I remember seeing a video called "Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy " that I think everyone should watch after watching this video.
Get Social “Debate”. No, the Democrats are just pissed that the middle of the country DESPISES their policies, so the left wants the rewrite the rules so they win every time.
Why is it that if Democrats win by college electoral votes then it is okay . When Hillary thought she was going to win it by college electoral vote she was jumping up and down but that was okay al long as it only work for Democrats. This is why I am not voting Democrat ever again I wanted Obama in and then there after learning more about politics I said no more. But hey every vote counts right even illegals.
@Chick Mcn - Why are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? Why do YOU despise democracy? The E C has nothing to do with the USA being a democracy or a republic or whatever you call USA's form of government. Please continue reading: The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a gang of terrorist welfare queens who had their "feelings" hurt when they lost their "free stuff" from the USA government. After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? The Electoral College has poisoned the USA.
Fair vote =/= state vs state you moron. It's 1 person 1 vote, states become irrelevant, and the final tally decides winner. If you think it's unfair that more people are Americans than racist homophobic terrorists, then it sounds like you need a reality check.
@Truth118 lol. So it has nothing to do with where your vegetables are grown. Where the lumber to build cities comes from . Those Small states provide half or more of everything keeping you alive. How much of your food is grown in LA or NY.. you don't understand anything. They contribute to your life. And all you worry about is Democracy.
@Truth118 I never said Anything about districts. No State is self Reliant.Middle America is vital to the rest of the US. In California more crop and farming land is being bought up and replaced with housing and business. So more and more food and goods must come from States that still have major agriculture and less population. Those are the states that would have no say. Even the small blue states or toss up states would have no say. Its easy to understand. If Hillary would have won. None of this would be brought up. You know that. I believe the EC will remain for years to come but if it ever did go away the entire country would be under Democrat rule forever. I fear the outcome of that.
The rural states already have the Senate overrepresenting them to negate the disadvantage of low population. That’s fair because it’s about states, and states need to be equal. However, the president rules the entire COUNTRY. Your vote should be the same wherever you go. The EC disenfranchises everyone who does not live in a state that has roughly equal ratios of blue and red voters.
@@mrjollyguy25 , not really ,, the EC is made up of 2 components , 2 votes for the Senate Seats and the Balance from the House , that means u only get a handful of seats from the Senate , what the EC does it make sure that you need to Appeal To All Voters and Not Just Those In Urban Area
@@JustAGuyProduction , it really depends , do you think the President should represent the Interests of all Americans or Just Those in Urban Areas , :)
Why do you think the coastal states should be "ruled" by a minority of the population? Do you understand the f'd up shit you are saying. Probably not. You are just repeating terrorist propaganda. WHY?
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes. Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia. Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors. Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electorsamong the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote. After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 electionand information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process. The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process. Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election. If those who want to know
This is a very complicated issue that should not be looked at lightly. Look at the 2016 election. We are all aware that Trump lost the majority vote by about 3,000,000 votes. What needs to be understood is that this entire number was basically in California. Hilary Clinton had 8,753,788 votes and Donald J. Trump had 4,483,810 votes in California. In other words, if we only looked at the majority vote, California would have decided the election for the entire country. That is also a very distorted concept. If Congress wants to abolish the electoral college, they need to find a way that the voices are heard from all corners of the country. If the electoral college is abolished, why would the candidates go to states outside of New York, Califonia , Texas and Illinois to campaign and to hear what people across the country are feeling and wanting?
So what would happen if the Dems got rjd of the EC and still lost? What will they decide to change next?. In my opinion this will come back to bite her in the ass. There is no denying that illegals in California have voting rights. I live here so I know it. So all of them voting will eventually squash the middle America vote.
@@rocksy112 Republicans have also talked about abolishing it in the past and my opinion on this has nothing to do with whether it would help Democrats win. I believe every American citizen who is legally eligible to vote, should have that vote count, not have their vote negated/usurped by the electoral college. By the way, I'm not a Democrat either. I simply believe that every legal American's vote should count. Period.
@@bkornytoo51 you can believe what you want. It is your choice. I am not ok with 4 or 5 major cities deciding an election. Every vote would count but 45 states would have 0 say in an election. Period..
@@rocksy112 You're right, I can believe as I wish, just as you can. If every citizen gets a vote, than every state is represented because there are citizens in every state. It's not like it was when they instituted the electoral college, where some states had almost no people and others were heavily populated. But again, you're entitled to your opinion/beliefs. Have a great night.
That's actually a state's rights issue. The Supreme Court, beginning with a decision in 1892 (in the case of McPherson v. Blacker), has said repeatedly that there is no command that the states choose their presidential electors in one way only. So states can change how electoral votes are allocated.
@@yorkerold your comment would make sense if it weren't for the fact that the Electoral College has decided EVERY Presidential election which has also resulted in a Democrat winning past elections. Little kids change game rules when they feel they are disadvantaged.......
@Hundredth Monkey Power how would it be "fair" for a state like Wyoming that has a population of 500,000 when you have cities like New York City that have 9 million people? Why would a Democrat even bother campaigning in a state like Wyoming and listen to their concerns when they know they could just rely on the number of people living in predominately Democratic cities?
@@DaveSchultzXXL that's why they are bringing up getting rid of the electoral college, why they want 16 year olds to vote and why they want illegals counted on the Census because they know if they weren't counted, they'd lose seats in the House.
@Nikolai Collushnikov He'll look down and spit because he's a real American, as will I. I'm white, liberal, gay, and definitely will not hesitate to kick some ass.
Ridiculous, we all can do more homework. If we take time for a reality check and do our homework we will find the real reason why there is and always should be an electoral college. We can sustain our great country by upholding the constitution.
Presidential Elections: Votes grouped together, some states don’t matter as much as the others American Idol: Every vote matters, the most popular person wins! 🥳 I can’t be the only one who sees a problem with this
Every time i hear the argument for the electoral college i know why the US has so many problem, "because it allows small states to stay relevant" (same thing for the 2 senators for each state). People simply put their own state over the entire US, they see themselves 1' as a member of a state (Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio etc...) than american. Lincoln said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." but the united states were made to be divided and stay divided.
Crazy. Please don’t get rid of it. California and New York don’t need to win every time, which they would which is the only reason people want this, to win, and everyone knows it. Over populated cities vote, many more votes possibly, people in other areas of states matter too and have completely different lives than big cities and should also have a say, thus why the electoral vote.
Goodluck. In silly San Francisco, disease-ridden needles & poops in the streets are A-OK but a plastic cocktail stirrer/straw is illegal. Leftists can't even clean up their own districts. Why would you trust them with the whole country? 😎😊
Good. Get rid of it. Let everyone's votes count equally, instead of how it is now, where your vote is pretty much irrelevant, unless you live in swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.).
Please keep in mind of the TIMES when the nation was formed. There were NONE of the modern communications available to us today, then. The PEOPLE, the voters, were a largely uneducated mass. It was felt that many complex political issues such as the division between church and state were beyond their comprehension. How would you count all the votes, and get them to Washington, unaltered, and maintain the vote integrity? Their answer was to have the states elect representatives who would travel to Washington and vote for them. As the rep’s or electoral voters were deemed to be picked by the people, better educated as they had the means to travel, that is the system the founding fathers created. Times have changed. Education has improved and we have communications that our forefathers could not have imagined. Wait... I am explaining this to a Trump supporter... O.K. heck, never mind then.
Erin Thorkildsen Exactly... We have elections controlled by government. We have education systems controlled by government. We have a media that is highly influenced by government. We have a useless Constitution that was designed to limit government but times have changed! Stupid Trump supporters need to learn how to trust the government!
Erin Thorkildsen - The EC is in place to ensure that each state gets the same amount of power in a presidential election as they have in Congress. One vote per Representative and one vote per Senator. Each state has the same amount of say in determining the President as they have on ANY OTHER ISSUE at the Federal Level. Seems perfectly fair to me. Why should any State get more (or less) power than they have in Congress? And I don't even like Trump. To me this is about the constitution and agreements we made in order to form the Country. If you want to change it, that's fine. But you have to go about it the right way. Amend the constitution.
Lars Jones - It is "one person, one vote". They're just counted within your State. The PEOPLE don't elect the President. The States do. After all, hes the President of the United STATES. Not the President of the most populated areas. The PEOPLE of each State vote for how their State should vote.
CNN cut off her cheers when saying we need to lose the EC. CNN apparently didn't want us to hear that part. Or, maybe the extra 2 seconds of cheers required too much time??
Why would anyone cheer that nonsense? The EC protects the citizens of the smaller states. If leftists don't understand this, then maybe they should read through the arguments by the framers for the EC. We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. That's another thing leftists and CNN get wrong.
Pierre Berglund I really don't use emojis because they're a sign of low intelligence... But I sure hope I wouldn't have to put a laughing emoji on there for you to understand I'm laughing at you.. Laughing at someone's stupidity doesn't really qualify as crying..
The electoral college is meant to maintain better representation among all the states. This is why candidates have to campaign in many states and appeal to many voters over a broad geography. By the same token, we score baseball games as individual games, played to 9 innings. To win the World Series (how you determine the ultimate winner in baseball), you simply need to win the very last game of the season. To get there, you win games, get to the pennant, get to the series and then win that, best of 7. See, those are the rules, and they are understood. By "popular vote," all politicians would have to do is to appeal to a few large population segments. CA and the NY Tri-state area would determine our national politics forever. That would be like a baseball league that simply added up the most runs in a season, regardless of how you did on games. The electoral college didn't seem to matter when Obama easily, handily won that way twice. What's changed?
why do you Guys always say it wasn’t a problem when Democrats won the EC, completely ignoring that Democrats would always win the popular vote 2 except for a single time in our history. 5 times a president was elected even tho they lost the pop vote, 4 of which were republican
@@beepbooprandomcommenter2214 We count the Electoral College to finally decide on the president. You can actually look it up. Here's an example: we count the winners of each baseball game to determine who wins the division, then the pennant, then the series. We don't simply add up all the runs from every team and the most runs wins. The way it works is, those runs are the determiner for games. Those games determine division standing. That standing determines moving forward to the championship. See, it's divided into smaller contests. In the said sane way, the EC creates more broad representation across the states. Otherwise, candidates would pour over NY, CA, TX and FL and the rest be damned. But they are not. This only comes up with people who've a) really not been educated in our system of government, and/or b) have sour grapes over what is the contest standard.In 2016, the AZ Diamondbacks had the most runs scored, but the Indians and Cubs were in the series, which the Cubs won. I wonder how many D'Backs fans felt robbed?
David Shepard first of all I don’t think you should compare a baseball game to a federal election, and second of all, I was only stating how republicans tend to benefit from the EC and how people who say”dems didn’t complain when they won the EC” fail to realize they won the pop vote 2, so idk why you typed all that out
Well, unless you want over half the country ignored, you might want to keep the electoral college as you would only need to win about 7 states to win the popular vote.
The Electoral is literally EXACTLY what ensures that half (more than half in fact) the country is ignored. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you even understand the Electoral College?
Statistically the electoral college doesn't protect small states. ruclips.net/video/G3wLQz-LgrM/видео.html also, more than half is getting ignore right now You would have to win EVERY single vote in those states to even come close to winning the popular vote. And that is basically impossible because every city has a t least a few Republican voters. New York has tons.
@@mothernature1755 The electoral is a fair system. The EC will in fact actually protect smaller states, because without the EC presidential candidates would only focus on big states and totally ignore small states which wouldn't benefit them at all. I don't know about you but that sounds a lot fairer than what you're saying. Having the EC also prevents voter fraud. The EC is a very fair system and to get rid of it will make significantly less than half the entire country not have any say what so ever in the elections. Big city yuppies would choose who governs over country folk.
jxsilicon9 - The EC had nothing to do with slavery. It was about ensuring that each state got the same amount of say as they had representation in Congress.
Niki Saraswati sorry, just using a hypothetical - so technically Delaware can screw up the lives of the people in Florida? 3M votes got overwritten by 78K votes - I’m looking forward to the national discussion & eventual voting on this issue.
I'm a Bernie Sanders supporting Liberal. I support the Electoral College. I do not want the Presidential Election dominated by high population areas and urban opinions. There is a reason each state has two Senators in the United States Senate. That is the same reason why the electoral college exists as it does today. If you want the electoral college vote to better reflect the popular votes of each state, then every state should split electors based on their own state popular vote.
The USA Constitution was written by terrorists(slavers). The founding terrorists wrote a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged the terrorism of slavery and rewarded terrorists with excessive national governmental power.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI - Prove me wrong. Please. I've tried to prove me wrong, but the constitution and USA history keeps proving me correct. The "founding fathers" were terrorists(slavers) and they gave themselves "free stuff", The Electoral College.
@@rb032682 I would not argue that at the time of it's inception, the electoral college didn't benefit the slave states. It did, but that doesn't mean the electoral college system doesn't have value today. It gives states with smaller populations like Vermont, Road Island, Montana, and Alaska a louder voice in choosing the president. It is especially important to a state like Alaska where the majority of it's economy falls under federal jurisdiction like logging, mining, and fishing. The President can issue restrictions without Congressional approval like off shore drilling. This is the livelihoods of Alaskans, and without the electoral college they have virtually no way to have their concerns taken seriously by candidates in the presidential election compared to California or Texas. If you wish to have the people of these small states change their votes, the candidates need to do a better job at appealing to their concerns and values, like the Democrats did with the blue collar workers of the Midwest and their Unions decades ago.
@@timmeyer9191 - Why are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? The states are adequately represented in congress. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a gang of terrorist welfare queens who had their "feelings" hurt when they lost their "free stuff" from the USA government. After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? The Electoral College has poisoned the USA.
Tom Gunn we should do both. I just don't understand why presidential candidates will never visit states like New York, California and Texas. Policies are based on the concerns of citizens, everybody should be required to run a 50 state campaign.
The final danger is that one man one vote does give rise a socialist state or a populist fascist state in economic down swings. Like Income Equality to tax in redistribution it sounds like a noble idea but in the end it does more evil than good.
@George SanchezPopular vote doesn't mean shit. The goal of the election is to win the electoral college and thus the Presidency. Ask Hillary if she would have rather be President or have a shitty consolation prize in the popular vote which she only got in California.
@supernumeryYes. That is the point of the electoral college. So people in States other than California and New York votes count. It's also the reason for the Senate. Two Senators from each State regardless of population so all of America's voices can be heard.
@George Sanchez - Throwing a fit or tantrum does not equate to changing the rules. Your side is both throwing a fit and tantrum, despite winning the last 2 out of 3 election AND you want to change all the rules now so everything is in your favor. Mostly because your ideas suck and your fucking crazy so you cannot get the votes. Being weird and PC does not equate to changing the rules.
@@DeeJaeAndreIf you take away the electoral college the same argument will be made from the other side. If you go by popular vote people in smaller states will feel that they aren't listened to, and only Cali and NY matter. If you're a Liberal or from one of those two States, I'm sure you'd be for abolishing the electoral college. If you're from the rest of America, you don't want fucked up California electing your President. "So all of America's voices can be heard" was in reference to the Senate.
This is really discouraging because when one goes out to vote, it is because that person wants her/his voice heard not snuffed out by other people in high positions.....why would politicians encourage the American people to vote when in the end those votes will not even mean a damn thing
lol.... had clinton won the electoral college and tump the popular ...the vile dems would not be calling for the end of the electoral college... it's noted also they are trying to lower the age to 16 to vote..and seeking to increase the supreme court to 15 v 9...they are a vile threat to the freedom of the united states..
Doodelay Explains Please detail a better system that does not have New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few other cities choosing the president while Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and more are completely ignored.
@MajorLeague I understand. So what is the problem with that? The only real alternative is a direct popular vote in which case the large cities have enormous power in who becomes the president. Thank goodness this didn't happen last election. Take a look at this... i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png Hillary Clinton basically won the coastal large metropolitan areas and the southern border but she won the popular vote. The rest of the country voted for Trump. This map is the reason we have the electoral college. Democracy is simply mob rule.
@MajorLeague This is much closer to direct popular election than electoral college. The electoral college has worked for more than 200 years very well. It will remain.
@MajorLeague Maybe you're right. Let's see where I went wrong. This is my thinking. According to your alternative, it apportions about 2/5th of electoral votes of California which gives a little balance as your argument seems to suggest because Trump won a little less than 40% of the vote. But the problem you have is that Trump also loses 45% of Texas according to the vote in Texas. You're basically simulating the popular vote now. The more apportioning of voting that you do, the closer you get to the popular vote. The electoral college was a method of allowing the states to choose the president and tilt the balance just a little away from democracy / mob rule. Please tell me how I'm wrong.
The way I look at it, the electoral college is necessary, because not everyone votes, but they should still be represented. That's why population determines the number of electoral college votes per state. That's why the House of Representatives exist. Your existance as a citizen influences elections, even if you don't vote, which is why the electoral college is so great.
L.A county has a higher population than the majority of U.S states combined. The Electoral College is in place so that people from New York or California cant dictate how people in Alaska or North Carolina, etc live. It's what makes voters in small states count. It's TRUE equality on the National level. Not just large clusters of people in a couple of counties .
@@lamarjenkins4083 When's the last time presidential candidates put any effort into competing to appeal to voters in Alaska or Wyoming or Idaho? Never! Because they don't care about little places like Alaska, just like they don't care about the states where most people live, like California or New York or Texas. The electoral college means the ONLY states that matter are the dozen or so swing states. You act like the electoral college gives power to the little states, but it doesn't. Your vote is irrelevant, unless you live in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Nothing about that is "true equality on the national level."
Actually every vote does matter, it goes to telling your state's electoral college reps which way to vote in the presidential election, if they are bound to vote that way (some aren't). In the USA today, the electoral college helps states with smaller populations have a say in choosing the president like Vermont, Road Island, Montana, and Alaska. It is especially important to Alaska since most of their economy falls under federal jurisdiction like logging, mining, and fishing. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would pay less attention to the concerns of these small states (if any) and focus solely on states like California, New York, and Texas. The electoral college cannot be racist. It is a thing. The people in charge of that thing can be racist but not the thing itself. To get rid of the electoral college would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate, and then it would need to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. Most states are middle to small size and would not ratify such an amendment that would result in them losing influence in the presidential election. If you want to help change the way the people of these small states vote, you need to do a better job appealing to their needs, concerns, and values. Calling them names will not help achieve that.
Also, this idea to require the electoral college voters to vote the way of the national popular vote (if it could even pass without a Congressional amendment) would probably be declared unconditional. These electoral college voters represent their state's be population, not the population of everyone in the USA. The states can pass legislation to require the electoral college voters to vote the way of the state's popular vote, and some do (including some "red" states). If this legislation were to pass, the electoral college voters of Vermont would have to vote the way the US popular vote went even though the population of Vermont voted a different way.
Unfortunately that hasn't been the case with 2 Republican candidates; Bush Jr. and Trump. They both lost the election according to the popular vote, yet the electoral college weighed in and made them both President.
This is a video explaining the electoral college debate, not the electoral college. Paul Finkelman's 2002 'Origin of the Electoral College' gives its true origin. "Madison noted that the 'right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.' In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the electoral college." Hence the 3/5th's compromise, and voila!
The right-wing argument is, why should greater concentrations of people have more voting power than a few people on larger portions of land? Here’s a hypothetical-suppose 1 person lives on 100 square miles of land. Why should that one person have as much say as 10,000 people living on 1 square mile of land? Land should not have the right to vote!
MajorLeague. Thought my original comment was clear enough, but apparently not. You are actually trying to convince us that *_DIRT_* has the right to determine the presidency, but you’re using a two hundred year old argument to make your point. There was no instant communication and information to the American people back then the way we have today so your “geographical differences” argument is just that - bull. Let me try to make it even more clear THERE IS NO LONGER ANY LARGE SCALE ISOLATION IN THE U.S. Maybe you need to wake up to the fact that this is 2019, not 1819. America is no longer a patchwork of slowly disseminated and disjointed information the way it was in the 19th century, and differences of opinion in the U.S. is no longer sufficient to justify assertions such as yours. Each human eligible to vote should have equal representation regardless of where they live and not be penalized relative to population density. SMH
If we eliminate the electoral college then the candidates will just cater to the majority of the population which is mostly white suburbanites. Non-swing states already have the candidate that they want (note that California voted for Hillary in the primaries). The beauty of the electoral college is that candidates have to cater their platform on a state-by-state basis - e.g. - if one wants to win Iowa, they better have a story for farmers, if one wants to win Michigan, they better have a story for the unions, if one wants to win South Carolina, they better have a story for Blacks...etc. Recounts would become a nightmare as they would be national and not localized (it would probably take a year before we have a winner). The sad thing is that as many Southern states have increasing Black populations (a reverse great Migration) which means that both Republicans (who have given up trying to win Blacks over) and Democrats (who have taken Blacks for granted) will have to pay more attention to them if they want to win individual states in the South. Just as the system will start to benefit Blacks, they are gonna change it. Same old song and dance. Kind of like when Blacks finally got into the unions at the same time global trade shut the unions down and they were the first ones downsized (last-in, first-out).
Mr dumbass And who do you think founded this country? A bunch of white men! Negorz ftom Africa lacked Among a long list, abstract concepts, for instance... -Measurement (length, volume, weight etc) -Calender (they had seasons though) -Arithmetic (Ethiopia had it) -Mathematics -Fractions, decimals, negative numbers etc -Philosophy -Treaties/ pacts/ armistice -Astronomy Some notable inventions like: -Written language (yes, some nations adopted Arabic since they were proselytized by their Arabic and North African neighbors) -Topographical mapping -Woven clothes -Money
I havent researched this yet but can someone pls try to explain how much popular vote does it take to render an electoral college vote VERY QUESTIONABLE?
Chris Hutchings imagine people being retarded enough to actually believe that’s a thing, you hear that from Alex Jones while he was yelling about the rain turning the frogs gay? Oh I see you’re one of the grown ass adults that still believes in fairytales, continues to be sad and pathetic that you need to rely on such things to help you cope with the complexity of life, even more sad that you need fear of some “hell” to have any morality at all.
Chris Hutchings you look like you have a family relation to this guy, is he part of your inbreeding network? ruclips.net/video/LOK30TwTC-s/видео.html&spfreload=10
Oooga Mooga Booga Nothing is as stupid as liberals in the Third World minority coalition! Give a conservative a pile of bricks and he’ll give you a city! Give a liberal a city and he will give you a pile of bricks!!
@Watchman of GodYour President said it was harder to win electoral college than the popular vote.im not a Trump supporter I think he's dangerous but slightly amusing.I was being sarcastic.you should of known when I used the word bigley.UK
Watch this! The Democrat Party panders to the lowest IQs on earth! Give them a box meal from Popeyes, free extensions & weaves & a big screen tv & you have them back on the plantation of entitlement!
@@lexruptor Republicans don't want power. We don't want to tax people more. We want people to have their own money for their own retirement, healthcare, etc. It's democrats who want to control what people do for healthcare, retirement and even what we eat. Republicans have always wanted freedom since it was started to free the slaves. Democrats want power over other people.
Bah. My now belated dad told me, before he passed, it's an electoral college when we vote. He said "We're damned if we do, damned if we don't". That's what one beaver said to the other when using falling logs with their tails in the rivers and streams. I personally think. 😉 Peace! ✌
House of representatives origionally only to have 200 members per 50000 residents each. Make state legislatures senates be the electorial college members instead of feds. A senator for every 40 to 50000 residents and no winner take all b.s. Nebraska lets each district count go to presidential canidate and has the only unicam legislature. Plus supreme court members with 9 members serve 9 year terms with elections. Have both senate and house majority plus minority pick the canidates to run. President will back his parties canidate plus can marshal his supporters to run his pick. Weather, problems with voting machines, voting lines to long, natural disasters can effect regional elections just because some districts have high or lower turnout it would still have the same number of equal residents. None of the b.s. of a state of wyoming with less than 600,000 getting 3 electorial votes. 1 vote per 200000. While nebraska more than 3 times that many gets only 5 electorial college votes. 1 per almost 400000 wtf! Wyoming having less than 600000 residents is smallest, divide that into almost 330 million by next census would be 550 which is what the number of house representitves should be. Could probaly need to expand their chamber. Maybe cut their salaries include senate and president. Too many fat cats. White house should be called the poor house. Its the poor who fight the wars most and who have to pay or buy to support overpaid ceos and corporations which politician through bribed donations create the swamp even bigger. The founding fathers illegitamitly white wealthy property owners. Colonies limited voting to property owners. No women or minorities represnted. Declarition of independence used to get lower income and no property voters to fight war the wealthy politicans overprivalieged afterwards flimflammed the articles of confederaton. Restitution for blacks mandatory due to false noble statues of losers cause and states with continued use of those symbols in state flags. Use that to collect for that funding from those states and wall street.
But, but... This would mean my Wisconsin vote won't be more powerful than nearly everyone else's votes. How are just a handful of states gonna be able to elect the president WE want? LOL, yeah, electoral college needs a makeover. It's gotten too old and ugly to function properly.
The Electoral College hands power entirely to swing states, like Florida, Ohio, etc. No one else matters - not big states like Texas or California and not small states either. The dozen or so swing states have all the power.
Abolish it. Our votes should all count.
I remember seeing a video called "Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy
" that I think everyone should watch after watching this video.
Get Social “Debate”. No, the Democrats are just pissed that the middle of the country DESPISES their policies, so the left wants the rewrite the rules so they win every time.
Why is it that if Democrats win by college electoral votes then it is okay . When Hillary thought she was going to win it by college electoral vote she was jumping up and down but that was okay al long as it only work for Democrats. This is why I am not voting Democrat ever again I wanted Obama in and then there after learning more about politics I said no more. But hey every vote counts right even illegals.
Sorry but its not a pure democracy. Just put up a viable candidate worth voting for and you won't have an electoral college problem
Watch the one on marijuana and tell me again how anyone wants more government control.
@Chick Mcn - Why are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? Why do YOU despise democracy?
The E C has nothing to do with the USA being a democracy or a republic or whatever you call USA's form of government.
Please continue reading:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a gang of terrorist welfare queens who had their "feelings" hurt when they lost their "free stuff" from the USA government.
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
The Electoral College has poisoned the USA.
The idea that a tiny state should have more weight than a huge state makes no sense.
Fair vote =/= state vs state you moron. It's 1 person 1 vote, states become irrelevant, and the final tally decides winner. If you think it's unfair that more people are Americans than racist homophobic terrorists, then it sounds like you need a reality check.
Kek Gaming - Easy there tiger. Explain why 1 person 1 vote is problematic.
EPSTomcat11 , the idea that a handful of cities should decide the fate of this expansive country is even more insane
@Truth118 lol. So it has nothing to do with where your vegetables are grown. Where the lumber to build cities comes from .
Those Small states provide half or more of everything keeping you alive. How much of your food is grown in LA or NY.. you don't understand anything. They contribute to your life. And all you worry about is Democracy.
@Truth118 I never said Anything about districts. No State is self Reliant.Middle America is vital to the rest of the US. In California more crop and farming land is being bought up and replaced with housing and business. So more and more food and goods must come from States that still have major agriculture and less population. Those are the states that would have no say. Even the small blue states or toss up states would have no say.
Its easy to understand. If Hillary would have won. None of this would be brought up. You know that. I believe the EC will remain for years to come but if it ever did go away the entire country would be under Democrat rule forever. I fear the outcome of that.
He came SO close to saying "the Erectoral College".... XD
The College matters so that Rural States are not ruled by a hand full of Coastal Cities.
You mean the majority of the population.
The rural states already have the Senate overrepresenting them to negate the disadvantage of low population. That’s fair because it’s about states, and states need to be equal. However, the president rules the entire COUNTRY. Your vote should be the same wherever you go. The EC disenfranchises everyone who does not live in a state that has roughly equal ratios of blue and red voters.
@@mrjollyguy25 , not really ,, the EC is made up of 2 components , 2 votes for the Senate Seats and the Balance from the House , that means u only get a handful of seats from the Senate , what the EC does it make sure that you need to Appeal To All Voters and Not Just Those In Urban Area
@@JustAGuyProduction , it really depends , do you think the President should represent the Interests of all Americans or Just Those in Urban Areas , :)
Why do you think the coastal states should be "ruled" by a minority of the population? Do you understand the f'd up shit you are saying. Probably not. You are just repeating terrorist propaganda.
WHY?
Rich celebs pay illegally to get their kids into Electoral College
Hahaha if you can't understand the electoral college no one can help you
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electorsamong the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 electionand information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election.
If those who want to know
What’s the difference from a Republic and a Democracy?
ruclips.net/video/MYVEQ8nE1P8/видео.html
This is a very complicated issue that should not be looked at lightly. Look at the 2016 election. We are all aware that Trump lost the majority vote by about 3,000,000 votes. What needs to be understood is that this entire number was basically in California. Hilary Clinton had 8,753,788 votes and Donald J. Trump had 4,483,810 votes in California. In other words, if we only looked at the majority vote, California would have decided the election for the entire country. That is also a very distorted concept. If Congress wants to abolish the electoral college, they need to find a way that the voices are heard from all corners of the country. If the electoral college is abolished, why would the candidates go to states outside of New York, Califonia , Texas and Illinois to campaign and to hear what people across the country are feeling and wanting?
One citizen, one vote, all votes count. Period!
No
So what would happen if the Dems got rjd of the EC and still lost? What will they decide to change next?. In my opinion this will come back to bite her in the ass.
There is no denying that illegals in California have voting rights. I live here so I know it. So all of them voting will eventually squash the middle America vote.
@@rocksy112 Republicans have also talked about abolishing it in the past and my opinion on this has nothing to do with whether it would help Democrats win.
I believe every American citizen who is legally eligible to vote, should have that vote count, not have their vote negated/usurped by the electoral college.
By the way, I'm not a Democrat either.
I simply believe that every legal American's vote should count.
Period.
@@bkornytoo51 you can believe what you want. It is your choice. I am not ok with 4 or 5 major cities deciding an election. Every vote would count but 45 states would have 0 say in an election. Period..
@@rocksy112 You're right, I can believe as I wish, just as you can.
If every citizen gets a vote, than every state is represented because there are citizens in every state. It's not like it was when they instituted the electoral college, where some states had almost no people and others were heavily populated.
But again, you're entitled to your opinion/beliefs.
Have a great night.
1 vote = 1 value = Democracy
America is the antithetical to democracy and to believe otherwise is ignorance
BCT We are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
It is that way. By your state and District
We don't vote for everything it's not a pure democracy.
@@MetalDetroit You fail the basics. The USA is a Democratic Republic.
I wouldn't mind if all 50 States went to a percentage of Electoral Votes for percentage of the State Popular Vote instead of an "all or nothing".
That's like popular vote except with rounding errors. It's still better than what we have right now.
That's actually a state's rights issue. The Supreme Court, beginning with a decision in 1892 (in the case of McPherson v. Blacker), has said repeatedly that there is no command that the states choose their presidential electors in one way only. So states can change how electoral votes are allocated.
States pick presidents, not popular votes.
Republicans cling on to the anachronistic Electoral College from 1788 nail and tooth.
Because they can't win an election without.
@@yorkerold your comment would make sense if it weren't for the fact that the Electoral College has decided EVERY Presidential election which has also resulted in a Democrat winning past elections. Little kids change game rules when they feel they are disadvantaged.......
@Hundredth Monkey Power how would it be "fair" for a state like Wyoming that has a population of 500,000 when you have cities like New York City that have 9 million people? Why would a Democrat even bother campaigning in a state like Wyoming and listen to their concerns when they know they could just rely on the number of people living in predominately Democratic cities?
@@DaveSchultzXXL that's why they are bringing up getting rid of the electoral college, why they want 16 year olds to vote and why they want illegals counted on the Census because they know if they weren't counted, they'd lose seats in the House.
@Nikolai Collushnikov He'll look down and spit because he's a real American, as will I. I'm white, liberal, gay, and definitely will not hesitate to kick some ass.
0:21
The _Erect_ oral College 😂
WebsterA I thought I was the only one who picked it 🤣🤣🤣
WebsterA - Hahaha!
@sir robert Nope, just A brain. Unlike you 😂
sir robert - You’re a bigot, but I like your sense of humor. LOL!
INSTANTLY WENT INTO THE COMMENTS SECTION WHEN THIS HAPPENED
Ridiculous, we all can do more homework. If we take time for a reality check and do our homework we will find the real reason why there is and always should be an electoral college. We can sustain our great country by upholding the constitution.
Presidential Elections: Votes grouped together, some states don’t matter as much as the others
American Idol: Every vote matters, the most popular person wins! 🥳
I can’t be the only one who sees a problem with this
No matter what happens next, please do not delete your comment...
GET RID OF ELECTORAL VOTES
Why?
PEOPLE VOTE NOT THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE DO AS THEY FEEL WITH OUR VOTES
Get rid of California's electoral votes. Too many not-Americans voting.
Only two genders
How about putting up a viable candidate that's worth voting for
Even if you agree to changing, the electoral vote needs to be readjusted. California should have more electoral votes when adjusted for population.
Yessss needles and feces for every state yessss!
@@cnnandmsnbcareliars4490 But poorest, fattest, and least educated states are mostly red states according to data...
therock343 California should be split up imo.
@@indymarrow8050 That's like saying Texas should be split up. All money to liberals
@@indymarrow8050 Then the same population would just be in multiple states, giving them extra representatives. Great idea!
Every time i hear the argument for the electoral college i know why the US has so many problem, "because it allows small states to stay relevant" (same thing for the 2 senators for each state).
People simply put their own state over the entire US, they see themselves 1' as a member of a state (Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio etc...) than american.
Lincoln said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." but the united states were made to be divided and stay divided.
Notice how Donny's bootlickers are always miserable.
Crazy. Please don’t get rid of it. California and New York don’t need to win every time, which they would which is the only reason people want this, to win, and everyone knows it. Over populated cities vote, many more votes possibly, people in other areas of states matter too and have completely different lives than big cities and should also have a say, thus why the electoral vote.
So let’s just let NY and California determine our elections...
Goodluck. In silly San Francisco, disease-ridden needles & poops in the streets are A-OK but a plastic cocktail stirrer/straw is illegal.
Leftists can't even clean up their own districts. Why would you trust them with the whole country?
😎😊
You like small states deciding the vote then?
Angelo 23 Says the hillbilly from a shitty low educated third world red state
@Dr. Greens what a stupid argument
@Dr. Greens Damn you guys make yourselves look bad to the rest of the world.
Keep it up, everyone is watching.
Good. Get rid of it. Let everyone's votes count equally, instead of how it is now, where your vote is pretty much irrelevant, unless you live in swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.).
Please keep in mind of the TIMES when the nation was formed. There were NONE of the modern communications available to us today, then. The PEOPLE, the voters, were a largely uneducated mass. It was felt that many complex political issues such as the division between church and state were beyond their comprehension. How would you count all the votes, and get them to Washington, unaltered, and maintain the vote integrity? Their answer was to have the states elect representatives who would travel to Washington and vote for them. As the rep’s or electoral voters were deemed to be picked by the people, better educated as they had the means to travel, that is the system the founding fathers created. Times have changed. Education has improved and we have communications that our forefathers could not have imagined.
Wait... I am explaining this to a Trump supporter... O.K. heck, never mind then.
Erin Thorkildsen Trump supporters understand the purpose of the electoral college. Clearly the left doesn’t.
MetalDetroit - Well then, please correct me where I am wrong! Seriously, enlighten me!
Erin Thorkildsen
Exactly...
We have elections controlled by government.
We have education systems controlled by government.
We have a media that is highly influenced by government.
We have a useless Constitution that was designed to limit government but times have changed!
Stupid Trump supporters need to learn how to trust the government!
Erin Thorkildsen - The EC is in place to ensure that each state gets the same amount of power in a presidential election as they have in Congress. One vote per Representative and one vote per Senator. Each state has the same amount of say in determining the President as they have on ANY OTHER ISSUE at the Federal Level. Seems perfectly fair to me. Why should any State get more (or less) power than they have in Congress?
And I don't even like Trump. To me this is about the constitution and agreements we made in order to form the Country. If you want to change it, that's fine. But you have to go about it the right way. Amend the constitution.
Lars Jones - It is "one person, one vote". They're just counted within your State. The PEOPLE don't elect the President. The States do. After all, hes the President of the United STATES. Not the President of the most populated areas. The PEOPLE of each State vote for how their State should vote.
CNN cut off her cheers when saying we need to lose the EC. CNN apparently didn't want us to hear that part. Or, maybe the extra 2 seconds of cheers required too much time??
Why would anyone cheer that nonsense? The EC protects the citizens of the smaller states. If leftists don't understand this, then maybe they should read through the arguments by the framers for the EC. We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. That's another thing leftists and CNN get wrong.
Host says "don't touch me"
American constitution says "don't tread on our freedom".
the average person thinks they are above average intelligence, why would we want a majority of not so smart people decide who's running this country.
Physical Stove why would we want a minority of not so smart people decide who’s running this country
If you can't beat em, cry foul, play the victim, and change the rules until you can.
Like the republicans do 24/7..
@@PirrePirre dolt
Pierre Berglund
You are the perfect example you're crying and pretending to be a victim as you speak..
@@lowiqleftist8940 Haha, right :) You just proved my point mate, you are crying about my comment..
Pierre Berglund
I really don't use emojis because they're a sign of low intelligence... But I sure hope I wouldn't have to put a laughing emoji on there for you to understand I'm laughing at you..
Laughing at someone's stupidity doesn't really qualify as crying..
The electoral college is meant to maintain better representation among all the states. This is why candidates have to campaign in many states and appeal to many voters over a broad geography. By the same token, we score baseball games as individual games, played to 9 innings. To win the World Series (how you determine the ultimate winner in baseball), you simply need to win the very last game of the season. To get there, you win games, get to the pennant, get to the series and then win that, best of 7. See, those are the rules, and they are understood. By "popular vote," all politicians would have to do is to appeal to a few large population segments. CA and the NY Tri-state area would determine our national politics forever. That would be like a baseball league that simply added up the most runs in a season, regardless of how you did on games. The electoral college didn't seem to matter when Obama easily, handily won that way twice. What's changed?
why do you Guys always say it wasn’t a problem when Democrats won the EC, completely ignoring that Democrats would always win the popular vote 2 except for a single time in our history. 5 times a president was elected even tho they lost the pop vote, 4 of which were republican
@@beepbooprandomcommenter2214 Take a Civics class.
David Shepard it’s not like what I said was wrong
@@beepbooprandomcommenter2214 We count the Electoral College to finally decide on the president. You can actually look it up. Here's an example: we count the winners of each baseball game to determine who wins the division, then the pennant, then the series. We don't simply add up all the runs from every team and the most runs wins. The way it works is, those runs are the determiner for games. Those games determine division standing. That standing determines moving forward to the championship. See, it's divided into smaller contests. In the said sane way, the EC creates more broad representation across the states. Otherwise, candidates would pour over NY, CA, TX and FL and the rest be damned. But they are not. This only comes up with people who've a) really not been educated in our system of government, and/or b) have sour grapes over what is the contest standard.In 2016, the AZ Diamondbacks had the most runs scored, but the Indians and Cubs were in the series, which the Cubs won. I wonder how many D'Backs fans felt robbed?
David Shepard first of all I don’t think you should compare a baseball game to a federal election, and second of all, I was only stating how republicans tend to benefit from the EC and how people who say”dems didn’t complain when they won the EC” fail to realize they won the pop vote 2, so idk why you typed all that out
Well, unless you want over half the country ignored, you might want to keep the electoral college as you would only need to win about 7 states to win the popular vote.
The Electoral is literally EXACTLY what ensures that half (more than half in fact) the country is ignored. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you even understand the Electoral College?
Statistically the electoral college doesn't protect small states. ruclips.net/video/G3wLQz-LgrM/видео.html
also, more than half is getting ignore right now
You would have to win EVERY single vote in those states to even come close to winning the popular vote. And that is basically impossible because every city has a t least a few Republican voters. New York has tons.
@@mothernature1755 The electoral is a fair system. The EC will in fact actually protect smaller states, because without the EC presidential candidates would only focus on big states and totally ignore small states which wouldn't benefit them at all. I don't know about you but that sounds a lot fairer than what you're saying. Having the EC also prevents voter fraud. The EC is a very fair system and to get rid of it will make significantly less than half the entire country not have any say what so ever in the elections. Big city yuppies would choose who governs over country folk.
It was to prevent the majority northern population from doing away with slavery. Of course when Lincoln won, Southerners seceded and caused civil war.
Yeah, no. No it wasn't.
jxsilicon9 - The EC had nothing to do with slavery. It was about ensuring that each state got the same amount of say as they had representation in Congress.
Electoral College = Equality in States = Congress and Senates Vote Session
Niki Saraswati sorry, just using a hypothetical - so technically Delaware can screw up the lives of the people in Florida? 3M votes got overwritten by 78K votes - I’m looking forward to the national discussion & eventual voting on this issue.
I'm a Bernie Sanders supporting Liberal. I support the Electoral College. I do not want the Presidential Election dominated by high population areas and urban opinions. There is a reason each state has two Senators in the United States Senate. That is the same reason why the electoral college exists as it does today. If you want the electoral college vote to better reflect the popular votes of each state, then every state should split electors based on their own state popular vote.
President Trump... the greatest U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. GoTrump2020 M.A.G.A. 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I don’t think it should be abolished at all, but it should be adjusted! I love our constitution but some adjustments are needed!
The USA Constitution was written by terrorists(slavers). The founding terrorists wrote a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists(slavers).
The Electoral College encouraged the terrorism of slavery and rewarded terrorists with excessive national governmental power.
RB no it’s not! Our founders were smart people, adjustments are needed though!
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI - Prove me wrong. Please. I've tried to prove me wrong, but the constitution and USA history keeps proving me correct.
The "founding fathers" were terrorists(slavers) and they gave themselves "free stuff", The Electoral College.
@@rb032682 I would not argue that at the time of it's inception, the electoral college didn't benefit the slave states. It did, but that doesn't mean the electoral college system doesn't have value today.
It gives states with smaller populations like Vermont, Road Island, Montana, and Alaska a louder voice in choosing the president. It is especially important to a state like Alaska where the majority of it's economy falls under federal jurisdiction like logging, mining, and fishing. The President can issue restrictions without Congressional approval like off shore drilling. This is the livelihoods of Alaskans, and without the electoral college they have virtually no way to have their concerns taken seriously by candidates in the presidential election compared to California or Texas.
If you wish to have the people of these small states change their votes, the candidates need to do a better job at appealing to their concerns and values, like the Democrats did with the blue collar workers of the Midwest and their Unions decades ago.
@@timmeyer9191 - Why are you repeating csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
The states are adequately represented in congress.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a gang of terrorist welfare queens who had their "feelings" hurt when they lost their "free stuff" from the USA government.
After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
The Electoral College has poisoned the USA.
How about we trade it for term limits in Congress Warren?
Tom Gunn we should do both. I just don't understand why presidential candidates will never visit states like New York, California and Texas. Policies are based on the concerns of citizens, everybody should be required to run a 50 state campaign.
We are well aware of some of the problems in having the electoral college. But we have no clue what the problems will be when not having it.
Pure Democracies lead to tyranny and despair
Democracy is Two Wolves and a Sheep Voting on what to have for Lunch. Liberty is a well Armed Sheep willing to Contest the Issue.
The final danger is that one man one vote does give rise a socialist state or a populist fascist state in economic down swings. Like Income Equality to tax in redistribution it sounds like a noble idea but in the end it does more evil than good.
People who are losing always want to change the rules.
@George SanchezPopular vote doesn't mean shit. The goal of the election is to win the electoral college and thus the Presidency. Ask Hillary if she would have rather be President or have a shitty consolation prize in the popular vote which she only got in California.
@supernumeryYes. That is the point of the electoral college. So people in States other than California and New York votes count. It's also the reason for the Senate. Two Senators from each State regardless of population so all of America's voices can be heard.
@George Sanchez - Throwing a fit or tantrum does not equate to changing the rules. Your side is both throwing a fit and tantrum, despite winning the last 2 out of 3 election AND you want to change all the rules now so everything is in your favor. Mostly because your ideas suck and your fucking crazy so you cannot get the votes. Being weird and PC does not equate to changing the rules.
@George Sanchez - There are always less chiefs than Indians. No society ever lasted on mob rule. You are the mob.
@@DeeJaeAndreIf you take away the electoral college the same argument will be made from the other side. If you go by popular vote people in smaller states will feel that they aren't listened to, and only Cali and NY matter. If you're a Liberal or from one of those two States, I'm sure you'd be for abolishing the electoral college. If you're from the rest of America, you don't want fucked up California electing your President.
"So all of America's voices can be heard" was in reference to the Senate.
If you’re going to get rid of the Electoral College, then you may as well get rid of separate states too.
electoral college with out it all states between the states on the coast (eastern,western) would have no voice. usa is not a democracy but a republic
False. That's not how numbers work.
This is really discouraging because when one goes out to vote, it is because that person wants her/his voice heard not snuffed out by other people in high positions.....why would politicians encourage the American people to vote when in the end those votes will not even mean a damn thing
When liberals can’t win they want to change the rules😂
Can't win? Liberals aren't the one's trying to make it harder to vote.
lol.... had clinton won the electoral college and tump the popular ...the vile dems would not be calling for the end of the electoral college...
it's noted also they are trying to lower the age to 16 to vote..and seeking to increase the supreme court to 15 v 9...they are a vile threat to the freedom of the united states..
I swear they enjoy losing at this point. Stockholm Syndrome
bob jenkins do you take pills to make you so fucking stupid or does it come naturally?
Trump Isanass someone’s mad that I don’t agree with them lmfaooo
Get rid of the electoral college .It's out dated and unsophisticated.
Dont touch his man weve😃
It’s not about democrat or republican, this is a no brainer to make everyone have an equal voice.
Popular vote and I'll accept either side.
How hilarious would it be if they got rid of it before 2020, just to watch Trump win again by popular vote?
Would be amazing to see all those tears flow from the left.
Great! California and New York would elect president.
Abolishing the Electoral College would be idiotic
No.
Char Aza Yeah it would
When a candidate wins a state, they get 100% of that state's points, even if they only won 51% of the votes in that state. That's not ok
Doodelay Explains
Please detail a better system that does not have New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few other cities choosing the president while Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and more are completely ignored.
@MajorLeague
I don't understand. Please elaborate.
@MajorLeague
I understand. So what is the problem with that? The only real alternative is a direct popular vote in which case the large cities have enormous power in who becomes the president.
Thank goodness this didn't happen last election. Take a look at this...
i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png
Hillary Clinton basically won the coastal large metropolitan areas and the southern border but she won the popular vote. The rest of the country voted for Trump.
This map is the reason we have the electoral college. Democracy is simply mob rule.
@MajorLeague
This is much closer to direct popular election than electoral college.
The electoral college has worked for more than 200 years very well. It will remain.
@MajorLeague
Maybe you're right. Let's see where I went wrong. This is my thinking.
According to your alternative, it apportions about 2/5th of electoral votes of California which gives a little balance as your argument seems to suggest because Trump won a little less than 40% of the vote. But the problem you have is that Trump also loses 45% of Texas according to the vote in Texas. You're basically simulating the popular vote now. The more apportioning of voting that you do, the closer you get to the popular vote.
The electoral college was a method of allowing the states to choose the president and tilt the balance just a little away from democracy / mob rule.
Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Why do we have 2 senators per state then ? Why not just get rid of them and just use the house of rep.
The way I look at it, the electoral college is necessary, because not everyone votes, but they should still be represented. That's why population determines the number of electoral college votes per state. That's why the House of Representatives exist. Your existance as a citizen influences elections, even if you don't vote, which is why the electoral college is so great.
how are they not gonna mention the fact that it is a vestige of slavery?
When did slavery end?
@@jesteravrgjoe2888 In Africa? It hasn't.
I agree. Get rid of it!
L.A county has a higher population than the majority of U.S states combined. The Electoral College is in place so that people from New York or California cant dictate how people in Alaska or North Carolina, etc live. It's what makes voters in small states count. It's TRUE equality on the National level. Not just large clusters of people in a couple of counties
.
@@lamarjenkins4083 When's the last time presidential candidates put any effort into competing to appeal to voters in Alaska or Wyoming or Idaho? Never! Because they don't care about little places like Alaska, just like they don't care about the states where most people live, like California or New York or Texas. The electoral college means the ONLY states that matter are the dozen or so swing states. You act like the electoral college gives power to the little states, but it doesn't. Your vote is irrelevant, unless you live in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Nothing about that is "true equality on the national level."
Actually every vote does matter, it goes to telling your state's electoral college reps which way to vote in the presidential election, if they are bound to vote that way (some aren't).
In the USA today, the electoral college helps states with smaller populations have a say in choosing the president like Vermont, Road Island, Montana, and Alaska. It is especially important to Alaska since most of their economy falls under federal jurisdiction like logging, mining, and fishing.
Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would pay less attention to the concerns of these small states (if any) and focus solely on states like California, New York, and Texas.
The electoral college cannot be racist. It is a thing. The people in charge of that thing can be racist but not the thing itself.
To get rid of the electoral college would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate, and then it would need to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states. Most states are middle to small size and would not ratify such an amendment that would result in them losing influence in the presidential election.
If you want to help change the way the people of these small states vote, you need to do a better job appealing to their needs, concerns, and values. Calling them names will not help achieve that.
Also, this idea to require the electoral college voters to vote the way of the national popular vote (if it could even pass without a Congressional amendment) would probably be declared unconditional. These electoral college voters represent their state's be population, not the population of everyone in the USA. The states can pass legislation to require the electoral college voters to vote the way of the state's popular vote, and some do (including some "red" states). If this legislation were to pass, the electoral college voters of Vermont would have to vote the way the US popular vote went even though the population of Vermont voted a different way.
Popular Votes vs Electoral Votes - PUT THIS UP FOR A VOTE !!! “In politics, it’s not right or wrong, it’s whether you have the votes...” Pres. Johnson
News flash: it is a popular vote that determines the election with the exception of Nebraska and Maine
Unfortunately that hasn't been the case with 2 Republican candidates; Bush Jr. and Trump. They both lost the election according to the popular vote, yet the electoral college weighed in and made them both President.
This is a video explaining the electoral college debate, not the electoral college. Paul Finkelman's 2002 'Origin of the Electoral College' gives its true origin.
"Madison noted that the 'right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and
the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.' In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the electoral college."
Hence the 3/5th's compromise, and voila!
The right-wing argument is, why should greater concentrations of people have more voting power than a few people on larger portions of land? Here’s a hypothetical-suppose 1 person lives on 100 square miles of land. Why should that one person have as much say as 10,000 people living on 1 square mile of land? Land should not have the right to vote!
MajorLeague bull
MajorLeague. Thought my original comment was clear enough, but apparently not. You are actually trying to convince us that *_DIRT_* has the right to determine the presidency, but you’re using a two hundred year old argument to make your point. There was no instant communication and information to the American people back then the way we have today so your “geographical differences” argument is just that - bull. Let me try to make it even more clear THERE IS NO LONGER ANY LARGE SCALE ISOLATION IN THE U.S. Maybe you need to wake up to the fact that this is 2019, not 1819. America is no longer a patchwork of slowly disseminated and disjointed information the way it was in the 19th century, and differences of opinion in the U.S. is no longer sufficient to justify assertions such as yours. Each human eligible to vote should have equal representation regardless of where they live and not be penalized relative to population density. SMH
If we eliminate the electoral college then the candidates will just cater to the majority of the population which is mostly white suburbanites. Non-swing states already have the candidate that they want (note that California voted for Hillary in the primaries). The beauty of the electoral college is that candidates have to cater their platform on a state-by-state basis - e.g. - if one wants to win Iowa, they better have a story for farmers, if one wants to win Michigan, they better have a story for the unions, if one wants to win South Carolina, they better have a story for Blacks...etc. Recounts would become a nightmare as they would be national and not localized (it would probably take a year before we have a winner). The sad thing is that as many Southern states have increasing Black populations (a reverse great Migration) which means that both Republicans (who have given up trying to win Blacks over) and Democrats (who have taken Blacks for granted) will have to pay more attention to them if they want to win individual states in the South. Just as the system will start to benefit Blacks, they are gonna change it. Same old song and dance. Kind of like when Blacks finally got into the unions at the same time global trade shut the unions down and they were the first ones downsized (last-in, first-out).
Mr dumbass
And who do you think founded this country? A bunch of white men!
Negorz ftom Africa lacked Among a long list, abstract concepts, for instance...
-Measurement (length, volume, weight etc)
-Calender (they had seasons though)
-Arithmetic (Ethiopia had it)
-Mathematics
-Fractions, decimals, negative numbers etc
-Philosophy
-Treaties/ pacts/ armistice
-Astronomy
Some notable inventions like:
-Written language (yes, some nations adopted Arabic since they were proselytized by their Arabic and North African neighbors)
-Topographical mapping
-Woven clothes
-Money
Never before in history has so many resources of a country been wasted on the most unproductive demographic that being blacks!!
I havent researched this yet but can someone pls try to explain how much popular vote does it take to render an electoral college vote VERY QUESTIONABLE?
@Akela DeWolf youre not confident Trump would be able to win the popular vote?
At least it brought the attention to her when she is so behind in the initial polls for DNC candidates.
Lets eliminate the pull of the five rural folk in farm country having way to much political power to honor a slave era
Big
Shut the fuck up! You can’t even speak English you Third World shit stain!!
Let’s ask AOC ab this college and she would say she got into it but didn’t want to go there😂
One vote matters a lot more at the state level then one vote would at the national level.
I dont want to loose the EC all together. But definitely a restructuring
Nevada VETOED it- because their governor is smart!
Every vote should matter. Candidates should be forced to run a 50 state campaign. Voters in California, Texas, South Dakota, etc, should be courted.
cnn is so embarrassingly desperate...
Trumptards are so embarrassingly stupid. I cant wait for the day that people from other countries stop associating them with America in any way.
@@NaibutekiNaisou Yeah, imagine people not wanting babies throats slit upon being born....there is a hell you know...
Chris Hutchings imagine people being retarded enough to actually believe that’s a thing, you hear that from Alex Jones while he was yelling about the rain turning the frogs gay?
Oh I see you’re one of the grown ass adults that still believes in fairytales, continues to be sad and pathetic that you need to rely on such things to help you cope with the complexity of life, even more sad that you need fear of some “hell” to have any morality at all.
Chris Hutchings you look like you have a family relation to this guy, is he part of your inbreeding network?
ruclips.net/video/LOK30TwTC-s/видео.html&spfreload=10
Oooga Mooga Booga
Nothing is as stupid as liberals in the Third World minority coalition!
Give a conservative a pile of bricks and he’ll give you a city!
Give a liberal a city and he will give you a pile of bricks!!
Trump said it's harder to win electoral college so get rid and he will win bigley 😂🤣😂🤣
@Watchman of God He did look it up. Fact
Yes Hillary won popular vote but he said it's harder to win electoral college ok
@Watchman of GodYour President said it was harder to win electoral college than the popular vote.im not a Trump supporter I think he's dangerous but slightly amusing.I was being sarcastic.you should of known when I used the word bigley.UK
Watch this!
The Democrat Party panders to the lowest IQs on earth!
Give them a box meal from Popeyes, free extensions & weaves & a big screen tv & you have them back on the plantation of entitlement!
Hmm, Why bring it up now ? Wanna win that bad ?
Trump 2020!!!
Super interesting. Thanks!
0:22 what a save
Anyone with half a brain knows this is for power and changing the game to do whatever it take to get it .
It's actually about America and saving her from people like you who only care about power, but I guess you would know that if you weren't so obsessed.
@@lexruptor
Republicans don't want power. We don't want to tax people more. We want people to have their own money for their own retirement, healthcare, etc. It's democrats who want to control what people do for healthcare, retirement and even what we eat.
Republicans have always wanted freedom since it was started to free the slaves. Democrats want power over other people.
I liked Elizabeth Warren better when she was an Indian.
You want 3 or 4 big cities to decide every election?!
If those 3 or 4 big cities make up more than 50% of voters, why not?
Bah. My now belated dad told me, before he passed, it's an electoral college when we vote.
He said "We're damned if we do, damned if we don't".
That's what one beaver said to the other when using falling logs with their tails in the rivers and streams. I personally think. 😉
Peace! ✌
House of representatives origionally only to have 200 members per 50000 residents each. Make state legislatures senates be the electorial college members instead of feds. A senator for every 40 to 50000 residents and no winner take all b.s. Nebraska lets each district count go to presidential canidate and has the only unicam legislature. Plus supreme court members with 9 members serve 9 year terms with elections. Have both senate and house majority plus minority pick the canidates to run. President will back his parties canidate plus can marshal his supporters to run his pick. Weather, problems with voting machines, voting lines to long, natural disasters can effect regional elections just because some districts have high or lower turnout it would still have the same number of equal residents. None of the b.s. of a state of wyoming with less than 600,000 getting 3 electorial votes. 1 vote per 200000. While nebraska more than 3 times that many gets only 5 electorial college votes. 1 per almost 400000 wtf! Wyoming having less than 600000 residents is smallest, divide that into almost 330 million by next census would be 550 which is what the number of house representitves should be. Could probaly need to expand their chamber. Maybe cut their salaries include senate and president. Too many fat cats. White house should be called the poor house. Its the poor who fight the wars most and who have to pay or buy to support overpaid ceos and corporations which politician through bribed donations create the swamp even bigger. The founding fathers illegitamitly white wealthy property owners. Colonies limited voting to property owners. No women or minorities represnted. Declarition of independence used to get lower income and no property voters to fight war the wealthy politicans overprivalieged afterwards flimflammed the articles of confederaton. Restitution for blacks mandatory due to false noble statues of losers cause and states with continued use of those symbols in state flags. Use that to collect for that funding from those states and wall street.
I've been for abolishing the electoral college since 1966. Let's get moving.
But, but... This would mean my Wisconsin vote won't be more powerful than nearly everyone else's votes. How are just a handful of states gonna be able to elect the president WE want? LOL, yeah, electoral college needs a makeover. It's gotten too old and ugly to function properly.
Keep Electoral Votes. I don't need NY, California, Illinois or Texas to pick popular vote.
The Electoral College hands power entirely to swing states, like Florida, Ohio, etc. No one else matters - not big states like Texas or California and not small states either. The dozen or so swing states have all the power.
I have been waiting for someone to explain this to me
It is the one US electoral process that I am struggling to comprehend
That is called democracy
#CUCKNEWS
america the greatest country in the world? hhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah
It was before that idiotic greedy uneducated like dmfp hijacked the goverment!
every illeagl vote too
thats the idea....the president have to win most states, diverse kind of voters
CNN spreading HATE!
Cry some more ☔
4th