@@Dylan-ii3wt Which electoral vote? The 2020 electoral vote (which will actually happen 1 month from now) or the electoral college altogether? Either way, it would be your opinion. I, and most other Americans, would say no to the entire system. After watching this video, what do you think?
I've watched 4 other videos trying to understand the Electoral College and this is the only one that made it make sense and actually answered my questions. Thank you!
A few corrections: 1. The electors meet in their respective state capitals, not in D.C. Their ballots are sent to DC though, where congress meets in a joint session presided over by the VP to count the ballots. 2. There aren't 438 representatives, there are 435. 3 electors are added for DC 3. Several states, around 20, have laws to prevent so called faithless electors. One such state is Minnesota, which will replace any elector that doesn't vote how he/she was supposed to 4. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, are not winner take all
Ok, but Puerto Rico isn't a state because they have voted not to be one. PR doesn't get to bitch about not having representation when they vote not to have it.
@@quintus920 most people don't want it, dumbass. Plus, having Puerto Rico would make a republican voice close to impossible, since most of PR would obviously choose democrat
tu tu Are you ok? If you find yourself screaming uncontrollably, maybe you should see a doctor. I’m not a medical professional, but I think that screaming at a comment on the internet may not be a good sign.
The vid says that the Electoral College was designed to make election results more timely, and that's the truth, but not the _whole_ truth. Apparently more than one founding father also believed the Electoral College was a hedge against an "unfortunate" choice by the citizens... meaning; many founding fathers thought the average voter was too uninformed to be relied upon to elect the leader of the government. Apparently that attitude holds true today, since we still have an Electoral College...
***** Thanks and may I say that I agree with your statement in it's entirety. As for the question, I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Maybe it's time to wake up the "I don't knows" and "I don't cares"... although I don't know how to do that before it's too late.
It absolutely would require a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the electoral college. That would require 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives AND a 2/3 vote of the Senate AND a majority vote of both houses of 3/4 of the states legislatures. That's not going to happen any time soon.
Caelroigh Blunt Actually, I think it's because the words "under god" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, when they were added during the Red Scare. In other words, Washington still doesn't want to even bother.
D.C gets 3 electors for the elector college, not 3 representatives. D.C still doesn't have representatives in the House of Repersentives.Grey was wrong to say 438 representatives.
So when the newspapers announce in November who the president will be, there is a chance that the electors will say, "Nope!" and vote for the other one?
+Quadrant4Delta No not quite. In November the Electors will choose the president and then allow it to be announced. The President is only confirmed (and hence the newspapers will only report it) after the Electoral College has chosen.
+ArcticTemper No, it hasn't and won't ever happen because it would be obvious since we all know the outcome way before Dec. This video and the others like it that this guy makes it just trying to confuse the stupid and paranoid people out there. He basically makes a living off of making a big deal about little things that don't matter.
+Evamael Presidential electors are party regulars and they have little incentive to change their pledged votes. Therefore, faithless electors are extremely rare and none have ever changed the expected outcome of and election.
Well, they have in the past been the majority for an election without the popular vote if that's what you mean, as you can see in "The Problems With the Electoral College" video.
There are 435 representatives in Congress, not 438. The extra 3 comes from the District of Columbia, which has no senators or representatives but still votes for President
There are 441 people that have a seat in the House of Representatives. Of those, 435 voting representatives are sent by the states and 6 non-voting delegates sent by territories, 1 by DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of course, 5 of these places get no vote, but DC gets 3, which is the same amount of votes as the least-populous state, now Wyoming. This is explained 1:55 Congress refers to the combination of the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the higher house, the Senate.
+Sandro Uy I presume you mean 26 seconds in? Well, in the video, CGP Grey states that there are 100 senators and 438 Representatives in the House. This is a factual mistake, there aren't 438 Representatives. There are only 435 Representatives, the 23rd amendment granted DC three electors, but DC even today still doesn't have Representation in either the House or the Senate. The Constitution states that each state gets 2 Senators and the number of seats in the house is based on the population but a state shall get at least one seat regardless. The Constitution also states that the number of electors each state gets shall equal to the number of seats this state gets in the Congress. This is the reason why DC gets 3 electors. The video also states that when the Constitution was written, the electors would be sent to DC except for that when the Constitution was written, District of Columbia didn't even exist, another factual mistake.
the part where astronauts get to vote when others don't got me bursting in to laughter. this is so hilarious. one might think that we as humans could actually do better... but nope ... still idiots... (...and the laughter goes on)
@@DEV3N87 Imagine the weight of your vote within your own country changing based on where you live. Now imagine that there are parts of your country where your vote has no weight whatsoever... but emigrants who went to Europe, Africa, or even SPACE still keep their weight. So, people who don't even live in your country, effectively getting more say on how it should be run than you, the person who actually has to live with the consequences. Plus, CA and NY only make 17% of the US' population together. Hardly enough to dominate. Just enough for the large number of citizens they represent to actually be heard.
+luvmyctd Keeping out Hillary is the 1 good thing that the Electoral College ever did. It doesn't do what It's supposed to do.It was supposed to make presidential candidates care about the interests of smaller states but It doesn't.
Except that isn't how a Constitutional Representative Republic works. The Founding Fathers quite literally hated pure democracy because you can end up with 51% of people choosing for the other 49%.
if the US had proportional representation, then 3rd parties would actually be viable choices, and neither of the big 2 parties would end up with a majority. everyone's votes would count equally, an there'd be no territory that was irrelevant for campaigns.
There is an error at 0:27. There are only 435 representatives. There are 538 electoral votes because it's: 100 Senators + 435 Representatives + an additional 3 electoral votes allocated to the District of Columbia (which has neither Senators nor a voting member in the House of Representatives). And the Electors have never met together in Washington! The Constitution says that they meet in their states.
Patrick Morrison for presidential elections, this is true if you don't live in a swing state. But you should always vote on everything else because only the presidential race uses the electoral college.
PJ Mo in the presidential election it’s legit, though the voter turnout rate does sort of muddy that (I was surprised at how the US compared to the rest of the first world in this regard, they’re all around 70% and we’re around 30-35%). What I mean is, if there really were closer to a 70% turnout rate, who know how things would change…but as someone else previously said, in state and local elections where an electoral system isn’t used your vote can absolutely count.
For those saying that their vote doesn't even count because of this, you also have to remember during voting season that it's not only the president you're voting for. He isn't the only politician here and there are so many more people who can shape policies in *your* state to make life better for the community.
0:24 The House of Representatives has 435 reps in Congress, not 438. The other three electors were given to the District of Columbia with the 23rd amendment as mentioned in the video.
It made sense back when electricity didn't exist and you could maybe get information between distant towns without everyone dying, but in the modern world, it is 100% outdated and needs to be completely redone to take into account, you know, the last 200 years worth of scientific advancement in information technology
4:19 Only thing I am unclear on is this part. The October vote determines who the electors will be? so are we simply voting democrat or republican and then the winning party determines that the electors will be democrats or republicans? what determines who these voters are?
The progressive method would treat grade school like college/university instead of a factory designed to produce factory workers in an assembly line fashion. So no.
It's not odd that the territories don't have electoral college votes. If you remember "no taxation without representation" it makes sense. US territories don't pay federal taxes because they don't have any representation in the federal government. They can have representation any time that they want, but they have to write a state constitution, request to join the union, and the people have to vote in favor of joining. They remain territories because they want to, not because they have to and because of how our constitution is written, they do not have to pay any taxes because they have no representation.
+Ian Belletti Plus, Puerto Rico in particular has no right to complain. They're unwilling to assimilate into American culture (read: learn English, they aren't even willing to go bilingual like Hawaii or New Mexico) and they receive billions in federal welfare every year while contributing little to nothing in return. They should count themselves lucky that we haven't cut them loose altogether, especially during this ongoing recession.
TBustah You obviously didn't follow what I said. I've never heard of Puerto Ricans complaining about their political status. Being a territory and not a state means that they don't have to make any concessions in their culture to assimilate into the general American culture. Federal welfare is another topic altogether. I will not speak neither good nor ill of it here because it goes outside the bounds of the discussion. Our constitution prevents us from taxing them because they have no representation, but does not prevent the federal government from providing aid, and it is expected that we provide military protection for them. We are also prevented from quartering (housing) our military in their homes or businesses by force just like any citizen of the 50 states.
Ian Belletti I understood perfectly what you were saying, I was merely adding to it. If you don't agree with what I had to say, whatever, but what you said in your original comment and what I said are not mutually exclusive.
TBustah Your comment may have been intended to add information, but it was presented in a manner that appeared to be showing complaints with a repeat of what I had said before. (1) Your first sentence sounds as if Puerto Ricans are complaining about their political status. If that is true, please show evidence. (2) You talked about their refusal to assimilate into the general American culture. The way you made the statement appears to be a complaint. Hawaii and New Mexico are states and not territories, therefore they have an obligation to make cultural concessions. (3) You mention them receiving welfare which also appears to be a complaint. The way your entire post reads is as if you are making complaints and not making productive additions to what I said. I'm sorry if I mistook your intention. If that is so, let this be a lesson that you should be careful about the wording and content of your post.
Uhhh, make that 5: Andrew Jackson in 1824 (lost to John Quincy Adams), Samuel Tilden in 1876 (lost to Rutherford B. Hayes), Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost to Benjamin Harrison), Al Gore in 2000 (lost to George W. Bush), now Hillary.
I've watched 4 videos on this game-changing topic, and this one explains it best as I remember from my Civics class. Indeed the Elector can look at his state, see a 60-40 vote, and then choose to vote for whoever he sees fit. He can vote for the pres. candidate who got that 40%.
The electors can vote for anyone. In 2016 there were 7 faithless electors, they didn't vote for the other candidate, they each just voted for random people they liked who weren't even running.
@Teddye Kuma Right. And most of our population isn't even educated on this, so everyone still thinks their presidential vote actually matters. To me, one citizen's vote only matters if it's the tiebreaker.
One slight error: you say that the Electors all get together in DC to cast their votes. They don't, they gather in their respective state capitols (or DC city hall), and then the record of who they voted for is sent to Congress to be counted and certified. The Electoral College never actually meets together, which was also part of the original idea.
I would argue they are sent to DC to be counted. Not certified. The stated already certified their votes. They don’t send them to DC to be certified again. The VPs job is to count and tallied the votes. He doesn’t even read them aloud. The “tellers” do that. After safe harbor has passed any last min challenge has to come from both houses of congress the day the EC votes are read.
You got the why right! I love that. There was also an interesting interlocking problem involving the Presidency's power, length of term and how they're picked. It's the book Original Meanings.
Meena Pharo Because if it didn't exist, we would be ruled by the majority voters. Canidates would only campaign in states with big populations like NY or CA, and states like Iowa would be unrepresented.
It was a good idea back in the late 1700s to get the southern states to agree with how the president was to be elected and ratify the constitution. The less populated southern states had very different interests in mind than the northern states, so they would have had little impact on an pure popular vote system.
The electoral college is not the members of Congress. Slates of Presidential electors are elected by the people independently from the members of Congress.
I am talking about the numbers of the EC, not the people who participate. The numbers are worked out by adding the amount of representatives a state sends to the HoR, and then you add 2 to that number, because of the number of senators the sate sends. Is that a better explanation?
Except DC has people in Congress, they just can't vote on bills. So no, it's not really adding anything. If anything the EC understates the number of people in DC becuase the territories (which have delegations like DC's) have no EC votes.
Yumiko the Random well I mean the territories chose this. Every time they hold a referendum to become a state they stay territories choosing not to have a vote for president, or representation that can vote in congress. This might seem strange but they do it to stay out of taxes
So, flash forward into the future, the democrats win under similar circumstances...is that not a valid win, too, or are we going to want to go by the popular vote, also?
Our founding fathers had also studied the history of both pure democracy and aristocracy and hated both as a method of electing the president. They feared an uninformed populace might be duped into electing a tyrant, and a group of "experts" might be too disconnected from the people and just choose whomever they wished. The electoral college was a compromise of both. You have a roughly popular vote represented by an informed group of people who are trusted to make the best decision for the country (and not necessarily the one they were elected for.) I think it would be better to give the two "senator" votes to the popular candidate and apportion the remainder according to the congressional districts. That way, the outnumbered party members in California and Texas get to cast a meaningful vote. Another option might be a Mixed-Member Proportional system.
This video left out a much more important concept... The Electoral College also exists to give areas of smaller population just a little bit more leverage per person than densely packed cities, if you look at the way the electoral votes are distributed by the population they represent. This ensures that a candidate has to appeal to and be in favor of ALL people in the country. If not then someone could win by promoting themselves in only 5 or 6 major hot spots of population, and leave out all of the smaller towns and communities. Pure democracy, 1 person 1 vote winner take all, is actually a really unstable form of government and risks one party taking way too much power. If we didn't have the EC it's possible that the US wouldn't be a democracy any more, democracy would have collapsed decades ago. This was designed to be a balancing system. It did exactly what it was designed to do in this past election, not the first time either, there have been a few other elections in the past that the Electoral College flipped the candidates after the popular vote. Hillary won in several areas of high population, but Trump had a few big cities and nearly all of the smaller towns and rural areas.
I'd just like to make a quick note about the amount of representatives you stated. There are only 435 reps in the House. So 435+100= 535. The 3 extra votes are for D.C. and they come from a solution proposed in the 23rd amendment that stipulates that D.C. is entitled to the same amount of electoral votes as the least populous state. That is all.
FYI, Neither Maine nor Nebraska distributes it's electoral vote on any percentage. No state does it that way. What Maine and Nebraska each do is give 2 eclectoral vote to the winner of the whole state and 1 electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. It has nothing to do with any percentage of votes won.
@@mahaanpadri mob rule thats why. Psychologically people that live in similar enviornments tend to think the same. Most people live in large coastal cities and they tend to think the same. These people should not be able to tell the rest of the country how to live. The 49% needs a voice as well. People are not spread out homogenously across the country. We also have state govnements that need to be represented in the presidential election.
If the president was chosen that way then New York alone would decide who the president would be due to their jam packed population despite the rest of the counties around the country voting the other way.
THANK YOU xM ! And welcome aboard !!! This very important "shit" certainly isn't taught in government controlled schools any more ! By Power Mad Political Design, I must stress. Another reason so many Federal 'Departments of ' like Education, should never have been allowed to exist. . . and Constitutionally they aren't supposed to.
Hang in there H ! There are other posts on the internet to explain it. Keep trying. It really is important and schools getting federal money are not teaching it.
Not really. Some states have laws requiring the electors to vote with the popular vote in that state. Often if an elector votes against the popular vote in that state other electors will switch their vote to balance it out and make sure it’s fair. The system has worked pretty well for 250 years and hasn’t caused any issues with elections.
Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were the closest states in the election of 2016. All of them were decided by less than 1 point. Let's imagine that all 4 states switch parties. Hillary Clinton wins the election 274-264 electoral votes. Not so fast. 2 faithless electors (electors voting against the major candidate of the same party) broke away from Trump, dropping him to 262. *5* broke away from Clinton, bringing her down to 269. Nobody has a majority, so we move on to the house. Most states in 2016 had a Republican-majority in the House, 30 to be exact. Maine was a tie, and 19 states were mostly Democrat. Thus, Trump because the next president. Yeah that's right. Electors could have changed the ENTIRE election, just because 5 of them left Hillary. Get rid of the electors. All of them.
There are 435 Representatives and 100 senators. The extra 3 comes from DC. Furthermore, electors never actually met in DC, they all meet in state capitols and mail them.
I really think it wouldn't have been confusing or derailed the video if C.G.P had said, "Why 538? Because that's the number of Senators (100), plus the number of Representatives (435), plus 3 votes for the District of Columbia -- the special non-state that gets to vote for President but otherwise is basically like the territories."
@0:26: It's not true there are 438 Representatives. The correct number is 435. The 3 electoral votes for DC are not the number of Representatives for DC since it doesn't have any.
Em...in Latin America (despite any problem): 1 citizen = 1 vote. In most countries, if a candidate gets 50% of the votes, wins. If not, then the two most voted candidates participate in a second-round votation and the winner wins by a simple majority. In my country Panama, every 5 years, the winner is elected by a simple majority, no second round.
Wait so you are telling me if a state cast a majority vote to candidate A but the electoral REPRESENTATIVE of state selects candidate B ... basically candidate B Become President .... and your vote doesn't count ... bruhhh.... this is so stupid .... so we are not selecting the president but electoral representative are doing that .... i mean it makes no sense
That would mean Donald Trump is Illuminati which makes NO SENSE since he wants to break federal government and give complete sovereignty back to the states.
At 0:49, we see that the more populated states (like California, Texas, and Florida) still get a massive number of votes and the smaller states still get a small number of votes. But at 2:00, CGP Grey makes a good point that I've never considered.
Of all the arguments in favour of the electoral college I have seen thus far, one has struck me the most, being that it could prevent a majority tyranny to take over. Checks and balances as well as the constitution should prevent this from happening in the first place, shouldn't it?
Indeed. But it seems to be worse than that. The electoral college makes it much easier for a minority tyranny to take over instead. Since all you have to do is influence the majority of the electoral college to win the presidency.
Feynstein 100 - You obviously don't understand the purpose or function of the EC. The electors are only 'influenced' by a majority of voters on a state-by-state basis. There is no way for a minority to 'influence' the whole electoral college. Perhaps it would be best for you to go back to school and stop relying solely on YT videos for your 'education'.
+MaidenoftheShadows Ah so just another version of "You're wrong. And even though I know exactly why you're wrong, I'm above such things as explanations and trying to help you understand. Instead, I'm going to waste your time by hurling insults and telling you to go educate yourself in a snarky manner. It won't help you in any way, of course. But it will make me feel better about myself." Lol I apologize if I seemed rude but I can't help giving people back what they give me. But if you know why I'm wrong, then I think the best way of convincing me would be simply telling me why I'm wrong. :P
@@MaidenoftheShadows You are right in the fact that the electors are only "influenced by a majority of voters on a state-by-state basis." However, Feynstein 100's point is similar to a point that CGP Grey makes in a follow-up video on the electoral college. Basically, the point is that if a candidate can influence the majority of the people (51%) in the smaller states, they can ignore the large majority of the overall population (those living in large states) and still be elected president. This becomes a fact since all you need is the majority vote in the electoral college.
So, what you are trying to say is, there's still a chance? Would there be some sort of punishment or legal consequences for electors who vote against their state?
0:25 An error in the first minute... The House only has 435 voting members*1, fixed by law. The extra 3 comes from DC, which is given 3 votes*2 as if it is an extra state.
*1 US territories have delegates and a resident commissioner, but they don't matter in the context of the electorial college because those territories do get get votes.
*2 Technically the lesser of (a) the total representation in Congress (reps and senators) DC would get if it were a state and (b) the number of votes granted the least populus state.
*1 US territories send a delegate and resident commissioners (one for each territory) to the House. They can serve on committees and speak on the House floor, but they have no vote on the House floor. *2 By the 23rd Amendment, it is actually the amount of congressional representation DC would have qualified for if it were a state, but never more votes than the least populous state.
Yes but it doesn't explain is which party are the 538 electoral college representatives affiliated with, who nominates them and how long their terms are...And who determines how many electoral college delegates each party gets to appoint? Anyone know?
As CGP Grey mentioned (briefly): After the popular vote in each state, the Candidate (*or Party) who gained the most votes in that state is given the number of Electors equal to that State's electoral votes. To use Florida as an example, if the Democratic candidate gained the most votes then Florida would give the Democratic Party 29 seats for Electors. Afterwards, each party given electoral votes would then select (or elect, depends on the state those seats came from) a number of Electors equal to the number of seats that they were given. How, when, and with what method they are selected (or elected) is unknown by me at least.
We have to abolish the electoral college and have a rank choice popular vote, but there so much to fix with our electoral system not just for voting for president.
@@wojtek9675 what 4 states are you talking about? The four biggest states in the US (CA, TX, FL, NY) don’t even make up anywhere close to a majority of the 2016/2020 voting electorate or the American population. And right now under the electoral college, just a handful of swing states decide the elections. Really hurting your own argument there bud.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI these big states and other make up a large majority of the population. The entire purpose of the electoral collage was to give smaller states at least some say in what happens. When you take that away states like Wyoming which only have 600,000 or so people they have no say. Tell me why would any would any nominee or president ever care or do anything for smaller states when they can just do them for bigger states? We are not one country, we are 50 different country’s in a union together and smaller states deserve to have some say in who will be the countries leader
you need to clear that elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years)not based on majority voter in that state, doing so is rare and a political suicide today.
Some people use the argument that abolishing the electoral college would would strip stats of there voice. Would like to know what people think about that?
Something that never made sense to me is that if the electors meet in December, then why do they talk about election results on the day after election day? Technically, the President has not been elected yet.
That is partly true. When you vote for President, you are actually voting for a slate of electors to represent your state. Those electors ,in turn vote to elect the President. The electors vote for the candidate that won a simple plurality in their respective states. We know the results usually by the next day because it is very rare that the electors will not vote for the popular vote winner in their respective state.
Good question. Let me answer your second question first. Yes electors have changed their expected votes and voted for other candidates. But in no case did those switches ever change the expected outcome. In 1948, some newspapers jumped the gun and predicted Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman. In 2000, numerous media outlets called Florida for Al Gore before the polls were closed. Of course, Florida was crucial to both the Bush and Gore campaigns.
@@dandyky So why have human being electors? Why the process of having them vote? Why the middleman? All this does is breed conspiracy and a chance at corruption. It also tells the people they are not trusted with their votes and gives zero meaning to the vote. Even if the elector is obligated to go with the party lines and popular vote. Basically rendering everyone's vote useless because they are telling you they don't trust the American people to vote and have to "hedge" against it.
+gel mop You put in a vote ->>> If your vote wins the majority, it informs your state's representatives who they should consider to be chosen as president ->>> Your representatives MAY use that majority vote when they (and other state representatives) get together to agree on who gets elected ->>> President is chosen by that group of representatives.
There is a mistake at the beginning of the video. There are NOT 438 representatives in the House of Representatives. There are 435. The total comes from adding 435 + 100 Senators +3 for Washington DC (due to the 23rd Amendment)
How about this: Each presidential election, let's pay a group of experts in politics, law, economics, and history to compile an enormous list of questions about their respective fields. On voting day, citizens have to answer a set of randomized questions from this list (no internet help allowed!); if we can answer them correctly, we get to vote.
***** I can see why you'd think that, it is definitely intended to control who is voting. The difference is, who are the targets? Literacy is not a direct indicator of political awareness; general questions about a person's political knowledge are.
HIGH FIVE kind of resembles a literacy test designed to suppress the vote than increase it. that goes against our democratic principles that ensure no matter your education, religion, gender, socioeconomic background, etc. that you have the right to vote if you are a legal citizen of the United States of voting age. a test of any sort would be susceptible to bias and compromised due to the digital age we live in. also, not everyone can vote on election day due to their profession or geographic location (nor is it physically possible because there are not enough polling locations or volunteers) so some would be taking the test early and letting others know the answers in advance. it's just a bad idea to go down that road.
Sandpaper Snail As said above, I can see why you would make the literacy test comparison, but the fundamental difference is the target of the filter. If you're interested, the discussion is above. I disagree with your assessment in relation to democratic values on a few counts. One, it sounds as though you are asserting that our current voting system functions according to democratic principles; it does not. If you are strictly talking about accessibility to voting, the test would be open for anybody to take. Even in the most ideal democratic election where anybody can vote, the minority loses and has to tolerate the decisions made by the majority; this system would not remedy that, it's true, but if conducted correctly it could improve the quality of those decisions by controlling for knowledge. You're right though, a system where a small handful of people control the votes is susceptible to tampering, safeguards would need to be assessed and implemented. A enormous pool of questions would be paramount. However, I don't believe it is more risky than what we currently do. Just ask Bernie Sanders ;)
HIGH FIVE You missed my point. Your test is based on the principle that eligible voters are required to have a reason for their vote, a reason decided by a small, educated, and elite group. A legal citizen of voting age should be unencumbered, free of any restrictions that impact their fundamental right to express their political opinion through a ballot vote. A test would discourage a growing republic from voting (mostly due to education and finances, even intimidation) which is counterproductive to a democracy of ideas born from a diverse group of people. Your test, or any test for that matter, is biased before any question is written due to the fact that your placing importance on topics the elite argues is (or should be) relevant to voters. The act of voting is unique to each and every voter and should remain that way. Selecting the voting public through a group-think test based on politics, law, economics, and history is, I believe, counter to the democratic principles are founders sought to establish (women and slaves technically weren't considered people but property so there was no action of exclusion from their perspective). The selection of a voting public should happen naturally through personal decision making of every eligible voter; a governmental body or a third party contracted by the government to conduct a test that limits the amount of eligible voters undercuts our founding principles of fair and free elections. If the majority of voters vote solely based on personal feelings of goodwill for or animosity against particular candidates who are you or any group to say those types of feelings aren't worthy? Your test would squeeze the circle of eligible voters even smaller for (what some would consider) illegitimate reasons and raise the ire that already exists between the classes. Lastly, even if 100% of potential voters consented to being tested to prove their eligibility, it would remain physically impossible (at the very least impractical) due to the number of polling locations and volunteers available, not to mention potential voters who are unable to vote or test on election day due to their profession or current geographic location. Scaling for a major event such as an election on one day is hard enough as is when we know approximately how many voters will show up (and we currently can estimate this by the amount of absentee ballots received on or before election day). It's hard to imagine how each state would scale in advance for how many volunteers or polling locations they would need when they have to coordinate with the federal government on how many of their residents qualify as eligible voters until hours/days later. Anyways, the logistical issues would start way before election day. Is a sample test given so that people can study for it? How far in advance? If so, individuals and testing companies would look to profit and charge potential voters desperate to get a chance to vote while locking those out that can't afford it either in time or money. How would the test be conducted and for what length of time? Do you have to show ID? What type of ID? What if your state does not currently comply with the new test ID law? What range of elected officials would conduct it? Or would volunteers with no requirement whatsoever be able to conduct it? If voter turnout is currently 120 to 130 million people on average, where will the test be conducted to house this number of people across the country in various neutral, partisan-free designated areas? Or can people take the test in the privacy of their own home with no supervision? How will you account for people who choose to take the test in groups and share answers? Or is it based on the honor system? What if you are disabled and cannot get to a testing location? What if you are outside the country due to work or inside the country due to work but cannot get to a testing location at the designated time and place? Does the test happen simultaneously across all time zones in the country? Or multiple times throughout the day? How can you account for people afterwards to not share answers face-to-face or via cell phone? How many questions would the test contain? Would there be a variety of questions between each test ensuring uniformity of the degree of difficulty? Who or what group would ensure this uniformity? For potential voters that paid directly or indirectly (via tax) for the test and do not receive a passing grade, do they get a refund? If you pass the test, are you eligible indefinitely or do you have to keep paying for and taking the test for each election cycle (at every level: city, county, state, and national elections)? If only national elections, why? As you can see, creating a voting test is easier said than done. It creates more problems than it solves, in my opinion. Our current system isn't perfect but it's the best that we have.
Instead of just making a hypothetical argument against the electoral college, why don't you go the individual states and see how the popular vote is working out?
Love everything about this video EXCEPT a candidate does not need to win a majority in a state to secure all of the electoral votes. They simply need a plurality (the most). Thank you for creating this.
Faithless electors aren't even the biggest problem with the system. The biggest problem is how a president can be elected with less than 25% of the popular vote by exploiting the distribution of Electoral votes. Watch Grey's second part of this to see the details.
They're supposed to. But even if they do, the Electoral College is absurd. You can win with just 22% of the popular vote if you just win the right states.
I like this channel but this explanation is ridiculous. Without the electoral college would be similar as two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's 1;30 am for me so I'm gana skip the long winded explanation. If you want to know more just ask.
Hey, so he actually talks about this, the reason is that you are telling the state who you want them to vote for, and the majority of the time the number of votes goes to the one who won the majority of the states, no matter how slim. Of course, they sometimes have unloyal voters, who switch sides, but most of the time they vote for the one who won the majority of their states vote.
You vote matters for your own state, not in the whole country. For example: if most of your state votes for biden, all of the electoral votes will go to biden.
@@ItalianoDio- I'm not entirely sure, but the population of cities is also a big part. The country would have a very small population, while crowed cities would have a large population.
I don't think most people realize the various systems that the Electoral College has gone through. One of our founding father's, James Madison, tried multiple times to abolish the "winner take all" system, but to no avail; he was for the district approach - www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all . Thomas Jefferson, another founding father, was as well; saying in 1800, "All agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general..."
Even in 2011, CGP Grey still maintained that 'Hexagons are Bestagons'.
*cgp
Was this electoral vote fair? I need it for my class.
@@Dylan-ii3wt Which electoral vote? The 2020 electoral vote (which will actually happen 1 month from now) or the electoral college altogether?
Either way, it would be your opinion. I, and most other Americans, would say no to the entire system. After watching this video, what do you think?
@@rustinusti nvm it’s fine.
Veteran Member
wow he has been hinting at the hexagons video for 9 years now...
It because hexagons are the bestagons
HAHAHA
@@isaaclikins5383 bestagons*
Imagine voting for a president
Was this electoral votes fair? Sorry i need it for my class work... Teachers bugging me out like crazy.
I've watched 4 other videos trying to understand the Electoral College and this is the only one that made it make sense and actually answered my questions. Thank you!
A few corrections:
1. The electors meet in their respective state capitals, not in D.C. Their ballots are sent to DC though, where congress meets in a joint session presided over by the VP to count the ballots.
2. There aren't 438 representatives, there are 435. 3 electors are added for DC
3. Several states, around 20, have laws to prevent so called faithless electors. One such state is Minnesota, which will replace any elector that doesn't vote how he/she was supposed to
4. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, are not winner take all
So glad I didn't go to Electoral College. Told my parents it was a waste of money and time
whatshisF4C3 don't like cause 69 likes
Wait you have to pay to vote? That's actually fucked up
Mahatma Christ The IV no you don’t
@@HeavyMetalKittenx Thanks for clarifying
@@nicoruppert4207
He was black back in the 20s.
when you can vote from space, but not from puerto rico, lol
you ainno democracy, amerikkha.
Cries in puertorrican
Ok, but Puerto Rico isn't a state because they have voted not to be one. PR doesn't get to bitch about not having representation when they vote not to have it.
@@quintus920 most people don't want it, dumbass. Plus, having Puerto Rico would make a republican voice close to impossible, since most of PR would obviously choose democrat
i prefer if puerto rico was set free so we don't subsidize the lazy corrupt assholes over there.
"Vote for orange" has a new meaning now.
lmao
@tu tu what's wrong?
@tu tu Is everything ok?
tu tu Are you ok? If you find yourself screaming uncontrollably, maybe you should see a doctor. I’m not a medical professional, but I think that screaming at a comment on the internet may not be a good sign.
jokar jokar dude can you please quiet down a bit I’m trying to sleep
“That the capital of the country would be free of local politics” Now that’s funny.
The vid says that the Electoral College was designed to make election results more timely, and that's the truth, but not the _whole_ truth. Apparently more than one founding father also believed the Electoral College was a hedge against an "unfortunate" choice by the citizens... meaning; many founding fathers thought the average voter was too uninformed to be relied upon to elect the leader of the government. Apparently that attitude holds true today, since we still have an Electoral College...
Bravo! Thumbs up 👍 👍 !
***** I agree. That was actually my point...
***** Thanks and may I say that I agree with your statement in it's entirety.
As for the question, I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Maybe it's time to wake up the "I don't knows" and "I don't cares"... although I don't know how to do that before it's too late.
It absolutely would require a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the electoral college. That would require 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives AND a 2/3 vote of the Senate AND a majority vote of both houses of 3/4 of the states legislatures. That's not going to happen any time soon.
Caelroigh Blunt Actually, I think it's because the words "under god" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, when they were added during the Red Scare. In other words, Washington still doesn't want to even bother.
1:02
Erm... Iowa is abbreviated IA, not IO.
*This message brought to you by Nitpickers United.*
Also, Vermont is abbreviated VT, not VA. (VA is already listed as Virginia)
0:25
There are 435 representatives, not 438
forgot D.C. +3 reps
D.C gets 3 electors for the elector college, not 3 representatives. D.C still doesn't have representatives in the House of Repersentives.Grey was wrong to say 438 representatives.
Lirisa except you're ignoring the other places with DC's arangment.
So when the newspapers announce in November who the president will be, there is a chance that the electors will say, "Nope!" and vote for the other one?
+Quadrant4Delta No not quite. In November the Electors will choose the president and then allow it to be announced. The President is only confirmed (and hence the newspapers will only report it) after the Electoral College has chosen.
+ArcticTemper
No, it hasn't and won't ever happen because it would be obvious since we all know the outcome way before Dec. This video and the others like it that this guy makes it just trying to confuse the stupid and paranoid people out there. He basically makes a living off of making a big deal about little things that don't matter.
+slaction just cause it hasn't happened does mean it can not. Which is why the electoral should be gotten rid of.
+Evamael Presidential electors are party regulars and they have little incentive to change their pledged votes. Therefore, faithless electors are extremely rare and none have ever changed the expected outcome of and election.
Well, they have in the past been the majority for an election without the popular vote if that's what you mean, as you can see in "The Problems With the Electoral College" video.
There are 435 representatives in Congress, not 438. The extra 3 comes from the District of Columbia, which has no senators or representatives but still votes for President
There are 441 people that have a seat in the House of Representatives. Of those, 435 voting representatives are sent by the states and 6 non-voting delegates sent by territories, 1 by DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of course, 5 of these places get no vote, but DC gets 3, which is the same amount of votes as the least-populous state, now Wyoming. This is explained 1:55
Congress refers to the combination of the lower house, the House of Representatives, and the higher house, the Senate.
Well, there are 435 representatives in the House and 100 Senators, the extra three electors come from D.C.. Mistakes were made!
yes at 26 mins in. 435 is in the house. & 100 senators. = 535. 3 for DC in constitutional amendment. 535+3=538.
+Sandro Uy I presume you mean 26 seconds in? Well, in the video, CGP Grey states that there are 100 senators and 438 Representatives in the House. This is a factual mistake, there aren't 438 Representatives. There are only 435 Representatives, the 23rd amendment granted DC three electors, but DC even today still doesn't have Representation in either the House or the Senate. The Constitution states that each state gets 2 Senators and the number of seats in the house is based on the population but a state shall get at least one seat regardless. The Constitution also states that the number of electors each state gets shall equal to the number of seats this state gets in the Congress. This is the reason why DC gets 3 electors. The video also states that when the Constitution was written, the electors would be sent to DC except for that when the Constitution was written, District of Columbia didn't even exist, another factual mistake.
@@Zhenren0ZHOU Also, the electors do not meet in DC. They meet in their respective state capitals.
@@sandrouy8828 ficaram esperto né 🤔
the part where astronauts get to vote when others don't got me bursting in to laughter. this is so hilarious. one might think that we as humans could actually do better... but nope ... still idiots... (...and the laughter goes on)
We as humans can do better. You as Americans however...
@@yatokami7907 glad we have the electoral college. Lot better than NY and CA dominating the outcome because of population numbers alone
@@DEV3N87 Imagine the weight of your vote within your own country changing based on where you live. Now imagine that there are parts of your country where your vote has no weight whatsoever... but emigrants who went to Europe, Africa, or even SPACE still keep their weight. So, people who don't even live in your country, effectively getting more say on how it should be run than you, the person who actually has to live with the consequences.
Plus, CA and NY only make 17% of the US' population together. Hardly enough to dominate. Just enough for the large number of citizens they represent to actually be heard.
US voting sysrem was not made to have everyone voting anyway, that it does nowadays is already a bastardization of the system.
I'd vote for myself in outer-space, just for the fun of it while I'm up there... looking down at the minions and their masters.
*continues to stay in Canada*
Good
we got trudeau though....
+luvmyctd Keeping out Hillary is the 1 good thing that the Electoral College ever did. It doesn't do what It's supposed to do.It was supposed to make presidential candidates care about the interests of smaller states but It doesn't.
luvmyctd Hillary got the popular vote even you don’t like her a majority of Americans did which should’ve meant she won
Except that isn't how a Constitutional Representative Republic works. The Founding Fathers quite literally hated pure democracy because you can end up with 51% of people choosing for the other 49%.
I'm still amazed how "the greatest country and democracy" actually doesn''t have a democracy
The word “democracy” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
@@beans2605 that's because the US is a democratic republic.
@Ryan Wing Wo ah 🤔
My amigo you can visit us right now right here in Colombia - Cúcuta and I'll show you what democracy does to your rights
You know, usually you don't brag about the things you actually are, but rather about the things you want people to believe you are
3:47 does anyone else see the creeper?
I'm scared.
+Elephant Warrior yes
+Elephant Warrior Hahahaha that's awesome!
lmao, is it the guy to the far right? I think I see a few.
WTF?
0:49 Hexagons are the bestagons.
if the US had proportional representation, then 3rd parties would actually be viable choices, and neither of the big 2 parties would end up with a majority. everyone's votes would count equally, an there'd be no territory that was irrelevant for campaigns.
@@Dirtfire and you can cicunavegate the globe by swimming. Wanna try?
Come on, It is possible! :D
Thank you for your efforts in making sense of this issue... though i have to confess my head hurts and it still makes so sense to me.
There is an error at 0:27. There are only 435 representatives. There are 538 electoral votes because it's:
100 Senators + 435 Representatives + an additional 3 electoral votes allocated to the District of Columbia (which has neither Senators nor a voting member in the House of Representatives).
And the Electors have never met together in Washington! The Constitution says that they meet in their states.
I have watched this a few times over the years. This is the first time I've seen the creeper in the window
Lmao so the "my vote doesn't even count" argument is actually true...
Patrick Morrison for presidential elections, this is true if you don't live in a swing state. But you should always vote on everything else because only the presidential race uses the electoral college.
if you are a republican californian or democrat texan, your vote doesn't count at all. Your vote only counts if your state is a close race
@PJ Mo, sure it does...just as long you vote the way everyone else does.
PJ Mo in the presidential election it’s legit, though the voter turnout rate does sort of muddy that (I was surprised at how the US compared to the rest of the first world in this regard, they’re all around 70% and we’re around 30-35%). What I mean is, if there really were closer to a 70% turnout rate, who know how things would change…but as someone else previously said, in state and local elections where an electoral system isn’t used your vote can absolutely count.
How about states with conflicted views? State such as Florida and Pennsylvania. Also, a state can always change side, it just takes time.
For those saying that their vote doesn't even count because of this, you also have to remember during voting season that it's not only the president you're voting for. He isn't the only politician here and there are so many more people who can shape policies in *your* state to make life better for the community.
0:24 The House of Representatives has 435 reps in Congress, not 438. The other three electors were given to the District of Columbia with the 23rd amendment as mentioned in the video.
got this at school, during the time period where I was watching tons of CPG Grey videos, great.
0:55 Notice Arkansas and Mississippi spell ARMS on the map
So before voting for president vote rather for the the electors that might vote for your president?
It made sense back when electricity didn't exist and you could maybe get information between distant towns without everyone dying, but in the modern world, it is 100% outdated and needs to be completely redone to take into account, you know, the last 200 years worth of scientific advancement in information technology
4:19 Only thing I am unclear on is this part. The October vote determines who the electors will be? so are we simply voting democrat or republican and then the winning party determines that the electors will be democrats or republicans? what determines who these voters are?
I recon 95% of Americans would be shocked by this.
I reckon that 95% of Americans learned about the electoral college in 7th grade Civics and Government class.
I have not learned about it yet (I am currently in 10th grade).
Poorly educated due to the progressives methods being applied ?
The progressive method would treat grade school like college/university instead of a factory designed to produce factory workers in an assembly line fashion. So no.
David Kelly
So, you want to start left leaning progressive indoctrination as early as possible ?
It's not odd that the territories don't have electoral college votes. If you remember "no taxation without representation" it makes sense. US territories don't pay federal taxes because they don't have any representation in the federal government. They can have representation any time that they want, but they have to write a state constitution, request to join the union, and the people have to vote in favor of joining. They remain territories because they want to, not because they have to and because of how our constitution is written, they do not have to pay any taxes because they have no representation.
Thank you! +1
+Ian Belletti Plus, Puerto Rico in particular has no right to complain. They're unwilling to assimilate into American culture (read: learn English, they aren't even willing to go bilingual like Hawaii or New Mexico) and they receive billions in federal welfare every year while contributing little to nothing in return. They should count themselves lucky that we haven't cut them loose altogether, especially during this ongoing recession.
TBustah You obviously didn't follow what I said. I've never heard of Puerto Ricans complaining about their political status. Being a territory and not a state means that they don't have to make any concessions in their culture to assimilate into the general American culture. Federal welfare is another topic altogether. I will not speak neither good nor ill of it here because it goes outside the bounds of the discussion. Our constitution prevents us from taxing them because they have no representation, but does not prevent the federal government from providing aid, and it is expected that we provide military protection for them. We are also prevented from quartering (housing) our military in their homes or businesses by force just like any citizen of the 50 states.
Ian Belletti
I understood perfectly what you were saying, I was merely adding to it. If you don't agree with what I had to say, whatever, but what you said in your original comment and what I said are not mutually exclusive.
TBustah Your comment may have been intended to add information, but it was presented in a manner that appeared to be showing complaints with a repeat of what I had said before. (1) Your first sentence sounds as if Puerto Ricans are complaining about their political status. If that is true, please show evidence. (2) You talked about their refusal to assimilate into the general American culture. The way you made the statement appears to be a complaint. Hawaii and New Mexico are states and not territories, therefore they have an obligation to make cultural concessions. (3) You mention them receiving welfare which also appears to be a complaint. The way your entire post reads is as if you are making complaints and not making productive additions to what I said. I'm sorry if I mistook your intention. If that is so, let this be a lesson that you should be careful about the wording and content of your post.
Make that three times a candidate has won by the electoral college and not the popular vote
4
Uhhh, make that 5: Andrew Jackson in 1824 (lost to John Quincy Adams), Samuel Tilden in 1876 (lost to Rutherford B. Hayes), Grover Cleveland in 1888 (lost to Benjamin Harrison), Al Gore in 2000 (lost to George W. Bush), now Hillary.
+jevicci nobody won the electoral college in 1824. Jackson didn't have a majority. It was decided by Congress, not the Electoral College.
If he won the EC, it wouldn't have gone to the House.
He didn't have the "majority" enough to win, but he had more votes lol In that sense, he won
I've watched 4 videos on this game-changing topic, and this one explains it best as I remember from my Civics class. Indeed the Elector can look at his state, see a 60-40 vote, and then choose to vote for whoever he sees fit. He can vote for the pres. candidate who got that 40%.
The electors can vote for anyone. In 2016 there were 7 faithless electors, they didn't vote for the other candidate, they each just voted for random people they liked who weren't even running.
@Teddye Kuma Right. And most of our population isn't even educated on this, so everyone still thinks their presidential vote actually matters. To me, one citizen's vote only matters if it's the tiebreaker.
TH-cam is littered with overly long, low information, videos that squeeze the life force out of you
One slight error: you say that the Electors all get together in DC to cast their votes. They don't, they gather in their respective state capitols (or DC city hall), and then the record of who they voted for is sent to Congress to be counted and certified. The Electoral College never actually meets together, which was also part of the original idea.
I would argue they are sent to DC to be counted. Not certified. The stated already certified their votes. They don’t send them to DC to be certified again. The VPs job is to count and tallied the votes. He doesn’t even read them aloud. The “tellers” do that. After safe harbor has passed any last min challenge has to come from both houses of congress the day the EC votes are read.
What I love is that my college professor told us to check out your videos for class because you explain everything perfectly
You got the why right! I love that.
There was also an interesting interlocking problem involving the Presidency's power, length of term and how they're picked. It's the book Original Meanings.
At 0:52 you put Vermont as "VA" instead of "VT" :P
Thought Vitginia had 3 votes, lol.
Plus the 13, so it jumps up to 16 (VA is still VA) ;)
He has Iowa as IO instead of IA as well.
The Electoral College is so silly that the scroll that contains its rules (0:18) has its title upside down and on the back side of the scroll!
1:26 Look at the left..."That's a nice White House you have there"
"Aww man.."
UGH!!! so confusing....why do we still have this system? Seems crazy. Thanks for the video though.
There hasn't been a convention to remove it yet
Meena Pharo Because if it didn't exist, we would be ruled by the majority voters. Canidates would only campaign in states with big populations like NY or CA, and states like Iowa would be unrepresented.
This is both untrue and addressed in the next video in the series.
It was a good idea back in the late 1700s to get the southern states to agree with how the president was to be elected and ratify the constitution. The less populated southern states had very different interests in mind than the northern states, so they would have had little impact on an pure popular vote system.
Doffy Well, they already campaign just in the swing states. Why bother caimpagning in a state you know will vote for you?
The House of Representatives only has 435 members. The electoral college is congress (435+100) + 3 votes for DC.
The electoral college is not the members of Congress. Slates of Presidential electors are elected by the people independently from the members of Congress.
I am talking about the numbers of the EC, not the people who participate.
The numbers are worked out by adding the amount of representatives a state sends to the HoR, and then you add 2 to that number, because of the number of senators the sate sends. Is that a better explanation?
Except DC has people in Congress, they just can't vote on bills. So no, it's not really adding anything. If anything the EC understates the number of people in DC becuase the territories (which have delegations like DC's) have no EC votes.
THANK YOU I'm surprised no other comments were saying this, I couldn't focus on the rest of the video until I found this comment
3:47 Oh look a creeper. Wait. What?
Step over Al-Qaeda, the Creepers are here!
let's petition in the comments to let the territories vote
#territorialvotingmatters
Don't worry I did too lol
Yumiko the Random well I mean the territories chose this. Every time they hold a referendum to become a state they stay territories choosing not to have a vote for president, or representation that can vote in congress. This might seem strange but they do it to stay out of taxes
So, flash forward into the future, the democrats win under similar circumstances...is that not a valid win, too, or are we going to want to go by the popular vote, also?
Many territories dont pay taxes, why should they get the right to vote?
Our founding fathers had also studied the history of both pure democracy and aristocracy and hated both as a method of electing the president. They feared an uninformed populace might be duped into electing a tyrant, and a group of "experts" might be too disconnected from the people and just choose whomever they wished. The electoral college was a compromise of both. You have a roughly popular vote represented by an informed group of people who are trusted to make the best decision for the country (and not necessarily the one they were elected for.)
I think it would be better to give the two "senator" votes to the popular candidate and apportion the remainder according to the congressional districts. That way, the outnumbered party members in California and Texas get to cast a meaningful vote.
Another option might be a Mixed-Member Proportional system.
Jim Stanley thank you
Now I understand. Thanks:)
@@RecoveryHacker ancient Greece has entered the chat.
Thank you for simplifying everything, this indeed made the whole process a lot easier.
This video left out a much more important concept... The Electoral College also exists to give areas of smaller population just a little bit more leverage per person than densely packed cities, if you look at the way the electoral votes are distributed by the population they represent. This ensures that a candidate has to appeal to and be in favor of ALL people in the country. If not then someone could win by promoting themselves in only 5 or 6 major hot spots of population, and leave out all of the smaller towns and communities. Pure democracy, 1 person 1 vote winner take all, is actually a really unstable form of government and risks one party taking way too much power. If we didn't have the EC it's possible that the US wouldn't be a democracy any more, democracy would have collapsed decades ago. This was designed to be a balancing system. It did exactly what it was designed to do in this past election, not the first time either, there have been a few other elections in the past that the Electoral College flipped the candidates after the popular vote. Hillary won in several areas of high population, but Trump had a few big cities and nearly all of the smaller towns and rural areas.
There is actually 435 members of the house. The total number of electoral college votes is 538 to give 3 for DC. Senate 100+ house 435+ DC 3 =538.
Well explained
I laughed when you said "stop asking so many questions right now" because that shut me up
I'd just like to make a quick note about the amount of representatives you stated. There are only 435 reps in the House. So 435+100= 535. The 3 extra votes are for D.C. and they come from a solution proposed in the 23rd amendment that stipulates that D.C. is entitled to the same amount of electoral votes as the least populous state.
That is all.
This is literally cleared up less than two minutes into the video.
Look in the window at 3:48
you have disappointed me
"Nice building you got there, Would be a shame if something happened to it..."
FYI, Neither Maine nor Nebraska distributes it's electoral vote on any percentage. No state does it that way. What Maine and Nebraska each do is give 2 eclectoral vote to the winner of the whole state and 1 electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. It has nothing to do with any percentage of votes won.
You are correct! I think dividing electoral votes by Congressional district is what the framers had in mind.
1:25 anyone see the creeper?
Yeah!
Jedi13 where?
oh, there
3:50
Jedi13 I think the time signatures 1:26 and 3:47 work better
The founding fathers really didn’t like democracy. They tried to limited direct democracy as best as possible.
Thats cus pure democracy can destroy a country.
@@cadeschaeffer6267 Lol why?
@@mahaanpadri Cus 51% of a country or the majority can undermine the millions of people and take away their rights.
@@mahaanpadri mob rule thats why. Psychologically people that live in similar enviornments tend to think the same. Most people live in large coastal cities and they tend to think the same. These people should not be able to tell the rest of the country how to live. The 49% needs a voice as well. People are not spread out homogenously across the country. We also have state govnements that need to be represented in the presidential election.
@@cadeschaeffer6267 But if the minority wins then wouldn't that be 49% of the country doing the same thing?
Just curious why cant Americans just vote for a President themselves? Not an American here but i enjoy learning more about American politics.
If the president was chosen that way then New York alone would decide who the president would be due to their jam packed population despite the rest of the counties around the country voting the other way.
Omni Matt uhhhh.....no New York alone could not do that.
@Neil Siebenthal I'm real good with numbers Im probably just much smarter and educated than you.
Our population is too big. 308+ million people cant all be expected to vote for everything
The President is elected to represent theses United States, keyword being states, America is a federation of states.
More than ever I need to understand this shit
xMictlan I'm right there with you
THANK YOU xM ! And welcome aboard !!! This very important "shit" certainly isn't taught in government controlled schools any more ! By Power Mad Political Design, I must stress. Another reason so many Federal 'Departments of ' like Education, should never have been allowed to exist. . . and Constitutionally they aren't supposed to.
Hang in there H ! There are other posts on the internet to explain it. Keep trying. It really is important and schools getting federal money are not teaching it.
Terry Russel
Not from the USA still it is important to know
So we are just suggestions
yes we are . YES WE ARE .
Not really. Some states have laws requiring the electors to vote with the popular vote in that state. Often if an elector votes against the popular vote in that state other electors will switch their vote to balance it out and make sure it’s fair. The system has worked pretty well for 250 years and hasn’t caused any issues with elections.
Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were the closest states in the election of 2016. All of them were decided by less than 1 point.
Let's imagine that all 4 states switch parties. Hillary Clinton wins the election 274-264 electoral votes.
Not so fast.
2 faithless electors (electors voting against the major candidate of the same party) broke away from Trump, dropping him to 262. *5* broke away from Clinton, bringing her down to 269. Nobody has a majority, so we move on to the house. Most states in 2016 had a Republican-majority in the House, 30 to be exact. Maine was a tie, and 19 states were mostly Democrat. Thus, Trump because the next president.
Yeah that's right. Electors could have changed the ENTIRE election, just because 5 of them left Hillary.
Get rid of the electors. All of them.
There are 435 Representatives and 100 senators. The extra 3 comes from DC. Furthermore, electors never actually met in DC, they all meet in state capitols and mail them.
Oooops! Looks like Grey didn't do his homework! Probably too busy playing Minecraft to even bother doing proper research.
I really think it wouldn't have been confusing or derailed the video if C.G.P had said, "Why 538? Because that's the number of Senators (100), plus the number of Representatives (435), plus 3 votes for the District of Columbia -- the special non-state that gets to vote for President but otherwise is basically like the territories."
We literally just got given this because our teacher isnt here. man, I wish this was social studies.
@0:26: It's not true there are 438 Representatives. The correct number is 435. The 3 electoral votes for DC are not the number of Representatives for DC since it doesn't have any.
Em...in Latin America (despite any problem): 1 citizen = 1 vote. In most countries, if a candidate gets 50% of the votes, wins. If not, then the two most voted candidates participate in a second-round votation and the winner wins by a simple majority.
In my country Panama, every 5 years, the winner is elected by a simple majority, no second round.
That’s why most countries are destroying themselves. They let their citizens vote to consume now at the cost of the future of the country
Wait so you are telling me if a state cast a majority vote to candidate A but the electoral REPRESENTATIVE of state selects candidate B ... basically candidate B Become President .... and your vote doesn't count ... bruhhh.... this is so stupid .... so we are not selecting the president but electoral representative are doing that .... i mean it makes no sense
Yup and if it ends up a tie than it will go to the house and they will decide the president not the people, this is bs
But what if all the electors are illuminatti?!?!?
What do you mean "if"
VieneLea tinfoil hat
That would mean Donald Trump is Illuminati which makes NO SENSE since he wants to break federal government and give complete sovereignty back to the states.
trump and hillary r both freemasons
lol good joke, steven
At 0:49, we see that the more populated states (like California, Texas, and Florida) still get a massive number of votes and the smaller states still get a small number of votes. But at 2:00, CGP Grey makes a good point that I've never considered.
Of all the arguments in favour of the electoral college I have seen thus far, one has struck me the most, being that it could prevent a majority tyranny to take over. Checks and balances as well as the constitution should prevent this from happening in the first place, shouldn't it?
Indeed. But it seems to be worse than that. The electoral college makes it much easier for a minority tyranny to take over instead. Since all you have to do is influence the majority of the electoral college to win the presidency.
Feynstein 100 - You obviously don't understand the purpose or function of the EC. The electors are only 'influenced' by a majority of voters on a state-by-state basis. There is no way for a minority to 'influence' the whole electoral college. Perhaps it would be best for you to go back to school and stop relying solely on YT videos for your 'education'.
+MaidenoftheShadows Ah so just another version of "You're wrong. And even though I know exactly why you're wrong, I'm above such things as explanations and trying to help you understand. Instead, I'm going to waste your time by hurling insults and telling you to go educate yourself in a snarky manner. It won't help you in any way, of course. But it will make me feel better about myself." Lol I apologize if I seemed rude but I can't help giving people back what they give me. But if you know why I'm wrong, then I think the best way of convincing me would be simply telling me why I'm wrong. :P
@@MaidenoftheShadows You are right in the fact that the electors are only "influenced by a majority of voters on a state-by-state basis." However, Feynstein 100's point is similar to a point that CGP Grey makes in a follow-up video on the electoral college. Basically, the point is that if a candidate can influence the majority of the people (51%) in the smaller states, they can ignore the large majority of the overall population (those living in large states) and still be elected president. This becomes a fact since all you need is the majority vote in the electoral college.
So, what you are trying to say is, there's still a chance? Would there be some sort of punishment or legal consequences for electors who vote against their state?
He said there would be fines. That is 2011. idk about now
Some states have laws against faithless electors, some don't (fingers crossed)
0:50 HEXAGONS! THIS IS WHERE IT BEGAN!
0:25 An error in the first minute... The House only has 435 voting members*1, fixed by law. The extra 3 comes from DC, which is given 3 votes*2 as if it is an extra state.
*1 US territories have delegates and a resident commissioner, but they don't matter in the context of the electorial college because those territories do get get votes.
*2 Technically the lesser of (a) the total representation in Congress (reps and senators) DC would get if it were a state and (b) the number of votes granted the least populus state.
*1 US territories send a delegate and resident commissioners (one for each territory) to the House. They can serve on committees and speak on the House floor, but they have no vote on the House floor.
*2 By the 23rd Amendment, it is actually the amount of congressional representation DC would have qualified for if it were a state, but never more votes than the least populous state.
Yes but it doesn't explain is which party are the 538 electoral college representatives affiliated with, who nominates them and how long their terms are...And who determines how many electoral college delegates each party gets to appoint? Anyone know?
Fires from status to state
As CGP Grey mentioned (briefly): After the popular vote in each state, the Candidate (*or Party) who gained the most votes in that state is given the number of Electors equal to that State's electoral votes. To use Florida as an example, if the Democratic candidate gained the most votes then Florida would give the Democratic Party 29 seats for Electors.
Afterwards, each party given electoral votes would then select (or elect, depends on the state those seats came from) a number of Electors equal to the number of seats that they were given. How, when, and with what method they are selected (or elected) is unknown by me at least.
Who's watching on Election Day?
Couple days after, despondently
Is over Dude
Who saw the Minecraft creeper? 3:48
I know this video is 10 years old but Vermont is VT, not VA (0:59)
And what would you be? AG69?
This was really helpful, subbed on both of my accounts. Also your other videos are great too keep up the amazing work
0:57 hexagons are the bestagon
Hexagons are the bestagon
im still confused-
Slight correction, 538 is the number of Senators (100) + the number of House Reps (435) + 3 electors given to DC by the 23rd Amendment.
anyone else here before the election?
Me
me
hi there
trumpanzee will probably win :(
@@deepstariaenigmatica2601
Fun fact: *no*
We have to abolish the electoral college and have a rank choice popular vote, but there so much to fix with our electoral system not just for voting for president.
yes, lets give all the big states all power. 4 states totally deserve to pick the leader for all the states!
@@wojtek9675 what 4 states are you talking about? The four biggest states in the US (CA, TX, FL, NY) don’t even make up anywhere close to a majority of the 2016/2020 voting electorate or the American population. And right now under the electoral college, just a handful of swing states decide the elections. Really hurting your own argument there bud.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI these big states and other make up a large majority of the population. The entire purpose of the electoral collage was to give smaller states at least some say in what happens. When you take that away states like Wyoming which only have 600,000 or so people they have no say. Tell me why would any would any nominee or president ever care or do anything for smaller states when they can just do them for bigger states? We are not one country, we are 50 different country’s in a union together and smaller states deserve to have some say in who will be the countries leader
@@wojtek9675 electoral college defenders failed their math class.
that would never happen as those 4 states are too small
you need to clear that elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years)not based on majority voter in that state, doing so is rare and a political suicide today.
Some people use the argument that abolishing the electoral college would would strip stats of there voice. Would like to know what people think about that?
Something that never made sense to me is that if the electors meet in December, then why do they talk about election results on the day after election day? Technically, the President has not been elected yet.
That is partly true. When you vote for President, you are actually voting for a slate of electors to represent your state. Those electors ,in turn vote to elect the President. The electors vote for the candidate that won a simple plurality in their respective states. We know the results usually by the next day because it is very rare that the electors will not vote for the popular vote winner in their respective state.
Has there been an occurrence of the media getting it wrong and the electors actually elected someone different than they were expected to?
Good question. Let me answer your second question first. Yes electors have changed their expected votes and voted for other candidates. But in no case did those switches ever change the expected outcome. In 1948, some newspapers jumped the gun and predicted Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman. In 2000, numerous media outlets called Florida for Al Gore before the polls were closed. Of course, Florida was crucial to both the Bush and Gore campaigns.
dandyky Lets not forget The Governor of FL at the time was Bush's brother.
@@dandyky So why have human being electors? Why the process of having them vote? Why the middleman? All this does is breed conspiracy and a chance at corruption. It also tells the people they are not trusted with their votes and gives zero meaning to the vote. Even if the elector is obligated to go with the party lines and popular vote. Basically rendering everyone's vote useless because they are telling you they don't trust the American people to vote and have to "hedge" against it.
I get the idea but I still can't really understand it
***** I am thinking about writing a blog explain it in details.
+gel mop You put in a vote ->>> If your vote wins the majority, it informs your state's representatives who they should consider to be chosen as president ->>> Your representatives MAY use that majority vote when they (and other state representatives) get together to agree on who gets elected ->>> President is chosen by that group of representatives.
Things I say in calculus class be like:
me to lol
It's pretty simple. You tell the EC what you want, and they do what THEY want, using what you told them as a suggestion.
0:53 he used hexagons because they are the bestagon
There is a mistake at the beginning of the video. There are NOT 438 representatives in the House of Representatives. There are 435. The total comes from adding 435 + 100 Senators +3 for Washington DC (due to the 23rd Amendment)
Glad to keep it simple, but make sure you keep it accurate. :)
How about this: Each presidential election, let's pay a group of experts in politics, law, economics, and history to compile an enormous list of questions about their respective fields. On voting day, citizens have to answer a set of randomized questions from this list (no internet help allowed!); if we can answer them correctly, we get to vote.
***** I can see why you'd think that, it is definitely intended to control who is voting. The difference is, who are the targets? Literacy is not a direct indicator of political awareness; general questions about a person's political knowledge are.
***** Very true.
HIGH FIVE kind of resembles a literacy test designed to suppress the vote than increase it. that goes against our democratic principles that ensure no matter your education, religion, gender, socioeconomic background, etc. that you have the right to vote if you are a legal citizen of the United States of voting age. a test of any sort would be susceptible to bias and compromised due to the digital age we live in. also, not everyone can vote on election day due to their profession or geographic location (nor is it physically possible because there are not enough polling locations or volunteers) so some would be taking the test early and letting others know the answers in advance. it's just a bad idea to go down that road.
Sandpaper Snail As said above, I can see why you would make the literacy test comparison, but the fundamental difference is the target of the filter. If you're interested, the discussion is above.
I disagree with your assessment in relation to democratic values on a few counts. One, it sounds as though you are asserting that our current voting system functions according to democratic principles; it does not. If you are strictly talking about accessibility to voting, the test would be open for anybody to take.
Even in the most ideal democratic election where anybody can vote, the minority loses and has to tolerate the decisions made by the majority; this system would not remedy that, it's true, but if conducted correctly it could improve the quality of those decisions by controlling for knowledge.
You're right though, a system where a small handful of people control the votes is susceptible to tampering, safeguards would need to be assessed and implemented. A enormous pool of questions would be paramount. However, I don't believe it is more risky than what we currently do. Just ask Bernie Sanders ;)
HIGH FIVE You missed my point. Your test is based on the principle that eligible voters are required to have a reason for their vote, a reason decided by a small, educated, and elite group. A legal citizen of voting age should be unencumbered, free of any restrictions that impact their fundamental right to express their political opinion through a ballot vote. A test would discourage a growing republic from voting (mostly due to education and finances, even intimidation) which is counterproductive to a democracy of ideas born from a diverse group of people.
Your test, or any test for that matter, is biased before any question is written due to the fact that your placing importance on topics the elite argues is (or should be) relevant to voters. The act of voting is unique to each and every voter and should remain that way. Selecting the voting public through a group-think test based on politics, law, economics, and history is, I believe, counter to the democratic principles are founders sought to establish (women and slaves technically weren't considered people but property so there was no action of exclusion from their perspective). The selection of a voting public should happen naturally through personal decision making of every eligible voter; a governmental body or a third party contracted by the government to conduct a test that limits the amount of eligible voters undercuts our founding principles of fair and free elections. If the majority of voters vote solely based on personal feelings of goodwill for or animosity against particular candidates who are you or any group to say those types of feelings aren't worthy? Your test would squeeze the circle of eligible voters even smaller for (what some would consider) illegitimate reasons and raise the ire that already exists between the classes.
Lastly, even if 100% of potential voters consented to being tested to prove their eligibility, it would remain physically impossible (at the very least impractical) due to the number of polling locations and volunteers available, not to mention potential voters who are unable to vote or test on election day due to their profession or current geographic location. Scaling for a major event such as an election on one day is hard enough as is when we know approximately how many voters will show up (and we currently can estimate this by the amount of absentee ballots received on or before election day). It's hard to imagine how each state would scale in advance for how many volunteers or polling locations they would need when they have to coordinate with the federal government on how many of their residents qualify as eligible voters until hours/days later.
Anyways, the logistical issues would start way before election day. Is a sample test given so that people can study for it? How far in advance? If so, individuals and testing companies would look to profit and charge potential voters desperate to get a chance to vote while locking those out that can't afford it either in time or money. How would the test be conducted and for what length of time? Do you have to show ID? What type of ID? What if your state does not currently comply with the new test ID law? What range of elected officials would conduct it? Or would volunteers with no requirement whatsoever be able to conduct it? If voter turnout is currently 120 to 130 million people on average, where will the test be conducted to house this number of people across the country in various neutral, partisan-free designated areas? Or can people take the test in the privacy of their own home with no supervision? How will you account for people who choose to take the test in groups and share answers? Or is it based on the honor system? What if you are disabled and cannot get to a testing location? What if you are outside the country due to work or inside the country due to work but cannot get to a testing location at the designated time and place? Does the test happen simultaneously across all time zones in the country? Or multiple times throughout the day? How can you account for people afterwards to not share answers face-to-face or via cell phone? How many questions would the test contain? Would there be a variety of questions between each test ensuring uniformity of the degree of difficulty? Who or what group would ensure this uniformity? For potential voters that paid directly or indirectly (via tax) for the test and do not receive a passing grade, do they get a refund? If you pass the test, are you eligible indefinitely or do you have to keep paying for and taking the test for each election cycle (at every level: city, county, state, and national elections)? If only national elections, why?
As you can see, creating a voting test is easier said than done. It creates more problems than it solves, in my opinion. Our current system isn't perfect but it's the best that we have.
Instead of just making a hypothetical argument against the electoral college, why don't you go the individual states and see how the popular vote is working out?
All votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others...
Love everything about this video EXCEPT a candidate does not need to win a majority in a state to secure all of the electoral votes. They simply need a plurality (the most). Thank you for creating this.
0:49 Hexagon is the Bestagon.
what the hell? the electoral college should either vote for how the majority of the state voted or it should be repealed.
Faithless electors aren't even the biggest problem with the system. The biggest problem is how a president can be elected with less than 25% of the popular vote by exploiting the distribution of Electoral votes.
Watch Grey's second part of this to see the details.
They're supposed to. But even if they do, the Electoral College is absurd. You can win with just 22% of the popular vote if you just win the right states.
+Eight-Three-Eight Technically, you could win with 0% of the vote if the electors like you
Even if it was proportional and not winner take all, then I think people would be more open to it.
why can't I be explained who the electors are and how they are chosen
are they people with big money that can be bought?
Now that we know How the Electoral College Works, the next "How does it work" video we must know is How the European Union Works
He already has.
That video was about only 3 things. In future he will show us the EU political system as seen on the video where he said ' a story for another time"
after watching a few videos trying to understand electoral college this is the only once that made sense 😭 thank you
I like this channel but this explanation is ridiculous. Without the electoral college would be similar as two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's 1;30 am for me so I'm gana skip the long winded explanation. If you want to know more just ask.
Sorry i looked up the meaning several times but still dont get it. why bother voting if the electoral votes have the final say?
Hey, so he actually talks about this, the reason is that you are telling the state who you want them to vote for, and the majority of the time the number of votes goes to the one who won the majority of the states, no matter how slim. Of course, they sometimes have unloyal voters, who switch sides, but most of the time they vote for the one who won the majority of their states vote.
You vote matters for your own state, not in the whole country. For example: if most of your state votes for biden, all of the electoral votes will go to biden.
@@keira7070 Then why is biden winning in states where he only has one or a few counties?
@@keira7070 because those counties have more people
@@ItalianoDio- I'm not entirely sure, but the population of cities is also a big part. The country would have a very small population, while crowed cities would have a large population.
3:47 Anyone else see the Creeper in the back window?
0:03 minecraft piggy in barn
Great video, nice job, keep it up and u will succeeded at everything you do.
3:33 that didn't age well, did it ? or am I missing something here ?
i hope our electoral college says what the say in this video "im not voting for orange" cuz thats our only hope now
This video has a factual error. Electors meet in their respective state capitols and always have.
It has quite a few other errors too
I don't think most people realize the various systems that the Electoral College has gone through. One of our founding father's, James Madison, tried multiple times to abolish the "winner take all" system, but to no avail; he was for the district approach - www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all . Thomas Jefferson, another founding father, was as well; saying in 1800, "All agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general..."