ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- UPDATE- I made a follow-up video to this one: • The Electoral College ...
Mr. Beat explains how the Electoral College is the worst way to elect the President and Vice President in the United States.
#electoralcollege #uspolitics #apgov
Check out the Felt Show here:
• Law & Order Clerical S...
Check out E Pluribus Unum here:
/ @epluribusunumyt
Steven Crowder's sad attempt to defend the Electoral College:
• REBUTTAL: ‘Adam Ruins ...
CGP Grey's classic, great Electoral College takedown:
• The Trouble with the E...
Want a specific history topic covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate on Paypal: paypal.me/mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room. All images either by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines.
Special thanks to the AP Archives for use of some their footage!
Sources:
www.archives.gov/federal-regi...
www.archives.gov/federal-regi...
www.270towin.com/content/elec...
www.politico.com/magazine/the...
www.fairvote.org/faithless_el...
www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska
time.com/4558510/electoral-col...
www.archives.gov/federal-regi...
www.whydomath.org/node/voting/...
www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170...
www.nationalpopularvote.com/p...
www.realclearpolitics.com/art...
www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...
slate.com/news-and-politics/2...
Reform options to fix problems of Electoral College:
archive.fairvote.org/e_college...
Photo credits:
Ryanandlenny
Gage Skidmore
This video is about how the Electoral College works. Ok, you know what? Scratch that. This video is about how the Electoral College is horrible. So yeah, this is one of my rare opinion videos. Long-time viewers of my channel already know how much I hate the Electoral College, but here, finally, is my epic video making the case that it should be gone, or, at the very least, reformed. I’ve been wanting to make this video for a long time.
So first, what is the Electoral College? It’s the system of electing the President and Vice President every four years in the United States. It’s described in Section 2, Article 1 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. First, in general, the political parties in each state pick these people called electors. They often choose these electors based on their service to the party, and typically these electors are elected state officials, state party leaders, or even people who have connections to their party’s Presidential candidate. These electors can’t be in the United States Congress, but otherwise each state is fairly loose with their requirements. In the 2016 election, the youngest elector was 19 and the oldest 93. There are a total of 538 electors in the entire country, which is a random number the Founding Fathers pulled out of their- what? Oh I guess there’s a good reason why there’s 538. The 538 number is based off of 100 Senators plus 435 representatives plus 3 for the District of Columbia because heaven forbid we forget them (23rd amendment). So it’s partially based on an equal vote for every state, and also based on population. Kansas currently has six electors because it has 2 Senators plus 4 representatives representing 4 districts in the House of Representatives.
Together, these 538 electors make up the Electoral College. On Election Day, tens of millions of Americans go to a voting booth and cast their ballots for President and Vice President, except that they are not really casting their ballots for President and Vice President. What counts in the Electoral College are the votes of the 538 electors. Now, these electors usually look at who the majority of their state voted for and vote with them, but still, they COULD vote for whoever they want.
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 2 // PRX vs G2 | EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T5j2XVcDFs0/mqdefault.jpg)
What is the BEST argument for the Electoral College? What is the BEST argument against it?
Edit: I made a follow-up video to this one: th-cam.com/video/6kWF2Rhxx-c/w-d-xo.html
Something something equalizes the power of the small states with the big states.
For, Wyoming and California can go toe to toe with each other every other year
Against, it put Trump and Obama in office
Abolish it. It's undemocratic. Why bother to vote when the loser wins as often if not more often than the winner. I learned about in civics decades ago. Don't they still teach civics?
@@goodoldrickets2002 We only have one Chicago. That video has far than one error and, I agree, is not a good reference.
I agree it is undemocratic, but that is part of the plan for America. It was purposely designed not to be a pure democracy where the big states would control the small states, hence the Senate/House compromise. The reason that it is better than a simple majority is that in a majority, polarization increases wildly as all that is necessary is campaigning in cities, which would leave rural America out to dry. Also, the good thing is that, although swing states have too much power, the swing states change over time through drift in beliefs, like people claim is happening with Texas.
Voting is stupid we should have our candidates fight to the death in a cage match
@General Pinochet Trump is a fat tub of lard. Biden is honestly pretty lively for his age
@@timeland8343 Trump would easily fuck Biden up. Biden can barely button his own shirt
@@DJ_107 luckily for everyone, he’s about to become irrelevant
@Alan emtriez I'm pretty sure he meant that Trump was going to become irrelevant
@@timeland8343 Jill can’t come in and defend him
Candidate: **has 38% of the popular vote**
Electoral College: *WINS BY A 50 STATE LANDSLIDE VICTORY*
Same thing in UK. The Tories won 43.6% of popular vote, less than all pro-EU/soft Brexit parties combined. They won a landslide majority
Same everywhere lol
@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 not with proportional representation
That’s literally not how it works, you would have to win 50% of every state are you win 😂 Y’all really don’t get it why the electoral college is so important
@@ronanconley2595 can you not realize I’m trying to do a joke right?
I am 100% in support of ranked choice voting. This, along with term limits for Congress, are two of the biggest changes we need to make in our government.
Your Congress has no term limits?!?!?!?!
Amen.
Ranked choice voting will not get the most popular guy elected. You can look up Alaskas use of it.
My (hopefully) simple explanation is: If candidate A gets 40% rank1 and Candidate B gets 50% rank 1, but Candidate C gets 5% rank 1 and 70% rank 2, Candidate C goes to Congress, despite the fact that nobody really wanted him there.
Also, the more complex voting is, the easier it is to cheat. With such low public trust in elections, on both sides, making it more complicated is a bad idea.
@@techtutorvideos I recommend looking up the election in Alaska, it was closer than that, 20/40/40 ish.
@@diamondrg3556 Ranked-choice voting is fine in Alaska. The reason the Democrat won was because Alaskans really don’t like Sarah Palin
From what I remember from my US political history class was that the founders feared someone like Julius Caesar who endangered the republic despite unanimous popularity. In such a situation they wanted the electoral college to have the power to deny such a person a win by vote. I believe they called it "tyranny of the majority?" Personally I think it was adequate gor the early 1800's but after that if such a scenario would happen such a decision by the electoral college would likely result in Civil War.
Personally I think the founders fears of which was worse, tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority, actually is demonstrated pretty well when you see how the House of Representatives vs the Senate was set up in how they represented voters.
Yeah, but the Roman Republic is not the US. Just because it's called a republic doesn't mean that it was all that democratic. Plus, only free Roman men were allowed to vote, it's a lot easier to establish a cult of personality with your voters if your voters are a relatively small group of people
We had a civil war already in 1860 because of Lincoln's election
@@BossXygmancult of personality?
What do you call this 2024 election? Cults of 3-second sound bytes with massive participation from people exhibiting a decision-making style that is the opposite of "thoughtful."
The vote is controlled by shock media preaching to our not-deep-thinking population.
@@BossXygman *Um Acchtully* in the original framework of our republic, only free white landholding males had the right to vote or be deemed citizens. Jacksonian Democracy cemented this belief by the 1820s. OP was right, the founders were deeply inspired by the Roman Republics and other European Republics. It wasn’t until very recently that universal voting rights were recognized. For citizens above the age of 18 anyway
@@danielvaldez2203 The US is still not Rome, and doesn't need to follow Rome's customs. I never said he was wrong about the Founding Fathers' intentions. I'm saying that following what Rome did doesn't work.
Wait a minute, you're not Mr. Beast.
yeah
That's actually his name lol
Yeah you are right. But this guy is better
Sasha- 007 they make entirely different videos hahaha I love them both
Mr beast hisotry cousin
This guy seems like he's still upset about getting kicked out of Weezer before they made it big
@HexagonBright You literally made no sense.
@HexagonBright Chill out.
@HexagonBright Uhh... what?
@Mr. Beat dont mind him, he's just on that powder.
*The USA Is the only Republic in the World where the LOSER by 3 million votes becomes A FAKE PRESIDENT.*
That’s not Democracy. We have no right to tell other nations to be Democratic because we are not a Democratic Nation.
"the founding fathers wanted" is one of the worst arguments not only because of all the existing reasons people cite like "they didnt live in our world today" and "under a lockian social contract theory we have to voluntarily enter into our social contract and determine our own government and laws" but for the simple fact that the founding fathers were a big group of different people who constantly disagreed and bickered. They never wanted a single coherent thing and compromised. You brought this up briefly. I just feel anyone trying to rely on "the founding fathers wanted" should have to be much more specific who? At what time in their life? Did they change their opinion later?
It's not that they wanted it, it's why they thought it was a good idea.
They also thought blood letting was a good idea. A few notable historic figures died from that very practice. Founding fathers may have been smart but that doesn't mean they were always right. Ironically the founding fathers agreed with that. Which is why they left the constitution open to amendments in the first place.
yes, they may have been smart but that doesn't mean they weren't horrible.
@@RedMoonLoop so you like democracies. How would you feel if 51% of the population decides that they want the other 49% to be enslaved to provide them with the standard of living that they believe that they're entitled too. Would you still want democracy if you were in the 49%? 🤔
"Of the 10 people living in the room, 7 wanted the room painted blue and 3 wanted it painted red. But because the 7 people were standing close together we painted the room red."
Logic.
Because the 3 who occupied 3 distinct quadrants of the room threatened to cordon off the quadrant of the room in which the other 7 stood, for the sake of keeping the room united, the 7--having the least space--gave in, for the room would've been 3/4 red anyway.
The federalist system that was created was a decentralized system. There should never have been one vote to choose the color for the whole room.
@@nosrednugj And turned out to be a massive and hilarious failure that did not even last 80 years before falling apart.
@@Asemodeous ... It never fell apart. It was fundamentally undermined and altered by Progressives.
The era of USA that you call a massive and hilarious failure was a world leader in the abolition of slavery, was a world leader in the industrial revolution, and expanded from 13 fledgling states to 44 states by 1890 (approximately 100 years).
In what way was nineteenth century America a failed state?
@@nosrednugj You don't consider the civil war to be a hilarious failure of the system? Yikes. Huge yikes.
The civil war happened because the founders were too incompetent and cowardly to end slavery when they had the chance and kicked the can down the road. Which ultimately lead to a civil war that still claimed the most lives lost of any American war.
Also, you are counting years of America were slavery was legal as a "success". Again, huge yikes. The vast majority of progress in America during this era was made off of the backs of slave and migrant labor which were treated as less than human and brutalized for decades.
How dare you call yourself an American you POS.
CGP Grey: The electoral college is bad
*everyone agrees*
Mr. Beat: The electoral college is bad
*civil war*
CGP Grey and Mr Beat are both inexcusably ignorant about the electoral college and its intents and purposes.
@@dsmith9964 yeah of course they are
@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 thank you! The numerous factual errors in their videos clearly demonstrate their willful ignorance.
@@dsmith9964 Erhm, sorry but i was being sarcastic
@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 And I was stating a fact. Both Mr. Beat and Grey are basing their entire arguments on assumptions and misinformation.
Fun Fact: The Electoral College was almost abolished in the year 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans & Democrats. President Richard Nixon even endorsed the amendment to replace the system with a two round vote system. It looked like 3/4ths of the state were going to ratified the amendment and it did pass in the house unanimously; but was filibustered in the Senate by Southern lawmakers who feared that with a direct election for president than African Americans in the south would count equally to white voters.
Ahh the sweet smell of racism
(I am being sarcastic)
How fitting, the electoral college, a dogshit mechanism, is being prevented from abolished by filibustering, another dogshit mechanism, and dare I say by dogshit racist people. Mmm the Cycle of Dogshit of America
You can bring up one of its original reasons for existing, but that doesn't really matter today. All citizens can vote, so it now just serves the purpose of preventing smaller states from getting stomped on.
@@WickedMapping If all people can vote, then the electoral college shouldn't be a problem right? I mean, African Americans did have the right to vote when Nixon was president...
@@jnayvann I don't see what your point is.
I totally agree. When I first learned of this in childhood, I thought it was inane and misrepresentative of the people’s votes.
Like... when you were in your late twenties?
And when I first learned of it I thought it was great because it gives smaller states a say and a reason to be in the union. Funny how you're forgetting history. Also smaller states still get far less electoral votes and oohhhhh boy they get almost no seats in the house. Lets not act like smaller states are power houses or something.
That's only because you've been indoctrinated with the belief that the majority should rule. Democracy is best represented by 2 wolf's a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
I would argue that the electoral college is more an expression of us being Federation than being a republic. It's designed to give each individual state representation rather than the people within those States. It's function is also outdated because it was designed with State politics being primary and the Federal system being secondary to the states. I do think that moving towards congressional districts voting would be more representative however I am in favor of true proportional electorates. As an example in 2016 my home state of Utah loaded for 46% Trump, 27% Hillary, and 22% McMullin so a 4/1/1 split would have been more accurate to what Utahns wanted. It may have even encouraged more people to vote for the 3rd party if more people thought they could show displeasure at both of the national parties' nominations.
While an election based on Congressional districts would be better in some ways, it would also be severely vulnerable to gerrymandering.
Proportuonal voting, like congressional district voting, also does not change the fact that Utah votes are worth more than Texas votes.
While we are at it, we should also get rid of gerrymandering. Then the government would truly be brought back to the people.
Troubled Sole won’t ever happen because of “states rights”. Government doesn’t care about blatant corruption since it keeps them in power no matter which side is in office.
Yes, I agree, though gerrymandering is only good when it gives minorities a vote
Unfortunately, U.S. Government is no longer a, for, of or, by the people government. It’s now corporate America. How else can millionaires in the congress and, senate? In my humble opinion.
Or letting illegals vote in California
@@thedonald4391 - Bullshit! Even Trump's own hand-picked commission to investigate voter fraud could find no evidence of illegals voting in California. Why are you repeating reich-wing bullshit propaganda? Please remove your head from QAnus.
I like how he said there was still a third of people who thought the electoral college is a good system and then exactly a third of the like to dislike ratio was a third
Wish I could see that dislike to like ratio...
@@Stanzafly Oh how the times have changed. You should use the return youtube dislikes extension, really works!
@@Stanzafly The video has 19k dislikes right now. I have an extension that allows me to see dislikes.
The third was a third?
I agree with you 100% about electoral college. Keep on educating!
Other things I would change about the electoral process (at least for any federal office): 1) each potential candidate must submit an application with a resume and tax documents and finger printed. They will be thoroughly vetted by the FBI, Interpol, IRS. All results reported to the voting public. 2) each candidate will be given a fixed sum of money (I.e. $10K) to spend on campaign ads, etc. No one will take contributions from PACS or any special interest groups. 3) all candidates from any party running for office will not be excluded (marginalized) when events (I.e. debates) are held. I believe these are the type of changes that would level the playing field and elect leaders on merit rather than skin color and wealth.
why interpol? just curious
@@mingus445_gaming no hiding international criminal activity.
What if the politician was running with the platform that the FBI and the IRS are corrupt? If a politician has to be beholden to them, then there is no way to critique them from without.
Remember my teacher in middle school saying all you need to do to run for president is follow these 3 easy criteria!
Fvckng bs
When I first heard of the electoral college, I thought that it was a needlessly overcomplicated system that's not very transparent to the voters on what actually happens behind the scenes.
EDIT: Now that I have found out that by winning the plurality of a state, you win the entire state's electors, the electoral college sounds even more stupid and lacks transparency even more. Seriously, having a proportional system in each state like Maine would do a lot to improve the electoral college. Or bring in MMP voting.
Well, we don't get to control each state's election process, which is exactly the point. Individual states can choose what is best for them.
@@msdarby515
Yes, each States process is controlled by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the States only have the authority to appoint the electors, not to determine the choices the electors make which is governed by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment.
My favorite political trivia question is; what are the requirements to run for President in the United States? The answer is that there are no requirements to run for President because you cannot run for president in the United States, the requirements in Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment govern the electors choices, meaning the two persons they put on their ballots must meet the requirements of age, residency in the United States, natural born citizen, and at least 1 of the choices must be a person who resides in a State other than the elector themselves. Then the lists are reviewed to make sure that all the electors have made choices which comply with these requirements, if they do not, then that elector is instructed to change any person who doesn’t meet those requirements before the list is certified, sealed and transmitted to the seat of government directed to the president of the senate.
The time for the States to make a choice by vote, 1 vote per State, is after the top candidates are identified and placed on a ballot for the States to consider, and the choice is made by a majority of all the States, not just the States present!
@@nfpnone8248 What I was getting at is the state legislatures do have the authority to pass a bill that would make the electoral votes proportional.
I get extremely frustrated by people like the OP who thinks that all states should be run the same, that there is only one right way to do things, and that not doing it the way he believes is less than adequate.
The entire point is that states like New York have very different needs, even as far as elections are run, than states like, say the Dakotas or Alaska (where I live). Voting by mail-in ballot has been a thing here for a very long time because of how rural we are. However, the ballot must be requested, they don't just ship out stacks of ballots and count whatever comes back to them.
Also, I enjoy trivia, but I fear my response to your trivia question (age and American Citizen) would have been very inadequate in your eyes. LOL
The easiest way to end the Electoral College today is for states to pass the National Popular Vote compact. State legislations in 16 states plus DC have already enacted it. These states represent 205 electoral votes. Another 7 states have bills pending representing an additional 63 votes. When states totalling 270 votes have enacted the compact, it will become law in those states, effectively ending the EC. (When enacted each state agrees to award their Electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote nationwide.)
@@mikebronicki8264 Sounds like that would be unconstitutional. A State can't give its electoral votes to someone who didn't win that State.
18k likes
11k dislikes
Electoral College has determined that the Electoral College is NOT terrible. Thank you for your broad and widespread guidance Electoral College.
Edit: Well this comment aged for sure lmfao
Lmao
Underrated Comment.
LMFAO americans be so brainwashed that they're anti democracy
@@2FadeMusic .....your expecting me to say "The US is a republic not a democracy" aren't you? but my new years resolution is not to argue with people about politics online and I am somewhat trying to keep that goal so I hope we can agree on something and end this discussion with both of us satisfied we both made our point and our logic behind our point
19k likes and 12k dislikes
Likes beat dislikes by 22 points LOL
(61% to 39%)
when you realize this channel is actually older than mrbeast
****VOTE THIRD PARTY****
How so ?
@Bsauce i dont understand ? whats an about page
@@twinglocks9304 Really nigga
@@twinglocks9304 Click his icon under the video. Then click the header that says "about." There will be a description with the date the channel was established
"We're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic."
Yeah. Kinda like I don't drive a vehicle, I drive a car.
Furry profile pic. Argument disregarded.
More like “I’m not driving the car. I’m simply pushing down on a pedal on the floor with my foot to make the car go, while using my hands to operate a wheel in front of me that controls the direction the car is going.”
Eventually when 80%+ of the population live in cities and their immediate suburbs the 12 largest will have 270 electoral votes in keeping with Congressional redistricting requirements. You could have the highest ever in history turn-out in the remaining 38 states with record low turn-out in the 12 largest states and it wouldn't matter the 12 largest states would easily prevail. By the way we're already at the point where 80% of Americans live in cities or the nearby towns. Once either Texas or Florida flip to the Democrats as both states have fallen to less than 5% Republican advantage, the path to 270 would require that Republicans flip three Democrat states to make up for the 28 or 38 electoral votes. Republicans are going to be absolutely HATING the electoral college in a few years.
Mr. Beat: *makes the video at the end of 2018 no where near an election on purpose
me: watches it 6 days before the 2020 election
Hilarious
I know that feeling
I'm watching in the middle of the 2020 election!
I’m watching this while the kids in my basement try to escape
@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 sweet
-be me
-sees video title
-puts on hazmat suit
-enters comment section
You will need more than a hazmat suit to protect you
You forgot
-sorts by new*
100th like
Something I tell people when they say if we got rid of the electoral college then california would choose the president. Well, in 2020 the Republican candidate got more votes then the entire populations of the smallest 30 states... The Republican candidate got more votes in CA then in ANY other state. Yea, more people voted for the Democrate candidate but it's not a winner takes all with the popular vote. 6 million votes in CA just became completely useless. I don't know about you but I like to feel like my vote mattered and with the current, winner take all system, my vote doesn't matter in my state...
I always found the electoral college extremely dumb. I am from Cali and I have conservative friends who will always tell me they feel their vote doesn’t matter because cali will always be blue. Think it’s dumb that a ton of citizens don’t feel like their vote matters
Thing is that if you decide to go under the rule of the majority, almost every election will be blue and politicians will to resort to just go to high volume voter areas
@@MichelDurat I mean if the majority of people are blue, then their voices should be heard. Majority people should have their voices heard instead of just the minority having so much power.
They can move then
@@supervideomaker9136 what about hitler?
@@Sicilianus??????lmao?
In addition: Without the electoral college, democratic candidates would be forced to campaign in Texas, where half the population votes democratic, while the Republican candidate would be obligated to campaign in California, where there are millions of Republican voters. Both would need to visit small states, because every vote would count. Let's ditch the Electoral College.
California as a general region in a popular vote system would still vote heavily blue. The Inland Empire would always vote Republican in spite of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and any other large cities in the state, just like most of Illinois would vote Republican in spite of Chicago.
Certain things would never change.
@@WickedMapping Are you implying that presidential candidates will only continue to focus solely on swing states if the Electoral College were removed? If so, I disagree because individual votes would hold much more value than they currently do and ignoring states would be detrimental because obtaining votes wouldn't be as straightforward as it is today. This would force presidential candidates to put more effort into gaining support from the majority instead of appealing to a specific demographic.
@@hayatobonds7736 Candidates would still just focus on purple areas, even if it isn't strictly determined by state borders.
@@WickedMapping Not really. For example, California, widely considered as a "democratic stronghold" has experienced an increase in independent voters over the last 20 years. Roughly half of the population there is democratic, while a quarter of the population is republican, and another quarter is independent.
This is only one example, but the majority of states aren't dominated by one political party as the media likes to portray as is. The reality is that most states have a decent percentage of voters that are independent, and that number will only continue to keep growing as long as the US retains its bi-partisan approach to politics.
Like I said before, a popular vote-based system would force candidates to focus on gaining support from as many Americans as possible, which means expanding their focus on independent voters. Instead of focusing on a few states, they would be focusing on the growing of number of independent voters in nearly all states.
Currently, the US needs to reform its approach regarding presidential elections because the electoral college doesn't accurately represent the people of the US. A voting system that incorporates aspects of popular vote while keeping the electoral college intact may be the most likely solution.
@@WickedMapping That would be stupid, California would literally provide more Democrat and Republican votes than Arizona every single time.
"candidates would just ignore the smaller states!"
Easy fix for that! Just have every state do what Maine and Nebraska does. Have each Elector chosen by a district, not a state. Instead of winner-take-all for the entire state, each elector represents the 761,000 people of a voting district. In that event, *each district is equally important, no matter where it is in the country*
Actually, I prefer proporational represenation. If in one state/commonwealth - a candidate get 42% of the popular vote - he gets 42% of the EC in his home S/C (other than the 2 "senate vote" the overall winner would get those.
And what if we set every states electoral vote to 1 so there would be no swing states and would allow people from 1 state to have the same voting power as a person from any other state
@@Geojoe677 problem with that is it gives way more political representation to smaller states which is rather undemocratic
no i like the idea of winner takes all. nebraska and maine can keep their rules to themselves. Applying this rule in every state would over compicate things and make it confusing. Plus how will canidates have time to campaign rallies in all districts of states. 50 states and other territories of land is already alot of places to campaign in.
its better to have canidates campaign in key states, swing areas, etc imo. plus those swing states change every election cycle.
@@nicaraguaeast6740 Its only complicated and confusing for the poorly educated. As for having time to campaign? Radio, TV, social media, newspapers, internet...
Why aren’t smart people like Mr. Beat not in charge in this country? Politicians are so frustrating
Because you (the voter) don't vote for smart people, you vote for exciting people. Evertime someone like beat has run, they have failed to excite the electorate
Mr. Beat is a dumbass and can't understand simple sentences. 19th amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." You have to be an idiot to think this grants women the right to vote. It clearly applies to both men and women and does not grant a right but prohibits the infringement of a right that a person already has. Also it only applies to the United States and State governments, County and townships could limit there elections to only men or women if they choose and not be in violation of the 19th amendment.
Its a billion dollar business behind keeping people stupid, and installing dumb corporate shmucks
Smart ppl were elected. Smart Republican ppl realize that they are outnumbered & must have a terrible system to be competitive. Republicans no longer support democracy because they are outnumbered. Democrats can’t change the system without some support from the Repubs & they’re not going to get it.
@@Strider91I want Rambo as a president. A real man!
half of everyone liked that
half of everyone hated that
hmm I wonder why
Liberals still mad they lost 2016 and conservatives wanting to keep it that way
Luckily, there is no Electoral College to determine how the like/dislike ratio is.
@@yogatonga7529 Oh shush XD
@@iyoutubeperson4336 you dont have to be a liberal to be mad at a clown being elected president. I'm all for good jokes but this one got taken a bit far
@@foxt.5043 found the liberal still mad that they lost
FUN FACT: the 2nd definition for a republic is 'a country without a king or queen'. According to this defintion, North Korea is a republic while the United Kingdom is not.
Talk about a meaningless distinction!
2nd definition..
everyone knows uk isn't a republic tho
The People's Republic of China also considers itself a democracy and they do not have elections. Yet the majority has had it say on basically everything for at least 50 years.
Brit here, can confirm that's our opinion of the word. The argument that america is not a democracy is silly. We don't have to follow some narrow classical version of Athenian democracy just to call ourselves a democracy. Also, considering how many ballot initiatives are in US elections, many important decisions are in fact directly voted on.
FUN FACT: The Unite Kingdom is technically still a monarchy, aside from also being a socialist dictatorship.
Preaching to the choir, my friend. And nice touch the way you included the telltale call of the low information voter: “‘merica’s not a democracy; it’s a republic!“ SMH. Thanks for another great video!
The only reason we still have an electoral college is because its operation has favored the Republican Party. Since 1824, every time that the popular vote winner did not become President, the Democratic nominee lost out: 1876 (Tilden got most votes, Hayes became President), 1888 (Cleveland got most votes, Benjamin Harrison became President), 2000 (Gore got more votes. George W. Bush became President); 2016 (Hillary Clinton got more votes, Trump became President). How will this change? When a Democrat becomes President despite losing the national popular vote. Maybe 2028. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Green outpolls Gavin Newsom in popular vote, but enough blue states make Newsom President. Then watch Republicans start dissing the electoral college. ⚖️
Nah. I just don't think our largest cities and urban populations should be be dictating our president.
We are 50 states. The states choose our president. That is fine with me. Direct democracy would have plenty of its own problems.
@@jamisojo The electoral college was created to protect slaveowners. John Adams actually won the 1800 election among white voters, but Thomas Jefferson was made President because of the 3/5 votes each slaveowner got to case for slaves. No wonder the White Supremacists all love the electoral college 👎
I don't think banning the electoral college makes a direct democracy the electoral college also takes away rural population election powers. NYC dominants NY, and upstate Republicans aren't represented
Hey look, this video is 100% liked according to the electoral college!
Exactly my point :)
😂
@david - lol!
Because the majority of people that watch this video probably agree with his opinion.
FPTP, not nessesarily the college. You don't know where these likes come from. The dislikes may come from "small states"
Having grown up in northern Virginia (DC metro area), it used to surprise me that Virginia used to be a swing state. Having gone to college not near a big city in Virginia for the last four years, it no longer surprises me.
I used to live in alexandria right by old town and the thing with virginia is southern va is conservative while northern va is liberal but it now only goes blue because there are more people in the north
I mean any city especially in northern VA where it’s a lot of government places will definitely be blue. Southern VA is just all red but since the population is more dense in the northern counties it’s a blue state
Virginia is unique for breaking in two during the Civil War. So I can see how they can be a swing state to this day.
With the access to the technology we have today, voting can be done by its people and not these inconsistent and unhelpful representatives
Election loser: "See, this is exactly why the electoral college needs to be abolished!"
Election winner: "No, this is exactly why the elector college needs to be preserved!"
Only republicans have benefitted from the electoral college being a thing.
this system is just bad in general
💀
We should definitely keep electoral college as whole but only thing i agree removing is the faithless electors. Also the EC is benefiting republicans i know that but you do realize that this could go both ways right? republicans can possibly win popular vote but lose EC giving democrats the win. This is about strategy and letting both small as well as big states more of an equal say in elections.
Edit: Didn't know mrbeat fans were this clueless. They clearly have no understanding of what I was saying.
@@nicaraguaeast6740 “People were okay with electoral college and even defended it but ever since hillary lost”
Guess you were still in diapers when George Bush Jr. “won” against Al Gore lmao.
There’s no point in keeping the electoral college, removing faithless electors would improve it, (still wouldn’t make a difference because faithless electors didn’t make Trump win or Bush win) but the inherent problems with such a system such as your vote being more or less valuable based upon your geographic location (the state you’re in) are unavoidable without practically removing it or outright removing it.
A quote from Benjamin Franklin as he left the secret confab which hammered out the U.S. Constitution.
A woman asked what kind of government had been decided upon - a republic or a monarchy
- Franklin replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
and Washington was soonafter offered the crown (thank goodness he refused)
Well, a republic is inherently democratic. Although there are many definitions for both terms, both have, in common, the idea, that: power is vested in citizens, whose power is exercised by the use of elected representatives that are responsible to said citizens, and govern accordiang to law. (Merriam Webster) Not to mention Benjamin Franklin was one guy, amongst many whose thoughts and ideas conflicted. Regardless, the U.S. is a republic, a democratic republic. It's just term "democratic" seems arduous to keep in, due to the fact that many republics, are democratic.
Keiji Ahdeen / The Ninja Gamer A number of republics founded in the 19th century and later (including many in the 20th) are or were actually ruled by dictators, through a single party or other oligarchic means of selecting “representatives” to fill a “parliamentary” body that implements republican legal processes keeping the dictator in power. In such countries, there are either rigged elections in which everyone “votes,” or secret votes by a very small group of “eligible” voters.
Iraq, for example, was once ruled by a parliament, until Saddam Hussein took over. During one speech in 1968, Saddam began naming and pointing out the members who had opposed him, and during the speech they were arrested, taken out, and executed. But technically, Iraq was still a republic under Saddam, since he wasn’t technically a monarch (a tactic used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, and almost every 20th century despot).
@@yuhboik.g.8118
1) whereas democracy starts with the premise that voting is a birthright, republicanism does not, and can therefore never be considered "inherently democractic" (even the merriam-webster definition you quoted addresses this: "supreme power resides in a body of citizens *entitled* to vote")
2) democracy does NOT govern according to law because it recognizes no such thing. in fact, law is the very antithesis of democracy because it curbs the mob's ability to exercise supreme power. in a democracy, the law is simply the current mood of the mob without any limitations imposed upon it. if 51% of people decide to burn your house down, there is nothing to stop them from doing it. on the other hand, republicanism treats law as a force even stronger than the will of the electorate (which is reflected in its name: republic = res publica = public thing = the law), making sure that burning your house down remains unlawful even if the electorate votes to do it.
3) since democracy doesn't put the law above the will of the electorate, it is incapable of guaranteeing the rights of its citizenry, unlike republicanism. in a democracy, the rights to life, liberty and property aren't rights, but privileges that the mob can take away from you at any moment (hence the term "tyranny of the mob")
4) the us is most definitely not a "democratic republic", as such a thing is but an oxymoron. the us is a constitutional representative republic, and the only thing it has common with democracy is the fact that people vote for their representatives, which isn't much at all, considering that's also true for oligarchies, dictatorships and even monarchies, with the only difference being the definition of "people"...
@@voltagedrop5899 1) Voting isn't a birthright, it's not really a right at all. You're not born with the right to vote, in the U.S., you have to register to vote. Then you are granted the "right" to vote. But, like I said, voting isn't really a right. Rights aren't rights if you can take them away, convicts and ex-convicts don't have the "right" to vote. In certain states without proper ID, you cannot vote, as ridiculous as those laws may be. As such all citizens able to vote in the U.S. are entitled to vote.
2) I didn't say the U.S. was the verb of a democracy, I described it's republic as democratic, or "democracy-like", an adjective.
3) Like before, I'm not describing the U.S. as a democracy, I'm describing it as a republic with democratic values, like being able to vote.
4) I don't see how "democratic republic" is an oxymoron, democratic means "of, RELATING TO, or favoring a democracy" it means that it can be LIKE a democracy. The terms are not mututally exclusive, those being democratic and republic. We could also say we live in a constitutional representative democratic republic. You even said we had something in common with democracies, voting. And like you said in republics you can vote, in democracies you can vote. Since republics, in most cases, hold the value of being able to vote, similar to democracies, they are in turn democratic. And since this is so common, putting democratic in front is redundant. The U.S. is a democratic republic.
1 vote should always equal 1 vote
here in Brazil, we solved the problem of "being elected with less than 50% of the votes" a long time ago... we call it the "2º turn".
If no candidate has more than 50% of the votes, we have another turn of voting, with just the 2 candidates with more votes. so the winner will have to make more than 50% of the votes and are just 2 to choose. all problems solved.
In the first turn, you don't need to make a "utility choice" (to the candidate that has more chance against the guy you don't want to be elected) because every vote that is not to the favorite helps to lead the election to the 2º turn. so if a candidate has 40% of the votes but 60% don't want him elected, people don't need to change their votes to the second place to win, people can vote to their favorite and the election will have a 2 turn. the candidate with 40% in the first turn will loose in the second, even if he was the candidate with more votes in the 1º turn.
it's a more simple (to the voters, it's harder to make the structure of the election twice) way than ranked-choice voting.
and our election it's on Sundays, not Tuesdays. and it's a holiday for those that have to work on Sundays. and all votes are equal. and all votes are electronic (and very very safe, it has a prize of millions for anyone who can hack an election. true, if you prove you can change the results of the election, the government will pay you a fortune. no one ever won), so 2 hours after the votes stop (in the majority of the country, we have two time zones, so 1 hour after the votes stop in the late time zone) we already have the results. in municipal elections, the majority of cities have the results less than a half-hour after the votes stop.
That is called a runoff election.
Brazil is more democratic then the us lol
AND it has a way way better healthcare system
@@fm56001 In fact, Brazil is a mess. But we, at least, try. The US is a bigger mess but with a lot of money. and that is the distinction. They have problems that the world solved in the last 100 years and act like it is normal...
How there is a country that still uses the imperial system? so we still have to measure TVs in inches because this fuckers don't feel like changing it. and that is the smallest problem I have with them..
@@fm56001 Assuming it doesn't have another coup.
“Democracy is cringe, read some Aristotle”
-John Doyle 2020
The man is spreading the word of my mans John Doyle
Yeah, it’s almost as if there are thousands of years of political philosophy and theory after to directly address Aristotle’s arguments 🤔
@TheOfficialUnofficial ...no. Read some Locke, read some Rousseau, read some mill, read some Marx.
@@MrTallformyheight "read Marx"
No thanks, not a cringetard
@@fartinshort1341 imagine dismissing the most cited author in western canon bc you disagree with him
Pretty cringetard-y to me.
Maine has implemented Ranked Choice Voting!
Good job Maine, good job.
That’s where I live
@@theguywhoasked5591 Wow, I wasn't expecting Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China
, to live in Maine!
Oot Oot I got to relax sometimes. CCP hard work. Need break from dealing with Coronavirus cause escaped from Wuhan lab. Ah, I mean US troops in Wuhan
RANK choice has not been a great thing for Maine. We are in the process of getting it repealed.
I just drove through Kansas for the first time, down 81, its a very nice and quiet place, and the people are very friendly from who I met, and that's a Canadian saying that.
Thank you for this video! I've been arguing against the EC for a while now and one thing to consider that I didn't see in your video is that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea when representatives were still being added to the House to maintain consistent representation.
In fact, many times I hear the argument that the EC was established to protect the smaller states, but that was NEVER the case...
What is happening is that people are confusing the EC with the 5/8th rule, that WAS deigned to give smaller states more sway by allowing their citizens to count each of their slaves as 5/8ths of a person in the census that determines how many representatives a state gets. Of course the 14th Amendment made that obsolete. Leaving us with a more honest account of our representation. But then I *think* it was in 1910 - Congress decided to stop adding seats and the number froze at 435. THEN the problem started as the population surged in urban regions, forcing the citizens to share one representative with an ever increasing number of constituents.
I think it's important to know this because it exposes the fact that it's not a static problem. It will actually get worse if urban regions continue to grow and rural region continue to stagnate.
This is why we should start teaching civics again...
Why not America have a advisory referendum if people wants to keep the electoral collage or not!
@@ameyas7726 We don't have national reforendums. Also, abolishing the EC, which I'm not in favor of, requires amending the constitution. To ammend the constitution, the ammendment needs to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate, then approved by 3/4 of the states, or 2/3 of the states call for a convention and then 3/4 of the states approve the ammendment. It's not so simple, just as intended.
This is why we should get rid of the disgusting monopolization of public schools.
@@marcusstarman1849 how is he misinformed or an idiot?
@@stephenmikolaitis4384 If you had paid attention in 7th grade Civics and Government class, you would clearly see how wrong Mr Beat is.
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” -Donald J. Trump, November 6, 2012
Key word “democracy”
But the electoral college helped him win the election.
He lost the popular vote
😂😂😂😂😂
He lost the popular vote by a few percent witch isn’t allot
@@greatestapest73 That "few percent" means 3 million voters
@@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383 I know but this country has 350+ million people so don’t even get me started
I am only halfway through and I am wanting to know if there is anything legally stopping anyone not associated with D.C. political parties from being on the Presidential ballots? I have always wanted to know if you actually had to be nominated by a party or if they are just yanking everyone's chain.
It's different for every state. It's very difficult to get on a presidential ballot if you're not affiliated with one of the major political parties but it's possible if you petition your local state to run as an independent candidate.
In some states it is possible, in others it hasn't been feasible for decades. Ballot Access barriers are the backbone of the two party system because they allow those in power to disqualify any new party that might challenge them.
Constitutionally, Electors are like any other elected or appointed federal official, he is free to exercise his judgement. State legislatures may say differently but an elect legislatures can’t be require to vote the way he promised on the campaign trail why should electors?
People only care about this issue one way or another if it helps or hurts them.
Let's say I give you 1 cookie and your sister gets 3. You claim this is unfair and everyone should get 2 cookies. Your sister says you are only saying that because you want more cookies. Does this mean that your clams to fairness are incorrect?
@@grutarg2938 exactly my point. Personally I believe that if people want a certain candidate they should get him. But I know that democrats would’ve be complaining if it was them benefiting.
All states should vote by congressional districts like Main and Nebraska.
What are congressional districts?
First thing to Come to mind they are the districts that vote for a representative in the House of Representatives
@Phillip - That would only give more incentive for states to gerrymander even more than what is already occurring. That is not a solution.
Democrats won’t be bout that. They get fronted almost 200 Electoral votes every election since Clinton. This would break up California, New York and most of the East and west cost. You think the people away from the coast in the state of California vote blue? Hell no they don’t.
@@richierepath8216 - Stop parroting reich-wing bullshit.
There is no coast, or city, or state or region of the USA which is pure red or pure blue. The entire USA is various shades of purple. Some areas a little more bluish, some areas a little more reddish.
Please stop with your ignorant bullshit propaganda.
A republic is essentially a representative democracy.
That’s it’s literal definition
@@nestoons4539 Exactly
Yup. So when someone says "we're a democracy" I say "Yes."
When someone says "we're a republic" I say "Yes."
They're both right, but when used as a counter argument for each other, then they're only half-right because if they understood that a republic=representative democracy=democracy, then they wouldn't be using that argument.
When people say they don't like the EC and want a popular vote, they just want a direct democracy and that's not what this country supports. Plus if they really cared about the difference between "people per vote," they could just move to those states which would help the overall sustainability of small towns that are slowly diminishing in size, they'd get a second viewpoint of the country from the rural side, and it would level out the people per vote if enough people moved. Unfortunately, that won't happen considering they chose to flock to those big cities in the first place.
And yet the uneducated people (mostly democrats) don’t understand the necessity of the electoral college and the protections it provides. Granted, they also don’t understand federalism, but that’s another topic.
@@derkatwork33 pretty sure you along with Republicans and crowder dont understand. Everyone here is talking about how stupid crowders argument is.
5:14 You leave out that after the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the Revolutionary War there was not ONE country called the United States of America. According to the Treaty there were thirteen individual colonies. Five years later the thirteen states decided that they needed some type of Federal Government. So, the Federal Government came out of the states, not the other way around. Each of the fifty states is entitled to a say in each federal election. There is a popular vote for the president, and it is in each state.
"There is a popular vote for the president, and it is in each state". No, as the video explained. Each state votes for electors, and each elector represents a percentage of the population. If your population is larger, you have more people to a vote. Then, the (unfairly proportioned) electors vote for president.
@@callmeconvay7977 I see your point, but you’re dismissing the most important part of my post. The federal government came out of the states. If there were a straight popular vote from all fifty states, only four of the fifty (California, New York, Florida and Texas) would be needed to win. That’s not fair to the other forty-six. With the EC, all fifty states have a say and all fifty deserve a say.
@@jasona9 I don't care about each state, and I don't care about how the states became the US. Not for this discussion anyways.
1 vote should be equal to 1 vote. I couldn't care less about where each voter lives. If they all live in Wyoming, so be it.
@@callmeconvay7977 well those are the facts, like them or not. You don’t care about the states? Our founding fathers did.
@@jasona9 I recognize that the founders cared about states, but they're not holy saints who did everything perfectly, even for their time. Frankly, the founders would be social pariahs if they existed today. The average college graduate knows more and is more capable of creating a nation than any founding father, and most of them were racist, sexist, and elitist. I don't give a shit about them, and neither should you. I don't care that they designed the EC with 'states rights' in mind, because it makes the US worse.
I don't care to discuss why our system was designed because it doesn't fucking matter to the conversation at hand. All I care about is the proportional power of each voter, which is handled in a spectacularly reprehensible way by the existence of the EC.
Thanks for your TH-cam show!
I enjoyed the video, and while I respect your opinion, I disagree with it; or at least most of it. It is possible I could be convinced of some Electoral College (EC) reforms, such as more careful selection of the actual electors, and perhaps splitting delegates based on the proportion of congressional districts won such as that used by Maine, but never it's abolishment. You suggest that Hillary should have won because she won the popular vote. In this, you make the mistake of discounting the other voters in the election: The States. These are sovereign entities with the same responsibilities and demands as an individual. The EC ensures states have proper representation in the election; similar to the way the Senate ensures this in the Legislature. You further suggest that 70% of Americans support abolishing the EC. I'm not convinced 70% of Americans understand the EC as initially envisioned and the arguments for its existence. This video, in my opinion, is an example of the misinformation and misrepresentation that surrounds the College.
You brushed over the difference between a democracy and a republic. While you are correct in what you stated, I think you purposefully misunderstand what is being related. Conservatives are saying that our system of government is a representative republic and not a direct democracy (more accurately still, a Constitutional Federal Republic). For those interested, Madison explains why this form of government was preferred in Federalist # 10. I do agree with Mr. Beat that the current two party system negates some of the benefits of the republican system, but I would disagree with him that doing away with the EC would improve it. I contend it would do more damage.
Hamilton, in Federalist #68, argues that the people must be confident in the electors and that those electors should be persons whom the people themselves select. So former party members or influential community leaders is not only expected but desired. Another important goal of the EC was to spread the votes among the many states so that no one region can exercise undue influence over another when selecting the executive. An argument can be made that this happens already, but I suggest the EC is not the reason for this condition. The two-party system, with the addition of a biased media (both 'right' and 'left'), conspires to inflate the polarization of the electorate such that there are large numbers of people who will vote for their party regardless of who is running. This leaves the undecided voters making the decisions for most of the elections, and that is why swing states are swing states. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won because he chose to campaign in both the blue and the red states. He understood that he had to convince areas of the country not considered his base that they should vote for him. So in fact, in this case, the EC extracted from Trump precisely the kind of transregional attention Hamilton predicted. In contrast, Hillary Clinton ignored important blue regions because she was convinced those votes were hers.
Let me also reply to the notion of 'winning the popular vote.' In the 2016 election, more people voted against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump than voted for them (68.5 million and 71.5 million against, respectively. Those third party voters do matter. I voted for neither, for example, because I view both Trump and Clinton unfit for office, albeit for different reasons). So yes, Clinton won more individuals than Trump; but Trump won more states than Hillary. Both of these constituencies require a campaigns attention; Trump provided that attention, and he was rewarded for doing so. But the fact that either candidate was opposed by more people than they were supported is a much bigger problem than the EC (Those figures above are the rounded up numbers of Democrat, Republican and third-party votes cast).
One last reason why I think leaving the EC alone is a simple one; the system is working despite all the arguments to the contrary. We peacefully transfer power every 8 years (though on occasion we have a one-term president) and very rarely is that transfer to a member of the outgoing president's party, and we have done this since the republic was founded. This means the electorate isn't hostage to either money or ideology. That is my opinion. There is so much more than could be argued on this point, but I've probably already lost most of the folks reading this, so I guess I'll end here.
Excellent post! Thank you! 👍
He takes Steven Crowders position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation. Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements. This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying.
@@tinkandtory
EDIT: I incorrectly assumed that Blitz9726 was referencing my reply and not the video by Mr. Beat, so the following is my unfounded criticism of his response. This edit serves as my apology to him. I'm leaving the post unaltered as context to allow other readers to know why I'm apologizing to him. I said in part of this he ha jumped to a conclusion when in fact I had actually done so.
Steel prices must be low as there is an oversupply of irony here.
You claim I made a straw man argument by creating a straw man argument to make that assertion. Interesting, but let us dissect your reply.
> "He takes Steven Crowder's position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation."
No, I am taking James Madison's position. I don't know Steven Crowder's full argument because I didn't watch his video, just the short clip that Mr. Beat played. I also didn't misrepresent Madison's view. Madison's view is well known historically, and I provided a reference point for those wishing to know more. This is Federalist #10. But that is also irrelevant since that wasn't my argument.
> "Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements."
You are right, this is not a valid statement, and I said so. I wrote specifically "While you are correct in what you stated...". That is why I purposefully clarified what Madison's actual argument was because it is very important to the need for the Electoral College.
>"This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying."
I agree, but the problem is that you have not understood my argument. My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible, and I was providing this opinion based on the invitation at the end of the video. You have stated my argument was a defense of Steven Crowder's statement in the clip. That is not correct.
>straw man argument
So, for those not familiar, here is a definition: 'You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack' or 'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.'
This is what you have done; you stated my position was something it was not, and then attacked that assertion.
My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible and I make no other argument in my post. I do give supporting statements as to why I have this belief. I start off by clarifying the type of democracy we are because that is important to the discussion. If we were a direct democracy, the Electoral College would be a travesty. I then explain why I think one of the principal problems Mr. Beat was concerned about was not caused by the Electoral College, but rather the nature of polarization in America. I then explain why the popular vote is misleading because it implies a plurality of support when it does not. I then summarize that "we don't need to fix what ain't broke."
I can only assume that you didn't read my entire post because you responded to none of it. I think you read the part about the republic and jumped to a conclusion. I don't mind that others disagree with the college. I don't need to convince anyone; it's a constitutional process and anyone wanting to remove it has the daunting task of following Article V of the Constitution to change it. I am convinced that once educated on how the College works, and why it was enacted, many of those who support it will no longer be of such mind.
(edited to remove extra line breaks)
(2nd edit to apoogize)
@@johncouch8174 Dude, I was arguing against Mr.Beat's video. I was confirming your opinion.
@@tinkandtory
I read the post believing that you were referencing my reply. So, in fact, I was the one who jumped to a conclusion and must apologize to you. I will leave my response to you posted so that this apology has both meaning and context, but will put an edit at the top explaining.
America: communism is dangerous because there just just one almighty party
Also America: *has only 2 parties that actually choose themselves*
That's not why communism is bad
@@roodlyfbuts8006 It's one of the main arguments I hear
I'm not here to debate. Just to point that out
Communism isn't dangerous, it is murderous.
The Constitution says nothing about political parties; However the two major parties you are talking about have twisted it into oblivion.
@@MrVecheater I'm not here to debate I'm just pointing that out
@@roodlyfbuts8006 good job copying my reply
It's really simple. Those folks are pissed you took away their great grandparents' slaves
I'd never understood the argument "The founding fathers wanted this" The Founding Fathers are dead! They died 200 years ago! Democracy isn't a religion, you should not have to follow the words of a guy who died before your grand father was born XD
I never want to hear what Steven Crowder thinks about ANYTHING!
One way to reform the Electoral College, would be rather than a state giving all their electoral votes, they proportionally represent their state, in other words, states would be able to show their voting pattern which is reflected in the Electoral College. Basically, if California for example distributed its 55 electoral votes to reflect the republican supporting counties and the democrat supporting ones. It would (I word it cautiously), in an ideal world probably better reflect the popular vote
That would be an improvement but it doesn't address the problem of votes in small states be worth more than votes in large states.
I think that would be a big reform and I totally support it.
That's how it originally was. But, sometime early in the 1800s Tennessee (as I recall it being that particular state) went to a winner take all for its electorates to shore up its power as a state within the union. James Madison, who is considered a major architect of our Constitution protested it saying that it wasn't the original intent. But, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee's favor forcing most all the other states to do the same thing in order to insure they had as equal a voice to Tennessee's in the Federal Government. The biggest obstacle to reforming the Electoral College isn't so much the politicians in Washington as it is each individual state wanting to keep a sense of power in a Federal Republic. That is a government that is made up of individual autonomous or at least semi-autonomous governments working together. so, proportioning the Electoral votes would be going back to the original intent. After further research, I found that Alexander Hamilton went so far as to try to put in a Constitutional Amendment that would ensure the Electoral College would be determined by district and not by state.
@@michealcormier2555 this leads to my (admittedly mediocre) solution: ranked choice voting in winner take all systems. An easy sell for current politicians, and hopefully it breaks up the duopoly by removing wasting votes by third party. Then, candidates just need to be willing to wield their electoral votes to cobble majorities, and the system is at least better, and better able to move further forward
SiVlog that is a great idea, but all states should immediately also subtract two of their electoral votes and base the number of their votes on how many seats they have in the house
I did the math one time. To win a majority of the population, you'd have to win the top 40 cities and their suburbs. And you can't win them by a simple majority. You have to win them by 100%.
There is no city that goes 100% for a candidate let alone suburbs. St. Louis city went 80% for Clinton, but the metropolitan area as a whole went to Trump.
Even if you only focused on those 40 metro areas, that covers a wider range geographically than candidates typically do now. You have to keep in mind, there are many metro areas that extend into 2 or even 3 states. I have lived in 2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.
'2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.' that is something unique to the New England area, with Kanasa City being an exemption. This is not something you find in Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Phoenix, AZ, San Antonio, TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas, TX, San Jose, CA and that's just what I feel like posting here. The vast majority of the cities in the top 50 have greater metro areas that are in one and if you notice Califonia, Texas, Flordia are in here a lot, you are missing many states. In fact, you can get to get to 51% of the population by only adding up 9 states. Would you call 9/50 a covers a wider range geographically? And by looking for the URL for you I found that by 2040 it will be 8 states, so the problem will only get worse.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-us-population-lives-in-just-9-states-2016-6
pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/07/13/by-2040-just-eight-states-nc-included-will-hold-50-percent-of-u-s-population/
@@woodchuck003 the Chicago area extends into 3 states. Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
@@woodchuck003 also, I looked at metro areas, not states.
States are not homogeneous. Someone who wins the urban areas of a state are more likely to lose the less urban areas by a landslide. Also, it is no guarantee that if you win one metro area in the state, that you can win the others. Let's look at Florida. Metro Miami goes Democrat, but Metro Jacksonville goes Republican.
In Illinois, the metros of Chicago, Peoria, and Champaign-Urbana go blue, but the ones for Danville, Bloomington-Normal, Decatur, Springfield, and Metro East do not go blue.
@@raney150 So wiki says metro area or commuter belt, is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing. This seems way too broad but it agrees with you. This does include suburbs so I am assuming you have never been to the suburbs of Chicago. And because I currently live in one of the metro areas you mentioned I would have to disagree with how homogenous it is, but I have been wrong before, it just seems odd you want in increase representation by allowing candidates to go to fewer places.
raney150 I live in a Metropolitan area which has two states and one territory (DMV)
This video just changed my view and opinion of the Electoral College. Thank you Mr. Beat!
Best argument for electoral college: it allows the two party duopoly to reign.
The Federal Government is supposed to have the smallest impact on our individual daily lives. The Electoral College isn't about the people, it's about the States. Wyoming should be able to govern it's residents differently than California.
Keith Holt yeah we tried making the fed gov very weak(Articles Of Confedration)then Shay’s Rebellion happened.Search it up.
Do you think Wyoming should be able to secede from the Union if it wants to? How much federal land is in Wyoming? How much federal funding do citizens of Wyoming rely on? Federalism has evolved.
Mr. Beat how much land did the federal government take from Wyoming, how much money does Wyoming pay into the federal government, if the states kept the money in the state no federal funding would be needed, the federal government is supposed to be small
@@josh65hend You know there was an entire war about how big the federal government should be right? Hint hint, the union won.
John Doe LMAO California is 1.5 trillion in debt
I was really hoping you would talk about ranked choice as a solution. Ranked with runoffs seem to be our best chance at better representation
RCV and top two runoffs are two very different things. Top Two runoffs simply kick the third parties off the ballot in the second round.
Ranked choice voting is better because it allows a voter to show their views on multiple candidates, but I do not believe that it will have nearly as large of an impact on the party composition of congress as its strongest supporters think it will. We will, at most, have only 2-3 people not from the main 2 parties elected each election.
Ranked choice is how it works in my country, and it's surprising how negligent the difference is in terms of who ends up elected. We still have what amounts to a two party system, and we still tend to alternate between stretches of conservative vs liberal, with the former holding government for almost the entire last decade. I still believe it's a far better system than the electoral collage, if only for the fact that I could not imagine a figure like Trump would be capable of being elected here.
Without the Electoral College wouldn't candidates not only ignore small states, but also ignore all but the most populated states?
You mean the areas where the most people who would be impacted by the decisions of those who are elected live? Even if that were true, I don't see the problem. All alternatives result in a tyranny of the minority instead of the preferable tyranny of the majority.
Not to mention that civilized countries have something called proportional representation or a system that comes close to it. A system under which a single party almost never has majority rule and as a result needs to form coalitions with smaller parties. Not that such a system will be implemented without a violent revolution in the US. Once a country has regressed to a 2 party government, there is no hope of bringing real democracy back.
@@rendomstranger8698 Most in the U.S. don't live in small states. If elections were simply by voter count California and New York would be the most powerful states, having the most people. And that's why some want to get rid of the electoral college. Large cities with the most people in the states with the most people would have huge influence, and politicians would never leave those cities, except when many smaller ones banned together.
The U.S. has always been mostly a two party country. Independents have had an effect, but few are elected, and the same is true for libertarians. Several founding fathers didn't want political parties, but the formed anyway, as like minded members of Congress began to work together and they eventually named themselves as a party.
@@shawnb4938 Yeah, you're correct on which areas would have the most influence. Your point being? They are also the areas where the most people who would be impacted live. Get rid of first past the post, implement a representative voting system and everyone else would still end up having say.
And all your second paragraph tells me is that the US has always been a false democracy. Because that is all the electoral collage does. It turns the US into a false democracy controlled by the rich. Not that I'm that surprised seeing who the founding fathers were. The US government was designed to be corrupt.
@@rendomstranger8698 if you read the Federalist Papers and the counter arguments to them you'll see that your wrong. The Federal government was designed to be small, with more control coming from the states. The people have more say on the local level. Lazy people have simply allowed the government to go unchecked and allowed it to gain more power than intended.
Roughly one third of the us voting population adhere to one of the three major parties, Dem, Rep, and Independent.
Combined with modern communications and travel, it is far past time the EC was eliminated. I have been advocating for this ever since I became politically active in the early 1980's.
Me: Coming up with the greatest possible solution to the Electoral College.
Me: Realizing that Maine and Nebraska already do it.
@Winfield - That is NOT a solution.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
@@rb032682 Well, I agree that the KKK is a low-life gang.
@@rb032682 funny cause it was the opposite. Populace slave states were like ya let’s vote by population! (Virginia) and small northern states said no we need some way to prevent tyranny of the majority (New Jersey)
@@jaketaylor2923 - It doesn't really matter who wanted "what", or why they wanted "it". What matters was what was written in the USA Constitution and how it was used.
@@rb032682 “slavers wanted it” dude you brought it up, you can’t shift the ground cause it turns out you were historically wrong.
10:20 Nevada is also a swing state, hence why Las Vegas gets so much attention during elections
Did you do an absentee ballot in 2016?
@@iammrbeat I was in California for 2016. But I did do absentee for NV this year, online surprisingly enough
@@CynicalHistorian yeah Nevada and Montana were willing to pay at anyone who would call them swing States
There are currently 13 swing States. And with the last two elections you ac argue that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Texas, could be on there. I think you can have an easier time arguing that consistent states like Califonia who does get ignored is due to the problems with the states political parties. The residents may vote one color because one state party got too much control of the state legislator and made it vote one color.
Califonia making another good example they want to move up their primary thinking candidates will care about them more. The reality is it doesn't matter when you vote if you allways vote blue both the blue and red people will ignore you.
They also like the campaign funds from the big casino owners.
Thank you for showing the episode of Adam Ruins Everything. I've referenced his show many times. I completely agree with abolishing the Electoral College. Great content.
Isn’t that the guy who somehow made Joe Rogan look educated when he went on his show
@@jebalitabb8228 I just watched that and jesus Adam had no idea how to react
Holy moly. Mr. Beat is a fellow Kansan. I’ve watched a ton of the vids and never knew. That’s pretty cool
Broke: We live in a society
Woke: We live in a republic
We litterally live in a democratic republic. USA
@@iamgoo Wrong! We live in a constitutional republic. It was actually designed to prevent democracy, and for very good reasons.
@@cheapbastard990 wrong! We live in a constitutional republic and a Representative democracy.
@@johnhuys3434 That is simply false! Of all the branched of government only one of thet two houses in the legislative is even representative. The senate is not, and wasn't even elected until the 17th amendment. his is not and never was a democracy. It was designed to prevent democracy and other forms of dictatorship.
@@cheapbastard990 A republic in which the representatives are chosen democratically. Definitely a democratic republic but more emphasis on the republic part
But wait MrBeat, without the electoral college, we wouldn’t have had our lord and savior Rutherford B. Hayes as our 19th President.
HAIL LORD RUTHERFORD.
Or Abraham Lincoln.
@@woodchuck003 Oh
That wasn't all the EC's fault.
@@KnuxMaster368 if the Electoral College is wrong than the Electoral College is wrong. You can't pick and choose you have to be consistent. That is not how logic works.
"Why should people living in big cities choose the president for people living in rural areas!? That's why we need to electoral college!"
Why should people in rural areas get to pick the president for people living in cities? They shouldn't! Let the person who gets the most votes from the most voters become the president.
Our current systems enable terrible people to hold power. Not just the electoral college, but paywalls existing as barriers to political candidacy. It costs $5k to run for president or for congress. Who's got that much money to throw at a job they might not get, and skip working for the better part of a year to promote themselves as a candidate? The US has 300M people. I guarantee you that George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden are the best and brightest (certainly not the most ethical) our country has to offer.
Keep going hard Mr. Beat. Just came across your channel, you got some good content 🔥
Puppet: We live in a Republic
Mr. Beat: We live in a Democracy
Me: We live in a society
We live in a period
We live on a planet
@@lb5299 We all live in the Yellow Submarine!
Nah recording to this supposed history teacher we live in a democracy but if you actually read the Constitution it never say democracy
@@ryanchristopher8848 "We live in a society"
- Joker
Democracy is the "how" and the Republic is the "what." We exercise our right to elect our representatives via voting, which is the how. The government structure is the "what."
@SkyCop Wife the "i can't differentiate the difference between government types and governing systems so i come up with a Benjamin Franklin quote which only debunks direct democracy" argument,my favorite
The how is really far more important.
FireFyfe they are both equal cause the system would be very different otherwise
I am better than everyone else. So my vote should count as 20,000 votes
Agreed
I’m for the EC, but I’m going to watch with an open mind, because I respect Mr Beet.
You changed my mind, I’m now for REFORMING the EC.
What a roller coaster. Good on ya, homie.
YAAAS let's compromise! Reforming it FTW @@thomasdonovan3580
@@iammrbeat if we start under the assumption that the plan is not to abolish the electoral college, what do you believe is our best bet to make it more fair? I do believe that the founders were right about direct election of President being a bad idea. A prime example is the cult of personality built around Donald Trump.
Many state legislatures attempted to emulate the house and senate formula used by the federal government. I am not sure how it was structured but the Supreme court struck it down and required one man-one vote representation in both house chambers in the individual states.
One solution would be to not count the senator's 100 votes. Reduce each state's electoral vote by 2 votes.
Flame War in the comments. You have been warned.
Here’s a like and comment to boost this in the comments bc this is right under the flame war
Thanks for the warning
Before I got a warning I already became a veteran
When you rail against the electoral college you are approaching it from the idea that only people have a stake in who is president. This is false because the individual state also has a stake. There is a reason that in the US we have "states" and other nations like Canada and Australia have "territories". Our states are meant to be "mini-nations". That is really how we are a republic not the false idea of voting for congress people who then represent us that you present. We vote and the state represents our votes through electors. That is how we are a republic. The idea of voting as a direct democracy is very dangerous and these dangers are laid out in both Plato's Republic ("Democracy passes into despotism.") and The Federalist Papers (“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
), I recommend you reading both of them before advocating for this system. There can be tweaks made to the current system, such as not allowing faithless electors so that the people are better represented in the republic.
The constitution is very complicated and is designed so it would take about 6 years to actually achieve a drastic change in the country. This is a built in safety catch to stop a fringe flash in the pan movement from taking control. Keep in mind that the Weimarer Republik was a direct democracy and was so easily taken over by a fringe flash in the pan movement. This is because it did not have a constitution with built in safety catches like the electoral college.
Also, you are very disingenuous in this video when you say that only 30% of people support the electoral college so 70% oppose it. I expect much more from you since you once said that the political compass test isn't accurate because it does not include and "unsure/undecided" option in the questions. Just because 30% of people support something does not mean 70% oppose it, there is always "unsure/undecided" people.
Great comment! It makes more since to understand the purpose of the electoral college when you look at the states as “mini-nations,” as implied by the name The UNITED STATES. 🇺🇸
Oh, so states are a bad idea. Got it.
That might have been the case 100 years ago, but today we are more unified in terms of infrastructure, economy, etc. than ever before. Also, your facts are incorrect: Canada and Australia are also federal states. Actually, I think the Canadian example is a good model: each province has equal representation in the Canadian Senate, but as a result, the Senate only has the power to review and veto legislation, and does not control appointments as in the U.S. This makes sense because it does not represent the people of Canada.
❤
@@adithyavraajkumar5923 My facts are not wrong in terms of our constitution vs. the constitutions of these other nations. The 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights is the big difference. The 10th amendment is the biggest example of what sets our states apart from territories in other nations.
Right now I've been hearing a lot of people demanding less federal government intervention. Many on the left are saying that the federal government shouldn't tell Gavin Newsom that he can't set regulations on combustion engine and that the federal government shouldn't use federal officers to make arrests in Portland. Many on the right are hoping for an end to RVW and that the decision go back to the state. Everybody wants state rights, but that has to include state sovereignty and each state playing on some kind of fair footing in the federal government. The way to achieve this is through the senate and the electoral collage.
Also, I noticed that you didn't refute anything I said about the dangers of a direct democracy. Did you read my entire statement or just the first few sentences before replying? I live in the second most populated state in the US. The population of my state is the fastest growing. In a perfect world my state would only benefit from direct democracy because we could then use that political power to take resources from other states. I did not vote for Bush or Trump, but I've read enough history to know what would happen if the safety catches in the constitution were removed.
Thank you for your informational video. Loved it.
5 reasons we should abolish the electoral college: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 & mostly 2016!
There was a President in 1992 who won the vote with only 43% of the vote and I think he won a minority of the vote again in 1996
@@Yallquietendown Bill Clinton won with a plurality in a 3-way race between himself, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.
The idea behind the electoral college, and why it is still good in practice today, is that America is not one homogeneous people. We are different groups of people living in vastly different places potentially thousands of miles apart from one another. What is good and valuable for the people of Nevada may not be in the best interest for the people of Maine. What's good for the people of New York may not be good for the people of Idaho. Its not about making small states more powerful, its about ensuring a small states ability to protect their liberty from larger states who could dominate them given the differences in populations. Perfect example of this is the minimum wage argument. $15 an hour in Wyoming is an different salary that $15 an hour in NYC. Why force business in Wyoming to pay that when cost of living is so much lower. Let Wyoming decide what's good for Wyoming and New York what's good for New York, not let New York decide what's good for Wyoming.
We're taking about the president of the nation, not local wages. To your point, how is having two or three states deciding an election thanks to the EC a better scenario than every vote in each state counting equally?
That's what congress is for though. And our state legislatures.
@@tophers3756 , the president is there to serve the states as that is the role of the federal government. That is why states decide elections and not people.
Matthew Stone yeah he certainly likes to gloss over many things that do not support his arguments doesn’t he?
Glad you brought up ‘states rights’ which he didn’t.
He’s also assuming 100% voters voting & ignoring all the actual illegal/non-citizens that voted.
He reminds me of a statistics class I took in college that very handily pointed out how people use them (statistics) to prove their point even when the actual facts prove otherwise.
Thank you.
@@tnwhitley except Matthew stones argument is garbage. The electoral college does not make things equal. And we would not be run by California for example if it were gone unless you can cite a statistic that shows California even remotely votes 100% democratic? States rights come on to play with who we send to Congress. And the equalizer to keep big states from ruling us is a place called the SENATE. did none of you go to grade school?
We should reform the electoral college to make an odd number of votes. WHY even have the POSSIBILITY of ties broken by undemocratic means???
@Tomas Flores I don't see democracy in the minority choosing the president
@@owenf2299 it’s not necessarily the minority. Just protecting the rights of the minority so you don’t just campaign in New York and California
@@dylanwhitt7352 so instead swing states should be the only states that matter and candidates campaign in?
Take one electoral vote from DC, which makes 537. Problem solved no more ties.
exactly, I'm a strong defender of the electoral college but I believe in the instance of a tie, the winner should be decided by who won the popular vote
My biggest issue with the Electoral College is faithless electors. I believe that each state should outlaw faithless electors and if any elector attempts to vote for another candidate that they didn’t pledge to vote for, they should immediately be fired and replaced by another elector and that should apply for all 50 states.
Absolutely.
I agree with you, but why is it that your biggest issue with it?
Even if the issue of faithless electors was resolved as you suggested, that's not the only issue with the electoral college. The electoral college would still give more power to less populated states than more populated states, making a rural persons vote worth more than the urban vote. Whatever happened to one person one vote?
@@jetdooley7609 >> Yeah, but the electoral college is not nearly as big a problem (feature?) as ballot harvesting, currently. It destroys the chain of custody and therefore the secret ballot and further enables undue influence on voters. Fix that first.
Actually, the faithless elector issue should direct us to the primary issue with the Electoral College which is the winner take all. The fact that all candidate needs to do to win every single electoral vote in a state is Win by the plurality is ridiculous!
The issue you mentioned, speaks to the DraStic need for an increase to the number of seats in the House, which has not been updated in over 100 years, so that the ratio of votes to electoral College vote are much closer to equal comparing state to state.
Sir you represent knowledge very well, thank you.
I think the electoral college should be split proportionally, so for example if you win 40% of the popular vote in California, you win 40% of the state's electoral votes (22 out of 55).
Name Last Name First if this was the case for 2016 what would the tally be for each person and who would have won
If you are going to make it split like that you might as well just use popular vote instead
Fire Skorpion yes if there is only 2 candidates it’s a lot of effort!
All the odd numbered electoral votes would go to the state winner
There is a lot of 3,3,3,7,3,7,ect
Then no one will win - it sounds like a good idea until it create more uncertainty.
Free man but it is a function that must be done and the person who made the videos has valid points.
However a simply pop vote is an obvious bias towards heavily populated areas. City areas all ready get a much greater division of accumulated spending, correctly so I believe. This is fair as it’s these citizens who contribute more but city’s can only exist because of rural areas. By the demographic they need to be low population high production necessities creators. It can never be even close to fair if these lesser population ares don’t have their issues addressed. There are places where main roads aren’t even paved and others were they are building high speed rail to cut down peoples travel time! This system needs to be bias to them in order to fair.
The problem is people who have a greater number who pay tax seem to pay a larger sum therefore it’s logical more should be done for them. This validates a majority rule population vote. BUT.
By that same logic the rich regardless of population contribute more money to this system so fair, should be that the rich get their issues fixed and the less put in the less u get. The whole point of the government tax system is to not do that but help the have nots improve. The electorate college seems to be a rural urban issue that is being addressed as a state to state one, I don’t know a solution on how to balance this issue but it’s going to need one!
12:03 ranked choice voting and a democratic weighting of votes will never be a thing, for a glaringly obvious reason:
b/c keeping things as they are ensures, that no third party candidate, ever, will have a chance to sneak by the big 2.
So, whenever you see the candidate with less votes winning, and feel puzzled as to why nothing ever changes about this rotten system (and why there isn't even a major outcry of the losing party), it's because the big two fear actual competition. As long as things stay the way they are, they can be as corrupt as ever, and noone enjoying the same benefits will rock the boat.
Any change would have to get the clear support of atleast one of the big parties, and neither has any real interest in that. You live in a two-party oligarchy, governed by big, rich interest groups using both parties as well paid puppets/mouthpieces/distractions.
As a German I gotta say, we have similar issues with our system, but not the same:
- we have a 5%hurdle for new parties to overcome to get into the bundestag, which mostly ensures that people don't vote for new parties for fear of "wasting" their vote (which is irrational, btw.), and can mean up to 3m out of over 60m people eligible to vote can, in any single(!) case, be nullified in their voices; in 2013 two parties (for 4.8 and 4.7% respectively) missed out that narrowly, for aproximately 4.2m in actual votes being nill; an additional 6.3% fell onto even smaller parties.
(Fun fact: when Putin introduced a 7%-hurdle for the Duma(?), german newspapers were up in arms, that it proved him to be an enemy of democracy, yet it's common wisdom being taught in schools and repeated in public ad nauseam, that our 5%-hurdle was a major pillar of our own democracy... the quagmire of political debate is dominated by liars, ideologues and idiots(*) wherever you look)
- then there's the problem with our president (german: Präsident)... the people cannot even vote who becomes that, AND his powers are mostly neutered, as the president (then publically elected and very powerful) plaid an infamous role (namely Paul von Hindenburg) in the destruction of the Weimarer Republik. So to save the people from hurting demogracy again by giving their vote to the wrong people, the fathers of our Grundgesetz were wise enough to just not give us too much democracy in the first place, as they sure know best. For we are but children who don't know whats best for us! Ah! That fatherly wisdom! Where would we be w/o it...
*) or by those wo represent the holy trinity of these blights, like Steven C., whom you mentioned in your video... why did you feel like giving that loudmouthed hack a voice?
A viable third party COULD become a reality, but it'd take a grassroots effort. People in the individual states would have to demand it. It won't happen for many, many more years, if ever.
I think it makes campaigning more interesting tbh. Going into it idk who will win whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing
holy crap i've never heard or thought about rank-based voting, but that sounds amazing. I love that idea.
We almost had it here in Massachusetts back in 2020 but it was shy about 400k votes. I spoke to several people afterwards who voted no just cause they didn't understand it but would've voted yes if they did
“Ranked choice voting would solve this problem” yep! Agreed
He actually goes over different alternative ways to vote in one of his other videos. Run off (ranked choice), approval voting, and score voting.
Ranked choice voting is dogshit.
@@imejeznamenje5422 Don’t you know? If we implement ranked choice, a million bajillion parties will suddenly spring up overnight and they will all be competitive!
@@donaldwobamajr6550 oooo i like choice
@@donaldwobamajr6550 if only every country tried it
I've always found the language of "a republic not a democracy" bizarre. It's like saying Britain isn't an island, it's a union of 3 nations. The two things are not exclusive.
@Daekj32 - Why are you stupidly repeating bullshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? Are you a citizen of the USA?
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Daek - Are you a citizen of the USA?
I'm pretty sure Britain is an island containing the nations of Scotland, England, and Wales which, along with Northern Ireland, form the United Kingdom. Just wanted to say in case someone was curious.
a republic is a representative democracy so it technically is a kind of democracy so people who say that just weird me out
Britain consist of more than one island, that's why it is called the British isles. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales is more than 3.
@@hydrolito Britain is the main island (England, Scotland Wales). The British Isles is the whole island group including Ireland. Hence "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland".
It makes sense that an elector in a small state is more powerful than one in a large state because voting is not a right of the people, but of the states. This is why the territories are US citizens but cannot vote in the presidential election. D.C. should not have the right to vote because they are not a state.
As some who is from Iowa, I am more than happy for the fools in my state to have a neutered impact if we go to a full popular vote system.
You could have shown the rest of that Crowder clip to not misrepresent what Crowder said. He explains what the US is
Democracy is included
The electoral college is bad when conservatives win
No but just letting the puppet follow up the clip was a better idea, because it's not like he explained what a constitutional representative Republic and why the founding fathers opted for that ins
instead of a democracy so they could better protect the minorities rights from being taken by a tyrannical majority or anything
@@nathanmeagher7869 I know that was the point of my comment
You're under the mistaken impression that the person in this video is trying to be honest.
The Mr. Beat in Ohio: “Why the electoral college is AWESOME!”
@Jason - You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war.
The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that whiney, old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "We don't want to be ruled by the coasts!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
@@rb032682 Slavers were not terrorists. The North already had to much power and were hurting the south so obviously they want something to even it out more. It applies the same today where the big people try to control the little people and that's not right. What evidence do you have to call slavers terrorists? Black things weren't people so they cant be terrorized.
@@mattfishfrog5797 - terrorism: the use of violence, or the threat of violence, as a means of coercion.
@@rb032682 the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” here's the actual definition by law and slavery was lawful therefor it was not terrorism
@@mattfishfrog5797 Just because slavery was legal back then and black people weren't considered people doesn't mean that it isn't terrorism.
The two-party duopoly needs to die
Alaska has ranked choice voting. It's wonderful - every state should use it. It helps ensure that elected candidates actually have a majority support.
Crowder meant “America has never been a [direct] democracy”, that is pretty clear
Exactly
Well we are a republic with a representative democracy system so yes we are a democracy.
People like to use that old csa/kkk terrorist phrase as if that dismisses any argument against the Electoral College.
BUT, nobody has ever explained how the "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers) determines what form of government is used in the USA.
Crowder is full of shit.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
@@rb032682 that was one big mess. maybe just try restructuring your argument. or dropping it completely. you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
And neither does the UK have " direct election ", either. America was British for its first 180 years.
I would advocate for reforming the Electoral College, at least to eliminate the winner-take-all rule as an option.
But the idea is about how to effectively ensure that whoever is chosen as President is independent of whoever is elected to Congress. (Even if such proposals might be idealistic and quixotic in the long run and rely on there being no political parties.)
Me too.
And I do love your videos, btw. I would also say that whatever replacement method should take into due account how to deal with what happened in 1872. #riphoracegreeley
Well that means a lot. And let us make #riphoracegreeley trending.
Andrew Olson See, that’s the thing. Every single time a candidate won despite losing the popular vote, it’s been a Republican.
I used to be a staunch defender of the electoral college because I had the mentality "but the founders said this". Yea well things can change as my mind did. My vote for most of my life essentially did not matter. It only matters if you live in a swing state.
I think we should get rid of it and implement rank choice voting.
That's right, I can't imagine how a Democrat in Wyoming or a Republican in Rhode Island will feel.