Why The Electoral College Exists

Around 138 million people voted in the 2016 election, but 306 people officially elected the president by using their electoral college votes. Here’s why the Electoral College exists.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote, the justices announced in an order on Friday.
The justices said they will hear two cases brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her wins in those states.
Like most states, Washington and Colorado require their electors to follow the will of their states’ voters. But those laws are now being challenged by Electoral College voters who argue that such laws are unconstitutional.
A decision in the matter is expected by the end of June, ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the top court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year.
Historically, the faithfulness of Electoral College voters has largely been a formality. In 2016, 10 out of the total 538 electors attempted to cast ballots out of line with their state’s popular vote. But attorneys on both sides of the issue urged the top court to resolve the constitutional question before a crisis emerges.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/Subscri...
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/Subscri...
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedI...
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/Instagr...
#CNBC
Why The Electoral College Exists

[@Hello-cv3wg]

Gotta hit that 10 minute mark

[@FratboyOX]

I’m unfamiliar with KZbin rules, does a video hitting the 10 minute mark mean anything specifically?

[@fatstacksfatlips8708]

Lokeshfro Ignore the other dude, when a video reaches 10 minutes you can put 2 ads on it as opposed to 1 ad on say a 9:59 video.

[@juthikajana8153]

@@sachin2842 to add onto that, when the 10 min videos gets recommended more often, it will be watched more often ,more ads will be viewed on the video, the video will generate more revenue.

[@marvingonzalez2735]

@@FratboyOX you can actually put more than 2 ads if it's over 10

[@josephleonard6695]

10 minutes is the new 270

[@thequizenater]

“peaceful transfer of power for over 200 years” my boy straight forgetting we had a civil war

[@MrDmuny944]

@Krzysztof Milański not sure this is a sincere question original poster didn’t mention anything about political parties. Just the fact you can’t really have a continuous peaceful transfer of power if It caused a civil war ( secession started when Lincoln won). If Lincoln won when the electoral college was in effect saying 200+ years is incorrect. What do you know about the civil war? I’m actually curious.

[@AHSears]

@Thomas Quisenberry The civil war had far less to do with the transfer of power and far more to do with the condemnation of slavery. The transfer of power itself went smoothly. The war happened later. www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-civil-war

[@OhNotThat]

straight up, the whole us civil war kicked off the moment southern states realised lincoln won. 1860 wasn't even over yet and they were rebelling.

[@AHSears]

@@OhNotThat No, unrest is not war. If that were true, America would be at war with itself now. And, that unrest was fomenting due to the reservation of the Southern states to condemn slavery, not the election of Lincoln.

[@Cowman9791]

Yeah, if it wasn't for the electoral college, trump would have conceded by now, 7 million is too big of a margin to say there is fraud

[@LVBT]

Wasn’t this supposed to be taught in middle school, dear god our school system is absolute sh*t

[@commandercaptain4664]

Instead, we're taught about Napoleon and Henry VIII, home ec, and the highly inaccurate and convoluted English measurement system. WHO. CARES. ABOUT. THOSE. I had to teach myself the metric system, how to do my own taxes, and how to cook my own meals. Tax money well spent, the school.

[@jonathansanborn7988]

the irony of your statement is precious

[@ricekrispies1917]

@@commandercaptain4664 They really should dedicate more energy into composing mandatory classes that teach students how the flip to survive adulthood

[@oldgysgt]

This was taught in middle schools in 1958, when I was in 8th grade, but the Teacher's Unions and the Left Wing Liberals have seen that America's youth are taught a man can become a woman by simply changing his name, instead of teaching their students how the country works.

[@rb032682]

@@oldgysgt - lol. Why is you head so far up QAnus? Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

[@schrodingerscat3912]

1:10 Trumps son looks like he's ready to gtf back home and play Minecraft

[@acurapontiac4435]

of course. He's The Expert TM

[@samiracovington493]

👌😂😂😂😂😂

[@dulciemartinez4384]

😂😂😂😂

[@ThreePhaseHigh]

No you always look like that when you’re getting ready to settle in for another four years at the way home ! TRUMP ! 2020

[@vjrn9945]

@@ThreePhaseHigh thanks for ruining the joke

[@frankyflowers]

the states wouldn't join the usa if there was a popular vote. that is what they said in 10 minutes

[@danielsilvers2896]

the *slave* states, you mean, the Electoral College was the compromise free states had to make to get slave states to join the union. The Electoral College at its inception was intended to protect slavery.

[@UnitedWeStand2002]

Daniel Silvers that is a lie. The three fifths compromise was for the slave states. The electoral college ensures all states have a voice and not just the elitist coastal states.

[@xJohnny_Ax]

Daniel Silvers That’s such a wrong statement based on your wording. It was factor, but not main reason the EC was created.

[@thomasbenner9621]

Daniel Silvers now that’s a different spin. The three fifths compromise was the tool for getting the slave states to sign on to the constitution, not the Electoral College. The purpose of the Electoral College was to allow the states to elect the President. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster. Under a national popular vote, the people would elect the candidate who officers the most free stuff and that would lead to tyranny.

[@thomasbenner9621]

richard hill further, under the Original Electoral College, they were able to keep politics out of the Executive Branch. It’s a shame we no longer have that system.

[@aryacoolii8372]

I now understand why people say that voting third party is throwing away your vote. When there's winner take all your vote doesn't matter.

[@Perehenaa]

It depends on the country. The more powerful two parties in the country are, the less third party votes matter.

[@eifbkcn]

On the contrary, third party votes matter a lot in most states as part of gaining ballot access for those parties. Here in NY, there was a massive 2020 campaign for the Working Families Party in order to help them survive an increase in the vote requirement for qualified parties, although almost all our elections utilize electoral fusion, and the WFP cross-nominated Biden in 2020. Still though, we got to see top Democratic leaders such as AOC, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders urge New Yorkers to vote on the WFP line instead of the Democratic line, so that's kinda noticeable

[@tonotejada4851]

why not just let the electoral collage chose?...why people need to vote anyway?

[@garrettwagner3512]

You've been warned. Lots of ignorant comments below

[@wolfmantroy6601]

Wow you weren't kidding. I gave up.

[@JeffreyGoddin]

This it the internet, I don't need the warning, lol!

[@Sp1n1985]

@Samael Yoda uhh? That makes no sense

[@berdboy]

LIBERALISM IS A DREADFUL DISEASE..

[@riptyurass302]

Proper progressivism is pretty new though and it’s absolutely hypocritical and obnoxious

[@guillenkalifa]

Once they are in office they forget those poor areas anyway.

[@jeremywhitt3108]

Are you implying that the rural areas are poor?

[@Debre.]

@@jeremywhitt3108 I mean they are.

[@hmoobmeeka]

@@Hank_Chill if you're homeless, why would you want to be in a rural area? Who are you going to beg for change?

[@ziziroberts8041]

Republicans definitely do. Research what the Biden Administration has done to help farmers keep their farms. Harris will continue with these efforts.

[@jhull5870]

Abolish the Electoral College. Instead of the majority ruling we basically have seven state that determine our Presidential election.

[@vee4849]

This better not screw up my recommendations-

[@ayoubzahyo]

Lol I feel you

[@charlesetwaroo5796]

🤣🤣🤣

[@TillTheLightTakesUs]

Why would it

[@vee4849]

@@TillTheLightTakesUs Because I like my recommendations the way it is.. And I only watched this for class. And I hate almost anything politics related.

[@TillTheLightTakesUs]

@@vee4849 oh you can tell the algorithm to stop recommending based on a specific video, when it recommends you something based on that on the front page.

[@pvanukoff]

The main flaw with the EC is not the EC itself, but the "winner takes all" approach that most states use. It simply doesn't make sense that a candidate who only receives 51% of the votes within a state should get 100% of the EC votes for that state. EC votes for each candidate should just be cast proportionally to the popular vote within each state. If a candidate gets X% of the popular vote within a state, they get X% of the EC votes for that state. Simple to understand, simple to implement, every vote counts, small states still get their +2 representation, etc.

[@ashvinnihalani8821]

Do you round up and down, it also presents issues with recounts. Most states don’t do recounts even though the count may be wrong because the margin of error would probably not effect anything now you have recounts at every possible division of votes. This would also minimize the effect of small primary one party states

[@pvanukoff]

​@@ashvinnihalani8821 I didn't say anything about rounding. Let the votes be fractional. I live in Arizona. We get 11 EC votes. Suppose in the upcoming election, Biden gets 45% of the votes. 45% of 11 is 4.95. So, Biden would earn 4.95 EC votes from Arizona. As far as recounts or other such issues, obviously new recount rules would have to be created. And I don't really know what you mean by "small primary one party states".

[@rdhaley96]

I agree with this completely, and it's something I've been thinking for years now. If we're going to keep the Electoral College, this is absolutely the best way to do it. Everyone's vote should matter. Your vote shouldn't be seen as invalid just because you're a democrat in a red state (like I am, unfortunately). I think this would also largely solve the problem of people not voting "because their vote won't make a difference." I don't see a downside with this type of system at all, and hopefully if Biden is elected, we can inch closer to making it a reality.

[@heyhey-by4xo]

I Love your idea, the Republicans would never lose ever again!

[@pvanukoff]

@@heyhey-by4xo That's not accurate. Obama would've still won in 2012 by this method. Trump would've still won in 2016, but it would've been a much closer race, by only about 2 to 3 EC votes. Being an independent myself, I'm not endorsing this system because it would benefit one party or another, but because I think it's a very fair system.

[@jorgearellano9204]

Someone forgot about the Civil War when talking about the more than 200 years of political stability 😂

[@MrRyanholder]

​@Krzysztof Milański Could you define a political problem?

[@weyjey2768]

@Krzysztof Milański bro politics is based on society and people. They are not 2 different things.

[@ajibadeadebiyi]

@Krzysztof Milański you just said they had a difference in social problems, but the south had different political views. 😒 Politics is the govt reflection of societal issues.

[@rb032682]

@@ajibadeadebiyi - You are confusing "severe differences of morality" with "different political views". Please consult a mental health professional. . Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Terrorism is NOT a societal issue.

[@joso5554]

What about the Jan. 6 insurrection and the refusal to acknowledge the lawful results ?!?!

[@jeremiahyonemura]

Thank you, CNBC, for making an unbiased video not just trashing one side.

[@joeleicht5764]

Yeah, I must admit, I was surprised by CNBC's even-handedness in this case. Not what I expected, but appreciated.

[@GoddessOfWhim2003]

this popped up after i watched the Prager U vid on the EC. i had to see if CNBC could be fair on the topic, and they were so good job to them

[@AnitreaSadi]

Cant deny that at all, it was actually good reporting.

[@gottrance4631]

Same here, in my mind I was telling myself "ok let's hear why they don't like the current voting system" Good work CNBC

[@TheMadArab138]

Still leans left because it doesn’t point out that it’s the left who wants to change this.

[@Nighteater]

Wouldn't be a problem if education system wasn't lacking...

[@rogerwilcoshirley2270]

Nighteater It exists b/c we have an anachronistic completely outdated form and mechanisms of democracy but the corrupt established good ol' boy network sees no need to change. What we should have is an internet based wiki system wherein the people directly craft legislation and policies and where we vote directly on each issue and their appropriations. We also are upside down on this allegiance issue , it is not us that should be pledging allegiance to the burocrats rather we should have them stand , face around to US and pledge allegiance to each and every one of US. Everything is totally backward!

[@brianpayne4549]

RogerWilco Shirley aww, someone is butthurt. This is a plan in operation, long before your birth, and it’s a plan that works. You lose the past 5-6 elections, and all of a sudden, it’s no good and has to go. Get over yourself.

[@highgrounder]

@@brianpayne4549 There are good points on both sides. Discussion is needed and facts have to be adressed. I live in Alabama, so a vote for a Democrat won't help them much in our current system. The only states where my vote would matter are swing states. If it were decided by the popular vote, my vote would matter just as much as one in Florida if it were in Colorado or Georgia.

[@brianpayne4549]

Will Abernathy but the system wasn’t based on the popular vote, and it shouldn’t be based on popular. In popular vote, individual states lose power, look at California, for instance: the population of California has the combined pop of the next 16 states combined (I think that was what I read, forgive me, it’s been a year or so...). That isn’t very fair.

[@jeffreyiaia1776]

@@brianpayne4549 and how is it fair that a state like north or south dakota can hold up the will of millions of Americans with a population of less than one million. Philadelphia alone has more people than north and south dakota combined. where is the fairness in that?

[@snit22]

It no longer serves a purpose. It should be scrapped.

[@sirthankless]

anyone else tryna finish an essay a day before its due that you haven't even started, and desperately trying to grasp quick knowledge?

[@maevebuckley3339]

thats exactly what im doing

[@babycartesian944]

I’m doin it rn, did u end up passing?

[@sirthankless]

@@babycartesian944 nah man, I don’t do good in ap gov

[@chippym8316]

I hope all of you information hungry students a cash money night

[@AA-mr3uy]

omg how did you know...........

[@tiberbenaissa3146]

"we've had a very stable government for the past 200 years" Civil war: Yeah I don't think so

[@Tris_muc]

Him it’s Stable who said it wasn’t it’s just not good

[@olatunjiolakunle6908]

You wrong. the civil war was based on another issue (slavery) not a voting/electoral issue. Hell, Lincoln was elected during the war and there was no issue about it.

[@yolamontalvan9502]

*The USA Is the only Republic in the World where the LOSER by 3 million votes becomes A FAKE PRESIDENT.* That’s not Democracy. We have no right to tell other nations to be Democratic because we are not a Democratic Nation.

[@videobruceb8879]

Not stable at all since 1981.

[@300nate]

Yola Montalvan good thing we are a constitutional republic not a democracy🤟

[@johnnellmatthewsantos7277]

Time for change. Electoral college no longer represents the true will of the people

[@zanvoy6848]

It never did.

[@mitingant]

@@MrLanghalee do you prefer swinging states dictate their will to the rest of the country?

[@bimi4057]

@@MrLanghalee People's needs in California differ from people's needs in Kansas. So do you mean people living in California are not real people and their living should be dictated by the crowd living in Wichita?

[@dumbviddumpchanneliguess7201]

@@bimi4057 I've played Cyberpunk enough to confidently say yes to this.

[@goo1358]

You take out the electoral college, you guarantee that US will forever have a democratic president. Anytime you start playing with the constitution, it will never end.

[@c187rocks]

This is about seven minutes too long.

[@Ryno_D1no]

Your comment is 7 words to long.

[@denniswolff7300]

Ryan Walker YOUR LIFE IS TOO LONG

[@amazeed8532]

@@denniswolff7300 this reply chain is too long

[@denniswolff7300]

aMaze Ed I DISAGREE ......

[@amazeed8532]

@@denniswolff7300 are

[@debbie4503]

I don't want an electoral vote. I want my vote to count!

[@christiansoldier77]

Debbie Daniels your vote wont count with the popular vote because the big cities would dominate every election

[@jimkurth]

Papa John how would your logic work? If it’s popular vote (throw out the electoral votes because we’re not talking about popular votes get the electoral votes granted to the state), and California has a voter population of 29.6 million, and the entire US voter population is 250 million. That means, Californian voters contribute to 11.8% of the total vote. The main question I have is Why does it matter what state you’re from if we’re using a national popular vote? States don’t matter when you count everyone.

[@jmp0428]

@@jimkurth God damn it youre a genius! I'm serious btw.

[@rb032682]

@Papa John - The bigger question is why do YOU not know why the Electoral College exists? Why are you ignorantly repeating old bulshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!

[@rb032682]

@@jimkurth - Agreed. Don't expect any kind of logic from Papa John. His head is firmly embedded up QAnus.

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

Just imagine if we didn't have the EC today and somebody just proposed it. They'd be looked at as crazy.

[@Slithermotion]

I don't think so. Without the EC campaigns would probably only happen in big cities with a big population. What would be the point in campaigning in small states or small cities? I'm not american, I don't like trump but think objectively the EC isn't a bad thing for the representation of people in the rural area.

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

@@Slithermotion , yes why don't they just give people in rural areas the right to vote 5 times? Same thing. Those rural areas get massive over representation in the Senate. They are not ignored. Campaigns visit all 50 states and believe me they don't care about North Dakota's 3 electoral votes. Because of the EC, they give most of their attention to 10 States and the big cities within those States. Your argument does not reflect reality.

[@chatman2a]

Slithermotion You could have made your point about the EC without interjecting your dislike of Trump. So, why did you?

[@Slithermotion]

@@chatman2a Often people like to frame an opinion. Meaning he thinks X so of course he thinks Y and Z as well. I wanted to make clear that I don't think the EC is good because it elects trump but it represents rural areas better. And I don't see anything wrong in saying that I just don't like trump as a person that doesn't mean that I think everything is wrong that he did. Neither was everything right. So if you think that there was some kind of secret meaning in my statement....no I just pointed out that I don't like trump. That's it. And just because the DNC lost to someone like trump doesn't mean that it's good to change an election system that worked as long as the EC.

[@commandercaptain4664]

Electoral college: Counting everyone's votes in a democracy is just SO HARD. Tell ya what, lemme just... take... all'a these right chah... aaaaand I'll decide for you okay deal. Citizen: ... ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE A "COLLEGE"? Cuz you sound like a electoral kindergarten.

[@superafricanguy]

That’s why Census is so important, huh?

[@TheOneBigRed]

yes

[@RickyJC]

Yep, and why we should have a census question that asks if you are a citizen. You don’t want non Americans to affect a state’s power and receive too much power from state representation and vote power. This is why many states that have a lot of non American residents (which are generally Democrat) opposed to the citizenship question because they could lose seats and power.

[@jgallardo7344]

Texas is about to get 4 more Electoral votes as the state becomes more politically diverse. If it flips blue, it will refute any talking points about the liberal elitist cities argument. California is projected to lose one electoral vote as the state is too expensive. States like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Alabama, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and West Virginia are also expected to lose votes as agricultural jobs are dying and coal is less profitable.

[@Starforge1]

If they stopped counting non citizens, California, NY and Illinois would be estimated to lose roughly 18 electoral votes combined. Yeah, non-citizens can't legally vote, but they still influence how much your vote counts.

[@andresp1582]

Starforge1 they don’t count non citizens lol

[@Sparkxtube]

Yes, We don't vote for president, we vote for who in the Electoral College is voting for the president.

[@taltalmilal5495]

Wrong. The candidate has to win the popular vote in a state to get that state's electoral votes.

[@zachbunch8701]

@@taltalmilal5495 and even then they dont always vote in line with the states popular vote

[@mayainverse9429]

@Sperup AD the electoral college is the closest thing to "one citizen one vote" if it was the system you want a huge part of the country would effectively have zero votes.

[@DavidTrumbly]

@@mayainverse9429 Except they would get exactly as many votes as they deserve. People vote, not land.

[@simonwinn8757]

It's called the United States and the states vote, the only thing citizens vote for is how the state will vote.

[@michelerich1590]

Peaceful? Prevents recount chaos? This vid didn’t age well.

[@Genjo_N_Mojave]

04:29 in other words politicians don't trust the very people they represent to elect them.

[@LFOD4US]

Not in the slightest, that is just this guys ideas or perspective. The founders werent all politicians, and definitely didnt trust all politicians.. thus the EC and constitutional-republic was rectified. Whether you side with CNN or fox, it is quite obvious from both sides the power of persuasion... Anti trump strongholds remained to be the urban areas where social/welfare programs are needed as there are more people than jobs and so many have a jobless friend/family... Rural america is different, where there is less cash flow because smaller populations but are still heavily affected by taxes and how they are implemented. A $50,000 debt for a degree is not necessary to grow corn or soybeans, definitely not needed for harvesting them as for many jobs in rural areas. Anyways point is that you cant expect the urbanites to care about rural areas and certainly cant hope their ideas will benefit those places but without the EC the rural wouldnt have a voice which is a very very bad idea that urban people tend to ignore.

[@mykolt]

That guy is an idiot. Note the network producing this video

[@mykolt]

@JM I agree with your comment, and yes I could see a small disagreement and just move on...lol. All I wanted to add is that most farms producing anything measurable these days, are operated by farmers with agricultural degrees and business degrees. They run 600 acre farms and employ hundreds of people and invest millions in equipment. Farming is much different these days.

[@LFOD4US]

@@mykolt I agree with you but still, those really large companies (who hire their specialists, not become the specialists) only make up about 45% of total farming production and still are only like 9% of the total farming workforce... the other 91% of farming operations are largely generational farmers, knowledge from books, family and local ag departments which provide more than enough information on modern growing practices and products.

[@LFOD4US]

@@mykolt another side note: Often large farming outfits lease other farmer lands, equipment and possibly their labor to grow the crop. For example: r.d. offutt, not all their potatoes actually comes from their own farms.. theres a hundred different farmers growing potatoes here and then r.d.o. harvests, stores and resells them.

[@ganapatikamesh]

Not to be picky or mean, but if you’re going to talk to “experts” you should probably read the notes from those at the Constitutional Convention, letters and pamphlets and so on from these folks about the Constitution they wrote and their intentions so that way you make sure these “experts” are presenting accurate, honest historical information rather than their own modern biases. All this information is available both online as well as in the National Archives for free to the public. The Electoral College exists as a compromise by those writing it. But not as presented by modern constitutional “experts” be they biases politically right or left. It isn’t about slavery as those on the left presume or about ensuring candidates visit rural areas as the right presume. In the notes and letters as well as writings after the Constitution was adopted and the first real election happened after Washington declined to run again, these folks make it clear that there was debate about either letting the people vote directly for the president or to have Congress vote for the president. Each side had good reasons for their proposal and against the others. The Electoral College is the compromise. The idea the authors thought of was that the people wouldn’t vote for actual candidates, they’d vote for electors. The electors would be trusted people in the states who would campaign in electoral districts on behalf of their chosen candidates. People then would vote for the elector in their electoral district whom they felt had made the wisest decision about which candidate to support. Then those electors would go and cast their votes as they had told the people they would. The authors figured that this would mean that different electors in a state would vote for different people and they assumed that multiple people would be running, not just two, which is why the second place winner gets vice-presidency in the original version. They figured that because of this system as they were thinking of it, with candidates essentially getting a kinda proportion of the vote, this would lead to no one candidate getting a majority and thus that would lead to Congress actually choosing the president and vice president via votes as outlined in the Constitution for each chamber for just such a purpose. Thus the people would kinda vote for the president, there would be wise people to ensure that candidates were qualified via the electors, but Congress would have the ultimate final say which was to go with what the electors vis the people had chosen or go a different way. Once you read their notes, letters, etc you realize that elections like the one that saw the president become John Quincy Adams were much more like how the authors had intended them to go. Indeed, some of the authors bemoaned how things had turned out after the elections that followed Washington saw states and the American people operating it differently than imagined and forming into two political parties which they likewise hadn’t foreseen had the time of debating and writing the constitution. Interestingly they did not weigh in on suggestions to fix or change it, but rather left that to others. They seem only to discuss how things had differed from their intentions. Great video, though. Very insightful. Just wish media would call out people and politicians when they talk about the Constitution and are not factual like these “experts” or even politicians making obvious misstatements about what the Constitution says. No one called out a Democrats or Republicans during the impeachment every time they kept using the phrase “the high bar the Constitution sets for impeachment.” There is no such high bar. The few paragraphs on impeachment are vague and the reasons given include misdemeanors. So technically the Constitution allows Congress to impeach over a speeding ticket if they want to. Likewise the Senate can find someone guilty and still not remove them. The language is vague in that it only says that the Senate, if they find a federal official guilty, may only choose to remove from office; it doesn’t say it has to actually do it. The “high bar for impeachment” mentioned by the esteemed Congresspersons is from precedent and tradition that Congress created and more often is higher for the president than the cabinet members, agency officials, and federal judges that Congress has impeached and removed over the 200+ years as a nation and the reason that people in Congress aren’t impeached is based on precedent and tradition based on the idea that both chambers set their own rules for members beyond what the Constitution says; indeed the Constitution grants the chambers that authority to set their own rules. I mean, we have the shortest constitution in the world so it’s pretty easy to read it and call people out when they’re saying it says something it doesn’t actually say. It’s small enough that you can make pocket size versions to carry and read on the go and even with all the letters, noted, pamphlets like the Federalist Papers, etc those still aren’t voluminous (though certainly not easily as pocket size...more like pocket New Testament size! Lol).

[@rescue08jrgaming72]

No leftists are going to try to refute this.

[@miketheman4341]

ganapatikamesh That’s what scholarship is for! It’s why we see the opinions of scholars here as no scholar is going to defy the existing consensus that would result in a tremendous harm to their reputation among other scholars. Lastly this is not a research paper. It’s a news story! It falls to viewers to do the research and scholars would never use this as a resource.

[@miketheman4341]

BTW language changes and we have been debating the meaning of concepts for centuries. This is one of those issues that is not debated. We understand its intent very well.

[@jrsands11]

Repeal the 17th Amendment

[@thelonerick2344]

While this debate will be ongoing it is my opinion that the Electoral College is the way to go in order to keep individual states on equal footing provided the electors go with the popular vote of each state also voter ID laws will continue to be hotly debated until evidence suggests large-scale fraud which is one thing that concerns me about California as they've already discussed giving the vote 2 illegals and do allow some of those illegal votes to be counted in local races

[@Doamino41]

I don't care what people say. A candidate that wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote is like a football team winning the Superbowl because of bad officiating. I would love to see America get rid of the electoral college. It just doesn't make sense.

[@TheBigdaddypickle]

How so?

[@Doamino41]

@@TheBigdaddypickle In my opinion the popular vote should always determine a candidate in an election. Sometimes the Electoral college voters will vote against the popular vote. Which in my book is cheating. Kind of like a bad call against a team that costs them the game. Also cheating. As you probably already know it's the Electoral college voters that pick the president and vice president of the United States. Get my point?

[@CMLee-dq7bi]

@@Doamino41It’s cheating when overwhelming masses of coastal city lazy welfare bums silence the less populated mid American farmers who are the nation’s economic backbones !!

[@EdP-l2s]

And we don’t care what you think

[@Doamino41]

@@EdP-l2s A little late but I guess being late is normal if you're a MAGA idiot.

[@bobbypin681]

It’s the way y’all didn’t address slavery’s role in the creation of the electoral college at all for me *yikes*

[@MrDmuny944]

@Jesus Christ time to crack open the good book again. Talk to your daddy if slavery affected the electoral college. You’re divine but yet still human I forgive you for forgetting.

[@Nakar2]

@Jesus Christ You should watch this one to know the slavery's role: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5vEp6aDl6iUprs. Basically the northerners did do it to appease the south to agree to the constitution.

[@MrDmuny944]

@Jesus Christ incorrect the 3/5 compromise was introduced an adopted in the constitutional convention (mentioned in the first 2 minutes of the video!) and also was not brought forth by Hamilton. It’s time to retire and learn how to google. But let me help you as it seems I am more benevolent than you. Here is a link you can read to make it real easy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise. Between the start of the college up until 1868 the law was written so that disenfranchised slaves (generally blacks) helped boost the voting power of the enfranchised (generally whites) of that state. Th e representatives boosted in numbers by the disenfranchised (blacks) were not compelled to assist the well being of blacks (can’t be voted out or forced to follow a law). This created artificial power for slave holding states that held a friction creating the first and only American civil war to date (not sure how you would define a side note pretty big deal for me and for the millions of lives affected). Was the civil war all about slavery? Not completely at a high level it was a power struggle from two distinct side with conflicting view points of the direction of a young nation. Power from one side which was artificially inflated by the forcefully disenfranchised. Now the big question is how could have this information been placed in the video. Literally in the first two minutes were the expert talked about how it was a imperfect comprise from the constitutional convention (that’s when the 3/5 compromise was added as well Jesus!) a listing of everything wrong with the original agreement could have been read at the least. The video could have also listed all the times the electoral college radically deviated/changed from the original agreement. All of which would be aligned with the video without turning it into a “black facts force feed” media extravaganza. But one has to think that if you are going to ridicule a valid question about American and black history (haughty ignorance) then double down on some bs (Hamilton did it and side notes) makes me wonder if we should have a ton more of “black facts” videos. Side note: I find it hilarious that you come off as a vindictive ignorant incel and not the compassionate all knowing deity you name suggests. 😂 maybe there needs to be term limits or something. I’ll talk to your daddy while you google “blacks and the electoral college”👍

[@MrDmuny944]

@Jesus Christ the original poster alludes to the fact of how slavery played a role in the electoral college. Cite the constitution and tell me otherwise. 🙃. I would tell you where it is but based on your reply I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t really look things up. It will be a good exercise for you. Also you can’t call the constitution revisionist. The only question is if you have the mental strength and fortitude to find the section. I honestly think you will reply by changing the subject. Regardless I’ll wait...

[@bukcot]

It's all in the name: United States.

[@Surfbird11]

Alex Mercer True, but there wouldn’t have been a federal government without it. Basically, Virginia was the California of that time. The smaller states like Rhode Island did not want Virginians rolling over them. Today that would be a state like Wyoming, which feels the same way.

[@bukcot]

@tree man True. Some are American and normal while others are Democrat.

[@aaendi6661]

It should be called the Ducked-Taped Together States of Inconsistant Size and Power Distribution.

[@hazard4648]

@@Surfbird11 A democratic election is based on the priciple that every vote counts the same. If you give the votes of people of smaller states a higher value, you abandon basic democratic principles. Besides smaller states can't be overrun by a few big states, since the senate as the state representation could block nearly everything. The US-System basically leads to a situation, were a few states are relevant to the election, because they are disputed, while the candidates basically don't care about safe states. In the past the states with the highest population like NY, Texas and California are the states that were the least visited by the candidates and nobody cared about them. And that's a big part of the voting population which got basically ignored. Thats not how democracy should work and is a big issue in the US. European countries for example have established far better election systems in the past decades.

[@Surfbird11]

Hazard 464 But we are not and never have been a democracy. We are a republic that was formed by 13 newly independent nations (aka states) which agreed to bind to each other as a larger nation (United States of America). In other words, people have never voted directly for President. They vote for electors who then represent the states. It is states that actually vote for President. Hence the electoral college. If you don’t like it there is a procedure to change the Constitution.

[@olinewright6877]

Personally I feel that the states should choose electors based on a percentage of popular vote rather than a winner takes all method

[@ianmarkhammes2071]

Personally, I think you should consider other factors.

[@jfpei9315]

I agree. The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is the winner-takes-all rules by 48 states (except two), as oppose to proportional to popular votes.

[@coolbeans6148]

Centralized government is the causation of every empires collapse in history. Decentralize government, is imperative. If it was up to me, each state would have 1 vote, regardless of population. To go even further, each county within a state would have only 1 vote. The government would be "bottoms up" instead of how we have it now. The local levels would have the most say, the state even less, the federal government even less. This would prevent cities from holding rural states as hostages, stopping them from forcing them against their will.

[@derekkluck1120]

As someone who lives in Nebraska, I personally think that the electoral college would be much better if more states followed our system. In Nebraska, the person who wins the whole state gets 2 points (the senators points), and then each congressional district votes on who its vote will go to. This retains some emphasis on winning the state, but also allows for even more localism. If more states adopted this approach, I think that the founder's intention of making candidates reach out to more areas would be better achieved

[@imjashingyou3461]

@@derekkluck1120 Yeah and Omaha and Lincoln basically determine who wins Nebraska. You typically have 1 electoral vote at most going anywhere else in the state out of the 5. Its effectively the same system. And it cause Warren Buffets famous strategy in 2016 where he focused ONLY on Omaha for Clinton. It was an outlier like the 2016 election in general where Lincoln and Omaha didn't go the same way and basically carry the state.

[@duskrider1724]

If electors can't vote against the states popular vote than why do they even exist? The position could be automated. And a winner take all system means that unless you are in a swing state your vote really doesn't matter.

[@KevinSmith-qi5yn]

I think it was because of how the country was setup at the time of the founding and an amendment has not changed the clause in the constitution. How do you reliably get information to Washington DC in 1789? Someone physically goes there. With communication today, you can do without the electors while maintaining the electoral college. Also how electors are selected is done by the state not the fed since this is a state's decision.

[@50kal44]

Kevin Smith actually the winner of the state selects its own delegates (loyal to the party or candidate) this prevents (for the most part) people changing their votes, in some states it’s illegal to do so, but in most states they could change their vote, this is how Collin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle got electoral votes in 2016.

[@c0mpu73rguy]

ThereIs NoSpoon And with a direct system, it’s if you live in less populated areas that your vote doesn’t matter.

[@mansory7996]

If the electors could vote whoever they want, the candidate can bribe electors to make them vote who gave them money. This will make the popular vote useless.

[@JRobbySh]

Your personal preference doesn’t work even in the case of your city government.

[@keithwardonline]

Most informative video I’ve seen on this, with sufficient explanations of not only how it works, but the thinking behind it, from US founders to present day, pros and cons. Thank you!

[@71nadra]

Except for the fact that they completely ignored the role slavery played in the creation of the EC

[@71nadra]

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count. time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

[@keithwardonline]

@@71nadra - Thank you for that insight. It most certainly should not be ignored.

[@JTigre99]

So, is there any wonder why people don't vote? That people don't feel that their vote counts? Very frustrating.

[@artemisameretsu6905]

Doesn't matter if in the end your candidates opponent can go round the low population states and ring up enough electoral votes there that your vote literally doesn't count. Individual votes *don't* count. Only the states votes do. Doesnt matter if more people voted for the same candidate as you if the states those people voted in either don't get enough electoral votes to matter, or more people *in that state* voted for someone else. So no, your Individual vote doesnt matter in the long run.

[@zachb1706]

Artemis Ameretsu because appealing to almost 40 states is easier than the top 11

[@chrisg2788]

@Chris L Except for when it doesn't and faithless electors do what they want.

[@richardlouis8295]

If the majority of state A vote for candidate B then candidate B should get the electoral votes for state A.

[@timmyjohnson2099]

One or two states aren't going to decide who wins, thank God above.

[@RickyJC]

Video Begins: “Why is the electoral college so important? Because we are a republic, not a democracy.” -Video Ends-

[@johnsumser9743]

We are a democratic republic. You really need to look up those words.

[@rob5894]

You haven't a clue what either words mean. You are just spouting right wing talking points.

[@tycobandit]

A constitutional republic is a type of democracy. There are different types of democracies. wingnuts keep spewing this nonsense because deep down they are afraid of it. Make Election Day a federal holiday like the 4th of July or Thanksgiving then watch the significance of gaming the electoral college die.

[@spencermorgan675]

@@johnsumser9743 Of course, you are right. I've run across this type before. They will usually spout some quote from somebody in the 1700s as to what democracy means. They neglect to note that words change in meaning and a definition in the 18th century may not be the definition in 2020. I've traced this notion, that we are a republic, not a democracy, to the John Birch Society in the 1950s and 60s. It indicates a lack of knowledge of basic civics in the 20th-21st centuries. We are, and have for a long time been, a constitutional democratic republic.

[@cliffmays442]

As I stated all republics are democracies. Also what does the stupid electoral college have to do with our nation being defined as a republic or not?

[@christophermills9289]

1828, 1876, 2000, & 2016. Four times the electoral college has defeated the popular vote.

[@michaelthomas7898]

The fellow from the Heritage group is lying through his teeth, imagine that.

[@looboo1157]

under the electoral college you can win by having 27% of votes in a specefic case , by winning all the votes in small states and winning big states by 1 vote difference

[@guroux]

why would you need to win all the votes of a small state? just win small states by 1 vote and lose big states by all the votes. This general strategy will work because smaller (population) states have proportionally more electoral college votes per population.

[@alextheonewarrior]

Because let's just ignore the fact that most states are heavily leaning one direction, and that you also have another major opponent that should be able to see that and fight back.

[@0xCAFEF00D]

@@alextheonewarrior The that's a way bigger issue. Whoever isn't aligned with their state outcome is not a voter in effect. It truly is a waste of time. That's part of the argument for the popular vote system. It sidesteps both issues entirely and gives safe states back the right to vote. The current system may have safe seats where a minority is still winning. Because why would you vote for the opposition in a safe state? Wasted effort. So even if opinion shifts it'd have to shift so much that you'd win you need to beat the apathy. Hopefully polling gives some insight into that though. I haven't heard people bring that up so presumably that's not a big issue.

[@starventure]

loo boo A mathematical black swan event. Trump pulled it off only because of a perfect opponent who couldn’t keep their mouth shut. After Trump is gone and the Democratic Party gets a reset, all will be back to normal.

[@jaimes350]

@@starventure wont happen till 2024.

[@philiplombardo4332]

Al Gore won Florida until George's brother Jeb put his two measly cents right where it doesn't belong.

[@akhorr7560]

As someone living in Southeast Asia, it always baffles me that America, the country that's known for its freedom and democracy, still has a two party system, electoral college and winner takes all policy. Here we have 10+ political parties, several candidates, proportional parliament based on threshold and whoever gets the most votes becomes the president. And our country is just 75 years old with a long history of dictatorship that ended in 1998.

[@ademhawilson5579]

there are more than 2 parties but the 3rd party candidates usually get under 10% of the pop. vote. I do think the electoral college should abolished.

[@ramsessevenone416]

The two party system is a problem. The Electoral College is not. The EC guarantees equal representation for votes amongst ALL states, not just the ones with the highest population. In other words, you need to win each state based on regions, not just population alone.

[@rhyslucero1400]

You don't understand how US politics works. In your country, parties are set and they compete for market share in the voting. Then the parties jockey for position in the formation of a ruling majority. In the US, we have the same process, just our parties form a ruling majority before the votes. So, we only have two parties, but the constituents move around. So, Democrats used to be the States Rights Party, but now the Republicans have accepted that constituency. So what you don't realize is the parties aren't consistent in their constituency, so it's not what you think.

[@bubblegodanimation4915]

@@ramsessevenone416 Why states and why not people? Also it doesn't.

[@peterlloyd6100]

Thank you for this. As an Australian I’ve heard about the electoral college, but knew very little about how it functioned and its history. I found this very helpful.

[@adam8822]

dont a lot of countries have peaceful transition without an electoral college?

[@jimmefz3328]

not consistently for 200 years

[@jimmybrice6360]

@Jon Emery who are you kidding ? trump is gonna win by a landslide

[@JohnJohnson-dj2dv]

The United States isn't 'a lot of other countries' and for good reason!

[@joncash929]

@@jimmybrice6360 yeah, LANDSLIDE BY KILLING MORE AMERICANS.. REMEMBER THIS BIRD BRAIN LOST THE POPULAR VOTE 🤔.. IT'S BEEN ALL ABOUT HIM EVER SINCE. IT'S NOT ABOUT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.. IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A REAL STRONG LEADER.. REBUBLICANS NO LONGER STAND BY HIS WAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE AMERICAN WAY..

[@latetotheparty4785]

Jon Emery I fantasize his departure will look Assange-esque

[@ocmacman]

It's amazing how these people didn't say what the "compromise" was. we all know what it was.

[@victorledezma6652]

You’re telling us in 200 years no one has had a better way to change this?

[@rickdfw5005]

Yea. Lots of better ways. The problem is getting all 3 branches to agree at one time.

[@ThatEEguy2818]

Here's a better way. Give each state 1 vote.

[@ThatEEguy2818]

Not really, but you see how a debate can start. You have to understand that when the founders wrote the constitution, the states were considered sovereign nations that were joining a union. Think EU.

[@jgallardo7344]

There is hope. Only within the last 100 years were we able to vote on our Senators directly. 50 years and counting of the Voting Rights Act. Many states are currently adopting independent redistricting commissions. Maine adopted Ranked Choice Voting at the state and federal level. Some states are giving felons their right to vote back. One step and one state at a time

[@jgallardo7344]

Rick West that would be extremely disproportionate. California:Wyoming is 77:1

[@allmyfriendsaredead3107]

“preventing recount chaos” Oh boy, that did NOT age well.

[@joetaylor8602]

It’s hard to describe in the US situation but I think the UK does a decent job at fixing this issue. The country’s spilt up into 650 constituencies with fairly equal populations in each one (60,000ish). This means constituencies in rural areas are geographically huge compared to urban constituencies, but it makes no difference since the population in each one is roughly equal. Each constituency votes, whichever party wins that constituency gets to send someone from their party as a member of parliament (MP) to parliament (obviously). Whichever party wins a majority of constituencies/MP’s (326), wins the election. In the US, each state has different numbers of electoral votes and different populations. Tens of millions of votes simply don’t matter because they’re in safe states. 24 million people could vote GOP in California, but if 25 million vote democrat, the whole state goes blue. The opposite of this almost happens in Texas. Each UK constituency has equal numbers of people and equal number of seats in parliament, one. The system isn’t perfect, but it prevents the popular vote losing the election.

[@dotnuts]

But what if the U.K. was voting for a single position? i.e. a President? In the U.K., the leader (secretary-general) of the party becomes the prime minister who leads the country. In this case, we're talking about voting for a single person to become the President.

[@herbertvonzinderneuf8547]

I am old enough to remember Labour winning the 1974 election, after failing to win the popular vote. But, you are correct, the UK system generally prevents such a thing.

[@imjashingyou3461]

And you have a comparably unstable government in the UK when it comes to the Head of State position. Prime Ministers, leave or resign all the time when their coalition collapses, the loose support in the party, are unable or unwilling to execute the will of the people (Brexit), when new elections happen. Our house of representative is set up exactly like your consitutenties and i believe we predate your system. We have our "parliament" change and possibly change the ruling majority every two years. While the senate which is equal representation based upon state is every 6 years. Apart from deaths or Nixon committing criminal acts we have never had a president leave office outside of an election.

[@joetaylor8602]

@@imjashingyou3461 A president can resign just like a prime minister. It's just we've had plenty of them recently because of weak leadership.

[@imjashingyou3461]

@@joetaylor8602 and we have had 1 in 244 years. Because he was about to be removed because of crimes. Point is we are stable in the US. You are not. There is nothing in the US to fix. You also don't have the vastly different experiences in the UK you get in the US. Thats the point of the electoral college system. So that voters in New York, California, and Texas can't simply dictate with thier different needs and awareness on the issues to North Dakota, or Idaho. Its so also a political party doesn't move to one region form a slight majority off that region and then vote on thier issues and needs and completely disregard the rest of the nation. Even if a small majority says they want this president it must be broadly acceptable to the US.

[@Ranger175bco]

Pretty damn sad in this day and time need a news report on why the electorial college was put into the constitution. Says a lot about the education system today.

[@gustavkir5298]

Not really. Its not only made for americans it is just as much made for europeans or other people from other countries than America, that want to learn about your voting system

[@krismine99]

I just wanted to see how they would represent both sides, mainly since they are owned by Comcast

[@eleanorcummings9699]

Why do you think they took teaching Civics in the schools?

[@Dankdalorde]

Do YOU understand it? It’s a lot more complicated than the average person can understand. Both sides accuse each other of fraud. That and caucuses and super delicates make it much more complicated

[@HablaCarnage63]

Mark Jenkins It’s not a hard concept. In my day they all knew both of those things and promptly forgot them because it had no immediate impact on their lives because the government itself had very few impacts on daily life besides periodic military slavery and after 1913 a math problem in advance of an annual robbery. Start with reading and writing in English. Then teach them math, physics, and maybe chemistry. Then teach reading and writing in other languages. Everything else is a form of indoctrination. Best to keep government out of that business.

[@mydogskips2]

So wait, the Electoral College was created so candidates wouldn't neglect small places... Well, it hasn't worked where I live as no President has campaigned here in many years, over multiple election cycles.

[@williamcleland2369]

Probably because where you are is insubstantial to their victory.

[@mydogskips2]

@@williamcleland2369 That is correct, I live in a deep blue state with few electoral votes, but my point is that ALL votes(which are representative of people) should matter, and if there was proportional awarding of electoral votes perhaps candidates wouldn't completely neglect the voters in my state, because even here the vote is usually split about 55/45.

[@Nojintt]

Yep, unfortunately only mid to large size "swing states" like Florida actually matter to their victory. Which means they end up spending a disproportionate amount of time and money here in Florida compared to Vermont or Wyoming. If we had it based on popular vote, there'd be reason to at least spend the amount of time and money proportionate to the population (and assumed number of changed votes), but as it stands it's 0%.

[@russhamilton3800]

It's all about you...

[@ForrestWhaling]

@@Nojintt So....the Electoral college does exactly the opposite of what it was designed for? haha

[@bradleypollack5658]

It shouldn’t even exist. It should be popular vote.

[@JeffreyGoddin]

It's not a bad conversation to have, but it's not the most productive, either. Ranked choice voting would have the greatest structural impact, and revoking corporate personhood and the free speech rights of dark money organizations right behind.

[@maverick9708]

I 100% agree, Also the false dichotomy of our two party dominance system really pigeonholed a lot of voters. It makes people feel like 3rd party votes are throw aways and give too much authority to the parties already in power.

[@musicfan789]

@@maverick9708 True

[@jwil4286]

“Revoking corporate personhood” So they shouldn’t have to pay taxes?

[@JeffreyGoddin]

@@jwil4286 Huh? They shouldn't be able to exist for longer than the term specified in their charter, or to engage in activities other than those detailed by their charter, in exchange for the limited liability they enjoy. Corporations paid taxes before they achieved personhood via Southern Pacific 1886, where the 14th Amendment was somehow interpreted to give corporations the same rights as people, including freedom of speech. Our founders specifically warned about allowing corporations to gain power beyond their originally limited scope. Look it up.

[@coryhebert2070]

Hows that ranked choice voting working out in Iowa?

[@phil20_20]

Electoral votes should be proportional to the candidates' votes in that state.

[@ispartacus1337]

@cafemartini I love how you just assume hes a liberal. There are many Republicans that think this same way.

[@LosCristeros317]

Phalanx you and I both know he’s significantly more likely to be a liberal so what’s your point? There will always be outliers in statistics... The vast majority of republicans support the electoral college and the rest of the constitution while the vast majority of liberals actively seek to undermine and destroy the electoral college and everything else in the constitution.

[@inkey2]

The only people against "The Electoral College" are those who's candidate lost the electoral votes and won the popular vote. If Hillary Clinton won the Electoral Votes and lost the popular vote do you really think Democrats would all yell WE DIDN'T REALLY WIN_!

[@inkey2]

Leech.......google this phrase....."THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" as it relates to the electoral college. Not trying to give you a hard time. It would be good to read it for more info.

[@chadwilliams9141]

@@LosCristeros317 do you not see the hypocrisy in what you typed? This is the problem we see red or in your case blue and the bias begins.

[@andrewjohnson9274]

its so three states cant control the whole country....

[@surfblue7336]

So true . And every vote will count in every state I guess some people don't get it on the Democrat side.

[@sveda22]

@@surfblue7336 As it was said in the video, EC is not the problem. The problem is that in 48 of 50 states winner takes everything. EC votes should be shared according to the result of the popular votes in each state. This way every vote would count. Today if anybody wins any state by 1% for example, the votes for the opposing candidate are thrown into the bin. Millions of Clinton votes were thrown into the bin this way 4 years ago (same for Trump, but to a lesser extent). You could either be happy or sad about it, but it surely isn't fair.

[@surfblue7336]

@@sveda22 well we'll see if the Democrats will cheat or not. I am hoping Trump wins

[@kshred3043]

'its so three states cant control the whole country....' The popular vote would solve that problem along with the problem of Republican voters being disenfranchised in California and Democrat voters being disenfranchised in Wyoming.

[@jasonwong1624]

They should re-interview these people again and see if their opinion has changed.

[@Darien135]

Does a republican vote counts in California? No. Does a democratic vote counts in Texas? No. Candidate of one party don't need to campaign in some states, and some votes are worth nothing.

[@NasarVyron]

That's entirely due to the winner take all system most states have in place. If they didn't I'd wager you see a massive uptick in national voting as people in these lopsided states would know their vote carried some weight. If electoral votes in each state were cast as a ratio to their state's results I'd wager the electoral college would actually likely resemble what the framers had imagined. Smaller state's votes would carry more weight -which was the entire point- so candidates would have a reason campaign in them as much as any large state, but every person's vote still actually mattered!

[@ulogy]

Actually a Democratic vote in Texas is likely to matter a lot in 2020. All indications suggest the state might lose its Republican stronghold status either this cycle or the next.

[@jonnelson9760]

Steven Don’t blame immigration. Assuming that what you are talking about is Mexican immigration. Mexicans are predominantly catholic and would be a conservative voting block. Even if you are talking about all immigrants who are just people. Instead blame the republicans and their policies.

[@garryuyahoo]

And it would be worse in a pure Democracy. No votes would be courted or campaigned for - except in large population centers, and those would be breeding grounds for corruption and voter fraud. Swaying 1% of the vote in California would be the equivalent of 2 small states that are 50/50.

[@AlanZablocki]

@@garryuyahoo Right now, the presidential campaign is centered on 6-7 battleground states.

[@axegrindin]

Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[@pramitvyas3747]

The electoral college is few wolves voting on the rights that lots of sheep get

[@axegrindin]

@@pramitvyas3747 actually no. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand how the EC works.

[@ram76921]

Keith Bucco it’s not, they just choose to bluntly ignore what’s best for other states and only care about their feelings of said candidate. Getting rid of the EC would result in the destruction of the country. States like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio would never be represented and all programs or laws moving forward would only benefit large urban areas. It’s not hard to understand that

[@Ixions]

@@ram76921 Laws are made by Congress so this is sort of a moot point. The States remain represented and so should the people. You should be asking yourself whether you would like to vote your conscience or remain a choice between A or B and a country divided by two parties?

[@derekwestbury6955]

ram76921 How would they not be represented? there vote counts too.

[@iloveme2ful]

This system is outdated. We're going off a system that was created 200 years ago for how things were back then.

[@commandercaptain4664]

It's like using a telegraph to achieve telepathy.

[@iloveme2ful]

@lol warrior Point is we should get rid of things that may have worked when they were introduced but no longer make sense to continue. Sorry if what I said went over your head and you misinterpreted it.

[@ChrisJohnson-tz9gr]

You've been indoctrinated to think that.

[@trickstaliciuos]

@@iloveme2ful seems like your own logic went over your head

[@bobbywise2313]

@lol warrior Yes and why were at it let get rid of federalism and just be America. No states. Let DC totally rule our lives.

[@craigthompson3739]

Oregon is a good example of why the Electoral College is needed.

[@lucahamrah7203]

The electoral college should be a “tie breaker” if the popular vote ends in a tie. It’s insane that we call ourselves a democracy and yet we don’t elect our leader

[@cuzimanasshole7942]

We are not a democracy.

[@davematt2002]

An Actual Alien We do elect our leaders. It’s indirectly but we’re still voting for them.

[@phiksit]

If we are not a democracy, you shouldn't participate in the DEMOCRATIC process of voting.

[@cuzimanasshole7942]

@@phiksit You mean casting a vote and a delegate or super-delegate unilaterally deciding which candidate to apply their vote too. Yeah totally democratic... but you did put it in all caps sooo good for you, you tried.

[@andreywong5442]

The president need support from all the country not just california and new york. Thats the electoral college.

[@xcrazyghostx9566]

you mean uneducated people should choose an election?

[@andrewcogger7586]

texas is bigger than new york, so your talking point is stupid.

[@zacharyking6171]

Actually, more people in california and new york would get a say if there wasn't an electoral college. So Republican's votes in states that always go blue would count and democrats votes in states that always go red would count. It is actually decided by new york and california now be if they always go blue thats automatic points for the democrats.

[@damarmar1001]

Anti democratic thats what it is

[@CClaudio21]

xCRAZYGHOSTx he means that the “educated” communists shouldn’t beat out the rest of the country

[@corrineraee]

So essentially ensures that all voices are heard, to me that seems like exactly what this country needs

[@BJ-xm6bi]

The electoral college does not ensure all voices are heard. 3 million more people voted for hillary clinton under the electoral college and she still lost, so 3 million voices were not heard. If you count each vote individually, then all voices are heard. You can only do that with the popular vote.

[@masteryoda5150]

@@BJ-xm6bi Then the candidates would do a different campaign. The electoral college was made so that majority doesn't rule out the minority. You need to get more states and not more people.

[@masteryoda5150]

@@BJ-xm6bi Also this isn't a democracy just recite the pledge of allegiance.

[@BJ-xm6bi]

@@masteryoda5150 In the US the majority doesn't rule out the minority or even the individual citizen because as an american you are guaranteed certain rights. You are correct about that, but the electoral college has nothing to do with that. *Your individual rights are guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, the bill of rights.* Look at the constitution closely. You have rights such as the right to free speech, religion, bear arms, right to the due process of law, etc, etc. These are your rights regardless of what the majority thinks. This cannot be changed regardless of the popular vote or the electoral college. This is too important of a point to give credit to the wrong concept! The majority can't rule over the minority because of the constitution, please don't confuse that with the electoral college. Having the majority of states rule out the minority of states is no better than mob rule. If the EC was designed to protect against majority rule then it fails 90% of the time because the electoral college and the popular vote produce the same result almost 90% of the time!

[@BJ-xm6bi]

@ILeftTheLeft Well you are paranoid but that is much better than being stupid.

[@EchoTangoSuitcase]

THE REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE... The reason we have the electoral college is because the STATES weren't just big counties, they we're more akin to NATIONS. That why the United States were originally configured as a CONFEDERATION, similar to the E.U. There. Saved you 9:30

[@rb032682]

@Eric - You have no proof to back up your idiotic claim. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA! (There. Saved you from years of willful ignorance.)

[@EchoTangoSuitcase]

Wow. That’s an awful lot of words just to demonstrate your historical illiteracy.

[@rb032682]

@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you saying the USA Constitution is incorrect? Are you saying the math in the USA Constitution is incorrect? Are you claiming that many events in USA history never really happened? Please prove me wrong. I would rather not live in a country with such a long history of terrorism, so PLEASE prove me wrong. Good luck.

[@rb032682]

@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you a citizen of the USA?

[@EchoTangoSuitcase]

No dumdum... I’m saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[@seethrough2050]

Sound like the argument itself is confusing and not convincing.

[@bimi4057]

@MrTsiolkovsky California has the agricultural production of any state, FYI.

[@ChrisF_1982]

@MrTsiolkovsky If it didn't occur to you. All states have agriculture. This is no longer even close to a valid argument, if it even was 200+ years ago.

[@charlesmartin2888]

There's one reason to get rid of the system, Trump.

[@jenniferkeel3646]

That is definitely a reason to get rid of it

[@derekkamena2574]

Yep. 220 years should be thrown out the window because of one president. No overreactions to see here

[@zachb1706]

Boo hoo

[@paulk9985]

Then vote for Biden if he remembers what race it is, where he is and what year it is.

[@johnnyzeee5215]

It is also merely coincidental, that the party who wins, think the Electoral College is a " beautiful and essential part. " of the election process.

[@TheTlost72]

Johnny Zeee just remember is America not all votes are equal. So no American dose not have a democratically elected government. So America can never call itself a true democracy. Congratulations. Yep you can keep this stupid system

[@johnnyzeee5215]

@@TheTlost72 Well, grammatic and orthographic coventions notwithstanding, yes. We don't have a " democracy ", we have a federal republic, with democratically elected representatives. And yes, the Constitution does not provide for direct popular election of the President, hence the Electoral college, for the reasons given in the video.

[@TheTlost72]

Johnny Zeee I understand that , and thank you gramma police, but the why has every American I have ever spoke to claim to live in the greatest democracy, when all votes are not equal. ? Can you please stop doing that. Because unless all votes are equal ............ Just saying there is a reason no other free country on the planet has this unequal system.

[@undertaker11ism]

Johnny Zeee Democrats only complain about the electoral college when they lose

[@TheTlost72]

joel robert then stop gerrymandering, have you seen the shape of gym Jordan's district, I mean seriously explain that to me without using gerrymandering as an excuse

[@iketinknocker5033]

Short story. Having the electoral collage ensures that the candidates travel the country to fight for their votes and to know the specific issues in EACH state. If we went by the popular vote, then no one would go to all the states in the middle of the country.

[@mfrmospfr]

you'd have to get rid of the winner takes it all principle... with that every vote would count, so candidates would have to campaign everywhere

[@HeadCannon19]

Fun fact: in 2016, just 4 states (FL, NC, PA, and OH) received over half of the total visits, whereas half of all states didn't receive any, with 14 more receiving 3 or less. Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, DC, and New York were all in the 0 category, and Texas and California had 1 each, so it had nothing to do with big/small or urban/rural. What the electoral college actually does is make the entire election dependent on just a few swing states, forcing the politicians visit all of those a lot, while ignoring the safe states, not forcing them to visit all states.

[@bobbywise2313]

@@mfrmospfr I think the percentage of the votes received for chief executive from each state should be added up and divided by 50. This guarantees every state equal representation but also gets rid of the EC.

[@donald598]

Watch the cgp grey video on this. It does a very good job of explaining the problems and benefits. But your argument isn't the case

[@nebelparder9]

@@donald598 Thank you, that was a really good hint!

[@bluerose6859]

The whole electorial college voting system is EXACTLY WHY so many PEOPLE feel that THEIR vote doesn't matter. Time to revamp and make changes that better fit out society now days. Electorial College needs to adapt to current times.

[@shaungerald23]

It almost seems like a PLAN B in case the citizens don't vote in favor of what the bought and payed for "electors" want.

[@RaymondHng]

Don't forget that there are zero electoral votes in Puerto Rico where there are over 3 million people.

[@joeywright722]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

[@Huddy52]

So how exactly does your fantasized government work

[@joeywright722]

Hudson Hughes it works how it does now. Representative with no popular vote so states like California are not dictating everything because they’re most populous period. Plus imagine if California had to give up its electoral votes to a republican. There would be rioting in the streets because NPV is supposed to help Democrats win elections, not be fair to the electorate. Why else make it go into effect when it hits 270 with mostly liberal states support?

[@Huddy52]

@@joeywright722 Npv? Net present value?

[@Nojintt]

@@joeywright722 I'm guessing you're only concerned about small states vs blue states? The phrase two wolves and a lamb could also be used for whites and minorities, which would mean small states are the wolves. And they often act like it against their people.

[@joeywright722]

Anthony Kees you kinda proved my point with a real scenario but the prejudice even extended to the blue states my good man which were some of the worst in racism as well. Second, why would we let populous states like California dictate policy when they’re experiencing the worst mass exodus of people trying to get away from those very policies? I live in Texas and there are a lot of Californians here. Too many.

[@caligoldadventure3145]

Wait so SF, LA, NYC and Miami should get to tell the rest of us who the president should be? No thanks. Keep the Electoral college please

[@matthewsoileau3353]

ikr

[@phiksit]

yeah, I guess the votes of millions of other people wouldn't count based off of what your saying... basically like what happens already. Hmmmm,.. must be fair then.

[@pgurl1971]

The electoral college needs to go away

[@bobbywise2313]

Propose an amendment 36 states will agree with.

[@bobbywise2313]

@BorsMann The compact clause of the constitution says no state can enter into a compact with another state without approval from the federal. So I doubt this will hold up. But if the SCOTUS rules in favor it will be ugly for all. If I live in Florida and the people chose candidate Bigger but my electors decided to pick candidate Slobber instead, I would be a little unhappy. The states pick the chief executive and if unfaithful electors become common we will have a constitutional crisis. I doubt this pact will hold up for 2 reasons though. As previously mentioned the compact clause will shoot it down. But the SCOTUS has in the past ruled based on INTENT. If this pact changes an election or the current balance of power between the states then it will be brought to the SCOTUS. I suspect it will be the end of unfaithful electors when this happens. I pray it never comes to this. A lot of people in this country or very emotional right now and it seems it would not take much for things to get ugly. The sad part is. We the people seem to think the chief executive is the be all in control of our lives. The reality is he or she is head of one branch of the federal government. Unfortunately from the perspective of the states the regulation of commerce between the member states is one of the 2 basic functions of the federal government. This is why the member states need an equal voice in this selection. But for mine, my neighbors or your day to day life the chief executive of the federal government is much less important than our mayor, city council and state legislatures.

[@tajzikria5307]

Totally disagree

[@rockinfaceplant0000]

No, most people in each state are city dweller's, they're all detached from self sustainment, they're detached from reality, all they do is vote for socialists who, tax, ban, restrict, control, and dictate everything we do. While the ranchers, farmers, hunters, constitutionalists, nuclear families that live in the country who are self sufficient have to allow their votes thrown away ??? No. The electoral college is the only way out votes count!! Move out of the city! Stop watching the news! Socialism is nothing but communism!!

[@ricklarson392]

See the remarks beginning at minute 7: It would seem that if all 50 states would scrap the winner takes all approach and adopt a proportional delegate system as Maine and Nebraska have done, we could retain the strengths of the current electoral college system and still allow for a more popular vote. This could be handled without changing the the US Constitution - it is a state law matter. It is interesting that this simple common sense approach does not get more attention in the media.

[@rb032682]

@Rick - There are no "strengths" in the Electoral College, only corruption. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!

[@highgrounder]

@@rb032682 Whoa, there. There are some good points there, but electoral college supporters have some too. There should be civil discussion and not boneheaded shouting.

[@rb032682]

@@highgrounder - Why do you consider a "welfare benefit" for terrorists to have ANY level of validity?

[@captainwafflez3630]

I agree. However, one should keep in mind that this solution would still not be as proportional, democratic, and fair as a popular vote system because... 1. Faithless electors 2. There can't be half a delegate or half a vote, meaning that there will be some rounding when it comes to how many electoral votes are assigned in accordance with population 3. The two votes afforded to every state regardless of population (senate) would additionally scew the proportions a bit more

[@rb032682]

@@captainwafflez3630 - Agreed.

[@RaymondHng]

Don't forget that there are zero electoral votes in Puerto Rico where there are over 3 million people.

[@colinreed8077]

Chelsea Trivette they are. The only non US state with electoral votes is DC.

[@mitchellquartero]

@@ctrivy3849 same thing if your in guam or AM samoa or Puerto Rico your a us citizen cannot vote there but come to Hawaii and the rest of the us you can vote in the presidential election

[@mmcgahn5948]

President is chosen by the STATES, not by popular vote. It is actually 50 individual elections.

[@GreatRajsel]

It's not a state, that's why

[@RaymondHng]

​@@ctrivy3849 The USA is federation, a union of partially self-governing states. The existence of each state is protected by the US Constitution. The federal government cannot dissolve a state, split a state, or merge states by simply passing a law. All the states in the union plus the District of Columbia are the only ones that vote in the presidential election, so there are 51 presidential elections. And a presidential candidate must win a plurality of the voters from those elections. Initially, the nation's capitol could not even vote for the president as stipulated by the Constitution. A constitutional Amendment had to be proposed by two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then sent to the states for ratification by the state legislatures in at least three-fourths of the states. In short, DC needed permission from the federal government and 38 states to be able to vote in the presidential election and they were finally able to vote in the 1964 election. In addition, DC gets _no more than 3 electoral votes_ no matter how many people live there. Even if the population of the nation's capitol were to be greater than any of the populations of the states with 4 electoral votes, DC still gets only 3. Furthermore-and many people are not aware of this-if no presidential candidate receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives votes en bloc by state for the president, *but* the District of Columbia *_cannot_* vote. DC is once again left out in the cold. American Samoa (population 55,212), Guam (168,485), Northern Mariana Islands (53,883), Puerto Rico (3,193,694), and _United States_ Virgin Islands (106,405) are *Devolved Presidential Constitutional Dependencies* . These territories of the USA totaling 3,577,679 in population cannot vote for the president and they have _non-voting_ members in the House of Representatives. Many other countries are federations. Some of them are: Argentine Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, Republic of Austria, Kingdom of Belgium, Federative Republic of Brazil, Canada, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of India, Malaysia, United Mexican States, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Swiss Confederation, United Arab Emirates, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In contrast, other countries are unitary states or devolved government within a unitary state.

[@racool911]

How you feel about the electoral college depends on how you view the country. Do you see the US as a collection of states, or do you see the US as a nation divided into states?

[@bobbywise2313]

You nailed it. It is a constitutional and philosophical discussion I have been having with some. But yes you are absolutely correct in that this is exactly what it come down to

[@Pocketrose3]

@@bobbywise2313 would you mind explaining a bit further

[@bobbywise2313]

@@Pocketrose3 I can try. Our founders were very weary of a central government to strong and believed the colonies could be united but be totally independent. Under the Articles of Confederation the central government was mostly symbolic and could not enforce anything. It was basically like the UN. Some like Hamilton wanted most power to be in the federal government, while others like Jefferson was an Antifederalist. These two ideologies came together in a compromise in which the federal government has exclusive powers on certain things and guaranteed protected rights of all citizens. But all other powers not given to the federal government in the constitution is up to the states. So essentially we are 50 countries United by this contract that defines the powers and limitations of the federal government. The states can govern how they wish as long as it is not unconstitutional. Now this is obviously not exactly what we see today. The federal government has taken on powers that are not constitutional powers of the federal government. Over time it has become extreme. But the constitutional framework sets up an awesome balance of powers between the states and the union. We have just stopped following it..

[@inigobantok1579]

A collection of semi independent sovereign states unified as a nation under one binding constitution.

[@jasonh5547]

Under our system of federalism it actually is more of a "collection of states". The federal government is not a typical central government like is seen in many nations in the world. The federal government in theory is only supposed to have powers afforded to it by the Constitution with the states otherwise retaining all other powers. So in theory power is mainly supposed to be at state level and does not flow down like central governments in other countries. Our federal government in theory is basically a quasi central government but is supreme to the states(Supremacy Clause) in the limited powers that the Constitution does give it.

[@davlor86]

So, the Founding Fathers just didn't want the people to vote

[@margaretkahue6844]

You got that right!

[@沈啍]

Basically, there’s also a sense of elitism. Back then slaves counts as population but aren’t eligible to vote, so the wealthier states which owns more plantations and slaves gets more electoral votes even though they have less eligible voters.

[@thomasconrow5980]

If Al Gore had won his home state, he would not have had to worry about Florida or the Electoral College.

[@EricLai1502]

If Gore won New Hampshire, that would have flipped the election as well.

[@pilot3016]

@@EricLai1502 Al Gore..please..spare me. Delusional. (Invented the internet my ass).

[@81Earthangel]

What an argument. What does it have to do with anything? It’s like, If Al Gore would not have run for president, he would not have had to worry about Florida or the Electoral College. If Al Gore would not have been born, he would not have had to worry about Florida or the Electoral College. If Al Gore would not have... Has nothing to with what happened in Florida or the Electoral college.

[@DoomFinger511]

Says 6 min in we've had a stable government for the last 200 years. Guess he never learned about the civil war.

[@tremedar]

If you round up from the actual length of 155 years...

[@joso5554]

Nor Jan. 6 !!!!

[@tenkloosterherman]

That's why the electoral college needs to be replaced by a one man - one vote system.

[@barnacles1352]

Keenan Hunt the electoral college put 3 reps even though they lost popular vote

[@adambakelar1798]

Now they just ignore all but 7 states.

[@markusallen5634]

This is what the Electoral College means to me, and to many I've talked to, in terms of what the E.C. does during an presidential election- It seems that 'they' (the Electoral College) are the deciding votes for who wins the election. In 2016, many sources reported that Hilary Clinton WON by the popular vote, and yet, Trump won the election due to the Electoral College. What that tells me, even 'if' it is far fetched, is that Biden could be winning by 100,000 votes, and the Electoral College will just happen to have 100,001 votes show up for Trump. This is one of the main reasons many have not and will not vote. Many don't see their vote as being important, so why even try. This goes back to WHY we vote, as we should vote for someone who will not just 'say' that they have the best interests of the American people in mind, but that they will follow through with that commitment. We need a LEADER who understands why people come to this country, seeking a better life, not a judgmental hate mongering dictator who wants to create 'his' version of a great America. Right now, many sources are showing that Trump 'could' lose by a landslide. However, I wouldn't be surprised that a last minute win at the buzzer victory comes through for Trump....all thanks to the Electoral College.

[@tomatodamashi]

The Electoral College is not these deep state entity hiding in the shadows that is only there to help Trump win. It is a way to balance out the scales a little so that small states matter. It is balanced by population to some degree, which is why California gets 55 votes compared to Alaska's 3. If you simply just do a popular vote then why would any candidate care about issues in places other than California, New York and Texas? THAT is the compromise to help those in smaller states have a bigger voice. As for Trump, obviously you don't like him, and obviously rhetoric is more important to you than policy. I'm sure you were horrified with the pictures of immigrant children in cages...which were taken under Obama's term in office. I'm sure you are horrified when police used water cannons in freezing weather on peaceful protesters...under Obama's term in office. I'm sure you were horrified when Trump bombed 90% the wrong people (civilians) with drones...oh wait that started under Obama. In actuality, the war crimes, lack of care for the poor, war hawkishness has been in American politics for decades. People like you only think that Trump is an aberration. I put it to you that Trump is only more honest about the evil policies that the government does, but they are really no different to those before him. You say you want a "LEADER" who understands blah blah blah, well then voted for him. Bernie WAS that candidate and yet all the young people, minorities and blue collar workers failed to show up. Now we are left with Trump and Biden...a veritable Sophie's Choice of awful. Even if Biden wins, the country still loses.

[@hunkydude322]

it already sounds like the system is already rigged, by default.

[@commandercaptain4664]

The electorate has already shown that it doesn't even need money to be corrupted, merely basing their "feelings". Though I would never count money out of their equation.

[@herbertvonzinderneuf8547]

@@tomatodamashi The difference, of course, is that if Biden wins, it will be the will of the majority of the US electorate.

[@marysueeasteregg]

@@hunkydude322 Rigged? In 53 of the 58 total elections held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. The exceptions have been: 1824 (JQ Adams v Jackson), 1876 (Hayes v Tilden), 1888 (B Harrison v Cleveland), 2000 (Bush II v Gore), and 2016 (DJT v H Clinton).

[@deseret2542]

The great compromise with the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan You learn this stuff in middle school

[@srgreeniii]

Some of us did anyway.

[@alezar2035]

Not if you are not from the US, it may seem very obvious to you but not to foreign people who want to learn

[@Jkizz-ki7hj]

Dr Sum middle school... decades ago for those that don’t take refresher history courses

[@lancewalker6067]

Not no mores!

[@janetstewart8108]

California & New York should NOT be the states that pick our President!

[@freeloguy3387]

People who like to live on a farm in the middle of buttfuck nowhere shouldnt have more voting power than those who live in large cities. If you wouldn't let a table or chair vote why would you let a chunk of land vote because its size said it was big enough to vote?

[@ivana4638]

This could have been done in 5 minutes. The low information density made my head hurt

[@ogladaczr.t.3168]

dude, as someone not from states, shut up, its useful

[@MsKpop-yg5uq]

@@ogladaczr.t.3168 I didn’t understand any of it lmao

[@francisd7081]

The US is hardly democratic and the fact that we are still considered a republic is astonishingly misleading. Truly there is nothing wrong with a popular vote as the sole mechanism by which we choose our president. If most people happen to close congregate in CA, TX, NY, FL, etc, then so be it. Majority rules.

[@Johnnycdrums]

No, that's known as tyranny of the majority. Straight up democracy is equivalent to two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch. Got it? Good. Thank me!

[@francisd7081]

Johnnyc drums ummm “tyranny of the majority” is exactly what a democracy (direct, representative, etc) is!

[@lucianodeon727]

Puerto Rico does not vote for president, that is not democratic at all, they are part of the us but they do not have power in the country, seems odd

[@AliMohamed-yq4wn]

Alan America is a oligarchy

[@JallyJam]

1.Population centers don't change, swing states do 2. There is no point of Iowa being in a union where 95% of the attention is in 3 states and a couple major cities 3. The most diverse voter base is best chosen when it's the majority of each county in each states aka hundreds of minority groups all with their own individual needs and views voting on majority. The majority swallows the minority that's why we live in a republic.

[@chaudo8978]

The Electoral College will elect BIDEN & HARRIS for 2020

[@jeffreypoh6181]

no they won't

[@benyleibowitz7636]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@tylerbrown5974]

@Ptolemy 1 They haven't yet but are predicted to

[@tylerbrown5974]

@Ptolemy 1 yeah it will most likely be biden

[@deguilhemcorinne418]

What an historical comment !

[@johnjohnson1709]

Now explain how this country is a republic when the states elect the president and not the people.

[@PainBlame]

You clearly didn't watch the whole video, if it changes back to popular vote. You will have groups of large numbers controlling the presidential election. This goes for the KKK for example with at one time in the 1920s had 5 million people! In a time when there was only 100 million americans and 30 million voted.. thats a 30 percent control over the election!!! That means if the leader of the KKK tells his followers to vote for a candidate than, thats a large amount easy control over the election. But since we don't have that system, and the KKK is really only in 3 southern states. They can ONLY have power in those three states and not the entire 50 states, like it is now. They would have to change residency throughout all 50 states and vote in those states. Clearly that wont work because thats only 100k votes per state which won't make any difference when some states have a minimum of 3 million residence.

[@ctm7458]

...and the people are the state!

[@dutchvanderlinde4985]

@@PainBlame r u really going to ride on that statement in the entire comment section.

[@bwtv147]

Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho are being asked to Californicate their electors because the people of those states sometimes vote incorrectly. The majority in California always vote for the correct candidate.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@dutchvanderlinde4985 It's like he's being paid per copypasta lie.

[@brannetquartey4940]

Any one watching this because of School.

[@777Outrigger]

The Electoral College means that sometimes Mayberry gets to elect the President instead of just NY, LA, and Chicago.

[@TimmyTickle]

777Outrigger 2016 was one of those sometimes... could 2020 be added to the list?

[@777Outrigger]

@@TimmyTickle Well, even Michael Moore said that Trump is not losing support in the Rust Belt Swing States like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and smaller Midwest states as well. So yeah, it could happen again. ..... The night before the 2016 election, I looked at an Electoral College map with the latest polling. This map showed that Trump had to keep all lean-Trump states, win all the toss-up states, and flip a couple of lean-Hillary states. In other words, he had to run the table to win. I thought, this ain't gonna happen. But Trump campaigned like a mad man in the swing states the last 2 weeks, and it looks like it paid off. Hillary sat at home a lot. ........ ....If the election was based on the popular vote, Trump would have gone to the biggest population centers, instead of to the swing states, to flip maybe a 100,000 voters here and another 100,000 voters there. Could he have flipped over 1,500,000 voters and won the popular vote? Most would say no, but there were at least 1,500,000 voters who held their noses when they voted for Hillary, probably many many more. I personally believe Trump could have won the popular vote if had campaigned that way.

[@opersage5954]

Literally means the 1 person currently living in Wyoming has way more power than the 50 people in Texas.

[@777Outrigger]

@@opersage5954 I mean, yeah. Gives the little guy in little states more power. The founding fathers had the same debate we're having today. ..... Los Angeles County has 9.8 million people. That's more population than 40 states.. That makes me a little uncomfortable.

[@APOCALYPSE_X-MEN]

I see that you conveniently left out the second biggest state, Texas, to imply that the majority black and liberal areas have too much power in this system.

[@1silvervespa]

Bought and paid for .

[@JeffreyGoddin]

Campaign finance is another issue, Citizens United especially.

[@phiksit]

So most states have winner take all system... but we need a middle man to cast a vote to make it legit somehow??? mmmmkay

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

A "government by the people and for the people" but you're not allowed to pick a candidate. Someone does that for you, and they don't have to pick who YOU want. What's wrong with this picture?

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

@@breakingthe4thwall260 The big picture is that they can still vote for whomever they want. That's not democracy.

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

@@breakingthe4thwall260 "For the people, and by the people" is democracy. How this country operates in practice is another thing. In fact, it operates as a fascist regime. And no, they are not required to vote for who won the popular vote, that's the problem. Not sure what your issue with socialism is. In practice, it just means taking care of everyone. Don't be so hung on labels. In practice, Jesus was a socialist, so take a hard look at what you're really saying.

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

@@breakingthe4thwall260 Okay... so what's your point? Just put up with it because Venezuela is horrible??

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

@@breakingthe4thwall260 Dude, if you're not aware that they can still vote any which way they want to, regardless of the popular vote, then there's no point continuing.

[@fastzebrazoom4454]

@@breakingthe4thwall260 I thought you were done. Bye.

[@Keepitkind7]

It's outdated. Why use un-elected electors with opinions as intermediarys? Do it by hand count and/or or electronically, bypass electors wanting their own outcome, and send the count straight to congress.

[@tobeornottobe5611]

I love that the founding fathers didn't want the people to directly vote for the next president simply because they didn't trust them to make that kind of decision.

[@cliffmays442]

You maybe right but think what you are saying. We cannot trust the people? What kind of democracy is that? Sounds the elitist that the right always complain about in their mindless rants.

[@theavatar9191]

@@cliffmays442 Really, hugely populous areas would control most of the election and that’s not fair for the rest of the country

[@pradeep128]

@@theavatar9191but now we have a minority of the country imposing its will on the majority, how is that fair to us living in the cities ? Are you saying you country folk are better than us?

[@theavatar9191]

@@pradeep128 Not what I'm saying, but usually large hubs like that all think the same way.

[@margaretannhalleck1326]

Seems to me the electoral college would be more fair if every state replaced the “winner takes all” with a system that awards electoral votes to each candidate in proportion to their % of popular vote.

[@okxa8857]

That's almost exactly what the National Popular Vote wil do, here's a good video kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoa7XpmoobN1gLs

[@MDP1702]

@@okxa8857 Almost, yes. But not exactly. The two extra electors make smaller states still have more power proportionally.

[@lucthin6245]

Maine & Nebraska divid their allotted electoral vote between regions instead of winner take all. With a diverse population a state can give some votes to both presidential candidates.

[@LucianLusilver]

www.yang2020.com/policies/proportional-electors/

[@TheLastWalenta]

Why acknowledge that the popular vote is better and then not use the popular vote? "I know I shoudn't use heroin but I do anyway."

[@garysheldonjr8379]

Why is it like we have to go through this discussion literally every presidential election year?

[@reganbond61]

As broadband internet expands, people are getting on the internet with little information. With youtube prioritizing what is and isn’t showed based on popularity, sometimes the fountain of info has to be recycled for those people.

[@LordZontar]

Because the Electoral College is fundamentally broken. It's been broken in one way or another since 1796 and the Twelfth Amendment, meant to fix the first breakdown, only led to the far bigger one we've had since. Originally intended to be a completely independent body for choosing a president, its independence has been compromised by state laws binding electors to vote for the first-past-the-post winner of the state popular vote. Also, modern communications has largely rendered the EC redundant. The truth is that it hasn't had a real function since the invention of the telegraph. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time the constitution was written but it was very poorly thought-out by delegates to the convention who frankly were exhausted after having worked on the constitution for months, were tired, stuck for a better idea, and simply wanted to wrap up the whole business and go home.

[@kenabbott8585]

Because liberals want the Left Coast and the Tri-State Area to rule the entire country, and the Electoral College stands in their way.

[@FinalFrontier101]

Put in in layman's terms Trump didn't win the popular vote, Hillary had more people vote for her. But Trump had a wider spread of districts/ and counties vote for him giving him more electoral votes than Hillary. If we got rid of the electoral college and solely voted only with the popular votes only big cities with large populations would matter in an election. So it's an oversight not to have it as if you live in a small state/or small population area your voting power would be ignored or unimportant. Popular vote alone would let big cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco to decide what would happen for the rest of the country. It's by no means perfect but it keeps the small states and lower populations a say in the election. I think from the map it opens up a bigger discussion on maybe where the democrats reached and where the republicans reached. The democrats were more popular in densely packed cities with high populations. They focused more there in the cities than say all the rural counties. I think that from the map democrats just need to do more to win over rural or lower population voters. The republicans don't do so good in big cities such as chicago, new york most of the time. But somehow managed to convince the people in lower population areas to turn out for them that day. I'm looking at this from a middle view, if the democrats plan to win this election they need to get all those many spread out districts and counties not just the cities to like them. The republicans on the other hand, probably aren't as socially adaptable to the urban and city people and should work on being more likeable to them. This is just my thoughts on it.

[@mariaorsic9763]

Agreed!

[@ronnyfields540]

Trump won 30 of 50 states and 70% of districts.

[@TerrellAmari]

This made more sense to me.. thanks

[@nourestani]

This is utterly nonsense now... Because now you have minority ruling over majority you wouldn't like it if it was you... How do you think it's fair that 50 vote from California equals one vote from Ohio? This is not democracy this is nonsense... The white slave owners so-called the forefathers knew that one day they going to be minority and they going to all live in Midwest so might as well create a system to still control the country

[@papabear8549]

first off, this is a very well written and respectful comment. Im glad you're thinking about it and stating how its your thoughts. This is just my point of view on it. The EC was created to give a voice to the people in less populated areas, which is a good think and was needed in the past. The way voting took place would be a lot more difficult to get a general idea of how people felt in those areas. But now states are more connected than ever with the voice of the people being ever more present with the use of social media. as much as i agree that the abolishment of the EC would lead to the focus on larger cities, the current state of how campaigns are ran arent much different. The candidates only go to a select set of states during the campaign trail, the swing states. If a Republican was running, he'd have more of an incentive to go to Florida than Alabama due to how the vote is almost guaranteed there and the same could be said for a Democrat. and if we're talking about keeping power to even between the minority and majority, the EC is even short in that aspect. In a state, its usually winner takes all when it comes to electoral votes, even if the state is 60% red and 40% blue all of the electoral votes are given to the republicans. This kind of over shadows the minority of democrats in the state. I think if the winner takes all system of the states were to be abolished, the perception of the EC would be a lot more positive. As much as i think the EC had its use and was needed in the past, i now believe it has become out dated and forces the majority of the people to be forced to live under the rule of the minority, which isnt fair either. Now I'm just a freshman in college who admirably only started getting into politics this year but of what i learned, the EC is now seen as more of a hurdle than an asset.

[@zkeletonz001]

The electoral college was created more out of an argument between small states and big states than it was about the uninformed voter issue. The video spins things in that regard. Also, because high population states, like California, almost always go to the same political party, they've basically decreased their own importance in the election. If California was a swing state it would be worth five smaller states and get a lot more attention. As it is now, candidates basically only go there to raise money.

[@brookeking8559]

Zkeleton Z amen. And if California allocated electoral votes proportionately, the swing votes would be worth a medium-sized state. When I was a Californian for two decades, I liked that idea. I mentioned it to the current head of Common Cause in California, and she liked it, too, because it would be more democratic and get California more attention than just fundraisers.

[@zkeletonz001]

@@brookeking8559 That would be a good idea. I doubt it will happen anytime soon though since the Dems have a stranglehold on power there and they'll never allow even a single electoral college vote to go a Republican as long as they can stop it. Even though it means diminishing the states influence overall.

[@samcalven12]

@@zkeletonz001 you should mention Texas then

[@snapoffmonkeybranch1242]

What Kind Of An Election Does The "Popular Vote" Fail To Be The Premise???!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

[@JohnJohnson-dj2dv]

Go climb a tree and take a book on the Constitution with you to read. You win each of 50 state elections. It really IS THAT SIMPLE even you should be able to understand.

[@lancewalker6067]

Answer: every American presidential election in the history of this nation. Go read a book.

[@slimfbiggyansah4295]

its a system built to ignore the will of the people, this ain't a government of the people, by the people and definitely not for the people. It's a government by corporations and deals

[@GregBrownsWorldORacing]

by the bureaucrats for the special interests. Yea, I think we agree Slim :}

[@Ryno_D1no]

Built to block ignorance and give everyone a voice

[@slimfbiggyansah4295]

@CanadianLoki76 contrary there is no ignorance if you analyze the principle of democracy as described by the Lincoln. I would agree if you say this in the 50s and 20s were very few we educated. It makes no sense if the majority of the citizens want a candidate but the elite get to say no, that is not a democracy, what makes those peoples' votes any better than any other America. If you can justify this, then you earn the right to call my comment ignorant either than that, pause and argue your point instead of calling someone's opinion ignorant.

[@kamp1875]

Hillary winning the popular vote never ceases to amaze me.

[@scootermarcydog]

That doesn't take in account the fact that there was broad fraud on the part of Hillary's people.

[@bascal133]

Living Waters Fellowship of Watertown New York false. Trump created a commission to investigate fraud after he won and they didn’t find anything then disbanded quickly.

[@kamp1875]

@@bascal133 Voter fraud is very real.

[@bascal133]

Hans Becker russia did interfere with our election though that’s not debatable. And they interfered to help Hilary and hurt Trump. It’s not true that Trump was in on it or organized it but they said hey we can help you and he said sure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

[@bascal133]

Jru XO based on what? Trump and Q?

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

We NEED to END the winner takes all methodology. It disenfranchises voters. If delegates could simply vote for the candidate they choose, and each candidate KEEPs the delegates that voted for them. Winner takes all is B.S.

[@powerofk]

Honestly, IMHO, if we move away from a winner-take-all system, the states should all move to the NE/ME model - that is, 2 electoral votes statewide (to represent the Senators) with the others being Congressional District by Congressional District. This may raise competition in many states, and lead to odd results. But the National Popular Vote Compact is doomed to fail, especially since all the states that have adopted it so far (except for CO) are deep blue states. And it's primarily deep blue states that complain about the Electoral College.

[@elliott8596]

@@powerofk I don't know. Doesn't that simply just move things from having "swing states" to having "swing districts". I live in Nebraska and i think the only reason this works here is because 1: The states political ideology is pretty uniform. 2. We only have three districts. I can imagine things getting pretty hairy with gerrymandering if we go away from the winner take-all system in all states.

[@mikehurst9022]

winner takes all is the whole point. if they voted differently according to the amount of people in their state that voted for each candidate, it would be the same as a popular vote.... which is exactly what this system was designed to prevent.

[@jaulj8]

@@powerofk the Democratic Party was formed purely out of protest of the Electoral College. Going read about the election of 1824 when the Democratic party was formed. It is at the Democratic party's roots to take out and you rode the Electoral College if possible. No if ands or buts about it

[@raybod1775]

Not much of a democracy when peoples votes don't carry equal weight in electing the leader of the country.

[@TheSaikou96]

That’s because we are not a pure democratic country. Pure democracy is evil it’s mob rule.

[@aljoschalong625]

@Eq Uality Please inform yourself what you are talking about. This weird right wing thing with "not a democraccy but a republic" is extremely uneducated. "Democracy" and "Republic" are not antonyms, they talking about different things: One about the system, the other about the form. So to help you (and others) with your education, here put together and simplified: DEMOCRACY* (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule by people") is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a liberal democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association. A *REPUBLIC* (Latin: res publica, meaning “public affair”) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are *attained through democracy* , oligarchy, or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch. 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*

[@aljoschalong625]

You only mention the disadvantage of the electoral college: The votes don't carry equal weight. But there's also a disadvantage of not having the electoral college: The states don't carry equal weight then. In my opinion the "winner takes it all" strategy is more of a problem.

[@aljoschalong625]

@Eq Uality So, no matter what the facts are, you insist on making up your own definition of words? Seems quite mad to me. I guess you didn't really read it; you'd see that you just don't understand that democracy and republic are not talking about the same aspect of the state. It's really tiring that you guys are so unwilling to cope with reality.

[@aljoschalong625]

@Eq Uality There's nothing to argue. If you refuse to educate yourself - that's up to you. Of course the US are a republic and of course the US are a democracy. If you don't understand the words, you don't even have to look them up. I compiled the essentials for you. You want to learn? I helped you. You don't want to learn? Noone can help you. But maybe you're just trolling?

[@izzysteez27]

“They didn’t want the people to elect the president...” That explains it all

[@jonathansanborn7988]

yes, people often form mobs that seek to destroy individual rights, our founder knew this to be true, so they set up a system to protect us from ourselves.

[@Perehenaa]

It's partly valid, though. Take a look at the populist movements around the world, and see how they turn out after they succeeded.

[@twostepz4982]

If getting rid of the electoral college i would suggest getting rid of two-party system of money donations and removing two-party label for each candidate for president only. Non-partisan and the character of the candidate for the country to vote who the president will serve well by popular vote.

[@926paaja]

That is socialism or communism.. so yeah... NO!

[@samename1st]

I agree the two-party system is a huge fault in the system, it causes such hard lines that have no point as so many are somewhere in the middle. A political party should be little more than a campaigning group with a given platform that candidates should fight for endorsements from base on what they stand for. This would allow people to find more common ground, and more diversity of thought in politics and society. This would require a more informed voting population, but that is needed as is. This would also have more transparency in what a candidate stands for between who endorses them and who they accept endorsements from.