Watch "Adam Ruins Everything," Tuesdays at 10pm, on truTV! See more www.collegehumo... LIKE us on: / collegehumor FOLLOW us on: / collegehumor FOLLOW us on: / www Subscribe to our new channel: CH2: / ch2
These videos are so accurate and informative. Except for the part at the end where the person who’s blatantly wrong admits it and changes their opinion
Carrots The most of what the president has that congress can't is foreign policy. Even though congress has more power, the executive branch has much fewer people who have more individual power than the members of congress.
just so you are awarePresident Obama appointed over 300 federal judges who will be on the bench for the next 30 yearsthat's why the president is important and why you have to vote for one of the two major parties they are the only two that can when the white house and appoint federal judgess
+lugialover09 41.5% of area within Michigan's borders is water, compared to Ohio's 8.8%. Yes, our lakes, or as I like to think of them: the reason our upper peninsula is virtually uninhabitable for half the year. "Our shit weather". Oh, please.
@@drywall1873 What are you trying to say? The evidence is pretty clear that this fool doesn't know what he is talking about! For example, the US is NOT a democracy, it is Constitutional federal republic. Secondly, this clown seems to think that the office of the President of the United STATES is a direct representative of the people and thus ought to be directly elected by the people. In fact, the primary constituents of the federal government are the STATES, not the people. Therefore, the STATES elect the offices of the President and the Vice President via the electoral college. Its looks like Adam slept through seventh grade Civics and Government class.
@D Smith Amazing, everything single thing you said was wrong. But seeing as these talking points are coming from a repugnant republican inbred chud, I am not supposed. Pro tip Cleetus, if you are going to claim people don’t know things, get your facts right, and also use proper grammar. ~Notifications are off good luck replying~
Also, the electors are there to make sure that someone who manages to fool the American people can't fool the electors. Just hope the electors stay politically informed.
Yes the "electors" can vote for whoever they want but they only vote against their states popular choice in rare circumstances. Plus, we learned this year that when there were recounts held in numerous states, it actually added more votes for trump. Without electoral college, we could have a president who wins by a close margin and then recounts change the outcome. That would be senseless, the president would not have enough time to prepare for his/her presidency.
+Joseph Paulo That might well be true but vote numbers might also be quite different due to different voting behaviour as well as campaigning behaviour depending on how the system changes. If it was move to proportional allocation but retained the electoral college and the 270 rule was retained it would just be kicked to the House more often. That would lead to perpetual Republican victories at the moment. Furthermore, the legitimacy would be questioned even more given the vote would essentially have been pointless and they could have skipped that step.
Also, if there was popular vote than this year's popular vote count would have changed drastically. Neither candidate touched California, Texas or other set states. If it were popular vote then politicians would try to appeal to big cities.
+JohnisYoung It's not breaking the fourth wall if the video is addressed to us. If we were made to believe what we were seeing was real, THEN it would be breaking the fourth wall. Besides, Deadpool wasn't the first, nor was he the last to do so. Uatu the Watcher would be a better character to use in this situation.
Amram The Comrade: Comrade Stalin was no racist. Churchill remained dedicated to protecting his supreme role over indians and viewed it as a victory for anglo race and his abuse of the irish ppl knew no bounds.
Friendly reminder to VOTE ANYWAY. ESPECIALLY FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS! Don't just give up because you think it's hopeless. It's not half as hopeless as certain people want you to believe. Edit: People are showing up to naysay again. It's pretty simple people. You can either vote and make it more likely the person you want is in office, or sit on your ass and help out whoever you hate the most. You should also do other stuff- donations, campaigning, being active in your local community, encouraging others to vote too, but you can at ***least*** do the absolute minimum and vote. Anyone who tells you to do otherwise is, at best, misinformed, and at worst is trying to actively harm you through propaganda.
4orange are you slow the current voting system is like.that. States like California have more representatives then states like Georgia it’s stupid and every vote should count
4orange which system the one to make every vote count are the one where every state has different amounts of representatives cause I think we should the second option so the president is wanted by most of the country not just a few large states
Chris Vialls I don't know. Not sure how many conservatives are big college humor fans. He could do a while series on each constitutional amendment and why it sucks. Really get those star spangled banner panties in a wad.
+lancer D Adam covers gerrymandering later on in the episode, and he did mention FPP in passing right here. But yeah, you could write whole episodes on just how corrupt and undemocratic the both of them are.
What I've gotten from this series is that my nations governmental system, social structure, media outlets, and human rights maintenance has been 100% fucked from the moment the DOI was signed, and modern power players make it so almost everyone is unaware. Well shit.
SnakeVenomable ...did you actually watch the video? Everything mentioned in the episode "Adam ruins voting". As well as several other things such as aspects of the second amendment, executive power, immigration policy, etc.
SnakeVenomable Keep in mind we are applying a document written 240 years ago by slave owning rich white men who cared little for democracy to a nation in 2016. We are well overdue for a redrafting.
Honestly, I can't blame the founding fathers for not wanting a direct voting system. If you look at how ignorant the people in the 13 colonies were when it came to politics and forming a government it's easy to see.
Maria Paula Tapia A lot of people in the colonies refused to combine to make a central government. They were also very divided and it was nearly impossible to settle on anything. It's partially why the first declaration failed.
They didn't want a central government because that would basically be the same government that they had before. The point was to share the power. How is that ignorant??
Yeah, you live in a *federal republic* where states are the political organs and people vote IN the states, not in the country itself. That's how it's been since 1776.
In the Netherlands seats granted equal the amount of vote given to the party and this is really easy to calculate you just need a calculator and some one who knows basic math
I'm still baffled why noone has ever challenged the system in front of the supreme court. I mean, with different votes having different weight, that CLEARLY violates the constitution which declares everyone should be equal(ly powerfull)
We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. No wonder the rocket surgeons are calling for an end to the Electoral College. They don't even understand the foundations our style of government was built upon.
The final statement of the video was probably the most important one: "The Founding Fathers didn't think you should be able to vote at all." The US electoral system wasn't built on the idea of "one person over some arbitrary number of years, one vote"; it was built on the idea of "No taxation without representation". So arguments about fairness and voting power miss the point. Every expansion of the franchise has been a compromise. Whether or not the Electoral College system is obsolete depends on the purpose of the system. You may believe it is to have a wide a voter franchise as possible, others don't.
@@bicyclist2 It does have representation, people do vote for the president. There's an argument that without representation in Congress they should have much less if any taxation but there is still representation and influence.
@Skyle Andria Mhm 😂 wow you're so edgy bro I've never ever heard that before. When you have an original thought feel free to come back and grab my attention
yes they are. A republic is a form of government where the head of state (president/prime minister, whatever) is elected by citizens of the nation. And yes, America is being considered as an Oligarchy because of how much money is spent during election season.
Are you an idiot? You sound like an idiot. Yes, you are a democracy, dingbat, because the people are sovereign and they either wield that power directly or choose their representatives. How the state organizes itself is a separate matter.
+ChristheRandomGuyLol We just vote for president directly, i think that system is shit also. i have no idea about politics and so do a lot of people but they still have to vote.... it's stupid really
+Deanna Jackson He's ruining our blissful ignorance and everything we take for granted and filling us with satirical yet true knowledge to better ourselves. In a way, this is the best entertaining educational show on television since Sesame Street.
To be perfectly fair, think about what was going on in the country when the Electoral College was first designed: it was a system designed to better reflect the needs of a group of disparate states that wanted to maintain some notion of bargaining power while consolidating their military/border powers as a young nation. Each small state was just that- a state, with its own government, history, and rules. They wanted as much autonomy from a centralized government as possible, and simple math would reveal that a purely democratic representation within the electoral college would heavily distort the representation of the people in positions of governance in favor of larger states. The founders (with the exception of Hamilton's Federalists) also felt that the center of american civic life was ultimately supposed to be local government, not national politics. The people who could most impact you were your state senators and local councils. There's a arguments to be had about whether local politicians (and not national agencies or bureacracies) hold true power, but the fact remains that Americans have bad participation in national elections and abysmal participation in local elections. TL;DR Chicago is having mayoral/aldermanic/Treasury elections on February 26th, 2019. Please vote
@@Schnoz42069 my own thinking has evolved, and my sense is that our political system evolved to preserve a particular set of class and labor relations. The southerners wanted a vigorous urban scape that could produce the manufactured goods which increasingly characterized modernity, and the north wanted a wealthy south that would participate in northern finance. Both political projects presupposed slavery and an infinite ability to expand westward. However, they were ultimately irreconcilable.
Yes people complain about it so much but the original likely alternative was just not having/not continuing as a larger country and even though that won't can't really happen now if we did do away with it it would probably lead to smaller states feeling more estranged and removed from, resentful to the national government. Giving smaller states a basic minimum level seems not that big or bad a deal.
@Wonder nah, it's a bargain which prevents the creation of a cohesive national identity and predisposes both local and national level politics toward short term political goals rather than long term projects of economic, cultural, or civic betterment. The EC keeps Dems lame and forces Republicans into adopting radioactive reactionary politics.
Did Adam ruin the electoral college? No - he ruined logic. This is such a great example cognitive dissonance. Without the electoral college, 3-4 large cities - heavily democratic since they receive the majority of federal spending - would decide the entire election. The electoral college gives a voice to those who are typically ignored. Furthermore, without an electoral college, politicians would COMPLETELY disregard rural and suburban areas. What would you expect from college humor?
They don't understand why the college exists, or what purpose it actually serves. They're just a bunch of salty children mad they lost the election and desperately blaming anything but their own candidate and voter base.
Anav Sawhney hmm, I didn't notice that, I don't know why youtube would recommend this but whatever. Regardless it doesn't change the point, the college is not broken and does not ruin democracy. There's a reason no one in the world in any semi-large nation uses a popular vote, and it's it's because it's fucking retarded. The problems the electoral college has are that minor and would almost never affect an election, so it doesn't change that this video is absurd.
f556784q3 sorry for being rude then Fwiw, I'm from the largest democracy in the world, and we don't have a popular vote (and I agree it would be stupid) but we don't have a state based system either, we have a system based on far smaller constituencies, which would make perfect sense here too So the system is definitely broken, but I agree that it shouldn't just be abolished outright
Well, considering how George Bush won in 2004 with both the popular and electoral vote, I'm going to go with no. Besides, as CGP Grey pointed out, even the top 10 largest cities in the country don't even make up 1/5 of our population.
The Electoral College has nothing to do with the USA being a democracy or a republic or whatever else you want to label the USA. The "founding fathers" were terrorist slavers. They wrote the Electoral College to give themselves, and other terrorists, a welfare benefit. That's all the EC is, "free stuff" for terrorists. The EC also benefits states which suppress voting.
As a German, it is so weird for me to see how many people here spout: "We're a republic, not a democracy!" Are you actually that politically illiterate? Republic is a collective term for any non-monarchy! Almost every kind of democracy (except strange cases like elective monarchy) is a republic! You don't have an absolute ruler? Great, you're a republic. You vote for rulers, representatives or even direct political decisions? Great, you're also a democracy.
Seriously, this show needs to be spread out to more then just the channel and TruTV. We could actually change the world with Adam Ruins Everything. His witty delivery and excellent sources make it so easy to learn.
+wright96d the black lives matter protest is ruining entire cities and causing unneeded violence. people know that black lives matter, but the protesters use it as an excuse to do what ever they want.
Everyone, repeat after me: America is a Republic, not a Democracy! Our founding father never intended for any of the common man's vote to hold very much weight. You vote for representatives to make your decisions, which includes the electoral college. That is how it has always been in our country. People act like our votes not mattering is a recent discovery. Congrats then, you finally are realizing what our founding fathers intended
That makes no sense. We are already voting for a representative to make our decisions: the president. Why do we need an intermediary representative to pick another representative?
+jjohnsonnccc It really pisses me off when Republicans say that we're a democracy, because as the name implies, Republicans don't believe/like the idea of a perfect democracy. Democrats saying it is a little better just cause of the name but eh they still kinda don't have the legitimacy to say it either.
+x0acake Mostly it's because there are 330+ million people in this country and to accurately count that many vote would take months. Not to mention the possibility of missing ballots, ballots going towards the wrong candidate, etc. etc. So that regard, today the electoral college has some meaning to us, but honestly it's kinda fucked up that in a few states the presidential vote doesn't even fucking matter. Which is ironic, seeing as we're constantly telling every other non-democratic/republic nation that the vote makes us better.
+x0acake That is not the job of the President. The job of the President is to ensure that the laws are followed. It is the job of Congress to enact laws.
Just sit back and try to process mathematically how many people 20% of the population is. That's a large amount of people that all of the sudden shouldn't matter because their votes can change.
Mob rule, that's what you want. Aka the very thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid. Also America is a Constitutional Representitive Republic. In a Mob Rule system the Minorities are screwed, majority always win. By minority I am speaking of Ideological minorities not racial, cultural or religious demographics. The founding fathers were historically educated and feared the Mob Rule threat as it leads to tyranny and monarchy. Electoral college was a compromise to prevent this threat. Furthermore the main "issue" still applies to Mob rule. That meaning that California and cities have the swaying power, hence limiting or downright removing the impact small states or counties may have. Lastly it creates an echo chamber, as to win you'll need to focus on the needs of the cities and populated areas, not the needs or wants of Iowa farmers for example. So you usurp a defense, welcome the needless threat that comes with mob rule while keeping the original issue. Only difference is the issues is now applied to a heavily democratic regions.
No I didn't get fucked, I voted for trump. My entire Puerto Rican family vote for trump. Because contrary to what your racist outlook may be, we aren't victims. We aren't oppressed without a voice and we don't need, want or desire white regressive left charging in like white knights on a Pegasus wielding the spear of social justice to save us. And yes, I find the notion that I am either stupid for voting the way 35% of my people did, or the concept I am inherently a victim because of my race to be racist. So I 100% disagree with you. Also in 250+ years this has only happen twice. So two "errors" or "screw ups" in your opinion over a 250 year period= Broken so dismantle the republic. And incorrect we are not a mob rule democracy, we are a representative republic, to be precise a Constitutional representative republic. So you're welcome, we are the reason you lost the election. Also while I think Hillary will win the popular vote, in the end not all votes have been counted, you're missing 6% so it can shift either way still. Hence why unlike you, I am waiting for the full result before I spew forth propaganda.
***** Man you are a drama queen. "America's Death Warrant." This mentality discloses your extreme bias. As such I will take nothing you say seriously. No more than I do the folks who believe aliens are coming to rapture a select few. The rambling incoherent mess of a mad zealot. Also your claims of Racism after months of research are invalid. I know as a Racist you think all Hispanics are Mexican, that all illegals are Mexicans and all mexicans are illegal. But your absolution are false. How do I know this? Because "Build a wall" = Prejudice against Mexicans. Which can only apply if A) Illegals were a race, or B) you think all Mexicans/Hispanics are illegal.
+The Dark Weapon just because you can't understand something, does not mean that it is jibberish. It just shows either illiteracy or stupidity on your part. Maybe try a dictionary. It will help with the big words.
My Cuban, Navajo, Scottish, German, French mix family voted Trump! My wife, being full blooded Navajo sees how the Democrat party is leading everyone down a dark and dirty road and cant understand how so many people are so blinded and excepting of such criminal behavior as seen with career politicians... Democrat or Republican! The change has to come from a political outsider! This video is all "Hogwash"!!!
A summary of all the comments: Everyone: I want to make it clear that I know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Also, I missed the underlying point of the video.
The point of this video is so Adam Conover can make himself look foolish by displaying a complete lack of knowledge about the US government or how Presidential campaigns are ran.
D Smith Nice. "...Complete lack of knowledge about the U.S. government..." And you can completely establish that by this video how? "...how Presidential campaigns are ran." Again, HOW? The candidates should appeal to EVERYONE, not just as majority of states collectively. You know what, never mind. I bet you thought the EC was an undermine of our rights, before this JOKE of an election, but now...
The underlining point was to inform people how the electoral college works. And to make people realize that if we are to have a true democracy, the electoral college needs to go.
Fortunately, the Founders knew better than to set up a true democracy because it is prone to degenerating into mob rule. Note how one party (Democrat) has control over many of the largest population centers in the U.S. and has been in control for decades. All but a very few have huge numbers of welfare recipients, outrageous jobless numbers and are on the verge of bankruptcy. What are the odds that every vote caste in a precinct would be for one person, much less dozens of precincts with hundreds of thousands of votes in a city? Not to mention precincts with more votes counted than their were people on the voter rolls . . .oooops.
lol for some reason most people think those who hate the electoral college simply don't understand it. even though a lot of us hate it and DO understand the purpose.
Our system gives a voice to smaller states. If we had a full democracy then a politician can just campaign in big states and cities and ignore the needs of the little man.
@@quantumpuddles7591 That is incredibly wrong, and is already happening since the campaigns only go to swing states and nowhere else. Our current system already ignores the little man, being anyone who's not a swing state.
@@benvaughn7482 That's a good point, but take into consideration the different canedates that run in a party. They need to be the winner of their party and that requires many state approvals. So they have to advicate for every state to win their spot as the Democrat or Republican candate. As well as swing states change so they need to suit a lot more states. You also don't want to loose a safe state by ignoring them or ruining their state. No matter how left or right leaning they might be, they might vote for the other side as we saw with the Steel Belt in the recent presidential election.
I never realized it was "winner takes all" for votes in a state. Why even splitup the votes in the first place if you aren't going to take into account the approximate proportions of votes?
Fun fact: In 2006's "Man of the Year" Robin Williams's character is only on the ballot in 13 states, but wins all of them. Tallying the votes of the states he is shown to win in the film, plus the states with the highest number of electoral votes, by the electoral map for 2004-2008, it is entirely possible to be elected president by only 26% of the country. And that's without taking into account the fact that there would be people voting for opposing candidates.
In arizona, the swing state thing is pretty much just Martha McSally and Kirsten Sinema screaming at each other for 6 months until one of them is ripping out the others throat in an ad. Or on live television. Then they both win and somebody up above does backflips trying to get McSally to have all the power while someone else does flips trying to get Sinema to go more liberal than Twitter. Then you have me, a weakling in his early teens who cant vote, yet is the only one bombarded with campaign ads.
Nowadays, we have the technology to just handle voting electronically and count each vote individually with almost 100% accuracy. Why even bother doing it state by state at this point?
+Starlight Witch Part of it is a compromise to balance the power of larger and smaller states and part because those who are elected depend on the system being broken to get elected. Balancing power is the same reason why every state has 2 senators but house members depend on the population. Winner take all needs to go and electoral votes should be made automatically based on the states popular vote instead of having a person who can vote against what the people voted for.
+Starlight Witch Actually even that's broken most of the machines are horribly outdated which leads to all kinds of shenanigans. The daily show had a segment on it and it showed they had to buy parts off of ebay to keep their machines even functioning.
+Starlight Witch Because it's more secure to actually have older voting methods, the newer the machine, the easier it is to hack and alter. Also because congress will never nationalize voting machine standards and pass enough money to the states to do so in the first place.
A direct election is too dangerous, but a indirect election by some selected politicians is too elitist. The Electoral College is perfect: It's got only the worst aspects of both systems.
The minority would have no power. So, let’s say for example, a religious majority decides that another group with fewer members should be executed, since they have the majority, the smaller group has no way to defend themselves.
We had a similar problem, in the UK, with general elections being decided in marginal seats, which can be won by more than one party. If you live in a safe seat, it is a waste of time voting.
+Adrian Fahrenheit It's ancient, common and often discussed knowledge. I know it and I'm not even american. This is like discovery making a video on lions and you saying "national geographic made a video about this first"
lusteraliaszero It clearly isn't if a lot of people still get surprised by learning this, both americans and non-americans, also, you're misinterpreting the point of my comment, and the example you provided with the lion just to mock me can't be applied to this situation. Go act like a smartarse somewhere else.
You know, I said that the electoral collage doesn’t make sense to my social studies teacher. He just stammered through saying that the founding fathers made this well enough and how it made sense back then, and it was obvious he had no idea.
It does make sense when you realize the electoral college was meant to give power to slave states (because blacks and slaves were not counted as people, so they had technically smaller populations compared to the north/free states) and the reason for this was because 95% of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the electoral college were active slave holders and or slavers themselves.
@@mckenzie.latham91 Not even close to true. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of the population, but that doesn’t matter in this. Founding fathers created a republic because it was believed that the people, state, and federal government will check each other.
@@Slippy-Toad-Love 3/5 of a person, not the population and that is still not being counted as a person that’s being counted as lesser than a real person they were treated, sold and valued in worth the same as regular livestock and furniture the founding fathers were a bunch of racist, elite land holders, slave masters, lawyers and the societies most elite who decided they were tried of paying taxes to England (that english tax and economic records show that most of the 13 colones refused to pay and or never was even collected anyway) and decided to found their own system where they would rule as the elites and top brass which they did. Again there are plenty of historical republics that didn’t have anything like the electoral college the electoral college especially was written to benefit slave states which many historians have born out and proven and the majority of the founding fathers historically were slave holders and salve masters who for some reason accidentally left slavery and black people out of the constitution and all those rights and freedom bullshit.
@@mckenzie.latham91 That is not the reason the electoral college exists. The 3/5s concept didn't even exist until well after the process was installed, and that was done solely to PREVENT slave owning states from having slave owners proxy vote for all their slaves. The electoral college exists because the popular votes elect the representatives and the states elect the president.
@@Slippy-Toad-Love Not even close to true. the electoral college was meant to give power to slave states by granting them more electoral college votes but still preventing slaves from voting.
The reason why we have electoral college is because back then, people were mainly farmers and laborers with no standing middle class. And because of that, no one was educated because there was no public schools, so the founding fathers essentially made the electoral college to make people with political and just common knowledge have the ability to vote.
Yes, the electoral college circumvents pure democracy to an extent. But it was designed that way by the founding fathers. They never wanted, nor did they ever claim to have created, a purely democratic nation. They firmly believed that pure democracies didn't work because they would ultimately lead to the systematic oppression of minorities or "mod rule." This is why the constitution trumps (no pun intended) the will of the people, it's why every state has two senators regardless of population, it's why we have three branches of government, and it's why we have an electoral college. If elections were based purely on a simple popular vote, the main population centers such as New York and Los Angeles would decide the outcome every single time, while the rest of the country would go completely ignored by the very politicians meant to represent them. The electoral college isn't good for democracy, it's good for the REPUBLIC the founding fathers gave us.
What do you think the combined population of New York and LA is for them to be able to overcome the national vote? There are not many population centers like that and their combined population could certainly not decide the election. I mean LA cannot even decide the outcome of statewide elections in California so it is hard to convince people that they will suddenly be able to overcome the nation. 4 of the last 7 CA Governors did not win LA.
theuglykwan that's why I said "such as," obviously those two cities alone couldn't decide the outcome of a single election. But around half of America's population resides in population centers, while the other half is spread throughout the rest of the country.
Ry What is your defintion of population center that you can arrive at this half figure? NYC has a population of about 8M while LA is under 4. According to official census data the % of americans residing in metropolitan areas with above 50k population is 71.2%. So i want to know what kind of criteria you are using as i notice that once figures come into play this type of argument is hard to sustain.
+CollegeHumor back when the Constitution was written most people weren't educated enough to make good decisions on president. That's why the electoral college was produced. And the whole point is that if people don't like the elector they vote them out. The real reason the election system doesn't work anymore is 1)People not voting and 2)People who vote for the same person every year (and term limits)
I disagree. When the Constitution was written, people were much more educated in their government and civic participation than now. People can't, don't, or won't make informed decisions today, with more technology available to learn about candidates. The reason our system doesn't work is that it is predicated not on an actual majority vote, but on the most votes (in most jurisdictions), which means that if the vote is split 40-35-25 percent, then 60% of the people were against the winning candidate. We need to have a serious discussion in America about exploring other voting systems that ensure a candidate wins with a majority of support, and we need to set minimum thresholds for winning (personally, I favor 55%). It would also help if our government were pared down to the size it was in 1799, when it was more lean and easily understood. Our problems are both the system and the people; the people will not change, but the system can be remedied.
While I agree with most of what Cameron said, I disagree that the average person was more educated about their government back then, or at the very least their politicians. Mudslinging political opponents based on lies and slander was much easier back then, as more people would believe it and it was harder to fact check even the most blatant inaccuracies. But yeah, our voting system needs a change, as does the size, control, and sheer number of laws we have.
You'd be wrong. Literacy was exceptionally high, and there were more copies of Blackwell's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in the colonies than in England itself. People were often in court with one another, and republicanism was a cultural fascination. Pamphlets like Thomas Payne's abounded so much that it was part of courtship to present pamphlets. So yes, people were much more educated in how government worked and valued participation. For further proof, look at the printing industry and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, which were popularly read. People then were much more active in the government, especially since it was much easier to understand. And even further proof can be found in Alexis de Tocqueville's writings, where he is astounded at the political literacy of the average American, even in the frontier. We have, quite honestly, lost the essence of our Republic because we have lost the character necessary to maintain it.
Cameron Olson I'm not sure if you were talking to me or the OP. Either way, I don't think either side is wrong, but more than we're measuring different things. Literacy being high is a bit tenuous. What are we comparing it to? England back then? Then the colonies and England were even at 60%. Compared to now? No, we're near 100%. As for courts, I'd say the same thing about today. As for Republicanism, I'd say the same as well except for Americanism. (Which I would agree with you here, people would rather adhere to Americanism than understand Republicanism, and thus are less educated.) Why were there more copies of Blackwell's book in the colonies? Well, Redcoat presence was high and it's a common misconception that most people were for the Revolution. It was roughly 30% for, 30% against, and 30% neutral. The reasons for that book being so popular in the colonies could be numerous, from England wanting to foist those laws on the colonies (from what I understand, it was both a layman explanation of England law and a subtle explanation of why England law was the way things should be,) to people wishing to understand if they really wanted independence. Admittedly, I could be speaking nonsense, but I think a better comparison would be the amount of total books from different angles and viewpoints of governance, and not just the one about English law written specifically for the common man. Meanwhile, the history of mudslinging really took off all the way back in 1796. The federalist and anti-federalist papers you mentioned? Some where fine, I'm sure. Others were more like Alexander Hamilton's Phocion persona, were he wrote, printed, and spread pamphlets with both truthful and made up claims about Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's supporters responded in kind, mudslinging through anti-federalist papers right back at him. This precedent continued throughout the states. Politicians were accused of sexing up their slaves, being atheists, being cannibals, executing soldiers, and so on even attacking their appearance (and by that I mean making more things up.) There supporters described as ragged thieves, These papers were immensely popular, sure, but they were also filled with misinformation more along the lines of tabloid gossip than actual political discussion. And you touched on why it would be a bit easier to understand the political system. Back then, it just wasn't as hard to understand. You had your Constitution and your local laws. Nowadays, law and politics is much more complicated. There are far much more laws on the books, many more federal agencies, more foreign powers to keep track of, more major politicians and offices and initiatives and parties. We understand more about politics than ever before, but that which we understand makes up less than has ever been. It's not so much that people today are uneducated, or have lost the spirit we had back then. It's just that times have changed. More people now are educated about more parts of the government and how it works, (heck, we learn a lot of this in public school,) but the government and the history of the U.S. is so much more complex now than it was back then. (Granted, tabloids are just as popular but don't involve politics, so maybe you're on to something.)
man, you guys really know your stuff! i dont know what youre saying exactly, one of you was way too longwinded for this medium, but impressive nonethless!
Dosen’t the majority of the vote in a state wins the whole thing? Etc:51% and 49%, the 51% party takes the electoral vote right? So how does it differ?
That's an over-simplification. You typically end up (for purely argument sake) with something more like 2% Green, 3% Libertarian, 1% independent, 46% Democrat, 48% Republican. You then have a Republican being represented when LESS than 50% of the people voted that way. That's not representative of "the majority" of the people. It's just representative of "more than the next one". And this is where democracy fails. Take Stephen Harpers Conservative party during the 2006 Canadian election - they only had 40% of the actual parliament seats, and there were many seats which they didn't win by large margins, either, so now you're talking about governments who don't even REMOTELY represent the vast majority of the people.
Because it's winner take all of the state electoral votes. If a state has 10 electoral votes then with a 51% and 49% split in popular vote, the party that got 51% will get all 10 electoral votes, even though roughly half the state voted against them. Realistically it should be 5 electoral votes to party one and 5 to party two since that accurately reflects the will of the voters in that state. The way it is now, if your party loses the popular vote in your state, your vote LITERALLY did not matter.
@Gabriel Mayorga what would be wrong with that? One person= One vote. Aren't we equals? Shouldn't our votes be just as equal as that? What does someone from Rhode Island know about the life in a big city? The states themselves have enough power and representation through the Senate alone, not to mention their ability to redraw the congressional district map every ten years. The question of who is going to be president should be decided by all of us. We are one. We should be treated as one, don't you think so?
The other problem with the U.S. voting system is first past the post. Basically it means whoever has the largest share of the votes wins, even if that party only had 30% of the votes. Which is stupid. For one, it doesn’t represent the majority of people and secondly, it will kill off any chance of more than two successful parties. So no one votes for who they want, they vote for someone who will be more likely to win over a party you don’t like.
+Niiiiiiiiiiko The only true democracy was the founding one in Greece. What our countries use is "Representative Democracy." You see, when the ancient Greeks first founded the concept of democracy, it was originally designed so the commoner could walk into a government meeting, give their opinion, and then vote on a topic. The American colonies also used this system in the form of Town Hall meetings But as the world population grew that system became more and more difficult, as more people were demanding representation then the Town Halls could hold. Enter Representative Democracy! In order to accommodate for the large population, many countries (The United States and United Kingdom in particular) sectioned off the land into districts, where each district would have a representative to speak on their behalf, which is why you hear the phrase "write to your congressman." However, that means the one representative has full power and can simply ignore the people they are representing and focus on their own interests, which has lead to years of corruption within global governments. Oh no, my hair is turning into a pompadour.
+DrScaphandre You forgot about the fact that a lot of people in ancient Greece were not allowed to vote, like the commonner you just mentioned. Also, the idea for representative democracy is that there is always someone from a certain region in parliament so that every region will be represented. If a region had no representatives, well, that'd be bad.
Like a conservative in Los Angeles. You should be friends. Seriously your vote still counts and here's why. Even winning politicians make notice of all the demographics of voters. Even voters on the losing side. So if a voting precint was liberal but the the conservative vote just lost by a few percentage points... it could really help your demographic in the future. One, the winning politician has to pay attention to you and two, it might create a new candidate to run knowing there are more conservatives in the area than realized. Always vote.
Recent comments to this video ignores the millions of people in NY and CA who would have voted for Trump but didn't bother because they knew their votes were waisted. It goes both ways
+Justin Kir Every method has got his flaws. it is impossible to design a method that completely forces strong people to keep their business within the community and protect weak people from their own poor decisions. The concept of democracy works around this simple concept. Beside this... i noticed Sam Smith modified his comment, and i didn't saw it before modification, but "Recent comment to this video" clearly implies he's not talking about the old comments or the video itself.
*on behalf of myself and no one else. Some Libertarian: "NO! We are a constitutional republic! Ragh" 🤣 either way, your point is moot because the electoral college is neither democratic or republican
I did, and let out a sigh of relief when I saw North Carolina wasn't one of them. Then I looked again and nearly flipped my shit when I saw that New motherfucking York IS one of them. That means that a state with one of the largest populations essentially hands the vote over to some asshole who can, without blinking an eye, completely disregard the voice and voting rights of some millions of people if he doesn't like the candidate they ultimately decided on. ... Now I wonder why the fuck candidates even bother blowing so much money on campaigning when so many voting citizens are liable to be ignored regardless of who they vote for.
And one of those swing states he mentioned, Pennsylvania, was also on the list😓 So in a worst case scenario, a candidate could win just by paying attention to two states plus one guy with a spot on the electoral college.
This show is probably one of the best things to come out of this channel in a long time. It's been pretty enjoyable on TV. Too bad this channel hasn't had anything interesting itself in a long time.
So to have that pure proprtionality a really small state should have less than one representative/elector, maybe just .7 of an elector (that couldn't even practically be done), or on the other hand we should increase the number of representatives to at least over 1,000?
"The fact that the election is decided by a handful of states is pretty messed up"...take away the electoral college and it'll be decided by a few states.
Even though Adam's right the electoral college was made to give the same amount of power to small states as large states so that Texas , New York , and California don't choose the president by themselves with no other states with a say so. Buts it's pretty bad a this.
@@masterofdisguise9564 local elections, sure. The President was never supposed to be this powerful. But even then, they're Presiding over the federal government, the same federal government that split in 2 once. It's a union of smaller governments, where decisions more important to your life occur. At the federal level, the states need reason to believe their interests will be maintained and represented. In a direct democracy, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Wyoming's small populations would be glossed over and those states' interests would fall to the more "important" ones, so they'd secede. The system is more fragile than people realize. Also, even senators used to be appointed. The fact that they were directly elected is a more recent addition. Direct democracy has many drawbacks that have been expounded upon throughout the history of political theory
Brad Davies Someone loses presidency even though he/she won the majority of the people's vote? That should seem sketchy for everyone regardless of political status. Stop trying to defend that out-dated, faulty system.
EsoEsRacista I disagree with our assessment and your edict as childlike and sophomoric. The Constitution is not out-dated, it is not perfect, but it works. Why should I take orders from any individual that believes in Darwinism and communism? I shall opine at my leisure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable preaching to the choir so that you do not melt my dearest snowflake.
Walter I do not take kindly to people telling me what to do when they really did not state why my opinion was wrong. Stop defending people such as him/her.
and it also allowed you to win with less than 50% of the popular vote. You can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote. And this has happened before. This has a 5% chance of happening with current statistics. If someone wanted to put a nuke right beside your house with a 5% chance of going off ever 4 years would you let them? No.
+Romeball We do not live in a democracy, we live in a federal republic. It was never intended to have a lot to do with the popular vote. if it were, electoral delegates would equal the number of representatives in the house of representatives. It does not. it is representatives plus senators. this is because it was intended to treat states like semi-soverign bodies, and see to it that small states are not ignored. I would also like to point out that just because a majority of people vote for someone does not mean that that person is the best suited for the office.
this is part of the system so that larger states in population dont overpower the smaller states in population. a similar measure was added to congress and is part of how the split congress was formed. a senate where each state has 2 senators and a house where the representation by state varies to its population. each house has a check on the other. a skewed electorate balances the less powerful states in population with the more powerful states in population so that the vote is not just determined by the population centers but is a representation of the varied population.
The electoral college (and much of our political system) is based on balancing the rights of the few against the rights of the many. In this case our Senate (and electoral college) are based on the idea that the states are sovereign entities. Individual states have different interests andit is therefore unfair for the federal government to be based on the votes solely of the majority - as that would tend to benefit the interests of the large states at the expense of the small. We tend to get offended by this because we tend to think "majority wins" is the most "fair" outcome, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the smaller states tend to be more rural and traditional religiously conservative so instead of seeing these mechanisms as ways to protect the interests of small states against those of large states we see them as imposing the will of the majority on the minority. I guess the way you see it depends on whether you see a state as a unit of our republic that is worthy of having representation in our government independent of how many people it contains.
Here is the thing, the Electoral College was written by the founding fathers at a time when there wasn't much of an incentive for a small state to participate in the union when their larger neighbor states had more population and wealth. This act was to convince them that joining the union meant they also would have a voice. I mean from the looks of it, seems Adam, a College Humor hipster knows better than the founding fathers who actually thought about this conundrum. Here is the thing, if I was a politician and it was one person one vote. I would never even need to go to the small state or even make any promises to their state for their vote. Let say 40 years past and all the politicians do the same thing. What is to prevent the neglected states to secede from the union?
His hair.. It's growing
+deathpresent101 Woah, really? i didnt know hair did that!
+ljr2530 ikr
lol
+deathpresent101 Cheaper than Elevator shoes?!
+deathpresent101 He gains power from people's disappointment of the world, and that power gets channeled into his hair-strains.
As someone from Ohio, we just really like corn. Corn is pretty much our only business.
Common down,
Try some try some corn,
Or we will sacrifice your newborn
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What about Amazon and bernie ass Sanders. Bernie sucks in ohio. TBH, Ohio is a coal and steel industry state
Neat.
Hello almighty GabeN
@@rexythet.rexfromjpreadabou186 slime
“And whatever you people like in Ohio”
Me:”I like the fact we have no actual weather patterns.”
*laughs in Texas*
*laughs in britian*
**laughs at myself**
We also very much enjoy living in a cornfield the size of Ohio
This comment became more true in 2020
These videos are so accurate and informative. Except for the part at the end where the person who’s blatantly wrong admits it and changes their opinion
"People in Ohio like Lebron James."
"Who? I don't know many actors."
Story of my life.
yee
+Zex Eios ohio represent
It's supposed to be ironic. The point is people know more about sports players than they do about the actual state......
Ha
+Zex Eios yeeee
Just so all of you are aware, the presidency doesn't really matter that much. Your representatives in the house and senate matter way more.
PREACH!
Its kinda the reason we have 3 branches
Carrots The most of what the president has that congress can't is foreign policy. Even though congress has more power, the executive branch has much fewer people who have more individual power than the members of congress.
It just depends on how you look at it.
just so you are awarePresident Obama appointed over 300 federal judges who will be on the bench for the next 30 yearsthat's why the president is important and why you have to vote for one of the two major parties they are the only two that can when the white house and appoint federal judgess
I live in Cleveland, and I can tell you...Ohioans don't really like anything. We're too bitter and defeated by our shit weather to feel anymore.
that and our sports curse. This might be the year for the Cavs... maby, possibly, eventually...
+lugialover09 On behalf of Michiganians, I apologize for the shit weather our lakes have given you.
Eric By Definition Our lakes? Excuse you, we essentially own Erie...although we're not particularly proud of it.
+lugialover09 41.5% of area within Michigan's borders is water, compared to Ohio's 8.8%. Yes, our lakes, or as I like to think of them: the reason our upper peninsula is virtually uninhabitable for half the year. "Our shit weather". Oh, please.
+lugialover09 We have Cedar Point. That's pretty much it.
Adam: Who? I don’t know many actors.
Space jam 2: Hey, that’s a good idea!
Adam doesn't know much of anything. This video is proof of his ignorance and laziness.
@@dsmith9964 *you say without giving a single example or counter argument*
@@drywall1873 What are you trying to say? The evidence is pretty clear that this fool doesn't know what he is talking about!
For example, the US is NOT a democracy, it is Constitutional federal republic. Secondly, this clown seems to think that the office of the President of the United STATES is a direct representative of the people and thus ought to be directly elected by the people. In fact, the primary constituents of the federal government are the STATES, not the people. Therefore, the STATES elect the offices of the President and the Vice President via the electoral college.
Its looks like Adam slept through seventh grade Civics and Government class.
@D Smith
Amazing, everything single thing you said was wrong. But seeing as these talking points are coming from a repugnant republican inbred chud, I am not supposed.
Pro tip Cleetus, if you are going to claim people don’t know things, get your facts right, and also use proper grammar.
~Notifications are off good luck replying~
Not gonna lie, I lost it. I know it was long before Space Jam 2, and that's what made the joke even funnier.
That whole "exciting" idea is too true. The whole election is an entertainment marathon.
Also, the electors are there to make sure that someone who manages to fool the American people can't fool the electors. Just hope the electors stay politically informed.
I think most states now have laws against electors changing their vote now.
Yes the "electors" can vote for whoever they want but they only vote against their states popular choice in rare circumstances. Plus, we learned this year that when there were recounts held in numerous states, it actually added more votes for trump. Without electoral college, we could have a president who wins by a close margin and then recounts change the outcome. That would be senseless, the president would not have enough time to prepare for his/her presidency.
+Joseph Paulo
That might well be true but vote numbers might also be quite different due to different voting behaviour as well as campaigning behaviour depending on how the system changes.
If it was move to proportional allocation but retained the electoral college and the 270 rule was retained it would just be kicked to the House more often. That would lead to perpetual Republican victories at the moment. Furthermore, the legitimacy would be questioned even more given the vote would essentially have been pointless and they could have skipped that step.
Also, if there was popular vote than this year's popular vote count would have changed drastically. Neither candidate touched California, Texas or other set states. If it were popular vote then politicians would try to appeal to big cities.
I'm starting to wonder if Adam is secretly Deadpool, this guy is breaking the 4th wall every minute.
Probably one of his relatives.
+Rafael Lopez actually dead pools powers origin is from a military attempt at making a super soldier not a blood line
+Karlis Berzins Tis but a joke
Perhaps it's related to his cancer, affected his reproductive system, and caused it to become heritable? Implausible but not impossible.
+JohnisYoung It's not breaking the fourth wall if the video is addressed to us. If we were made to believe what we were seeing was real, THEN it would be breaking the fourth wall.
Besides, Deadpool wasn't the first, nor was he the last to do so. Uatu the Watcher would be a better character to use in this situation.
People in Ohio like Lebron James
Who? I don’t know many actors
This had me ded
The_Encrypted_Key . That was a joke aimed at whites.
**dead*
Hi guys Lebron is acting space jam 2 and was in a commercial called the Christmas SPRITE CRANBERRY
Ice King I know that Lebron isn’t an actor but he is not just a person he is a basketball player
Oh yeah he retired right
"My argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter"
- Winston Churchill
4orange the thing about indians? yes he did. Dude was a massive racist who was cool w hitler and nazism until it threatened britain.
4orange Hostile for no reason sheesh.
That’s why the U.S. is a republic. A pure democracy would be ruled by a mob.
I'd object to your misanthropy but honestly your face poses a strong argument for it
Amram The Comrade: Comrade Stalin was no racist. Churchill remained dedicated to protecting his supreme role over indians and viewed it as a victory for anglo race and his abuse of the irish ppl knew no bounds.
Adam ruins everything with his giant pompadour
lmao
+Austin Delgado That's how he makes everything all right in the end. Dat Pompadour.
+Austin Delgado Looking like Caesar Flickerman but the bun migrated north.
What if it was a toupe?
+Soarel the Hobbit HA XD
I'm in Ohio. I like when people visit and realize it's not entirely farmland hillbillies.
just mostly.
nah its mostly hibilees
+MrDarragh123456789 how can it be farmland if our weather is really wird
+Eyespelegud there's the lake area, most people seem to forget about the ocean sized lake apparently
They mostly come out at night, mostly...
Its a joke relax
Friendly reminder to VOTE ANYWAY. ESPECIALLY FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS! Don't just give up because you think it's hopeless. It's not half as hopeless as certain people want you to believe.
Edit: People are showing up to naysay again. It's pretty simple people. You can either vote and make it more likely the person you want is in office, or sit on your ass and help out whoever you hate the most. You should also do other stuff- donations, campaigning, being active in your local community, encouraging others to vote too, but you can at ***least*** do the absolute minimum and vote. Anyone who tells you to do otherwise is, at best, misinformed, and at worst is trying to actively harm you through propaganda.
Speak up, I think some idiots in the back can't hear you
It still helps to promote change in your states rather than giving in to hopelessness.
The only reason it stays this bad is because people don't vote for people to change it
@@Tombstone_Active One of the biggest sources of voter apathy is Russian propaganda. Don't believe Russian propaganda. Vote.
Or you could just kill the politicians you don't think represent you well and damage your life
If this came out after the elections, I'd almost think Adam had something in mind...
But, it was made in 2015, so that is not the caee
Starman Gaming Hilary would have won by popular vote but Trump still won not saying I like either but still
4orange well it’s a democratic republic
4orange I know but it would be more fair for popular vote to be a thing
4orange are you slow the current voting system is like.that. States like California have more representatives then states like Georgia it’s stupid and every vote should count
4orange which system the one to make every vote count are the one where every state has different amounts of representatives cause I think we should the second option so the president is wanted by most of the country not just a few large states
So... we're not even going to touch gerrymandering or first-past-the-post voting?
+lancer D Maybe that's going to be saved for the "why the founding fathers set up our country wrong" episode.
FloridatedH2O That would be a pretty big episode, what with that whole slavery thing.
Chris Vialls I don't know. Not sure how many conservatives are big college humor fans. He could do a while series on each constitutional amendment and why it sucks. Really get those star spangled banner panties in a wad.
+lancer D Adam covers gerrymandering later on in the episode, and he did mention FPP in passing right here. But yeah, you could write whole episodes on just how corrupt and undemocratic the both of them are.
+lancer D Watch the full episode
What I've gotten from this series is that my nations governmental system, social structure, media outlets, and human rights maintenance has been 100% fucked from the moment the DOI was signed, and modern power players make it so almost everyone is unaware. Well shit.
Pretty much, yeah.
You also forgot national security in that list. Thats broken too.
+Nathan Boody I like how America prides itself on having the oldest constitution in the world as if that's a good thing.
+SnakeVenomable Funny way of showing it. That wasn't my point. My point is that many of the policies in the constitution are outdated.
SnakeVenomable ...did you actually watch the video? Everything mentioned in the episode "Adam ruins voting". As well as several other things such as aspects of the second amendment, executive power, immigration policy, etc.
SnakeVenomable Keep in mind we are applying a document written 240 years ago by slave owning rich white men who cared little for democracy to a nation in 2016. We are well overdue for a redrafting.
Such a shame this show isn't available in my country or on any of the streaming services. I would love to be able to watch full episodes.
vpn
nord vpn
Have you ever heard of surf shark VPN it’s the only-
i mean this show is mostly focused on america
It was on an Australian free player, you can use a VPN. Think season 1 was on Netflix usa at one point as well
I’m here early, because God knows this comment section is gonna be FLOODED after the 2020 election.
Good call
your comment is still here
Nop just ohio old memes
It was alright
Honestly, I can't blame the founding fathers for not wanting a direct voting system. If you look at how ignorant the people in the 13 colonies were when it came to politics and forming a government it's easy to see.
I don't think we're much smarter today
that was then, and this is now. much how I hate saying this just gun laws need changing so does our voting laws and how we go about them
What do you mean by ignorant?
Maria Paula Tapia A lot of people in the colonies refused to combine to make a central government. They were also very divided and it was nearly impossible to settle on anything. It's partially why the first declaration failed.
They didn't want a central government because that would basically be the same government that they had before. The point was to share the power. How is that ignorant??
"I love barbeque, Blake Shelton, and abortions y'all" 😂🤣
Timothy Dolese glad they made them equal and didn’t have one look better than the other
🤠
except we dont live in a democracy
Yeah, you live in a *federal republic* where states are the political organs and people vote IN the states, not in the country itself. That's how it's been since 1776.
Kilves X exactly, the us isnt a country its a group of countries untied
No we weren't...............
Btw, we're a Constitutional Representative Republic.
We're a constitutional Representative Democracy. Or Republic Democracy.
But technically we're not a democracy at all.
In the Netherlands seats granted equal the amount of vote given to the party and this is really easy to calculate you just need a calculator and some one who knows basic math
Is that Cory Matthews mother? Boy Meets World.
+Alexander Beltzer-Sweny yes! :)
+Alexander Beltzer-Sweny Thats where I recognized her from!! it was driving me crazy xD
+Alexander Beltzer-Sweny omg yes! xD
+Alexander Beltzer-Sweny Betsy Randle
yes
I'm happy to see this was made before the election
A Certain Gamer a year before the election.
true, and look what happened.
I'm still baffled why noone has ever challenged the system in front of the supreme court. I mean, with different votes having different weight, that CLEARLY violates the constitution which declares everyone should be equal(ly powerfull)
Jukantos it violates the one person, one vote rule, so it is very undemocratic.
We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. No wonder the rocket surgeons are calling for an end to the Electoral College. They don't even understand the foundations our style of government was built upon.
The final statement of the video was probably the most important one: "The Founding Fathers didn't think you should be able to vote at all." The US electoral system wasn't built on the idea of "one person over some arbitrary number of years, one vote"; it was built on the idea of "No taxation without representation". So arguments about fairness and voting power miss the point. Every expansion of the franchise has been a compromise. Whether or not the Electoral College system is obsolete depends on the purpose of the system. You may believe it is to have a wide a voter franchise as possible, others don't.
Washington D.C. has Taxation without any representation. It's on there license plate.
@@bicyclist2 It does have representation, people do vote for the president. There's an argument that without representation in Congress they should have much less if any taxation but there is still representation and influence.
“ I love barbecue, Blake Shelton and abortion y’all.” DOG 😂😂😂
Alex Merrill this is beautiful. Beautiful.
puppy
@Skyle Andria Mhm 😂 wow you're so edgy bro I've never ever heard that before. When you have an original thought feel free to come back and grab my attention
Too bad we AREN'T a democracy!
uuuuuuuuuuhm... bro?
Yes, they are.
yes they are. A republic is a form of government where the head of state (president/prime minister, whatever) is elected by citizens of the nation. And yes, America is being considered as an Oligarchy because of how much money is spent during election season.
Are you an idiot? You sound like an idiot. Yes, you are a democracy, dingbat, because the people are sovereign and they either wield that power directly or choose their representatives. How the state organizes itself is a separate matter.
Yes we objectively are. Just look up the term.
you know. I find it difficult to find any humor in this. namely because every word is true, and I'm stuck living here.
".....every word is true..." ?? Adam is sadly misinformed about the electoral college and how the US government works.
+ D Smith
Unlike you he has sources to back him up, yep i'm gonna go with him.
So... where is your sources to prove Adam is wrong?
Henry Han They usually shut up when fact checking is involved.
+Sousuke Aizen True. They almost always shut up when I present them facts or point them toward credible sources. 😜
Adam ruins everything always makes my day, inversion of the century :)
+Dailyaulk Dude? the vid is just 2 minutes up, the video is 4 minutes you can't even watch it fully yet
haven't watched it fully yet, but the fact of it being up makes my day. Watching it now :3
***** same
Adam Conway doesn't ruin my Tuesday!
+Thomas Gabby *Conover
I came here cause I got recommended this and I don’t see any comments yet about 2020 election. Someone please make me not lonely
I came form the future to tell you to enjoy the last gasps of your country
Why? Wouldn't you want a few moments to not have to think about the 2020 election, aka a short glance at Satan's Pinterest board?
I like to see America burn, its been a good time.
As an European, I always found Americas voting system incredibly confusing.
As an American, I always found Americas voting system incredibly confusing.
+Lama Lover Its becomes very simple when you realize its just corrupt.
Yea me too. What country do you live in and how does it work over there?
me too
+ChristheRandomGuyLol We just vote for president directly, i think that system is shit also. i have no idea about politics and so do a lot of people but they still have to vote.... it's stupid really
Who in their right mind looks at the comments on a political video?
And me. I find them entertaining.
I always scroll down to the comments on impulse, I'm on mobile so I can watch while looking at them. It's a habit I need to get rid of.
Yeah I know! For shame...
Idk man, I just can't help it
A bored person.
To me, Adam isn't "ruining" anything. He's just educating us on how things work.
+Deanna Jackson He's ruining our blissful ignorance and everything we take for granted and filling us with satirical yet true knowledge to better ourselves. In a way, this is the best entertaining educational show on television since Sesame Street.
When he "ruins" something, he just makes it funnier
+DrScaphandre In a way, you're simply expressing an opinion!
+ExopMan Oh no! You ruined my humorous comment! ;D
+DrScaphandre Do you need some welfare or something, why are you still here?
"Ohio likes LeBron James"
"Who? I dont follow many actors"
This actually qualifies now cause of space jam 2 lol
To be perfectly fair, think about what was going on in the country when the Electoral College was first designed: it was a system designed to better reflect the needs of a group of disparate states that wanted to maintain some notion of bargaining power while consolidating their military/border powers as a young nation. Each small state was just that- a state, with its own government, history, and rules. They wanted as much autonomy from a centralized government as possible, and simple math would reveal that a purely democratic representation within the electoral college would heavily distort the representation of the people in positions of governance in favor of larger states.
The founders (with the exception of Hamilton's Federalists) also felt that the center of american civic life was ultimately supposed to be local government, not national politics. The people who could most impact you were your state senators and local councils. There's a arguments to be had about whether local politicians (and not national agencies or bureacracies) hold true power, but the fact remains that Americans have bad participation in national elections and abysmal participation in local elections.
TL;DR Chicago is having mayoral/aldermanic/Treasury elections on February 26th, 2019. Please vote
Actually it only was created to appease the less populous slave states
@@Schnoz42069 my own thinking has evolved, and my sense is that our political system evolved to preserve a particular set of class and labor relations. The southerners wanted a vigorous urban scape that could produce the manufactured goods which increasingly characterized modernity, and the north wanted a wealthy south that would participate in northern finance. Both political projects presupposed slavery and an infinite ability to expand westward. However, they were ultimately irreconcilable.
Yes people complain about it so much but the original likely alternative was just not having/not continuing as a larger country and even though that won't can't really happen now if we did do away with it it would probably lead to smaller states feeling more estranged and removed from, resentful to the national government. Giving smaller states a basic minimum level seems not that big or bad a deal.
@Wonder nah, it's a bargain which prevents the creation of a cohesive national identity and predisposes both local and national level politics toward short term political goals rather than long term projects of economic, cultural, or civic betterment. The EC keeps Dems lame and forces Republicans into adopting radioactive reactionary politics.
“People in Ohio like Lebron James”
Me: They don’t any more
Jumping Tuna I live in Ohio and nobody ever mentions him
I’m from Cleveland, Ohio, and most people who like basketball felt that it was his best interest to go and we still watch him.
Did Adam ruin the electoral college? No - he ruined logic.
This is such a great example cognitive dissonance. Without the electoral college, 3-4 large cities - heavily democratic since they receive the majority of federal spending - would decide the entire election. The electoral college gives a voice to those who are typically ignored. Furthermore, without an electoral college, politicians would COMPLETELY disregard rural and suburban areas.
What would you expect from college humor?
They don't understand why the college exists, or what purpose it actually serves. They're just a bunch of salty children mad they lost the election and desperately blaming anything but their own candidate and voter base.
Anav Sawhney hmm, I didn't notice that, I don't know why youtube would recommend this but whatever. Regardless it doesn't change the point, the college is not broken and does not ruin democracy. There's a reason no one in the world in any semi-large nation uses a popular vote, and it's it's because it's fucking retarded. The problems the electoral college has are that minor and would almost never affect an election, so it doesn't change that this video is absurd.
f556784q3 sorry for being rude then
Fwiw, I'm from the largest democracy in the world, and we don't have a popular vote (and I agree it would be stupid) but we don't have a state based system either, we have a system based on far smaller constituencies, which would make perfect sense here too
So the system is definitely broken, but I agree that it shouldn't just be abolished outright
Well, considering how George Bush won in 2004 with both the popular and electoral vote, I'm going to go with no. Besides, as CGP Grey pointed out, even the top 10 largest cities in the country don't even make up 1/5 of our population.
Dino Joseph so what's the problem with people getting to vote for who they want?
1:40
Why would you say something so controversial but yet so brave?
When my history teacher here in Europe first told us this, I didn't believe her... I'm convinced 80% of Americans don't know this either.
+cristi1990an There's a good reason we got it in history class.
The Electoral College has nothing to do with the USA being a democracy or a republic or whatever else you want to label the USA.
The "founding fathers" were terrorist slavers. They wrote the Electoral College to give themselves, and other terrorists, a welfare benefit. That's all the EC is, "free stuff" for terrorists. The EC also benefits states which suppress voting.
That's one Jonny Bravo haircut.
+Demigodish4o3 man i'm pretty
+Demigodish4o3 Sassy!
Good thing I live in Switzerland then. No one beats us in Democracy.
lol wrong
+Drowned God North Korea has the best democracy just ask the supreme leader
+miller repin So true
+Drowned God
Except *UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand*
Well.... a part of your country only gave women the right to vote fairly recently... so...
As a German, it is so weird for me to see how many people here spout: "We're a republic, not a democracy!"
Are you actually that politically illiterate? Republic is a collective term for any non-monarchy! Almost every kind of democracy (except strange cases like elective monarchy) is a republic!
You don't have an absolute ruler? Great, you're a republic. You vote for rulers, representatives or even direct political decisions? Great, you're also a democracy.
People in the comments don't know what a republic is.
what are you? the scroll of true or something else? or maybe just an Adam follower
Alejandro José ?
Alejandro José I do not completely follow this show. I see the flaws in it, but a lot of the videos (including this one) hold up pretty well.
@@tallulahahrens-siegel9832 ik and the first comment you said is the true actually and i believed that you knew about the meme of the scroll of true.
Oh forgive me god, for I have sinned. I am a fake memer. Here, my friend. You deserve my title more than me.
Seriously, this show needs to be spread out to more then just the channel and TruTV. We could actually change the world with Adam Ruins Everything. His witty delivery and excellent sources make it so easy to learn.
+DrScaphandre kinda like john oliver
+DrScaphandre And you don't support the BlackLivesMatter protest?
+wright96d the black lives matter protest is ruining entire cities and causing unneeded violence. people know that black lives matter, but the protesters use it as an excuse to do what ever they want.
+DrScaphandre i bet your one of the fools who say allivesmatter
Adam Ruins Everything should be INTERNATIONAL. The world could finally get some sense slapped into them and change for the better!
Everyone, repeat after me: America is a Republic, not a Democracy!
Our founding father never intended for any of the common man's vote to hold very much weight. You vote for representatives to make your decisions, which includes the electoral college. That is how it has always been in our country. People act like our votes not mattering is a recent discovery. Congrats then, you finally are realizing what our founding fathers intended
I know. The United States is a Democratic Republic. Everyone just calls it a Democracy though.
That makes no sense. We are already voting for a representative to make our decisions: the president. Why do we need an intermediary representative to pick another representative?
+jjohnsonnccc It really pisses me off when Republicans say that we're a democracy, because as the name implies, Republicans don't believe/like the idea of a perfect democracy. Democrats saying it is a little better just cause of the name but eh they still kinda don't have the legitimacy to say it either.
+x0acake Mostly it's because there are 330+ million people in this country and to accurately count that many vote would take months. Not to mention the possibility of missing ballots, ballots going towards the wrong candidate, etc. etc. So that regard, today the electoral college has some meaning to us, but honestly it's kinda fucked up that in a few states the presidential vote doesn't even fucking matter. Which is ironic, seeing as we're constantly telling every other non-democratic/republic nation that the vote makes us better.
+x0acake That is not the job of the President. The job of the President is to ensure that the laws are followed. It is the job of Congress to enact laws.
3:36
And two shots of vodka
Thanks to the date on this video and title, so many people are watching it now assuming it's from 2016.
TheFinalChapters it doesn't really matter when. He's still incorrect about how it works. Swing states change regularly.
Ian Bartram Focusing on 20% of the population (or less) each election isn't justified just because the 20% can change.
Actually it is. It's called accurately representing your constituents.
Just sit back and try to process mathematically how many people 20% of the population is. That's a large amount of people that all of the sudden shouldn't matter because their votes can change.
Robert Ward It's not the 20% that's the problem, it's the 80% that get ignored.
Adam ruins everything besides Pizza no one can ruin pizza!
+THEY CALL ME TEXT or can he?
+THEY CALL ME TEXT Hi :) i like your videos
Mmmm..Pizza
Except the noid which you should avoid
+THEY CALL ME TEXT
...Broccoli.
Broccoli can ruin a good pizza.
I was legit pissed when he said LeBron was an actor, then I realized it was a reference to his flopping XD
I get pretty mad about how messed up the us is, then I remember I live in Canada
Saaaame
Out of genuine curiosity, is it because Canada is worse, or because what happens in the US doesn't affect you?
UVjoint No im pissed because how messed up the US is. Your all screwed and im pissed most of you cant do shit about it
CheEzy How is that messed up? Anybody wanting mob rule has no clue of how ridiculous it is.
@Ravenclaw our voting system still isn't great because of how the federal and local elections are.
Mob rule, that's what you want. Aka the very thing the founding fathers wanted to avoid. Also America is a Constitutional Representitive Republic. In a Mob Rule system the Minorities are screwed, majority always win. By minority I am speaking of Ideological minorities not racial, cultural or religious demographics.
The founding fathers were historically educated and feared the Mob Rule threat as it leads to tyranny and monarchy. Electoral college was a compromise to prevent this threat. Furthermore the main "issue" still applies to Mob rule. That meaning that California and cities have the swaying power, hence limiting or downright removing the impact small states or counties may have.
Lastly it creates an echo chamber, as to win you'll need to focus on the needs of the cities and populated areas, not the needs or wants of Iowa farmers for example. So you usurp a defense, welcome the needless threat that comes with mob rule while keeping the original issue. Only difference is the issues is now applied to a heavily democratic regions.
No I didn't get fucked, I voted for trump. My entire Puerto Rican family vote for trump. Because contrary to what your racist outlook may be, we aren't victims. We aren't oppressed without a voice and we don't need, want or desire white regressive left charging in like white knights on a Pegasus wielding the spear of social justice to save us.
And yes, I find the notion that I am either stupid for voting the way 35% of my people did, or the concept I am inherently a victim because of my race to be racist. So I 100% disagree with you.
Also in 250+ years this has only happen twice. So two "errors" or "screw ups" in your opinion over a 250 year period= Broken so dismantle the republic.
And incorrect we are not a mob rule democracy, we are a representative republic, to be precise a Constitutional representative republic.
So you're welcome, we are the reason you lost the election. Also while I think Hillary will win the popular vote, in the end not all votes have been counted, you're missing 6% so it can shift either way still. Hence why unlike you, I am waiting for the full result before I spew forth propaganda.
***** Man you are a drama queen. "America's Death Warrant." This mentality discloses your extreme bias. As such I will take nothing you say seriously. No more than I do the folks who believe aliens are coming to rapture a select few.
The rambling incoherent mess of a mad zealot. Also your claims of Racism after months of research are invalid. I know as a Racist you think all Hispanics are Mexican, that all illegals are Mexicans and all mexicans are illegal. But your absolution are false.
How do I know this? Because "Build a wall" = Prejudice against Mexicans. Which can only apply if A) Illegals were a race, or B) you think all Mexicans/Hispanics are illegal.
***** It's to be expected. You do lack any mental processing power unless it pertains to victimhood and your agenda.
+The Dark Weapon just because you can't understand something, does not mean that it is jibberish. It just shows either illiteracy or stupidity on your part. Maybe try a dictionary. It will help with the big words.
My Cuban, Navajo, Scottish, German, French mix family voted Trump! My wife, being full blooded Navajo sees how the Democrat party is leading everyone down a dark and dirty road and cant understand how so many people are so blinded and excepting of such criminal behavior as seen with career politicians... Democrat or Republican! The change has to come from a political outsider! This video is all "Hogwash"!!!
A summary of all the comments:
Everyone: I want to make it clear that I know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Also, I missed the underlying point of the video.
The point of this video is so Adam Conover can make himself look foolish by displaying a complete lack of knowledge about the US government or how Presidential campaigns are ran.
D Smith Nice. "...Complete lack of knowledge about the U.S. government..." And you can completely establish that by this video how? "...how Presidential campaigns are ran." Again, HOW? The candidates should appeal to EVERYONE, not just as majority of states collectively. You know what, never mind. I bet you thought the EC was an undermine of our rights, before this JOKE of an election, but now...
The underlining point was to inform people how the electoral college works. And to make people realize that if we are to have a true democracy, the electoral college needs to go.
Fortunately, the Founders knew better than to set up a true democracy because it is prone to degenerating into mob rule. Note how one party (Democrat) has control over many of the largest population centers in the U.S. and has been in control for decades. All but a very few have huge numbers of welfare recipients, outrageous jobless numbers and are on the verge of bankruptcy. What are the odds that every vote caste in a precinct would be for one person, much less dozens of precincts with hundreds of thousands of votes in a city? Not to mention precincts with more votes counted than their were people on the voter rolls . . .oooops.
lol for some reason most people think those who hate the electoral college simply don't understand it. even though a lot of us hate it and DO understand the purpose.
"We're not a democracy"
Oh ok, that make it all fine then
Our system gives a voice to smaller states. If we had a full democracy then a politician can just campaign in big states and cities and ignore the needs of the little man.
@@quantumpuddles7591 That is incredibly wrong, and is already happening since the campaigns only go to swing states and nowhere else. Our current system already ignores the little man, being anyone who's not a swing state.
@@benvaughn7482 Wow colorado and iowa are suuch big states. That is still better than the popular system, where the only states needed r the big ones
@@benvaughn7482 That's a good point, but take into consideration the different canedates that run in a party. They need to be the winner of their party and that requires many state approvals. So they have to advicate for every state to win their spot as the Democrat or Republican candate. As well as swing states change so they need to suit a lot more states. You also don't want to loose a safe state by ignoring them or ruining their state. No matter how left or right leaning they might be, they might vote for the other side as we saw with the Steel Belt in the recent presidential election.
@@benvaughn7482 Please just watch Prager University's video on the electoral college for the other side and consider it.
I never realized it was "winner takes all" for votes in a state. Why even splitup the votes in the first place if you aren't going to take into account the approximate proportions of votes?
Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in the big cities to win, ignoring everywhere else.
Fun fact: In 2006's "Man of the Year" Robin Williams's character is only on the ballot in 13 states, but wins all of them. Tallying the votes of the states he is shown to win in the film, plus the states with the highest number of electoral votes, by the electoral map for 2004-2008, it is entirely possible to be elected president by only 26% of the country. And that's without taking into account the fact that there would be people voting for opposing candidates.
Because that's how we got George W. Bush.
+LordOfGaming Thats the electoral college
+Nick Carbaugh No the Supreme Court appointed W. to the Presidency in 2000. I have no idea how he won his second term.
+Deadpool3E Haha a joke about GW how original. Do your parents know you're using the computer?
***** a joke about age on the internet, hows halo 2 treating you?
+Jonathan McCollough J.P. Carr was probably just referring to Bush v. Gore, where the court did end up having an effect.
In arizona, the swing state thing is pretty much just Martha McSally and Kirsten Sinema screaming at each other for 6 months until one of them is ripping out the others throat in an ad. Or on live television. Then they both win and somebody up above does backflips trying to get McSally to have all the power while someone else does flips trying to get Sinema to go more liberal than Twitter. Then you have me, a weakling in his early teens who cant vote, yet is the only one bombarded with campaign ads.
Adam ruins Adam Ruins Everything.
I haven't read the comment section yet, but I'm sure it's a civil and balanced discussion about the pros and cons of the electoral college.
TURN BACK NOW.
By the great God Odin! you fool!
Nowadays, we have the technology to just handle voting electronically and count each vote individually with almost 100% accuracy. Why even bother doing it state by state at this point?
+Starlight Witch Part of it is a compromise to balance the power of larger and smaller states and part because those who are elected depend on the system being broken to get elected. Balancing power is the same reason why every state has 2 senators but house members depend on the population.
Winner take all needs to go and electoral votes should be made automatically based on the states popular vote instead of having a person who can vote against what the people voted for.
+Juan Lopez Hackers*
+Starlight Witch Actually even that's broken most of the machines are horribly outdated which leads to all kinds of shenanigans. The daily show had a segment on it and it showed they had to buy parts off of ebay to keep their machines even functioning.
+Starlight Witch Because it's more secure to actually have older voting methods, the newer the machine, the easier it is to hack and alter. Also because congress will never nationalize voting machine standards and pass enough money to the states to do so in the first place.
Stfu
A direct election is too dangerous, but a indirect election by some selected politicians is too elitist. The Electoral College is perfect: It's got only the worst aspects of both systems.
The Electoral College IS an indirect vote by some politicians. And explain to me how a direct election is "dangerous."
@@andreah9587 Exactly what I was thinking
The minority would have no power. So, let’s say for example, a religious majority decides that another group with fewer members should be executed, since they have the majority, the smaller group has no way to defend themselves.
A direct election isn’t dangerous. You’re brainwashed
But that's the entire problem. It has the worst aspects of both systems, none of the good.
What the?! That's the mom from Boy Meets World! xD
I was wondering if anyone else noticed
Thank you!! I was trying to figure that out.
mslita09 I know i noticed that I was searching the comments to see if anyone else noticed
Betsy Randle. :D
We had a similar problem, in the UK, with general elections being decided in marginal seats, which can be won by more than one party. If you live in a safe seat, it is a waste of time voting.
CGP Grey made a video about this first.
Still nice to see more of Adam ruining the shit out of everything.
You do realize people have disagreed with the system since the days it was created.
+Adrian Fahrenheit lol that's what i was thinking
Justice Blunt I do, so what's your point?
+Adrian Fahrenheit It's ancient, common and often discussed knowledge. I know it and I'm not even american. This is like discovery making a video on lions and you saying "national geographic made a video about this first"
lusteraliaszero It clearly isn't if a lot of people still get surprised by learning this, both americans and non-americans, also, you're misinterpreting the point of my comment, and the example you provided with the lion just to mock me can't be applied to this situation.
Go act like a smartarse somewhere else.
You know, I said that the electoral collage doesn’t make sense to my social studies teacher. He just stammered through saying that the founding fathers made this well enough and how it made sense back then, and it was obvious he had no idea.
It does make sense when you realize the electoral college was meant to give power to slave states (because blacks and slaves were not counted as people, so they had technically smaller populations compared to the north/free states)
and the reason for this was because 95% of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution and the electoral college were active slave holders and or slavers themselves.
@@mckenzie.latham91 Not even close to true. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of the population, but that doesn’t matter in this. Founding fathers created a republic because it was believed that the people, state, and federal government will check each other.
@@Slippy-Toad-Love 3/5 of a person, not the population and that is still not being counted as a person
that’s being counted as lesser than a real person
they were treated, sold and valued in worth the same as regular livestock and furniture
the founding fathers were a bunch of racist, elite land holders, slave masters, lawyers and the societies most elite who decided they were tried of paying taxes to England (that english tax and economic records show that most of the 13 colones refused to pay and or never was even collected anyway)
and decided to found their own system where they would rule as the elites and top brass
which they did.
Again there are plenty of historical republics that didn’t have anything like the electoral college
the electoral college especially was written to benefit slave states which many historians have born out and proven
and the majority of the founding fathers historically were slave holders and salve masters who for some reason accidentally left slavery and black people out of the constitution and all those rights and freedom bullshit.
@@mckenzie.latham91 That is not the reason the electoral college exists. The 3/5s concept didn't even exist until well after the process was installed, and that was done solely to PREVENT slave owning states from having slave owners proxy vote for all their slaves. The electoral college exists because the popular votes elect the representatives and the states elect the president.
@@Slippy-Toad-Love Not even close to true. the electoral college was meant to give power to slave states by granting them more electoral college votes but still preventing slaves from voting.
The reason why we have electoral college is because back then, people were mainly farmers and laborers with no standing middle class. And because of that, no one was educated because there was no public schools, so the founding fathers essentially made the electoral college to make people with political and just common knowledge have the ability to vote.
Yes, the electoral college circumvents pure democracy to an extent. But it was designed that way by the founding fathers. They never wanted, nor did they ever claim to have created, a purely democratic nation. They firmly believed that pure democracies didn't work because they would ultimately lead to the systematic oppression of minorities or "mod rule." This is why the constitution trumps (no pun intended) the will of the people, it's why every state has two senators regardless of population, it's why we have three branches of government, and it's why we have an electoral college. If elections were based purely on a simple popular vote, the main population centers such as New York and Los Angeles would decide the outcome every single time, while the rest of the country would go completely ignored by the very politicians meant to represent them. The electoral college isn't good for democracy, it's good for the REPUBLIC the founding fathers gave us.
What do you think the combined population of New York and LA is for them to be able to overcome the national vote? There are not many population centers like that and their combined population could certainly not decide the election. I mean LA cannot even decide the outcome of statewide elections in California so it is hard to convince people that they will suddenly be able to overcome the nation. 4 of the last 7 CA Governors did not win LA.
theuglykwan that's why I said "such as," obviously those two cities alone couldn't decide the outcome of a single election. But around half of America's population resides in population centers, while the other half is spread throughout the rest of the country.
Ry What is your defintion of population center that you can arrive at this half figure? NYC has a population of about 8M while LA is under 4.
According to official census data the % of americans residing in metropolitan areas with above 50k population is 71.2%.
So i want to know what kind of criteria you are using as i notice that once figures come into play this type of argument is hard to sustain.
+CollegeHumor back when the Constitution was written most people weren't educated enough to make good decisions on president. That's why the electoral college was produced. And the whole point is that if people don't like the elector they vote them out. The real reason the election system doesn't work anymore is 1)People not voting and 2)People who vote for the same person every year (and term limits)
I disagree. When the Constitution was written, people were much more educated in their government and civic participation than now. People can't, don't, or won't make informed decisions today, with more technology available to learn about candidates. The reason our system doesn't work is that it is predicated not on an actual majority vote, but on the most votes (in most jurisdictions), which means that if the vote is split 40-35-25 percent, then 60% of the people were against the winning candidate.
We need to have a serious discussion in America about exploring other voting systems that ensure a candidate wins with a majority of support, and we need to set minimum thresholds for winning (personally, I favor 55%).
It would also help if our government were pared down to the size it was in 1799, when it was more lean and easily understood. Our problems are both the system and the people; the people will not change, but the system can be remedied.
While I agree with most of what Cameron said, I disagree that the average person was more educated about their government back then, or at the very least their politicians. Mudslinging political opponents based on lies and slander was much easier back then, as more people would believe it and it was harder to fact check even the most blatant inaccuracies.
But yeah, our voting system needs a change, as does the size, control, and sheer number of laws we have.
You'd be wrong. Literacy was exceptionally high, and there were more copies of Blackwell's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in the colonies than in England itself. People were often in court with one another, and republicanism was a cultural fascination. Pamphlets like Thomas Payne's abounded so much that it was part of courtship to present pamphlets. So yes, people were much more educated in how government worked and valued participation. For further proof, look at the printing industry and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, which were popularly read. People then were much more active in the government, especially since it was much easier to understand. And even further proof can be found in Alexis de Tocqueville's writings, where he is astounded at the political literacy of the average American, even in the frontier. We have, quite honestly, lost the essence of our Republic because we have lost the character necessary to maintain it.
Cameron Olson I'm not sure if you were talking to me or the OP. Either way, I don't think either side is wrong, but more than we're measuring different things.
Literacy being high is a bit tenuous. What are we comparing it to? England back then? Then the colonies and England were even at 60%. Compared to now? No, we're near 100%. As for courts, I'd say the same thing about today. As for Republicanism, I'd say the same as well except for Americanism. (Which I would agree with you here, people would rather adhere to Americanism than understand Republicanism, and thus are less educated.)
Why were there more copies of Blackwell's book in the colonies? Well, Redcoat presence was high and it's a common misconception that most people were for the Revolution. It was roughly 30% for, 30% against, and 30% neutral. The reasons for that book being so popular in the colonies could be numerous, from England wanting to foist those laws on the colonies (from what I understand, it was both a layman explanation of England law and a subtle explanation of why England law was the way things should be,) to people wishing to understand if they really wanted independence. Admittedly, I could be speaking nonsense, but I think a better comparison would be the amount of total books from different angles and viewpoints of governance, and not just the one about English law written specifically for the common man.
Meanwhile, the history of mudslinging really took off all the way back in 1796. The federalist and anti-federalist papers you mentioned? Some where fine, I'm sure. Others were more like Alexander Hamilton's Phocion persona, were he wrote, printed, and spread pamphlets with both truthful and made up claims about Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's supporters responded in kind, mudslinging through anti-federalist papers right back at him. This precedent continued throughout the states. Politicians were accused of sexing up their slaves, being atheists, being cannibals, executing soldiers, and so on even attacking their appearance (and by that I mean making more things up.) There supporters described as ragged thieves, These papers were immensely popular, sure, but they were also filled with misinformation more along the lines of tabloid gossip than actual political discussion.
And you touched on why it would be a bit easier to understand the political system. Back then, it just wasn't as hard to understand. You had your Constitution and your local laws. Nowadays, law and politics is much more complicated. There are far much more laws on the books, many more federal agencies, more foreign powers to keep track of, more major politicians and offices and initiatives and parties. We understand more about politics than ever before, but that which we understand makes up less than has ever been.
It's not so much that people today are uneducated, or have lost the spirit we had back then. It's just that times have changed. More people now are educated about more parts of the government and how it works, (heck, we learn a lot of this in public school,) but the government and the history of the U.S. is so much more complex now than it was back then.
(Granted, tabloids are just as popular but don't involve politics, so maybe you're on to something.)
man, you guys really know your stuff! i dont know what youre saying exactly, one of you was way too longwinded for this medium, but impressive nonethless!
Dosen’t the majority of the vote in a state wins the whole thing?
Etc:51% and 49%, the 51% party takes the electoral vote right?
So how does it differ?
It's different because different states have more valuable votere
That's an over-simplification. You typically end up (for purely argument sake) with something more like 2% Green, 3% Libertarian, 1% independent, 46% Democrat, 48% Republican. You then have a Republican being represented when LESS than 50% of the people voted that way. That's not representative of "the majority" of the people. It's just representative of "more than the next one". And this is where democracy fails. Take Stephen Harpers Conservative party during the 2006 Canadian election - they only had 40% of the actual parliament seats, and there were many seats which they didn't win by large margins, either, so now you're talking about governments who don't even REMOTELY represent the vast majority of the people.
Because it's winner take all of the state electoral votes. If a state has 10 electoral votes then with a 51% and 49% split in popular vote, the party that got 51% will get all 10 electoral votes, even though roughly half the state voted against them. Realistically it should be 5 electoral votes to party one and 5 to party two since that accurately reflects the will of the voters in that state. The way it is now, if your party loses the popular vote in your state, your vote LITERALLY did not matter.
@Gabriel Mayorga what would be wrong with that? One person= One vote. Aren't we equals? Shouldn't our votes be just as equal as that? What does someone from Rhode Island know about the life in a big city? The states themselves have enough power and representation through the Senate alone, not to mention their ability to redraw the congressional district map every ten years. The question of who is going to be president should be decided by all of us. We are one. We should be treated as one, don't you think so?
The other problem with the U.S. voting system is first past the post. Basically it means whoever has the largest share of the votes wins, even if that party only had 30% of the votes. Which is stupid. For one, it doesn’t represent the majority of people and secondly, it will kill off any chance of more than two successful parties. So no one votes for who they want, they vote for someone who will be more likely to win over a party you don’t like.
Parliamentary democracy > Direct democracy > Presidential democracy
Democracy ≠ Democracy
italy is a parliamentary democracy, but it's not too good here too.
+Niiiiiiiiiiko The only true democracy was the founding one in Greece. What our countries use is "Representative Democracy."
You see, when the ancient Greeks first founded the concept of democracy, it was originally designed so the commoner could walk into a government meeting, give their opinion, and then vote on a topic. The American colonies also used this system in the form of Town Hall meetings But as the world population grew that system became more and more difficult, as more people were demanding representation then the Town Halls could hold.
Enter Representative Democracy! In order to accommodate for the large population, many countries (The United States and United Kingdom in particular) sectioned off the land into districts, where each district would have a representative to speak on their behalf, which is why you hear the phrase "write to your congressman." However, that means the one representative has full power and can simply ignore the people they are representing and focus on their own interests, which has lead to years of corruption within global governments.
Oh no, my hair is turning into a pompadour.
DrScaphandre woah, someone who actually knows what he's talking about! Btw even romans used to elect the consoles, ediles, pretors etc.
+DrScaphandre You forgot about the fact that a lot of people in ancient Greece were not allowed to vote, like the commonner you just mentioned.
Also, the idea for representative democracy is that there is always someone from a certain region in parliament so that every region will be represented. If a region had no representatives, well, that'd be bad.
+Niiiiiiiiiiko Whats wrong with a direct democracy? If anything, it's probably the most 'purest' form of democracy.
I'm a democrat living in Idaho. So basically I don't exist in our democracy
Pretty much.
Why are you living in Idaho if you are a democrat? That is like a republican living in DC.
phreak1118 cuz maybe I like living here. Boise is a great city
Like a conservative in Los Angeles. You should be friends. Seriously your vote still counts and here's why. Even winning politicians make notice of all the demographics of voters. Even voters on the losing side. So if a voting precint was liberal but the the conservative vote just lost by a few percentage points... it could really help your demographic in the future. One, the winning politician has to pay attention to you and two, it might create a new candidate to run knowing there are more conservatives in the area than realized. Always vote.
im a republican in washington, we cancel eachother out.
So how do we fix this problem?
Revolution
Choosen One No. You run the risk of destroying existing infrastructure and making things worse.
Bernie Sanders.
Amend the Constitution with
2/3 of the states.
But red states are too salty.
+Christian Neihart "Don't start a revolution, it will only make things worse" said the people in power.
2:08 this bit really got me 🤣
Does that Women is the one who play Cory Matthew's Mom in Boy Meets World?
How do you pronounce that name.... Ima just call you nutcracker thief
That's what I was thinking!
Yes
Recent comments to this video ignores the millions of people in NY and CA who would have voted for Trump but didn't bother because they knew their votes were waisted. It goes both ways
Video is old, derp.
Yes and they should also be able to make their Votes count.
Justin Kir I know I meant to say the people commenting on this video...
+Justin Kir
Every method has got his flaws. it is impossible to design a method that completely forces strong people to keep their business within the community and protect weak people from their own poor decisions.
The concept of democracy works around this simple concept.
Beside this... i noticed Sam Smith modified his comment, and i didn't saw it before modification, but
"Recent comment to this video" clearly implies he's not talking about the old comments or the video itself.
Justin you mean the "trump winning the presidency and hillary losing" thing
Mrs Matthews! but back on topic. This is interesting
I kept thinking she was the mom from "7th Heaven" for some reason... But you're right. Good catch!
AimlessAbyss no lol she's from boy meets world
'Who? I don't know many actors.'
Describes me perfectly.
Last time I checked, we're a democratic republic not a democracy.
*on behalf of myself and no one else. Some Libertarian: "NO! We are a constitutional republic! Ragh" 🤣 either way, your point is moot because the electoral college is neither democratic or republican
Did anyone else pause the video to make sure their state wasn,t one of the 24 where the electoral college can just vote for whoever they want?
I did, and let out a sigh of relief when I saw North Carolina wasn't one of them. Then I looked again and nearly flipped my shit when I saw that
New motherfucking York IS one of them. That means that a state with one of the largest populations essentially hands the vote over to some asshole who can, without blinking an eye, completely disregard the voice and voting rights of some millions of people if he doesn't like the candidate they ultimately decided on.
... Now I wonder why the fuck candidates even bother blowing so much money on campaigning when so many voting citizens are liable to be ignored regardless of who they vote for.
And one of those swing states he mentioned, Pennsylvania, was also on the list😓
So in a worst case scenario, a candidate could win just by paying attention to two states plus one guy with a spot on the electoral college.
+xxkittyscratch496xx Illinois was on there too. So at least the 4th and 5th biggest states by population allow it.
+xxkittyscratch496xx it's not even close to having the highest population. Nice try tho
+Anthony Marchiondo I sighed when I found out Ireland wasn't on the list
This show is probably one of the best things to come out of this channel in a long time. It's been pretty enjoyable on TV. Too bad this channel hasn't had anything interesting itself in a long time.
And don’t even get me started on lobbying…
Wait, you can't just end it like that! I want to go back in time too, show me the proof!
he called lebron james an actor because of the flopping. one of the most savage things ive heard in awhile.
Oooooooh
"i'm cooky, i have 4 turtles"
me: AUNT MARY IS THAT YOU?!
Y'Know I don't really acknowledge all of thw famous people that lived in the state I do, so I can't really say anything special about it.
YEAH DON'T CRITICIZE ME!
but Jefferson? yeah he was pretty stupid.
What about Aaron Burr? :D
Dwayne Johnson
UUGGGGGGH. ew. nasty. he gross. he rude. stupid. burr isn't good. nah, man.
+Dwayne Johnson He was a great shot but the duel was 20 years too late.
Lol. :D
Your son gave away his shot ha look what happened after your advice
It doesn't matter what state your from your vote should count just as much as anyone else's
So to have that pure proprtionality a really small state should have less than one representative/elector, maybe just .7 of an elector (that couldn't even practically be done), or on the other hand we should increase the number of representatives to at least over 1,000?
Middle School Memories
agreed. I thought it was jacked up first time we learned about it as well.
+Kevin Stempien my european friends never believe how messed up our system is ;)
+mdb45424 In the UK our system is only a fraction better. We find the Republicans harder to believe than the actual system.
"The fact that the election is decided by a handful of states is pretty messed up"...take away the electoral college and it'll be decided by a few states.
or it could be decided following a sistem of direct democracy, like happens in most european states?
Even though Adam's right the electoral college was made to give the same amount of power to small states as large states so that Texas , New York , and California don't choose the president by themselves with no other states with a say so.
Buts it's pretty bad a this.
Elections shouldn’t be decided by states, they should be decided by people.
@@masterofdisguise9564 local elections, sure. The President was never supposed to be this powerful. But even then, they're Presiding over the federal government, the same federal government that split in 2 once. It's a union of smaller governments, where decisions more important to your life occur. At the federal level, the states need reason to believe their interests will be maintained and represented. In a direct democracy, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Wyoming's small populations would be glossed over and those states' interests would fall to the more "important" ones, so they'd secede. The system is more fragile than people realize.
Also, even senators used to be appointed. The fact that they were directly elected is a more recent addition. Direct democracy has many drawbacks that have been expounded upon throughout the history of political theory
Lol the Democrats do this with their own primaries yet say electoral college is bad lol
the electoral college did it again
It is working perfectly as conceived. If your side had won you in the same way you probably not be protesting.
Brad Davies
Someone loses presidency even though he/she won the majority of the people's vote? That should seem sketchy for everyone regardless of political status. Stop trying to defend that out-dated, faulty system.
EsoEsRacista
I disagree with our assessment and your edict as childlike and sophomoric. The Constitution is not out-dated, it is not perfect, but it works. Why should I take orders from any individual that believes in Darwinism and communism? I shall opine at my leisure. Perhaps you would be more comfortable preaching to the choir so that you do not melt my dearest snowflake.
Brad Davies perfect now you insulted this guy but you didn't tell why it his opinion is wrong
Walter
I do not take kindly to people telling me what to do when they really did not state why my opinion was wrong. Stop defending people such as him/her.
"I'm kookie! I have two turtles" 😂😂😂
if less populated places get more votes per capita it forces the federal government not to abuse or ignore them.
and it also allowed you to win with less than 50% of the popular vote. You can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote. And this has happened before. This has a 5% chance of happening with current statistics. If someone wanted to put a nuke right beside your house with a 5% chance of going off ever 4 years would you let them? No.
+Romeball well 5% really isn't that intimidating
+Romeball We do not live in a democracy, we live in a federal republic. It was never intended to have a lot to do with the popular vote. if it were, electoral delegates would equal the number of representatives in the house of representatives. It does not. it is representatives plus senators. this is because it was intended to treat states like semi-soverign bodies, and see to it that small states are not ignored. I would also like to point out that just because a majority of people vote for someone does not mean that that person is the best suited for the office.
this is part of the system so that larger states in population dont overpower the smaller states in population. a similar measure was added to congress and is part of how the split congress was formed. a senate where each state has 2 senators and a house where the representation by state varies to its population. each house has a check on the other. a skewed electorate balances the less powerful states in population with the more powerful states in population so that the vote is not just determined by the population centers but is a representation of the varied population.
+Sean Rea Exactly
The guy who "voted for John Ewards" is the guy who created welcome to my study!
The electoral college (and much of our political system) is based on balancing the rights of the few against the rights of the many. In this case our Senate (and electoral college) are based on the idea that the states are sovereign entities. Individual states have different interests andit is therefore unfair for the federal government to be based on the votes solely of the majority - as that would tend to benefit the interests of the large states at the expense of the small.
We tend to get offended by this because we tend to think "majority wins" is the most "fair" outcome, and this is exacerbated by the fact that the smaller states tend to be more rural and traditional religiously conservative so instead of seeing these mechanisms as ways to protect the interests of small states against those of large states we see them as imposing the will of the majority on the minority.
I guess the way you see it depends on whether you see a state as a unit of our republic that is worthy of having representation in our government independent of how many people it contains.
+CavemanSynthesizer *the will of the minority on the majority*
Brats. We have brats in Ohio.
We also have beer. And corn.
+Chrnan6710 Ohio also has Kings Island, Skyline Chili and beer swilling hillbilly OSU fans!
@@dsmith9964 - and Cedar Point
+RB True! not much of anything else good ever came out of Ohio...since the Wright brothers!
Here is the thing, the Electoral College was written by the founding fathers at a time when there wasn't much of an incentive for a small state to participate in the union when their larger neighbor states had more population and wealth. This act was to convince them that joining the union meant they also would have a voice.
I mean from the looks of it, seems Adam, a College Humor hipster knows better than the founding fathers who actually thought about this conundrum.
Here is the thing, if I was a politician and it was one person one vote. I would never even need to go to the small state or even make any promises to their state for their vote. Let say 40 years past and all the politicians do the same thing. What is to prevent the neglected states to secede from the union?
this is what I was thinking. so many people complain the electoral is disproportional when that is exactly what is was designed to be.
@@theEWDSDS just because it was designed to be that way doesn't mean it's good...
@@NZsaltz but it is.
@@theEWDSDS I don't think there's a single good argument for why the electoral college is good for America in the current day.
That’s why you have congress and the senate
Because of swing states that becomes mute anyway
“People In Ohio like LeBron James”😂😂😂