Politics Professor Explains the Electoral College

What is the Electoral College, why do we have it, and should we keep it? Hillsdale College's Professor of Politics Kevin Portteus breaks it all down.
------------------------------
Support Hillsdale College: secured.hillsd...
Visit our website: hillsdale.edu
Learn from our online courses: online.hillsdal...
Read Imprimis: imprimis.hills...
Undergraduate programs: www.hillsdale....
Graduate School of Statesmanship: www.hillsdale....
Graduate School of Government: dc.hillsdale.e...
Graduate School of Education: classicalgrad....
Listen to the Hillsdale College Podcast Network: podcast.hillsd...
------------------------------
Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.
The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.
By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.

[@heathclark318]

Heck we should expand it to the states internally. So the rural parts are not drowned out by the cities which are becoming cesspools

[@DocAkins]

...becoming deeper cesspools...

[@lancewalker6067]

@@DocAkinshow?

[@xltek1]

Here in Southern Oregon, I agree completely.

[@tomservo75]

Unfortunately the reasoning used for the Federal EC does not apply to the states but I year you.

[@stevenchadderdon9061]

as long has the rural area stays rural i dont care what these clowns do

[@tommydameron9392]

Another excellent instructional video. Unfortunately in my opinion we in this country have too many NO information voters (including some elected officials) who would see this feature of our constitution go away.

[@sherlocksleuther5437]

The electoral college was a mistake. Every time the will of the majority is obfuscated it opens the door for despotism by bureaucracy. Winner takes all is a system that allows two parties to never fear losing power and so can abuse their power together. Proportional representation and direct popular votes yield outcomes that ease the lives of most people.

[@pitluggreymore6504]

This makes so much more sense now. Thanks!

[@Jennytwh]

Thank you for making this video.

[@TH_2212]

Thank you for such a well put together explanation.

[@stevenwonnacott3669]

Exellent video from Hillsdale...Prof. Portteus clearly explains our election process which even many Americans don't completely understand!

[@tdranger6888]

Yes, keep the electoral college and repeal the 17th Amendment.

[@michaelgrunden5011]

The 19th can go too!

[@timf2279]

Our system is made up of many checks and balances. This creates an environment where one does not gain absolute control over the other. It's fair for all not just the majority. What happens from time to time is a majority attempts to change the rules once in power to retain that power, rather than letting the pendulum swing. Thank you for the informative video.

[@eddysgaming9868]

Thank you all at Hillsdale.

[@user-ys9to2ie7k]

I found it interesting that George Washington's picture as well as all the illustrations was derived from letters and characters typically found in your keyboard ¿`_

[@kenramos8061]

Thank you.

[@danelen]

Great breakdown. I had not ever thought about the election integrity aspect of what a national popular vote system would mean.

[@TLoumena]

The 2016 election is the best case for the electoral college in my opinion. Clinton won the popular vote by a little less than 3 million, she won California by over 4 million votes (Yes, take out California and Trump won the other 49 states by 1,401,459 votes). The electoral college keeps one state from dictating their will to the rest of the country.

[@pneumarian]

Well said! I'm not sure I agree with all your conclusions, but I have a clearer view of what the Electoral College is.

[@JohnB-nq4js]

We need to repeal the 17th amendment and have states choose Senators again. A lot of these "debates" would disappear if the citizenry lived under the system as it was designed.

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

Totally agree on the 17th amendment, but there’s something to be said about the amendment process . The 12th amendment changed the way we elected President and vice president. It took one serious election for them to reform the system. If anything a serious amendment to replace the current college is in the style of the founders

[@JohnB-nq4js]

@@BostonBoyer-vw5eb the Electoral College is a good thing, though, so we shouldn't get rid of it. The 17th and 19th should be repealed, though.

[@tomservo75]

I wouldn't be so fast to get rid of the 17th. Be careful what you wish for. I'm afraid if you just let the legislatures choose, it opens the process up to more cronyism and corruption. The Senators you get from such a process are more likely to be establishment, swamp types.

[@MillennialForChrist]

Is there a different between 'constitutional republic ' & 'federal republic', or are they the same? Thank you for this video 🙂✝️🇺🇸.

[@bob___]

The debate over the Electoral College is purely theoretical. Getting rid of it would require an amendment to the Constitution. However, amending the Constitution requires ratification by at least three quarters of state legislatures, while at the same time, the reason people want to get rid of the Electoral College (that the Electoral College system sometimes produces a result that is different from the popular vote total) means that getting rid of the Electoral College would cause political harm to approximately half of the states. Under those circumstances, it would be a waste of time to go through a process to request three quarters of state governments to ratify getting rid of the Electoral College.

[@gregory596]

Yup

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

Because I love a system by which you can be elected with the votes of about a dozen urban states

[@nickd4310]

Some suggested that the representatives and senators together elect the president, with the runner-up becoming VP. Instead they replaced it with a college whose members were selected by state legislators.

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

Love hillsdale. I’m a conservative republican, but I just can’t stand the electoral college. It doesn’t work as intended, and it only benefits those in select states. More Republicans voted for Trump in California than in Texas, but none of them get a voice, and vice versa. Unions get massive political power even though they aren’t prominent in the rest of the nation. Plus by the own logic of the college the “interstate compact” could end it. Idk what the replacement is, but we need that discussion. Honestly we need a actual V constitutional convention for a right to life, balanced budget, term limits, special counsel reformation, and more

[@GenesisAwakes]

So maybe an electorial college is not such a bad idea, though I wonder if the old way was better than the way we currently do it.

[@flapjackson6077]

I’m an advocate for the electoral college, but it must be acknowledged that many Republicans in heavily Democrat states don’t vote because they know their vote doesn’t matter in that state, because of the electoral system. If we had national popular vote all the Republicans in California, New York. Illinois, etc. would be motivated to vote because their vote would actually count towards a popular decision. I’m for the electoral college, and I think the Democrats are playing a dangerous game if they want to get rid of it. The metropolitan areas already have huge sway over the electoral college. Doing away with it would just make every state worthy of time spent by national candidates.

[@Fluxwux]

Well… The same thing can be said about the millions of democrats in deep red states such as Texas, Missouri or Kentucky that also just don’t bother because it’s a waste of time to vote if you already know who your EC will go to anyway.

[@terriealexander2344]

I am going to need a chart for navigation . I suppose we are not allowed to call each office?thanks

[@bdaddyo4942]

Very well explained. Unfortunately, the winner-take-all method that 48 of our states have adopted are barely any better than a simple majority. Every states' electoral vites should be apportioned to the presidential candidate based on the popular vote of each and every congressional district. This would result in a MUCH more accurate result representing all of our states' citizens regardless of population density.

[@johnk2452]

*_IMO, as a NATION, we have placed WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on the notion of POTUS as KING!_* POTUS, originally, was largely the executive for ONLY the legislation enacted by Congress; a Congress that was supposed to represent the COMBINED WILLS of the PEOPLE and the STATES. Now, that our Fed GOVT has USURPED so much of what was originally the responsibilities of the STATES and the PEOPLE, the job of POTUS has been enlarged MASSIVELY. BEFORE making any adjustments to our Electoral College, is it not much more important to take our GOVT back to a place where, respectively, the People, the STATES, the Congress, POTUS, etc have their originally intended authority and ONLY that authority? Why would we do that, you may ask? Because, in that way, the final political decision-making process will be best returned more directly to We The People --- NOT so much in the hands of one person --- as was intended originally.

[@gregory596]

Can we repeal the 16th amendment, which gave the federal government the authority to levy income taxes on the people? I would much prefer the original plan. Have the states tax their citizens and then pay into the national treasury as Congress dictates. I think members of Congress would be much less enthusiastic about spending tax dollars if they had to go back to their districts and explain why the state had to give so much to Washington.

[@johnk2452]

@@gregory596 The answer to your question --- and to many others --- is that before anything like what you are asking can be done ... many more of We The People need to STOP acting like SUBJECTS and much more like CITIZENS; where, for that to happen, at a MINIMUM, we Americans need to learn and embrace our American Covenant. At this point, such may be next to impossible ... that is before Obozo's Fundamental Transformation of our NATION from one of Citizens to one of Subjects is more or less complete. IOW: We The People, collectively, are so ignorant and complacent --- indoctrinated, duped, and deceived --- that the Demon-KKKrat-Globalist revolution may very well take place WITH HARDLY A SINGLE SHOT BEING FIRED. For those unclear regarding our American Covenant, read or re-read our Unanimous Declaration of 4 July 1776 --- that is, our Primary National Document --- wherein this covenant is defined clearly. It's not yet too late --- NOV will be critical --- but, collectively, we need something that will wake us up. Trump will help, but, on his own, he cannot work miracles. This is a job for We The People ... where such is the way by which, originally, our NATION was intended and designed by our FOUNDERS. The buck STOPS with us, and us, alone.

[@jackreacher.]

13 original States mirrored by these thirteen original comments now savaged by an unwanted intruder.

[@Historyfreak-f7o]

If you’re smart, you keep it.

[@papajo681]

“He secures” She will

[@EF-69]

Keep or abolish is not the question. Leave it alone or fix it is the question. The problem is all but 1.5 States have a winner take all policy. Were it not for this there would never be a dispute between popular & electoral vote and it would leave this very important buffer in place between the populace & the President so that specific masses and centers of population cannot control the election. Instead we get exactly what was not intended.

[@LarryaproudU.S.citizen]

The populations in each state has grown in population where states need to become a collective of counties and have a state electorial college select state positions.

[@heathclark318]

100% agreed.

[@chadoakley8505]

So, the purpose of the EC now, is different from when it was originally conceived. It's purpose now is to protect against a tyrannical majority. Also protecting us from a tyrannical majority is the seperation of powers and the Bill of Rights. Now, what is the theory of the Unitary Executive? Does that also protect us from a tyrannical majority? Who supports a Unitary Executive and is it Constitutional?

[@billjones8542]

one of its original purposes was to protect against the tyranny of the majority. that has not changed.

[@sevenRyeh]

lol by population, if you have a population that needs representation, you have yourself a representative when a state loses population they lose representation they lose a point

[@Fluxwux]

What is worse however, being ruled by a tyrannical minority or tyrannical majority? I’m in favor of at least reforming the EC to more districts in every state. Let’s divide states like California, Texas, New York and Ohio etc in to urban areas and rural area electoral districts (Similar to Maine and Nebraska) and while I understand giving low populated but big rural states like Wyoming more voter power makes sense - having it as high as ≈3.5 votes per citizen (for the same electoral college power as Californians/Texans) is just insane. Lower it down to like 1.5 or something at least - because these small states still have huge representation with the senate and being semi-autonomous internally. Choosing a president will always be divisive and something 50% of the population will be dissatisfied with anyway.

[@DocAkins]

Who chooses the electors? Hopefully not elitists like Hamilton.

[@billjones8542]

each party on the ballot selects their slate of electors. the winning party in the state then sends those electors to the college to cast their vote in december. the supreme court has issued a ruling requiring the electors to cast their vote for the party which wins the state.

[@DocAkins]

@@billjones8542 That still doesn't answer my question. Seems like a smokey room and money changing hands is how electors are chosen. BS what the Supreme Court says. Each state should decide if it's winner take all, or proportional.

[@billjones8542]

@@DocAkins the electors are chosen by their respective parties. the court ruling states that the electors have to vote according to the popular vote in their state. the constitution gives the states the right to apportion their electors however they choose. so if the state chooses to go winner take all or proportional it is totally their choice. is that easier to understand?

[@DocAkins]

@@billjones8542 Not really. There must be more details since I've never been asked to choose an elector and I'm unfortunately part of the Republican Party. There are further designations beyond just a voter. Thanks for your previous replies. At this point I've lost interest and maintain my cynicism.

[@doughumphries2329]

Half of the population of the country is in 8 states. That means that 8 states can dictate to the other 42 states. I think that the selection and the direction of the vote should be more uniform.

[@merlinwizard1000]

10th, 12 October 2024

[@merlinwizard1000]

11th, 12 October 2024

[@stvargas69]

If you dont understand why we have an electoral college, you shouldnt be allowed to vote. The found fathers restricted voting. We should modernize it. My suggestion, own a home, be employed, or own a business, had served in the military or civil service. You need skin in the game. Voting is a privilage not a right.

[@jamesbeemer7855]

Some one thought centralizing the votes was a good idea . Sharing that responsibility between (ONLY BETWEEN THE 13 colonies ) . Until they discovered there was a whole lot more land that they could TAKE .

[@JalekNordin-s9n]

Always remember, the Native Americans took the land from others, as well. No one is innocent in this false history you people write.