The problem is that elections are 2 years long. Tommy just said it. Trim this whole thing down to 3-5 months. No fund raising until June. Primaries in July and August. Conventions in September.
Not quite. It only seems 2 years long. (Sigh.) Until Trump came along, the election process was usually limited to less than one year. Candidates would announce themselves shortly after the holidays and before the first primaries in January of the election year. That was traditional and has always been the way. Trump, however, announced his first candidacy in June 2015, six months earlier than anyone ever had before -- NO ONE was even thinking about the next election yet. He did the same in 2020, though it was expected. And in this last bid -- and hoping to gain consideration for all his legal troubles -- he announced it in November 2022 which was the earliest it has ever been done. It's one of the many things about him that is really annoying and I hope it ends with him along with many other unpleasant and idiotic ideas.
Regarding undecided voters, I remember reading somewhere something I think is very smart. Politics isn't an Uber, it's a bus stop. You don't vote for someone whose beliefs are identical to yours, you vote for the person whose values are closer to yours, just like how you get off at the bus stop _closest_ to where you are going.
Getting voters to understand this is an uphill battle. Especially young leftists who are full of idealism and think a candidate should exactly match their values. This cycle they are especially galvanized about Palistine. To many of them there is no nuance. Either you completely support forcing Israel to stop, or you support genocide.
Could you imagine what could be changed if a 100% of the US population that was registered to vote actually voted?? I would love to see that. I would also love to see term limits for Congress. The president can only do two terms why not Congress?
But it's unlikely to happen as the people in power have convinced people that their vote doesn't matter and that nothing they do will change and often those people are the people who are the poorest and have been overwhelmingly convinced to vote against themselves.
Term limits for *every* elected &/or politically-appointed official at *every* level of government. If a past official still has good ideas / input after their term(s), then they can serve as an advisor to the next elected person, but do not give them the continued authority of the office to actually act. Entrenched political operatives is what had led to self-serving instead of society-serving
i wish they had discussed gerrymandering. it's one huge reason republicans get away with acting against the public's wishes and best interests all the time.
I think that’s what the Canadian question about “gaming the question” was referring to. Guess they understood the question a little differently. The idea that someone can get more of the overall vote by potentially millions and still not win is ridiculous.
Why just mention Republicans? Democrats do it too. Everyone uses it. If you can gerrymander to cobble up more power, people will do it. Gerrymandering favors Democrats in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc. It also favors Republicans in Texas, Iowa, and Kansas. Both sides do it. Don't try and paint one side as the bad guys when both do it
Aussie here -. To vote is one of the four obligations of being a citizen - as defined in our constitution. Because voting is an obligation of every citizen. The process has to be made easily accessible to all. There's no suppression of the vote. And this is why i think compulsory voting is really awesome. Because that means no part of the electorate can be ignored by the parties wanting power and no part of the people's vote can be surpressed. Voting is held on a Saturday and those who can't vote on the day can vote earlier or with a postal ballot. We have preference voting. We don't have primaries we just leave all that stuff to factional and branch level politics. Also we have an independent electoral Commission that determines electrorate boundaries and runs the election. Our system works for us
Belgian here. Our voting laws are almost identical to the Australian ones. I found that out when I was in Australia on election day many years ago. 😂 The main difference is that we always vote on a Sunday, not a Saturday. Oh, and we don’t eat sausages on election day 😂. But yes, voting is mandatory here, too.
Cool story bro. That would never happen in the US because *gasp and shock* our politicians don’t actually want us to vote and they’re the ones who make the rules. Love your confidence tho. Coming to a video about a topic in one country and then saying how you do it in yours as if anyone cares or it will make a difference at all. You think we haven’t seen this same comment on every other video about US election process in the last couple of years?
If we had 49 states, Puerto Rico would've been made a state a long time ago. Never underestimate the motivational power of psychologically satisfying round numbers.
Ranked choice voting isn't a magic bullet, but it would solve several of the main issues in the US. It would lead to less extreme candidates and would lead to congress actually doing their job more. The primary system as we currently have it and the 2 party system as we currently have it are destroying the country slowly. As an example, if the US had ranked choice voting Trump would probably have lost in 2016.
We would also no longer have a Republican Party lol Their views are quickly becoming outdated and the only reason Republicans get elected is because of the Electoral College.
@@DFTNSHEXGRMI don't think that is true. Political parties aren't stupid. They would adjust accordingly. To stay in power. Even without rcv the Republicans will probably eject trump if he loses this election. They don't want to keep losing.
Ranked Choice + Single Open Primaries (also Ranked Choice) = Only the Top candidates make it to the final ballot. That's multiples of any party and guarantees not just a majority but a plurality votes decides the winner. I'd also like Primary day to be at the exact same time across all voting districts. No more of this jockeying for position across candidates.
@@JarrettOriginal You don't need much of a primary if you have ranked choice voting. You just figure it's maybe excessive (or too expensive) if your party runs more than five candidates, so you just have a primary to eliminate all but five nominees, then put all of them on the ballot.
The bias of the Electoral College could be blunted (but not eradicated) by a federal law forcing proportional EC votes instead of winner take all. No Constitutional Amendment needed. And all the Republicans in CA and Democrats in TX would suddenly matter.
But the bias in the EC is often overstated. Yes, there is a very, very, very slight bias towards small states in the electoral college but it's not because each individual vote matters more. That's not really what happens
@@anonymousperson3023 Is it? The last two times a Republican won the national popular vote for president were 2004 and 1988. Imagine how different America and its politics would look today without the EC bias.
@@anonymousperson3023 EC bias is not at all overstated. In CA, the ratio of population per EC vote was 718K in 2020. In contrast, WY had a ratio of 194K. That means if you live in WY, your vote counts 4x as much as someone's in CA. If WY actually had proportional EC power, they'd have less than 1 EC vote, but they have to have at least 3, so here we are.
I don’t think a federal law could do it, but look into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That’s a way to essentially get rid of the electoral college without a constitutional amendment.
Asking as a non-American, why is the presidential election cycle so long? No other country does this. I don't see anyone benefitting other than cable news organizations.
Don't know for sure, but it's turned into a show in many ways, with billions being spent on these (!). It doesn't help that money matters a lot, and it's a huge country
Because it's a power-gaining game here, not a civic duty. Media orgs benefit, yes. But so do the politicians themselves and many other large businesses that are all involved in the racket. The more you are in people's spheres of attention, the more likely you are to win. At least that's the way I understand the "logic". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's so nice to live in a country which is not in perpetual election mode. The candidates are announced six weeks before the election, then they start campaigning. After the election, we wait for almost six years before the next election starts. Unlike in the US in which the campaign for the next president starts the very next day after the election.
@@justiny5385 House of Rep have a term for only 3 years, so used to only be a House thing, but now it's everyone. Senate is 6 years, so they get a break I guess.
I feel like the question at 6:04 was more whether an honest election is possible in the context of gerrymandering and voter suppression rather than outright vote-stealing... in which case I'd say it's still an open question
I'd say mostly no. These are fundamental things that should be bypartisan ethical conduct should be more important than just winning. Oh never mind, I'm a dreamer.
Those things tilt the balance but they don't discount all votes. No party or voting setup has the power to fully sway an election. If Harris get the most votes in every county across the country, she would win a landslide victory. The same is true for Donald Trump. Thus, ultimately, it is still the voters who decide. However, in close elections where you only get about half the states, those very minor changes to county lines can add up to a few thousand one way or the other. One solution is to try and fix those tiny changes back so they're more fair. The other solution is convince the other half of the country. Both Democrats and Republicans have decided to focus all their efforts on the first solution as they found the second (and better) solution too hard.
You cannot have an honest election with mass vote by mail, because it breaks every tenant of democracy - trust (or lack thereof), anonymity and directness.
To elaborate on the 51st state issue...a 51st state means a minimum of ONE new representative and TWO new senators (probably 1 rep for DC, but 5 for Puerto Rico). And-oh, yeah-both of those locations tend to lean blue. In a Senate that seems perpetually gridlocked with 51/49 or 50/50+VP splits (or a brief 52/48 if you are REALLY lucky)...there is simply no way that the GOP will EVER willingly hand 2 or 4 very-likely-blue senators-and thus a solid numerical advantage in the Senate-to the Democrats. Period. It is just that simple. D.C. and Puerto Rico can make the best case in the world for statehood, but acceptance will remain a 100% political calculation. It is not about what is right. It is not about what is best for our country. It is not about what is best for the people that live in those places. It is about power and who will gain or lose it if those get added as new states. And the GOP is most likely to lose ground and so they will vehemently defy and oppose this in every way they can.
@@troy3456789even if it doesn't appear, most republics are democracy that has been modified to a certain degree. It's just like how China is a communist country, that has been modified to be able to conduct in a capitalist world.
I love Pod Save America. Their podcast meets people where they are about politics/government and never speaks pretentiously or biased about them. So happy they did this.
Everyone should share this video to friends and family that are either uninformed, misinformed, or undecided. The breakdown and delivery of this information is perfect!
They do get 3 electoral votes. Aka equivalent to Wyoming. They do get some representation. It's just not to the level of a state. Now, Puerto Rico however has like 0 representation and are in a weird limbo state. Just remove that and let them be a state
@@VirginiaBronson They have a "delegate" and two "Shadow Senators", both of whom are more or less considered members of the House and Senate, but they can't do crap. The reason DC and Puerto Rico aren't states is because the Republicans are afraid it'll give the Democrats an advantage in the Senate. DC, sure, but Puerto Rico is a bit more of a toss-up, I could see Puerto Rico being maybe a Democratic-leaning swing state.
On Project 2025 which they discuss at 10:45, I don't see why everyone is saying Trump "might" use it as his framework. One of the two things he achieved in his 1st term was appointing a ton pf young, conservative judges. He didn't come up with that list. The Federalist Society did. Project 2025 is Trump's plan to make the same impact--not just in the courts but across the entire federal government.
@@morganmcallister2001 I absolutely hate the guy, but he's not stupid: he knows what it is, and although his level of involvement is uncertain, it is undeniable that several of his closest advisors have worked extensively on Project 2025.
Here’s a question: If the majority of people are in favor of something (COVID relief, gun control, improved infrastructure), why is it so hard to get these things in passed? I know the short answer… Congress reps are more beholden to their party than to their constituents. But WHY?? (And why don’t constituents hold them accountable by not voting for them?)
A few parts to this. First, for most bills to pass the Senate they require 60 (out of 100) votes due to something called the filibuster. Having 60 votes for highly partisan issues is extremely difficult. Assuming a party did have 60 votes, they still need to make sure there are no deflectors. This can be difficult with democrats because they have a very broad coalition of ideas. Getting everyone on the same page when there are that many competing ideas is difficult. Next you have the problem with partisan gerrymandering which minimizes representation for the non-majority party in many states. This is especially true in Red states where elected officials tend to go against progressive ideas. Another big problem is the ability for corporations and Super PACs to spend unlimited money on campaigns, which tends to favor candidates/issues supported by big corporations. The last issue I'll mention is poor voter turnout. Especially in off-year elections and primaries. This low turnout tends to favor establishment candidates who tend appeal to more reliable voters. If you want real change, get more people to vote.
Was this common sense? I mean, they were fine and all but I wouldn't say it was common sense per se and they also clearly did have a bias that should've been addressed IF you're trying to teach this to say 10 year olds
@@anonymousperson3023 All the information in the video is factually accurate. They showed no signs of extremism and didn’t present any “alternative facts” or conspiracy theories. Pretty straightforward and commonsensical content.
@victoriafrank4058 It was mostly accurate, sure. I wouldn't say all of it was factually accurate cause that's too extreme a statement especially in the political realm but yes, they didn't present alternative facts or lie. My problem is their bias. They clearly have a left leaning bias. That's not wrong. I don't have an issue with that if they told us that but they didn't. The video makes them out to be centrists but to me, they are tilt if not moderate lefts. Again, nothing wrong with that but those biases did spill in to some of their responses
@@anonymousperson3023 I think having some sort of bias is almost inevitable, it’s human nature. In this case, I don’t feel that their personal beliefs had an influence on how they answered the questions. That being said, I’m glad we can have a dialogue and agree to disagree. 👍🇺🇸
I watched this to see how they explained the electoral vote versus the popular vote. I wish they had gone over how it's theoretically possible to win the electoral vote with something like 20% of the national popular vote, if 51% of the population of each of the least populous states voted for you and no one in the most populous states voted for you.
But that's taking things to such an extreme extent and it's really fear mongering more so than trying to prove unjust voting systems. That will never happen and will never be close to happening so no need to do that
In fact, the "theoretical" number may be smaller than 20%, something like 10%. A third candidate C situation that let´s say get 10% in the states where Candidate that Candidate A wins by a mere 45.01% to 44.09% of Candidate B, but Candidate A wins the 270 EC votes. B loses, no matter if B wins 99% of the votes in all other states, and so getting 80% of the PV.
@@yamerojones A functional state should already know whether or not any given individual has that right. If only because a lot of the same information is relevant for collecting taxes. (Oh yeah, and I've bee doing my taxes in five minutes online for over a decade. Also never had an issue with registering a vehicle or renewing my driver's licence. Maybe a twenty minute wait. It IS possible to do these things efficiently!) As for rights and entitlements, I'm personally in favor of voting being an *obligation*, actually. At the very least it should be a solid social obligation, if not formalized (like in Australia).
In the modern world it's ridiculous because the government already knows where everyone lives. But go back 30-40 years before computers really took off and things were more compartmentalized. Many federal and state agencies may have had computer systems, but they couldn't easily share data. Back then, registration mattered. I think the model of automatically registering people when they get a state ID or drivers license is eliminating the issue in states where it exists.
I mean, instead of Election Day, you could have the thing we do in Greece where we literally put a Sunday to be the Election Day. They also make it a 4-day weekend by eliminating the Friday and Monday of the Election Weekend, so people can travel to their designated areas (which might be in their villages). NOBODY can miss Election Day. They can only try or put a white paper if they don't want to vote.
In Peru that’s kinda the same (except for the traveling, which I think is a great idea). But our elections are mandatory, soy you must vote, other wise you will have to pay a fine
The reason it's on a Tuesday is because it was set in the 1800s when people went to church and there were no cars and Tuesday was basically the only day that most people were available to vote. Totally makes sense to inform how we conduct elections 220 years later.
We need a monthly video with Pod Save America people. The only important elections aren't just the presidential and they'd hopefully bring more attention to local elections and exactly how to help with voting and just inform Americans and everyone in the world about politics. They're also just a joy to watch, which cannot be said for a lot of political people so they'd reach many more people.
Regarding the electoral college, I watched a very good video that broke it down and it’s theoretically possible to win the election with only 22% of the vote. It’s time we replace it and all votes are treated equally.
Yeah, republicans have worked extremely hard to under fund and destroy the public school system. The problem is that our country basically unleashed the super wealthy in the 80's and they have done everything in their power to strangle the people's power since.
You need a lesson on the American constitution and this countries founding if you believe the US is a democracy (Not in support of neo-fascism, etc.). We are a constitutional republic, which prioritizes protecting individual rights over majority rule. This is why, to name one example, we have the electoral college voting system and not a popular vote for president (Otherwise they would basically be the President of the coasts, and 30 states would have to reason to stay in the Union). Point in case, why don’t you look up how many times the word democracy or sone variation thereof can be found in the declaration of independence and the constitution (Hint: It’s a whole number less than 1)
@@colewarner4954 You pedantic "constitutional republic" people are incredibly annoying. While technically correct, no one cares about your extremely narrow definition of democracy. We *all* understand democracy to colloquially mean "people cast votes." Whether we're voting directly for a candidate, or for an elector/representative, "democracy" is an accepted term. You "constitutional republic" types just love to listen to yourselves talk and attempt to prove to us how intellectual you are. It's exhausting and annoying, and you're not accomplishing anything.
If you read any of those books yourself you might realize that we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Read some books random guy on the internet!!!
Both things can be true at once, in my country election day is on Saturday and a holiday. The easier and more convenient the country makes it for people, the better it is.
So its a winner contest where one side can do whatever they want, most democratic political systems revolve around coalitions which require partys to cooperate and take a wider amount of citizens into consideration, this creates a far less toxic political situation. I get sad looking at the political situation of the US.
American political parties are made up of coalitions, and these coalitions do occaissionally switch parties, which is called a party realignment. There is one going on as we speak.
America does have checks and balances. The president is the most powerful position but they're still only a president, not a king, dictator or whatever else
@freddybishop2287 Who's the real check on the Supreme Court? In a hyper partisan country, there isn't one. The 26th amendment wouldn't even pass today because it favors Democrats getting younger people to vote. So what's the realistic check?
An an American I'm glad I finally understand how electoral college works. Other videos seemed and felt a little too complex for some reason. But Jon's explanation is perfect and simple. Thank you. Just subbed to Pod Save America.
11:46 No, a bump stock doesn’t convert a semi-auto to a full-auto. If you believe this, then you are wrong. To convert a semi-auto to a full-auto requires replacing internal components and most semi-auto firearms are not easily converted to full-auto. Facts are your friends.
My Lyft driver was an undecided voter. Said, he didn't care about politics as long as his family is OK. I asked him if his kids were receiving free or reduced lunch. My goal was to convince him to vote. I hope I did. Not voting is giving a vote to trump.
I don't know why people have this weird compulsion to twist not voting to voting for Trump, it makes no sense. Like it literally means something completely different.
Please shut tf up. "Not voting is giving a vote to trump" it literally isn't, though. What if your Lyft driver would vote for Trump, is him not voting still giving a vote for Trump?
fun fact: no right to vote is established in the constitution of the USA, not to be confused with amendments saying voting can't be restricted on the basis of gender or race, but we do not have a right to vote, which is why inmates of prisons can't vote, and in the past, states limited voting to those who owned at least so much property. In fact, most white men couldn't vote either, which is why there was a universal suffrage movement happening alongside the woman's suffrage movement. It turns out the united states hasn't been exactly what we've been led to believe.
@@Billycca3 I'm saying there was and is no right to vote and most white men couldn't vote either. There actually where black people and women who could vote back then because they owned the requisite amount of land.
I was conservative, but would consider myself a moderate and independent since at least 2016. I don't know who I will vote for. I follow the candidates closely, but am very disillusioned by the political parties in the US. My entire life they have both done or said anything in raw pursuit of political power. We really need to push ranked choice systems, but both parties have proven that they are unwilling to give up the duopoly.
12:18 why are you ignoring Guam??? They have a USA Air Force base there and they pay taxes!!! And they can't vote!!! Literally the entire reason for the revolutionary war: taxation without representation 😂😂😂
>Literally the entire reason for the revolutionary war: taxation without representation No. The correct response would be preservation of slavery. You should study more or you'll fail the test
I live in the UK, I havr lived in London and Cambridge and Manchester and now live in the countryside, not only have I never had to queue to vote either outside the building where the voting is taking place or inside to get to a voting booth, 75% of the time there's only me and and the two election workers in the building. Why does the US have massive long lines?
Even more amazing to me is that so many people Do tie their identity to a party. Wouldn't want to be thinking for themselves or anything silly like that..
YUP! People are so polarized. At the end of the day, they base their core beliefs on whatever opposes the rival party. And, it is unbelievable and sad. That's not to even mention that many don't feel like settling. Which is what you're doing if you vote for a guy just because he represents red or blue.
This is common everywhere, even in countries with 12+ parties. Many people treat their political affiliation like being fans of a sports club. In my opinion, akin to sports superfans, they don't really have much else going on in their lives.
so to sum it up: political situation in the US is in a very bad state (laws, voting, etc.). These guys listed some very good political options for us to turn that around though (removing filibuster, etc.)
Regarding voting for a party (or not) based on one's beliefs (or not): My dad lived his life as a Democrat and took advantage of everything that Democrat-passed opportunities allowed him to...yet he voted Republican down the line, always. He just liked their personalities better, he said.
It's maybe worth pointing out that the Electoral College can be bypassed without a Constitutional amendment. States can join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once the states' electors add up to 270, it goes into effect and all the states assign their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. It's already at 209; just 61 more to go...
If a lot of voters don’t even pay attention to the election until the end, why does the election cycle have to be so long? It would be great if elected officials could focus more on governance while they’re in office, and less on the nearly constant campaigning.
I’m sure many people appreciate the question & answer about texts. I am poor, but have donated to an organization against gun violence. For months, Ive received 15+ texts every day! Our election seasons are too long! 👏Happy for the change!❤
The Electoral “College” should be completely disbanded. The President should be whoever gets the popular vote. That means the majority of the people who voted selected that person to be the President!
Fun fact: Not sure this is done any longer (it's been years since my children were in school) but when I was a child, because schools were very often used as polling places for elections, it was a national holiday for school children. I think it would be great to make it a holiday for everyone. BTW? I cannot help but mention that, while I do agree that all those gun laws should be federal, the fact is, all of those laws (as well as a few more) already are state laws in many states, including my own (NJ).
Our low turnout is kind of a blessing as far as voter security goes, bc do you really think ineligible people are voting by the thousands if not even eligible people care enough to?
Why is it fair that a state with 10 times more population that another state only has the same number of senators? Is it because cattle, sheep and trees also have rights?
Pretty much. Jefferson and his cronies whined that federalism and strong democratic principles stripped them and their friends of too much personal power.
@@Fever2113 it would be direct democracy based solely on popular vote. The electoral process preserves the requirement that candidates relate to more than two states. It supports the intent of United States that can have different preferences as opposed to centralized countries with universal laws.
@@blight4216that’s not what direct democracy means. I agree that simply removing all protections and deciding federal elections strictly by popular vote isn’t a solution. There need to be checks in place to prevent the concentration of political power in a handful of urban centers. However, it’s fair to criticize the existing system for being anachronistic in this age of intense urbanization.
There’s an even simpler explanation for why governments will never make housing cheaper in Australia - frankly, the population isn’t prepared to accept the consequences of cheaper housing. Two thirds of Australians own their own houses (either outright or with a mortgage) and the consequence of a cheaper housing market would be a massive reduction in the wealth of those 2/3rds of Aussies. Imagine a party going to an election with a policy of “we’re going to take away a considerable share of your household wealth.” They’d get destroyed! That’s why the BEST case scenario is a balanced increase of new housing supply to prevent future price increases and wait for economy-wide inflation to make housing relatively more affordable.
Citizens united was primarily about money being free speech. It was a previous decision that made "corporations people" but that was an even more bizarre situation. The court decided that they weren't but the court reporter reported the dissenting opinion as the majority opinion. After that some other decisions took that opinion for granted, and once that happened it just kind of was. Citizens united was based on that to some degree, but it was another one taking the dissenting opinion on a previous decision for granted.
no it is a combination of two ideas. Jefferson repeatedly used the term democratic republic interchangeably with Republican democracy, of course at that time Republicanism referring to the common person's view of the government in the French Revolution of 1789 during the time Jefferson served as ambassador there
*definitely... The word you used is a word, but unfortunately makes no sense. You know your phone has autocorrect right? And a red squiggly line under the word to let you know it's incorrect spelling and then blue line for improper grammar? 🤷🏼♂️
@@I.no.ah.guy57 I actually don't have this mysterious squiggly line uou speak of as that only shows up on my PC have you considered I was stoned or maybe was using a device that does not autocorrect my spelling and also did you understand what I ment? If so then why comment? 😊
Been listening to your podcast a while, its weird seeing your faves. Yes I know I could always have googled you I dident. Somehow I feel like you should have mustaches.
1:46 A lot of undecided voters are also looking for a political party that is capable of using the word "genocide" in a sentence, when there is an ongoing genocide.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem is that elections are 2 years long. Tommy just said it. Trim this whole thing down to 3-5 months. No fund raising until June. Primaries in July and August. Conventions in September.
If Harris pulls this out, I hope it will change the election process here. There is no reason to have a 2 year campaign.
Not quite. It only seems 2 years long. (Sigh.) Until Trump came along, the election process was usually limited to less than one year. Candidates would announce themselves shortly after the holidays and before the first primaries in January of the election year. That was traditional and has always been the way.
Trump, however, announced his first candidacy in June 2015, six months earlier than anyone ever had before -- NO ONE was even thinking about the next election yet. He did the same in 2020, though it was expected. And in this last bid -- and hoping to gain consideration for all his legal troubles -- he announced it in November 2022 which was the earliest it has ever been done.
It's one of the many things about him that is really annoying and I hope it ends with him along with many other unpleasant and idiotic ideas.
Absolutely this
3 - 5 days please
I 100% agree, but "free speech" will never allow such limitations.
America is Number One among countries that call themselves Number One.
Mostly a third world country
😂😂😂
What about north korea
@@davidedc1 You've never been to a third world country, have you?
@@PhoenixFire2 The irony here is that few Americans call their country number 1 anymore. That comment goes to show. It's an outdated joke.
Regarding undecided voters, I remember reading somewhere something I think is very smart. Politics isn't an Uber, it's a bus stop. You don't vote for someone whose beliefs are identical to yours, you vote for the person whose values are closer to yours, just like how you get off at the bus stop _closest_ to where you are going.
Getting voters to understand this is an uphill battle. Especially young leftists who are full of idealism and think a candidate should exactly match their values.
This cycle they are especially galvanized about Palistine. To many of them there is no nuance. Either you completely support forcing Israel to stop, or you support genocide.
Yeah I heard this too somewhere
Could you imagine what could be changed if a 100% of the US population that was registered to vote actually voted?? I would love to see that. I would also love to see term limits for Congress. The president can only do two terms why not Congress?
But it's unlikely to happen as the people in power have convinced people that their vote doesn't matter and that nothing they do will change and often those people are the people who are the poorest and have been overwhelmingly convinced to vote against themselves.
Term limits for *every* elected &/or politically-appointed official at *every* level of government. If a past official still has good ideas / input after their term(s), then they can serve as an advisor to the next elected person, but do not give them the continued authority of the office to actually act. Entrenched political operatives is what had led to self-serving instead of society-serving
@@KimberlyGreen 100%agree
Nothing. You’d maybe get more democrats in office, but that’s it
We have term limits they are called elections.
i wish they had discussed gerrymandering. it's one huge reason republicans get away with acting against the public's wishes and best interests all the time.
It's on the ballot to end it here in Ohio!!!
John Oliver had a good segment in April 2017 if anyone needs a refresher.
Agreed. Gerrymandering and letting politicians decide who gets to be a judge are the two main problems in our democracy currently.
I think that’s what the Canadian question about “gaming the question” was referring to. Guess they understood the question a little differently. The idea that someone can get more of the overall vote by potentially millions and still not win is ridiculous.
Why just mention Republicans? Democrats do it too. Everyone uses it. If you can gerrymander to cobble up more power, people will do it. Gerrymandering favors Democrats in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc. It also favors Republicans in Texas, Iowa, and Kansas. Both sides do it. Don't try and paint one side as the bad guys when both do it
Aussie here -.
To vote is one of the four obligations of being a citizen - as defined in our constitution.
Because voting is an obligation of every citizen. The process has to be made easily accessible to all.
There's no suppression of the vote. And this is why i think compulsory voting is really awesome. Because that means no part of the electorate can be ignored by the parties wanting power and no part of the people's vote can be surpressed.
Voting is held on a Saturday and those who can't vote on the day can vote earlier or with a postal ballot.
We have preference voting.
We don't have primaries we just leave all that stuff to factional and branch level politics.
Also we have an independent electoral Commission that determines electrorate boundaries and runs the election.
Our system works for us
Stop showing off! 😂
Belgian here. Our voting laws are almost identical to the Australian ones. I found that out when I was in Australia on election day many years ago. 😂
The main difference is that we always vote on a Sunday, not a Saturday.
Oh, and we don’t eat sausages on election day 😂.
But yes, voting is mandatory here, too.
@naylas3908 you don't have to buy a snagger , it just raises a bit of money for the school where it is held 😜
Cool story bro. That would never happen in the US because *gasp and shock* our politicians don’t actually want us to vote and they’re the ones who make the rules. Love your confidence tho. Coming to a video about a topic in one country and then saying how you do it in yours as if anyone cares or it will make a difference at all. You think we haven’t seen this same comment on every other video about US election process in the last couple of years?
@@angiadcock8196you seem like great fun! - fellow Aussie
If we had 49 states, Puerto Rico would've been made a state a long time ago. Never underestimate the motivational power of psychologically satisfying round numbers.
Sounds like we just need to take 2 more territories then since we have 8 territories and then they can all be states
what if we get rid of delaware and then make puerto rico a state wth do we need delaware for anyway
@@deadbush5389 where else am i gonna headquarter my fake llc
3 circles of 17 stars gives you 51.
get 3 more states to make it a prime number, then the US can truly be "one nation, indivisible"
Ranked choice voting isn't a magic bullet, but it would solve several of the main issues in the US. It would lead to less extreme candidates and would lead to congress actually doing their job more. The primary system as we currently have it and the 2 party system as we currently have it are destroying the country slowly. As an example, if the US had ranked choice voting Trump would probably have lost in 2016.
We would also no longer have a Republican Party lol Their views are quickly becoming outdated and the only reason Republicans get elected is because of the Electoral College.
@@DFTNSHEXGRMI don't think that is true. Political parties aren't stupid. They would adjust accordingly. To stay in power. Even without rcv the Republicans will probably eject trump if he loses this election. They don't want to keep losing.
In the Electoral College, or instead of it? Not sure about that.... ಠಿ_ಠ
Ranked Choice + Single Open Primaries (also Ranked Choice) = Only the Top candidates make it to the final ballot. That's multiples of any party and guarantees not just a majority but a plurality votes decides the winner.
I'd also like Primary day to be at the exact same time across all voting districts. No more of this jockeying for position across candidates.
@@JarrettOriginal You don't need much of a primary if you have ranked choice voting. You just figure it's maybe excessive (or too expensive) if your party runs more than five candidates, so you just have a primary to eliminate all but five nominees, then put all of them on the ballot.
The bias of the Electoral College could be blunted (but not eradicated) by a federal law forcing proportional EC votes instead of winner take all. No Constitutional Amendment needed. And all the Republicans in CA and Democrats in TX would suddenly matter.
But the bias in the EC is often overstated. Yes, there is a very, very, very slight bias towards small states in the electoral college but it's not because each individual vote matters more. That's not really what happens
@@anonymousperson3023 Is it? The last two times a Republican won the national popular vote for president were 2004 and 1988. Imagine how different America and its politics would look today without the EC bias.
@@Alex-hv7tu Yea the bias is not over stated. Hillary Clinton won more votes than Donald and man she got hammered in the EC.
@@anonymousperson3023 EC bias is not at all overstated. In CA, the ratio of population per EC vote was 718K in 2020. In contrast, WY had a ratio of 194K. That means if you live in WY, your vote counts 4x as much as someone's in CA. If WY actually had proportional EC power, they'd have less than 1 EC vote, but they have to have at least 3, so here we are.
I don’t think a federal law could do it, but look into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That’s a way to essentially get rid of the electoral college without a constitutional amendment.
It's not a public holiday on voting day?! It is in South Africa... It's just common sense.
In Peru it’s always on a Sunday and the next day no school or universities because they were used for the elections.
So many states have early voting (and my state has 100% mail-in voting) that it doesn't really matter when election "day" is.
Friends of the POD!! Great you're doing this, guys!
Asking as a non-American, why is the presidential election cycle so long? No other country does this. I don't see anyone benefitting other than cable news organizations.
Don't know for sure, but it's turned into a show in many ways, with billions being spent on these (!). It doesn't help that money matters a lot, and it's a huge country
Its a function test, and its why the democrats are trying to shortcut a cheat.
Because it's a power-gaining game here, not a civic duty. Media orgs benefit, yes. But so do the politicians themselves and many other large businesses that are all involved in the racket. The more you are in people's spheres of attention, the more likely you are to win. At least that's the way I understand the "logic". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's so nice to live in a country which is not in perpetual election mode. The candidates are announced six weeks before the election, then they start campaigning. After the election, we wait for almost six years before the next election starts. Unlike in the US in which the campaign for the next president starts the very next day after the election.
Oeff what country is this? 6 years? Doesn’t sound very democratic to me
That's pretty much only a Trump thing. We didn't use to be like this =(
@@Mbart403Philippines is one
@@justiny5385 House of Rep have a term for only 3 years, so used to only be a House thing, but now it's everyone. Senate is 6 years, so they get a break I guess.
@@Mbart403 It can probably be a country with a parliamentary system.
I feel like the question at 6:04 was more whether an honest election is possible in the context of gerrymandering and voter suppression rather than outright vote-stealing... in which case I'd say it's still an open question
I'd say mostly no. These are fundamental things that should be bypartisan ethical conduct should be more important than just winning. Oh never mind, I'm a dreamer.
I’d say the answer to the campaign funding question is a no to this question.
Those things tilt the balance but they don't discount all votes. No party or voting setup has the power to fully sway an election. If Harris get the most votes in every county across the country, she would win a landslide victory. The same is true for Donald Trump.
Thus, ultimately, it is still the voters who decide. However, in close elections where you only get about half the states, those very minor changes to county lines can add up to a few thousand one way or the other. One solution is to try and fix those tiny changes back so they're more fair. The other solution is convince the other half of the country. Both Democrats and Republicans have decided to focus all their efforts on the first solution as they found the second (and better) solution too hard.
You cannot have an honest election with mass vote by mail, because it breaks every tenant of democracy - trust (or lack thereof), anonymity and directness.
To elaborate on the 51st state issue...a 51st state means a minimum of ONE new representative and TWO new senators (probably 1 rep for DC, but 5 for Puerto Rico).
And-oh, yeah-both of those locations tend to lean blue.
In a Senate that seems perpetually gridlocked with 51/49 or 50/50+VP splits (or a brief 52/48 if you are REALLY lucky)...there is simply no way that the GOP will EVER willingly hand 2 or 4 very-likely-blue senators-and thus a solid numerical advantage in the Senate-to the Democrats. Period. It is just that simple. D.C. and Puerto Rico can make the best case in the world for statehood, but acceptance will remain a 100% political calculation.
It is not about what is right.
It is not about what is best for our country.
It is not about what is best for the people that live in those places.
It is about power and who will gain or lose it if those get added as new states. And the GOP is most likely to lose ground and so they will vehemently defy and oppose this in every way they can.
29th in the democracy index says it all really
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact the US isn't a democracy at all. That word doesn't appear in the constitution or any state constitution.
@@troy3456789even if it doesn't appear, most republics are democracy that has been modified to a certain degree. It's just like how China is a communist country, that has been modified to be able to conduct in a capitalist world.
@@troy3456789 oh shush it's both a republic and a democracy, those aren't mutually exclusive
@@tomcurtis8426it’s not a democracy in the slightest because of electoral college, appointed judges, etc.
We are a republic sooooo yea I would hope we aren't on the top.
I love Pod Save America. Their podcast meets people where they are about politics/government and never speaks pretentiously or biased about them. So happy they did this.
Not biased?😭💀😂 they are so openly democrat
@@ladygaga81ful They are, but they don't coddle Democrats or agree with everything Democrats do. They call out everyone.
Its funny because you can tell by their faces what side they are, but this channel is Conde Naste, and they've been mask off bias since 2016.
@@ladygaga81ful They're progressive. If Democrats were not progressive in their policies, they would not encourage people to vote blue.
@@yamerojonesYeah they’re not fat and wearing red hats.
Everyone should share this video to friends and family that are either uninformed, misinformed, or undecided. The breakdown and delivery of this information is perfect!
Said while not noticing the like to reply ratio is way off.
Yeah two former congress scumbags have our best interests at heart
12:01 DC has more citizens than some states so the lack of representation is appalling.
They do get 3 electoral votes. Aka equivalent to Wyoming. They do get some representation. It's just not to the level of a state. Now, Puerto Rico however has like 0 representation and are in a weird limbo state. Just remove that and let them be a state
Because its seen as more of a neutral zone
@@anonymousperson3023 they don’t have any senators, though.
@@VirginiaBronson They have a "delegate" and two "Shadow Senators", both of whom are more or less considered members of the House and Senate, but they can't do crap.
The reason DC and Puerto Rico aren't states is because the Republicans are afraid it'll give the Democrats an advantage in the Senate. DC, sure, but Puerto Rico is a bit more of a toss-up, I could see Puerto Rico being maybe a Democratic-leaning swing state.
On Project 2025 which they discuss at 10:45, I don't see why everyone is saying Trump "might" use it as his framework. One of the two things he achieved in his 1st term was appointing a ton pf young, conservative judges. He didn't come up with that list. The Federalist Society did. Project 2025 is Trump's plan to make the same impact--not just in the courts but across the entire federal government.
Project 2025 reduces great big government size and power. If we want more government and enforcement,we have to keep conservatives out of office.
I guarantee you, you know more about project 2025 than Trump does.
@@morganmcallister2001 I absolutely hate the guy, but he's not stupid: he knows what it is, and although his level of involvement is uncertain, it is undeniable that several of his closest advisors have worked extensively on Project 2025.
@@peterthepanda5191 like the guys in this video, you obviously didn't read a single word it
Liar
Here’s a question: If the majority of people are in favor of something (COVID relief, gun control, improved infrastructure), why is it so hard to get these things in passed? I know the short answer… Congress reps are more beholden to their party than to their constituents. But WHY?? (And why don’t constituents hold them accountable by not voting for them?)
Lobbying by corporations. Money. Greed. The usual suspects.
A few parts to this.
First, for most bills to pass the Senate they require 60 (out of 100) votes due to something called the filibuster. Having 60 votes for highly partisan issues is extremely difficult.
Assuming a party did have 60 votes, they still need to make sure there are no deflectors. This can be difficult with democrats because they have a very broad coalition of ideas. Getting everyone on the same page when there are that many competing ideas is difficult.
Next you have the problem with partisan gerrymandering which minimizes representation for the non-majority party in many states. This is especially true in Red states where elected officials tend to go against progressive ideas.
Another big problem is the ability for corporations and Super PACs to spend unlimited money on campaigns, which tends to favor candidates/issues supported by big corporations.
The last issue I'll mention is poor voter turnout. Especially in off-year elections and primaries. This low turnout tends to favor establishment candidates who tend appeal to more reliable voters. If you want real change, get more people to vote.
This was so refreshing. The internet needs more common sense content like this. 🧠
Was this common sense? I mean, they were fine and all but I wouldn't say it was common sense per se and they also clearly did have a bias that should've been addressed IF you're trying to teach this to say 10 year olds
@@anonymousperson3023 All the information in the video is factually accurate. They showed no signs of extremism and didn’t present any “alternative facts” or conspiracy theories. Pretty straightforward and commonsensical content.
@CaptainBollocks.... No but my point is there are better educational videos where the bias input is less extreme
@victoriafrank4058 It was mostly accurate, sure. I wouldn't say all of it was factually accurate cause that's too extreme a statement especially in the political realm but yes, they didn't present alternative facts or lie. My problem is their bias. They clearly have a left leaning bias. That's not wrong. I don't have an issue with that if they told us that but they didn't. The video makes them out to be centrists but to me, they are tilt if not moderate lefts. Again, nothing wrong with that but those biases did spill in to some of their responses
@@anonymousperson3023 I think having some sort of bias is almost inevitable, it’s human nature. In this case, I don’t feel that their personal beliefs had an influence on how they answered the questions. That being said, I’m glad we can have a dialogue and agree to disagree. 👍🇺🇸
@wired You must do a series on how government works/doesnt with these gentlemen and more commentators. This is like crash course but more my style.
I watched this to see how they explained the electoral vote versus the popular vote. I wish they had gone over how it's theoretically possible to win the electoral vote with something like 20% of the national popular vote, if 51% of the population of each of the least populous states voted for you and no one in the most populous states voted for you.
But that's taking things to such an extreme extent and it's really fear mongering more so than trying to prove unjust voting systems. That will never happen and will never be close to happening so no need to do that
That... sounds so ridiculous and absolutely on brand for America
In fact, the "theoretical" number may be smaller than 20%, something like 10%. A third candidate C situation that let´s say get 10% in the states where Candidate that Candidate A wins by a mere 45.01% to 44.09% of Candidate B, but Candidate A wins the 270 EC votes. B loses, no matter if B wins 99% of the votes in all other states, and so getting 80% of the PV.
The whole concept of needing to "register to vote" is SO baffling to many of us non-USans.
The concept of the vote being an earned right and not an entitlement is baffling to the poorly read.
@@yamerojones A functional state should already know whether or not any given individual has that right. If only because a lot of the same information is relevant for collecting taxes. (Oh yeah, and I've bee doing my taxes in five minutes online for over a decade. Also never had an issue with registering a vehicle or renewing my driver's licence. Maybe a twenty minute wait. It IS possible to do these things efficiently!)
As for rights and entitlements, I'm personally in favor of voting being an *obligation*, actually. At the very least it should be a solid social obligation, if not formalized (like in Australia).
@@yamerojones What do you need to do to "earn" the right to vote besides be 18 and a citizen?
In the modern world it's ridiculous because the government already knows where everyone lives. But go back 30-40 years before computers really took off and things were more compartmentalized. Many federal and state agencies may have had computer systems, but they couldn't easily share data. Back then, registration mattered.
I think the model of automatically registering people when they get a state ID or drivers license is eliminating the issue in states where it exists.
I mean, instead of Election Day, you could have the thing we do in Greece where we literally put a Sunday to be the Election Day. They also make it a 4-day weekend by eliminating the Friday and Monday of the Election Weekend, so people can travel to their designated areas (which might be in their villages).
NOBODY can miss Election Day. They can only try or put a white paper if they don't want to vote.
In Peru that’s kinda the same (except for the traveling, which I think is a great idea). But our elections are mandatory, soy you must vote, other wise you will have to pay a fine
The reason it's on a Tuesday is because it was set in the 1800s when people went to church and there were no cars and Tuesday was basically the only day that most people were available to vote. Totally makes sense to inform how we conduct elections 220 years later.
I got on the mailing list for the Ohio Republican Party. I'm neither Republican, a donor, nor an Ohioan. I've visited the state only once.
just a name mixup, someone shares your name (I know, shocker!)
We need a monthly video with Pod Save America people. The only important elections aren't just the presidential and they'd hopefully bring more attention to local elections and exactly how to help with voting and just inform Americans and everyone in the world about politics. They're also just a joy to watch, which cannot be said for a lot of political people so they'd reach many more people.
Regarding the electoral college, I watched a very good video that broke it down and it’s theoretically possible to win the election with only 22% of the vote. It’s time we replace it and all votes are treated equally.
America needs some serious education regarding the differences between democracy and neo fascism, extremism and populism. Read some books, America!!!
Yeah, republicans have worked extremely hard to under fund and destroy the public school system. The problem is that our country basically unleashed the super wealthy in the 80's and they have done everything in their power to strangle the people's power since.
You need a lesson on the American constitution and this countries founding if you believe the US is a democracy (Not in support of neo-fascism, etc.).
We are a constitutional republic, which prioritizes protecting individual rights over majority rule. This is why, to name one example, we have the electoral college voting system and not a popular vote for president (Otherwise they would basically be the President of the coasts, and 30 states would have to reason to stay in the Union).
Point in case, why don’t you look up how many times the word democracy or sone variation thereof can be found in the declaration of independence and the constitution (Hint: It’s a whole number less than 1)
@@colewarner4954 You pedantic "constitutional republic" people are incredibly annoying. While technically correct, no one cares about your extremely narrow definition of democracy. We *all* understand democracy to colloquially mean "people cast votes." Whether we're voting directly for a candidate, or for an elector/representative, "democracy" is an accepted term.
You "constitutional republic" types just love to listen to yourselves talk and attempt to prove to us how intellectual you are. It's exhausting and annoying, and you're not accomplishing anything.
If you read any of those books yourself you might realize that we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Read some books random guy on the internet!!!
@@AdamPFarnsworth So then Hitler was democratically elected? Or suddenly its not "democracy" anymore? Funny how that works!
Early voting solves the problem of election day being a Tuesday.
We started doing it in New Zealand and the turnouts have surged.
Both things can be true at once, in my country election day is on Saturday and a holiday. The easier and more convenient the country makes it for people, the better it is.
If only every state would count those votes ahead of time.
@@davidhorgan368 Not a brag for Karen Island.
Thank goodness we have it in most states now.
So its a winner contest where one side can do whatever they want, most democratic political systems revolve around coalitions which require partys to cooperate and take a wider amount of citizens into consideration, this creates a far less toxic political situation. I get sad looking at the political situation of the US.
American political parties are made up of coalitions, and these coalitions do occaissionally switch parties, which is called a party realignment. There is one going on as we speak.
I mean no the U.S still has checks and balances between the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court
America does have checks and balances. The president is the most powerful position but they're still only a president, not a king, dictator or whatever else
@freddybishop2287 Who's the real check on the Supreme Court? In a hyper partisan country, there isn't one. The 26th amendment wouldn't even pass today because it favors Democrats getting younger people to vote. So what's the realistic check?
@@freddybishop2287 Except one side clearly is allowed to break the laws, look at the border, while the other side is always mired in the courts.
DC has 671,000 residents that do not have equal representation. It is not just a concrete federal city.
An an American I'm glad I finally understand how electoral college works. Other videos seemed and felt a little too complex for some reason. But Jon's explanation is perfect and simple. Thank you. Just subbed to Pod Save America.
John and Tommy are fun and funny on their podcast and I ❤ them and their pod. However, I enjoyed seeing them more serious in this setting.
11:46 No, a bump stock doesn’t convert a semi-auto to a full-auto. If you believe this, then you are wrong. To convert a semi-auto to a full-auto requires replacing internal components and most semi-auto firearms are not easily converted to full-auto. Facts are your friends.
They obviously do not know what they are talking about. They need to read the US Federal Government definition of a machine gun.
My Lyft driver was an undecided voter. Said, he didn't care about politics as long as his family is OK. I asked him if his kids were receiving free or reduced lunch. My goal was to convince him to vote. I hope I did. Not voting is giving a vote to trump.
I don't know why people have this weird compulsion to twist not voting to voting for Trump, it makes no sense. Like it literally means something completely different.
Please shut tf up. "Not voting is giving a vote to trump" it literally isn't, though. What if your Lyft driver would vote for Trump, is him not voting still giving a vote for Trump?
fun fact: no right to vote is established in the constitution of the USA, not to be confused with amendments saying voting can't be restricted on the basis of gender or race, but we do not have a right to vote, which is why inmates of prisons can't vote, and in the past, states limited voting to those who owned at least so much property. In fact, most white men couldn't vote either, which is why there was a universal suffrage movement happening alongside the woman's suffrage movement. It turns out the united states hasn't been exactly what we've been led to believe.
Wait, are you saying there was widespread discrimination and racism in the past? No way. Groundbreaking stuff
@@Billycca3 I'm saying there was and is no right to vote and most white men couldn't vote either. There actually where black people and women who could vote back then because they owned the requisite amount of land.
Fantastic segment! Clear and easy to understand info!
So happy you are educating voters!!
I was conservative, but would consider myself a moderate and independent since at least 2016. I don't know who I will vote for. I follow the candidates closely, but am very disillusioned by the political parties in the US. My entire life they have both done or said anything in raw pursuit of political power. We really need to push ranked choice systems, but both parties have proven that they are unwilling to give up the duopoly.
I don’t want to get into it but Donald Trump kept extremely highly classified documents by his spare toilet, not locked up at all
@@Blank-hh8xcSo did Biden but you dont care since it isnt Trump
Go away your bias is annoying
Loved this segment! Hope you guys do another one sometime down the line
12:18 why are you ignoring Guam??? They have a USA Air Force base there and they pay taxes!!! And they can't vote!!!
Literally the entire reason for the revolutionary war: taxation without representation 😂😂😂
>Literally the entire reason for the revolutionary war: taxation without representation
No. The correct response would be preservation of slavery. You should study more or you'll fail the test
Giving us quite the fair and unbiased veiw of our political system, without attempting to sway the audience towards your personal preferences.
How to pick where to donate: I donate to The Lincoln Project. They are the most brilliant political strategists I've ever met.
Really well explained guys. I'm going to start following your podcast after watching this.
Love these guys
Never seen some as excited as jon when the ”offline” question came up
I live in the UK, I havr lived in London and Cambridge and Manchester and now live in the countryside, not only have I never had to queue to vote either outside the building where the voting is taking place or inside to get to a voting booth, 75% of the time there's only me and and the two election workers in the building. Why does the US have massive long lines?
They might have fewer locations maybe? I know in the UK there are quite a few
hilarious how many people don't seem to understand that many people don't tie their entire identity to the platform of one party.
Even more amazing to me is that so many people Do tie their identity to a party. Wouldn't want to be thinking for themselves or anything silly like that..
There are dozens of us
YUP! People are so polarized. At the end of the day, they base their core beliefs on whatever opposes the rival party. And, it is unbelievable and sad. That's not to even mention that many don't feel like settling. Which is what you're doing if you vote for a guy just because he represents red or blue.
This is common everywhere, even in countries with 12+ parties. Many people treat their political affiliation like being fans of a sports club.
In my opinion, akin to sports superfans, they don't really have much else going on in their lives.
@@mzx1990 You aren't wrong. Canada has it's fair share of non free thinkers!
Needs more Survivor's Jon Lovett
Great info, TYVM!
so to sum it up: political situation in the US is in a very bad state (laws, voting, etc.). These guys listed some very good political options for us to turn that around though (removing filibuster, etc.)
look into why we have filibuster in the first place and get back to me with that opinion
Man, I love these two.
Just because you say your a democracy doesn't mean you are one...sometimes it's just words
You guys should talk about the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" on Pod Save America to spread the word.
Regarding voting for a party (or not) based on one's beliefs (or not): My dad lived his life as a Democrat and took advantage of everything that Democrat-passed opportunities allowed him to...yet he voted Republican down the line, always. He just liked their personalities better, he said.
What are democrat-passed opportunities?
Would he like Donald Trump's personality? 😳
Wow. That is the most neurotypical thing I have heard this week.
@@TimpanistMoth_AyKayEll Your reply is the most autistic thing I’ve heard today.
If he lived like a democrat you wouldn't exist.
Great video! Very enlightening.
"Gentlemen this was...Very Good"
Sarkozy NEVER went to jail though, even if he should have as he was found guilty!
Really helpful, please do this again on this topic.
What a great PSA (Public Service Announcement .. and Pod Save America) !!
It's maybe worth pointing out that the Electoral College can be bypassed without a Constitutional amendment. States can join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once the states' electors add up to 270, it goes into effect and all the states assign their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. It's already at 209; just 61 more to go...
If a lot of voters don’t even pay attention to the election until the end, why does the election cycle have to be so long? It would be great if elected officials could focus more on governance while they’re in office, and less on the nearly constant campaigning.
This country needs to shrink the campaign length to the year of the election. 9 months, that's it!
I’m sure many people appreciate the question & answer about texts. I am poor, but have donated to an organization against gun violence. For months, Ive received 15+ texts every day! Our election seasons are too long! 👏Happy for the change!❤
Almost every answer to "Why can't we have nice things?" boils down to "Because Republicans"
THANKS FOR THE UPDATE GUYS THIS WAS A REAL BUMMER
The Electoral “College” should be completely disbanded. The President should be whoever gets the popular vote. That means the majority of the people who voted selected that person to be the President!
Wow, this was great.
woah! loved these guys since 2016!
I wish all victims in this conflict peace and comfort. You deserve to live in peace in comfort. No one deserves war. 🙏🏽
Trump didn't have a lower campaign spend when you factor in the amount spent by Russia on astroturfing, etc.
Fun fact: Not sure this is done any longer (it's been years since my children were in school) but when I was a child, because schools were very often used as polling places for elections, it was a national holiday for school children. I think it would be great to make it a holiday for everyone.
BTW? I cannot help but mention that, while I do agree that all those gun laws should be federal, the fact is, all of those laws (as well as a few more) already are state laws in many states, including my own (NJ).
Europe here: All that is SO SO strange.
Right!?
and they call themselves number one?
@@bellatrix1408 Europe criminalizes free speech, that alone discredits them.
I don't think herbinator was talking about illegal voting, but instead was talking about legal (mostly) voter disenfranchisement.
Our low turnout is kind of a blessing as far as voter security goes, bc do you really think ineligible people are voting by the thousands if not even eligible people care enough to?
Early voting plus two Elections Days Saturday-and-Sunday .
Why is it fair that a state with 10 times more population that another state only has the same number of senators? Is it because cattle, sheep and trees also have rights?
Pretty much. Jefferson and his cronies whined that federalism and strong democratic principles stripped them and their friends of too much personal power.
@@Fever2113 Its not whining to want a stop gap against mob rule
@@blight4216 mob wouldn't be ruling - the elected officials would. It would still be a representative democracy.
@@Fever2113 it would be direct democracy based solely on popular vote. The electoral process preserves the requirement that candidates relate to more than two states. It supports the intent of United States that can have different preferences as opposed to centralized countries with universal laws.
@@blight4216that’s not what direct democracy means. I agree that simply removing all protections and deciding federal elections strictly by popular vote isn’t a solution. There need to be checks in place to prevent the concentration of political power in a handful of urban centers. However, it’s fair to criticize the existing system for being anachronistic in this age of intense urbanization.
Love these guys!
Make election day a Saturday. Done.
Agreed.
That would be the easiest choice, that is used by most countries (saturday or sunday), so I doubt USA politicians would actually do it.
Some countries make voting day a paid holiday, sounds like ppl here would call that communist
Almost 30% of the US population works weekends (i.e., retail, food service, customer service), so that hardly solves the problem.
Early voting solves the problem better
There’s an even simpler explanation for why governments will never make housing cheaper in Australia - frankly, the population isn’t prepared to accept the consequences of cheaper housing. Two thirds of Australians own their own houses (either outright or with a mortgage) and the consequence of a cheaper housing market would be a massive reduction in the wealth of those 2/3rds of Aussies. Imagine a party going to an election with a policy of “we’re going to take away a considerable share of your household wealth.” They’d get destroyed!
That’s why the BEST case scenario is a balanced increase of new housing supply to prevent future price increases and wait for economy-wide inflation to make housing relatively more affordable.
Citizens united was primarily about money being free speech. It was a previous decision that made "corporations people" but that was an even more bizarre situation. The court decided that they weren't but the court reporter reported the dissenting opinion as the majority opinion. After that some other decisions took that opinion for granted, and once that happened it just kind of was. Citizens united was based on that to some degree, but it was another one taking the dissenting opinion on a previous decision for granted.
Many of the people who claim to love democracy would never talk about workplace democracy.
Love these two! 💙
Trump has not endorsed Project 2025
They keep lying about it😂
I’m glad you’re talking about this because we need to get rid of the electoral college. My vote truly does not count in Kansas.
Also let me remind everyone whos forgot the us is not fully democracy we are a democratic republic very different there.
no it is a combination of two ideas. Jefferson repeatedly used the term democratic republic interchangeably with Republican democracy, of course at that time Republicanism referring to the common person's view of the government in the French Revolution of 1789 during the time Jefferson served as ambassador there
Love you both!
For part two:
"What's democratic about America's two party system?"
There’s a saying… “you may not do politics but politics will do you"
This defiantly needs another episode
*definitely... The word you used is a word, but unfortunately makes no sense. You know your phone has autocorrect right? And a red squiggly line under the word to let you know it's incorrect spelling and then blue line for improper grammar? 🤷🏼♂️
@@I.no.ah.guy57 I actually don't have this mysterious squiggly line uou speak of as that only shows up on my PC have you considered I was stoned or maybe was using a device that does not autocorrect my spelling and also did you understand what I ment? If so then why comment? 😊
Jon and Tommy are some of the smartest, most eloquent speakers in political commentary today. We are lucky to have them.
Wooooow 🎉 never seen this one coming lol
(leaves notification bell on)
Been listening to your podcast a while, its weird seeing your faves. Yes I know I could always have googled you I dident. Somehow I feel like you should have mustaches.
Abolish the electoral college.
And make it a holiday so people can have time to vote
No
Why ?
Love these guys!
1:46 A lot of undecided voters are also looking for a political party that is capable of using the word "genocide" in a sentence, when there is an ongoing genocide.
I saw a video where if done correctly you could get all of like 25% of the popular vote but win the presidency due to the EC.
Take what these guys say with a huge grain of salt. Their political instincts are trash, specifically foregin policy and campaign strategy.
And just blatantly biased