No matter how we slice it, if the principle you care about is avoiding tyranny, then what is actually being advocated for is a government with no feasible way of achieving most anything at all.
@@lewisbilly12353 - Why are you so willfully ignorant?
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE NO AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT,YOU PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START A WAR.
Good. Let's start a war.
@@four_two no man war sucks.
If this was a real audience, you'd be getting booed for your idiocy.
@V K - And you would be removed for extreme willful ignorance.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
No, he wouldn't. He's right. Stop arguing that your vote should count more than other people's vote just because you're outnumbered. "real audience" you mean like those MAGA moron rallies? haha
RB What are you talking about? When the constitution was written black Americans were not allowed to vote. So why would they make the electoral college to suppress the black vote?
We NEVER vote in a federal election. your SENATORS are state elected, your REPRESENTATIVES are state elected, your PRESIDENT is elected by STATE ELECTORS. We vote at the state level. So yes we vote the same way for the President as we do for everything else.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
If the First Amendment wasn't in the Constitution, free speech would also be unconstitutional. You remind me of preacher. Your audience might as well have had their palms raised screaming, AMEN!
@mice& rabbits you still don't get the point.
What is better and more fair, period: The majority of the country selecting a leader or the minority of the country selecting a leader? Choose.
@@Proghead88 - 👍
That's really not a good argument for the EC. Many of you conservatives repeat that argument all the time. But all you're really doing is 1) admitting that you're outnumbered and 2) that you think your vote should count more than others because otherwise you cannot win an election. That's not very patriotic. LoL
Proghead88 we don’t want the country being run by mob rule. That’s what happened to Germany in 1933
This is really sad! I can't even get through it... how embarrassing that people living in this country have so little understanding of our republic.
This man intentionally misrepresents the founding fathers arguments, if he actually read what they had said.
Like he quotes the first half of a sentences, despite the second half directly contradicting him.
@@rb032682 troll is a troll.
@@Joshpower57 - Yes. And willful ignorance is willful ignorance.
@@rb032682 you would know that best by experience. Good old troll
This is very poorly thought out. I expected better.
The reason the electoral college exists is to thwart the tyranny of the majority so that 51% don't get to tell what the other 49% must do. This doesn't mean the inverse is true, it's simply a way to thwart tyranny.
We are also a collection of states and we elect the president by popular vote - by state to ensure interests are applied as such. You don't allow Californians to vote for Texas representatives for instance.
How did you misinterpret Hamilton?
Power is conferred to the federal government by the states themselves. How do you miss this key fact of how our election system functions?
You either end up with tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority which is it?
"How did you misinterpret Hamilton?"
Willfully. Isn't that obvious?
One, very major, point was missed by Mr. Hayes. The Constitution recognized the rights of two, key, constituents. Individuals and States. The Electoral College is the confluence of the rights of these two. The votes of each state determine the Electoral Vote of each state. Oh, and another fact. The 2004 election was not lost by Bush in the individual vote. He won by about 3 million votes.
The electoral college does not recognize the rights of the individual, if it did, Wyoming voters wouldn't have 3x the voting power of California. And yes, that was the 1 time he mentioned Republicans won. If you go back to the graphic, 2004 is red.
@@metra34 What individual right are you referring to? From my understanding, the electoral college is place to ensure a minority is not always overruled by a majority.....
@@metra34 Wyoming voters don't have 3x the voting power. They have power equal to their legislative representation by state. California has electoral votes equal to 10 red states, basically everything west of the Missouri River except Texas.
In California, the state essentially steals water from rural areas to accommodate the urban areas through regulation, etc. That's just within state government, due to the outsized influence of LA and SF. The college exists to make sure those cities don't decide to cast their gaze eastward and seize the assets of those other western states.
Or, you know, we *could* just not give the federal executive branch obscene amounts power and control over the lives of individuals...
@@metra34 If the electoral college doesn't recognize the individual then each state would have 1 electoral vote each. The reason some state get more electoral votes is because they have more people. Our country is a constitutional republic. The electoral college does just that; it's a collections of representatives who vote on behalf of the people.
@@keithskousen7368 Obama won the popular vote in 2012 by a little under 5 million votes
Funny how that map is roughly 80% red, yet all the blue voters want to get their way all the time.
Hayes addressed that. Did you listen to the video, or did you come here to make a snide comment.
TheDesertwalker Its not land. They are states with equal representation in our United States. Its not united people of America. Its the United States.
It's the land that voted duhh.... 🤣🤣🤣
@Fortescue are you aware of how these numbers are created? Or are you just spitting your own rhetoric hoping to sound intelligent
@Fortescue Larger states do get fairer representation. That's why California gets 55 electoral votes and the Dakotas get three apiece. Trump 2020
First step to win something; pay attention and understand the rules of competition.
consider that we are done playing this game-did we not revolt at least in part due to the fact that we felt it unfair that we did not have adequate representation in government?
Time for Chris hayes to go on Joe Rogan's podcast
But will he ask everyone to blow him like he does at the end of every MSNBC vid?
iAm Brodyy to be embarrassed like the clown he is by a not even particularly wise or knowledgeable Rogan.
At least Rogan has common sense. All Hayes has is pathological lying and emotional appeals
"So, Chris. Do you think DMT would improve the Electoral College?"
You gotta love how the accusation, that the terrible electoral college only exists because the founders thought everyone, but them, were dumb, is preceded by Hayes saying that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Yeah, cause Hitler was the most popular candidate, the people voting him in were geniuses.
The founding fathers foresaw this exact problem.
@Tyler - Why are you so confident in your willful ignorance?
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@geraldm4728 Not even close- Putch
Shove your willful ignorance far up QAnus.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
The Founders pretty much did think that the people were clueless. That's why only white males could vote, and those were the ones that owned property. The majority of people did not have voting rights. That later changed. Just the way the 3/5 compromise was eliminated. Just the way the electoral college will eventually be eliminated. Just the way we've had amendments to the constitution.
If you abolish the electoral college there’s no point having states.
I think that's what the Democrats want. They don't like/want states' rights. They much more prefer centralized, federal governance.
Because letting New York And California decide every election would be a good thing?
Yes, because that's where the educated population lives.
@@metra34 and by "educated" you mean stupid enough to go 400k into debt for a degree that qualifies you for a job you say "would you like fries with that" all day?
Hahahaha go spend a weekend in LA. They can't have basic interpersonal interaction without getting offended. Values have gone so far out the window that depravity and mental illness is encouraged in children. Then go spend some time in the Midwest and tell me you want either group deciding what the other one gets to do.
@@metra34
You haven't looked at state IQ stats lately have you?
My red state doesn't have a problem with used needles and human feces in the streets.
@@metra34 Are you suggesting a certain level of education is required to vote? Because that's Jim Crow, and it's racist.
Bastardizing Hamilton's position in Federalist 68 in order to make a beleaguered point about the electoral college is certainly a tremendous low. For those who would like to know that Hamilton actually says about selection of the electoral college as a voting agent:
"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
@Joe - I don't give a f'k what Hamilton said. Look at events in USA history.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 I agree, the terrorist Democrats that lost the first civil war want to have slavery back by gerrymandering. This can not happen. This is the same party that advocated for Jim crow laws and now wants segregationism back in the form of a privilege class power struggle. Please arm yourself. The Democrats are pushing for another civil war... Democrats lost the first civil war and they will lose the second one. They cannot have power ever again; disgusting statists.
Hamilton's argument translates to: 'Since we KNOW that the 'average citizen' is too ignorant of the big picture to be able to understand how the country really works, we will let a few (more educated and informed) individuals, chosen by their working class 'neighbors', to make that important choice for them. It is in their own best interests, after all'. Information is much more readily available to people now, they can verify and learn facts when needed. Vote counts can be made verifiable and therefore accurate for large populations now. It does make sense to revisit the justifications for having an electoral college in this day and age.
@@doloresreynolds8145 That isn't at all what his argument translates to.
Adding to that, delegates to the EC are selected by their peers without prerequisite of some form of intelligence requirement.
“If it wasn’t [sic] in the Constitution specifically for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.” at about 3 minute mark lol you guys are deep thinkers
And you're clearly not. He explains immediately what he means. Try to keep up.
@@metra34
ruclips.net/video/EPtuxSkXAk4/видео.html
@crimson ph34r this entire video is about promoting the notion of "one person = one vote". Are you that deluded that you think that is an usurpation of power?
That was a humorous comment meant for Chris's audience who knows that some people on the right need to be spoon-fed facts so they digest better.
@@Proghead88 it would very much usurp the power of states self determination. A division that has been eroded over time. End the EC and tell most Americans they most bow to the elites of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts and see what happens. It is a guarantee for Civil War, round 2. And the Republican side will win that rematch.
Very interesting.
In Switzerland the person with most votes wins.
That is one state we are 50
In the US, the person with the most votes wins as well--except sometimes in presidential elections.
Olly... Yea, let's compare Switzerland to the US... I'm thinking 1 Fiat vs 50 Peterbuilts
In the US the person with the most votes wins as well. We are a series of states and the states vote on the president. States receive a number of votes based on their population and the candidate with the most state votes wins
Also, make voting a mandatory civic duty, with extremely harsh punishments for voter suppression.
Man, if you found how how Canada and the UK elect their Prime Minister, you'd have an aneurysm!
@Ben McKean and they got twice as many seats as the party with 32% of the votes.
184 to 99.
4X as many as the party with 20% of the vote who got only 44 seats.
But according to the comment-section consensus, every non US country has simply one person, one vote, and every vote is equal in electoral power.
It's scary how much power the Canadian PM has.
@@stanislausklim7794 In some ways, not in others.
'The Dominion of Canada' is the personal property of the Queen of England. Canadians can't legally own land, only lease it from the Crown.
She is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and elections cannot be held, a government formed, or a law passed without Royal Assent.
Good speech Chris, now first apply those same principles during the Democratic primary election. Cover it fairly. Ensure each candidate get the same air time. Make sure you point out when one candidate is unfairly treated by the DNC. It might help if you stand up to your superiors at MSNBC and make sure you cover a candidate's speech instead of covering an empty podium.
Also do away with super delegates, as it is just a way to keep the Democrat Elites ahead of any grassroots movement.
@@Luckysquirrel1256 This is exactly what I came here to say. No more double standards, please. The speech was well made, but turned a blind eye to the problems that are in front of his face. It is good to point out that the system being used is defunct, but also point out the things what is wrong your own group's systems. I am a Democrat, but it's easy to see the biases of the party and large media corporations.
Wait a minute, a city which is 60 percent black is divided into districts with EQUAL representation? You literally just made the case for the electoral college, because a large portion of the country does not live in big cities, and regardless of ideology, THINK different, LIVE different, and have different CONCERNS that would be shoved into one "district" by essentially taking away their voting power.
You live in a state, you participate in your state, the states deal with the federal government. It's odd that we even vote for senators, that is a recent innovation. Your representation in the federal government was originally restricted to your representatives, WHO YOU VOTE FOR. Why does anyone need ultimate say as to who passes FEDERAL laws, you live in a STATE.
Journalist at the top of the "Who's That?" list and 6,000 up-voters completely fail to understand that the STATES elect the President. That is an epic amount of sleeping through your high school civics class.
Being elected to the congress or the senate should not be a career path. It should be a time-limited public service (a maximum length of service of 12 years) where the only considerations are what is in the best interests of the world, the country, and their constituents. A politician's personal career should not be a consideration.
The electoral college is the BEST thing that has ever happened to our country.
Well... I don't know about BEST... but it's certainly up there.
@ How does the EC do that?
@ Your assumption that that the tail wagging the dog is analogous to the electoral college is erroneous. When one has to resort to cliched generalizations, you are demonstrating your lack of comprehension.
@ Boom! Exactly. You just owned those idiots. They have no arguments against what you just said. Thanks you.
J Austin Your ignorance is astounding. Not all states (yes they are different) award electoral votes the same way. Some are winner take all. Some are divided by districts. Further- we are the United States, not the united individual. The will of New York and Cali dont get to decide what is best for Delaware or NH. States, under the Constitution are equal. If majority were the rule then whoever is in the majority would simply change everything to their own interest. Blacks could be slaves again, women could lose the power to vote, and LGBTQ community rights could be persecuted at the whim of the mob. Thats not how liberty works. You really should try more study and less drivel.
It would be unconstitutional if it wasn't specifically in the constitution... imagine listening to this clown unironically.
Obviously this man didn’t pass social studies in high school.
women were allowed to vote before universal suffrage.. suffrage allowed non property owners to vote.. what was that about you being better educated?? lol, go learn something
These responses are priceless. Seems like a few others need a bit of study as well.
@ Do you really want California to dictate the laws to every other state, just because they have the most people?
States themselves are sovereign, and the federal government mediates over them. That means it's the states that vote, not the bulk volume of people. A law passed in Mississippi has no bearing on laws in New York, and vice versa. That's why the electoral college is relevant and even IMPORTANT. If only bulk numbers mattered, then politicians would only campaign for the interests of California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Since those 4 states have the plurality of people, they can happily ignore the other 46 states' interests and priorities. The other states don't have enough people or enough money to matter. And that would be a terrible way to run the government.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the midwest just seceded. After all, it's not like they would be represented. The USA is not one big country. It's 50 smaller countries that work together.
@ You missed the point. It's not about the people, it's about the regions. Populous states do have more representatives because they are more populous and requier better representation, but you're extremely incorrect if you assume the priorities of Wyoming are the same as the priorities of Florida. If all votes are counted on a 1:1 basis and it's the mere plurality that determines the outcome of a national cross-state election, then low population areas just don't matter. They are still not necessarily represented by the like-minded people in California, because the priorities of the REGION are different.
@@Koop784 Like what?
What's so different they need to be treated any differently person for person?
First of all there shouldn't be any party whatsoever, just people we vote for in our district to represent us. And secondly, why an Electoral College if only a few States count in order to swing the vote? Get the money out of politics, get rid of lobbying and make voting a requirement. And lastly, and most importantly, don't allow someone who's not at least familiar with the law, civics, history, government and the Constitution of the United States of America run for the highest seat in the land. 🌹
Finally becomes what he is: a standup comedian. To say something is unconstitutional were it not in the Constitution is riduculous.
Its not a democracy, its a republic
I'm a simple man.
A democracy where the most votes do not win, is not a democracy in my book.
That is only the case in presidential elections, but that is a big deal and should change. The electoral college is an anachronism that needs to go.
@@PerthTowne "only" is a big, stretchable word :)
Shin+ The fact that this "only" applies in presidential elections is a fact. It's not open for interpretation or debate. So in all other elections in the US--mayor, city council, sheriff, county freeholder, governor, state assembly, state senate, board of education, selectman, attorney general, US Senate, US House--and on and on and on--it does NOT apply. So again, the "only" is appropriate. :)
@@PerthTowne Yeah, it's "only" the most important thing. So who cares?
I'm going to work and everything is perfect. It is only the money I don't get. So the "only" is totally appropriate and my worksituation is perfect. And the greatest in the world ;)
Shin+ I'm not sure why you feel the need to nitpick the word "only." Are you just being deliberately obtuse? Maybe it's a language comprehension thing, but at this point it just comes across as silly and argumentative. "Only" means, it's the ONE TYPE of election where that occurs. If you want to load some other type of meaning onto it, that's on you.
The 49% will NOT boss around the 51%.
Love seeing this argument made proudly by Chris Hayes. No hiding from the ignorance of his arguments.
Didn't Bush win the popular vote his second term? I am confused by Hayes representation.
Why are you confused? He showed that Bush won the popular vote. He also showed that Bush wouldn't have had a second term because if the people were truly in charge, then Bush would have never had a first term to begin with. Republicans do not win Presidential elections with the people's backing. Ever.
@@safari9258 Because it is dishonest factually and intellectually. He is trying to promote the use of elections through the popular vote---the person who gets the most votes, is he not? They Republicans didn't get 3 elections out of it, they only got 2 as Bush fairly got the popular vote percentage in his 2nd election---50.7% (regardless of what happened in his first election and you are making some big assumptions)...In the same bs logic you used, I can say, Clinton never won the popular vote as well in either of his Presidential elections because Clinton was always less than 50% (43% in his first election in 92 and 49.2% in his second election in 96) and for one to get the "popular" vote, one needs to break the majority threshold of 50.01% mark.....You can't just add assumptions/inferences to your argument whenever you feel like it is convenient for you, it turns people off.
Sorry, but for some one that insults logic, your arguments are just bad. "In the same bs logic you used, I can say, Clinton never won the popular vote as well in either of his Presidential elections because Clinton was always less than 50%...). NO, you actually cannot say that. The popular vote is simply a requirement that each individual vote counts equally. Bill Clinton received more popular votes than each of the other candidates he ran against in 92 and 96. This is why we say he won the popular vote. Your 50% standard is an artificial measure that might have more meaning if the Presidential elections were only between two candidates, which they are not. I think you're the one being dishonest here. In the last 7 Presidential elections, Republicans have only won the popular vote once. Overall, your vote should not count more than mine. My vote should not count more than yours. Simple as that.
And what "turns people off" is you editing your post after I already responded to it. Lol, incredible.
@@safari9258 I edited it before you responded and that was yesterday...I suggest you also read more carefully then
" if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional" lol.. in other words, "if it wasn't Constitutional, it wouldn't be".
lol.. If it wasn't in water, it wouldn't be wet. If it wasn't on fire, it wouldn't be burning.
Who is this laughable sentence meaningful for?
@Wayne - The E C is a "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers). After it caused the civil war, the E C has been used as a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting.
Why are your sentences so ignorant?
Please remove your head from QAnus.
@@rb032682 ...33 likes for Wayne Harris' observation. Zero for yours. And this is on a liberal channel (MSNBC). Your rants are nonsensical.
J Austin Of course, we can change the Constitution anytime we want. It’s a very high bar to do so though. And to compare the EC to slavery is ridiculous, very sophomoric.
@ Dueling is nowhere in the Constitution, neither was denying women the vote. Nitwit.
That said, we really need to legalize dueling again.
It's in water wet water, big wet water--- Trump's definition of an ocean. Good one.
The ten largest cities in the country should decide how everyone in the country lives.
Then, Hunger Games.
except the number of guns outside those 10 cities outnumber the people in those 10 cities...
@@a_c35 Not after those 10 cities control Congress by eliminating the Senate, control the White House through sheer votes, and control SCOTUS by raising the number of justices until they can pack the court. Then they can do whatever they want to everyone else in the country, including revoking the Second Amendment and outlawing firearm ownership.
And yes, there'd be fights, but they're fine with that. Do you really think sneering elitists like this guy care about dead bumpkins in flyover country, killed while resisting gun confiscation? Look at how they celebrate whenever a prominent conservative dies. Look at how many people smeared H.W. Bush and David Koch. They can't wait until we die. They dance on our graves. They're looking forward to the day we get blown away trying to defend a right that they can't wait to revoke; we're the enemy to them.
it's literally one person one vote, not cities
jesus you nazis are deluded
One man/woman one vote. Dump the electoral college. Oh, and by the way impeach then quickly convect exp-president Trump.
That's called treason.
I have told my congressional representatives that if I do not see something that they are doing to eliminate the electoral college, I will never vote for them, again.
They can't eliminate and are you from California? If your not why would you want them deciding every president for you?
@@chadjustice8560 I agree. We will never see it go away. But don't you think that one person, one vote, is a better idea? I also like rank choice voting. Do you like the Electoral College, Chad?
@@jlshoem Yes I like it because I'm from Ohio. If you do away with it then highly populated areas would determine the president and I don't want the leftist hippies in California telling me who should be president.
@@chadjustice8560 I'm not from California, Chad, and I was hoping this would be an interesting exchange. But I guess I was wrong.
Chris just destroyed his whole arguement when he stated the fact that more people live in the blue area then the red ones.
How do you figure?
jb what? That is the exact point of it all. Imagine each of those counties as a bar graph in the shape of the US. Higher population counties would have higher bars over them. The majority of high bar (high population) counties would be blue! It's simple. It's pretty much obvious actually. But if one thinks two dimensionally at a flat map, it does look like the majority of America is red. Trump wants you to think two dimensionally.
@@summertime69 people in one community will have similair and divergent interests from a different community.
The US is built on that premise.
Considering the baseline of the constitution was generslly towards freedom and limited gov, making changes to that would require broad agreement.
@@lewisbilly12353 - Your severe ignorance is showing again.
@@rb032682 yet you fail to say how.
I usually hate MSNBC but this was great and well presented presentation that even the average American can understand.
I don’t think Mr Hayes has studied this issue as well as he’d like to think. When you vote in your state for a presidential candidate you’re not voting directly in a single election it’s technically 50 different majority rule elections.
Also as a note to the “51%” try to think of a time when you’ll be the “49%” again. It’s called empathy. The framers of our republic knew we’d have to be forced to talk to one another which is the whole point of the electoral college and the senate.
That talking to each other bit hasn't worked out so well has it?
SinnedNogara, yeah this should help
www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/san-francisco-nra-terrorist.amp.html
"some people will argue that an electoral college is a good thing, and those people are wrong" hahahahahaha
Exactly. And that's why 1% of the population owns 80% of the wealth. Truthfully probably more like 10% of the population rules the other 90%. Because money is power.
umm. Money equates to power in many cases, true... but what is this insinuation that disparity of holdings is relevant in a negative way?
Compare any nations you want, except those who impose LAWS to prevent gaining wealth based on caste or class - eg, Japan.
The disparity between the central earner and the highest reflects the living standard of the poorest.
In other words, the More disparate the wealth between the middle-earners and the wealthiest, the richer the poorest are.
That's why the poorest in the US ($0 earnings / year) have a higher living standard than 2/3 of the people on Earth.
This seems so obvious. It's hard to believe we live in a country where 1 person, 1 vote exists at every level of voting except the Presidency.
we Want Every Vote Count But will need to get out an VOTE! So Please Vote on 2019 & 2020!!! Let Your Voice be Hear!!!!
Yep! Trump 2020!
Wait, that's not what you meant? Then you need to be more specific.
I agree, we need to get out there and make sure Trump wins! remind those leftists how much we hate them
@@codywilson682 I Do Not Vote to Rasict Person I am Not Vote for Trump 2020!!
@@a_c35 Trump will lose in 2020 because I have Faith in God with it will happen God Don't Like Lied.
@@codywilson682 It you support a Racist person I feel bad for you!!!
Since you are such a Constitutional scholar...how many times is democracy referred to in the Bill of Rights and Constitution? Which article is it that the Senators are to be elected by the State Legislator and not by a democratic election. Democracies fall into tyrannies as the majority will crush the minority. The United States is not a democracy, it was crafted to not be a democracy and is a republic. Maybe you should actually read the founding documents...and try to understand them...but apparently they are above your grade level.
I want my State to dictate how I'd like to see government run, not some central authority that does little to represent me. If I can't change my State governance through elections and it shifts, I'll move to a State that more represents my values. That is how its designed to work...but still its above your grade level to actually figure out.
Morokiane Very well said. Thank you brother.
@tiestu democracy is dictatorship when you are in the minority. It's not a zero-sum game.
*clap*
@Moro - Please remove your head from QAnus.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@Morokiane - The rights of individual citizens are protected by the constitution. The states are adequately represented in congress.
WHY are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
Also, "Presidential Pardons" don't make sense to me... If the law found someone guilty, why is a President overriding it? That makes the law useless, doesn't it? It means "someone" is above the law after all.
This is a completely misinformed take.
Hayes should read some history, philosophy, and the Federalist papers.
The argument about Hamilton is a strawman... One that shows his lack of scholarship on the topic.
Not only Republicans enormously benefited from the electoral college system, but they wanted more, so they mastered gerrymandering, redrawing the electoral map to their benefit.
Gerrymandering and the electoral college did not benefit the republicans, Hillary's inability to campaign where it mattered benefited them greatly though.
324 million Americans. Roughly half voted in 2016. I wish they'd stop saying "ALL" Americans.
Dems with who you're rolling out you have no chance no matter how votes are counted
Let's put the question on the ballot.
Carolyn... Take a Civics lesson, that's not how you do it. But it can be done.
Today’s GOP is not Lincoln’s party anymore it is Joe McCarthy’s
Really? Which party and its followers is more likely to level false accusations of something like, I dunno... being a fascist, being "homophobic", being racist, being "islamaphobic", etc.?
Oh, yeah. Not the Republicans. Pretty sure the Dems are worse than the McCarthyites ever were.
Dan Crenshaw can only see one side of things.
stop looking in the mirror.
@@neddelley8766 you apparently missed the joke...
Lmao... That was good
@Chip Diamond Is it as beautiful as a Trump official joking that McCain would be dead soon so they won't have to worry about his vote?
"It's only constitutional because it's in the constitution. " wow pure genius. Chris you are a clown!
Also. Its the UNITED STATES of america. Where ultimately they wanted the states to run their own business, not the federal govt for them. It is NOT the united people of america....its the united states.
This was awesome. Keep up the BEST reporting MSNBC💙
Sometimes its hard to sense the sarcasm online but I got it! Haha!
Fabulous show! Love format.
Having him talk about the electoral college is like saying the weirdest thing about a triangle is if it wasn’t a triangle it wouldn’t be a triangle!
Ellen DeGeneres looks different…
....and the other issue is news agencies "calling " a state winner with a very small percentage of the vote in. I lived in Hawaii for years and did not vote because the election was essentially over. By not going to the polls other issues do not get voted on. Popular vote and keep the news out of "fixing" or calling winners before the polls close.
Absolutely AGREE! No state "winner" should EVER be *"called"* until the vast majority of votes are counted (and the number uncounted could not possibly change the outcome even IF each of them voted identically) . *Federal elections should NEVER be "called" until :Hawaii and Alaska have voted* (although their voting time should start and stop EARLIER than on the continental 48.... I suspect those people would be willing to put up with "less convenient" times, IF it was felt that THEIR own vote matters?!).
Finally a MSNBC video that actually informs voters and not the normal garbage they play.
Inform? This was just Hayes' opinion
Uh, Dan? A republic is a form of democracy...
Only because the representatives vote among each other. It can still be considered antithetical to democracy if the representatives themselves aren't democratically elected. At no point were representatives appointed by the people in Rome. Roman senators were appointed by consuls and censors, not the people.
Not even close.
no you can have a Oligarchic republic
Based on the comments why does this have more likes than dislikes
I've been wondering the same thing
Bots.
@@immikeurnot yeah that's a good logical explanation
Buying likes and removing dislikes (yes, you can also remove dislikes)
Wait, 51% doesn't get to boss around 49%, but 49% gets to boss around 51%?
Democracy or popular vote is two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for lunch.
When dems lose change the rule
Shove your willful ignorance up QAnus.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 have you considered looking up information yourself instead of listening to leftist propaganda as if it were the truth?
Chris is milking this till it dries out and people love it. People love simple explanations and remaining dumb.
Hayes you are doing great, keep up the good work🇺🇸
Completely ignorant about what EC is and why it exists.
Great job Chris!
Electoral college needs to be ABOLISHED! IT IS UNFAIR AND NEEDS TO BE GONE!
TJ Wilson facts
Chris Hayes sure is putting his best foot forward in trying to become the stupidest man in cable news.
@Ben - He'll never be as stupid as you are.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 I've replied to this exact same comment from you in another post. Your argument is laughably inaccurate. Please respond to my other rebuttal to you.
The best thing that could happen to this show would be CANCELATION !!!! Reruns of "Mr. ED (the talking horse) would be more informative.
Another old geezer who needs to get off the computer.
@@safari9258 like you
The election of the electors needs a lot more sunlight, in the short term.
I ran for town council a few years ago.
I didn't have enough votes.
I didn't win.
Very easy.
Thank you Chris Hayes
Town council - represents the people in that Town.
What if you were running for board of directors?
Same voters and result?
Because the President doesn't represent your town either.
The problem is that the people who Think they're making an argument in this, are just showing that they flunked every civics/history class they ever had - because they somehow failed to learn the difference between the office of..
President of the united STATES - which represents the collective STATES As States.
And
Congress - which represent the PEOPLE of their individual States.
And if someone wants to argue about Impacting Everyone - they all do.
But we still don't let someone in Texas vote to decide who goes to Congress for California, despite their vote impacting Texas just as much as the Texas Congressmen's votes do.
The prompted laughs are awkward and sad...
Abolish the Electoral College, and all you'll need is...New York and California. Chris is right, the idea that people in less populated areas of the country should influence who becomes President is bizarre. Once the Electoral College is abolished...NY, CA and other more urban states will take control and we will no longer be held hostage by states with smaller populations.
I can't ever look at Chris Hayes with a straight face again since his Bernie Sandwiches flub 🤣
TRUMP has better coverage than Verizon! That map is awesomeness 👌
you either didn't pay attention, or are too stupid to understand this.
@@asher6657 it was a joke moron! You clearly are so dumb your hair hurts when you wake up.
@@asher6657 The second one.
@@wallacewallaby5782 lol.
Senators represent the states NOT the people. The real problem is that not a single permanent seat has been added to the house of representatives in over a hundred years. The US population has tripled seen 1917. But have the exact same number of representatives.
Well, at least the commenters have some sanity, unlike the audience.
i mean I guess i makes sense... people concerned their dwindling numbers mean that they will no longer have disproportionate representation in the federal government
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
RB dude stop making up bs
looks like someone at msnbc has been watching patriot act...
My thoughts exactly. This is the exact format! It delivers though
LilFatherFigure
Looks like both progams are and always have been socialist propaganda
@@DarranKern looks like someone was probably born after 2000 and is stuck with words that have no meaning in real arguments :)
LilFatherFigure
Lol I’m watching progressive propaganda at the very least, from people who support tyranny and fascism. But you geniuses can’t do anything right, since you can’t understand what a State is, or what population density is.
You need to subvert human rights, constitutional law, and the sole privilege of American CITIZENS to vote, in order to produce a democrat victory
@@DarranKern son...relax. it was a comment about the format. go outside.
I can confidently know this man has never read the federalist papers.
It IS in the constitution ! Therefore, it is constitutional !
Any argument of it is asinine !
Awesome idea, love the change to the show!
@Johto We do....
Justin Bailey same here wish chino would do the same
@Johto I lived in Southeast Ohio, Appalachian territory, for six years. I understand rural life and I respect the people who live there. One's capacity to be an American doesn't depend upon where one lives. Whether it's West Virginia or California, New York or North Dakota all those regions - rural and urban - represent the UNITED States of America.
This was great!
Justin, Chris's show blows large baby chunks.
Hooray! Finally someone explained this to us incredulous Europeans! Well done Chris Hayes!
Please do not take him seriously. His arguments are incredibly inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
"We lost, so lets just change the rules"
"There are all kinds of people who will tell you, [banning the electoral college] is good for all sorts of reasons, and they are all wrong"... Clarified that for ya....
This should be taught in SCHOOL from day 1 , we were to born to be used as PAWNS , LIFE is not a GAME , it is a BLESSING .
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. There's a reason the creators of the longest lasting government currently in existence designed as a constitutional republic, put massive priority to states rights and calles it The United STATES of America.
You vote in your state and your state votes in the election for a reason. It was a check against tyranny of the majority. Note the fairly even distribution of opinion on both sides of the aisle in Presidents and congressional representation. That was by design.
Such bad argumentation, cherry picking of the federalist papers and terrible understanding of the structure of this country. Just like a child, "I didn't win so we need to change the rules of the game!"
THANK YOU - THANK YOU - THANK YOU !! Great show !!
This was brilliant. Love how methodical and logical Chris laid this out. Great work!
Yeah when you need 75% of the states to agree to this insulting most of them is brilliant.
Here i am a Swede shaking my head, Chris Hayes seems to know less about the USA then i do. The Electoral College is there because the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. How badly educated can a person be?
Daniel Lassander ...Spot on Daniel. It’s heart breaking listening to Liberals. The Founders gave us a Republic if we could keep it. Increasingly that appears unlikely.
@@blippacg So you both despise democracy, you are both MAGA boys, you and the Swede.
Annemarie Weise ...as between direct democracy and a constitutional republic I choose the latter. And believe me, you do too although you don’t know it. Have you read the Federalist Papers?
@@blippacg Yeah, because you know what she wants better than she does...
Maria Hammarström ...fools say they prefer a direct democracy, fools and ignorants. Those individuals comprise the hateful Left so while it doesn’t surprise me to hear someone say it, I give them no consideration.