Imagine spending your entire life in the American eye. Deciding to run for president, spending years worth of stress on promoting yourself over a couple months. Winning all of it and being nominated for your area. Going one on one for the most powerful role on the planet. Getting 269/270 electoral votes, just one away from the presidency. Then you pick heads and the coin lands on tails.
@@josephandersonslaugh4923 agreed but parties are not always terrible just when people only vote for one party no matter what. There are a supprising number of people who only vote one way because that's how they always voted
Honestly we need a new representative. Don Young has been our rep since 1973 for god's sake. Thats 46 years!!! Talk about career politicians am I right.
Ezio133798 Basically, to make America, say, communist, win support of the smaller states, tie the Democrats and Republicans, and boom, America is communist.
@@alohadubs7683, not quite. America's president is communist. The president has limited power, and depends on Congress to pass laws. Without Congress' favour, a Communist president would have a hard time doing much communism.
It's worth mentioning that if there's a 50-50 tie in the Senate, the VP does break the tie, so if a President is running for re-election and there's an Electoral College tie, the VP can vote for themselves.
I wonder why this situation isn’t treated the same as a Presidential impeachment trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate so that the Bono’s removed from a situation involving Presidential succession.
Ever wonder what happens what the government does when you say things publicly that people dont like? Or what the government can do to you for practicing your own religion? Dont worry, theres an 18th century solution to the problem!
MJ Willard It survives by the continued confidence of the population to retain it, and groups who write new constitutions include clauses like freedom of speech and thought in their new documents as well. How many people would have ever come up with this type of method for resolving a tie like this today?
Hey cgp, you forgot one minor detail about the senate part. The senate has a tiebreaker: the Vice President. In the scenario you described, the outgoing Vice President would get to cast the tie breaking vote.
The Senate is guaranteed to get a winner first vote. They only consider the top two, and the veep breaks a tie. This is deliberate, so there will be an approved, properly elected person to act as president if the house can not make up its mind.
@@py8554 Kanye would need to win at least 1 state or have one of the electoral college members go against their states wishes in order to be in the top 3
That's what I was thinking I don't know when they decided not to that anymore but you can tell it was a negative to let the party decide it's own vp it should always be second runner up. Scary as that is now to think about it hillary VP to trump.
The 11th amendment they passed rhe 12th around the same time it was used to cheat Jackson out of the Presidency the first time he ran. Jackson at least felt cheated since he won the popular vote and wanted to abolish the Electoral college but never got around to it.
No, we mean flip a fair coin. (Seriously, six flips, all for Hillary? That's a 1.5625% chance of happening? Bernie may have the one in a billion chance of a bird going to his podium, but that 1/64 Chance Hillary got was more valuable)
+JonHT96 The laws of probability don't work like that. Each coin flip is a50-50 shot; they don't stack to make it more or less likely to land a certain way up, every flip of the coin is a stand-alone event. You can flip a coin a billion times, all of them somehow landing heads up, but that doesn't affect the laws of probability one iota; flip number billion and one will still have the same exact 50-50 chance as flip number one. Also, just because there is a low chance of something happening doesn't mean that it makes that improbable event impossible, it's just improbable. An example would be the odds of a meteor entering a particular part of the Earth's atmosphere at a particular time of day and so on. The likelihood of such an event may be astronomically low once all the factors are calculated, but that won't stop such events happening all the time. It's the way the world is; no conspiracies, just the nature of reality. Just a friendly reminder of how mathematics works in the real world (and before you call me a Trump loon, yes I'm a Democrat).
republicazi32 Oh, I know it wasn't impossible. I know that wining six flips in a row is possible. And while yes, it was 50/50 each time, that still means winning six times consecutively is 1/64. After that first 50/50, the next thing would be 50/50 too. Well, that means winning both would be 1/4 or 25% because you were dividing up the 50% in two again. And again. And again. And again. Annndddd again. And by the end, the chances of winning all 6 is 1/64, even if each is 50/50.
Don't even mention the coin toss!! Here in Chile, when two candidates for Mayor are tied, the tie is broken with... a coin toss. And most of us never knew because it was so unlikely, that it barely merited mention. Until it happened this past Sunday. And I think I speak for a lot of my fellow countrymen/women when I say that is ridiculous, shameful even. So no, please, no coin tosses in a democracy. There's much better ways to break ties.
Well, in the US you could have the Representatives vote directly, they're an odd number after all. In our case? Run another election. And if that still doesn't work, have the City Council vote between the two (it'd be a good idea as the Mayor has to work closely with the Council, so it's logical to have the majority support for budgets and projects).
Pah. That is just the office of mayor's. Take a look at Sweden between 1973 and '76, there you'll find true lunacy. The parliament at that point had 350 members, and that year the result was split 175 - 175 between the socialists and the liberals. And so every single issue where they couldn't compromise, the issue was decided by drawing lots, thus earning that election the name "the lottery parliament". The liberals won at lottery 40 and the socialists 39 times.
Smygskytt #1 Now THAT is crazy. Maybe even crazier is that the split was almost a perfect 50/50... and probably each party got the bills passed that they didn't care so much for, so that both became angry ^_^
Ildskalli From what I can find, there was very few times when the drawing of lots was actually required. Instead, the governing socialists sought a broad support and compromise across the parliamentary parties.
None of these fanciful scenarios will happen in real life practice. All these are a bunch of cute little math exercises meant to misinform the uneducated. Nothing to get worried about.
+D Smith Imagine a popular independent candidate and a close situation between the 2 largest parties. Getting 26 states is the hardest part. But it can be achieved if they are granted special treatment during the presidency. I'd suppose that many of the smaller states (and alaska with just one guy who could receive easy reelections) would vote for this independent candidate because they'd have a huge advantage over the bigger states. A feast for any representative. It's mostly unlikely due to the two-party system. Not because of the needed steps to become president.
+NagencaTV Simply imagine Trump running as third party candidate. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat candidate has the majority. Then the House of representatives would have to decide. Who would win ?
+Fatortu Good question. Right now, we don't know who the Democratic or Republican nominees will be. Assuming that Trump runs as an independent and to the right of the Republican nominee, he could possibly swing a few red states to the Democratic nominee. If Trump runs to the left of the Republican nominee, he could win a couple of red states and maybe a couple of small blue states. If in the unlikely event that Trump could win enough states to cause a contingent election in the House of Representatives, it is likely that the election would go the nominee whose party controls a majority of House delegations but not necessarily the party that holds the House majority.
Someone needs to write a fan fic where there's ties for president all the way down... And the speaker becomes acting president. Bonus points if it takes them a full term to solve the tie, and the whole time the speaker acting as president does a better job than whichever guy they elect at the end. Extra point if they decide to scrap presidency altogether because of that.
Luna it's your idea you should write it :) I would 100% read it. But don't make it 4 years make it like 2-3yrs then the president gets it and fucks everything over ;)
There are two difficulties with this concept. 1. The Senate would simultaneously be voting for vice president, and if a VP is elected then he would immediately replace the Speaker as Acting President. Not sure if the sitting VP would break a tie in the Senate. 2. The House isn't allowed to conduct any other business until they elect a President. So they literally couldn't introduce any legislation at all, in which case the Acting President wouldn't exactly be able to made to look good.
In order for the people to vote directly for President, the electoral college must be abolished. In order for the electoral college to be abolished, there must be a Constitutional Amendment. In order to pass a Constitutional Amendment, a proposed Amendment must pass 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives AND pass a 2/3 vote in the Senate AND pass a majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures. Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is a lot of work. Voting directly for President likely will never happen.
Is it too much work to pick a book or Google subjects such as federalism or the US Constitution? Apparently for some people it is. The Constitutional Amendment process deliberately made it difficult to change the Constitution. The Constitution is not and was never designed to represent the will of the majority of the people. The Constitution is the Rule of Law meant to protect the natural rights of everyone.
Jude Pelaez That would be a bad idea. The democrat candidate would never lose which would be bad because then we'd have essentially a one-party system which might as well be a fancy dictatorship. Pure popularity voting is a pretty bad idea overall because it doesn't accurately represent the different cultures and opinions within a voting system, it just lets the popular guy stay popular forever and never have any competition which is quite not good.
julian1000 1. US has a term limit. 2. The person who get most votes in the electoral has most often the most popular votes too. 3. Election is a popularity contest, direct voting wouldn't change it. 4. Both system are bad. Uni-chamber Parliamentarianism is the way to go. Remove the senate and let the Congress elected the president/prime-minister. Which is how it is done in most European countries. There is no point of having a president that doesn't have support in Congress. And having a senate would just cause grid-lock and not an effective government.
Actually, the office would go to the next in line, the Senate's President Pro Tempore. After that, it goes to the Secretary of State, and so on. There's a list of 17 people in line to the presidency.
Rouverius i would prefer turning all candidates lose on an island, and make it a presidency of the survivor. But then the Democrats would find a way to rig that too.
Basically in 1776, British colonists in the 13 North American colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence, where they basically said "Fuck you Britain, I'm on my own, fuck off". Then the colonists fought the British off the colonies until they just left the US alone.
I'm for that crazy idea you mention at the end. Some people may have been too busy cursing when you brought it up, so... I'll be posting this RUclips on social media with an introduction advising all to pay particular attention to the the last 12 seconds. Thank you for the clip and let's hope everyone uses their vote in 2020.
some the olde time prophets were often dudes that warned people and governments to repent, behave, and get it together. kinda like Bernie actually often real pains in the ass. Now the oracles, they predicted the future. Or else they said what the king wanted, even better.
Prophets don't actually predict things. A prophet is a person who delivers a message from God. That message doesn't have to be about the future. I think you're thinking of a fortune teller or a psychic :)
Caucuses are such a stupid way to cast votes. Everyone has to stand around in a school gymnasium for hours, listen to speeches, and publicly admit their vote. Other than retired people who have nothing else to do, who has time for that? And why would anyone mandatory publicity to their vote?
***** Socialism as an economic system has the same progression through classes as capitalism. However, profits are shared equally rather then just to the top executives. The easiest way to think about it is that the board of directors is made up of every employee in the company. Equal say. Democracy in the workplace. Wanna outsource a department? Everyone votes on it. Want to save a buck by using dangerous chemicals? Everyone gets a vote.
@@masicbemester Cities and heavy populated states would decide everything. All a politician would have to do is win over the population of New York and Cali because it's shown that people In the same general area have similar thoughts and values. With the electoral college every state is important and helps prevent basically two states from ruling over the others.
Also you got to consider the size of each state. An American state is more comparable to an entire European country in size and population. Each state having its own culture,laws, and values.
Nathan only the top two candidates for VP would be up for vote to prevent a tie. But that doesn’t mean a Senator won’t abstain, causing the Senate to be deadlocked.
Just get a multi-party system with proportional representation, works for Germany, and gives a broader choice and gives a chance for more compromise and alliances of different ideologies.
Don't joke about the coin flip man. I'm from Prince Edward Island, Canada and our province had an election earlier this year and when one district ended up having a tie the candidates ended up deciding the winner by coin flip. What makes this situation more messed up is the fact that because Canada isn't a two party system there were many who voted for other parties and in the first past the post system there votes don't count when it comes to breaking a tie. That is the reason I really hope our new government in Canada changes from being a FPTP system to some other better system.
It's actually a man named Don Young, who has had the position since 1973. Alaska is a district where he polls with large margins, and has an extremely safe seat.
It's even worse, because only 26 of the states requires their electors to vote as the people want. The other 24 can basically flip off their citizens and cast a vote for who THEY want, not who the PEOPLE want.
The popular elections are in reality state elections to elect the state's electors to the electoral college. The US as a federation puts real sovereignty in the states, not the people. To be very technical about it, it is the states who decides how their electors are selected. They just happen to all have them decided by popular vote.
The thing about the electoral college and this system of voting is that the United States Federal Government is exactly that, the government of a federation of states. Legally speaking, the people have no constitutional right to vote for president, the states do and at first, they exercised that right. The first election where all electoral votes were granted by popular vote was 1864, and that was only because South Carolina, the last state to refuse to use popular votes, obviously wasn't participating. In my home of New York, the state legislature selected the electors up to and including 1824.
James Madison is the closest thing to a final authority we can get on the constitution since he wrote the thing. Each law and amendment should be examined by the rhetoric used to pass it. If we alterted such meanings then redraft a law that suits our modern needs.
The 24th amendment of all things suggests that's not very true. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President... ... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
@Aditya Chavarkar This would be equivalent to the EU members electing the EU parliament by popular vote instead of each country having equal say. The entire continent's policies would be dictated by a couple countries and all the policies would benefit only those countries at the expense of the rest. The end result would be 1) The entire continent would suffer 2) The sovereignty of all of the the member States would be obviated and 3) the EU would collapse into war.
@@GoSlash27 well in EU it works a bit different because formally EU has three different acting presidents (president of European council, president of European commission and president of European Parliament) each one is chosen in a different way. President of European Parliament is chosen from Members of the European Parliament (and those members are elected by all adult citizens of the EU), president of European Council is elected by heads of state of each member country and president of European Commission is chosen by the European Commission and then elected by European Parliament.
The Pirate Cody You mean those Americans that don't understand that the US is and has always been a federal republic comprised of states? The states are free to pass their own laws within the guidelines of the Constitution. That includes electing the President.
The Pirate Cody ....and the Constitution specifies that the office of the President is to be elected by the states. I don't know where you got your (mis)information.
I know this is an old video, but you didn't include one potentially crucial detail. The House can only choose among the top three Presidential candidates, and the Senate can only choose among the top two Vice Presidential candidates. This means that a third party Vice President has no chance at winning even in your worst-case scenario of a House-elected third party President.
The margin got more narrow each time the votes where counted they ran out of time to recount anyways. maybe gore actually won Florida but unfortunately we will never know now.
I think the biggest concern if it was 269-269 to start would be that one of the electors wouldn't vote for the person they were pledged to support in the actual December EC meeting. That person would probably need lifetime police protection. Then imagine what the stock market would be doing if the election was thrown to the House?
Just the other day I learned about a story where the next King is chosen by throwing the head of the last king out into the crowd -- the person who caught the head was the next King. The term of the king was limited to 1 year.
...replaced with what? We still have the EC because no one has conceived a better plan to elect the POTUS. Dont say national popular vote. NPV has been shot down numerous times and is obviously a bad idea.
Problem is like the speaker said electoral college favors the small states. And, to change the electoral college requires 3/4 of congress and 2/3 of the states. So the smaller states have vested interest in keeping the EC. This means it won't be changed.
Getting this in my recommended feed now. Clearly everyone is feeling super cool and chill about the peaceful transfer of power and nobody trying to interfere with the election
2:20 i wouldn’t be surprised if this rule is a fossil of older times. when the us first established elections, the vice president didn’t tag along with the president. the person who got 2nd place in the presidential race would become vice, resulting in a lot of presidencies split between opposing parties. in a time like that, it would make sense if the vice was chosen independently. I wonder if the senate can vote on a presidential candidate rather than a vice, though. if so, what happens if both houses choose the same person?
In a contingent election, according to the 12th amendment, the House must choose from the top 3 presidential candidates, and the Senate must choose from the top 2 vice-presidential candidates. So they could not just vote for a presidential candidate instead. HOWEVER. If someone ran for both the presidential AND vice-presidential tickets, or enough faithless electors voted a presidential candidate for the vice-president ticket, then it would be possible. But, extremely unlikely.
A System that potentially gives 17% Of the people (Or even less because of winner takes it all) the power to decide for the remaining 83% is broken. No matter giving minorities a voice. And also nvm the fact that state minorities get their voice heard but demographic minorities get theirs stifled.
@@Xsomono because the identity which matters is surely are you American and are you from State X. The constitution wasn't going to protect on identity politics grounds because why the fuck would it. Everyone in America at the time had all originated from different countries so carving out protections for ones past ethnic identities was pointless. You came to America you were American.
@@eomoran Yes, back then, but not today, as if states mattered more to people than their their social environment. Telling Hispanics, black people and other marginalized groups to get rid of their identity politics today is ridiculous. Identity is crucial to defend the interests of minorities, especially since they're marginalized. Those circumstances didn't exist when the Union was born. After all it's harder to have a social gradient if most people are all equally without resources and coming to america to start a new life. Yes, the reason it was designed that way was because the individual states totally incohesive and didn't see them selves as one nation, so they would have never admitted to a compromise which would have had them give up so much power. They were expecting to get fucked over by the bigger states. But that is totally different today. The United states aren't united states anymore. It's a single country where bigger states can't just dominate the smaller ones because in the minds of Americans today, they aren't just screwing another state, their screwing their fellow country men. That mindset didn't exist 250 years ago. Besides, the primary purpose of disproportional votes was to make sure their interests would be recognized by the larger states. But the electoral college and this voting in the house as well does not accomplish that. We've seen time and time again that presidential candidates focus on battleground states, not small states. It's broken, because despite working as intended it's not at all up to modern standards as far as democracy goes. Back then it made sense to protects states because they needed protection, today they don't and today it's more important to actually represent the will of the people, for which the US provide so many systems to subvert.
![Roddy Ricch - 911 [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5N3lAfydeWs/mqdefault.jpg)
*Flips the coin* Lands on Side
+Exobyte Monolith Third-party-candidate wins!
*No Third Party Candidate*
Well, shit- Wait, what's this- Oh....
*goes around the corner and burns "Deez Nuts"'s Candidacy papers*
hmm, my, what a problem, (the coin landed in a crack) do we both win, or do we both lose?
Just do 'heads I win tails you lose' next time against your opponent if they're gullible enough
+Kevin Chiem Simple, they both become -king- president
Imagine spending your entire life in the American eye. Deciding to run for president, spending years worth of stress on promoting yourself over a couple months. Winning all of it and being nominated for your area. Going one on one for the most powerful role on the planet. Getting 269/270 electoral votes, just one away from the presidency. Then you pick heads and the coin lands on tails.
bruh
Bruh
bruh
bruh
bruh
Remember when George Washington said don’t split into parties?
I certainly do. Sadly, Idk how many others do. Sometimes I wonder if the Founding Fathers moonlit as fortune tellers
Literally impossible as long as people disagree
Oh yeah me and ol' george go way back. Clever man he was.
STAHP they way he helped set this system up, it was inevitable
@@josephandersonslaugh4923 agreed but parties are not always terrible just when people only vote for one party no matter what. There are a supprising number of people who only vote one way because that's how they always voted
2020: “Write that down, write that down....”
This comment aged very well.
*_YOU FOOL, YOU DOOMED US ALL!_*
coronavirus
Dude...
Ho boy, this is gonna be fun...
I knew Alaska's representative was a bear with a tie.
What an honest politician...
I live in Alaska and that is our rep his name is papa bear
If you look up the rep for Alaska he kind of looks like a bear
Zorbak962 I
Honestly we need a new representative. Don Young has been our rep since 1973 for god's sake. Thats 46 years!!! Talk about career politicians am I right.
Everything you said in this video gave me a headache. Not because I didn't understand it, but because I did.
Ezio133798 lol same
That sounds like a good t-shirt
Ezio133798
Basically, to make America, say, communist, win support of the smaller states, tie the Democrats and Republicans, and boom, America is communist.
@@alohadubs7683, not quite. America's president is communist. The president has limited power, and depends on Congress to pass laws. Without Congress' favour, a Communist president would have a hard time doing much communism.
...And vice versa
It's worth mentioning that if there's a 50-50 tie in the Senate, the VP does break the tie, so if a President is running for re-election and there's an Electoral College tie, the VP can vote for themselves.
Would be interested to see vp vote for self
And if There is A president from the different party elected. It would get really weird. Real fast...
I wonder why this situation isn’t treated the same as a Presidential impeachment trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate so that the Bono’s removed from a situation involving Presidential succession.
Wait so does the current house vote or the newly voted house that comes in January.
@@J.C.3 newly voted House
There's about a one-in-fifty chance this video's going to get REALLY relevant in a few months.
"Don't worry, there is an 18th century solution to the problem!"
lol fml this is too true
Some Person The 12th amendment (which dictates this crazy shit) was written in 1804(19th century).
@@iustinianconstantinescu5498 4 years
My motto is: if it's old, it must be wrong.
Ever wonder what happens what the government does when you say things publicly that people dont like? Or what the government can do to you for practicing your own religion? Dont worry, theres an 18th century solution to the problem!
MJ Willard It survives by the continued confidence of the population to retain it, and groups who write new constitutions include clauses like freedom of speech and thought in their new documents as well. How many people would have ever come up with this type of method for resolving a tie like this today?
Hey cgp, you forgot one minor detail about the senate part. The senate has a tiebreaker: the Vice President. In the scenario you described, the outgoing Vice President would get to cast the tie breaking vote.
Strider755 u are right. the vise president is the president of the usa senate. he or she can break a tie.
The senate could however fail if two candidates were to tie for second place, and the senate vote continually ends with nobody taking a majority.
That's impossible because the Senate picks from the top two.
Strider755 If two people are tied for second however, they'd have to pick between more than two.
The Senate is guaranteed to get a winner first vote. They only consider the top two, and the veep breaks a tie.
This is deliberate, so there will be an approved, properly elected person to act as president if the house can not make up its mind.
so kanye could be president after all...
Most underrated comment
No he couldn't. He got in too late to register for most states, leaving him with like 5 states to run in.
@@DaDARKPass I think he meant that theoretically the Congress could vote in Kayne as the president in the case of electoral votes tie.
@@py8554 Kanye would need to win at least 1 state or have one of the electoral college members go against their states wishes in order to be in the top 3
The small states love him.
“Vice President and president can be from two different parties”
So Like how they used to do it...
That's what I was thinking I don't know when they decided not to that anymore but you can tell it was a negative to let the party decide it's own vp it should always be second runner up. Scary as that is now to think about it hillary VP to trump.
The 11th amendment they passed rhe 12th around the same time it was used to cheat Jackson out of the Presidency the first time he ran. Jackson at least felt cheated since he won the popular vote and wanted to abolish the Electoral college but never got around to it.
@@revan1202 In other countries that do it I am pretty sure it not the runner up for president the VP is different election all together.
"Flip a coin" kinda like they did in Iowa?
+Stephen H well studies show that flipping a coin is a 51-49 chance in favour of the starting side... so its not quite democratic enough for MURICA
No, we mean flip a fair coin. (Seriously, six flips, all for Hillary? That's a 1.5625% chance of happening? Bernie may have the one in a billion chance of a bird going to his podium, but that 1/64 Chance Hillary got was more valuable)
+JonHT96 The laws of probability don't work like that. Each coin flip is a50-50 shot; they don't stack to make it more or less likely to land a certain way up, every flip of the coin is a stand-alone event. You can flip a coin a billion times, all of them somehow landing heads up, but that doesn't affect the laws of probability one iota; flip number billion and one will still have the same exact 50-50 chance as flip number one.
Also, just because there is a low chance of something happening doesn't mean that it makes that improbable event impossible, it's just improbable. An example would be the odds of a meteor entering a particular part of the Earth's atmosphere at a particular time of day and so on. The likelihood of such an event may be astronomically low once all the factors are calculated, but that won't stop such events happening all the time. It's the way the world is; no conspiracies, just the nature of reality.
Just a friendly reminder of how mathematics works in the real world (and before you call me a Trump loon, yes I'm a Democrat).
republicazi32
Oh, I know it wasn't impossible. I know that wining six flips in a row is possible.
And while yes, it was 50/50 each time, that still means winning six times consecutively is 1/64. After that first 50/50, the next thing would be 50/50 too. Well, that means winning both would be 1/4 or 25% because you were dividing up the 50% in two again.
And again. And again. And again. Annndddd again.
And by the end, the chances of winning all 6 is 1/64, even if each is 50/50.
+republicazi In fact, you have a 100% of flipping one side. If you had a 50% of flipping both, you could actually flip both at the same time.
Don't even mention the coin toss!! Here in Chile, when two candidates for Mayor are tied, the tie is broken with... a coin toss. And most of us never knew because it was so unlikely, that it barely merited mention. Until it happened this past Sunday. And I think I speak for a lot of my fellow countrymen/women when I say that is ridiculous, shameful even.
So no, please, no coin tosses in a democracy. There's much better ways to break ties.
give us an example of a better method
Well, in the US you could have the Representatives vote directly, they're an odd number after all.
In our case? Run another election. And if that still doesn't work, have the City Council vote between the two (it'd be a good idea as the Mayor has to work closely with the Council, so it's logical to have the majority support for budgets and projects).
Pah. That is just the office of mayor's. Take a look at Sweden between 1973 and '76, there you'll find true lunacy. The parliament at that point had 350 members, and that year the result was split 175 - 175 between the socialists and the liberals. And so every single issue where they couldn't compromise, the issue was decided by drawing lots, thus earning that election the name "the lottery parliament". The liberals won at lottery 40 and the socialists 39 times.
Smygskytt #1 Now THAT is crazy. Maybe even crazier is that the split was almost a perfect 50/50... and probably each party got the bills passed that they didn't care so much for, so that both became angry ^_^
Ildskalli
From what I can find, there was very few times when the drawing of lots was actually required. Instead, the governing socialists sought a broad support and compromise across the parliamentary parties.
Who is watching this at 2020 on the 4th of November, waiting for the results wondering if this could happen
Don't mind me, just placing my premature bet that this video is going to blow up in a few days...
I wouldn't bet on NC going Biden, MI and PA are looking more likely.
Shut up
What was the viewer count a week ago?
@@jonathanwalther 3.0 M
@@thomase5746 yeah it blowin up then
Both entertaining and terrifying information.
None of these fanciful scenarios will happen in real life practice. All these are a bunch of cute little math exercises meant to misinform the uneducated. Nothing to get worried about.
+D Smith Imagine a popular independent candidate and a close situation between the 2 largest parties. Getting 26 states is the hardest part. But it can be achieved if they are granted special treatment during the presidency. I'd suppose that many of the smaller states (and alaska with just one guy who could receive easy reelections) would vote for this independent candidate because they'd have a huge advantage over the bigger states. A feast for any representative. It's mostly unlikely due to the two-party system. Not because of the needed steps to become president.
+NagencaTV Simply imagine Trump running as third party candidate. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat candidate has the majority. Then the House of representatives would have to decide. Who would win ?
+Fatortu Good question. Right now, we don't know who the Democratic or Republican nominees will be. Assuming that Trump runs as an independent and to the right of the Republican nominee, he could possibly swing a few red states to the Democratic nominee. If Trump runs to the left of the Republican nominee, he could win a couple of red states and maybe a couple of small blue states. If in the unlikely event that Trump could win enough states to cause a contingent election in the House of Representatives, it is likely that the election would go the nominee whose party controls a majority of House delegations but not necessarily the party that holds the House majority.
D Smith I think the Republican nominee would get elected because the GOP usually control more states and congressmen are unlikely to vote for Trump...
Solution. Make Peuto Rico the 51st state. No more representative ties.
Then: Cool trivia but I doubt it will be ever useful
2020:
And of course RUclips recommends this the day after the 2020 election
Someone needs to write a fan fic where there's ties for president all the way down... And the speaker becomes acting president. Bonus points if it takes them a full term to solve the tie, and the whole time the speaker acting as president does a better job than whichever guy they elect at the end. Extra point if they decide to scrap presidency altogether because of that.
I'm working on one right now! :D
That wouldn't be a fan fic, that would just be fiction.
Luna it's your idea you should write it :) I would 100% read it. But don't make it 4 years make it like 2-3yrs then the president gets it and fucks everything over ;)
If you really are and post it give us the link!
There are two difficulties with this concept.
1. The Senate would simultaneously be voting for vice president, and if a VP is elected then he would immediately replace the Speaker as Acting President. Not sure if the sitting VP would break a tie in the Senate.
2. The House isn't allowed to conduct any other business until they elect a President. So they literally couldn't introduce any legislation at all, in which case the Acting President wouldn't exactly be able to made to look good.
Is it too much work to allow the people to vote directly for the president?
In order for the people to vote directly for President, the electoral college must be abolished. In order for the electoral college to be abolished, there must be a Constitutional Amendment. In order to pass a Constitutional Amendment, a proposed Amendment must pass 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives AND pass a 2/3 vote in the Senate AND pass a majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures. Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is a lot of work. Voting directly for President likely will never happen.
Is it too much work to instate a more functional government-wait, never mind.....
Is it too much work to pick a book or Google subjects such as federalism or the US Constitution? Apparently for some people it is. The Constitutional Amendment process deliberately made it difficult to change the Constitution. The Constitution is not and was never designed to represent the will of the majority of the people. The Constitution is the Rule of Law meant to protect the natural rights of everyone.
Jude Pelaez That would be a bad idea. The democrat candidate would never lose which would be bad because then we'd have essentially a one-party system which might as well be a fancy dictatorship. Pure popularity voting is a pretty bad idea overall because it doesn't accurately represent the different cultures and opinions within a voting system, it just lets the popular guy stay popular forever and never have any competition which is quite not good.
julian1000
1. US has a term limit.
2. The person who get most votes in the electoral has most often the most popular votes too.
3. Election is a popularity contest, direct voting wouldn't change it.
4. Both system are bad.
Uni-chamber Parliamentarianism is the way to go. Remove the senate and let the Congress elected the president/prime-minister. Which is how it is done in most European countries. There is no point of having a president that doesn't have support in Congress. And having a senate would just cause grid-lock and not an effective government.
Also note: If the speaker of the house refuses to be president, the two original candidates just play a game of paper scissors rock.
best of 3, as it's written in the constitution
@@wolfganggluck6199 it’s called rock paper scissors, though.
How F-ed up does the United States have to be, for anybody to refuse to be President when offered the position?
it’s rock-paper-scissors in america
Actually, the office would go to the next in line, the Senate's President Pro Tempore. After that, it goes to the Secretary of State, and so on. There's a list of 17 people in line to the presidency.
2020 says hello, and thanks you for this video. Because in under 60 days we’ll be living it.
Anyone else for replacing the whole thing for a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors?
Or, a simple popular vote?
The Garden of Eatin I was going to suggest a pumpkin chunkin contest but your idea just might be crazy enough to work too.
Whoa there... this is the internet. You won't last long here with your "rational, reasonable thinking" nonsense.
Penalty shoot-out.
Rouverius i would prefer turning all candidates lose on an island, and make it a presidency of the survivor. But then the Democrats would find a way to rig that too.
how is America even a country?
You must be dumb
I have no idea
Basically in 1776, British colonists in the 13 North American colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence, where they basically said "Fuck you Britain, I'm on my own, fuck off". Then the colonists fought the British off the colonies until they just left the US alone.
+ArgumentNotValidRBLX America is a continent, he is not dumb, he is right
+- TheRActivator - He said country
I see this video trends every four years. I wonder why? 😋
I'm for that crazy idea you mention at the end. Some people may have been too busy cursing when you brought it up, so... I'll be posting this RUclips on social media with an introduction advising all to pay particular attention to the the last 12 seconds. Thank you for the clip and let's hope everyone uses their vote in 2020.
"Thats a bad idea" -the people who started the country
0:28 Top-left of image, front row of the representative area. The creeper.
Zacho Gilman nice observation skills!
Aw man
so a creeper is house of representative
Freaky prophet you CGP. They actually flipped a coin to decide the winner of a caucus.
+mf4361 A prophet predicts things, not describe something that could theoretically happen. Im sure he didnt throw in the coin comment by coincidence.
some the olde time prophets were often dudes that warned people and governments to repent, behave, and get it together. kinda like Bernie actually often real pains in the ass. Now the oracles, they predicted the future. Or else they said what the king wanted, even better.
Prophets don't actually predict things. A prophet is a person who delivers a message from God. That message doesn't have to be about the future. I think you're thinking of a fortune teller or a psychic :)
Caucuses are such a stupid way to cast votes. Everyone has to stand around in a school gymnasium for hours, listen to speeches, and publicly admit their vote. Other than retired people who have nothing else to do, who has time for that? And why would anyone mandatory publicity to their vote?
Seems like everyone comes to rewatch this every four years, lol
goddamnit algorithm perfect timing
That one Representative that is sick that day 😂
HOUSE: WHY DID WE GET A TIE AGAIN!
IDAHO: DONT WORRY WYOMING IS SICK!
Just convince them to come, it's how caesar was assassinated
A 3 sided coin of course
Well put my friend!
Also, you get a brohoof. /)
Or a 12 sided dice. That could work. Or, just get them to play Civ V and see who wins.
+Matthew Chapin Heads- Dem
Tails- Rep
Edge of the coin- 3rd party
so.... a dice?
Roll a d20
Who else is here during the election trying to see how this might play out?
Am I the only one who kept screaming "just choose whoever won the popular vote, eggheads!" All through to the end?
Let the censorship begin!
@@legendgames128 censorship?
And I thought House of Cards was weird. Reality is worse.
Why is there not a show where the senate picks a staunch republican vp and the house picks a staunch democrat pres?
Because all democrats are pussies, except Sanders but he's a socialist
+Kenpachi Zaraki How does that matter? That's a good thing!
***** why not?
***** Socialism as an economic system has the same progression through classes as capitalism. However, profits are shared equally rather then just to the top executives. The easiest way to think about it is that the board of directors is made up of every employee in the company. Equal say. Democracy in the workplace. Wanna outsource a department? Everyone votes on it. Want to save a buck by using dangerous chemicals? Everyone gets a vote.
***** alright
“Each representative doesn’t get one vote, each STATE gets one vote”
Everyone: COME ON NOT AGAIN
Grey, you must *REALLY* despise the electoral college
Grey is a fairly vocal opponent of the electoral college.
Popular vote should be the only valid vote
Change my mind
@@masicbemester Agreed. The electoral college system is semi-democratic unlike popular vote systems which are fully democratic.
@@masicbemester Cities and heavy populated states would decide everything. All a politician would have to do is win over the population of New York and Cali because it's shown that people In the same general area have similar thoughts and values. With the electoral college every state is important and helps prevent basically two states from ruling over the others.
Also you got to consider the size of each state. An American state is more comparable to an entire European country in size and population. Each state having its own culture,laws, and values.
The Senate wouldn't tie, though. The current Vice President breaks any tied vote in the Senate, and I'm sure that would apply here, too.
Unless there are three or more candidates
Nathan only the top two candidates for VP would be up for vote to prevent a tie. But that doesn’t mean a Senator won’t abstain, causing the Senate to be deadlocked.
Just get a multi-party system with proportional representation, works for Germany, and gives a broader choice and gives a chance for more compromise and alliances of different ideologies.
They do not elect the head of the government by popular vote.
This kind of system has a high chance of ending up with a hung parliament and nothing ever gets done other than petty squabbling
Ah yeah Germany with it's famously decisive, easily ruling, and not-hung parliament?
I know exactly why this landed in my recommended.
This video from 8 years ago now suddenly gains a lot of traction in 2020.....
anyone else notice the minecraft character at 2:41 with the suit and creeper head?
@2:30 "Which might make for some very uncomfortable meetings..."
...or the BEST sitcom.
yt's recommending me all election related CGP Grey videos rn
Neat explanation! Thanks for uploading!
Don't joke about the coin flip man. I'm from Prince Edward Island, Canada and our province had an election earlier this year and when one district ended up having a tie the candidates ended up deciding the winner by coin flip. What makes this situation more messed up is the fact that because Canada isn't a two party system there were many who voted for other parties and in the first past the post system there votes don't count when it comes to breaking a tie. That is the reason I really hope our new government in Canada changes from being a FPTP system to some other better system.
Veep's season 4 finale sent me here!
You came back once every four years for this video.
“If there’s a tie there’s a simple solution,”
*loads M4A1 with malicious intent*
“A 18th century solution.”
*loads blunderbuss with malicious intent*
I didn't know Alaska's representative was a bear in a suit. lol
Ya it's really awkward during meetings.
It's actually a man named Don Young, who has had the position since 1973. Alaska is a district where he polls with large margins, and has an extremely safe seat.
Good to know the creators of House of Cards are CGP Grey fans too
Uh-oh, this is gonna be interesting today
Correction: “Tho it might be faster, and more fair to just directly elect the President using a ranked ballot” no coin flip required.
Wait what? Does this all mean that even the final popular vote is just advisory? Wtf USA?
Yes. That's exactly what it means. It's stupid I know
Where do you live?
jesusthroughmary Finland. I've been trying to understand the whole US presidential election process for the past few months.
It's even worse, because only 26 of the states requires their electors to vote as the people want. The other 24 can basically flip off their citizens and cast a vote for who THEY want, not who the PEOPLE want.
The popular elections are in reality state elections to elect the state's electors to the electoral college. The US as a federation puts real sovereignty in the states, not the people. To be very technical about it, it is the states who decides how their electors are selected. They just happen to all have them decided by popular vote.
The thing about the electoral college and this system of voting is that the United States Federal Government is exactly that, the government of a federation of states. Legally speaking, the people have no constitutional right to vote for president, the states do and at first, they exercised that right. The first election where all electoral votes were granted by popular vote was 1864, and that was only because South Carolina, the last state to refuse to use popular votes, obviously wasn't participating. In my home of New York, the state legislature selected the electors up to and including 1824.
James Madison is the closest thing to a final authority we can get on the constitution since he wrote the thing. Each law and amendment should be examined by the rhetoric used to pass it. If we alterted such meanings then redraft a law that suits our modern needs.
The 24th amendment of all things suggests that's not very true.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President... ... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
@Aditya Chavarkar This would be equivalent to the EU members electing the EU parliament by popular vote instead of each country having equal say. The entire continent's policies would be dictated by a couple countries and all the policies would benefit only those countries at the expense of the rest. The end result would be 1) The entire continent would suffer 2) The sovereignty of all of the the member States would be obviated and 3) the EU would collapse into war.
@@GoSlash27 seats in the EU parliament are already distributed based on the population of each member state
@@GoSlash27 well in EU it works a bit different because formally EU has three different acting presidents (president of European council, president of European commission and president of European Parliament) each one is chosen in a different way. President of European Parliament is chosen from Members of the European Parliament (and those members are elected by all adult citizens of the EU), president of European Council is elected by heads of state of each member country and president of European Commission is chosen by the European Commission and then elected by European Parliament.
This would definitely be a classic 2020 move
This feels like glitch hunting, and explaining how to do such glitch.
I wish they'd just get rid of the electoral college. We don't need it now that we have the technology to count individual votes.
Who is we?
America
The Pirate Cody You mean those Americans that don't understand that the US is and has always been a federal republic comprised of states? The states are free to pass their own laws within the guidelines of the Constitution. That includes electing the President.
The states do not control how the president is elected, that is established in the constitution.
The Pirate Cody ....and the Constitution specifies that the office of the President is to be elected by the states. I don't know where you got your (mis)information.
After watching this video I saw this playing out in House of Cards and it was just amazing
We're headed there this year.
What a perfect time for this to appear in my recommended
I know this is an old video, but you didn't include one potentially crucial detail. The House can only choose among the top three Presidential candidates, and the Senate can only choose among the top two Vice Presidential candidates. This means that a third party Vice President has no chance at winning even in your worst-case scenario of a House-elected third party President.
When it’s a tie, just have Bush’s cousin prematurely and erroneously call the election.
lol
Except that he didn't.
All he did was stop a recount that had gone 8 times already in Bush's favor.
The margin got more narrow each time the votes where counted they ran out of time to recount anyways. maybe gore actually won Florida but unfortunately we will never know now.
I think the biggest concern if it was 269-269 to start would be that one of the electors wouldn't vote for the person they were pledged to support in the actual December EC meeting. That person would probably need lifetime police protection.
Then imagine what the stock market would be doing if the election was thrown to the House?
*democracy is paralysed*
@bjdon99: bUt wHat DoEs ThIs MeAn FoR WaLL sTrEeT??? THaT's tHe BiGgEst ConCeRn
This video is going to be very relevant for the election tomorrow.
Lol i like how alaska was represented by a bear with a tie :p
ssb fans: "how to resolve tie?"
*SUDDEN DEATH! GO!*
Just the other day I learned about a story where the next King is chosen by throwing the head of the last king out into the crowd -- the person who caught the head was the next King.
The term of the king was limited to 1 year.
@@alpheusmadsen8485 so you are king for 1 year and then gets beheaded? Does that story by any chance is in france??
I actually wondered about that 2 days ago!
This video was ahead of its time.
We have computers and internet. We can formulate a simple algorithm and a website, thereby replacing the electoral college.
***** Okay.
...replaced with what? We still have the EC because no one has conceived a better plan to elect the POTUS. Dont say national popular vote. NPV has been shot down numerous times and is obviously a bad idea.
dandyky What makes it a bad idea?
Problem is like the speaker said electoral college favors the small states.
And, to change the electoral college requires 3/4 of congress and 2/3 of the states. So the smaller states have vested interest in keeping the EC.
This means it won't be changed.
+0011peace +1
0:36 Left top corner there is a creeper head on a house member.
This coming to a reality in 2020...
i love how so much of this channel is just "ok but what about this one in a million exception to all the rules"
Bro why won't the presidents just do a rock paper scissors, its much easier and fair.
Could they not just go to the popular vote?
2:39 uh oh, watch out! There's a well-dressed minecraft creeper in the house of representatives!
Funny how this came up in recommended RIGHT when we might have needed it again.
Remove the have and ed, we might need it again
Who is watching this on election night 2020
it looks like usa gives more priorities to the states than the population(citizens).
ranerk inasa yeah and it sucks because you can win popular vote but not the electoral vote
Like what just happened.
David Kovalev cgp made a video on how it happens
Carson Smith Yeah, I've been re-watching those lately, it's crazy how complicated and stupid the electoral college is.
Carson Smith yeah but if you live in a small state like me. It sucks being steamrolled by California or any other state with a large population.
I liked the preferential voting and popular vote at the end. Preferential voting is needed yesterday!
The last bit is just a crazy idea.
Getting this in my recommended feed now. Clearly everyone is feeling super cool and chill about the peaceful transfer of power and nobody trying to interfere with the election
This channel: “A tie is unlikely”
2020: “ hold my beer”
that stinger at the end... gotta love it.
nancy for president!
So we'll likely get to see this in practice
Freaky! And absolutely nuts! LOL
Why not let the popular vote decide in case of a tie?
but what if everyone somehow splits in to a tie
@@throatychunk There is a far higher probability of a meteorite crashing into the Earth and destroying all life than that to happen.
Because this isn't an exclusive scenario for a tie, but rather if no candidate receives a majority
Wow... few states are right now 49% vs 49%.
This videos is amazing.
2:20 i wouldn’t be surprised if this rule is a fossil of older times. when the us first established elections, the vice president didn’t tag along with the president. the person who got 2nd place in the presidential race would become vice, resulting in a lot of presidencies split between opposing parties. in a time like that, it would make sense if the vice was chosen independently. I wonder if the senate can vote on a presidential candidate rather than a vice, though. if so, what happens if both houses choose the same person?
In a contingent election, according to the 12th amendment, the House must choose from the top 3 presidential candidates, and the Senate must choose from the top 2 vice-presidential candidates. So they could not just vote for a presidential candidate instead. HOWEVER. If someone ran for both the presidential AND vice-presidential tickets, or enough faithless electors voted a presidential candidate for the vice-president ticket, then it would be possible. But, extremely unlikely.
Holy cow it's like the writers of House of Cards watched this video before going to work.
I love how flipping a coin is fairer
Well this is going to get some views today...
It’s crazy how this was close to happening last year
Watching this November 4th, 2020
0:47 I just realized florida looks like a gun
The electoral college works as intended. It isn't supposed to represent the majority but to give minorities a voice
go back to the year '12. 1812.
A System that potentially gives 17% Of the people (Or even less because of winner takes it all) the power to decide for the remaining 83% is broken. No matter giving minorities a voice. And also nvm the fact that state minorities get their voice heard but demographic minorities get theirs stifled.
@@Xsomono because the identity which matters is surely are you American and are you from State X. The constitution wasn't going to protect on identity politics grounds because why the fuck would it. Everyone in America at the time had all originated from different countries so carving out protections for ones past ethnic identities was pointless. You came to America you were American.
@@Xsomono it's not broken if this is how it was designed to be. Which it was.
@@eomoran Yes, back then, but not today, as if states mattered more to people than their their social environment. Telling Hispanics, black people and other marginalized groups to get rid of their identity politics today is ridiculous. Identity is crucial to defend the interests of minorities, especially since they're marginalized. Those circumstances didn't exist when the Union was born. After all it's harder to have a social gradient if most people are all equally without resources and coming to america to start a new life.
Yes, the reason it was designed that way was because the individual states totally incohesive and didn't see them selves as one nation, so they would have never admitted to a compromise which would have had them give up so much power. They were expecting to get fucked over by the bigger states. But that is totally different today. The United states aren't united states anymore. It's a single country where bigger states can't just dominate the smaller ones because in the minds of Americans today, they aren't just screwing another state, their screwing their fellow country men. That mindset didn't exist 250 years ago.
Besides, the primary purpose of disproportional votes was to make sure their interests would be recognized by the larger states. But the electoral college and this voting in the house as well does not accomplish that. We've seen time and time again that presidential candidates focus on battleground states, not small states.
It's broken, because despite working as intended it's not at all up to modern standards as far as democracy goes. Back then it made sense to protects states because they needed protection, today they don't and today it's more important to actually represent the will of the people, for which the US provide so many systems to subvert.
this has a high probability of happening tonight lol