Do We Still Need the Electoral College? | CBS Reports
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- This documentary in the "Speaking Frankly" series explores whether the Electoral College helps or hurts American democracy.
Watch more CBS Reports documentaries that take a deep dive into the key issues driving the national and global conversation here: www.cbsnews.co...
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations. It's your destination for breaking news, live events, original storytelling and programs from CBS News and Stations' top anchors and correspondents working locally, nationally and around the globe.
Subscribe to the CBS News RUclips channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: /
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
People don't seem to understand that they have *never* voted for president in their lives. States vote for president. Always did.
We are a Democratic Republic. Stating we are not a Democracy amounts to semantics and splitting hairs, which equals unlearned.
@@DA-vd5ll they are fundamentally different though, and it's important to remember that we are not a democracy very intentionally
@@samuelmerkel2888 we're not even really Republic. We're more of a constitutional representative Democratic Republic.
@@4realjacob637 If you would for me, go into more detail on your position
@@samuelmerkel2888 We are a country determined most of all by a constitution. No matter if everything in government wants to pass a bill it shouldn't be passed because the constitution prohibits it.
Huge difference between having a constitution and simply have a traditional republic or democratic country.
If the U.S. had one of these 51% could use the government to do anything.
Or 90% could gang up on 10% and enslave them.
But albeit the continuing disregard for the Constitution is a frightening series of events that will lead to authoritarianism.
As a non American I find this whole discussion fascinating and see the arguments from both sides. I admit my first reaction to the EC was that is was a bit crazy and undemocratic but then as has been argued, the US is not truly a democracy but a democratic republic. It really is interesting. Personally I think focusing on voter suppression issues and donor transparency are more important to address right now.
Very well informed comment on RUclips...you have valid points
@@timothys9288 The reason why there havent been more civil wars is because we always had a common language and common religion to bind us together.
We are a Constitutional Republic.
Get rid of daylight savings too
uh lol
Before clicking on this, I knew they were gonna go with the ol' Electoral College is racist argument.
Which is not a substantive argument or supposition,” sense ,Historically ,only white land owners could vote.
I can’t edit, so I must make the distinction, for most of American history,only white male land owners could vote. That is in and of itself racist, therefore the electoral college being racist when only white men with assets and capital could vote, really beside the point.
@@DA-vd5ll we aren’t a straight democracy, we are a Republic
Obama won it ...was is Racist then?
@@netboy1206 Obama won the popular vote as wel. It's the cases where it doesn't represent the popular vote that become an issue.
USA needs more competition. Two political parties sponsored by same corporations is not democratic.
Roderico C Soto The US is not a democracy The two party system is the best system.
"If voting really mattered, they wouldn't let us do it." - Sam Clemens in response to the Electoral College
There's a reason the founding fathers did it this way. They thought of this stuff back then.
The founding fathers were certainly wise, but we have had 250 years more experience, studies, experiments. It's up to us be critical thinkers and continue our founding fathers legacy by improving our government. We need to abolish electoral college. We need to continue improving america as the future keeps changing
One of the reasons why it was set up this way was the southern states were wary of the union if they were not allowed to keep slavery intact. During the signing of the Declaration of Independence , roughly half the population of South Carolina were slaves. The electoral college was a compromise so that southern states felt less threatened by the more populous northern states
@@magnubeido8832 I agree with what you said. I would also point out that the electoral college is definitely good for plutocrats because the electoral college stifles democracy. most of the founders were wealthy men and they approved of a very unequal distribution wealth and they didn't care if regular people starved. They just made it look Democratic enough that regular people would be willing to die in the revolutionary war. Most of the Constitution was written by James Madison who famously and repeatedly said that the purpose of government was to protect the opulent minority from the majority. We have been in a continuous struggle to improve the democracy in this country since the country was founded.
.
Throw it out elect the president by the PEOPLE not congress or electoral college.
@@tomymelon6293 Amen 🙏🙏
Absent the electoral college, only a handful of densely populated areas would have a voice. You would have less diversity of experience and perspective in our political conversation and contests. Politicians would only court citizens of the largest cities, neglecting the needs of smaller and mid-sized communities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago would control the presidential election.
But they does already do that it have states that they doesn't have no rallies because everyone knows that particular state is red or blue so your argument doesn't make sense
@@painalmighty1017 Posting 5-29-22. I doubt that anymore, there are probably six states at most that are classed as 'swing" states. New York State itself was competitive as recently as 1988, and in 1984, turned in a pretty healthy margin for Reagan. New York is just one example, but I picked it because it's a fairly large (from an Electoral College standpoint) state.
I say compromise. Keep the electoral college but get rid of the state level winner take all. Break it up to each district to select their elector. It would be a much more accurate view of how people think across the country.
Yes. It isn't really fair that Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas have virtually no representation thanks to the winner-takes-all system, but at the same time it wouldn't be fair for small states to lose all relevance in the U.S. by removing the EC all together.
This can be done already. States decide how to distribute their electoral votes. That's always been the case. Call your representatives.
@@ragingshibe Also, who's to say that even if those states were to apportion their votes by Congressional district, that there wouldn't be some gerrymandering going on. Still, the Democrat would get most (if not all) of California's electoral votes and the Republican, most, if not all, of Texas'.
@@TheBrooklynbodine have them be based on counties then and weigh how many electoral votes they get based on population. That will either minimize or completely stop gerrymandering because county borders are much harder to change.
Not even close to accurate.
The whole point of the electoral college is so that the minorities in thought will have a larger voice than they would in a popular vote. It prevents pure mob rule, which is good. For example, California is always going to vote what’s best for California, not what’s best for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The electoral college gives Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming a larger voice in what is important to them.
If anyone replies, please keep it respectful to others in the reply section.
Right on brother!
@ Ryan Finney Gerrymandering and voter suppression in swing states by Republicans, is far more the problem than the Electoral college could ever be.
As a 30 year Democratic voter from California , I rather Democratic candidates and voters take advantage of local and midterm elections in all states, just as Republicans do all the time.
I live in the only section of Los Angeles county where there are more registered Democrats, but Republicans manage to practically, win all local ,county,State, and Federal elections.
Riddle me that Batman.
Democrats need to stop blaming the electoral college because we stay getting finessed by Republicans.
y'all's voting system is so weird USA - I dont know why any of you bother voting - because twice now in my lifetime - the candidate who got the MOST votes somehow lost? Both Democrats suspiciously.
If the delegates and super delagates vote counts for FOR than the avererage citizen, then whats the point? Thats not fair at all.
Somehow people are making the argument that majority land rule is more virtuous than every vote counting equally. You will never convince me that land mass, or low population, should increase the weight of someone's vote.
Cities are not a monolith of culture. They are filled with millions of different people. The number of people in these interviews, and comments, who dismiss all people living in cities is disturbing.
You will never convince me that 50 sovereign individual states rights should be usurped by various over populated states.
Yes I’m from California, yes I only vote Democratic, and yes the EC is just fine like it is.
Systems disturb me far less than the humans who animates said systems disturbs me.
We always contemplate our navels over changing the system when in fact the ungodly virtues of human beings creates all problems.
The corruption of humanity is somehow the Electoral college fault, let you tell it.
I don’t need the system to change per se, I need the corruption of humanity to change.
@@DA-vd5ll It sounds like you are advocating for the rights of landmass, or a government entity, over the rights of people. Everything else in this discussion is an aside. At the end of the day, I believe people should be equal, regardless of circumstances of birth or where they lay their head at night.
@@dominicpinchott7432 were arguing for the rights of states. Which are themselves separate entities that have come together to form a coalition. The fact of the matter is that Kansas has very different needs and interests than New York. A presidential candidate under popular vote could theoretically come in and say I’m going to give everyone in the northeast and in California a universal basic income and make the south and Midwest pay for it and he’d win the majority. That’s very problematic. You should read about Socrates and the tyranny of democracy. There’s a reason direct democracy isn’t really practiced anywhere. It’s true that many other western countries have popular vote, but they are all much smaller by both population and land mass, and most people in the country have similar interests in comparison to the stark contrast between states in the US
@@zakariabahbaz5348 This is very well written. I appreciate it. I wish more people would understand why the EC exists and not just chalk it up to oppression.
Damn. This is straight up propaganda without presenting an understanding of how the electoral college protects a democratic republic.
I’m 1 minute in and I’m already sensing a bias.
OK - explain it now, then. I will give whatever you say a fair shake.
The States is the only country on earth that abides by the "electoral college". I not only find that disturbing to democracy but also embarrassing.
And yet we are the greatest country in the world. Let’s be like all those other corrupt nations. You have no idea how good we have it until you strip away everything that made this country great in the first place.
Our system is based off the parliamentary first-past-the-post. Might want to do a little more research.
@Gerald McKencie I don't know what you're talking about and frankly I'd rather not get into it with you. You missed my point anyway.
@@SavedSkeptic We are not the greatest country in the world.
The people who understand the importance of the Electoral College and the need to educate Americans on why we have these institutions in the first place have clearly paid attention in their American history class. Without an electoral college the fundamental disagreements of the 1776 delegation come back into clear focus and the country either falls into a large scale bleeding kansas trap or simply breaks apart.
That's right.
@Gerald McKencie As horrible as the institution of slavery was the truth is slavery was just one in a series of problems that Southerns or (Rural Americans) had with a strong centralized federal government. There had to be a balance between states and the national government.
If there isn’t an electoral college I’m all for breaking apart
@@Vic-of8pd I'm sure many people agree. But be prepared to live in a very different world if that happened.
I was hopping for more , this was so one sided that looks like propaganda. Then they ask why “news organizations “ are dying. And is not that I believe in the electoral college (in my country we don’t have one) I was expecting more.
What a load of crap. One person = one vote is the only equal system. Propaganda 💯%
Yes throw out the Electoral College and the Electoral College Votes!
Abolish it. Each vote should be counted and counted equally.
The problem is that doesn't work well when you're divided into 50 states instead of 1 big state. Each state has different governments, different populations, and different needs. If you go by a pure popular vote, then you could cater to the three highest population states during an election and never even address the concerns or needs of the others.
This will never happen because it will open up the door for a 3rd party candidate
There's nothing stopping a 3rd, there already is.
@@RJL612 We need a grassroots effort to get a viable 3rd party and ranked-choice voting for presidential elections. It would require some effort, but hey, we Americans aren't afraid of a little hard work, are we?
@@timothys9288 Exactly right! he made his move at just the right time.
Get rid of it just like we got rid of Trump
As European, for me electoral college is not a main problem, but winner takes all system is a problem. In EU we also have to make sure that small states votes are more valuable per 1 vote to make sure that big European states don't simply overrule them with massive sizes of their populations (e.g. germany vs Nordic states). Small states can successfully lobby their interests, if they form coalitions with other states. So electoral collage kinda serve same purpose (aside original idea behind it, which is making sure that "elite and educated" electors would prevent giving presidency to unfit populists. That would include voting against population wishes). What I would change is, how states is choosing their electors, thats it proportionally to each state's elections. Its really unfair that if you are republican in california or democrat in texas, you basically have no say on who will be president. If electors would vote proportionally, according to population wishes in each state, that would make everybody's vote much more valuable, in the end making all states way more attractive for potential candidates to visit and lobby. But of course to change that, you would have to change electoral laws in each state separately, aside those few which already have those laws like Maine.
Electoral college's purpose is reassure that the president will represent ALL 50 states. Meaning, while campaigning, the Electoral college provides incentives for a potential president to visit more states than the ones whom has the biggest populations. If just a popular vote, than they will only care about coastal states and give two craps about the states in the middle. The framers were highly intelligent to put this in the Constitution.
How often do Presidential candidates visit Idaho?
@@davidwilliams6966
Obama did last I believe. So not that lo g ago.
The candidates spend half of October in Nowhere, Iowa or Who Cares Falls, NH. Rural states get the majority of the attention for no good reason other than the EC. I say scrap it. Man with the most votes wins.
1 man - 1 vote !!! Who wins popular votes he should be the next president of the usa like in every other democracy in the world
Bless your heart ! the US is a Democratic Republic where 50 States have their own sovereignty. Common sense tells us National popular voting effectively removes the sovereignty of every state, leaving the most populous states always choosing the president.
@@DA-vd5ll Bless your heart! You still believe that a state should elect a president. I believe the people should elect their president and the state should have nothing to do with it. You believe the vote of one person should hold more value than that of another. I believe that everyone's vote should hold the same value! Not to hard to see who holds the moral high ground on this argument and it's not you!
@@venividivici8672 it's not about moral high ground. It's about finding the democratic balance of majority rule vs minority representation.
@@jordanwilkinson7368 No I'm sorry pal. The way things work in every single Democratic Republic on earth is two people make their case why their vision is better for the country. The people vote for the person who makes the better case and majority rules. Sometimes that goes in your favor and sometimes it does not but its fair. Everyone's vote should hold the same value! Anything else is undemocratic and you know it.
@@venividivici8672 you don't have to pretend to be sorry. That's a basic view of democracy, but it's not universal. In such a scenario, we would not have a senate in addition to the house. Our country has and hopefully will continue a method that insures that populous cities don't run the country. A New Yorker should not determine the fate of a midwest cattle farmer, and there's no way he effectively could. In a pure majority rules scenario, literal minorities like native Americans would literally have no voice or power. You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't think it's the appropriate course for our republic (which is not a democracy).
To me the whole Electoral College thing is about division. Dividing and pitting States against each other when they should be United
Although we are one nation, not all states share the same culture. This is why great empires never last because you can't make everyone within your borders to be of one mind.
The States only need to be United on a few things, namely protecting our freedom and way of life and things like Defense, foreign relations and domestic trade. The federal government was never meant to be used to wage culture wars and bully people of the opposite party.
@@FD-nz7qv except the dictators that control one's mind
About division you say? Well every state has their own sovereign constitution and elected governments. Which means we are already Divided by 50. Therefore the EC maintains the sovereignty of every state by way of Representative government.
@@DA-vd5ll this whole video is a massive civics fail. Nobody seems to understand the intended purpose of the federal government. It’s now grown all large and dominant it seems it can’t be stopped. The country is too diverse for centralized power, that’s why it seems so divided. Once the EC is gone the United States is over.
They should extend it somehow to separate large metropolitan areas from the rest of the state they are in.
We need to have a truly Democratic system where every vote is counted and the majority of the people determine who becomes President. The office of the President is the only office where not every vote is counted equally. Its time to do away with the archaic Electoral College where a minority of disgruntle people can disregard the majority of the voters if they don‘t like the outcome.
The GOP will fight tooth and nail against doing away with the Electoral College to stay in power. The GOP has been pushing for “Gerrymandering” and other voter suppressing tactics such as limited mail-in votes, limiting voting sites, limit or do away with early voting. The GOP’s mantra; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”… from George Orwell’s book Animal Farm.
The US Constitution is a living document that has been changed over time by amendments as our society has changed as we matured as a nation. In the beginning, only white males over the age of 21 who owned land could vote. Then only white males over 21 were allowed to vote, non-whites and women weren’t allowed to vote; the 15th Amendment allowed any male over 21, regardless of race, color, or belief to vote, the 19th Amendment allow women over the age of 21 to vote, the 24th Amendment eliminated the poll tax that kept poor people who couldn't pay the tax from voting, and the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
No one talks about how a national popular vote would change if that's what elected the President. For one thing, candidates would need to raise MUCH more money to campaign successfully nationwide instead of in a few swing states. The incentive to commit massive electoral fraud in one or a few states would increase, because that would change the national totals. And a national recount of a close election would be a national nightmare.
Instead, adjust the Electoral College winner-takes-all formula so that it remains winner-takes-all in each state where the leader finished ahead by 2% or more (the non-swing states) but shares the EC delegates linearly among the top two finishers in states where the lead is less than 2%. For example, if the lead is negligible (like Florida in 2000) the top two candidates would equally split the state's EC delegates. If the lead is 1%, the leader would receive three fourths of the delegates and the 2nd place finisher would receive one fourth. Etc.
This "hybrid" EC formula would eliminate all the drama and greatly reduce the incentives for fraud, interference, and recounts, because a small change of votes in any state would not change the EC totals by more than one or two delegates... almost never enough to change the overall winner.
Except for you can actually do that right now. States determine how to split their electors and not every state is winner take all. These idiotic mega corporations like CBS just want more centralized power that they can influence.
@@davruck1 Yes, I know the "hybrid" Electoral College can be done right now. Furthermore, it could be effectively imposed on states that don't want to switch to this formula, by an interstate compact agreed by states that together comprise a majority of the Electoral College (just like an interstate compact can effectively switch the nation to a national vote). The pact states would simply agree to award ALL their EC delegates to the candidate who would have won if all states used the hybrid formula. The nonswing states are an EC majority and have an incentive to agree to this pact.
@@brothermine2292 it’s probably unconstitutional though.
@@brothermine2292 I would see that happening in the smaller states with smaller populations, forming a an electoral coalition of sorts to balance the power of the larger states. Although how much a factor ideological divisions might play, if a small blue state might want to team up with a small red state. Experience would say probably not, but... Who knows.
You mind want to find another term besides this word impose, on states! Sounds like liberal overreach.
If it is not being a racist that drives conservatives over the edge like we saw at the Capital,, Perceived liberal overreach would be the other reason.
I'd have no problems with the electoral college if they got rid of the winner take all rule.
Those were decided by the states individually only 100 years ago. Don't like it? Call your representatives.
Hatred is corrosive of a person's wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation's spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and block a nation's progress to freedom and democracy. Liu Xiaobo
27 Points to Reform US Democracy and the Electoral System.
1) Shorten the Election Campaigns to 4-8 weeks maximum (like most other advanced democracies. This also helps to get money out of politics). Ridiculously long campaigns (18mths) are a waste of money, resources and time; time that should be spent governing the country and providing social programs for citizens needs, not campaigning for re-election.
2) Campaign finance reform (donations only via private citizens with strict donation limits, ban corporate funding and influence).
3) Voting Days to be held on the weekend (not Tuesday), and possibly in conjugation with Veteran’s Day Holiday. (Make it easier for all citizens to be able to vote).
4) Go back to reliable ‘hand marked pen and paper’ ballots publicly counted and scrutinized. Design simple to understand paper ballots, and do NOT use ‘Black Box’ electronic voting machines (EVMs) or ballot marking devices (BMDs), because any electronic devices are too easily hacked or manipulated to rig voting figures even if using ‘block-chain’ technology. Cyber-attacks can also be undetectable. www.coindesk.com/mit-paper-rejects-blockchain-based-voting-systems-elections
Paper ballots are more reliable and can be recounted if necessary. Democracy is too important to allow the possibility for cheating.
5) Stringent independent election audits to oversee and verify the result and eradicate election fraud.
6) Eliminate/abolish the Electoral College (Article 2, Section 1, of The Constitution). This would normally be difficult, because the Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. Over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College - without any becoming law. It requires two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate, and three quarters of the States to vote in favor.
There is another easier way to effectively end the Electoral College without technically abolishing it.
Agreement of the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.
An organization called the ‘National Popular Vote Interstate Compact’ (NPVIC) is pushing to eliminate the Electoral College without tampering with the Constitution. Once the NPVIC has reached 270 electoral votes, the passed bills from all the states will kick in and guarantee that the candidate with the highest vote total nationwide would become the president.
So far, 15 states (CA, IL, NY, CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA, DE, HI, RI, VT) and the District of Columbia (Total = 196 electoral votes) have committed to the cause. The bill has also passed at least one chamber in 9 additional states with 88 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA). So, we need 74 more electoral votes to eliminate the unfair influence of the Electoral College.
A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it. www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
*American citizens need to become politically active to make this happen before the 2024 election.
7) Need for more political party diversity. Break-up the duopoly of the 2 major political parties (Democrats and Republicans) which has become an unofficial coalition serving only their corporate donors. Give voters real political choices rather than just the illusion of choice with just these 2 corrupted major political parties by corporate interests. There’s a need for at least a 3rd major party, possibly 4 or 5 major political parties like other advanced democratic countries. This would break up the duopoly, diversify the political landscape, and reduce the influence of corporate money corrupting the democratic system.
8) Get rid of First Past the Post (FPP) (sometimes called plurality) voting, and introduce some form of Proportional Representation (PR) Rank Choice Voting (RCV) preferably - Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP(R) with Multi-Member Districts.
MMP has voters select both a candidate in their local district and a party they'd like to win a majority. Everyone who wins a district gets a seat, and then additional seats are given out to ensure that parties are represented in proportion to their share of the party vote. This has a number of advantages. Unlike party list representation, people still have representatives with at least some ties to their local area.
Voters get 2 votes: one for their local representative, and one for their favorite party.
Mixed Member Proportional has familiar local representatives, and simple ballot.
9) Standardize the voting system nationally across all states.
10) Eliminate the need for political party registration (there’s no need to be affiliated to any political party, and it only encourages gerrymandering). No one should be loyal to just one political party. Force political parties to concentrate on policy to attract your vote.
11) Have polling stations available at all public schools (there must be enough polling places for everyone)
12) Ban voter suppression, introduce a 28th Amendment for the right of every citizen 18 years old and over the right to vote, or introduce mandatory voting (every eligible citizen votes - $50 fine if you don't vote)
Australia has mandatory voting and because of this 95% voter turnout.
By contrast in the US millions of voters are purged from voter rolls, and at least 40% of provisional ballots are thrown in the trash can and not counted. It’s just another method of rigging the electoral system.
13) Ban gerrymandering of districts to favor one political party. Independent commission should draw district lines, not partisan political parties. Voters should pick their politicians, NOT politicians their voters.
14) *Consider a Unicameral Congress (only House of Representatives needed to pass Bills. There's no need for the Senate to pass Bills, so situations like McConnell and the filibuster holding up important legislation cannot happen).
*(NZ is an advanced democracy and has a Unicameral Parliament which works very efficiently).
*(a Unicameral System is also one step closer to a direct democracy of all the common people).
Unicameral System: www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unicameral-system.asp
Bicameral System: www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bicameral-system.asp
(*The majority of international governments use the unicameral system-with a roughly 60/40 split between unicameral and bicameral.)
The only other option other than a unicameral system, is to make it mandatory for Bills passed in the House MUST be voted on immediately in the Senate. Mitch McConnell has sat on hundreds of Bills effectively blocking them from passing.
15) Have all sessions in Congress live streamed, so the public can view what is going on, and who is voting for what policies. Make politicians accountable.
16) Term limits on all politicians (Congressman and Senators) and judges (in particular Supreme Court justices - no lifetime appointments).
17) Balance the Supreme Court with non-partisan, impartial judges. Have rigorous vetting and confirmation process. (Amy Coney Barrett couldn’t even recite the rights of the 1st Amendment)
18) Voting Rights Act upgraded.
19) Election security strengthened. (Cyber security, independent scrutiny and audits)
20) Introduce political education into high schools at age 16 and older to prepare for voting. New voters need to understand how democratic systems work, how important it is to vote, how to engage in political activism, how laws are passed and brought into effect, how to interpret the Political Compass accurately (e.g. social democracy is NOT socialism or communism), how to understand Monetary policy (interest rates and the supply of money in circulation, generally managed by Central Bank), how to understand Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), how to understand Fiscal policy (taxation and government spending, generally determined by government legislation), how to understand media bias, how to identify fake news and conspiracy theories, and how to fact check and use critical thinking skills etc.
21) Mainstream and Social Media restrictions on advertising, disinformation and propaganda generally and particularly during elections (e.g. Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, Trump’s Tweets, FOX propaganda, disinformation and opinion reporting e.g. Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, Dobbs, Pirro etc.)
22) Media Blackout before election (possibly 72 hours before and on voting days themselves)
23) Install an independent Election Management Body (EMB) to be responsible for the polling, conducting and tabulating of votes in elections and referenda, and the registration of political parties, oversight of campaign finance, design of the ballot papers, drawing of electoral boundaries, resolution of electoral disputes, civic and voter education and media monitoring for the safeguarding the legitimacy of democratic institutions and the peaceful transitions of power. They need to ensure all aspects of any electoral contest meets global norms and follows the fundamental guiding principles of elections, including independence, impartiality, integrity, transparency, efficiency, professionalism and service-mindedness, that perform in the best interest of the voters.
24) Abolish Justice Dept. memo that says a sitting president cannot be indicted for crimes committed.
25) Tighten the control of the President’s pardon power. Criminals MUST be held accountable for their crimes.
26) Transfer of power to take place immediately a new President is elected. (U.K. is able to transfer power within a few days).
27) On policies, provide universal health care and government funded tertiary education. Raise minimum wage. Federally guaranteed jobs to upgrade infrastructure and transition away from fossil fuels ASAP. Implement the ‘Green New Deal’. Cut military spending, and divert the funds instead to social programs.
Not a single good idea in this list of garbage.
@@mikewilliams6025 Oh really! Your comment shows just how little you know about politics.
And your stupid comment about the electoral college being like the circulatory system is nonsense.
Virtually all advanced democracies have NO electoral college and they function just fine, in fact better than American (so-called) democracy.
The only other countries to have electoral college systems are Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu. That's not a very impressive list, is it?
The electoral college system is undemocratic, it permits the election of a candidate who does not win the most of the votes; and it cancels the votes entirely of the losing candidates in each state.
So, rather than just hurl stupid insults at me, how about you give me a list of legitimate rebuttals on each point and explain in detail why you consider all these points on my list as garbage.
I'm willing to bet, I'll hear nothing more from you, because as usual, empty vessels make the most noise.
Living in a swing state, I say it's time for it to go. One person, one vote. Majority rules with every other office, and it should be the same with the office of the President.
I'd rather see the office of the president go away before the electoral college. As a Floridian, I don't want my choice for President to be determined by NY and California. Heavily populated states don't always know what's best.
Majority does rule. Majority of electors. Please read a book.
@@FD-nz7qv You assume that everyone in those states would vote the same way! If you get rid of the electoral college everyone's vote will count the same and will matter no matter which way their state goes!
One person one vote state by state, why because every state has their sovereignty manifested in the electoral college.
How about Democrats stop conceding most state governments to Republicans who end up making voter suppression laws in swing states. Did you ever think of that?
@@DA-vd5ll How about the people in those stupid states stop electing Republicans. You believe that the vote of one person should hold more value than that of another. I believe that everyone's vote should hold the same value when electing the president. It's not to hard to see who holds the moral high ground on that argument.
The electoral college gave us Bush II and Trump...What's next Kanye 2024? No thanks
The founding fathers were certainly wise, but we have had 250 years more experience, studies, experiments. It's up to us be critical thinkers and continue our founding fathers legacy by improving our government. We need to abolish electoral college. We need to continue improving america as the future keeps changing
One should take pause when only one side calls for abolishing the electoral college.
Time to let go of electoral college!
The electoral college is as important as any part of the constitution. Majority rule often leads to civil unrest and our framers knew that and structured the constitution against it. America is a large diverse country. The largest cities ruling the entire country will not end well
So tell me is it more or less likely minority rule would lead to civil unrest? Is it more dangerous to disenfranchise a minority or the majority? Minority rule is undemocratic!
@@venividivici8672 why do you keep editing your post?
Did we ever need the electoral college?
Yes
Yes: when information was not readily and timely available to the vast numbers of eligible voters, the members of the Electoral College were expected to be informed of facts as well as representative of the voters.
so i guess that nyc, LA, Dallas and Chicogo, will decide on the president because they will out vote all the rest. that is no equal representation, ovouslly no one was paying attention in civics class.... Pay attention!!
Most people learn through experience, if the EC is removed Americans will then understand why it was set up in the first place.
“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it”- George Carlin
If those that select the presidents wanna change the EC, they will by all means do it. If there’s even an America
Everybody has been thoroughly brainwashed.
Stick with the constitution please and thank you!
If we stuck to the original constitution you would not have the right to vote because you are a woman, that's why we have amendments to the constitution
@@danielsantana9448 totally off point
@@danielsantana9448 facts
@@tammyvanwinkle8870 well you being a hypocrite because he telling you facts but you saying he off point he put you in your place some laws needs amending
Do we still need CBS?
H*** no!!
It seems odd that California only gets 2 senators with a population of 40 million people and Wyoming gets the same amount with a population of half a million who live a far more rural existence. Slavery played a part in creating the Electoral college. Districting continues to play a part in discrimination for marginal communities.
Interesting video. I like that y’all showed some actual arguments in favor of the electoral college- even if I disagree with them, at least they were presented easily and I can understand where they were coming from. Thanks!
There is a real purpose for this infuriating concept. It deserves close study, it achieves a balance in the union.
I like it when they color the states blue or red depending on who gets the most votes in that state. but Instead of winner takes all, I would rather 1 person, 1 vote. Whoever wins the popular vote wins the presidency.
Just goes to show that you don’t fully understand the reason for the importance of the electoral college
Then big cities would always win elections, there is a reason we have the EC.
So you want to rule by mob, don’t give the minority a voice. Smart! That way you can just campaign in big cities and never go anywhere In the Midwest
@@warrenmcelroy4718 what's the importance smaller states voters has more power than bigger states voters🤔
@@chiefsfan1533 and you talking crap it have some states trump or Biden never went and campaign because they know there would win that state. only swing states saw them mostly so your point is muted
Of course we need it! I don't want CA and NY deciding the direction of this country.
Except that California and New York do decide it and have done so for over 100 years. Only FOUR times has the EC robbed the rightfully elected candidate.
Yeah we should totally let Florida I do it because they really seem to have everything under control!😉
The winner take all rule you clearly dislike is part of how the electoral college works. Get rid of the EC and the Republicans in CA and NY would have a fair say (finally)...
Of course conservatives hate the idea of democracy
The United Kingdom's parliamentary system has a "electoral college" Built-in to its system. Why? Because representatives in the House of Commons elect's the Prime Minister. Each member of the House of Commons represents local areas of roughly the equivalent sized population. Those populations elect a House of Commons member based on party affiliation.
Unlike the United Kingdom's Prime Minister, the United States directly votes for the President.
The founders created a "virtual" temporary "house of electors" for the purpose of electing the president directly by the people. The electors are allocated by population.
The electoral college is not outdated or superficial or unnecessary. It is integral to America's direct election of the president. And the direct election of the president is integral to America's "checks and balances" tripartite form of government.
Sorry, but no. The EC is a (flawed) method of choosing who should control one of those branches but that's not the same as being integral to those branches of Government.
You either don't understand the EC or are deliberately misrepresenting it. The Founders devised the EC to NOT be a direct way for the people to elect the President (the direct route is just a popular vote). The EC is an intentional extra layer that was conceived to allow for a *different* candidate to become President, for the purposes of protecting against an ill-informed electorate choosing an unsuitable President.
Back in the day there was no broadcast media that allowed the whole nation to get the same message regarding the candidate's policies and character. Candidates had to campaign in person and there was no way to be seen by even a small fraction of the population. That problem doesn't exist now due to radio, TV and the Internet.
I agree it's not superficial, but it IS outdated, it IS unnecessary, and to call it a 'direct' election of the President is simply untrue.
Me: giggling away in Parliamentary democracy - if only you knew....sigh!
I think the conversation should be about first pass the post system. The two party system is the real problem
And once get rid of that then we can discuss about the popular votes!In a two party system the electoral college system fits the best because otherwise we were going to have democrats in power forever....I do not think anyone wants that even if you are democrat we need to replace those corrupt politician ....
CBS in 2027: "Does America still need The Constitution?"
YES
Absolutely NOT.
I stopped voting a few elections ago and I won't even consider casting another vote until the electoral college is gone.
That’s great, appreciate that. You vote for your local government. Just because you don’t get your way, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote. Not everything is going to go your way, get over it. You will find that some things will. Just vote
Without it, 3 states would decide what happens in the rest of the country. You obviously have a liberal leaning bias, because Cali, NY, and TX would be those 3 states that run every aspect of the federal government. You like monopolies? Because that is all you'd have if you abolish the electoral college.
@@Deshelton10 what you just staid makes no sense. Abolishing the EC will precisely stop any state or states deciding who the president is. Your statement is moot. There are people of different political persuasions in all states. Whomever convinces more americans becomes their president. One man one vote.
I think we could keep the electoral college but the other 48 states should replace the winner take all approach with the way Nebraska and Maine hand out their electoral college votes by district and popular vote.
That defeats the purpose of the electoral college when we allow large metropolitan areas to decide who is the president it’s time to dissolve the union one way or another
I could cope w/it if every elector represented roughly the same amount of ppl. But when an elector from NY has to be representative of, & I'm just pulling this # outta the air, but say 25,000 ppl, & an Idaho elector only representative of, & again, let's just say 8,000 ppl... That's the one aspect I have the most trouble with.
Those people who cannot understand how the electoral college works, and the reason behind it why the founding fathers created this system, needs to take the constitutional law 101.
We are a constitutional republic and the Electoral College keeps the minority vote needed in a Fair election
Why not Electoral College with votes given proportionally according to results?
In just a 24 yr span (1992-2016) the Presidency of the United States was given to FOUR candidates who failed to win a majority of the popular vote, nationally: (Not just Bush43 & Trump, but ALSO Bill Clinton, in BOTH of his elections).
...Bill Clinton's Presidency could help make the case for having ranked choice voting, in elections, nationally.
They need to abolish mail in voting. Never do that again!
Have you no wisdom to offer?
@@timothys9288 Thank you. I Didn't want to have to go down that rabbit hole.
Get rid of it. The popular vote is the true vote of the people.
The EC is preventing from only 4 states having a say in the elections. Keep the EC.
You really don't understand math, do you?
@@sedonaz you don’t understand how massive the population is in our Country’s four largest Cities is, do you?
@@colmfarrell5686 Since 1962, france has elected their president through a popular vote, and is doing just fine. We on the other hand have just had a mob storm our capitol building. Popular presidential elections and mass civil unrest are not correlated.
Without the EC states would have NO say just, you know, PEOPLE.
@@baldurofwrath France is alot smaller than the United States and the United Stated has a much more diverse Economical setup amongst the different states. What is good for Northern France and Southern France is likely very similar but the same cannot be said for the US west coast and say Oklahoma. Trying to compare the two Countries in that manner does nothing for your argument
Unpopular opinion: just because the country is democratic doesn't mean it's better. Slavery was Democratic on the south because a majority of people thought it was okay
Does Democratic = Fair??
Because a country is democratic most people in theory should perceive it being better. I would argue that’s always more important than any individuals perception of what’s better. In an actual democratic country, most people more than likely would perceive slavery to be bad. If the us was actually democratic in the 1800s slavery would have been abolished through the democratic process
@@MOME914 the US was democratic and that's why slavery existed. Southerners wanted it and refused to join as a country if it was outlawed.
You don't need, people capable of voting directly its time for direct democracy. Its not 18th century any more.
CBS really asking do we need the United States of America?
That’s not... what they are asking
Learn to read.
Very true. As one 1960's radical once said, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."
@@HazyTown01 Learn to think for yourself.
If you don’t understand why the electoral college is IMPORTANT then you are either choosing to be willfully ignorant, or you need to go get a refund on that public education 5th grade social studies class.
This ENTIRE governmental system is based on the checks and balances of three forms of government.
The constitution is represented by the - Supreme Court, whose members are not elected but nominated by the president and approved by the senate.
- The legislature represents the people and are elected by the popular vote.
- The President represents the nation and is elected by the states.
It is a balanced system of government. If you did away with the electoral collage, you do away with checks and balances.
Nope, learn how to spell. Checks and balances are for each branch of government
As a proud black man, I say we keep the electoral college.
can i ask why? why do you think not everybody's votes should be equal?
@@michaeldudley3756 Because we are a diverse nation. It's best for everyone to be represented in order to avoid rebellion.
You guys should listen to what he says because he's totally a black guy, genuinely.
@@FD-nz7qv wait what? Im asking why isnt my individual vote in oklahoma worth the same as random persons vote in cali. Thats how it works now. My vote is literally worth less
As a proud alien from outer space I say we get rid of the electoral college.
Yes.
Ya know, this is actually really well done
My favorite video about the Electoral College is still this one by CGP Grey: ruclips.net/video/7wC42HgLA4k/видео.html
@@timothys9288 sorry balanced reporting triggers you Buddy
They want no filibuster, & no electoral college. Just say they want no constitution 🤣
The filibuster has zero to do with the Constitution. Zero. Not in it.
@@zacharyminton73 the electoral college does though. The filibuster is just currently blocking their attempts to continue chipping away at the constitution we currently have
@@dailybreaddaily7300 You do know the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be amended over time to match a changing world and that it has been amended 27 times already right?
@@venividivici8672 yes, amended to provide more freedoms to a progressing world. Not to strip the freedoms given originally or to alter the balance of power for one party as is being attempted here to revoke the electoral college
@@dailybreaddaily7300 Kid I'm in my 50's. I have an MS in Applied Economics and I have read Federalist 68. I live in the most densely populated, culturally and ethnically diverse places in the world let alone the United States. There are progressives, liberals, conservatives and far-right extremist that storm capitol buildings living in my state. Right now, under the current electoral college system those conservatives may as well not even vote because our state is solid blue. So you see I am in favor of amending the constitution to, as you put it, "provide more freedoms!" As for your nonsense about striping freedoms away, why do you think that you deserve a greater say than other citizens in the country when electing a president? Are they any less American citizens than you are? Is your culture any greater than the various cultures that exist in the rest of the country? I don't think so! I think every citizen should have an equal say in electing the president and that we should encourage people to vote not discourage them with an electoral college system. Personally, I believe the Senate is in need of reform as well! The combined population of 15 states - Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina - is around 38 million people. These citizens are represented in the US Senate by 30 Republican senators, even though their combined population is less than that of California which has just two Democratic senators. I think it is safe to say the Founding Fathers would do more than just raise an eyebrow over such imbalance!
The EC needs to be reformed, but it is not an "unfair" process and should not be abolished. Popular vote risks electing a president via mob rule. The most populated states would elect the president every single time, and that is not fair. We have a bigger problem in our primary elections.
Finally someone with common sense. I don’t see why we can’t find a middle ground here. People either think we have to keep it as is, or get rid of it entirely. I totally agree with you.
The answer is yes we still need it.
Each state has a number of EC votes like California (for example) has 55 meaning that people of California elected 55 electoral college members who elect the president. But what if those 55 EC votes are just that 55 votes no people and it would be the Governors job to affirm that "this presidential candidate and not the other one" has won the Californian presidential elections or is this to simple for the USA
Would depend on the governors political affiliation. How fair would that be?
Next make a documentary about expanding our two-party political system 😊
If you are against the electoral college I assume you like how the house is run and not the senate. You hate the fact that Kansas has as much power as California.
That's the thing though, why is the state voting, and not YOU? There are tons of people in California (maybe not most of them) who vote the same as the majority in Kansas, in essence, adding to Kansas' majority cause. What you're saying is, the 10 people in Kansas are more important than the millions in California? 🤔 Don't think so.
The president presides over all of us. How is it fair that MOST people vote for "A" but end up letting the state decide to elect "B?"
@@StikyIckie what it is saying is that that are different issues that face those states and the people in them. And the electoral college allows Kansas to be just as important as California. And it’s not like California doesn’t carry more weight then Kansas.
@@chiefsfan1533 you are wrong voters in Kansas vote has a lot more power compared to California
@@painalmighty1017 look at the electoral count
Bc of electoral college Republicans have a chance
Facts without that they will never win🤣🤣🤣🤣
Republicans have won the popular vote .
Come to my hometown of Springfield, we actually have the homes he lived in.
No. The reason is archaic.
At 16:33, never knew that factoid.
No and let's throw away the Constitution while we're at it.
Make it GO AWAY!
I want my vote to count.
No we don’t need the electoral college.
Answer: Yes
Yes, we still need the electorial college. Otherwise NY and CA would control the elections.
Northern California is mostly Republican. That's why they want to split in two. The state of Jefferson. San Francisco and L.A. is the problem
Texas is the problem.
@@mrmojorisin6951 Well its not a problem. Thank God for Texas.
We never NEEDED it.
This country would not exist if the EC had not been negotiated amongst the states being admitted to the union. Our government is NOT a Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic. There is a big difference. The EC protects the Union from Democratic rule and preserves the power first and foremost with the states. In a Republic, which preserves state’s rights there must be a voice preserved for the states. If you live in California, you’re likely OK with changing to exclusive popular vote. However, the less populous states would never have a voice up against the more populated states. Rakove is corrrct. Cut the founders some slack. There was nothing racist about the EC - moreover a negotiated solution for population imbalance. It is imperfect, but if we simply went to popular vote model, I believe it would lead to secession of smaller states in short order. If a state loses its voice, what motivation is there for that state to remain in the union? It’s just not a simple fix and it’s worked pretty well for 250 years.
Both sides of the argument have merit. Probably a new mathematical formula combining both factors of popular vote and electoral vote. Then just do away with the “college of electors” whom can’t be trusted. More important is to have better more qualified candidates on both sides. Someone like Trump wasn’t qualified to run in the first place.
Who determines who is qualified to run? Slippery slope.
They should have only one electoral vote per state they should have only one representative per state they should have only one senator per state
Problem is that then the votes wouldn't be representative of the population that lives in that state. While states are the ones voting, a state needs to be given weight according to the amount of the population that it houses, since its needs will be larger than that of a state with a smaller population.
The states with places like New York City Chicago
The big city issues or not representative are the rest of the country
@@user-rv2zu1vb2c Completely agreed, and that's why we don't use a popular vote, otherwise winning 4-5 states would win you the whole election. The reason some states have more electoral votes though is because they have so many people, their voices need to be a little bit louder without being overwhelmingly loud, since anything that happens to them will affect a large portion of our overall population
@@samuelmerkel2888 even on the state level cities have too much power
Viry good.
No
Four words.. DOMINION, HAMMER SMARTMATIC, SCORECARD
Three words: THE BIG LIE!
The Big Lie!! Only dumb people would believe it, like the Trump's female lawyer stated as she is being investigated.
If we used the popular vote, the president would be elected by California, Texas, Florida, or Ohio as they are the largest states by population.
You assume everyone in those states would vote the same!
@Terry Bowers yep...totally agree...totally...
@Terry Bowers I'm for the electoral college if the electors vote for the state popular vote...the question is how many votes per state...is Rhode island "equal" to Texas...dunno..
Electoral college is bad. Change my mind (i dislike crowder just so you know)
Because then the people in big cities and rural areas (120 Million) can be outvoted by those living in urban areas (180 Million).
@@erictrott6553 yes. There are more people in urban areas. So what? Should we make an undemocratic system so that the 30 percent (I believe that's how many suburban people there are) should get more power than just there votes? No I disagree.
@@erictrott6553 actually 82% of people live in urban areas. I just looked it up
@@stretchscreamers The system that we use now allows the people of Poso Park (population: 3) to have as much impact as the people in Los Angeles (4MIL).
If you change the system to a "popularity contest," who cares about the people of Poso Park? No one.
@@erictrott6553 Because 3 people live there
Im happy to see this discussion. This nation is very different from when it was founded. We adapt the constitution, this is definitely something to consider.
no. it's a power grab and the path to tyranny by stripping more people of a voice.
@@Sircool1 How is this stripping people of a voice? If anything the ec strips the majority of voters voices as it is. Keep in mind out of the past 8 elections the republicans have only won the popular vote once in 2004, yet we’ve had two republican presidents. This system is extremely flawed and doesn’t represent what the people want
@@raymond6646 yes, we should only let new york and la have a say in elections. You live anywhere else, like in some counties already (mainly the ones wanting to go off and join another state) you'll never be represented again. but hey, the ticker got to 51% so system good.
@@Sircool1 The elections shouldn’t be decided by a few people who live in a desolate county
@@raymond6646 I agree, minorities shouldn't have a say at all. They should be stepped on by the majority, constantly, with no context or morals needed to back it. Needs of the many outweight the few, and should the many demand the few be slaves then by golly they should.
10:45 I agree with what Tara has to say.
This is scary....
That was a terrible video. Nobody explained the historical purpose of the electoral college.
Seems the Republic will be shook.
Now's your chance to make up for your perceived shortfall - have at it..!
Not news. Just a bunch of opinions
Get rid of it!
We absolutely need it. Because it keeps things fair