European Reacts: How does the U.S Presidential Election work?

👉🏻FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: / europeanreacts
👉🏻SUPPORT ME ON PATREON: / europeanreacts
👉🏻MY EMAIL: [e-mail]
👉🏻ORIGINAL VIDEO: • How does the U.S Presi...
✔️ European Reacts: How does the U.S Presidential Election work? - Explained in 10 Minutes
📫 PO BOX:
Andre Reacts, POBOX SHICOL
Avda. Ausias March 29 bajo (EUROPEART)
46100 Burjassot (Valencia)
Comunidad Valenciana
Spain
I forward them to Portugal. But they arrive in Spain first. Also please make sure you send them marked as a gift or customs can be a problem for me. Thank you!:)
👉🏻IMPORTANT:
Feel free to hit the like button and subscribe for more content. I would also love to hear your suggestions for future reactions-drop them in the comments below!🙏
My name is André, and as a European, I always strive to bring a unique perspective to the topics I tackle. All my reaction videos are crafted with a playful and entertaining twist!🌍
👉🏻Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
#reaction

[@european-reacts]

Feel free to hit the like button and subscribe for more content. I would also love to hear your suggestions for future reactions-drop them in the comments below!🙏

[@leoda_lion4107]

You are not off at all my friend, you seem to have a good grasp of how American politics work. For about the first 6 minutes I was really impressed with your knowledge of how it all works. But just because it sounds simple, doesn't mean there isn't cheating involved. Democrats are known for corruption, the media is their propaganda machine. Which is why you don't hear them criticize Biden or his policies too much. And why they absolutely lose their effing MINDS when Trump says or does something. In the last 20 years, it has become super polarized, and it wasn't always this way.. Now, its very tribal. I'm not going to say Trump can do no wrong, because there are those people. But he is certainly better choice than Biden, because Biden single handedly sunk our economy, and claims he brought back jobs, even though these are recovered jobs from Covid. And has left our border wide open, with the intent to make these ignorant souls vote for his failed policies someday. Its not because they care about the homeless. Anyhow, the electors - that stuff sounds complicated but not really. Its based on population, not GDP. TBH- as much as people say we should get rid of the electoral college, its actually the reason why we count ALL the votes. Otherwise, candidates would just go to California, Texas, New York and Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And they would pretty much decide everything, based on the states with the most population running the entire rest of the country. And that's not fair to all the other states that don't fit that metric. So hope that helps to try and explain why the process is there. But again, there are plenty of shenanigans that happens. I know it sounds complex, but the states were set up originally to have a certain amount of sovereignty to make their own choices. I totally agree with you...we should already be doing some type of online voting. There's way too much time for early voting, and some states play fast and loose with this. It needs to be consistent. And this is why Democrats love this system, it invites corruption, also because of the whole Covid thing, they extended those dates just for Joe Biden to limp across the finish line. Seriously, the guy can't go from here to there without collapsing. But people were big mad at Trump for being Trump and voted for this dementia clown instead that is known for saying some pretty racist things. My choice right now is none of the above, but we still got a long way to November. But it looks like a rematch of Trump and Biden.

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

It's so that not Just three states California New York and Texas who get to decide who is the president that's why we have the electoral college to divvy up delegates to make it more of a level playing so every state has a say it's actually a better system and each state whoever wins the popular vote wins those points and you have to get to 270 when you hear people that say that we should go for a popular vote that's direct democracy not a republic which America is Democrats supporting this popular vote are tricking people because they know that California and New York would decide who the president is because of the amount of population and guess what it's Democrats who supported and it is Democratic states that have majority of people I wonder why if the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would not be supporting it and crying 😭😭😭 it's really to give a fair shake to each state and not be abused by other big States

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

Right now and foreseeable future Donald Trump will gain the Republican nominee for president

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

No voting online you should do it on a paper ballot on the day of voting so fraud is not committed are you crazy voting online would be the biggest voting fraud around the world it would be almost similar to how in the US absentee ballots have been used to committing fraud it's called ballot harvesting

[@brianphillips8228]

The U.S. is now more of a direct democracy than it was originally. The people were only supposed to chose their representatives in Congress. The senators were to be chosen by their states government and the president was supposed to be chosen by each states electors that were free to vote their conscience. Why? For two reasons really. First, democracy can be two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Also, democracies fail when the people realize they can vote themselves the largesse of the treasury. The 17th amendment changed how the members of the Senate are selected to a popular vote. States have passed laws that the electors must vote the will of the population of the states. We are now much, much more of a direct democracy than we were supposed to be. Now, the Representatives and Senators are both chosen by popular vote, and the President is mostly chosen by the popular vote. This has resulted in a social, political, and fiscal disaster.

[@karlgrimm3027]

Biden has to run in the primary. It is traditional for no one in a party to run against the sitting president but there is no rule against it.

[@richardmartin9565]

I won't be watching.

[@tinatidmore3809]

Right now, he has two Democratic opponents. Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips. You don't see anything on news media about them because the media follows it like a horse race. And there is no indication either of these two have any chance. So their candidacies is a non-issue, no impact, as the news media views it.

[@toddpatrick8254]

There has always been two democrats fighting for the nomination for as long as the country has been founded. JFK Jr wanted to run against him but Joe Biden was going to make him pay for the debate and then still funnel his votes to him which is why there was no democratic primary this year. JFK has been on every news channel that will host him so he can tell his story about it. Please keep your forked tongue behind your teeth!

[@Tijuanabill]

That's not true. Each party can select their candidate any way they choose. The nomination rules are set by the party, not by the constitution. Ross Perot made up his own political party to run against George Bush Sr, and there was no process at all. However, yes, per the current rules of the Democrat Party that they themselves set in place, Biden must technically win a primary election. But that is their choice, not the choice of the founding fathers.

[@beefjezos2713]

@@richardmartin9565Busy watching one of Trump’s several arraignments?

[@JoeKier7]

The president, as a representative of the states, is elected by the states not the people. The number of electors per state is based mostly (but not entirely) by population.

[@xirasronin]

Your intellectual curiosity is a wonderful thing. You have A better grasp Of the electoral Process then many of the people that have Lived in the US their entire lives. You make me feel guilty for not knowing anything about the form of government (Parliament or presidency Or monarchs) In Portugal.

[@fmcloughlin85]

Electors are based on the number of senators + representatives each state has

[@geauxlsut]

Just gonna expand real quick - each state gets 2 senators and their representatives are based on population

[@filrabat1965]

Can confirm. Source: born and raised US citizen.

[@TheCsel]

Correct. The senate is meant to be senior congress, and is even playing field, each state gets 2. The House of Representatives is more for popular will of the people and in theory based on population, however there are too many people now so its sort of proportional based on which states have the highest population. So the people in the state vote on Electors, and the Electors get together and its like the States themselves are voting for the President, not the people voting for the President.

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

We shouldn't even have senators on ballots for people to vote it's up to the representatives of the house to do that and we should have term limits and you should not allow it to be stock trading politicians are one of the most corrupt people in America

[@kunialki8824]

@@TheCsel adding some details in support of this... a little on proportions and how it affects low & high populated states. Originally was 1 Rep / x number of citizens. In 1929 Congress changed to limit the House of Reps to a total of 435. After each census, the number of Reps for each state is recalculated based on population, some states gain & some lose Reps - the total will always be 435. But regardless of population numbers each State gets 1 Rep. So the minimum of a state Electors is 3 (2 Senators & 1 Rep). Which, in total, gives somewhat of an advantage to small states. Looking at the states population extremes, Wyoming (lowest=0.58 million) & California (highest = 38.03 million): Taking total pop. / # of electors - Each elector in Wyoming 'represents' 193,333 people. For California it's 1 Elector per 691,455 people (each Elector "covers" more people than the entire population of Wyoming).

[@Kulanae]

"Why not go by the popular vote?" The answer is simple. The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Our Founders knew that history was replete with democracy dumpster fires where the majority ruled and snuffed out the voices of the minority. We are a union of states, and the states are more important than the federal government. Our Consitution quite clearly spells out the powers reserved for the federal government and stipulates that all other powers not mentioned are reserved for the states.

[@eq1373]

Stalin and what he did to the kulaks is a perfect example of why the popular vote is a horrible idea. The English Civil War is another one.

[@Me-wk3ix]

Well said. And if we went by popular vote, maybe 10 states or less would decide what should be happening for the other 40. And most of those states would be voting the same way, as they have more larger urban populations. The majority could become a tyranny.

[@astrogatorjones]

@@Me-wk3ix Right now... we're suffering the tyranny of the minority. And our elections are controlled by game theory in a few states.

[@binabina4445]

The electoral college was created so that states with bigger populations didn't have more rights than rural states with a lower population as each state is supposed to be run as an independent country. So each state should have a say. It would be like every country in the European Union voting, but only countries with a huge population would really have any say in the election results. The countries are independent and they would not be willing to be a part of that if their desires and needs were being completely disregarded.

[@JimEllis-hq5zt]

Everyone should know about The Great Compromise.

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

Yes, but what has happened is that small states have bigger advantages per capita.

[@johnathon007]

@@pauladuncanadams1750 That isn't what happened, that is literally what was intended. The state as a whole is equal to every other state.

[@deangraves7462]

The senate insures that. The electoral college has become a gerrymander effectively since the Missouri compromise. States were carved up for political reasons (slavery) instead geographic or population any reasonable metric. For example, there is no reason that Oklahoma should exist, or that North and South Dakota shouldn't be one state. The whole rights argument came later to justify it to the American people, but politics is the only reason why we have interior states with less then 5 electoral votes (2 Senators and 3 Representative).

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

@@deangraves7462 What about Delaware and Rhode Island?

[@andrewhart5920]

There is a divide between city and rural people so if it was by the popular vote the city ppl would decide everything.We both need each other but disagree on many issues dash on how we live.

[@Lynn7015hb]

To a point, but the majority vote should rule. The minority should not be able to dictate laws to the majority number of people.

[@jfryk]

​@@Lynn7015hbyep, we have the protections of the constitution and its amendments to protect the minority.

[@rpg_haven]

@@Lynn7015hb Voting for President is not "dictating laws".

[@chrisfuller2069]

@@Lynn7015hb Congress legislates laws, not the president. Seems the US school system has failed at teaching it's population how it's own government operates.

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

@rpg_haven The minority shouldn't dictate to the majority who becomes president either.

[@gk5891]

This all started as a compromise with the larger states wanting more power (Awarded by population) and the smaller states wanting each state to have an equal say in the Federal Government. The Electoral System and our Legislative System have an intentional bias. The House gets representation based on population. The Senate gives equal representation to each state. Electors Awarded by population (Based on number of Representatives in the House). California - 53 Alaska - 1 Awarded equally to each state (Based on number of Senators). California - 2 Alaska - 2 As you can see this results in Alaska getting almost 2.9 times the electors by population as California. States primarily award all their electors "Winner take All" as it increases the influence of their state. California casting 55 votes for the Democratic Candidate instead of 29 Democrat, 21 Republican, 3 Green, 2 Libertarian, 1 Independent could easily be the determining factor in whether a Democrat or Republican won the election. 9 states have 50% of the population of the USA. The other 41 states power in selecting the President would be reduced if we switched to straight popular vote (eliminating the Electoral College). A Constitutional Amendment to change the system is unlikely as it would require 38 states (3/4 ) to ratify.

[@liarwithagun]

Yep. It we didn't have the electoral college then NY, California, and Texas would rule with no one else having any say. Rule by minority is bad, but so is majority being able to screw the minority over for their own gain.

[@gk5891]

@parallax3d I apologize for any confusion I may of created. A state is of course free to allocate it's electors however they so choose. I have rewritten to clarify (hopefully).

[@ronclark9724]

While there is a movement for all electors to vote for the winner of the national vote, a movement does not create a consensus. The constitution sets who chooses the electors to the states, the states run their own elections to choose which slate of electors are chosen, and quite frankly, citizens from Alaska do not care what the citizens of California chose. Two states do n9t follow the all or nothing consensus, Nebraska and Maine split their electors, one for who wins to Presidential vote in each congressional district, and two for who wins in the entire state. There is another movement to follow this meth9d, b7t again no consensus. It is harder to get 50 states and DC to agree to anything, than 13 states back then. Good luck!

[@faithnfire4769]

@@parallax3d You would be proportionally represented, so for (more) people you would be enfranchised, rather than the opposite. (This is due to the fact that overall, the electors result in effective votes not following the popular vote currently.) I'd rather they split electors by the proportions in the state (so 40% one way 60% the other etc). For exactly the response you gave. Almost the same effect but people get less bothered by it.

[@dead-claudia]

@@parallax3dstates determine their electors' selection, but the constitution determines how many electors they get to allocate

[@Trifler500]

10:03 - The reason we can't vote online comes down to hackers. There simply is no way to ensure voting over the Internet is secure. Hackers ruin everything.

[@european-reacts]

You have a point for sure.

[@ORWELL_USA]

@@european-reacts You also have a point--just let your hair grow longer and you can cover it up.

[@kenyonmoon3272]

Another critical fact often left out of news/discussion is that the US has no Federal elections. There are 50 simultaneous state elections, and a presidential candidate has to fill out the forms in all fifty states (and DC) if they want to be on each ballot.

[@MaxiusTheGod]

We have many political parties, but due to the structure of our system, voting for the smaller parties is usually a waste of time.

[@sonicstormer]

It does have one benefit. We never really have unpopular candidates. In Canada, for instance, it's common for a winner for PM to get under 30% of the vote.

[@MaxiusTheGod]

@@sonicstormer I think the major benefit is that we don't legitimize extremists by using them to form coalitions.

[@dead-claudia]

yeah we have the libertarian party getting close, but there's still some ways to go (and they aren't gonna get there with mises people running much of the show)

[@BlueFlash215]

​@@MaxiusTheGodwhich nation does that? Do you, for example, have a clue about the German voting system? In the political spectrum and comparing the goals of certain parties, Republicans are on par with the NDP (called Heimat now) and similar political parties. They are far right, tend to side with Hitlers views or even openly side with Hitlers views. In fact, a German independent TV show and a couple of papers could show that the agenda overlap in almost all cases.

[@pc2555]

@@BlueFlash215 This is pure propaganda that you've taken in that the republican party is similar to hitler's views or of the NDP party lol. There are factions of the party that may be to that extent but the vast majority of republicans are centrist-right wing. Trump is not a radical right wing candidate. Hes been a democrat for a large portion of his life. He swapped to republican because the democrat party moved farther left. The left in general in the democrat party has moved towards the 'progressives' which are basically socialists/communists. Americans who are against big government spending and control (among other things they support nowadays which are just pure insanity and corruption) will vote republican. That doesn't mean republicans support white supremacy and fascism lol. Ridiculous. It just means like me who is a republican/Trump supporter, you vote for lower regulations, lower taxes, border security, supporting local and federal police and taking a tougher stance on america's enemies such as china, russia and iran. Giving them money and showing weakness is how we got to where we are today. Biden funds Iran after Trump cut it off, now Iran uses Hamas to attack Israel multiple times. The Taliban takes over Afghanistan again after the BIden admin's failed withdraw. Russia invades Ukraine and China gets aggressive int he South China Sea. All due to Biden's weakness and incompetence abroad. If a republican gets back in most of the wars and aggression will stop.

[@gbassman5341]

I enjoy watching people learn things, and politics/history are 2 of my absolute favorite topics, so this video is right up my alley!

[@codylowe1683]

One good thing to remember is that we aren't a democracy we are a representative republic

[@lukegallagher353]

What you call "shenanigans" we call checks and balances. The point is to create multiple points to check and challenge to insure the will of the people are being followed without succumbing to tyranny of the majority.

[@jamesleyda365]

Yep👍

[@iamwonka]

You could also make the same argument the other way around. It could become the tyranny of the minority.

[@loganleroy8622]

Well tyranny of the majority would be like 20% of the country going against another 75% of the country. When in actually it’s like 47-49% on either side depending on the year.

[@lukegallagher353]

@@iamwonka which also has checks and balances to prevent. It's why we are the only country in history with a 2 tiered legislative body. One with population based representation and one with equal representation. One where population factors in, and one where it doesn't.

[@lukegallagher353]

@@loganleroy8622 tyranny of the minority is absolutely a threat. In fact, I'd say in the US it's a bigger threat than tyranny of the majority. And I say that as a republican who will be voting for trump a 3rd time and I'm well aware that he won his first term without a majority vote. I would also say that checks and balances were also in place to keep him from overstepping his authority as well, and they worked and were often overplayed. I'd say the biggest threat for tyranny of the minority today comes from special privileges given to minority classes that allow them to exert tyrannical influences over society. DEI initiatives that cause racial diversity to be prioritized over skill and experience, even in jobs where lives are on the line such as pilots. Tell me, whe. You're on a plane, what do you care most about? The pilots ability to fly a plane or the pilots skin color? I'm curious what the US will look like in 20-30 years when majorities shift. How will those who are minorities now act when they become majorities?

[@fatfeline1086]

Number of electors per state is based on population, not GDP. Number of Reps in Congress is based on population

[@rob5894]

Except that it isn't. Each state must have at least 3 electors. And the number of electors is fixed at 538. So, small population states have a much more weighted impact to the total than there population would suggest.

[@RebelCowboysRVs]

@@rob5894 And thats exactly the point. Its based on population with protections for smaller ones. It was built for all the states to all want to be a part of it. Specifically protecting the smaller states. The northern states needed the southern states to be a part of the union. Mainly for the military power. But a popular vote election would mean the south would dominate all elections, an Virginia would itself chose most elections on their own. Slaves were also only counted as 3/4 of a person for this reason. The north didn't want them counted at all an the south did. Slaves being 39% of Virginias population. So how they were counted was a huge deal. The northern states were not going to agree to be ruled by Virginians. Today California would be the state to dominate a popular vote. Why would the other 49 states want to be a part of that system? Especially states on the other side of the continent geographical an politically. Tennessee is not going to agree to be ruled by California. Just not going to happen.

[@rob5894]

@@RebelCowboysRVs, A voter in Wyoming has 3.5 times the voting power than a voter in California does. That you think this is right is simply astounding.

[@RebelCowboysRVs]

@@rob5894 It doesn't matter if you or I think it is right. It was a requirement for people to be willing to vote to join the union. And its a requirement now for the country to stay together. Half its own state wants to secede from it now for how how much power a few cities have. The rest of the country is not going to give them more to control them with.

[@rob5894]

@@RebelCowboysRVs, No, the College was not a requirement for states to vote to join the Union at all. Delegates didn't think much of the idea and it only passed the convention by one vote. In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College. Despite widespread bipartisan support for the amendment in both large and small states, the Senate came only five votes shy of breaking a filibuster. No state threatened to leave the union if the amendment had passed and none would today.

[@deannemoore6149]

I really enjoy watching your videos, and this one was no different. Sometimes I learn new things, somwtimes I'm already familiar. Regardless, it is always interesting to me to see and hear how people from foreign countries (not just European ones) perceive the US and Americans. Thanks for all of your contributions, from deep in the ❤ of Texas 🤠

[@Niteowlette]

Wow, many responses here on this topic! If you want to delve deeper into how this was created by the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, I recommend a book called The Summer of 1787. The author used James Madison's notes taken at the Constitutional Convention, as well as excerpts from diaries of many delegates who were there, including Ben Franklin. Very enlightening to read about the arguments between the delegates and why they came up with the Electoral College.

[@janetsmiley6778]

James Madison (Father of the US Constitution) was a political genius.

[@AustinStarDust]

Incumbents have to go through the primary system. Usually, they have only token opposition, although there has been exceptions.

[@TheCsel]

The problem with the Party system and state primaries in the US, is that the whole system of elections was not originally designed with parties in mind. Political parties are basically just private clubs that decide to vote the same way, how the parties function and choose their delegates, hold internal elections etc are all private affairs. Its a shock to people who learn that party VIPs with influence and money have more votes in internal votes than the average person in the party, but its legal because its a private group. Additionally since primary votes happen at different times in different states, your favored candidate might be forced to drop out of the party election before your state even gets to vote, even if many states might support them more. its just a mess.

[@reaperbsc]

Very true. George Washington wrote extensively in open letters to The People about the dangers of political parties. He feared they would cause divisions and stifle contructive discussions. Seeing how that turned out, I believe he was right.

[@terryfrost3995]

0:16 The main importance of the electoral college was that every state gets represented. One of the other comments stated something similar. The issue is if it was just by popular vote the framers felt that state like California would decide who gets to be the president every time or at least New York and California. With this system it allows the smaller states with smaller populations to have a vote in the presidential election. The founding fathers were always leery of the majority rule in that the majority can be wrong at times, and this was one of the other checks and balances Keep up the good work and your curiosity

[@Dragonite43]

The reason that the US didn't go by the popular vote was a fear that back when the USA was forming, each state would select a well-known person from that state to run. The well-known person from that state would get most of their votes from the state they are form. This meant you would have 13 people running for office, and the person who lived in one of the most populist states would win all the time. This meant that if a Candidate was from Virginia (the state with the most population when the nation was forming), they would always win the election.

[@joanna400]

Keep doing videos you think are interesting and keep on learning what you enjoy!

[@fatfeline1086]

The 2016 Dem popular vote victory was becasue the vote in major cities in CA and NY were so lopsided in Dem favor. For example somethnig like 3 boroughs in NYC alone constituted the Dem popular vote margin. The system is designed to force candiddates to pay attenttion to the needs and interests of the entire country more or less, not a few areas of high population concentration alone. The Founders were quite wise in this regard.

[@kunialki8824]

except the founders had House of Reps based on population. This was changed by congress in 1929 to limit the House to a total of 435 Reps. It's recalculated after each census & the numbers of Reps per state flux to support this. BUT every state gets 1 Rep regardless of population. Which means the Reps of most populous states actually represent more people than those of smaller states.

[@eq1373]

​@@slightlySuperiorthe founders would not have had a United States at all if it weren't for this

[@corwinchristensen260]

I like to explain it (oversimplified) this way: There are three equal branches of government in the US, the Executive (President), Legislative (Senate and House collectively known as Congress), and Judicial (courts and judges). The Senators and Representatives (Legislative) are elected by popular vote for each physical district in the US. The districts are for the most part determined by population. The Judges are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Legislative. The President is in effect chosen by the STATES. Each state has the number of votes as they have Congress members. The state then votes via the electoral college as dictated by the people and laws of each state.

[@tchampagne1494]

Electoral votes per state is based on population.

[@GenX1964]

12:00 It basically goes proportionate to population of the state but with a minimum of 3 electors.

[@nancy8713]

You are correct friend. Some states changed the laws so mail in couldn’t be counted before polls closed. So the drama started after they started counting mail in ballots in the days after.

[@jfryk]

I think it definitely makes sense to not count them before in-person voting opens up, but yeah this was such a bald-faced cynical change to the process to spin a media narrative.

[@bornkinggamer3347]

Republicans in state governments intentionally created a fake red wave by making sure mail in votes were counted last.

[@jeffhampton2767]

And that's where the left started to cheat

[@Niteowlette]

Also, many mail in ballots are absentee voters including overseas military, airline crew (pilots and flight attendants), and U.S. embassy employees to name a few.

[@Niteowlette]

Also, many mail in ballots are absentee voters including overseas military, airline crew (pilots and flight attendants), and U.S. embassy employees to name a few.

[@drewpamon]

The thing to remember is that we don't have national elections other than the electoral college. The president is elected by 51 individual elections that are each weighted differently based on population.

[@TheCsel]

The US has the electoral college because 1 it was logistically hard to vote in the early years of the nation, it was just hard to travel anywhere. 2. Because its less about the people voting on the president, its more like the individual States voting on the president. So the State's get votes not the individual people. The people are choosing state electors to vote for them as a collective state. Just in modern times the people are detached from the process and don't know who the electors they are voting for are, its been streamlined that you are voting for electors that have already declared who they are voting for based on party, so the end result is basically you voting for the president.

[@SuStel]

3 because slave states wouldn't join the union unless given more power in that union than other states who might try to take away slavery. See the Three-Fifths Compromise.

[@DavidMBebber]

@@SuStel The Three Fifths Compromise was needed because the slave holding south wanted to have representation based on population including slaves (who could not vote) and the North wanted to include only citizens that could vote. The Compromise allowed the Constitution to be ratified creating a Unified(ish) country, and the issue of slavery to be determined later.

[@SuStel]

@@DavidMBebberThat's what I said.

[@ashleyjendri1930]

number of electors is determined by state's number of representatives in congress plus two senators for each state. representatives is determined by population of the state.

[@Crusty_Comrad]

The reasonn for the electoral college is this; the STATES elect the president of the UNION. imagine if the leader of the eu won by popular vote because germany and france all voted for them, but noone in italy spain or portugal did.

[@FleeceJohnsonDaBootyWarrior]

That's quite a good way to put it.

[@GEREIKAT]

No its because small states are whiny babies

[@cindysalce8320]

this was informative for me as well.. Thanks for sharing..

[@JeffreyDick-x6g]

The number of each State's electors is determined by the number of members that State has in the US Congress. For example, in the 2020 election, California had 2 Senators and 53 members in the House of Representatives. Therefore, California had a total of 55 electors. And since California voted for Biden, he received the 55 electoral votes from California. So, the number of electoral votes roughly depends on the State's population, but moderated by the fact that each State has 2 Senators, which gives an advantage to the lesser populated States, as the founding fathers wished. It has nothing to do with GDP.

[@garycamara9955]

Actually I am from California and I don't know anyone that likes Biden. I am a native Californian as well.

[@JeffreyDick-x6g]

@@garycamara9955 I am from North Carolina and very few folks from here like him either. I just used California as an example, since most Europeans obsess over California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

[@dead-claudia]

nit: not all states are winner takes all. a growing minority are ditching that system due to voter pressure

[@JeffreyDick-x6g]

@@dead-claudia That's right. Maine and Nebraska award electors according to the way each congressional district votes, but the 2 electors which represent each States Senators must nevertheless go to the overall winner in the State. These are called the "at=large" electors. I quite like that system.

[@ORWELL_USA]

@@garycamara9955 Get you head out of your a$$

[@bigbadjohn7053]

The idea behind the Electoral College is to increase the influence of States. In a popular vote, only a handful of the largest cities would determine the outcome of the election. Under the electoral college system, smaller states have a greater influence over the election than they would have. This is important for a country as physically large as the US.

[@Muddywatersist]

The whole purpose is to prevent a handful of states from always picking the President and writing our laws. The U.S. is very diverse and it would not be fare for California and NY telling the rest of the states how to live.

[@geauxlsut]

THIS

[@filrabat1965]

Ironically, the EC system brings about the very thing it's designed to prevent. We all know how California, New York, and Texas are going to vote. Same for the majority of states. In practical terms, it's the following states that determine who's president at the present time: Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Maybe North Carolina and Florida also decide, but only to a lesser extent now.

[@Dfourteens]

But CA and NY have more people. You are saying that people in the large states should have less of a say than everyone else. Doesn't sound "fair" to me. Under this system not all citizens are equal.

[@geauxlsut]

@@Dfourteens That's not what he's saying at all. The electoral college is based on population +2. Larger states don't lose votes because of the electoral college, everything is proportional. The best benefit is every state gets a baseline of 2 votes, for senators. The system would work a lot better if there weren't just 2 main parties, but it's better than a popular vote

[@AustinStarDust]

NY and California combines for 18% of the US population. So no, they could not tell the rest of the country what to do. In fact, a national popular vote system would dilute those states' influence because at least 35% of their voters would go Republican whereas 100% of their electoral votes would go Democrat.

[@ronclark9724]

The number electors each state gets depends upon how many members in Congress it has, Senators plus Representatives. Every State has 2 Senators, and the number of Representatives depends on each State’s population. That’s why California has so many electors while less populated States have 3 electors (the minimum). To further explain, the US Congress has an upper chamber the Senate and a lower chamber the House of Representatives. The Senate is the chamber for the States and the House the chamber for citizens. Each chamber of Congress having specific duties. Basically the power of the purse or wallet belongs to the House, and the power of advice and consent belongs to the Senate. All new laws or changes to old laws must pass by a vote in both chambers, then approved by the President. All new treaties with other nations must be consented by the Senate. All new office holders appointed by the President must be consented by the Senate. All new tax laws must originate in the House, passed by the Senate as well, then approved by the President. The budget for each government department follows a very similar route. Back to the electoral college, it was a result of the “great compromise” for 13 original colonies to join together in one nation under the Constitution , instead of being 13 individual nations. The smaller states did not wish to bend a knee to the larger, more powerful states. So Congress was divided into two chambers, one where each state was equal to all the others, and another chamber where every citizen had equal representation.

[@lindacarroll6896]

Part of the voting controversy is that they try to keep certain groups from being able to vote. Making voting be online would eliminate a group of voters who don't have access to or knowledge of computers and/or the internet. Another idea that sounds good in theory but might not be practical in action.

[@willcool713]

There is one elector with one electoral vote for every member of the House and Senate each state has. Most states are winner-take-all for all of their electoral votes, by popular state vote. Some states allocate electoral votes based on popular votes in representative districts and popular votes for the remaining two.

[@jimmymapes3411]

No way to I want on line voting. Can easily be hacked.

[@AkiraShima2828]

There is a very good reason for the Electoral College. Should look up a video on that but a good explanation.

[@MattyG96]

The President is the leader that was chosen by the states, not the people. The US Federal government doesn’t answer to the people but answers to the states who in turn are governed by the people. That makes the states the highest governments in the land. Think of each state as independent nations(we have different taxes, laws, cultures and even state militaries known as The Guard) choosing a collective leader. The college ensures that giant states like California, Texas,etc dont dominate the smaller states like Alaska, Vermont,etc and thus allowing all states in the union to have equal voices. I don’t know much but it seems to be like the EU, each nation is a state and the EU Gov. is the US Federal Gov.

[@Dfourteens]

Actually, states do not have equal voices. A vote for a Wyoming citizen counts more than 3 times that of a Californian.

[@iamwonka]

The states are not the highest governments in the land. The federal government is. Also, big states already dominate small states in the existing electoral system. Literally, no one cares about the small states, it mostly always comes down to the “swing” states that we have created under this backwards system.

[@0maj0hns0n3]

You can also run as an independent

[@broark88]

American politics are so divided because of plurality voting, which mathematically ensures a two party system. Look up Duvergers Law to see how.

[@revgurley]

Thanks for learning all this. Honestly, you probably know more about how elections work than a lot of Americans. As a "small L" libertarian, if you have questions about that party, let me know. I'll try my best to summarize the importance of the Electoral College. If the President was elected by popular vote alone, New York and Los Angeles would decide the presidency. That's enough votes (usually). All the southern, midwestern, "flyover" states would have no say. So they give Electors to each state representing the population. Those Electors take the decision of the vote, and depending on the state, usually all vote for that candidate (some states allow the Electors to "split" votes - like 2 vote for one candidate and 1 vote for the other. Again, depending on the voter's say). This system gives just enough power to the "moderate middle" to balance votes from more liberal coasts.

[@garycamara9955]

Los Angeles is not the whole state. You forget the San Francisco Bay area abd central valley area. California is large and varied.

[@Lynn7015hb]

I would disagree. Majority votes should win. Minority number of people should not be able to dictate laws that a majority have to follow.

[@revgurley]

@@Lynn7015hb I completely disagree, but because of his wishes, I'll let you start a new post explaining your side and not debate you here.

[@ORWELL_USA]

@@Lynn7015hb You obviously lack critical thinking skills.

[@bevinboulder5039]

Voting on line wouldn't work because the system would be too easily hacked.

[@ZarcusConcord]

Mr beat does have a video that explains the electoral college fairly well though he is debating in it about how it should be abolished. It might be worth a watch to help explain it.

[@loganleroy8622]

Well Mr Beat is also a democrat so obviously he wants to abolish precedent and the constitution.

[@devilsmusic3551]

Check out the x-59 supersonic aircraft

[@babs3241]

Generally speaking, a sitting president is going to be the party's nominee for a second term (there's a two-term limit, so after a second term, there's always a primary; the VP has some advantage, but not much). In theory, you can primary a sitting president. People who are dissatisfied with their party might make noises about it. Almost any number can be in the primaries. Right now, DeSantis and Nikki Haley are the two closest, and Vivek Ramaswamy just dropped out (as did Chris Christie). That usually happens through primary season and by the end, there's usually an obvious front-runner. Trump is in a weird position of being a quasi-incumbent. The idea of the electoral college is that the large states do have more say, but the small rural states don't get completely mowed over by them. States can be flipped. Texas is actually getting more purple, and California has been Republican in the past. It's entirely based on population, and gets re-calibrated every ten years when the census is taken. (By coincidence, highly populous states often have the highest GDP.) The Trump-Biden debates were bad--Biden's not a great debater, and Trump doesn't even bother with the rules of debate. The issue wasn't necessarily early voting but mail-in, which the Republicans were concerned that it could be corrupted, while Democrats feel that Republicans are using this to suppress the vote. The mail-in votes were counted later, and largely skewed Democratic, which didn't help matters.

[@rich7447]

Congress is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. The number of House members that each state gets is determined by the state's population, but in the Senate each state gets two representatives. The number of Electoral College votes that each state gets is the sum of the number of Federal House of Representative and Senate members that the state has.

[@americasfavoritebrazilian2399]

The founder's didn't want NY with 20 million people to have power over Maine with 5 million people. It's more of a population thing to keep power even

[@mr44mag]

This. We are not a direct Democracy. This is a massive country with many people living in different areas with different needs. An inner-city dweller assuming firearms are responsible for the gang violence they see daily might try to ban them nationally where there are towns that literally have bears that wander through town looking for food thus requiring you to own a firearm. If you do not like the firearms example, look into mandating electric vehicles and how well rechargeable batteries work in cold climates. It's horrifying.

[@patrioticz2858]

7:00 i would be happy to talk to you about all of this in like a voice or video call

[@Crusty_Comrad]

the problem with online voting is that use if ID with voting is very controversial in the USA.

[@drenkara2415]

The only thing I don't like about the electoral congress is that, in most states, whoever wins gets ALL the votes. There are a few that split votes based on % won. I think they should all be that way.

[@jdanon203]

Yeah I agree. Winner take all is bad. No other western country does it this way because it is very obviously and clearly anti-democratic to disenfranchise a huge portion of the population.

[@here_we_go_again2571]

@ drenkara2415 If you are a US citizen, you have the right to get people together and to lobby your state's legislature to vote on the issue. Naturally, the political leaders within the political parties will have something to say about that. Selecting electors by proportion of the popular vote might or might not, throw more elections into the House of Representatives (the lame ducks as well as those who won reelection will be the ones doing the voting -- Something to keep in mind) Also with the House of Representatives voting; quite a few backroom deals could be struck. That, most likely, would not be in line with the desires of the citizens of the USA.

[@david-1775]

That would only diminish the power of your state. Why would you do that?

[@jfryk]

Yeah that's a decision made by each state to determine how their electoral votes are distributed. And as it was pointed out, it's in each state's own interest to make it winner-take-all, unless there was a coalition of states which collectively agreed to change their rules.

[@tinatidmore3809]

I agree, the winner-take-all has made people vote for their political team because if the other team wins, they win the whole thing. The stakes are so high. It also works the same way in the function of Congress. If a team wins, they control everything.

[@sallypursell1284]

I'm 70, and although none of this is new to me, I enjoyed being refreshed. Thank you. By the way, De Santis is the Governor of Florida. States have Governors, not Presidents.

[@karlgrimm3027]

For Europeans it’s easier to think of American parties more like coalitions because they are so large.

[@beasley1232]

Well that’s technically what the Democratic and Republican Party’s are, they are a bastion of large coalition of voters who either lean left, lean right or independent.

[@TheRagratus]

Very true- look at the different factions that are in each party.

[@kenyonmoon3272]

The counting and announcing of the Electoral College results from each state is the process that was interrupted by the events of January 6th. In Congress, a number of Senators and Reps were doing a procedural protest, the plans seemed to be to cause at least one or two state results to be returned to the legislatures of those states for reconsideration. It had little chance of succeeding, as the court proceedings had all wrapped and found no widespread fraud (and effectively zero localized fraud), but the symbolism of the act was a pretty big deal. Then the events for which the day made international news happened, and the late-night completion of the counting was a big deal to show that process matters.

[@Raymond-u1y]

Electoral votes comes from the population of each individual state. Our blessed founding fathers felt it would be fair.

[@jdanon203]

It is fair. The winner take all part... not so much. Think of how many Republican electors are left on the table in California which has the most Republican voters in the country just because LA and San Fran are bluer than my balls.

[@gotmorris]

Agreed. They probably should have specified the population counted needs to be US citizens. That would solve a lot of problems.

[@AustinStarDust]

I don't know if all of the founding fathers found it "fair". Probably a more accurate term is that it was a necessary compromise to induce all 13 colonies to join.

[@SuStel]

​@gotmorris Part of the reason it works the way it does is because of the 3/5ths compromise. When the Constitution was ratified, slave states could count 3/5ths of their slave population for the purposes of representatives in Congress, so they got more electoral votes too. It wasn't about fairness; it was a bribe to slave states to ratify the Constitution.

[@ThePhillyspade]

Well that's why the Founding Father's said the constitution is a living document that should be amended. We're past the Electoral college era

[@dcameron7736]

We don't use Internet for voting is because of personal privacy rights and concerns

[@jacobpennington5256]

The number of electors that a state has comes down to how many representatives they have in the house of representatives. There are 435 seats in total. And the number of representatives is decided my the population of the state

[@thisaintnothang]

In the mid-90s I tried to explain the electoral college to a German girl who was visiting the States and when I told her that it was possible that a president could lose the popular vote and still win the election she didn't believe me. It's happened twice since then.

[@jmkiser33]

There's problems with the electoral college and the popular vote and it all has to do with campaigning. Because our country is so large, its literally impossible for campaigns to reach out to everyone, not even most people. With the electoral college, dividing the vote up by each state, campaigns are incentivized to strictly target "purple" states or "swing" states where the Democrat and Republican votes are split more evenly. States, like California, which consistently only vote for one party, will rarely ever see the campaign from either party show up in their state to do rallies, events, door knock, etc. While states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, etc. will be bombarded by each party's campaign during the entire summer of the election cycle. If our country was to ever switch to a popular vote, the incentives switch. Instead of visiting purple swing states, campaigns would be incentivized to hit the most populated areas (cities) to reach as many people as possible. In the current political climate, this would be an extremely disadvantaged way for Republicans to try to campaign. The ACTUAL biggest political divide in this country isn't by one state versus the other, it's actually cities versus rural areas. The more populated an area, the more strictly Democrat it is. The more rural an area, the more strictly Republican it is. But, with the proliferation of TV and the internet, we know in person campaigning matters, but I'm guessing how much it matters is less and less? Idk, but there's pros and cons of either way of doing elections in this massive country.

[@blkequus]

You are absolutely correct that the divide is between rural and urban areas. Conservatives will eventually be made irrelevant as urban areas control voting more and more. As Ohio's rural population shrinks I predict it will go blue in 2024.

[@tomdowling638]

@@blkequus The food comes the rural country side, are you going to make gardens. To feed yourself.

[@jfryk]

​@@tomdowling638the food producing farms are nearly all owned by national and multinational corporations headquartered in major cities. Sadly the family farm has long been a thing of the past and those farms boycotting cities would have no practical effect on anything at all.

[@jfryk]

Maybe if the farm workers and family farm owners would strike nationwide to form strong unions they could use their collective bargaining to break up the factory farming corporations and have a bigger say in the course of our country.

[@alynegranado8411]

No, in the information age with the internet, the argument that they can't reach everyone and there fore we need the electoral college is dumb. They can reach everyone with the push of a button.

[@adamrou12345]

It is pretty wild that except for the 2020 and 2022 elections (which had the highest voter turnout in over a century) less than half of the voting age population actually casts votes.

[@WhatDayIsItTrumpDay]

Andre, yes, I can see why our Electoral College system may seem confusing to an outsider...Hell, it's confusing and even controversial to some here in the US. Let me see if i can clear it all up for you. Alright, first of all, we have a Congress, right? Congress is made up of two Houses, the Senate, and the House of Representatives (aka "Congress") while the Senate is always known as the Senate, but a part of Congress as a whole. So how does is the representation of each House chosen? Well, that's fairly easy, but there's a slight exception for the House membeeship. For the Senate, each state, no matter how big or small (based on population) gets 2 Senators. So we have 50 states × 2 Senators each = 100 Senators total. For the House of Reps, that is determined by the population of the state, and this is where the slight exception comes in...for every 700 some odd thousand (not sure on the exact amount) people, including illegal residents, the state gets one Congressman or Representative. The number is determined during the 10 year census. Every state gets at least one Rep even if it's under that 700 whatever mark... so smaller states liks Wyoming and Alaska get 3 Congressman (2 Senators, 1 Rep)....not sure about D E laware and Rhode Islande, but it may be 3 as well. But here's the deal, the total number of Congressmen there can be is 438. 538 total, including the Senate. There's a election prediction website known as Five-Thirty-Eight run by Nate Silver who leans Left, and is a bit off his rocked in his predictions sometimes, but it is what it is. I follow Red Eagle Politics myself, but that's neither here nor there for tis explanation. Alright, now for the Electoral College (EC) itself. The EC is the same number of Congressional Representation for each state for counting votes on the election....sort of. Technically, when each state's poluation votes for President...they're actually voting fot Electors (actual people) who will then cast their vote in the January 6th Congressional meeting. The candidate that wins the popular vote in each state will generally get all the electoral votes from that state. Some states have split districts however. Maine has 3 districts, and Nebraska has 2, one being an independent Native American district. So what ends up happening, right, is that the most populist states gets the most Electoral Votes. Which makes sense, right? However, bigger states like California kinda have their votes diluted a bit. Because as big as it is, it still only gets 2 Senatorial votes. So their best bet would be to splif into several separate states, but they won't do it. So then what determines the Presidential winner? Well, the winner has to acquire 270 electoral votes....I believe that's 50% of 538+1. That's why you'll hear, the Race to 270 often. By doing it this way, it forces the President to be elected by tge entirity of the country, rather than just a few large population centers, whicn is the problem in Russia where Putin can get re-elected over and over again by just appealing to Moscow and St. Petersberg. If Russia had an electoral college, having a dictator would be a lot less likely.

[@deangraves7462]

The Electoral College does nothing to prevent the election of a dictator. #1 President's are term limited, #2 The President does not run the Federal Election. #3 The President can be removed from Office. Those three features prevent dictators. The Electoral College can elect a dictator just as easily as the popular vote. Preventing dictatorship is not a reason to keep the electoral college. The electoral college was design for 13 states and is now since the Missouri Comprise essentially a mechanism of federal gerrymandering. Under the current system, your zip code determines your political voting power which makes no sense.

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

It's confusing because it makes no freaking sense and should be done away with.

[@slickjack2618]

The house has 435 members, not 438 as you stated. While it may work out that, after the requisite one house member per state, that there is one house member per 700+K of population, that is not how the calculation is done. Whether or not a state is "populist" has no bearing on how many electoral votes it receives. The number of electoral votes is an arithmetic function, not influenced by the political leanings of that state's voters. I doubt having an electoral college really prevents the US from having a dictatorship. After all, the electoral college gives greater voting power to smaller, more rural states. Those same states are the ones most likely to vote for Trump who has said he will have a dictatorship on the first day of a new presidency.

[@westonsimmons561]

​@slickjack2618 it not literal its a jab at executive orders and how every president has day one made them don't conflate a joke with intent

[@DavidMBebber]

@@pauladuncanadams1750 Just because you think it makes no sense doesn't mean that is the case. If the election was a simple national popular vote then the candidates would pander to 3-4 large cities just to get that slim majority, and could promise them policies that would screw the rest of the country such as diverting fresh water from the great lakes to California. The electoral collage system insures the smaller states will not get ignored outright, and was a core part of the formation of the Republic back in 1776 as the smaller states would never have ratified a Constitution that put them at such a disadvantage.

[@jamieshue6145]

It is not done by “popular vote” because then the highly populated states will overwhelm the smaller states. This would cause the coast states to determine every election as the population is condensed there.

[@rg20322]

The next Primary is in New Hampshire next week on January 23rd (Tuesday). I'm listed as an independent voter and will choose either a Dem or Rep ballot, and yes Donald Trump has to run during the primaries to with the nomination for President for the Republican party, as does Joe Biden. Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are the ones going against Trump. Nikki is asking Democrats to write her in on ballots but as far as I know, unless you are pulling a Republican ballot it will not count. Obviously, I live in NH and originally from Massachusetts. MA is such a cesspool and a one-party Democrat system, with a lot of the same issues that you see in NYC, SF, are showing up in Boston and other cities.

[@dopeshow103]

I believe the electoral vote. Each state has its own number of representatives because each state has its own boating law. Also I believe each state's number of electorall candidates depends on their population.

[@shonuff4323]

The electoral college is brilliant. If not then the large population centers would always determine the president. If that were the case most rural places would basically get screwed.

[@adamskeans2515]

so you feel that rural people's vote should count more than urban people's vote?

[@Desertflower725]

Here’s the problem with that. The electoral college is an “equalizer” and each state having the same number of senators is an “equalizer.” So only congress actually represents the population of each state. Small states get two out of three. Not fair in and of itself. So in order to protect the smaller states, we make the majority of the population live under rules created by people they disagree with. Yep. Super fair. s/

[@adamskeans2515]

@@Desertflower725 quite the contrary, it allows some peoples vote to count more than others, it's the exact opposite of an equalizer.

[@ThePhillyspade]

Your vote should count as ONE. Sorry that the majority of the country don't agree with you. And looking at the numbers every election is close, yall just have a cheat code. It's not brilliant its another form of cheating the system like redlining

[@brentwebster6164]

One of the things that is essential to understand is that the nation was created as a union of individual states which all viewed themselves as sovereign. In the early years of the nation, and especially at the constitutional convention, there were concerns that the more populous states would simply dominate the smaller states. So the system is designed not just to respect the vote of the individual, but also to respect the vote of states. There were compromises made to balance state representation and individual representation. One of those compromises was the two chambers of Congress. One chamber has representation based strictly by population, the House of Representatives. The other is exactly two representatives for each state, the Senate. The electoral college is designed to balance those same concerns. It is designed specifically to give extra weight to the vote of less populous states, with the intent that they are not simply ignored or dominated by the bigger states.

[@SuStel]

Another compromise was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which encouraged slave states to increase their slave populations because they counted 3/5ths toward the population that was actually represented, though they themselves weren't actually represented in Congress.

[@RealILOVEPIE]

Electoral College votes are based on Congress seats, which means they're based on population.

[@seventy4burban]

Electors is equal to the number of reps in the US Senate and House of Representatives. Each state gets 2 Senators. Population determines the number of the reps in the House. Each state gets at least one, California is the most populated state, they have 53 reps.

[@jamesleyda365]

Our system has worked for quite a damn long time just fine, especially in comparison to many countries around the world and throughout history ..... at least until now

[@SuStel]

The system has often had problems. Read about the elections of 1800 and... I think it was 1846. Not to mention the election of 2000.

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

Worked fine for the minority, you mean.

[@kenyonmoon3272]

On a slight tangent, it is worth pointing out that the first attempt at forming a US government was (on paper) very like the current EU. The didn't quite gel the way it was hoped, and the current system replaced that one after only ~decade, but many of the sentiments and goals remained as the same people formed both, they only altered it to have a stronger centralized government. It's not top of mind 99% of the time, but putting that fact into the conversation helps make a bit more sense of this system. History's echoes are long living, and they are often quite fascinating to contemplate if you know a bit of the backstory!

[@blkequus]

the electoral college insures that candidates can't ignore states with lower populations. In the 2016 campaign, Hillary didn't campaign very much in the 'fly over' states. She also didn't campaign very well in Michigan. The fact is, you can't gamble in a presidential election. You need to campaign and campaign hard so that your candidate stays front and center. Not everyone uses social media, not everyone watches TV. Door knockers are still an important, personal connection to a candidate.

[@curtjoyner4493]

KZbin has many sites that explain the function and importance of the electoral college, a straight up populous vote would be disastrous.

[@david-1775]

Imagine their is a soccer/football league with 10 teams. They each play 10 games each year. Is the champion the team who wins the most games or is it the team that scores the most combined points in all their games?

[@Mike28625]

Even weirder is when the parties in each state select who they want to run amongst the party candidates. In some states, the voting is literally a game of sitting in chairs or standing in circles to select their person.

[@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh]

Im really annoying about this. If we went popular vote then a candidate who is popular in big cities and on the coasts they would always win. Always. Our process forces candidates who wins popular must be somewhat popular in tgr center of the country as well.

[@jdanon203]

Not true. Every country on earth has big cities and rural areas. America is not unique. Repeat after me: America is not unique. America instead has decided that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are going to decide every election. States with a combined population less than that of Texas. Yeah, that is so fair!

[@loganleroy8622]

@@jdanon203Right but those are states that are purple. So in order to win those swing states you have to appeal to centrists in those states. That encourages candidates to be more moderate and appeal to independent voters as well.

[@tomatop6754]

​@@jdanon203Swing states change roughly every 10-20 years usually its not always the same 3 states. America is a Democratic Republic. Not a pure democracy. The founding fathers understood the problems that come from pure democracys where the majority terrorize the minority and so they did the electoral college which isnt perfect but is the best way imo to do it. Otherwise all the rural states in would be having seperatists movements right now because their issues would NEVER get addressed. Then again both rural issues and the urban peoples issues are both not getting addressed atm but thats mostly due to the horrible corruption problem with partys currently.

[@pauladuncanadams1750]

That's where all the people live. Should someone in Podunc Montana tell Texas who should be president? Ya know, you could just vote with everyone else instead of just going against the flow.

[@SuStel]

So instead of the candidates having to impress a lot of people on the coasts, an they have to do is impress a few people in the center. Much better.

[@sallypursell1284]

The electors go by state population, so states with many people have more electors.

[@pacmon5285]

The number of electors for a given state is based on the population of that state. Edit: Also the electoral college is an old system that was put in place before we were so connected with modern tech. It's been debated amongst some as whether we should abolish it, in favor of a popular vote.

[@ORWELL_USA]

Only the Dems want it because all the biggest cities are controlled by Dem Black mayors.

[@GentleGiantJason]

The electoral college is 2 per state plus a number based on state population. So California having the highest population has the highest electors.

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

This system of a republic electoral college voting works and is the best form I believe it gives an equal amount of responsibility and voting power to every citizen regardless of being overwhelming from bigger states to little states

[@jfryk]

The popular vote would give the most equal amount of voting power to each citizen. The electoral college intentionally redistributes the voting power to less populated counties. That was the intent, regardless of a person's opinion of that system.

[@rob5894]

It does not give an equal amount of voting power to every citizen. Individual voters from Wyoming ( the least populous state) carry 3.6 times more influence, or weight, than those from California (the most populous).

[@keithcharboneau3331]

Electors are based on the POPULATION of the state, if you look at that map, where it shows the number of ELECTORS for each state, that is ALSO the number of CONGRESSMEN that state has as well, but the ELECTORS DO NOT vote for the presidential candidate because the congressmen from that state tell him to, they vote by who their state votes for. and the number of congressmen and electors are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and those numbers are based on the population of the indivual states.

[@west-Co_exploration]

We have the electoral college in order to give less populated states a voice in the election. If we did not, the five most populous cities in America would be the deciding factor in every single presidential election. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that those of us who choose not to live in New York City etc do not want to be ruled over by that group. That is effectively like the hunger games. The electoral college takes away the power of a few overpopulated urban centers, and distributes it across the entire country.

[@Lynn7015hb]

The electoral college however can take the win away from the winner of the popular vote and that's not fair to the majority of voters

[@tvc1848]

@@Lynn7015hb It is absolutely fair if you look how the country was formed. The Constitution did not exist. Each state was and effectively still is, it’s on country. Small states did not want to ratify a constitution that took away their voice. The two house system of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the electoral college was a compromise to get the Constitution passed. The people ratifying the constitution, did not think it was fair that one or two states could control all federal laws.

[@west-Co_exploration]

@@Lynn7015hb the electoral college is designed to make sure that the popular vote is never what counts in a presidential election. It is fair to the majority of states. Not the tyranny of the mob. The US is not a democracy we are a constitutional republic and we will keep it that way.

[@thejagermeizter]

Two things the video didnt say is that that the number of electorate votes per state is determined by population size, and that you have to be a natural born US citizen to run for president.

[@Ljrobison]

Mail in voting has been around for a very long time. Election day isnt a federal holiday in the US so a lot of people have to work and cant make it to the polls. It only seemed to become an issue in the previous election. Republicans have been messaging against it pretty hard which I think contributed to why more mail in ballots are democrat. Ironically before Republicans started going against it, most mail in votes were Republican. Generally the elderly.

[@garycamara9955]

Or the militarily

[@Glittersword]

Absentee Voting has been around a long time. They just happened to be mailed in. The requirements for absent and the more modern mail-in votes are different though and do not equate.

[@loganleroy8622]

There’s a difference between mail in and absentee ballots. A large chunk of Republicans don’t like mail in ballots being sent out, unless you specifically request one. That way people actually have to care about voting and it isn’t just someone filling out an envelope that shows up at their door unannounced.

[@Glittersword]

@@loganleroy8622 Also, the hoops you have to go through are different. There are definite requirements for an absentee ballot.

[@eq1373]

Absentee ballots have been around for a long time. Mass mail in voting has not.

[@swiftfox7725]

I can clear up 2 things. 1. Biden actually does have to win the Democratic primary to be re-nominated. However, incumbent Presidents rarely face serious opposition from their own party (last time it happened was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter). 2. Each state’s electoral votes are determined by its representation in congress, which is based on population. So, California has the most people, which means it has the most members of congress and therefore the most electoral votes. Hope that helps!

[@nylarbed]

I love watching you process just how ridiculous the American election process is. You are not wrong in your reactions a lot of dumb rules. You find that they do not advocate for methods for more people to vote..because more people will vote

[@Isaacsbased]

More people shouldn’t vote. have you seen our education statistics lol, people should have to pass a civics exam before they’re allowed to register.

[@cerealkiller8921]

schools now teach WHAT to think, and not HOW to think!@@Isaacsbased

[@christianlong-lo3jm]

It gives a fair shake to every state so California Texas and New York don't set the agenda it's more balanced you're crazy if you're advocating for a popular vote that is direct democracy not a constitutional republic this is the problem these days you guys were not taught in school the proper meaning of elections I pray that the younger generation wakes up because as of now your just a bunch of communists

[@loganleroy8622]

It’s not ridiculous, the system has its own logic

[@jfryk]

We already tried the civics exam in the past, turns out it's unconstitutional and was implemented to discriminate by class and race. How shocking.

[@riada4996]

De Santis, governor of Florida. Not sure of his overall popularity nationwide, but Trump is certainly much more well known and recognized.

[@slgibbs1]

The electoral college is a joke! Most Democrats and Independents was it abolished. But, the Current system favors the Republicans and they will NEVER agree to abolish the Electoral college. A person living in Wyoming or Montana has more power and they are Republicans ..."How much more is a vote worth in Wyoming? The power of rural or otherwise sparsely populated states is quite striking: The biggest vote fraction is carried by Wyoming with 3.04. This means that a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.04 as much as it would be if the system were by popular vote. The smallest vote fraction is carried by California with 0.85."

[@jamiemoss3633]

Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college because they would never lose another election. This is why the electoral college exists. If California and New York(only ever voted republican in presidential elections)were predominantly republican you would be against abolishing the electoral college.

[@eddawg79]

The genius of the electoral college over popular vote is if you went off popular vote you could control the country with just 3 states. What works in California doesn't work in Kansas so you can see why that would be a bad thing. Also even though there are 2 main parties up until the 90's they were actually divided making basically 4 parties, there used to be liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats along with liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans.

[@tomatop6754]

Correct however there is still 4 factions but they have changed imo. Its now the Establishment Republicans, Establishment Democrats, Anti-Establishment Republicans and Anti-Establishment Democrats.

[@slickjack2618]

Please enumerate the three states you say can control the country. In a nation of 340 million, even three Californias (at 40 million, each) wouldn't amount to much more than a third of the population. The genius of the electoral college is to make a voter in Wyoming three times more powerful than a voter in California.

[@jonadabtheunsightly]

Here's the thing about the way the electoral college works: it pulls Americans together. A straight popular-vote system would push Americans apart. Here's what I mean: the current system causes both political parties to focus a lot of their election campaign energy on the most moderate areas, where people are in the middle of the political spectrum ("swing" states). Both sides choose candidates and promote platforms and issues that they think can appeal, at least potentially, to that middle-ground-oriented demographic. Whereas, if the President were elected directly by popular vote, each party's election campaigns would focus on getting out the voters in their respective strong areas. This would lead to more extreme political positions (on both sides of the political spectrum) as conservative politicians would seek to appeal to rural conservatives in rural conservative states, and liberal politicians would seek to appeal more strongly to urban liberals in the urban liberal states. Which is exactly what we do NOT need. The electoral college has failed to hold the country together once, in 1860, when both parties split along geographical lines and chose different candidates in the two halves of the country, resulting in a candidate getting elected who was so unacceptable across such a large area that an entire geopolitical region tried to remove themselves from the country. We're still feeling some of the effects of that failure today. Without the electoral college system, this sort of thing would be a much larger and more frequent problem. Technically, being an incumbent President eligible for an additional term does not automatically secure you a major-party nomination. But it's such a significant advantage, that it almost might as well be automatic. I can't think of a single case wherein an incumbent sitting President wanted his party's nomination and failed to receive it. A *former* President (like Trump right now) also has an advantage, but it's not as strong, and sometimes they don't get the nomination, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt didn't get the Republican nomination in 1912 and ended up running on a third-party ticket instead. Media predictions of the election outcome have a long history of being wrong sometimes. The most famous example is "Dewey Defeats Truman", from the late forties. Mail-in ballots are very controversial for two reasons: 1. There's a long history of election fraud attempts, or claims thereof, all of which has has always been impossible to prove one way or the other after the fact, for obvious reasons. (Ballots themselves are necessarily anonymous, so voter identity can only be checked going in, not after the fact, because any proof of the voter's legitimacy has to be separated from the ballot when it is cast.) And 2. What *can* be proven, is that statistically, greater adoption of mail-in ballots favors the more liberal party. This is counterintuitive, because the majority of elderly people are conservative, and you'd expect more elderly people to have more difficulty getting to the polling place. But in practice, it doesn't work out that way, and both parties know this. Conservatives tend to blame the discrepancy on fraud, and liberals tend to argue that it means the urban poor are less able to vote in the traditional system. There's no actual proof one way or the other, and it could even be some of each, but the debate on this issue gets very emotional and neither side is 100% reasonable about it. GDP is neither here nor there. The number of electors each state gets is determined by its population, with a minimum of 3. Another weird wrinkle: California Republicans are on average more liberal in their political views, than Democrats in rural places like northern Indiana. Make of that what you will. Because of the manner in which the electoral college system influences how campaigns are conducted, it is not reasonable to look at popular-vote outcomes and draw conclusions about what *would* have happened if we used a direct popular-vote system. For example, some people like to claim that Hillary Clinton would have been elected if we'd used a popular vote system in that election, but that's not a valid conclusion. Everything would have been different. She might not have even been *nominated* if we'd been using a direct popular-vote system, Trump certainly wouldn't have been nominated, and there would have been *huge* differences in voter turnout in various places. Bottom line, that election never took place and there's no way to know who would have won it. In practice, the minimum age requirement for President has so far proved to be fairly redundant. Nobody that young has ever risen to the level of support within a political party to even be considered anyhow. The youngest President we've had so far, was 42 when he took office, and he had done a lot of stuff in the first two decades of his adult life. Kennedy, likewise (who was 43) had done a lot of stuff already, that would be virtually impossible to cram into a significantly shorter amount of time. It would take a quite extraordinary person to become President before age 40. Biden, of course, is ever so much more than 40. So is Trump, for that matter.

[@oliviawolcott8351]

Very often the sitting president will be the parties choice, yes... but its not a rule. its just something that happens.

[@johnwhick7419]

The reason why the popular vote is weighted by an electoral college is to protect the minority. The founders wrote deeply about the reasoning and its sound. A popular vote would have Balkanized the country decades ago.

[@UncleUncleRj]

I'm very happy with our system, win or lose.

[@Prof4z]

You have too look at it as the USA is a Republic of 50 States that act basically as their own Countries. So Each State has to have some assurances that the bigger states will just not override the smaller States Governments. So All States starts with a basic number of electoral votes then you add more for the population of each state.

[@beyo5]

Every state has 2 Senators , but Representatives are determined by how populous a state is. Electors sent by each state are allowed to change their minds - usually if something wrong was found out about their candidate before the Electoral Vote. Also, popular voting would allow candidates to only campaign in big population cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and ignore small cities, small populous states, and rural regions - known as "fly over country" by big city elitists. Almost all big cities lean democrat. The electoral system requires candidates to go directly to each state to campaign and talk to all the people across the country. Usually candidates spend most of their time in "Swing States" that are not totally Blue or Red, but have lots of citizens that can be persuaded with speeches.

[@ThePhillyspade]

They fly over your state anyway so what are you talking about? They only campaign in swing states so your argument is stupid. Do you not think its a shit load of Republicans in California Arizona? I live in Pennsylvania a swing state and the reseaon why the country pays attention to us its because its a true democracy, pure voting. We vote against each other and sometimes the Dems win on other time the Gop wins the state. No special bill or count for the people living in the a states rural communities. But each one of the has to campaign there to win the state. Its just a defense mechanism because they dont want to lose their cheat code. Can't convince me that 1 vote person and see who has the most is not the most purest form.

[@marygifford9379]

The number of representatives a state has in congress is determined by population. However, each state has 2 senators in the senate. If the election were determined only by national popular vote, 6 or 7 cities would have absolute control over the election, and those cities are always and forever Democrat. In California, one of the problems is that a few coastal cities have control over the entire state government, resulting in those cities getting what they want in legislation. The rest of the state feels unrepresented at all. This accounts for the recurring movement to split California into 2 or 3 states. It is ironic that the people who feel unrepresented in Cal and nationally are the ones who produce all the food.

[@Jon-DavidEngle-mm9wg]

The problems really started with e The election of 1824, when the majority of states started using the winner take all method of counting electoral votes instead of proportional, meaning whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state gets all that state's electors

[@SnowmanTF2]

A lot of quirks in the US system come from the nation is a merger between established colonies not a single entity that expanded, typically states were between one to two hundred years old at time separated from England, granted the then newest state was only around fifty years old at the time. With the first arrangement closer to today's EU, though that only lasted a couple years before reorganization closer to the modern system, while the states granted the federal tier major powers still retained a lot of power within their border. With large population states vs small population states being one of the longest running political divides, despite which are the large states and small states changing over time.