Honestly as a european the american system seems to me like its on the very edge of being still democratic: You can Vote, but its almost impossible to get rid of whos already in charge.
voting literally has no effect on public policy, and Europe is just a vassal state of the US so it's not much different. The entire Western world is best described as a plutocratic corporatocracy.
you are being very charitable; most of the time we don't even choose who gets in the whole primary-process is TOTALLY outside the law and controlled by the PARTIES themselves!! Any time someone like Jerry Brown or Bernie Sanders starts to do well, they literally change the rules of the game to sabotage him. The entire left-half of the political spectrum was effectively outlawed in this country in the 1950s.... it's like a plane with only one wing.... we have one party always pulling as hard as they can to the right, and another that will only counter by pulling to the 'center' >.> even though they know full well that means the 'center' is always moving right......
There is an incentive, though. More proportional, less toxic, and more productive congress is a widely popular idea and only getting more so. If supporting and then putting through this legislation helps one congressmen win their primary or final race, you can end up with a majority of legislature that agreed to that to be able to get in. Winning seats is the motivation. And on top of that, if the entire party can see some long term benefits in a specific place: Perhaps one side has been winning in an area for a very long time, they are still in the lead but can tell that demographic shifts will lose them the area in the near future: then they can push for proportional voting specifically there. They get the votes from implementing a popular idea, and then they only lose half the state instead of the whole state.
@@___i3ambi126While I admire your statement, I think that money being a large part of politics becomes a primary motivator for many members of congress. Why would they want to change a system they benefit from?
then the people must rise up to change it, either through a constitutional convention, or, if they refuse to allow the will of the people to be done.. then in whatever manner is necessary to return power to the people
It's a common thread in the inner workings of the USA, where we have institutions built on archaic rules that need to be changed, but those who can effect that change have negative incentive to do so.
@@SkilledTadpole Much of American society works on rules and regulations that are entirely extraneous to the Constitution. I don't think it would be necessary to change the Constitution to make changes to the way our electorate works.
As a Canadian, I'm still so angry that Trudeau went back on his promise of electoral reform. We have more parties than the US, but our "first past the post" system still favours parties with either large countrywide support (Liberals, Conservatives), or strong regional support (Bloc Quebecois), and disadvantages parties with small but consistent countrywide support (NDP, Greens). In the past election, the NDP had more than twice the votes of the Bloc, but fewer seats in the house, and that's not an aberration - it happens in every election. I was really gunning for mixed-member proportional, but honestly ANY system is better than first past the post.
Agreed. Similarly in Quebec, the CAQ (then opposition, now ruling party) had signed, in a big press conference together with every other opposition party leader, a pledge to bring in MMPR if they got elected. They got elected, and it became "too radical", and died almost immediately. The winners always feel the system is working well (for them.)
The problem is that both parties enjoyed a joint monopoly on power for over 150 years, and under the current system, it will continue indefinitely. That means both parties has an insentive to _not_ change the electoral system.
Can you show me where in the Constitution a “two party system” is mentioned? And I’m assuming you’re expecting the federal government to pass some laws that enforce a more than two party system?
@@alpharius_nox Have you not watched the video? Ofcause the two party system is not mentioned in the constitutional. It is an unintended, yet unavoidable side effect of the First Past the Post electoral system. Everybody subconsciously understand the math, and that is why hardly anyone wastes their vote on a third party. And ofcause this works in the benefit of the two dominant parties, so they certainly are not going to want to change it. The system is engrained, not because of any law or constitution, but because it benefits two dominant parties.
@@Hannodb1961 The solution is simple, stop voting for the two parties then. The only reason it’s working the way it’s working, is because people are voting for only two parties. Regardless of the rationale behind why they vote, it’s not up to the government to try and change how people vote. You want three parties, ten parties? Vote that way.
@@alpharius_nox There is a reason your "simple" solution has not worked for 150 years and will not work in the future. The video explained that fundamental problem... it's working this way because of the system not because of people. I feel like you haven't watched the video.
@@geirtristananton9305 The reason is ideological, there are only two parties because there are only two major ideologies in the US. Even in places like Germany where you have multiple parties, after the elections, they STILL have to form coalitions with each other in order to run the government and those coalitions are based on ideology. But in the US, those coalitions are naturally formed before elections even take place. So the multiparty system of these nations are just an illusion. They still form coalitions based on left/right ideologies. Or do you think the Green Party would form a coalition with the AfD? Doubt it. Parties don’t matter.
Nah it's just how FPTP works, usually makes 2 prominent parties (centre-left and a centre-right party). Less representative but more efficient in implementing respective left/right leaning policies.
This assumes that all of the third party voters agree with each other. I think a lot of people struggle to understand that the coalition building already happens in the parties.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
mixed member proportional does have the advantage of assuaging voters' concerns regarding local representation. A big reason many people oppose proportional representation is that the people who take seats in an assembly/parliament/congress are not accountable to a district or constituents. Perhaps some sort of combination of Open List and mixed member where the seats which are allocated via apportionment are only given to candidates who scored higher votes than other members of their parties nationally via local district elections, so that particularly unpopular members of a popular party would be unable to sit in an assembly
@@genuscorvid As a German I feel like the first vote campaigns are mostly a charade, it doesn't really matter if you vote someone in or out from a constituency as those same people are guaranteed seats by being high on their parties lists anyways, because the first vote almost always aligns with the second vote. Open lists would probably be more democratic and less susceptible to party insider politics, although I'm not sure what the effects of that would be.
The hard part is getting the two parties, who have all the power, to agree to reduce their influence and power so that smaller parties can have some power. The people in the party aren't the issue, it's the parties themselves.
The parties are made up of people, though. Ultimately, the individuals are the issue. If those individuals were ACTUALLY committed to representative democracy, you’d already have it. But, they’re not … clearly …
True, but what happens throughout history is that parties split themselves over some dispute, usually some polarizing person, but also taxing - like what happened to Catholic Church if you don’t mind the comparison.
It’s also the people not want to change something because everything is already the worlds best. I don’t see much Americans that want a system with more parties.
In Australia we have something like "single transferrable vote" that we call "preferential voting" You're presented with 6 options and number 1-6 where 1 is the representative you most want to win. (there is also an option to vote 1-12 to include more minor parties.) If they don't win, your vote goes to the next person, then down the line until one of them gets enough votes to win. BUT, any party that gets more than 5% of first-preference votes automatically gets an amount of government funding for their next election campaign. This means that smaller parties are more viable because they can build a voterbase over a period of time and slowly accumulate resources for more effective campaigning. Some minor parties do pretty well for themselves with this system.
It still means the votes of another who voted against the winning candidate for your electorate is wasted. When I asked Australians why they don't want a proportional voting system, where your votes as a country will be totalled, I was told "then everyone in Sydney decides for everyone"
@@teelo12000 *It still means the votes of another who voted against the winning candidate for your electorate is wasted.* 1. It's less a waste, though. If you're so worried about that then STAR Voting is your solution. *When I asked Australians why they don't want a proportional voting system, where your votes as a country will be totalled, I was told "then everyone in Sydney decides for everyone"* 2. They use the STV mentioned in its proportional representation form, though. So, Australians are using proportional representation to choose their senators, but the size of seats for Senators is not proportional to the population, that's other subject. Now, even if they each seat of their lower legislators (representative; not senators) were left to be proportional to the population I think that "Sydney" deciding for everyone is exaggerated, but that's another subject too.
It feels like a missed opportunity not to mention that Maine uses Ranked-Choice Voting, and they do not have a winner-take-all system for electorates in the general election.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
I honestly believe the one of the big reasons why Australia hasn't fully devolved into intense partisanship like the US is because of proportional voting. Smaller parties and independent MPs often hold the balance of power, make governments & oppositions more open to working with others rather than acting tribal like Republicans & Democrats do. I remember hearing former Prime Minister Julia Gillard once say how utterly shocked she was talking to American politicians and how unwilling they were to work on issues with the other side.
Exactly. This is how all democracies should work. There should also basically be a law that prevents the same party from being in power for over 4 years, to prevent tribalism. Or have a law like France where even tiny new parties get the same media coverage as established parties. It should also be possible for almost anyone to win without requiring 10,000 signatures to even be a candidate.
It has it's pros and cons. Over here in Germany, the Social Democrats (center left) and the Greens (a bit farther left and ecological) needed to form a government coalition with the Free Democrats (center right). The last ones are also the smallest, but since without them the government has not enough votes to pass their laws, the 3rd smallest party actually has effective veto rights on everything.
@@disnonn oh yeah its not perfect. But it does work a little different from Germany in the fact we have a hereditary monarch as head of state (represented in Australia by a Governor General). So even if there are issues in the system, there is a non-partisan umpire to sort things out.
@@disnonnthe swiss collegial system is pretty good against this issue imo because it allows for a proportional representation in parliament but without forcing the government to deal with a stiff coalition agreement to pass legislation
Proportional representation wouldn't really work on a federal level, thanks to the sheer size of the US. It's much more important that the House represents people by constituency, not political alignment, and the Senate needs to stay for the sake of state governments. *Also, political parties shouldn't be legitimately recognized as part of government, since they always lead to elitism. It's much harder to hold a party accountable than a candidate. If you elect a corrupt politician, you can vote them out next election. You elect a party and they appoint corrupt politicians, you can't do anything since that party has the same de facto immunity as Democrats and Republicans. Congressional elections should be ranked choice, within districts/states. At the same time, decrease Senate terms to 3 years, & appoint the top 2 candidates each election
We can say it's the oldest representative democracy, since direct democracy are almost impossible nowadays due to the size of country's population allowed to participate and vote
You wanted a politician yhat wasn't bribed by big corporations and the moment someone rich enough not to get bribed comes in, you vote for the one who gets lobbyist money. It is a choice, and the American people chose the one all the rich lobbyists want.
A good thing here, George Washington didn’t want and warned against political parties Saying they would divide the country, He was so unbelievably right.
@@cfiber_incIt is safe to say that we regardless of who we elect, we are really voting for their vice presidents instead. They aren't long for this world at their ages.
The problem is that voting a 3rd party candidate always allow the hated party to be power Therefore they would vote for the second hated party. The only way to have a 3rd party candidate is to accept that the hated party will be in power and vote for a 3rd party.
I love how Vox has been using the same music library for literal years, just heard a banger I remember hearing back when I was in high school and used for a few of my own vids
@@RealShaktimaan this is comparing western countries to one another. In countries where corruption runs unobstructed, you can’t exactly consider those a fair democracy the way the US wants to portray itself to be.
Germany actually just had a reform of the voting system. You can still vote for candidates but this is not a guarantee anymore that those persons will end up in the parliament. This is to reduce the total number of representatives because the "filling" until the proportions are correct really bloated the parliament over time. Therefore, Germany moved more in the direction of a closed list system.
@@dnimlarebil The thing is though PR or in Germany which uses MMPR forces ideologically opposed parties together to attempt to form a government which just makes awkward governance. In Germany right now, you have the green party which wants a lot more government spending for welfare and green investment, the workers party (SPD) who is centre-left too and focuses on workers rights, in a coalition with the FDP party which proclaims itself as the business party and wants the opposite of the other 2 (mainly less state involvement, more supportive of free market and the lower gov spending). At least with FPTP, you get 2 main parties that are centre-left and centre-right which are actually able to gain majorities and implement "left" or "right" policies respectively. In Germany, this is harder to do as again you're forcing people who are ideologically different (they are different parties for a reason) to try to work together to form a government.
@dnimlarebil The US is not a fully functioning democracy, the democracy index categorises it as a "Flawed Democracy" which I think is quite generous. There's a reason why few of the most successful democracies have a directly elected president. Even when the yanks occupied Japan they opted for a Westminster-style system.
@@ecnalms851You have the same problems in the US, there progressive republicans and conservative democrats. It is just more hidden and sometimes these persons are forced more in the party line. Which is really undemocratic
It should be added that this change is challenged in court by the CDU/CSU fraction in the Bundestag (i.e. the conservative party fraction in parliament), the CSU as a political party (basically a conservative party only being elected in Bavaria and part of the former fraction) AND the Freistaat Bayern (Bavaria, which is ruled by a CSU-government since like forever, due to the connection of the voting system to the candidate lists of the federal states). And it is likely that the court (Bundesverfassungsgericht = German Constitutional Court) is going to decide before the next election in 2025.
That depends entirely on the third party itself. A third party that's even more right than the GOP won't get many Democratic voters, and one that's far to the left won't get many Republican voters. It's only one that's politically between the two that will pull from both.
@@EvilAng3la Exactly, it is a legitimate electoral strategy to try to promote 3rd party candidates that you know will siphon votes away from your opposition
Then you could question what a democracy is? Is it a democracy if only some can vote? Because only free men could vote in Greece. Personally I don't think it's democratic if so many people are excluded
There are democracies around the world that meet in buildings older than the US. I loved this video but that statement at the end nearly caused me to spit my coffee all over the screen, it's so wrong
@@sandeliaisaksson5027 democracy has a definition. you can argue the moral side of it, but by definition, there've been democracies way before the usa. and this makes people question the authority of the person in the video. rightfully so
@@teabagfchave those places consistently been a democracy since those buildings were built? Depending on what constitutes democracy, the US has a strong argument for oldest CONTINUOUS democracy except for San marino.
I like Germany's version of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting. 2/3 of seats are directly elected like ours, while 1/3 are apportioned proportional to the vote. When Germans go to vote, they vote both for the legislator of their district, as well as for a party as a whole. This allows for both representatives that are beholden to local concerns as well as allowing for smaller parties to get into the legislature via proportional voting without voters worrying about splitting the vote. Also, the electoral threshold requiring a party to get 5% to get any seats helps prevent the issue of small parties that could join either of the two major blocs (which is inevitable in any democracy) having all the power is smart.
Also, Germans vote on a sunday, when most shops and services are closed, so you can get to the ballot without any pressure. And if you can't make it, there is always the option to vote by mail or in person at your local council. And you don't have to get registered to vote. Once you turn 18 you will be informed by mail when and were the next vote will be.
But PR and MMPR in Germany forces ideologically opposed parties together (They are different parties for a reason afterall) and tries to make them form a government. Just look right now at them, you have the green party which wants a lot more government spending for welfare and green investment, the workers party (SPD) who is centre-left too and focuses on workers rights, in a coalition with the FDP party which proclaims itself as the business party and wants the opposite of the other 2 (mainly less state involvement, more supportive of free market and the lower gov spending). Now, you see the inherent contradiction in this coalition - the green party, workers party, and the business party attempting to govern despite having different ideologies. There is a lack of cohesion which is not good. At least with FPTP, although its less representative, you get 2 main parties that are centre-left and centre-right which are actually able to gain majorities and implement "left" or "right" policies respectively.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
You look at the Amendments history of the US Constitution. Starting with the 11th (the first 10 happened pretty much immediately after the creation), there has been an Amendment roughly every 10-12 years until the latter half of the 20th century. It has been 30+ years since the last ratified Amendment (50+ if you only considered amendments that affected the majority of the population). It has become increasingly difficult, near impossible, to amend the laws that govern the country to keep with the times we live in. How can a country function normally if the laws that hold it together are either outdated or just not fit-for-purpose any more?
It's not so much fearing change in this case. It's that there is no incentive for either of the two political parties to want to change the current system, so they won't.
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."
It's socialism with "Chinese characteristics" all over again... A complete deviation of the original goal, and a scar on the name of the ideology in the first place!
Even with PR, there would still be polarization. FPTP has worked well in USA for ages, the rampant polarization right now has only just skyrocketed since the Trump era. With PR, you would have even more politically squabbling as it would likely mean no party gains a majority to govern effectively and it would take ages to form coalitions. Fun fact: It once took 299 days in Netherlands to form a government.
@@ecnalms851 the population itself is ideologically divided so if you really want your government to represent your population you have to make sure that your government can speak for a lot of people
Nah, it's not mathematics that is keeping the two party system. It's the American people refusing to break it. Trump came in and is dismantling the GOP and America votes for continuing the cycle of rich corporations lobbying politicians for favors.
And in Mexico you have Mercenary Political Parties who sellout to the party most likely to win, living of the annual budget allocated for their expenses, this is done supposedly to negate lobbying.
Both parties are economically right wing. Mainly the two parties take opposite sides of culture war stuff. But it's mostly irrelevant symbolism; like for example building a wall doesn't actually make the country any better (nor does it really solve immigration issues), so the wall is a symbol. The BLM protests likewise did not result in permanent meaningful changes for anyone; hence it was symbolic. Lots of symbolism and gesturing. What matters is economics: building up the working class. For that we have two right-wing parties (economically).
@@robertjenkins6132 spot on! and since they protect an "aristocratic" system, they have no interests in opening up to fresh forces with fresh ideas. everything must remain as it is.
The map at 4:51 is actually an Eastern-Europe map jiggled-up a bit. You can clearly see the borders of Serbia, Kosovo, Hungary and Romania, and it's only gets distorted in Poland and Ukraine
Weird they didn't just use a partial map of actual German bundestag constituencies. The whole bottom part (N. Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria & Romania) Is definitely Europe. It's only representative to make a point though so no harm done.
If you want to have more choices when you vote - find your state’s local RCV group and get involved (we are working on using ranked-choice voting and proportional ranked-choice voting [STV] for local elections in NJ).
With push to remove NH from the first in the nation primary I feel like an RCV system in the primary could help present a reason for us to keep it. Start with the primary and then move toward the general as people get used to it.
Oh my God a useful, non-doomer comment. Istg everyone points out the issues in our country, but they don't provide information on how to fix those issues. Even worse, there are even people who say that nothing can change, which just reinforces the false idea that nothing can change in the US.
As a German I never felt that my vote was with nothing. I always see my interests represented in a person or in a party and sometimes in a person and a party the same time. Of course we also have our problems, but the claim by the far right of not being represented is just strategy. They want a less representative system. I hope US can reform itself and it can help to have good competition between many parties in the near future.
The thing that ends up happening is that each of the two parties have very large tents. Any time a third party starts to become popular, one of the two big parties just starts adopting their ideas into their party platform. This video makes it sound like there are only two different ideas of how to run the country, that's not the case. Within each party there is always a competition from various wings of each party to move the party toward the extremes or toward the center. That competition happens during the primary races and it actually matters a great deal.
For example in Germany, crime has increased with refugees but action is taken slowly. Government is acting indecisively with regards to farmers and taxes and protests continue against the military budget increases
@@Cherry-pu4mxIn what way do these problems tie to "too much representation". Also you mentioned refugees being the reason for rising crime, yet crime is not rising. If you look up crime index statistics crimes have actually decreased since 2016
The German system is not good either though. Your government coalition right now is the green party, the workers party, in coalition with the business party. You literally have ideologically opposed parties (they are different parties for a reason) trying to run a coherent government together despite having significant different opinions (eg: green party wants significant state spending, whereas business party wants less state involvement and big supporter of the debt brake and lower taxes). At least with FPTP, it is less representative but you get 2 parties that represent the centre-left and centre-right respectively, and in elections a party can gain a majority which allows them to actually rule. I believe Germany would actually be more successful with a FPTP system as it would allow either the CDU or SPD to gain majorities to rule effectively and implement their right/left policies. Instead, Germany's system is just a jumble and slow.
I live in Ireland and didn’t realize the system used here is somewhat unique/rare. Good to know. I like it- while not perfect, it comes very close to accurately representing the views of the citizens in a proportionate manner.
I have a feeling you understand America’s system better than most Americans. We are a Republic rather than a pure Democracy. It’s a little disturbing to hear so many people complaining about our system of government and the Constitution when they have no idea what our system is and have never taken the time to read the Constitution. I’m also fairly certain that many of our elected officials have never bothered to read the Constitution either. Sad.
I'm a South Korean, and we use a mixed-member proportional representation system. A lot of Koreans aren't very happy with this system, because it's been abused by parties to give seats to questionable people, such as politicians with actual criminal records. Most people, especially the younger generations, have just given up on politics, since they feel like they have no control over who gets elected. Worst of all, it doesn't really help small political parties.
It's because it is a closed list system. And South Korea has 254 constituency seats but 46 proportional seats, which is too small make it proportional.
More like if you want change, vote for the outside candidate. But come election day you always vote the politician who has been part of the DC elite for decades so the cycle continues.
Other countries have stronger third parties because of how elections are held, and because of how the 3 branches of government are balanced. It’s not about the “will of the voter.” A two party system will remain in the US until you change the laws.
It's interesting how most people don't like the main two parties and yet keep voting for them either because: - One is slightly better - I don't want the other to win - Voting for anyone else would be a wasted vote If people actually voted for the party they agreed with most, instead of the best of a bad bunch, you'd actually start seeing the change you want instead of complaining you didn't get the change you wanted.
If everybody voted for their actual favourite then that would worsen the problem because the party who wins would have even fewer people who actually voted for it
indeed, that is why I say that the English speaking world that basically all uses this system cannot be considered democratic at all. The condition for a system to be democratic is that a popular gressroot movement must be able to create a new party that gains seats in its legislature
Same as New Zealand? I was under the impression that... they use MMP, and that minor parties like ACT and the Greens have representation. Perhaps the two-party system remaining, atleast when it comes to which parties get to take the prime minister role, is what's causing dissolutions still?
Indeed Labour under Ardern got a majority of seats, the first time in any countries using MMP (and perhaps one of the few rare instances of majority government under PR), but they still decided to have a cooperation agreement with the Greens. The idea being that if they eventually lose their majority in the next election, they won't have to bargain too much for the Greens' support. That's the huge advantage of PR, one party not having a majority, a monopoly (or in two-party systems, duopoly), actually helps in ensuring stable government, since separate parties but having shared alignments can form compromise and consensus-based coalitions. That's unlike the broad churches of the Dems and the GOP. You saw what happened to McCarthy. The Freedom Caucus fugged him up.
@@johndotto2773 indeed, and let us also not forget, that under every PR system, the parties are normally distributed (just as the population) between left and right, therefore most politics are done in the centre. but under a first-past-the-post system, polities becomes polarised leading to two camps that hate each other, with gradually infect the larger population as well
Switching from winner takes all to whatever alternative system basically means the currently winning party will lose some of its power, because some of those power will be transferred to the other parties. So yeah, try convincing that winning party to let go of power, and let's see how that goes
Yeah, exactly. What party that controls all of the representatives out of a state is going to willingly give up seats without all the other states required to do the same?
@@Tjalve70 Even then, it will probably require at least half, if not more, of the entire grown population to demand change and reforms continuously, until the gov't finally agrees.
Yeah but that is also mostly along the right wing. We see the same in Europe with right wing politicians there. And here's the thing. The constitution is a law, and just like any other law they're there to help the country and its population. And if it doesn't do that or actively makes things worse, then maybe it should be changed. I mean right wing politicians are very happy to change other laws or even redefine the meanings of constitutional parts if it benefits themselves. It's all just manipulation and power play
As an Irish person obviously there are ways in which our country is run that I don’t always like, but I love our voting system. When I was in school our student councils were elected by Proportional Representation with Single Transferrable Vote and we were encouraged to help work on counting votes to better under how the system works.
What was that one page in CGP Grey's Big Book of Laws of the Universe? The first thing you think of that looks sensible and is easy to implement is often terrible, ineffective, and will cause suffering for the rest of your existence. Sounds a lot like "The person who gets the most votes wins".
That's true, and is something that needs to be fixed. - Even in a winner-take-all situation, though, instant runoff voting has value, it makes the votes more expressive. If the Democrats win by 52% to Republicans' 48%... but ten points out of that 52% were the runoff from, say, the Green Party... then the Democrats know they need to be mindful of the Green Party's agenda to win the next election.
Fun fact, single-winner "ranked-choice voting" (instant-runoff voting) also does, despite people promoting it saying otherwise. The video touches on this when discussing proportional representation a bit, but the video is also wrong when they say "any single winner election" boils down to a two-party system. That's a common misconception. There are single-winner methods that provide no polarization incentive.
Yes 😂 naturally all those parties either Will support or will be against it ! There only two choices 😂 In India we have6000+ parties but at the end there only two choices yes or no
@@1ucasvbThat's one of the reasons I personally would prefer Approval Voting. I know it has it's problems - ALL voting systems have flaws, after all - but it's simple to understand, simple to use, and the outcomes will never be confusing.
Standing? Maybe. It depends on how to look, but let's say - standing - yes. The oldest democracy at all - no) One has to be specific when saying something)
@@dotpy7928 I would consider the current most powerful nation on earth "standing" yes. It's border-line oligarchical government may be problematic but could not yet be considered a failed state.
Fantastic work! I've been searching for a video like this for 20 years. There's plenty of videos by non-Americans explaining PR in general, and there's that decent PRCV video by Minnesota Public Radio, but nothing like this. Great job. Thank you so much!
CGP grey has a number of videos on the different voting systems and their differences. From several years back, still good. Easy to understand. Look them up if you're into this stuff.
@@TheFeldhamster I've seen his videos on STV and MMP, but I haven't yet seen one from him that talks about Proportional Representation more broadly and why it's key to breaking up the two-party system.
Well if a third party candidate actually does get enough votes they can win. This mentality that it's a vote for the other side/a wasted vote is not accurate and will keep us stuck in this system forever. Vote for RFK Jr in November!!!
Irish person here. I love our voting system (PR-STV). We also also have independent redistricting and strict campaign finance rules. We have no far-right party and very few far-left members of parliament as our system generally results in more centrist politics rather than that of the extremes.
It's a system of electing representatives which firstly, more accurately reflects the views of the public, and secondly pretty much has deliberation and compromise built in. So obviously it's going to produce a more mature and thoughtful approach to campaigning and governance.
Person from Denmark here. The Irish system seems good but I prefer our system. In Denmark if a party gets 2% or more of the votes then it gets its fair share of seats. At least a third of the people vote for far-left or far-right parties and society ends up more peaceful when these people feel represented. And they would probably not feel represented by a "moderated left" or "moderated right" party.
@@RalfAnodinwhile I agree with the idea, as an American, local representation means a lot which the Danish PR system lacks which is why I prefer the Irish system
@@alangoldsmith3 In Denmark there is local representation somehow. It is not as local as in Ireland, but there are still 10 districts, in a country that is smaller than the average US state. I have never heard of anybody in Denmark complaining that the representation is not local enough.
It's an Anocracy now. A form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features"
@@spanishball9449No. No one vote can change anything, and nothing will change by a third party candidate trying to get people to vote for him. That’s statistically impossible. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma (highly recommend researching it). The only way to fix a prisoner’s dilemma is to get the people already in power to change it.
USA has no 2 party "system". There are other political parties in the USA and they get some votes too but very ignorable. It just so happened that the USA election has winner takes all system which unintentionally strengthens the current two major parties. It's not like China where there is 1 party system because the law says so. In USA, there's no law banning other parties.
Perot received 19,743,821 of the 1992 election popular vote (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes. He received 8,085,294 of the popular vote in 1996 (8.4%) and 0 electoral votes. *Other third party candidates* John B. Anderson received 5,719,850 of the popular vote in 1980 (6.6%) and 0 electoral votes. George Wallace received 9,901,118 of the popular vote in 1968 (13.5%) and 46 electoral votes in 5 states. Strom Thurmond received 1,176,023 of the popular vote in 1948 (2.4%) and 39 electoral votes in 4 states.
I personally prefer approval voting for single-outcome elections. You cast one ballot, but you may "tick" multiple options. The options with the most percentage of "ticks" wins.
I usually have a strong preference in bigger elections, and would be worried about hurting my first choice, so it would be rare for me to use more than one tick
Single outcome elections are what have allowed the USA to end up in this gridlocked state its currently in. 435 Reps in the House ruling over 330 million people (750k people per Rep) is not really democratic or representative of the population as whole. Single outcome elections at a country of the USA's size just leads to many problems.
Portland, OR is changing to a transferable vote/ranked choice system for city council this year. Excited to try it and I can see how that would work for state houses as well. Local and state politics often have a larger impacton your day-to-day life, so it's important to give them attention as well, regardless of what national politics are doing.
Something not often mentioned about the US system is that the parties internally kind of act like parliamentary democracies. The caucuses in the US congress are similar (though not nearly as independent, and there isn't as much threat of a government coalition dissolving) as parties in a coalition government. Within the Democrats there is the more left wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the centrist New Democrat Coalition and Blue Dog Coalition. Within the Republicans there is the more mainstream conservative Republican Study Committee and the more right-libertarian and/or Trumpist Freedom Caucus (and there used to be moderate caucuses within the Republicans too). Most voters don't know about these though, so it doesn't really impact voting patterns.
STAR Voting can actually solve the spoiler effect in voting and has initiatives in Oregon to get it going! It has a proportional representation version of it too! Look it up if you haven't already heard of it!
Or Well just eliminate the spoiler thing completely in the first place by moving to multi winner district system... any of them. There is only so much voter wishes information you can pack in a single win decision. No matter how well that decision is made. To have proportionality one much be able to give out political power in finer increments than 0% of power and 100% of power.
the obvious problem would be time, but i’ve always thought adding a “no vote” option and omitting the second and third place candidates from the next election if “no vote” wins would be a good idea
We must continue to improve the system in which things are not static but always living and changing in conditions. I am a supporter of a third party in Mongolia and there is now solid data that its existence brought about more civic engagements. The political competition does have a visible impact on the ways the government handles key decisions.
Technically it's the oldest "continuous" democracy. Definitely not the prime example of democracy but right now Americans still uses the framework of a constitution over 200 + years (w/ some amendments along the years) which is still impressive. UK was in monarch when Americans declared their independence.
@@lemontea000 The UK is still a monarchy. But at the time the USA was colonised, the UK was a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. I mean, only land-owning men could vote but still...
@@SteveWray Eh. If I remember it correctly King George V had significant hand on passing the People's budget law in 1910 - basically blackmailing House of Lords of destroying their powers. And we can go as recent to 1963 when the late Queen Elizabeth herself picked their prime minister because nobody could decide who it should be. There's obviously nuance to that but still, you would never see US president deciding who should be the next representative/senate leaders. And even on deciding on Supreme justices it has to go through the Senate votes.
@@phoenix7015 But it wasn't continuous. Denmark took control for hundreds of years. If (as part of your definition of a "democracy") you include the condition that women were allowed to vote, then New Zealand is the oldest continuous democracy.
I am an Australian. We have ranked choice voting in districts drawn by a politically independent body. Also, as weird as it sounds to Americans, we also have mandatory voting. 95-98% of eligible Australians vote in _every_ election. Prisoners serving less than a 3 year sentence can also vote (More than 3 years guaranties you will be imprisoned for an entire election cycle).
Although the single-winner system has huge flaws, the thing that I like the most about it is that the connection between the voters and the representatives is good. In Sweden, where we vote for parties, a majority of the members of parliament are actually unknown to most of the public. Not sure what would be the optimal system, but some sort of combination between proportional representation and single-member districts. I like the German system.
It's the other way around actually. Majoritatian systems usually privilege stability and governability, while proportional system are more focused on representability. However there are also mixed systems. I'm Italian and, even if it is a bad law imho, Italy now has a mixed system: basically we elect 37% of the Parlamient with a majoritarian vote and the 61% with proportional vote (2% of the votes is left for Italians living abroad).
The biggest issue with the German system is that it creates a huge overhead. German parliament is the 2nd largest in the world after China's, because it needs to fit in the direct voters choices as well as keeping everything proportional. The CDU and her sister party for example won the majority of all districts (they won 143, about half of them), but they only received 24% of the party vote. So to fit in 143 MPs and keep the CDU at 24% of parliament means that parliament has to have about 600 seats. This really only has become an issue in the past 30 or so years. Before then, German parliament was pretty much just 90-95% split between SPD and CDU, and the rest going to the FDP.
It wasn't intended as a two party system, but functions as one. Canada and the United Kingdom are actually set up to work as a two party system. You have a government and an official opposition that acts as a government in waiting. Except in Canada we have many parties with standing with Elections Canada that run candidates. And in the federal parliament we have elected Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party. The Liberals have held a minority government for the last two parliaments, but have an accord of sorts with the NDP. That's not the same as a coalition government. The NDP doesn't hold any cabinet positions. They don't caucus together. The arrangement can end at any time.
I have always wondered how only 2 parties could represent the needs of 300+M people and then still be surprised that the population gets more and more polarised.
There is a lot more to it than FPTP tbh. Compare it to the UK with FPTP which just elected 13 different parties plus 5 independents. Im suprised not even any regional parties have taken seats in the US.
The ranked choice voting seen in the US in states like Maine is more akin to the alternative vote system where only one candidate is elected. The single transferable vote, on the other hand, allows for more than one candidate per 'constituency' to be elected - as seen in Ireland. @Vox - in the US the ranked choice voting systems only allow for one winner right?
I like the advancement and nuance of this compared to the 2017 vox video - explaining the different types of proportional representation too! (Closed or open lists, MMP and STV) (district magnitude also matters too) Also the sound effects while doing the list PR etc was neat, and makes me wonder where it’s from
@@fosterslover interesting you say that, because women in the US didn't get the right to vote until 1919, whereas a true democracy allows every citizen to vote. The first country in the world was New Zealand in 1893. So technically, New Zealand is the oldest true democracy
I genuinely would love to see the USA united again. It seems it would take nothing short of a miracle. People need to do one thing. Relinquish their egoic need to be RIGHT. Being right feels so good and so powerful - and it ruins relationships of all kinds, and it also ruins countries and starts wars. My two cents.
The only way to escape the two-party system is voting an independent. The problem is that the corporation-controlled media shuts them down like they're doing with Kennedy, who's on his way to become the most voted independent in history.
I'm from New Zealand - in 1993, we had a referendum to change our electoral system from First Past the Post (FPP) to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) - so now, we vote for whoever we want (of course, we have 2 main parties that get most of the votes), and generally, one large party will win and have to create a coalition with 1-2 smaller parties that got lots of votes too. Votes also correlate to seats in parliament, so we have more varied discussions. I feel like our voices are actually heard.
We have an option that isn't either of these. RFK is still running. If the majority truly wanted to break the 2-party system, I'd see more RFK stuff out there. Money wins elections, and that's why we only ever have two real contenders. And why how much their respective campaigns have made, is an indicator of who will.
@@Writer_Productions_Map maybe you should listen to one of his podcasts and actually hear what he has to say. He’s a critic not a conspiracy theorist. Oh yeah and he has actual logical proposal on the issues that matter. He doesn’t just repeat the same mantras
The D’Hondt method is actually very proportional too when there are enough seats distributed like the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Finland. The main limitation to proportionality in El Salvador (as in most Central and South American countries, as well as in Spain, Portugal and most Central and Eastern European countries) is that there are too few seats per districts. You cannot have a real proportional result when you have 7 important parties and only 4 seats per district, whether the D’Hondt method is used or any other one.
Just hopped on your channel today watched a few detailed videos of you explaining your strategy and I implemented onto my demo account and definitely a game changer appreciate the free knowledge not to many that actually breaks it down in a way that even a toddler could understand
here's an option created out of despair in russia. it's called Smart Voting. when choosing a candidate you get recommended the one who's most likely to win if we take out the choices we're opposing. it didn't lead to many changes (obviosly there isn't much room for democracy in russian) but it was considered a threat by the state and censorship was hard at work
They could also just expand the House of Reps to 500 or 600 people. That hasn't been done since the early 1900s when Arizona was added as a state (they did not expand Congress for Alaska and Hawaii). I think it would still lead to mostly Dem/GOP, but smaller districts will also make it easier for 3rd parties to win seats, as they would need to reach fewer people and not need a massive campaign as they do now. 435 members to represent 320,000,000+ people also heavily favors two parties.
This. There are lots of reforms we need to make but expanding the size of the House would be (relatively) simple to do and would make the House much more representative.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Honestly as a european the american system seems to me like its on the very edge of being still democratic: You can Vote, but its almost impossible to get rid of whos already in charge.
You are correct, we will see how the rest of the year plays out. Many unprecedented things are happening and that could be the start of real change.
voting literally has no effect on public policy, and Europe is just a vassal state of the US so it's not much different. The entire Western world is best described as a plutocratic corporatocracy.
you are being very charitable; most of the time we don't even choose who gets in the whole primary-process is TOTALLY outside the law and controlled by the PARTIES themselves!! Any time someone like Jerry Brown or Bernie Sanders starts to do well, they literally change the rules of the game to sabotage him. The entire left-half of the political spectrum was effectively outlawed in this country in the 1950s.... it's like a plane with only one wing.... we have one party always pulling as hard as they can to the right, and another that will only counter by pulling to the 'center' >.> even though they know full well that means the 'center' is always moving right......
Late stage capitalism
And don't get me started on their congressional college, or whatever it's named, don't worry, they know best and vote for you
There is no incentive for Congress to change the system. That fact alone will make proportional representation never happen in the US.
There is an incentive, though. More proportional, less toxic, and more productive congress is a widely popular idea and only getting more so. If supporting and then putting through this legislation helps one congressmen win their primary or final race, you can end up with a majority of legislature that agreed to that to be able to get in. Winning seats is the motivation.
And on top of that, if the entire party can see some long term benefits in a specific place: Perhaps one side has been winning in an area for a very long time, they are still in the lead but can tell that demographic shifts will lose them the area in the near future: then they can push for proportional voting specifically there. They get the votes from implementing a popular idea, and then they only lose half the state instead of the whole state.
It's not that enough of an incentive for the establishmentarians tho.....
Lol😂@@___i3ambi126
@@___i3ambi126While I admire your statement, I think that money being a large part of politics becomes a primary motivator for many members of congress. Why would they want to change a system they benefit from?
then the people must rise up to change it, either through a constitutional convention, or, if they refuse to allow the will of the people to be done.. then in whatever manner is necessary to return power to the people
Revolution?
It's a common thread in the inner workings of the USA, where we have institutions built on archaic rules that need to be changed, but those who can effect that change have negative incentive to do so.
They're not "archaic rules," they're functioning exactly as intended. The point was always to keep the rabble from telling the rich what to do.
Like paying CEOs of corporations with stock, so they focus on short-term profit over long-term sustainability. 😢
Agendas without self-preservation is the definition of being liberal.
You couldn't be suggesting changing muh Constitution, are ya?
@@SkilledTadpole Much of American society works on rules and regulations that are entirely extraneous to the Constitution. I don't think it would be necessary to change the Constitution to make changes to the way our electorate works.
Whoever is in charge of your designs and animations KILLS IT!!! My goodness your videos are such a visual treat!!!!🌟
Can you guide me where can I learn to edit like this
Animator is listed in the credit; Lucas Mariano🗣
That was the AI named Lucas Mariano
Yes
@@chbaloch0gaming435 The best way? Recreate these videos from scratch to get practice, then start making your own
As a Canadian, I'm still so angry that Trudeau went back on his promise of electoral reform. We have more parties than the US, but our "first past the post" system still favours parties with either large countrywide support (Liberals, Conservatives), or strong regional support (Bloc Quebecois), and disadvantages parties with small but consistent countrywide support (NDP, Greens). In the past election, the NDP had more than twice the votes of the Bloc, but fewer seats in the house, and that's not an aberration - it happens in every election. I was really gunning for mixed-member proportional, but honestly ANY system is better than first past the post.
As a Canadian I agree. First Past The Post is truly anti-democratic as are majority governments based of it.
Interesting. Hope those reforms get more attention up there!
How could you believe to him 🤣
@@marsel8718As if Pierre is going to to do electoral reform..🤣
Agreed. Similarly in Quebec, the CAQ (then opposition, now ruling party) had signed, in a big press conference together with every other opposition party leader, a pledge to bring in MMPR if they got elected. They got elected, and it became "too radical", and died almost immediately. The winners always feel the system is working well (for them.)
The problem is that both parties enjoyed a joint monopoly on power for over 150 years, and under the current system, it will continue indefinitely. That means both parties has an insentive to _not_ change the electoral system.
Can you show me where in the Constitution a “two party system” is mentioned? And I’m assuming you’re expecting the federal government to pass some laws that enforce a more than two party system?
@@alpharius_nox Have you not watched the video? Ofcause the two party system is not mentioned in the constitutional. It is an unintended, yet unavoidable side effect of the First Past the Post electoral system. Everybody subconsciously understand the math, and that is why hardly anyone wastes their vote on a third party. And ofcause this works in the benefit of the two dominant parties, so they certainly are not going to want to change it. The system is engrained, not because of any law or constitution, but because it benefits two dominant parties.
@@Hannodb1961 The solution is simple, stop voting for the two parties then. The only reason it’s working the way it’s working, is because people are voting for only two parties. Regardless of the rationale behind why they vote, it’s not up to the government to try and change how people vote. You want three parties, ten parties? Vote that way.
@@alpharius_nox There is a reason your "simple" solution has not worked for 150 years and will not work in the future. The video explained that fundamental problem... it's working this way because of the system not because of people. I feel like you haven't watched the video.
@@geirtristananton9305 The reason is ideological, there are only two parties because there are only two major ideologies in the US. Even in places like Germany where you have multiple parties, after the elections, they STILL have to form coalitions with each other in order to run the government and those coalitions are based on ideology. But in the US, those coalitions are naturally formed before elections even take place. So the multiparty system of these nations are just an illusion. They still form coalitions based on left/right ideologies. Or do you think the Green Party would form a coalition with the AfD? Doubt it. Parties don’t matter.
Both parties collude with each other to keep out other parties.
Nah it's just how FPTP works, usually makes 2 prominent parties (centre-left and a centre-right party). Less representative but more efficient in implementing respective left/right leaning policies.
@@ecnalms851 He's still right, though, and you don't have to work in minor-party politics to see it.
This assumes that all of the third party voters agree with each other. I think a lot of people struggle to understand that the coalition building already happens in the parties.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
@@ecnalms851 They did collude. A simple example is the presidential debate.
Open List seems the most fair
I agree, quality of leader is extremely important
mixed member proportional does have the advantage of assuaging voters' concerns regarding local representation. A big reason many people oppose proportional representation is that the people who take seats in an assembly/parliament/congress are not accountable to a district or constituents. Perhaps some sort of combination of Open List and mixed member where the seats which are allocated via apportionment are only given to candidates who scored higher votes than other members of their parties nationally via local district elections, so that particularly unpopular members of a popular party would be unable to sit in an assembly
@@genuscorvidfinland🤷♂️
Philippines
@@genuscorvid As a German I feel like the first vote campaigns are mostly a charade, it doesn't really matter if you vote someone in or out from a constituency as those same people are guaranteed seats by being high on their parties lists anyways, because the first vote almost always aligns with the second vote. Open lists would probably be more democratic and less susceptible to party insider politics, although I'm not sure what the effects of that would be.
The US political atmosphere is a comedy club
Yeah, and the punchline is one of them will actually win💀
Not anymore, now it is very concerning and potentially dangerous for the rest of us.
I have always seen more of spectator sport.
@@azazel166 just like in a comedy club at a later hour, when the highly drunk start a bar fight
Canada way worse!!!!
Two party systems must change. I hope. One day.
That’s called *Bipartisanship* 😢
It can with Ranked Choice voting. Look into RepresentUS
Make sure you vote third party 💚
@@StLouis-yu9iz like the video says, doing so favors the less popular party. Or whatever
vote 3rd party
The hard part is getting the two parties, who have all the power, to agree to reduce their influence and power so that smaller parties can have some power. The people in the party aren't the issue, it's the parties themselves.
@@senaesul3128 I hate to break it to you but that's already happening in the GOP without any new parties.
The parties are made up of people, though. Ultimately, the individuals are the issue. If those individuals were ACTUALLY committed to representative democracy, you’d already have it. But, they’re not … clearly …
No, the issue is our electoral system
True, but what happens throughout history is that parties split themselves over some dispute, usually some polarizing person, but also taxing - like what happened to Catholic Church if you don’t mind the comparison.
It’s also the people not want to change something because everything is already the worlds best. I don’t see much Americans that want a system with more parties.
In Australia we have something like "single transferrable vote" that we call "preferential voting"
You're presented with 6 options and number 1-6 where 1 is the representative you most want to win. (there is also an option to vote 1-12 to include more minor parties.) If they don't win, your vote goes to the next person, then down the line until one of them gets enough votes to win. BUT, any party that gets more than 5% of first-preference votes automatically gets an amount of government funding for their next election campaign. This means that smaller parties are more viable because they can build a voterbase over a period of time and slowly accumulate resources for more effective campaigning. Some minor parties do pretty well for themselves with this system.
That's the famous ranked-choice.
It still means the votes of another who voted against the winning candidate for your electorate is wasted. When I asked Australians why they don't want a proportional voting system, where your votes as a country will be totalled, I was told "then everyone in Sydney decides for everyone"
@@teelo12000 *It still means the votes of another who voted against the winning candidate for your electorate is wasted.*
1. It's less a waste, though. If you're so worried about that then STAR Voting is your solution.
*When I asked Australians why they don't want a proportional voting system, where your votes as a country will be totalled, I was told "then everyone in Sydney decides for everyone"*
2. They use the STV mentioned in its proportional representation form, though. So, Australians are using proportional representation to choose their senators, but the size of seats for Senators is not proportional to the population, that's other subject. Now, even if they each seat of their lower legislators (representative; not senators) were left to be proportional to the population I think that "Sydney" deciding for everyone is exaggerated, but that's another subject too.
Australia is occupied by Western colonizers.
@@davidlahozgil Melbourne literally has a bigger population now anyways.
Maybe The United States isn't very democratic after all
very prescient commentary, kimjongun6746
U people vote for ur district representative who represent u the people of that district in ur congreess thats how it works
Unlike True Korea, the one remaining bastion of democracy!
Maybe??? lol
Never was.
It is a lie she likes to tell herself.
It feels like a missed opportunity not to mention that Maine uses Ranked-Choice Voting, and they do not have a winner-take-all system for electorates in the general election.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
Rank choice is a good start. maybe something like MaxDiff could be even better, just more complicated to implement
@@zerotouxWhat's MaxDiff?
Exactly and they already send one independent to the senat, and there's also one from Vermont
Maine does not do the "winner take all" system?
guess there is hope for updates to the system after all
I honestly believe the one of the big reasons why Australia hasn't fully devolved into intense partisanship like the US is because of proportional voting. Smaller parties and independent MPs often hold the balance of power, make governments & oppositions more open to working with others rather than acting tribal like Republicans & Democrats do. I remember hearing former Prime Minister Julia Gillard once say how utterly shocked she was talking to American politicians and how unwilling they were to work on issues with the other side.
Exactly. This is how all democracies should work. There should also basically be a law that prevents the same party from being in power for over 4 years, to prevent tribalism. Or have a law like France where even tiny new parties get the same media coverage as established parties.
It should also be possible for almost anyone to win without requiring 10,000 signatures to even be a candidate.
It has it's pros and cons. Over here in Germany, the Social Democrats (center left) and the Greens (a bit farther left and ecological) needed to form a government coalition with the Free Democrats (center right). The last ones are also the smallest, but since without them the government has not enough votes to pass their laws, the 3rd smallest party actually has effective veto rights on everything.
@@disnonn oh yeah its not perfect. But it does work a little different from Germany in the fact we have a hereditary monarch as head of state (represented in Australia by a Governor General). So even if there are issues in the system, there is a non-partisan umpire to sort things out.
@@disnonnthe swiss collegial system is pretty good against this issue imo because it allows for a proportional representation in parliament but without forcing the government to deal with a stiff coalition agreement to pass legislation
Proportional representation wouldn't really work on a federal level, thanks to the sheer size of the US. It's much more important that the House represents people by constituency, not political alignment, and the Senate needs to stay for the sake of state governments.
*Also, political parties shouldn't be legitimately recognized as part of government, since they always lead to elitism. It's much harder to hold a party accountable than a candidate. If you elect a corrupt politician, you can vote them out next election. You elect a party and they appoint corrupt politicians, you can't do anything since that party has the same de facto immunity as Democrats and Republicans.
Congressional elections should be ranked choice, within districts/states. At the same time, decrease Senate terms to 3 years, & appoint the top 2 candidates each election
The world's oldest democracy is generally considered to be the democracy of ancient Athens, Greece.
Cool
the oldest "democracy" that still lives to this day
@@kairon5249 Nah. It's kinda dead now. It's a autocracy now.
@@TheWrestlingful hence why i said "democracy" not democracy
We can say it's the oldest representative democracy, since direct democracy are almost impossible nowadays due to the size of country's population allowed to participate and vote
I have no hope that the US will get better. The corruption just never stops
This has always been the warning against universal suffrage.
Lol man, in the US corruption is legal, i believe it's called lobbying
Who's system do you want?
You wanted a politician yhat wasn't bribed by big corporations and the moment someone rich enough not to get bribed comes in, you vote for the one who gets lobbyist money. It is a choice, and the American people chose the one all the rich lobbyists want.
Well, currently the Republicans seem to be eating themselves. So if the Democrats can win a super majority maybe they can be pressured to do it.
A good thing here, George Washington didn’t want and warned against political parties Saying they would divide the country, He was so unbelievably right.
He also advocated for an isolationist foreign policy.
He was right about that as well.
@@sofianikiforova7790 Man was
Way… Way ahead of his time lol, We need him back lol
And yet Washington was a member of and the leader of the Federalist Party.
Also George Washington: Makes winner takes all system
Washington was a member of and the leader of the Federalist Party.
It’s such a shame we have to pick between two horrible candidates.
2 fossils
@@cfiber_incIt is safe to say that we regardless of who we elect, we are really voting for their vice presidents instead. They aren't long for this world at their ages.
@@terrafirma5327 Sounds right.
The problem is that voting a 3rd party candidate always allow the hated party to be power
Therefore they would vote for the second hated party. The only way to have a 3rd party candidate is to accept that the hated party will be in power and vote for a 3rd party.
not the veeps, they don't do much. it's the president's of staff who runs everything@@terrafirma5327
I love how Vox has been using the same music library for literal years, just heard a banger I remember hearing back when I was in high school and used for a few of my own vids
Yeah between this and Veritasium I'm thoroughly sick of it
It is not in the interest of the rich and powerful to change the system, therefore the system will not be changed.
Rich and powerful runs every other country with a different system as well
@@RealShaktimaan much less so in comparison to the US though.
@@hanikanaan4121 India has hundreds of different parties. And few families basically control the national government.
@@hanikanaan4121HAHAHAHA good one
@@RealShaktimaan this is comparing western countries to one another. In countries where corruption runs unobstructed, you can’t exactly consider those a fair democracy the way the US wants to portray itself to be.
Germany actually just had a reform of the voting system. You can still vote for candidates but this is not a guarantee anymore that those persons will end up in the parliament. This is to reduce the total number of representatives because the "filling" until the proportions are correct really bloated the parliament over time. Therefore, Germany moved more in the direction of a closed list system.
The weird thing is that the US established a well functioning democracy in Germany but never reformed their own ...
@@dnimlarebil The thing is though PR or in Germany which uses MMPR forces ideologically opposed parties together to attempt to form a government which just makes awkward governance. In Germany right now, you have the green party which wants a lot more government spending for welfare and green investment, the workers party (SPD) who is centre-left too and focuses on workers rights, in a coalition with the FDP party which proclaims itself as the business party and wants the opposite of the other 2 (mainly less state involvement, more supportive of free market and the lower gov spending). At least with FPTP, you get 2 main parties that are centre-left and centre-right which are actually able to gain majorities and implement "left" or "right" policies respectively. In Germany, this is harder to do as again you're forcing people who are ideologically different (they are different parties for a reason) to try to work together to form a government.
@dnimlarebil The US is not a fully functioning democracy, the democracy index categorises it as a "Flawed Democracy" which I think is quite generous.
There's a reason why few of the most successful democracies have a directly elected president. Even when the yanks occupied Japan they opted for a Westminster-style system.
@@ecnalms851You have the same problems in the US, there progressive republicans and conservative democrats. It is just more hidden and sometimes these persons are forced more in the party line. Which is really undemocratic
It should be added that this change is challenged in court by the CDU/CSU fraction in the Bundestag (i.e. the conservative party fraction in parliament), the CSU as a political party (basically a conservative party only being elected in Bavaria and part of the former fraction) AND the Freistaat Bayern (Bavaria, which is ruled by a CSU-government since like forever, due to the connection of the voting system to the candidate lists of the federal states). And it is likely that the court (Bundesverfassungsgericht = German Constitutional Court) is going to decide before the next election in 2025.
Because both parties believe that it will take voters away from one of the parties, when in fact, it will take away from both.
No, they just want something that only hurts the other side.
RepresentUS. They’re a nonpartisan group pushing Ranked Choice Voting and policies all sides can agree with.
That depends entirely on the third party itself. A third party that's even more right than the GOP won't get many Democratic voters, and one that's far to the left won't get many Republican voters. It's only one that's politically between the two that will pull from both.
@@EvilAng3la Exactly, it is a legitimate electoral strategy to try to promote 3rd party candidates that you know will siphon votes away from your opposition
@@EvilAng3lawhat's funny is the current DNC is actually not leftwing at all.
8:48
"We are one of the oldest, if not the oldest democracy in the world, right?"
Somewhere far away sobbed Greece...
Then you could question what a democracy is? Is it a democracy if only some can vote? Because only free men could vote in Greece. Personally I don't think it's democratic if so many people are excluded
There are democracies around the world that meet in buildings older than the US. I loved this video but that statement at the end nearly caused me to spit my coffee all over the screen, it's so wrong
@@sandeliaisaksson5027 democracy has a definition. you can argue the moral side of it, but by definition, there've been democracies way before the usa. and this makes people question the authority of the person in the video. rightfully so
@@teabagfchave those places consistently been a democracy since those buildings were built?
Depending on what constitutes democracy, the US has a strong argument for oldest CONTINUOUS democracy except for San marino.
He said one of the oldest and USA is the oldest living democracy living because it’s still alive
I like Germany's version of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting. 2/3 of seats are directly elected like ours, while 1/3 are apportioned proportional to the vote. When Germans go to vote, they vote both for the legislator of their district, as well as for a party as a whole. This allows for both representatives that are beholden to local concerns as well as allowing for smaller parties to get into the legislature via proportional voting without voters worrying about splitting the vote. Also, the electoral threshold requiring a party to get 5% to get any seats helps prevent the issue of small parties that could join either of the two major blocs (which is inevitable in any democracy) having all the power is smart.
Also, Germans vote on a sunday, when most shops and services are closed, so you can get to the ballot without any pressure. And if you can't make it, there is always the option to vote by mail or in person at your local council.
And you don't have to get registered to vote. Once you turn 18 you will be informed by mail when and were the next vote will be.
They're basically abolishing it right now so the FPTP vote doesn't count. Hardly a vote of confidence
But PR and MMPR in Germany forces ideologically opposed parties together (They are different parties for a reason afterall) and tries to make them form a government. Just look right now at them, you have the green party which wants a lot more government spending for welfare and green investment, the workers party (SPD) who is centre-left too and focuses on workers rights, in a coalition with the FDP party which proclaims itself as the business party and wants the opposite of the other 2 (mainly less state involvement, more supportive of free market and the lower gov spending). Now, you see the inherent contradiction in this coalition - the green party, workers party, and the business party attempting to govern despite having different ideologies. There is a lack of cohesion which is not good. At least with FPTP, although its less representative, you get 2 main parties that are centre-left and centre-right which are actually able to gain majorities and implement "left" or "right" policies respectively.
its the system created by Capitalist shadow govt that rules the USA. And dont get surprised when I say the shado govt is majority filled with israelis. thats why USA president be it liberal or consevative. they give undying support to Israel. its actually the United states of Israel and the capital city is Israel not Washington DC. 75% veto power of USA was used in favour of Israel.
@@ecnalms851it’d be more ideal if they were center-right, center-left but in reality they far-right and center-right.
You look at the Amendments history of the US Constitution. Starting with the 11th (the first 10 happened pretty much immediately after the creation), there has been an Amendment roughly every 10-12 years until the latter half of the 20th century. It has been 30+ years since the last ratified Amendment (50+ if you only considered amendments that affected the majority of the population). It has become increasingly difficult, near impossible, to amend the laws that govern the country to keep with the times we live in. How can a country function normally if the laws that hold it together are either outdated or just not fit-for-purpose any more?
America still has an institution of slavery.
We Americans fear change. Even when the change would clearly be beneficial for all. I wish we had more collective courage.
It's not so much fearing change in this case. It's that there is no incentive for either of the two political parties to want to change the current system, so they won't.
That's just boomers, the rest of us want and don't fear change
We? Got a mouse in your pocket?
Americans even fear the metric system.
No, there is too much change, it would have been better if the government had its hands tied for the last century now.
America isn't really a democracy if it forces its people to choose the lesser evil of the 2 candidates, there should be more alternatives.
Democracy with American characteristics.
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."
USA may call itself a democracy but it's really a plutocracy
It's socialism with "Chinese characteristics" all over again... A complete deviation of the original goal, and a scar on the name of the ideology in the first place!
@@robert1200 -Noam Chomsky, known genocide denier.
This is brilliant! The 2 party system definitely needs to go - polarization is degrading our country
We aren’t a two party system. We are a system dominated by two parties.
Even with PR, there would still be polarization. FPTP has worked well in USA for ages, the rampant polarization right now has only just skyrocketed since the Trump era. With PR, you would have even more politically squabbling as it would likely mean no party gains a majority to govern effectively and it would take ages to form coalitions. Fun fact: It once took 299 days in Netherlands to form a government.
@@ecnalms851 nonetheless, the Netherlands worked quite well without that new government….
@@ecnalms851 the population itself is ideologically divided so if you really want your government to represent your population you have to make sure that your government can speak for a lot of people
Nah, it's not mathematics that is keeping the two party system. It's the American people refusing to break it. Trump came in and is dismantling the GOP and America votes for continuing the cycle of rich corporations lobbying politicians for favors.
gotta love a "two party" practically one party system
Yup, two sides of the same coin.
And they'll compIain about more peaceful countries not having 'democracy' lol.
And in Mexico you have Mercenary Political Parties who sellout to the party most likely to win, living of the annual budget allocated for their expenses, this is done supposedly to negate lobbying.
Both parties are economically right wing. Mainly the two parties take opposite sides of culture war stuff. But it's mostly irrelevant symbolism; like for example building a wall doesn't actually make the country any better (nor does it really solve immigration issues), so the wall is a symbol. The BLM protests likewise did not result in permanent meaningful changes for anyone; hence it was symbolic. Lots of symbolism and gesturing. What matters is economics: building up the working class. For that we have two right-wing parties (economically).
@@robertjenkins6132 spot on! and since they protect an "aristocratic" system, they have no interests in opening up to fresh forces with fresh ideas. everything must remain as it is.
as always editing is amaaazing
Neither party will support more options because that would mean they need to give up power
The map at 4:51 is actually an Eastern-Europe map jiggled-up a bit. You can clearly see the borders of Serbia, Kosovo, Hungary and Romania, and it's only gets distorted in Poland and Ukraine
I was about to mention this, I was so confused for a sec there
Weird they didn't just use a partial map of actual German bundestag constituencies. The whole bottom part (N. Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria & Romania) Is definitely Europe. It's only representative to make a point though so no harm done.
I don't see the borders of Kosovo
Wrong.
It's obviously a map of Middle-Earth.
What you call Ukraine is actually Mordor.
@@mrjuicejunior Might be North-Macedonia, sorry, I dont know that part that well. .
If you want to have more choices when you vote - find your state’s local RCV group and get involved (we are working on using ranked-choice voting and proportional ranked-choice voting [STV] for local elections in NJ).
Posting to farm engagement.
@@CPTE5069same here. Even if the comment gets deleted.
Look up RepresentUS if you’re unsure. They’re a nonpartisan group pushing Ranked Choice Voting and policies all sides can agree with.
With push to remove NH from the first in the nation primary I feel like an RCV system in the primary could help present a reason for us to keep it. Start with the primary and then move toward the general as people get used to it.
Oh my God a useful, non-doomer comment. Istg everyone points out the issues in our country, but they don't provide information on how to fix those issues. Even worse, there are even people who say that nothing can change, which just reinforces the false idea that nothing can change in the US.
Kudos to the animation! As a visual learner, this type of video helps a lot.
As a German I never felt that my vote was with nothing. I always see my interests represented in a person or in a party and sometimes in a person and a party the same time.
Of course we also have our problems, but the claim by the far right of not being represented is just strategy. They want a less representative system.
I hope US can reform itself and it can help to have good competition between many parties in the near future.
The thing that ends up happening is that each of the two parties have very large tents. Any time a third party starts to become popular, one of the two big parties just starts adopting their ideas into their party platform. This video makes it sound like there are only two different ideas of how to run the country, that's not the case. Within each party there is always a competition from various wings of each party to move the party toward the extremes or toward the center. That competition happens during the primary races and it actually matters a great deal.
Too much representation and the system slows down
For example in Germany, crime has increased with refugees but action is taken slowly.
Government is acting indecisively with regards to farmers and taxes and protests continue against the military budget increases
@@Cherry-pu4mxIn what way do these problems tie to "too much representation". Also you mentioned refugees being the reason for rising crime, yet crime is not rising. If you look up crime index statistics crimes have actually decreased since 2016
The German system is not good either though. Your government coalition right now is the green party, the workers party, in coalition with the business party. You literally have ideologically opposed parties (they are different parties for a reason) trying to run a coherent government together despite having significant different opinions (eg: green party wants significant state spending, whereas business party wants less state involvement and big supporter of the debt brake and lower taxes). At least with FPTP, it is less representative but you get 2 parties that represent the centre-left and centre-right respectively, and in elections a party can gain a majority which allows them to actually rule. I believe Germany would actually be more successful with a FPTP system as it would allow either the CDU or SPD to gain majorities to rule effectively and implement their right/left policies. Instead, Germany's system is just a jumble and slow.
I live in Ireland and didn’t realize the system used here is somewhat unique/rare. Good to know. I like it- while not perfect, it comes very close to accurately representing the views of the citizens in a proportionate manner.
I admire Irelands political system. I think something similar would be a benefit here in the States and be more in line with our Constitution.
I have a feeling you understand America’s system better than most Americans. We are a Republic rather than a pure Democracy. It’s a little disturbing to hear so many people complaining about our system of government and the Constitution when they have no idea what our system is and have never taken the time to read the Constitution. I’m also fairly certain that many of our elected officials have never bothered to read the Constitution either. Sad.
If a one-party state is bad, why is a two-party state much better? Democracy means choice, and choice means options.
Good point. I agree.
Good point. I agree.
Respect to the ones who animated and sketched the graphics
Great video. I think the “ranked choice” graphs could be better explained. It’s difficult to track what vote goes where.
CGP Grey's videos on the ranked choice/alternative vote and STV explains them well.
I'm a South Korean, and we use a mixed-member proportional representation system. A lot of Koreans aren't very happy with this system, because it's been abused by parties to give seats to questionable people, such as politicians with actual criminal records. Most people, especially the younger generations, have just given up on politics, since they feel like they have no control over who gets elected. Worst of all, it doesn't really help small political parties.
Satellite parties, amirite?
It's because it is a closed list system. And South Korea has 254 constituency seats but 46 proportional seats, which is too small make it proportional.
People say that voting for third parties is a "wasted" vote. To my view it's just the opposite. A vote for the two-party system is the real waste.
More like if you want change, vote for the outside candidate. But come election day you always vote the politician who has been part of the DC elite for decades so the cycle continues.
Voting for third parties in a broken electoral system is counterproductive and no one should do it. You really don't understand why?
Other countries have stronger third parties because of how elections are held, and because of how the 3 branches of government are balanced. It’s not about the “will of the voter.” A two party system will remain in the US until you change the laws.
But all most people want is a dictatorship 🙄 as if that isn’t a two party system with less steps and more mess.
pseudointellectual redditor take
It's interesting how most people don't like the main two parties and yet keep voting for them either because:
- One is slightly better
- I don't want the other to win
- Voting for anyone else would be a wasted vote
If people actually voted for the party they agreed with most, instead of the best of a bad bunch, you'd actually start seeing the change you want instead of complaining you didn't get the change you wanted.
If everybody voted for their actual favourite then that would worsen the problem because the party who wins would have even fewer people who actually voted for it
Because it's not a choice.
It's the ILLUSION OF CHOICE .
Same as New Zealand 🇳🇿
indeed, that is why I say that the English speaking world that basically all uses this system cannot be considered democratic at all.
The condition for a system to be democratic is that a popular gressroot movement must be able to create a new party that gains seats in its legislature
Same in the UK
Same as New Zealand?
I was under the impression that... they use MMP, and that minor parties like ACT and the Greens have representation.
Perhaps the two-party system remaining, atleast when it comes to which parties get to take the prime minister role, is what's causing dissolutions still?
Indeed Labour under Ardern got a majority of seats, the first time in any countries using MMP (and perhaps one of the few rare instances of majority government under PR), but they still decided to have a cooperation agreement with the Greens. The idea being that if they eventually lose their majority in the next election, they won't have to bargain too much for the Greens' support.
That's the huge advantage of PR, one party not having a majority, a monopoly (or in two-party systems, duopoly), actually helps in ensuring stable government, since separate parties but having shared alignments can form compromise and consensus-based coalitions. That's unlike the broad churches of the Dems and the GOP. You saw what happened to McCarthy. The Freedom Caucus fugged him up.
@@johndotto2773 indeed, and let us also not forget, that under every PR system, the parties are normally distributed (just as the population) between left and right, therefore most politics are done in the centre.
but under a first-past-the-post system, polities becomes polarised leading to two camps that hate each other, with gradually infect the larger population as well
Switching from winner takes all to whatever alternative system basically means the currently winning party will lose some of its power, because some of those power will be transferred to the other parties. So yeah, try convincing that winning party to let go of power, and let's see how that goes
Yeah, exactly. What party that controls all of the representatives out of a state is going to willingly give up seats without all the other states required to do the same?
You don't need to convince them. You need to force them.
There was a time when the world suffered kings, you think we can't change their power is part of the problem.
@@BobFrichtel Very true.
Sure, Congress doesn't want to change. Which is why the people need to force Congress to change.
@@Tjalve70 Even then, it will probably require at least half, if not more, of the entire grown population to demand change and reforms continuously, until the gov't finally agrees.
the animation is top notch, hiring Lucas Mariano for this was a great acquisition 🔥
I think Lucas is the best collage motion designer out there. Everything project he's done is outstanding.
I love how 4:51 is just a map of eastern europe but with some added artistic liberty.
I’m glad someone else noticed 😂
Yeah some pretty horrible border gore
the biggest issue is how americans treat the constitution like a religious text
Or how the left treat their demented ideas like a religious text.
Yeah but that is also mostly along the right wing. We see the same in Europe with right wing politicians there. And here's the thing. The constitution is a law, and just like any other law they're there to help the country and its population. And if it doesn't do that or actively makes things worse, then maybe it should be changed.
I mean right wing politicians are very happy to change other laws or even redefine the meanings of constitutional parts if it benefits themselves. It's all just manipulation and power play
And how they take religious texts literally.
You don't know about bhimtas in India. They are on another level.
That's better than countries where people don't care about it.
As an Irish person obviously there are ways in which our country is run that I don’t always like, but I love our voting system.
When I was in school our student councils were elected by Proportional Representation with Single Transferrable Vote and we were encouraged to help work on counting votes to better under how the system works.
What was that one page in CGP Grey's Big Book of Laws of the Universe? The first thing you think of that looks sensible and is easy to implement is often terrible, ineffective, and will cause suffering for the rest of your existence. Sounds a lot like "The person who gets the most votes wins".
4:52 when talking about the German system, why are you showing a map of Eastern Europe, slightly modified?
I was looking through the comments to see if someone had already pointed that out
any first past the post systems naturally leads to a 2 party system
That's true, and is something that needs to be fixed. - Even in a winner-take-all situation, though, instant runoff voting has value, it makes the votes more expressive. If the Democrats win by 52% to Republicans' 48%... but ten points out of that 52% were the runoff from, say, the Green Party... then the Democrats know they need to be mindful of the Green Party's agenda to win the next election.
Fun fact, single-winner "ranked-choice voting" (instant-runoff voting) also does, despite people promoting it saying otherwise. The video touches on this when discussing proportional representation a bit, but the video is also wrong when they say "any single winner election" boils down to a two-party system. That's a common misconception. There are single-winner methods that provide no polarization incentive.
Yes 😂 naturally all those parties either Will support or will be against it ! There only two choices 😂
In India we have6000+ parties but at the end there only two choices yes or no
@@1ucasvbThat's one of the reasons I personally would prefer Approval Voting. I know it has it's problems - ALL voting systems have flaws, after all - but it's simple to understand, simple to use, and the outcomes will never be confusing.
@@EvilAng3la But, do you agree with the statement that STV would be better than FPTP?
We need this reform asap!!! Thanks for promoting these ideas ❤
Vote for RFK Jr
“we are one of the oldest if not the oldest democracies in the world” - lol what??????😂😂😂😂
US is the oldest standing democracy yes . . .
Standing? Maybe. It depends on how to look, but let's say - standing - yes. The oldest democracy at all - no) One has to be specific when saying something)
@@dotpy7928 I would consider the current most powerful nation on earth "standing" yes. It's border-line oligarchical government may be problematic but could not yet be considered a failed state.
@@bouzou96 under “standing” I meant existing state, but in general the US is not the oldest democracy)
@@dotpy7928 Who then?
Federal laws need to change. The Constitution needs to change.
As Americans, no government will ever be good enough for us. Until one is.
NO, there's RFK jr running and hes got enough points to change the election
Fantastic work! I've been searching for a video like this for 20 years. There's plenty of videos by non-Americans explaining PR in general, and there's that decent PRCV video by Minnesota Public Radio, but nothing like this.
Great job. Thank you so much!
CGP grey has a number of videos on the different voting systems and their differences. From several years back, still good. Easy to understand. Look them up if you're into this stuff.
@@TheFeldhamster I've seen his videos on STV and MMP, but I haven't yet seen one from him that talks about Proportional Representation more broadly and why it's key to breaking up the two-party system.
Outstanding presentation on how elections can be made more fair and differences between various systems.
thank you for this. this is the first presidential election im old enough to vote in and its been really confusing
Well if a third party candidate actually does get enough votes they can win. This mentality that it's a vote for the other side/a wasted vote is not accurate and will keep us stuck in this system forever. Vote for RFK Jr in November!!!
‘CGP Grey is quite ahead at its time’
Tru dat
He always is.
He’s the goat
Was looking for a CGP Grey comment
Definitely my favorite educational channel
IS the goat. No way anyone can deny that.
Irish person here. I love our voting system (PR-STV). We also also have independent redistricting and strict campaign finance rules.
We have no far-right party and very few far-left members of parliament as our system generally results in more centrist politics rather than that of the extremes.
It's a system of electing representatives which firstly, more accurately reflects the views of the public, and secondly pretty much has deliberation and compromise built in. So obviously it's going to produce a more mature and thoughtful approach to campaigning and governance.
Person from Denmark here. The Irish system seems good but I prefer our system. In Denmark if a party gets 2% or more of the votes then it gets its fair share of seats. At least a third of the people vote for far-left or far-right parties and society ends up more peaceful when these people feel represented. And they would probably not feel represented by a "moderated left" or "moderated right" party.
@@RalfAnodinwhile I agree with the idea, as an American, local representation means a lot which the Danish PR system lacks which is why I prefer the Irish system
@@alangoldsmith3 In Denmark there is local representation somehow. It is not as local as in Ireland, but there are still 10 districts, in a country that is smaller than the average US state. I have never heard of anybody in Denmark complaining that the representation is not local enough.
@@RalfAnodin Is it possible to be an independent candidate in Denmark?
Yes ... The United States is "one of the oldest" if not "the oldest" democracy in the world. I feel dizzy, I'll go out to have some fresh air ...
It's an Anocracy now. A form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features"
@@Pernection explain what elements of it are "autocratic"
United States of America is the oldest standing democracy, correct
The US is the oldest standing democracy.
The system works bby 💪 😎 otherwise Germany would be a superpower country over most other countries
The two-party system is flawed
Then vote Kennedy, it's so obvious.
It’s not a 2 party system
Then vote for rfk
@@spanishball9449No. No one vote can change anything, and nothing will change by a third party candidate trying to get people to vote for him. That’s statistically impossible.
It’s a prisoner’s dilemma (highly recommend researching it). The only way to fix a prisoner’s dilemma is to get the people already in power to change it.
USA has no 2 party "system". There are other political parties in the USA and they get some votes too but very ignorable. It just so happened that the USA election has winner takes all system which unintentionally strengthens the current two major parties. It's not like China where there is 1 party system because the law says so. In USA, there's no law banning other parties.
I'm old enough to remember Ross perot as the 3rd party member in the presidential debate on tv.
Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader too.
Perot received 19,743,821 of the 1992 election popular vote (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes.
He received 8,085,294 of the popular vote in 1996 (8.4%) and 0 electoral votes.
*Other third party candidates*
John B. Anderson received 5,719,850 of the popular vote in 1980 (6.6%) and 0 electoral votes.
George Wallace received 9,901,118 of the popular vote in 1968 (13.5%) and 46 electoral votes in 5 states.
Strom Thurmond received 1,176,023 of the popular vote in 1948 (2.4%) and 39 electoral votes in 4 states.
After that, the rules were changed. A third party cannot get into the debates now.
I wish I could like this video more times. This is soooo important for us in the long run.
I personally prefer approval voting for single-outcome elections. You cast one ballot, but you may "tick" multiple options. The options with the most percentage of "ticks" wins.
I usually have a strong preference in bigger elections, and would be worried about hurting my first choice, so it would be rare for me to use more than one tick
Single outcome elections are what have allowed the USA to end up in this gridlocked state its currently in. 435 Reps in the House ruling over 330 million people (750k people per Rep) is not really democratic or representative of the population as whole. Single outcome elections at a country of the USA's size just leads to many problems.
but you should not use a single-outcome system for electing a parliament.
Portland, OR is changing to a transferable vote/ranked choice system for city council this year. Excited to try it and I can see how that would work for state houses as well. Local and state politics often have a larger impacton your day-to-day life, so it's important to give them attention as well, regardless of what national politics are doing.
Something not often mentioned about the US system is that the parties internally kind of act like parliamentary democracies. The caucuses in the US congress are similar (though not nearly as independent, and there isn't as much threat of a government coalition dissolving) as parties in a coalition government. Within the Democrats there is the more left wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the centrist New Democrat Coalition and Blue Dog Coalition. Within the Republicans there is the more mainstream conservative Republican Study Committee and the more right-libertarian and/or Trumpist Freedom Caucus (and there used to be moderate caucuses within the Republicans too). Most voters don't know about these though, so it doesn't really impact voting patterns.
US has the best then, just wish candidates didn't need so much campaign money
@@longiusaescius2537why not do even better? combine a good political party system with a good legislature election system
STAR Voting can actually solve the spoiler effect in voting and has initiatives in Oregon to get it going! It has a proportional representation version of it too! Look it up if you haven't already heard of it!
I really hope it gets passed
Or Well just eliminate the spoiler thing completely in the first place by moving to multi winner district system... any of them.
There is only so much voter wishes information you can pack in a single win decision. No matter how well that decision is made.
To have proportionality one much be able to give out political power in finer increments than 0% of power and 100% of power.
I dont know anything about STAR but as a supporter of STV and MMPR and other party list systems, I can say it must be way better than FPTP
the obvious problem would be time, but i’ve always thought adding a “no vote” option and omitting the second and third place candidates from the next election if “no vote” wins would be a good idea
We must continue to improve the system in which things are not static but always living and changing in conditions. I am a supporter of a third party in Mongolia and there is now solid data that its existence brought about more civic engagements. The political competition does have a visible impact on the ways the government handles key decisions.
4:50 looks kinda like Eastern Europe
America is *not* the oldest democracy
Technically it's the oldest "continuous" democracy. Definitely not the prime example of democracy but right now Americans still uses the framework of a constitution over 200 + years (w/ some amendments along the years) which is still impressive. UK was in monarch when Americans declared their independence.
@@lemontea000 The UK is still a monarchy. But at the time the USA was colonised, the UK was a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. I mean, only land-owning men could vote but still...
@@SteveWray Eh. If I remember it correctly King George V had significant hand on passing the People's budget law in 1910 - basically blackmailing House of Lords of destroying their powers. And we can go as recent to 1963 when the late Queen Elizabeth herself picked their prime minister because nobody could decide who it should be. There's obviously nuance to that but still, you would never see US president deciding who should be the next representative/senate leaders. And even on deciding on Supreme justices it has to go through the Senate votes.
@@lemontea000 Iceland takes the title for the oldest continuous democracy.
@@phoenix7015 But it wasn't continuous. Denmark took control for hundreds of years.
If (as part of your definition of a "democracy") you include the condition that women were allowed to vote, then New Zealand is the oldest continuous democracy.
Corporations will never allow this just as they'll never allow campaign finance reform.
I am an Australian. We have ranked choice voting in districts drawn by a politically independent body.
Also, as weird as it sounds to Americans, we also have mandatory voting. 95-98% of eligible Australians vote in _every_ election.
Prisoners serving less than a 3 year sentence can also vote (More than 3 years guaranties you will be imprisoned for an entire election cycle).
“We’re one of the oldest, if not THE oldest, democracies in the world”
The USA absolutely is not. An undergraduate could have told you that.
We are however the longest continuous constitutional republic alive today.
@@loganleroy8622 Its probably Switserland 1291
I think he means the longest currently alive and existing and longest running democracy.
@@Carolyn0318 He would also be wrong in that case
@@MobPlot”one of”
Although the single-winner system has huge flaws, the thing that I like the most about it is that the connection between the voters and the representatives is good. In Sweden, where we vote for parties, a majority of the members of parliament are actually unknown to most of the public. Not sure what would be the optimal system, but some sort of combination between proportional representation and single-member districts. I like the German system.
It's the other way around actually. Majoritatian systems usually privilege stability and governability, while proportional system are more focused on representability. However there are also mixed systems. I'm Italian and, even if it is a bad law imho, Italy now has a mixed system: basically we elect 37% of the Parlamient with a majoritarian vote and the 61% with proportional vote (2% of the votes is left for Italians living abroad).
The biggest issue with the German system is that it creates a huge overhead. German parliament is the 2nd largest in the world after China's, because it needs to fit in the direct voters choices as well as keeping everything proportional. The CDU and her sister party for example won the majority of all districts (they won 143, about half of them), but they only received 24% of the party vote. So to fit in 143 MPs and keep the CDU at 24% of parliament means that parliament has to have about 600 seats.
This really only has become an issue in the past 30 or so years. Before then, German parliament was pretty much just 90-95% split between SPD and CDU, and the rest going to the FDP.
This will be the first US Presidential election where neither candidate is white. One is mixed race, the other is orange.
There is no tw-party system, you just refuse to vote for the many others that exist.
It wasn't intended as a two party system, but functions as one. Canada and the United Kingdom are actually set up to work as a two party system. You have a government and an official opposition that acts as a government in waiting. Except in Canada we have many parties with standing with Elections Canada that run candidates. And in the federal parliament we have elected Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party. The Liberals have held a minority government for the last two parliaments, but have an accord of sorts with the NDP. That's not the same as a coalition government. The NDP doesn't hold any cabinet positions. They don't caucus together. The arrangement can end at any time.
I have always wondered how only 2 parties could represent the needs of 300+M people and then still be surprised that the population gets more and more polarised.
There is a lot more to it than FPTP tbh. Compare it to the UK with FPTP which just elected 13 different parties plus 5 independents. Im suprised not even any regional parties have taken seats in the US.
This reminds me of the Jay Foreman episode on a similar topic in England -> highly recommended watch!!
The ranked choice voting seen in the US in states like Maine is more akin to the alternative vote system where only one candidate is elected. The single transferable vote, on the other hand, allows for more than one candidate per 'constituency' to be elected - as seen in Ireland. @Vox - in the US the ranked choice voting systems only allow for one winner right?
I like the advancement and nuance of this compared to the 2017 vox video - explaining the different types of proportional representation too! (Closed or open lists, MMP and STV) (district magnitude also matters too)
Also the sound effects while doing the list PR etc was neat, and makes me wonder where it’s from
The problem is with the representatives. You just don't need to have them. Easy
This why we vote for Independent RFK Jr.
The conspiracy-theorist and antivaxxer? No thx
The oldest democracy? Since when?
Since someone forgot the etymology of the word democratic, from 6th century BC Greece
Since 1789, when the US constitution was adopted and is still the law of the land
The oldest modern democracy
@@fosterslover interesting you say that, because women in the US didn't get the right to vote until 1919, whereas a true democracy allows every citizen to vote. The first country in the world was New Zealand in 1893. So technically, New Zealand is the oldest true democracy
Everyone gets it wrong, it's not a democracy but a constitutional republic.
I genuinely would love to see the USA united again. It seems it would take nothing short of a miracle. People need to do one thing. Relinquish their egoic need to be RIGHT. Being right feels so good and so powerful - and it ruins relationships of all kinds, and it also ruins countries and starts wars. My two cents.
For me as a European, America sounds like a part-time democracy right now
At least we have the freedom to bear arms without the government trying to sieze them.
The only way to escape the two-party system is voting an independent. The problem is that the corporation-controlled media shuts them down like they're doing with Kennedy, who's on his way to become the most voted independent in history.
I don't get it wrong, I am just curious. But why did you used a corupted map of eastern europe in 4:52?
I'm from New Zealand - in 1993, we had a referendum to change our electoral system from First Past the Post (FPP) to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) - so now, we vote for whoever we want (of course, we have 2 main parties that get most of the votes), and generally, one large party will win and have to create a coalition with 1-2 smaller parties that got lots of votes too. Votes also correlate to seats in parliament, so we have more varied discussions. I feel like our voices are actually heard.
We have an option that isn't either of these. RFK is still running. If the majority truly wanted to break the 2-party system, I'd see more RFK stuff out there. Money wins elections, and that's why we only ever have two real contenders. And why how much their respective campaigns have made, is an indicator of who will.
RFK is a conspiracy-theorist and anti-vaxxer, vote sane people
Yes thank you! We should vote for him! He’s the best candidate there is this election!
@@hayleydavis7562 the brainworm and antivaxxer guy? No.
@@Writer_Productions_Map maybe you should listen to one of his podcasts and actually hear what he has to say. He’s a critic not a conspiracy theorist. Oh yeah and he has actual logical proposal on the issues that matter. He doesn’t just repeat the same mantras
El Salvador just moved backwards on parliamentary representation by implementing the D’Hondt method.
The D’Hondt method is actually very proportional too when there are enough seats distributed like the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Finland. The main limitation to proportionality in El Salvador (as in most Central and South American countries, as well as in Spain, Portugal and most Central and Eastern European countries) is that there are too few seats per districts. You cannot have a real proportional result when you have 7 important parties and only 4 seats per district, whether the D’Hondt method is used or any other one.
Because it's cheaper for the billionaires and 1% to buy 2 politicians while still give you the illusion of choices.
Just hopped on your channel today watched a few detailed videos of you explaining your strategy and I implemented onto my demo account and definitely a game changer appreciate the free knowledge not to many that actually breaks it down in a way that even a toddler could understand
Unfortunately, this time (2024) both choices are highly evil.
I have always voted for the lesser of the two evils….for fourty years.
Yep
@@duelenigma7732there’s a third option on the ballot. And we can make it happen if we vote out of hope instead of fear :)
RFK 2024 babyyyy
here's an option created out of despair in russia. it's called Smart Voting. when choosing a candidate you get recommended the one who's most likely to win if we take out the choices we're opposing. it didn't lead to many changes (obviosly there isn't much room for democracy in russian) but it was considered a threat by the state and censorship was hard at work
4:51 that looks suspiciously like a mashup of eastern europe and central europe with changed borders…
They could also just expand the House of Reps to 500 or 600 people. That hasn't been done since the early 1900s when Arizona was added as a state (they did not expand Congress for Alaska and Hawaii). I think it would still lead to mostly Dem/GOP, but smaller districts will also make it easier for 3rd parties to win seats, as they would need to reach fewer people and not need a massive campaign as they do now.
435 members to represent 320,000,000+ people also heavily favors two parties.
This. There are lots of reforms we need to make but expanding the size of the House would be (relatively) simple to do and would make the House much more representative.
3:10 thank you SO much for *starting* with Proportional Representation.