back then, the electoral college was extremely useful, as information took days, even weeks, to get from place to place. the electoral college was set up so that America didn't need to wait for every citizen to receive news of the election and vote. now it sucks and should go.
@@bt3743 I have no clue. They should implement it in every republic because it is objectively the best system. There’s a quote from a wise man. “Government by the people, for the people…. But the people are retarded” so EC was implemented. Living in the 21st century does not mean that people are more intelligent, in fact I argue that people are dumber now than ever before. It would be stupid to let the pure majority decide what happens as they’re all STUPID. Can’t let morons dictate the govt
+The rarest seal. Normally, I detest grammar checkers but that was SOOOOOOO FUUUNNNNNY!! "Please delete it immediately." God, I don't know why, I'm still laughing at that. Lmao.
The people not knowing what a republic, a direct democracy and a representative democracy are should get out of the comment section. But that would probably leave like 20 comments...
@P S If that was presented by the government, over fifty percent of the population voted in favor of it, and their weren't any other branches of government or other countries that watched it critically, sure. I'm not saying a representative democracy is wrong. What I'm saying is that our current system which allows gerrymandering and counts the popular vote as secondary is flawed.
@Corn Pop's Mutton Chops dude a lot of other nations have represantive democracy but their still manage it on person = one vote like my country of germany.
America is not a democracy. Democracy allows mob rule. A good politician should have a healthy balance so that down cities on the coast don't control the whole country
Well, I for one, am pleased that they are trying to educate themselves! Maybe you would prefer they didn't, so that you can continue to feel superior??
"Actually, in 24 states, they can vote for whoever they want." Me: "Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, KANSAS?! GOD DAMNIT!!!"
Can, and most often don't. In most of those States the elector can be replaced if they attempt to cast their ballot against the majority vote of their State.
I don’t get how pointing out that we are a Constitutional Republic makes this any better. Constitutional Republics still place the power of government in the people and rely on the votes of those people to elect representatives, so a system that makes voting against the establishment pointless and takes power away from almost half the people of a state is still government breaking.
Nebraska and Maine clearly have a superior model. The founding fathers obviously didn’t want population to dictate the country, because then California and New York would rule the other 48 states. Nebraska and Maine’s model would eliminate swing states and Republicans and Democrats would get their equal worth of votes from California, Texas, and every other state, like they should.
@@aaronlandry3934 Only problem is, you'd either have to get a red/blue state to decide to give up half of it's safe electorates, some of each to promise to change their system by the next election, or abolish Winner-Takes-All all at once. The second is really hard to coordinate and the other two are just impossible
There is a difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. In a Democracy in order for a bill to become law every citizen in the country would have to vote for the law. In a Republic citizens vote for someone to represent them in the government that then vote for laws. In a Constitutional Republic the government has limited power granted to them by the people.
The electoral college was designed to prevent the country being represneted soely by heavily populated areas that lean heavily one direction politically (HEM HEM CALIFORNIA)
Each state has their own government and their own laws. That being said opinions of each state differ from others. For example states like West Virginia went Republican because a lot of people thought that a Clinton presidency would kill the coal mines, and that's a big source of income for many people. So the majority vote went to Trump because that is what most of the people in that state wanted. On the other hand states like California and Illinois went Clinton because of large cities which tend to go liberal. The problem is if we determined the election based on who wins the popular vote states like West Virginia would have very little say. So states that are more populated receive more electoral votes than states with a smaller population. States with a small population give fewer electoral votes than big states, but because of this votes from smaller states weigh more than states with a big populations in regards to how many are needed for a single electoral college vote. It's a balance of power to keep the large cities from solely deciding the elections.
***** Then what about Texas? Or the fact that California and New York haven't always voted Democrat and that as recently as 1992 New York and California didn't even vote for the same candidate? What about the fact that New York, California and Illinois have enormous rural areas, covering more real estate and with more sparse country population than states like Wyoming or New Hampshire?
Yeah, throughout history pure democracies are very simple, and horrible; the founders were very aware of this when they decided upon how elections would be done.
@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, the Presidential election is defined by the Constitution - specifically, the Electoral College. The states are responsible for determining who is in the Electoral College - no election necessary. That's right - there is no need for the hullabaloo over the Presidential election. It's not even a thing - as defined by the Constitution.
@@nothingbutathing8532 hilariously, defined in the constitution... because of the states. The smaller states wouldn't have ratified the constitution without the electoral college.
They also thought it works for now and can be revised later, along with no parties. The US both formed parties and then didn’t really revisited the idea. You all are running the beta version, bugs and all
STEVE MCGILL Stop, you’re such a phony. Us republicans don’t act like that. Idiot. That name tho. STEVE MCGILL. Edit: Also, republicans are supportive of America being a constitutional republic. I also see that your account was made the same day you posted that comment.
Joseph Sanders Wait... why should the 51% rule over the 49%? Isn’t the alternative the 49% ruling over the 51%? I am just trying to understand why you think that any better.
1:15 "I think the fact that the entire election is determined by just a handful of states is really messed up. For one thing, it means presidential candidates can ignore almost the entire country. " That's hilarious Adam, let's look at some 2016 election statistics. 2016 Elections County Results: Trump: Around 2600 counties Hillary: Around 500 counties Yes, because if we had it where only the popular vote mattered, everything would be balanced and not at all determined by the big cities only. I mean, some of those counties that Hillary won are the most populous counties many of which have some of the top 30 cities such as NYC, LA, and Boston. Heck, even cities in Republican states, such as Dallas, Houston, and Austin, and Louisville voted democrat. The largest city, isolated from its county/counties, to vote for Trump was Oklahoma City, number 27 of the most populous US cities. The counties for Jacksonville and Fort Worth also voted for Trump, and are higher on the list, but the cities themselves voted for Clinton and the other areas in the counties won the vote for Trump. The point is that if we solely depended on the popular vote, then a candidate only needs to appeal to the cities to gain a serious lead, and doesn't need to appeal to the rural areas as much, meaning we could potentially run into a situation similar to Russia's where the government only really cares about the European part of the country, and doesn't really care about Siberia, because the population is in Europe, not Siberia.
Actually, a study showed that if it was "who got more votes in terms of people and not cities", Hillary would have won. This said, I dont think she would be a good president anyway, not that Trump is doing a great job, either way, but there were more candidates we should have payed more attention to
and the counties matter why to you? Hillary in the end won more people what you are basically saying is that trump deserved to win even though he got less votes but the people who voted for him were more spread out. thats not people getting the decision thats land.
+SpraxIAKS Don't most of them lean to democratic candidates? I go by libertarian and lean republican or somebody who actually thinks like a libertarian such as Rand Paul.
Conner Broeker Making them stricter won't help your issue trying to reduce crime rate. It'll just be harder for citizens to buy one and use one for self defense. Criminals never follow the law and they don't buy them legally and they do through the black market instead. So how would making stricter gun laws affect criminals? Also making them stricter is a violation of the 2nd amendment because it limits our ability to exercise our right.
@@sophiallama Direct Democracy was created in Athens and proved to be a sensational form of government in which any and every male citizen of Athens who had achieved a certain age could, at any point, attend meetings and vote on the management of the city-state. Unfortunately, the system developed a major flaw in the fact that the majority was easily able to overpower and oppress the minority. Any time those with enough influence or audience appeal wanted something that would either give them power or benefit, they could usually get it by convincing others to vote with them. This eventually led to the fall of Athens following major oppression by mob rule that severely marginalized the minority. To put it into perspective, if we had a direct democracy, we would never have freed the slaves nor would we have progressed to a point of giving equal rights to women or members of the LGBTQ+ community. A Representative Democracy was a form of democracy that was developed in order to apply the government concept to a national size. Clearly, not every citizen could come and vote across a nation and such votes took time. This system involved the people electing representatives to power to make decisions on their behalf and pass laws. This body of representatives also often selected a leader for themselves. This system too, however, does not really work so well because, again, majority rule could lead to oppression of the minority. Additionally, another danger with this system is that you already have the set up for an oligarchy, rule by a few, to form since you already elected a group of individuals to govern your nation and hold power. Corruption and violation of rights became rampant and this system too could only last so long. In the modern day, Representative Democracy gets tossed around to describe the American Government as well as others, but that's because we define the term as any government in which the people elect representatives. By that standard, any government with elections qualifies, and a republic is a derivative of such a model, but the key difference is that a republic is rule by law. By the time the Romans came around, they saw the merits and faults of these systems and created a Republic. In this system, the people again voted for representatives who held power to govern and pass laws, but they added a government document known as a Constitution. In this document, they set out the way in which the republic would work. This led to the defining characteristics of a republic being the protection of the innate rights of the citizens and the limitation of powers for government officials. It was a great and revolutionary form that addressed the issues of corruption and oligarchy in a representative democracy and the oppression and mob rule in a direct democracy. The Roman Republic fell, however, due to its constant changes to the constitution that eventually lead to the establishment of the triumvirate and an imbalance of power that led to the Roman Empire. The founders looked to the past and saw that a republic worked best, acknowledged its flaws, and made changes. They knew that the issue was an imbalance of power in the Roman state so they established three branches of government that checked and balanced each other, outlined a constitution that specifically limited the government so as to protect the people from tyranny, and established a Bill of Rights that protects the innate rights of the people. Those three things are characteristic of a republic and must exist for that term to be used, but they are unnecessary for democracy of any kind as a democracy can simply be any government where the people vote. The finer details are often overlooked and ignored, but they are also often the key to truly understanding why two things really are different.
@Movies&&Highlights!!! your comment operates on a complete misunderstanding of what our government is. As explained above, we are a republic. However, more than that, we are a Federal Republic: that is, a Federation with a Republican Central Government. What is a Federation? Put simply, it is a form of government in which a larger nation is made up of a centralized power as well as smaller member states that operate with their own autonomy. At the founding of America, we had 13 Colonies, all of which had their own unique reasons for being colonized, their own unique culture and values, and their own reasons for leaving England. Upon deciding to embark on the revolutionary idea that was the founding of America, one major concern dominated the thinking of the time: if we leave Britain and form our own government, then who will determine what is to be done in each colony? After all, their biggest complaint was that Parliament and the King were making decisions that involved the colonies without anyone being present to speak or represent the colonies themselves. Essentially, what went on in their local environment was being determined by men who had never once experienced the lives and cultures they had in the Colonies. The founders wanted to ensure that everyone would be heard and that consideration would be given to the fact that each State would have their own culture, geography, ideals, and government with each requiring different things. When it came to the Legislature, they were able to easily resolve the matter with Representatives and Senators; allowing for the representation of population size and an equal voice for the States. Two Senators per state, and (initially) one Representative per 30,000 people. When it came to the presidency, they wanted to take the same issues into consideration. The President would, obviously, be the most important and powerful man in America. If he was selected merely by national popular vote, this would overlook the fact that populations might not be equally dispersed. The fact is that people can only be expected to vote on issues based on their own experiences and environment. If a majority of the population was located in one environment, then they could only be expected to make a decision that is best for the situations within that environment. But what if there were three to five other environments with their own unique issues and situations in the country that simply didn't have many people living in them? They wouldn't have enough voting power, even unanimously, to overpower or even equal the popular vote. Similarly, simply saying that each state gets one vote would be unfair and inconsiderate since one state might vote in favor of a situation that is only present within their borders, yet a large part of the population may be within their state. Now how does the President play into this? the President is meant to campaign on issues and the votes he receives is indicative of the fact that people believe that he presents solutions that best help their situations and environments. Thus, it was important to the Founders that the President be selected in a manner that guaranteed that the most amount of people and situations possible would be considered in the selection of President. So they designed the Electoral College to have the votes of each state equal to the number of representatives in Congress. This would thus give equal representation and consideration in the decision of President as each person has in Legislative decisions. Essentially, this system gives two votes indicative of the State and the rest are indicative of the people by district. Moreover, it takes into consideration that, as they did not plan on there being only two candidates each time, there may be a tie or that none may win an absolute majority that would be necessary to guarantee the best possible leader. To resolve any instances such as these, the Electoral College uses the House of Representatives, the House of the People, to decide who should win by a series of ballots where each state gets one vote. This series must continue until an absolute majority wins. As demonstrated, this system is the best possible way to balance the interests of a federation to consider equality of member States and the interests of the people as a whole based on what a majority of the population experiences. Put simply, in the name of equality and preservation of rights for all, the Electoral College seeks to create a balance between population density and regional divide. Now, are there perhaps some issue in the way these votes are distributed? Yes, however, such issues are matters of the State. The States were given the power to decide how their electors for president would be chosen and, thus, how their Electoral Votes would be distributed. Based on Madison's views, it would appear that he did not approve of giving all of the Electoral Votes to the Statewide winner, but rather, he appeared to be in favor of the System used by Maine and Nebraska. This system gives two votes, indicative of the Senators, to the Statewide winner and the rest are distributed based on district winners. Based on these facts, it would probably be a more logical approach to adjust the system so that all States used the Maine and Nebraska system with some added features. 1) that the electors would be randomly selected from the voter population instead of predetermined party delegates. 2) that these electors would not vote until the predetermined electoral vote after election day. 3) that electors would be required to vote for the person who one their district if they won by an absolute majority (greater than 50%), else they would be free to vote for their choice in the event of a tie or if no one wins an absolute majority. 4) that electors would be required to vote for the person who won the State if they won by an absolute majority, that one State elector would go to each in the event of a tie, and that they would be free to choose if no one won an absolute majority (this would include a three-way tie because that would mean each got 33.333% of the vote whereas a two-way tie is 50-50). This adjustment to the System is in line with the writings on the Electoral College by the Founders, their comments when seeing the system in use, and the fundamentals evident within the way the Electoral College is structured. Of course, that does not mean everyone has to like it. Just consider this, in a National Popular Vote, someone could win with 49% if everyone else had less. At least with the Electoral College, when a person is selected with less of a popular vote, they are selected with an undeniable regional favorability and broad appeal. We may not always like who is chosen to lead, and it's okay to feel that someone should have more support, but we all have to understand that the person with the most support is not always what's best. The Founders designed this system with the intention of getting the person most appropriate to lead. By all logical perspectives, based on how our government works and structured, the best choice for president is found within the balance of State and Popular interests. We have to face the facts, California and New York do not know or understand what is best for Kansas or Texas, but someone running for office must consider what is best for all four if he wants to win their votes. To give an example, imagine if the World were one government with the UN as the Legislature and the Secretary-General was the Executive. Let's now consider the influence that the Secretary-General has on subjects such as third world assistance. Finally, let's consider two methods of how he might be elected by the people of the world. 1) Popular Vote: two candidates run. one person wants to put more money towards third world assistance and the other wants to put the money towards other initiatives. Assume that nations like Haiti are in desperate need of these funds and that they will not receive benefit under the second candidate's initiatives. the first candidate appeals to as broad a base as possible, but the second appeals to the largest nations by population. The end result, despite losing many regional battles, the second candidate wins due to his appeal to larger, population-dense, countries. 2) Electoral Vote: Same situation, same candidates. In the end, the first candidate wins despite losing in popular support because his broad appeal and concern towards third world countries earned him many regional victories that helped to boost him to success. In the end, he may have had only 48% of the vote, but it's made up of the most diverse amount of support possible proving that he is supported by the interests of a majority of the different demographics in the world that will be affected by his choices. To close off, yes, there may be some work to put in to improve the Electoral College, but abandoning it is an extreme that should not be encouraged or rushed into the moment things seem unpleasant. A quote from one show I've recently rewatched that fits here. I can't recall the exact wording, but the sentiment was this: Before abandoning something, first consider what alternatives exist. My proposed adjustment above is only one idea I believe would resolve the current rough spots and complaints, but it's by no means the only one. Just don't jump to the extreme of abandoning a system that works (and yes it does work) just because the person you liked lost. Sometimes you lose, that's just part of living in a Free Country. Having complaints about the system that you'd like to fix are also fine, but again, they are not a reason to abandon a system that still works.
@Movies&&Highlights!!! The two have no connection or similarity. Slavery was an aspect of Southern Culture and Economy that benefited and became necessary for their financial growth and success. The Electoral College simply acknowledges that we are more than just one nation, but that we are a Federation. As I stressed this point in my previous comments, I can only surmise that it has missed your attention so I will further express it. A National Popular Vote works and makes sense for places such as France because they are one Nation comprised of all people, but the United States is a Nation comprised of smaller nations. A misconception that is present is that the different States within the US act simply as Administrative Regions to help improve government infrastructure, but that is simply not the case. In France, there are 18 regions that simply act as a vessel to manage the government of France over the Country's landmass more effectively. These regions are lead by the President of the Regional Council, but these officials do not have any power beyond administering the Government over that region. Regions have no legislative power and, by all intensive purposes, they act simply as vessels for national power. In the US, however, a State is given much more autonomy. State's are allowed to select their own form of State Government, pass their own State laws, build their own militias (it's in the constitution), and overall operate with a sense of independence in the management of the society within their State Borders. Because of this autonomy and independence, the states within the United States are proven to be much more than simply Administrative powers or vessels of the National Government. Each state acts independently to deal with their own affairs. After all, the idea of America was that they would be a country of states united for mutual benefit and protection, but separate for individual pursuits. Now, this comes to the point of why a National popular vote does not work for our system of States. Again, I've expressed this in the previous comment, but I can only assume that I was not clear enough, so let me remedy that. As the President of the United States maintains a great amount of power and influence towards the Agenda that a Nation may pursue, his selection is of vital concern to the States. As mentioned, States operate with much Autonomy to pursue their own interests, and thus, they have their own problems as well as their own means and ideas of how best to fix their problems. if a president is selected who is in favor of a National Policy that would worsen a State's problem, or prevent the State from effectively pursuing their chosen course of action, then this president would hurt the State. Since population may not be equally dispersed between the states, a National Popular Vote might not consider whether or not a President is best for these states. A majority of the population as a whole may want a President who is in support of on policy, but that policy might not be beneficial for a majority of the States. Now, many would agree that the interests of the People as a whole within this nation should not be ignored, but I believe that we can all also see that ignoring the individuality and independence of the States would lead to much more problems for much more people. Therefore, again, I assert that the Electoral College was designed to balance the interests of the people and the States as the United States Election System is meant to specifically consider the unique needs of the United States. Stating that another Country uses the Popular Vote without issue is not a valid argument against the Electoral College unless the Country in question is structured the same as the United States. Broadly stating that the System is out of Date is also invalid as 1) you do not state how it is out of Date and 2) the Structure of the United States has not changed in this regard. We are still a Nation comprised of member states that operate with autonomy and independence to pursue their own interests. As for 2020: the only way in which the Electoral College System would not be used in that election would be if Congress spontaneously passed an Amendment to the Constitution that abolished the system by November. This is unlikely to occur. In conclusion, I again remind you of the last point in my previous comment that we cannot operate on the mindset that we dislike something, therefore, let's get rid of it. If you have issues with the system then the best course of action is to first ask yourself why these issues are part of the system. Next, study and learn more until you find your answer. Once you've found your answer, rethink your position to see if you still disagree with the issue. If so, consider what solutions may be offered aside from removing the system as a whole. That's how you address problems and find solutions. Moreover, whether you like the system or not, you should still go out to vote in every election possible. Don't sit at home and sulk because you don't like something. Even with the Electoral College, every vote counts and you never know whose vote will determine the winner. Aside from that, if you don't vote, nothing can get better and you'll have no right to complain about the result because you refused to engage. The danger of blindly and broadly complaining about the Electoral College is that people are getting discouraged from voting which only leads to more problems.
Matthias Neidenberger he actually argued the opposite saying that if u voted for a guy that got in and messed everything up then you had no right to complain about it
First off we are not a democracy. The founding fathers put this in SPECIFICALLY so larger states and populations couldn't make federal law without consent form smaller ones. Second we are a Constitutional Republic. Thus if population only mattered you could get the California NY and Florida vote and just not let anyone else vote as their population alone would decide the election. Mob rule is TERRIBLE. Hence us being a REPUBLIC not a democracy. If you want a true solid democracy... Do some research and see how well that turned out in Rome or France.
The reason why the electoral college was created, was so that smaller states had more of a say in how our country is governed. Also America until the western states started passing universal male sufferage laws, often only allowed a small percentage of men to vote. America was more of a Republic, than a Democracy in it's early days, and the electoral college is a legacy of that.
@@mitchellseymour1090 it's so California, for example, cannot force their policies on Arkansas. So maybe ppl in Arkansas don't agree with paying for Healthcare and Housing for Illegal Aliens, etc. Just because you have a bigger population doesn't mean you should be able to force PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS such as CRT, LGBTQRSTXYZ, ETC, on other ppl. If you do not like Arkansas or any other state, MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU FEEL YOU BELONG!!
@@mitchellseymour1090 cities need rural populations to survive, yet urban policy regularly punishes and hurts rural communities. Since a majority of people live in cities, urban policy would always pass without representative systems like the electoral college, thus hurting both rural communities and urban communities in the long term. By giving the little guy a bigger voice, the system actually is more fair this way
For everyone who thinks they are being clever: 1. A Republic can be a Democracy. They aren't different forms of government. They are just words from different languages (kind of like Freedom and Liberty). We get the word 'Republic' from the Latin 'res publica' and we get the word 'Democracy' from the Greek 'demos kratein'. The first means 'the public thing' and the second means 'people power'. The Roman Republic did not feature any significant representative institutions. The Senate did not represent the people, the Senate was filled by the rich. All the rich people, it wasn't representative. If you had Senatorial rank you could attend the Senate. End of story. The public assemblies which elected the tribunes were also non-representative. Everyone who wasn't of Senatorial rank could go. The Athenian democracy on the other hand did have a significant representative aspect, the Boule, which handled the majority of government business, on account of the fact that it was a hassle to bring everyone in to the Assembly every day (most of the citizens were farmers or merchants who had to be out of the city most of the time). So that talking point you are repeating about us being a representative republic not a democracy is doubly wrong. You can be a Republic and a Democracy, and there is nothing undemocratic about representative systems. They have literally been part of democracy from the beginning. 2. So why do so many people think Republic=Representative and Democracy=Direct rule by the people? Because some key founding fathers thought that is what the terms meant. But the fact is the founding fathers weren't all that knowledgeable. Its not their fault. They did the best they could in their situation, but relative to Europeans the American colonists had far weaker institutions of higher learning and less reliable access to books. Princeton, for example, vaulted ahead of every other American university by hiring a single guy, John Witherspoon, who was a completely unremarkable intellectual from Scotland, but automatically became the most educated person, by far, in the Atlantic colonies. But even the European universities wouldn't have been able to give their students a particularly good education about the history of politics. For the most part key texts had either not been translated or had been poorly translated. And even the key texts only gave you a very poor idea of how actual politics worked. For example, if you were basing your beliefs about the Roman Republic off of Cicero (which is who most political thinkers were using to understand Republican institutions) you got a sense of how a single very rich Roman who was actively engaged in a political struggle against a populist political party thought about politics. His writings don't give a comprehensive view of Roman government and are heavily biased against the poor. We know way more know about how Roman society and government operated than people did in the late 1700s. Your average community college professor working in history or political science knows more about political history than your average founding father. There were some really bright guys among the founding fathers (Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison in particular) but no one can overcome the general lack of available information. 3. Also the Framers were rich guys involved in trying to take power away from common people when they wrote the Constitution. Their defenses of the governmental institutions they chose were informed by the fact that they were trying to avoid things like paper money and debt relief for veterans of the Revolution (two major legislative initiatives gaining ground in state governments at the time). So when they talk about the mob what they are talking about is ordinary people trying to avoid getting screwed by people like Hamilton (who bought up the IOUs given to revolutionary war soldiers as pay, at pennies on the dollar when the Continental Congress wasn't paying any of its debts through lack of tax revenue, and then, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, demanded that the new Federal government pay them off at full price). In short, the attitudes the Framers had to the people at large are another of their great moral failures (like slavery) that they wrote into our Founding documents. 4. Also no one could agree on how to elect the President at the Constitutional Convention. It was the last major issue decided before the final draft was written, and the Electoral College was literally picked because it was the last thing suggested by a subcommittee that had been given the job of figuring it out. Everyone just wanted to get out of town and no one thought that the Electoral College would ever actually decide anything. They thought no one would ever get more than half the electoral college votes and so the elections would always be decided by the House of Representatives (which is what Madison wanted originally anyway). If you don't believe me go check out Madison's Convention notes.
1. A republic can be a democracy, but it is not a pure democracy, because pure democracies can be easily abused and tend to end in communism/socialism and then everyone starts dying.2.A pure democracy does mean direct by people, every person gets a vote and they are all equal no matter who or where you are. We don't want that, or all the smaller states would be screwed every election.3.The framers were brave geniuses who fought to create our country. They did everything in their power to limit power and give more power to the people. Free speech, the right to bear arms, the three branches of government, the list goes on.4.Just Madison's opinion doesn't matter when many other framers had different opinions from him. They still put a lot of thought into it and it is a necessary system that has worked for our entire existence. You get rid of the electoral college and it is the rich, elites in New York City, and other big cities who will be choosing the president every time. Almost half the states in the country wouldn't even matter.
The difference is that we’re a federal republic, we have a founding document that contains unalienable rights, and the electoral college exists to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority. It’s NOT just a language difference, our republic is fundamentally different from a democracy; the majority is not always right. Just because you democratically vote for slavery doesn’t make it right. Just because you democratically vote to kill of someone doesn’t make it right, this is why the electoral college exists, to make sure smaller states don’t get engulfed by the bigger ones. Btw, swing states are constantly changing.
Because a 2 party system is all this country will get. It's ignorant to think 3rd part and libertarian can't get on debates without 10% of the vote. What if they earned that 10% on stage?
@@randomboys1000 but at the cost of how many lives? Most Americans like me are just begging for affordable healthcare and at this rate it'll never happen
@William Dale most people are looking for affordable Healthcare but don't understand why it's unaffordable now. They just want somebody to make it more affordable, but that can't happen until we all accept what the problem is
+daniel cruz echeñique Hopefully they make a follow-up video, but basically in the time of the Founding Fathers, only White males who owned land could vote meaning that the woman in the video couldn't vote and neither could Adam as he doesn't own any land. This didn't change until the 1820's when most states had universal white male suffrage, 1870 for non-white men, and 1920 for women.
+daniel cruz echenique They go back in time when the founding fathers were putting together the electoral college. Not everyone could vote then. It was only white males who owned land. They bring out an expert and he explains that the founding fathers had a lot to consider - they were a fledgling country and didn't know what was going to happen. They later go over the legal cheating that is gerrymandering. And Adam explains how the only other country with a system like ours is France. They may not put the rest of the episode up. It's on TruTV. I watch on Amazon.
Giving smaller states a fighting chance against their larger counterparts is necessary IMO. Giving the smaller states a voice helps national cohesion. The differences in attitudes and beliefs varies widely among them and it would be catastrophic IMO if a whole region were snuffed out by one distant city (LA for example). Let's not forget how dependent places like California are on other states to maintain the resources fueling that massive population.
Plus he took the "John Ewards" debacle out of context..anyone who knows anything about the EC knows that they vote for one president and one vice president, and they have to vote for someone not from their state
I agree with him, it is not a perfect system and it has flaws but I believe the concept is sound. Regardless of your opinion of people in less populace states, they are United States citizens and they are guaranteed a vote and because there is simply less of them they would never have a chance in any election in any bigger state. Places like California and New York already command a great deal through their enormous economies. This about protections for the minority. This is a concept that been in democracies for a long time. The majority will always overwhelm the minority so they must balance out. Imagine (in an alternate universe) That different cultures and races of people lived in distinctly different places (this still happens today) One could easily dominate the other if it had a greater population and put its interests first every single time an election comes around because the minority would never ever win. In this system, R and D are about 50% win/loss ever few years.
Another thing to think about is the natural desire for the majority to oppress the minority (I'm referring strictly to political views here, not ethnic groups). Consider this: Without the system of representation for smaller states, one could get a large enough group together (through media manipulation, fundraising, donations, et cetera) and exercise absolute control over who gets elected without challenge. Such a situation would inevitably lead to tyranny as the governing body would be free to elect only officials and execute legislation that followed it's agenda. That situation would lead to a breakdown in our society (civil war/coup/unrest) that would leave our country vulnerable. Having opposing political views (even if they're unpopular) is good since it stimulates discussion. No political group should feel comfortable in office. The majority can be bought, fooled, convinced, or scared. The popular opinion isn't always the right one.
As a European every time I read about the US system I just scratch my head and wonder why people arent up in arms about this. Effectively if youre a Rep in a Blue state or a Dem in a Red State your vote pretty much doesnt count. How can you be OK with this ? In no other Democracy in the world will you be able to loose an election even if you win the popular vote.
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.
That is why we have three branches of government :) We also vote on State Senators and Representatives to represent us in Washington DC. Those elected officials can be, and often are, of the opposing political party to what the majority of the State may vote for President.
This guy needs to get his facts straight. The purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a voice. If not for the electoral college, the president would always be what California and new York want.
Yeah..... But the amount of swing States has drastically decreased since the 60's and there's no strong evidence that there going to increase in the near future.
@@bobbiddero9 Actually, in my lifetime, I've seen states become a swing state that had never been one before (in my lifetime). Your statement is pure conjecture.
@@gabb159 do you have any source to back your claim? I remember hearing about swing states decreasing from a journal article called The Contemporary Presidency: How The 2012 Presidental Election has Strengthened The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The article is a little old but was very informative. My main issue is that a lot of the candidate's campaign resources are almost focused on swing states alone.
yes,that is true,but we dont have to care about ALL of the swing state,only 4 state:florida,ohio,pennsylvania,and virginia is enough.(those 4 state get 57% canidate visit and 55% adverytising money from the canidate)
That's what we keep being fed. I keep hearing that america is the greatest democracy of all time. Can't bkame people for thinking that after being bombarded by all the propaganda.
"The electoral college means candidates can ignore almost the entire country." *gets rid of electoral college "Now candidates can ignore almost the entire country in a different way."
Amnion that’s a ignorant statement to understanding freedom. The founders understood that 51% should not control the other 49%. They understood that in a free society every vote should matter therefore we have 51 individuals elections and the outcome of those elections decide the president so even the minority’s in every district isn’t dominated by a overwhelming elite group. Yes the popular vote does win. It wins district by district.
@@mariobadia4553 Can you please explain your math to me? As far as I can see, about 48 Million Americans live in either NY or California. That's less than 15% of the US population. You can't win a popular vote plurality with 15% unless there are like 7 major candidates running.
+lilkimchim There are billions of people outside of the USA who actually hears how it really works for the first time. All we've ever seen are red states and blue states, and we have no idea why Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are swing states every damn time.
+lilkimchim The quality of teachers in the USA fail to teach. Thanks to the leaders cutting education budgets. I know 60 year olds who did not know this.
+techfan42 That is a good point. Of course we don't waste money on making the Queen have a great life when she really is just a figure head. If Hilary Clinton is President (look her up) I'll probably move to England.
Yeah it was meant as a way to allow land owners to vote on behalf of all their land which also gave a huge advantage to rich land owners, plantation owners etc. It's messed up. Your land doesn't vote, you do.
It's sad to see how lazy many Americans have become when it comes to their own rights and freedoms. Our founding fathers would be appalled to see how little we have done with the small freedoms they fought to give us all. All of you in the comments that somehow think what was fine over two centuries ago should still be adequate now are truly reprehensible. It's ridiculously lame that what you most wish for is to continue supporting the rich who literally buy the laws they want (the laws that make them richer ofc) while we squabble around in the dirt fighting each other for the few _scrap laws_ they leave for us to fight each other for, all so we don't recognize how much more money they keep taking away from us. For some reason they actually have you believing that less taxing of the rich will somehow make them give you back the jobs they sold overseas long ago. When the data is easily obtainable that in fact, our economy was the best during the times taxes for the rich were between just over 70% and 90%. The times during witch taxes for the rich were at their lowest were both right before the economy crashed during both the great depression 25%, the recession in the 90's right after the regan administration lowered them to 28% and later when bush lowered taxes on the rich right before the great recession. How does that pattern not sink in with some people? These aren't people who are just making honest livings working hard like the rest of us. They make their livings forcing us to do all the real work for a pittance of what they make, while they buy law after law that allow them to further take advantage of us by taking away our homes, farms and educations. From Tax Foundation.org aquilafunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Highest-Marginal-Tax-Rates-1913-2013.jpg From Business insider i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg There's a bunch more, but search them yourselves, they all are the same. These are just well known numbers and they all corroberate each other. images.dailykos.com/images/115497/large/Federal_Tax_Rates.jpg?1415654547
Taxing the rich and corporations passes it on to us. Put a tax on iphones, iPhone prices go up. Tax the "rich" 90 percent on 1,000,000 so they make 100 thousand and the pay politicians 500k to save millions. I believe in a progressive tax but the rich do not take from the poor.
@@eaglesports88 don't take from them? Maybe not directly. They still profit off the labor of the working class. Always have. Rich people didn't really early their wealth. Most of them earned it by family or stepping on the backs of other people.
@@eaglesports88 meritocracy isn't real. How you can 99 percent of the country working their asses off to barely get by. Meanwhile the rich get richer. How can you have a system that supposedly benefits hard working Americans and the American dream but only works for the one percent.
You fair to understand the reasons behind the concept. See, majority of population lives in places like Cali and New york, usually a country(let's take India as an example since I'm Indian) has somewhat of a consistent population distribution and since there is no radical differentiation in opinions we can remain a democracy but the difference in ideas and lifestyle of people in Wisconsin and California is staggering. Since India's population is consistent the people representing their needs is directly proportional to the population but in America, take California for example, 4million people voted for trump and 8 million for Hillary but Hillary got all the votes just like in a democracy but other states with smaller states didn't.
@@Jarred-J254 ya ever think that maybe the slave owners in 1768 who purposely designed the constitution to be changeable didn’t want to be and probably shouldn’t be the end all be all of the state of the nation?
@@memeosaurusrex3382 The Founding Fathers knew the evil within Democracy, even the Romans knew the flaws of Democracy and how it turns into Authoritarianism. In Democracy the majority would slowly oppress the minorities, if we went by popular vote most everyone across the USA would become oppressed by a handful of heavily populated cities and they would determine who the president is and presidential candidates would only focus on those handfuls of cities. What the braindead easily offended leftists that want to abolish the Electoral College don't get is the Electoral College ensures EVERYONE and all states has at least some say in the elections, not a few big cities, which I fully support, I don't want every president being determined by the douchebags that live on the other side of the USA in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and being forced to live how they say.
Adam, it doesn’t. The entire idea around the electoral college was to give the smaller states a voice. The population difference is so immense that states like California and New York would dominate the election.
okay but we are not living in 1880 where you live doesn't change your life that much just because they have population density doesn't mean they aren't still people just because they live close together that their vote shouldn't mean just as much. US culture has become much homogeneous and the figurehead that runs the entire country should be elected by every person. And we would still have the Senate to give smaller states with lower populations hire representation in Congress anyways
Max Williams did you just say “where you live doesn’t change your life that much” yeah I’m pretty sure there’s a small difference between rual Indiana and LA
@@m.w.2185 Where do you think we get the number of electoral college votes from? We get them from adding up the seats each state has in both the House and the Senate. The exact "misrepresentation" that you are concerned about comes directly from the mere existence of the Senate. Besides, you don't vote for President. The *states* vote for President. You vote for who you want your state to vote for. The main focus of the US governance wasn't supposed to be the federal level so much as the state level, because local government are going to be easier for you to reach, easier for you to influence, and more in tune with your local needs, than anyone on the federal level ever will.
@@Mario-gd5qk that would be a great argument based for voting districts but the logical fallacy you state there is those are completely different tribal structures a better argument would be say LA county versus Indianapolis which despite being different states would have much closer lifestyles. And not to mention a fact that as stated earlier the culture is much more homogenous than these systems were set into place. You don't have somebody in rural Indiana who's never left their city for the entirety of their life. And it comes to a matter of fact the unlike 200 years ago I can travel or move halfway across the country in as little as a week. Growing up in Wisconsin, one are most important states in the Union army I saw several Confederate flags scattered throughout my rural town. So you know several thousand miles away from where any Confederacy would have ever taken place.
So many Americans on here who are like: 'Of course you can't have the popular vote determine things!' That's literally how it works in most of the world's other democratic nations... you know those exist, right? Here in Australia the entire country - not state by state - is divided into a number of districts each while varying widely in size represented reasonably similar portions of the population. This is done by an apolitical electoral board based on census data. Then the popular vote winner (though we have preference voting here) in that district gets elected to represent the district in the capital, Canberra. The party who wins the popular vote installs their candidate for Prime Minister into the position after the election. There are no electors of any sort. Your party wins more districts and they take office. Nobody's vote really counts more or less because of where they live. There are MARGINAL seats, where the voters switch parties more frequently than others and the two parties do focus on those... but not to the extent where the same few places decide the entire nation's elections over and over again.
Yeah no, it's a very simplistic view of your country(I'm from India BTW) but your country has a consistent population density so the votes are representing the interest of every single person but in America, since there are so many states and all of them need different things a few states like California can decide what's needs to be done and completely disregard small states. The states themselves are democratic but the "united" state means the parties who win the states choose the president democratically. The USA isn't a country by itself and different states have different laws and regulations, you don't have that and neither do I.
I don't have a thorough understanding of politics now. I was excited about it when I was younger. The year 1988 was the first election year where I was old enough to have some grasp of what was going on and learning about the election process in school was fun. Then I learned about the electoral college which straight up told me that the popular vote was pointless.
Yo, local elections/and state elections matter. People like you are why we have a government that can't get anything done. IE: You have a majority of voters that basically can't be bothered but to vote during Presidential elections only, even though unless you live in a swing state your vote matters less.
The issue isn't the electoral college, it's that individual states have made the choice to do it. Maine and Nebraska for example award votes based on the state popularity and then one for who wins each congressional district. It's not the electoral college that needs to change, it's the way states decide who gets the votes.
Smaller states still get more votes per person. Where you live shouldn't affect how much your vote matters. It shouldn't go through the state's at all. If the problem is also that it's how states vote, then we should force them to do it a certain way, right?
In New York State, the popular vote in state elections is heavily influenced by NYC. If we had an electoral system Andrew Cuomo would not have been reelected Governor.
if hillary won california by just one vote instead of 2.5 million, then trump would've won the popular vote by 2 million and the electoral outcome would remain the same
Ohio is weird, and im saying that from ohio Its like if you combined cultures from pretty much everywhere into one state, Although one thing will stand true for all of ohio: We will always rival michigan
Yeah, hard disagree. It's out of proportion on purpose, because dense population areas have different concerns than lightly populated ones, but one farmer's concerns are not less important than 10 shoeshiner's.
so one farmers vote should count for ten shoeshiners? the way its set up now values empty farmland equal to densely packed cities. valuing land over people, how american.
the electoral college stops people in rural areas from being ignored. if politicians only had to get the votes of people in the cities then they would introduce more laws that benefited inner cities and negatively impacted farmers
I'm from Germany and I don't get why this System is still being used. Sure, it was like the first modern Democracy, but the System is still the same like in the 18th century! In my opinion, it's also a big problem that only 2 parties get 98% of all votes. In Germany there are like 6 parties who get at least 7%. Why don't you just count all the popular votes and see who's got more? Adam is right; the election is determined by way too few states. Hopefully this system will be changed some day
It's a republic, not a democracy, and that's by design. Pure democracy is mob rule wherein the large cities drown out the rural population. Besides, liberals never try to demolish the EC when it works in their favor.
Adam - I understand government can be confusing - but for starters - THANK GOD, America is NOT a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. And for anyone else out there who listened to Adam and thinks he's right - here's a better explanation of why we NEED the electoral college. th-cam.com/video/-OUvgCs1_Qg/w-d-xo.html Our founding fathers, unlike Adam, apparently, studied ancient history to see what does and doesn't work, and why that is so.
I don't know why you're statement doesn't have a million thumbs-up but if I could I would hit it a million times because you hit the nail on the head and you are correct. Adam, you do ruin everything because you can't get it right!
Even back in elementary school I believed the electoral college was ridiculous. After it was explained to me I chose that since my vote isn’t equal to (I’m Californian) a different state I won’t vote. That was thirty years ago. Until we’re all on equal footing I think it’s wrong that the popular vote is ignored when electing a president.
It's not democratic, and that is precisely the point. Look into the history, mainly the federalist papers, as to why the founding fathers of America feared "mob rule." We are a republic, not a democracy, and for good reason. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC on which it stands." Not to the democracy. The founders wanted checks on mob rule, as it leads to instability. For more history on this, I recommend Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in addition to reading the Federalist papers on this issue. My favorite quote from de Tocqueville is: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch" Notice how the Congress is made up of the House (which is democratically based SOLELY on state population) and the Senate (each state gets nearly the same amount). This is the balance the founders wanted -- a compromise between state population and state power. With states having equal votes each, the populations are severely undermined, while purely democratic votes (1 vote = 1 person) would undermine state power. The electoral college is the middle ground. If the electoral college was removed, Presidents would ONLY satisfy the needs of large cities because that's what would determine the votes. While Adam is right that swing states are a thing, it can and has changed. California was a red state a few decades ago.
@@cb-wx2nv saying we are not a democracy is entirely misleading. We are a Republic, yes, but that only means we are a collective of self governed territories. What the US is, is a Representative democracy, we still vote for REALLY IMPORTANT MATTERS like the midterm elections. But we vote for people to act as our voices. The Electoral College was designed to make sure that only the upper crust could vote
1. The US is a republic not a democracy 2. Faithless electors never decided an election Republics can work fairly well when there aren’t political parties, and there weren’t supposed to be political parties in the US.
Do you know what a republic means? It means that we vote for people to pass laws and handle foreign affairs aka representative democracy. It does not mean that our leader should be decided by a handful of states. God, you people are all the same, just getting caught up on semantics and not making real substantive arguments.
Nathan Seelig our leaders are the people in the house and the senate. And they aren’t decided by a handful of states. The party with a majority is. Political parties are the primary issue
@@njss3442 It's much more than semantics, our framers hated democracy and wanted to make sure we had a Republic under a Constitution. "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. " -John Quincy Adams "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death. " -James Madison
@@keco185 Political parties are an issue. Did you know that the electoral college's requirement to hit 270 votes subdues any major third party or candidate. Hypothetically, even if the electoral vote was split closely among 3 or more candidates, none would get to 270. Then to scenarios could happen. 1st, random electors would vote for their chosen candidate to get one candidate to reach 270, potentially canceling out the will of the people. 2nd, the electoral college wouldn't get any candidate to 270 and the house of representatives would vote for their candidate, BUT each state would get one vote. Meaning, California (40 million people and 53 representatives) would have as much power as Wyoming (600,000 people and one representative). This is the electoral college.
"Exciting? I think the fact the entire election is decided by a handful of states is really messed up." SO what do you propose to fix this? Population? Oh... so the entire election would be decided by California New York and Florida... See, the problem here is you are not ideologically consistent.
Vorgoth but at least then the votes would be representative of the majority of the American people not those in a select few states. The system we need is an electoral college that does not hand an entire state over due to a 1% difference in votes.
Not only that, but a US President can not only be tried and convicted of felony crimes, they can also be sent to federal prison and STILL be an active President. There’s nothing stating otherwise and it literally took trump being himself for people to actually read through ALL of Americas laws, policies and constitutions to find that out. It should’ve been a red flag generations before trump was even born that Americans are stupid and will kill ourselves before anyone else will. Just think about it - an American president has the authority to pardon THEMSELVES and their own friends and family of committing acts of war, murder and any other crime. That is a REAL thing. 🤦♂️
You missed one part of your definition. Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the PEOPLE and their ELECTED representatives, and which has an ELECTED or nominated president rather than a monarch.
The fact there is so much misunderstanding about the electoral colllege and that people actually want to abolish it shows how dumb we have become as a society. The electoral college is EXTREMELY important.
The fact there is so much misunderstanding about the electoral colllege and that people actually want to keep it shows how dumb we have become as a society. The electoral college is EXTREMELY idiotic.
I really enjoy A.R.E., but i gotta say on this one, the math is simply incorrect. Adam mentioned he doesn’t like the idea of a few swing states choosing who wins an election, but were it not for the EC system, California and New York would end up deciding all presidential races. And to say Cali’s 55 votes is unfair compared to Wyoming’s 3 is ludicrous. California is still responsible for almost 20% of the total votes needed to win, where Wyoming is responsible for just over 1%…I love the Lie Detector episode!!! Absolute Favorite!!!
That’s just not true. If you somehow get 100.00% of all of California and New York’s population, you’d still have only 17% of the vote. Where did you get 20% for just California from? And secondly, the EC doesn’t help small states, you can still win the EC with the 11 biggest states. Thirdly, under a national popular vote system, regardless of your party (unless your a third party voter), your vote will matter. Democrats in Oklahoma and Republicans in New York won’t have there votes not matter because they are in a heavily blue/red state since there isnt a winner-take-all system like in the EC.
The original concept of electoral collage disregarding the last portion, was to give more power to individual states in order to get smaller states to join the union
It seems like a fair compromise would be to have proportional electoral college votes instead of winner take all. Then the small states aren't overshadowed by the big states and the voters in the big states can still have an impact.
Well what I've always heard is that the idea was to make sure that rural populations had a voice in the system too. Otherwise, what politician is going to bother talking to the farmers, ranchers, and miners for a few weeks when they could just roll up to a city with 20 times the population and just chill with them for a few days?
@@bemusedbandersnatch2069 if rural people make up less of the population than urban people, that is that. Here's my question for you. Why should where you live have any impact on how much your vote counts for? Yes, it is possible that a popular vote system will cause candidates to only spend time in urban areas but right now they ignore 90% of the country and only campaign and swing states. Many rural states like Montana and North Dakota get no attention whatsoever. Urban states like New York and California also get no attention.
"I think the fact that the entire election is determined by just a handful of states is really messed up"...so you want the elections determined by just a handful of cities?... that's what would happen.
@@Ikajo okay you just keep on with ignorant thought. Each person's vote would be one... So the big cities with their huge populations will all choose what is best for our entire country right? Electoral college makes sure that all those states with smaller populations have a say in who's elected as well. It wouldn't be fair for a few states with big cities & populations have the ability to choose who leads our country. I thought you were against exclusion! Popular vote would exclude 35 or more states!
@@imitalian1963 Making people's votes count wouldn't exclude anyone. It would mean that people's votes actually meant something. The power of democracy is not something that should be misused. Electoral college is misusing democracy. It wouldn't be the cities or the states that decide who will be your president. The people would. That would be proper democracy. Something every democracy on Earth is doing except for the US that barely qualify as democratic.
So I wanted to watch the full episode, link sends me to your website. So I try to find the episode. Turns out: you can only watch it with the app WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN MY COUNTRY....
Lots of liberals feeling butt hurt because they LOST. They like stupid stuff that makes them feel good about themselves and their views (however wrong). Liberalism appears to be a mental disorder.
The sheer elevation of this man's hair.
Jake Glenn MAJESTIC
It’s all the hot air in his head.
Better than mein president trumph
That's no hair, it's a space station
Attack the character not the argument, classic
It's kind of upsetting how many people are (grossly over)paid to not-necessarily perform a job that has no real need to exist.
But tell me would you take there job.
Jonah Davis I'D TOOK THUR JEORRRRRRB!
I'd take their job, in a heart beat, because its a high paying job .
I know I feel bad for TruTV...
back then, the electoral college was extremely useful, as information took days, even weeks, to get from place to place. the electoral college was set up so that America didn't need to wait for every citizen to receive news of the election and vote.
now it sucks and should go.
Not-so-fun fact: Even Nixon tried to get the Electoral College abolished, but that bill was eventually killed off by a filibuster.
@@lonniesmith7580 but the electoral college also sucks at that...
@@lonniesmith7580 then why does every other Republic not use it?
@@bt3743 I have no clue. They should implement it in every republic because it is objectively the best system. There’s a quote from a wise man. “Government by the people, for the people…. But the people are retarded” so EC was implemented. Living in the 21st century does not mean that people are more intelligent, in fact I argue that people are dumber now than ever before. It would be stupid to let the pure majority decide what happens as they’re all STUPID. Can’t let morons dictate the govt
@@lonniesmith7580literally every other democratic nation uses a different system, such as Parliament, and they've all been doing fine.
It was a Senator from Alabama.
Let’s all blame Alabama for this
"people in Ohio like LeBron James" "who? I don't know many actors"
Me in a nutshell.
He is a great actor with all the flopping he be doin lol 😂
This was said before space jam 2
Have you all never heard of Buckeyes? tf
"I don't know, many actors" lol, I see what Adam did there
haha! the flopper!
+Juan Borrero he was in a movie so he is an actor
That comma in your quote does not need to exist. Please delete it immediately.
+The rarest seal.
Normally, I detest grammar checkers but that was SOOOOOOO FUUUNNNNNY!!
"Please delete it immediately."
God, I don't know why, I'm still laughing at that. Lmao.
Terminate the comma. Free the grammar.
The people not knowing what a republic, a direct democracy and a representative democracy are should get out of the comment section.
But that would probably leave like 20 comments...
The fact the the U.S. is a democratic republic does not mean we have a good voting system.
@P S If that was presented by the government, over fifty percent of the population voted in favor of it, and their weren't any other branches of government or other countries that watched it critically, sure.
I'm not saying a representative democracy is wrong. What I'm saying is that our current system which allows gerrymandering and counts the popular vote as secondary is flawed.
@Corn Pop's Mutton Chops dude a lot of other nations have represantive democracy but their still manage it on person = one vote like my country of germany.
America is not a democracy. Democracy allows mob rule. A good politician should have a healthy balance so that down cities on the coast don't control the whole country
Well, I for one, am pleased that they are trying to educate themselves! Maybe you would prefer they didn't, so that you can continue to feel superior??
"Actually, in 24 states, they can vote for whoever they want."
Me: "Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, KANSAS?! GOD DAMNIT!!!"
IOWA GOD DAMMIT
As much as I love this fact and it's source, it doesn't help me explaining it to people because I live in California (not on the list)
Iowa tends to vote Republican and this is the time every 4 years to show the people of Des Moines who really runs the state .
Can, and most often don't. In most of those States the elector can be replaced if they attempt to cast their ballot against the majority vote of their State.
24 states! Add one more, and it’s literally half the country!
I don’t get how pointing out that we are a Constitutional Republic makes this any better. Constitutional Republics still place the power of government in the people and rely on the votes of those people to elect representatives, so a system that makes voting against the establishment pointless and takes power away from almost half the people of a state is still government breaking.
Nebraska and Maine clearly have a superior model. The founding fathers obviously didn’t want population to dictate the country, because then California and New York would rule the other 48 states. Nebraska and Maine’s model would eliminate swing states and Republicans and Democrats would get their equal worth of votes from California, Texas, and every other state, like they should.
@@aaronlandry3934 Only problem is, you'd either have to get a red/blue state to decide to give up half of it's safe electorates, some of each to promise to change their system by the next election, or abolish Winner-Takes-All all at once. The second is really hard to coordinate and the other two are just impossible
@@quentinthernize6678 I agree
The founders understood that absolute democracy is mob rule and tyranny of the majority. It seems that you people always forget that
There is a difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. In a Democracy in order for a bill to become law every citizen in the country would have to vote for the law. In a Republic citizens vote for someone to represent them in the government that then vote for laws. In a Constitutional Republic the government has limited power granted to them by the people.
“Hey I’m cooky, I have two turtles”
I thought Adam was going to say:
“It gets worse. I have three turtles.”
canonically he has 6
"I'm the Governor's rich Cousin" :-)
The electoral college was designed to prevent the country being represneted soely by heavily populated areas that lean heavily one direction politically (HEM HEM CALIFORNIA)
Or Texas?
Each state has their own government and their own laws. That being said opinions of each state differ from others. For example states like West Virginia went Republican because a lot of people thought that a Clinton presidency would kill the coal mines, and that's a big source of income for many people. So the majority vote went to Trump because that is what most of the people in that state wanted. On the other hand states like California and Illinois went Clinton because of large cities which tend to go liberal. The problem is if we determined the election based on who wins the popular vote states like West Virginia would have very little say. So states that are more populated receive more electoral votes than states with a smaller population. States with a small population give fewer electoral votes than big states, but because of this votes from smaller states weigh more than states with a big populations in regards to how many are needed for a single electoral college vote. It's a balance of power to keep the large cities from solely deciding the elections.
It means stupid people in California and New York, would always vote Demarcate and win with popular vote.
***** Then what about Texas? Or the fact that California and New York haven't always voted Democrat and that as recently as 1992 New York and California didn't even vote for the same candidate?
What about the fact that New York, California and Illinois have enormous rural areas, covering more real estate and with more sparse country population than states like Wyoming or New Hampshire?
I don't believe in depending on just the swing states. Look what happened to Michigan and Pennsylvanian.
Yeah, throughout history pure democracies are very simple, and horrible; the founders were very aware of this when they decided upon how elections would be done.
@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, the Presidential election is defined by the Constitution - specifically, the Electoral College.
The states are responsible for determining who is in the Electoral College - no election necessary. That's right - there is no need for the hullabaloo over the Presidential election. It's not even a thing - as defined by the Constitution.
@@nothingbutathing8532 hilariously, defined in the constitution... because of the states. The smaller states wouldn't have ratified the constitution without the electoral college.
@@lagg_coreyt7625 There are many reasons why the Electoral College exists. The point is: a general election is not required.
They also thought it works for now and can be revised later, along with no parties. The US both formed parties and then didn’t really revisited the idea. You all are running the beta version, bugs and all
@@Nevertoleave Amendments are the revisiting part. Bugs are being worked out.
CPGrey taught me this :D
+katten elvis Great channel,
+Asahiko Matsuda what's the name of the video?
+Asahiko Matsuda +Lionel Keys
Yeah Adam basically rehashes everything Grey said 3 years ago in this one
+katten elvis Backstory all the way!
SAME!!!!!!!
Imagine thinking America is a Democracy
You're right. We are a republic. True democracy gives 51 percent more power over the 49 percent
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DUMB ASS. DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA IS A MYTH MADE UP BY THE DIPOCRAP POS IDIOTS YOU LOVE TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY.
STEVE MCGILL Stop, you’re such a phony. Us republicans don’t act like that. Idiot. That name tho. STEVE MCGILL.
Edit: Also, republicans are supportive of America being a constitutional republic. I also see that your account was made the same day you posted that comment.
@@Joey-ef8dh now you have 1% having the power of 99%! Good job mate! :D
Joseph Sanders Wait... why should the 51% rule over the 49%? Isn’t the alternative the 49% ruling over the 51%? I am just trying to understand why you think that any better.
1:15 "I think the fact that the entire election is determined by just a handful of states is really messed up. For one thing, it means presidential candidates can ignore almost the entire country. " That's hilarious Adam, let's look at some 2016 election statistics.
2016 Elections County Results:
Trump: Around 2600 counties
Hillary: Around 500 counties
Yes, because if we had it where only the popular vote mattered, everything would be balanced and not at all determined by the big cities only. I mean, some of those counties that Hillary won are the most populous counties many of which have some of the top 30 cities such as NYC, LA, and Boston. Heck, even cities in Republican states, such as Dallas, Houston, and Austin, and Louisville voted democrat. The largest city, isolated from its county/counties, to vote for Trump was Oklahoma City, number 27 of the most populous US cities. The counties for Jacksonville and Fort Worth also voted for Trump, and are higher on the list, but the cities themselves voted for Clinton and the other areas in the counties won the vote for Trump.
The point is that if we solely depended on the popular vote, then a candidate only needs to appeal to the cities to gain a serious lead, and doesn't need to appeal to the rural areas as much, meaning we could potentially run into a situation similar to Russia's where the government only really cares about the European part of the country, and doesn't really care about Siberia, because the population is in Europe, not Siberia.
@The Flexsealist "Watch this other guy moan about electors and address the big cities issue half-assedly in other video."
Actually, a study showed that if it was "who got more votes in terms of people and not cities", Hillary would have won. This said, I dont think she would be a good president anyway, not that Trump is doing a great job, either way, but there were more candidates we should have payed more attention to
and the counties matter why to you? Hillary in the end won more people what you are basically saying is that trump deserved to win even though he got less votes but the people who voted for him were more spread out. thats not people getting the decision thats land.
@Non-uploading channel not a thing.
Alex Nacud if trump isn’t doing a good job then why is unemployment all time low, economy all time high in 50 years and lower taxes?
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” ― Benjamin Franklin
Most people are turning independent.
+SpraxIAKS Don't most of them lean to democratic candidates? I go by libertarian and lean republican or somebody who actually thinks like a libertarian such as Rand Paul.
+'I'm an anti-social anarchist' Very true. I am Republican but I think we need stricter gun laws. And that we should let in Syrian refugees.
Conner Broeker Stricter laws on what?
TH3REDSP1R1T On gun control. The buying and selling of guns.
Conner Broeker Making them stricter won't help your issue trying to reduce crime rate. It'll just be harder for citizens to buy one and use one for self defense. Criminals never follow the law and they don't buy them legally and they do through the black market instead. So how would making stricter gun laws affect criminals? Also making them stricter is a violation of the 2nd amendment because it limits our ability to exercise our right.
We don't have a democracy. There's a reason we don't have a democracy. 🤦♂️
Do you know what a direct democracy is? Representative democracy?
@@sophiallama Direct Democracy was created in Athens and proved to be a sensational form of government in which any and every male citizen of Athens who had achieved a certain age could, at any point, attend meetings and vote on the management of the city-state. Unfortunately, the system developed a major flaw in the fact that the majority was easily able to overpower and oppress the minority. Any time those with enough influence or audience appeal wanted something that would either give them power or benefit, they could usually get it by convincing others to vote with them. This eventually led to the fall of Athens following major oppression by mob rule that severely marginalized the minority. To put it into perspective, if we had a direct democracy, we would never have freed the slaves nor would we have progressed to a point of giving equal rights to women or members of the LGBTQ+ community. A Representative Democracy was a form of democracy that was developed in order to apply the government concept to a national size. Clearly, not every citizen could come and vote across a nation and such votes took time. This system involved the people electing representatives to power to make decisions on their behalf and pass laws. This body of representatives also often selected a leader for themselves. This system too, however, does not really work so well because, again, majority rule could lead to oppression of the minority. Additionally, another danger with this system is that you already have the set up for an oligarchy, rule by a few, to form since you already elected a group of individuals to govern your nation and hold power. Corruption and violation of rights became rampant and this system too could only last so long. In the modern day, Representative Democracy gets tossed around to describe the American Government as well as others, but that's because we define the term as any government in which the people elect representatives. By that standard, any government with elections qualifies, and a republic is a derivative of such a model, but the key difference is that a republic is rule by law. By the time the Romans came around, they saw the merits and faults of these systems and created a Republic. In this system, the people again voted for representatives who held power to govern and pass laws, but they added a government document known as a Constitution. In this document, they set out the way in which the republic would work. This led to the defining characteristics of a republic being the protection of the innate rights of the citizens and the limitation of powers for government officials. It was a great and revolutionary form that addressed the issues of corruption and oligarchy in a representative democracy and the oppression and mob rule in a direct democracy. The Roman Republic fell, however, due to its constant changes to the constitution that eventually lead to the establishment of the triumvirate and an imbalance of power that led to the Roman Empire. The founders looked to the past and saw that a republic worked best, acknowledged its flaws, and made changes. They knew that the issue was an imbalance of power in the Roman state so they established three branches of government that checked and balanced each other, outlined a constitution that specifically limited the government so as to protect the people from tyranny, and established a Bill of Rights that protects the innate rights of the people. Those three things are characteristic of a republic and must exist for that term to be used, but they are unnecessary for democracy of any kind as a democracy can simply be any government where the people vote. The finer details are often overlooked and ignored, but they are also often the key to truly understanding why two things really are different.
@Movies&&Highlights!!! your comment operates on a complete misunderstanding of what our government is. As explained above, we are a republic. However, more than that, we are a Federal Republic: that is, a Federation with a Republican Central Government. What is a Federation? Put simply, it is a form of government in which a larger nation is made up of a centralized power as well as smaller member states that operate with their own autonomy. At the founding of America, we had 13 Colonies, all of which had their own unique reasons for being colonized, their own unique culture and values, and their own reasons for leaving England. Upon deciding to embark on the revolutionary idea that was the founding of America, one major concern dominated the thinking of the time: if we leave Britain and form our own government, then who will determine what is to be done in each colony? After all, their biggest complaint was that Parliament and the King were making decisions that involved the colonies without anyone being present to speak or represent the colonies themselves. Essentially, what went on in their local environment was being determined by men who had never once experienced the lives and cultures they had in the Colonies.
The founders wanted to ensure that everyone would be heard and that consideration would be given to the fact that each State would have their own culture, geography, ideals, and government with each requiring different things. When it came to the Legislature, they were able to easily resolve the matter with Representatives and Senators; allowing for the representation of population size and an equal voice for the States. Two Senators per state, and (initially) one Representative per 30,000 people. When it came to the presidency, they wanted to take the same issues into consideration. The President would, obviously, be the most important and powerful man in America. If he was selected merely by national popular vote, this would overlook the fact that populations might not be equally dispersed.
The fact is that people can only be expected to vote on issues based on their own experiences and environment. If a majority of the population was located in one environment, then they could only be expected to make a decision that is best for the situations within that environment. But what if there were three to five other environments with their own unique issues and situations in the country that simply didn't have many people living in them? They wouldn't have enough voting power, even unanimously, to overpower or even equal the popular vote. Similarly, simply saying that each state gets one vote would be unfair and inconsiderate since one state might vote in favor of a situation that is only present within their borders, yet a large part of the population may be within their state.
Now how does the President play into this? the President is meant to campaign on issues and the votes he receives is indicative of the fact that people believe that he presents solutions that best help their situations and environments. Thus, it was important to the Founders that the President be selected in a manner that guaranteed that the most amount of people and situations possible would be considered in the selection of President. So they designed the Electoral College to have the votes of each state equal to the number of representatives in Congress. This would thus give equal representation and consideration in the decision of President as each person has in Legislative decisions. Essentially, this system gives two votes indicative of the State and the rest are indicative of the people by district. Moreover, it takes into consideration that, as they did not plan on there being only two candidates each time, there may be a tie or that none may win an absolute majority that would be necessary to guarantee the best possible leader. To resolve any instances such as these, the Electoral College uses the House of Representatives, the House of the People, to decide who should win by a series of ballots where each state gets one vote. This series must continue until an absolute majority wins.
As demonstrated, this system is the best possible way to balance the interests of a federation to consider equality of member States and the interests of the people as a whole based on what a majority of the population experiences. Put simply, in the name of equality and preservation of rights for all, the Electoral College seeks to create a balance between population density and regional divide.
Now, are there perhaps some issue in the way these votes are distributed? Yes, however, such issues are matters of the State. The States were given the power to decide how their electors for president would be chosen and, thus, how their Electoral Votes would be distributed. Based on Madison's views, it would appear that he did not approve of giving all of the Electoral Votes to the Statewide winner, but rather, he appeared to be in favor of the System used by Maine and Nebraska. This system gives two votes, indicative of the Senators, to the Statewide winner and the rest are distributed based on district winners.
Based on these facts, it would probably be a more logical approach to adjust the system so that all States used the Maine and Nebraska system with some added features. 1) that the electors would be randomly selected from the voter population instead of predetermined party delegates. 2) that these electors would not vote until the predetermined electoral vote after election day. 3) that electors would be required to vote for the person who one their district if they won by an absolute majority (greater than 50%), else they would be free to vote for their choice in the event of a tie or if no one wins an absolute majority. 4) that electors would be required to vote for the person who won the State if they won by an absolute majority, that one State elector would go to each in the event of a tie, and that they would be free to choose if no one won an absolute majority (this would include a three-way tie because that would mean each got 33.333% of the vote whereas a two-way tie is 50-50).
This adjustment to the System is in line with the writings on the Electoral College by the Founders, their comments when seeing the system in use, and the fundamentals evident within the way the Electoral College is structured. Of course, that does not mean everyone has to like it. Just consider this, in a National Popular Vote, someone could win with 49% if everyone else had less. At least with the Electoral College, when a person is selected with less of a popular vote, they are selected with an undeniable regional favorability and broad appeal.
We may not always like who is chosen to lead, and it's okay to feel that someone should have more support, but we all have to understand that the person with the most support is not always what's best. The Founders designed this system with the intention of getting the person most appropriate to lead. By all logical perspectives, based on how our government works and structured, the best choice for president is found within the balance of State and Popular interests. We have to face the facts, California and New York do not know or understand what is best for Kansas or Texas, but someone running for office must consider what is best for all four if he wants to win their votes.
To give an example, imagine if the World were one government with the UN as the Legislature and the Secretary-General was the Executive. Let's now consider the influence that the Secretary-General has on subjects such as third world assistance. Finally, let's consider two methods of how he might be elected by the people of the world.
1) Popular Vote: two candidates run. one person wants to put more money towards third world assistance and the other wants to put the money towards other initiatives. Assume that nations like Haiti are in desperate need of these funds and that they will not receive benefit under the second candidate's initiatives. the first candidate appeals to as broad a base as possible, but the second appeals to the largest nations by population. The end result, despite losing many regional battles, the second candidate wins due to his appeal to larger, population-dense, countries.
2) Electoral Vote: Same situation, same candidates. In the end, the first candidate wins despite losing in popular support because his broad appeal and concern towards third world countries earned him many regional victories that helped to boost him to success. In the end, he may have had only 48% of the vote, but it's made up of the most diverse amount of support possible proving that he is supported by the interests of a majority of the different demographics in the world that will be affected by his choices.
To close off, yes, there may be some work to put in to improve the Electoral College, but abandoning it is an extreme that should not be encouraged or rushed into the moment things seem unpleasant. A quote from one show I've recently rewatched that fits here. I can't recall the exact wording, but the sentiment was this: Before abandoning something, first consider what alternatives exist. My proposed adjustment above is only one idea I believe would resolve the current rough spots and complaints, but it's by no means the only one. Just don't jump to the extreme of abandoning a system that works (and yes it does work) just because the person you liked lost. Sometimes you lose, that's just part of living in a Free Country. Having complaints about the system that you'd like to fix are also fine, but again, they are not a reason to abandon a system that still works.
@Movies&&Highlights!!!
The two have no connection or similarity. Slavery was an aspect of Southern Culture and Economy that benefited and became necessary for their financial growth and success. The Electoral College simply acknowledges that we are more than just one nation, but that we are a Federation. As I stressed this point in my previous comments, I can only surmise that it has missed your attention so I will further express it.
A National Popular Vote works and makes sense for places such as France because they are one Nation comprised of all people, but the United States is a Nation comprised of smaller nations.
A misconception that is present is that the different States within the US act simply as Administrative Regions to help improve government infrastructure, but that is simply not the case. In France, there are 18 regions that simply act as a vessel to manage the government of France over the Country's landmass more effectively. These regions are lead by the President of the Regional Council, but these officials do not have any power beyond administering the Government over that region. Regions have no legislative power and, by all intensive purposes, they act simply as vessels for national power.
In the US, however, a State is given much more autonomy. State's are allowed to select their own form of State Government, pass their own State laws, build their own militias (it's in the constitution), and overall operate with a sense of independence in the management of the society within their State Borders. Because of this autonomy and independence, the states within the United States are proven to be much more than simply Administrative powers or vessels of the National Government.
Each state acts independently to deal with their own affairs. After all, the idea of America was that they would be a country of states united for mutual benefit and protection, but separate for individual pursuits. Now, this comes to the point of why a National popular vote does not work for our system of States. Again, I've expressed this in the previous comment, but I can only assume that I was not clear enough, so let me remedy that.
As the President of the United States maintains a great amount of power and influence towards the Agenda that a Nation may pursue, his selection is of vital concern to the States. As mentioned, States operate with much Autonomy to pursue their own interests, and thus, they have their own problems as well as their own means and ideas of how best to fix their problems. if a president is selected who is in favor of a National Policy that would worsen a State's problem, or prevent the State from effectively pursuing their chosen course of action, then this president would hurt the State.
Since population may not be equally dispersed between the states, a National Popular Vote might not consider whether or not a President is best for these states. A majority of the population as a whole may want a President who is in support of on policy, but that policy might not be beneficial for a majority of the States. Now, many would agree that the interests of the People as a whole within this nation should not be ignored, but I believe that we can all also see that ignoring the individuality and independence of the States would lead to much more problems for much more people.
Therefore, again, I assert that the Electoral College was designed to balance the interests of the people and the States as the United States Election System is meant to specifically consider the unique needs of the United States. Stating that another Country uses the Popular Vote without issue is not a valid argument against the Electoral College unless the Country in question is structured the same as the United States. Broadly stating that the System is out of Date is also invalid as 1) you do not state how it is out of Date and 2) the Structure of the United States has not changed in this regard. We are still a Nation comprised of member states that operate with autonomy and independence to pursue their own interests. As for 2020: the only way in which the Electoral College System would not be used in that election would be if Congress spontaneously passed an Amendment to the Constitution that abolished the system by November. This is unlikely to occur.
In conclusion, I again remind you of the last point in my previous comment that we cannot operate on the mindset that we dislike something, therefore, let's get rid of it. If you have issues with the system then the best course of action is to first ask yourself why these issues are part of the system. Next, study and learn more until you find your answer. Once you've found your answer, rethink your position to see if you still disagree with the issue. If so, consider what solutions may be offered aside from removing the system as a whole. That's how you address problems and find solutions. Moreover, whether you like the system or not, you should still go out to vote in every election possible. Don't sit at home and sulk because you don't like something. Even with the Electoral College, every vote counts and you never know whose vote will determine the winner. Aside from that, if you don't vote, nothing can get better and you'll have no right to complain about the result because you refused to engage. The danger of blindly and broadly complaining about the Electoral College is that people are getting discouraged from voting which only leads to more problems.
@@mysticalarchives7821 wow thats was great
Is that the Mom from Boy Meets World?
Neuromancer yep!
Omg thank you!!! It was killing me I knew she looked familiar.
My god, she still looks so beautiful!
@@MadMarch25 same
"Voting is meaningless"-George Carlin
Over 40 unless voting for third party
If George Carlin didn’t vote, he doesn’t get to complain about the outcome.
2016 proved that he was wrong. If voting was meaningless, Clinton would have won in a landslide.
Matthias Neidenberger he actually argued the opposite saying that if u voted for a guy that got in and messed everything up then you had no right to complain about it
Thats really not true and isn't a good mesage
Next up, Why the Dinosaurs are ACTUALLY extinct.
Next up: How politicians are actually dinosaurs.
Birds were more similar to dinosaurs than reptiles were.
You had me at "I like bbq, Blake Shelton and abortions, y'all"
'Murica , Land of The "Free"
free salves
+Mohamed Elhaddade Not even the slaves are free, they cost money.
Huy Bii hhh lol thats true
+murmani khoshtaria "America, Land of the free?"
+Brandizzleizzle If your a Christian like me your losing a lot of freedom
1:40 this part cracked me up
LMFAOOOO " I don't know many actors..." GOT EEM'😂😂😂😂
Ace_421 stop
First off we are not a democracy.
The founding fathers put this in SPECIFICALLY so larger states and populations couldn't make federal law without consent form smaller ones.
Second we are a Constitutional Republic.
Thus if population only mattered you could get the California NY and Florida vote and just not let anyone else vote as their population alone would decide the election. Mob rule is TERRIBLE. Hence us being a REPUBLIC not a democracy.
If you want a true solid democracy... Do some research and see how well that turned out in Rome or France.
I love this show
Adam is my wife.
+Odnetnin This show is my favorite anime...
+Odnetnin Adam is your wife? I'm pretty sure he didn't go Bruce Jenner
same.
+BUNGIE halo Me 2 and Im not an adult
Im with this 100%.. Every vote should count..
And it does.
@@joshdunham7167 -- not distributed evenly.
@@Supremax67 of course not.
25.6% voted for Hillary Clinton - 25.5% voted for Donald Trump - 1.7% voted for Gary Johnson
46.6% didn't vote
Enjoy Trump!
thedreameater I am
lickit yuh mame one policy he has done with majority approval
The reason why the electoral college was created, was so that smaller states had more of a say in how our country is governed. Also America until the western states started passing universal male sufferage laws, often only allowed a small percentage of men to vote. America was more of a Republic, than a Democracy in it's early days, and the electoral college is a legacy of that.
why do you deserve more of a say in how our country is governed than do people living in populous states?
@@mitchellseymour1090 Aren't you assuming he's from one of those smaller states rather than just explaining it in general?
@@mitchellseymour1090 because democracy is the rule of majority the majority can't always be right
@@mitchellseymour1090 it's so California, for example, cannot force their policies on Arkansas. So maybe ppl in Arkansas don't agree with paying for Healthcare and Housing for Illegal Aliens, etc. Just because you have a bigger population doesn't mean you should be able to force PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS such as CRT, LGBTQRSTXYZ, ETC, on other ppl. If you do not like Arkansas or any other state, MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU FEEL YOU BELONG!!
@@mitchellseymour1090 cities need rural populations to survive, yet urban policy regularly punishes and hurts rural communities. Since a majority of people live in cities, urban policy would always pass without representative systems like the electoral college, thus hurting both rural communities and urban communities in the long term. By giving the little guy a bigger voice, the system actually is more fair this way
For everyone who thinks they are being clever:
1. A Republic can be a Democracy. They aren't different forms of government. They are just words from different languages (kind of like Freedom and Liberty). We get the word 'Republic' from the Latin 'res publica' and we get the word 'Democracy' from the Greek 'demos kratein'. The first means 'the public thing' and the second means 'people power'. The Roman Republic did not feature any significant representative institutions. The Senate did not represent the people, the Senate was filled by the rich. All the rich people, it wasn't representative. If you had Senatorial rank you could attend the Senate. End of story. The public assemblies which elected the tribunes were also non-representative. Everyone who wasn't of Senatorial rank could go. The Athenian democracy on the other hand did have a significant representative aspect, the Boule, which handled the majority of government business, on account of the fact that it was a hassle to bring everyone in to the Assembly every day (most of the citizens were farmers or merchants who had to be out of the city most of the time). So that talking point you are repeating about us being a representative republic not a democracy is doubly wrong. You can be a Republic and a Democracy, and there is nothing undemocratic about representative systems. They have literally been part of democracy from the beginning.
2. So why do so many people think Republic=Representative and Democracy=Direct rule by the people? Because some key founding fathers thought that is what the terms meant. But the fact is the founding fathers weren't all that knowledgeable. Its not their fault. They did the best they could in their situation, but relative to Europeans the American colonists had far weaker institutions of higher learning and less reliable access to books. Princeton, for example, vaulted ahead of every other American university by hiring a single guy, John Witherspoon, who was a completely unremarkable intellectual from Scotland, but automatically became the most educated person, by far, in the Atlantic colonies. But even the European universities wouldn't have been able to give their students a particularly good education about the history of politics. For the most part key texts had either not been translated or had been poorly translated. And even the key texts only gave you a very poor idea of how actual politics worked. For example, if you were basing your beliefs about the Roman Republic off of Cicero (which is who most political thinkers were using to understand Republican institutions) you got a sense of how a single very rich Roman who was actively engaged in a political struggle against a populist political party thought about politics. His writings don't give a comprehensive view of Roman government and are heavily biased against the poor. We know way more know about how Roman society and government operated than people did in the late 1700s. Your average community college professor working in history or political science knows more about political history than your average founding father. There were some really bright guys among the founding fathers (Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison in particular) but no one can overcome the general lack of available information.
3. Also the Framers were rich guys involved in trying to take power away from common people when they wrote the Constitution. Their defenses of the governmental institutions they chose were informed by the fact that they were trying to avoid things like paper money and debt relief for veterans of the Revolution (two major legislative initiatives gaining ground in state governments at the time). So when they talk about the mob what they are talking about is ordinary people trying to avoid getting screwed by people like Hamilton (who bought up the IOUs given to revolutionary war soldiers as pay, at pennies on the dollar when the Continental Congress wasn't paying any of its debts through lack of tax revenue, and then, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, demanded that the new Federal government pay them off at full price). In short, the attitudes the Framers had to the people at large are another of their great moral failures (like slavery) that they wrote into our Founding documents.
4. Also no one could agree on how to elect the President at the Constitutional Convention. It was the last major issue decided before the final draft was written, and the Electoral College was literally picked because it was the last thing suggested by a subcommittee that had been given the job of figuring it out. Everyone just wanted to get out of town and no one thought that the Electoral College would ever actually decide anything. They thought no one would ever get more than half the electoral college votes and so the elections would always be decided by the House of Representatives (which is what Madison wanted originally anyway). If you don't believe me go check out Madison's Convention notes.
A Republic can be a democracy, but a pure democracy is mob rule. It lets the majority decide what happens to the minority.
1. A republic can be a democracy, but it is not a pure democracy, because pure democracies can be easily abused and tend to end in communism/socialism and then everyone starts dying.2.A pure democracy does mean direct by people, every person gets a vote and they are all equal no matter who or where you are. We don't want that, or all the smaller states would be screwed every election.3.The framers were brave geniuses who fought to create our country. They did everything in their power to limit power and give more power to the people. Free speech, the right to bear arms, the three branches of government, the list goes on.4.Just Madison's opinion doesn't matter when many other framers had different opinions from him. They still put a lot of thought into it and it is a necessary system that has worked for our entire existence. You get rid of the electoral college and it is the rich, elites in New York City, and other big cities who will be choosing the president every time. Almost half the states in the country wouldn't even matter.
The difference is that we’re a federal republic, we have a founding document that contains unalienable rights, and the electoral college exists to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority. It’s NOT just a language difference, our republic is fundamentally different from a democracy; the majority is not always right. Just because you democratically vote for slavery doesn’t make it right. Just because you democratically vote to kill of someone doesn’t make it right, this is why the electoral college exists, to make sure smaller states don’t get engulfed by the bigger ones. Btw, swing states are constantly changing.
Why does demos sound like Demons which is also Greek?
Welcome to 2020. You know the system is horrible but a bunch of people who refuse to progress and actually move on with the rest of the world say no
Because a 2 party system is all this country will get. It's ignorant to think 3rd part and libertarian can't get on debates without 10% of the vote. What if they earned that 10% on stage?
@@HinduSpartan it'll happen at some point. old habit die one way or another
@@randomboys1000 but at the cost of how many lives? Most Americans like me are just begging for affordable healthcare and at this rate it'll never happen
@William Dale most people are looking for affordable Healthcare but don't understand why it's unaffordable now. They just want somebody to make it more affordable, but that can't happen until we all accept what the problem is
What happens next?!?
+daniel cruz echeñique They probably just went back in time to post-Revolutionary War America when only property-owning white males could vote.
+daniel cruz echeñique Hopefully they make a follow-up video, but basically in the time of the Founding Fathers, only White males who owned land could vote meaning that the woman in the video couldn't vote and neither could Adam as he doesn't own any land. This didn't change until the 1820's when most states had universal white male suffrage, 1870 for non-white men, and 1920 for women.
+daniel cruz echeñique If you don't know, you don't really care.
+Lord H4773Rthe2nd True to the Greek Tradition of Democracy
+daniel cruz echenique They go back in time when the founding fathers were putting together the electoral college. Not everyone could vote then. It was only white males who owned land. They bring out an expert and he explains that the founding fathers had a lot to consider - they were a fledgling country and didn't know what was going to happen. They later go over the legal cheating that is gerrymandering. And Adam explains how the only other country with a system like ours is France. They may not put the rest of the episode up. It's on TruTV. I watch on Amazon.
Giving smaller states a fighting chance against their larger counterparts is necessary IMO. Giving the smaller states a voice helps national cohesion. The differences in attitudes and beliefs varies widely among them and it would be catastrophic IMO if a whole region were snuffed out by one distant city (LA for example).
Let's not forget how dependent places like California are on other states to maintain the resources fueling that massive population.
Plus he took the "John Ewards" debacle out of context..anyone who knows anything about the EC knows that they vote for one president and one vice president, and they have to vote for someone not from their state
I agree with him, it is not a perfect system and it has flaws but I believe the concept is sound. Regardless of your opinion of people in less populace states, they are United States citizens and they are guaranteed a vote and because there is simply less of them they would never have a chance in any election in any bigger state. Places like California and New York already command a great deal through their enormous economies. This about protections for the minority. This is a concept that been in democracies for a long time. The majority will always overwhelm the minority so they must balance out. Imagine (in an alternate universe) That different cultures and races of people lived in distinctly different places (this still happens today) One could easily dominate the other if it had a greater population and put its interests first every single time an election comes around because the minority would never ever win. In this system, R and D are about 50% win/loss ever few years.
Should be 1 person has 1 vote in a national scale. It is the fairest you can go.
From there, you follow state rights.
Another thing to think about is the natural desire for the majority to oppress the minority (I'm referring strictly to political views here, not ethnic groups). Consider this:
Without the system of representation for smaller states, one could get a large enough group together (through media manipulation, fundraising, donations, et cetera) and exercise absolute control over who gets elected without challenge. Such a situation would inevitably lead to tyranny as the governing body would be free to elect only officials and execute legislation that followed it's agenda. That situation would lead to a breakdown in our society (civil war/coup/unrest) that would leave our country vulnerable.
Having opposing political views (even if they're unpopular) is good since it stimulates discussion. No political group should feel comfortable in office. The majority can be bought, fooled, convinced, or scared. The popular opinion isn't always the right one.
The funny thing about this episode is that I learned all these facts already from my 8th grade American History class
Only thing he didn't bring up in this clip is gerrymandering and campaign finance. I'm sure it's in the rest of the episode
As someone who lives in Ohio, it's corn and cows
What about the rollercoasters?
As a European every time I read about the US system I just scratch my head and wonder why people arent up in arms about this. Effectively if youre a Rep in a Blue state or a Dem in a Red State your vote pretty much doesnt count. How can you be OK with this ? In no other Democracy in the world will you be able to loose an election even if you win the popular vote.
The US isn't a democracy, stupid.
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.
That is why we have three branches of government :) We also vote on State Senators and Representatives to represent us in Washington DC. Those elected officials can be, and often are, of the opposing political party to what the majority of the State may vote for President.
This guy needs to get his facts straight. The purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a voice. If not for the electoral college, the president would always be what California and new York want.
But why should Wyoming have more power then California
Fun fact: Did you know that they are republicans in California and New York and democrats in Wyoming and Alaska
Swing states shift. They are by no means static.
Yeah..... But the amount of swing States has drastically decreased since the 60's and there's no strong evidence that there going to increase in the near future.
@@bobbiddero9 Actually, in my lifetime, I've seen states become a swing state that had never been one before (in my lifetime). Your statement is pure conjecture.
@@gabb159 do you have any source to back your claim? I remember hearing about swing states decreasing from a journal article called The Contemporary Presidency: How The 2012 Presidental Election has Strengthened The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The article is a little old but was very informative. My main issue is that a lot of the candidate's campaign resources are almost focused on swing states alone.
Iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa
Only matters every 4 years
yes,that is true,but we dont have to care about ALL of the swing state,only 4 state:florida,ohio,pennsylvania,and virginia is enough.(those 4 state get 57% canidate visit and 55% adverytising money from the canidate)
It’s funny when people think america is a democracy.
That's what we keep being fed. I keep hearing that america is the greatest democracy of all time. Can't bkame people for thinking that after being bombarded by all the propaganda.
It’s a republic
this should be called "Adam Thinks He Knows Everything"
It should be called Adam can't think critically. His show has gone downhill for awhile now. It's not like he had a lot going on upstairs anyway.
@Patrick O’Sullivan Obviously, but you felt the need to have to explain that? Everyone knows you should never explain a joke.
Is somebody a little pissed, because he just destroyed your political system....
@@carljohnson4473 how
I exactly agree with you.
"The electoral college means candidates can ignore almost the entire country."
*gets rid of electoral college
"Now candidates can ignore almost the entire country in a different way."
Amnion that’s a ignorant statement to understanding freedom. The founders understood that 51% should not control the other 49%. They understood that in a free society every vote should matter therefore we have 51 individuals elections and the outcome of those elections decide the president so even the minority’s in every district isn’t dominated by a overwhelming elite group. Yes the popular vote does win. It wins district by district.
@@lancebaize1136 California and New York will always decide presidential elections if you get rid of the EC.
Mario Badia exactly what I said but in a more historical way
@@mariobadia4553 I might be ok with getting rid of the electoral college, but only if California and New York get no votes for being garbage states
@@mariobadia4553 Can you please explain your math to me? As far as I can see, about 48 Million Americans live in either NY or California. That's less than 15% of the US population. You can't win a popular vote plurality with 15% unless there are like 7 major candidates running.
Thank you 7th grade Social Studies for teaching me this.
+lilkimchim yeah mots of us were then forgot it by age 18
+lilkimchim There are billions of people outside of the USA who actually hears how it really works for the first time. All we've ever seen are red states and blue states, and we have no idea why Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are swing states every damn time.
+lilkimchim The quality of teachers in the USA fail to teach. Thanks to the leaders cutting education budgets. I know 60 year olds who did not know this.
+uhhh what Well I knew that really are doing is picking is you're elector
+techfan42 That is a good point. Of course we don't waste money on making the Queen have a great life when she really is just a figure head. If Hilary Clinton is President (look her up) I'll probably move to England.
The electoral college was made for farmers not just people from the city
Yeah it was meant as a way to allow land owners to vote on behalf of all their land which also gave a huge advantage to rich land owners, plantation owners etc. It's messed up. Your land doesn't vote, you do.
Except for the fact that your land votes. And you just pick folks to represent it.
@@Imtrappedintheinternetsendhelp essentially yes but the land doesn't have a voice... the people do
Key word made for farmers it wasent made for cities
He mentions that in the full episode.
That Texas democrat is the most accurate stereotype I've ever seen.
It's sad to see how lazy many Americans have become when it comes to their own rights and freedoms.
Our founding fathers would be appalled to see how little we have done with the small freedoms they fought to give us all. All of you in the comments that somehow think what was fine over two centuries ago should still be adequate now are truly reprehensible. It's ridiculously lame that what you most wish for is to continue supporting the rich who literally buy the laws they want (the laws that make them richer ofc) while we squabble around in the dirt fighting each other for the few _scrap laws_ they leave for us to fight each other for, all so we don't recognize how much more money they keep taking away from us.
For some reason they actually have you believing that less taxing of the rich will somehow make them give you back the jobs they sold overseas long ago. When the data is easily obtainable that in fact, our economy was the best during the times taxes for the rich were between just over 70% and 90%. The times during witch taxes for the rich were at their lowest were both right before the economy crashed during both the great depression 25%, the recession in the 90's right after the regan administration lowered them to 28% and later when bush lowered taxes on the rich right before the great recession.
How does that pattern not sink in with some people? These aren't people who are just making honest livings working hard like the rest of us. They make their livings forcing us to do all the real work for a pittance of what they make, while they buy law after law that allow them to further take advantage of us by taking away our homes, farms and educations.
From Tax Foundation.org aquilafunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Highest-Marginal-Tax-Rates-1913-2013.jpg
From Business insider i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
There's a bunch more, but search them yourselves, they all are the same. These are just well known numbers and they all corroberate each other.
images.dailykos.com/images/115497/large/Federal_Tax_Rates.jpg?1415654547
Taxing the rich and corporations passes it on to us. Put a tax on iphones, iPhone prices go up. Tax the "rich" 90 percent on 1,000,000 so they make 100 thousand and the pay politicians 500k to save millions. I believe in a progressive tax but the rich do not take from the poor.
@@eaglesports88 don't take from them? Maybe not directly. They still profit off the labor of the working class. Always have. Rich people didn't really early their wealth. Most of them earned it by family or stepping on the backs of other people.
@@eaglesports88 meritocracy isn't real. How you can 99 percent of the country working their asses off to barely get by. Meanwhile the rich get richer. How can you have a system that supposedly benefits hard working Americans and the American dream but only works for the one percent.
@@eaglesports88 yep it’s the government taking from the middle class.
America must be the only country in the world where a good chunk of the population loves the fact that their vote could be entirely meaningless.
You fair to understand the reasons behind the concept. See, majority of population lives in places like Cali and New york, usually a country(let's take India as an example since I'm Indian) has somewhat of a consistent population distribution and since there is no radical differentiation in opinions we can remain a democracy but the difference in ideas and lifestyle of people in Wisconsin and California is staggering. Since India's population is consistent the people representing their needs is directly proportional to the population but in America, take California for example, 4million people voted for trump and 8 million for Hillary but Hillary got all the votes just like in a democracy but other states with smaller states didn't.
To those who say that America isn’t a democracy. You are right, and that’s what we want to fix.
We were never meant to be a full on Democracy.
@@Jarred-J254 ya ever think that maybe the slave owners in 1768 who purposely designed the constitution to be changeable didn’t want to be and probably shouldn’t be the end all be all of the state of the nation?
@@memeosaurusrex3382 The Founding Fathers knew the evil within Democracy, even the Romans knew the flaws of Democracy and how it turns into Authoritarianism. In Democracy the majority would slowly oppress the minorities, if we went by popular vote most everyone across the USA would become oppressed by a handful of heavily populated cities and they would determine who the president is and presidential candidates would only focus on those handfuls of cities. What the braindead easily offended leftists that want to abolish the Electoral College don't get is the Electoral College ensures EVERYONE and all states has at least some say in the elections, not a few big cities, which I fully support, I don't want every president being determined by the douchebags that live on the other side of the USA in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and being forced to live how they say.
Democracies fall. It’s 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Adam, it doesn’t. The entire idea around the electoral college was to give the smaller states a voice. The population difference is so immense that states like California and New York would dominate the election.
okay but we are not living in 1880 where you live doesn't change your life that much just because they have population density doesn't mean they aren't still people just because they live close together that their vote shouldn't mean just as much. US culture has become much homogeneous and the figurehead that runs the entire country should be elected by every person. And we would still have the Senate to give smaller states with lower populations hire representation in Congress anyways
Max Williams did you just say “where you live doesn’t change your life that much” yeah I’m pretty sure there’s a small difference between rual Indiana and LA
@@m.w.2185 Where do you think we get the number of electoral college votes from? We get them from adding up the seats each state has in both the House and the Senate. The exact "misrepresentation" that you are concerned about comes directly from the mere existence of the Senate.
Besides, you don't vote for President. The *states* vote for President. You vote for who you want your state to vote for. The main focus of the US governance wasn't supposed to be the federal level so much as the state level, because local government are going to be easier for you to reach, easier for you to influence, and more in tune with your local needs, than anyone on the federal level ever will.
@@Mario-gd5qk that would be a great argument based for voting districts but the logical fallacy you state there is those are completely different tribal structures a better argument would be say LA county versus Indianapolis which despite being different states would have much closer lifestyles. And not to mention a fact that as stated earlier the culture is much more homogenous than these systems were set into place. You don't have somebody in rural Indiana who's never left their city for the entirety of their life. And it comes to a matter of fact the unlike 200 years ago I can travel or move halfway across the country in as little as a week. Growing up in Wisconsin, one are most important states in the Union army I saw several Confederate flags scattered throughout my rural town. So you know several thousand miles away from where any Confederacy would have ever taken place.
If that doesn't speak to a mixture of US culture I don't know what does
So many Americans on here who are like: 'Of course you can't have the popular vote determine things!'
That's literally how it works in most of the world's other democratic nations... you know those exist, right?
Here in Australia the entire country - not state by state - is divided into a number of districts each while varying widely in size represented reasonably similar portions of the population. This is done by an apolitical electoral board based on census data. Then the popular vote winner (though we have preference voting here) in that district gets elected to represent the district in the capital, Canberra. The party who wins the popular vote installs their candidate for Prime Minister into the position after the election.
There are no electors of any sort. Your party wins more districts and they take office. Nobody's vote really counts more or less because of where they live. There are MARGINAL seats, where the voters switch parties more frequently than others and the two parties do focus on those... but not to the extent where the same few places decide the entire nation's elections over and over again.
Yeah no, it's a very simplistic view of your country(I'm from India BTW) but your country has a consistent population density so the votes are representing the interest of every single person but in America, since there are so many states and all of them need different things a few states like California can decide what's needs to be done and completely disregard small states. The states themselves are democratic but the "united" state means the parties who win the states choose the president democratically. The USA isn't a country by itself and different states have different laws and regulations, you don't have that and neither do I.
This is why I lost all interest in voting at the age of ten.
Lol I'm sure you had a thorough understanding of politics when you were ten.
I don't have a thorough understanding of politics now. I was excited about it when I was younger. The year 1988 was the first election year where I was old enough to have some grasp of what was going on and learning about the election process in school was fun. Then I learned about the electoral college which straight up told me that the popular vote was pointless.
Yo, local elections/and state elections matter. People like you are why we have a government that can't get anything done. IE: You have a majority of voters that basically can't be bothered but to vote during Presidential elections only, even though unless you live in a swing state your vote matters less.
I live in Florida so.. EVERYONE HAIL ME!!!! Lol jk
You had interest in politics before you were ten?
The issue isn't the electoral college, it's that individual states have made the choice to do it. Maine and Nebraska for example award votes based on the state popularity and then one for who wins each congressional district. It's not the electoral college that needs to change, it's the way states decide who gets the votes.
Smaller states still get more votes per person. Where you live shouldn't affect how much your vote matters. It shouldn't go through the state's at all. If the problem is also that it's how states vote, then we should force them to do it a certain way, right?
"People in Ohio like LeBron James"
"Who? i dont know many actors."
In New York State, the popular vote in state elections is heavily influenced by NYC. If we had an electoral system Andrew Cuomo would not have been reelected Governor.
Hey can someone here tell me where to find the video's he did like in 2008 or 2012 after both elections? I cant seem to find them anywhere? hmmmmm..
Survival of the Fittest I think the Adam ruins everything show originally came from collegehumor. I would check there.
it was a joke they dont exist, but thanks anyways!
Survival of the Fittest
haha I'm a dork, sorry!
Your all good, we all dorks =D
Barack Obama won both the electoral college and the popular vote
whenever people ask why we need to have a whole class that teaches civics i point them to videos like this
Swing states differ from election to election. 2016 is a very good example, Trump won both Wisconsin and Michigan. Both were considered Democrat safe.
The 2016 election is a perfect example of the why electoral works.
if hillary won california by just one vote instead of 2.5 million, then trump would've won the popular vote by 2 million and the electoral outcome would remain the same
while this series is more "Comedy" then "History" 2:10 is a point I agree with.
it's meant to be a educational comedy, but it sometimes leans a bit too much into one side or the other
If anything this actually helped me support the electoral college more, congrats. The electoral college should never end in the United States.
And tru TV "FAKE NEWS TV" buys all the likes but all the top top comments show what the people really think.
in ohio, we love soybeans and tomato products. why? ehhh
No we like that disgusting Skyline Chili!
i dont really like soybeans and ketchup is ok with fries. otherwise meh. i love chocolate and steak.
Ohio is weird, and im saying that from ohio Its like if you combined cultures from pretty much everywhere into one state, Although one thing will stand true for all of ohio: We will always rival michigan
Yay! I live in Ohio, so my vote actually counts! Awesome!
The Black Hat did you not see the video? lmao
metalsquirrelgamer Yes. I was being completely facetious. I know my vote doesn't count.
"But we're a republic."
I gotta get out of this country.
+Dave Beeen head straight for mars
well bye then but watch the whole videos end
or move to rhode island
+Treven Stanley explain please
bangasou12 You would have more power in Rhode Island because it would be the smallest state in the country so that would have the most power
Yeah, hard disagree. It's out of proportion on purpose, because dense population areas have different concerns than lightly populated ones, but one farmer's concerns are not less important than 10 shoeshiner's.
so one farmers vote should count for ten shoeshiners? the way its set up now values empty farmland equal to densely packed cities. valuing land over people, how american.
the electoral college stops people in rural areas from being ignored. if politicians only had to get the votes of people in the cities then they would introduce more laws that benefited inner cities and negatively impacted farmers
where's the sequel where you go back in time!?
on TruTV, they just upload clips here. Full episodes are there (and you need to pay ofc...)
Not there anymore, all the episodes are down except the election special.
I have to come back to this video to give it an upvote, after this Tuesday's event.
I'm from Germany and I don't get why this System is still being used. Sure, it was like the first modern Democracy, but the System is still the same like in the 18th century! In my opinion, it's also a big problem that only 2 parties get 98% of all votes. In Germany there are like 6 parties who get at least 7%. Why don't you just count all the popular votes and see who's got more? Adam is right; the election is determined by way too few states. Hopefully this system will be changed some day
Colorado just voted to abolish the electoral college, but until at least 25 other states do the same, it's not going to happen.
I can kinda see where you're getting this all wrong
The government should watch this stuff
Somehow I'm quite sure they already know this...
They created this whole system they know it's unfair
Whoo democratic republic!
It's a republic, not a democracy, and that's by design. Pure democracy is mob rule wherein the large cities drown out the rural population.
Besides, liberals never try to demolish the EC when it works in their favor.
Adam - I understand government can be confusing - but for starters - THANK GOD, America is NOT a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.
And for anyone else out there who listened to Adam and thinks he's right - here's a better explanation of why we NEED the electoral college.
th-cam.com/video/-OUvgCs1_Qg/w-d-xo.html
Our founding fathers, unlike Adam, apparently, studied ancient history to see what does and doesn't work, and why that is so.
I don't know why you're statement doesn't have a million thumbs-up but if I could I would hit it a million times because you hit the nail on the head and you are correct. Adam, you do ruin everything because you can't get it right!
Even back in elementary school I believed the electoral college was ridiculous. After it was explained to me I chose that since my vote isn’t equal to (I’m Californian) a different state I won’t vote. That was thirty years ago. Until we’re all on equal footing I think it’s wrong that the popular vote is ignored when electing a president.
Electoral college = Voter Welfare.
The senate too ND SD same value as NY and California is insane. Want more of a vote pay more taxes
Going to revive these comments and this video. I think we need this video to be viral again.
EXACTLY! my parents never actually explained the “democracy” of electoral college to me and i was very pissed
It's not democratic, and that is precisely the point. Look into the history, mainly the federalist papers, as to why the founding fathers of America feared "mob rule." We are a republic, not a democracy, and for good reason. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC on which it stands." Not to the democracy.
The founders wanted checks on mob rule, as it leads to instability. For more history on this, I recommend Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in addition to reading the Federalist papers on this issue.
My favorite quote from de Tocqueville is: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch"
Notice how the Congress is made up of the House (which is democratically based SOLELY on state population) and the Senate (each state gets nearly the same amount). This is the balance the founders wanted -- a compromise between state population and state power. With states having equal votes each, the populations are severely undermined, while purely democratic votes (1 vote = 1 person) would undermine state power. The electoral college is the middle ground.
If the electoral college was removed, Presidents would ONLY satisfy the needs of large cities because that's what would determine the votes. While Adam is right that swing states are a thing, it can and has changed. California was a red state a few decades ago.
@@cb-wx2nv saying we are not a democracy is entirely misleading.
We are a Republic, yes, but that only means we are a collective of self governed territories. What the US is, is a Representative democracy, we still vote for REALLY IMPORTANT MATTERS like the midterm elections. But we vote for people to act as our voices.
The Electoral College was designed to make sure that only the upper crust could vote
@@VanillaMidgetSSBM So abolish it
The doctor from scrubs keeps coming to mind when he said... "Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong, you're wrong!"
1. The US is a republic not a democracy
2. Faithless electors never decided an election
Republics can work fairly well when there aren’t political parties, and there weren’t supposed to be political parties in the US.
"It's undemocratic!"
Yes. It's supposed to be.
Do you know what a republic means? It means that we vote for people to pass laws and handle foreign affairs aka representative democracy. It does not mean that our leader should be decided by a handful of states. God, you people are all the same, just getting caught up on semantics and not making real substantive arguments.
Nathan Seelig our leaders are the people in the house and the senate. And they aren’t decided by a handful of states. The party with a majority is. Political parties are the primary issue
@@njss3442 It's much more than semantics, our framers hated democracy and wanted to make sure we had a Republic under a Constitution.
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
"
-John Quincy Adams
"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
"
-James Madison
@@keco185 Political parties are an issue. Did you know that the electoral college's requirement to hit 270 votes subdues any major third party or candidate. Hypothetically, even if the electoral vote was split closely among 3 or more candidates, none would get to 270. Then to scenarios could happen. 1st, random electors would vote for their chosen candidate to get one candidate to reach 270, potentially canceling out the will of the people. 2nd, the electoral college wouldn't get any candidate to 270 and the house of representatives would vote for their candidate, BUT each state would get one vote. Meaning, California (40 million people and 53 representatives) would have as much power as Wyoming (600,000 people and one representative). This is the electoral college.
"I'm cooky I have two turtles" lmao :,D
"Exciting? I think the fact the entire election is decided by a handful of states is really messed up."
SO what do you propose to fix this?
Population?
Oh... so the entire election would be decided by California New York and Florida...
See, the problem here is you are not ideologically consistent.
Vorgoth but at least then the votes would be representative of the majority of the American people not those in a select few states. The system we need is an electoral college that does not hand an entire state over due to a 1% difference in votes.
I think he proposes you stop putting your flawed system on a pedestal and start searching for a better one.
A candidate can be elected president with only 23% of the popular vote. Some people think this is OK. 🤯
Not only that, but a US President can not only be tried and convicted of felony crimes, they can also be sent to federal prison and STILL be an active President. There’s nothing stating otherwise and it literally took trump being himself for people to actually read through ALL of Americas laws, policies and constitutions to find that out.
It should’ve been a red flag generations before trump was even born that Americans are stupid and will kill ourselves before anyone else will. Just think about it - an American president has the authority to pardon THEMSELVES and their own friends and family of committing acts of war, murder and any other crime. That is a REAL thing. 🤦♂️
Right, it's supposed to be in democratic. The USA is a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy.
Right. Voting booths are just a mirage.
I think you need to look up the word "republic" Mr. Beat's
Government ran by representatives who vote on behalf of their constituents. I think you need to look up the word "democracy."
You missed one part of your definition.
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the PEOPLE and their ELECTED representatives, and which has an ELECTED or nominated president rather than a monarch.
The USA is both.
Sometimes, messed up keeps the illusion of civility straight
Why not try to get the real thing instead of keeping an illusion?
The fact there is so much misunderstanding about the electoral colllege and that people actually want to abolish it shows how dumb we have become as a society. The electoral college is EXTREMELY important.
It is EXTREMELY important at allowing a person with 22% percentage of the popular vote to become president.
th-cam.com/video/7wC42HgLA4k/w-d-xo.html
@@edwinhuang9244 yes great point
The fact there is so much misunderstanding about the electoral colllege and that people actually want to keep it shows how dumb we have become as a society. The electoral college is EXTREMELY idiotic.
@@bennettcarlson3974 😅😗
I really enjoy A.R.E., but i gotta say on this one, the math is simply incorrect. Adam mentioned he doesn’t like the idea of a few swing states choosing who wins an election, but were it not for the EC system, California and New York would end up deciding all presidential races. And to say Cali’s 55 votes is unfair compared to Wyoming’s 3 is ludicrous. California is still responsible for almost 20% of the total votes needed to win, where Wyoming is responsible for just over 1%…I love the Lie Detector episode!!! Absolute Favorite!!!
That’s just not true.
If you somehow get 100.00% of all of California and New York’s population, you’d still have only 17% of the vote. Where did you get 20% for just California from?
And secondly, the EC doesn’t help small states, you can still win the EC with the 11 biggest states.
Thirdly, under a national popular vote system, regardless of your party (unless your a third party voter), your vote will matter. Democrats in Oklahoma and Republicans in New York won’t have there votes not matter because they are in a heavily blue/red state since there isnt a winner-take-all system like in the EC.
ITS THE MOM FROM BOY MEETS WORLD
THANK YOU!!!!!
Do a video on using too much hair gel.
The original concept of electoral collage disregarding the last portion, was to give more power to individual states in order to get smaller states to join the union
It’s happened over eighty times? Your source doesn’t mention that, Adam. Where did 80 come from?
Same question!
It seems like a fair compromise would be to have proportional electoral college votes instead of winner take all. Then the small states aren't overshadowed by the big states and the voters in the big states can still have an impact.
Or just the majority in a simple voting for a president without this weird electoral votes thing.
well yes and no. That system has its own problems but is far better then our current system. Ultimately I say give it a shot.
Jakub Puchalski Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A republic is much safer in not screwing everyone over.
@@galacticnovastudios what?
Why are Americans so hung up on states or counties? In the civilized world we keep things straight
1 person = 1 vote
kicsnasdc Nah man that’s dumb. You just dismiss the minorities’ opinions.
Better 51% rule 49% than 49% rule 51%.
Well what I've always heard is that the idea was to make sure that rural populations had a voice in the system too. Otherwise, what politician is going to bother talking to the farmers, ranchers, and miners for a few weeks when they could just roll up to a city with 20 times the population and just chill with them for a few days?
@@bemusedbandersnatch2069 if rural people make up less of the population than urban people, that is that. Here's my question for you. Why should where you live have any impact on how much your vote counts for? Yes, it is possible that a popular vote system will cause candidates to only spend time in urban areas but right now they ignore 90% of the country and only campaign and swing states. Many rural states like Montana and North Dakota get no attention whatsoever. Urban states like New York and California also get no attention.
"I think the fact that the entire election is determined by just a handful of states is really messed up"...so you want the elections determined by just a handful of cities?... that's what would happen.
Yes he does..Because Adam knows best and we don't.
No... without the electoral system each persons vote would be one vote. The one with the highest percentage of the votes wins. Pure and simple.
@@Ikajo okay you just keep on with ignorant thought. Each person's vote would be one... So the big cities with their huge populations will all choose what is best for our entire country right? Electoral college makes sure that all those states with smaller populations have a say in who's elected as well. It wouldn't be fair for a few states with big cities & populations have the ability to choose who leads our country. I thought you were against exclusion! Popular vote would exclude 35 or more states!
@@imitalian1963 Making people's votes count wouldn't exclude anyone. It would mean that people's votes actually meant something. The power of democracy is not something that should be misused. Electoral college is misusing democracy. It wouldn't be the cities or the states that decide who will be your president. The people would. That would be proper democracy. Something every democracy on Earth is doing except for the US that barely qualify as democratic.
@@Ikajo That's just BS and you know it. Just stop already.
Imagine not understanding the very fabric of the government you live in
Is this about democracy versus direct democracy?
Part 2?!?!?
Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2! Part 2!
Wait... so part two is on TV cuz if so i've already DVR'd his series
Lowder with Crowder debunks this quacks arguments...
Not really.
2:01 all I can think about with the music is sims
So I wanted to watch the full episode, link sends me to your website. So I try to find the episode. Turns out: you can only watch it with the app WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN MY COUNTRY....
Who else is watching this during the Election?
I couldnt, holding back the giggles would be too great.
How does this have so many thumbs ups??? He's wrong in the first 7 seconds.
Travis Maz liberalism is a mental disorder
Aside from liberalism being a mental disorder, they're kids who've either never learned this stuff or have forgotten 6th grade.
Travis Maz well, mr. Technical I guess it's every 2 years.
LinusMLGTips you misspelled liberalism.
Lots of liberals feeling butt hurt because they LOST. They like stupid stuff that makes them feel good about themselves and their views (however wrong). Liberalism appears to be a mental disorder.
The majority of Californias 55 Electoral votes comes from one region. The Coast comprised of 3 cities. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento.
Are there silicon chips I am picking up in Adam head with my commonsense array?