The Trouble with the Electoral College

[@lucystarlight8887]

The 22% figure is assuming 1) there are only two candidates, and 2) everyone shows up to vote. You could win with a much smaller margin.

[@elimgarak7330]

The author's thesis is based on 22% of votes cast, not on 22% of registered voters.

[@BogusmanTheSwagman]

This is the USA. It's been a two party system since the 1850's. Elections here aren't really "Who do you want?" but rather something like "OK fucko, pick your poison.".

[@PaulGaither]

@@elimgarak7330 - Again, you can win the state with only one person voting and that person votng for you, whiel the other states can have 100% turn out and ll against you, and you would still win the election.

[@emtheslav2295]

Not to mention Maine and Nebraska vote by congressional districts, meaning you can win while losing some districts.

[@tonylee1667]

There will always be 2 major candidates with the rest being mostly irrelevant

[@user-qz2ld3vt2d]

That 22% could be even worse. Voter turnout doesnt have to be the ssme in all states

[@dsmith9964]

That 22% scenario is nothing more than a cute little math exercise. It is in no way shape or form going to happen in real life practice.

[@morbidmight7634]

@@dsmith9964 it doesn't matter, the possibility of it happening is enough to warrant concern. Also what do you have to say about the fact that 1 Wyoming Person's vote is equal to 3 Californians vote.

[@dsmith9964]

@@morbidmight7634 A vote cast in Wyoming is counted equally with every other vote cast in Wyoming. A vote cast in California is counted equally with every other vote cast in California. The votes from California and Wyoming are not combined.

[@WATCH_DOGS_SUCKS]

@D Smith You’re right, they’re not combined... directly. They’re not combined Directly, and that’s exactly the problem. In the 2016 election, one of the candidates got about 5% fewer of the total votes but got about 20% more electoral votes. This is because the votes of those Californians is weighed less than the votes of someone from Wyoming. If the votes were counted based on the people and not on some antiquated electoral middle-man system, this wouldn’t be a problem. So yes, the votes aren’t combined (in the context of picking the president), but that’s exactly the problem.

[@dsmith9964]

@@WATCH_DOGS_SUCKS That is not a problem. That is a feature. Allowing the interests of voters in a few densely populated coastal urban areas to drown out the interests of voters in a few small states is a problem. Had Hillary obtained more broad support nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in big cities, she would have been elected.

[@katekat1138]

I want to see the candidate who can win both Wyoming and DC.

[@dsmith9964]

LBJ did that in 1964...and it hasn't happened since! What I would like to see is the candidate win both Wyoming and DC and then lose every single voter in New York, California and Illinois. That whole 22% scenario is as ridiculous as it is implausible.

[@daybreak2127]

It's not that it will happen, the whole point is that it is possible to win with such a low popular vote.

[@dsmith9964]

@@daybreak2127 Possible? Only on paper. No serious candidate could win both Wyoming and DC while losing both New York and California.

[@philistine3260]

@@dsmith9964 God you really are an idiot in every thread.

[@dsmith9964]

@@philistine3260 Please explain first of all why you make unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Next explain why you have a problem with someone telling the truth!

[@DigitalBathInAZ]

5:45 UPDATE: "Not once, not twice, not thrice, but fourthice" this has happened. 2016.

[@AjarTadpole7202]

fourth ice

[@damien4197]

He made a video about this :P

[@courtneygras9820]

The "Most Deadly Job in America -- And What Happens Next" video has "Octagonalice"

[@alechenson521]

"quadrice" makes more sense but I think its technically just "four times"

[@DigitalBathInAZ]

@@alechenson521 Of course. I was just messing around.

[@gabelous5049]

Here in 2020, I honestly don't think any youtube video has aged better...

[@danielbakergill]

Like a fine, terrifying wine.

[@danielbakergill]

A cheese of disappointment.

[@joaquin8637]

aged like milk

[@emilianocichanowski7894]

Or more like hony It never did......

[@cattycorner8]

It's biased against the Electoral College - it is propaganda. Can't you tell the difference between propaganda and a factual, objective presentation?

[@EmmaBonn96]

4:40 You could add far more to this You’re assuming everyone in each state is voting If you just use turnout population You could get elected by convincing about 10% of people to vote for you

[@물고기-p4f]

No, he clearly said that they need to win only the half before starting with wyoming.

[@Nognamogo]

@@물고기-p4f He means that if some people don't show up to vote the numbers will be even less. In the video I think Grey used numbers that assumed everyone living in each state voted.

[@물고기-p4f]

@@Nognamogo Oh I got it

[@equidistanthoneyjoy7600]

And the beautiful horror of that is that it'd be self perpetuating. A pretty big reason a lot of people skip voting is because they don't feel like their votes make a difference. 10% of the population getting someone elected would dishearten the population so severely, because the evidence would be so clear, that I honestly think the next election after could see voter turnout cut in half. And then, a decent portion of those that originally voted for the candidate could be dissatisfied, because any candidate intentionally doing something like that is simply going to be extremely shady so they probably didn't keep a single promise. And then you could easily see a small enough population of the US getting someone elected, that you could fit all of them in a single city.

[@MrHistory269]

Australia has a law making it illegal not to vote what if we do that?

[@ANonyMouse627]

The unfair part is the winner take all. Each state should have their electors be proportionately distributed. That way a narrow win in Florida will not yield a 29 electorate gain for one candidate.

[@minioop2]

A Nony Mouse agreed

[@joshp3152]

A Nony Mouse That may be more palatable solution.

[@forgetfuldullahan5468]

Or just have a vote count as that, a vote. One from each person that votes. Biggest number wins.

[@ValkisCalmor]

That still leaves the problem of a voter in Wyoming having four times the voice of one in California, and introduces the new problem (Not totally new, but currently restricted to Maine) of rounding error. A state with 4 votes where a race comes to 51% to 49% splits its vote 75% to 25% These are still big problems.

[@deamon6681]

"A state with 4 votes where a race comes to 51% to 49% splits its vote 75% to 25%" How is that a rounding error? This is idiotic. 51% gets 2 and 49% gets 1 ok, the problem is to distribute the last vote; You can still have an error margine of 12,5% but that's way less than 24%. Do you know why they split that way?

[@pluv1e]

So the electoral college rolls a d20 every election and if it gets a nat1 the unpopular candidate wins

[@Morningstar_37]

Yep

[@Morningstar_37]

But by now, its not 5%, but 8.47%

[@pluv1e]

@@Morningstar_37 yeah :/

[@someone18066]

@@Morningstar_37 Now you only need to roll a nat1 on a d12 for the unpopular candidate to win

[@erf7660]

In another 2 years we'll have to lower those sides to 10.

[@fep_ptcp883]

America invented the presidential system, but refused to install the latest upgrades and bug fixes

[@lordz19]

This.

[@adrien4269]

America ? It's either Ancient Greece but if it is not, then it was Corsica, with this man : Pasquale Paoli

[@lordz19]

@@adrien4269 That was a direct democracy. not a republic.

[@adrien4269]

@@lordz19 For Ancient Greece I wasn't sure, but Pasquale Paoli is definetely the first president to ever have existed then.

[@thompse412]

@@adrien4269 like a lot of American law, look to 13th century Saxony for this one

[@adamgreene9938]

3:25 Another important thing to remember is that a popular vote wouldn't be winner take all for cities, the way the electoral college is for states. Even if these cities did make up over half the population, its not like a candidate could go to just the cities and win *_ALL_* the votes there. They would be going to the cities and getting _many_ votes, but not even close to all of them. As it is now, a candidate can go to Pennsylvania and win just over half the votes, but get almost 4% of the electoral votes.

[@gamermapper]

I think that if the electoral college is supposed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority", making it based off of race and ethnicity would make much more sense than rural voters too.

[@kennethmontgomery509]

@Surge 122 Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner. A republic is an armed sheep contesting the vote. This is why we don't live In a democracy, because in a democracy the majority can vote away the rights of the minority.

[@jackgreenearth452]

@Surge 122 Have you heard of tyranny of the majority? 51% of people could vote to torture 49% of people. That is definitely something that needs to be avoided - a system that caters to business owners primarily is not the answer though. That's tyranny of the minority.

[@insertjokehere212]

@Surge 122 Not always! Tyranny of the majority is a very real thing that nations should prevent, just as they should prevent tyranny of the minority.

[@insertjokehere212]

@Surge 122 The whole point is to avoid both. Also, that's not true. Racism is possible because of tyranny of the majority. So is homophobia and a lot of other bad things. Minorities shouldn't have to fear losing their freedoms just as the majority shouldn't have to.

[@dabakonader]

I actually did the math for the required metro areas to make a majority. You would need all 40 of the biggest metro areas to win, and that assumes that ALL of the people in the metro area voted for you, which is EXTREMELY improbable, especially since who’s going to win Houston, Dallas, LA and NYC

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I think that’s an important note. Sure 50% of Americans live in just the 100 biggest counties but 100% of the people who can vote in those counties won’t vote for you

[@overcomingobstaclescreates1695]

It's not that big of a stretch. Large cities, regardless of the politics of the rest of the state, tend to vote majority Democrat. It's not implausible to win both TX and CA that way.

[@ninjahotdog9036]

It’s also extremely improbable that a candidate will win the required states CGP Grey mentioned and win the electoral vote with around 20% of the popular vote.

[@virmirus]

It's been almost a decade, and the "Hoosiers" thing still burns my Hoosier soul every time.

[@arwentheelf02]

I’m from Illinois. The feeling is mutual. 😆

[@benjaminbeard3736]

I didn't realize that you guys had souls.

[@roselily20062]

I think there’s an annotation that corrects the mistake.

[@B4K4xNi]

I am here to express a similar sentiment.

[@maxadams1264]

@@benjaminbeard3736 corn fed, born dead amirite

[@omershaik6374]

but here's the catch: who can abolish it? poloticians. who is benefiting from it? poloticians. so...

[@dsmith9964]

There is no real need to abolish it. The electoral college isn't as bad as CGP Grey would like for you to believe.

[@Last555555555]

+omer shaik the way for it to be abolished would be an amendment but that isn't likely because politicians benefit from it too much. Which is really sad because it is an antiquated system that is no longer necessary or useful for determining a leader.

[@bigfootplays7700]

+D Smith There is no valid reason to have a system the purposely keeps people from voting directly for the person who has power over 320m citizens and the world's largest military.

[@dsmith9964]

+BigfootPlays The office of the President is NOT intended to directly represent the people. It is intended to represent our union of states. Google 'federalism' and get back with me when feel that youve learned something.

[@bigfootplays7700]

D Smith The Presidency is intended to represent the majority of the people. The United States was not initially intended to be one country. Under the Articles of Confederation, it was supposed to be similar to how the European Union is today, but that has changed over time. The States no longer have the power to declare war, or print their own currency. The fact is that right now, the Presidency has much more authority than it previously did, and we need to change our voting system to reflect that.

[@joeciv_]

I KNOW this mans did not just call Illinois “Hoosiers”. That’s Indiana bro

[@thomasgoodwin5636]

...no? he made a small mistake in naming of the people. he does know what he’s talking about.

[@ibnbattuta7031]

@Weazel wow hemade a small mistake, he must be anti-american! I'm so glad Ben Shapiro, PragerU, and Toilet Paper USAhave taught me the facts, you stoopid libruls!

[@RichConnerGMN]

@Weazel well looking at your other comments, yes

[@noodles7193]

@Weazel First off all he's from New York, and living abroad just makes you cling on to your national identity more than anything (I've lived abroad for most of my life but I'm American). Second off, please tell me what's "Anti-American" about this video or Grey as a whole?

[@qordar]

@Weazel hows that even anti american british propaganda, this guy is just explaining what is happening with the electoral college

[@nigerianprince2194]

CGP Grey fetishes: Voting system New York vs New Jersey Monarchies (mostly british)

[@dsmith9964]

Another couple of CGP Grey fetishes. Distorting the facts to promote an agenda. Stating his own opinions as fact.

[@sarahbell180]

@@dsmith9964 Oh no! Someone on KZbin has an opinion!(a video, I mind, a person with 2 brain cells can piece together as being opinionated) This is an outrage! I wish people would tell the facts as it is-PragerU, Stephen Crowder, and Ben Shapiro stick to the facts, no agenda from them! Nope, not one. In case you do actually have between 0 and 1 braincells, I am being sarcastic. Insert 'strawman attack' comment after this, please. The whine of ad hominem can come later. Thing is, supposing Gray wrong, one can't interpret it immediately as a 'distortion of fact' but, at the very least 'an invalid argument', which sounds a lot less harsh, eh? I see it kind of hard to skew the facts of how the system works, how it has won 3 presidents over the popular vote, and the population distribution of states. I guess you could argue against the candidate visit graph from fairvote.org. And to 'promote an agenda'? Of fucking course! Every video on subjects like this, in some shape or form, is aiming to do something, and this is especially the case with politics. 'Stating his own opinions as fact', if you need a disclaimer of 'this is an opinion' every time someone says something, when they say it with confidence... then you don't have any idea of what an 'argument' is.

[@vishvarm1839]

@@dsmith9964 what facts did cgp distort?

[@dsmith9964]

@@sarahbell180 You misinterpreted my statement of facts. Yes Crowder and Prager do have agendas and they do have their biases. Personally, I am not a big fan of either Crowder or Prager. I think that for the most part that Prager is a little too extreme on many issues. When I mentioned that Crowder and Prager were more honest, I DID NOT mean that i agree with them on every single issue. I was specifically referring to the videos on the electoral college. Referring only to the videos about the electoral college, Tara Ross of Prager U speaks the truth and gives a little history lesson as well. On the other hand, CGP Grey starts his video with the line "in a fair democracy ". The US is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional federal republic although we do practice a form of limited representative democracy that stops at the House of Representatives. Grey then goes on to bash and criticize the electoral college using various false assumptions. The notion that the President of the United States is intended to be a direct representative of the people and thus should be directly elected by the people is a false assumption. Grey then tries to prop up his arguments by making absurd claims such as small states steal votes from large states, that popular vote for Presidential electors and the winner-take-all appointment of electors are "rules" of the electoral college as prescribed in the Constitution. Do you see what I am saying now? When it comes to the electoral college videos ONLY, Prager is more honest in their presentation. Grey makes false assumptions and he has to bend the truth to back up those assumptions. Have you seen Greys newest video? It's pretty balanced and shows less bias either way. You're welcome!

[@dsmith9964]

@@vishvarm1839 many...just in this video alone. Please read the response that I gave below your question.

[@redDL89]

"...By making some people's votes more equal than others." I see what you did there.

[@dsmith9964]

I'm sure that most of the viewers of this video have never heard of Orwells "Animal Farm" 😉

[@enriquellerena4779]

I loved animal farm. One of the best books I’ve read. RIP boxer.

[@dsmith9964]

@@leonardoplaza7677 True! The video is based of false information and misleading assumptions. For example, there is no such thing as a *fair democracy* and the US is certainly not one!

[@jaredvirasami8914]

Leonardo Plaza he just stated facts that make sense I wanna see what you think

[@mrwho7029]

@Huon Sainsbury usa is not democrazy, its republic

[@salute4392]

YOU DON'T CALL AN ILLINOISAN A HOOSIER *corn husking intensifies*

[@carbsncaffeine9254]

I was wondering if anyone caught this lol

[@ChronoSquare]

Seems par for the course with this appeal to mass chaos mob rule propaganda

[@misplaced_hoosier]

Yeah that made me spasm.

[@wolfmand8442]

Salute I'm from Chicago and that shit gave me a spine-tingler.

[@brianfrancis8152]

I'm from Indiana and that made me do a real-life spit take.

[@EvanC0912]

I think the biggest problem is the "winner-takes-all" system. If this scheme is abolished and the votes that each state gives in the Electoral College are arranged so that it reflects the results in that state, the bias is minimised. I think that's the least that the US can do if they really want to keep using Electoral College while getting the presidential election outcomes as fair as possible. Afterall, this "winner-takes-all" system practised in almost all states is what makes the candidates massively interested only in those swing states (those where the race is tight) and not much in states where they have strong voter base.

[@EvanC0912]

+Smartguy561 Yes, indeed. The electoral college already causes that much problem. I know, I watched the other video too. But, the fact that nearly all states implement the winner-takes-all system really exacerbates the situation and produces (extremely) biased results. 'Ideally', they should abandon the electoral college altogether. However, we can almost be sure that the US would never eventually get rid of electoral college whatsoever (I doubt the conservatives would like them, and most importantly, both Rep and Dem parties wouldn't approve, since they gain 'profit' from the system). So, the most 'realistic' approach under this condition is to scrap the winner-takes-all rule and make the electoral college votes cast by each state reflect the result of popular voting in the state in question, probably similar to what they do in Maine and Nebraska. Create a system to proportionally convert popular votes to electoral college votes the state possesses and make all state representatives in the Congress legally bound to vote according to the conversion results. I'm sure this helps reduce the bias.

[@EvanC0912]

+Gray Buckley (farore3) Let's hope it will spread. I read that some other states are considering to do the same too. Btw, is it proportional to the state popular vote result or the national one? While I was searching for that, I also found about "National Popular Vote Insterstate Compact" which if I'm not mistaken is about awarding the participating states' EC votes to the winner in the national popular election (not the state result). They said, the purpose is 'to compensate the shortcomings of the current EC system'. Well, if this is indeed the trend, then the demise of the EC may one day be a reality.

[@dsmith9964]

+EC912 The NPVIC bill was introduced to over 40 state legislatures more than eight years ago. Only 10 states have passed it. NPVIC has stalled or failed in the other states. Do you wonder why? Maybe its because NPVIC is a bad idea altogether. NPVIC robs the individual states of a part of their sovereignty by giving their electoral votes to a candidate that did not win in those states. NPVIC will unlikely become a reality because interstate compacts must be approved by Congress. It is unlikely that such a bill could pass in the Senate.

[@EvanC0912]

D Smith I find it not surprising that such bill failed. I also do not think it's fair that they cast a state's votes to candidate which didn't win the popular vote in that state.

[@dsmith9964]

+EC912 That is correct! I wouldn't want MY states electors voting for a candidate that did not win the popular vote in MY state irregardless of how I voted. How about you?

[@aether222A]

The saddest part of this is he never mentions how having policies that don’t align with any states values should be insurmountable which is the real point of the electoral college, to value each states goals.. and he’s right, winning votes is about campaigning and not policies, and it has been for a long time now.

[@YouTubeMilestonesOfficial]

@Surge 122 which almost never has happened, in 2016 only 7 electors defected, and all of the defectors were from red or blue states not swing states, before that the last time there was a even a single defector was 2004 when 1 elector in Minnesota a blue state voted for a different democrat than the democrat that won Minnesota, there are also laws in place in many states including some battleground states like Michigan where you’re not even allowed to vote for someone other than the popular vote winner as an elector

[@YouTubeMilestonesOfficial]

@Surge 122 I just stated facts to counter your claim

[@Alphatrillon]

​@Surge 122 Dam, How low have we fallen. Ya do realize he isn't youtube? 🤣 I....Just don't have words ama just act like I didn't read that and cope with the lost of 30% of braincells while reading your thesis.

[@HelsenbergFan]

"L.A 3.8M people" that is when i checked the date this was made and realized this is 11 years old

[@chungonion]

Actually there's a separate video that Grey made some clarification

[@Derah_OG]

And yet, it's aged like fine kentucky bourbon.

[@chl_ca]

he didn't clarify that those population numbers only include the city proper

[@krishacz]

7%.

[@wildpearrunning1408]

This was befor trump

[@connorneely3458]

They know.

[@harlandfriendofgod6108]

THE Electoral college (just the word college sounds great) is an excellent idea; yes, popular vote "sounds" great; but was something that our Forefathers and Foremothers came up with ! Yipee. This is a ridiculous scenario with the 80 percent versus the 20 percent; We are a republic (democratic republic) not a democracy. Or were you not paying attention in school

[@connorneely3458]

Nah we’re a democratic republic

[@dsmith9964]

+The Reasonable One (Bijan Sheibani) The US is Constitutional Federal Republic, not a true democracy. The states have democratic state and local elections, but each has republican forms of government. Democracy by itself is tyranny. Democracy without a Rule of Law and a sound system of Checks and Balances is doomed to evolve itself into anarchy or tyranny.

[@finmin2k]

5:45 make that 4 times buckaroo.

[@kourii]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJS9hYd4ZpWSjNE

[@davidespinoza102]

This was uploaded 7 years ago

[@ewhar5227]

It's now 7% failure rate

[@ComradeHellas]

Makes it much better

[@eli53973]

@@ComradeHellas who needs democracy anyway.

[@teylawhite687]

I see people say “it’s a false assumption that the us is a democracy, because it’s a republic” and to that I say “bold of you to assume these terms are mutually exclusive”

[@mishlimon98]

Almost every country has a republic in its name even North Korea has republic in its name

[@austinbryan6759]

They are. Hence why the founder fathers called a pure democracy evil because a pure democracy means the majority could kill the minority if they wanted to

[@shepardice3775]

_In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic or _*_representative democracy._* For all those morons who think it's mutually exclusive.

[@shepardice3775]

​@@austinbryan6759 Maybe without rule of law or protections of any kind. Of course if you say nothing about the majority voting for genocide then yeah, democracy can theoretically result in literal tyranny of the majority, but that concept itself is usually completely baseless. There are very few situations where tyranny of a well-informed majority where there is good consultation of experts before major decisions would actually be a problem. It's used in a bad-faith way to exercise illiberal concepts and disenfranchise voters when it's so easy to protect against.

[@cazicazi1940]

@@shepardice3775 Idk man, centuries of slavery, decades of segregation, lack of rights for gay people, laws against trans people are all pretty good examples of the majority tyrannising the minority...

[@DanielJackson98]

People from Illinois aren’t called hoosiers, that would be someone from indiana

[@coolionesy]

The real slang term for Illinois people are Fucking Illinois Bastards

[@EisMonsTee]

@@coolionesy Dude Chill

[@EisMonsTee]

@Crackhead Studios yeah, oBviOUsLY

[@Kommentarian]

From indiana can confirm

[@jasonwilliams4159]

I think he said loosiers

[@Owen_loves_Butters]

It’s really the winner take all that is the big problem.

[@antargaming1619]

I think the exact same thing

[@pigtailsboy]

One of many problems. You get one single state that splits it's electoral votes. That is honestly disgusting to consider it hasn't been figured worth trying elsewhere. Ranked voting would also be a worthy consideration in more electable positions if not the highest office. Our deficiencies are stacking up too high and it is getting to be vital that we drag our policy ideals back to center on many issues. The mandate win on the federal level is not what voters ask for but a specific number of policy points... or unfortunately with some they 'like' the candidate. With these last two presidents there are some who would have gladly considered it worth adopting dictatorship imagining that their president was a worthy person to rule over all of us fairly. As some of us live long enough to discover we are more changeable than the political parties at times and we might come to distrust the one at the top. The beloved generals or coop leaders who took the presidency in their small countries only to die in office, naturally or because eventually they were captured or slaughtered is not the optimal path for a country such as the United States. When you hear about a country far off that had a skewed election, you can imagine that they were indeed voted for by some passionate people but the undercurrent of discontent on display suggests a leader may have rigged the process and that the people have no trust left to hold. We are flipping back and forth between trust and mistrust each administration now. That is an unhealthy process for all concerned.

[@Human-gu2cx]

@@pigtailsboy I personally believe that we should have a direct democracy like Switzerland where people vote for laws, not politicians.

[@CrniWuk]

@@Human-gu2cx They do have a government in switzerland and they do hvae a parliament. The structure is different and there are in some cases decisions where the population is voting. But it's not like they go and vote on every single law or decision.

[@saneneweyes6189]

Yeah I think Maine and Nebraska actually have it set up where they split up their electoral votes equally. There would still be a problem between vote inequality mentioned in the video... but at least republicans in Washington, Oregon new york and California would have -some- representation and democrats in Texas (they exist... Just mostly in Austin) would have some representation as well.

[@itsmealex8959]

4:24 It's actually possible to win the electoral college with less than 22% of the popular vote. How? Basically the same strategy, except the goal is to get a plurality and not a majority. Typically relies on a third party scooping up some votes. With that, it's really possible to win the presidency with any percentage so long as you're the plurality. A situation like this did happen in the 2016 election with 13 states giving their electors to someone who received less than 50% of their states vote.

[@cattycorner8]

Please define "plurality" vs "majority"

[@raizin4908]

@@cattycorner8 Plurality - more than any other candidate Majority - more than half of the total So for example, if the votes are split 45% - 40% - 15% between three parties or candidates, the first one has plurality (45% is bigger than 40% or 15%), but it doesn't have a majority (45% is less than 50%).

[@cattycorner8]

@@raizin4908 Of course! Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. I appreciate the answer back.

[@raizin4908]

@@cattycorner8 No problem, I'm happy to help! :)

[@jahrazzjahrazz8858]

also, having voting districts with winner take all contributions inside those states with good gerrymandering would reduce it by another almost 50% basically, but I dont know if they do that trash for presidential or only local elections

[@Rezkeshdadesh]

Technically, you don't even need 50% plus one to win a state. You only need to win a plurality, so you could win a state with like 40% if 3 or more candidates are running.

[@LoafAround]

If a system is unfair but benefits a group of people, that group will use whatever mental gymnastics necessary to defend it.

[@plutoisaplanet7397]

He called people in Illinois “Hoosiers!” That is Indiana Grey! Come on

[@gypsysprite4824]

he noted his mistake in an annotation

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Eh, six of one, half a dozen of the other... (sorry, just trolling my bros in IL.)

[@raney150]

In one of his later videos he shows Illinoi going to Trump despite Trump losing by 17 points in Illinois. Why does Grey not pay attention to the 5th most populous state that has the 3rd biggest city?

[@RiversideRumble]

plutoisaplanet7 ikr

[@seanlutzke1694]

You're like 5 people. Do you even have broadband there?

[@LordKhabal]

Barebones minimum, the electoral votes from each state should be distributed proportionately, not winner take all. That way people who vote red in traditionally blue states and vice versa could still have their votes effectively go toward the candidate they voted for. It’d give independent and third party voters a more fair shake too, as it would mean their candidates at least have a shot of getting on the board.

[@juanitadudley4788]

The individual states decide. Nebraska and Maine aren't winner take all.

[@upulor744]

SFP So the minority can dominate the majority? What less people want is okay? Pure lunacy. And there is less tyranny in actual democracy. Look at the Scandinavian countries.

[@upulor744]

SFP Without the EC, everyone gets a fair voice and not a disproportionate one. What are you talking about? Lincoln won the popular vote. Are you actually kidding me? The Scandinavian countries have a better quality of life in every conceivable way than the United States. There’s a reason why their citizens are the happiest in the world. Among OECD countries, the United States is dead last in healthcare. The Scandinavian countries all have AAA credit ratings. The US does not. Brought more people out of poverty? For you it’s sunshine and rainbows. Meanwhile around the world in third world counties, people lay dead or dying because of first world countries ravaging them for resources. A worthwhile trade off? Maybe if you’re highly immoral. And evidently you didn’t watch the video. The 100 most populous cities don’t even make up 20% of the population. The idea that a candidate can solely pander to big cities and win an election is mathematically ludicrous. It’s also apparent that you don’t know basic history. Party names don’t matter. The Confederacy were states rights, conservative, and anti large government. The Union was comprised of liberal, progressive, and large federal government advocates. Tell me, which party does the KKK support nowadays?

[@upulor744]

SFP No they wouldn’t. We’re talking about presidential elections aren’t we? Candidates have a platform that doesn’t change depending on what state they’re in. Make their votes worthless? They’d be equal. The vast majority of people in the country are in need of the same basic things. It’s when you get into semantics that things change. You’re either severely misinformed or just playing dumb.

[@upulor744]

SFP It’s like your saying that people in cities don’t need jobs. Have you been paying attention..? People need jobs no matter where they live. And it’s also like you’re saying that every single person in those metro areas will vote for a Democrat. How ignorant of you. Nearly 700,000 people voted for Trump in Los Angeles county in 2016. And their votes didn’t count for anything. If anyone appeals to small town rural areas its progressives. Not the fucking GOP who panders to their wealthy donors and to corporations. They passed a tax cut for both of those groups of people and have been dismantling unions. Hardly helping the working class. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work. Each state sends its congressmen to Washington. Their they vote on legislation. A single state cannot dominate all the rest. And if what you’re saying is true, then why do all the congressmen for the most part vote on partisan lines? “They need different things so they’ll vote differently” makes no logical sense. Every person in the country needs basic things. And the vast majority need the same things. Which is why certain policies are supported by the majority of the population.

[@ChaseChaseChase]

5:46 make that *four*

[@sleesh2439]

Insert Name Here yay!!!!!! (Btw he won the popular with citizens. There were millions of false votes like, illegals, dead people's votes, and double state votes

[@Bumpus07]

Source?

[@dynamicworlds1]

Landen Schliesing gotta call BS on that. Voter fraud is extremely rare. Trump lost the popular vote dispite voter suppression working heavily in his favor. This shouldn't be surprising since he was the most disliked candidate in US history, beating out even Hillary's enormous unfavorability ratings.

[@hashiramasenju8785]

5th

[@sleesh2439]

the most disliked? ignoreing the fact more people voted in the elections that people registered as citzens in the U.S. where do you get most disliked? give me an example of a study or poll that has been pier reviewed by people in the opposite party and more than one person reviewing the study, and i will believe you. please i am a man of logic.

[@ryanr.richardson4452]

When measuring a city's population you're only taking into account the literal population within the city limits as opposed to the entire metropolitan area. Taking into account the population of New York's metropolitan area, it has nearly 20 million people. LA has 13 million people. Chicago 10 million. The next 15 largest metropolitan areas have between 3 and 8 million people. That equates to over 100 million people. I'm not making an argument here, just a point that the VAST majority of the population is in the biggest city's metropolitan area rather than the city limits itself.

[@Poisonshady313]

Ryan Richardson... this is all super irrelevant. The whole population doesn't vote, and even if it did, cities would never vote unanimously. In 2016 as well as in 2020, the blue vote from NY, CA, and IL was 12% of the total popular vote. Meanwhile, the electoral vote from these three states is 19.3% Which means the popular vote will give large metropolitan areas LESS influence over the election, not more.

[@KKH808]

@@Poisonshady313 voter demographics would be undoubtedly different with a popular vote election. Statistics from an electoral college vote (and from easy Democrat states no less) are not reflective of what a popular vote would look like.

[@RM-jq5vi]

@@KKH808 cept we know what a popular vote would look like because that data is tracked?

[@KKH808]

@@RM-jq5vi Not quite, because changing from the electoral college to a popular vote would influence voter turnout and campaign strategy--possibly enough to change the election, but it's all conjecture.

[@willman2k8]

I also noticed he suddenly switched from talking about states to cities. The point being the president would ignore smaller states is still relevant, and wouldn't be addressed by destroying the EC.

[@Hans5958]

5:46 Donald Trump: Hold my beer.

[@Dirtjunkiefilms]

Perfect!! took the words right outta my mouth!!

[@Atomicace64]

Hey he's was the best choice out of what we had to like frome

[@IC-23]

@@Atomicace64 He still went against the popular vote. I don't care much for politics, but minority rule is never a good thing.

[@Zackapo]

@@Atomicace64 no.

[@AuroraIceFlame]

Firce?

[@blahblahblahblha303]

Hillary got 59,181,312 votes as of 40 minutes ago. trump has 59,043,566 votes. but he has 279 electoral votes and she has 218.

[@Kai-tn4yx]

Yes, he's pracically a dictator now. But if Americans don't rise up... Hillary and Obama seem to concede the US to fascism. I'm of German heritage, I know that's bad.

[@guntasjammu4138]

crazysim264 I think what Maxi Muster is trying to say is that the House, Senate, and the president are all republican which allows them to actually do something

[@fatmouth007]

Nobody complained when Obama had the House, Senate, and President as Democrats in 2008

[@teratokomi8731]

Yeah but... hitlary is a true marxist/fascist. Its good that she lost.

[@MrDawnRise]

Right, and the world didn't collapse neither

[@elwynbrooks]

Something eerily similar happened in Canada. Our current prime minister was voted in with around 30% of the vote (and a huge chunk of Canadians didn't vote)

[@murrayjobbins8339]

It's hard to compare the American system with those of Australia, Canada and The UK though. People don't vote for the Prime Minister, they only vote for the party. Here in Australia we've had 5 leadership changes within two terms of government because it is the party in power, not its leader. Enough Canadians voted for the party of your Prime Minister and that's what really counts in our elections. Also we use more proportional methods of election than the U.S. Meaning that although the majority of voters wouldn't have picked the PM as their first choice, at least 50 per cent were okay with it, giving them a second preference or so on. In America it's basically binary, yes or no, one or the other, so it is far less representative.

[@elwynbrooks]

Stephen Harper in Canada got into power with 39.62% of the popular vote in 2011 (of those who did vote, many did not). The Conservatives in the UK got into power with 36.9% of the popular vote in 2015. Tony Abbott in Australia got in with 45.55% of the popular vote. In other words, 60% of Canadians, 63% of Brits, and 54.45% of Australians (all majorities!) did NOT want the person who is currently in power to be in power. I'm not entirely familiar with Australia, but I know in Canada that the statement "at least 50 per cent were okay with it" is demonstrably false, especially given that the reason Harper is in power is because of a split left vote -- meaning most of the country disagrees with him, but because of FPTP, he's in power with less than 40% of the popular vote. We do not have AV or MMP voting systems. The current Canadian government is NOT representative of its people AT ALL.

[@TheRedKing247]

+elwynbrooks Well, then again, that 30 percent was probably a majority compared to the other parties. It's a bit strange to compare a 2 party government to a 3 party government.

[@elwynbrooks]

TornadoATP By popular vote, it was split 39.62%-30.63%-18.91% for the three major parties. Also note, the second and third parties were both left-leaning parties that split the left vote, which means that they agreed more with each other than with the person who won. Not ideal.

[@elwynbrooks]

Abigail Mechley I have! You're right, it pretty much illustrates exactly what is wrong here.

[@jakurdadov6375]

This will never change because the people who enjoy the advantage are the same people who will oppose a change, and their advantage in the Electoral Process extends to the Amendment Process.

[@3dartistguy]

If not for the electoral college, California and New York would decide the elections because they are more populated

[@confusedquark826]

@@3dartistguy is that a bad thing? Wr believe in government by the people so wouldn't that just be majority rule?

[@confusedquark826]

And while they matter, the way things are now, they could dominate if one more big state flips like Texas almost did in 2020

[@confusedquark826]

And also how ab the disenfranchised in both red and blue state? Even in 51-49 prez races, all of the electors go to whichever side wins

[@3dartistguy]

@@confusedquark826 so you just want Liberal Democrat rule for generations? thats not democracy.

[@tdo0msday]

I am so sad right now. I wish enough people knew about this. Now it's too late.

[@xhammy6174]

Trump knew about it.

[@mlst3rg]

the founding fathers knew about it.

[@cristianverdugogalaz8725]

xhammy he didn't need to know, he needed ppl that knew so he could pay them to make the work for him. As Homer Simpson said, "you don't need to know everything, just the phone number of the one that knows"

[@LoneWolf-wp9dn]

or maybe americans should know how their country actually works... america is not a democracy it has been said since 1776... and states should have way more power but because now there are only two big parties that doesnt matter anymore going as far as violating the constitution on many points of state sovereignty... but of course nobody will champion crusades against these injustices neither for the rights of the states nor fairer colleges because the big parties dont care and like this game perfectly fine

[@adamzawacki4812]

yet if Hillary won this video would probably never have been made.

[@4771cu5H]

@ 4:45 there is an inaccuracy. You don't need a majority of votes to win, just more than the other candidates. You know, a plurality. That in itself doesn't invalidate this video; it's just a misconception that should be noted.

[@tylerx1449]

North Carolina became more important between 1:34 and 1:36.

[@theillegaltaco6]

Something he didn't really mentioned is that a lot of people don't bother voting at all because they believe their vote doesn't count. I grew up in New York State in a very republican town, because of how often democrats win in NY, a decent number of people didn't even bother going out to vote. They often saw it as a waste of precious work time for something where their opinion wouldn't make a difference. This is obviously a dangerous idea, but it would still be difficult to convince them otherwise.

[@eurovision50]

IMPORTANT - The situation is even worse than CGP Grey makes out. If there's a successful third party candidate, then a presidential candidate can carry a state with LESS than 50% of the vote. In the 1968 presidential election, TWENTY-EIGHT states (more than HALF) were won with less than 50% of the vote. The worst was Arkansas, where Wallace won with only 38% of the vote. Furthermore, in the 1992 presidential election, FORTY-NINE (that's right) states were won with less than 50% of the popular vote. The worst state was Arizona, where Bush won with only 38% of the popular vote. So in CGP Grey's example, if there were a successful third party candidate, they would only need 1/3 plus one vote to carry a state. That means you could get a majority in the electoral college with only 14.6% of the popular vote. And one of the other candidates could theoretically get 70.8% of the vote and lose. Yep.

[@johndoee4742]

Gary Johnson 2016!

[@DrExpertPhd]

No third party candidate is that successful, but it is a reality that the real numbers can be quite less than 50 percent. Thanks for pointing it out!

[@eurovision50]

Drew .Watkins You're right, they're normally not, but speaking of this election, Clinton and Trump are so overwhelmingly unpopular that I can easily imagine Johnson and Stein getting about a third of the vote between them in some less partisan states.

[@Ngamotu83]

Such are the problems of the electoral college combined with those of first-past-the-post: a minor, minority government.

[@gavincaesar3999]

OMG this is how trump is going to win. I am terrified.

[@datnguyenthe8300]

Came from the updated version xD

[@GranukeGamingProductions]

1:15 Indiana is the Hoosier state, not Illinois...

[@headintheclouds6935]

*triggered IU fans*

[@botjetski4598]

lol

[@nolanpugh3229]

Yeah I caught that also

[@kerentan9446]

man

[@wedoalittletrolling9815]

As an illinoiser my self I take offense

[@DraakMD]

Would you still skydive if there was a 5% chance that the parachute would not open?

[@mcroccaro]

That isn't a good analogy. Yes I would skydive if I had 5% chance my parachute wouldn't open because ib four to eight years it will for sure open back up.

[@markkealy4417]

@@mcroccaro ​ It actually works pretty well as an analogy, its important to remember that a presidential election can have a permanent effect on peoples lives. Sure, the parachute will open in for years, but you'll die in the meantime

[@emexdizzy]

5:45 Four times. Now it's four...

[@ACommonHero2]

He posted an "update" video for that section.

[@emexdizzy]

Where? Have you got a link?

[@snake9965]

DNC tried to steal the election. The REAL popular vote went to Trump. Go learn about the fraction magic of Soros's voting machines.

[@capras12]

its not possible to rig election in the country

[@notyourdamnbusiness8795]

according to wikipedia its actually 5 times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote

[@thomaswalsh4552]

Hoosiers are from Indiana, not Illinois

[@spikedawg1970]

Hosers are in Canada, so take off, eh!

[@arbitrarychannel]

THAT's the factual inaccuracy you pick up on?

[@dsmith9964]

+Hendrik Little This video has numerous factual inaccuracies. First of all, the US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Secondly, Grey falsely claims that popular election of electors and the awarding of electors winner take all are in the Constitution. Grey falsely states that large states like Ohio are 'forced' to give electors to small states like Rhode Island. Grey ignores the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by making the false claim that some votes are 'worth' more than others. That clause applies only to the states because the states hold elections. The US does not hold national elections. Grey downplayed the 10th Amendment by ignoring the fact that the US is a union of states and that the states have a right to elect the President. Grey ignores the fact that the 100 largest cities have metropolitan areas and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. Grey presents a ridiculous 22% scenario and then contradicts himself by saying that it was unlikely. It is quite apparent that Grey apparently slept through 7th grade Civics and Government class.

[@minioop2]

D Smith You lack a fair amount of any sort of critical thinking skills

[@dsmith9964]

+minioop2 Please explain. Virtually everything in my previous comment is 100% factual. What part of my previous comment do you not understand?

[@jungoogie]

5:50 Not once, twice, thrice, but FOUR times has the presidency been won without a popular vote

[@Alt-ec4nv]

He actually did create a video where he corrected himself every time.

[@dsmith9964]

Actually there have been 56 Presidential elections where the national popular vote didn't matter. The national vote totals do not matter because they were never intended to matter. What really matters are the number of electoral votes received by each candidate and the number of states won by each candidate. That's what really matters!

[@rb032682]

@@dsmith9964 - Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Not all terrorists are slavers, but all slavers are terrorists. In the USA Constitution, the Electoral College, plus the 3/5ths census rule, awarded excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. USA slaver terrorism was not only for low-cost labor but, more importantly, the slaver terrorists were able to dominate the USA national government until around 1850 - 1860. What happened around 1860 when abolition and prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? I'll wager you know the answer. What happened when the terrorist slavers had their "feelings hurt" because they didn't get as much "free stuff" from the USA government as they had previously? The csa/kkk was/is just a gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".

[@lewisbilly12353]

That is a good thing.

[@dsmith9964]

@@rb032682 You are still unwilling or unable to provide a credible source for you misinformation.

[@keitsukishima5808]

“All animals are equal. Just some are more equal than others” - Animal farm

[@fareedal-bandar2953]

"Some people's votes are more equal than others" George Orwell approves

[@dsmith9964]

Reference to Orwells "Animal Farm" !

[@allanrichardson1468]

+Robert flippo If you think "Animal Farm" is a book for 6 year olds, you haven't read it. it is a parable condemning Soviet Communism as practiced in the late 1940s. And "1984" is a warning against BOTH Communists and other (even "anti" Communist) totalitarian regimes.

[@adamk9652]

+Fareed Al-Bender lol great reference 😊

[@asmaier78]

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” Stalin

[@justthecoolestdudeyo9446]

It's relatively simply written, but it definitely deals with some complex, higher level ideas. One of the most significant is the idea that even an idealistic revolution requires the idealists to give up those ideals and recreate the old system to be successful, which is pretty important when considering concepts about the distribution of power

[@danieljones6812]

Spokane has been noticed

[@kevray]

They are mighty

[@danieljones6812]

Stormboxer I am mighty

[@beilii]

Oh look, it happened again...

[@xxx_thotmasternewton69_xxx50]

yes

[@jorotroid]

No it wasn't. Obama got 52.93% of the popular vote in 2008, and 51.06% in 2012. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

[@AwestynJaxxxson]

War X dumb fuck

[@shadowbandit7032]

Good job checking your facts, War X. Going to say he wasn't born in the U.S. next?

[@aidancm3437]

War X nope he got the popular vote both times, with trump, Hillary got 2.9mill more votes

[@mariarue7619]

i just noticed that you called Illinoisans “Hoosiers”. Sir, that’s Indiana

[@great207]

And in Michigan, we are Michiganders

[@providence3977]

Us Illinoisans are chicagoians

[@markrudolf7567]

One of the common criticisms of a popular vote is the "tyranny of the majority". What do people here have to say about that? Personally, I feel like the fear of "tyranny of the majority" is more applicable to referendums on individidual rights; you don't want the majority to determine what rights a minority can enjoy, eg owning guns, wearing religious garb at the beach, or same-sex marriage. We have a judicial system which can review laws affecting these to determine if they violate the bill of rights. Also, we set a high bar to amend the constitution (2/3 vote rather than simple majority at the federal level). The election of one presidential candidate versus another is not something that would be subject to review by the judicial system. So to me, "tyranny of the majority" to me is not applicable in the election of a politician.

[@gequitz]

If you count 1824 (where the candidate with the most votes also lost), it's 5/56, or a 9% failure rate. If you only count the past 5 elections, it's a 40% failure rate.

[@jordanlin4437]

If you only count the past election, it's a 100% failure rate.

[@ZeldagigafanMatthew]

In 1824, none of the candidates running for the presidency had the majority popular vote, and it went to Congress.

[@gequitz]

Jackson won more votes than Adams, which means the candidate with the most votes lost the electoral college (which is the wording CGPGrey used).

[@tommykl]

I think the reason he didn't include 1824 is because although the candidate with the most votes lost the election, he did *not* lose the electoral college, which is what this video is about. If he's going to address this point somewhere, it'll be on the video on how to break ties in US elections.

[@kyoxtohru112]

What how can a president who got the most votes during an election also lose the election?

[@Mutex50]

"Would anyone tolerate a sport where by a quirk of the rules there was a 5% chance the loser would win?" Obviously CGP Grey is unfamiliar with the Nevada State Athletic Commission.

[@myskullisred]

Yeah. I thought the same thing when I saw the boxing picture. Boxing was not the best sport to choose.

[@WyvernYT]

If there was a 5% chance of overturn it would answer to the Nevada State Gaming Commission. Although in fairness, that wouldn't be bad; everyone suspects government corruption in general, but when it comes to the gambling sector everything is scrupulously above-board.

[@givarkjk4465]

If anyone is confused on why states have 3 electoral votes at minimum, it's because of the addition of the counts of a state's Senators & Representatives (with the acception of D.C., who was given the right to vote in 1961 with the 23A). Also, 100+435+3=538.

[@JustConcede]

EXCUSE ME I AM FROM ILLINOIS AND I AM ENRAGED THAT YOU THINK WE ARE hoosiers.

[@justinissleepy4050]

JustConcede you should feel complemented

[@dsmith9964]

@@justinissleepy4050 Hoosiers stand on the banks of the Ohio River and look out over The Promised Land!

[@captaincalculus110]

At least your elementary teacher didn’t call you “Indianians”

[@dsmith9964]

@AL CAPPS He said Hoosiers. A Hoosier is a native or inhabitant of the state of Indiana.

[@bumiker]

He got everything else wrong, why would you think he knows the difference between two states that start with an "I"?

[@carsonsmith8362]

Make that a 7% failure rate

[@bareit98]

"Hoosiers" shows an image of Illinois

[@Obsidian2347]

I was just going to comment on this, but I figured I'd see if someone beat me to it. Well done.

[@Astronomy487]

Jacob Barrett Well, that's what people from Illinois are called.

[@XandWacky]

They are called Illinoisans

[@bareit98]

Astronomy487 Hoosiers are from Indiana

[@Astronomy487]

Oh, really?

[@joesmith9920]

A hoosier is someone from Indiana, not illinois.

[@alexnguyen8913]

Why don't we abolish it? Because politics

[@jrtlover2202]

We will not abolish the electoral college because it makes too much sense. CGP Grey has simply distorted facts and numbers to promote his agenda because he doesn't understand federalism or the roles that states play in the federal government.

[@ex3111x]

JRTlover Lmfao. So we should not have our votes directly count and instead let 50% of the dumbasses in Florida decide the election as opposed to over half of the nation?

[@jrtlover2202]

Why do call the fine citizens of Florida dumbasses? Florida alone doesn't decide who is elected President. Neither does Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa or Nevada. No candidate could win the office of the Presidency by winning those swing states alone. It takes candidates to build coalitions of voters and states to build a broad distribution of support nationwide needed to win the Presidency.

[@ex3111x]

JRTlover 40-45 states already make their mind up and are biased towards one political party or another. While it just takes some massive electoral vote state like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida to decide an election. Just look at Bush. Most hated president won Florida, but everyone hated him and protested in the capitol heavily. Winning the election just takes a sleu of ads, campaigns, saying the same shit over and over, and endorsements.

[@jakepelter4045]

Ant Goon Then that's an issue with the people then, hardly the system.

[@Izandaia]

*4 times *7%

[@lewatoaofair2522]

+Izandai He has the 30 second correction. Yay!

[@Jawz366]

Izandai he made an update video

[@Izandaia]

I know people, that's where I came from.

[@andyjenner3097]

Accoding to wikipedia, the winner lost the popular vote also in 1824. That's 5 election in 57 cycles, which is almost a 9% chance.

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

"This isn't democracy". [Insert THANK YOU gif]

[@MrMaple-zt9ou]

Because pure democracy is mob rule, allowing the majority to screw over the minority. The system here makes sure the minority isn't left in the dust.

[@TheKYLEdavid]

+Zelda Swordman How does making it so that the minority vote randomly wins in some elections make it better?

[@MrMaple-zt9ou]

Ernie The minority doesn't randomly win. The minority votes what they want, the majority votes what they want. If the minority votes in the electorate outstrip the votes in the majority electorate, the minority wins.

[@MrMaple-zt9ou]

Uninstaller Isn't the main gripe of the Democrats that minorities are disregarded? I'm not saying that the minority should win every time, I'm saying that the electorate is reflective of the populations they represent meaning they would vote with the best interests of the populace they represent at heart.

[@TheKYLEdavid]

Zelda Swordman It seems to be based solely on location of where these people live, and based on the gene pool, it's pseudo-random.

[@zingzangspillip1]

In Australia, we have a preferential systems. Voters choose candidates (and therefore, their parties) in a certain hierarchy, and their votes are counted in a certain numerical sequence where smaller parties give their preferences (that is, their votes) to the two major parties in what is called a two-party preferred vote. It enables an individual to create a nuanced individual voting card that best represents their vote. Sometimes, the candidate that wins the primary vote (that is, the most number 1 votes) loses the seat, because the smaller parties give their preferences to the other major party. This has happened twice in my home state (South Australia) in the last twenty years, where the Liberal Party (conservatives) had more primary votes, but the Labor Party (progressive) won the election because the smaller parties (mostly progressive) gave Labor their preferences. I have never thought of this as undemocratic. A person can tailor their vote, and their whole vote is counted, not just their number 1 candidate. What do you all think?

[@clickpause8732]

I think that system is defined to make it more democratic, and I believe it is more democratic. After all, it helps prevent voter division between popular parties with similar policies, allowing the situation where the majority of people hold a general point of view but disseminated votership lose to another party with more concentrated voters.

[@Labyrinth6000]

Nope, as an American I’m sticking with this system. You keep what you have over there.

[@SkeletonGuyVT]

@@Labyrinth6000 too much brain power for you

[@evantighe696]

Northern Ireland also has preferential voting for its Assembly elections - although I wouldn’t hold NI politics as a beacon for anything really 😂

[@centy4897]

I think that's a very fair system

[@bcasey25raptor]

Dear CGP grey, no offense but just using city populations rather then metropolitan populations is delusional. New york might only have 8 million people, but it's the heart of a region with over 20 million. LA might only have 3.8 million, but it's the heart of a region of 17 million. If President candidate A visits New York, those who live in the suburbs can still easily be counted and can easily go to see the party in question. The US is an EXTREMELY Urbanized country. 80% of the population lives in cities. If you live in say Long Beach California, you are still within the Los Angeles region. Same story if you live on Long island, you are part of the New York region. Never measure a city just by it's core. Always go by it's metro. If the US has 320 million people and 20 million live in the New York region, 17 million live in the Los Angeles region, 9 million live in the Chicago region, 6 million live in the Miami region, and 6 million live in the Houston region, then those 5 Regions make up 60 million people. Thats very substantial. let alone the fact that my metro numbers are actually rounded down.

[@darthutah6649]

But here's the thing, not everyone in big cities have the same interest. While city centers tend to vote democrat, suburban areas tend to be mixed.

[@engelsseele2]

@@darthutah6649 but here's the thing those who live in big cities are time and time again left leaning cities even in Texas. Texas had almost become a blue state with just 3 large cities voting with 96% of the entire state voting red.

[@darthutah6649]

@@engelsseele2 Like he said in the video, most people don't live in those areas.

[@koolmckool7039]

@@OpiumBride That's if you live in the urban areas. I've lived in both types of regions, and not everyone who lives in both types of environment votes the same way. I grew up in rural regions most of my life, but I'm what many Americans would call Liberal. There are multiple different view points in America, but until alternative voting methods are installed, most people will fall under the banner of one of the two big parties.

[@fakjbf]

And that's only 78% of voters not liking you. Almost 40% of American's don't vote, which means you only need 15% of total Americans to like you.......

[@dandyky]

The notion that one could win the office of the POTUS with only 22% of the national popular vote is nothing but a silly fanciful scenario. A candidate would have to be so offensive to the voters in the 11 most populous states receiving 0 vote while simultaneously building broad coalitions of diverse voters and receiving a majority of the vote in the 39 least populous states. Its simply not going to happen.

[@fakjbf]

dandyky That it even can is the problem

[@dandyky]

it can happen, but only on paper. In real life, no candidate in a two way race could possibly win with only 22% of the vote. Grey created a ridiculous implausible scenario that just can not and will not happen in real life practice.

[@fakjbf]

dandyky Yes, to highlight the flaws. Sure, if you've won the election you probably got more than 22% of the votes. But that you could do it with only 22% shows where the system is failing, and how it gives more power to the voters of small states by sacrificing the power of voters of bigger states. It's an inherent feature of the system due to the minimum of three votes each state has. Is it realistic, no. But the point that taking the voting power from some people and giving it to others is wrong, is still completely valid.

[@hawsse2796]

dandyky The point. You missed it. The fact that this is even possible, if highly implausible, says a lot about the system as a whole.

[@Advent3546]

5:46 4 times now.

[@mattegeniet]

Check his updated version.

[@K1W1Z]

This addressed every point I had against abolishing it and completely changed my mind on the Electoral College. Thank you.

[@spexvision]

Same!

[@davidp4986]

Check out freedomtunes debunkers vs electoral college

[@verisimuli]

If I ever become president, I'm giving CGP Grey a personal invitation to my cabinet.

[@godminnette2]

What about the kitchen cabinet? The unofficial advisors that don't have a ton of responsibility, just are asked for their opinions sometimes.

[@justAguyDs]

CGP grey for president

[@aaroncoulombe555]

Just saying, Illinois is not home of the Hoosiers, that's Indiana.

[@akatoshdragon-godoftime5619]

If I become President, I would go to my inauguration, invite Grey, and then make him become President. Seriously, he knows how to run a country. At least, better than some other presidents.

[@godminnette2]

Trigger happy or true genius? I think Grey would distribute responsibility to people who know how to do the job more than he does- he's humble and rational enough to realize that he actually DOESN'T know how to truly run a country. But he can find the people who do and heavily rely on their opinions and use the specialists as tools to lead the country. In that respect, I think if I were President, Grey would be on my "Kitchen Cabinet," a loose group of advisers without responsibility I can call upon for their input if I feel I need it.

[@theonlylampshade]

I don't get it. Why does getting 50.1% of the vote in a single state, entitle you to 100% of the Electors? Surely, if you wanted to keep the Electoral College, and the disproportionate amount of electors small states send, then you could at least divide the electors up between the candidates by proportion of the vote they got.

[@metholuscaedes6794]

Well how do you do if for say, you got 10 votes, and are supposed do divide them into 55%? Half a vote?` This will also not likely happen, as that would give a chance to small parties to get into the game, something that would put a down on both major parties in charge.

[@theonlylampshade]

Metholus Caedes They seem to be able to split the vote proportionately in continental europe, despite it likely not being even. I'm not exactly sure how they distribute them evenly, as my country doesn't use it. But in your case, they would likely round up or down to the closest number, starting with the party with the greater percentage. So, 6 electors for the party that got 55%, and 4 electors for the one that got 45%. Sure one party gets slightly less, the other slightly more. But it's a whole lot better than getting 55% of the vote and ending up with 100% of the electors. Your point about the two parties blocking change that could help smaller parties is very valid, though I wouldn't count it out for ever. All it takes is either a major party skism, or voter disenfranchisement, and you'll have a 3rd party on the scene. For example, up until 1910 there were only two parties in the the UK parliament, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Like the US, the governments rotated between these parties. In 1906 the Liberal party had 397 seats in Parliament, in 1945 they had only 6 seats in Parliament. Such a massive, and unpredictable change could eventually happen in the US. Don't rule it out.

[@metholuscaedes6794]

theonlylampshade Surely, change can happen very fast and sometimes unprejudiced.

[@Snidely175]

Metholus Caedes Actually, you would do it like Maine and Nebraska already do. 2 votes for the state winner (representing the Senators), and the winner of each congressional district goes to that candidate. (For example, Nebraska had four electoral votes for McCain and one for Obama in 2008.)

[@Magic_beans_]

Because it's easy to understand. "Romney wins Utah" doesn't require much explanation, and unless it's a very close fight, there's little need for recounts or accusations of fraud. For what it's worth, the Constitution simply says that each state shall decide how to allocate its electors; there's nothing in there saying the common man gets a vote at all, nor that every state give all its electors to the same candidate. That decision is left up to the states, and as Snidely175 points out, two have chosen to do things differently.

[@HumInTheDrum]

4:25 This is how trump did it

[@drmeatball711]

This is how Biden did it too, I think.

[@filipwolffs]

"This is not democracy. This is indefensible." *Scrolls down into the comments where several people make a determined attempt to defend it anyway.*

[@SP-qo1so]

I’ll defend it.... America is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic where the majority can’t and shouldn’t rule over the minority. Our freedoms are natural and protected by the constitution, not granted by the government. I don’t want to live in a country where majority rules only to inevitably infringe on the rights of the minority.

[@fr.Angel21]

Democracy is a shitty utopia. It doesn't work even in homogenous countries.

[@jaromhulet1865]

Just because he says it is indefensible doesn't mean it is indefensible. That is an opinion, not a fact. If saying something was indefensible made it so, arguing would be very easy.

[@rigelbound6749]

You realize that calling it indefensible doesn't actually mean it's indefensible right?

[@Guzmano7]

The fact that it is democracy is what makes america less controlled by the people which have been proven statistically to be rather dumb, People going to cities making empty promises like free stuff to a big crowd is not how they want the elections to go. The Mob cant have all the power

[@danielhuelsman76]

Considering this election, the error margin is now 7%, it's getting worse!

[@mr.pillowplays9635]

It happened a fourth time in 2016

[@chriswatson3464]

Mr. Pillowplays quwice?

[@balladofcoseypolar4711]

He knows.

[@ethanethanol5888]

Mr. Pillowplays Hahaha, this video was made in 2012

[@angelaquintero1977]

The ironic part is, Trump tweeted that the electoral vote is bad or evil ( sorry can't remember the exact word he said).

[@ryanwhitaker6615]

angeladq well would you rather have a candidate who dislikes the system voted in to repeal it or have a candidate come in and do nothing?

[@angelaquintero1977]

Ryan Whitaker I said it was ironic because he said he hates electoral vote, but won because of it. That's all. Btw, I hate BOTH the turd sandwich and the douchebag.

[@cryptfiend461]

I use to think so to until I understood it's purpose. we can't abolish it

[@vertex546]

Hate the game all you want, you still have to play it.

[@oldmandan3884]

angeladq how is that ironic? did he change his opinion? even if he thought the popular vote should elect president, he still would be president. trump doesnt decide how tge president id elected, the law does.

[@haraldisdead]

78k likes..6k dislikes. Electoral college: "The dislikes have it!"

[@Inf7cted]

seems fair. 🙂

[@dsmith9964]

The dislikes see this video for what it really is, a biased opinion piece that is entirely based on assumptions and misinformation.

[@corbinpearce7686]

@@dsmith9964 How so? I could see you arguing it being generalized information. It obviously assumes full voter turn out for example, which everyone knows isn't realistic. It also doesn't adjust for the typical voting patterns of states like the south leaning red while the west coast leans blue. However, beyond sliding over details like those (which weren't the point of the video anyways) I fail to see how this is misinformation...

[@dsmith9964]

@@corbinpearce7686 This video is full of falsehoods and misinformation. First of all, the US is not and was never intended to be a so called 'fair democracy'. The US is a Constitutional federal republic comprised of 50 states. In the US, the US, the Rule of Law that protects the natural rights of everyone takes precedence over the will of the majority. Secondly, the office of the Presidency *is not* and was never intended to be directly representative of or responsive to the people. The President *is* executive of our union of states and is responsive to the elected officials of the states, the members of the Congress. Thirdly, the Constitution *does not* require that states hold popular elections for Presidential electors nor does it require that states award their electors on a winner-take-all basis. Fourthly, the whole 22% scenario is entirely absurd. There is *no* way that a candidate could win a simple majority of the votes in 39 geographically and culturally diverse small states and then lose 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states. No serious candidate would ever run a campaign like that! Do you realistically see a candidate winning both solid red Wyoming and solid blue Vermont while losing every single voter in Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York and California? Nope! No happenin' cap'n!

[@disruptivestudent9415]

Yea...mob mentality trying to dictate what is right for the minority. Exactly why the electoral college is essential to protecting people from the slavery of tyranny.

[@TheSocialIrony]

This would be so much more awesome if the sources used were cited. Not that I don't trust Grey, but because I can't use this in school.

[@haawkcostigan2818]

ya some stupid youtube guy told you that, you shouldn't trust him. its better to trust the huge corporations that profit from us buying their textbooks...because that makes sense :P

[@TheSocialIrony]

Haawk C-K I'm talking about internet sources, which I've used for almost every project I've ever done in my life. But the best part is that I can whip out my handy dandy search engine and find the sources myself.

[@aaroncastro9029]

1:16 Did he say Hoosiers?

[@barry6541]

Make it 4 times that the loser has won

[@bonuocdua]

he already put the updated video up lol

[@gfrewqpoiu]

Alec Lipscomb done, see his newest video

[@swiftyedits4067]

5th time, technically, with the 1824 election, or the "corrupt bargain"

[@JanKowalski-ui4jf]

You should really start public debate and force politicians to rethink how to vote. Here in Poland (for those who do not remember, out constitution was declared 2 years after US and it was second in the world) votes of the people are counted. Winner could be even if he/she has +1 vote.

[@Reeeeeeeeeena89]

5th time they were both losers. no one won the electoral college and it went to house vote. He's talking about the number of times the electoral college has screwed the popular vote.

[@purplefire2834]

5:30 Aaaand that's assuming the members of the electoral college are voting in correspondence to their states, where it's only required in 30 of 51 areas (Washington DC)

[@Carsonist]

There's a pretty easy fix without changing the federal constitution: states are allowed to assign their electoral college voters based on the number of votes they won in that state. So if a state had ten electoral votes and one candidate got 60% of the votes, that state would send 6 electoral college voters for one candidate, and so on.

[@dsmith9964]

Correct. The individual states are free the choose and apportion their respective electors in any manner of their choosing. The Constitution does not require states to have winner take all popular elections although 48 states use this method. States my apportion their electors by percentage of vote or use a district based method like Maine and Nebraska. The number of electors that each state is allotted is always equal to its total representation in Congress not directly on the population of the states as CGP Grey falsely asserts.

[@rjfaber1991]

D Smith The district system employed in Maine and Nebraska is still FPTP, just a slightly less bad form of FPTP. The problem with adopting PR in a system that is currently FPTP is that the majority party will never agree to it, especially in states like Texas and California where they are all but assured to win, because it will inherently mean they get fewer electors from those states. I suppose it could pass in a more-or-less perfectly divided state like Ohio, but if only the swing states adopted PR and the safe states would retain FPTP, that would still massively skew the outcome of every election, and also make the results of each presidential election very, very close.

[@dsmith9964]

You are mostly correct! The only way that a proportional representation system would work is if all 50 states agree to it. Same way with the district apportionment of electors. District apportionment does have its flukes as well. For example, in 2000 Bush won the popular vote in 55% of Congressional districts and in 30 states despite losing the national popular vote. A proportional representation vote could lead to a candidate winning a majority in the electoral college without winning a simple plurality of the popular vote in a single state if there are three or more candidates.

[@rjfaber1991]

D Smith That's true, but much the same is true today. If the US wouldn't have FPTP and people weren't forced to vote for either the Democrats or Republicans if they want their vote to actually have any meaning, chances are nobody would ever get more than 50% of the vote at one time, not because the actual political opinions of the people would change, but because they could express those opinions more accurately by voting for a party they actually like, rather than just choosing between the two current parties. The current system makes it look as though more than 50% of people want either the Democrats or Republicans in power, even though when given a more free choice, those percentages would be much lower, and much more representative of the actual public opinion.

[@Wolfeson28]

A decent idea, but the problem is that it would have to be implemented in every state simultaneously, otherwise there's two big problems. First, states that are solidly red or blue would never implement it on their own volition, because the majority party in that state would be taking electoral votes away from themselves (think about a state with a 67-33 lean toward one party). Alternatively, you can have a scenario with states that are generally solid for one party in presidential elections, but competitive at the state level. In those states, the party which generally loses in presidential elections can try to use a brief control of the state government to change their electoral vote apportionment, thus allowing their party to gain electoral votes they would normally not have, without winning the state. Republicans are actually trying to do just that in states such as Michigan right now, though naturally when discussing how much "fairer" their system would be, there's no mention at all of implementing it in solid red states.

[@tommyx3090]

Hoosiers are from Indiana. You should know because you're the teacher.

[@ThePirhana11]

yes, i can confirm as i am a hoosier :O

[@luismdoz]

You're right sir. I was looking for this comment

[@lewatoaofair2522]

He should have a montage video of all the mistakes he's made. For instance, he spelled Colombia with a U (because everyone pronounces it as if it does, though it really doesn't), and he got the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands mixed up.

[@dfolk3348]

Right as I was about to comment that

[@mkd2839]

He is a physics teacher, not a geography one

[@BearsThatCare]

4 times* 7 percent* ...

[@MisterJr15]

Bear McBear MC this was made in 2011.

[@letsgetreal2501]

"Some people's votes are more equal than others.." 0:09 I see what you did there😂 Hands up, Orwell fans!

[@sightseeing7993]

What kind of half-assed system do they have down there? That is the worst I have ever seen

[@khinzaw77]

It's truly idiotic, it made sense when the country was founded but is horribly obsolete now.

[@heresasimmer]

the absolute garbage. i'm speaking from the territories that can't vote but i'm a citizen of u.s.a lololol

[@bilbo_gamers6417]

So much shit was carried over from the beginning of the country three hundred years ago, such as the electoral college.

[@Grafknar]

The best system. :) The problem is when far too many people in our own country have no idea how it's supposed to operate and treat it like a democracy when it's a republic where the people govern themselves and we have States, not provinces.

[@khinzaw77]

It is not the best system. If it allows the will of the people to be overruled by the elites as well as giving some people more of a voice than others it needs to go. It made sense once, but now we no longer have a communication disconnect and can directly use the popular vote. It's time for change.

[@jdmresources8358]

You start with the statement that the Electoral College was meant to make candidates pay attention to the electorate. That is not true. The Electoral College was originally chosen by state legislatures, a provision, like the Senate, that was indeed meant to protect the smaller states from the whims of the large states. Without those two elements, the Constitution would not have been approved. Is it fair now to turn our backs on that protection simply because some people do not like it? Regardless of what you think of the result, take note of this. Hillary Clinton's popular margin of victory in California was greater than her popular margin in the entire 50 states. Hence, with a simple popular vote calculation, California alone would effectively wipe out the votes of the other 49 states combined. Should the entire nation be governed by one state? That is not how the Republic was designed by the Founders. They lived through tyranny, and worked hard to prevent its return.

[@mrrhombus716]

Seems to me that giving votes to the actual voters should have been part of the constitution. As it is, it's more of a referendum than an election.

[@kurtvonfricken6829]

Mr Rhombus But it wasn’t. That’s not what the founders had in mind. The EC system was thoroughly discussed and debated. It didn’t didn’t happen by accident

[@tuandao6654]

And can you tell me Why do we need to respect voter from small state more than from big state just because there is less of them in that state

[@pacman5698]

This guy should debate with Prager "Univsersity" 's electoral college apologists.

[@dsmith9964]

I'm not a big fan of Prager. But in a debate about the electoral college, Tara Ross would mop the floor with CGP Grey. The Prager videos are more honest and less biased in their presentation of facts while Mr. Grey conveniently distorts and omits important facts, creates fanciful scenarios and presents his own biased opinions as fact in a poor attempt to give the appearance that the electoral college is a horrible way to elect the President. Here's a few examples; Grey ignores the fact that the US is a federal union of states. States interests are as important as the interests of the populace. That's why we have a House and Senate. Grey chose to ignore the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. The notion that one could win the office of the President with only 22% of the national vote is both ridiculous and absurd. There is NO way that a candidate could realistically win a majority of the vote in solid blue states like Hawaii AND win a majority of the vote in solid red states like Wyoming while simultaneously pissing off every single voter in the 11 largest states. Anyone that knows how Presidential campaigns are ran knows that cannot and will not happen in real life practice.

[@pacman5698]

Grey would be most likely to sweep the floor with Prager. Prager is mostly all talk and no show, and they're leader is a radio talk show host that leans towards creationist points of view and wants to deny homosexuals rights, not to mention a person who thinks the Ten Commandments are better rules for the world that the Constitutions that have set up free democracies.

[@dsmith9964]

Mr. Fedora Please reread my comment. I am not a big fan of Prager. But when it comes to the discussion of the electoral college, Prager is spot on accurate. In 'Do You Understand The Electoral College' , Tara Ross gives a history lesson and a clear, accurate reasoning of why the EC is necessary. Grey, on the other hand, does not give any explanation of WHY we still use the EC. Grey merely resorts to bashing and exaggerating the flaws of the EC by using flawed logic, distorting facts and numbers and creating fanciful scenarios. Sorry, this video is terribly wrong on so many levels. Prager wins this debate.

[@pacman5698]

Grey actually provides statistics and evidence showing that the electoral college doesn't work in helping smaller states and only creates a system where candidates only care about the biggest most populous ones, and that the system makes it possible for a man with less than 40% of the vote could win the election, while Prager just uses apologist defenses stating that because the Founding Fathers set up the system during a time when more legitimate elections were much harder to accomplish, it must be correct. Much like most of the stuff Prager likes to put out, it's all talk and no show. Much like there ridiculous money in politics video where they never once brought up the factor of special interests when discussing about the unlimited caps of buying politicians. Grey succeeds at showing us the popular vote has it both ways, with a system where candidates have to care about more than just the biggest cities, and that a majority actually gets to decide who is president, rather than be an apologist for a system that basically provides us with a fake election in November.

[@dsmith9964]

+Mr. Fedora Please explain the 'fake election' in November that you speak of. The people go to the polls in November to choose the Presidential electors to represent their respective states. Grey bases his entire argument on the false premise that the US is or should be a 'fair democracy'. That is very, very wrong! The US is a Constitutional Federal Republic comprised of 50 states. The framers of the Constitution were wise enough not to implement a democracy because they knew well the perils of strict majoritorian rule. Grey plays down the role of federalism by saying that the interests a majority of Americans should trump the interests of the individual states. In fact small states do contribute a lot to the rest of the nation and their voices should be heard. Hence, the representation of the small states are protected and enhanced in the Senate and the Electoral College. Grey is also wrong when he gives the population for large cities. Grey only presents the city proper populations while ignoring the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. Grey ignored the fact states regulate election laws. It is the states that grant citizens the privilege of voting, not the federal government. Therefore, the national popular vote totals are irrelevant as they should be since it is the states that elect the President. I don't know why you describe Pragers assessment of the EC as 'apologist'. There is no need to apologize when you are stating facts. That said, I disagree with Prager on a lot of issues but Prager is correct with its assessment of the EC. Likewise CGP Grey is factually accurate with most of his videos but CGP Grey is dead wrong about the electoral college.

[@jackrollins2847]

not thrice...

[@russellkramer7226]

Add a fourth example. 2016

[@looinrims]

Russell Kramer try looking at the next freaking video Also This was pre 2016 election, he can’t edit an uploaded video

[@DoctorX149]

Hey russell we found an angry republican

[@DoctorX149]

Ah, my mistake. Not an angry republican an angry sweaty who lives in his mom's basement starting pointless arguments on the internet no? I have time I can keep guessing

[@looinrims]

x99 I corrected the OP, you’re the one who came in like ‘huh, wow Russell, look at this angry republican” and I enjoy your baseless assumptions, that aren’t true, you can keep guessing if it makes you feel better, about what? I couldn’t say, I guess if it helps you think in your head ‘ha! I got em with that one!’ Go for it, doesn’t change the facts, like you being the one who started this ‘argument’

[@kittensofdeath4904]

Trump won, get over it

[@blank4227]

You said Hoosiers when you put up the picture of Illinois, but only Indiana calls its people Hoosiers.

[@AMoistEggroll]

Lel I saw that too. I live in Indiana so I would be considered a Hoosier. I'm not sure what you would call a person from Illinois though.

[@blank4227]

***** Illinoisian or Chicagoan.

[@AMoistEggroll]

Sgt. Meme Ah gotcha

[@blank4227]

***** No problem, neighbor.

[@travisjones6178]

***** Illini, like the Illinois Fighting Illini.

[@chuckariffic]

Dude did u call Illinoians "Hoosiers?" Philistine.

[@Perririri]

Racist

[@LOLXD-sf4yd]

Germany has one of the best voting systems out there. Everybody should look it up it's genius

[@niltomega2978]

That it produced Merkel may suggest otherwise.

[@LOLXD-sf4yd]

@@niltomega2978 what does Merkel have to do with the voting system?

[@hansmaier1410]

@@niltomega2978 Merkel was, while hated by (mostly right-wing) extremists, mostly seen positively by the German population.

[@jedikiller117]

Well it's a good thing America isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic! Two very different things! One is the rule of man the other is the rule of law.

[@fliegerfunk6788]

Laws are still made by man. Democracies still have laws. They aren't that different in practice. Besides, whether a country is a republic or not isn't an excuse for having a system that makes it mathematically possible for a candidate with more support to lose.

[@dandyky]

True democracies have laws, but those laws can easily be changed to follow popular whims. True democracies often do not have a system of checks and balances to prevent an overbearing majority from raping the individual rights of the minority. Secondly, electing the President is and should be about electing the candidate with the broadest distribution of support nationwide and not the candidate simply with the most popular votes.

[@peterpeterson1882]

There are different types of democracies. What you are thinking of is a direct, unrestricted democracy, which can be considered the "purest" or most primitive form of democracy. The US is a restricted indirect democracy, also known as a representative democracy. A republic can be a democracy and a democracy can be a republic, though not all republics are democracies and not all democracies are republics. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand for so many people.

[@jedikiller117]

No. A democracy and a Republic are two different things. A democracy is plainly the rule of man the people vote, 51% beats 49% thus minorities lose and can be enslaved or discriminated against and there is nothing they can do about it. majorities have all the power. the rule of man in wrong. a Republic is The Rule of Law. that is what my country America is. We have a constitution and a bill of rights that lays down our right, no one can take them away from us if 99% of people want to take your right of free speech or your right to own a firearm they cant. everyone has the same rights even our founders considered us a Republic. When asked what kind of government america was Ben Franklin responded "A republic if you can keep it" nowhere in our founding documents does it mention that we are a democracy. our founders recognized all of the flaws with the democracy of the Greeks and they created the republic. this is what it boils down to. America is a Republic, we vote for our leaders our leaders pass laws but they cant infringe upon my constitutional and God given rights. Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of Happiness! Have a good day, God Bless you. Semper Fi

[@AlbertusMagnus100]

Indiana Wolf Except that republics have existed for far far longer than that, and not all republics are the same. For instance, the Roman Republic was technically a representative democracy, in that the plebians (lower class people) could vote for patricians (upper class people) to represent them in the Senate. There were also special divisions of the government that brought the needs and demands of the lower classes to the Senate. The Republic of Venice, on the other hand, was a mercantile republic, in that it was owned, operated, and ruled by wealthy merchant families, in essence an oligarchy. The United States government, while a Republic in name, is actually a representative democracy, in that we the people elect congressmen to represent us in Congress. So we *are* a republic, but we are also a (representative) democracy.

[@eminasadourian27]

Fun fact: if you pause right at 0:55 you can see a troll face on the Electoral College document

[@JustinTimeCuber]

You can win the Presidency with just 12 votes CA: 1 - 0 TX: 1 - 0 FL: 1 - 0 NY: 1 - 0 PA: 1 - 0 IL: 1 - 0 OH: 1 - 0 GA: 1 - 0 NC: 1 - 0 NJ: 1 - 0 VA: 1 - 0 WA: 1 - 0 Total of everywhere else: 0 - 139008197 Grand total: 12 - 139008197 *Electoral vote:* *279* - 259

[@JustinTimeCuber]

Johnny W That's irrelevant- it is, in theory, possible to earn .00001% or less of the vote and still win, with 12 votes in the right states. I don't care if it can happen in practice, but the system allows it. nationalpopularvote.org

[@zvxcvxcz]

+Johnny Barker No, this percentage in the video was not expressing the percentage of possible voters, it was the percentage of actual voters. In your example the winner got 100% of the people that actually went out and voted. Also, how did you total up 259 votes for an opposing candidate if 0 people voted on that side? If no one else wants to vote then that's what you get, it's expected in a democracy and shouldn't surprise anyone, that's not a problem with the system, what CGP Grey pointed out is a real problem. Now suppose one person voted for the opposite side in all the other states, so now you have 12 votes, 279 electoral votes vs. 38 votes, 259 electoral votes. That is, 12/(12+38

[@JustinTimeCuber]

zvxcvxcz No. 12 people vote for one candidate, and a bazillion vote for the other. The 12 are concentrated in 12 states (see original comment) and the other 139008197 are in the other 38 states and DC. I didn't say this would ever happen, just that under the EC system it is theoretically possible.

[@zvxcvxcz]

Justin Barker Ah, sorry, my mistake, 3 AM here, I should sleep so I don't make any more dumb mistakes now.

[@Plop1482]

How much of the US population lives in those twelve states ?

[@kittywitch6334]

People in this comment section have no idea what hypothetical scenarios are and it’s hilarious

[@JimGreen569]

KittyWitch6 Do not make fun of me >:(

[@dsmith9964]

Unfortunately, some people think that those hypothetical scenarios are realistic. The mindset of individuals that take trifling nonsense like what is presented in this video is not funny, its downright dangerous.

[@JimGreen569]

D Smith iS tHaT LiKe A PeRsOnAL aTtAcK Or sOmEtHiNg?

[@Yomama5923]

5:46 four times now... this has happened four times... *sad Grey voice*

[@dr4g0nitedive29]

Jonathan Gutsymon 😂

[@collinpetry1161]

Actually, it has happened five times now, CPG Grey missed 1824 (the results of which were decided by the house of representatives, but he still had 41% of the vote)

[@ManfredDudesonVonGuy]

But that election wasn't determined by the Electoral College. Since nobody got enough electoral votes, the House picked, so that one wasn't the EC picking the guy who lost. Though I'll give you that without the EC that couldnt have happened in the first place.

[@DoomRater]

This video was made right after Obama got re-elected.

[@aaronyun8185]

DoomRater Obama was reelected in 2012, this video was posted in 2011.

[@emily8878]

We shouldn't consider states at all in a federal election. Everyone's vote should be counted equally. One person, one vote... period.

[@jakejones5736]

Then might as well get rid of states. Everyone's vote DOES count equally in each and EVERY state.

[@Haley-fo4tw]

Watching from 2016. Why didn't we learn our lesson?

[@jesussaldana4558]

because "politics is not my place to be", even though paying attention to you representatives is a difference maker between good and corrupt representatives

[@sms4hou676]

folks have! proposed amendments, they cannot get enough support because its a bad idea.

[@GameModJr]

what lesson? that the system is working as intended? I voted Clinton, and still think this.

[@vaiuta]

Can you explain how the system is 'working as intended'?

[@BlahBlahFreeman]

vaiuta because Grey's point is "this is not a democracy" and he's right. America is not a democracy. It's a Republic. There is no lesson to learn. The only thing to learn is the Pledge of Allegiance, which illustrates the fact. ...And to the Republic, for which It stands..."

[@furryslayer8688]

This was pretty well designed for a system in the late 18th century. However, times change and now anyone from anywhere can listen to a speech no matter where it is from. I am also seeing that people that support the electoral college aren’t using the arguments that actually stick up, like how a state voting policy can effect the entire nation. I really don’t see how going only to the big cities is going to change anything if you could just get people to think of the presidential election as a federal election.

[@tacoman125]

The thing was probably supposed to be replaced, but us Americans worship founding fathers like gods, and think every single say from wealthy men is true and never questioned.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@tacoman125 I agree, as much as I respect the founders, they were far from perfect