This video brought to you in part by our Patrons over on Patreon. If you’d like to support our efforts here directly, and our continued efforts to improve our videos, as well as do more ultra in-depth long form videos that built in ads and even sponsors don’t always cover fully, check out our Patreon page and perks here: www.patreon.com/TodayIFoundOut And as ever, thanks for watching!
Today i found out ... that you are an idiot USA is NOT a democracy, it's constitutional republic with very limited democratic principles and guaranteed individual rights and freedoms that are protected from the dirty claws of democracy. And electoral college is key component of that protecting the rights of each state.
I think Harris will win, and while the country will suffer economically, there won't be any resistance to it. Should Trump win, there will be riots, the election will not be certified, and the constitution may very well be burned and the republic over. Never underestimate how violent many of the leftist are in this country, we imagine them on the right as crying children, while in reality they are anything but.
It's best to think about the United States of America as a country made up of 50 independent sovereign countries that have collectively agreed to pool certain resources and responsibilities. The leader of the group of countries is chosen by the countries themselves. The citizens in each of the 50 countries will vote to see who their country chooses to have as president. The weight of each country is set based on that country's population, with no upper limit on electoral weight but there is a minimum of 3 votes no matter the country's population. There are no national elections in the United States. There have never been national elections in the United States. There are only state(country) elections.
There actually is a cap now but it’s pretty high because the number of electors is based of representatives and senators each state has and the cap on representatives is 435 seats as of 1929.
The problem is the distribution of electoral votes. Each electoral vote should represent a fixed number of individual votes, there's no reason why a vote in a swing state is worth 10 times the vote in a deep blue/red state.
I’m going to give my two cents here. You don’t seem to understand that the electoral college was made to give lower populated states a voice . The United States is a Union of each state almost being like a country united by the federal government . Vermont and Texas were independent countries that later joined the US. With the electoral college presidents have to campaign in all states . If it was popular vote they could just campaign in California , Florida , New York , Texas and ignore everyone else. I’m a former New Yorker and when I moved to the upper Midwest I didn’t realize how ignored many mid westerners feel by the large cities . They feel they have no voice and by taking away the electoral college you will deny them that . For people that say but popular vote is fair everyone is represented well they aren’t . The rural minority isn’t . States like Texas , Hawaii and Alaska already have separatist movements and parties that back them . If you abolish the electoral college these separatists will only grow in power causing further division . Why do you think every state has 2 senators ? It’s to keep the balance of power and each state happy . People can argue popular vote all they want but as someone from New York I can tell you millions of new Yorkers don’t know anything about farming and would vote for policies that destroys farming communities in the mid west . Millions of New Yorkers don’t know about the oil industry and would vote for policies that would destroy Alaskas oil economy . Millions of New Yorkers know nothing about guns and would vote for policies destroying gun rights in many rural communities . The electoral college and our senator system has worked since our foundation . There is no reason to change it and cause division . Also your thumbnail is very irresponsible telling people their vote doesn’t matter. Your vote does matter but you’re voting for your state to grant electors to your candidate .
If every vote counted the same it wouldn't matter where they came from. Why do you even need to distinguish between a vote cast in California and a vote cast in Wyoming? They both should be of equal value. If the popular vote alone decides, the separation between states and their populations doesn't matter anymore. Of course this would mean that areas with a higher population get more 'say' in who'll become president but that's simply fundamentally democratic in nature.
This is exactly what I've been seeing. The EC gives the little guy a voice, and handicapps the big city states. Popular vote would create "flyover states" for real. Why would I campaign in middle America if I only needed the biggest 5 metropolitan areas?
Anyone trusting the federal government are the same people that has created most the problems we have today. Reagan said it best, Government isn't the answer, Government Is the problem.
You caught that remark as well. This video seems like it was produced to influence a change to popular vote. Good history lesson but question the motivation
@@philcolombo9490 popular vote is objectively more representative of the the whole than the electoral collage. Additionally the electoral collage has many, many problems.
Actually, the Electoral College votes for the President and Vice President on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December after a Presidential General Election. This year (2024), this will occur on December 17, 2024. January 6 is the "final/Official" tally of the Electoral College vote that must be ratified by Congress in order for the election results to become official. AND, I wish this was available back in the day when I was teaching high school US History and US Government. This would have saved me a TON of headaches and explanations.
Because we're big fans of The Capital in the Hunger Games. Only 11 states are needed to win the election, whereas that'd be impossible under popular vote. Remember that 100% of Cali doesn't vote Democrat, and 100% of Texas doesn't vote Republican. Under the EC, they do. Cali - 54 Texas - 40 Florida - 30 New York - 28 Illinois - 19 Pennsylvania - 19 Ohio - 17 Georgia - 16 North Carolina - 16 Michigan - 15 New Jersey - 14 DC - 3 That's 271 votes. Those states, if they wanted to, could get together and decide every election.
Maybe your thumbnail should read “Does Your Vote Matter?” Having it say “your vote doesn’t matter” right before the United States’ presidential election . . . come on man.
Straight facts. I usually applaud him and his crew for making amazing videos. Unfortunate to see this thumbnail as this particular clickbait has reverberating consequences.
All he did was explained exactly how the constitution works. Nothing that anyone who has read and understands what they read could do. Crazy how someone would sat differently unless they just think whatever the media tells them is 100% truth. That would lead to a democracy not a republic 🤔 oh wait that's exactly what is going on he is just calling out that point. Read your o
Uhhhhh, Simon? For someone who puts together very well researched content in most cases, I’m quite surprised that your thumbnail didn’t give you pause. Given that the size of your following in the US easily outstrips the number of votes the previous presidential election was decided by, I would advise exercising greater caution. Clickbait is all well and good, but your actions may have consequences more far reaching that you may currently appreciate.
Perhaps you should watch the video before commenting this. The entire meticulously-researched point of the video is that your vote doesn't matter outside of swing states thanks to the electoral college.
It was also Al Gore's second concession... he retracted the first concession and then went farming for votes in Florida counties that favored him demographically.
It forces the presidential candidates to appeal to a wide variety of people and interests. Otherwise a few major coastal cities would decide every single presidential election.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Except it doesn't. They just focus on the swing states and completely ignore the solidly red/blue states. The notion that a state should matter in any way when deciding president is so dumb. 1 person 1 vote should be the only thing that matters.
This video's thumbnail could be construed as election interference. Your vote absolutely does matter. An electoral college win in conjunction with a popular vote win gives the President a far stronger ethical mandate to govern the nation. An electoral college win with a popular vote loss tells the President that he needs to tread carefully because most of the population doesn't trust him even though most of the states gave him the win.
There is a popular vote... AT THE STATE LEVEL. The United States is essentially 50 small nations under 1 umbrellas Federal Government. Without the Electoral College high population states would negate the votes of smaller states.
Exactly. Why would anyone campaign in anywhere but California and New York if small states didn't matter much in the choice. Then the smaller states would secede from the Union like the confederacy did because they felt unrepresented.
@@suzannebeinart4359We're a collection of states (and a Commonwealth) that use a common currency and have fairly consistent laws. Also, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic. You very plainly haven't read the constitution or federalist papers.
If you live in a swing state your vote ABSOLUTELY counts. Please don't discourage people from swing states from voting. Also there are down ballot races where your vote DOES count, such Senate, US House/Congress and various races for state legislature and sometimes governor. Please vote in down ballot races where your vote DOES matter, sometimes a lot. There are state representative races in Pennsylvania hat were won by as little as 27 votes and even a small town mayor's race that was won by 4 votes.
Last time I checked, Paris, Rome, and London can’t keep its government together for more than 80 years at a time before the pitchforks come out and reset it.
@@sipjedekat8525 and the government did not change, unlike every almost every other country since then…big boy conversation here, grade school replies have no place
@@KasFromMass Man get outta here. I'm pretty sure the civil war qualifies as a nation that 'can't keep its government together', because that's what you said. If you're gonna argue over petty semantics like that, you already lost. How many governments fundamentally changed in London or Rome or Paris every 80 years? Maybe if the US even existed longer than a measly few centuries you could compare these apples and oranges. Till then, sit down.
@@KasFromMass You said 'can't keep its government together'. Pretty sure the civil war counts. And it was definitely a reset. You know unlike London, where the institutions are literally older than the US itself. By centuries. Sit down.
@@KasFromMass You said 'can't keep its government together'. Pretty sure the civil war counts. And it was definitely a reset. You know unlike London, where the institutions are literally older than the US itself. By centuries.
One vastly overlooked fact is that about 1/3 of the Presidents have been elected without a majority, only a plurality. The electoral college system requires a majority of something.
That's because the electoral college makes it pointless to vote in a state that is purely red or blue. Add to this that you have to register in order to vote, that makes it less likely for people to bother to vote. And that's the reason why so few people in USA bothers to vote.
@@Tjalve70 Another thing to consider is that, until recently, California was a hard Red state, but is now a hard Blue state. It's still a good idea to vote, even if your state is considered 'safe' for one party or another.
I like Brazils election layout. The popular vote is the vote and people who do not vote receive citations. Also, you need your official ID to vote and everybody votes on the same day (most people get the day off work.)
If you force human beings to do something, eventually you're going to get pushback. Giving someone a citation for a simply not voting is stupid as hell. Not to mention Brazil has not had some of the best leaders on the planet.
Fuck that noise, the day you force me to go to a polling location to vote is the day I stop voting. I will never stand in a line to vote. Especially considering how little our votes in the US actually matter.
Fun fact. The government doesnt want you to vote. Thats why in other countries its a national holiday or on a Saturday. But they make it inconvenient here in hopes you dont vote
another fun fact: At that time, the United States was still a largely agrarian society. For farmers, who made up a majority of the labor force, much of the year was taken up by the planting, tending, and harvesting of crops. Early November was a good time to vote because the harvest was over but the weather was still relatively mild. Still, some days of the week were better than others. Two days were definitely out of the question. Most Americans were devout Christians and thus set aside Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Wednesday in many areas was a market day, when farmers sold their crops in town. In addition, a travel day was sometimes required. In rural areas, the nearest polling place might have been several miles away, and, in an era before automobiles, getting there could take a while. If people couldn’t use Sunday or Wednesday as their travel day, then that meant election day couldn’t be on Monday or Thursday, either. And so Tuesday was perceived as the best option.
Voting is just another form of control. Historically, people voted for the Nazis to kill the Jews, and Aristotle had to kill himself because of a vote.
Popular vote determines which party's electors cast the electoral votes. The reason is that not everyone could get to the polls back in the day and since states had different populations (remember they are states, no one wanted a single or handful of states determining the elections while smaller population states would become inconsequential. Think of it as a handicap to larger population states. Equity instead of equality or just the way the cookie crumbles.
That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@tylermarty1796 pretty sure Google can explain how said separation of powers and the sovereignty of the individual states are what *necessitated* the existence of the Electoral College. I'm sure you could also find info on how the US was originally founded as a confederation, and how that impacted the Constitutional Convention of 1787- specifically, why they focused so much on State rights, despite replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. This really isn't hard- we have the Electoral College for the same reason that we have the Senate, instead of Congress consisting solely of the House of Representatives.
Look, I hate the electoral college, but that thumbnail is careless. We have a very important election in a week, and you're telling people that their vote doesn't matter? We already have an issue with people not voting consistently and this doesn't help.
The problem isn't the electoral college, It's that their hands are mostly tied to the popular vote. And you're vote for president is only advisory. The electors do have the ability to vote otherwise, 90% of a state could vote for candidate a, and all the states electors could vote candidate c, and the supreme court has ruled the electors actual vote stands. It's the electors job to do the research and vote for the best candidate for the people of their state. The people are NOT supposed to vote for the president, and for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact the United States is supposed to be more a collection of mostly sovereign states, more like the EU, than a single state like Canada or Norway. It's also to isolate the office from "the passions of the moment", IE mob rule. Winner take all not only undermines these mechanisms and others, but does so in a particularly perverse way IMHO.
This video completely ignores the links between the EC and slavery. It also ignores the fact there have been many attempts to change the EC going back to shortly after the constitution was ratified. This video also misleads about the popularity of the EC. Many Americans don't support it because it is emblematic of a political system where their voice doesn't count. In fact, it is probably a major reason America has struggles to get 60% voter turnout. Support for the EC is also split strongly along party lines. Republicans support it because it helps their candidates get elected. Democrats don't like it because a Republican has won 2 of the last 6 elections without winning the popular vote.
So here's the thing though, if what's your writing is true, then why is it still in existence? Americans should have rewritten or ratified the voting process. The truth of the matter is it works for whoever needs it to work. Obviously it has nothing to do with the voters. Your votes don't count. It's just a way for the people in charge to get you emotionally invested versus being an apathetic United States citizen. Because if you have a country full of people that don't give a damn about the government? Then you're going to have a revolution at worst or another January insurrection at best.
@ITSWHATEVAHBYTYRFREE-wf8pd "The truth of the matter is it works for whoever needs it to work" This statement pretty much summarizes why the EC has not been amended out of existence. It's not about protecting small states or most of the other defenses you hear. It's about protecting those who benefit and want to keep it.
@@jhamaker That and its nearly impossible to change the constitution. When the country is split roughly 50/50 an amendment is impossible regardless of which side is pushing for it.
Having “your vote doesn’t matter” prominent in your thumbnail so close to an incredibly critical election is super irresponsible. Every vote matters and there are plenty of other important races and ballot initiatives that use popular vote. The presidential race is just one spot on the ballot.
This is the sentiment most voters in the U.S., at least the ones I know, feel. However, if the citizens votes really didn’t matter, then certain parties would not be putting in decades of effort to remove the ability for specific groups to vote.
A secondary benefit of the Electoral College at the time was that it simplified the counting of votes in a pre-industrial society. Rather than tally up all votes and send them by horse and carriage to be further tallied for a final number, a process prone to human error and loss in transit (people back then used to send duplicate letters in case one was lost), localities tally their votes and then send a person who represents those votes. Nowadays we have machine counting and telecommunications, so this benefit is no longer relevant.
My district or electoral vote during 2020 went 79% to Trump. Sometimes your vote(and your best 3000 friends who may live in your district) does not matter.
The electoral college has nothing to do with state power however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 States matter and the voting commission is dictated by Congress. The states make their own compliant rules. If states didnt matter, there wouldnt be an electoral. Here's a layman explanation: Each State has districts per population. Residents vote in that district. The popular vote is sent to the State's commission. If a state has 51% from electoral, that candidate wins that State with that number of electoral votes (Pennsylvania has 19 for example). All States vary in amount of electoral. The 5 big states (a lot EV districts) make up almost 2/3 of the votes. 270 total electoral wins the presidency. Even if a candidate has 25 states (say 200 EV total) and has NO big EV states, and the opponent has 20 states with 200, 2 big EV states can take that number from 200 to 230 real fast and the opponent is still at 200 or maybe 205+
@@derekelliott6098 Americans actually dont have a constitutional right to vote for president. That is left up to the state. A state government could change it's election law to where the state government decides to whom the electors vote for, and that would be 100% constitutional.
@@derekelliott6098 The electoral college was never meant to address this though... it was meant to solve a different problem that it fails at (and probably enables now). The 2 senators per state was meant to address what you're talking about, giving equal representation to all states in the senate regardless of population.
Simon literally explains the thumbnail in the video and I still see an insane amount of hate towards the choosing of the thumbnail.... This is why our vote doesn't matter.. imagine.
The alarming number of Americans that will argue and think this isn’t true is what scares me. Don’t believe it? Look up the number of presidents that have lost the popular vote. So please people, enlighten yourselves, and still go vote because our voices still need to be heard. (Yes I’m American)
The United States has some wonderful citizens. Unfortunately we also have some who can vote but shouldn't. These days there are radicalized idiots who have no idea what is good for everyone, let alone care about what is good for everyone. You know, all those braniacs who couldn't tell you where the capital city is.
because that only furthersthe obvious: each state essentially having its own vote for president, and then being given a value, rather than all citizens in the country being counted 1:1
Per Websters democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing: a government in which the people vote for their leaders. This was the important distinction at the time of the founding of the United States, in direct contrast with the rule of a king, or monarchy, in Great Britain. In part because that context was clear to everyone involved in the American Revolution, these terms were used interchangeably in the late 1700s. Both democracy and republic meant that the power to govern was held by the people rather than a monarch. These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Also the verse cited is from The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic recited verse that promises allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America. The first version was written in 1885 by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army officer in the Civil War who later authored a book on how to teach patriotism to children in public schools.
EXACTLY. I hate outsiders telling us about our system and its importance or lack thereof. I swear I always hear Americans should stay out of our politics when it's the other way around, but it's okay when they do it.
No, it doesn't. Those are two completely different concepts. The EC doesn't change the electoral power sufficiently to prevent mob rule. And a popular vote doesn't automatically result in mob rule. You obviously don't even understand the meanings of the words you are using.
I'm not sure that you understand why the electoral college was adopted in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 For people who didn't trust the common people they sure spent an incredible amount of effort giving them an incredible amount of power over the very government you claim was designed to keep them down. Or maybe the entire narrative you've crafted is a load of garbage that doesn't track at all. And if Trump is a demagogue Harris is easily an order of magnitude more so. She caters to the popular opinion so much we don't even know what her actual opinions are. As with most of what the founders did the electoral college was created for a reason much more reasonable than that nonsense you've spun up. It gives differences in ideas more weight than simple popular vote can. It was simply to ensure that one state could not override the interests of the entire union for being the more popular place to live. Which it accomplishes extremely well both then and now. And this is still a valuable thing to have. It allows people with very different experiences the chance to make their voice heard. It was the populist system of pure democracy the founders didn't trust, not the "common uninformed citizen". They understood the weaknesses inherent to such populist systems and why that would lead to the downfall of the country faster than just about any other form of government ever conceived. The electoral college prevents tyranny, it does not enable it. The influence it creates against the majority is small and does not overwhelm the voice of the majority. It prevents the tyranny of the majority over the minority which is the problem with pure democracy. And if it wasn't democratic it wouldn't track as closely as it does to the votes of the people it's meant to represent.
You failed to mention that the distribution of votes through an electoral college was designed to lessen the tyranny of elections by the more populous states. The small states could not be ignored since their electoral college votes could swing elections and therefore could be the deciding factor on who became president. If it were merely a nation-wide popular vote, then a small number of the largest states could overwhelm the less populated into irrelevance.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 "The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31]The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31]In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[48][non-primary source needed]". The above are excerpts from Wikipedia. I believe that they establish reasons and arguments as to why the smaller states believed that through the electoral process they would retain some degree of relevancy in presidential elections. You may not accept this position and may not believe the value of this system, but it is even more relevant to day than it was in 1787. Without the electoral system and substituting a national direct majority vote for president, the candidates would ignore the smaller states" voices and concentrate on appealing to the largest cities and most populous states. To hell with the needs of rural America or states such as Montana, New Mexico, or New Hampshire. Let California, New York, and Illinois dictate to the lesser states what our national priorities and policies will be. I did not question any of the history presented in the video or your statements. I merely noted an important consideration had not been included. I stand by my critique. The only exception I take is your personal affliction with Trump Derangement Syndrome. He will be the next President. Show your rage and burn down your favorite city.
tyranny of elections, lol. Let me fix that for you, a large group of people could outvote a smaller group of people. Assuming that large group of people all voted exactly the same way...which they don't.
The European brain cannot comprehend the necessity of the electoral college, and that includes myself. I had to move to Nevada from California to fully understand why it actually makes votes matter!
The difference isn't small vs big states. If the Electoral College was strictly proportional to population and fractional votes were allowed, Clinton would have picked up less than one electoral vote ( 0.15 to be exact). The big difference by far is the winner take all allocation that is used in (most) states.
Each state has two Senators and a number of representatives based on their population. To say the states wouldn't have a voice is a flat out lie. The President is the only office that each and every registered citizen gets to vote on. Therefore it should be revised so that every vote matters, not just votes in a select few swing states. We have the technology to do away with the horribly outdated Electoral College.
@Tjalve70 it would be vastly more skewed. The point of the system wasn't to not count in the popular vote. It was used to not allow the few from deciding the many. The US is like 50 countries in a trenchcoat acting like one country and at times throughout history it's varied. But regardless the people you meet in the Midwest are vastly different than those in Florida. Thus it's important to give those people across the country a say too. The point isn't about dominance. We don't need a Judge Dredd mega city deciding the lives of everyone.
@@bearcubdaycare so every decision should be made by the citizens of New York City, Chicago, LA (Check out Chicagos budgeting for a laugh)? Have you seen how poorly those cities operate? And you want those people to make decisions for farmers? Come on man, think a little. Without the Electoral College, the people feeding the country would have no say in the policy. That's not democratic.
It's certainly true that the founding fathers were pretty elitist and mistrusted what the people would do... In fact this lead to the creation of the electoral college in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
This is now the 4th video I've watched on the difference between the Popular vote and the electoral vote and I STILL don't have a fucking clue how it works. I guess I'm just a moron.
The main purpose of the Electoral College is to balance the influence of populous and less populous states in presidential elections. The system was designed to prevent larger states from having disproportionate influence and to serve as a safeguard, reflecting the founders’ intent to have informed representatives make the final decision.
The electoral college has nothing to do with states and their size however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Also if you read the federalist papers you will understand why MY COUNTRY is a constitutional republic and why we use the electoral college as opposed to a popular vote
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
The electoral college solves another problem that would be caused by popular vote. The way population is distributed in the US, the east coast states and California would choose every single president and the choices of the rest of the states would be absolutely IRRELIVANT. The electoral college system makes the choices of the middle states relevant and the president would have to care about the choices of Americans in every state.
I've absorbed various info in this topic, and I can see WHY it was implemented way back in the day, but this has to be, in every sense, THE most corrupt and undemocratic way of selecting a person of any system on earth. It's well past time this system was scrapped, and America went to a one person one vote system, winner takes all. Just as we do in Australia, New Zealand or Britain (or any other actual Democracy).
Yeah the electoral college system is pretty ingenious and has scaled very well considering how big our country got since its founding. I think what makes our system work is putting roadblocks against mob rule or direct democracy at a federal scale. I also think the 17th amendment was a mistake because it minimized the importance of voting in your state legislator elections.
I don't really think it has scaled well with the number of states and population growth and had only made the injustice of it greater where people in larger populous states have less representation with their vote than those in smaller states. Certainly though mob rule was among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 however with much a more specific reason and for a particular purpose. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Well, you got some things correct. The president does not represent the people he represents the states in common defense and in treaty's with foreign governments. James Wilson came up with the electoral college. He wanted the people to vote directly but he came up with this as an alternative to the plan he really wanted. Most of the Framers saw direct popular election by the people as dangerous to the peoples liberty. As Elbridge Gerry stated the people will be duped by a pretended patriot. The United States is a federation of independent politically sovereign states. The founders did not want the people to look to the President as a king. A popular election would create the vices inherent in ancient Athens under Pericles. Athens bacame more like a monarchy under Pericles as he could sway the masses by invoking their passion. To avoid this, they left it to each state. They wanted to prevent one state from controlling the President and they wanted to prevent a faction from controlling the President. If the president were elected by the people, he would only represent rhe great urban centers and not the states. This would be less Democratic. The cities do not feed you. They tend to be the people that want free stuff from the government which is never really free. Make sense. The states protect you from the Federal Government when it becomes tyrannical. Hint: it has become tyrannical. We need to get rid of the winner take all and put electors on the ballot instead of the president and disenfranchise political parties from being associated with the electors. This would restore the Framers intent.
So, I don't know why you people think it is complicated. First off, the United STATES is not a democracy and does not (for great reason) care about the majority. People only think a majority should decide when they think the majority is in their favor. This would leave all minorities to live under the oppression of other people. Second, much like Europe, the United STATES is a group of STATES and people are statemen before they are countrymen. You would not want Germany deciding the everyday lives of French citizens because they have different cultures, wants, and needs. So, under a national majority, California would be making decisions based on their lives for people in Oklahoma who have completely different lifestyles. This is also the point of checks and balances, so a Texas president, can't pass laws that would remove the rights of the people in California because of a majority vote. It is not a perfect system but that is why even though the system was decided based on the wants of the majority in its time, since the majority doesn't rule, we still grow to make things fairer for the minority. Breaking down our system to wrongly describe it is rude and immoral, but see, I think that is still okay because I believe in free speech; maybe your country should write a constitution giving you that right so your citizens can't get in legal trouble for voicing their opinions and criticisms because your country could pass a law that could get you arrested for criticizing your own country. Also, you have no checks and balances to prevent the majority from voting and passing a law saying that bald men with beards should go to prison for life.
"This would leave all minorities to live under the oppression of other people." Yeah. That would be awful, wouldn't it? Good thing that has never happened in American history. Thank God the Electoral College prevented this exploitation, and definitely didn't help entrench it by giving slave states disproportionate weighting in elections relative to their actual populations.
@@Solinvicti So many and yet you won't name one? Hmm, have a feeling you don't have one. You think the US is a democracy? You think we don't have free speech? You think England has a constitutional right to free speech? You think it is best for the majority to decide for everyone, and the minority shouldn't have a say? You think people in California know what is better for Oklahoma than an Oklahoma resident? You think the US doesn't have checks and balances? Please, enlighten me. My guess is the thing you disagree with is that you don't like facts and freedom.
@@SolinvictiI loved the post and support it. Can you breakdown a few of the falsehoods? If I am missing something, I’d love to know what it is. Thanks if you do!
The problem with this is that Presidents, as determined by the electoral college, don’t make laws. Congress does. Hence, the House by population and Senate having equal representation for each state. Looking at swing states, most are highly populated, except Nevada. The opposite of tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority
The first mistake is thinking the US is a democracy. It's not. It's a constitutional republic. Each state is soverign and has more direct control over their territory than the federal government, including their own military (national guard). While the voting power of each state is weighted by population, it is somewhat mitigated so that the fate of the entire country is not determined by just a handful of the states. While the candidate with the most votes can lose with this system, as stated in this video, it's rare.
There's more than one form of democracy. A constitutional republican is a form of democracy it's not a direct democracy like Ancient Greece it's a representative democracy. You still elect representatives and vote on ballot initiatives in your state.
@@tonysoprano1884 While it has democratic systems, that's not the same thing. Even the UK has democratic systems, but it's a monarchy. As it relates to this video, citizens of each state vote on "electors" to represent them. It's a compromise between the popular vote and a congressional vote. Each state has their own set of laws around this that supercede federal laws. The elected individuals represent the interest's of their citizens and give them a proxy voice in federal government. Citizens don't elect the head of the government, only state representatives. This indirect election of a president conforms to the concept of a republic. That said, no two governments are identical, and there is a ton of grey area when trying to classify them, so much is left to interpretation. I just wanted to share my perspective on this, not trying to nitpick or play semantics. Cheers
@fortigan2174 the UK is a monarchy in name only. It's not a real monarchy when the monarch is a powerless figurehead. Parliament and the Prime Minister make the laws not King Charles.
As it is today, if the electoral college were eliminated, all future presidents would be chosen by the largest cities which alienates rural voters. Similar as you stated to the scenario of Virginia having more say than 5 other states combined which was part of the reason for electoral college creation. Today, there remains a deep distrust of the federal government. So in essence there remains a need for this system. It's a fair system that prevents any one demographic from acquiring and permanently maintaining power.
But with the electoral college, all the power is given to the rural states. This needs to be changed. we need to come up with a system where even if we don’t get rid of the electrical college, we alter it so that it chooses from rural, urban snd suburban areas equally.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue (like Donald Trump) or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@barneynedward the power is distributed by population. Greater population, greater number of votes. The college elected Obama, no one complained about the college. Seems to me if you're a Democrat, and you win, you don't complain. If you lose however, the college becomes the devil.
Except that's not true. Do you think those states are monoliths and all people vote the same way? You know they do send republican representatives to congress right?
Many people making the argument that the US is a federation of smaller states and the electoral college is meant for more equal representation. The original framing of the constitution was based on a much smaller/denser/very different population. This was constructed over 200 years ago when monarchies still ruled the world. Between technology and social revolutions, we've massively changed the way we function as a society. We need to evolve the way we select our representation because if the concern is concentrating power with specific states, we've already done that through swing states, gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The electoral college is just as important today as it was 200 years ago. Without it, candidates would spend all of their time where the most people live, and ignore the people that live in rural areas. It would be cheaper and easier to reach more people in New York City than going to 10 different states and doing events to get your word out. So without the electoral college, people in rural areas would quickly be forgotten and ignored. It gives people in rural areas approximately equal political power to people that live in big cities. And this is why Democrats want to get rid of it.
The electoral college has nothing to do with rural area vs cities however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 Well by your argument, ironically the electoral college was created just for the ignorant masses like yourself then. Trump has already been president. He did not seize power, arrest and prosecute political enemies, encourage riots, like the current people in power. You made a long winded politician answer that says little to nothing other than trying to belittle the founding fathers.
Funny, I've NEVER seen a candidate here. Seems to me like they only visit a handful of places that happen to be swing states. In a solid red/blue state? Good luck ever seeing one, your vote is taken for granted.
Simon. That is an insanely clickbait thumbnail and you should change it. You are better than that. Also, the founders didnt want popular vote because they believed the average voter was too uneducated or otherwise too fanatical to be trusted with that power. And they were right. Most voters either dont understand the subject matter, or theyre so fanatical in their support that they dont care. Very few voters truly have an imperical view of the facts and understand the subjects enough to have an open discussion.
@LordFloofen yeah, it does. But clickbait is amoral and a sign of a creator who can't otherwise build their own following. Which isnt true for Simon, he has over 9 channels, all with million and multi million follower counts
The electoral college is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is how expensive it is to run for office, and the fact that about 90% of the funding comes from corporations and billionaires. That's the real reason why.
That's why I tend to say that there are THREE elections for the presidency of the USA. The third election, is the electoral college. There each state has a given number of votes. The second election is the popular election. There each person has one vote. And the first election is the capitalist election. There each donated dollar is one vote. The first election will influence the result of the second election. The second election will influence the result of the third election. And the third election elects the president.
That's certainly a problem. I think that the supreme court ruling that equated money with speech was a huge mistake as it made this problem a whole lot worse with no chance to regulate it.
@@Tjalve70 The electoral college has nothing to do that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Nice hit piece on the electoral college. Transcript probably somewhat useful as a high school civics class red-lining exercise to develop students' critical thinking faculties. Your identifying the changes that would destroy the function performed by the EC as a "tweak" was masterful misdirection. Not a tweak. Modern Education-Challenged: What's that whistling coming from the steam engine? I don't like it. Founding Engineer: It's called a steam valve. We worked it out after the first steam engine exploded. MEC: Annoying old tech! Let's go back to the original design with a few modern tweaks, and without that whistle valve. FE: Not a good idea... As for Democracy and Republic forms of government: Democracy=Hooray! A better government style has been released. ((Greek city-states crash)) "US Patch"= Republic "Democracy" is what you tell a 5-year old. "Republic" is what you tell an 8th-grade student. If you want more discussion on Republic vs Democracy, the Federalist Papers gives more coverage.
Don't be an edgelord. We KNOW the electoral college is BS, but we still need to vote. It is the least any of us can do, aside from clamming up and staying home. For some reason, I thought Simon was above this sort of rage-cage engagement.
You don't understand what either of those two concepts mean. The US is a representative republic, yes. But that is in no way in conflict with being a democracy. The US is both.
What kind of idiots created a government system where your vote doesn’t actually matter because some shadow man can decide to do whatever the heck he wants. It’s like we don’t actually live in a democracy.
@@Rawbful Go look at the truth. The system was created so that the president was elected by every state not just the big cities. Today, it only takes 16 counties to elect the president by popular vote. All votes would be from cities that don’t give a damn about farmers, ranchers, or anything else in the rural and low population states. The electoral college protects their vote.
Yeah, too many people seem to think that sheer popular majority (democracy) deciding such things is an inherently good thing. America never was and probably shouldn't be built on that principle. There are very good reasons why we should still not want decisions like electing the president or many other questions of government appointment and/or policy to be made via popular vote with a simple majority rule.
Most of the knowledge I have already, but can you imagine I decreased the playback speed to 0.75? You're filling in my gaps in knowledge. Thank you. ps. I am European. Seems important.
@@smexijebus That's literally what the EC is. You need 11 states to win with EC. If we use the 2016/2020 election as an example, you'd need a majority in 35 states to win the pop vote. The EC is 11 wolves and 39 sheep.
@@adamsfusion No, the EC means they don't get eaten, and must always have sway, as opposed to the popular vote simply resulting in majority rules and a few big cities (wolves) deciding the rules for everyone. I don't get why this is hard to grasp.
@6:30 ish: you are wrong as to the reasoning why the FFs wanted the electorial college. It was to hedge against large cities deciding the outcome alone and preventing a straight democracy in the US: the USA is a constitutional republic. Having seen the issues with straight democratic countries, the US found that they didn't want that and switched to a republic with SOME features of democracy.
It wasn’t as much about cities but the fact that we are United States, states that are united. How would you feel if your apartment complex based its policy on a vote and there were multiple homes with a ton of people. You’d want that fact to be included in your voting method. Now it would be irresponsible to think that one dude living in his home should have the same voice as a home of 30, but the top few family’s shouldnt just control it all. Hey how about that? A compromise! Those that freak out over the popular vote just look at this whole thing as one big country which isn’t always the case. Also they mostly just care cause they look a couple losses.🤷♂️ Now you can change it with a majority vote of states but ima go out on a limb and say that demonizing half the country isn’t the best way to accomplish that but I’m just a crayon eater that sees the problems of both sides and hates the game that’s dividing us all.
@jeffryriddle4607 The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
You are so full of shit. At the time everything was monarchies and autocracies. And we are a constitutional republic and representative democracy. You idiots need to stop acting like you're so smart because you think republic =/= democracy. People like YOU are the exact reason why the founders wanted a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.
You need to keep on mind that the US is not a democracy purposely. The US is a constitutional republic. Common mistake by both citizens of the US and people outside the US
@@salpastore1425 You're obviously using words without understanding the meaning of them. A Democratic Republic is a nation in which the people vote for their Representatives in government. In a true 100% Democracy, like Ancient Greece for example, it was 1 to 1 representation. All people not only had a vote, but a voice. All people could cast votes in the halls of the government and introduce laws. It was chaotic and messy. In that sense we are not 100% a Democracy, but we're also not a 100% Republic. Our representatives are voted for, not appointed. A constitution, is a document outlining the rules, laws, and rights of the people of a nation. We are both a Constitutional Republic and a Democratic Republic. If we were not a Democracy, there wouldn't be elections in our nation
I think that even the founding fathers would malign the current state of the electoral college which they created exactly to prevent a demagogue like Donald Trump from becoming president... In the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
The electoral college is a thing because people who live on the coast shouldn't be the ones who always decide elections. I really don't know why this is so complicated.
That's because you're wrong. California and New York actually get MORE voting power because of the electoral college. Because they will vote as a block, rather than as individuals.
@@backcountry164 yea I don't think thats what the original commenter meant - but I could be wrong. The electoral college helps ensure dense populated areas aren't the only deciders of elections.
This bizarre idea that 20% of the electorate (New Yorkers and Californians) will somehow comprise 50% of the vote plus one.... Did people skip math in school? One person, one vote, not complicated. There are minority interests even in bigger states...shoemakers, taxidermists, etc. The way to keep the majority from disadvantaging the minority is the constitutional protections...the anti democratic parts that say that even the majority can't deprive of free speech, freedom of association, of assets by eminent domain without fair market value compensation, etc.
The "tyranny of the majority" is nonsense. With the electoral college, it doesn't matter if a state is 51% red or 95% red (or blue). They amount to the same thing electorally. But with a straight popular vote, it's a very different situation. Suddenly Republicans would have to campaign in California, and Dems in Texas. You can also throw the territories and DC in the mix without tipping the outcome in favor of the Dems so much.
@ Indeed there is some democracy sprinkled on top. The difference though is important. True democracy is popular vote only. That would mean the population voted on every issue and majority rules. To my knowledge such a place doesn’t exist nor should it.
Anyone studying this topic must understand the scale of the United States and the cultural differences between rural America and Urban America. Shooting a deer in your back yard is common in my county; not so much in the Chicago's city limits. If the President was selected by popular vote we would likely have near continual Civil Wars. We already messed up the selection of Senators that was the primary method to ensure rural America was adequately represented in Congress.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue (like Donald Trump) or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people. If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person. Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do. However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties). The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college.... Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@aruak321 Do you support a rigid, originalist interpretation of the Constitution; requiring amendment to modify interpretation, even if doing so would save millions of lives? If you do not, and believe the judiciary can modify our founding document, you are a far greater threat to the United States than Donald Trump. We are a country or personal freedom, even when that lets people make poor choices and cause their own deaths. I have zero civic responsibility to prevent them from so doing. With the agreement of 38 states you can modify the system; sidestepping this requirement by forming a coalition or populous states that number less than 38 is treasonous and should be resisted by violence if necessary.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video brought to you in part by our Patrons over on Patreon. If you’d like to support our efforts here directly, and our continued efforts to improve our videos, as well as do more ultra in-depth long form videos that built in ads and even sponsors don’t always cover fully, check out our Patreon page and perks here: www.patreon.com/TodayIFoundOut And as ever, thanks for watching!
Popular vote would create two separate states. The country should begin by teaching young people the difference between a nation and a state.
The Republicans can't win the popular vote. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are the political strategies conservatives have.
Yeeees! I'm glad someone notable explained it in a way people can understand
Your thumbnail is irresponsible - the closeness of the count in Georgia and other states last election and Florida in 2000 shows that they do matter.
Today i found out ... that you are an idiot
USA is NOT a democracy, it's constitutional republic with very limited democratic principles and guaranteed individual rights and freedoms that are protected from the dirty claws of democracy. And electoral college is key component of that protecting the rights of each state.
Some fun info: Gerald Ford remains the only person that served as Vice President and President but wasn't elected to either position.
For now.
@@xavierninetwofourfiveone6901 how
Wait, didn't he go directly to the presidency when Nixon and Agnew both resigned, or did they not resign at the same time?
… what?
@@mattm7798Agnew resigned, Ford became VP, then Nixon resigned.
Tofay i found out that Rutherford B Hayes was elected in 1986
Reagan was shocked 😲!
@@OldFatTank especially since that wasn’t even a presidential election year.
But, was giant asteroid his VP pick?
It wouldn't be a Simon Whistler video without at least one glaringly obvious mistake.
Caught that too? 😂
We are still poorly educated and poorly informed.
Whoever wins, a *lot* of people are going to be very mad.
Normal people won't. But screaming leftists might be, they'll do anything to stay in power, just like commies.
I think Harris will win, and while the country will suffer economically, there won't be any resistance to it.
Should Trump win, there will be riots, the election will not be certified, and the constitution may very well be burned and the republic over. Never underestimate how violent many of the leftist are in this country, we imagine them on the right as crying children, while in reality they are anything but.
One side will accept it, and the other will throw a tantrum that the whole world will feel.
@@gpaull2 One side is already burning ballot drop boxes in districts which lean the other way. ='[.]'=
@@gpaull2 Like when the left spent 6 months crying in the streets and screaking at the sky after 2016?
It's best to think about the United States of America as a country made up of 50 independent sovereign countries that have collectively agreed to pool certain resources and responsibilities. The leader of the group of countries is chosen by the countries themselves. The citizens in each of the 50 countries will vote to see who their country chooses to have as president. The weight of each country is set based on that country's population, with no upper limit on electoral weight but there is a minimum of 3 votes no matter the country's population. There are no national elections in the United States. There have never been national elections in the United States. There are only state(country) elections.
Exactly. In some ways the U.S. is more like the E.U. than like a single country.
There actually is a cap now but it’s pretty high because the number of electors is based of representatives and senators each state has and the cap on representatives is 435 seats as of 1929.
@leholen381 nice avatar
@ thanks
The problem is the distribution of electoral votes. Each electoral vote should represent a fixed number of individual votes, there's no reason why a vote in a swing state is worth 10 times the vote in a deep blue/red state.
I’m going to give my two cents here. You don’t seem to understand that the electoral college was made to give lower populated states a voice . The United States is a Union of each state almost being like a country united by the federal government . Vermont and Texas were independent countries that later joined the US. With the electoral college presidents have to campaign in all states . If it was popular vote they could just campaign in California , Florida , New York , Texas and ignore everyone else. I’m a former New Yorker and when I moved to the upper Midwest I didn’t realize how ignored many mid westerners feel by the large cities . They feel they have no voice and by taking away the electoral college you will deny them that . For people that say but popular vote is fair everyone is represented well they aren’t . The rural minority isn’t . States like Texas , Hawaii and Alaska already have separatist movements and parties that back them . If you abolish the electoral college these separatists will only grow in power causing further division . Why do you think every state has 2 senators ? It’s to keep the balance of power and each state happy . People can argue popular vote all they want but as someone from New York I can tell you millions of new Yorkers don’t know anything about farming and would vote for policies that destroys farming communities in the mid west . Millions of New Yorkers don’t know about the oil industry and would vote for policies that would destroy Alaskas oil economy . Millions of New Yorkers know nothing about guns and would vote for policies destroying gun rights in many rural communities . The electoral college and our senator system has worked since our foundation . There is no reason to change it and cause division . Also your thumbnail is very irresponsible telling people their vote doesn’t matter. Your vote does matter but you’re voting for your state to grant electors to your candidate .
If every vote counted the same it wouldn't matter where they came from. Why do you even need to distinguish between a vote cast in California and a vote cast in Wyoming? They both should be of equal value.
If the popular vote alone decides, the separation between states and their populations doesn't matter anymore.
Of course this would mean that areas with a higher population get more 'say' in who'll become president but that's simply fundamentally democratic in nature.
The mid westerners don't need any help voting against their own interests.
Yes. The electoral college was a civil war compromise, if I understand it correctly.
This is exactly what I've been seeing. The EC gives the little guy a voice, and handicapps the big city states.
Popular vote would create "flyover states" for real. Why would I campaign in middle America if I only needed the biggest 5 metropolitan areas?
There are only a few states where your vote matters on a federal level. It's the definition of a broken system. First past the post systems need to go
He says from "a time where people trusted their state more than the federal government" like that isn't still the case.
Anyone trusting the federal government are the same people that has created most the problems we have today. Reagan said it best, Government isn't the answer, Government Is the problem.
Unless you live in Ohio.
You caught that remark as well. This video seems like it was produced to influence a change to popular vote. Good history lesson but question the motivation
@@philcolombo9490 popular vote is objectively more representative of the the whole than the electoral collage. Additionally the electoral collage has many, many problems.
I was thinking the same exact thing 😂
Actually, the Electoral College votes for the President and Vice President on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December after a Presidential General Election. This year (2024), this will occur on December 17, 2024. January 6 is the "final/Official" tally of the Electoral College vote that must be ratified by Congress in order for the election results to become official. AND, I wish this was available back in the day when I was teaching high school US History and US Government. This would have saved me a TON of headaches and explanations.
5:44 "...in 1986 when Rutherford..." I don't remember that election. ;D
You mean I can meet Rutherford B Hayes? Anyone know his phone number? 😂
@@rustybell2722 😆
HERES ONE FOR YOU... How about looking into how politicians become rich while in office.
Look into? Its obvious
It's called investments.
@@d4mdcykey You misspelled "insider trading and bribery".
Called insider trading. Ask Mr Pelosi. But it’s legal for them and Nancy blocked changes from coming to the House floor
While in office?
I’m pretty sure only rich people can afford to become politicians.
Because we weren't big fans of The Capital in the Hunger Games
Most underrated comment
Because we're big fans of The Capital in the Hunger Games. Only 11 states are needed to win the election, whereas that'd be impossible under popular vote. Remember that 100% of Cali doesn't vote Democrat, and 100% of Texas doesn't vote Republican. Under the EC, they do.
Cali - 54
Texas - 40
Florida - 30
New York - 28
Illinois - 19
Pennsylvania - 19
Ohio - 17
Georgia - 16
North Carolina - 16
Michigan - 15
New Jersey - 14
DC - 3
That's 271 votes. Those states, if they wanted to, could get together and decide every election.
@@adamsfusion And that's why the National Popular Vote compact is a terrible idea.
@@adamsfusionBut they don't
Nailed it. I been saying this for a few years now
Maybe your thumbnail should read “Does Your Vote Matter?” Having it say “your vote doesn’t matter” right before the United States’ presidential election . . . come on man.
Straight facts. I usually applaud him and his crew for making amazing videos. Unfortunate to see this thumbnail as this particular clickbait has reverberating consequences.
All he did was explained exactly how the constitution works. Nothing that anyone who has read and understands what they read could do. Crazy how someone would sat differently unless they just think whatever the media tells them is 100% truth. That would lead to a democracy not a republic 🤔 oh wait that's exactly what is going on he is just calling out that point. Read your o
But he right tho the people don’t decide who they want as president
It got you here to click and cry in the comments so it did its job
@CarPanthers9119 The thumbnail IS straight facts...
Uhhhhh, Simon? For someone who puts together very well researched content in most cases, I’m quite surprised that your thumbnail didn’t give you pause. Given that the size of your following in the US easily outstrips the number of votes the previous presidential election was decided by, I would advise exercising greater caution. Clickbait is all well and good, but your actions may have consequences more far reaching that you may currently appreciate.
Perhaps you should watch the video before commenting this. The entire meticulously-researched point of the video is that your vote doesn't matter outside of swing states thanks to the electoral college.
whats the issue?
It's a TikTok issue clearly 💀
Its ok, he's English.
Agree wholeheartedly. We need people to feel their votes do count; we don’t need anything else that simply increases apathy.
You could have added to the Al Gore vs Bush recount in Florida was (off the top of my head) the 3rd recount
And, what everyone forgets, the recount was never completed.
True
Bush won 1st count and 2 recounts in FL. The SCOTUS stopped the 4th count.
Even if SCOTUS did not stop the count, Bush was still going to get the EC votes from Florida
It was also Al Gore's second concession... he retracted the first concession and then went farming for votes in Florida counties that favored him demographically.
It forces the presidential candidates to appeal to a wide variety of people and interests. Otherwise a few major coastal cities would decide every single presidential election.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
I think you mean voters. Voters would decide the election.
Ignorance, the name is....whatever the fuck that stupid name says lol
Except it doesn't. They just focus on the swing states and completely ignore the solidly red/blue states. The notion that a state should matter in any way when deciding president is so dumb. 1 person 1 vote should be the only thing that matters.
I now have a headache from listening to that.
This video's thumbnail could be construed as election interference. Your vote absolutely does matter. An electoral college win in conjunction with a popular vote win gives the President a far stronger ethical mandate to govern the nation. An electoral college win with a popular vote loss tells the President that he needs to tread carefully because most of the population doesn't trust him even though most of the states gave him the win.
There is a popular vote... AT THE STATE LEVEL. The United States is essentially 50 small nations under 1 umbrellas Federal Government. Without the Electoral College high population states would negate the votes of smaller states.
No, they wouldn't. Without the electoral college, states wouldn't get votes at all.
That’s why we must get rid of the Electoral college and just go with a national popular vote!!! Because we are 1 nation, NOT 50!!!
@suzannebeinart4359 no we are 50 sovereign nations. You aren't smarter than our founders who knew that centralized government breeds corruption.
Exactly. Why would anyone campaign in anywhere but California and New York if small states didn't matter much in the choice. Then the smaller states would secede from the Union like the confederacy did because they felt unrepresented.
@@suzannebeinart4359We're a collection of states (and a Commonwealth) that use a common currency and have fairly consistent laws. Also, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
You very plainly haven't read the constitution or federalist papers.
If you live in a swing state your vote ABSOLUTELY counts. Please don't discourage people from swing states from voting. Also there are down ballot races where your vote DOES count, such Senate, US House/Congress and various races for state legislature and sometimes governor. Please vote in down ballot races where your vote DOES matter, sometimes a lot. There are state representative races in Pennsylvania hat were won by as little as 27 votes and even a small town mayor's race that was won by 4 votes.
Any state can be a swing state
Swing states are the only states where your vote DOES matter. My state will vote blue regardless of who I vote for, or if I vote at all.
Last time I checked, Paris, Rome, and London can’t keep its government together for more than 80 years at a time before the pitchforks come out and reset it.
@@KasFromMass So... The civil war was roughly how long after the founding of the US...? Lol.
@@sipjedekat8525 and the government did not change, unlike every almost every other country since then…big boy conversation here, grade school replies have no place
@@KasFromMass Man get outta here. I'm pretty sure the civil war qualifies as a nation that 'can't keep its government together', because that's what you said. If you're gonna argue over petty semantics like that, you already lost. How many governments fundamentally changed in London or Rome or Paris every 80 years?
Maybe if the US even existed longer than a measly few centuries you could compare these apples and oranges. Till then, sit down.
@@KasFromMass You said 'can't keep its government together'. Pretty sure the civil war counts. And it was definitely a reset. You know unlike London, where the institutions are literally older than the US itself. By centuries.
Sit down.
@@KasFromMass You said 'can't keep its government together'. Pretty sure the civil war counts. And it was definitely a reset. You know unlike London, where the institutions are literally older than the US itself. By centuries.
One vastly overlooked fact is that about 1/3 of the Presidents have been elected without a majority, only a plurality. The electoral college system requires a majority of something.
That's because the electoral college makes it pointless to vote in a state that is purely red or blue.
Add to this that you have to register in order to vote, that makes it less likely for people to bother to vote. And that's the reason why so few people in USA bothers to vote.
@@Tjalve70 There are, though, other offices to vote for as well, of course.
@@Tjalve70 Another thing to consider is that, until recently, California was a hard Red state, but is now a hard Blue state. It's still a good idea to vote, even if your state is considered 'safe' for one party or another.
@@Tank50us California hasn't voted for a Republican in a presidential election since 1988, 36 years ago.
@@Tank50uswhat you just said is exactly why millions of voter votes don't even matter.
Since Simon's beard was short I thought this was a repost from like 5 years ago until he said a "Harris/Vance Whitehouse"
Last time I was this early the U.S.A. was under a monarchy.
Wait two weeks.
@@chefdean7257 The US is not changing democracy and you're delusional to think otherwise
@@chefdean7257 If the Kackeler in chief wins we will be... considering she was _never_ voted on by the people until now.
@@chefdean7257 I don't think we have to worry about Harris winning and being yet another puppet for the monarchy.
I like Brazils election layout. The popular vote is the vote and people who do not vote receive citations. Also, you need your official ID to vote and everybody votes on the same day (most people get the day off work.)
And the elections are in a Sunday. We also have a “Voting ID” and we only need to register once in our lives.
If you force human beings to do something, eventually you're going to get pushback. Giving someone a citation for a simply not voting is stupid as hell. Not to mention Brazil has not had some of the best leaders on the planet.
Fuck that noise, the day you force me to go to a polling location to vote is the day I stop voting. I will never stand in a line to vote. Especially considering how little our votes in the US actually matter.
And then after all that , they install whom ever they want.
Fun fact. The government doesnt want you to vote. Thats why in other countries its a national holiday or on a Saturday. But they make it inconvenient here in hopes you dont vote
another fun fact: At that time, the United States was still a largely agrarian society. For farmers, who made up a majority of the labor force, much of the year was taken up by the planting, tending, and harvesting of crops. Early November was a good time to vote because the harvest was over but the weather was still relatively mild.
Still, some days of the week were better than others. Two days were definitely out of the question. Most Americans were devout Christians and thus set aside Sunday as a day of rest and worship. Wednesday in many areas was a market day, when farmers sold their crops in town. In addition, a travel day was sometimes required. In rural areas, the nearest polling place might have been several miles away, and, in an era before automobiles, getting there could take a while. If people couldn’t use Sunday or Wednesday as their travel day, then that meant election day couldn’t be on Monday or Thursday, either. And so Tuesday was perceived as the best option.
Voting is just another form of control. Historically, people voted for the Nazis to kill the Jews, and Aristotle had to kill himself because of a vote.
How can you say that when almost everywhere has early voting, in some cases for 6 weeks before election day.
It's not that they don't want people to vote: they don't want POOR PEOPLE to vote.
@@Clyde14tha lot of states have spent the last 4 years cutting early voting down or out entirely.
Thumbs down for the the thumbnail.
-
Any state splitting their EC votes is handicapping itself.
Popular vote determines which party's electors cast the electoral votes. The reason is that not everyone could get to the polls back in the day and since states had different populations (remember they are states, no one wanted a single or handful of states determining the elections while smaller population states would become inconsequential. Think of it as a handicap to larger population states. Equity instead of equality or just the way the cookie crumbles.
Now, go look at the history of the electoral vote.
Because you're spreading a false narrative.
That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Guess Simon doesn't understand what "Federal Republic" means, or the concept of "tyranny of the majority" 🙄
Oh because tyranny of the minority is so much better?
A federal Republic refers to the federalized separation of powers, not the manner in which the vote is counted
@tylermarty1796 pretty sure Google can explain how said separation of powers and the sovereignty of the individual states are what *necessitated* the existence of the Electoral College.
I'm sure you could also find info on how the US was originally founded as a confederation, and how that impacted the Constitutional Convention of 1787- specifically, why they focused so much on State rights, despite replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
This really isn't hard- we have the Electoral College for the same reason that we have the Senate, instead of Congress consisting solely of the House of Representatives.
@@tylermarty1796and that separation of powers is what lead to this. The states are each seen as their own entities and run their own elections
@@tylermarty1796 Constitutional Republic does refer to the manner in which the vote is counted.
Look, I hate the electoral college, but that thumbnail is careless. We have a very important election in a week, and you're telling people that their vote doesn't matter? We already have an issue with people not voting consistently and this doesn't help.
yeah but it drives interaction, like comments, which tells the algo this is popular, which drives more views, and you fell for it
@@LordFloofen no, they're voicing a concern, and we're disappointed in Simon and co reaching this low for engagement.
Why do you hate the electoral college?
@@wiseman5076 Because s/he doesn't actually understand how it works, or how to utilize it.
The problem isn't the electoral college, It's that their hands are mostly tied to the popular vote. And you're vote for president is only advisory. The electors do have the ability to vote otherwise, 90% of a state could vote for candidate a, and all the states electors could vote candidate c, and the supreme court has ruled the electors actual vote stands. It's the electors job to do the research and vote for the best candidate for the people of their state. The people are NOT supposed to vote for the president, and for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact the United States is supposed to be more a collection of mostly sovereign states, more like the EU, than a single state like Canada or Norway. It's also to isolate the office from "the passions of the moment", IE mob rule. Winner take all not only undermines these mechanisms and others, but does so in a particularly perverse way IMHO.
This video completely ignores the links between the EC and slavery. It also ignores the fact there have been many attempts to change the EC going back to shortly after the constitution was ratified.
This video also misleads about the popularity of the EC. Many Americans don't support it because it is emblematic of a political system where their voice doesn't count. In fact, it is probably a major reason America has struggles to get 60% voter turnout.
Support for the EC is also split strongly along party lines. Republicans support it because it helps their candidates get elected. Democrats don't like it because a Republican has won 2 of the last 6 elections without winning the popular vote.
So here's the thing though, if what's your writing is true, then why is it still in existence? Americans should have rewritten or ratified the voting process. The truth of the matter is it works for whoever needs it to work. Obviously it has nothing to do with the voters. Your votes don't count. It's just a way for the people in charge to get you emotionally invested versus being an apathetic United States citizen. Because if you have a country full of people that don't give a damn about the government? Then you're going to have a revolution at worst or another January insurrection at best.
@ITSWHATEVAHBYTYRFREE-wf8pd "The truth of the matter is it works for whoever needs it to work"
This statement pretty much summarizes why the EC has not been amended out of existence. It's not about protecting small states or most of the other defenses you hear. It's about protecting those who benefit and want to keep it.
@@jhamaker That and its nearly impossible to change the constitution. When the country is split roughly 50/50 an amendment is impossible regardless of which side is pushing for it.
Having “your vote doesn’t matter” prominent in your thumbnail so close to an incredibly critical election is super irresponsible. Every vote matters and there are plenty of other important races and ballot initiatives that use popular vote. The presidential race is just one spot on the ballot.
I guess you don’t understand your own election system. One more reason to watch the video, kiddo.
This is the sentiment most voters in the U.S., at least the ones I know, feel. However, if the citizens votes really didn’t matter, then certain parties would not be putting in decades of effort to remove the ability for specific groups to vote.
Specific groups such as illegals, yes.
A secondary benefit of the Electoral College at the time was that it simplified the counting of votes in a pre-industrial society. Rather than tally up all votes and send them by horse and carriage to be further tallied for a final number, a process prone to human error and loss in transit (people back then used to send duplicate letters in case one was lost), localities tally their votes and then send a person who represents those votes. Nowadays we have machine counting and telecommunications, so this benefit is no longer relevant.
My district or electoral vote during 2020 went 79% to Trump. Sometimes your vote(and your best 3000 friends who may live in your district) does not matter.
You know they can't allow anything to be that simple. 😳
Because it is 50 elections, not one. The state is the primary level of government in the US
51, DC can vote. There's a whole amendment on that.
The electoral college has nothing to do with state power however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 States matter and the voting commission is dictated by Congress. The states make their own compliant rules. If states didnt matter, there wouldnt be an electoral.
Here's a layman explanation:
Each State has districts per population. Residents vote in that district. The popular vote is sent to the State's commission. If a state has 51% from electoral, that candidate wins that State with that number of electoral votes (Pennsylvania has 19 for example). All States vary in amount of electoral. The 5 big states (a lot EV districts) make up almost 2/3 of the votes. 270 total electoral wins the presidency. Even if a candidate has 25 states (say 200 EV total) and has NO big EV states, and the opponent has 20 states with 200, 2 big EV states can take that number from 200 to 230 real fast and the opponent is still at 200 or maybe 205+
@@derekelliott6098 Americans actually dont have a constitutional right to vote for president. That is left up to the state. A state government could change it's election law to where the state government decides to whom the electors vote for, and that would be 100% constitutional.
@@derekelliott6098 The electoral college was never meant to address this though... it was meant to solve a different problem that it fails at (and probably enables now). The 2 senators per state was meant to address what you're talking about, giving equal representation to all states in the senate regardless of population.
Simon literally explains the thumbnail in the video and I still see an insane amount of hate towards the choosing of the thumbnail.... This is why our vote doesn't matter.. imagine.
The alarming number of Americans that will argue and think this isn’t true is what scares me. Don’t believe it? Look up the number of presidents that have lost the popular vote. So please people, enlighten yourselves, and still go vote because our voices still need to be heard. (Yes I’m American)
The United States has some wonderful citizens. Unfortunately we also have some who can vote but shouldn't. These days there are radicalized idiots who have no idea what is good for everyone, let alone care about what is good for everyone. You know, all those braniacs who couldn't tell you where the capital city is.
So if they don't think like you, they shouldn't have the right to vote?
Yeah those idiots are voting for Kamala. Because she did such a great job the last 4 years
That is what the media is for. Unfortunately now we have TikTok.
No one ever seems to recall that if Gore had won his home state, Florida would not have mattered.
because that only furthersthe obvious: each state essentially having its own vote for president, and then being given a value, rather than all citizens in the country being counted 1:1
Florida shouldnt matter going forward
If you can’t win your own state you shouldn’t be eligible for any government position for life.
Even Mondale and McGovern won their home states, and they both got stomped like a narc at a biker rally.
@slappomatthew Trump couldn't win his home state so put him in that category too.
Dizzying... 😢 And the Electoral College Was For a Long-Past, Provincial, Day & Time. Redundant Today...
It's frustrating that people don't understand that the United States is a republic.
Yes. "And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands..."
It's frustrating that people use that to validate a seditionist P O S. I perfer closer to democracy than dictatorship.
Per Websters
democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing: a government in which the people vote for their leaders. This was the important distinction at the time of the founding of the United States, in direct contrast with the rule of a king, or monarchy, in Great Britain. In part because that context was clear to everyone involved in the American Revolution, these terms were used interchangeably in the late 1700s. Both democracy and republic meant that the power to govern was held by the people rather than a monarch.
These terms are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, a document that nevertheless expresses clearly that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Also the verse cited is from The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic recited verse that promises allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America. The first version was written in 1885 by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army officer in the Civil War who later authored a book on how to teach patriotism to children in public schools.
People don't understand the United States (as the name implies) is a corporation of 50 individual states. And yes, your vote always matters. Go Vote!
Iran, China, and North Korea are Republics too.
Probably a bad take with the title and thumbnail dude. Especially being from across the pond.
EXACTLY. I hate outsiders telling us about our system and its importance or lack thereof. I swear I always hear Americans should stay out of our politics when it's the other way around, but it's okay when they do it.
It doesn’t matter where you’re from when you’re stating the truth. Go educate yourself. Maybe you will understand the context of the title one day.
@@mr.k905 *sips wine*
What if you win the popular vote and the electoral college in 2024.
Popular vote also goes by another name - Mob rule.
No, it doesn't.
Those are two completely different concepts.
The EC doesn't change the electoral power sufficiently to prevent mob rule. And a popular vote doesn't automatically result in mob rule. You obviously don't even understand the meanings of the words you are using.
If you don’t understand why the electoral college exists, you are the reason
I'm not sure that you understand why the electoral college was adopted in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@ I’m not reading a wall of text that can be summarized as “I pretend to know what I’m talking about, but actually have no idea how government works”
@@aruak321yoooooo
Please teach 🙏
@@aruak321 For people who didn't trust the common people they sure spent an incredible amount of effort giving them an incredible amount of power over the very government you claim was designed to keep them down.
Or maybe the entire narrative you've crafted is a load of garbage that doesn't track at all.
And if Trump is a demagogue Harris is easily an order of magnitude more so. She caters to the popular opinion so much we don't even know what her actual opinions are.
As with most of what the founders did the electoral college was created for a reason much more reasonable than that nonsense you've spun up. It gives differences in ideas more weight than simple popular vote can. It was simply to ensure that one state could not override the interests of the entire union for being the more popular place to live. Which it accomplishes extremely well both then and now.
And this is still a valuable thing to have. It allows people with very different experiences the chance to make their voice heard.
It was the populist system of pure democracy the founders didn't trust, not the "common uninformed citizen". They understood the weaknesses inherent to such populist systems and why that would lead to the downfall of the country faster than just about any other form of government ever conceived.
The electoral college prevents tyranny, it does not enable it. The influence it creates against the majority is small and does not overwhelm the voice of the majority. It prevents the tyranny of the majority over the minority which is the problem with pure democracy. And if it wasn't democratic it wouldn't track as closely as it does to the votes of the people it's meant to represent.
@dacrane91 tell me you're uneducated speedrun any%
Since the electoral college does not have to agree with the popular vote, individual votes dont matter.
You failed to mention that the distribution of votes through an electoral college was designed to lessen the tyranny of elections by the more populous states. The small states could not be ignored since their electoral college votes could swing elections and therefore could be the deciding factor on who became president. If it were merely a nation-wide popular vote, then a small number of the largest states could overwhelm the less populated into irrelevance.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 "The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31]The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power, since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors, and by small states who increased their power given the minimum of three electors per state.[31]In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers), would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[48][non-primary source needed]". The above are excerpts from Wikipedia. I believe that they establish reasons and arguments as to why the smaller states believed that through the electoral process they would retain some degree of relevancy in presidential elections.
You may not accept this position and may not believe the value of this system, but it is even more relevant to day than it was in 1787. Without the electoral system and substituting a national direct majority vote for president, the candidates would ignore the smaller states" voices and concentrate on appealing to the largest cities and most populous states. To hell with the needs of rural America or states such as Montana, New Mexico, or New Hampshire. Let California, New York, and Illinois dictate to the lesser states what our national priorities and policies will be. I did not question any of the history presented in the video or your statements. I merely noted an important consideration had not been included. I stand by my critique.
The only exception I take is your personal affliction with Trump Derangement Syndrome. He will be the next President. Show your rage and burn down your favorite city.
tyranny of elections, lol. Let me fix that for you, a large group of people could outvote a smaller group of people. Assuming that large group of people all voted exactly the same way...which they don't.
We are not a democracy we are a Republic.
"That's great it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane, Lenny Bruce is not afraid"
The European brain cannot comprehend the necessity of the electoral college, and that includes myself.
I had to move to Nevada from California to fully understand why it actually makes votes matter!
The EU parliament election works on the same principle though.
Smaller countries has proportionally more seats than bigger countries.
@ I know, I’m European myself. I think we have an issue realizing that the US is actually both 50 states and 1 conglomerate
@@joebar52 As a european I dont have any issue understanding that though.
The difference isn't small vs big states. If the Electoral College was strictly proportional to population and fractional votes were allowed, Clinton would have picked up less than one electoral vote ( 0.15 to be exact). The big difference by far is the winner take all allocation that is used in (most) states.
You are awesome!
Because without the Electoral College, most of the states would have no voice. Which is very important in a Union of States.....
Each state has two Senators and a number of representatives based on their population. To say the states wouldn't have a voice is a flat out lie. The President is the only office that each and every registered citizen gets to vote on. Therefore it should be revised so that every vote matters, not just votes in a select few swing states. We have the technology to do away with the horribly outdated Electoral College.
@Tjalve70 it would be vastly more skewed. The point of the system wasn't to not count in the popular vote. It was used to not allow the few from deciding the many. The US is like 50 countries in a trenchcoat acting like one country and at times throughout history it's varied. But regardless the people you meet in the Midwest are vastly different than those in Florida. Thus it's important to give those people across the country a say too. The point isn't about dominance. We don't need a Judge Dredd mega city deciding the lives of everyone.
I'm not sure how one person, one vote equates to "no voice". No outsize voice, perhaps.
@@bearcubdaycare so every decision should be made by the citizens of New York City, Chicago, LA (Check out Chicagos budgeting for a laugh)? Have you seen how poorly those cities operate? And you want those people to make decisions for farmers? Come on man, think a little. Without the Electoral College, the people feeding the country would have no say in the policy. That's not democratic.
@@kyledabearsfan nobody canvasses Wyoming or Alaska's votes. Only the swing states
This video would be MUCH BETTER if the narrator didn’t speak so quickly.
The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. This is not an accident.
It's certainly true that the founding fathers were pretty elitist and mistrusted what the people would do...
In fact this lead to the creation of the electoral college in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
We are a constitutional republic and representative democracy, dumbass.
This is now the 4th video I've watched on the difference between the Popular vote and the electoral vote and I STILL don't have a fucking clue how it works. I guess I'm just a moron.
No, you aren't a moron. It's confusing as hell.
The main purpose of the Electoral College is to balance the influence of populous and less populous states in presidential elections.
The system was designed to prevent larger states from having disproportionate influence and to serve as a safeguard, reflecting the founders’ intent to have informed representatives make the final decision.
The electoral college has nothing to do with states and their size however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
It does the exact opposite. California has over 50 electoral votes, Vermont has 3.
I really enjoy these videos
Also if you read the federalist papers you will understand why MY COUNTRY is a constitutional republic and why we use the electoral college as opposed to a popular vote
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321very well said you very wrinkly brained individual!
Highly inappropriate and inaccurate thumbnail, expected more from this TH-camr whom usually has very accurate and informative videos.
The electoral college solves another problem that would be caused by popular vote. The way population is distributed in the US, the east coast states and California would choose every single president and the choices of the rest of the states would be absolutely IRRELIVANT. The electoral college system makes the choices of the middle states relevant and the president would have to care about the choices of Americans in every state.
terrible timing👍
Over 20 minutes just to say " The American voting system is a mess" 😂
Not really, it's pretty easy to understand.
I've absorbed various info in this topic, and I can see WHY it was implemented way back in the day, but this has to be, in every sense, THE most corrupt and undemocratic way of selecting a person of any system on earth. It's well past time this system was scrapped, and America went to a one person one vote system, winner takes all. Just as we do in Australia, New Zealand or Britain (or any other actual Democracy).
No. USA is a Republic, not a democracy.
Yeah the electoral college system is pretty ingenious and has scaled very well considering how big our country got since its founding. I think what makes our system work is putting roadblocks against mob rule or direct democracy at a federal scale. I also think the 17th amendment was a mistake because it minimized the importance of voting in your state legislator elections.
It DOESN'T work, as the ones who lost the popular vote yet won the EC are also notoriously the WORST possible presidents ever
I don't really think it has scaled well with the number of states and population growth and had only made the injustice of it greater where people in larger populous states have less representation with their vote than those in smaller states. Certainly though mob rule was among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 however with much a more specific reason and for a particular purpose. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
nope, the electoral college is a dog shit system that needs to go.
lol Simon getting ratio’d in the comments
My head started to hurt, those hypotheticals scared me.
Well, you got some things correct. The president does not represent the people he represents the states in common defense and in treaty's with foreign governments. James Wilson came up with the electoral college. He wanted the people to vote directly but he came up with this as an alternative to the plan he really wanted. Most of the Framers saw direct popular election by the people as dangerous to the peoples liberty. As Elbridge Gerry stated the people will be duped by a pretended patriot. The United States is a federation of independent politically sovereign states. The founders did not want the people to look to the President as a king. A popular election would create the vices inherent in ancient Athens under Pericles. Athens bacame more like a monarchy under Pericles as he could sway the masses by invoking their passion. To avoid this, they left it to each state. They wanted to prevent one state from controlling the President and they wanted to prevent a faction from controlling the President. If the president were elected by the people, he would only represent rhe great urban centers and not the states. This would be less Democratic. The cities do not feed you. They tend to be the people that want free stuff from the government which is never really free. Make sense. The states protect you from the Federal Government when it becomes tyrannical. Hint: it has become tyrannical. We need to get rid of the winner take all and put electors on the ballot instead of the president and disenfranchise political parties from being associated with the electors. This would restore the Framers intent.
So, I don't know why you people think it is complicated. First off, the United STATES is not a democracy and does not (for great reason) care about the majority. People only think a majority should decide when they think the majority is in their favor. This would leave all minorities to live under the oppression of other people. Second, much like Europe, the United STATES is a group of STATES and people are statemen before they are countrymen. You would not want Germany deciding the everyday lives of French citizens because they have different cultures, wants, and needs. So, under a national majority, California would be making decisions based on their lives for people in Oklahoma who have completely different lifestyles. This is also the point of checks and balances, so a Texas president, can't pass laws that would remove the rights of the people in California because of a majority vote. It is not a perfect system but that is why even though the system was decided based on the wants of the majority in its time, since the majority doesn't rule, we still grow to make things fairer for the minority. Breaking down our system to wrongly describe it is rude and immoral, but see, I think that is still okay because I believe in free speech; maybe your country should write a constitution giving you that right so your citizens can't get in legal trouble for voicing their opinions and criticisms because your country could pass a law that could get you arrested for criticizing your own country. Also, you have no checks and balances to prevent the majority from voting and passing a law saying that bald men with beards should go to prison for life.
So many false claims and inaccuracies in this post I don't know where to begin!
"This would leave all minorities to live under the oppression of other people."
Yeah. That would be awful, wouldn't it? Good thing that has never happened in American history. Thank God the Electoral College prevented this exploitation, and definitely didn't help entrench it by giving slave states disproportionate weighting in elections relative to their actual populations.
@@Solinvicti So many and yet you won't name one? Hmm, have a feeling you don't have one. You think the US is a democracy? You think we don't have free speech? You think England has a constitutional right to free speech? You think it is best for the majority to decide for everyone, and the minority shouldn't have a say? You think people in California know what is better for Oklahoma than an Oklahoma resident? You think the US doesn't have checks and balances? Please, enlighten me. My guess is the thing you disagree with is that you don't like facts and freedom.
@@SolinvictiI loved the post and support it. Can you breakdown a few of the falsehoods? If I am missing something, I’d love to know what it is. Thanks if you do!
The problem with this is that Presidents, as determined by the electoral college, don’t make laws. Congress does. Hence, the House by population and Senate having equal representation for each state.
Looking at swing states, most are highly populated, except Nevada.
The opposite of tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority
Enjoyed this
The first mistake is thinking the US is a democracy. It's not. It's a constitutional republic. Each state is soverign and has more direct control over their territory than the federal government, including their own military (national guard). While the voting power of each state is weighted by population, it is somewhat mitigated so that the fate of the entire country is not determined by just a handful of the states. While the candidate with the most votes can lose with this system, as stated in this video, it's rare.
There's more than one form of democracy. A constitutional republican is a form of democracy it's not a direct democracy like Ancient Greece it's a representative democracy. You still elect representatives and vote on ballot initiatives in your state.
@@tonysoprano1884 While it has democratic systems, that's not the same thing. Even the UK has democratic systems, but it's a monarchy. As it relates to this video, citizens of each state vote on "electors" to represent them. It's a compromise between the popular vote and a congressional vote. Each state has their own set of laws around this that supercede federal laws. The elected individuals represent the interest's of their citizens and give them a proxy voice in federal government. Citizens don't elect the head of the government, only state representatives. This indirect election of a president conforms to the concept of a republic.
That said, no two governments are identical, and there is a ton of grey area when trying to classify them, so much is left to interpretation. I just wanted to share my perspective on this, not trying to nitpick or play semantics.
Cheers
@fortigan2174 the UK is a monarchy in name only. It's not a real monarchy when the monarch is a powerless figurehead. Parliament and the Prime Minister make the laws not King Charles.
As it is today, if the electoral college were eliminated, all future presidents would be chosen by the largest cities which alienates rural voters. Similar as you stated to the scenario of Virginia having more say than 5 other states combined which was part of the reason for electoral college creation. Today, there remains a deep distrust of the federal government. So in essence there remains a need for this system. It's a fair system that prevents any one demographic from acquiring and permanently maintaining power.
But with the electoral college, all the power is given to the rural states. This needs to be changed. we need to come up with a system where even if we don’t get rid of the electrical college, we alter it so that it chooses from rural, urban snd suburban areas equally.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue (like Donald Trump) or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@aruak321 worked for Obama didn't it.
@barneynedward the power is distributed by population. Greater population, greater number of votes. The college elected Obama, no one complained about the college. Seems to me if you're a Democrat, and you win, you don't complain. If you lose however, the college becomes the devil.
Why are you so stupid? You think EVERY person in a big city is a democrat?
A national popular vote would make it where NY and CA would decide every election
Except that's not true. Do you think those states are monoliths and all people vote the same way? You know they do send republican representatives to congress right?
Many people making the argument that the US is a federation of smaller states and the electoral college is meant for more equal representation. The original framing of the constitution was based on a much smaller/denser/very different population. This was constructed over 200 years ago when monarchies still ruled the world. Between technology and social revolutions, we've massively changed the way we function as a society. We need to evolve the way we select our representation because if the concern is concentrating power with specific states, we've already done that through swing states, gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The founder have prepared for this and created a process to modify the constitution.
@robumf which would be useful if today's politicians didn't find easier ways to circumvent the original document rather than change it.
Without the Electoral College, more populated states would dominate less populated states. The EC helps to level the field.
This is true.
But the main problem with the EC is that each state votes as a block.
May have been a better idea to put this out after the election dude
The electoral college is just as important today as it was 200 years ago. Without it, candidates would spend all of their time where the most people live, and ignore the people that live in rural areas. It would be cheaper and easier to reach more people in New York City than going to 10 different states and doing events to get your word out. So without the electoral college, people in rural areas would quickly be forgotten and ignored. It gives people in rural areas approximately equal political power to people that live in big cities. And this is why Democrats want to get rid of it.
The electoral college has nothing to do with rural area vs cities however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@@aruak321 Well by your argument, ironically the electoral college was created just for the ignorant masses like yourself then. Trump has already been president. He did not seize power, arrest and prosecute political enemies, encourage riots, like the current people in power. You made a long winded politician answer that says little to nothing other than trying to belittle the founding fathers.
Funny, I've NEVER seen a candidate here. Seems to me like they only visit a handful of places that happen to be swing states. In a solid red/blue state? Good luck ever seeing one, your vote is taken for granted.
Your votes matters, whomever wins the popular vote in the state gets the electoral college votes.
If you're in the majority of states, your vote literally does not matter
14:02 Why is that flag missing a star?
Simon. That is an insanely clickbait thumbnail and you should change it. You are better than that.
Also, the founders didnt want popular vote because they believed the average voter was too uneducated or otherwise too fanatical to be trusted with that power. And they were right. Most voters either dont understand the subject matter, or theyre so fanatical in their support that they dont care. Very few voters truly have an imperical view of the facts and understand the subjects enough to have an open discussion.
yeah but it drives interaction, like comments, which tells the algo this is popular, which drives more views, and you fell for it
@LordFloofen yeah, it does. But clickbait is amoral and a sign of a creator who can't otherwise build their own following. Which isnt true for Simon, he has over 9 channels, all with million and multi million follower counts
The electoral college is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is how expensive it is to run for office, and the fact that about 90% of the funding comes from corporations and billionaires. That's the real reason why.
That's why I tend to say that there are THREE elections for the presidency of the USA.
The third election, is the electoral college. There each state has a given number of votes.
The second election is the popular election. There each person has one vote.
And the first election is the capitalist election. There each donated dollar is one vote.
The first election will influence the result of the second election.
The second election will influence the result of the third election.
And the third election elects the president.
@@Tjalve70 I can't disagree with that. That's a pretty good way to describe it.
That's certainly a problem. I think that the supreme court ruling that equated money with speech was a huge mistake as it made this problem a whole lot worse with no chance to regulate it.
@@Tjalve70 The electoral college has nothing to do that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or doesn't matter direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
Nice hit piece on the electoral college. Transcript probably somewhat useful as a high school civics class red-lining exercise to develop students' critical thinking faculties.
Your identifying the changes that would destroy the function performed by the EC as a "tweak" was masterful misdirection. Not a tweak.
Modern Education-Challenged: What's that whistling coming from the steam engine? I don't like it.
Founding Engineer: It's called a steam valve. We worked it out after the first steam engine exploded.
MEC: Annoying old tech! Let's go back to the original design with a few modern tweaks, and without that whistle valve.
FE: Not a good idea...
As for Democracy and Republic forms of government:
Democracy=Hooray! A better government style has been released.
((Greek city-states crash))
"US Patch"= Republic
"Democracy" is what you tell a 5-year old. "Republic" is what you tell an 8th-grade student.
If you want more discussion on Republic vs Democracy, the Federalist Papers gives more coverage.
To all of you commenting your whining about the thumbnail and how it's so close to "election day", truth hurts, doesn't it?
Don't be an edgelord. We KNOW the electoral college is BS, but we still need to vote. It is the least any of us can do, aside from clamming up and staying home. For some reason, I thought Simon was above this sort of rage-cage engagement.
it drives interaction, like comments, which tells the algo this is popular, which drives more views, and they all fell for it
One sentence answer: The US is a Representative Republic, NOT a democracy.
You don't understand what either of those two concepts mean.
The US is a representative republic, yes. But that is in no way in conflict with being a democracy. The US is both.
What kind of idiots created a government system where your vote doesn’t actually matter because some shadow man can decide to do whatever the heck he wants. It’s like we don’t actually live in a democracy.
The kind that didn't want the unwashed masses to have any real power.
@@Rawbful Bullship
@@Rawbful Go look at the truth. The system was created so that the president was elected by every state not just the big cities. Today, it only takes 16 counties to elect the president by popular vote. All votes would be from cities that don’t give a damn about farmers, ranchers, or anything else in the rural and low population states. The electoral college protects their vote.
Yeah, too many people seem to think that sheer popular majority (democracy) deciding such things is an inherently good thing. America never was and probably shouldn't be built on that principle. There are very good reasons why we should still not want decisions like electing the president or many other questions of government appointment and/or policy to be made via popular vote with a simple majority rule.
because a minority vote is somehow better? that argument might be the most stupid thing I've ever seen.
Today I found out I need to unsubscribe.
Most of the knowledge I have already, but can you imagine I decreased the playback speed to 0.75?
You're filling in my gaps in knowledge. Thank you.
ps. I am European. Seems important.
Because 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting to eat the sheep is neither just nor sensible.
That has got nothing to do with anything.
@@Tjalve70it has everything to do with this discussion... Texas and California shouldn't decide how I live in Indiana...
@@Tjalve70 That's literally what the popular vote is.
@@smexijebus That's literally what the EC is. You need 11 states to win with EC. If we use the 2016/2020 election as an example, you'd need a majority in 35 states to win the pop vote. The EC is 11 wolves and 39 sheep.
@@adamsfusion No, the EC means they don't get eaten, and must always have sway, as opposed to the popular vote simply resulting in majority rules and a few big cities (wolves) deciding the rules for everyone. I don't get why this is hard to grasp.
@6:30 ish: you are wrong as to the reasoning why the FFs wanted the electorial college. It was to hedge against large cities deciding the outcome alone and preventing a straight democracy in the US: the USA is a constitutional republic. Having seen the issues with straight democratic countries, the US found that they didn't want that and switched to a republic with SOME features of democracy.
It wasn’t as much about cities but the fact that we are United States, states that are united. How would you feel if your apartment complex based its policy on a vote and there were multiple homes with a ton of people. You’d want that fact to be included in your voting method. Now it would be irresponsible to think that one dude living in his home should have the same voice as a home of 30, but the top few family’s shouldnt just control it all. Hey how about that? A compromise!
Those that freak out over the popular vote just look at this whole thing as one big country which isn’t always the case. Also they mostly just care cause they look a couple losses.🤷♂️
Now you can change it with a majority vote of states but ima go out on a limb and say that demonizing half the country isn’t the best way to accomplish that but I’m just a crayon eater that sees the problems of both sides and hates the game that’s dividing us all.
@jeffryriddle4607 The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
You are so full of shit. At the time everything was monarchies and autocracies. And we are a constitutional republic and representative democracy. You idiots need to stop acting like you're so smart because you think republic =/= democracy. People like YOU are the exact reason why the founders wanted a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.
Who else watched the whole video and still doesn’t know how it works.
I started to daze at the end when he started to explain the whole veep situation.
You need to keep on mind that the US is not a democracy purposely. The US is a constitutional republic. Common mistake by both citizens of the US and people outside the US
It is a Democratic Republic. Both a Republic and a Democracy. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right about it
@johnfoxsmith2077 Nope, we are a "constitutional " republic. Thanks for playing.
@johnfoxsmith2077 to be more precise, we are a constitutional federal republic. Look it up
@@salpastore1425 You're obviously using words without understanding the meaning of them. A Democratic Republic is a nation in which the people vote for their Representatives in government. In a true 100% Democracy, like Ancient Greece for example, it was 1 to 1 representation. All people not only had a vote, but a voice. All people could cast votes in the halls of the government and introduce laws. It was chaotic and messy. In that sense we are not 100% a Democracy, but we're also not a 100% Republic. Our representatives are voted for, not appointed. A constitution, is a document outlining the rules, laws, and rights of the people of a nation. We are both a Constitutional Republic and a Democratic Republic. If we were not a Democracy, there wouldn't be elections in our nation
@johnfoxsmith2077 google is free
"Much maligned"? Only by folks who never took a civics class.
I think that even the founding fathers would malign the current state of the electoral college which they created exactly to prevent a demagogue like Donald Trump from becoming president... In the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
the country's founders were geniuses.
not really.
@@jamesmoore1476 What's that saying about everyone having an a-hole?
The electoral college is a thing because people who live on the coast shouldn't be the ones who always decide elections.
I really don't know why this is so complicated.
That's because you're wrong.
California and New York actually get MORE voting power because of the electoral college. Because they will vote as a block, rather than as individuals.
@@Tjalve70 I don't think you understand the electoral college correctly.
When the electoral college became a thing, the entire country was on a single coast...
@@backcountry164 yea I don't think thats what the original commenter meant - but I could be wrong.
The electoral college helps ensure dense populated areas aren't the only deciders of elections.
This bizarre idea that 20% of the electorate (New Yorkers and Californians) will somehow comprise 50% of the vote plus one.... Did people skip math in school? One person, one vote, not complicated. There are minority interests even in bigger states...shoemakers, taxidermists, etc. The way to keep the majority from disadvantaging the minority is the constitutional protections...the anti democratic parts that say that even the majority can't deprive of free speech, freedom of association, of assets by eminent domain without fair market value compensation, etc.
When a foreigner tries to breakdown US elections and misses the mark entirely. Horrible thumbnail btw.
Ok, I can understand the dislike of the click bait-y thumbnail. What part of the video is factually incorrect.?
Bump. I'd be genuinely interested to know inaccuracies too.
?
@@mickeym5010 There aren't any, it was very well researched.
The "tyranny of the majority" is nonsense. With the electoral college, it doesn't matter if a state is 51% red or 95% red (or blue). They amount to the same thing electorally. But with a straight popular vote, it's a very different situation. Suddenly Republicans would have to campaign in California, and Dems in Texas. You can also throw the territories and DC in the mix without tipping the outcome in favor of the Dems so much.
We’re constitutional republic not a democracy. Why? So we remain the United States of America as opposed to united city’s of America.
USA is a constitutional republic AND a democracy. There is no conflict between those two concepts.
@ Indeed there is some democracy sprinkled on top. The difference though is important. True democracy is popular vote only. That would mean the population voted on every issue and majority rules. To my knowledge such a place doesn’t exist nor should it.
@@onetruegodhammer5048 That's direct democracy dumbass, we are a representative democracy.
OMG A Trump/Wallz Whitehouse would be the worst version of "The Odd Couple" ever made
I would hate to see how that would play out. But I think either way the 25th would be invoked. But hey wanna have a drink if this was to happen??
Anyone studying this topic must understand the scale of the United States and the cultural differences between rural America and Urban America. Shooting a deer in your back yard is common in my county; not so much in the Chicago's city limits. If the President was selected by popular vote we would likely have near continual Civil Wars. We already messed up the selection of Senators that was the primary method to ensure rural America was adequately represented in Congress.
The creation of the electoral college has nothing to do with that however. That certainly wasn't among the arguments used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The argument against direct voting for president (and which lead to the compromise of the electoral college) was because they feared the rise of a demagogue (like Donald Trump) or would be king (they were fearful of having another George III...) who could easily manipulate the population who they considered uneducated and uninformed (the founders were pretty elitist). Rather they wanted electors who would be elected by the people who would then vote for the president who would be best for the country since they would be drawn from more "informed" people.
If need be these electors were supposed to override the vote of the people because the founders mistrusted the common people who they felt could be easily misled and make a bad decision and choose the "wrong" person.
Ironically it was exactly to prevent demagogues such as Donald Trump that the electoral college was created in the first place since even if the people voted for him, the electors were supposed to reject him for the good of the country being "better informed" and educated than the common people. As I said the founders were very elitist and mistrustful of what the people would do.
However they never would have predicted how the electoral college has evolved since then, with laws regarding "faithless electors" in many states (which destroys the initial intention), huge growth in the number of states and the population which has skewed the electoral college votes (especially since the number hasn't changed since the 1920s due to political fighting over it), and equally the rise of political parties that polarize sides (they expected many candidates without parties).
The irony is that the very electoral college system they devised to prevent demagogues and authoritarians has now morphed into something that enables them. They would be absolutely aghast at the current system with the electoral college....
Either way both the historical intention of the electoral college and the current reality of it, its clearly not democratic and enables the tyranny of the minority over the majority. In modern America where democracy is valued and we no longer believe that some people's vote is worthless or less important, direct voting for the president is the best solution to fix this.
@aruak321 Do you support a rigid, originalist interpretation of the Constitution; requiring amendment to modify interpretation, even if doing so would save millions of lives? If you do not, and believe the judiciary can modify our founding document, you are a far greater threat to the United States than Donald Trump. We are a country or personal freedom, even when that lets people make poor choices and cause their own deaths. I have zero civic responsibility to prevent them from so doing. With the agreement of 38 states you can modify the system; sidestepping this requirement by forming a coalition or populous states that number less than 38 is treasonous and should be resisted by violence if necessary.