This is what a lot of democracies still do. There's no Vice Prime Minister in the UK, but the leader of the runner-up party forms a "shadow cabinet" whose goal is to question wvery decision made by the leading party even if they agree with the policies. In some other countries the runner-up shares equal power with the winner but can be vetoed. This is how it works in the local governments of Northern Ireland and Scotland.
To clarify, the elector could not cast both his votes for the same candidate or for different candidates from the same state. If adjusted to restrict the electoral vote to only one per party, this would have prevented the polarization of American Politics into the 2 Party system it is today.
However there are no parties and no party law mentioned in the US Constitution. The Federal Republic wasn't supposed to have parties. However the two founders that had nothing at all to do with the drafting of the constitution, Adams and Jefferson, using regional newspapers and propaganda created the 1st two parties.
Considering Burr was hunted down, arrested, & convicted of murder while duels were still considered legal, Burr very likely cheated & fled the scene after making sure Hamilton passed.
The founding fathers were very forward-thinking people, but It's just wild to me that they couldn't imagine how political dissent would form in the new country.
The whole of the Constitution was basically written in two weeks by Madison as he waited for everyone to get to Philly, and the debate during practically the entire summer focused on the composition of the legislature. Once they more or less agreed to make Washington President, it basically was over, which is why Article 1 is so much longer than the others, especially the one setting up the federal judiciary, which more or less took all of the powers it has unilaterally and unconstitutionally.
They did expect political dissent. People walked out of the 2nd Continental Congress in June of 1776 over the declaration of independence and joined the Tory armies. They had plenty of experience before, during and after the Revolution. There are provisions for a gridlock of unproductive infighting between the two chambers of Congress. The President can dismiss them and call for new elections. (Article II) That has never been done but there are several times it probably should have been done. In 2019 it probably should have been done. Back in 2014 also. In 1858 was an obvious time. However since that clause has never been exercised, the people and kedia would likely see it as a dictator move and the courts would likely try and stop it.
I don’t think that was supposed to happen. Electors voted strategically, casting one vote for the President and his chosen VP, but having one elector throw away his second vote and not vote for the chosen VP this giving the chosen VP one less EV than the President. Of course, this was before modern technology and electors are human so mistakes happened.
The majority of the electors voted for Jefferson and Burr as votes against Adams and Pinkney....as Adams had grown quite unpopular during his presidency...even passing censorship laws to shut up papers that gave him bad press. Most electors saw it as Pres/VP, but it ended up being a tie. Thus the amendment to have Pres/VP candidates run on a single ticket as mates. A rather easy adjustment to the rules.
Vice President Burr killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel, Jefferson dropped Burr from the ticket who was never in public office again.
Lol imagine having Trump as prez & biden as Vice prez & then the roles reversed with Biden as prez & trump as vice prez then kamala comes along as vp to trump next term…😂😂
Lol imagine having Trump as prez & biden as Vice prez & then the roles reversed with Biden as prez & trump as vice prez then kamala comes along as vp to trump next term…
I would agree to ending the electoral college if we changed to an earned citizenship for everyone that wanted to vote. Citizenship would have to be based on service and actually knowing civics and history. If you are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to earn the vote, then why should anyone trust any vote you would cast? Also, politicians would have minimal salaries and no life-long benefits. They and their immediate families are barred from any sort of venture capitalism. You can't BE a politician unless you've already earned citizenship. Let the crying and wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.
I don't disagree with all of it, in fact I'm on board with most of it. I just don't see the benefit of removing the right to vote from people. Some people can't do military service. Some people don't have a good education and that gets worse with more politicians tearing down the system.
@@panzerwolf494 Agree with everything you said. Military is not the only service, just one of the easiest to find. I'm also not wanting "politicians" to benefit like they are currently. Even with physical limitations, there are lots of methods that can be service.
@@JayRain Like I said, this time yes. But take 2016 qnd 2020 - both times Trump lost the popular vote. Even in 2000 had the popular vote determined the winner, Gore would have won.
@@rexblade504 please give one reason why we need it and before you say this one, “then only big states/cities votes will matter” remember that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsins were the only votes that mattered in the last couple of elections. There is no reason why the millions of republicans living in california and New York and the millions of democrats in Florida and Texas should have ZERO say in the outcome of the presidential election. Also why do you believe it is fair for people living in Wyoming to have 380% the voting power of someone in California? There is nothing more fair than 1 person = 1 vote. This whole process was designed specifically as a compromise to appease slaveholding states who were terrified the majority of the population who didn’t ENSLAVE PEOPLE would think it was unfair and elect/nominate a candidate who was anti- ENSLAVING PEOPLE.
@zachk5652 Well this entire argument is horribly flawed and you debunk your own argument in it. You're wrong, only big cities will matter in the election. While literally the rest of the country is ignored. See swing states only matter because other states are certain to go one way or another, but still matter and their votes are still needed. For example Trump could win every swing state, but would lose the election if he lost Texas. The electoral college allows for everyone to have representation in government. Why should a farmer in Wyoming who is much more important be the slave of a journalist in LA? And you're wrong about that slave state thing. It was actually the smaller states that wanted it, not the larger slave states. As slavery wasn't an issue when the electoral college was implemented as most Northern states still had slavery and it was really an issue at the time. This is a horrible misunderstanding of US history, bordering on pseudo-history. A version of the electoral college where all states have a system like Maine and Nebraska could be a good reform to the electoral college, but going off pure popular vote is insane, and would lead to policy being dictated by only a small percentage of people with small interests, while ignoring most the nation. I'll take 7 states being important over 5 cities. Can you imagine how horrible that would be? If just NYC, LA, Chicago and San Francisco decided every election? Removing the electoral college would lead to tyranny. I know this as someone living in Upstate NY firsthand.
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mbMemqc-QEk/mqdefault.jpg)
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](/img/tr.png)
Imagine this now lmao
trump walz 2024??
@@IrisOlweny nobody is fkkn voting for Walz lmao. Trump Kamala.
For PRISON!@@IrisOlweny
@@tehpurplepills during this entire election, Walz is the only one who has a positive approval rating.
This is what a lot of democracies still do.
There's no Vice Prime Minister in the UK, but the leader of the runner-up party forms a "shadow cabinet" whose goal is to question wvery decision made by the leading party even if they agree with the policies.
In some other countries the runner-up shares equal power with the winner but can be vetoed. This is how it works in the local governments of Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Imagine if this was still the system and Kamala had to be Trump’s VP
Imagine that with Trump being Biden's VP. Jesus the shitshow as Trump suffered an ego blow
@@panzerwolf494 I would've paid a small sum of a million dollars to see that
I'm trying to imagine Hilary as Trump's VP.
@@jomidiam That is a tough one, I don't see much shuckling around with that one
@@jomidiamthat would be a bigger threat to Trumps life than the time he got shot
JEFFORSON OR BURR WE KNOW ITS LOOSE LOOSE JEFFERSON OR BURR BUT IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🗣️🗣️🔥
Well, Burr turned out to be both a murderer and a traitor so we probably dodged a bullet there.
DEAR MISTER HAMILTON, JOHN ADAMS DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE, SO WHO ARE YOU PROMOTING?
IT’S QUIET UPTOWN
One of my favorite Hamilton songs
To clarify, the elector could not cast both his votes for the same candidate or for different candidates from the same state.
If adjusted to restrict the electoral vote to only one per party, this would have prevented the polarization of American Politics into the 2 Party system it is today.
However there are no parties and no party law mentioned in the US Constitution. The Federal Republic wasn't supposed to have parties. However the two founders that had nothing at all to do with the drafting of the constitution, Adams and Jefferson, using regional newspapers and propaganda created the 1st two parties.
They handled it 🇺🇸
Then Burr beat Hamilton in a duel. Legend has it Hamilton goes “Is it 1,2,3 three and then go? Or 1,2,3?” Apparently Hamilton misunderstood.
Considering Burr was hunted down, arrested, & convicted of murder while duels were still considered legal, Burr very likely cheated & fled the scene after making sure Hamilton passed.
@@VerdeMorteNot surprising at all. Burrs descendent Richard Burr was caught trading on inside information about the C19 virus.
Merci beaucoup pour l'histoire de 1800 Presidential Elections ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😊❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Millions of blessings,
Esther St Juste
I can see this but with JD Vance and Tim Waltz
The founding fathers were very forward-thinking people, but It's just wild to me that they couldn't imagine how political dissent would form in the new country.
The whole of the Constitution was basically written in two weeks by Madison as he waited for everyone to get to Philly, and the debate during practically the entire summer focused on the composition of the legislature. Once they more or less agreed to make Washington President, it basically was over, which is why Article 1 is so much longer than the others, especially the one setting up the federal judiciary, which more or less took all of the powers it has unilaterally and unconstitutionally.
They did expect political dissent. People walked out of the 2nd Continental Congress in June of 1776 over the declaration of independence and joined the Tory armies. They had plenty of experience before, during and after the Revolution.
There are provisions for a gridlock of unproductive infighting between the two chambers of Congress. The President can dismiss them and call for new elections. (Article II)
That has never been done but there are several times it probably should have been done. In 2019 it probably should have been done. Back in 2014 also. In 1858 was an obvious time.
However since that clause has never been exercised, the people and kedia would likely see it as a dictator move and the courts would likely try and stop it.
@STho205 The President cannot dismiss them and call for new elections. He can dismiss them when he calls them into a special session.
@doomsdayrabbit4398 you are correct
They predicted it; see the Federalist number 10
Its very tense having the president and vice president being in opposite political parties considering if the president dies, the vice gets the office
I don’t think that was supposed to happen. Electors voted strategically, casting one vote for the President and his chosen VP, but having one elector throw away his second vote and not vote for the chosen VP this giving the chosen VP one less EV than the President. Of course, this was before modern technology and electors are human so mistakes happened.
Madam President Hillary Clinton would have finally happened, to the horror of all the rest of humanity.
Party with Thomas Jefferson 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
This video is just asking for the Hamilton fandom to show up
Nah, the Alien And Sedition Acts or even the Whiskey Rebellion would be the first crisis.
Most people don't know that American politics has been as dirty and ruthless as in any country from the beginning.
Jefferson did everything he could to undermine adam's presidency
My gosh! Mitt Romney under Obama. Hillary Clinton under Trump. Trump under Biden. Kamala under Trump. The only news anywhere I would be political news
That's the way it is anyway.
A very interesting historical fact. Maybe they should still do it this way.
Looks like a gerrymander
How so? It worked as prescribed in the constitution.
It’s NOT a crisis!!! The system is designed to work this way, for checks and balances!!
I don't understand why parties don't at least make the runner up in the primaries the VP
Because in such big parties, the primaries are about different opinions within the party. For a VP you want someone more aligned with your views.
This may be what we need to reunify our country
2016 trump pres Hillary vp 2020 Biden pres Trump vp imagine that
Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were from different parties. Johnson was a Tennessee Democrat.
The majority of the electors voted for Jefferson and Burr as votes against Adams and Pinkney....as Adams had grown quite unpopular during his presidency...even passing censorship laws to shut up papers that gave him bad press.
Most electors saw it as Pres/VP, but it ended up being a tie. Thus the amendment to have Pres/VP candidates run on a single ticket as mates. A rather easy adjustment to the rules.
Vice President Burr killed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel, Jefferson dropped Burr from the ticket who was never in public office again.
Imagine these men lying and crying about it being rigged.
You need to read more about them then
@@jr2904 What does that even mean? You are an illegitimate person.
Burr shot Hamilton dead in duel.
They did all the time.
👍
Berlin PAC 1800s
Lol imagine having Trump as prez & biden as Vice prez & then the roles reversed with Biden as prez & trump as vice prez then kamala comes along as vp to trump next term…😂😂
Lol imagine having Trump as prez & biden as Vice prez & then the roles reversed with Biden as prez & trump as vice prez then kamala comes along as vp to trump next term…
Trump Biden presidency would've been lit
Trump-Harris administration would go crazy
I would agree to ending the electoral college if we changed to an earned citizenship for everyone that wanted to vote. Citizenship would have to be based on service and actually knowing civics and history. If you are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to earn the vote, then why should anyone trust any vote you would cast?
Also, politicians would have minimal salaries and no life-long benefits. They and their immediate families are barred from any sort of venture capitalism. You can't BE a politician unless you've already earned citizenship.
Let the crying and wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.
And then the lawmakers (ruling class) will stop teaching peasant children the necessary curriculum to vote. As they have, as they have...
I don't disagree with all of it, in fact I'm on board with most of it. I just don't see the benefit of removing the right to vote from people. Some people can't do military service. Some people don't have a good education and that gets worse with more politicians tearing down the system.
@@panzerwolf494 Agree with everything you said. Military is not the only service, just one of the easiest to find.
I'm also not wanting "politicians" to benefit like they are currently.
Even with physical limitations, there are lots of methods that can be service.
Eventually , you end back where we started . Elite land owners being the only allowed voters.
Someone's read "Starship Troopers." Heinlein was on point.
So in the early days it was a fish bowl full of wealthy white men.
Fast forward to last Tuesday and we have
Are you sad you're not white, male, and rich? Aren't we all, I'm not rich
We need to get rid of the electoral college!
and go with the popular vote? which trump also won?
This time, yes. But there are many times when that is not the case.@@TheGreatQbert
@@anttibjorklund1869okay he won popular vote so none of that matters. democracy is good until it doesn’t benefit y’all anymore.
@@JayRain Like I said, this time yes. But take 2016 qnd 2020 - both times Trump lost the popular vote. Even in 2000 had the popular vote determined the winner, Gore would have won.
@@JayRainwow you really just wrote that. How ironic
Don't need Electoral College system now!
We absolutely do lol
@@rexblade504no we don’t
@@zachk5652 You're crazy if you don't think we do
@@rexblade504 please give one reason why we need it and before you say this one, “then only big states/cities votes will matter” remember that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsins were the only votes that mattered in the last couple of elections.
There is no reason why the millions of republicans living in california and New York and the millions of democrats in Florida and Texas should have ZERO say in the outcome of the presidential election.
Also why do you believe it is fair for people living in Wyoming to have 380% the voting power of someone in California? There is nothing more fair than 1 person = 1 vote.
This whole process was designed specifically as a compromise to appease slaveholding states who were terrified the majority of the population who didn’t ENSLAVE PEOPLE would think it was unfair and elect/nominate a candidate who was anti- ENSLAVING PEOPLE.
@zachk5652 Well this entire argument is horribly flawed and you debunk your own argument in it. You're wrong, only big cities will matter in the election. While literally the rest of the country is ignored. See swing states only matter because other states are certain to go one way or another, but still matter and their votes are still needed. For example Trump could win every swing state, but would lose the election if he lost Texas. The electoral college allows for everyone to have representation in government. Why should a farmer in Wyoming who is much more important be the slave of a journalist in LA? And you're wrong about that slave state thing. It was actually the smaller states that wanted it, not the larger slave states. As slavery wasn't an issue when the electoral college was implemented as most Northern states still had slavery and it was really an issue at the time. This is a horrible misunderstanding of US history, bordering on pseudo-history. A version of the electoral college where all states have a system like Maine and Nebraska could be a good reform to the electoral college, but going off pure popular vote is insane, and would lead to policy being dictated by only a small percentage of people with small interests, while ignoring most the nation. I'll take 7 states being important over 5 cities. Can you imagine how horrible that would be? If just NYC, LA, Chicago and San Francisco decided every election? Removing the electoral college would lead to tyranny. I know this as someone living in Upstate NY firsthand.
Who cares?
This is why vice presidents have no power😂
Who is running this awful channel?
Doesn’t matter Trump is still president get over it
Nowhere in the video did they mention any politics in the last 200 years. What imaginary person are you arguing with here?
When people had integrity... But owned slaves🤦♂️
Most people didn't own slaves.