This is why we still have the Electoral College
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- The Electoral College is the system by which Americans elect their president every four years. When American voters go to the polls for a presidential election, they are actually voting for a slate of electors who have pledged to support a specific candidate. These electors cast their own votes, and the winner is elected to the presidency.
Two hundred years ago, the Framers incorporated the Electoral College into the United States Constitution, and to this day it remains one of the most controversial aspects of that document. But despite numerous attempts to reform or even abolish it, the Electoral College remains the mechanism by which Americans choose their president every four years. So why is it still around?
Alex Keyssar, Matthew W. Stirling, Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, explores this subject in his latest book, "Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College?" The answer is not as straight forward as one might think, and in this video Professor Keyssar discusses the myriad reasons that we still follow with what he calls, "a process that does not conform to democratic principles the nation has publicly championed."
Behind the Book is a collaboration between the Office of Communications and Public Affairs and Library and Knowledge Services at Harvard Kennedy School. You can find past episodes of the series here: • Behind the Book
For more about Harvard Kennedy School, visit hks.harvard.edu.
Facebook: harvardkennedyschool/
Twitter: Kennedy_School
Linkedin: linkedin.com/school/harvard-kennedy-school-of-government/
Instagram: harvardkennedyschool
----------------------
About Harvard Kennedy School:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University is a graduate and professional school that brings together students, scholars, and practitioners who combine thought and action to make the world a better place.
Our mission is to improve public policy and public leadership across the United States and around the world so that people can lead safer, freer, and more prosperous lives. Harvard Kennedy School teaches current and future leaders the skills they need to effectively advance the public purpose in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Our renowned faculty and trailblazing research centers pioneer bold new ideas. And as the most international school at Harvard, we convene global leaders in the Forum, host visiting experts in the classroom, and attract a diverse community of faculty, students, and staff.
The problem is not the allocation of votes based on the size of states population. That in itself is very common throughout the world. The issue is why does winning by a margin of 1% for say Texas, means winning all of the 38 electoral college votes. So the 49% of voters in Texas gets no representation and the 51% gets full representation.
Would this not be the same thing as a popular vote for the nation? 51% being able to tell the other 49% how things should go? As a nation, this is a larger issue. People tend to think based on their group and surroundings. This means that large cities (approx 7-8 of them) would make the rules for the rest of the entire country. The electoral college allows us to give the little guys in ND and SD and AK all the same say as huge swarms of people in CA and NY. TLDR: it cuts down on the potential for mass hysteria
@@linusavogadro1421. it's wouldn't be like the 51% party having full and uncontrolled power. That's why you have the house and senate congress. With the senate dominated by GOP because each state can nominate 2 senators regardless of the size of population. This exactly addresses your concern. 2. Philosophically, of course the party that has more support should have a greater say how the country is run. That's how democracy should work. Majority rules. We should all vote based on policy not ideology. The American notion of red vs blue, GOP vs Dem, us vs them is very unusual. In most countries people vote for whichever party has the best policies to bring the country forward, not on perceived ideology attached to a party. So if the party that had the best policies and is rightly supported by winning the majority of the popular vote not win the government, how will they implement those policies?
@@mutopz not uncontrolled power. My point was that if it goes off majority, only the major cities would have any legitimate say in the polls. The issue comes from how ideas are spread. 'Crime and Punishment' is an amazing example of this. It's not a "what-if" it's more of a "thats-why" A nation should give equal weight to the parties involved. Majority rules would be fine if all the states had the same laws and customs but this isn't the case. In the same way that I don't have a say in how africa should do things, Seattle should not have a large say in how the state of Florida should implement healthcare. Two different places, two different types of people. People are not ideal, so they system can't be treated like they are.
@@linusavogadro142 yes I know exactly what you are saying, but surely you see how this creates division and disunity in America, which is the issue here. I don't live there so I can't see the reason why you would have a system that creates more division
@@mutopz it seems logical that more division would come from assigning everyone a 1 or 0. Less division happens because you vote as an entire state instead of a single person. I've never seen the president, he operates on a mainly state basis. It makes more sense for the state to elect, not individual persons.
Is the "winner gets all" not the most critical problem? What would be the problem of allocating electors proportionally to the votes at a particular state?
The designation of electors is decided at the state level. Most choose the "winner take all" method, but that isn't actually inherent to the electoral college system as a whole. IMO, the ideal option would be a microcosm of the electoral college itself -- each state designating two of its electors based on the state's popular vote, and a single elector by district (to be determined by the outcome of the vote in that district). A couple of states already do it it this way, and there's nothing keeping the rest of them from doing it this way, as well, other than the states themselves.
Yes, it is and here is my non-partisan solution that does not subvert the Constitution nor require Constitutional Amendment:
ruclips.net/video/xE5vcuaqO90/видео.html
Well, a state with 14 electors where a candidate wins 51% of the vote would allocate 7 votes to each, so you’d have to win absolute landslides to get any actual votes.
Republicans would lose. Republicans cannot win in a democracy because they offer nothing more than trickle down promises, deception and treachery, none of which are big voter incentives.
The problem with that is that a self-perpetuating gerrymander of the Congressional districts can be used to create an overwhelming electoral vote majority that contradicts the will of the people of that state, almost as badly as the winner take all system, but often in the other direction. The two states that have this electoral vote allocation have no more than four districts, but in a larger state the districts can be gerrymandered much more creatively.
In fact, after the 2008 or 2016 election, some Republican leaders suggested that Republican controlled legislatures in states that consistently vote Democratic in Presidential elections (i.e. those with minority-gerrymandered legislatures) should go to the Congressional district plan to get more Republican electors, while those in states that consistently vote Republican should keep the winner take all system, to avoid choosing ANY Democratic electors. They computed that had such a plan been in effect during the just completed election (i.e. a year earlier), the Republican would have won.
I would much prefer a winner take most, others take proportionally less system in each state. This would allow third parties to grow in influence according to their merits, rather than being locked out, especially when combined with ranked voting (instant runoff) in each state.
We still have the EC because abolishing it would require consent of states that benefit from the disproportionate power that in confers.
Not true. Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont and Hawaii have already joined the Nation Popular Vote Compact in an effort to subvert the Electoral College.
The president isn't the problem it's congress without terms
Preach!
Congress has the true power.
True, but we can, as evidenced, elect bad Presidents, as well.
@@Leonard_Wolf_2056Just as it should be.
Then the real problem is the voters because they can impose term limits whenever they want by a simple majority
he problem is Progressives.
There is absolutely no incentive for small states to participate in the union without an electoral college. The union would split up.
I understood that the senate protected small states' rights - 2 senate votes per state regardless of population. This prevents small states being overwhelmed by legislation passed by a popular majority in the other house. No reason why the electoral college is needed as well for selection of the president.
@@euanthomas3423 - give it up. Read your history
right now there is no incentive for minority-party voters in any state of any size.
Lmao, if Wyoming, Mississippi, Missouri and Alabama think they can run the show without financial support from wealth Democratic states, best of luck.
@@extremegrieferbible - sure they could. Federal aid is crack dependency and they’d be better off without it in the long run. That’s the democrats playbook - government largess = dependency and then they have complete authority over policy. That’s how they’ve kept the inner cities voting democrat for decades. The founders put the electoral college in for a reason - they wouldn’t have a union if large population centers completely dominated policy. They wanted smaller states - who have completely different needs, to have more of an equal say in federal policy.
You’re never going to get 3/4 of states to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college. It’s a waste of oxygen.
It gives certain states and voters disproportionate power, just as an equal Senate does. That allows politicians from those states to extract benefits from the federal government.
What is interesting, or perhaps ironic, is that the states the benefit from the most from government transfers are states that largely elect GOP Senators who want to do away with most government transfers -- except their own!
You're mistaking effect for cause. Change state boundaries to make them more equitable. Didn't think of that, did you?
That’s the story of government in general for better or worse. Some people extract more and some people give more. That’s how government is supposed to work.
@@johnryskamp2943 Does equitable mean breaking the populous states like California, Texas, New York, Florida into more states giving the people in those places more Senate seats and electoral college votes? And grouping the less populous states into larger states reducing their Senate seats and electoral college votes?
If we elected on national population plurality instead of what is supposed to be plurality by individual state populations, then the most populous states would determine the political course for the next however long it takes to abolish it which would infact desinfranchise a good portion of Americans. South west California has little knowledge and even less care about the difficulties of living in Maine. I might argue for electoral college reforms or rebalancing, not abolition. We need to fix how we do things rather than just dropping one thing and moving to an alternative. Just like gas-powered vehicles, do I deny their environmental impact? No, even living in the country, I do not, but dropping something and moving to an alternative at the drop of a hat just leads to further and potentially worse complications. I will not deny history, but we are the most populous democratic state in the world. No wonder we can look at other countries and see that, "If it's fine over there, that it should work here" without considering that we are the only country where it does work. I finish by stating that just because something should work in a certain way, doesn't mean it does or will.
The biggest issue is that the electoral votes does not relate to the population.
Why is an electoral vote in Alaska worth 240,000 votes & 675,000 in Arizona?
It is related to population. Amount of electors is total of the state’s representation in congress, Senate and House. Representation in the House is directly proportional to population but every state gets 2 senators which will skew the numbers in smaller states.
@@jamesandrews4853 If it stands in the way of one person, one vote, then it's anathema to our federalist style of democracy or any other style. Increasingly, I see states' rights advocacy as in opposition to democracy. Minority rule has nothing to do with equality. We rightly call it a dictatorship when we see it anywhere else in the world.
@@daveburrows9876I understand that states rights advocacy is largely just a political tool, but I find it sad that this is the case. I truly think that we could be better off if the diverse regions of the country had more autonomy, but generally the movement is just used to squeeze as much power out of the system as possible.
No matter the voting system, I think the biggest threat to democracy in the US is the extreme partisanship. We really need to rethink the constitution, but that would require an unattainable level of bipartisanship.
@@Biga101011 That was very well said. One of the things that has me concerned about our Democracy is the growing sentiment on the right that we are a federalism, not a democracy. Well, we are a federalist democracy as opposed to a Parliamentary one, but they're both democracies.
We do indeed need to rethink parts of the constitution. It's not some god's holy word or anything, and it needs to adapt to the changes in our society.
@jamesandrews4853: The EC wouldn’t be so distorted in terms of reflecting the distribution of the population, if the House expands the number of members in it.
The last time Congress voted to increase representation in the House was in 1911, after the 1910 census. They allocated 433 seats to the existing 46 states, with one seat each for AZ and NM, when they became states later in the decade.
In the 1920’s, more rural southern states didn’t want to lose their disproportionate representation to population to the rapidly increasing urban cities. For the first tim in U.S. history, Congress didn’t increase the membership in the House after a census. In 1929, they decided to freeze the size at 435 members.
The U.S. population in 1910 was 92.2 million. The population has grown by 238 million people over the last 113 years.
Increasing representation in the House will rebalance the EC votes to bring them in line to where people live.
Otherwise, the EC is an anti-democratic compromise to get slave states to ratify the Constitution that gets more anti- democratic as the population grows.
I would like my presidential vote to actually count, thank you
It does.
The Electoral College exists to protect State sovereignty, not citizen sovereignty. Citizen sovereignty is protected through different means via Federal and State constitutions.
This is why States decide how electoral votes are allocated. Some use winner takes all, some do something else. Either way, it is NOT determined by the general public and for good reason.
How is that not for good reason? Shouldn’t each citizen ought to be directly represented in choosing a leader over states, which may even be actively against parts of the public like in swing states for example? A democrat in a red state or Republican in a blue state is completely unrepresented if everyone around them will just vote against them, so votes should at least collectively count towards the leader because they are supposed to represent everyone in the country. It’s a genuinely broken system.
@zombies4evadude24 Because America is not a country it is a federation of countries
@@OrDuneStudios It is not, it is a single country broken down into states.
What’s the music ?
Happy New Year ! Thank You for this 🥨🔥💎🎩
The problem isn’t the electoral college, it’s our campaign finance laws, gerrymandering, and bad primary systems.
Did you watch the video? The Electoral College obviously is outdated, corrupt and detrimental to democracy-- on top of what you mention
Those things you listed existed primarily due to the electoral college.
The question is whether the states should pick the Cheif Executive as originally intended) or the will of the voters (how we think today.).
States have combined the two by individual state laws, but it is still possible (as we have seen twice recently) for the winner of the national popular vote to not become the President.
It's also those things, but the root of our political problems IS the electoral college. We can't allow minority rule if we want to self-identify as a democracy. One person, one vote has got to be the way forward. I don't understand how anyone can dispute that fact however complicated fixing it may be. The distribution of the senate (2 and only 2 senators from each state however large or small the population) is equally anathema to a democracy.
Will you stand up and fight the extreme gerrymandering in Maryland and California?
What the video failed to neglect in the creation of the Electoral College is the need to keep the 13 states as a unified nation against the potential threat of being divided into "spheres of influence" by the major powers...The UK 🇬🇧 France 🇫🇷 and Spain 🇪🇸. Most of the people who lived in the states saw themselves as citizens of their states (if their state was an individual country), instead of being a US citizen.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, the 3/5ths rule, USA slavery, and the *civil war*.
The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
*Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Those who go to war to defend slavers and preserve slavery are also considered terrorists.*
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C, plus the 3/5ths census rule, awards excessive national governmental and political 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". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that whiney, old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "We don't want to be ruled by the coasts!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing 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?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
Why are you lying?!?
@@rb032682 How am I lying?
Facts
He is correct: Under the Articles of CONFEDERATION (ratified 1781), the states kept INDIVIDUAL sovereignty and gave NO enforcement authority to the Confederation Congress. The system clearly did not work well and was replaced by the CONSTITUTION in 1788 which DIVIDED sovereignty in a Federal Republic and created three INDEPENDENT branches at the central level.
The Congress is DIRECTLY elected (Senate since 1913) by the citizens of the INDIVIDUAL states; The Executive is CHOSEN by the STATES through APPOINTED electors with each state's electors equal in number to the total Congressional representation of the state; The Judiciary is APPOINTED by the Executive with approval by the Senate.
States have individual sovereignty as to how their electors are appointed. Current inequities are the result of EVERY state being nearly homogenized into Extra-Constitutional PLURALITY WINNER-TAKE-ALL elections of PARTY-NOMINATED slates of Electors.
There is a non-partisan solution that does not subvert the Constitution nor require subversion of the Constitution:
ruclips.net/video/xE5vcuaqO90/видео.html
There will never be trust in a system as long as someone with fewer votes can still win.
We live in a federal system. The electrical college protects states' rights. We're used to it and that's how America will continue to operate.
@@r-uu2qiso what you're saying is a group of rural hillbillies can determine the fate of our nation, do you realize that counties that voted for Biden account for 75% of GDP but still we got to listen to these yahoos because of this damn electoral college, it has to f*cking go!!
@@r-uu2qiPffffttttttt! Fake electors! Fake electors! Fake electors! in 2020. Jeez.
Right on, Vlasko.
Yeah, but I don't want CA, NY, and IL electing the President everytime...it would always be a democRAt.
Is winner take all based on a majority of popular votes in each state, or a plurality of popular votes?
Plurality. That’s why it’s almost impossible for a third party to get any traction.
Just ask Nancy Polosi she would know she has been in office for hundreds of years.
Wow an old joke how funny everyone ages dickhead
@@TheMirmir225 learn to laugh, you’ll live longer.
or you could ask trump because he's got good genes. He will tell you. you blindly believe anything he says without any evidence.
Actually only like 12yrs.
Mitch McConnell? Lol
Please redirect all searches for the “PragerU” electoral college video here.
Yes!
There are two things that compromise the value of my vote whether it be for President or House and Senate representatives. The Electoral College has negated the value of my vote for President more than once. However, my vote for House and Senate representatives has been totally devalued by the GERRYMANDERING of voting districts in the state. It seems bizarre that I voted for a House representative whose district has been gerrymandered away from my residential area. My AREA has NOT voted for House rep twice due to the gerrymandering of the area and the moving of these people who are supposed to represent me being geographically moved from one district to another. It is in this way that the MINORITY THEN REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT CONSENT OF THEIR VOTES. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY!
Voting is not about you in the sense that your vote is somehow special. Why are you complaining about your vote ‘not counting’? Unless you are saying that you voted, and your vote was then tossed aside, you have no argument.
Perhaps a proportional representation system, instead of WTA at the district level, would be better.
@@stoneymcneal2458
The typical example of someone who thinks gerrymandering has eliminated his vote is when a redistricting puts him in a district where that majority is not like-minded. (A Republican now in a 70% democrat district)
@@SonnyBubba I interpreted @sachsrw’s complaints to be more about that continued use of the Electoral College. My apologies for I am unclear as to the clarification you are making.
Right on. These are the same things that compromise our so-called democracy.
The American people should have say in who will be the president. The way it is with the electoral college, the people have no say on who their president is. Popular vote no debate, no arguing.
Abraham Lincoln in 1860 is,the only candidate to poll a majority of the Eloctoral College and get less than 40% of the popular vote.
Lincoln also got the plurality of the popular vote in 1860 because the opposition was split three ways and he got the largest total ballot. So he still would have won that election even if the electoral college didn't exist.
So if I'm a Republican living in California which is considered a safe Democrat state, why should I bother voting when I know my vote won't count?
Because things can change. If you were a Republican before 2016 in Michigan you'd have the same attitude but what was once a solid blue state was flipped to red. California was red thirty years ago, and it can flip back depending on who's running.
There are more than just the president and vice president running for office on your ballot.
Senate and Congress and local election. But this is why the electoral college is flawed
@@taylorisaiah3496 What in life is perfect? In today's bi-partisan environment could it be improved and get through Congress?
You're black and Californian how's your life makes any sense?
this was a great breakdown! thank you so much!
It was totally flawed and one-sided, it was a joke.
Was there a time early in the country’s history when the people were voting for the electors, and not really knowing much about the actual candidates?
No, but throughout our nation's history there have been plenty of people voting for electors, not knowing they were not voting for the candidates.
I don’t understand how it is that the video didn’t mention that to change the electoral college, an amendment would have to pass and be ratified, which is not something that would likely occur.
Mostly because it is propaganda. The EC slowed the development of parties, who, yes, have since illegally wielded it. But the idea that it cause parties is historically ignorant. That it was a mechanism of slavery is also insane. Abolitionists tended to speak highly of the process throughout the 18th century as it protected the free states.
I was never taught this in public school. From CA. This video changed me view of the electoral college.
*my
Yet more evidence of the decline in the quality of California public schools. I went to public school in the mountains of Appalachia and it was fault there.
@@Nl-nn3ds I disagree here. I was taught by really good history professor in Cali. Now I write about politics lol.
@@Nl-nn3dscan't even spell right how ironic !
If someone wins 40% of a state that has 10 electoral college votes they should get 4 votes, not 0. That would not defeat the intended purpose of the system as the votes would still be state based, rather than popular vote based.
All that's doing is breaking it down a little further into districts, which would be ripe for gerrymandering.
@@derekdammann6417 They already do something like this in Maine.
@@derekdammann6417 Not so, It is about popular vote in a state, there would be no districts.
You simply cannot gerrymander the number of votes for a state.
You 60% of the state votes, you get 60% of the electoral votes.
But that would kill the Republican party. They could never survive if deceit and treachery were no longer tolerated.
@@kosmokritikos9299 BOTH parties use deceit and treachery, not just one.
I understood growing up in Washington State that we didn't count for much. They announced Reagan won before our poles closed.
It's the way rich land owners can maintain rule over a large population.
? 🙄
So land owners are rich? Their vote counts for more than tenants? Tenants vote according to the wishes of landlords?
@kerriwilson7732 the land is voting, not the owners or the tenants. The land is what gets representation with the electoral college. Not people
poppycock
Surprised the author did not mention the EC value in terms of being an extension of a representative democracy and ensuring that all votes among all counties of all states “counted” vs national popular vote akin to “mob rule” where large urban concentrations of voters would carry political weight overshadowing the political interests (and power) of more rural and less densely populated areas of USA.
the US still has EC because it has STATES not like most small countries. it maintains the fairness over states after UNITING thus united states. states are like European countries and USA is more or less like EU. so imagine disregarding the vote of MALTA because its voting population is very low anyways and only favoring Germany and France since they have top pop
Richard is 100% right!
Popular vote is also easy to corrupt from the political machines running in the Democrat cities.
This is why Democrats don’t want voter ID so as to facilitate ballot harvesting.
Check this out for an example:
ruclips.net/video/geCJgAM4_xw/видео.html
I can understand that national popular vote would probably make urban votes more important over rural votes since candidates would often visit urban areas over rural areas. However, that doesn’t mean that urban voters vote in only one way. Urban votes generally tend to favor democratic party but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any Republican voters in urban area. Same could be said about rural votes. Rural voters usually favor Republican party but that also doesn’t mean that there aren’t any democrats in rural areas either. If Electoral College were to be fair, why does 1 electoral vote in Texas represents about 800,000 people while 1 electoral vote in Wyoming represents about 200,000 people? Texas has about 3 million rural population while Wyoming has about 400,000 rural population but somehow Wyoming rural votes are more important than Texas rural votes even though they are both rural votes but counted unequally just because they are in different state? If you are to say that it’s because people living in Wyoming have different value than people living in Texas, does living in a smaller state makes your value somehow superior than those living in a bigger state so much that their vote count 4 times more important?
@MajorLeague I think I understand your point that the candidate has to to win all parts of United States and Electoral College ensures that the candidate wins “all around” the United States not just certain parts of United States. I think you are right, after all it is United “States”.But I don’t think EC does a good job of that either. In 1976 election, Jimmy Carter won most of the east coast states plus Texas and got 290 electoral votes to secure his victory against Gerald Ford. The interesting thing about this map is that he didn’t win a single west coast states let alone the fact that he did not even win all of the eastern states. Doesn’t electoral college suppose to penalize those who only got support from certain part of the US?
@MajorLeague Also, you said that Wyoming can get 4 times more representation than Texas because Wyoming has 2 senators, just like any other states. I think that the system where one vote is counted 4 times more than other is just not fair. I think every vote should be counted the same and we should never put disadvantage or advantage whether it be big or small state.
For the same reason we have gerrymanders, the same reason we have the US Senate, and the US Supreme court and the same reason we had the 3/5 compromise--to give an outsized weight to a conservative, wealthy minority so as to slow down or prevent democratic change and a more egalitarian society. It it works, really well for those who are benefitting even as it kills all the rest of us.
That's the dumbest conclusion.Little communism speaking??
Sure. Exactly what Fox News has taught you. Egalitarianism equals communism. And you call me dumb?@@robertnielsen2461
Democracy does not have a good track record
Question: Now, how do we get rid of it?
why a serious subject is polluted by background music ? what is the value add ? do you put music in the classrooms in usa ?
The problem with the Electoral College isn't the Electoral College. The problem with the Elecotral College is the method by which 48 states allocate their Electoral College votes following the presidential results. 48 states allocate all their Electoral College votes by WTA, in which the winner of the states' results by popular vote, no matter how small or big, whether 30% or 70%, are delivered to the winner. Only 2 states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate their Electoral College votes closer to the in-state popular vote. The method used by Maine and Nebraska should be the standard by which true voting results are translated to Electoral College votes.
So would the Democratic candidate have won the 2016 presidential election if the electoral votes were awarded proportionally for every state?
@@RaymondHng Yes. And in 2000 as well. Imagine how different the world we live in would be if the criminal Republicans had been called out for their criminality decades ago.
@@RaymondHng There were also four other times in which the "winner" of the nation's popular vote lost.
Maine and Nebraska do not have proportional representation.
They allocate one elector to each congressional district and two to the statewide vote.
@@SonnyBubba Different rules for different states can't exist along side the idea that your vote counts exactly as much as mine does. That's the foundation to my thinking. We're one nation, so one person, one vote. State's rights be damned on issues of equality.
One question: why the "winner takes all" though?
Why not just count the blue (electoral) votes as blue, and red votes as red? This is the point where it's unfair, for me.
Kindly explain.
Edited: I understand how the EC is needed due to the "mob rule" concern, or the "otherwise 5 states would overwhelm the other 46" concern. I just don't understand the winner takes all thing.
We have individual state representation through the House of Representatives and the Senate already. Using proportional methods in the electoral college doesn’t fully make sense because it’s likely that candidates wouldn’t make it to 270 votes. You could argue then that we should lower the amount of electoral votes needed, but it doesn’t seem necessary when the electoral college in itself is already intended to check and balance the fairness of the system. Winner takes all system keeps politicians accountable and invigorates political change. We wouldn’t have swing states if we did proportional votes, and often swing states serve as the epicenter of political concerns for the entire country. I believe the winner takes all system prompts candidates to focus on the concerns of their bases in many different states.
That's what we do.
Great question, ilua, and, in making it, you've undone most of this videos narrative. Winner takes all didn't become common until after 1900. It was, in fact, the parties that pushed for this, and because the rest of the votes in the states were also winner takes all, it was familiar to the average voter. However, this was a ploy from party leadership to establish and domineer states as points of control. This very fact undoes the videos second point. The third point is undone in the mere fact that abolitionists (Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln included) also desired to keep the EC.
In conclusion, this video is historical nonsense, politically motivated by the DNC, and generally speaking, garbage.
@ilua as I see it the electoral college causes mob rule, look at the states that produces more in GDP to the states that doesn't and which of those states hold the rest of the country back from moving forward. California adds more than 3.05 trillion dollars to the GDP, or more than 14% to the economy. Now take the most conservative state in the country, Alabama, Alabama adds 1.1% to the GDP of the country. With a population of Alabama at 4.903 million people, compared to California's population 39.51 million people, my point is this more often than not the electoral college allows mob rule, and allows politicians to tailor their message to a small segment of the population, which in my opinion is the mob. I personally believe elections are about the numbers and who ever has the most votes should be the winner.
@@bananasarecool123 "I believe the winner takes all system prompts candidates to focus on the concerns of their bases in many different states." Isn't that what we have now, just not out in the open, if we had popular vote, I personally think we would get candidates that speak to the country as a whole, instead of the slice and dice messages we get now.
PLEASE I NEED TO GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT, WHEN THEY SAY WINNER GETS ALL ..... is it the winner of the votes of the electoral college of each state that takes all the electoral votes of the state or the winner of the popular votes...cause the electoral college van vote for someone different from the popular vote...I don't get
They ‘can’ but the 99% of the time do not. Just because someone has the option to do something doesn’t mean they will do it.
There is no electoral college vote in each state. Think of them as points. If you win the popular vote in a state you get that state's points.
Each state’s voters choose their state’s slate of electors.
The slate with the most votes wins and gets to vote for the president.
If you live in an area heavily favoring the other party, your vote does not matter. That's messed up...
I really tried to get through this video but the incredibly distracting background noise drove me away.
same
We are not a democracy, but a representative republic. If you really want to change it, you need to amend the constitution through the constitutional process.
*democratic republic
One thing that would fix the Electoral College is to end the cap on the members of the House of Representatives. If we could have a Congress that better represents the population, the Electoral College would too. Those of you claim the Electoral College is not representative or direct, just look at countries with a parliamentary system like the UK or Canada, We're the chief executive is elected by parliament instead of the people. That is less direct.
There is a context that doesn't get much notice: the democratic process was anathema to the people who theretofore had always simply ruled by fiat. These are the people - an element in every society in recorded history - whose power democracy is meant to curtail and control, to the betterment of society rather than the privileged few.
In the democracies, the interests of those people are represented by what we politely call "conservative" parties. This is why, universally in the democracies, these parties are consistently anti-democratic. There no mystery to this. That element of society doesn't disappear just because of their location on the globe.
US history is a perfect example. There is no period in the history of Americans fighting for their rights under our Constitution, where the so-called "conservatives" of the time did not stand in steadfast and often violent opposition, including ending the Transatlantic slave trade, ending slavery, treating freed slaves with decency and fairness, ending child labor, the rights of working people, the vote for women, Native rights, European fascism in the 1930s, civil rights for ANYONE ELSE since 1950s, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The electoral college was consciously designed to promote and preserve the interests of the slaveholding class. The idea of "states' rights" was a fiction that equated the interests of the slavers with the interests of the people of the state as a whole. The argument today that the electoral college somehow helps protect "states' rights" is equally nonsensical - a state does not represents a single monolithic set of interests. "States' rights" is a meaningless trope.
So, of course the so-called "conservatives" of today oppose abandoning the electoral college for the popular vote: they know they can't "win" national elections any other way. Even then they've had to use voter suppression tactics to eke out narrow "wins" in contested states.
"Conservative" is just today's polite word for the authoritarian and undemocratic element of society.
That is simply false. Leftist parties throughout history have murdered people by the hundreds of millions. That is not something that happens in free and democratic societies. It happens in societies governed by the far left. 200 million killed in the last 100 years. Nothing comes close to that level of barbarity, not even Hitler.
What so many people fail to understand or recognize is that the United States is just that, a federation of nominally sovereign states. It is the states that choose the chief executive of the federal government, not the people. If fact, for many years the legislatures of some states chose that state's electors and no popular vote was even held. Such are the details that made the Union of the states possible in the first place. Apparently the scholars at Harvard are no better informed about the basics of American history and civics than is the general population, or else they are willing to let their politics trump their academic integrity.
Correct. What the professors at Harvard and elsewhere seem to keep remembering is that the electorate sees itself in a different system with those annoying 21st century ideas about enfranchisement, and they keep highlighting the anachronisms.
How does this look like equality to you? Are you so intent on minority rule that you're willing to dismiss the idea of equality for all? One person, one vote. Anything that interferes with equality is anathema to this federal style of democracy of ours.
Note the music...this has holes galore.
It’s the electoral map that really determines elections. How areas are mapped in each state.
Not where president is concerned - per state a president is elected by popular vote, and districting will not alter a popular vote result
Bert, we're talking about the electoral college which comes into play for presidential elections. Gerrymandered districts don't enter the equation. It's the idea that states can set their own rules for how a national election is held that shows a lot of us what's wrong with this picture. One person, one vote. Whether federalist or parliamentary, that's a necessary part of how any democracy is defined. How is it you can't be bothered to crave that equality, as though spouting misinformation presented as fact supports your position? Keep it simple. Be American. Demand voter equality.
I know this was recorded years ago, but, if they had left out the very annoying "music" this would have been more understandable. Very poor consideration of hearing impaired. I know, turn on the CC, I challenge every one turn of the volume and just turn on the CC
It seems from the video that Professor Keyssar ignores the primary reason for design and continued existence of the Electoral College. It’s the same reason we have two Senators from each state, regardless of their population. The framers wanted to prevent a tyranny of the majority. A POTUS elected by a majority of the popular vote would be able to ignore the interests of large swathes of the country. Policy would favor the east and west coasts, to the detriment of everyone in “flyover country”. The federal government would mistreat rural areas much as the State of California ignores the interests of its rural areas.
Thank you! One other person here gets it. Apparently, no one else in this comments section understands this. But, I would add, that in this day and age, it also keeps the corruption in one state like California, from impacting too much the entire election. No wonder the left hates the electoral college.
You are correct...!!!!! (We in Canada do not have this wise American process for electing our Prime Minister nor for that matter an elected Senate to truly represent our smaller provinces fairly!)
Pure democracy is like 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting for what's for dinner.
I usually like to provide my own argument but I think in this case CGP grey explained the counter argument best: ruclips.net/video/G3wLQz-LgrM/видео.htmlsi=nkFHp2GQ5QO-GtZI
Except you elected trump who lost the popular vote, the tyranny of the minority
The system is flawed and favors states that don't pay their own way
If you want a country with a common treasury and common currency you must recycle the surpluses from those states to the deficit states. The EU is a prime example of what not to do. Southern EU nations perpetually in deficit scrapping with Northern EU states over loans and austerity.
The system worked perfectly well and needs to be destroyed
We are one nation. One person, one vote. Anything or anyone who ignores that ignores our foundation and that includes states' rights advocacy. End of discussion from my perspective.
@@daveburrows9876So you believe the Electoral College disenfranchises citizens?
The system favors highly urbanized territories voting for a liberal candidate. If any one nation had a larger population than the rest, their college vote would be infinitely worth the rest of the federation
Evidently it is impossible to explain or understand why we have an electoral college.
Why were so many Electoral College videos made at this time?
I’m all for popular vote once we get rid of the FPTP system. Ranked choice or score voting is much more democratic.
The popular vote will only pay her cities and states with the highest population density you have the few states with the largest population dictating how the rest of the country would work work....
The country with fracture in a very short amount of time
@@GuiltyFaT Ranked choice popular voting is much different and effective than FPTP system. It allows a semi-multi party system to be put in place without upsetting the nation by putting a leader in with only 40% of the vote. It allows people to vote for other parties and this would actually heal the increased polarization in our nation by allowing a wider consideration for third parties
@@itz_hunted3788
Actually you can do a multi-party right now during the Electoral College.
The problem with removing electoral college is due to the fact that since you have a major population in balance in this country and they're all inside certain political Affiliated areas you would have a major upset in balance that would break everything in the shortest amount of time.
There's already multiple parties in the country red blue green independent and you can even bring in new parties as well but the problem is nobody wants or even supports though the green party has pretty much no supporters so many times they try to actually latch onto the Democratic Party
@@itz_hunted3788
As well sadly add on to the fact that a lot of people do not vote based on policy or even idea of based on political affiliation with party inherently makes removing Electoral College been even more broken system is not only we have one political affiliation in charge of only small number of areas but because of their population density will have the highest number of political votes you have people in those same areas not knowing what they're going for other than "vote blue no matter who".
@@GuiltyFaT You absolutely cannot encourage a multi party FPTP electoral system at any time. It is impossible for any other parties to receive any votes and we will still tread the path of two-party dictatorship. Again, people in big cities really do not control as much of the political scene as you think. In Cali, many republicans simply did not vote, but with ranked choice voting, libertarians can be given such a large portion of the vote that Republicans would likely fall out of popularity and would have to start really holding true to ideals. The large population centers would create more votes for third parties which would further decrease political polarization and further boost third party popularity. I mean, you could keep the college, but at that point it would actually do more harm than good, as states would become more diverse and instead of having 5-10 swing states each party might only have to focus on 1-2 each. So popular vote at that point would heal the nation so much.
Because it's still the best way to have a representational republic and avoid some of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority.
Except you elected trump even though he lost the popular vote, so the tyranny of the minority
What!! Democray is now a tyrany?
The first election in which every state had a popular vote for President was 1868.
Confederate states did not participate in the 1864 Union election.
In 1832 South Carolina was the only state to not have a popular vote for President. It retained that status until 1860.
It is so simple, so the majority do not over power the minority. Itsbthe reason we have a House and a Senate. Small states and states with smaller populations do nit get forgotten and dismissed.
One argument I hear supporting the EC is to prevent so called "Mob Rule" that the popular vote would cause. However, if that were the case, then how come we do not implement an EC system at the City, County, and State levels of voting? Or is this another double standard of sorts where it would only Mob Rule for POTUS but not for Mayors, Counsel Members, and Governors? My thinking is if they keep the EC, then at least do away with "winner take all".
The electoral college was designed to select the executive of a Federal union. Cities, Counties and States are not a Federal union so it doesn't make sense to elect a mayor or a governor that way.
It might be better to elect the electors by congressional district. This may even go a ways toward restoring faith in the Presidential elections. If one district in Philadelphia started manufacturing votes, it would only affect the election of that elector not the entire state's slate of electors.
the reason is simple. Cities and counties are not nearly as geographically or economically diverse as the entire country. Laws to help traffic and road conditions in Minneapolis would not have much value in Florida. Laws to help forest management in Maine or Oregon would be of no use in Arizona. Federal laws and federal government MUST take into account the entire country, not just the heavily populated areas.
Imagine if the vote was close and we had to recount the entire nation.
Any polling place in The USA could be corrupted.
Thank you! I’ve been saying this since 2000.
So yes, much better to have a system that is systemically undemocratic than risk having to put something in place that reduces the risk. Amazing how other countries manage to hold democratic elections. But - you know - American Exceptionalism.
@@steveknight878 the USA isn’t a democracy it’s a constitutional or federal republic. The Founders did this intentionally because democracies are so unstable.
There are over 120 countries that manage to elect a president by popular vote without having that problem. Most of those are heads of state rather than head of government but the principle remains the same. Examples - Ireland, Germany, Poland, Austria, South Korea, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Israel.
Lol, I love how you would rather have the one with fewer votes win, than have a nationwide recount to make sure the one with more votes won.
If you support the Electoral College why would you even care about having a nationwide recount? It's not like you care who won the most votes anyway.
It was an elitist move by the founding fathers who didn't trust "da peepul" (and initially thought the Senate should elect the president) - today amendments are hard to dump and the EC makes campaigns a whole lot easier, with candidates only having to concentrate on a handful of states!
@1Tomrider You got it backwards . The Popular vote would make it possible to win with just winning few large population centers. The EC makes it necessary to consider all the states
No, it's only necessary to consider the battleground states.@@christiansoldier77
You could make the same argument against the people who want the presidential elections changed from the electoral college and the "winner takes all" system, that a simple majority by popularity also disregards 49% of constituents in many elections. The focus of early American government foundations was the states and the representatives from those states. I constantly hear people complain about one institution or another, but those same people fail to understand the compromises that landed this system on those decisions and would be remis to go back on the compromises that were given on the issues they like and then reversed.
Its because it benefits republicans and it can’t be renovated without the consent of republicans
Kinda like how supreme court reform requires the consent of the supreme court to become less corrupt
It would have to be changed by the consent of the states, it is a constitutional matter.
@@raymondjensen4603You can’t ratify an amendment without the approval of 38 states. logistically speaking, it's nearly impossible with how many red states there are
I was sent to war in Iraq to be part of untold horrors... all because of the electoral college. I won't forget.
You are full of S&*T... You went to Iraq because you signed your name on the dotted line.... period. The EC had nothing to do with it.
Not to mention , you volunteered. There’s no draft. Thank you for you service, honorable but it doesn’t mean you’re particularly bright.
When were you drafted. No one sent you. You sent yourself
Change the Electoral Collage into a state committee headed by the top officials of each state (like secretary of state of Georgia for example) who´s only function is to verify witch presidential candidate won the majority of votes in each state therefore won that state.
And then what? Continue to award an amount of electoral votes as we presently do? How is that an improvement?
Under the Articles of CONFEDERATION (ratified 1781), the states kept INDIVIDUAL sovereignty and gave NO enforcement authority to the Confederation Congress. The system clearly did not work well and was replaced by the CONSTITUTION in 1788 which DIVIDED sovereignty in a Federal Republic and created three INDEPENDENT branches at the central level.
The Congress is DIRECTLY elected (Senate since 1913) by the citizens of the INDIVIDUAL states; The Executive is CHOSEN by the STATES through APPOINTED electors with each state's electors equal in number to the total Congressional representation of the state; The Judiciary is APPOINTED by the Executive with approval by the Senate.
States have individual sovereignty as to how their electors are appointed. Current inequities are the result of EVERY state being nearly homogenized into Extra-Constitutional PLURALITY WINNER-TAKE-ALL elections of PARTY-NOMINATED slates of Electors.
There is a non-partisan solution that does not subvert the Constitution nor require subversion of the Constitution:
ruclips.net/video/xE5vcuaqO90/видео.html
A democracy is the Big Bad Wolf, Wiley E Coyote, and the Easter Bunny voting on who will be dinner. That's why we have an Electoral College.
17th amendment. Good boy admitting that you hate America.
Majority comments are pro-republic, pro-electoral college. How is that for democracy 😁
??
So instead we just let the Big Bad Wolf have its vote count for more than all three of the little piggies.
I wish I had seen this when it came out. It’s so frustrating how people do not understand the electoral college. It’s doing precisely what the founders meant - so that large cities cannot become a tyrannical majority, and protect the rights of the minority. It creates a situation where parties have to compromise….I agree to the points of having political parties, and that it would be better if they had not formed, but as Jefferson has always pointed out, you’ll never prevent people of like minds coalescing together. With that said, there is only one feature of the electoral college that is a severe problem. When it was created, populations of congressional districts were supposed to be of equal size. That has never been adhered to, and at one point early in the 20th century forever capped in the House. The idea was that people in rural states would have influence by two additional electoral votes being represented by their senators, and that’s how they could possibly overcome the difference in population gaps in larger states. Today it’s so lopsided, because you will have huge disparities in district size. If this was addressed, I believe people will feel better about the electoral college.
Pure poppycock. It works for those who oppose democracy. It does not work for the rest of us.
People such as the Harvard professor are mad at the electoral college because it has prevented democrats from winning.
As for the district size differences, that doesn’t affect the electoral college at all, because the number of districts each state gets is proportional to population.
At least as proportional as possible, given that no state can have a fraction of a district.
How does the EC stop a "tyrannical majority" of large cities? Today most Americans live in a large city or a suburb of one, which was not the case in 1789. If you add up the EVs of the 12 most populous states, all of which have populations dominated by large cities, that's a winning majority right there.
I have no idea how the EC creates a situation where parties have to compromise. Maybe if no party wins a majority of EVs in a three-way race and one party is able to get enough faithless electors to switch to backing them? I don't think that's ever happened in U.S. history and that's not even legal in many states.
How do you feel about quadrupling the size of the House, and using the Wyoming rule?
@@jamesfunk7614 i love that idea…fixes a lot of problems. People also don’t realize gerrymandering, which wasn’t as a sensitive topic as it is today, is only worsening because we haven’t addressed this.
More important now than slavery is the two parties being separated by ideology and being so geographically different. Whichever one would lose in a national popular vote will stop the change.
FWIU the electoral college as opposed to popular vote, from the FF's POV is also to avoid populism / despotism like Caesar
No. That's what it led to, it didn't become that way by design
Caesar took over with an army because people were pissed off at being abused by the elites
If you dont think it can happen here think again
People want to matter
As a non-American, I think the current system is very flawed. Either electoral college should be abandoned totally and popular vote should be accepted instead, or at least the state electors should vote proportionally and not with the "winner takes all" system. Without any of those reforms, current system is doomed to have clear and inherent legitimacy problems
No it makes it very hard for people that don’t live in big populated cities to get representation.
@@arodxmangames2778 lol, the people voted against the winning candidate in their state doesn't get represented under the current system. You think that's legitimate?
@@jesterdayplays771 it’s the popular vote! If the state is 40% dem votes and 60% rep. Votes then the 60% carries just like it would in the popular vote but as a ‘non-American’ you wouldn’t understand that.
@@sistergoldenhair0727 and as an American you don't see the inherent illegitimacy in that
FYI people, I know a bit of comparative constitutional and electoral law. As far as I've seen, nowhere else in the world, bullshit like that is seen acceptable
Majority rule (national popular vote) has historically been the fastest route to authoritarian rulers. I an surprised a historian wouldn't know that.
Schoolies are all about overthrow of the USA.
This argument doesn't make any fucking sense ever since Trump got elected thanks to the EC despite being clearly the most authoritarian candidate on the ballot LOL.
I hope you have lots of examples you can share with us.
The World Series is not won by scoring the most runs. The World Series is won by winning the most games.
9:50 None of us currently alive has 'another 200 years' of anything to look forward to ... everyone currently alive will be dead.
The reason we have an electoral college is because the interests of rural people matter as well.
well said 👍
But it’s not very democratic to have some people’s interests matter more than other’s isn’t it
What matters to the candidates are the swing states. Nobody gives a shit about Wyoming because they all know they're gonna vote Red no matter what lol.
@@carraway8084 The U.S. was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a constitutional republic. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." -Article 4, Section 4 U.S. Constitution.
The reason why we use the electoral college is for the time when you have 5 candidates running for president, and the most popular one get say 28% of the popular vote. The electoral college system ensures that the person, sitting in the Oval Office, was put there by a majority of votes (either by the electoral college, or Congress).
The only thing that I would change about the system is that if someone wins a majority (50%+1 vote) of the popular vote, then he/she should automatically be president, and not use the electoral college. To date, it's only happened once that someone won a majority of the popular vote, and lost the electoral college: 1876.
As the US Constitution allows states to determine delegates anyway they want, nothing is stopping states from applying Maine's, and Nebraska's system of assigning 2 delegates (1 for each senator) based on 1st place in the popular vote across the state, and 1 vote in each Congressional district that a candidate comes in 1st in.
But it’s almost unrealistic under current American politics. Yes there are parties like green party or libertarian party but none of them gets enough votes to even have a say in terms of electoral votes. The most successful 3rd party candidate I would say is Ross Perot who received about 20% of popular vote but received zero electoral vote because he didn’t win any states. Also you mentioned that “when you have 5 candidates running for president, and the most popular vote one get say 28% of the popular vote” . In 2016 presidential election there were officially 6 candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Darrell Castle, Evan McMullin, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton). 94 % of voters voted for two major party candidates and thats even when both of the candidates were widely unpopular. The idea that most popular candidate getting 28 percent of the vote is theoretically possible but simply unrealistic given that there are only 2 established major parties and most don’t vote for 3rd party candidate.
Exactly - only Boomers remember the great days of 5-6 different parties running and then - the government changed us into a 2-party Nation by forcing candidates to BUY AIRTIME (NEVER ALLOWED) and allowing CORPORATIONS TO BUY CANDIDATES! Remember it was ILLEGAL for Corporations to donate more than $5000. This prevented CORPORATOCRACIES - which we have evolved into as BILLIONS BUY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!
@MajorLeague In a manner of speaking, yes, I agree in principle, but the other parties existed, active, and were gaining members, back in the 60's as equal airtime was given - and given free of cost. No one was hindered in getting out their message and platform.
In an age of "reach" thru Television, & Radio, the other parties grew. That had to be quashed and so it was by changing campaign laws and allowing CORPORATIONS an increased donation total that the other parties faded.
Add the Special interest and lobbying "pays to play". Democracy is now only in word (in many respects) and we've become a CORPORATOCRACY, or one could argue, a Technocracy 😳 scary stuff!
This could have been done in a much better manner by simply doing a runoff.
@Maher - Why are you lying? In 2016, "We, the people" elected Mrs.Clinton to be prez by a margin of 3-million votes.
DJ Trump was GIVEN the presidency via the "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers) in the USA Constitution, the Electoral College.
In 2000, Al Gore was elected by "We, the people" to be prez, but GW Bush was GIVEN the presidency via the "terrorists' welfare benefit", the Electoral College.
Please stop lying and remove your head from QAnus!
We still have it because it’s in the Constitution. It isn’t easy to change. Some states benefit from it, so would be reluctant to support dropping it.
Well , we are not using "the pony express" ! We are using high speed internet . ( big difference)
I look forward to the day when you the United States become a true democracy. Here, in Australia, each vote has equal value no matter which state we live in. Voting is compulsory for all citizens. We also have a form of proportional representation that attempts to ensure that the composition of a parliament reflects the will of the voters. The USA is stuck with a moribund 18th century system.
I look forward to that too.
Compulsory voting is not freedom. As a free being I have a right NOT to participate as well. Compulsory voting is common in such states as N. Korea, Russia and Iran.
Also, the debate here is the popular vote vs. the Electoral college. No one in the US wants the chaos that parlimentary systems have. The US has a better system, and most Democrats and Republicans agree on that principle, no prime ministers or 'houses' of govement based on an outmoded class system.
Australia does have a good system. Every voter should only vote one political party in which should be Left Wing, Labor Party/Australian Democrats, Democratic Parties.
So if you don’t vote you go to jail. No thanks
@@Kopernicus67it’s because Australia wants all its citizens to have a voice in government. All you have to do is show up at a polling place to acknowledge you were there, but there is no compulsion to vote itself if you don’t want to. Election Day is a national holiday. Elections are 6 to 8 weeks long with no corporate money allowed in campaigns. As an Australian friend told me, if our politicians did as yours did in running all the time, we’d take them out in the outback and hang them. We want our politicians working for us.
In effect, all citizens showing up is the freedom of having a voice because they care about their country. Instead, we Americans have become selfish with no sense of the commons any more. Our elections are a farce with corporate money lobbying without restraint and with the electoral college. Republicans trying to take voting rights away through gerrymandering and voting restriction laws.
Europe learned that you can’t have 50 countries and expect to do trade when they all fight with each other. Thus, the EU to help prevent what happened in the world wars and have a more unified group of nations. Britain, led by the Tories, their version of the Republican ultra conservatives led by their version of Trump, pushed Brexit and now their economy is in a shambles. They realized they made a mistake and are trying to get back in. It’s likely the EU will wait before letting them back in.
Every citizen should vote, it’s a responsibility for all Americans who care about this country and want to see the best people working for us.
Tax Collector = popular vote
Sherriff = popular vote
City/Town Council = popular vote
Mayor = popular vote
Governor = popular vote
Congressperson = popular vote
Senator = popular vote
President = not popular vote
Why?
As an interested non-American, that was useful; thanks! To the outside world it does seem that the President has become more symbolic...assuming the country is not at war. The Senate with its filibuster seems to be where the real power lies; Trump only got one piece of major legislation passed and that was the corporate tax cuts that McConnell (& Ryan) had always wanted. And his SC picks were Federalist Society picks because Trump is clueless about that stuff. And I don't even want to think about how weak Obama was up against the Senate. Maybe the presidential vote i just part of the political/money-making circus and doesn't matter anyway.
Because popular vote sucks. And the president is the most important role.
@@maxwell8758yeah. Actual democracy sucks doesn’t it.
Let’s be like Russia.
@@TesterAnimal1 We aren’t a democracy, and Russia is closer to a democracy than we are because they use popular vote.
A prime minister in a parliamentary system is also not voted by a popular vote.
The electoral college would serve as a “leveling field”, the winner take all system neuters this. It would only make sense if it went by district, but you still have +2 senators.
I am British and have never understood why America has the Electoral College and I still don't, voting should be decided by American citizen's only.
Because America is a republic of 50 independent states, not a democracy of 350,000,000 people
I mean we are a republic so I don’t see how it matters that this “isn’t democratic”
In the modern world the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' don't refer to completely different systems of governance. The U.S. is a republic in the sense that it features a separation of power between the legislative and executive branches and robust judicial review through the supreme court as opposed to parliamentary supremacy. But these characteristics notwithstanding, it is perfectly appropriate to describe the U.S. as a representative democracy because legislative decisions are made via majority rule by representatives elected through popular vote. Drawing a clear-cut distinction between 'republican' and 'democratic' states makes sense if 'democracy' refers to a direct democracy where the people vote on individual laws/ policy decisions themselves, but clearly this does not apply very much in our current context. In any case, it matters that a decision-procedure is not democratic because most people take democracy to reflect important values like procedural fairness or civic equality (since democratic decision-procedures assign equal weight to the preferences of all enfranchised citizens). So, it is incumbent on anyone who rejects democracy in a particular context (e.g. the presidential election) to explain why things like civic equality should be outweighed by other values in this case. And simply saying 'we are republic' won't do as a justification since this is simply an empirical assertion about what the current system is, not an argument about what ought to be. Consider the analogous case of a king saying to his disgruntled subjects: 'we are a monarchy so I don't see how it matters that my decisions aren't democratic!' would we expect his subjects to simply accept this reasoning without further argument? I doubt it.
being anti democracy isnt something to be proud of
@@ArthurHill88 a republic is different from democracy because of the power the majority has ober the majority not in how the government is structured.
A republic can be run by elected representatives or theough direct voting by the people themselves; a deomcracy can also function either way.
The difference is that in a republic the majority of the elected representatives or of the people directly cannot abuse the minority.
In a democracy the majority of the representatives or of the people directly can do literally anything they vote to do with absolutely no limits to protect the minority.
In ancient athens the majority could vote to murder someone and it would be legal; in the roman republic they could not legally vote to kill someone unless they were found guilty of a crime.
So technically there are only very few actual democracies in the world today such as China, North Korea, and the United Kingdom.
Chinas constitution explicitly says thay your rights are subject to review and suspension by the party if they deem it necessary to the security of the state, same system works in North Korea.
The United Kingdom has no written constitution and so parliament or the majority that controls it can literally at any time legally abolish your rights.
Whereas in the United States the majority of the congress or of any state legislature cannot legally vote to take away your constitutionally protected rights.
@@libertyordeath5630 Well said, as a foreigner, I learn everything that is so unique about US Constitution and how their founding father think about their nation's future. One cannot understand the constitution if they only read the constitution, we have to go back 2000 years to the Roman Republic and ancient Greece and see how their culture, law, and system of government developed. Polybius, as many Roman and Greek figures, has so much impact in drafting the US Constitution, they wrote many classical literatures about political philosophy, law etc. From this philosophical view, the founders debated that they cannot give all the powers to the majority as that would create a "Mob Rule" that will (maybe sometimes in the future) will oppress the minority. To think that slavery is the cause they proposed EC is very naive and simplifying everything, maybe some of them gain an advantage in this system but what system doesn't? Every system always gives an edge to one side and disadvantage to another, but they also proposed Congress to balance that power, one based on majority to favor state that has more population that is the House and one to balance that power with proportional system that one is Senate. They also proposed Supreme Court which prevent Congress or Presidents to pass a law against the contract that they have made(Constitution) and yes, the constitution is a contract, and as any other contract, they don't 'life' they must be interpreted whatever the written documents say because that's how contracts works, if you want to change it, you include how to change it in the contract as the founders do with the Article V and VII, you can't just interpret the contract as you wanted.
US is not a unitary state, they are Union of States that came together to form an alliance so they can protect themselves against much bigger power those of Europe, they don't want big government because its a threat to their rights, they even put a sentence in the constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." see how they put word UNITED STATES refer to a Union of States and a different entity from the State, Which the STATES(the People) giving the UNITED STATES some of their rights and powers to create a Union Manager between the States and not the other way around, so that this Union is not a Unitary State (the plural is very important here). because in the end, governments, politicians is only humans, they have interest, ego and every natural human behaviour, they are easily sway by a charismatic figure like what happen in germany with the election of adolf hitler and dictators in south america, this is why most of the Greek Philosopher don't really like full democracy, because it creates dictator like Sulla, Julius Caesar etc.
@@pande6008 yeah, not many realize that the US is a union of sovereign states.
People in the US will say that sometimes, but almost none of them realize that a sovereign state is a "country".
Most americans don't understand that Texas is a state just like France is a state or that California is a state just like Spain.
I wish more americans understood this because then they would be much more willing to tell the US government to stop stealing the powers of the states.
Also It worries me that the EU also seems to be doing the exact same thing to the european states that the the US is doing to our american states...
The reason the Electoral College was created was to prevent a tyranny of the majority, meaning the large population centers riding roughshod over the rest of the country. A tyranny of the majority is an ever-present danger in a democracy, therefore it is wise to maintain the Electoral College.
Yes, eliminating tyranny of majority and in the process creating tyranny of minority, when smaller areas holding entire countries at hostage. EC is NONSENSE. It is no more than a tool of minority of some people (slaveowner) to control majority. US does not have the right to call itself democracy or representative republic as long as it has EC
Tyranny of the majority? That’s just called democracy.
Having a minority make descisons is far worse
😊 as the foreigner my understanding was that the electoral college was meant to prevent the election of a demagogue..... That worked out well....
The U.S. isn't a 2-party system, it's a NO-party system; you never vote for a party, always for a candidate. Parties are for candidates to organize themselves and their campaigns, but beyond arranging primary elections (which are voluntary and for the convenience of parties) have no legal significance. The result is that the two dominant U.S. parties effectively replace party blocks in other countries and represent a wide array of ideological positions.
The reason the electoral college is never going away is that the Democrats don't have to campaign in NY or CA and start each election with 84 electors by default. While some other states are strongly biased, they still require campaigning or they may easily be lost; this is not the case in NY or CA. This means of the 538 electors, 454 are up for grabs, and to win the presidential election a democratic candidate needs 186 of them, while a republican candidate needs 354. That's a staggering advantage the democrats will never give up.
If you drop the electoral college, states that want to should drop from the union. That's not what was signed up to.
An interesting idea. Lord knows there is enough federal overreach beyond the constitution already.
they can try. but since theyre so small, they are instantly slaughtered for treason
@@godemperorofmankind3.091you really think it would go that way? I'm guessing you wouldn't be doing the fighting yourself.
@@eq1373 only a selfish dick would try to shoot his fellow americans in the face just because a system that unfairly rigged voting in his favor, was taken from him in favor of a more fair and equal one.
Exactly!
Not once was there a mention of the Great Compromise that says that the US is the states represented equally and proportionally. Plus, most states and zero countries at the time did NOT elect their leaders via popular vote. This is just another way of saying that the US is the states represented proportionally. I'm pretty-sure there will always be 13 states that will not pass any change in the Electoral College if it ever makes it to the states.
small states would have not signed up for being united if not for EC. they would be at the bottom eating scraps and underdeveloped because the government doesnt need their vote anyways
@@darugdawg2453 As the video outlines in detail, small state/big state was not a relevant cleavage when it came to the electoral college. There is nothing in the historical record that suggests that was a salient consideration at the time (this WAS a key consideration when it came to the Senate).
If the founders believed the electoral college specifically protected the interests of the small states, they did not say so at the time. Moreover, since 8 of our first 11 presidents came from Virginia-the largest state in the union-even if they did believe that they would have been quickly disabused of that notion. Before 1881 nearly all presidents were elected from the most populace states: New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio and even those that came from somewhat smaller states were still elected from states in the top ten in terms of population. Chester Arthur was the first president from a truly small state and that was nearly a century after the ratification of the Constitution.
Can you explain more? Are you suggesting that the US (State/Corporation) votes for all the 50 states here in America?
@@vtbhoward I don't know if that was direct at me or not, but if it was, I didn't follow the question.
The question was in response to @James Palmer, instead @Matthew Record . Sorry for the confusion! I wanted him to expound on how the "US is the states", and what he means in stating that the states are "equally and proportionally represented" by the US.
Having states upsets the simple democracy and unitary state advocates. The USA should repeal the 17th too.
I'm not voting anymore.
Electoral college needs to go!!!
That's what you'd do if you want the country to break up again.
@@eq1373Wrong. The country is already btoken in 2 parts. Red and blue. It will break up in more little countries. It's called balkanization. It was bound to happen to a country that was divided into 50 states. Borders will change. They always have.
@@eq1373 I agree with you. Just asking for another civil war if we so casually toss the electoral college.
A popular vote would put a few major metropolitan areas in total control of ALL the others areas....
no it wouldn't.
@@shway1 Ok 3 dozen Metro areas. Look up the population facts, do the math.
The small states refused to join the union without the electoral college system.
Because it was debated on by the founding fathers as being the most fair way of electing people to go to congress.
I didn’t understand the explanation at all.
The United States was a union between independent autonomous States. Senators were not elected by popular vote in each state, but by state legislatures. It wasn't a personal popularity contest funded by election campaign donors.
This country was purposely not designed to be a pure democracy, because of the potential for the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College gives power to the states in proportion to the number of people in each state.
If this idea is pushed through the next step will be to have people in the House of Representatives elected by popular vote Across the Nation
No accountability. No representation on local or Regional issues.
Just the way this question headlight is written is biased. ( Why are we "still" allowed to eat meat and not just eat bugs like the wants for us.)
The push for the elimination of the electoral college carries with it a whiff of a permanent Democratic power grab. Elections would be ENTITELY controlled by advtertisers on the monopoly of cable TV networks ( the donors praying for those advertisements).
When I look at this video, I consider the source.
The suspicious nature of this movement is exceeded only by that of ranked-choice voting, assistive which lends itself to be easily rigged and at least theoretically, even without shenanigans, could result in the election of a candidate who is no one's first choice.
It's really a biased movement to begin with, I've been trying my best to have a rational debate with someone about it and all I'm getting told is that I'm not making sense or anything. I feel as if this kind of language is propaganda and more or less a feeling based thing for Democrats. Video is right on one thing, very few people actually understand the electoral college. It's very obvious in this comment section and this person I was and still am debating with.
@jeannovacco5136: “The push for the elimination of the electoral college carries with it a whiff of a permanent Democratic power grab.”
Huh? I don’t see how a national popular vote is a Democratic power grab. There’s no reason a Republican candidate couldn’t win a national popular vote for president. I have no idea why you think so little of the Republican Party that they would be incapable of winning a national popular vote.
While there's some reality in your first paragraph and a smidgen in your second paragraph in the rest you're just making up a bunch inane arguments. All media in the US, whether you consider it left or right, are owned by large corporations, hardly a liberal bastion.
Also, as pointed out in the video, there was wide bi-partisan support to eliminate the Electoral College in the 1960s, but it died in the Senate due to Senate filibuster rules. It is now mostly opposed by Republicans because they don't believe a GOP candidate can win without it.
You act like we haven't had "Tyranny of the Majority" the whole time. Plenty of minority groups have been disenfranchised and disadvantaged throughout this country's history, because the majority supported it.
Also, why is tyranny of the minority better?
So a tyranny of the minority is better?
Why not merge both principles? Loose the physical electors and allow the popular votes to count but brake it down to districts. Each district gets one vote and each state gets two. That way it is a popular vote but is regionalized to ensure that all parts of the country are recognized just like the congress is and it doesn't interfere with the checks and balances like a direct appointment from congress would. It would also limit highly populus areas from overtaking the rural areas.
That makes sense to me :-) maybe I'm a fool
Bullshit. You have no proof!
It's spelled looze
Just in case people were wondering, here would have been the totals for the 2016 election: Trump (291), Clinton (242), Powell (3), Sanders (1), Paul (1), Kasich (1), Faith Spotted Eagle (1).
Congress is not representative though - the senate has two votes no mater the size of any state's population - giving Wyoming as much power as California. Only the house is 'reprenstative' - if you're willing to overlook gerrymandering.
Golf analogy.
Electors vs Popular vote = Match play vs Stroke play.
Every state matters = Every hole matters.
We are a republic, and without the electorial college, smaller states would alway be ignored over the interest of the larger. The same principle applies to the rule of two Senators from every state regardless of size. It forces a coast of coast campaign. And yes, if the popular vote doesn't align, the losing party will call foul. There is already way to much power in the hands of the Federal Gov.
Did you know 70% of the U.S. Senate represents less than 30% of the U.S. population. Why should the least populated states have the most representation in the U.S. Senate. We're the United Staes of America where 1 vote should count as much as any vote no matter where the vote was cast. TRANSLATION ... The electoral college is bull shit!
Technically people vote in House, Senate
And the delegates vote
How the people voted them in?
The Electoral College system decentralizes the process, so that states can withstand corruption from the federal government. Currently, states are allowed to decide most of their own election rules. With a "national popular vote," the courts would eventually hand over election rule-making to Congress in the name of "equal protection." Election centralization tends to lead to corruption and consolidation of power under the ruling party.
I place much more importance on individual equality than I do for states' rights. We are a federalist democracy (as opposed to a parliamentary one, for example), and in a democracy, one person's vote must carry exactly the same weight as any other. Anything that stands in the way of equality is anathema to any democracy including our federalist democracy.
@@daveburrows9876 The United States is not a federalist democracy. It is a democratic republic. States send representatives to the Senate and House to vote on our behalf. We, the people, don't vote on federal legislation. Similarly, states send electors to represent the collective will of each State in a vote of the States for U.S. President. We, the people, don't vote for President. We vote to decide what our State (electors) will do. The genius of the EC is that it protects smaller states from tyranny of the majority (e.g., Los Angeles County forever drowning out voices of several small states in mountain, midwest, or southern regions who have completely different needs than a high-density urban area). In a pure democracy, two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. The EC also forces candidates to campaign in more of the country than just major coastal cities. So as Alexander Hamilton said, the Electoral College is if “not perfect, it is at least excellent." Best to you.
@@daveburrows9876 The U.S. is a republic
I'd rather have a popular vote system to allow third parties to stand a chance-lots of Americans are tired of the Democrat Republican corporate duopoly.
One reason why the duopoly works: both sides have become experts at painting the other side as the villain.
There’s a recent video out of a packed sports bar, but the giant tv had CNN on. When they showed Trump’s mugshot, the crowd popped harder than if they had seen the home team hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth in game seven.
Watch that video, and then read the first chapter of 1984, where it describes the Two Minutes Hate. You’ll see the parallel.
The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the slight majority from ruling the slight minority.
Making it winner takes all does just that though it simply isn't fair and it means that a president could win with less than 20 percent of the popular vote. Instead of getting rid of the electoral college we need to get rid of the winner takes all practice.
Each district chooses gets one electoral vote and the majority of that district wins the vote. Then the state itself gets 2 votes which are given to the person who wins the majority of the state as a whole.
So based on that it would mean Texas would likely have 25 of it's 40 votes be for the Republican candidate and 12 be for the Democrat candidate. The last 2 would be Republican because that's who won the majority of the state over all. Meaning instead of a full 40 votes going Republican it would be 27.
That means it would be majority of the districts not majority of the state and the possibility that the majority of the electorates of the state could go one way but due to the popular vote the last 2 going the complete opposite direction though it's very unlikely.
It be nice if the electoral college is at least a little closer to the popular vote even if the winner didn't win the popular vote exactly.
Again the purpose of the electoral collage is to ensure smaller populations are not dictated to by larger populations. So based on the last election if we did it as I described Trump would still be president. I mean..... Maybe I'm not sure but he wouldn't have any ground to stand on when it comes to people cheating an election or election fraud. Because that would be a problem. Having it as a winner takes all scenario opens the door for fraud to have a greater effect because you only need to fake votes in one district to win an election that way. But having it split between the districts while only giving the last 2 to the winner of the state means cheating would have to happen in every single district which is too large an operation to happen.
People would trust elections more if we didn't have winner takes all.
Until 2001 it never mattered. That was the very first time that the person winning the popular vote didn't win the electoral college. If you want every American to believe that every vote counts then get rid of the electoral college. Are we by the people and for the people or are we a government for some people?
To give the power of voting to old barns and farm fences.
how is that any different than you?
Its so 51% doesnt rule over the 49%
@@zionishereee it's ok for the 51% to rule, as long as the rights of the 49% are preserved
@@zionishereee I have heard that called "mob rule" several times. Explain why the 49% ruling the majority is better.
Not in Illinois
Unless you live in a swing state your vote for president doesn't matter at all... that is the reason to abolish it.
In a national popular vote, there won’t be any swing states, only the overpopulated areas full of like minded idiots.
The founding fathers didn’t want a democracy and for good reason.
Many many problems. Not just one.
Its a federal election of the states, its not a national election of the individuals. This is our constitution