This is just an opening statement. He's a professor and expert in his field. Why are people attacking him for "not giving evidence" There was a full debate in which he explains his reasoning. The only reason people are so butthurt is because they disagree. Don't attack someones credentials/intellegiance simply off of the fact you disagree. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend and refute disagreements without attacking someones character and avoiding appealing to emotion.
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers). Nothing more. That is a "fact" which is supported by math and history. The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists.
I am glad that I am not the first one to notice that the UK elects their leader in a less direct way than the Electoral College does. The same is probably true of Canada and any other country with a parliamentary style government.
Trump won the popular vote on a STATE-BY-STATE basis. The electoral college protects each state's different demographics, values, and concerns. It gives each state a voice. A national popular vote would allow a few heavily populated areas to dictate to the rest of the country THEIR ideas, values, and concerns. If you think your vote doesnt count now, imagine living in even a slightly rural area of the country. Your vote would not count in any form ever. This country is made up of 50 individual states. EVERY state deserves a say in who is president. The electoral system may not be perfect, but it is a far better system for the country as a whole than a national popular vote.
yeah, imagine being a conservative in California, or a liberal in Texas. Can you imagine how little your vote would matter if we used the popular vote? It's not like those votes are just swept under the rug because fuck democracy! Also, how is it fair that voters in Wyoming voters have more say in the election process that California voters?
A national popular vote would increase representation by giving incentive to vote because every vote would matter, including rural votes. No wasted votes and no tyranny of the minority. States would still be represented in congress.
@TN flip - BULLSHIT! The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers) and states which suppress voting. I wonder which states love to suppress voting?🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Shove your willful ignorance up your QAnus.
Does this video only contain the opening statements of a much larger debate? I only ask because the speaker makes a lot of claims, whether right or wrong, but backs none of them up with evidence.
he's counting on the fact that most people don't have critical thinking and you can list a bunch of claims without any substantiation and nobody notices. that's how priests get aways with saying that a dude - born from a virgin mother - who came back to life after death, and another one talked to a burning brush before the invention of lsd. that's how dump gets to say that clinton will have 650 million immigrants into the country on the first week.
The reason we can never remove the Electoral College and use the popular vote is this. The first time we have a close election the entire country would have to be recounted. You remember Florida and how it almost broke out in fighting during the recount. If we ever have to recount the entire country people would die in the fighting. The Electoral College allows us to recount a single state. Our founding father knew what they were doing.
Interesting point but flawed. You presume interference or the innaccuracies of others which is possible. But logically the current system is prone to the same problem. Youre just defending the idea on the grounds that counting a bigger number should be reason avoid a whole issue. Thats just lazy. Each state could still tally state totals. For independent review so your point is false.
"Reminds us that states are the component part of our system..." Yeah, but let's say that hypothetically, America consisted of only two states, one with population of 1,579,863, and the other state had only two, should the state with only two get the same amount of say as the other? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That's why the electoral college is stupid. Yes, the sovereignty of individual states should be recognized, but not so as to supersede the individual rights and say of the individual individual.
Made the exact same comparison under someone elses comment. I also stated that states are not going to be forgotten... thats why the congress and senate exist. Voting for the president is a federal office and actually should be seperate of states influence. Conservatives themselves should be in full support of this. The truth is conservatives want rural white americans to have a heftier influence without the majority. Im not saying the electorial college is solely loved by conservatives or thats its not without bipartisan support or disdain, it just currently helps them so why change it.
The point he makes around 3:45 is probably the worst argument. What happens in the current system is that sort of this happens after the electors vote? The VP becomes President. That's how it would work with a popular vote, too. Quite simple.
I understand all the reasons except the 5th one. What if Obama had a stroke one week after the ELECTORAL vote in December? How many "safeguards" against the will of the people do we need? And isn't this why we have impeachment and a clear line of succession, which includes a VP that is elected on the same ticket?
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers)……..nothing more than welfare for terrorists, AND states which suppress voting. (I wonder which states traditionally attempt to suppress voting.......?) Look at USA history. Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists(slavers). Terrorists were able to dominate USA national government until the slavery abolition began spreading and the new territories were not permitted to be terrorist states. What happened when the terrorists lost their dominance of the USA? The USA Civil War. What happened when the the terrorists lost the war and former slaves counted as 5/5ths (100%) humans? Jim Crow, kkk and other terrorist crap to keep minorities from voting. Combined with the Electoral College, this terrorism again allowed the terrorist South to have more say in USA national government than they deserved.
The ONLY reason Mr.Trump is prez is the welfare benefit for terrorists, the Electoral College. Therefore, Mr. Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".
We are a representative republic. Most countries have a system modeled this way. We are based on others representing our voice. The EC, electing Congress, etc are based on representative democracy. Even in congress, the percentage of the vote and the number of seats you win dont always match since you have 435 separate elections. Winning congress is based on winning the most districts or states. We could go back to the old days and have EC based on districts like Nebraska and Maine have.
Yes, they do. The people of the States choose their state’s vote. This country was not founded on the concept that “the people” vote as a conglomerate. Read a book. Learn to distinguish your emotional outrage from intellectual argumentation.
Points 1 and 2 are reasonable, too. Point 1, is to ensure unity and not have division among the people and the states. If we dont have reasonable respect in a leader the country as a whole suffers (no matter if we like the person or not). It's still our government. Point 2, is for the states to have recognition and not have one's state become neglected or usurped by the Fed. One extra point, it's tied with a Republic form of government and not a complete democracy.
If we went by the popular vote, we'd still have to cater to the larger swing states. losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote is very rare. Even with a national vote you'd have the issue of a candidate winning fewer than 20 states but still winning the popular vote. How is that better than the electoral college? People against the EC dont understand the concept of federalism and prefer a mobocracy. Getting a consensus of the states is a great idea of electing a President.
The complaint is that rural americans dont want large populations speaking for them.... but they are perfectly fine allowing a minority speak for a huge population. We all know rural americans dont want cities controlling them which is a valid point. Thats why there are districts.
I actually thought there were better arguments for it. After hearing this, I'm against it. But thanks for sharing it. Pushed the like button, not because I agree with Mr. Lowenstein, but because I appreciate the information.
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers)……..nothing more than welfare for terrorists, AND states which suppress voting. (I wonder which states traditionally attempt to suppress voting.......?) Look at USA history. Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists(slavers). Terrorists were able to dominate USA national government until the slavery abolition began spreading and the new territories were not permitted to be terrorist states. What happened when the terrorists lost their dominance of the USA? The USA Civil War. What happened when the the terrorists lost the war and former slaves counted as 5/5ths (100%) humans? Jim Crow, kkk and other terrorist crap to keep minorities from voting. Combined with the Electoral College, this terrorism again allowed the terrorist South to have more say in USA national government than they deserved. The ONLY reason Mr.Trump is prez is the welfare benefit for terrorists, the Electoral College. Therefore, Mr. Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".
While I don't think he made a very convincing argument because it doesn't directly address the main criticisms that people have of it today, it is somewhat interesting to not hear him say anything about the 2000 election minus Florida.
Let's take a look at his points this from a foreigners perspective (I'm from the Netherlands) 1: "we must make majorities that otherwise wouldn't exist". Just read this out of context. You know what else you can use to make majorities? Prevent certain people to vote (discrimination), or changing ballots (fraud). You cannot make a majority without undermining the idea of democracy. 2: "It draws attention to the states, it's important the states are represented" I can see the point here, but it's flawed. You're favoring people from certain areas over others. Imagine going to any random person and saying "Hey your vote is multiplied by the amount of states north of the state you're in". Exxagerated, but same idea. Also, you're again defying Democracy. In the electoral college, all votes against the eventual vote of that state have no effect on the outcome, whereas in a popular vote, every vote counts. oh, and "reminding citizens that states are a critical component of our federal system". They have this great invention called a map (or if you have to force it, just put up a giant billboard saying "REMEMBER: WE HAVE STATES!"). It replaces the need to fuck up the voting system. 3: What? I don't even get the argument here. "We had eleven great presidents". Now I'm too tired to look this up but how many of these would have been elected with a popular vote system? I bet all of them, correct me if I'm wrong please. 4: I had never heard of the Florida Controversy, so I did a quick skim through the information. To me it seems that most or all of the listed points (again, I have not read them thouroughly) were a problem of misinforming people. That has nothing to do with which voting system you use. 5: Again: what? If the president is deemed unfit after he has been voted for, for whatever reason (criminal charges, medical issues, whatever), have another round of voting, or elect the VP. Now maybe I am misinformed, or this guy isn't really good at bringing arguments, so please enlighten me why the USA still uses this system, because from this video it seems like complete overcomplicated nonsense.
"You're favoring people from certain areas over others." So does a pure democracy. 70% of Americans live in a handful of cities. Pure democratic election would favor all the people informed by mass media, at the expense of the remainder who live outside of cities.
"70% of Americans live in a handful of cities." What are you talking about? The top-ten most populated cities in America make up about 8% of the population. There are about 26 million people in the top-ten most populated cities and about 327 million people total in the U.S. 26,000,000/327,000,000 = ~8%
@@AnaxofRhodes Thats still the point though. In theory you are assuming mass media is brainwashing and numbs the masses. But i do not see how a rural citizen becomes more educated about canidates if they themselves have less access to information and conduct far fewer conversations with people of different lifestyles. Personally the homogeny of rural america produces the least informed populace. The logic that one style of living should speak for the majority is the opposite of democracy.
I think that the best reason to preserve the EC (of which I am a supporter) is that is makes factions less likely in this large and diverse country and tends to force us into a middle ground (governing consensus). Anyone might look at one election result and say it should have been otherwise, but over time the EC serves us better.
Bottom line: the EC gives a disproportionate (greater) say to smaller populations than to larger ones, which is unfair. Or am I just missing something, here? Anyone feel free to respond or to correct me.
The Electoral College is ONLY a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers) and states which suppress voting. The Electoral College has given that welfare benefit to Trump. Therefore, Donald Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen". Donald Trump is the "welfare queen" president.
Trust me, a national recount is not an option =) I live in Sweden where we have proportional representation and if there are regions of Sweden who have had trouble with their voting and still have votes to be counted on election night we don't recount all regions. That would be stupid! =P If the race is to close to call we just wait for the votes from THAT region just like you had to do in 2000 when you waited for the votes from Florida. =)
You know what's a great pragmatic idea that makes government work better? Apartheid - it's amazing how pragmatic and efficient government can be if, say, whole sections of the populations aren't even allowed to vote. Of course, there are some people out there who don't measure the quality of government by its efficiency - people who are concerned about freedom and democracy even, and especially when it becomes difficult. But I'll never change their minds no matter how many good reasons I give
Maybe we should just find some way to increase the weight of the votes cast by those who pay no income tax and those who live on government subsidies. Then we could increase the influence of the multinational corporations and banks and unions on congress. Then reduce the weight of the votes for the working class and we'll just print money at will and sit around chanting and wiggling our fingers in the air. This issue is a no brainer - no need to change the EC - there's ultimately no benefit.
Can we PLEASE just publicly audit the electronic vote counting programs & companies? Then can we please audit the FED next? There should be no one against these 2 ideas. They are simple & the information & proof needs to be public domain. I wouldn't worry about people possibly hacking the system considering the security of other open source software the NSA uses... like Linux & apparmor...
You know who's against these ideas? Ben Burnanke, and the powers that select the President. Who are you gonna hire to do these audits? And who hires them?
For someone that has lived in a country with less federal balance, Canada, I see the merits of an electoral college or a senate with equal representation. Otherwise you ahve countries like Canada where politcs is completely controled by Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta amd BC. Leavign the rest of the provinces at an disadvantage. This is why so much regionalism and factionalism exists. If we went solely by the popular vote, we'd still ahve to cater to the larger swing states
How do we trust the electoral college as he says? Who are they? Who selected them? I don't recall selecting anyone from the electoral college to represent me. I'm supposed to trust them not to perform a coup d'etat? What is he talking about? Politicians, by nature, are the most SUSPICIOUS persons on Earth.
I suppose politicians even overtly subscribe to people are sheep and sometimes need to be overturned. However democracy to me should succeed or fail by the majority, never ever the minority.
Word spinning of the highest order. Forget about whether the elected president didn't get more than 50% oif the vote. How about an elected president who got fewer votes than the other candidates. That is the problem. As far as protecting the states, that is already done by the fact that each state gets two Senators, no matter what their population. California gets two Senators for asbout 22 million registered voters, and Wyoming gets two Senators for about 300 thousand registered voters. If that imbalance can't protect states rights, nothing else can. it isn't really necessary to get rid of the Electoral College. All that is necessary is for states to apportion their Electoral College votes roughly in porportion to the actual vote in their state. In fact a small number of states already do this. Finally, putting Ronald Reagan into that group of presidents is ridiculous. Who presided over the largest increase in government debt (to that point)? Ronald Reagan. Who decided it would be a good idea to fund and provide armaments for the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan? Ronald Reagan. Who oversaw the Savings and Loan collapse that cost USA taxpayers $100 billion? Ronald Reagan. Who got together with Margaret Thatcher and Zia ul-Haq (Pakistani president) to create the worldwide network that recruited for al-Qaeda? Ronald Reagan. US citizens lost their lives because of what he did. He was good at telling jokes though, so I guess there's that.
@darkmiles22 That's the whole point. It balances the power of the states. It does not diminish the power of the big states since they receive additional votes based on the number of representative seats held. Therefore they still have more voting power. Besides what you advocate is simple majority rule. Do you truly wish this since the table can turn and you might be in the minority. How about lets just go to a simple majority vote for president rather than a plurality.
I think he's right. The number of cases where the electoral college vote is different from the national majority is minimal anyway. My biggest objection is calling Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Wilson great Presidents. But the others he mentions were great or OK. Churchill and Thatcher were great PM's.
The Framers of the Constitution were right in creating the Electoral College. If the states had not been protected by this mechanism (the smaller states feared tyranny by a majority of votes by urban areas), they would not have ratified the Constitution. If you want to abolish something that threatens effective functioning of our Federal government, the best choice would be to severely limit the powers of political parties. George Washington warned against political parties. I.
It is not an office for the populace like the House is. It was to be a Federal office representing the consensus of the entire nation. In a popular vote as long as you ran up the numbers in cities, other areas wouldnt matter. At least with the EC, you have to build a coalition and each coalition was different whether it was Clinton, the Bushes, Obama , Reagan, Nixon, FDR etc. Obama even showed that the EC makes you win a broad base of supporters.
@rdcress1 A constitutional republic restricts the tyranny of the majority just fine. Giving power to less populous states wouldn't prevent tyranny in the slightest; it would only shift the tyranny from the majority to those select small states. You say that "it balances the power of the states," but states are artificial organs for representing the people. States don't have rights; people have rights. People deserve equal voting rights, not states.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE FIXED, NOT ELIMINATED! Even though the founding fathers came up with this, it was 1787 for heavens sakes!! we're in 2013!! come on now, its just basic common sense and math!!!
Not one good reason let popular vote rule the only way every vote counts. I live in red state vote blue and all blue votes here will never add up to enough to win so entire elector votes go red, so the 40% of this state that votes blue gets not one single elector vote how is that fair. many times guys won the residency but lost the votes over all. How in the world can you ever say every vote counts when system makes sure it does not. millions of voters votes make zero difference. To win presidency you can win just a few big states and lose by millions of american votes but win the presidency
CGPGrey talks about the Electoral College ignoring facts ,distorting numbers and creating fanciful scenarios in his argument against the EC. Grey is very one sided.
dandyky in most arguments in is almost impossible to be one sided due to your personal oppinion. and onto the "distorting numbers" what does he "distort"? the Electoral College is flawed tremendously.
true. The EC does have its quirks. But it is the best system we have for electing the POTUS until someone comes up with a better way. Grey distorted the population figures for large cities in an attempt to prove his flawed argument. Grey deliberately omitted the populations of the suburban areas of the large cities that are not part of the cities proper.
CGP Grey completely ignored the Constitution and the collective wisdom of the framers when he made that video. Also , that 22% argument is pretty ridiculous and full of holes.
The chances of a super close vote in one state are much higher with state races than one super tight race nation wide with a national popular vote. The chances of the problem are reduced but the scope is widened. That's hardly a convincing reason, but then again none of his reasons were good.
There is one fatal flaw in the electoral college. Governors draw these lines, to benefit their party. This is called gerrymandering. I take Wisconsin as an example. Walker was court ordered to change these lines, because of gerrymandering. He has not complied. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, in Wisconsin, yet Trump was awarded the State of Wisconsin, due to this gerrymandering. The fix would be to have an outside source to draw the lines.
Vicky Paulson wow you are clueless. Each state is awarded by popular vote in presidential election. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. Gerrymandering is done to win seats within a particular state by redrawing voting districts.
Randall Martin is correct. Almost every state awards the state's electors in toto, all of them, winner takes all, to the ticket that receives the most votes.
I only viewed this video because I want to hear both sides of the issue, and not just look for blind affirmations of my own opinions/biases. If truly these are the only reasons to KEEP the electoral college, then I'm sorry my friend, it does far more REAL harm than the possibility of THEORETICAL good. Abolish.
This is just an opening statement. He's a professor and expert in his field. Why are people attacking him for "not giving evidence" There was a full debate in which he explains his reasoning. The only reason people are so butthurt is because they disagree. Don't attack someones credentials/intellegiance simply off of the fact you disagree. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend and refute disagreements without attacking someones character and avoiding appealing to emotion.
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers). Nothing more. That is a "fact" which is supported by math and history. The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists.
Did anyone else notice that this video is 5:38 long? There are 538 electors in the EC! :-P D.
I am glad that I am not the first one to notice that the UK elects their leader in a less direct way than the Electoral College does. The same is probably true of Canada and any other country with a parliamentary style government.
Canada's elections are based on the UK.
Trump won the popular vote on a STATE-BY-STATE basis. The electoral college protects each state's different demographics, values, and concerns. It gives each state a voice. A national popular vote would allow a few heavily populated areas to dictate to the rest of the country THEIR ideas, values, and concerns. If you think your vote doesnt count now, imagine living in even a slightly rural area of the country. Your vote would not count in any form ever. This country is made up of 50 individual states. EVERY state deserves a say in who is president. The electoral system may not be perfect, but it is a far better system for the country as a whole than a national popular vote.
yeah, imagine being a conservative in California, or a liberal in Texas. Can you imagine how little your vote would matter if we used the popular vote? It's not like those votes are just swept under the rug because fuck democracy!
Also, how is it fair that voters in Wyoming voters have more say in the election process that California voters?
A national popular vote would increase representation by giving incentive to vote because every vote would matter, including rural votes. No wasted votes and no tyranny of the minority. States would still be represented in congress.
@TN flip - BULLSHIT! The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers) and states which suppress voting. I wonder which states love to suppress voting?🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Shove your willful ignorance up your QAnus.
@tenne flipper - bullshit
Have you herad of the house and the senate dumbass
Does this video only contain the opening statements of a much larger debate? I only ask because the speaker makes a lot of claims, whether right or wrong, but backs none of them up with evidence.
he's counting on the fact that most people don't have critical thinking and you can list a bunch of claims without any substantiation and nobody notices. that's how priests get aways with saying that a dude - born from a virgin mother - who came back to life after death, and another one talked to a burning brush before the invention of lsd. that's how dump gets to say that clinton will have 650 million immigrants into the country on the first week.
The Pussy Grabbing Family Value Candidate No its a pretty ealsily proven claim, if you jist google why we have the EC its pretty self explanatory.
@spearfish - BULLSHIT!
The reason we can never remove the Electoral College and use the popular vote is this. The first time we have a close election the entire country would have to be recounted. You remember Florida and how it almost broke out in fighting during the recount. If we ever have to recount the entire country people would die in the fighting. The Electoral College allows us to recount a single state. Our founding father knew what they were doing.
Interesting point but flawed. You presume interference or the innaccuracies of others which is possible. But logically the current system is prone to the same problem. Youre just defending the idea on the grounds that counting a bigger number should be reason avoid a whole issue. Thats just lazy. Each state could still tally state totals. For independent review so your point is false.
"Reminds us that states are the component part of our system..." Yeah, but let's say that hypothetically, America consisted of only two states, one with population of 1,579,863, and the other state had only two, should the state with only two get the same amount of say as the other? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That's why the electoral college is stupid. Yes, the sovereignty of individual states should be recognized, but not so as to supersede the individual rights and say of the individual individual.
Made the exact same comparison under someone elses comment.
I also stated that states are not going to be forgotten... thats why the congress and senate exist. Voting for the president is a federal office and actually should be seperate of states influence. Conservatives themselves should be in full support of this.
The truth is conservatives want rural white americans to have a heftier influence without the majority. Im not saying the electorial college is solely loved by conservatives or thats its not without bipartisan support or disdain, it just currently helps them so why change it.
The point he makes around 3:45 is probably the worst argument. What happens in the current system is that sort of this happens after the electors vote? The VP becomes President. That's how it would work with a popular vote, too. Quite simple.
i've seen worse law professor, but usually at crappy universities. this one at ucla gets the trophy.
I understand all the reasons except the 5th one. What if Obama had a stroke one week after the ELECTORAL vote in December? How many "safeguards" against the will of the people do we need? And isn't this why we have impeachment and a clear line of succession, which includes a VP that is elected on the same ticket?
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers)……..nothing more than welfare for terrorists, AND states which suppress voting. (I wonder which states traditionally attempt to suppress voting.......?)
Look at USA history. Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists(slavers). Terrorists were able to dominate USA national government until the slavery abolition began spreading and the new territories were not permitted to be terrorist states.
What happened when the terrorists lost their dominance of the USA? The USA Civil War.
What happened when the the terrorists lost the war and former slaves counted as 5/5ths (100%) humans? Jim Crow, kkk and other terrorist crap to keep minorities from voting. Combined with the Electoral College, this terrorism again allowed the terrorist South to have more say in USA national government than they deserved.
The ONLY reason Mr.Trump is prez is the welfare benefit for terrorists, the Electoral College.
Therefore, Mr. Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".
We are a representative republic. Most countries have a system modeled this way. We are based on others representing our voice. The EC, electing Congress, etc are based on representative democracy. Even in congress, the percentage of the vote and the number of seats you win dont always match since you have 435 separate elections. Winning congress is based on winning the most districts or states. We could go back to the old days and have EC based on districts like Nebraska and Maine have.
I don't think any of those reasons are powerful enough to override the glaring fact that the people DON'T elect their president.
Yes, they do. The people of the States choose their state’s vote. This country was not founded on the concept that “the people” vote as a conglomerate. Read a book. Learn to distinguish your emotional outrage from intellectual argumentation.
Points 1 and 2 are reasonable, too.
Point 1, is to ensure unity and not have division among the people and the states. If we dont have reasonable respect in a leader the country as a whole suffers (no matter if we like the person or not). It's still our government.
Point 2, is for the states to have recognition and not have one's state become neglected or usurped by the Fed.
One extra point, it's tied with a Republic form of government and not a complete democracy.
Not necessarily though, it's not like the USA is the only federal republic there is
On point number five, wouldn't the VP just take over?
If we went by the popular vote, we'd still have to cater to the larger swing states. losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote is very rare. Even with a national vote you'd have the issue of a candidate winning fewer than 20 states but still winning the popular vote. How is that better than the electoral college? People against the EC dont understand the concept of federalism and prefer a mobocracy. Getting a consensus of the states is a great idea of electing a President.
"Amplify majorities in the population"
you mean to tell me, my vote doesn't count......
The complaint is that rural americans dont want large populations speaking for them.... but they are perfectly fine allowing a minority speak for a huge population. We all know rural americans dont want cities controlling them which is a valid point. Thats why there are districts.
my dad has never bean robed but that does not mean that he can just walk around in the dark not expecting to get muged
I actually thought there were better arguments for it. After hearing this, I'm against it. But thanks for sharing it. Pushed the like button, not because I agree with Mr. Lowenstein, but because I appreciate the information.
Tara Ross does a better explanation of it. Mr. Lowenstein is just brushing over the subject.
The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers)……..nothing more than welfare for terrorists, AND states which suppress voting. (I wonder which states traditionally attempt to suppress voting.......?)
Look at USA history. Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists(slavers). Terrorists were able to dominate USA national government until the slavery abolition began spreading and the new territories were not permitted to be terrorist states.
What happened when the terrorists lost their dominance of the USA? The USA Civil War.
What happened when the the terrorists lost the war and former slaves counted as 5/5ths (100%) humans? Jim Crow, kkk and other terrorist crap to keep minorities from voting. Combined with the Electoral College, this terrorism again allowed the terrorist South to have more say in USA national government than they deserved.
The ONLY reason Mr.Trump is prez is the welfare benefit for terrorists, the Electoral College.
Therefore, Mr. Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".
what are the problems that you have
with it?
What do you think would be better?
While I don't think he made a very convincing argument because it doesn't directly address the main criticisms that people have of it today, it is somewhat interesting to not hear him say anything about the 2000 election minus Florida.
Let's take a look at his points this from a foreigners perspective (I'm from the Netherlands)
1: "we must make majorities that otherwise wouldn't exist".
Just read this out of context. You know what else you can use to make majorities? Prevent certain people to vote (discrimination), or changing ballots (fraud). You cannot make a majority without undermining the idea of democracy.
2: "It draws attention to the states, it's important the states are represented"
I can see the point here, but it's flawed. You're favoring people from certain areas over others. Imagine going to any random person and saying "Hey your vote is multiplied by the amount of states north of the state you're in". Exxagerated, but same idea.
Also, you're again defying Democracy. In the electoral college, all votes against the eventual vote of that state have no effect on the outcome, whereas in a popular vote, every vote counts.
oh, and "reminding citizens that states are a critical component of our federal system". They have this great invention called a map (or if you have to force it, just put up a giant billboard saying "REMEMBER: WE HAVE STATES!"). It replaces the need to fuck up the voting system.
3: What? I don't even get the argument here. "We had eleven great presidents". Now I'm too tired to look this up but how many of these would have been elected with a popular vote system? I bet all of them, correct me if I'm wrong please.
4: I had never heard of the Florida Controversy, so I did a quick skim through the information. To me it seems that most or all of the listed points (again, I have not read them thouroughly) were a problem of misinforming people. That has nothing to do with which voting system you use.
5: Again: what? If the president is deemed unfit after he has been voted for, for whatever reason (criminal charges, medical issues, whatever), have another round of voting, or elect the VP.
Now maybe I am misinformed, or this guy isn't really good at bringing arguments, so please enlighten me why the USA still uses this system, because from this video it seems like complete overcomplicated nonsense.
To anyone who actually read my wall of text: wow.
I know I'm late, but on your point #3, I know for a fact Grover Cleveland lost the popular vote. So there is at least one.
"You're favoring people from certain areas over others."
So does a pure democracy. 70% of Americans live in a handful of cities. Pure democratic election would favor all the people informed by mass media, at the expense of the remainder who live outside of cities.
"70% of Americans live in a handful of cities." What are you talking about?
The top-ten most populated cities in America make up about 8% of the population. There are about 26 million people in the top-ten most populated cities and about 327 million people total in the U.S.
26,000,000/327,000,000 = ~8%
@@AnaxofRhodes Thats still the point though. In theory you are assuming mass media is brainwashing and numbs the masses. But i do not see how a rural citizen becomes more educated about canidates if they themselves have less access to information and conduct far fewer conversations with people of different lifestyles.
Personally the homogeny of rural america produces the least informed populace.
The logic that one style of living should speak for the majority is the opposite of democracy.
I think that the best reason to preserve the EC (of which I am a supporter) is that is makes factions less likely in this large and diverse country and tends to force us into a middle ground (governing consensus). Anyone might look at one election result and say it should have been otherwise, but over time the EC serves us better.
BULLSHIT! The E C is poison to the USA!
Bottom line: the EC gives a disproportionate (greater) say to smaller populations than to larger ones, which is unfair. Or am I just missing something, here? Anyone feel free to respond or to correct me.
The Electoral College is ONLY a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers) and states which suppress voting.
The Electoral College has given that welfare benefit to Trump.
Therefore, Donald Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".
Donald Trump is the "welfare queen" president.
Not really. The Senate represents the States, not the People. The House of Representatives represents the people.
Well done! John Koza is intelligent enough to know that NPVIC is a terrible idea. :-P D.
Yeah I’m not necessarily against the electoral college but this didn’t change anything
Trust me, a national recount is not an option =) I live in Sweden where we have proportional representation and if there are regions of Sweden who have had trouble with their voting and still have votes to be counted on election night we don't recount all regions. That would be stupid! =P If the race is to close to call we just wait for the votes from THAT region just like you had to do in 2000 when you waited for the votes from Florida. =)
You know what's a great pragmatic idea that makes government work better? Apartheid - it's amazing how pragmatic and efficient government can be if, say, whole sections of the populations aren't even allowed to vote. Of course, there are some people out there who don't measure the quality of government by its efficiency - people who are concerned about freedom and democracy even, and especially when it becomes difficult. But I'll never change their minds no matter how many good reasons I give
Maybe we should just find some way to increase the weight of the votes cast by those who pay no income tax and those who live on government subsidies. Then we could increase the influence of the multinational corporations and banks and unions on congress. Then reduce the weight of the votes for the working class and we'll just print money at will and sit around chanting and wiggling our fingers in the air. This issue is a no brainer - no need to change the EC - there's ultimately no benefit.
@Prof. Lowenstein - Why are you attempting to polish the turd which is The Electoral College?
Can we PLEASE just publicly audit the electronic vote counting programs & companies? Then can we please audit the FED next? There should be no one against these 2 ideas. They are simple & the information & proof needs to be public domain.
I wouldn't worry about people possibly hacking the system considering the security of other open source software the NSA uses... like Linux & apparmor...
You know who's against these ideas? Ben Burnanke, and the powers that select the President. Who are you gonna hire to do these audits? And who hires them?
For someone that has lived in a country with less federal balance, Canada, I see the merits of an electoral college or a senate with equal representation. Otherwise you ahve countries like Canada where politcs is completely controled by Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta amd BC. Leavign the rest of the provinces at an disadvantage. This is why so much regionalism and factionalism exists. If we went solely by the popular vote, we'd still ahve to cater to the larger swing states
How do we trust the electoral college as he says? Who are they? Who selected them? I don't recall selecting anyone from the electoral college to represent me. I'm supposed to trust them not to perform a coup d'etat? What is he talking about? Politicians, by nature, are the most SUSPICIOUS persons on Earth.
Seems kind of shady that the electoral college representative doesn't have to bide by the vote, even.
I suppose politicians even overtly subscribe to people are sheep and sometimes need to be overturned.
However democracy to me should succeed or fail by the majority, never ever the minority.
What I think is oddest is, many states REQUIRE their elector to cast a faithful vote and many DO NOT.
Word spinning of the highest order. Forget about whether the elected president didn't get more than 50% oif the vote. How about an elected president who got fewer votes than the other candidates. That is the problem. As far as protecting the states, that is already done by the fact that each state gets two Senators, no matter what their population. California gets two Senators for asbout 22 million registered voters, and Wyoming gets two Senators for about 300 thousand registered voters. If that imbalance can't protect states rights, nothing else can. it isn't really necessary to get rid of the Electoral College. All that is necessary is for states to apportion their Electoral College votes roughly in porportion to the actual vote in their state. In fact a small number of states already do this. Finally, putting Ronald Reagan into that group of presidents is ridiculous. Who presided over the largest increase in government debt (to that point)? Ronald Reagan. Who decided it would be a good idea to fund and provide armaments for the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan? Ronald Reagan. Who oversaw the Savings and Loan collapse that cost USA taxpayers $100 billion? Ronald Reagan. Who got together with Margaret Thatcher and Zia ul-Haq (Pakistani president) to create the worldwide network that recruited for al-Qaeda? Ronald Reagan. US citizens lost their lives because of what he did. He was good at telling jokes though, so I guess there's that.
this is great help with my comparative politics essays, but he does get a bit confused with his numbers ...
"thir..fou..fith point..............."
@darkmiles22 That's the whole point. It balances the power of the states. It does not diminish the power of the big states since they receive additional votes based on the number of representative seats held. Therefore they still have more voting power. Besides what you advocate is simple majority rule. Do you truly wish this since the table can turn and you might be in the minority. How about lets just go to a simple majority vote for president rather than a plurality.
I think he's right. The number of cases where the electoral college vote is different from the national majority is minimal anyway.
My biggest objection is calling Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Wilson great Presidents. But the others he mentions were great or OK.
Churchill and Thatcher were great PM's.
The Framers of the Constitution were right in creating the Electoral College. If the states had not been protected by this mechanism (the smaller states feared tyranny by a majority of votes by urban areas), they would not have ratified the Constitution.
If you want to abolish something that threatens effective functioning of our Federal government, the best choice would be to severely limit the powers of political parties. George Washington warned against political parties.
I.
It is not an office for the populace like the House is. It was to be a Federal office representing the consensus of the entire nation. In a popular vote as long as you ran up the numbers in cities, other areas wouldnt matter. At least with the EC, you have to build a coalition and each coalition was different whether it was Clinton, the Bushes, Obama , Reagan, Nixon, FDR etc. Obama even showed that the EC makes you win a broad base of supporters.
@rdcress1 A constitutional republic restricts the tyranny of the majority just fine. Giving power to less populous states wouldn't prevent tyranny in the slightest; it would only shift the tyranny from the majority to those select small states.
You say that "it balances the power of the states," but states are artificial organs for representing the people. States don't have rights; people have rights. People deserve equal voting rights, not states.
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE FIXED, NOT ELIMINATED! Even though the founding fathers came up with this, it was 1787 for heavens sakes!! we're in 2013!! come on now, its just basic common sense and math!!!
Not one good reason let popular vote rule the only way every vote counts. I live in red state vote blue and all blue votes here will never add up to enough to win so entire elector votes go red, so the 40% of this state that votes blue gets not one single elector vote how is that fair. many times guys won the residency but lost the votes over all. How in the world can you ever say every vote counts when system makes sure it does not. millions of voters votes make zero difference. To win presidency you can win just a few big states and lose by millions of american votes but win the presidency
@MrBobisawesome5 Oh, your argument is so powerful I've just changed my mind!
watch CPG Greys videos. he talks about the Electoral College
CGPGrey talks about the Electoral College ignoring facts ,distorting numbers and creating fanciful scenarios in his argument against the EC. Grey is very one sided.
dandyky in most arguments in is almost impossible to be one sided due to your personal oppinion. and onto the "distorting numbers" what does he "distort"? the Electoral College is flawed tremendously.
true. The EC does have its quirks. But it is the best system we have for electing the POTUS until someone comes up with a better way. Grey distorted the population figures for large cities in an attempt to prove his flawed argument. Grey deliberately omitted the populations of the suburban areas of the large cities that are not part of the cities proper.
CGP Grey completely ignored the Constitution and the collective wisdom of the framers when he made that video. Also , that 22% argument is pretty ridiculous and full of holes.
dandyky where does he do this, wht is your evidence against them.
Totally misleading title to this video. Thumbs down. Fail.
This hasn't aged well.
That was the best he could do? This is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever heard a university professor say.
The chances of a super close vote in one state are much higher with state races than one super tight race nation wide with a national popular vote.
The chances of the problem are reduced but the scope is widened. That's hardly a convincing reason, but then again none of his reasons were good.
There is one fatal flaw in the electoral college. Governors draw these lines, to benefit their party. This is called gerrymandering. I take Wisconsin as an example. Walker was court ordered to change these lines, because of gerrymandering. He has not complied. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, in Wisconsin, yet Trump was awarded the State of Wisconsin, due to this gerrymandering. The fix would be to have an outside source to draw the lines.
Vicky Paulson wow you are clueless. Each state is awarded by popular vote in presidential election. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. Gerrymandering is done to win seats within a particular state by redrawing voting districts.
Trump did win the popular vote in Wisconsin though?
Randall Martin is correct. Almost every state awards the state's electors in toto, all of them, winner takes all, to the ticket that receives the most votes.
The "fix" is to eliminate the Electoral College AND gerrymandering.
@@rb032682 The fix it to reform it like Maine and Nebraska do
JUST NOT GOOD REASONS
Puro Bernie!!! Alv
None of the arguments are legitimate. This man is purposefully being manipulative. What a joke.
join our anti Obama forum at JTF.org
I only viewed this video because I want to hear both sides of the issue, and not just look for blind affirmations of my own opinions/biases. If truly these are the only reasons to KEEP the electoral college, then I'm sorry my friend, it does far more REAL harm than the possibility of THEORETICAL good. Abolish.