Primary Elections Explained

Help support videos like this: / cgpgrey
www.cgpgrey.com/

[@strenght755]

This is one hell of a rigged system.

[@omegamagna]

+strenght755 rigged? i don't think thats the right word. inefficient and barely representative? sure.

[@treyk4839]

+omegamagna super-delegates are rigged for the establishment candidate. For example, on the democratic side, if Bernie and Hillary are close in the end, super delegates will go for Clinton. Whoops, even if Bernie is the favorite, Clinton will win the nomination. It is slightly rigged so the establishment has final say.

[@omegamagna]

that would imply purpose...

[@treyk4839]

omegamagna ?

[@huethen5454]

+Trey K on the other hand, in the unfortunate situation that trump end up winning the primary, there are still hopes that the establishment will pick someone else, so there are ups and downs.

[@peaveawwii1]

The US government goes up for sale every four years

[@AndresRamirez-fi5uw]

+Allen Lichner that's why we need Bernie Sanders!!!

[@peaveawwii1]

Andres Ramirez I am starting to like Bernie more and more. The more I research the guy the more I like him. The internet has been great for this. The media does not do Bernie justice. I live in SC one of the reddest states in the nation. People here are saying they would vote for Bernie over a Rep if he gets nominated but if Hillary gets nominated for get it. There may be another civil war. I do not think the country is as divided as the media suggests when it comes to political party division. The people here are just sick of the corruption.

[@AndresRamirez-fi5uw]

Allen Lichner Yeah I get that, i wouldn't want Hilary either. The first I heard of Bernie was through Discovery News here on KZbin. I learned about him and wondered why I didn't hear of him sooner. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination though don't think I'll vote Republican though. This is why Bernie must be nominated! Everyone is sick of corruption. /:

[@peaveawwii1]

Andres Ramirez I do not think of Bernie as a normal politician. He is honest. What really got me into Bernie was a youtube video that shows him confronting Alan Greenspan back in 2003. He spells it out to Greenspan and would not back down. Go to youtube and type Sanders Greenspan and check it out. This video changed my opinion of the man

[@AndresRamirez-fi5uw]

+Allen Lichner thanks, i'll check it out thanks

[@NPCrash]

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

[@jacobbass6226]

Nick 😂😂😂😂. That made me laugh soooooo hard.

[@emilstnt3495]

they did for 35 days

[@MuhammadUmair-yw8vj]

LoL...Legendary mate

[@y8r113]

Why the hell are there delegates? Doesn't seem very democratic to me.

[@VulpesVulpes42]

Dictatorship lite.

[@christater5540]

+Steve From Management BECAUSE TRADITION!

[@skazzaks1]

+Steve From Management It is also not democratic that people under 18 can't vote. There is no "true" democracy.

[@y8r113]

Devon Fritz Well, it's constitutional.

[@skazzaks1]

So? You made a claim about democracy, not constitutionality.

[@whakjob980]

Lol what a bullshit system who came up with this trash

[@miccullen]

+siquator Rich white people, who it favours immensely.

[@miccullen]

+Trovaynium He's only there because rich white people wanted him to be.

[@joluoto]

+siquator Thanks Obama

[@ashleyslater5938]

+Mic Cullen hahahhahaha

[@JJAB91]

+Mic Cullen And who are these "rich white people"?

[@Spawny]

All delegates should be required to vote as the citizens request. The fact that they can do as they like is complete crap and should be illegal.

[@Spawny]

but not all apparently

[@user-cq4tw5ji6w]

While its dumb and shady here's the reality. You have no reason to expect a political party to nominate the candidate you want. It's a private organization that is simply collecting information and making a decision based on that information. You are not actually involved in the democratic process at this point. This is an extraneous process that exists outside of the actual electoral system.

[@unvergebeneid]

+jordan orb Only that the electors that later vote for the actual president are also free to disobey their voters. Which of course I couldn't care less about because the whole concept of winner-takes-all is already design to disregard up to 50% of the voters and then you have almost an order-of-magnitude difference in voting power per voter between states so what difference does it make?

[@Aaron-pk9ky]

+Penny Lane Up to 50%? Not with the electoral college. Al Gore got comfortably over 50% nationwide when he lost the election, and that wasn't the first time it happened. In theory, you could win with around %25 per cent of the vote. The system is literally designed to screw over as many people as possible.

[@unvergebeneid]

Cam Cook That's due to my second point though, the difference in voting power by state. State by state, you need an actual majority to win. However, it's only a relative majority so if there are people who vote for a third party, they of course also throw their votes into the void. So the theoretical number of ignored votes could be made arbitrarily close to 100% if you wanted to construct such a scenario.

[@Huodinia]

I went to a Caucus with my dad once, I couldn't stand the system, most people end up going for the most popular cantidate if they can see how big the majority is, I think Primaries are a more representative system because you don't have to be a sore thumb when you choose an unpopular canidate, It also SIMULATES the Presidential election.

[@Huodinia]

***** I just prefer Primaries because they make some sense.

[@Huodinia]

***** How so? I feel the Caucus would be the more unfair of the two, please explain.

[@sevret313]

The problem could be solved by looking to parliamentary systems, were you don't elect people but parties. The largest party or coalition get the prime minister and you get a leader who can do something since they have control of the parliament. Electing a 3rd party candidate in a US would be disastrous, since they would have no control over the house nor the senate. This would also make sure people actually cared about who gets elected to the congress.

[@Huodinia]

***** That would be a complete disaster for the US, we have LAWS PREVENTING THAT from happening.

[@Huodinia]

***** Um... All civilized? Are you trying to attract the American diehards? But I know what you mean, it does seem dumb to me.

[@dandy-lions5788]

"When approval ratings couldn't be lower, yet re-election rates couldn't be higher, you'll know you've succeeded."

[@aurelia8028]

I got that reference

[@aoshi9254]

Amazing reference

[@spookyscaryskeletonsmith2840]

Nice reference

[@ihavenoidea9426]

I didn’t get that reference.Could someone tell me what it is ?

[@missingtexturez]

@@ihavenoidea9426 rules for rulers

[@dianne52753]

I was kinda offended at the corn comment as an Iowan myself but then I remember my school is surrounded by corn fields

[@evannoring4169]

SEP huh?

[@graceliu8839]

It's what snobby New Hampshire thinks. We know that Iowans are progressive and the first to legalize SSM outside of New England.

[@evanroberts7248]

Grace Liu But do you know what state is in New England? New Hampshire. HAIL THE SUPREME STATE!!! lol

[@BoomerangPlays]

+dhodz hoddy States can't have a sexual prefrence...

[@ricardocampos6517]

Hello everyone, what SSM stands for?

[@aldrichallenbarcenas6740]

Being non-US, this help me understand what is going on in the latest season of House of Cards.

[@jadenclarke3625]

Okay that is wrong I am american I know

[@ericrice5585]

Aldrich Allen Barcenas Check out The West Wing on Netflix, you'll really put this knowledge to good use.

[@paul_chandler3082]

Natsu :)

[@AnhTrieu90]

Aldrich Allen Barcenas Dude, I learned about these stuffs watching that show.

[@joshuarosenblum8155]

+Aldrich Allen Barcenas House of Cards does not at all represent American politics. If you want a really accurate (if exaggerated for comic effect) portrayal of American politics, watch Veep. At its core - everything on that show is true.

[@Kevo216666]

Quantum physics is simpler. WTF.

[@whig3982]

yeah politics,right

[@Lifebeam87]

+K Russell hahaha

[@pabduab5733]

+K Russell LMAO but seriously

[@GalOnHunt]

haha true!!

[@B0bb217]

Ikr

[@stephengoralski6555]

So my vote means...basically nothing if a guy with a big fancy hat doesn't feel like listening to me.

[@JonahNelson7]

Exactly right. In presidential elections, your vote doesn't change anything, but people in your zone voted in the guy with a big fancy hat. The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a representative republic, and you vote for the delegates.

[@TheRealBlackCarrieBradshaw]

Big fancy hat, lol.

[@invalidcrazy7034]

@@JonahNelson7 You mean primaries? If you're talking about the electoral college, this has never really happen and nowadays most states have actually made it illegal to do that (since states decide how their electors vote under the constitution)

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Jonah Nelson America isn’t even a democratic republic because in a Republic people still have a voice. America is an authoritarian oligarchy

[@invalidcrazy7034]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Well the definition of a Republic is that the people elect the people in power, so clearly you're wrong. Rome was very oligarchic (a lot more than the USA) and it's still considered a Republic. Please do know what you're talking about

[@laserwolf65]

We seriously need to simplify the way things work in this country.

[@escpfrmhypr]

laserwolf65 check out British elections. still can't wrap my head around it.

[@josephang9927]

Less regulations and smaller federal government is the best way.

[@bunney3272]

British one very easy to understand.

[@ericrice5585]

laserwolf65 It seems like there are several opportunities in your voting system for individual people to override the will of the majority. Is that really democracy?

[@Bluesonofman]

Democracy is when everyone has a vote on everything and there is no central government.

[@Houdini111]

This is why I work with computers. Computers. Make. Sense.

[@ediegray8798]

Houdini111 as well as math

[@kooky6383]

Are you saying that we need to turn politics off, then turn it back on again??

[@GRBtutorials]

Not true. Politics in most countries (excepting, probably, the Baltic countries [especially Norway], Switzerland, and maybe some others) is like Windows after 5 years of usage, installations and uninstallations, updates, etc. without reformatting. In other words, almost everything's flawed and doesn't need a reboot, but a full formatting and reinstall! And some more RAM and processing power.

[@Greendalewitch]

@@GRBtutorials Im just gonna say it. Its not possible to fix the American system. You will have to tear it all down and start again because this.... no. Tear it down. Tear it all down.

[@oossgl]

Well, not always, but yeah.

[@sam4744]

So what's the point in voting if the delegates get to choose who they want to elect?

[@beckett929]

+Bob most states have laws requiring the delegates cast the votes reflective of how their people voted

[@KurenaOfficial]

+Bob The video just said that 20% of the delegates can choose whatever they want. But 80% HAVE to go with what the people want. So you still need to vote if you don't want that 20% to win. For example, if you vote for Bernie Sanders, and get the money out of politics, we're one step closer to getting rid of corruption and the electoral college.

[@KurenaOfficial]

Well for one, I didn't say HE would get the money out of politics. There's the Wolf Pack Amendment if you aren't aware of that. That's what I was referencing. And you can pass that without congress. Also, you haven't done any research. Obama is and always was a moderate Republican. Same with Hillary if you look at their policy. The political spectrum has been shifted so far to the right that we're bordering on fascism. There is no left anymore. Which is why ANY Liberal idea is "too" liberal in the media. Also, again, because of your lack of research, you probably haven't heard Bernie explain the difference between him and Obama. Obama went in wanting to negotiate. Him, like 99% of democrats, buckle under pressure. You have to know how to play politics. Look at what FDR got done with stacking the courts. Also, most people are aware that he won't get everything that he says he's going to get. No politician can. But over time, it can move in the right direction. Also, in his career, he has been principled for over forty years. He was for trans rights before GAY rights were even a thing. He is someone who has stood up against power, even when he was the only one on his side. You haven't done any research. All you've done is hear the policy plans that he mentions in every video that he's been in, so maybe you saw one and got what he was fighting for, and then gave up on believing in it before anything even got started. The only reason why you're so pessimistic is because the constitution has been chewed up and spat out by our government. Because of corruption. Basic health care and basic education should be a right and IS in other countries. Do you even know what our taxes go to?

[@KurenaOfficial]

And by the way, you are aware that most billionaires got an inheritance right? They didn't work for what they had, and a lot of them sit on their ass all day, with their investments. So their money makes money. If you give me a 100million dollars inheritance, I think I'm going to do all right. Just sayin'. It isn't even possible to work harder than everyone else, to make a billion dollars. So your idea of a meritocracy isn't real. And what are you saying? (I'm not trying to sound condescending. Like with the "just sayin'." It's more of a rant towards rich lazy people. I'm genuinely trying to explain some thigns to you and have a discussion. Hopefully you aren't taking this very seriously.) Bernie was literally born in 1941 and was running for senator in the 70s. He went to college. He didn't just sit on his ass all day or anything. Even though he didn't make it as senator, back then, you could literally walk across the street and get a job. He was working. He needed a job in order to run and get his name out there. I just think that you have completely given up on the political system. and that's understandable, but when you look at countries where they listen to the people, people are a lot more optimistic about politics. If we do nothing, it will only get worse.

[@KurenaOfficial]

Not only did you not disprove my refute, but also,...I'm not, you're just speculating, and possibly projecting. You can work your way to the top. However, a LOT of billionaires got an inheritance. Like I said, it's literally impossible to work so hard that it would equate to a billion dollars. There are people who are much poorer, who are working harder than them by far. It's not the harder the work the further you go, it's all based off of opportunities. Also, I don't know if you are aware or not, but a lot of people seem to look at money as if it is limitless. Money is limited, there's only so much money in the world. So we really need a redistribution of wealth. No ones asking to make it so that everyone has a million dollars, it's just that we are factually making less money than our ancestors in the 1930s, even though we are more productive than any previous generation. It's because of the mistreatment of wealth distribution. Most lobbyist receive corporate welfare checks and subsides every year. Yes, the rich get welfare checks too, except they don't need them. Koch Industries received 1.4 million dollars in Obamacare subsidies even though they strongly opposed Obamacare. Another example would be the Keystone XL pipeline. Not only is it being created just to make the rich richer (so it will be making money on it's own) but, it will receive over a billion dollars in corporate subsides. There are an endless list of examples, but I just thought I'd give you a couple. Lastly, I refuted several of your points and you yet only tried to refute one of mine, which to me, comes off as an attempt to make me seem as if I am wrong overall. But I don't know.

[@astroman0500]

Man... Is it just me or the US has a very complicated electoral system?

[@mister_i9245]

astroman0500 Even we think that.

[@Azraiel213]

+astroman0500 "Labyrinthine" is the word you're looking for. Given how upside down and arse backwards their system is I almost understand the American far right's feverish paranoia about "big government". Granted that whole "state laws can override federal" insanity is one of the main reasons everything's so inefficient and fucked to hell over there. >_>

[@shriswamiramanand]

+astroman0500 It is more corrupt than complicated. It intentially meant to be that way, so people can not keep up with it. Worst of all, states with most population like California, New York, may go at last in Primaries, and may not matter much!

[@rjkp4679]

+Azraiel213 State laws can't override federal laws. This can be both good and bad. Good, because when the federal government passes something like the civil rights act, the states have no choice but to comply. Bad, because when states pass beneficial laws that contradict federal law, they're technically invalid. This is why federal agents can raid marijuana dispensaries in states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana.

[@joekennedy4093]

It really should be a direct election. Back in the day they had delegates because you couldn't really know too much about the candidates and people would just vote for the person from their state, but now that's not a problem.

[@UberMangaka]

***** He was saying we should get rid of delegates, not primaries. He's talking about getting rid of the people who go "hey your vote goes to me so I can choose who becomes our candidate! I'm not obligated to vote the way you want me to so I'm going to vote for this other guy instead" those people. Getting rid of delegates in primaries, caucuses and the nationals, means your vote goes where you want it, instead of handed to someone who has no reason to vote the way you want, especially when you wont know about it if he doesn't.

[@UberMangaka]

***** well, we basically vote for them to vote on our behalf, so technically they make up 100% of the vote. That's 100% of the people we vote to act as representatives actually have no obligation to represent us. Sorry what was it we told the Brits about taxation and representation?

[@UberMangaka]

***** which is also solved by abolishing the electoral college.

[@sullivandmitry1416]

The reason we don’t have a direct democracy or elections is because the delegates are there to possibly establish balance within the country. More often than not the elections go to who the people choose most of the time they choose who the people want. Direct elections lead to tyranny of the mob.

[@kguy6635]

@@sullivandmitry1416 What are you even trying to say

[@ultimatrompeta]

So, let me get this straight: My people and I can vote all we want for "Joe", but at the end the Delegate and Super Delegate can do whatever they want! That is the most deceived system in the world.

[@MrFreudianslips]

+Aguila701 LOL

[@bliffity2692]

+Bill "Energy Turtle" Fontaine de la Tour Dautreive But that's not how it is in most places. And we do we even need all these middle men, anyways?

[@gwensmith7439]

No, it isn't. It's the party asking the people who they want. Party are private clubs who can run their nominations however the fuck they want, and this one is the best way for them because they can see who would win the general election more.

[@megag52]

thats the democratic party for ya

[@yuvalsela4482]

@@Mobilis17 depends on the state.

[@sirnate9065]

I hate how out-dated the american political system is. We don't need delegates or an electoral collage any more.

[@dinosaurwizard]

+SirNate is that a painting or something ?

[@sirnate9065]

tortycloud Is what a painting?

[@dinosaurwizard]

+SirNate the electoral collage to which you are referring

[@gogeeks96]

+tortycloud the electoral college is how Americans vote for president. It's super complicated and unnecessary but it's in the constitution so we can't get rid of it.

[@Rallinale]

+Bethany Brown He was making a joke because SirNate misspelled "college" as "collage".

[@hughsephniko4985]

In Australia we have a federal election every 3 or so years in which you can choose which party you want to vote for. The party with the most seats wins. That's it. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much easier.

[@JacobHall18731943]

Hughseph Niko That's a parliamentary system, in which the PM holds executive power, if I'm correct. In the U.S., where legislative power is more separate from executive powers, the executive power is held by the President, and many would rather vote for a person than a party. While we can agree that our voting process can be simplified, changing to a system like that would require too much of a profound change to the Constitution.

[@vaibhavgupta20]

+Jacob Hall US will have to change thou because 1 thing young people hate is "Establishment"

[@sondrabradley8040]

Yeah but if they did it that way look at all the idiots, (who are sucking up all the tax payers money) who would be out of jobs. It's always about the money! But I believe your way would be the best way.

[@BeardedCatDad]

Did you know this video is embedded in the FAQ of Bernie's website?

[@aprofessionalgamer5355]

Yeah, because his voter base is a bunch of politically illiterate children.

[@somefuckstolemynick]

Anthony Decesare says the guy (in the comments of that very video) who can’t proofread his own comment.

[@aprofessionalgamer5355]

@@somefuckstolemynick Oh no, a mistype on a phone? He must be so stupid, I'm so glad I'm going to elect a communist shitbag who'll destroy the economy! That'll show my intellect!!

[@EpicExplosionify]

Anthony Decesare Lol Trump destroyed the economy. Stock market down 10%

[@aprofessionalgamer5355]

@@EpicExplosionify Yet unemployment is at it's lowest ever, and stock is cuz of covid 19 lmao. Don't blame trump for a virus you fuckwit.

[@Fireball006]

Funny how it was uploaded 8 years ago and 4 years later a lot of people watched it (judging by the comments) and now 4 more years later it got recommended again

[@Trinexx42]

Does the National Convention technically count as a political party?

[@matthewjamesmjw4172]

oh hahah I get it

[@somedude5422]

OKAY YOU KNOW WHAT-

[@willsevy7836]

A fitting time for KZbin to recommend this, haven’t seen CGP Grey in YEARS

[@rushofblood994]

Pleaaaase could you do a video explaining how the U.S. govt actually runs in terms of passing bills and laws etc? As a non-American I'm so confused about what the senate is, what congress is, what their functions are in relation to the president, and so on. Would really love it told in ELI5 style. It seems like such a flawed system, with each overruling the other in some crazily counterproductive and counterintuitive tripartite system. But I may be wrong. Like I said, I basically know jack shit about any of it.

[@GalanDun]

+Alistair Drennan Trust me, a lot of people are.

[@sarfaraz.hosseini]

+Alistair Drennan It's not completely unlike the UK which is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, whereas the US is a constitutional republic with a presidential system. Check out _'Crash Course'_ on KZbin. They do one on US Government and Politics.

[@Tausami]

+Alistair Drennan A congressman can introduce a bill to Congress, which is separated into the House and the Senate. The Senate is more prestigious than the house and has only 100 members. The number of people in the House increases with the US population. All of the relevant committees, which are groups of congressmen who are appointed to specialize in a particular subset of the government, i.e. defense or agriculture, approves the bill. Then it goes to the floor of the two houses of Congress, where the congressmen vote on it. If they get a majority, it goes to the president. If the president approves the bill it becomes law. If he doesn't, it goes back to congress and they vote on it again. If they get an overwhelming majority, they can go over the head of the president and pass the bill anyway. And that's how laws happen. Also, at any point during the process other congressmen can add and subtract things to the bill. Frequently this means that a veterans's welfare bill will turn into a bill to build a new bridge before it gets to the final vote.

[@homeofthemad3044]

+Alistair Drennan Congress is a bicameral legislature with the House of Representatives and the Senate, in the Senate, two senators are elected to Congress regardless of the state's population, in the house of representatives, each state is given a number of representatives roughly based on the population of each state. The idea behind this is that the majority rule but the minority aren't taken advantage of because they have a say too laws can be proposed in either the house or the senate, after a long complicated process, the bill is voted on and if a majority approve it goes to the other house, after another long complicated process the other house then votes on the bill and if it is approved with a simple majority the bill goes to the president, the president can either sign the bill making it a law, or he can veto it if he doesn't like it if the bill is veoted it goes back to congress Congress can make the bill a law if they come up with a 2/3 majority vote to override the president but that rarely happens also each house has certain responsibilities for example, the Senate has the exclusive role of declaring war, the house does not have a say in declaring war there is a lot im glossing over like the editing process of the bill but that is in general how it works

[@joshuarosenblum8155]

+Alistair Drennan Some good descriptions below and I second the suggestion to watch the American Government videos at Crash Course. In regards to the idea that the American Constitutional system is flawed - you have to keep in mind that the system is designed *not* to get things done. It's a feature, not a bug. The Founders designed the system that way because they feared the concentration of political power that would result in tyranny. They calculated that they would rather have a system which was inefficient and failed to get certain things done, rather than a system that was very efficient but concentrated power. Like everything in life, it's a trade-off. The American Constitution simply weights freedom higher than efficiency.

[@AlphaYTang]

With technology being the way it is now, I don't know why any of this, including the electoral college needs to exist. It should simple be done as a popular vote, directly for who we want as POTUS.

[@HoratioAccel]

+A Tang You really want the government running a voting site / program ? Look at the ACA website. Oh wait, you can't because none of the pages will load and it just crashed your web browser. And your computer is on fire. LOL

[@henkwaterlander3038]

+Justin Kriner but this system is a tyranny of minority, if you win 33% of the votes and candidate #2, #3 and #4 20%, 25% and 22%, you win. Furthermore, due to super PAX and the reliance of candidates upom them, big corporations and the 1% will have an unequal amount of incluence in the election.

[@DethPenguin]

+Henk Waterlander Campaign funding only has an effect on an uneducated voter base.

[@edheldude]

+A Tang And not FPTP but lists so your vote gets transferred from your first choice to somebody else if s/he doesn't get elected.

[@edheldude]

+Henk Waterlander What makes it worse is that maybe only half of votes vote. So your 33% is actually ~16%.

[@piratepear]

That is soo freaking complicated that there is no way it could possibly be considered democratic!

[@grmpf]

+Christopher Piras Just because it's complicated doesn't mean it's not democratic. Mathematical models that determine the number of seats in non-delegate systems are often very complicated to look at, but actually designed to be as fair as possible, so that we don't have the weird situations in which more people voted for one candidate, but the other candidate ended up having more electors on his side, thus becoming president without actually having the majority of the people behind him in the election.

[@GOmegaPHD]

+grmpf isnt that why al gore lost or am i confusing that for something else

[@Comrade_Nikolai]

+Christopher Piras In Other countries the party chooses the leader, and can out them whenever they want. Such as here in Australia which in the last 8 years weve had like 4 prime ministers At least u get to choose who represents your party (sorta)

[@Dragonriderperson]

+Gabriel M. (Gehb) Al Gore lost in the presidential finals election, and it's addressed in Grey's electoral college. Short version is that State's electoral votes don't perfectly match up with their population, and Al Gore had more people who wanted him, but fewer states.

[@adammeskell1740]

+grmpf the caucus system is a waste of time any it should be left up to one vote on one day. Delegates are not needed either

[@racool911]

Washington: No serving more than two terms America: Ok Washington: Stay Neutral America: Ok Washington: And Finally...No Political Parties America: Hell No!

[@MrHat.]

Just a quick thing there was no presidential term limit until FDR

[@JonahNelson7]

Two political parties are inevitable in a system of popular appeal.

[@Kurvaux]

Mr. Hat It was a tradition before FDR after that it became law.

[@jwil4286]

@@MrHat. and that's the problem. we had accepted it as tradition, but FDR thought he was better than traditions that had guided us for generations.

[@caramida9]

Wait... what if you are indepen... 05:13 ... aww come on!

[@jc-zp1de]

Lmao

[@AtheniCuber]

I'm a hardcore Yellow voter

[@stubbythebaby6980]

Orange is the way to go. The Yellows are Communists and are immoral sinners!

[@ianforeman549]

@@henrynarkiewicz8778 Its a joke

[@Brandon-ji6ii]

So basically my vote doesn't matter

[@graceliu8839]

Basically, If your vote is part of the minority. It doesn't matter. "The needs of the many, outweight the needs of the few." When you are the few.

[@gwensmith7439]

it does. But it's a survey, and the parties don't owe you jack shit.

[@BoostedMonkey05]

but that's the opposite in the National Election... The needs of a few out weigh the needs of the many...

[@markcarls1896]

It never did.

[@ykalondra]

Yes it does. If there’s a huge voter turnout they’ll have no choice but to make it fair.

[@genedillman7811]

This video did a great job describing a very convoluted system that is designed to be fair and representational? Seems like the delegates hold too much power and could corrupt the representation part very easily. Or am I missing something here? We are coming up to this now as the primaries start so I'm trying to figure it out. Isn't there something better?

[@senzayyzone]

+Gene Dillman exactly what I was thinking what if those delegates and super delegates are more friends with the future candidates than the actual voter who barely gets to know them depending he/she could even make business with them (meanwhile we don't know what's happening behind the scenes as you were trying to say)

[@megag52]

only the democrats have superdelagates. keep in mind this is a lot lot lot more democratic than every other country in the world that i know of

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

@@megag52 Like having the result be defined on what the population votes?

[@megag52]

@@HappyBeezerStudios in Australia you don't get to pick party leaders. No average Aussie had any say in Albo or scomo being the big dogs of the 2 major parties. All don't internally. The UK is the same. The US actually let's millions or ordaniary people make this decision

[@natepotvin]

But wouldn't it be much easier to just have a magical wizard fling his shit into a crowd and our president be whomever it lands on. We would get a similar result.

[@Nothing-xi9de]

Hahaha agreed

[@natepotvin]

***** Fuck you Canada, why do you always have to make us Americans (even though an American is anything in which originated from either North America or South America and is only used to describe something as being from the U.S. because we are too self-centered to notice the issue and too stupid to name our nation something that has an easily derived adjective) feel bad about ourselves?

[@luciewhale]

+AbusivePersian No offense, but why are you, a Canadian watching a video about US elections?

[@swsephy]

nathan potvin You do know it's just short for "United States of America" right? It's the name of our country. Saying "American" makes sense and most people with common sense can make out the meaning.

[@danielferguson8728]

People with common sense can figure it out based on context, not because it makes sense. "American(s)" should refer to North, South, and Central American(s) much like European refers to European(s), but because of the size of the Americas and the power of the United States of America people refer to the USA and its citizens as Americans as its more likely to be the topic of conversation rather than the continents and their inhabitants. So from a literal standpoint it doesn't make sense, but it's the norm from a societal standpoint.

[@loopyfoodable]

I finished 17 years of school and graduated with my bachelor’s degree, yet this is the most helpful video about the election process that I’ve seen.

[@serom4363]

I've been looking for an explanation simple yet thorough from beginning to end. Thanks for providing that

[@TerenceClark]

Awwww, CGP, I LOVE your videos on electoral systems. I cite them frequently to educate others on the topic. They're brilliant!

[@AnhTrieu90]

You know what else also means almost certain defeat? Being neither Democrat nor Republican.

[@dark_messiah8183]

thjs is why we need Alternative Voting

[@89Ayten]

"The party with the most votes becomes the nominee" Bernie in Iowa, in 2020....

[@EchoesAct4]

3:00 nice footage from Star Trek there. Wonderful videos, as always!

[@DH-nz2pk]

Best KZbin explanation video I’ve ever seen... simple to the point loved the animation

[@shriswamiramanand]

IF Delegates gets to choose whom to vote for? then, how is it a democracy?

[@DethPenguin]

+Milind Joshi If you don't like it then don't vote for the parties that use it?

[@alec8182]

They don't, only in some circumstances do a few have the choice

[@benarhatch]

+Milind Joshi It's a constitutional republic, not a democracy

[@law_violator]

it isn't, the USA is a republic

[@vdinh143]

When we say the US stands for democracy, we refer to the "Democratic process" whereby citizens at large are allowed to participate in politics and government. There are as many different forms of democracy as there are countries that participate in it.

[@aimtiTV]

I have a wild idea for primaries- whoever gets the most votes wins.

[@sebastiandiaz8989]

OK and do you call this democracy?

[@supervillain3213]

+Aguila701 yeah right...

[@kihana12]

America is not a democracy. That's just a fact, by definition.

[@greoge1381]

+kihana12 America is techinically not a democracy, its a republic, theres a difference. If it was actually a democracy anyone could bring laws to the 'floor' and every vote on a bill or admendment to a bill would require a national vote.

[@williambrennan104]

+Sebastian Diaz Yes, and it's non-negotiable.

[@kihana12]

Isn't that what I said?

[@domestic_k9919]

Basically he's saying your votes don't have any value in elections.

[@jahenders]

Not really. He's not saying that and, though he hints at that, it's not really true.

[@aaronb00key]

Super delegates does not sound very democratic.

[@cOmAtOrAn]

A lot of the time the super delegates abstain.

[@Phono-fun]

We're a republic. Not a democracy. it's a system in a republic.

[@cOmAtOrAn]

Ben livengood It's a democratic republic. Not that we call ourselves that, because the term's been abused by a bunch of authoritarian states, but the democratic nature of our republic is pretty solidly established.

[@Zorc620]

cOmAtOrAn The goal of a democracy is government implementing the people's will. The goal of a republic is simply good government. Republican constraints on popular will are necessary to prevent the passions of the people stirred by demagogues from implementing bad policies that violate people's rights.

[@15787marijn]

Ben livengood Republic means that the country is "publicly" owned, as opposed to a form of monarchy where the country is essentially private property of the monarch. Democracy is a way for such the country to be governed. Like most western countries, the US is both a republic and a democracy. The two are not mutual exclusives. At all. "The US is a republic, not a democracy" is an excuse that just means "Our election system is flawed" and "I don't know what 'republic' means".

[@alcarbo8613]

Fun Fact: this is Grey's First Video to use his now iconic Stick Figures

[@Bloomination]

My Political Science professor had my class watch this! My junior level college class watched CGP Grey and I was bouncing in my seat the whole time.

[@caitlinlovesya09]

All of your videos are so helpful!! Thank you so much!!

[@joshuasalem5022]

Complication #6 A candidate using their money to fund an app that people use to vote and definitely not rigging the app in your favor

[@maniam5460]

Sanders for the democratic nomination!

[@zacharyriback3487]

+Tekkogs Steve Hes a fricken SOCIaLIST lol

[@maniam5460]

+Zachary Riback and?

[@zacharyriback3487]

2 things: Capitalist Country. And do some research on how Socialism actually works ;)

[@WhyheyCorp]

+Zachary Riback You clearly haven't done yours.

[@zacharyriback3487]

Do this. Whenever Sanders says something, (or any democrat) look it up to see if what he said is ACTUALLY true You'd be suprised.

[@tobitrue5807]

Thank you for explaining an extremely tough concept for me to wrap my head around

[@anishasinghatwadia7095]

THIS IS SO HELPFUL....thank you!!

[@Carimbo575]

So, to summarize: you have a indirect election to decide who competes in the other indirect election and call this a democracy. Uh, OK.

[@snkline]

***** A Republic isn't different from a democracy. All being a republic means is that power is held by the general public, not by something like a monarchy. So for instance, the UK is a democracy but not a republic. The US is a democratic republic.

[@Gambit771]

snkline The power in the UK is held by the public it's a Constitutional monarchy which means the monarchy holds very little power and that it does hold is more of a formality. Although you could say your big business' hold more power than our monarchy does. The power lies with the public and Gov just like your country. Well as much as the power lies with the people in both our countries

[@Whoeverheis11]

snkline A Republic is defined as a state in which the citizens vote on representatives to oversee/vote on laws/federal projects. (Like Ancient Rome) A Democracy is defined as a state in which the citizens oversee/vote on those laws/federal projects themselves. (Like Ancient Greece) I realize that this is an old comment, but it's still right near the top of the list, and I figured if you already knew, no harm done, and if you didn't, the more you know, right?

[@ObsdnBlck]

Whoeverheis11 Yeah, a Republic is a form of Democracy. Instead of getting together and making decisions ourselves, like Greece did, we choose people to make decisions they believe we'd make. At least in theory.

[@Carimbo575]

ObsdnBlck I think you and other people got it a little wrong. You described, very accurately, a Representative Democracy. A Republic is not necessarily a Democracy. If you take Iraq under Saddam Hussein, you will know what I'm talking about. In a Republic, the representative is taken from the people (or from the General Public, as snkline put it in a past comment). In a Monarchy, they are taken from a particular branch of the population which inherit this right by birth, i.e., the royal family. Both systems can be democratic, both systems can be dictatorships. PS.: there is also the idea of Direct Democracy, which would be democratic, but different than Representative Democracy.

[@Captain-Electro]

This is why so many people just don't vote, b/c you have to be a damn genius to figure out how to vote for what you want.

[@sillopify]

i hope CGP grey makes more of these types of videos now that we are in an election year. although i don't know how many more he can make.

[@queencalifah1100]

This was a perfect explanation. Where you summed up everything!

[@queencalifah1100]

And thank-you😉

[@niveshproag8660]

wtf, USA.

[@thegreencactus6072]

yup. They don't know how to vote.

[@signevolanti565]

U.S.A voting is complicated... Glad I live in Norway :D

[@jonasraffel]

European parliamentary system is a lot better :) (from Germany)

[@liudas5377]

Thank you for this video - most excellent - clears a lot of things up.

[@appychd]

excellent song selection in the background

[@EpicMe3]

If this system didn't suck the U.S would have President Sanders instead of President Trump

[@McGliga]

Yea don't blame the system entirely, the primaries were also rigged slightly against you, revealed by the Wikileaks email leaks a few weeks ago. You democrats really got majorly fucked in this one

[@aarOuOn]

Stop blaming it on the system, it's embarrassing. I'd love to have a president Bernie as much as the next guy, but Hillary won fair and square.

[@VaasMontenegro12]

not really she cheated against bernie therefore bernie would have won the nomination (maybe) therefore bernie would have won over trump (most likely) therefore probably bernie would have been president but if you ignore hillarys cheating then yes hillary won fair and square over trump SHE GOT OVER 2 MILLION MORE VOTES FOR GODS SAKE

[@aarOuOn]

Hillary didn't "cheat". The system was biased in her favor yes, but she didn't cheat, and I don't think he would have won the nomination regardless

[@VaasMontenegro12]

Someone didn't read his DNC emails sure that wasn't a lot of cheating but it was still cheating but there is more cheating that no one is talking about if you followed the Bernie Sanders subreddit you would have seen many votes purged people mysteriously changing party affiliation without them knowing voting machines not working voting hours being changed for no reason shit went down and no one remembers

[@TinRapper]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and fuck this system

[@Meowmeow.age.6]

+Max Đỗ In America the system fucks you anyway even when you do vote. I feel Bernie and Trump might both get screwed.

[@txavier83]

Yes and yes.

[@wiibot15]

sanders wants to run america into the ground

[@txavier83]

Please explain your logic.

[@txavier83]

@Parker Hetzel Please explain your logic.

[@rhebert4]

3:00. I like how the picture for IOWA is from the movie Star Trek. The future mega buildings are even faintly visible in the background.

[@arbra5934]

ah US elections, have to binge watch CGP grey every time just to remember how y'all work

[@lucystarlight8887]

Regarding Open Primaries, a common thing that happens is that people from one party will go to the Primary of the opposite party and vote for the worst possible candidate to try to sabotage them.

[@LazerLord10]

I can see the hate for superdelegates, and can understand why they aren't good for a true democracy, but I see it as a way for people who are in the system (and therefore, know a lot more than the average person about what is needed in a candidate at any given time) to get a voice in who they think is the best. I'm not sure if it's entirely wrong or used for that purpose of "we know better, so our choices should matter more", but I can see the utility in their existence in a primary.

[@AquaticIvy]

CPG Grey has had this video out for 8 years and people still need the Iowa Caucuses explained to them every time they come around.

[@harmsc12]

Perfect timing for this to pop up on my recommendations.

[@TheAntiGravityMaster]

Once again, a very relevant video.

[@roroflowazoro]

Sad here I thought my vote actually counted towards the person I want elected in a presidential election

[@veritasabsoluta4285]

+Retro Gamer That is why Bernie Sanders must become President.

[@SR2XO]

+Bob Bobby the point is they don't always have to, like with the electoral college you can win with about 28% of the popular vote.

[@roroflowazoro]

I would vote for Bernie over all the candidates

[@roroflowazoro]

Politics an Congress's and the senate at way to influenced by big money Hillary is rigging this election

[@roroflowazoro]

Now because the states were super delegates vote on whichever candidate they feel regardless of who whom the caucus or primary, also I believe strongly in the 2nd amendment. I don't cat prize myself as a libereal but I believe Bernies plans make common sense and add to our democracy not impede it and make it socialism trust me there no way the democrats establishment would let Bernie have the nomination

[@fitzdraco]

I'm watching your videos in order and while this video works for a boring not insane election like 2012, current events have shown that more explanation is needed in some areas.

[@petercram9775]

Freakin' brilliant. Well done. Thanks very much for educating me.

[@MsEeveeMaster]

please do an episode on why we have all this indirect voting bs NOW in days, also i would love to see an episode on how much voting power we actually have.

[@kathym3531]

MsEeveeMaster please vote for 2020!

[@jeffmorris5802]

For those curious, this video mostly applies to the Democratic party. The Republican party doesn't have superdelegates, and requires all delegates to vote according to the primary results in each state.

[@johnlewis8934]

Where can I find more information on this ?

[@songbird5074]

Thanks! Very helpful video, I was very confused!!

[@petrfrizen6078]

Convoluted, but very understandably explained. Thank you very much!

[@dkamouflage]

You know, when you see it all laid out like that in black and white (or "CGP Grey"), it really starts to make you wonder: ...was monarchy really all THAT bad? I mean, really? @_@

[@laurencefraser]

it's a plutocratic/bureaucratic republic. unsurprisingly, it's set up entirely to benefit the rich and high ranking officials. a monarchy wouldn't so much, being, at the least, prone to listening to randoms at inopportune moments. well, That, and a Monarchy would have left those writing things having to decide which of them got to be King, rather than just agreeing to cooperatively screw over the less wealth folks. (this paragraph is only semi-serious.)

[@SaintBrick]

+dkamouflage It's been said that; A perfect system would be a dictatorship, one crafted and ruled by a benevolent dictator. While this may be the case, like most things in life, (especially in 2015) it's more complex than that, spectrums and shades of gray.

[@dominikmdmx]

It just keeps getting better and better each second... And to think that americans brag about freedom and democracy... Oh you poor poor people

[@talesoftimeoxo9961]

Save us from this horrible government that is not free or a democracy no matter what they tell you! Because apparently we can't save ourselves with so many people still thinking the US is a democracy! lol

[@davidfstr]

Quite informative. Thanks for making the video.

[@PokeMaster22222]

1:15 Wow, that's...old. I don't even remember this KZbin design!

[@Valivali94]

You dont like things to be simple and not cost billions of dollars right? XD

[@mattlynch1268]

That WoW alliance logo just made me smile. Ah, WoW is awesome.

[@colinmclaughlin4549]

XD My science teacher plays this song whenever he does the announcements at our school. I feel like he watches you!

[@daveSoupy]

I don't remember this video... I've seen all of your stuff but somehow missed this one

[@DeFreshS10]

"Delegates and super delegates travel to the convention to vote on *WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PARTY*" see that little word: PARTY.. not what is best for the PEOPLE, oh no, they only want to protect their party. This is why Hillary is doing so well, she is the face of the party, Bernie represents a shift or revolution in politics and the DNC can't have that...

[@RobiePAX]

3:34 wait FUCKING WHAT?! As a European you completely lost me here... How is this even a legal thing.

[@MiauFrito]

It's a completely retarded system, props to CGP Grey for making this video

[@HBC101TVStudios]

In neighboring Canada or any other Commonwealth nation a party election is analogous to a caucus/primary election in the States, but in this case to elect the president, deputy president and executive members of a political party or coalition.. The president of the party / coalition are usually considered as the candidate for a prime minister if his/her party or coalition wins the election, unless if he refuses to be the premier of the state.

[@DragonsREpic]

3:17 that logo looks badass!

[@elementbender1]

The "delegates" have faces that just look like "TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"

[@paul_chandler3082]

They remind me of venture capitalists

[@Edgeperor]

You can tell this comment is 4 years old before you even look at how old it is

[@ivanthecooly7704]

1:17 top comment 🤨

[@ProjSHiNKiROU]

Primary system is like electoral college for presidential candidates. Party leadership elections in UK and Canada don't have complicated indirect elections and excessive media coverage, and they also tend to use instant-runoff voting from party members.

[@bills1583]

This leaves out a huge amount of complexity at the state level due to time. In Nevada, for the democratic party at least, you have the caucus for your district to elect delegates to represent your district at the county caucus a couple weeks later. The number of delegates a candidate gets is proportional to the number of people who show up unless you have less than 15% of the people attending voting for a candidate or not enough people to get one district delegate then you have to pick someone else or not get counted. So once you know how many delegates your candidate gets all the people for that candidate then elect district delegates from among themselves to attend the county caucus a couple weeks later. If they don't show up to the county caucus, to bad, that vote and the people they represent don't count. Also delegates at the county level are unbound and can still vote for whoever they want anyway. Only at the state level are delegates bound to vote for who they were elected to vote for. At this county caucus the aforementioned district delegates are counted in the same way as the voters were at the district level and the 15% or one county delegate threshold needs to be met again. Then you get assigned another number of county delegates for each candidate. Then the district delegates that voted for that candidate at the county caucus elect from among themselves county delegates to attend the state caucus. The county delegates you pick for your candidate have to be from that county and have attended both prior caucuses. At the state caucus all of this is repeated a third time to elect the state delegates for the national convention from among the county delegates. By the time it is all done it isn't very proportional anymore and district delegates at the county caucus can switch if they want to regardless of the districts vote. Not to mention that 13 of the 43 delegates to the national convention are super-delegates. Oh yea, it also starts at 11 am and is expected to run until at least 3 pm but last election some precincts lasted until 7 pm because most district captains have less than 15 mins of training on how to run a caucus and if you leave during that time you will most likely not be counted. Fun no?

[@robbielobster3212]

Bernie really didn't stand a chance then. That's depressing.

[@DaDunge]

I don't get open primaries, won't that be incredibly open to abuse. I don't want the republicans to win so I go vote for the least liked republican candidate to try to get people to vote for the democrats or something like that. Also why would non party members even have a say who the parties nominate?

[@megag52]

prob members of central factions of the major parties prob push for it in some places cos they think the gen public is most likely to support there guy? ive always found the answer to "why" questions in politics is "because it benefits one faction and hurts there rival"

[@theretard666]

But at the same, why closed primaries? Most party members will vote for their candidate whoever it is, so the people who's opinions actually matter in terms of who they'll vote for are arguably the independents that get swayed side to side.

[@megag52]

The Sero i dont follow what ya mean

[@theretard666]

Sam Dawkins So for a closed primary, the party members might pick someone who is very attractive to them, but centrists who aren't registered would consider that candidate too extreme. To win the election the candidate must appeal to people who aren't registered to the party, and who might have voted for the opposite party before, otherwise they'll never have enough support. However, the candidate is generally going to look better than their opponent to registered party members, even if they don't particularly like them overall. Democrats will almost always vote democrat, and republicans will almost always vote republican. Other folk may change. (This recent election shows that clearly isn't perfect, as there seems to be a number of Bernie Sanders supports who didn't vote or even voted for trump, but these were two rather unliked candidates compared to normal, and I gather it still wasn't a LOT of them)

[@empireoftruth3291]

open I agree with a registered member of one should not oppose the other and non members votes matter because a large chunk of the population is non party members so parties that let independents influence them do better with them than parties that don't

[@TheAlps36]

I come back to this every few months because, as a non-US citizen, I always get confused between primary elections and the presidential elections and no matter how many times it's explained I'll forget and get confused again

[@jacksaad7442]

Thank you this was amazing!

[@EvaIowaCubsFan]

At least Iowa has something to contribute to the world. Checkmate New Hampshire :P

[@Thine_Reaper]

Gotta lol at that being from Iowa ;)

[@Thine_Reaper]

yeah it even rhymes, we're that good

[@YoHoOMirster]

Don

[@YoHoOMirster]

h

[@evanroberts7248]

EvaIowaRedSoxFan HAIL THE SUPREME STATE, NH!!!!! lol

[@geekjokes8458]

wait wait wait wait public voting?!?!!?! the fuck?! thats terrible!

[@Bawhoppen]

Well it's not for the general election, that's a whole different story, this is just to decide the nominee. But besides that, the entire system from start to finish is corrupt, rigged, broken, and fundamentally undemocratic.

[@gwensmith7439]

It is undemocratic. By design. The party supports whoever it wants, and this is fair. Anybody can start a party, run it however they want, and if they get enough supporters, they can nominate a candidate. Somebody could make a party that nominates based on royal birth, and THAT WOULD BE OK.

[@Saitou]

Except for the fact that, in the end, only D and R parties matter. Any Joe Schmoe could start a party and nominate a candidate, but in the end it doesn't make any difference because no one votes for those candidates. By design. It is fundamentally unfair. By design. We're talking about electing the government, the entire process should be regulated fairly and evenly. For this reason, the US is not a democracy, it's an oligarchy.

[@gwensmith7439]

Saitou Nobody votes for those candidates because the republican and democratic parties have ideologies that a large part of the population agrees with. Democracy doesn't mean that everybody's ideas matter, it means that the ideas of a group of people matter more if the group is larger.

[@Saitou]

The point is that democrats and republicans have already achieved critical mass. They don't have to do anything to appeal to voters, because everyone is going to vote for one of the two. Republicans only have to try to be slightly less vile than democrats, and vice versa. They've won and we've lost, because the system that's in place does nothing to punish these parties for being unappealing. This is why we see 47% of the population not vote at all. It's not because these two parties are good or even slightly appealing to the majority. If we could eliminate the electoral college, first past the post, and regressive debate rules, you would see some very different voting trends.

[@maxanguiano6935]

Thanks. Great video!

[@PLuMUK54]

That has given me a headache! I'd hoped that I might finally understand the system, but I think I have even more questions.