Why the Electoral College is Terrible

[@iammrbeat]

What is the BEST argument for the Electoral College? What is the BEST argument against it? Edit: I made a follow-up video to this one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJy6d2WInd2rY8U

[@rin_etoware_2989]

Something something equalizes the power of the small states with the big states.

[@randomuser5443]

For, Wyoming and California can go toe to toe with each other every other year Against, it put Trump and Obama in office

[@leealexander3507]

Abolish it. It's undemocratic. Why bother to vote when the loser wins as often if not more often than the winner. I learned about in civics decades ago. Don't they still teach civics?

[@leealexander3507]

@@goodoldrickets2002 We only have one Chicago. That video has far than one error and, I agree, is not a good reference.

[@dagnurd]

I agree it is undemocratic, but that is part of the plan for America. It was purposely designed not to be a pure democracy where the big states would control the small states, hence the Senate/House compromise. The reason that it is better than a simple majority is that in a majority, polarization increases wildly as all that is necessary is campaigning in cities, which would leave rural America out to dry. Also, the good thing is that, although swing states have too much power, the swing states change over time through drift in beliefs, like people claim is happening with Texas.

[@blakedavis2447]

Voting is stupid we should have our candidates fight to the death in a cage match

[@timeland8343]

@General Pinochet Trump is a fat tub of lard. Biden is honestly pretty lively for his age

[@DJ_107]

@@timeland8343 Trump would easily fuck Biden up. Biden can barely button his own shirt

[@timeland8343]

@@DJ_107 luckily for everyone, he’s about to become irrelevant

[@andresolmos8639]

@Alan emtriez I'm pretty sure he meant that Trump was going to become irrelevant

[@daredevilwrestling7290]

@@timeland8343 Jill can’t come in and defend him

[@jazzkatt1919]

All pro-EC arguments come down to the same unspoken thing: without it, my side would lose.

[@suarezguy]

Vast majority of time there isn't a difference between popular and electoral vogte. Opposition to it comes to pretty spoken that without it we would win.

[@randomdude462]

@@suarezguy Would any player in a major sport accept a sport where theres a 7% chance they would lose despite winning? Boxxing? MMA? Soccer? Save it for your fascist friends.

[@Antoniocastagnoli]

That would also encourage parties to reform themselves and also it could some voice to independents. The point is: the GOP would adjust themselves in order to be competitive (maybe opening themselves more to new ideas). The same would be with the democrats. And both would finally start hearing people from Texas and California, for example. People in Texas and California are kind of ignored because the electoral college system. Now see how incredible it would be to see democrats visiting Texas and republicans visiting California, with both listening to different ideas and maybe absorbing some of those ideas to their agenda.

[@PatsandSox]

If Texas ever goes blue, we’ll finally see Republicans against the EC. Hopefully Democrats won’t flip to supporting it.

[@1Dubbelman]

In the past 8 elections there have been 2 elections where the winner of the popular vote lost the election... 1/4 is a lot And the fact that this has been happening MORE in recent history is a sign the discrepancy between popular vote and electoral college has been increasing.

[@s4gr_n0s3y]

Candidate: **has 38% of the popular vote** Electoral College: *WINS BY A 50 STATE LANDSLIDE VICTORY*

[@Paranoid_Found]

Same thing in UK. The Tories won 43.6% of popular vote, less than all pro-EU/soft Brexit parties combined. They won a landslide majority

[@thiccbroniggboithethird872]

Same everywhere lol

[@Paranoid_Found]

@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 not with proportional representation

[@ronanconley2595]

That’s literally not how it works, you would have to win 50% of every state are you win 😂 Y’all really don’t get it why the electoral college is so important

[@s4gr_n0s3y]

@@ronanconley2595 can you not realize I’m trying to do a joke right?

[@jdice6868]

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won, by the majority of the people...In fact, our leverage in elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populous goes down.” -Paul Weyrich co-founder of The Heritage Foundation (authors of Project 2025)

[@ryansmith1044]

Well at least they admit their policies are unpopular and that their motivation for pushing for "election integrity" laws is actually to supress the vote and reduce turnout.

[@Mkundera]

There is actually truth in this and our system from the beginning was designed to limit the franchise. For a long time it was assumed that only land owners or taxpayers should have the vote. As just one example, clearly our national debt would not be so large if the franchise were smaller. If only the top 10% of taxpayers voted, or only those who paid federal taxes could vote in federal elections, our government would be far more responsible. National debt was tiny during the 19th century other than at times of war because when voters are the people who actually pay for the government they behave less recklessly. Today politicians buy votes with promises of government largesse, win elections, and leave future generations to pay the tab.

[@AndrewGiles688]

Wait a minute, you're not Mr. Beast.

[@tiimshuuguushuu7894]

yeah

[@ender3960]

That's actually his name lol

[@Sasha-gd8xi]

Yeah you are right. But this guy is better

[@NickB-md1oy]

Sasha- 007 they make entirely different videos hahaha I love them both

[@TheStarswearee]

Mr beast hisotry cousin

[@amhambid1]

This guy seems like he's still upset about getting kicked out of Weezer before they made it big

[@iammrbeat]

@HexagonBright You literally made no sense.

[@ljack-dr7kx]

@HexagonBright Chill out.

[@Joshricattiofficial]

@HexagonBright Uhh... what?

[@MoeDavinci]

@Mr. Beat dont mind him, he's just on that powder.

[@yolamontalvan9502]

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

[@theyoungcentrist9110]

Fun Fact: The Electoral College was almost abolished in the year 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans & Democrats. President Richard Nixon even endorsed the amendment to replace the system with a two round vote system. It looked like 3/4ths of the state were going to ratified the amendment and it did pass in the house unanimously; but was filibustered in the Senate by Southern lawmakers who feared that with a direct election for president than African Americans in the south would count equally to white voters.

[@joshuabenton3785]

Ahh the sweet smell of racism (I am being sarcastic)

[@MM-vs2et]

How fitting, the electoral college, a dogshit mechanism, is being prevented from abolished by filibustering, another dogshit mechanism, and dare I say by dogshit racist people. Mmm the Cycle of Dogshit of America

[@WickedMapping]

You can bring up one of its original reasons for existing, but that doesn't really matter today. All citizens can vote, so it now just serves the purpose of preventing smaller states from getting stomped on.

[@jnayvann]

@@WickedMapping If all people can vote, then the electoral college shouldn't be a problem right? I mean, African Americans did have the right to vote when Nixon was president...

[@WickedMapping]

@@jnayvann I don't see what your point is.

[@JustinOrtner]

Thank you for changing my opinion, although I am a conservative, I think everyone getting an equal say is important.

[@acphantom6437]

CGP Grey: The electoral college is bad *everyone agrees* Mr. Beat: The electoral college is bad *civil war*

[@dsmith9964]

CGP Grey and Mr Beat are both inexcusably ignorant about the electoral college and its intents and purposes.

[@jonasmejerpedersen4847]

@@dsmith9964 yeah of course they are

[@dsmith9964]

@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 thank you! The numerous factual errors in their videos clearly demonstrate their willful ignorance.

[@jonasmejerpedersen4847]

@@dsmith9964 Erhm, sorry but i was being sarcastic

[@dsmith9964]

@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 And I was stating a fact. Both Mr. Beat and Grey are basing their entire arguments on assumptions and misinformation.

[@troubledsole9104]

While we are at it, we should also get rid of gerrymandering. Then the government would truly be brought back to the people.

[@loganmcvey3339]

Troubled Sole won’t ever happen because of “states rights”. Government doesn’t care about blatant corruption since it keeps them in power no matter which side is in office.

[@omkargadewar2932]

Yes, I agree, though gerrymandering is only good when it gives minorities a vote

[@oldmansilas559]

Unfortunately, U.S. Government is no longer a, for, of or, by the people government. It’s now corporate America. How else can millionaires in the congress and, senate? In my humble opinion.

[@thedonald4391]

Or letting illegals vote in California

[@rb032682]

@@thedonald4391 - Bullshit! Even Trump's own hand-picked commission to investigate voter fraud could find no evidence of illegals voting in California. Why are you repeating reich-wing bullshit propaganda? Please remove your head from QAnus.

[@lyricusthelame9395]

I like how he said there was still a third of people who thought the electoral college is a good system and then exactly a third of the like to dislike ratio was a third

[@Stanzafly]

Wish I could see that dislike to like ratio...

[@lyricusthelame9395]

@@Stanzafly Oh how the times have changed. You should use the return youtube dislikes extension, really works!

[@Ikamara21]

@@Stanzafly The video has 19k dislikes right now. I have an extension that allows me to see dislikes.

[@OakNuggins]

The third was a third?

[@IsaacColbert]

I totally agree. When I first learned of this in childhood, I thought it was inane and misrepresentative of the people’s votes.

[@jackreacher.]

Like... when you were in your late twenties?

[@Delimon007]

And when I first learned of it I thought it was great because it gives smaller states a say and a reason to be in the union. Funny how you're forgetting history. Also smaller states still get far less electoral votes and oohhhhh boy they get almost no seats in the house. Lets not act like smaller states are power houses or something.

[@clarencekavanaugh7747]

That's only because you've been indoctrinated with the belief that the majority should rule. Democracy is best represented by 2 wolf's a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[@lockejr]

@@Delimon007 Those smaller states are overrepresented in the electoral college based on population. A person from Kansas shouldn’t be worth more than me because I’m from CA. And smaller states have plenty of other reasons to be in the Union.

[@PatsandSox]

@@Delimon007It doesn’t give smaller states a say though. When was the last time a president campaigned in Wyoming or North Dakota? Only a handful of 5-6 battleground states matter. So you still have the same problem as you would in a popular vote system, where a handful of key areas decides the election.

[@flygawnebardoflight]

18k likes 11k dislikes Electoral College has determined that the Electoral College is NOT terrible. Thank you for your broad and widespread guidance Electoral College. Edit: Well this comment aged for sure lmfao

[@bakaflaka298]

Lmao

[@leviticus2001]

Underrated Comment.

[@2FadeMusic]

LMFAO americans be so brainwashed that they're anti democracy

[@jackwilson2418]

@@2FadeMusic .....your expecting me to say "The US is a republic not a democracy" aren't you? but my new years resolution is not to argue with people about politics online and I am somewhat trying to keep that goal so I hope we can agree on something and end this discussion with both of us satisfied we both made our point and our logic behind our point

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

19k likes and 12k dislikes Likes beat dislikes by 22 points LOL (61% to 39%)

[@brachiossquill3637]

when you realize this channel is actually older than mrbeast

[@Polyglot_English]

****VOTE THIRD PARTY****

[@twinglocks9304]

How so ?

[@twinglocks9304]

@Bsauce i dont understand ? whats an about page

[@hundgawf9506]

@@twinglocks9304 Really nigga

[@xiphactinusaudax1045]

@@twinglocks9304 Click his icon under the video. Then click the header that says "about." There will be a description with the date the channel was established

[@lolz-y4d]

-be me -sees video title -puts on hazmat suit -enters comment section

[@somerandomdude827]

You will need more than a hazmat suit to protect you

[@awhahoo]

You forgot -sorts by new*

[@mega7269]

100th like

[@ultramadscientist]

"the founding fathers wanted" is one of the worst arguments not only because of all the existing reasons people cite like "they didnt live in our world today" and "under a lockian social contract theory we have to voluntarily enter into our social contract and determine our own government and laws" but for the simple fact that the founding fathers were a big group of different people who constantly disagreed and bickered. They never wanted a single coherent thing and compromised. You brought this up briefly. I just feel anyone trying to rely on "the founding fathers wanted" should have to be much more specific who? At what time in their life? Did they change their opinion later?

[@Mrswissblue]

It's not that they wanted it, it's why they thought it was a good idea.

[@RedMoonLoop]

They also thought blood letting was a good idea. A few notable historic figures died from that very practice. Founding fathers may have been smart but that doesn't mean they were always right. Ironically the founding fathers agreed with that. Which is why they left the constitution open to amendments in the first place.

[@DanielCurtis1980]

yes, they may have been smart but that doesn't mean they weren't horrible.

[@clarencekavanaugh7747]

@@RedMoonLoop so you like democracies. How would you feel if 51% of the population decides that they want the other 49% to be enslaved to provide them with the standard of living that they believe that they're entitled too. Would you still want democracy if you were in the 49%? 🤔

[@Hunter-ep7zp]

Shut up commie

[@KailyKail]

I am 100% in support of ranked choice voting. This, along with term limits for Congress, are two of the biggest changes we need to make in our government.

[@jjescorpiso21]

Your Congress has no term limits?!?!?!?!

[@AmaraJordanMusic]

Amen.

[@diamondrg3556]

Ranked choice voting will not get the most popular guy elected. You can look up Alaskas use of it. My (hopefully) simple explanation is: If candidate A gets 40% rank1 and Candidate B gets 50% rank 1, but Candidate C gets 5% rank 1 and 70% rank 2, Candidate C goes to Congress, despite the fact that nobody really wanted him there. Also, the more complex voting is, the easier it is to cheat. With such low public trust in elections, on both sides, making it more complicated is a bad idea.

[@diamondrg3556]

@@techtutorvideos I recommend looking up the election in Alaska, it was closer than that, 20/40/40 ish.

[@arthurpeters1996]

@@diamondrg3556 Ranked-choice voting is fine in Alaska. The reason the Democrat won was because Alaskans really don’t like Sarah Palin

[@drdabedford1]

In addition: Without the electoral college, democratic candidates would be forced to campaign in Texas, where half the population votes democratic, while the Republican candidate would be obligated to campaign in California, where there are millions of Republican voters. Both would need to visit small states, because every vote would count. Let's ditch the Electoral College.

[@WickedMapping]

California as a general region in a popular vote system would still vote heavily blue. The Inland Empire would always vote Republican in spite of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and any other large cities in the state, just like most of Illinois would vote Republican in spite of Chicago. Certain things would never change.

[@hayatobonds7736]

@@WickedMapping Are you implying that presidential candidates will only continue to focus solely on swing states if the Electoral College were removed? If so, I disagree because individual votes would hold much more value than they currently do and ignoring states would be detrimental because obtaining votes wouldn't be as straightforward as it is today. This would force presidential candidates to put more effort into gaining support from the majority instead of appealing to a specific demographic.

[@WickedMapping]

@@hayatobonds7736 Candidates would still just focus on purple areas, even if it isn't strictly determined by state borders.

[@hayatobonds7736]

@@WickedMapping Not really. For example, California, widely considered as a "democratic stronghold" has experienced an increase in independent voters over the last 20 years. Roughly half of the population there is democratic, while a quarter of the population is republican, and another quarter is independent. This is only one example, but the majority of states aren't dominated by one political party as the media likes to portray as is. The reality is that most states have a decent percentage of voters that are independent, and that number will only continue to keep growing as long as the US retains its bi-partisan approach to politics. Like I said before, a popular vote-based system would force candidates to focus on gaining support from as many Americans as possible, which means expanding their focus on independent voters. Instead of focusing on a few states, they would be focusing on the growing of number of independent voters in nearly all states. Currently, the US needs to reform its approach regarding presidential elections because the electoral college doesn't accurately represent the people of the US. A voting system that incorporates aspects of popular vote while keeping the electoral college intact may be the most likely solution.

[@Seth9809]

@@WickedMapping That would be stupid, California would literally provide more Democrat and Republican votes than Arizona every single time.

[@Decco6306]

half of everyone liked that half of everyone hated that hmm I wonder why

[@iyoutubeperson4336]

Liberals still mad they lost 2016 and conservatives wanting to keep it that way

[@yogatonga7529]

Luckily, there is no Electoral College to determine how the like/dislike ratio is.

[@Decco6306]

@@yogatonga7529 Oh shush XD

[@foxt.5043]

@@iyoutubeperson4336 you dont have to be a liberal to be mad at a clown being elected president. I'm all for good jokes but this one got taken a bit far

[@iyoutubeperson4336]

@@foxt.5043 found the liberal still mad that they lost

[@bobmcbride3550]

I really hate the electoral college. Having the college supreses anny attempt for a 3rd party or 5th to break out.

[@Illumirage]

Move then

[@daboos6353]

@@Illumirage OP: "I want to improve my country" You: "NOOO STOP BEING PATRIOTIC"

[@Illumirage]

@@daboos6353 not an improvement, nor is it patriotic.

[@daboos6353]

@@Illumirage Nothing more patriotic than trying to fix your country, even if it is a shithole like the USA

[@default3740]

@@Illumirage how is it not an improvement to let other parties in to congress?

[@ThatFanBoyGuy]

Election loser: "See, this is exactly why the electoral college needs to be abolished!" Election winner: "No, this is exactly why the elector college needs to be preserved!"

[@Asemodeous]

Only republicans have benefitted from the electoral college being a thing.

[@DennysGrandSlam2]

this system is just bad in general

[@user-kg2lp8jz2r]

💀

[@nicaraguaeast6740]

We should definitely keep electoral college as whole but only thing i agree removing is the faithless electors. Also the EC is benefiting republicans i know that but you do realize that this could go both ways right? republicans can possibly win popular vote but lose EC giving democrats the win. This is about strategy and letting both small as well as big states more of an equal say in elections. Edit: Didn't know mrbeat fans were this clueless. They clearly have no understanding of what I was saying.

[@callidusvulpes5556]

@@nicaraguaeast6740 “People were okay with electoral college and even defended it but ever since hillary lost” Guess you were still in diapers when George Bush Jr. “won” against Al Gore lmao. There’s no point in keeping the electoral college, removing faithless electors would improve it, (still wouldn’t make a difference because faithless electors didn’t make Trump win or Bush win) but the inherent problems with such a system such as your vote being more or less valuable based upon your geographic location (the state you’re in) are unavoidable without practically removing it or outright removing it.

[@houseking9211]

Mr. Beat: *makes the video at the end of 2018 no where near an election on purpose me: watches it 6 days before the 2020 election

[@barryscott3327]

Hilarious

[@jorenbosmans8065]

I know that feeling

[@leowagner1366]

I'm watching in the middle of the 2020 election!

[@thiccbroniggboithethird872]

I’m watching this while the kids in my basement try to escape

[@houseking9211]

@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 sweet

[@David-mm6nx]

Hey look, this video is 100% liked according to the electoral college!

[@iammrbeat]

Exactly my point :)

[@bl7828]

😂

[@rb032682]

@david - lol!

[@gasscentral4728]

Because the majority of people that watch this video probably agree with his opinion.

[@eifbkcn]

FPTP, not nessesarily the college. You don't know where these likes come from. The dislikes may come from "small states"

[@judcitizen706]

Preaching to the choir, my friend. And nice touch the way you included the telltale call of the low information voter: “‘merica’s not a democracy; it’s a republic!“ SMH. Thanks for another great video!

[@scottscott5827]

A quote from Benjamin Franklin as he left the secret confab which hammered out the U.S. Constitution. A woman asked what kind of government had been decided upon - a republic or a monarchy - Franklin replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

[@lordzorg2498]

and Washington was soonafter offered the crown (thank goodness he refused)

[@yuhboik.g.8118]

Well, a republic is inherently democratic. Although there are many definitions for both terms, both have, in common, the idea, that: power is vested in citizens, whose power is exercised by the use of elected representatives that are responsible to said citizens, and govern accordiang to law. (Merriam Webster) Not to mention Benjamin Franklin was one guy, amongst many whose thoughts and ideas conflicted. Regardless, the U.S. is a republic, a democratic republic. It's just term "democratic" seems arduous to keep in, due to the fact that many republics, are democratic.

[@allanrichardson1468]

Keiji Ahdeen / The Ninja Gamer A number of republics founded in the 19th century and later (including many in the 20th) are or were actually ruled by dictators, through a single party or other oligarchic means of selecting “representatives” to fill a “parliamentary” body that implements republican legal processes keeping the dictator in power. In such countries, there are either rigged elections in which everyone “votes,” or secret votes by a very small group of “eligible” voters. Iraq, for example, was once ruled by a parliament, until Saddam Hussein took over. During one speech in 1968, Saddam began naming and pointing out the members who had opposed him, and during the speech they were arrested, taken out, and executed. But technically, Iraq was still a republic under Saddam, since he wasn’t technically a monarch (a tactic used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, and almost every 20th century despot).

[@voltagedrop5899]

​@@yuhboik.g.8118 1) whereas democracy starts with the premise that voting is a birthright, republicanism does not, and can therefore never be considered "inherently democractic" (even the merriam-webster definition you quoted addresses this: "supreme power resides in a body of citizens *entitled* to vote") 2) democracy does NOT govern according to law because it recognizes no such thing. in fact, law is the very antithesis of democracy because it curbs the mob's ability to exercise supreme power. in a democracy, the law is simply the current mood of the mob without any limitations imposed upon it. if 51% of people decide to burn your house down, there is nothing to stop them from doing it. on the other hand, republicanism treats law as a force even stronger than the will of the electorate (which is reflected in its name: republic = res publica = public thing = the law), making sure that burning your house down remains unlawful even if the electorate votes to do it. 3) since democracy doesn't put the law above the will of the electorate, it is incapable of guaranteeing the rights of its citizenry, unlike republicanism. in a democracy, the rights to life, liberty and property aren't rights, but privileges that the mob can take away from you at any moment (hence the term "tyranny of the mob") 4) the us is most definitely not a "democratic republic", as such a thing is but an oxymoron. the us is a constitutional representative republic, and the only thing it has common with democracy is the fact that people vote for their representatives, which isn't much at all, considering that's also true for oligarchies, dictatorships and even monarchies, with the only difference being the definition of "people"...

[@yuhboik.g.8118]

@@voltagedrop5899 1) Voting isn't a birthright, it's not really a right at all. You're not born with the right to vote, in the U.S., you have to register to vote. Then you are granted the "right" to vote. But, like I said, voting isn't really a right. Rights aren't rights if you can take them away, convicts and ex-convicts don't have the "right" to vote. In certain states without proper ID, you cannot vote, as ridiculous as those laws may be. As such all citizens able to vote in the U.S. are entitled to vote. 2) I didn't say the U.S. was the verb of a democracy, I described it's republic as democratic, or "democracy-like", an adjective. 3) Like before, I'm not describing the U.S. as a democracy, I'm describing it as a republic with democratic values, like being able to vote. 4) I don't see how "democratic republic" is an oxymoron, democratic means "of, RELATING TO, or favoring a democracy" it means that it can be LIKE a democracy. The terms are not mututally exclusive, those being democratic and republic. We could also say we live in a constitutional representative democratic republic. You even said we had something in common with democracies, voting. And like you said in republics you can vote, in democracies you can vote. Since republics, in most cases, hold the value of being able to vote, similar to democracies, they are in turn democratic. And since this is so common, putting democratic in front is redundant. The U.S. is a democratic republic.

[@carlosmonsalve1072]

“Democracy is cringe, read some Aristotle” -John Doyle 2020

[@michaelkoch7230]

The man is spreading the word of my mans John Doyle

[@MrTallformyheight]

Yeah, it’s almost as if there are thousands of years of political philosophy and theory after to directly address Aristotle’s arguments 🤔

[@MrTallformyheight]

@TheOfficialUnofficial ...no. Read some Locke, read some Rousseau, read some mill, read some Marx.

[@fartinshort1341]

@@MrTallformyheight "read Marx" No thanks, not a cringetard

[@MrTallformyheight]

@@fartinshort1341 imagine dismissing the most cited author in western canon bc you disagree with him Pretty cringetard-y to me.

[@bridgecross]

"candidates would just ignore the smaller states!" Easy fix for that! Just have every state do what Maine and Nebraska does. Have each Elector chosen by a district, not a state. Instead of winner-take-all for the entire state, each elector represents the 761,000 people of a voting district. In that event, *each district is equally important, no matter where it is in the country*

[@bobbytutton3270]

Actually, I prefer proporational represenation. If in one state/commonwealth - a candidate get 42% of the popular vote - he gets 42% of the EC in his home S/C (other than the 2 "senate vote" the overall winner would get those.

[@Geojoe677]

And what if we set every states electoral vote to 1 so there would be no swing states and would allow people from 1 state to have the same voting power as a person from any other state

[@kevinhenry3476]

@@Geojoe677 problem with that is it gives way more political representation to smaller states which is rather undemocratic

[@nicaraguaeast6740]

no i like the idea of winner takes all. nebraska and maine can keep their rules to themselves. Applying this rule in every state would over compicate things and make it confusing. Plus how will canidates have time to campaign rallies in all districts of states. 50 states and other territories of land is already alot of places to campaign in. its better to have canidates campaign in key states, swing areas, etc imo. plus those swing states change every election cycle.

[@leeames9063]

@@nicaraguaeast6740 Its only complicated and confusing for the poorly educated. As for having time to campaign? Radio, TV, social media, newspapers, internet...

[@1TakoyakiStore]

From what I remember from my US political history class was that the founders feared someone like Julius Caesar who endangered the republic despite unanimous popularity. In such a situation they wanted the electoral college to have the power to deny such a person a win by vote. I believe they called it "tyranny of the majority?" Personally I think it was adequate gor the early 1800's but after that if such a scenario would happen such a decision by the electoral college would likely result in Civil War. Personally I think the founders fears of which was worse, tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority, actually is demonstrated pretty well when you see how the House of Representatives vs the Senate was set up in how they represented voters.

[@BossXygman]

Yeah, but the Roman Republic is not the US. Just because it's called a republic doesn't mean that it was all that democratic. Plus, only free Roman men were allowed to vote, it's a lot easier to establish a cult of personality with your voters if your voters are a relatively small group of people

[@Ezraknapp-qi2sr]

We had a civil war already in 1860 because of Lincoln's election

[@jamisojo]

​@@BossXygmancult of personality? What do you call this 2024 election? Cults of 3-second sound bytes with massive participation from people exhibiting a decision-making style that is the opposite of "thoughtful." The vote is controlled by shock media preaching to our not-deep-thinking population.

[@danielvaldez2203]

@@BossXygman *Um Acchtully* in the original framework of our republic, only free white landholding males had the right to vote or be deemed citizens. Jacksonian Democracy cemented this belief by the 1820s. OP was right, the founders were deeply inspired by the Roman Republics and other European Republics. It wasn’t until very recently that universal voting rights were recognized. For citizens above the age of 18 anyway

[@BossXygman]

@@danielvaldez2203 The US is still not Rome, and doesn't need to follow Rome's customs. I never said he was wrong about the Founding Fathers' intentions. I'm saying that following what Rome did doesn't work.

[@MrVecheater]

America: communism is dangerous because there just just one almighty party Also America: *has only 2 parties that actually choose themselves*

[@roodlyfbuts8006]

That's not why communism is bad

[@MrVecheater]

@@roodlyfbuts8006 It's one of the main arguments I hear I'm not here to debate. Just to point that out

[@lobo7361]

Communism isn't dangerous, it is murderous. The Constitution says nothing about political parties; However the two major parties you are talking about have twisted it into oblivion.

[@roodlyfbuts8006]

@@MrVecheater I'm not here to debate I'm just pointing that out

[@MrVecheater]

@@roodlyfbuts8006 good job copying my reply

[@mattderynioski1434]

Having grown up in northern Virginia (DC metro area), it used to surprise me that Virginia used to be a swing state. Having gone to college not near a big city in Virginia for the last four years, it no longer surprises me.

[@BGtypiu1850]

I used to live in alexandria right by old town and the thing with virginia is southern va is conservative while northern va is liberal but it now only goes blue because there are more people in the north

[@studiouswadoo5027]

I mean any city especially in northern VA where it’s a lot of government places will definitely be blue. Southern VA is just all red but since the population is more dense in the northern counties it’s a blue state

[@sylviadailey9126]

Virginia is unique for breaking in two during the Civil War. So I can see how they can be a swing state to this day.

[@christopherparrisjr.3146]

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” -Donald J. Trump, November 6, 2012

[@TheBigdaddypickle]

Key word “democracy”

[@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383]

But the electoral college helped him win the election. He lost the popular vote 😂😂😂😂😂

[@greatestapest73]

He lost the popular vote by a few percent witch isn’t allot

[@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383]

@@greatestapest73 That "few percent" means 3 million voters

[@greatestapest73]

@@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383 I know but this country has 350+ million people so don’t even get me started

[@stepheneinbinder2604]

5 reasons we should abolish the electoral college: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 & mostly 2016!

[@Yallquietendown]

There was a President in 1992 who won the vote with only 43% of the vote and I think he won a minority of the vote again in 1996

[@stepheneinbinder2604]

@@Yallquietendown Bill Clinton won with a plurality in a 3-way race between himself, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.

[@robclark3095]

@@Yallquietendown But that President did win the most votes compared to the other candidates.

[@flmis]

​@@Yallquietendownoh yeah, Bill Clinton. He still won the most votes. Similar to when Nixon won like 43% or so of votes in 1968. There's as solution, four actually. 1. Approval voting 2. Score voting 3. Ranked-choice voting 4. STAR voting Search them up, they're really interesting!

[@robindhood9125]

@@Yallquietendown There was a candidate that year that got more than 18% of the vote and not a single electoral college vote.

[@Joe-nh8eq]

This is why we should start teaching civics again...

[@ameyas7726]

Why not America have a advisory referendum if people wants to keep the electoral collage or not!

[@willnapolitano148]

@@ameyas7726 We don't have national reforendums. Also, abolishing the EC, which I'm not in favor of, requires amending the constitution. To ammend the constitution, the ammendment needs to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate, then approved by 3/4 of the states, or 2/3 of the states call for a convention and then 3/4 of the states approve the ammendment. It's not so simple, just as intended.

[@dl2839]

This is why we should get rid of the disgusting monopolization of public schools.

[@stephenmikolaitis4384]

@@marcusstarman1849 how is he misinformed or an idiot?

[@dsmith9964]

@@stephenmikolaitis4384 If you had paid attention in 7th grade Civics and Government class, you would clearly see how wrong Mr Beat is.

[@philipwhitakerjr6829]

All states should vote by congressional districts like Main and Nebraska.

[@firstthingtocometomind658]

What are congressional districts?

[@sigmaballsnetwork]

First thing to Come to mind they are the districts that vote for a representative in the House of Representatives

[@rb032682]

@Phillip - That would only give more incentive for states to gerrymander even more than what is already occurring. That is not a solution.

[@richierepath8216]

Democrats won’t be bout that. They get fronted almost 200 Electoral votes every election since Clinton. This would break up California, New York and most of the East and west cost. You think the people away from the coast in the state of California vote blue? Hell no they don’t.

[@rb032682]

@@richierepath8216 - Stop parroting reich-wing bullshit. There is no coast, or city, or state or region of the USA which is pure red or pure blue. The entire USA is various shades of purple. Some areas a little more bluish, some areas a little more reddish. Please stop with your ignorant bullshit propaganda.

[@alexandredumas5191]

A republic is essentially a representative democracy.

[@nestoons4539]

That’s it’s literal definition

[@alexandredumas5191]

@@nestoons4539 Exactly

[@Calruxio]

Yup. So when someone says "we're a democracy" I say "Yes." When someone says "we're a republic" I say "Yes." They're both right, but when used as a counter argument for each other, then they're only half-right because if they understood that a republic=representative democracy=democracy, then they wouldn't be using that argument. When people say they don't like the EC and want a popular vote, they just want a direct democracy and that's not what this country supports. Plus if they really cared about the difference between "people per vote," they could just move to those states which would help the overall sustainability of small towns that are slowly diminishing in size, they'd get a second viewpoint of the country from the rural side, and it would level out the people per vote if enough people moved. Unfortunately, that won't happen considering they chose to flock to those big cities in the first place.

[@derkatwork33]

And yet the uneducated people (mostly democrats) don’t understand the necessity of the electoral college and the protections it provides. Granted, they also don’t understand federalism, but that’s another topic.

[@mrbrainbob5320]

@@derkatwork33 pretty sure you along with Republicans and crowder dont understand. Everyone here is talking about how stupid crowders argument is.

[@paytonDsellers]

Conservative republican/trump voter here, I don’t like the electoral college for many reasons and I get a lot of flack from others on my side. It should not be a partisan issue it’s a logic issue. Yes, I know if candidates won by popular vote then Hillary would have been president and I can’t stomach that but it just makes sense to me that if you win the majority then you should win the office.

[@Hiljaa_]

Left-right unity on this one! I think that getting rid of the electoral system would lead to better candidates in general since they'd need the majority of voters instead of specifically the votes of 3 random people in Wisconsin or something

[@malogibeaux4946]

And Al Gore too! But yeah the EC is broken, we need ranked choice voting to give a fair chance to third parties.

[@nicksalvatore5717]

Maine has implemented Ranked Choice Voting!

[@ootoot2152]

Good job Maine, good job.

[@theguywhoasked5591]

That’s where I live

[@ootoot2152]

@@theguywhoasked5591 Wow, I wasn't expecting Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China , to live in Maine!

[@theguywhoasked5591]

Oot Oot I got to relax sometimes. CCP hard work. Need break from dealing with Coronavirus cause escaped from Wuhan lab. Ah, I mean US troops in Wuhan

[@jimcort1]

RANK choice has not been a great thing for Maine. We are in the process of getting it repealed.

[@johncouch8174]

I enjoyed the video, and while I respect your opinion, I disagree with it; or at least most of it. It is possible I could be convinced of some Electoral College (EC) reforms, such as more careful selection of the actual electors, and perhaps splitting delegates based on the proportion of congressional districts won such as that used by Maine, but never it's abolishment. You suggest that Hillary should have won because she won the popular vote. In this, you make the mistake of discounting the other voters in the election: The States. These are sovereign entities with the same responsibilities and demands as an individual. The EC ensures states have proper representation in the election; similar to the way the Senate ensures this in the Legislature. You further suggest that 70% of Americans support abolishing the EC. I'm not convinced 70% of Americans understand the EC as initially envisioned and the arguments for its existence. This video, in my opinion, is an example of the misinformation and misrepresentation that surrounds the College. You brushed over the difference between a democracy and a republic. While you are correct in what you stated, I think you purposefully misunderstand what is being related. Conservatives are saying that our system of government is a representative republic and not a direct democracy (more accurately still, a Constitutional Federal Republic). For those interested, Madison explains why this form of government was preferred in Federalist # 10. I do agree with Mr. Beat that the current two party system negates some of the benefits of the republican system, but I would disagree with him that doing away with the EC would improve it. I contend it would do more damage. Hamilton, in Federalist #68, argues that the people must be confident in the electors and that those electors should be persons whom the people themselves select. So former party members or influential community leaders is not only expected but desired. Another important goal of the EC was to spread the votes among the many states so that no one region can exercise undue influence over another when selecting the executive. An argument can be made that this happens already, but I suggest the EC is not the reason for this condition. The two-party system, with the addition of a biased media (both 'right' and 'left'), conspires to inflate the polarization of the electorate such that there are large numbers of people who will vote for their party regardless of who is running. This leaves the undecided voters making the decisions for most of the elections, and that is why swing states are swing states. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won because he chose to campaign in both the blue and the red states. He understood that he had to convince areas of the country not considered his base that they should vote for him. So in fact, in this case, the EC extracted from Trump precisely the kind of transregional attention Hamilton predicted. In contrast, Hillary Clinton ignored important blue regions because she was convinced those votes were hers. Let me also reply to the notion of 'winning the popular vote.' In the 2016 election, more people voted against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump than voted for them (68.5 million and 71.5 million against, respectively. Those third party voters do matter. I voted for neither, for example, because I view both Trump and Clinton unfit for office, albeit for different reasons). So yes, Clinton won more individuals than Trump; but Trump won more states than Hillary. Both of these constituencies require a campaigns attention; Trump provided that attention, and he was rewarded for doing so. But the fact that either candidate was opposed by more people than they were supported is a much bigger problem than the EC (Those figures above are the rounded up numbers of Democrat, Republican and third-party votes cast). One last reason why I think leaving the EC alone is a simple one; the system is working despite all the arguments to the contrary. We peacefully transfer power every 8 years (though on occasion we have a one-term president) and very rarely is that transfer to a member of the outgoing president's party, and we have done this since the republic was founded. This means the electorate isn't hostage to either money or ideology. That is my opinion. There is so much more than could be argued on this point, but I've probably already lost most of the folks reading this, so I guess I'll end here.

[@dsmith9964]

Excellent post! Thank you! 👍

[@tinkandtory]

He takes Steven Crowders position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation. Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements. This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying.

[@johncouch8174]

​@@tinkandtory EDIT: I incorrectly assumed that Blitz9726 was referencing my reply and not the video by Mr. Beat, so the following is my unfounded criticism of his response. This edit serves as my apology to him. I'm leaving the post unaltered as context to allow other readers to know why I'm apologizing to him. I said in part of this he ha jumped to a conclusion when in fact I had actually done so. Steel prices must be low as there is an oversupply of irony here. You claim I made a straw man argument by creating a straw man argument to make that assertion. Interesting, but let us dissect your reply. > "He takes Steven Crowder's position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation." No, I am taking James Madison's position. I don't know Steven Crowder's full argument because I didn't watch his video, just the short clip that Mr. Beat played. I also didn't misrepresent Madison's view. Madison's view is well known historically, and I provided a reference point for those wishing to know more. This is Federalist #10. But that is also irrelevant since that wasn't my argument. > "Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements." You are right, this is not a valid statement, and I said so. I wrote specifically "While you are correct in what you stated...". That is why I purposefully clarified what Madison's actual argument was because it is very important to the need for the Electoral College. >"This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying." I agree, but the problem is that you have not understood my argument. My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible, and I was providing this opinion based on the invitation at the end of the video. You have stated my argument was a defense of Steven Crowder's statement in the clip. That is not correct. >straw man argument So, for those not familiar, here is a definition: 'You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack' or 'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.' This is what you have done; you stated my position was something it was not, and then attacked that assertion. My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible and I make no other argument in my post. I do give supporting statements as to why I have this belief. I start off by clarifying the type of democracy we are because that is important to the discussion. If we were a direct democracy, the Electoral College would be a travesty. I then explain why I think one of the principal problems Mr. Beat was concerned about was not caused by the Electoral College, but rather the nature of polarization in America. I then explain why the popular vote is misleading because it implies a plurality of support when it does not. I then summarize that "we don't need to fix what ain't broke." I can only assume that you didn't read my entire post because you responded to none of it. I think you read the part about the republic and jumped to a conclusion. I don't mind that others disagree with the college. I don't need to convince anyone; it's a constitutional process and anyone wanting to remove it has the daunting task of following Article V of the Constitution to change it. I am convinced that once educated on how the College works, and why it was enacted, many of those who support it will no longer be of such mind. (edited to remove extra line breaks) (2nd edit to apoogize)

[@tinkandtory]

@@johncouch8174 Dude, I was arguing against Mr.Beat's video. I was confirming your opinion.

[@johncouch8174]

@@tinkandtory I read the post believing that you were referencing my reply. So, in fact, I was the one who jumped to a conclusion and must apologize to you. I will leave my response to you posted so that this apology has both meaning and context, but will put an edit at the top explaining.

[@bruceliam11]

But wait MrBeat, without the electoral college, we wouldn’t have had our lord and savior Rutherford B. Hayes as our 19th President.

[@iammrbeat]

HAIL LORD RUTHERFORD.

[@woodchuck003]

Or Abraham Lincoln.

[@Adeon55]

@@woodchuck003 Oh

[@KnuxMaster368]

That wasn't all the EC's fault.

[@woodchuck003]

@@KnuxMaster368 if the Electoral College is wrong than the Electoral College is wrong. You can't pick and choose you have to be consistent. That is not how logic works.

[@porscheoscar]

Eventually when 80%+ of the population live in cities and their immediate suburbs the 12 largest will have 270 electoral votes in keeping with Congressional redistricting requirements. You could have the highest ever in history turn-out in the remaining 38 states with record low turn-out in the 12 largest states and it wouldn't matter the 12 largest states would easily prevail. By the way we're already at the point where 80% of Americans live in cities or the nearby towns. Once either Texas or Florida flip to the Democrats as both states have fallen to less than 5% Republican advantage, the path to 270 would require that Republicans flip three Democrat states to make up for the 28 or 38 electoral votes. Republicans are going to be absolutely HATING the electoral college in a few years.

[@CynicalHistorian]

10:20 Nevada is also a swing state, hence why Las Vegas gets so much attention during elections

[@iammrbeat]

Did you do an absentee ballot in 2016?

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@iammrbeat I was in California for 2016. But I did do absentee for NV this year, online surprisingly enough

[@aaronbradley3232]

@@CynicalHistorian yeah Nevada and Montana were willing to pay at anyone who would call them swing States

[@woodchuck003]

There are currently 13 swing States. And with the last two elections you ac argue that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Texas, could be on there. I think you can have an easier time arguing that consistent states like Califonia who does get ignored is due to the problems with the states political parties. The residents may vote one color because one state party got too much control of the state legislator and made it vote one color. Califonia making another good example they want to move up their primary thinking candidates will care about them more. The reality is it doesn't matter when you vote if you allways vote blue both the blue and red people will ignore you.

[@LordBummingtonThe3rd]

They also like the campaign funds from the big casino owners.

[@TenTonNuke]

"Of the 10 people living in the room, 7 wanted the room painted blue and 3 wanted it painted red. But because the 7 people were standing close together we painted the room red." Logic.

[@georgebrantley776]

Because the 3 who occupied 3 distinct quadrants of the room threatened to cordon off the quadrant of the room in which the other 7 stood, for the sake of keeping the room united, the 7--having the least space--gave in, for the room would've been 3/4 red anyway.

[@nosrednugj]

The federalist system that was created was a decentralized system. There should never have been one vote to choose the color for the whole room.

[@Asemodeous]

@@nosrednugj And turned out to be a massive and hilarious failure that did not even last 80 years before falling apart.

[@nosrednugj]

@@Asemodeous ... It never fell apart. It was fundamentally undermined and altered by Progressives. The era of USA that you call a massive and hilarious failure was a world leader in the abolition of slavery, was a world leader in the industrial revolution, and expanded from 13 fledgling states to 44 states by 1890 (approximately 100 years). In what way was nineteenth century America a failed state?

[@Asemodeous]

@@nosrednugj You don't consider the civil war to be a hilarious failure of the system? Yikes. Huge yikes. The civil war happened because the founders were too incompetent and cowardly to end slavery when they had the chance and kicked the can down the road. Which ultimately lead to a civil war that still claimed the most lives lost of any American war. Also, you are counting years of America were slavery was legal as a "success". Again, huge yikes. The vast majority of progress in America during this era was made off of the backs of slave and migrant labor which were treated as less than human and brutalized for decades. How dare you call yourself an American you POS.

[@namelastnamefirst4520]

I think the electoral college should be split proportionally, so for example if you win 40% of the popular vote in California, you win 40% of the state's electoral votes (22 out of 55).

[@garyrose9805]

Name Last Name First if this was the case for 2016 what would the tally be for each person and who would have won

[@fireskorpion6044]

If you are going to make it split like that you might as well just use popular vote instead

[@garyrose9805]

Fire Skorpion yes if there is only 2 candidates it’s a lot of effort! All the odd numbered electoral votes would go to the state winner There is a lot of 3,3,3,7,3,7,ect

[@freeman7296]

Then no one will win - it sounds like a good idea until it create more uncertainty.

[@garyrose9805]

Free man but it is a function that must be done and the person who made the videos has valid points. However a simply pop vote is an obvious bias towards heavily populated areas. City areas all ready get a much greater division of accumulated spending, correctly so I believe. This is fair as it’s these citizens who contribute more but city’s can only exist because of rural areas. By the demographic they need to be low population high production necessities creators. It can never be even close to fair if these lesser population ares don’t have their issues addressed. There are places where main roads aren’t even paved and others were they are building high speed rail to cut down peoples travel time! This system needs to be bias to them in order to fair. The problem is people who have a greater number who pay tax seem to pay a larger sum therefore it’s logical more should be done for them. This validates a majority rule population vote. BUT. By that same logic the rich regardless of population contribute more money to this system so fair, should be that the rich get their issues fixed and the less put in the less u get. The whole point of the government tax system is to not do that but help the have nots improve. The electorate college seems to be a rural urban issue that is being addressed as a state to state one, I don’t know a solution on how to balance this issue but it’s going to need one!

[@TAKOHUMU]

With the access to the technology we have today, voting can be done by its people and not these inconsistent and unhelpful representatives

[@315lucienthesky]

Broke: We live in a society Woke: We live in a republic

[@iamgoo]

We litterally live in a democratic republic. USA

[@cheapbastard990]

@@iamgoo Wrong! We live in a constitutional republic. It was actually designed to prevent democracy, and for very good reasons.

[@johnhuys3434]

@@cheapbastard990 wrong! We live in a constitutional republic and a Representative democracy.

[@cheapbastard990]

@@johnhuys3434 That is simply false! Of all the branched of government only one of thet two houses in the legislative is even representative. The senate is not, and wasn't even elected until the 17th amendment. his is not and never was a democracy. It was designed to prevent democracy and other forms of dictatorship.

[@ericjohnson7384]

@@cheapbastard990 A republic in which the representatives are chosen democratically. Definitely a democratic republic but more emphasis on the republic part

[@tothboy01]

Besides getting rid of the electoral college, the U.S. also needs to pass a law banning corporate campaign "donations" (i.e. legalized bribes) so that politicians stop serving corporate interests and CEOs and start serving the people who voted for them. That would end the current state of plutocratic, oligarchic corporatocracy, and turn the U.S. into a democracy.

[@marcogonzalez2266]

Your skewed reasoning left out $$ from China and Russia!

[@johnspurrier0001]

You do realize the SC ruled in favor of corporations under Obama, correct? If you think Republicans are the worse... just remember who else is playing the game.

[@aothanhhuy2814]

@@johnspurrier0001 supreme court justice are appointed for life,and all justice that vote for the corporation are appointed by Republicans presdient

[@hunterburroughs4911]

Disagree with getting rid of the Electoral College. Agree with trying to get rid of corrupt lobbying.

[@princebunnynutz8082]

Ok so say we get Rid of the electoral collage, Wyoming has zero representation. Every state above Nebraska(except the eastern most and westernmost states) has zero representation, Maine might as well not exist. And Fuck everyone from states with smaller populations than the deep south states. Ya see how that could go wrong?

[@insertaliashere1379]

Me: Coming up with the greatest possible solution to the Electoral College. Me: Realizing that Maine and Nebraska already do it.

[@rb032682]

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

[@insertaliashere1379]

@@rb032682 Well, I agree that the KKK is a low-life gang.

[@jaketaylor2923]

@@rb032682 funny cause it was the opposite. Populace slave states were like ya let’s vote by population! (Virginia) and small northern states said no we need some way to prevent tyranny of the majority (New Jersey)

[@rb032682]

@@jaketaylor2923 - It doesn't really matter who wanted "what", or why they wanted "it". What matters was what was written in the USA Constitution and how it was used.

[@jaketaylor2923]

@@rb032682 “slavers wanted it” dude you brought it up, you can’t shift the ground cause it turns out you were historically wrong.

[@williamhuang8309]

When I first heard of the electoral college, I thought that it was a needlessly overcomplicated system that's not very transparent to the voters on what actually happens behind the scenes. EDIT: Now that I have found out that by winning the plurality of a state, you win the entire state's electors, the electoral college sounds even more stupid and lacks transparency even more. Seriously, having a proportional system in each state like Maine would do a lot to improve the electoral college. Or bring in MMP voting.

[@msdarby515]

Well, we don't get to control each state's election process, which is exactly the point. Individual states can choose what is best for them.

[@nfpnone8248]

@@msdarby515 Yes, each States process is controlled by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the States only have the authority to appoint the electors, not to determine the choices the electors make which is governed by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment. My favorite political trivia question is; what are the requirements to run for President in the United States? The answer is that there are no requirements to run for President because you cannot run for president in the United States, the requirements in Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment govern the electors choices, meaning the two persons they put on their ballots must meet the requirements of age, residency in the United States, natural born citizen, and at least 1 of the choices must be a person who resides in a State other than the elector themselves. Then the lists are reviewed to make sure that all the electors have made choices which comply with these requirements, if they do not, then that elector is instructed to change any person who doesn’t meet those requirements before the list is certified, sealed and transmitted to the seat of government directed to the president of the senate. The time for the States to make a choice by vote, 1 vote per State, is after the top candidates are identified and placed on a ballot for the States to consider, and the choice is made by a majority of all the States, not just the States present!

[@msdarby515]

@@nfpnone8248 What I was getting at is the state legislatures do have the authority to pass a bill that would make the electoral votes proportional. I get extremely frustrated by people like the OP who thinks that all states should be run the same, that there is only one right way to do things, and that not doing it the way he believes is less than adequate. The entire point is that states like New York have very different needs, even as far as elections are run, than states like, say the Dakotas or Alaska (where I live). Voting by mail-in ballot has been a thing here for a very long time because of how rural we are. However, the ballot must be requested, they don't just ship out stacks of ballots and count whatever comes back to them. Also, I enjoy trivia, but I fear my response to your trivia question (age and American Citizen) would have been very inadequate in your eyes. LOL

[@mikebronicki8264]

The easiest way to end the Electoral College today is for states to pass the National Popular Vote compact. State legislations in 16 states plus DC have already enacted it. These states represent 205 electoral votes. Another 7 states have bills pending representing an additional 63 votes. When states totalling 270 votes have enacted the compact, it will become law in those states, effectively ending the EC. (When enacted each state agrees to award their Electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote nationwide.)

[@willmont8258]

@@mikebronicki8264 Sounds like that would be unconstitutional. A State can't give its electoral votes to someone who didn't win that State.

[@julius-stark]

More people need to be made aware of ranked choice voting, no matter what your political view is ranked choice voting seems the most fair system I am aware of.

[@SergeantSquared]

you'll do anything to have a 'pure democracy' and that's all you're arguing for here. So, since you're so educated, please tell us all how much you k ow about why democracies have always failed, and why the founders of the United States categorically rejected democracy, and gave us a Constitutional Republic. However be warned, the first time you use words like "republic' or "democracy' while contextually talking about forms of government, the proper definition to an intelligent educated person will be the actual *legal/political definition* which is not arbitrary and is not subject to change based on preference. Also be aware that using those words contextually improperly will result in much mockery and laughter at your expense, and it will be justified.

[@minimonkey252]

@@SergeantSquared my god you are an annoying and stupid shitheel.

[@sleuthman]

Except for the fact that any partisan will seek to rank those running against his/her favorite in reverse order of how much of a threat they view the opponent to their candidate! If there are 6 people running, and you support A, you'll rank B last if he's the closest rival to your guy. It opens up a whole can of worms for electoral manipulation and dirty tricks. Like ridiculous "open primaries," in which people cross party lines to vote for the candidate in the opposing party that they think has the least chance against theirs. It's absurd.

[@minimonkey252]

@@sleuthman you don't understand ranked voting. Like at all. Go get educated dude.

[@muslimmetalman]

@@SergeantSquared Because the USA was founded on colonialism, the "Constitution" is a pro-slavery document - the "Founding Fathers" believed that those who owned society deserved to run it, and that "the purpose of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority". It's barely superior to a feudal society, incredibly authoritarian

[@SiVlog1989]

One way to reform the Electoral College, would be rather than a state giving all their electoral votes, they proportionally represent their state, in other words, states would be able to show their voting pattern which is reflected in the Electoral College. Basically, if California for example distributed its 55 electoral votes to reflect the republican supporting counties and the democrat supporting ones. It would (I word it cautiously), in an ideal world probably better reflect the popular vote

[@robograham12]

That would be an improvement but it doesn't address the problem of votes in small states be worth more than votes in large states.

[@iammrbeat]

I think that would be a big reform and I totally support it.

[@michealcormier2555]

That's how it originally was. But, sometime early in the 1800s Tennessee (as I recall it being that particular state) went to a winner take all for its electorates to shore up its power as a state within the union. James Madison, who is considered a major architect of our Constitution protested it saying that it wasn't the original intent. But, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee's favor forcing most all the other states to do the same thing in order to insure they had as equal a voice to Tennessee's in the Federal Government. The biggest obstacle to reforming the Electoral College isn't so much the politicians in Washington as it is each individual state wanting to keep a sense of power in a Federal Republic. That is a government that is made up of individual autonomous or at least semi-autonomous governments working together. so, proportioning the Electoral votes would be going back to the original intent. After further research, I found that Alexander Hamilton went so far as to try to put in a Constitutional Amendment that would ensure the Electoral College would be determined by district and not by state.

[@andrewjohnstone7943]

@@michealcormier2555 this leads to my (admittedly mediocre) solution: ranked choice voting in winner take all systems. An easy sell for current politicians, and hopefully it breaks up the duopoly by removing wasting votes by third party. Then, candidates just need to be willing to wield their electoral votes to cobble majorities, and the system is at least better, and better able to move further forward

[@noodles7193]

SiVlog that is a great idea, but all states should immediately also subtract two of their electoral votes and base the number of their votes on how many seats they have in the house

[@TheAndrewSchneider]

I would advocate for reforming the Electoral College, at least to eliminate the winner-take-all rule as an option.

[@TheAndrewSchneider]

But the idea is about how to effectively ensure that whoever is chosen as President is independent of whoever is elected to Congress. (Even if such proposals might be idealistic and quixotic in the long run and rely on there being no political parties.)

[@iammrbeat]

Me too.

[@TheAndrewSchneider]

And I do love your videos, btw. I would also say that whatever replacement method should take into due account how to deal with what happened in 1872. #riphoracegreeley

[@iammrbeat]

Well that means a lot. And let us make #riphoracegreeley trending.

We all know that if Clinton had won the electoral college and not the popular vote. These videos would not been made.

[@ICHope1]

I agree with you 100% about electoral college. Keep on educating! Other things I would change about the electoral process (at least for any federal office): 1) each potential candidate must submit an application with a resume and tax documents and finger printed. They will be thoroughly vetted by the FBI, Interpol, IRS. All results reported to the voting public. 2) each candidate will be given a fixed sum of money (I.e. $10K) to spend on campaign ads, etc. No one will take contributions from PACS or any special interest groups. 3) all candidates from any party running for office will not be excluded (marginalized) when events (I.e. debates) are held. I believe these are the type of changes that would level the playing field and elect leaders on merit rather than skin color and wealth.

[@mingus445_gaming]

why interpol? just curious

[@ICHope1]

@@mingus445_gaming no hiding international criminal activity.

[@stuckerfam]

What if the politician was running with the platform that the FBI and the IRS are corrupt? If a politician has to be beholden to them, then there is no way to critique them from without.

[@KRADAK6]

Remember my teacher in middle school saying all you need to do to run for president is follow these 3 easy criteria! Fvckng bs

[@ian_b]

I've always found the language of "a republic not a democracy" bizarre. It's like saying Britain isn't an island, it's a union of 3 nations. The two things are not exclusive.

[@rb032682]

@Daekj32 - Why are you stupidly repeating bullshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? Are you a citizen of the USA? Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Daek - Are you a citizen of the USA?

[@RichieK2005]

I'm pretty sure Britain is an island containing the nations of Scotland, England, and Wales which, along with Northern Ireland, form the United Kingdom. Just wanted to say in case someone was curious.

[@RichieK2005]

a republic is a representative democracy so it technically is a kind of democracy so people who say that just weird me out

[@hydrolito]

Britain consist of more than one island, that's why it is called the British isles. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales is more than 3.

[@ian_b]

@@hydrolito Britain is the main island (England, Scotland Wales). The British Isles is the whole island group including Ireland. Hence "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland".

[@hoodedmaniac3602]

Puppet: We live in a Republic Mr. Beat: We live in a Democracy Me: We live in a society

[@lucaslevinsky8802]

We live in a period

[@lb5299]

We live on a planet

[@Cybernaut551]

@@lb5299 We all live in the Yellow Submarine!

[@ryanchristopher8848]

Nah recording to this supposed history teacher we live in a democracy but if you actually read the Constitution it never say democracy

[@hoodedmaniac3602]

@@ryanchristopher8848 "We live in a society" - Joker

[@raney150]

I did the math one time. To win a majority of the population, you'd have to win the top 40 cities and their suburbs. And you can't win them by a simple majority. You have to win them by 100%. There is no city that goes 100% for a candidate let alone suburbs. St. Louis city went 80% for Clinton, but the metropolitan area as a whole went to Trump. Even if you only focused on those 40 metro areas, that covers a wider range geographically than candidates typically do now. You have to keep in mind, there are many metro areas that extend into 2 or even 3 states. I have lived in 2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.

[@woodchuck003]

'2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.' that is something unique to the New England area, with Kanasa City being an exemption. This is not something you find in Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Phoenix, AZ, San Antonio, TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas, TX, San Jose, CA and that's just what I feel like posting here. The vast majority of the cities in the top 50 have greater metro areas that are in one and if you notice Califonia, Texas, Flordia are in here a lot, you are missing many states. In fact, you can get to get to 51% of the population by only adding up 9 states. Would you call 9/50 a covers a wider range geographically? And by looking for the URL for you I found that by 2040 it will be 8 states, so the problem will only get worse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-us-population-lives-in-just-9-states-2016-6 pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/07/13/by-2040-just-eight-states-nc-included-will-hold-50-percent-of-u-s-population/

[@raney150]

@@woodchuck003 the Chicago area extends into 3 states. Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

[@raney150]

@@woodchuck003 also, I looked at metro areas, not states. States are not homogeneous. Someone who wins the urban areas of a state are more likely to lose the less urban areas by a landslide. Also, it is no guarantee that if you win one metro area in the state, that you can win the others. Let's look at Florida. Metro Miami goes Democrat, but Metro Jacksonville goes Republican. In Illinois, the metros of Chicago, Peoria, and Champaign-Urbana go blue, but the ones for Danville, Bloomington-Normal, Decatur, Springfield, and Metro East do not go blue.

[@woodchuck003]

@@raney150 So wiki says metro area or commuter belt, is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing. This seems way too broad but it agrees with you. This does include suburbs so I am assuming you have never been to the suburbs of Chicago. And because I currently live in one of the metro areas you mentioned I would have to disagree with how homogenous it is, but I have been wrong before, it just seems odd you want in increase representation by allowing candidates to go to fewer places.

[@umarsoofi9349]

raney150 I live in a Metropolitan area which has two states and one territory (DMV)

[@bpalpha]

I never want to hear what Steven Crowder thinks about ANYTHING!

[@EliStettner]

We should reform the electoral college to make an odd number of votes. WHY even have the POSSIBILITY of ties broken by undemocratic means???

[@owenf2299]

@Tomas Flores I don't see democracy in the minority choosing the president

[@dylanwhitt7352]

@@owenf2299 it’s not necessarily the minority. Just protecting the rights of the minority so you don’t just campaign in New York and California

[@owenf2299]

@@dylanwhitt7352 so instead swing states should be the only states that matter and candidates campaign in?

[@Anonymous-xp7ze]

Take one electoral vote from DC, which makes 537. Problem solved no more ties.

[@shravan5348]

exactly, I'm a strong defender of the electoral college but I believe in the instance of a tie, the winner should be decided by who won the popular vote

[@Mike-ge7pe]

I was really hoping you would talk about ranked choice as a solution. Ranked with runoffs seem to be our best chance at better representation

[@eifbkcn]

RCV and top two runoffs are two very different things. Top Two runoffs simply kick the third parties off the ballot in the second round.

[@donaldwobamajr6550]

Ranked choice voting is better because it allows a voter to show their views on multiple candidates, but I do not believe that it will have nearly as large of an impact on the party composition of congress as its strongest supporters think it will. We will, at most, have only 2-3 people not from the main 2 parties elected each election.

[@maddyrevenge]

Ranked choice is how it works in my country, and it's surprising how negligent the difference is in terms of who ends up elected. We still have what amounts to a two party system, and we still tend to alternate between stretches of conservative vs liberal, with the former holding government for almost the entire last decade. I still believe it's a far better system than the electoral collage, if only for the fact that I could not imagine a figure like Trump would be capable of being elected here.

[@crazyclemsonfan8305]

Popular vote: everyone's vote is equal Electoral college: some people's vote some worth more than others Inexplicably still a lot of people in the US: the electoral college allows everyone to have a voice

[@bjbell52]

Popular vote -> California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan picks the President every time. Try looking at the map of which states voted for Trump or Hillary. 12 states for her, 38 for him. It looks like the electoral college does a better job at making sure states are represented.

[@crazyclemsonfan8305]

@@bjbell52 States have representation in Congress. The election is supposed to have representation from people not states. Every single vote is equal no matter where you live with popular vote. My vote isn't a vote from Texas it's a vote from me. The past 20 years my vote has been irrelevant for who wins the election the same is true for about half the country.

[@bjbell52]

@@crazyclemsonfan8305 I googled for advantages of the electoral college. Here's what one source said... One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president - since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold.

[@crazyclemsonfan8305]

@@bjbell52 Oh wow you googled something. Did you even watch the video at all? The argument is completely invalid as candidates are already incentivized to visit the larger swing States. States aren't supposed to get a voice in the presidential election people are that makes absolutely no sense yes the states with more people should have more of a voice not the states who are close in the election.

[@Roanix1]

@@bjbell52 that would make sense in a non digital, non connected world. but everybody can just go on the internet and learn what they need. Don't Google without thinking critically.

[@benstephenson8993]

Why aren’t smart people like Mr. Beat not in charge in this country? Politicians are so frustrating

[@Strider91]

Because you (the voter) don't vote for smart people, you vote for exciting people. Evertime someone like beat has run, they have failed to excite the electorate

[@opossumlvr1023]

Mr. Beat is a dumbass and can't understand simple sentences. 19th amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." You have to be an idiot to think this grants women the right to vote. It clearly applies to both men and women and does not grant a right but prohibits the infringement of a right that a person already has. Also it only applies to the United States and State governments, County and townships could limit there elections to only men or women if they choose and not be in violation of the 19th amendment.

[@Cluefan]

Its a billion dollar business behind keeping people stupid, and installing dumb corporate shmucks

[@craigmak]

Smart ppl were elected. Smart Republican ppl realize that they are outnumbered & must have a terrible system to be competitive. Republicans no longer support democracy because they are outnumbered. Democrats can’t change the system without some support from the Repubs & they’re not going to get it.

[@suuujuuus]

​@@Strider91I want Rambo as a president. A real man!

[@DavidSJr]

You should debate Crowder.

[@dsmith9964]

Crowder would make Mr Beat cry!

[@channel-rk7vx]

@@dsmith9964 so true

[@Brandon210-q4n]

@@dsmith9964 How? This is a logical takedown of the electoral college but Crowder isn't logical.

[@dsmith9964]

@@Brandon210-q4n Please explain. Mr. Beat is not logical or factual.

[@dsmith9964]

@@Brandon210-q4n Mr. Beat is citing CGP Grey and Adam Conover as sources. That's enough to destroy what little credibility that he has.

[@superdoglover5676]

Democracy is the "how" and the Republic is the "what." We exercise our right to elect our representatives via voting, which is the how. The government structure is the "what."

[@Claudius_Ptolemy]

@SkyCop Wife the "i can't differentiate the difference between government types and governing systems so i come up with a Benjamin Franklin quote which only debunks direct democracy" argument,my favorite

[@firefyfe6211]

The how is really far more important.

[@itchyscientist0576]

FireFyfe they are both equal cause the system would be very different otherwise

[@jasonspatter2419]

The Mr. Beat in Ohio: “Why the electoral college is AWESOME!”

[@rb032682]

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

[@mattfishfrog5797]

@@rb032682 Slavers were not terrorists. The North already had to much power and were hurting the south so obviously they want something to even it out more. It applies the same today where the big people try to control the little people and that's not right. What evidence do you have to call slavers terrorists? Black things weren't people so they cant be terrorized.

[@rb032682]

@@mattfishfrog5797 - terrorism: the use of violence, or the threat of violence, as a means of coercion.

[@mattfishfrog5797]

@@rb032682 the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” here's the actual definition by law and slavery was lawful therefor it was not terrorism

[@otisdylan9532]

@@rb032682 I think you missed Jason's point. I think that Jason is saying that because Ohio is a swing state (or was at one time), a person from Ohio would love the electoral college because with the electoral college, your vote matters a lot more if you're from a swing state than if you're not.

[@Lukedub]

I cannot believe it took until 1920 for women to vote. That is so incredibly frustrating to even think about.

[@drago2689]

It took until the 1960s to have a racially integrated and civically equal society. It took until the 2010s to have gay marriage to be fully legal.

[@Lukedub]

@@drago2689 I did know that. But I honestly thought women had the right to vote in like the late 19th century

[@drago2689]

Well some states individually actually did. Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869. Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas, and Montana also allowed women to vote as well prior to the 19th amendment, which made it a federally protected right.

[@AP-57]

Fun Fact: Never in history was America a Democracy. America has, and always will be a Constitutional Republic.

[@Spongebrain97]

Um no it has always been a democracy. Just an indirect Democracy because the founders didnt think that anyone but land owning white men could vote.

[@owenherndon3794]

Creepy Closet not true read a book

[@CassidyCope]

Being a constitutional republic isn't mutually exclusive with being a representative democracy.

[@memethepenguin5011]

@@Spongebrain97 hahaha, good joke

[@Spongebrain97]

@@owenherndon3794 iv probably read more books than you dude lmao. My major history and my speciality is American History

[@matthewstone9360]

The idea behind the electoral college, and why it is still good in practice today, is that America is not one homogeneous people. We are different groups of people living in vastly different places potentially thousands of miles apart from one another. What is good and valuable for the people of Nevada may not be in the best interest for the people of Maine. What's good for the people of New York may not be good for the people of Idaho. Its not about making small states more powerful, its about ensuring a small states ability to protect their liberty from larger states who could dominate them given the differences in populations. Perfect example of this is the minimum wage argument. $15 an hour in Wyoming is an different salary that $15 an hour in NYC. Why force business in Wyoming to pay that when cost of living is so much lower. Let Wyoming decide what's good for Wyoming and New York what's good for New York, not let New York decide what's good for Wyoming.

[@tophers3756]

We're taking about the president of the nation, not local wages. To your point, how is having two or three states deciding an election thanks to the EC a better scenario than every vote in each state counting equally?

[@Avrysatos]

That's what congress is for though. And our state legislatures.

[@whyamimrpink78]

@@tophers3756 , the president is there to serve the states as that is the role of the federal government. That is why states decide elections and not people.

[@tnwhitley]

Matthew Stone yeah he certainly likes to gloss over many things that do not support his arguments doesn’t he? Glad you brought up ‘states rights’ which he didn’t. He’s also assuming 100% voters voting & ignoring all the actual illegal/non-citizens that voted. He reminds me of a statistics class I took in college that very handily pointed out how people use them (statistics) to prove their point even when the actual facts prove otherwise. Thank you.

[@Avrysatos]

@@tnwhitley except Matthew stones argument is garbage. The electoral college does not make things equal. And we would not be run by California for example if it were gone unless you can cite a statistic that shows California even remotely votes 100% democratic? States rights come on to play with who we send to Congress. And the equalizer to keep big states from ruling us is a place called the SENATE. did none of you go to grade school?

[@JediFarce]

Funny how the during the obama presidency this was never an issue.

[@balazsstrausz2729]

because he handily won both of the popular votes!! The electoral college only becomes the cancer that it is in close elections where its "winner takes all" style makes the voices of voters of the losing party in a swing state completely unheard which is undemocratic at the highest level. Its practically tyranny but for you morons its the greatest thing ever so long as it helps stupid warmongers and fascists into the white house

[@JediFarce]

@@balazsstrausz2729 Oddly enough, the states Hillary lost, were exactly because she lost the popular votes in those states.

[@godemperorofmankind3.091]

because democrats typically win the popular vote and did both times with Obama

[@egancurry]

The electoral college only makes any sense if see each state as an autonomous entity and not each person

[@mbdg6810]

“Ranked choice voting would solve this problem” yep! Agreed

[@sezzyridge]

He actually goes over different alternative ways to vote in one of his other videos. Run off (ranked choice), approval voting, and score voting.

[@imejeznamenje5422]

Ranked choice voting is dogshit.

[@donaldwobamajr6550]

@@imejeznamenje5422 Don’t you know? If we implement ranked choice, a million bajillion parties will suddenly spring up overnight and they will all be competitive!

[@professorcube5104]

@@donaldwobamajr6550 oooo i like choice

[@bartekmostek4850]

@@donaldwobamajr6550 if only every country tried it

[@raffaelepiccini3405]

The real question I have about the decision of making it 538 in total is.. why would you make then an even number? why even give the option to have a tie? you are asking for a crisis to happen at some point

[@saftsuse866]

Over here in Norway, I'm a Republican. But all that means here is that I want to remove the royal family, and have an elected president instead. As that is more democratic. Now, Norway is ranked the most democratic country in the world by the Democracy Index, and we'd be even more democratic if we were a Republic. So the US being a Republic *is no excuse* for it to not have proper functioning democratic electoral systems.

[@saftsuse866]

@Vlavitir glutginskiya Of course the US is a democracy. It's not a full democracy, it's not a proper democracy. It's a flawed and corrupt democracy. But it's still a democracy by most standards, agreed upon by most all experts. You cannot just invent your own personal definition of a word, then pretend the rest of the world has to follow it. The definition of democracy is as follow; _" a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."_ and the US falls under that definition. Hence the US is *obviously* a democracy. If you want to have your own private definition of what a democracy is, then that's fine, just don't bother other people with it. Other people do not follow your private definitions, and neither do we give a shit.

[@saftsuse866]

@Vlavitir glutginskiya I don't give a fuck about the founding fathers and their intentions. You treat the founding fathers as if they're some kind of religious dogma or something. We cannot go around stuck in the ideas from the 1700s. We've progressed since then.

[@dbojangles1597]

@@saftsuse866 Yea i'm not so sure we have to be honest.

[@bulbasaurpokemon3573]

Most modern jews are Caucasian Khazar jews not Semitic people, most modern jews usually look like white Europeans but are not white Europeans. There are also Asian, Hispanic, Arabic and African jews who do not look like white Europeans.

[@GErwin-ki6eo]

Seft Suse They get this from crap the Heritage Foundation and ALEC and other Lobbyist-Right wing-Think tanks. Which sponsor Entertainers on FOX. All to get the stupid to vote against their own economic interests. Since they're is not enough Multi-Millionaires or Billionaires to vote in these policies. They have been squawking crap like 'Democracy does not mean a good Economic system" and "not big fans of Democracy" even quoting Stalin(real Patriotic)"Democracy can be 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner...Dawrrr....!"

[@mr.cauliflower3536]

Best argument for electoral college: it allows the two party duopoly to reign.

[@maranexpvp7241]

He doesn't even let Crowder finish what he is saying.... He even says that we are a democratic republic in the video. He doesn't stop at just a republic

[@OthEdden]

I would argue that the electoral college is more an expression of us being Federation than being a republic. It's designed to give each individual state representation rather than the people within those States. It's function is also outdated because it was designed with State politics being primary and the Federal system being secondary to the states. I do think that moving towards congressional districts voting would be more representative however I am in favor of true proportional electorates. As an example in 2016 my home state of Utah loaded for 46% Trump, 27% Hillary, and 22% McMullin so a 4/1/1 split would have been more accurate to what Utahns wanted. It may have even encouraged more people to vote for the 3rd party if more people thought they could show displeasure at both of the national parties' nominations.

[@aaronTGP_3756]

While an election based on Congressional districts would be better in some ways, it would also be severely vulnerable to gerrymandering.

[@mikebronicki8264]

Proportuonal voting, like congressional district voting, also does not change the fact that Utah votes are worth more than Texas votes.

[@elizabethmccormack1396]

Or we can weaken the power of the federal government and the executive branch so that people's local votes mattered more and we can vote more for our interests and less for other states

[@mathewhastings9485]

This is the dumbest comment ever.

[@nashonabo821]

@@mathewhastings9485 maybe you should delete it then

[@talonsilverhawk5763]

@@nashonabo821 hell yeah, lol

[@musicalenthusiast9343]

Exactly

[@tsdt4ever]

You mean, "We can weaken the power of the federal government and the executive branch so that people's local votes in California, New York, and Illinois mattered more and they can vote more for their interests and less for other states. But let's step back and understand something. The US Congress is a republic and actually an exact copy, except for DC, of how the electoral college works so power is equally distributed across the country.

[@xiaoxaxo]

1 vote should always equal 1 vote

[@PyrrhoVonHyperborea]

12:03 ranked choice voting and a democratic weighting of votes will never be a thing, for a glaringly obvious reason: b/c keeping things as they are ensures, that no third party candidate, ever, will have a chance to sneak by the big 2. So, whenever you see the candidate with less votes winning, and feel puzzled as to why nothing ever changes about this rotten system (and why there isn't even a major outcry of the losing party), it's because the big two fear actual competition. As long as things stay the way they are, they can be as corrupt as ever, and noone enjoying the same benefits will rock the boat. Any change would have to get the clear support of atleast one of the big parties, and neither has any real interest in that. You live in a two-party oligarchy, governed by big, rich interest groups using both parties as well paid puppets/mouthpieces/distractions. As a German I gotta say, we have similar issues with our system, but not the same: - we have a 5%hurdle for new parties to overcome to get into the bundestag, which mostly ensures that people don't vote for new parties for fear of "wasting" their vote (which is irrational, btw.), and can mean up to 3m out of over 60m people eligible to vote can, in any single(!) case, be nullified in their voices; in 2013 two parties (for 4.8 and 4.7% respectively) missed out that narrowly, for aproximately 4.2m in actual votes being nill; an additional 6.3% fell onto even smaller parties. (Fun fact: when Putin introduced a 7%-hurdle for the Duma(?), german newspapers were up in arms, that it proved him to be an enemy of democracy, yet it's common wisdom being taught in schools and repeated in public ad nauseam, that our 5%-hurdle was a major pillar of our own democracy... the quagmire of political debate is dominated by liars, ideologues and idiots(*) wherever you look) - then there's the problem with our president (german: Präsident)... the people cannot even vote who becomes that, AND his powers are mostly neutered, as the president (then publically elected and very powerful) plaid an infamous role (namely Paul von Hindenburg) in the destruction of the Weimarer Republik. So to save the people from hurting demogracy again by giving their vote to the wrong people, the fathers of our Grundgesetz were wise enough to just not give us too much democracy in the first place, as they sure know best. For we are but children who don't know whats best for us! Ah! That fatherly wisdom! Where would we be w/o it... *) or by those wo represent the holy trinity of these blights, like Steven C., whom you mentioned in your video... why did you feel like giving that loudmouthed hack a voice?

[@TheBrooklynbodine]

A viable third party COULD become a reality, but it'd take a grassroots effort. People in the individual states would have to demand it. It won't happen for many, many more years, if ever.

[@MothMizzle]

Constitutional Convention Small states: "all the states are equal." Large states: "forget that equal nonsense, states get votes based on population." Southern states: "wait, can we count our slaves too?" Small states: "screw that - equal or nothing!" Voting for representatives is the method, but how is "who they represent" defined, how many people region, and by the requirements for who can vote. "The Dictator's Handbook" covers this in more detail.

[@kerriwilson7732]

Yes. Mr Beat missed THE POINT of the EC when he failed to mention this. The system supports equality of States, not equality of voter influence. If you consider States equal partners in the Union, the EC makes sense. If you empower voters by proportional representation, the voters of California are equal relative to the voters of Wyoming; but the influence of the State of Wyoming (for example) is weakened relative to the State of California.

[@bobshoe8426]

Flame War in the comments. You have been warned.

[@formerlyknownaseasrob]

Here’s a like and comment to boost this in the comments bc this is right under the flame war

[@adamc.7915]

Thanks for the warning

[@easytiger6570]

Before I got a warning I already became a veteran

[@leealexander3507]

I person, one vote. That's democracy.

[@iammrbeat]

So then we DON'T have democracy?

[@leealexander3507]

@@iammrbeat We have an oligarchy at this point. With the electoral college we did have sort of an unbalanced indirect form of democracy.

[@xmark1440]

The purest democracy won’t work just like any other “pures” out there.

[@whyamimrpink78]

51% tells 49% what to do. That is a democracy.

[@federicofernandez6386]

whyamimrpink78 49% tells 51% what to do

[@stevegarland8643]

Nobody really points out the real problem if rural America is ignored in Presidential elections. If it becomes a problem for us, sure, maybe 15%-20% of the US population may live here... but have you considered the ramifications if we decide to peacefully protest? All trucking crosses our Interstates and 80% of all US food is grown here.

[@eifbkcn]

@@FooFuCuddlyPoops and look at the 2019 shutdown. It's not hard for the President to get what he wants. You forget that the President has the means to do what they want. That's what the executive power is. The problem with our elections has nothing to do with the NPV vs EC debate. Our Presidential elections will always be terrible until we stop holding them and eliminate the seperation of the Executive and the Legislature.

[@eifbkcn]

@@FooFuCuddlyPoops And what checks are those? Ultimately he controlled the Treasury and military, and that's all you need to control the government.

[@eifbkcn]

@@FooFuCuddlyPoops You do realize that there have been quite a few "acting" department heads, currently Chad Wolf, which don't have to be confirmed by the Senate? The President has said he likes having acting cabinet members because it gives him more flexibility than confirming cabinet members does. Also, the President isn't forced to comply with the Judicial Branch, because the courts don't have enforcement powers, only the president does. Presidents have ignored court decisions in the past, such as Andrew Jackson's trail of tears or Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

[@eifbkcn]

@@FooFuCuddlyPoops There can be no fair and just system if we continue our insistence on having a presidency. It creates an artificial majority and supports a virtually autocratic system of government. The thing about impeachment is it just doesn't work. A great quote from after the failed Johnson impeachment explains "The idea of responsibility involves that if a decided 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛- a dependence of him who is responsible, upon them to whom he is responsible. According to what has been here said, however, Congress is more dependent upon the President than the President is upon Congress". There is no logical reason the Executive should be seperated from the Legislature rather than derived from it, and thus the popular vote movement is incredibly oblivious as to the scope of the problems with our elections.

[@eifbkcn]

@@FooFuCuddlyPoops An election can only be as fair and just as the position allows. The President is not a reasonable position to have, and thus any system for the President's election is similarly unreasonable. That is the premise, you don't seem to grasp that. The Senate is the main problem with Congress, but that problem can be eliminated as it has been in other countries. Furthermore, Congress does not really make anything. The Execute Branch sets and executes policies, laws of Congress don't mean anything if the President doesn't enforce them, and what about when Congress is out of session? Then the President DOES in fact control everything without anyone to oppose him.

[@dmsalomon]

Interesting. This video mentions, yet does not adequately address in my opinion, the core argument of supporters of the electoral college, I.e. that the electoral college more accurately reflects the system of federalism that is central to the Constitution. For example, does Mr. Beat also support abolishing the Senate since it affords members of smaller states greater voting power. It was the very intention of the founders for it to be this way, under the Sherman compromise. Any full refutation of the electoral college must advocate for a comprehensive overhaul of the Constitution for it to be convincing.

[@rb032682]

@Dovi - Bullshit! The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? The Electoral College has poisoned the USA.

[@josephcrowley5881]

The Senate is an issue for exactly the same reason as the Electoral College, but the Electoral College is the worse offender and arguably more important. The Senate is at least balanced by Congress, the other half of the Legislative branch with better representation. Whereas the Electoral College is undemocratic and it’s currently our sole method of electing our chief executive. Plus it’s just easier to see the shitty representation of a system that stole an election from the person from the most votes in the most important election in America, than quibbling about how many fractions of a Senator each state should get and how this probably affects legislation in favor of states with smaller popularions in a way that is almost impossible to quantify.

[@richardgere4713]

RB. Amazingly wrong. Where did you get your indoctrination? First off, please define "terrorists".

[@rb032682]

@@richardgere4713 - terrorism: the use of violence, or the threat of violence, as a means of coercion. terrorist: one who commits terrorism. Not all terrorists are slavers, but all slavers are terrorists. @Richard - I received my "indoctrination" from the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history.

[@rb032682]

@@richardgere4713 - Why do you consider the USA Constitution to be "wrong"?

[@supervideomaker9136]

I always found the electoral college extremely dumb. I am from Cali and I have conservative friends who will always tell me they feel their vote doesn’t matter because cali will always be blue. Think it’s dumb that a ton of citizens don’t feel like their vote matters

[@MichelDurat]

Thing is that if you decide to go under the rule of the majority, almost every election will be blue and politicians will to resort to just go to high volume voter areas

[@supervideomaker9136]

@@MichelDurat I mean if the majority of people are blue, then their voices should be heard. Majority people should have their voices heard instead of just the minority having so much power.

[@harlanseago4876]

They can move then

[@Sicilianus]

@@supervideomaker9136 what about hitler?

[@father0f4ll]

@@Sicilianus??????lmao?

[@Hoxgene]

Coming form a non american, this is extremely interesting

[@JoeRoe-wp2mu]

Coming from an American, it is extremely disappointing.

[@controlZchannel]

But inaccurate.

[@orcamaster9604]

@enrique perez That doesnt mean your vote should count more

[@orcamaster9604]

@enrique perez Even with the electoral college, you wont be paid attention to. you would know that if you watched the video. for it to be truly equal, we need to replace the electoral college with a better system (preferably the popular vote).

[@orcamaster9604]

@enrique perez the last election is another example of why we shouldnt use the electoral college because trump was disliked by most people (and still is) yet he won because he won the electoral college.

[@jasonfire3434]

EC needs to go. Here's the best argument against it: Scenario 1 CA: Clinton 51% Trump 49% TX: Clinton 20% Trump 80% Scenario 2 CA: Clinton 75% Trump 25% TX: Clinton 48% Trump 52% In the current system both of those results are equal. How does that make any sense?

[@chrisbraun8803]

Because you have the political understanding of a toddler.

[@jasonfire3434]

@@chrisbraun8803 sorry but how can you justify those two scenarios I talked about counting the exact same? It's ridiculous.

[@PoweDiePie]

@Alex M NC-09 alert.

[@AnthonyCalabro]

@Alex M Wanna talk about corruption? What about the DNC? Are we just gonna pretend that they didn't rig everything in favor of Clinton?

[@MDP1702]

@@AnthonyCalabro It doesn't matter how corrupt the DNC is. There are only two parties with power, so left wing will vote DNC and right wing will vote GOP. And it is exactly the electoral college that keeps the two party system safe and prevents other parties from coming up.

[@tonylove4800]

No electoral system is perfect. It strikes me that the really scary thing about the election was that the turnout was only 65%.

[@RemixedVoice]

Turnout is easily the most fucked up part about american elections. I literally cannot fathom how low it is.

[@nickmiller323]

I agree with you, but you can’t just ignore the flaws and say its all good. Election should be won with majority vote.

[@chickenman6308]

N Miller 9 states in the US hold 50% of the population. Give it a few years and someone will find that loophole and exploit the hell out of it. Then you’ll have a one party system.

[@nickmiller323]

@@chickenman6308 That is assuming all 9 states 100% voted for the same candidate. Just because a state is red or blue doesn't mean every single citizen votes that way. Popular vote would even give more of a platform to third party voters and candidates. With members of the electoral college are affiliates with either Democrat and Republican. Also what genuine concern would come switching to popular vote? You can't just say a loop hole could be found and a one party system would pop up with no backing?

[@chickenman6308]

N Miller The Great Compromise was all about why larger states would take advantage of this system. Why have states at all? Just pack everyone into cities and crap on the “fly over states.” Edit: You do make a genuine argument and I respect that.

[@cadenbernstein-lawler989]

In past elections (like 100 years ago) the turnout was 60-70%. Now it can be as low in midterms as 40%, or in presidential elections 55%. That’s probably because in most states you don’t need to vote, a bunch of states have their outcomes set in stone

[@anonymoususer450]

The best argument is that it prevents the possibility of having a nationwide recount which would be a headache and allow for corruption easily. With basically 50 separate state elections we only need recounts in at most 1 or 2 states. Also the founding fathers were strong proponents of states rights. With the electoral college, the states decide it, and I don't mean the large states, I mean the tossup states, states that aren't heavily leaning towards one party or the other that prove to be tipping points that help push one candidate into the majority building off the states already solidly in their favor. A straight national popular vote, basically the biggest cities decide the winner and rural America would be ignored.

[@f_f_f_8142]

To prevent nationwide recounts you can just use a transformed electoral college with proportional numbers (proportionally distribute electors among the states and proportionally distribute electors to candidates per state). Lots of coutries do something like this. > " the states decide it [...] the tossup states" The tossup states don't decide, if enough large states are solid in favor of one side, this side always wins. > "the biggest cities decide the winner and rural America would be ignored" We have not seen this happen anywhere and there are tons of countries using popular vote to elect presidents. Of course this can only ever happen if a majority lives in the "biggest cities" which is just not the case. And if really a majority lives in cities and all somehow support one candidate, what is the problem? Why would we care about this minority (the urban people) in particular: only 1 in 4 americans are non christian. This means if we use the popular vote the christians decide the winner and the non-christian voice is ignored. Applying the same logic we should devalue christian votes to make it fair, right? Another point here is people do not vote based on where they live, there are much more important factors like *political beliefs*. You might think that it is possible to "buy" a particular places vote because this currently happens in the swing states but you can not really do it to influence the majority of the population. At this point it is far more efficient to support policies that appeal to everybody. If you really care about the representation of minorities like urban people then there is one far supperior solution: Proportional Representation [and a parlamentary system]. For example in Germany we currently have 7 important political parties including large green and libertarian ones that often participate in governments as coalition partners and a new right wing party with a mostly eastern urban base. While they only represent around 10% of the population and nobody wants to work with them their presence disrupted the entire system. (Not saying the German system is perfect in this regard- it is not- just an example of this working relatively well)

[@rickardkaufman3988]

@@f_f_f_8142 Who cares about rural counties? The electoral college makes candidates only campaign in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina, Michigan. A popular vote would make candidates go to rural areas to campaign.

[@rickardkaufman3988]

@@keithmaben2080 Because who cares about cities. They constitute only 20% of the population. They would focus on the 80% through the NPV as the electoral makes them focus on swing states not states like New Mexico, Wyoming, and Montana which are widely ignored as candidates only focus on Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

[@rickardkaufman3988]

@@keithmaben2080 I'm against the EC because it only makes you focus on swing states and not the rest of the country. If it was an NPV system or some other system as seen in the UK, it would be great as you're focusing all areas in all 50 states, including the rural areas.

[@rickardkaufman3988]

@@keithmaben2080 Republicans: Rural states matter. Also Republicans: Only ones that have swing states. I don't like Democrats but at least they're way better than Republicans. I mean, only 5 elections have resulted in a win through the electoral college even if the person lost the NPV. So basically, what is the point of the EC if NPV votes are almost the same and the EC makes you focus on just 5 states rather than all 50 states. Of course, you can't campaign for all but by going to these states and listening to the rural folk in the rural areas without an EC system in place, it motivates to commit towards economic justice more than that of the EC which motivates to focus only 5 specific states. I mean, in many countries, we take the popular vote.

[@upstateNYfinest]

I think ur missing the point that "perfect democracy" isnt actually desireable. The founding father's criticisms of democracy still apply and are still valid even though the vote has been expanded to everyone

[@assistanttotheregionalsith8531]

Yes

[@Twinzje]

I don't get how this is an argumant against a terrible democracy? Just because a "perfect democracy" isn't desirable doesn't mean that the current electoral system is good in any way.

[@yab3146]

@@Twinzje if it wasnt good or isnt good then how is america the most powerful country on the planet?

[@shalizzle793]

Not having the electoral college means nothing about having a “perfect Democracy.” You’re still electing electors, your vote just... ya know, matters

[@unserkatzenland8884]

@@yab3146 geography

[@arlosmith2784]

The only reason we still have an electoral college is because its operation has favored the Republican Party. Since 1824, every time that the popular vote winner did not become President, the Democratic nominee lost out: 1876 (Tilden got most votes, Hayes became President), 1888 (Cleveland got most votes, Benjamin Harrison became President), 2000 (Gore got more votes. George W. Bush became President); 2016 (Hillary Clinton got more votes, Trump became President). How will this change? When a Democrat becomes President despite losing the national popular vote. Maybe 2028. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Green outpolls Gavin Newsom in popular vote, but enough blue states make Newsom President. Then watch Republicans start dissing the electoral college. ⚖️

[@jamisojo]

Nah. I just don't think our largest cities and urban populations should be be dictating our president. We are 50 states. The states choose our president. That is fine with me. Direct democracy would have plenty of its own problems.

[@arlosmith2784]

@@jamisojo The electoral college was created to protect slaveowners. John Adams actually won the 1800 election among white voters, but Thomas Jefferson was made President because of the 3/5 votes each slaveowner got to case for slaves. No wonder the White Supremacists all love the electoral college 👎

[@Victorcai-um3op]

I don't think banning the electoral college makes a direct democracy the electoral college also takes away rural population election powers. NYC dominants NY, and upstate Republicans aren't represented

[@fbqsnation4741]

If this were the case then anytime the democrats had a majority in congress and a president which certainly has happened before, they would have changed it.

[@mitchellhedden1978]

I live in Canada, with a parliamentary system. It’s a more direct democracy and, as a result, basically three or four cities decide who forms our government. In our last election, the province of Alberta didn’t elect a single Liberal Party representative but are still ruled by a Liberal Party government. Big cities vote Liberal and the rural areas vote Conservative. The Libs continue to push for more ridings in large cities based on the same “one person one vote” argument. Edit: I came here from Don’t Walk Run.

[@shivin1962]

Love that channel

[@MaxSnowDude]

Direct democracy is citizens voting on laws you live in a democratic republic

[@hersheykiller]

A Constitutional Republic.

[@KrazyKatPosse]

Ethan Hershey Yes, a constitutional republic that is also a representative democracy. Being a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. The US is both

[@RockBrentwood]

the first 3 words of whose Constitution are *We* *The* *People* ... which settles the issue in the strongest possible terms; and straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

[@adventurefishing3190]

@@KrazyKatPosse we are not a democracy, in fact the word democracy is not even mentioned a single time in any founding documents.

[@watsonblack7481]

@@KrazyKatPosse correct, however states rights are more important than peoples rights in America during the election

[@watsonblack7481]

@@RockBrentwood correct, but states rights are more important than peoples rights in america during the election

[@minepine23]

I think the electoral college should be reformed in that instead of winner take all it should be based on how much of a percentage people did in each state

[@oscaralonsosainzchavez9521]

Its the best idea I've ever heard, in that way GOP could gather electoral votes on blue states and vice versa.

[@ragingshibe]

That's what ive been saying. It's really a win-win situation cuz GOP voters in states like California and Dem voters in states like Texas now have a say in their state, but at the same time small states like Wyoming still have their 3 electoral votes.

[@Keesha_Hardy]

Best solution Minepine!

[@vulpes7079]

Might as well have a popular vote at that point

[@brianhall3739]

You are basically saying popular vote just more complicated

[@abrahamlincoln937]

My biggest issue with the Electoral College is faithless electors. I believe that each state should outlaw faithless electors and if any elector attempts to vote for another candidate that they didn’t pledge to vote for, they should immediately be fired and replaced by another elector and that should apply for all 50 states.

[@jaybee9269]

Absolutely.

[@nicholastrudeau7581]

I agree with you, but why is it that your biggest issue with it?

[@jetdooley7609]

Even if the issue of faithless electors was resolved as you suggested, that's not the only issue with the electoral college. The electoral college would still give more power to less populated states than more populated states, making a rural persons vote worth more than the urban vote. Whatever happened to one person one vote?

[@jaybee9269]

@@jetdooley7609 >> Yeah, but the electoral college is not nearly as big a problem (feature?) as ballot harvesting, currently. It destroys the chain of custody and therefore the secret ballot and further enables undue influence on voters. Fix that first.

[@nicholastrudeau7581]

Actually, the faithless elector issue should direct us to the primary issue with the Electoral College which is the winner take all. The fact that all candidate needs to do to win every single electoral vote in a state is Win by the plurality is ridiculous! The issue you mentioned, speaks to the DraStic need for an increase to the number of seats in the House, which has not been updated in over 100 years, so that the ratio of votes to electoral College vote are much closer to equal comparing state to state.

[@I-Am-Jacks-Cover]

When you rail against the electoral college you are approaching it from the idea that only people have a stake in who is president. This is false because the individual state also has a stake. There is a reason that in the US we have "states" and other nations like Canada and Australia have "territories". Our states are meant to be "mini-nations". That is really how we are a republic not the false idea of voting for congress people who then represent us that you present. We vote and the state represents our votes through electors. That is how we are a republic. The idea of voting as a direct democracy is very dangerous and these dangers are laid out in both Plato's Republic ("Democracy passes into despotism.") and The Federalist Papers (“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” ), I recommend you reading both of them before advocating for this system. There can be tweaks made to the current system, such as not allowing faithless electors so that the people are better represented in the republic. The constitution is very complicated and is designed so it would take about 6 years to actually achieve a drastic change in the country. This is a built in safety catch to stop a fringe flash in the pan movement from taking control. Keep in mind that the Weimarer Republik was a direct democracy and was so easily taken over by a fringe flash in the pan movement. This is because it did not have a constitution with built in safety catches like the electoral college. Also, you are very disingenuous in this video when you say that only 30% of people support the electoral college so 70% oppose it. I expect much more from you since you once said that the political compass test isn't accurate because it does not include and "unsure/undecided" option in the questions. Just because 30% of people support something does not mean 70% oppose it, there is always "unsure/undecided" people.

[@KaeBae_]

Great comment! It makes more since to understand the purpose of the electoral college when you look at the states as “mini-nations,” as implied by the name The UNITED STATES. 🇺🇸

[@mud213]

Oh, so states are a bad idea. Got it.

[@adithyavraajkumar5923]

That might have been the case 100 years ago, but today we are more unified in terms of infrastructure, economy, etc. than ever before. Also, your facts are incorrect: Canada and Australia are also federal states. Actually, I think the Canadian example is a good model: each province has equal representation in the Canadian Senate, but as a result, the Senate only has the power to review and veto legislation, and does not control appointments as in the U.S. This makes sense because it does not represent the people of Canada.

[@j.a4196]

❤

[@I-Am-Jacks-Cover]

​@@adithyavraajkumar5923 My facts are not wrong in terms of our constitution vs. the constitutions of these other nations. The 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights is the big difference. The 10th amendment is the biggest example of what sets our states apart from territories in other nations. Right now I've been hearing a lot of people demanding less federal government intervention. Many on the left are saying that the federal government shouldn't tell Gavin Newsom that he can't set regulations on combustion engine and that the federal government shouldn't use federal officers to make arrests in Portland. Many on the right are hoping for an end to RVW and that the decision go back to the state. Everybody wants state rights, but that has to include state sovereignty and each state playing on some kind of fair footing in the federal government. The way to achieve this is through the senate and the electoral collage. Also, I noticed that you didn't refute anything I said about the dangers of a direct democracy. Did you read my entire statement or just the first few sentences before replying? I live in the second most populated state in the US. The population of my state is the fastest growing. In a perfect world my state would only benefit from direct democracy because we could then use that political power to take resources from other states. I did not vote for Bush or Trump, but I've read enough history to know what would happen if the safety catches in the constitution were removed.

[@jackdotsontv]

Everyone else: “Trump should be president.” Also everyone else: “Biden is the best choice for our country.” Me: “can we just throw all the politicians in a volcano and start over?”

[@ninoy4914]

The problem with this debate is it is still in the framework of having a president. One man should not have that much power in a country the size of Europe

[@shalizzle793]

E N L I G H T E N E D C E N T R I S M

[@TheGr8one1022]

@@shalizzle793 centrists like this are so cringe and fake-edgy

[@2FadeMusic]

@@TheGr8one1022 nah, hating both biden and trump doesn't make u a centrist, literally all leftists like me despise both trump and biden, some crazy far right nazis don't like either too i think

[@TheGr8one1022]

@@2FadeMusic First off, Nazis are far leftists who believe in collectivism over individuality, for one thing. You cannot be a far right National Socialist, it's an oxymoron as the far right holds individuals above groups. Secondly, sure, but people who say this cringe shit are almost always egotistical centrists. They like to pretend everyone who picks a side is crazy, and that they're the sane people mediating in the center, and they're just not

[@jpvision5138]

I saw that Black voters currently make up 12.5 percent of the electorate. In 2020, about 1/3 of those voters live in 9 of the nations most competitive states. Essentially, you cannot get elected without making your case to Black voters. Without the electoral college, you don’t need to win a single Black voter over to win a majority. The electoral college may seem weird, but it is a genius provision to ensure the non majority (any issue) has a voice. If concerned about fairness, why do two Rhode Island senators get to vote on SCOTUS nominees the same as two California senators? This is the nature of our National system of protecting States’ interests, providing a voice to all in our Representative Republic. We vote for our reps at a State level, and they represent us on votes. Two party system is imperfect, but our best chance to get broader representation. If there candidates with narrow platforms: a pro-life party candidate, pro-choice, low tax, and let’s say the pro-sports candidate. The pro-sports candidate could win with 26% of the vote and 74% of the country would be scratching their heads. We are imperfect but the best in the world. Great video, though. I like how you explain your position.

[@MrHat.]

You assume that all people of a particular ethnicity vote 1 way. It should be 1 person 1 vote.

[@jpvision5138]

@@MrHat. I didn’t suggest that all ethnicities vote one way. I was pointing out that the EC protects minorities (or minority positions) in a way that a straight popular vote does not. I suggested that any candidate must appeal to many diverse groups in order to secure the win, rather than appealing over a more narrow set of views. Thanks for taking the time to comment though.

[@oliverrainer5771]

I like your argument. You make some good points. However, this method that the electoral college favors minority interests is a bit haphazard and isn't the perfect system like how you describe. Like, for example, you said 1/3 of the black population is pandered to, but what about the other 2/3? Does that mean that a random third of the black population gets more attention and pandering than the other, larger group? That's pretty unrepresentative if I've ever seen anything. Same with, say, conservative financiers in the Northeast. They are generally ambivalent on social issues, but prefer Republican fiscal policy, so prefer to elect GOP politicians. However, if you know the Northeast, you know that Republicans don't do very well in that area, so their vote doesn't really mean anything. For as many instances that there are that minority groups are benefitted by the current system, there are as many, or, you could argue, even more scenarios where minority groups are detrimented.If we take the 8 most competitive states in the 2020 presidential election (Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) they add up to just under a quarter of the population. Some minority groups, say Native Americans in Nevada or manufacturing workers in Wisconsin may get a larger share of a voice, but there's 3 times as many minority votes that aren't being counted using this system in noncompetitive states like nonwhite voters in North Dakota, financiers in the Northeast like I said, liberal urban voters in Mississippi, agribusiness voters in California, the list is endless, or at least somewhere near 3x a list you could create for the minorities helped under this system. Of course, too, there's an argument that black voters aren't actually pandered to as much as suburban swing voters since the black vote is extremely solid to the Democratic party. I like the angle you were approaching at it, but the concept of it defeats itself.

[@jpvision5138]

@@oliverrainer5771 All fine points. There have probably been books written on the subject. Beyond my other points I can also land on this: Republicans have been making a habit out of losing popular votes on their way to winning the EC. Bush did it. Trump did it. So in this very divided country we can elect Barack Obama in one election, and a Donald Trump the next election. Fair or not, very diverse platforms have a chance in the Electoral College.

[@oliverrainer5771]

@@user-gc1wj8tt2p Mr. Beat addressed that "New York and California" argument in the video where he said that even if someone did only campaign there, they'd get a small portion of the vote, especially now, where California and New York have established voter bases that only vote for one candidate. Also, shouldn't we strive to find a system where there are fewer inequalities than more? There's a clear, definite solution to that that 70% of the population agree with. If you say that things will be bad just because it's life, you shouldn't be debating public policy because the point is to get rid of as many problems as possible, not just say "it's life" and take them in. : /

[@joshhallam2253]

I wish you had talked about the tyranny of the majority. I have complained about he electoral college to friends and that is their defense. I don't even know what it means? If the democrats usually win the popular election, is it that they will rule in tyranny? I guess it doesn't really matter. I want ranked choice with the hope that a 3rd party has a chance to win more than anything else. Also, if the election result is within the margin of error, with the all or nothing electoral college, its mathematically impossible to know the winner.

[@foolishgamer99]

As if tyranny of the majority, like we have now, is any better.

[@drago2689]

The "tyranny of the majority" argument isn't a good reason to keep the EC. It's basically insinuating that the majority will just do stuff that inherently hurts the minority which isn't true. We also have a Constitution that is supposed to list and protect the rights of everyone which can only be altered with overwhelming supermajorities in not only the House and Senate but also of the state legislatures. Switching the presidential election to a popular vote which is what we already use for federal senators, federal house representatives, state governors, state senators, state assembly, mayor's, municipal postions, etc isn't going to effect that Constitutional framework. Majority should rule because that's what is fair in a democratic society. There's also the fact that the exact same thing can be argued in the current "tyranny of the minority" system we have now. Why exactly would the minority be any better at not violating the rights of majority than the majority is? They aren't. There's nothing particularly inherently better about what the majority/minority wants outside of the fact that one group is bigger and thus should have more say in any given matter according to that difference in support. That's the best way to have a fair democratic process and that's what a popular vote would do. Ane if you ever see the whole "it's a republic and not a democracy", that is just a way to derail the conversation. A republic is just a country where the head of state isn't a monarch. Ideally we say a republic is supposed to be a representative democracy but there are also undemocratic republics too. A republic can be super democratic and representative of the population or undemocratic and not representative of the population. All the EC does is make us more undemocratic, it doesn't change our standing as a republic.

[@MidnightBreezey]

"We're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic." Yeah. Kinda like I don't drive a vehicle, I drive a car.

[@megahunterkiller]

Furry profile pic. Argument disregarded.

[@bencarter8423]

More like “I’m not driving the car. I’m simply pushing down on a pedal on the floor with my foot to make the car go, while using my hands to operate a wheel in front of me that controls the direction the car is going.”