Crash Course In Our Dysfunctional Electoral College: Jack Rakove at TEDxStanford

Jack Rakove brings thought-provoking conversations on history into the public forum, talking about America's founding fathers on programs such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
The New York Times said of Jack Rakove, "He sounds like an interesting man, the kind who sometimes gets his boots muddy." Rakove is the William Coe Professor of History and a professor of political science at Stanford, where he has taught since 1980. He is the author of six books, including Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, which won the Pulitzer Prize in History, and Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America, which was a finalist for the George Washington Prize. He writes frequently on the origins and interpretation of the Constitution and submitted an amicus curiae brief on the Second Amendment to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

[@BRM202]

For everyone's vote to count. The electoral college would have to award it's votes proportional to the vote in that state.

[@ag4allgood]

That is a good way to still keep the electoral college but why if we just go to the popular vote !

[@jmatrixrenegade1971]

concern regarding regional candidates and third parties not addressed

[@ZEZERBING]

nice comb over.

[@matthewbailey2013]

As a baldy, damn dude.

[@ruthlessadmin]

In my lifetime (born 1983), and more relevantly during my adult life, the Executive office seems to have become more a source of drama, controversy, and distraction than it has served in fulfilling its role in lawmaking, checks, and/or balances. I saw a commercial the other night that shows where this is all going. It was styled just like a reality TV promo.

[@mayainverse9429]

I remember hearing something about how the founding fathers knew that it is human nature to desire a "king" and that no matter how badly the people wanted a king they could not have one. president is kind of but not really a king. good system IMO.

[@TheStarsphere]

10:28 If we really believe in one person, one vote, then we need to abolish the Senate, as well. It does the same thing. It gives equal voice to every state, and that means over-representation of less-populated states, if the only kind of important representation is of citizens. But, the United States is a *federal republic*, not a direct democracy. Since the United States is a federation of states, and state governments are important checks on the federal government, the Founding Fathers believed the weight of states should matter to the election of the president, who has power over state governments, just as he has power over citizens. I agree with them. 3:24 and 9:00 and 10:50 Small numbers of votes swinging whole states, politicized state elections, and battleground states in general are all caused by the winner-take-all *voting laws* in each state, not the Electoral College. If more states split their Electoral College votes, like Maine and Nebraska did, these phenomena would become less likely. 6:15 The popular vote was bad for the South because the South was a rural, agrarian area. One of the goals of the Electoral College is to give rural areas more political power. The rural areas of this country are economically stagnating and their citizens are angry. That voice needed to be heard in this election, and the Electoral College let it be heard. There are worse things than rural America giving up on the establishment and voting for a chaotic candidate: namely, rural America giving up on the republic altogether, picking up their guns, and turning the entire state of Wyoming into Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Urban and rural areas have different policy agendas. A candidate can promise certain policies that will benefit, and earn the votes of, most urban areas. According to the Census Bureau, 80.7% of Americans live in urban areas, while only 19.3% live in rural areas. Therefore, Reason #5 (13:30) is wrong. Votes cast in rural areas would be ignored. In a straight-popular vote, the inevitable strategy is to collect the most votes with the least effort, and cities and their concerns provide that every time.

[@mikeglover1533]

Your statement is true, but the intelligent already know this, and the unintelligent will never read it

[@garyodriscoll7988]

Outstanding said!!

[@jammingxxxx8514]

Reason 5 isn't wrong. In my state the issue was the major cities voted dem and the smaller surrounding cities voted reb. Which ended up outnumbering the major city votes. Also I wouldn't really trust the census. I never fill them out no matter how many times they come to the door or call on the phone. Which I assume would be the same for others. Then you would have to take into account of those doing census door to door. A lot of rural areas with landowners live on land protected by a gate, and acres of land, how would a census handler be able to go to their door? The popular vote in history wasn't bad for the south. It was bad for everyone who didn't have the right to vote, I.E the poor and slaves. The only ones allowed to vote at the time of its inception was rich white landowners, which inevitably owned slaves...you know...because of the time frame.

[@keldonmcfarland2969]

We should end direct election of the Senate and return it to the States as originally structured.

[@devinfuller4045]

Skip to 4:45. That’s when his awful blabbering stops.

[@scoobybleu]

Thank you!

[@fakeItRight]

WTF is John Bolton doing in the Ballot Box picture??? WTF??!

[@nitwitt50]

I SAW THAT TOO

[@nitwitt50]

Omg I saw that tooo.

[@DavidBello]

Really difficult to keep up with this guy.

[@oldgulph707]

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes, and been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 needed.

[@jfloyd23408]

And rural America would be ruled by cities

[@jahenders]

But let's just see what happens when a state DISREGARDS the will of their own people and awards their EVs to the candidate that LOST in that state. There will absolutely be a million court cases and might well be riots or worse.

[@jahenders]

@@jfloyd23408 Exactly, those peons in 'Clinton's (flyover country) would be told what to do by the elites in NY, LA, and DC.

[@boby75yo]

He said the electoral college is the least unsatisfactory compromise like compromise is a BAD thing lol. Compromise is why America has the most freedom in the world. Challenge me!

[@OrpheuxEI]

This is a terrible bait

[@paulgildan4388]

We are in a "Lie Harder" era, and NOT a "Post-Truth" one. The term "post" means "after", and when in all of human history has there ever been a "Truth" era to be followed by a "Post-Truth" era? Now consider the logic of a "Lie-Harder" era following a "Lie-Hard" one. Anyone for politics? (LOL)

[@jobie105able]

This would screw over the less populated states. I am guessing this guy is a city slicker.

[@mikeglover1533]

He's either being paid to speak this distorted view or he's just lived in a bubble his entire life

[@rockintetster]

Not the less populated states, the less populated REGIONS. Eliminating the electoral college would reduce the validity of states. An individual seeking the office of the presidency would only campaign in highly populated regions. Over time, people living in less populated regions would be disenfranchised. This would lead to the desire to separate from the nation at large, i.e. CIVIL WAR.

[@jahenders]

He cites some of the concerns but refuses to acknowledge any of the positives, and then arrives at what would be the hardest solution, which (not coincidentally) favors his party for the forseeable future. The easiest, most logical answer is NOT to eliminate the Electoral College (EC). Rather, it would be to mandate that all states award their electoral votes proportionally. THAT, would not necessarily require a huge constitutional change, would not require that the entire system of elections in the US change, and would not remove the balance protections that the Founding Fathers put in place. If all states awarded their votes proportionally, it would essentially solve all of the issues he notes. If that were done, then it would still make sense for the Republicans to try in CA and Democrats to try in Texas. As it is now, if a Republican candidate gets 49.999% of the vote in CA and the Democrat gets 50%, the Republican will get exactly ZERO electoral votes (EVs) (though many millions of people voted for them. Likewise in every other state save two. If, instead, we abolish the Electoral College and go to a single national vote for president, we would have to completely nationalize all elections. It would simply be MANDATORY. If you don't do that, you'd have some states work to swing things for their party by exercising no controls at all on voting, knowing that most of the people committing fraud would be 'their people.' Abolishing the Electoral College and federalizing all elections would dramatic change the power dynamic of our Republic, and not in a good way. Ultimately, all rural areas in the country would be ignored and all candidates would just campaign in the biggest metropolitan areas -- it's simply the most 'bang for the buck.' In fact now, there is a cynical attempt, called the national popular vote compact, to undermine the EC. Basically, what this would do is get enough states to agree so that their total EVs are enough to elect the president. Then, what this would do is FORCE those participating states to award their EVs per whatever the national popular vote total is. So, what that would sometimes mean is that the PEOPLE of a state might select candidate A, but since they're part of this vote compact, if candidate B is ahead in the national popular vote, their state would award their EVs to candidate B AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT STATE. Now THAT is as far from respecting the will of the people as you can get.

[@fringedeplorable8528]

Your first rule is where we disagree. We are a union of states. So each state has equal representation and a popular vote takes away each states voice.

[@trustysuperbat6840]

An electoral college only allows the 10 "swing states" to control the election. Everyone else just stands and watches as those states pick the president each year. For everyone in every state to have a say, we should at least award electors proportionally so that if a state is won by a slim margin, the electors will reflect that.

[@streetlevelvideo]

How would electing the president by the popular vote, that is - one person, one vote - make us no longer a union of states? I don't think the EC is what defines our federalist system.

[@KolbyDgaming]

Our founding fathers were brilliant. This man is a hot wind bag. I am happy my small state still has a say. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Republic)

[@belowaveragebowler]

Your small state actually is more of a factor than the larger states

[@jmurphy6767]

Why do some small states have such greater weight than others of nearly the same size?

[@jdpalm1981]

So, a guy from California (the biggest state) wants us to use a method that favors choices from his state. I don't think so. The better option is to count everyone's vote in three different countings: 1) Popular Vote 2) State Vote (Where each state gets to vote for one president based on what its citizens wanted) 3) Presidential Election Districts (an equal carving of the United States over states borders so that each PED would have the same number of people in it. Assuming we could agree on how these 435 districts were drawn, each district would get 1 vote. However, if any district wasn't exactly 1/435th of the total votes cast in that election, that district would only get the ratio of their total votes to all votes cast in that election. I.e. - .97 votes or 1.03 votes.) The idea is for the head of our executive branch to be elected by a majority of what the states want when represented both equally & proportionally. Although a popular votes doesn't necessarily represent the larger states, it's close enough for the larger states to accept it, barring political ideology. Therefore, if the popular vote & states' vote don't agree, the PEDs would be a compromise of representing the states proportionally & equally.

[@rb032682]

@Jack Rakove - Do you really consider yourself a "constitutional expert"?

[@jesuisravi]

yeah! What right has this guy to talk about the constitution just because he has studied it half his life?

[@robertbarnes8]

I do wish that this guy would speak more clearly. He mumbles.

[@mikeglover1533]

He has an agenda and it's not teaching you facts, but rather teaching you his opinion. You haven't missed much education

[@jammingxxxx8514]

He's talking fast because they have an allotted time for the talks. So he has to put as much info as he can within that time.

[@AW_7_7_7]

I thought I was the only one who difficulty with his speech 😂. A course in public speaking will benefit him tons.

[@MarkKelleyMayansoul]

president candidates would only have to campaign in highly populated states to win the presidency, not a system for the people, just the major cities.

[@OrpheuxEI]

Well you could also argue with the electoral college presidential canidates only have to campaign in states with a high amout of electoral votes

[@joshm9407]

They definetely need to do something since before a election starts the Democratic Party already has 246 of the 270 votes needed to win. Being a Democrat is ok there's nothing wrong with being one. But the problem is that if an election is only going to cost tax payer dollars to celebrate the continual wins of The Democratic Party then why bother holding one? If its that one sided I'd sooner not even have one. Just set up a system to decide who appoints the next Democrat after the 8 year term limit is up.

[@unoanimo395]

Josh M .. hello my friend ... the do something you mentioned is to get going with involvement in your political life ... local, regional, state, national ... once you are involved be certain you are making your own mind responsible for your thoughts and actions ... Ciao Uno Animo

[@keldonmcfarland2969]

The Democrats did *NOT* have 246 ECVs before the election.

[@oldgulph707]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

[@unoanimo395]

oldgulph707 ... popular vote would simply devastate middle and rural states ... the electoral system is not complicated nor antiquated as some so claim ... can you explain the electoral with an elevator speech ... no ... it is far more important to produce fair and significant results than to take a just get it over with attitude ... Ciao Uno Animo

[@mayainverse9429]

your right there would no longer be battleground states there would be battleground cities only the top few cities in the country would have any meaning at all.

[@trustysuperbat6840]

​@@mayainverse9429 The majority of people should decide the election, regardless of where they live. The electoral college gives smaller states more of a say in the election than larger states, as the ratio of people to electors is completely inconsistent from state to state.

[@benjaminortiz387]

Your speech impediments is a huge problem. Try speaking a little slower and enunciate each words