Politics Professor Explains the Electoral College

[@heathclark318]

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

[@DocAkins]

...becoming deeper cesspools...

[@lancewalker6067]

@@DocAkinshow?

[@xltek1]

Here in Southern Oregon, I agree completely.

[@tomservo75]

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

[@stevenchadderdon9061]

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

[@Emma0121H]

Thank you so much. As a person who did not grow up here, but now a citizen. This helps explains a lot.

[@pitluggreymore6504]

This makes so much more sense now. Thanks!

[@shiningstaer]

Gay

[@arthurpeters1996]

It doesn’t make sense at all. This is minority rule

[@leemcmullan]

put it this way.. helps me.. say 20Million people vote democrat in california.. that would always swing the entire majority to dems... The electoral college helps.. you could in theory have 20million extra people vote democrat.. and we republicans can still win.

[@juliaro2249]

I was so mesmerized by the use of the Alphabet and other keyboard characters in the graphics presentation, that I’m going to have to watch it again and pay attention to the professor.

[@PapaGiorgio200]

I didn't know what you meant... I read your comment about a quarter way thru the video... and then it came alive to me. Awesome. I started it over.

[@jimmeade2976]

Excellent explanation. I have debated the pros and cons of the Electoral College. Although it is not perfect, it is a reasonable compromise between the will of the people (popular vote) and our nation being a nation of semi-independent states (electoral votes), where small states and large states each have a voice in the selection of the President. I do like what Maine and Nebraska have done, getting away from the winner-takes-all concept and allocating one elector to each congressional district and two electors to the state's popular vote winner; it would be good for other (but not all) states to adopt that. This would reduce the possibility of a few large urban areas in some states from completely deciding the states' electoral votes, making rural areas meaningless. It would also encourage candidates to visit more parts of states, not just the large cities.

[@inteallsviktigt]

Or here me out, just use proportional distribution

[@stevenwonnacott3669]

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

[@tommydameron9392]

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

[@sherlocksleuther5437]

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

[@volleyballer44]

True that, though let’s not overlook the corporate media networks whose taking heads pander to the no-information voters by banging the “abolish Electoral College” drums.

[@andyarellanoChannel]

they are called liberals; lets pray they grow out of it; how many orgies can one stand before you realize you are being used in every way

[@MarkR1111]

Trump is about to win both 🇺🇸

[@arthurpeters1996]

It’s not a feature, it’s minority rule disguised to look noble. The only reason anyone supports the EC is because it unfairly boosts the voting power of their side.

[@FirstKingOfKamelot]

i’m hearing him say electoral college forces candidates to campaign nationwide and outside their bubbles but that’s literally what they already do with swing states. No one campaigns in already decided states😐

[@drewpknutz1410]

Huh? Trump just campaigned at Madison Square Garden in Deep Blue NY.. The swing states can go either way, so its not "Inside their bubbles"... Thats the difference, .. The population centers vote the exact same way, every time, there would be no reason for anybody to vote outside of the 3 largest cities.

[@dexterthedog7551]

There is a lot of bad information about EC he just ignores. Very dishonest video.

[@reading_rainbow7742]

So, from the time I was old enough to vote in 2001 to the present, very few presidential candidates visit my unpopular town to campaign. I have attended rallies for Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Romney, Hilary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. Even Trump visited my town in 2019, and little did we know that Biden would win in 2020. Because of the election results, people in my town rioted and destroyed businesses and homes. This had never happened before, and the town has a population of less than 10,000. I could be off a tad. Nonetheless, now that I have a better understanding of the entire process, I believe the electoral college is literally causing the United States' demise. Now I understand why people despise the system and cannot stand the fact that it determines who will be the next president. The candidates campaign far too much and too hard, causing some of them to lose their potential positions. I recall watching Trump's rally when he was running for re-election as president. Many people were there to cheer him on. This rally drew more people than Hilary's in 2015. She had also brought Bill and Chelsea. Haha. I will never forget these times. Going to rallies will still not convince me to vote. If they abolish the electoral college, I may reconsider.

[@reading_rainbow7742]

Also, my state is a red state. Different parties come here.

[@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625]

That's true, but only for 1 or 2 elections. Remember, swing states aren't permanent and they are flexible, today's swing states can be solid tomorrow. The US Electoral history has gone through a lot of states being swing states and no more. Remember, everybody thought that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin would be so safe for the Democrats, until Trump made them competitive since 2016, nobody visited those states, until the people there changed their voting behavior. That's what electoral college is about. Every single state is vulnerable If you take them for granted.

[@jamalreed2618]

The only thing he didn’t touch on was how the states got their electors. Like who originally selected them. He went into how many they were allotted and who they weren’t but not how they were chosen.

[@randallchildress9960]

That is a question that seems to not get answered on any places that tell about electoral. I'm right there with you on that question.

[@alhambrabiker1476]

State legislature selects electors

[@sevans19561]

Each party selects the electors that promise to vote for their candidate. Some states used to even list the names of the electors on the ballot. In some states, an elector breaks the law if they do not vote for the candidate that they promised to vote for. The legislature does certify the results, so indirectly they choose the electors

[@Hanrich146]

I've learnt so much from Hillsdale College. Thank you all for the selfless knowledge shared . Let's support Hillsdale in every way possible. We need more institutions like Hillsdale in the US now. May the Lord bless this great institution!!

[@KElizabethHawkins]

Same. It's so awesome. As soon as I can, I will be donating.

[@OLSZOWKA75]

How do our votes factor into the electoral college people's decisions? If the electoral college chooses the president why do we the people even vote?

[@sinfashion0]

That's my question too?

[@christianemallon9571]

Electoral college votes according to the states majority (popular vote) so your vote does count especially in swing states

[@ModernCowboy78]

They cannot not just vote for whom they want. They must follow the will of the people.

[@daxeckenberg]

​@@ModernCowboy78 Kinda.. The existence of faithless electors are implied by the existence of the college in the first place. but as in the video it's become winner take all and "bound" electors. But it still helps smaller states not get run over by the opinion of a handful of large states

[@missjuliette592]

⁠@@christianemallon9571That’s not always true. In 2000, 2004 and 2016 the president elect did not win the popular vote. In 2000 despite the popular vote for Hillary Clinton being nearly 3million votes more than Donald Trump’s she still lost Also, in the beginning of the electoral college it’s happened as well with other president elects. The reasoning for that I’ve yet to find an answer to. I’ve been trying to find out what does the electoral college base their vote on because it’s not always what the people want in their states.

[@timf2279]

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

[@dexterthedog7551]

This video is terribly dishonest. He basically ignores every bad fact about EC. 1 rooted in slavery. 2 it has been changed again and again with out the will of the people. The only people pushing this relic are dishonest people on the right. With our current level of technology no really American would be ok with all of the problems with the EC.

[@realMartinHamilton]

Yes and using a majority would eventually become a mob ruled country. Just like if 10 people vote to steal a care and 6 say yes. Under the Republic we have laws, just like the electoral college provides checks and balances to protect the people from a mob rule.

[@bdaddyo4942]

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

[@davegreenlaw5654]

Except that you would still have detractors saying that the system is broken...mainly on the Left, as if all 50 states had gone with the Congressional District (CD) method of Maine and Nebraska, Trump would have still won in 2016. But then, folks on BOTH sides would be shocked if every state went with the CD method, as liberals in Illinois, New York and California would see that their states were not as blue as they thought they were, nor would conservatives in Texas, Georgia, and Florida see that their states were as red.

[@JTH-hm8ew]

Agreed. However, Congress can enact a uniform rule for allocation of electors since it would be unconstitutional since the US Constitution gives power to state legislatures to choose electors in the manner they so choose.

[@4y6857]

@JTH-hm8ew Surely you mean, “Congress >>can’t

[@tylerclark5086]

How is that any different than a national popular vote?

[@zs9652]

​@@tylerclark5086 It is different from a popular vote because it does not let a majority from a big city have more sway. I personally think every state shouod adopt Maine's method of electing presidents.

[@Victor-tl4dk]

I'm not sure how much less presidents would 'pander' to rural towns since all states have big cities and state vote is popular now, but I think it's very good that a state like Texas or California can't dictate politics for the whole country. The people in Idaho or Indiana matter too and have different issues. California or Texas voters may vote differently if they lived in those states. Then again, now that the US is basically the same everywhere +/- 20% how much does this really matter?

[@Pgresham3]

Pure Democracy is actually a popularity contest and does not produce justice as with a gladiator receiving an arbitrary thumbs up and thumbs down sentence. The Electoral college system allows for a more even, fair and genuine will of the people, taking interests and important issues of all areas of the country into the selection of our president. We have a Constitutional Republic with democratic processes. It truly is an amazing and beautiful thing.

[@TLoumena]

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

[@davegreenlaw5654]

*EXACTLY!* I would tell people who whined "But but...she won the popular vote!" by replying with "Yes, she won California by some four million votes over Trump. But you can't just take a portion of that to negate the seventy-seven thousand Trump won Pennsylvania by."

[@TLoumena]

@@BigAl455 So politicians can them form their policies to cater to the most poppulous areas in the country and the rest of the country will be forgotten. Do a little more research outside of your little bubble. Straight Democracy - 50% + 1 rule, is a disaster and leads to a tyranical government. The reason we are not a straight democracy is to prevent the tyrany of 50% +1. Things like the filibuster and electoral college were made to give the minority a voice in government. The only people who want to get rid of it are those who think it will give them more power.

[@brianmccain8818]

It's even worse, if you take out like 5 counties in California, he wins the rest of the state and national popular vote

[@OldMan854]

@@davegreenlaw5654so instead they negated the votes of 3 million voters.

[@TV24-ds4ob]

Thank you for your explanation. I understood yours more than the 10 minutes it took to listen to this. 🎗️🇺🇲🇮🇱⭐👍🏻

[@prsancho]

The Electoral College is a a manifestation of the American ethos. It also emulates, in the Executive branch the structure of the Legislative branch. In brief, the states matter. The presidential election is by the peoples of the states in union. First, the people on each state elect their president. Then, the states meet at the Electoral College to elect a common president to all. Americans, do not get rid of the Electoral College. It’s important. It’s part of who you are. Cheers from Brazil.

[@johnk2452]

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

[@gregory596]

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

[@johnk2452]

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

[@mickbadal]

Brilliantly stated. I have been saying this for years to many people I know, and sadly they and many Americans don’t perceive this problem. The days of the national “WWF wrestling match” to see which President-king wins need to come to an end.

[@gregory596]

@@mickbadal I blame Lloyd Bensten.

[@andyarellanoChannel]

overwhelmed, amazing, great comment and responses, wow, i knew you guys were out there, just like the the colonies knew there was a group of men out there that would speak truth and face whatever may come to fulfill their dream of a Nation (i had to try :-) ; really great post!!!

[@ardiffley-zipkin9539]

I learned about the Electoral College through every phase of my schooling through college. It is essential for fairness.

[@dexterthedog7551]

So you are ok with the fact the the EC is rooted in slavery? You are ok with the fact the EC has been changed over 70 time without the will of the people? You are ok the EC electors have been arrested and in some cases imprisoned for fraud in involvement with the EC. I don’t think your education was sufficient.

[@nobodyspecial9262]

Thank you so much for reminding us we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy, now if only we can get the Media and our Politicians to understand that, our country might just become less polarized.

[@Lia2222]

What would help 💯 is if msm would post a banner and display it large enough to view properly when a reporter is giving an OPINION instead of giving the "factual news." IMO Until that starts happening, I'll continue getting my info from individual creators who aren't even journalists or my own research. And having said that, it's even more difficult when I'm researching to rely on search engines that hide important information and/or also are giving an "opinion." IMO

[@jimk9213]

First I would like to point out that if the authors of the Constitution intended for the Executive Branch not to be determined by the popular vote by essentially circumventing it with the invention of the Electoral College, that they failed miserably. 54 of the 59 past US presidential elections have coincided with the popular vote using the electoral college votes. That is over 90 percent!! Only 5 elections have been the exceptions, 3 in the early to mid 1800s and 2 most recently in 2000 and 2016 elections. Second, if the US form of government is supposed to be By The People, For The People , shouldn't it be the People that actually install their elected officials? Third, why should EVERY other elected official be democratically elected by their constituents including governors, Representatives, mayors, sheriffs, Senators, etc., EXCEPT the Executive Branch? Fourth, there are 11 states in the US that not only hold the majority of the population, around 56 percent of the population, but also have the necessary Electoral votes to win the Executive election meaning those 11 states have the ability to install the Executive Branch by the Electoral process OR the popular vote against the will of the other 39 states and D.C. If the intent of the authors of the Constitution was to protect against minority states installing the Executive Branch at the expense of the majority of less populated states, again , they FAILED miserably!! Fifth , the "winner take all" position of 48 states regarding their Electors allows a simple majority in those 48 states to essentially nullify the will of over 49 percent of the voting public in those states , worse it allows the 11 states i mentioned that have that same "winner take all" mentality to install the Executive Branch by a simple majority voting in a 2 candidate scenario ,meaning the Executive Branch can be theoretically installed by just 28 percent of the voting population of the US!! That is HORRIFYING!!! I grant that is not likely but just the possibility is SCARY to me and should be to everyone in the US. Sixth, If slavery had not existed at the time the Constitution was written, the Electoral College would not exist and the reason I can conclude that is because the number of Electors is determined by the number of Representatives plus 2 Senators, so how were the number of Representatives determined? The had have already written Article 1 and were on Article 2 where they had already established the 3/5th Compromise for Article 1 to figure out how to determine the number of Representatives. What actually happened is the two authors that actually came up with the Electoral College , James Madison and James Wilson were in favor of installing the Executive Branch by popular vote but the plantation slave owners would have insisted their slaves be allowed to be treated as individuals and be able to vote essentially giving the plantation slave owners multiple votes since their slaves would vote as their masters instructed them. James Madison and James Wilson knew that allowing slaves to vote would be a non starter and they had already come up with the 3/5 Compromise so using it to establish the number of Electors and the Electoral College system was not much of a stretch. Legal slavery in the US has been abolished, the Electoral College's inception was a result of that legal slavery and should be abolished since legal slavery has been abolished as one main argument against it . I have already given quite a few arguments against it in my rant.

[@DerekOfRivia]

Trump still won

[@dexterroni4051]

The government we have now is not the government in which they assigned. First of all, they didn't want parties. Second of all, a good portion of those people didn't want the popular vote because it would have brought down the votes from not having slaves counted towards their electro votes. And last fewer people vote because they don't feel like there's a reason. So all of the presidential elections are in question of what it could actually been.

[@jilliewillie8720]

Excellent explanation. Thank you!

[@MissyEast-zv9kw]

THANK YOU . Me before this video . Me after this 👍🤩. You are so appreciated.

[@Jennytwh]

Thank you for making this video.

[@loganb.2029]

Never heard the answer to the question Why should we keep it?

[@johnscotto5045]

It is interesting to meet at the professor cited the founders recent history as a reason for not wanting direct majoritarian rule. While I am sure, that is a factor, they were opposed to it conceptually from the historical record of pure democracy in Greece. Just as they were clearly motivated to put a check on the possibility of a demagogue by Roman history.

[@martionman]

Honestly when was the last time a presidential candidate campaigned nationally? The EC has us now allowing just 7 states to determine the fate of all 52. This system is beyond broken. In favor of not having mob rule we’ve been reduced to extreme minority rule. Is that really what the founders expected would happen?

[@Ellenred5257]

I understand your opinion but any state could flip and sometimes they have throughout the years. It may always come down to "a few states" deciding, not necessarily the same ones each time

[@BM-vj1px]

Swing states change over time. Florida used to be a big swing state. Texas will soon become a swing state. With a popular vote election the candidate would visit even less states. They’d go to the most populated areas and skip the entire middle of the country besides Texas. Popular vote woild be mob rule and ignore most of the country.

[@ForbiddenFollyFollower]

Minority rule where the most interesting people decide who's president.

[@realMartinHamilton]

swing states can vary. Years from now California could become a swing state if they decide to have fair elections and stop their mass importation of illegal voters that vote with no voter ID.

[@tonistarner4098]

Great explanation. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing!

[@danelen]

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

[@misterjones842]

According to Republicans, we have election integrity issues with the electoral college.

[@gershonodze4703]

Thank you for the clear explanation. Other people try to explain it but they sound like they don't understand it themselves.

[@DCUPtoejuice]

If the popular vote is good enough for the whole country as one population, then it is good enough for each individual state and the states can maintain their autonomy.

[@ssj2camaro21]

The first statement is false. We are the UNITED STATES of America. Not 1 single solid country. No other country is like the US.

[@workingshlub8861]

electoral college is good because no candidate can take any state for granted.....at least they shouldnt....battleground states can change anytime from state to state..

[@enolopanr9820]

There are only 7 battleground sates. The other 43 states get no voting impact. The EC is broken

[@Heavenlydaz]

It’s called a constitutional republic. It insures integrity in our electoral process. The checks, and balances, the founding fathers inserted into the constitution, guarantee this. A more perfect union. Let’s not ever sway away from this. It’s pure America.

[@tosseway145]

What people don't understand is it is not 1 election. It's 50 different elections held at the same time. Each state has different rules, ballots, values and priorities. This is the way that it should be. It's like playing the world series all on the same day. Some games are more important than others. Some games are won by a lot but that does not carry over to the next game. There is a home field advantage, injuries, weather. At the end of the day the team with the most wining games is the victor. The team has to play long and hard and smart in order to win.

[@eddysgaming9868]

Thank you all at Hillsdale.

[@jimaustin9981]

Ive said the same thing. Electoral collage type system on the state level. Also splitting the states federal electoral votes between the candidates, if at all possible. Say state X gets 3 electoral votes. So candidate A wins by a slight margin. Candidate A gets 2 of 3 votes. Candidate B gets 1. Everybodies vote means something.

[@realMartinHamilton]

I think Maine has a process like you're explaining.

[@chuckrice8496]

The professor is right we should keep the Electoral College yet me thinks he missed a point. Minority Rights. Like with Senators the smaller states did not want the larger states to rule the day. As we see today, a three city or seven city race for president. Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware wanted leverage or the ability to push back against the big states. Pure democracy is nothing more than MOB Rule. The reason we have a republic, if you can keep it. Through the progressive movement starting over 100 years ago, the citizen's ability to restrain the federal government has been blown to pieces. The 17th Amendment made senators National Senators based on where the money comes from not subject to the recall of the start legislatures and legislators. Sad. There is more. Grace and Peace, chuck

[@ramdasdas3021]

I think that the complexity of this topic would benefit by having it presented via an open discussion, i.e. a classroom setting, with Q&A.

[@andrewdoggett3456]

Perfect explanation for keeping the electoral college. Thanks a lit

[@JohnB-nq4js]

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

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

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

[@JohnB-nq4js]

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

[@tomservo75]

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

[@saewoody6366]

The 19th😮. I see what you did there!😂

[@CrazyManwich]

I agree with that as the Senate was supposed to represent the states legislatures not the people. The House of representatives are the ones who represent the people.

[@user-ys9to2ie7k]

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

[@joanwirth9229]

Love it!

[@sariahcheadle9909]

"The electoral college fosters truly nationwide campaigns."....yeah ok. Tell that to the 43 non swing states. This video feels contradictory.

[@BM-vj1px]

They’re only “non swing states” now. Swing states come and go.

[@SaintPaul-bp3qr]

Non swing states are non swing states by CHOICE. If the people of California wanted to vote red, they could very well do that and sway the election in the other direction. It’s just that 43 states happen to almost always vote a certain way and are predictable so candidates focus on the unpredictable or swing states. But that’s not a fault of the system.

[@sariahcheadle9909]

@@SaintPaul-bp3qr what? I don’t even know how to respond to this because I find your response confusing. As if non swing state voters can collectively force other voters to vote how they want so they can be a swing state? Also your point just further proves my point about how the electoral college does NOT foster a nationwide campaign. You just said it yourself.

[@SaintPaul-bp3qr]

@@sariahcheadle9909 It’s not difficult to understand. No state is forced to vote a certain way. It’s just the fact that 43 states always seem to vote a certain way is not a fault of the electoral college but of the states themselves. And the designation of “swing state” is not fixed. It varies from election to election.

[@TaterRaider]

Swing States also change. States gain and lose as population grows at different rates and moves around. You could go with portioned electorate like Maine or Nebraska, but that's a State issue. You could abolish the Electoral College via Constitutional Amendment. 37 states would have to ratify it. Good luck. Some states have signed a pact to vote with whoever wins the national popular vote. The pact takes effect once it holds 270 votes. If this was in play this election, I do not think Harris would have a single vote, so maybe that's not a great idea either. It's partisan. In history, losing the popular vote but winning the college has happened four times and twice congress has elected the president and vice president due to lack of Electoral support. The system is what it is and our country still stands.

[@BASE5NYC]

really great explanation & amazing video quality. well done.

[@lmcgready]

Not an American so I appreciated this information but I still don't understand the Electors SELECTION process. Please help.

[@TheSireverard]

At founding, there were 2.5 reps for every senator. Now there are 4.35 reps for every senator. The role of "large" states in the electoral college has nearly doubled. I posit we need more reps and more senators. More reps to reduce the population-per-rep ratios between disparate states, and more senators to keep the ratio of electors in "large" and "small" states close to the original ratio. 600 and 250 should do it. Add DCs 3 electors and you get 853 college votes: 427 to win.

[@TheSireverard]

As - what I think is - an additional benefit, the larger number of reps and senators should give a greater opportunity to third parties.

[@realMartinHamilton]

Each representative of the house represents about 747,000 people. California is counting illegal aliens in this population which is why they want an open border and no voter ID. They end up taking a house seat from another state too. Having a secure border will fix this problem.

[@Tom-ym2id]

The problem with this system is most Americans don’t understand it. The bigger problem is it discourages voters. I have 2 examples. I live in Indiana but work in Illinois. Most people in Indiana that are Democrats will not vote because they think it doesn’t matter for there state. The opposite problem happens for republicans in Illinois. Therefore, my theory and it’s just a theory is that there’s a huge percentage of people that will never go to the polls.

[@zs9652]

That is the people's own apathy. The best solution would be every state adopting Maine's electoral process.

[@RatfromNadeaust]

I felt the say same. Ive never voted in my life and I didn't plan to vote ever. People told me I was the problem. But when I told them I was voting this time they were happy. But when they found out who I was voting for they were mad. I just gave up and didn't want to vote at all because I thought they were happy. But anyways I went in to vote red in California and I get told ehh it doesn't matter" so it killed motivation for me for next time. But after talking to my old HS principal he told me he does matter because it's part of the data and it's closer to turning blue into red next a election

[@Ellenred5257]

I used to think like this when I was younger. I began to understand that if enough people who thought like this voted, it could change the outcome

[@colleengeier9994]

I live in Indiana, I do vote but in presidential elections my vote really doesn't count. I love where I live and love my job but it is frustrating to know my voice is not really heard when it comes to the leader of our country!

[@kenramos8061]

Thank you.

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

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

[@brianmccain8818]

See the comment above about splitting by district. The parties made a decision in the past for winner take all to stop close elections.

[@DocAllen424]

So what you want is the electoral system applied at the state level

[@miriba8608]

There is a reason Liberal/Left Democrats don't like it and want to get rid of it.....just food for thought.

[@augustday9483]

If you're a conservative but you want to get rid of the electoral college, you'd better figure out how to win the popular vote first, or you're never going to see a Republican president again. As things stand right now, Republicans are not winning the popular vote. Urban population centers are almost all Democrat-majority, and so they have a huge advantage with population density that allows them to get out the vote much easier.

[@CB-y8f]

This is pretty much the way the UN works and nobody has an issue with that. All countries get a vote, so China and India with populations over a billion have the same vote as countries with a fraction of their population. United Nations - the nations vote...United States - the States vote.

[@dexterthedog7551]

People that have an issue with a popular vote are almost always Republicans. Because the EC favors the right.

[@Numbers_May24]

Wonderful explanation!!

[@Oliver.Verdant]

I don’t want Liberal Cities dictating what happens to the entire United States. No Thanks. KEEP our electoral college safe.

[@rangersmith4652]

They already very nearly do.

[@jcf2322]

The best argument here is that it fosters a greater national campaign, because after a certain point there isn't any value in one additional vote from that state once you have a majority, in a winner takes as all system. However, that's about it. For all the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority", I don't see a lot of concern for, what I think we would all agree is, a much more dangerous concern being minority rule. Like, I don't know how proponents of keeping the electoral college, in particular a certain political party, expect the majority of voters to be content repeatedly with the president being selected having not won the majority of support from voters. It has happened 5 times in country's history and twice within the last 30 years. It's not sustainable for a country for one of the two political parties to have all but given up on evening attempting to actually win the majority of voters, and instead edge out a win by electors.

[@TH_2212]

Thank you for such a well put together explanation.

[@kensuzdoer]

My understanding is the electoral doesn’t have to vote the way the people vote?

[@lmcgready]

This was my question as well. I also still don't understand HOW the electors are selected. The process...

[@AlanRudolph-i2l]

Some states bind their electors, but there have been a few examples of "faithless electors" who voted against the majority of voters in their state.

[@phil20_20]

The asignment of electors of each state should proportionately approximate the popular vote of that state. That's the closest thing to a fair compromise that you are going to get that preserves State's rights.

[@pawollatounenmoun]

Great explanation. Thank you.

[@sandyv2195]

I'm sorry, but I am well educated and have been an interested student of American government at all levels (federal, state, local) for decades, and even after watching this video multiple times AND researching other resources (e.g. the National Archives) re the process, I still don't fully understand the electoral college.

[@realMartinHamilton]

It protects against mass voter fraud similar to the mailed out ballots circumventing our already existing absentee balloting system in 2020. One state like California with no voter ID could produce many millions of fraudulent votes. If some other states did the same, then we would not have a fair election at all. By using electoral votes this is prevented.

[@VivekSharma-iu5cm]

Keep it currently the way it is if there is universal ranked choice voting. If First Past the Post it should be proportionality allocated.

[@PS-kn4im]

Depending on how this year goes, this conversation might get rather quiet for a little while. How funny that would be.

[@STho205]

Originally the electors were people you likely knew, private citizens that spoke for the candidate in your district and state. If you trusted them and they trusted the candidate...say Jefferson or Adams or Burr...you would vote that elector. The likelyhood of you getting to meet Jefferson, Adams or Burr was low. Even if you were in the Continental Army you likely never met Gen Washington. That reality has not changed. How many people have met Harris or Trump out ofthe 150 million voters. As parties emerged by 1800, the trend of state legislatures and governors block voting the Electors for the whole state emerged. Virginia, Pennsylvania and NY could run the game. The smaller statespicked up the practice out of levelling the game. It also helped eliminate third parties. We really should go back to the original method state by state, which would make your vote more representative and allow you a better knowledge of the candidate. Today Branded News tries to be your local elector to teach you about the candidates. You're more likely to meet thecandidate themselves than the corporate boss of CNN or Rupert Murdoch.

[@hollybigelow5337]

Although I technically know it, I often forget about the part of the Electoral College where the Founding Fathers wanted the President to campaign to the Electors directly and the Electors could really get to know the candidates and know who is corrupt and who has a reputation for following through and getting things done and also get to know their positions and policies in extensive detail, because that is basically their job and the candidates have a vested interest in being available to them on a personal basis. I completely understand other purposes for the electoral college, but it's nice to remember that sometimes. Also, fun fact - over 50% of the US population lives in just 9 states. If we went to a popular vote and those states could get on the same page, a candidate could theoretically win the popular vote without winning a single vote from any of the other 41 states. And that assumes we continue to require a majority vote instead of a plurality of the vote. If we went to a plurality, let's use 1824 as an example. Jackson won the popular vote with only 41% of the vote. That would only require winning 6 states - California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Fortunately, these states likely never would all agree, but it is an interesting idea that a candidate could theoretically win without winning a single vote outside of those states. In other countries with lots of candidates, winning with 1/3 of the votes if there are say 10 candidates would be very reasonable. This would only need 4 states.

[@nickd4310]

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

[@augustday9483]

The problem with that idea is that you'd always have a president and VP that are on opposing political parties, and thus they would be fighting to accomplish diametrically opposed agendas. There would be constant division, backstabbing, and disagreements over everything they try to do. A divided executive branch would be highly chaotic and unhealthy for the country.

[@nickd4310]

@augustday9483 The 1789 constitution, in fact, made the runner-up the VP until the 12th Amendment of 1804 created separate ballots. Of course, there's no reason why Congress could not vote separately on the two offices. The Founding Fathers never anticipated political parties. They therefore thought the presidency would be won on merit, not policy. The runner-up therefore would be the second most qualified candidate.

[@ACoyle-w9l]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't mention one of the big problems with the Electoral College, being that candidates focus almost entirely on a handful of swing states that will ultimately determine the outcome of the election. You mention that with a straight popular vote, candidates would focus on highly-populated urban areas, and that is certainly true, but I think it is a much narrower focus with the Electoral College requiring candidates to focus almost all of their time and money on 5 or 6 states.

[@christiansoldier77]

@ACoyle-w9l The point you're missing is that swing states change and high populated areas don't usually change. Plus swing states don't cancel our other states the way a highly populated urban area would cancel out other whole states

[@paperweight57]

What’s wrong with campaigning mainly to purple, swing states? Shouldn’t that have a moderating effect?

[@terriealexander2344]

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

[@exercisethemind]

The President should be elected by popular national vote. Hamilton was a monarchist. The Electoral College does not deliberate. States are represented in the devolution of powers, in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the state caucuses of the House of Representatives. Minorities are protected by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court. And one-person-one-vote is a fundamentally important principal to maintaining respect for a system of democratic and republican governance.

[@unbreakable7633]

The electoral college is essential to maintaining a republic and to having separate States as forming the Union, especially to protect the smaller States from the more populous States. James Madison was right about it. He was also right that combining religion and government always results in tyranny.

[@enolopanr9820]

No it is not. Separate state legislatures and constitutions would not disappear if we banned the electoral college. If we had 1 person 1 vote, we wouldn't need to protect small states from big states because the states aren't voting, the people are.

[@TheDutchGuy6238]

Abolishing the Electoral College is possible if you also make sure to get a multi-party system of more than 2 parties to balance eachother out. Here in The Netherlands, we value our rural areas as they provide us with food and farmers have their own political parties, being farmer's parties or Christian parties working on the farmers behalf. Because in the US, people do not see the bigger and long-term picture, rural areas may be threatened. When there is more understanding about the value of this area, the rural areas will gain power.

[@sandyv2195]

I think what you advocate for is more easily accomplished in a geographically small and less ethnically diverse country like the Netherlands, vs the geographically huge and enormously ethnically--and economically--diverse U.S. Using your example, you probably personally know farmers yourself, which contributes to your ability to identify with their needs. In the U.S., many millions of people may have absolutely no connection--or even an opportunity--to connect with farmers on any level, e.g. no farming occurs near where they live and they may, in fact, have never even seen a farm. I would welcome a multi-party system, but making it happen and making it work effectively would not be as simple as you make it sound.

[@aroderick18]

Not every state is winner take all. (Nebraska & Maine) I think it would be much better for every state to go that route. In this way, a republican in MA and a democrate in texas could have vote counted.

[@JoshBenitez-tu7pe]

So a candidate can receive every American vote but still lose due to receiving more electoral college votes??

[@sandyv2195]

Yes.

[@bob___]

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

[@gregory596]

Yup

[@BostonBoyer-vw5eb]

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

[@rjeddings]

I think he missed a chance to remind viewers that it is the President of the States - not the president of the people. Originally the plan was for the States to elect the President. Most state’s legislatures choose the electors to go vote on their behalf. Over time states started allowing the people to voice who they thought the electors should be. And that evolved into the system today where most states do not even list a slate of electors on the ballot. It’s too bad that states lost their Senators and their President. We are dangerously close to becoming a democracy.

[@kathyboly19]

Finally, an explanation that I can wrap my brain around. The EC may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative. If we have MOB RULE/POPULAR VOTE it would be a disaster. ie Jan. 6, 2021.

[@AlanRudolph-i2l]

Jan 6 happened under the Electoral College system - Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes. Com e on.

[@firstcynic92]

A number of people want to get rid of the Electoral College because of the imbalance in the number of citizens per EC vote. That could be addressed by standard passage of one law. Increase the number of members of the House of Representatives. It hasn't been increased in over 100 years. In that time the population has tripled.

[@enolopanr9820]

Or maybe instead of having 1000 members in the house we just remove the electoral college and ensure that every person gets counted as 1 vote every time and we don't need to change it constantly

[@firstcynic92]

@enolopanr9820 Which is easier: Pass a law: 50% +1 of the House & Senate plus the signature of the President. Amend the Constitution: 67% of the House & Senate plus ratifying by 75% of the state legislatures. Also, is something that hasn't happened in over a century constantly happening?

[@enolopanr9820]

@@firstcynic92 amending the constitution is easy when it’s so obvious that the system needs change. Saying we shouldn’t change it because people will disagree is just giving up. If any amendment gets added in my lifetime I bet it will be changing the EC

[@firstcynic92]

@enolopanr9820 Good luck with that and with your career as an accountant. PS learn basic math

[@enolopanr9820]

@@firstcynic92 dude I’m an engineer in college

[@Bill_Ross]

Having never lived in a swing state, I don't vote for president, because the opinion of the middle can't change the outcome, it always goes the same way. When you look at the polls, and past election results, one party has a 2 to 1 advantage over the other, and the middle never makes up more than 5-10%. Why should I vote, knowing that it is mathematically impossible to get any other outcome? Maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't get that answer from your video. As far as I can tell, voting is pointless on an individual level, unless you live in a swing state. Am I wrong? If so, please explain.

[@zs9652]

Thats an issue with the one party takes all system. Voting now only really helps when you are voting for the popular candidates and not a smaller independent. It should be all elections are ranked choice with president decided by Maine style electoral college imo.

[@realMartinHamilton]

But if the election is very close and can be decided by a few electoral votes your state could be the one who decides it. Swing states change over time too and a swing state (also known as battleground state, toss-up state, or purple state) is any state that could reasonably be won by either the Democratic or Republican candidate in a statewide election, most often referring to presidential elections, by a swing in votes. These states are usually targeted by both major-party campaigns, especially in competitive elections. Meanwhile, the states that regularly lean to a single party are known as "safe states" (or more specifically as "red states" and "blue states" depending on the partisan leaning), as it is generally assumed that one candidate has a base of support from which a sufficient share of the electorate can be drawn without significant investment or effort by the campaign.

[@atoddt8439]

So, what would be the effect if we said that all states had to be like Nebraska and not be winner takes all?

[@patrickpet7905]

It definitely doesnt work as intended. The two party system ensures no one else has a voice, the ratio of people to a Representative is way too high and needs to be increased to around 900, and the electors need to be free to vote instead of being clamped to a party ticket.

[@jeffscheib8799]

The problem is we are being led by the big cities the entire state is red except for 7 blue squares state goes blue. It's like the counties/cities don't matter. Here in NY Kathy Hochul only won 10 out of 60 counties and won the state of NY. It should be majority of a state not a few big cities

[@Actheman1978]

Governors are elected statewide. She did take the majority of the state by population.

[@bigmandiesman5044]

yup population ….simple math taught in Preschool, Middle School, and High School

[@Retiredtraveler1961]

Yes the founding fathers understood the voices of remote Kentucky or Georgia needed to count as as much as NYC & Boston or Philly. If we abolish the college, the country would be run Solely by democrats from NYC, Boston, & the west coast

[@bretttaylor5297]

And that, IS THEIR PLAN. Plain and simple. To have TOTAL CONTROL over all people INDEFINITELY! Make no mistake. The current system is the best on planet earth. We need the EC system in each state!

[@papal1500]

I like the electoral college, but understand it has problems. I propose the compromise of abolishing the winner take all system. Most states are purple, not red or blue! Blue districts in Texas shouldn't goto the GOP, and Red districts in California shouldn't goto the DNC!

[@blockvfive1196]

You sir are smart

[@chrisdurkee931]

I disagree. The proposal is "winner takes all" at the county level rather than the state level, and is essentially the same as "popular vote".

[@andrewwomble2722]

Make the political parities appeal to the masses, not just a handful of demographics. Thats why most Americans hate the current political establishment. Demopublicans only care about the people the algorithms say they should care about to win.

[@Seminight7]

Well explained professor

[@chadoakley8505]

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

[@billjones8542]

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

[@Landoftheignorant]

Can someone explain why the electorates can’t split, or the votes by them counting individually?

[@cynnakirkland8364]

how do the electors for the Electoral College actually vote

[@rangersmith4652]

In many states, electors can vote any way they want regardless of how the popular went in their state. It almost never happens, but it can. Large cities have too much electoral and legislative representation. I understand how the system was set up, but in modern America the populations of cities have ballooned to a point that has inappropriately shifted power. The Los Angeles metro area, for example, has 20 seats in Congress. That's more than the number of seats held by Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont, Main, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Alaska, and Hawaii -- combined. Yes, there are more people in LA, but that does not justify why the people in a single urban area should have more voting power than of all the people in a dozen states. There are similar disparities in several other very large urban areas. Add to that the fact most big urban areas vote heavily for one party -- the same party --all the time, and you can see how lopsided the system has become.

[@jimwinchester339]

WIthout the electoral college, our national elections would turn only on who has the largest 4-or-5 cities. Many state's would be essentially irrelevant. Ultimately, they would leave the union (and justifiably so). The electoral college is essential to guarantee not only that the president-elect is popular, but consistently popular *thoughout* the land.

[@gibsonbe1]

Urban areas do not cancel our rural areas. Many states like North Carolina while blue in the cities are red in the rural areas so that the state is mostly red, same thing for Pennsylvania. Kevin also left out the role that slavery played in the Electoral College. This is where slave states wanted slaves counted toward their population while denying slaves and later former slaves the right to vote.

[@jsarge3749]

My biggest worry is the states who are choosing to bind electors to the national popular vote instead of the state vote....

[@enolopanr9820]

This is brilliant, because it gets rid of EC. EC is disenfranchising americans

[@pathacker4963]

KEEP!

[@enolopanr9820]

I love having my Texas vote have zero impact on the election outcome. Yay we love the electoral college.

[@pathacker4963]

@ I am in California you really don’t want my state deciding for you.

[@enolopanr9820]

@@pathacker4963 how would California decide the outcome of the election when only California is only 12% of the population? If the EC went away, the conservative votes in cali would count

[@chrisowen3264]

The electoral college makes it so every vote doesn’t count. If your in a state that no matter what goes one way or the other every election then if your on the losing side your vote doesn’t matter. If you truly want every vote to count then count the votes and whoever get the most votes overall wins.

[@inkgeek4706]

If you went to popular vote, then it would only make it worse.. by doing that, states like new york, california, and a small amount of other densely populated states would determine the outcome of every election.. even within those states, you would find that only the densely populated cities would determine the outcome of the whole state. the best way to make your vote have more sway, is to extend the EC to every state by district rather than a winner takes all.. then your district would have their own representative, and that elector will go for what the district wants regardless of how the rest of the state votes.

[@nowhereman4319]

​@@inkgeek4706perfectly explained!

[@LarryaproudU.S.citizen]

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

[@heathclark318]

100% agreed.

[@TylerMcGettigan]

We need to bring back the original intent of electors having agency and a chance to meaningfully deliberate. Get parties out of it!

[@misterjones842]

The original intention of the electoral college was to not trust the masses to take this process seriously and to keep professed tyrants like Donald Trump out of the White House.

[@sevenRyeh]

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

[@pizzadanitza]

Thank you for the video. I’m no longer voting in the future. My vote means nothing against the Electoral College.

[@ItMatters-x9j]

We're past the electoral college. It's time to abolish.

[@Patrichardson-i9f]

@ItMatters-x9j Not likely any time soon!

[@jmattern]

How do you get to be a "Politics Professor"? Do you have to be elected?

[@ocmacman17]

He left out one very important factor, the number of people in the seperate states. This was a problem and the congress addressed it with the 3/5 compromise. Not good

[@pneumarian]

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

[@lashawnshipp8271]

Please make a video and explain the Electoral College. I want to see how much more clearer you can explain than the Professor in this video. I'll be waiting. 😂

[@Dejayel2024]

The Constitution was amended to allow for direct election of the US Senators (17th Amendment). The current practice of campaigning for the President in only the states with large electoral college member numbers ignores the rest of the states, the" so-called battleground states. It's time to change this permanently!

[@geobobmisfits1804]

Well done and very neutral. Personally, I’ve always viewed the Electoral College as a means of normalizing the popular vote so California or New York could not dominate the election process.

[@serbanaurelian4151]

Neutral? 😅😅😅 He s clearly for keeping the electoral college ...I can see that as fkin Romanian...

[@TobiasCaywood]

Are we falling backwards towards a parliamentary system. Are we fully recognizing the division between church and state? And if not what are we going to have to do so, to keep that from happening. Democratic/Republic of America!