The real problem's the two party system that the founding fathers always warned about. Just makes things aggressively tribal.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

EC guarantees there will be only 2 parties. Once interests are coordinated enough to produce a viable candidate, the logical conclusion is that there's only room in the race for one more viable candidate.

@twells138

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite The EC only selects the President. Explain how the EC guarantees Congress and local offices are affected. Its first past the post elections and single representative districts that set a two party system I would argue.

@eliaszr3928

3 жыл бұрын

the real problem is that the federal government exists. Worse, such a government is elected by the masses devoid of discernment and thirsty for control over the lives of others, that is what democracy really is about.

@chrispychip6569

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite the ec is 51 first past the post elections so it does tend to a two party system

@skol8919

3 жыл бұрын

what creates a two party system is the majority voting system. If i lived in a blue or red state and wanted to vote for a third party (or the losing party) my vote will fall under the table, so it doesnt make much sense to vote for a third or fourth party even if they exist. If you have a system in which the EC would be determined by a proportional voting system a third or fourth party could get seats in the EC too.they probably wouldn't get the presidency, but they could make their votes for a candidate depending on political participation in government or political issues, like a higher or lower minimum wage, tougher or looser gun laws or whatever. This would force the parties and politicans to compromise and agree on one programm, while also giving more weight to votes that would otherwise fall by the wayside. single-issue voters would be able to vote for a third party that supports their certain issue and might be less disappointed by the two major parties that currently have to cover the entire left or right political spectrum. Instead of blocking each other, parties would be forced to find a common ground and form coalitions and make compromises that include different political currents. Right now those have all to be in either one of the two parties and so people like trump and romney or biden and bernie have to be in the same party. in my view a proportional voting system in which the winner does not take all would allow more parties and a better representation of different political currents. besides that one could just elect the president by the popular vote. the states wouldnt lose their own jurisdiction and still play the same important role as first gouvernments for the people of their states.

"You're going to be debating against Richard Epstein." I concede.

@JaviEngineer

3 жыл бұрын

The man is a fucking walking library

@maxhess3151

3 жыл бұрын

@@JaviEngineer So is Larry.

@marklewis8067

3 жыл бұрын

agreed checkmate

@justicar5

2 жыл бұрын

Why he just argued for enforcement of minority tyranny,. corporate dictatorship and oligarchy.

Chances are, if you're on reason, you're already used to your vote not mattering.

Abolish the overpowered nature of the office of President (not the office itself.) The office would not be the envy of the culture war if it’s position hadn’t evolved over subsequent generations to be the closest thing our nation has to a King’s Throne.

@reider_mcfeely

3 жыл бұрын

Well otherwise it's tyranny of the minority. That's arguable worse.

@ikenosis8160

3 жыл бұрын

@@reider_mcfeely I don’t see that. Having all auspices divulge into one, as the office has inappropriately and unconstitutionally made manifest in recent decades has engendered the current power struggle that plagues our nation. I listened to the honorary Bernard Sanders on the Joe Rogan Experience candidly postulate his lengthy list of Executive orders that he would sign upon his fantasy of being elected to the office of President. That’s Kingship, plain and simple, not a careful consideration of the nuance of Constitutional prudence as the authors of our system and the office itself intended. The further we get from their original vision, the more the failures and cracks in our system are made evident and thereby made ample game for the current array of pranksters and clowns masquerading as politicians. Reducing the power of the single Federal office of President would make State politics and legislation more viable and authoritative power itself would be decentralized.

@Graeme_Lastname

3 жыл бұрын

Why not just use a system that works. People who actually know what they are doing etc. The current system is just a popularity contest.

@ikenosis8160

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graeme_Lastname Graeme, that’s coming from a Platonic and idealist place so I respect you and it on those grounds, but practically, government is about law and is therefore made up of lawyers. Finding a competent, honest, fair-hearted lawyer is a challenge indeed. Our system is supposed to value the intrinsic worth of a citizen as an individual but elevating one citizen to a position of extraordinary power and privilege (the modern Presidency) necessarily obviates the basis of civil rights. I assert returning to an older, more Federalist system of diversified power and thereby more secure rights for the individual.

@markbrophy5454

3 жыл бұрын

The Presidency should be a plural office, a committee, as it is in Switzerland. Hardly anyone in Switzerland even knows who their President is so he rides the trains with everyone else, with no bodyguard, because nobody recognizes him. Only important people like Roger Federer are recognized.

Federalism isn't about citizenship, its about states. The federal government is a collection of states, not a collection of people. And we are a Republic that means laws matter more than majority rule.

@sanjj_1

3 жыл бұрын

states power has to do with transferring federal power to state power. It has nothing to do with federal public service positions, like the presidency.

@4mp3d

3 жыл бұрын

​@@sanjj_1 States have all the power, and they give it up to the federal government. Not the other way around. The Federal government has no power with out the states allowing it to have it, I mean they created it. It is suppose to be subservient to the states not be the ruler of the states.

@sanjj_1

3 жыл бұрын

@@4mp3d i meant it more as a representation of the transfer from traditional state structures to the federal structure that we have

@AmmonNelson

3 жыл бұрын

I don't disagree, but I like the solution of fractionally and proportionally allocating electoral votes. I despise the winner takes all. If it were fractionally and proportionally allocated, third party candidates would also be represented.

@4mp3d

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmmonNelson I think if the states want to do fractional, they should, if they don't we shouldn't try to make them through a federal mandate.

"The senate can't be touched by amendment?" Uh, that's exactly what happened. This second guy is a typical academic.

@soimless

3 жыл бұрын

The point he was making is that Article 5 explicitly says that you can't change the congress can't change proportion of Senators unless the states agrees to it (spoiler: they aren't) . From Article 5 "...provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

As an Australian I may not have all the context and background I need, but isn’t the debate missing the point that the election is about the states electing a president (United States of America) rather than citizens electing a president? Ie the citizen participation is limited to the effect on the state result?

@st89

3 жыл бұрын

You're absolutely right - it's the states that elect the president, not the people. That's the basis of our federal government and how it was created to be utilized. This is like buying a lawn mower and using it as a bush trimmer and complaining it's not working well. If you don't understand the purpose of the tool and use it inappropriately, your always going to complain that it's not working.

@karozans

3 жыл бұрын

Yep! You are right. In the USA, the Democrats and the Republicans have forgotten what the role of the Federal government is supposed to be. Basically the federal government was not supposed to have any interaction with the citizen at all. The federal government is supposed to have so little power over everyday life, it doesn't really matter which president gets elected. But in 2020, America is back to electing a King to rule over them with absolute power.

@jasonjayalap

3 жыл бұрын

Almost everyone misses that point. The weird stuff about electors is essentially vestigial. The real effect is that one winner takes all the state's vote in a plurality ("first past the post") system. You can change "who" votes (from individuals, to districts, to states) and how they vote (plurality vs ranked vs approval vs score). I think the plurality voting system has doomed USA politics and is the real problem by far.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

The founders imagined a field of regionally important candidates losing to one candidate that had the most convincing national platform. When that didn't happen, they imagined the electoral college vote would be split, no one would get a majority, and the vote would go to the house of representatives (which happened twice early on.) They did not imagine the electoral college being the deciding factor in a permanent 2 party battle.

@woodchuck003

3 жыл бұрын

That is actually the key disagreement the two sides have in this debate although it is not directly stated and Lessig seems to have geared his presentation to people who can't figure it out and the fact that an outsider can correctly point it out speaks to how certain elements in the US have been in favor of dumbing down the populus for years.

Soho debate for school vouchers next!

the right debate would be: WHEN will we abolish FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

@marklewis8067

3 жыл бұрын

or at least return it to Constitutional size and scope

@chrispychip6569

3 жыл бұрын

Yes let’s get back to the gilded age

I find it stupid that when I vote as an individual, it can be overridden by an institution. Why bother voting? Abolish the Electoral College!

There is only one reason that I still support the electoral college: Given our current (and probably permanent) system of increasing federal power and influence, giving the lion's share of the power to rural communities helps ensure that oppressive, tone-deaf policies aren't implemented on a federal level that are more applicable to cities than smaller settlements. The mountains of laws applicable to cities would be downright destructive to rural communities, and those on the left want to implement many of these policies on a national level. Gun control and pandemic response are two good examples which are also hot button, but there are tons of things little that I could never imagine but can only hope are not federalized. Or the short version, the rural view on how the federal government should be run would be far less damaging to cities than the city view would be to rural communities. At the end of the day, local regulations can fill the vacuum where needed.

@sarysa

3 жыл бұрын

I'd like to add that I'm under no illusion that the framers thought the electoral college would have the benefits it does now. No way they'd foresee the impact of industrialization and urbanization. If checks were amended to the constitution that curbed the growth of government so that it could not oppress rural communities, I would flip like a switch in favor of abolishing it.

@VincentFischer

3 жыл бұрын

this comment deserves more likes!

@bryceyboiii6549

3 жыл бұрын

But the Winner Take All system doesn't benefit rural states: many of the "swing states" aren't rural at all. I can say as a republican California that it sucks knowing my vote means literally nothing. Even though norcal always votes red. I don't see why we don't just go Popular Vote for president, but if there's some reason we can't, at least divide by counties or congressional districts instead of state.

I've always been for rank based voting with electoral college! Would be an improvement. Proportional representation per state should probably be decided by the state itself like it is now.

@cadenbigler

3 жыл бұрын

But then it would never happen, it's not really up to the states because no party would willingly give up power

@Boristien405

3 жыл бұрын

@@cadenbigler Well, Nebraska and Maine already do it in some fashion. It's very obviously possible and realistic.

@ethanhandel1001

3 жыл бұрын

This is one area I partially agree with you on. I think proportionality in the EC should be nationwide. I think a lot of the problem is that candidates don't even talk to the people in "red" or "blue" states because the outcome is predetermined and whether you win by 5 votes or 5 million it's the same thing. I do agree Ranked Choice voting would also be an improvement. Both of these steps would make elections more legitimate, though not entirely. As Michael Malice said last night, "If voting could make a difference, it would be illegal"

@RandomChristianMusings

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethanhandel1001 You just said a mouthful. As FDR said, Presidents are SElected, not Elected.

@ethanhandel1001

3 жыл бұрын

@@RandomChristianMusings Yep. And the dangerous ones are probably shown the CIA's JFK tape.

The principle for weighing votes for citizens of different states differently is federalism and division of power. Lessig views equal representation on the federal level as the end-all-be-all. Meeting the needs of the people is a job for local, and to a lesser extent, state governments. The incentive for the federal government to cater to the whims of the general population needs to be kept to a minimum in order to constrain it's already considerable overreach. He argues that parties should cater to different populations if they can't win a nation-wide majority vote. But the same can be said of the current situation. If Democrats are under-performing in the current political system, maybe they need to adjust their messaging.

@afhostie

3 жыл бұрын

That seems to be what Epstein was saying in the beginning, the system of election for the president was mostly for representation of the states because it's a republic. If they had wanted a democracy then they would've made it one.

@bwitt1984

Жыл бұрын

Everyone understands that equal representation is preferable. If the EC model of weighing votes based on population density resulted in a better system, cities/states would implement it and people who live on less populated streets would have their votes count for more in a mayoral election. And why is population density the only metric for weighing votes of a minority? My guess is that you would oppose weighing votes based on wealth or ethnicity. The Presidency is a national office, and every vote within that constituency ought to count equally. Even Madison acknowledged that people directly electing the President was the best possible system, but they compromised with the EC. Not in small part because slaves were counted towards House representation (and therefore EC votes), but could not actually vote, in addition to the current state of the nation in 1787. One major problem of the EC is that it skews the facts on the ground. People always say "Oh California and New York will just run everything!" California has the most GOP voters of any state (despite GOP votes in California essentially being meaningless). The two states with the most Democratic voters outside of California are Florida and Texas, both "red" states. The EC has no moral justification, only serves to divide us and is not functioning in any way how the Founders envisioned. It definitely ought to be abolished.

@AChungusAmongUs

Жыл бұрын

@@bwitt1984 Equal representation is important. Especially in local government and the House, the more powerful branch of the federal legislature. That doesn't mean popular representation should be the sole method for appointing all officials at every level. The elector system puts the final say in the hands of representatives (electors) who would theoretically be more informed than the average voter and would be able to respond to major political and legal changes after the voting takes place, if they're willing to risk the consequences. No one has claimed that a better alternative to the popular vote couldn't be contrived, but given the terrible examples you came up with, it's clearly not that easy. The president is responsible for balancing the interests of the states and of the people as a whole, therefore it makes sense that he be elected using a system that is a mix of popular vote and state representation. It's false to claim that he solely represents the interests of the masses. Or more accurately, given what you're actually promoting, the bare majority who voted for him. Giving all power to appoint all elected officials to the popular majority would be one of the most foolish and divisive things we could possibly do. I can't think of a better way to rachet up political hostility in this country than by moving closer to pure majoritarian rule. The passions of the majority are a dangerous threat that need to be tempered by strong checks and balances and an empowered minority. In spite of the checks and balances that were built into the system, executive overreach is proving to be one of the greatest threats to our system of government. Like the decline of the Roman republic, executive lack of respect for the law in favor of expediency and ambition is the first step in a broader disregard for the law, which could in turn be used as an excuse for tyranny. We're only a united nation as long as we collectively agree to abide by our laws. If the minority has no voice and the majority has no empowered opposition to check them, our republic is doomed to repeat the world's historical cycle of oppression and violence. All of this is why I believe that not only should the Electoral College remain, we should go back to appointing US Senators by vote of the state legislatures and most, if not all federal legislation should require a 60% majority to pass. Federal social programs should be shifted to the state and local governments or privatized. This should be done in order to lessen the power of the federal government over the individual and shift the popular focus from the national to state and local levels.

@bwitt1984

Жыл бұрын

@@AChungusAmongUsI’m glad we agree that equal representation is important. But then you say “That doesn't mean popular representation should be the sole method for appointing all officials at every level.” Which is weird, because it already is the method of electing all officials at every level, except for the President. You’re correct about the original purpose of Electors, however that isn’t how they function today. Originally there were no national candidates for Presidents; Electors were on the ballots, not Presidential candidates (in the state which held a general election vote). The Presidents were actually chosen through backroom deals with the Electors from various states, same as Senators originally. Backroom deals inherently lead to corruption, which is the reason Senators were changed to being elected directly by the People, and its also the reason most states moved, rather quickly, to holding statewide general elections for President, with South Carolina never holding a general election for the office of President until after the Civil War. Currently, Electors function as a rubber stamp for Parties, which is exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended. I think you also are mistaken about how the Founders viewed the popular vote. Most knew a national popular vote WAS a better system compared to the Elector College at the time. Madison said, repeatedly, during the Constitutional Convention “The people at large was in [Madison’s] opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem.” And “The remaining mode was an election by the people or rather by the qualified part of them, at large: With all its imperfections [Madison] liked this best.” John Dickinson “had long leaned towards an election by the people which he regarded as the best & purest source.” James Wilson (who ended up proposing the Elector system) initially pushed for direct election, citing the success of the model for choosing the chief executive in New York and Massachusetts as his evidence for the idea. Mason favored the idea, but thought it was impractical, mostly because in 1787 it was difficult logistically to campaign across the entire country. They also knew it would be difficult to sell the idea to southern Slave states, who had a large presence in the House, but would have fewer votes for President, since slaves could not vote. The Electoral College was an imperfect system intended to accommodate the political situations at the time, political situations which are NOT present today. I think you’re mistaken about the constituency of the President. The President is explicitly meant to represent the interests of The People, not the interests of the States themselves. This is clear throughout the Federalist Papers and the records of the Constitutional Convention. The interests of the States themselves was meant to be addressed in the Senate, a need which is largely irrelevant since the 14th and 17th amendments, along with a change in the culture. The idea that the President specifically is “responsible for balancing the interests of the states and of the people as a whole” is found nowhere in the founding documents nor discussions. Gouverneur Morris at the Constitutional Convention even specifically said “It is necessary then that the Executive Magistrate should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes, agst. Legislative tyranny, against the Great & the wealthy who in the course of things will necessarily compose the Legislative body” and “The Executive therefore ought to be so constituted as to be the great protector of the Mass of the people.” Which, from more than 230 years ago, almost word-for-word refutes your claim that the is not intended to represent “the interests of the masses”. If we look at the checks in place against the Presidency, they are either from the People, or the Legislative. There is no method for Governors or State Legislatures to impeach or hold a President accountable (outside of the state legislature for ratifying/choosing the Electors, which quickly was passed directly to the people in most cases). The idea that the Electoral College was important to limit the majority, or a fear of “democracy” was not the consensus position of people in the Constitutional Convention at the time. Interestingly, one of the loudest voices against a National Popular Vote at the time was Elbridge Gerry, yes of “gerrymandering” fame. A National Popular vote does not remove the checks and balances in place from the Legislative nor Judicial branch, nor does it remove the check in place from the people themselves, in the form of re-election. I also strongly disagree with the idea that the Electoral College makes things less divisive. How often do people look at the politics across the country and view the states as “Red States” or “Blue States”. This is an emergent property of the EC and current news. Such a simplistic demarcation promotes and provides an easy way to foist an “Us vs Them” mentality on to people. The Red/Blue distinction hides the fact that a “blue” state like California has more GOP voters than other states, even the 9 most “red states” combined. It hides the facts that the states with the second are third most Democratic voters are “red” states, Florida and Texas, respectively, both more than “blue” New York. One thing that’s interesting is that when the Founders talked about the “passions of the majority” it was in the context of political parties. They address the effects when a political party is in the majority, and when a political party is in the minority. They never address when there are parties in both the majority and the minority. Nor do they address the dangers from a situation where the Minority actually gains levers of the power in the government, which is a common scenario now. Now, as Madison acknowledged back in 1823, the Electoral College has become a weapon wielded by political parties, instead of a bulwark against them. If we look at WHY the Founders set up the systems they set up, instead of just saying “these are the systems they set up and those are good”, it’s very clear that the current system is not what they wanted. They were tasked with forging One Nation out of 13 sovereign states. They knew the only way the 13 colonies would survive is if they became one nation, not 13 autonomous States. It wouldn’t be done immediately, but their stated goal of the Constitution and its systems were meant to lead us to becoming One Nation. I think we have been there for a long time. And as such, clinging to systems meant to appease the idea that they were a collection of 13 sovereign States, instead of One Nation, only serves to protect and foster those divisions.

My mentor Maxine Water opined; "I think the erectoral college must be deleted and make all votes from NY City, LA, and Dee-Troit"

@samedifference5504

3 жыл бұрын

So your mentor wanted to make the places with the most people count the most when voting? That is kind of insane.

@RandomChristianMusings

3 жыл бұрын

Maxine Waters was your mentor?! If you're a pee-on like the rest of us, how is it you're NOT in prison? That piece of garbage may escape Justice in this world, but not in the next. You can't punk The Most High G-D! If you've been anything like her, you can be forgiven. I know I was. There's nothing Jesus Christ can't do. I wish you peace

Everyone is talking like it is either the electoral college or the popular vote. We should be exploring alternatives because obviously both methods have major and unfixable faults.

@quintessenceSL

3 жыл бұрын

Demarchy.

@harrisonedwards9219

3 жыл бұрын

I think that the real problem is first past the post voting.

@frocco7125

3 жыл бұрын

@@harrisonedwards9219 I agree. The alternative systems like ranked choice are much better and way more representative.

The Electoral College is genius. Those who don’t like it or say to get rid of it, I’m willing to bet, don’t understand it or what it actually does. The Electoral College was put into place by our founders for times like NOW! You would literally have a couple of cities deciding elections if we didn’t have this in place. It’s there to give equal voice to smaller states & those that are less populated. Those that say that it should be abolished should study it, & look up EXACTLY what it does & what it was created for. When you understand it & understand our Constitutional Republic, you will realize how genius the Electoral College actually is.

@michaelwolf9569

3 жыл бұрын

@Ugly Boy You're begging the question by assuming this is based on mere geography, and it shows that you either don't know, don't understand, or don't care about the other side's actual arguments. Regional/local differences in language, accent, culture, lifestyle, any number of important preferences are at play here, not mere "geography." On the progressive side, the desire to legalize/decriminalize marijuana, for example, is a local or regional issue that states' autonomy has played a large role in, not mere "geography." These ideas matter and deserve equal representation in the presidential election. Further, historically the states were independent, self reliant entities first, and only then got together to form the union for their mutual benefit, so it makes no sense to relegate them to mere "geography," when they are historically and legally separate entities that are entitled to equal representation.

@michaelwolf9569

3 жыл бұрын

@Ugly Boy No hostility. But this is literally not an argument, merely an assertion. You say all those things don't matter. You don't even make an attempt to convince why. You start with the axiom that they don't matter, and shouldn't matter, and just proceed from there. This is not an argument. You also ignore the historical facts and logic that flows from them in the second half of my reply. OK with me, but this is not an argument and pointing it out isn't hostile.

@FriezaDBZKing69

3 жыл бұрын

@Ugly Boy Anything but equal? **laughs in West/East Coast leftists** Abolishing the E.C. would absolutely take away equality to smaller States because of places like Washington, New York, California, and Oregon. There's also the fact that leftist radicals wish to make Puerto Rico and D.C. States. That would continue to push for an authoritarian rule under the Democrats. Nope. We're good.

@bryceyboiii6549

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelwolf9569 yeah, I agree about state's rights. But that doesn't change that giving some people more power in deciding a national election is entirely undemocratic. Legalization of Marijuana shouldn't be (AND ISN'T) a federal decision. It's done by states individually. I just can't understand why people want the electoral college. Any help in understanding that would be appreciated

@bryceyboiii6549

3 жыл бұрын

@@FriezaDBZKing69 leftists as it is control tons of votes that they don't have, for exactly the reason you're not wanting to abolish it: Cities control the majority of the population in a lot of states, and therefore cast electoral votes not representing their population. And it isn't like we're abolishing the two senator rule here, which still gives small states the power to stop the rule of the majority. The only thing we're changing is that we will have a popular vote for the presidency, requiring that each citizen has an actually equal vote. A lot of America is rural, and therefore candidates with have to campaign and appeal to all people, not just "swing states"

The premise of the debate is faulty, in that it argues for change in only one direction. The real question should be, eliminate the electoral collage vs expand the electoral collage within the individual states. Basically Urban vs Rural. If State's electoral votes were awarded, based on the the voting of individual counties; every election, ever, would look drastically different.

@brian2090

3 жыл бұрын

The better argument is do congressional districts the way Maine and Nebraska do versus the other 48 states/DC

@peetfj

3 жыл бұрын

That's an excellent point.

@patrickphelan3676

3 жыл бұрын

@@brian2090 Exactly! I would like to see the entire Presidential election based on congressional district races & allocation of electors based on those results. The Left is the champion of "equality" after all ... or is that just something they like to say!

@jeromemccollom936

3 жыл бұрын

So screw over city voters and limit their voting power because you want right-wing politicians elected by rural areas. Why dont' you just come out and say it like that?

@jeromemccollom936

3 жыл бұрын

@@seatecastronomy7427 Then support a system that requires a super majority in Congress which would be a check on rural and urban voters

Ranked choice baby 😎

The election of 2016 was based on the rules in place in 2016. If the system was changed to be popular vote, Donald Trump would have spent time and money in California. In the current system, that is pointless. Trump campaigning in California would have influenced down ballot races, which is something Democrats would not have wanted. Be careful what you ask for

We are a nation of states, as such, each state is to have equal power. Maybe the real solution is to break up the states with the largest population.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

You could take the the 20 states Hilary won and break them up into 32 states. After all, they did have a greater population than the 30 states she lost. With the extra electoral power she would have won easily. I hope this illustrates why it's ridiculous to weigh votes differently state to state.

"Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you follow the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" -Christ

@samedifference5504

3 жыл бұрын

What does this mean, you absolute nutcase?

@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406

3 жыл бұрын

​@@samedifference5504 Are you unable to read the words and understand them? It's a rather simple set of sentences...

@samedifference5504

3 жыл бұрын

@@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406 Sorry i didn't know I was talking to someone so slow. I know that I have to be way more specific for people like you. What is the relevance of this quote to the topic?

@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406

3 жыл бұрын

@@samedifference5504 "Nutcase" and "slow". Due to your continued use of ad hominem, I've decided to put you on block. Pray to whatever it is you believe that our paths never cross. Good day.

@samedifference5504

3 жыл бұрын

@Pasquale Gelardi what

States for their governor elections should have an electoral college system that way big cities can't dominate the politics of the entire State.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

And the governor should live in a barn and the legislature should meet in woods only after the sun is down.

@Barskor1

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite As if that would be a bad thing.

@bdonovable

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite I really like these reforms 🤣

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

The entire federal government should be funded from the interest of a $100 endowment. I'll even set it up for them.

Lawrence Lessig's "arguments" is literally him just listing out features of the Electoral College and calling them "problems".

@destroytheboxes

3 жыл бұрын

Larry contradicts himself multiple times. He said the swing states don’t represent America, then says Pennsylvania includes all representations of America. The Governor can go everywhere because time exists to go everywhere! Terrible example. Presidents have to pick where to go. They always go where biggest return is. Like Richard said. Larry is just pondering in utopian fallacies just like liberals like to do. His ideas weren’t real solutions keeping with founders solutions. NPV would kill federal structure.

@destroytheboxes

3 жыл бұрын

And Richard just said this in wayyy to complex an answer for normal people. No wonder Richard “lost”. He speaks over peoples head. AND LARRY DIDNT ARGUE HIS OWN POINT. People hooked on to his proportional argument. Not the abolishment argument

@justicar5

2 жыл бұрын

Well yes, they are problems

@justicar5

2 жыл бұрын

@@destroytheboxes well gee let's not be a free democratic nation then, and carry on with this gerrymandered farce

@frenchmarty7446

2 жыл бұрын

@@justicar5 Do you care to actually defend that assertion?

I reject the premise of this argument. We are not a pure democracy.

@danielcobbins9050

3 жыл бұрын

We are not a democracy period. We are a constitutional republic.

@knigelobrien5871

3 жыл бұрын

@@danielcobbins9050 why are you opposed to popular vote

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

Weighing votes differently has literally nothing to do with Being a republic

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

@@knigelobrien5871 Putting shit up for a vote is bullshit.

@knigelobrien5871

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilwaukeeF40C so how should it be then

Lessig presents his argument in the format of a “Now This” video format. That makes me less impressed.

@francisluglio6611

3 жыл бұрын

I guess you're one of the "I'm voting for McCain because Palin is hot" voters

@bdfunke

3 жыл бұрын

@@francisluglio6611 is your juice box running low? Should I put on your Yo Gabba Gabba video?

@francisluglio6611

3 жыл бұрын

@@bdfunke Instead of countering what you just said, I'm going to weaponize this conversation. I've screenshotted it and I'm going to use it to show that these are the arguments that someone like you would make

@bdfunke

3 жыл бұрын

Shorter@@francisluglio6611: “I’m telling mom!”

u know what is the biggest weakness of vampires? the senate, cuz EVERYTHING DIES THERE!!!

Lessig is all over the place. first, he says swing states are too old and focused on fossil fuels. I live in Florida, it the electorate was purely made up of seniors the state would not be a swing state; the only reason Flordia is a swing state is due to the younger population that has been migrating to the state. Second Lessig says swing states are bad because they are too focused on fossil fuels and fracking, then Lessig claims Pennsylvania is perfectly representative of the country, a state in which oil and fracking are big topics. It seems Lessig wants to have it both ways; if discussing a certain industry is a con then you should not redefine that topic as a pro when you try to argue your new system. Also how many people agreed with Lessig but was turned off by his presentation style that had the assumption you were retired and needed large font and short statements to understand thing.? Lessig is also arguing for rights that don't exist and never explain why they should exist, one person, one vote is not in the Consitution. It is a fictionally right that people created to argue via red hearing instead of fact.

(Hour mark) its simply Larry, popular Democracy is a breeding ground for tyranny. The data is in its history. The majority is not always correct, its usual wrong and ends up killing itself

So if I were to make a few edits to the electoral college that could potentially make both parties happier, they would be: Switch to an odd amount of electors So you don’t have to worry about minority over-representation in tie-breaking in the house Switch to congressional districts like those other two states. In the current system this leads to the swing states that people dislike. And because of the winner take all system, you could win 22% of popular vote but still win the electoral. I hope we can see that too much minority party representation. Also, when you switch to congressional districts, the republicans in California and democrats in Texas begin to matter to both presidential candidates. Finally, I’d change the plurality voting system to a ranked voting system. For example, libertarians who vote republican would be able to vote for their libertarian candidate, while also making sure that their least favorite option doesn’t get a better chance of winning, when the voter doesn’t support one of the two biggest parties (I don’t know what libertarian voters second choice is ie: republican or democrat. I just needed a hypothetical)

@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290

3 жыл бұрын

A slightly better way, even better than congressional districts is to ensure all states appoint electors in proportion to the amount each candidate gets. If no candidate gets 270 (or whatever the majority is), eliminate the lowest candidates and give those votes to their second choice.

@daytoncoates4930

3 жыл бұрын

@@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290 that would be instant runoff voting, which, unless I’m mistaken , is synonymous with ranked voting

Last I checked, America was a Constitutional Republic with a system of checks and balances that engages in elements of democracy. Not a direct democracy where tyranny of the majority can run roughshod and make our own guaranteed rights mere cannon fodder that's available on the chopping block just because "the people" decide to reject it.

@SuperSlayer76

3 жыл бұрын

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

@FantaFruitBoi

3 жыл бұрын

@@SuperSlayer76 Well no, in fact it specifically points out that such a system of governance we are now under is by its mere current state a massive violation of the constitution itself and at the same time pushes to nullify itself in order to prevent an even speedier means for such corruption and authoritarianism. That being said 200 years later it be a miracle if the system wasn't fully corrupted, which sadly it isn't. Also what does this have to do with arguing against one of the main checks and balances methods instituted to preserve the republic?

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

Weighing votes differently has literally nothing to do with being a republic

@FantaFruitBoi

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite on the contrary, it has everything to do with a republic as it. It's not a matter of weighing the votes but rather ensuring that a fair and legal process is established and upheld against all the temptations and corruption that stood to take a hold of crisis to seize power at the expense of the unsuspecting public. To ignore and scrap it for the sake of simplicity is only to pave the way for more corruption and tyranny to take further on a society already comprised of many sheep.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

what the hell are you talking about

Candidates focusing on states, populations that are closely divided (especially if they also have moderate or independent voters), does have some big appeal of that the losers of an election would not be as disappointed as they would be if the winners did focus on exciting their extremes and dismissing moderates.

Funny Larry allowed an “equal protection” challenge might be used to get to proportional vote and that’s what Texas eventually used to challenge Biden’s election at the Supreme Court.

Nn% od Democrats and xx% of Republicans, and why aren't the opinions of the people who are neither R or D mentioned in this piece?

You don't need a hour and thirty minute video to answer "No". End of discussion.

@francisluglio6611

3 жыл бұрын

Congrats. You volunteered to learn nothing. You don't have to change your mind for a video to be worth it.

It’s the wrong question. The question is “why vote?” Until the vote is removed there are few ways to mitigate corruption. Read “A Market for Liberty”

Good discussion. Still not sure which side I'm on in this one (unusual). Not sure the average rabble selecting by who they saw on tv is a good system, but who is qualified? the electors?

@frocco7125

3 жыл бұрын

Personally I lean towards abolishing it. I feel like the arguments in favor of proportianal votes were the most decent, but that's just my opinion. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X6Cfk82PlJPLh5M.html

@kevinodom2918

3 жыл бұрын

Tiebreaker for me was that one system has been in place for near 250 yrs & we've done pretty damn well. Who knows if would be good or bad but there's zero doubt im my mind that things will definitely change in many ways. The consequences are not worth the risk.

Richard Epstein should be on the United States Supreme Court. Huge waste of talent that he is not there right now.

I didn't know Lake Superior was a state

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. The founding fathers have expressed their disapproval of democracy ie mob rule. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. That is a very important difference.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

Literally no one is saying to get rid of representatives

@gogglessukass7852

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite literally the title

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

Do you think the electoral college and Congress are the same thing?

@gogglessukass7852

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite abolishing the electoral college is a move towards mob rule ie democracy which is why I made the original comment. You can discuss this original comment without being a smartass and interpreting what I didn’t say to sound smug.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

James Madison: "There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections." The main obstacle in adopting a popular vote for the executive was that slave states didn't have that many men eligible to vote.

South African here, constantly warning the US about this whenever I see the opportunity: ending the electoral college is the end of the USA as a world superpower. Do not under any circumstances even consider it. One man, one vote, is a terrible, terrible idea. The electoral college protects everyone against themselves. It's a measured and just balance to democracy. The lifestyles of two cities shouldn't determine the lifestyles of 300m people spread over 9.8 million square km. Edit: see my responses below as to why I opine that the electoral college is preferable to a standard democracy

@destroytheboxes

3 жыл бұрын

Wisest Response I’ve seen. Thank you. Dead on exactly right. Electoral college is only thing keeping America on top. Soooo many people can’t see that.

@chrispychip6569

3 жыл бұрын

How does the electoral college prevent cities from determining the outcome of the election as far as I know Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia decided the election for all of the Us the past 2 elections

@WhitefoxSpace

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrispychip6569 well they were the swing states both times, but yes, it worked this way because you have the college still. Remove that, and the millions upon millions of people living in cities will determine the outcome for the most part.

@chrispychip6569

3 жыл бұрын

@@WhitefoxSpace so do I have to wait till my state becomes a swing state for me to have a say in who becomes president?

@WhitefoxSpace

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrispychip6569 a state is only a swing state because it has a relatively bipartisan constituency for a given election. It is therefore determined after the fact. If you live in a state that votes mostly for party A, a system of one man one vote won't do anything to sway it into being a state that votes mostly for party B. What it will do however, is give a lopsided weight to the coastal metropolises like NYC and Cali, which logistically favours an inordinate concentration of people and lifestyle. In South Africa we have this exact problem which is why the ANC has won every single election in a landslide since 1994. There is virtually no other party that even has a chance. Why? Because our shrinking middle and upper class (read: educated) make up less than 5% of the population. Our elections are quite literally decided by shack dwellers and shanty towns. You can call that a healthy democracy if you wish. I prefer Time Bomb. If we had an electoral college system in ZA, the most populous provinces would still hold the most sway, but they'd be limited to an extent as determined by their electoral votes. Any votes above the 51% would essentially be inefficient at least.

That the swing states aren't particularly intended by anybody or for anything, are just accidental, that they are very diverse/varied, is a very good thing, a lot better than them sharing a lot of other characteristics.

Maybe the debate should be to abolished the federal government! And just leave a joint army and constitution, %90 of these federal offices are useless

Imagine a world federation working exactly the same way; a simple majority electing the president would be decided by the Asian region of states/countries. Every. Single. Time. The (States or Countries) of the American Union need to each know there OWN majority THEN the population of each State should be considered by the number representatives that each State has assigned to it. A simple majority from the Union or a simple majority based on each State's decision, ignoring the population density within each state, is an over simplification in both cases. The two ideas needs to be combined to get an overall CONSENSUS. Otherwise, maybe congress should go back to the original idea of having them elect the president the way they elect (usually confirm) military generals. Btw, if there's a tie, or no one has 51%, this is actually what would end up happening today. Ngl, the electoral college design could be improved. However, after 250 years of unification, maybe it's time for something like the national popular vote. ¯\_ಠ_ಠ_/¯

@frocco7125

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, popular vote is good, but it's also way more important more power gets moved to the local level. What the Nazis did when they got into power is abolish a ton of powers from local governments to ensure as much power as possible was concentrated into the few hands in the federal government of Germany, and the people in smaller communities were inable to organize.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

We still have a senate. Maybe get rid of electoral college but increase senators to 3 per state giving smaller states more legislative oversight plus one senator would be up for vote every 2 years.

Always keep electoral college it’s harder for foreign interests and foreign intelligence to infiltrate. I think that’s one of its many benefits

@TheRedstonedeluxe

3 жыл бұрын

I don't know much about the electoral college but couldn't our enemies just focus on swing states and successfully rig the election? It seems more difficult to rig an election with the popular vote.

@GrandmasterUV

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheRedstonedeluxe yes and that is what they have done. The head of dominion systems said “I will not let trump win” 3 dominion employees whistleblowed that dominion voting systems stole 3.8 million votes and switched them from trump to Biden. Congressman confirms Us army raids SCYTL servers in Frankfurt Germany that were switching votes. Scytl is funded by Bill Gates and soros

@anushervontabarov8568

3 жыл бұрын

Guys, we found a crazy one!

@TheRedstonedeluxe

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrandmasterUV Woah, I thought we were about a reasonable conversation about the election process

@WokerThanThou

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrandmasterUV You should have stopped before the last sentence. It went from fact into implied speculation

Lawrence said he strongly favors Ranked-Choice Voting where we should "all agree on it and there's NO REASON NOT TO DO THIS RIGHT AWAY." There are many reasons not to do it at all, let alone right away: it could lead to more negative campaigning (as SuperPACs do more of the attacks to give the candidate plausible deniability), majority party may have a shakier mandate if they didn’t get many first-choice votes therefore making it harder to legislate, your vote may belong more to the establishment, could increase incumbency advantage especially in a crowded field, increases political complexity, hasn't been implemented enough to really test and therefore justify nationwide implementation, etc. I hope in his lectures he doesn’t assert his opinions so matter-of-factly.

Richard Epstein and Lawrence Lessig are my heroes. It's incredible seeing them going head to head.

@TKUA11

3 жыл бұрын

Don’t trust anyone named Epstein

@gogglessukass7852

3 жыл бұрын

@@TKUA11 too many steins and bergs

@JaviEngineer

3 жыл бұрын

Any books by Lawrence that are worth reading?

@maxhess3151

3 жыл бұрын

@@JaviEngineer I haven't read his books yet, but he publishes to Amazon Books and Audible.

I'd be ok with this IF they raised the voting age to 30. No more elections being influenced by Snapchat and Instagram. People being manipulated under the guise of "compassion" to vote for more government control, it's insane.

@adamjones3437

3 жыл бұрын

This is actually a good idea. When the founding fathers set the voting age to 21, it was at a time when the average voter would have already been working for a few years and been married and had a family around that age. Now people are spending so many more years in school, sometimes even doing a master's or PhD, not getting a full-time job until their late 20's or early 30's. It was a completely different kind of person voting at age 21 back in 1800 versus age 21 today. You should have to have lived a little, seen the world a little, and have had to financially support yourself before you get to vote. The age for all elected positions should go up proportionally as well. You'd also have to get rid of the draft though.

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

@@adamjones3437 20-21 Seems like a good voting age idea.

Proportional electoral votes by state would fix it .. but Democratic states are unlikely to go along with that, as they do not want to give up the proportional electors to their rather large Republican populations.

Instead of abolishing electoral college, why not give each state 1 electoral college vote per state,so their won't be any cheating.

Fantastic debate. Epstein and Lessig both did an awesome job.

I'm from india Trust me America, don't let it go

@sanmis-h5y

3 жыл бұрын

And your reasons for that ?

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

@@sanmis-h5y electoral college is good. In india the states with highest population pretty much decide the centre. Infact india could use electoral college like system. Take Uttar Pradesh for example. But the opposition will cry even in that system if republicans win. Just like how Congress does it in india

@sanmis-h5y

3 жыл бұрын

@@gabbar51ngh Electoral College only worsens this problem. In electoral college there is "winner-takes-all" rule. That is what creates this 'Large State, Small State' Divide. And you just have to win the highest vote share in the state to take the entire electoral votes of that state. India's system is better, the state doesn't behave like a bloc, and is divided into constituency. In Lok Sabha elections, it ultimately comes down to the constituency for the party to win. It doesn't matter in which state that constituency lies. If India adopts Electoral college it will be a disaster for democracy. Electoral College only makes democracy less democratic, not more. If anything India should have "ranked-choice-voting" at the constituency level instead of the current system of "first-past-the-post", so that people have choices and the get more representation at the Lok Sabha. FPTP system is archaic in the sense it fails to capture the will of majority of people.

Mob rule, what could possibly go wrong?

@jeromemccollom936

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe you should open a political science textbook

@frocco7125

3 жыл бұрын

The electoral college makes mob rule easier.

@marklewis8067

3 жыл бұрын

agreed people should read about the French and Russian revolutions - Mob rule at its finest.

@frocco7125

3 жыл бұрын

@@marklewis8067 Uhm... but the french revolution was a good thing. It led to the fall of monarchy, the magna carta, and the first post-enlightenment democracies.

Would have liked to hear a debate on this between people with actual good arguments.

1:00:13 well the principle is that the United States is a conglomerate of 50 different member states all of which deserve to have their voices heard reguardless of population. So the obscure weighting is comprise between powers of the people, and powers of the states. It’s not like some people within states have different voting power than others within the same state

Perhaps they should take turns each election, allowing the popular vote one election, electoral college the next and a quasi version on the third election

Lessig reminds me of a rodeo clown wearing a turtleneck

The only thing wrong the system is this guy didn’t like that Trump won in 2016,

I don't think states should be winner take all. Electoral votes should be proportionally based either on the number of counties won, or based on the popular vote of that state.

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

One vote for each county. I love it!

I'm not sure using popular vote as the alternative is any better.

@ralphlee6386

3 жыл бұрын

It isn't. I don't want to be ruled by the 5 largest cities in the nation... which is the effective result of popular vote.

@someginger6996

3 жыл бұрын

@@ralphlee6386 which is why i'm not sure popular vote is a good alternative. It pretty much disenfranchises the majority of the states if you control even a majority of votes in more densely populates states.

@ralphlee6386

3 жыл бұрын

@@someginger6996 For me, it makes my decision easier. I'd rather have SOME input than none. The electoral college guarantees I (and you) do. Popular vote does not.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

@@ralphlee6386 this is the same guy who used to comment on Reason's videos that got booted because he is pro-pedophilia, anytime someone would call him on it he would accuse them of being a communist

@ralphlee6386

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite ok, Commie

23:53 ummm... this is referring to the senate, not the electoral college. One Wyoming vote is worth roughly 6 Californians, not 66 Californians

The outcome of this debate makes me question the intellect of Libertarians! 😆

How the President is chosen would be largely irrelevant if we reduced his power to what it was supposed to be.

He had a PP, not fair!

No matter what, once race is brought up, you lose

The biggest reason to hate the electoral college is that you have to hear about coal every single election due to Pennsylvania. The rest of the country shouldn’t have to constantly hear about niche issues of other states just because their “swing” states.

How could Bullshitlarry Clinton win the popular vote by 3 million votes when LA had a million extra votes, Commiefornia had over 3 million extra votes!!! anyone want to buy a bridge?

“‘even a Texan can see”? That statement demonstrates your hate. Most of your argument is pure personal opinion illustrated as fact.

distinction..........popular democracy vs. constitutional democracy. The former gets you Venezuela, the latter, America.

Lawrence is bonkers.

The electoral college is as important today as it was in 1789. If we let the big cities vote for everything (popular vote), the president will only care about feeding the cities and ignore the needs of rural americans.

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

There's ten times as many rural residents in California than there are in Wyoming.

Our first 15 Presidents were chosen by the Continental Congress and served at the pleasure of the Congress. It was a superior system.

Pretty sure the radio, the tv, the internet, twitter, eliminated the need for the electoral college. You know campaigning and representing the electorate is easier at present because information flows geographically instantly now.

I lean toward keeping the EC but no 'winner take all' ... I'm for 'fractioal proportional allocation" of the votes as Lessig described. I'm also a fan of Epstien's thoughts about making the government smaller.

I've been watching Paul Harrell and ReasonTV race to get to 600k subscribers. ReasonTV won this week.

Electoral colleges aren't the problem. Education and the drastically low spirit for productive debate (or terrible articulation of individual thoughts) are the problems in society. Aside from my opinion we should have electorals at a local level too, you can't simply fix a system if the system is run by incompetency and corruption. In a ideal world you can still have a moral person act as an "authoritarian" person (not in a traditional sense), which by the way will end up being an inefficient system; and assuming people are skilled and moral, every system will simply be judged by their efficiency. Society's cultural decline is usually a sign of social instability and unproductivity, as indicated: tribalism and vain/nihilistic attitudes.

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

Nihilists are the only ones with any sense.

@VGameL0v3e12sF012Ree

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilwaukeeF40C That doesn't make sense. Nihilists usually arbitrarily tunnel vision their view on reality. I'd rather listen to people who can be objective and be aware of the wider range of subjects (willingly), given that things aren't inherently meaningless. Certain things may be meaningless to nihilists but relative to their what objectives, and, are those arbitrary objectives really logical in the first place (in general)?

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

@@VGameL0v3e12sF012Ree Actual nihilists don't have any reality. I wish I could be one but unfortunately I do have a practical belief in reality, inherent meaninglessness, and in heat death.

@VGameL0v3e12sF012Ree

3 жыл бұрын

@@MilwaukeeF40C Nihilism do have a reality; that's how they got to nihilism in the first place and remain in it. But, you do you.

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

@@VGameL0v3e12sF012Ree To us describing it it is a reality or a bunch of sensory experiences, but pure nihilism is an absence of belief, or caring about making sense of anything.

3:00/8:15/9:15 Point 1: popular vote for president is bad, because the majority will want to take the property of the minority Counterpoint 1: if this were true, the states would all be hellholes, as governors would be doing this already, no? There is no electoral college system for governors to make sure the evil majority doesn't steal from the minority. 9:50 Point 2: having powerful large states and having weak small states is bad Counterpoint 2: No? Why would it be? The popular vote isn't even focused on states. State interests are not cleanly divided by large or small. All large states do not have the same interests as each other and the same applies to all small states. 10:05 Point 3: if you do the popular vote here, you have to do it everywhere Counterpoint 3: We already do this everywhere for all other representatives? The president is the last hold out 10:30 Point 4: The majority isn't diverse Counterpoint 4: the majority is diverse. It is an amalgamation of diverse interests, what even is this point? 13:00 Point 5: Democrats will never leave the major cities, republicans would only go to towns Counterpoint 5: not true, and even if it were, both parties currently only go to border states? This is better... how? In both scenarios, both parties are going to go to some places and not all places. But the original point isn't even true. The parties could both change their platforms for 1, and cities and towns do not vote as monoliths, so both sides would have an incentive to go visiting a larger number of people to drum up support, instead of very specific areas in the nation. How is it not better for the president to represent the majority of people instead of the minority? 13:50 Point 6: Higher incentive for fraud Counterpoint 6: Ok, and? There is a high incentive to commit fraud in the border states, and there doesn't seem to be enough fraud to sway elections in those states, so why would that suddenly become true under a popular vote system? It wouldn't 15:00 Point 7: We will have to change the ballots and electoral system, and potentially have a separate election for president Counterpoint 7: No? Most states tabulate most if not all of their ballots within a week, and they do it using different systems from each other. Now while I would prefer a unified system, there would be no mass electoral system shock by switching to the popular vote even if we keep the current system.

@penny4thought168

2 жыл бұрын

Why do I care what the minority has to say? What the majority of the people want, they should get. Simple as that. If an entire class of 30 voted for chocolate cake for dessert, but one single kid voted for vanilla, why should vanilla be served to make the minority happy?

Because ... Every. Single. Time.™

It makes sense if you don't think about it

Why are there discussions about changing something that works????

@bhough410

3 жыл бұрын

Largely because the Dem want to win more elections while they're slightly more popular right now.

@genege6301

3 жыл бұрын

@@bhough410 that's just positing the fact that majority of people in our country are ignorant, uneducated, dumb and therefore each people deserve their kings

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

Well, 3/5 of the slave population is no longer used to allocate representatives and by extension electoral college vote. Sometimes things change.

Only reasons its left to swing states is because they're more split down the middle and can vote either way. States that are guaranteed to go for one party have been decided long ago. If California was a close call every year they could also be a swing state.

God damn if Lessig didn't change my mind.

Yeah, no...

My Comments - I. A popular vote in a massive country such as 2020 USA has methinking that the densely packed areas/urbicolous people would impose their preferred policies on the more loosely packed areas/bucolic people. If people want a popular vote I suggest decentralization & breaking up the country into more manageable pieces. II. These states are way too big! 40million and 600,000 are way too massive. These states need to be split up into 30,000 population groups or something. III. States should represent less people -- there should be more states or

Debate? There is no debate. It stays. Too bad if you don't like it.

@sanmis-h5y

3 жыл бұрын

*Too

@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290

3 жыл бұрын

lmaooo that's not a very good attitude to have, just because the current system may favour a certain group (I assume yourself) doesn't make it perfect. All things can be improved.

@bingbong3643

3 жыл бұрын

@@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290 nah.

@connorjordan3551

3 жыл бұрын

@@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290 no. It's a great system. It provides a voice for people who live in 35 to 40 states that would otherwise be ignored. It provides a way to limit the affects of any cheating. Without it we'd usually not have any winner because we don't get one candidate with 50.1% of the vote.

@yetanotheryoutubechannel6290

3 жыл бұрын

@@connorjordan3551 Those who live in the 40 non-competitive states get ignored while the election hinges on the 10~ competitive states who get all the attention. With the epidemic of gerrymandering and voter suppression it can't be said there is no cheating. And finally the winner can be simply who gets the plurality, or even using a runoff vote system to ensure a winner has a majority endorsement.

If your vote isn't worth the same as someone else's then reality is apparent. The system is broken but this is only a small part.

@nicoleabraham4639

3 жыл бұрын

I live in CA, which basically is what decides the popular vote. I do not want these people who are easily manipulated into thinking government will provide for them and then they vote in these terrible policies ruining the rest of the country like they are ruining this state. Thank God for the electoral college.

@sanmis-h5y

3 жыл бұрын

@@nicoleabraham4639 CA doesn't popular vote. The entire country counts. Don't forget that CA is the state where the highest number of " Republicans" live among ALL states. So the electoral diminishes the CA Republicans the most.

@nicoleabraham4639

3 жыл бұрын

@@sanmis-h5y When I look at the electoral map and how each state’s votes end up, I see that CA and NY have basically decided the popular vote for 2016 and CA for 2020. All other states even out a bit more. I agree Republicans get drowned out in CA too.

@Graeme_Lastname

3 жыл бұрын

@@nicoleabraham4639 Then you don't want equality. You don't think all men are equal etc. I agree with you. I would just propose a different system which would improve things for everyone, even if they didn't "vote" for it. :)

@nicoleabraham4639

3 жыл бұрын

@@Graeme_Lastname I think we are all equal in the eyes of our creator and all humans deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Equality to me is an utopian idea that would take our humanity away if we achieved it. I think the two party monopoly corporate system is probably more of a problem than the electoral college at this point but I totally agree if someone comes up with a better system I’d support it! Have a great day!

1) I thought Richard's summary was exceptionally good. 2) The system needs repairing or upgrading. It does seem like the most populated states would end up running the country with a straight popular vote, although I used to be for popular vote. It seems like vote tampering would be even more widespread with a popular vote, too, or at least more influential. 3) Talking about the popular vote for 2020 is irrelevant at this point, since one side clearly cheated, which is no surprise as they said they had to win and whatever means necessary were acceptable. How is it acceptable to simply stop counting votes when things aren't going your way?

@lucasbendit7564

3 жыл бұрын

What side cheated? There has not been any credible claims of large scale fraud (millions of ballots.) The polls were way off, yes. But going into the election the incumbent took to the airwaves stating that any outcome that didn’t result in his reelection was a fraudulent result. That attitude does not lend itself to sympathy. And only one side was trying to make it harder, not easier, to vote during a pandemic.

@midi510

3 жыл бұрын

@@lucasbendit7564 This hasn't been proven in a court of law yet, but apparently, the software used by most of the states (called Dominion) was originally developed at the direction of Chavez of Venezuela and has all kinds of features and back doors to be able to change or duplicate or delete votes. It includes algorithms to weight a candidate over another, etc. The hardware and software were both from outside the US, which I don't understand at all. It should have been developed through contracts with US companies with bipartisan oversight. There are hundreds of affidavits by election workers stating procedural irregularities. The term voter fraud is a misnomer, because the voters didn't do anything wrong. It should be called election official fraud. I'm pretty confident that much of this will be proven in court and people with go to prison. Most people like the freedoms they have and their lives here. They really don't want a fascist socialist state regardless what the media says.

Richard told me things I didn't know, and Lawrence only told me things I already knew. One seemed like half a conversation between academics, and the other a hysterical first year college lecture. Lawrence says that swing states don't represent America, says that they rely on 19th century technology, and then jumps to Pennsylvania and fracking as an example, a 21st century technology. How disinegenuous can you get?

@alslayer18

3 жыл бұрын

Well I think he was using that as short-hand for blue collar work or the focus on harvesting a non-renewable resource discovered in the 19th century. I guess you could argue that it could have been phrased differently, but it's not an outright contradiction (assuming you are not being incredibly literally).

Everything that this Mr. Lessig is arguing for is totally possible to enact within our current framework. If he feels so strongly about proportional EC votes he should get off his ass and start lobbying state to state to change their rules for the distribution of EC votes. No need to touch the EC. His arguments are lazy.

24:19 1/9? That figure is tad exaggerated Age of United States: 244/4=61 presidential terms served (roughly) 5 presidents lost the popular but won the electoral 5/61=1/12.2 So not 1/9, closer to 1/12

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

First years of the country were ruled under the articles of confederation with no president then first few presidents under the constitution were no elected by popular vote

@daytoncoates4930

3 жыл бұрын

@@moarliekmirite “then first few presidents under the constitution were no elected by popular vote” Just to clarify, did you mean “*not* by popular vote”

@moarliekmirite

3 жыл бұрын

@@daytoncoates4930 I meant no popular vote was taken at all. State legislatures chose the electoral college.

Abolish it when we lose, but keep it when we win. Lmao

@tomsmall1244

3 жыл бұрын

This isn’t even true. Opponents of the electoral college always speak against it.

Ranked choice voting is more important than eliminating the electoral college.

We need to EXPAND the electoral college to the county/parish level. This will prevent the urban areas from always choosing the president.

@ArtStoneUS

3 жыл бұрын

So you are advocating that Cook County Illinois with 5 million residents should have an equal say with Hardin County's 3,800 residents?

@MilwaukeeF40C

3 жыл бұрын

@@ArtStoneUS That would kick ass. Fuck Cook County.

Effective speaking 101 - never assume your audience is as interested with or as familiar with your pet subject as you are. The story behind the 12th amendment is interesting, but the national attention span is under 5 minutes. Write a list of bullet points and keep it brief. Our time is valuable.

Dont you sometimes just read other peoples comments and go "I wish I wrote that ngl"

It’s sad this unfortunate little man was content being a caricature of an academic- effete, affected, and precious. In hope he one day reconsiders his existence.

They want to get rid of it then, and now they just don't care about it also wanted to keep it...

What an incredibly stupid idea.

The Public Choice commentary was strong by Lessig.

pursuing nihilistic politics will get nothing done and undermined the nature of private or government forms leading to crime and bankruptcy of both factions, giving rises to mafias and underground overthrowing societies . revoke the collage to popular tier voting. why the tier system is used in fair sport competitions all the way to the olymic and academic competition forums is, because it works. why politics are an exception is, absurdity creates the brokewindow currency, other wise know as divide and conquer.

Abolish the Electoral College? Does anyone even know what it is for? It's just like the break line in your car. The car runs fine without it. See I can go forward and turn and....