Problems with the Electoral College ft. Extra Credits

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
The Electoral College has some problems, but maybe not the ones you were thinking of.
Check out my cameo in @ExtraCredits video on how we vote. • Voting in America | Fr... It’s LegalEagle...in bean form. Extended version on Nebula! watchnebula.com/legaleagle
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: bit.ly/2IeeB8W
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

Check out Extra Credit's video featuring a cartoon LegalEagle riding a cartoon eagle "Justice". kzbin.info/www/bejne/rILJnmBsmdp1mJo

[@cormacmacsuibhne2867]

Who here wants to get rid of the Electoral college?

[@pghchaos]

*stands up in back of courtroom* I LOVE THESE VIDEOS BUT ALSO PLEASE REVIEW THE JUDGE WITH ROBERT DOWNEY JR. *gets tackled by bailiff*

[@Lionstar16]

I just want to know one thing - will you help Zoey the cat appeal those parking tickets?

[@adamdifilippe8066]

I love Extra Credit! Great to see you two collaborating.

[@TheStackeddeck77]

You flew here fast! Justice is one awesome eagle! Its great to see two creators, that I really enjoy collaborating.

[@disneyjunkie19]

Me, an Iowan minding my business: Presidential candidates every 4 years: HI YES WE CARE ABOUT YOU AND CORN A LOT

[@AtomicDoorknob]

Don't worry here in AZ democrats call us racists and republicans call us dirty rapist Mexicans it's such a shitshow that they don't bother pretending about AZ lol

[@MattMajcan]

@@AtomicDoorknob at least in AZ your vote actually matters it sucks living in a state that always votes one way, i won't even bother voting

[@AmyAndTheMarbles]

@@MattMajcan Please vote. Even in blue/red states, the other elections on the ballot matter a lot!

[@d.l.7416]

@Matt Majcan If you would vote for Biden, do it, the more he wins in the popular vote the harder it is for trump to say the election was fraudulent and stay in power.

[@jlw35cudvm]

@@MattMajcan Your vote is important. It’s the only way your voice can be heard. It may be drowned out by other schmucks, but it’s still your voice

[@williamjones1419]

"They would know the local candidates and not care about the national ones." Boy did that flip flop big time.

[@robertjenkins6132]

On my mail-in ballot, when voting, I skipped the races for mayor and city council, because I know *nothing* about my local politics. I also skipped obscure races for local district judges.

[@vrenak]

@@robertjenkins6132 Aside from the problem with electing judges, local politics tend to deliver politicians to county state and then federal politics, you should try to get at least a little bit of an idea about who sits there, to get things moving in at least the general direction you want it going. And local judges can also advance, and might end up on the SC.

[@Kathdath]

In fairness, New York did reject Trump in 2016

[@mattkettleman6152]

@@robertjenkins6132 To me, this is one of the greatest things about mail-in voting (meaning absentee ballots by mail). I got to sit there and research candidates in real time, then immediately vote for them; as opposed to either doing a ton of research before going to the polls and then forgetting half of it.

[@Sagragoth]

local politics have 10000 times more impact on your day-to-day life than national politics and i'm shocked more people don't give a shot about it

[@qclod]

"Contrary to popular belief" it's actually the electoral belief.

[@SnailSnail-lo4pm]

6 likes in two weeks? This is what I call an underated comment.

[@vanish2884]

This is such a good comment

[@sirpuffball6366]

Omgosh

[@jagnestormskull3178]

Lol

[@canadiancupcake2443]

xd

[@BrianHartman]

It's interesting to me that the framers' assumption turned out to be exactly the opposite of how things are today. The voters generally know the presidential candidates a lot better than they know the local candidates.

[@SphincterOfDoom]

Because of the outsized growth of the federal government's influence and focus on it by the media.

[@BrianHartman]

@@SphincterOfDoom I think it less to do with the government's influence and more to do with the media. Back when the framers wrote the Constitution, media was much more local than it is today, obviously. You didn't have national newspapers, let alone national TV. The coverage was mostly local. Hell, I would argue that even well into the 20th century, most news was local. People might watch the 6 o'clock news, but that usually had a local component and a national component. You only saw news turn truly national with the advent of cable TV. I think that's what did it. People get their news from national stations now, rather than local ones.

[@scottmatheson3346]

@@SphincterOfDoom the nationalization of political attention started well before the civil war. sure you haven't been brainwashed?

[@SphincterOfDoom]

@@scottmatheson3346 Given I never mentioned the Civil War, are you sure you're literate?

[@TheLastSaint17]

They couldn't foresee just how massively communication would explode with telephones and the internet.

[@danieldevito6010]

How about this, and hear me out, we determine the presidency by a strange woman lying in a pond distributing a sword.

[@rafflesmaos]

A farcical aquatic ceremony sounds to me like a perfect alternative to what we have happening right now.

[@cheetodust8051]

Fine by me

[@AmmonNelson]

help! I'm being repressed!

[@vKILLZ0NEv]

sold

[@Callector]

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!

[@callmeval3542]

I literally remember a US government teacher telling me that faithless electors didn't exist and I had points taken off of my paper. -_- I hated that guy.

[@Supertoddy96]

faithless electors dont exist, until they do and usually face some sort of criminal punishment

[@squid-boy4178]

@@Supertoddy96 what does that even mean I could say hippo's aren't real until they are and it'd make about as much sense

[@Supertoddy96]

@@squid-boy4178 because an elector is just an elector until they act out of line or lie then they become a faithless elector. You csnt predict the future of someone's actions if they've never done something like this b4. Use your head, critically think bud

[@squid-boy4178]

@@Supertoddy96 Yeah but what about the faithless electors who already exist and elected in the past they are still faithless electors even if they're not currently electors Think critically next time bud (also while you can't "predict" a person being unfaithful you can at least reverse their vote to go to the right person)

[@Supertoddy96]

@@squid-boy4178 nobody is a faithless elector unless they perform the act that makes them a faithless elector. Thats what makes someone a faithless elector regardless of their intentions prior to their vote, its sad that this would have to be explained to you when im talking explicitly about current electors, not that faithless electors never existed or theyre not a thing

[@reincarN8ed]

"They'd be familiar with their local candidates but wouldn't care about the national candidates." Oh god the irony is thicker than a bowl of oatmeal.

[@moondust2365]

Yeah, times have changed quite a lot ever since mail, telegraphs, fax, and eventually, the internet came and became more and more accessible. How the tables have turned. XD

[@rogerelliss9829]

Too true.

[@louisrobitaille5810]

@@moondust2365 Internet made high level knowledge available to everyone as long as you know where to look, but too many people choose to believe the inaccurate but easy to find knowledge instead 😑.

[@BradyPostma]

For more than a century, it was true. People cared about their state and local officials and not about their federal officials. I think started changing with WW1, and with the coordination that news media used to keep the war message consistent nationwide.

[@TheL0rd0fSpace]

This makes a lot of sense, actually. If, as CGP Grey put it, "the best internet is a dude on a horse", then no one would know who this guy in DC running for office is. This is a culture where most people only know people in their home town, where they'll spend their entire lives. The idea that you could talk to someone across the state, much less across the country, was ludicrous. Our circles have been expanded by phones, internet, etc. Our world has become a bigger place, because so many barriers have been broken.

[@moonchild977]

the fact that in the US you can change electoral laws right before an election, and have that law applied immediately is insane

[@neutrino78x]

he meant in theory that could happen.

[@TheBlockerNator]

@@neutrino78x No, it's not theory. It really happened, places like Pennsylvania did change election laws to allow increased mail-in voting without going through state legislature.

[@neutrino78x]

@@TheBlockerNator that's not really "changing election laws"....the election is still done the same way. Really, ALL states should send everybody a mail-in ballot. That's what we do in California. Why would you do otherwise? You guys want to make it hard to vote?

[@TheBlockerNator]

@@neutrino78x I would've either found a way to delay it or make it longer instead of increasing mail in voting. LIke it or not, Mail in voting is the least secure and most prone to fraud form of voting their is. You can easily request ballots for sick/elderly people and fill it out for them without them knowing, harvest ballots from nursing homes and hospitals, or "Lose" ballots from areas that tend to vote a certain way.

[@amandahammond2691]

@@neutrino78x I mean… Yes, that’s exactly what they want lol

[@Z4gle]

"Bailiff, tackle this man" is my new nonsensical counter-argument

[@AmateurContendr]

Imagining this in a real court followed by the bailiff actually following your instructions is hilarious.

[@fabiomora6491]

Bayleef use tackle!!!!!!

[@odile8701]

@@fabiomora6491 it was super effective!

[@fabiomora6491]

@@odile8701 is probably the only time Tackle is Super Effective

[@Tarantio1983]

@@fabiomora6491 nah, the move "tackle" is also super effective in a game of rugby ...

[@foolishmortals6748]

Founding Fathers: We need to protect smaller states. Us: What about California with 40 million people? Founding Fathers: There's HOW MANY PEOPLE in WHAT?

[@eno2870]

Oh, you know, just 40 million people living in the middle of a desert that also happens to be an extremely active earthquake zone. Eventually it'll fall off into the ocean, but for now it's just constantly on fire.

[@gusgilmanreal]

you mean the golden state

[@andrefalksmen1264]

@ALSO-RAN ! if it where actually an Authoritarian state, there would not be $h;t in the street, it would be clean, safe, and orderly.

[@RAS_Squints]

No the founding fathers would have said, 'ya.... it is working as intended.' California situation was the same concern back when the constitution was drafted when Virginia and other big states being political powerhouses at the time. Use that same logic when a red states becomes the most populated states and they want to push real neo con values on rest of America. Would you be thinking the same thing or will you think thankfully there is the electoral college to keep big states from fully influencing how we govern.

[@ranondo92]

Basically giving more electoral power to wealthy land owners.

[@thebrowneyedgirl97]

The fact that electors can go against the popular vote is something I only think about every four years and it never fails to make me nauseous

[@barbaldo]

I'm not from the US so it doesn't affect me that much, although I often think about how weird it is. Like people could vote, one candidate could win by a landslide and then the electoral college could just come out and decide that that's not cool and make the other candidate win.

[@barbaldo]

I mean it's insane no matter which political way one leans

[@kappadarwin9476]

@@barbaldo It is insane which is why over 700 hundred bills have been introduced to change or even remove the EC but little progress has been made.

[@suarezguy]

The parties are generally very good at choosing who will be loyal to them and their candidate.

[@Stanzafly]

@@TheRatsintheWalls watch the video you commented on and you can find out

[@geoffstrickler]

The EC has outlived all of its original intents. It’s long past time to eliminate it. I can go into detail on each of its intended purposes, and why each no longer applies if necessary, but some of those are already covered in the video. The NPVI/NPVC mostly addresses the problem, but unless enough states join to put it over 350 Electors represented, then it’s a fragile compact that could fall apart on he whims of the legislature on one or two large states. I would welcome the NPVI as an interim method of effectively eliminating the EC, but the proper long-term solution is a constitutional amendment either eliminating it, or requiring proportional allocation of electors in every state.

[@SphincterOfDoom]

//The NPVI/NPVC// Except it's unconstitutional. You can't have interstate compacts without Congressional approval, and if Congress approves of them they become federal law, and the Constitution explicitly says the federal government cannot decide how state electors are allocated.

[@geoffstrickler]

@@SphincterOfDoom Who says you can’t have interstate compacts without congressional approval? Each state has individually chosen to participate in the compact.

[@SphincterOfDoom]

@@geoffstrickler The constitution does. It's literally called the Compact Clause in Article 1

[@geoffstrickler]

@@SphincterOfDoom Read the case law related to that. Not every compact requires Congressional approval, nor to those that require Congressional approval necessarily PRIOR approval. Implied consent can apply. Ergo, you initial claim that you can’t have them is incorrect. Now, for the NPVI, it’s likely that congressional approval would be required under existing case law as such compact “might affect injuriously” the interests of other states.

[@daemonspudguy]

​@@geoffstricklerpresent it not as a "compact" but just a bunch of states all conveniently voting for the winner of the nation popular vote. Yes, I'm saying that we should lie to Congress about what we are doing.

[@schalear]

Legal Eagle just going around collaborating with everyone. Don't stop these collaborations are very nice and would definitely love more.

[@woody40000]

These collaborations are very legal. Very cool.

[@JohnFallot]

Waiting for the inevitable collaboration between Legal Eagle and Baumgartner Art Conservation

[@johnnysilvercloud4470]

The collaborative spirit among the information channels reminds me of the Avengers

[@Dyvon.dynamo]

Same

[@DrDeathpwnsu]

Seriously though. He pops up on everything. I'm not even surprised anymore.

[@haitianptc333]

Devin: "... that's a can of worms for an entirely different video." Me: Please open that can. Lol.

[@LC05]

I've got a can opener, let's go!

[@MrGreensweightHist]

Even assuming no faithless electors and the electors being forced to represent the popular vote of a given sate, there is still no way to justify a system in which one person's vote can count FOUR TIMES as much as a person in another state

[@jasonphelps4218]

While it's true that in the case of WY vs CA there is 4x's the value of a WY vote over CA, however, you have to look at the fact that those 4x's vote still only total 3 electoral college votes for WY while CA gets 55. While individually each voter counts for less in CA, it still wields immense power over whose President compared to WY. Whether it's 4x or 1x for WY they just don't matter in the grand scheme of our current system. I agree the system needs a change. While no voting method will be wholly fair or perfect I think allocating electoral votes by district popular votes is the most fair we can get with completely overhauling the entire system.

[@SphincterOfDoom]

"I don't understand Federalism".

[@MrGreensweightHist]

@@SphincterOfDoom Then you should get someone to explain it to you.

[@MrGreensweightHist]

@@jasonphelps4218 I understand how the system work. I've taught how it works for years It is because such a small population gets 3 electoral votes, while not having the population to justify it, that we have the current unjustifiable imbalance. The most fair we can get is ranked choice popular vote, eliminating the electoral collage altogether.

[@suarezguy]

Voters are free to move to less populated states and then also get, have that greater personal impact for themselves.

[@TheAres1999]

Politicians: "So, anyone seen any good movies lately?" Iowans: "No. Nah. Nope. Nuh-uh." Politicians: "Read any good books?" Iowans: "No. Nah. Nope. Nuh-uh." Politicians: "Anything new with corn?" Iowans: "Corn?! Are you kidding me?! Why...corn...corn...and...corn... Corn is always interesting! "

[@williampolya2190]

Elite family guy reference

[@kbubblingtime]

I propose the Thunderdome Voting System. Two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

[@Boulder7685]

Winner takes all on a new level, that.

[@Albukhshi]

Talk about trial by combat!

[@Russell_Crockett]

Well, Joe and McDonald would die...Kamala would probably outlast Pence so...

[@jonc8074]

Mel Gibson wins by using his Republican dog whistle

[@ErwinPommel]

That system was also used in the documentary Con Air.

[@TheTrailburner]

"Well it's election day ... again" **Checks Calendar** Did I sleep in again?

[@gob384]

In most states with early voting, it has been election day for a couple days. Thus there is multiple election days

[@TheTrailburner]

@@gob384 I'm well aware early voting is a thing. But officially "Election Day" is the day the polls close and the ballots start being counted.

[@ColoringKaria]

My wife is out voting today and some people have been voting for a few weeks. So yes it’s Election Day! Again.

[@stephenolan5539]

Election Day is in December, the 12th IIRC.

[@gavinwilson5324]

As a Texan Democrat, I have suffered the consequences of the electoral college's flaws firsthand. Since a majority of Texans are stubbornly Republican, people living in the state's largest cities (which are all largely blue) might as well not get a vote with the winner-take-all system. Luckily, the popular vote was pretty close this year, and as LegalEagle says in the video, we're on track to less one-sided demographics. However, this would at best make us a swing state, and even then it wouldn't be totally fair. The electoral college has long outstayed its usefulness and its welcome, and our system needs to change.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

"We should abolish the electoral college so the Democrats win." Great argument 😅

[@gavinwilson5324]

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 Did you see the word "Democrat" and just start foaming at the mouth or something? Literally nobody was talking about the Democrats winning. I was saying that the electoral college makes it so that a horrific number of people's votes don't count at all. For example, in the 2020 presidential election, 46.5% of Texans at the polls voted for Biden. But because the Republicans were just barely in the majority in Texas, the votes of nearly half the state's voters just didn't count. Actually, it's worse than that. Since a state's representation in the electoral college is based on population, and Texas requires its electors to all vote for the winner of the state-level election, that means that almost half the voters in Texas were effectively forced to vote for a different candidate than the one they chose.

[@McCaroni_Sup]

​​@@gavinwilson5324 That said, couldn't you reverse your own argument and say that under a different system where those votes DID count, the system would be unfairly biased towards the cities? After all, urban centers obviously have a lot more people and tend to lean left regardless of which state they're in, so any state without a significant rural population (which tends to be more conservative) like Texas would be more blue. So there are ostensibly also flaws with, say, adapting the system to be more considerate of smaller polities like cities or even down to the individual level, rather than entire states. The electoral college was, after all, intended to allow states with smaller populations to be properly represented so as to be a remedy to taxation without representation, wasn't it? Essentially to prevent a mobocracy - a tyranny of the majority. Though that is in and of itself an inherent flaw of any democratic system. But it was especially a concern in America to prevent the secession of states. Though even if we were to have a vote on the individual level, and say one candidate was only a percentage above the other, then would you argue that all the other votes were also lost? Then again, I'm not particularly well-versed in this matter, since I'm not American and my country isn't a federation. Just my two cents.

[@gavinwilson5324]

@@McCaroni_Sup Yes, the results would skew toward the leanings of the cities, but that's not a bias, it's just accurate data. Remember, it's not geographic regions that have lives and can suffer due to the law, it's people that do. It doesn't matter where they live. I'm not concerned about a tyranny of the majority, because a tyranny of the minority is always worse.

[@KennethStone]

Post election and Jan 6 riot, its even scarier to think what could've happened... And I had no idea that the states could just change the law and tell their electors who to vote for. I mean, I guess that makes sense, but its terrifying to think that's an option, especially now with what might happen in 2024.

[@alansach8437]

When you have a system where one county in Florida (as in 2000) can tilt a so called "national" presidential election, that system is ripe for corruption. It is so much easier for fraud to take place when all you have to do is fake, suppress or change a few votes in one or two counties here or there, than to change a nationwide popular vote where one candidate or the other wins by millions.

[@johnopalko5223]

I learned this way (way, way, way...) back in high school. It was confusing and boring, and the attitude was, "This is the way it is. Learn it and shut up." Now, lo these many years later, you explain it and propose thought experiments: "Suppose we change this. What would it look like? Suppose we change that. Would it be better or worse, and for whom?" I think I've learned more from your videos than I ever learned in Civics class. I know I've enjoyed it a lot more. Keep up the good work.

[@TheRealE.B.]

What's funny about "That's the way it is" people is that a lot of them were actually alive at a time when things were different, depending on what they're talking about, but humans have very fallible memories and tend to focus on the present.

[@NelsonStJames]

And that is a very good point about our public education system as it stands. We're graduating too many citizens that really have no idea how our systems works, and so they aren't engaged enough to be anything more than pawns in it.

[@timothyneiswander3151]

I learned about this in Government class in high school and found the mechanics of the government fascinating and the implications spooky. Perhaps it made sense at the time it was implemented but the country has evolved. I have stated for many years that the Electoral College should be abolished. It no longer makes any sense. The power of one citizen one vote should rule.

[@rothery2]

@@NelsonStJames Civics and Government classes when I was in high school in the late 90s were elective classes.

[@filipwolffs]

Not uncommon in many countries that the education system is more about cramming trivia into your head than teaching you critical thinking and how things are the way they are. Of course the reason for that is that it's a lot easier to test whether someone knows facts.

[@dominomasked]

I didn't realize how much this channel needed a real* bailiff-tackling. Well played!

[@galfinsp7216]

I’d like to see actual video of Baliff tackling that wasn’t fictional

[@Smilymoney]

Iowa, the state you pay a lot attention to once every 4 years and then forget it exists.

[@oldworldpatriot8920]

Fun fact,if Al Gore had lost Iowa but won Virginia he would have been president in 2001. Wildly unpopular Hillary Clinton won Virginia easily in 2016,but lost Iowa. Strange how states shift in 15 years

[@apatizinguense]

You'll be an Illinois suburb without the EC.

[@GiantButterKnife]

Unless it's an election year, I cannot be trusted to reliably tell the difference between Iowa and Idaho.

[@alansach8437]

​@@oldworldpatriot8920Wildly "unpopular" Hillary Clinton won the popular vote....so guess she wasn't THAT wildly unpopular??

[@monroerobbins7551]

I like the mix of Extra Credits animation and IRL LegalEagle :) it’s a neat mix!

[@iammrbeat]

A 25-minute video explaining some problems with the Electoral College, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[@infinity8715]

I wonder who’s gonna win. 🤔

[@tbriecheese]

Lovely to see you here Mr. Beat, love your videos!

[@FloRiva2]

Ayeee fancy seeing you here Mr. Beat!!

[@thekommunistkrusader3921]

I remember you saying who was the worst presidents ever and oh my god the comments...

It's only a problem when the corrupt beurocrat you want to win , doesnt win.

[@GenerationWest]

So... I think Matt left his animated Switch in your office.

[@timmah7874]

I'm pretty sure the bailiff is playing it right now.

[@diegoarmando5489]

The worst thing about not using the popular vote to determine the presidential election's winner is that both sides can invoke convoluted constitutional arcana if they're desperate enough to screw with the election's outcome.

[@gopher7691]

Yes. No one ever tries to stuff ballot boxes

[@Gltokensp06]

One of the biggest things that gets under my skin about the electoral college is that it ensures red states are overrepresented in it's current form. This country is literally much more left-center leaning than the election would have you believe, but the populous states have less influence on the electoral college overall.

[@bryan0x05]

Can you link the statistics?

[@hueghh3775]

yeah how dare that dastardly electoral college represent the opposing party in order to give it a fighting chance since it’s still a major political view despite my unsourced comment

[@DrFunk-rk6yl]

@@hueghh3775 you could start with the fact that twice the president who won the popular vote did not win the presidency.

[@MrSpooner1985]

Its not really representing as much as overpowering those less popular state by saying ‘your vote will have 4x the impact of a populated state voter”. The electoral college also disenfranchised people of the opposite party to vote in mainly Red or Blue states; like here in CA when i was registered Republican, my vote was basically thrown away and there was more of us here than numerous middle states combined; same goes for blue voters in states like Texas, there are more of them than numerous middle states yet their votes dont matter. Also what makes the Electoral college trash is that before nearly a dozen states votes have come in, the election is over. But at least some rural people in the heartland dont feel they arent being represented enough. Also, the old bs claim “CA and NY would decide every election if the EC wasnt there” has been proven wrong and just a scare tactic time after time w/ little effort.

[@RedRocket4000]

So in the federation the low population states get no say in how things go. Around the world this the reason for autonomy movements having the cities run everything grates on rural. .

[@Cage532]

Legal Eagle sending a bean person bailiff to tackle Matt from Extra Credits has made my day. I'm a fan and subscriber of both channels so this was a delightful and unexpected little crossover.

[@MrTigriuS]

Same here.

[@kenster8270]

YES! Didn't see that coming. NOT complaining!

[@Sir.Craze-]

Ad. You mean a delightful little crossover ad. You're aloud to enjoy it I don't want to take away from that. Watching him get tackled brought a smile to my face. But let's call it what it really is please

[@lilyfowler6997]

That’s funny that the framers main concern was that people would know who their local candidates are but not the national ones bc I would say that for most people (at least nowadays) it’s totally the opposite 🤣😂😭

[@maximsavage]

They couldn't really foresee telecommunications making Presidents known to the entire population. They made a system according to the times they lived in, and it was never updated as the times changed.

[@PyroX792]

It is so hard to find information on my local candidates. I spent a few hours with my wife combing the Internet looking for information and even resources like ballotpedia were no help! Most of them the only information was their name, their party and what they were running for! It was so frustrating!

[@boheeka77]

werd. I didn't even vote in many local races because I had no informed opinion.

[@armorsmith43]

We don’t really know the national candidates either-we know their media persona. That’s inherent in the “bully pulpit”.

[@seneca983]

@Brad Kuloa Electronic voting is a bad idea. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gpyrY6VjqLOdh9U

[@Mr_DPZ]

I hate the "America is a republic, not a democracy" saying because the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and it's almost always used to defend some sort of authoritarian principle.

[@dog-ez2nu]

WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY SILLY BOY. This will now justify my far-right authoritarian hell state. Thanks Washington!

[@d3showtime410]

so ignorant

[@filipwolffs]

It also seems to imply that it's not a bad idea if it's intentional. I'm pretty sure it's entirely possible and even common for someone to intentionally implement a really bad idea.

[@morelstrike]

I hate how people go "it's a democracy, it can't be authoritarian"

[@223Drone]

@@morelstrike No said democracy was perfect but it's the most fair system out their. The electoral college is undemocratic because it ignores the will of the people by giving power to the candidate with the fewest amount votes.

[@williammoore1984]

This is one of the best videos on the Electoral College I've seen. Thanks.

[@nikoiscreative]

The irony about "People not caring about the national and only their local."

[@mrreyes5004]

The entire f^%king Internet: *_Cha Cha Real Smooth_*

[@giannaleng1897]

Oof

[@lisaedwards1359]

makes sense. the farther you get away from what effect you personally, the less important it is to you and your life. same way that you are going to be more strongly effected by something happening to you or your immediate family than you are by something happening to a total stranger in your community. and you are more likely to care about something happening to someone in your community than you are about someone in another state. and then take it further and compare it to someone in another country. just think about how often and how strongly you care about what's happening to the Uighurs in china. you may feel strongly about it when you are hearing about it, but it isn't something that has an impact on your life day to day when you arn't specifically talking about it or hearing about it. things happening to you or your family are by far going to effect your life and well-being through the day even when you aren't discussing it.

[@lisaedwards1359]

or you could take the fact that people die every day and those deaths effect the people around them much stronger than you, a total stranger. but if your friends or family die, then you are going to feel it far more strongly and it will effect your day to day life and well-being. but you don't walk around in distress over all those strangers who've passed that day for various reasons, be it old age, disease, or accident. you don't live in a puddle of pain and likely don't think about all those people who are deep in grief each day because of these things. and that's normal. but if your loved ones die, you feel it without the expectation that some random guy in the next state over is as deep in grief as you over that death. i doubt that anyone would be critical of the masses for not caring as much about your personal strife in life as you are in those moments.

[@Mikey-jv5fv]

@@lisaedwards1359 well yeah of course the logic is there, but the irony is that in practice most people actually do care a whole lot more about presidential election more than local ones.

[@erinodonnell386]

If anyone’s curious about the math or how all this works out or of examples of alternative voting systems that could more closely represent the popular vote, CGP Grey has a whole series on this. It’s a few years old but still great.

[@synthos4]

I absolutely love that series. If you liked LegalEagle talking about this, CGP Grey has so much more and the math to back it all up. He shows the disparity in representation through the lauded form of spreadsheets. Find it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHuxZYV_bNOem9U

[@samanthaleshikar9025]

He was one of the first big advertisers of the NaPoVo InterCo! I love him

[@TDPlusPT]

@@synthos4 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoa7XpmoobN1gLs The main video from CGP Grey however I think makes it clear that this is literally intended.

[@bonnie.f]

I love CGP Grey!

[@superbeltman6197]

This video imediatley made me thing of Lord Grey

[@demonhunter2121]

The groundhog day footage right after super HD legal eagle camera really shows how far video has come.

[@moondust2365]

Me who watches in 360p: "The video quality wasn't _that_ different, at least to me..."

[@alephprime3770]

Youve helped me understand your country legal system alot better and somehow made it fun. You have gained a new subscriber. Great job overall. 👍

[@PetProjects2011]

"Well, it's Election Day... again." (Plays "Groundhog Day" clip). Oh, man. The foreshadowing...

[@Le_Fuzze]

Welcome to Groundhog day

[@anabellecooper9041]

As an Iowan, pls abolish the electoral college and also stop having us be the first caucus bc i am very tired of getting approximately 9 million calls every election year reminding me to vote

[@MrSpooner1985]

As a Californian, i have never got a call in ~20yrs of voting reminding me to vote, nor have i have heard of a Presidential hopeful coming over the Golden Gate Bridge to be in my area (anything north of SF Bay to Oregon Border, minus Bohemian Grove, but thats a different issue altogether). Agreed though, the Electoral College is trash.

[@holdenennis]

The primaries should be held in every state simultaneously on the same day.

[@halweiss8671]

If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a BILLION times, don’t exaggerate.

[@jackj6219]

Abolishing the electoral college is the stupidest idea. It takes away the voice of those living in rural areas. Your basically saying their voices don't mean shit because they do t live in the city. I'm by no means say that EC isn't broken. It is broken and should be re-examined. But to say it should just be abolished is just ignoring those that live in places like Montana and Wyoming.

[@holdenennis]

@@jackj6219 the Electoral College completely ignores the voices of states like Montana and Wyoming. As ruby red states, their outcome is predetermined, so candidates see no point in campaigning places like there. Your vote only matters if you live in a swing state. It has nothing to do with urban-rural.

[@murkish8268]

No one: Every Politician to California every 4 years: *HI WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOU BYE*

[@the_armada5579]

Can confirm. But we don't have to deal with all the propaganda and commercials

[@badcatloafing7448]

love love love this cross over! more please!

[@Innistrads_Voice]

Honestly, we should move towards a Ranked Voting system, as that would allow for everyone to feel like their vote actually matters (because in this case, it would). There's an excellent video by "Second Thought" that delves into the topic if anyone is interested

[@metalxhead]

Just searched this. "Second Thought"? Lol

[@Innistrads_Voice]

@@metalxhead Yeah, I was trying to rush a comment while extremely tired. Thank you, and I'll be editing the comment now lol

[@tuckertooley174]

it really does need to happen

[@LockNesTom]

If we go for a preferential voting system like you suggest we need to do one more thing. Eliminate all political parties. No Parties, just candidates, and their ideas. Cause if we got Ranked voting and keep parties we could run into similar issues we have now. People might just vote party and not a candidate.

[@jefferyguernsey4160]

@@LockNesTom California does that same kind of rank voting but what we have every time is 2 democrat's that think, act and represent as the same candidate. When the primary election happens then we really do not get a vote because it is one party rule.

[@EidoEndy]

"The framer's main concern is that people wouldn't know who the national candidates were. They'd be familiar with their local candidates. " That is some palpable irony.

[@ericthompson3982]

Word.

[@sivad1025]

It shows you how bad journalism is today. They make everything about the president opposed to local government so no one ever takes sufficient effort to learn who their local representatives are.

[@snex000]

It's also a straight up lie. The framers *told us* why we have an Electoral College in the Federalist Papers, and it has not one thing to do with familiarity with candidates.

[@snex000]

@@RiceShouldBeFluffy Wrong again. Why don't you go read the Federalist Papers for yourself? Or are you allergic to knowledge?

[@ATurnip]

@@snex000 I have a feeling I probably need to do that, I was told it was because they feared if the common man actually voted for the president that they would elect a buffoon...

[@chelseanorris155]

My favorite legal term in your ad is "improper feud". It implies the existance of a legally proper feud, and I like that

[@karapalmer7228]

As someone from outside of america this is just so wild to me, like isn't the point of voting so that the majority decides who they want? How tf can someone win with only 23% of the vote

[@DarkFrozenDepths]

The more you get into US Law and Government, the more you realize it's a massively convoluted clusterf**k with some loopholes designed to really screw someone over. A vast majority of it honestly needs changed, cause it only truly favors those that know as much about it as possible.

[@storyls]

America is the worlds first large constitutional democracy. Unfortunately its founders were running more an experiment than a solution and got some things wrong, we were left with an imperfect system that hasn’t been quite bad enough to change.

[@jmurray1110]

First past the post unfortunately isn’t unique to the states

[@karapalmer7228]

@@jmurray1110 Yikes, that just feels like it's y'know, not what the point of a democracy is

[@jmurray1110]

@@karapalmer7228 course not It was designed in a country obsessed with class The systems were rigged, pedigree meant everything and being unethical was positive trait The UK still has an unending pressure brought on by the existence of the class system and that’s not going to change without a full blown revolution Not like that’s happening anything soon especially after the pitifulness called the republican movement

[@PlebNC]

Every time Legal Eagle finishes a video with "I'll see you in court" I'm like "did I just get served?"

[@Nimelennar]

Either that, or you're being courted.

[@ItsAsparageese]

Yeah, served some HOT STEAMY FRESH FACTS BABY

[@Arkhavist_S]

25 minutes ago: "Oh, neat. I know the gist of the electoral college - I should learn more about it." Now: "Oh, I knew nothing, and now I only know how much I don't know."

[@agodlessmonstrosity]

I somehow know less

[@leyrua]

@@agodlessmonstrosity It's the concussion. Stop watching KZbin videos on your phone while walking down a flight of stairs. 😉 #joking

[@KellyDVance]

Its Dunning Kruger effect. It happens to us all. Don't beat yourself up too much about it.

[@Dawnseeker_Ch]

And that is the path to wisdom, by starting with the recognition, the acknowledgment, of how little we know.

[@andre21198]

You are now infinitely more informed than you were before. Additionally you are better off than before because it is only now that you can begin the process of learning.

[@DaddyBeanDaddyBean]

Great video, thanks. "Small R republican" and "small D democratic" reminded me of a health teacher in high school. An "aductor" muscle pulls a limb in towards the midline - squeezing your legs together - while an "abductor" moves it the opposite way. The two words sound all but identical, verbally, so he pronounced the first two letters individually - "ay BEE ductor" and "ay DEE ductor".

[@erehwon80]

First past the post really does seem to cause issues wherever it goes.

[@ZacksRockingLifestyle]

“First past the post really does seem to cause issues wherever it goes” ...especially when that idea itself is first past the post

[@ITpanda]

Would like a system that encourages a third party candidate. The dual party system we have is clearly failing us. I get that this is a tangent from the topic at hand but our founding fathers would hate the system that we currently have.

[@JoeAuerbach]

I wouldn't. To be fair, we do not have the sort of political ecosystem where a third party candidate can or will win an election. And if we shifted to a proportional or tiered voting systen TODAY it would still be literal decades before a third party candidate were even viable for the presidency. Maybe never. Instead, I'd really like to see FEWER third parties running presidential candidates and see more third parties endorsing one or the other candidate. Get out of the middle and stop mucking up elections. This also helps solve the problem that third party presidential candidates are almost always complete lunatics, because they go into it knowing they will lose and lose badly. And no decent person wants to go through the public wringing of a presidential run only to be guaranteed to lose. So they run absurd candidates for exposure, which is a terrible tactic.

[@warren5037]

@@JoeAuerbach why fewer? Proportional voting forces parties to make compromises with other parties. Even the lunatics that you speak of will be forced to mellow down. It could also reduce the radicalisation of partisanship since instead of "voting for one just because you hate the other" you get to vote for the party that mostly represent your vote without necessarily "waste your vote". In my country as an example, the 2 parties that would always battle each other formed a coalition. Was quite a surprise if I say so myself.

[@isaaclauck7194]

@@JoeAuerbach So basically people aren’t aloud to have their own views? And run with these views?

[@aligerman4201]

We need ranked voting. Maine started doing it this year. Hopefully more states follow suit.

[@robertjarman3703]

France had ten candidates for president in 2017, four of which had about 1/5 of the vote each, another two with over 5%, and the rest split among a few others adding up to about 4%, with a runoff where the two candidates in the runoff with the most votes in the first round getting 66% of the vote and the other about 33%.

[@Nixahma]

Everyone: Say the line, Devin! *“Bailiff! Tackle this man!”* *LOUD CHEERING*

[@GhengisJohn]

Who's this waifu in your avatar?

[@Nixahma]

@@GhengisJohn Rita Rossweisse, Honkai Impact 3rd.

[@JamesGilbert_]

LegalEagle's name is Devin?

[@catbeara]

@@JamesGilbert_ 😂

[@JamesGilbert_]

@@catbeara it wasn't a joke. It was a genuine question.

[@michaeljavon8713]

Just got a LegalEagle ad for CuriosityStream, in the middle of a LegalEagle video and I was so confused for a second lol

[@indigopines]

Me, going down this playlist for the first time without reading the titles, hearing Matt from EC's voice: *jumps, head raises up, pen flying out of hand, mouth open in surprise*

[@alicepow260]

"That seems unlikely" are the famous last words of the past 4 years of trump.

[@Val_Far]

Scarily true. Oof!

[@thebigdawgj]

I will laugh if Trump wins again.

[@Abu_Shawarib]

He's talking about the popular vote which is genuinely less likely to go to trump even if he wins the election.

[@Tzar1]

@@thebigdawgj well, it is going to be very close. How it looks now, if the electors stay faithful, and the states don't change colours, it looks like it will be a tie

[@gamerguy9729]

@@Tzar1 wouldn’t it be great if it was a tie Biden pence 2024?

[@arwon2227]

I feel like it should probably be noted that the base level requirement to be a "republic" is not having a monarchy. Whether a system is democratic or not is an entirely different axis. Switzerland and China are both republics, Australia and Saudi Arabia are both monarchies. You can tell absolutely nothing about how democratic they are from that classification alone.

[@MorosSilverwing]

Hi, an Aussie here; while we are still a part of the British Commonwealth I can assure you that Scott Morrison was not born into the leadership position. Cheers.

[@bruncla2303]

i think USA has to have different definitions of democracy and republic than rest of the world. I think that when they say democracy they mean direct democracy and when they say republic they mean representative democracy. Otherwise it doesnt make sense at all.

[@pholliez]

Australia is a *constitutional* monarchy, big difference to Saudi monarchy.

[@arwon2227]

@@pholliez yes that's my point exactly.

[@jlupus8804]

No way China is an actual republic.

[@carnivoroussarah]

I love this dude. You've got a new sub, sir!!

[@kirstensteffen2276]

I love that you used that meme for the thumbnail. 😂

[@Sorenzo]

"It can be just about anyone... Such as nepotism picks, criminals, amd terrorists."

[@vxicepickxv]

I had a social studies teacher in high school who was an elector, because she wanted to.

[@algotkristoffersson15]

@@vxicepickxv Like, in the states where they are forced to vote as the citizens did, and therefore only act as messangers, who cares

[@freedbygsus]

It's worth noting that the House of Representatives does not have to have the current 437 cap that it has.

[@sarahchicago]

Exactly. Add enough representatives to get that California vs wyoming situation fixed, and add proportional allocation of each states electors, and the EC becomes a lot more palatable to me.

[@shaneh5483]

441 (435 voting, 6 non-voting)

[@tobybartels8426]

@@sarahchicago : You can never fix California versus Wyoming, because the vast majority of the problem there is with the Electoral votes that correspond to the Senators, and that's required by the Constitution. (There is a slight discrepancy with the House members as well, and increasing the size of the House would indeed help with that, but it's not where the main problem lies.)

[@frederf3227]

I seem to remember if you take the citizens-per-rep ratio at the time of last expansion of the house and apply it to today that would require something like 1700-1800 representatives. The larger the ratio of reps to senators the less the senator per state number matters in total representation (a la EC).

[@jeremyturner2873]

If we use the ratio of population to reps in 1929 when the size of the House was capped, we should rightly have 1180 House members to get the same level of representation today.

[@garretjones5963]

Amended [sic] some misconceptions I had regarding the EC. Thanks.

[@ekaj1232]

um, colorado wasn't part of the compact at the time of this video, that was actually one of our ballot initiatives. it passed by the way

[@powergi3996]

I'm not American, I have no idea what he is saying, but I find his voice calming and I listen to these videos as back ground noise.

[@lg9189]

😂

[@collintaylor3705]

besides the not being an american part, same, i listen to him while i play my xbox

[@Nightwing690]

He's complaining about America

[@nicholaspeterman9111]

I am American, I do understand what he is saying, and I am also using his videos as background noise.

[@sanmerci]

I have to say that, knowing what he's saying, I find these videos much less calming...

[@joshuasweet688]

I got a bachelors degree from the electoral college.

[@LegalEagle]

We can all agree: the Electoral College should be free!

[@MiniArts159]

as in if you support the electoral college you're never getting married

[@Jack-ys2qj]

Smh should've gone to electoral trade school

[@sydcrawley]

@@Jack-ys2qj 😂

[@ItsZorroDood]

I love their football team!

[@OreoFromYesterday]

spectacular video, gonna have to reference this in the future

[@sandywright-leonard5238]

Yep-I vote in Alabama because my ancestors fought for the right to vote, but there has only been one national election where my vote actually mattered.

[@davedaley9093]

I vote every California election and my vote hasn't mattered since the election of Bush the elder.

[@TheLastStardaughter]

"There would be riots in the streets" so, business as usual for 2020

[@emexdizzy]

See, though, the difference is that I would crawl out of my house in my aching disabled misery and join in for that riot.

[@HarryYese]

Murica 100

[@nevassa4627]

@Kurt Barryman The only thing left is starving the populous. Even then, pain and misery have been shown (historically) to be good motivators for change.

[@thatoneguy1350]

@Kurt Barryman America sometimes you scare me.

[@DaddyHensei]

I believe there would be a lot more than riots in the streets. Pretty sure he was just putting it lightly.

[@Robert399]

The "prisoners' dilemma" of swing states increasing their power and national attention through winner takes all electors is really interesting. But conversely that could be a good reason for spectator states to switch (unilaterally) to district/proportional representation so that candidates have to care by how much they win in those states.

[@theoldfinalchapters8319]

Except that poses a different problem. If a state like California, run by Democrats, were to switch, this would mean that Republicans have a better chance at winning the Presidency. What state party would do that to their own party?

[@Robert399]

@@theoldfinalchapters8319 Yes that's definitely true. I suppose you'd have to have a couple of states agree to do it together (e.g. California and Texas).

[@mrmanlet7385]

@@theoldfinalchapters8319 Which brings up the issue of partisan tribalism.

[@boygenius538_8]

@@mrmanlet7385 it’s not really just that, it seems unfair if your the only one to do it, it’ll hurt the majority of your own state while not even giving you the desired outcome. The national popular vote compact works because no state goes it alone, they all take it together.

[@Mantafirefly]

It also means third parties might actually get representation, and if the dems and pubs hate anyone more than each other, it's a third party.

[@j_swensy]

Glad you mentioned voting systems from 13:45. This is an issue that I think people should be more aware of, especially because it’s a relatively simple problem to fix in the US.

[@RicochetSaw]

"common people wouldn't care about the national candidates" OH THE IRONY

[@QuesoCookies]

To be fair, this is coming from people who are still 100 years away from even the Pony Express. Instant access to global news any minute of the day would be pretty incomprehensible.

[@Ferret440]

I do wish there was a way to go back to having people care about local policies more. So many terrible changes are happening right under people's noses. Look up "patriot act local news" here on KZbin* which covers one such story.

[@euripidean]

Times do change, don't they! :D

[@jacobvardy]

"common people wouldn't care about the national candidates" is highly debated. Most common people were too poor to vote. And the slavers who wrote the constitution were terrified that a popular vote would ban slavery. Landless settlers tended to oppose slavery because they could not compete with workers who could be whipped to death.

[@eiyukabe]

@@QuesoCookies Which is reason #4,155,480 for why we shouldn't do things a certain way just because they prescribed it. Imagine if we still practiced medicine based on the 1700s knowledge, or labor based on slave era labor morality.

[@pascusrex4152]

how can the Electoral College be a good thing if up to 49% of all votes in each and every state are basically not counted in every election. I like the German federal election system: 1) % of the votes in the election = % of seats in the parliament 2) the party with a mayority in parliament gets to nominate the Chancellor. done. 3) if no party can form a mayority on its own they have to talk to the other parties and have to form a coalition(politicians ACTUALLY TALKING TO ONEANOTHER!) 4) any party that gets more than 5% of the votes will go into parlament (most likely as opposition). So your vote is only ever lost if you vote for a party that gets less than 5% of the votes 5) the same is done on a state level with the state parliament and the state president. 6) All the state presidents form the senate. done.

[@MalloonTarka]

Quite. The part that ensures bigger states don't dominate smaller ones is by allocating at least three seats in the Bundesrat (equivalent to the Senate), but increasing those by one every few million to a maximum of six (4 by 2 million, 5 by 6 million and 6 by 7 million). Though these seats are not filled by elected representatives, but are instead delegated by the state governments. The 5% hurdle was implemented as a patch to the system of the Weimar Republic, where it didn't exist and the many, many tiny represented parties caused deadlock by having too many different interested parties for talking to be effective. I'm also of the opinion that presidential systems give too much power to a single person, power that is then rife to be abused. Germany has a president, but their power is mostly ceremonial - they're the head of state and represent us the same way a monarch or a president would, but not much more than that. The most powerful person and the head of government is the chancellor, who is not elected directly, but elected by the Bundestag (equivalent to the House of Representatives) after being proposed by the President. Them not being elected directly prevents charismatic but unfit individuals becoming head of government (though the probable candidate from a party can influence people to vote for that party - for example, many people have said they only voted for the CDU because Merkel was their candidate. something I can quite understand). Them being elected by the Bundestag also means the government and the legislation tend to get along, which prevents them sabotaging each other's efforts, as has been the case for many US presidencies, leading to an overabundance of executive orders.

[@that_guitar_guy7032]

Search up what dictatorship of the majority is

[@that_guitar_guy7032]

It’s why we need an electoral college

[@MalloonTarka]

@@that_guitar_guy7032 All that means is there need to be checks to ensure the majority do not oppress the minority. The Constitution's as well the the arduous process for amending it already does that. If the electoral college prevents a dictatorship of the majority, it replaces it with the (very real) possibility of the dictatorship of the minority, which is even worse - where a minority of voters dictate to the majority who the president is.

[@Smilodon_]

​@@MalloonTarka The Constitution doesn't actually ensure anything though. Unconstitutional laws and executive orders can exist forever as long as the courts do not shoot them down - or even worse, uphold them. Obscenity laws, for example, trample on free speech. Many of them still exist on the books and have been upheld, however (except in Oregon).

[@CoreyKearney]

I realize you are an American lawyer, But law is law, so I love to hear your analysis of a comparison between the the the US (r)epublican system and the parliamentary system much of the world uses. like Canada.

[@bobbyfishlips5689]

Law is law is most certainly not true lol. You can’t really be an American lawyer you get licensed in each state eg just because someone passes the bar and becomes a lawyer in Ohio does not mean they can practice law in Pennsylvania and they’re both in america

[@CoreyKearney]

I am aware of how bar exams work, and that you can take and pass more then one. I wasn't looking to hire him. Just his thoughts on differences. Seeing as most English speaking countries started off with a version of Magna Carta and went form there. Aside for some local and procedural differences, they are similar.

[@joeldipops]

I would love to see this video, but I wouldn't say "much of the world". There is a huge diversity of different electoral and political systems around the world and the difference between two systems that call themselves "Parliamentary" can be even more different than a system we call "Congressional and a system we call "parliamentary" For example, lets look at three systems - Australia, Canada and US. Aus and Canada call themselves parliaments, and US calls itself Congressional. All three systems are Bicameral democracies with an executive authority. They have a "lower house" that writes laws, an "upper house" that approves or amends them, and an executive authority that authorises them into law. Aus and Canada appoint thier executives. The voting public have no direct say in who they are or what they stand for, but they very rarely exercise any power beyond rubber stamping. The US, of course, elects their executive, and that executive has a significant amount of power that is regularly used. However, lets look at the upper house. Aus and the US elect their senators. The systems for doing so are vastly different both systems rely on states* having a fixed and equal number of senators. After each election, a cohort of senate seats will be vacated, and then senators will be elected or re-elected. Canadian senators are appointed by the prime minster of the day and serve until retirement. There is also no fixed and equal number of senators per province or region. As we look at more and more democracies, we will see similarities and differences and the words "Parliament" and "Congress" become less and less meaningful, and even words like "President" and "Monarch" are kind of loosely defined. The Singaporean head of state must come from a certain ethnic background on a rotating cycle. Iran has a directly elected President AND an absolute-monarch-esque "Supreme Leader" The Malaysian King switches between the various sub-monarchs of Mayalsian states every few years. etc etc.

[@russlehman2070]

I'm an American. IMO, the parliamentary system is generally better, because the Prime Minister always has a majority in Parliament, so you are less likely to end up with the gridlock we frequently get in America when different parties control the Presidency, House of Representatives and Presidency. The Parliamentary system can get messy, though, when no single party has a majority and two or more parties have to form a coalition, as those coalitions often fall apart rather easily (e.g. Israel in recent years, Italy pretty much ever since WWII, or the Third Republic and Fourth Republic in France.

[@joeldipops]

@@russlehman2070 While the head of government always having the support of the house helps, the rigidity of America's two party system is the real killer. While Aus's lower house generally sticks to two parties, we've got a form of proportional representation in our upper house that invites a diversity of mimor which really helps to break deadlocks.

[@Articulate99]

Always interesting, thank you.

[@ladybird6445]

"but frankly that seems like an unlikely scenario" (chuckles) i'm in danger

[@ostrowulf]

"If they changed it to be so undemocratic, there would likely be riots in the streets." Me as a Canadian thinking about all the riots in the US, especially this year, but also this past decade.

[@James-gd3sp]

Those riots happen because the cities LET them happen. If they wanted to stop them they could do so at the snap of a finger. The cities that didn't let the riots happen and stopped them are not shown because that would mean the government actually did something right.

[@Grisbane]

considering how the landscape is so dramatically different and how far the parties are apart.. riots in the streets will be just a small thing, full on revolt is coming. especially since democrats are more and more falling towards making the US into China v2. Don't think the United States will be United much longer.

[@James-gd3sp]

@@Grisbane I think you are forgetting only a smallish part of the democrats are like that but they are the loudest so it seems like they all are. Most just don't like trump and vote Biden because they don't like that trump is not a good person in terms of his attitude. They base their votes on who they would rather have a conversation with not their policies or actions as president/vice president. The screechers are not able to handle actual warfare and considering how trump is supporting the troops by pulling them out of unnecessary wars I would assume in the case of coup the military would side on trump so its failed from the beginning.

[@riblix4744]

@@James-gd3sp Yes, because someone suffering from dementia is a much better canditate than Trump...

[@ostrowulf]

@@Grisbane I did an essay in highschool (about 20 years ago) comparing the US with thevdecline of the Roman Empire. Lately I watch the news, and it is like people read it, and said "challenge accepted!"

[@michaelstaton7979]

Thanks, I've wanted to learn about the electoral college votes for a while

[@bullcrapptv]

I OBJECT to people not framing their comments as objections.

[@thefiregodzapp]

The fact that the electoral college can vote for whoever they want and not split by the percentage of the popular vote by state is what's wrong with the country. That's not even taking into account that with how fast information spreads the electoral college is completely irrelevant now. Also not pertinent to the topic but I'm really not digging the collab with the "if you play as a Nazi in a game then you are one" guy.

[@binaryblade2]

As an extra credits viewer, this was both unexpected and hilarious.

[@CGingRun]

Same. And I had just watched their video earlier

[@wilheimrupenshire2152]

I've known Legal Eagle for a while. Just started watching Extra Credits like a week ago. This is very weird timing lol

[@braith117]

Has their content gotten any better or are they still as dishonest and anti consumer as ever?

[@ArcticMonkey2100]

SAME!

[@LuinTathren]

Same. I thought I had accidentally hit 9ne of their videos. DJ has been doing all sorts of awesome mashups lately (i.e. the one with Dr. Mike).

[@diggity_dunker]

How did I only just now find out legal eagle and extra credits did a video together??

[@Gell-lo]

"Texas might turn blue" *sweats in the unnervingly close Texas elections.*

[@devo076]

Too many liberals moving to texas to escape the states they screwed up...then making the same decisions in texas that will screw it up.

[@imapopo2924]

@@devo076 Ive heard from a few sources that its actually more people that have lived here turning liberal. And judging by what Ive seen of my high school classmates, it adds up...

[@oldscoolest]

@@devo076 What are you talking about? Liberal states make up the most prosperous and highest quality of living in the country. And also tend to pay more in taxes than they receive back. Essentially, blue states are FUNDING the welfare of red states

[@henrikgiese6316]

@@oldscoolest Arguably, people tend to be more liberal when financially secure. So it's rather likely that prosperous states vote Democrat as a result of being prosperous rather than the other way around. But people who have the skills to become prosperous also tend to be more liberal, and move to places with other liberal people, so the whole thing can be both. As for which type of economic planning does best that seems to have rather little to do with the government unless the government goes way out to either extreme.

[@devo076]

@@oldscoolest I can't tell if you're trolling or being serious lol. Cause I've read how California and New York are bleeding residents and conservative states like Idaho, Utah and Texas are booming with an influx of people.

[@rzawistowski33]

Well I'm from NY, voted blue most of my life. However, in my state red votes don't matter when it comes to a presidential election. We have 29 electoral votes. Typically it's around 2/3 blue to 1/3 red. I'd personally prefer to see the votes get split to the ratio of the state, so 19-10 or 20-9. Then all voters can be represented. Same goes for states flipped the opposite way. Results would be much closer to the popular vote and represent voters more fairly.

[@darkpraxis]

The problem is without another equally populous "red" state also agreeing to cast electoral votes proportionally based on popular vote in the state, New York Democrats would be ceding power to the other side. It only works in Maine and Nebraska because they have the minimum number of electoral votes and a 1 vote swing statistically would never affect the general election. If all states' electoral votes were cast proportionally to the popular vote, then we might as well simply choose the president based on the popular vote directly. As somewhat stated in the video, Democrats are already attempting to circumvent the electoral college by legislating their electoral votes go to the national popular vote winner because it benefits their party (not to mention it leads to a more democratic outcome). The only way Republicans would agree to a similar change would be if demographics change and their path to the presidency through the Electoral College is essentially closed.

[@AlienZizi]

then why even have the middle man? why count each state separately instead of counting all the votes together

[@Celebmacil]

@@AlienZizi Because the States elect the President, not "the Nation". Bear in mind, the United States is composed of 50 (nominally) sovereign States, and they would be unwise to let loose of that State vote for a "Federal" popular vote.

[@KONTRABANDYT]

I agree. As it stands now, some people are apparently not counted as a whole vote. It shouldn't be possible to for a candidate to lose the popular vote and still win.. at least not by such a vast majority. The electors shouldn't have an option of casting votes however they so choose. It really does make it nearly pointless for the citizens to even vote and extremely discouraging for a person to vote knowing that their state will vote for the other side and get all of the delegates anyway. Like if you live in a republican state there is no point for democrats to vote and vice versa. The election is literally decided by the few swing states and everyone else gets no attention from either party. I also think we should have much more stringent criteria to meet before even being allowed to run. Seems the only requirement to being president these days is being the best lier.

[@samschegan1376]

I totally agree with this and dropped a comment above outlining the same thing. I think all states should go to this. It would allow for much better voter representation throughout the states. @douglas frank I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure that with this method being used in all the states, it would still be possible for a candidate to win the election without winning the popular vote. Some analysis would have to be done to figure that out. It would be much harder for that to happen and would probably almost never happen but I do think it still could. The reason why this is better than just going by the popular vote is because your still giving some amount of representation to all the states (even if it isn't totally equal which is another issue, it's still a major improvement). So it would therefore still ensure that LA, NYC, and Chicago don't decide every election. (This is a concept I'm not sure why people don't understand and is the exact reason why the electoral college exists. Yes there are problems with it which I'm saying here that should be fixed but completely getting rid of it is the absolute worst thing that could happen). It also would cause candidates to campaign much harder in spectator states and flyover states as they would actually matter as critical and valuable votes can be picked up. You'd see much different campaigning and it would be for the better instead of what he said above with 66% of the campaigns happening in 4 states or whatever it was. I think it would be a major improvement to the system.

[@nolanwaymire7003]

Only in the United States can you say something like "Every person should get one vote" and that's somehow controversial.

[@tomasr.2945]

That "all votes are counted", and "all votes count equally" are also somehow controversial.

[@taskdon769]

A farmer can grow crops to feed more than 100 peoples but 100 urbans can barely grow a vegetable garden. America is diverse and massive, if you ever go with popular vote that you will get a result of overwhelmingly supporting serfdom for all farmers. Every person should get one vote will likely be the beginning of the end for the union. However I doubt many will actually care if that ever be the case.

[@bisaVCI]

@@taskdon769 Wait a minute. There's a large step between a majority and serfdom. One can care about a minority without being part of that minority. However, I cannot vote in another state because I think it's important to allocate more funds for rural states. And I'm pretty certain my senator will try to get money into my state, because that's where his electorate lives.

[@taskdon769]

@DiglettUser CHAZ was a visionary utopia, too bad it was crushed by the authoritarian mayor Durkan.

[@mud213]

@@taskdon769 What's hilarious about your serfdom comment is that the "urbans" (as you put it) are significantly more likely to understand the concerns of a minority as they are often interacting with diverse groups of people. I highly doubt that metropolitans would vote in state-enforced classism.

[@ELFanatic]

20:39 Been saying this for 4 years. Always seemed odd to me that it was Republicans who defended the EC as Texas continues to go purple.

[@fiftysquiggly]

If the trend continues and Texas actually flips whereas most other blue states remain blue then I expect the narrative will change. The only complication to this is that Democrats almost always win the popular vote so even if they flip flop on the EC they'll still likely lose the popular vote - the last Republican president to win the popular vote was George H.W. Bush in the 1988 Presidential election. I'd expect Republicans to increase focus on the voter fraud narrative and try to manipulate the EC and voting laws to favor Republican voters.

[@timking2230]

@@fiftysquiggly considering the last year, I think you’ll see a blowout in 2024 not to mention 2022.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:05 - Chapter 1 - The electoral college is constitutionally mandated 12:40 - Chapter 2 - How electoral votes are apportioned

[@Roll587]

CGP Grey has an awesome video on this too. Excited to watch!

[@ocadioan]

Was about to write this. His videos really should be obligatory in US schools.

[@Sableagle]

The USA and UK use the "first past the post" system, whereas functional modern democracies use proportional representation.

[@signet84]

Years ago the UK had a referendum about changing the voting system to proportional representation but the opposition managed to convince the voters that it will lead to more ‘Hung Parliments’.

[@TheJerbol]

Canada was going to get electoral reform to ideally proportional representation but Trudeau decided that Canadians didn't actually want that once the Liberals were in. Kinda weird considering many voted for them because that was in their platform

[@TheBioRules]

Canada too. Kinda sucks

[@vleessjuu]

@@signet84 The campaign adds from that referendum are the cringiest crap I've ever seen.

[@alejandrorivas4585]

Serious question, proportional representation differs in what ways to ranked choice and instant runoff?

[@ThomasNimmesgern]

11:55 "an unlikely scenario" - hold on, 2020 might give us another of those 2020 surprises.

[@justicematters5447]

I hope not. would be vary hard to do this with so many states going to Biden. But I'm sure they will try to play that as well.

[@tyrian_baal]

@@justicematters5447 If that happened, it’d be awesome because I’d finally have a reason to buy a gun lol

[@justicematters5447]

@@tyrian_baal Yep seems like everything in America is a reason to buy a gun lol

[@frankrivera4491]

Very informative thank you

[@ghostderazgriz]

I learned a lot. The issue of the electoral college is much deeper than I realized. Thanks for the dive LegalEagle!

[@littleduck6552]

nice tie jacket combo

[@NoriMori1992]

Love the meme in the thumbnail 😂

[@VIPforevas]

"Talk less... smile more". I like how you snuck in a Hamilton reference when talking about the election with Burr.

[@TheSucidalpanda]

Do not let them know what you're against, or what you're for!

[@Valentina-ng4hh]

@@TheSucidalpanda You can't be serious

[@TheSucidalpanda]

@@Valentina-ng4hh I was quoting Hamilton?

[@Nimelennar]

@@TheSucidalpandaSo was @Valentina.

[@Valentina-ng4hh]

@OnePushLane You wanna get ahead? Yes Fools who run their mouths off wind up dead

[@julzbehr6696]

Maybe this made sense when a guy on a horse was the best internet available.

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

Not even then, as Madison’s dissent proves. The Electoral College is clearly just the result of an experiment in republican government. It doesn’t make sense because the people who designed it had no examples of federal democracies to draw from.

[@Joesolo13]

@@ZeteticPhilosopher exactly. The constitution was *never* meant to be set in stone. Some were convinced the entire thing would be re written every few decades. It ended up being a pretty stable system but it clearly needs work

[@charlesthepig8332]

@@ZeteticPhilosopher Let's say that we didn't have the electoral college - that every vote counted for exactly one vote and who won won, regardless of population or location. Now let's we're electing a new president - tell me, where is most of the population located? The large cities, and the coats. Nearly half the USA's population lives in 2 dozen or so counties scattered in New England, the larger cities, and the West Coast. The midwest has the lowest population density of all. So judging by that standard, if we eradicated the electoral college and the way of balancing power, we eradicate the voice of the places with lower population. States like Montana and Wyoming that are barely at 1 million people or less will be run by states like California, who has no idea of how our agriculture and economy works, and no idea of what our biggest issues are. We've been trying to get regulated logging back in for years on Montana to help boost the economy and clean up forests that are a huge fire hazard, and every time we push for it we get shut down by people from CA just because we're in the same court district as them. Can you imagine how that would go, should we not have the electoral college and not have a balance of power?

[@Nyx_Pyralis]

@@charlesthepig8332 you do realize this is a conversation about the electoral college and not about the senate, right? Congress makes laws, not the president, and congress has the senate, in which every state has an equal say.

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

@@charlesthepig8332 Uh. So, you seem to have greatly misinterpreted the point I was making, but I'll take the bait. But first, the point I was making was not at all about the proportional representation aspect of the Electoral College, but rather the obvious failures in procedure it allows. I'm sure both you and I can agree that, if a candidate wins in the EC in a fair election, they should take the presidency. As the video makes clear however, appointed "electors" can usurp the actual votes of people in each state. Regardless of debates over whether a system is fair, it's a shite system if it doesn't work properly. Ok. Now to your point. First of all, I'd like to defend my home state of California. We're also pushing for better forest management and have a massive agricultural industry of our own, including the type of ranching so common in Montana. The 9th Circuit really doesn't rule as differently from the others as the media often represents. Mostly the federal government just won't let western states manage their own land because eastern states like the idea of jointly owned federal land (because they have none). Secondly, just admit that your point is you think that a vote in a rural state should count more than a vote in an urban one. I don't think that's an inherently illegitimate ask, for much the same reasons as you state. It is completely possible for the majority to bully the minority in ways which are inappropriate. However, you have to accept the anti-democratic nature of this argument. It's not really much different from arguing that each race should be consulted when making a decision, regardless of the proportion of the population they make up. Ironically John C. Calhoun is the greatest theorist of your view of politics, called concurrent majority theory, and Lani Guinier--a black civil rights theorist--is his greatest modern-day interpreter. The point I'm trying to make here is that what you're worried about is not losing your voice, but losing your power. An equal vote would not result in your silencing, but merely the reduction of your political power with regards to the presidency to the same as that of the average American. A third the population lives in coastal cities, and third live in rural areas. Why one of these groups should be protected above the other is confusing to me. You would still enact much more power than average in the Senate, an institution much more directly created to protect minority rights. The question detractors of the EC who focus on fairness would like to make is whether the presidency should act for the majority of Americans, or for the majority of a mix of the states and the people. I personally am ambivalent, but I tend to think that the Senate was designed to represent states, whereas Congress was supposed to represent the people. The purpose of the presidency seems to have largely been intended to be competent manager and foreign-affairs leader. It seems to me that the President's foreign policy should represent all Americans, since the Senate--the representatives of the states--already get to determine questions of treaties. However, where the Electoral College fails even in your argument is that it does not actually protect small states. In fact, it really only protects whichever coalition can win a majority in only the states making up 270. You could do this with only the largest states with big cities, as democrats may do with Texas over the next few years. As mentioned by LegalEagle, this could simply make it impossible for Republicans to win, even if a majority of Americans and a majority of rural states voted for them. This is why the Electoral College is a poorly designed system. It does not do what anyone wants it to, and it does not do what its creators intended it to. A system absed on your values would not necessarily be wrong, but it also would not be the Electoral College. It would however, be similarly undemocratic--Calhoun would approve.

[@CoderedLegacy]

Would love to see a follow up video about how North Dakota attempted to directly combat the NPVIC "by prohibiting disclosure of the state's popular vote until after the Electoral College meets." If states began hiding their results until after the Electoral College meets, how would that impact the current voting system?

[@gamegraves]

I think we should always seek to improve our institutions, at a rate moderated enough to see if it actually works, and with distinction on what changes we actually incorporate

[@JM-us3fr]

I don’t really see how anyone can disagree with that

[@andrasszabo1570]

@@JM-us3fr In theory, most people would probably agree with seeking to improve institutions. But in practice, people can always be persuaded or manipulated into holding onto the status quo. Plus you always have people who are instinctively or politically conservative or would just do anything to "own the libs". And so the voting's on a Tuesday because it would take people 2 days to travel from the market to the few voting places in their states... in the 19th century; it's finalised in the Electoral College (which makes it possible that 29% of the population could elect a President) which is from the 18th century; and its voting system is First Past the Post, based on horse racing. Probably 17th century to continue the pattern.

[@myscreen2urs]

The irony of Trump tweeting about how broken the voting system is that eventually got him the presidency.

[@99certain45]

And the fact that he defended it after he got elected

[@adamd416]

And the fact he’s aware of that, took advantage of it, and still tells the American people the truth.

[@thomashajicek2747]

Of course you’ll never get him to admit he said what he said. He’s contradicted himself on Twitter countless times.

[@kakexun]

@@thomashajicek2747 he cant admit shit all he can do is spin lies, its sad

[@djentyman4002]

@@kakexun on tv at his rally in Michigan he said he was winning big in Michigan. Biggest lie ever 😂

[@crisscross3216]

Imma be honest with you I’m going to have to rewatch this a couple of times to understand fully but thank you so much, I learned a bunch!

[@troyevitt2437]

I'd really like him to break down "God Emperor of Dune".

[@memyname1771]

And, I am tired of my vote being less significant than the votes of people in less populated states. While "our" 45th "President" was quite concerned that every "legitimate" vote should be counted, he was not concerned about a voter in California having far less voice in the selection of the President than a voter in Montana or Wyoming. If every vote counts, then every vote should count the same as every other vote. The Electoral College has become more divisive as campaign strategy focuses on the minority of the voters with the most valuable votes. If the President represents the majority of the people, then the majority of the voters must select the President.

[@TV4Fun2]

11:56, "There would probably be riots in the streets," oh my sweet October child...

[@danconnors9572]

As a British citizen this both helped me understand more about American elections while also confusing me that much more Edit - thank you for over 300 likes and all the replies. This is the most ever 💕 it's been an interesting discussion

[@whatthehellisayoutube6010]

I've was born here. Even I'm confused about the elections. I studied on the subject of politics, but I see something different happening each time. Our leaders are pocket padding and calling the working class people, like me , are called ignorant and deplorable.

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

Dan Connors that's America for you. Greetings from across the pond, by the way.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

Yup. It does that to us Americans, too.

[@JM-mi8qc]

It's not that confusing, when our country was created, the bicameral system was adopted as a compromise to give the less populous states more representation via the senate, while also giving equal representation per person in the house to appease the more populous states. The electoral college was created to appease the states that had more slaves to give them greater representation in conjunction with the three fifths compromise. Then we just left it that way because whoever's side benefits from it justifies in their mind why it's okay for some people's votes to count more than others', so there's no way the states will agree to get rid of it in the foreseeable future.

[@robbybergers3997]

'as the radius of the spotlight of knowledge grows, so too does the circumference of darkness surrounding it' - Albert Einstein. If you feel more confused, that likely means your understanding of the topic has grown significantly.