I'm disapointed that the effect of capping the House of Representatives at 435 wasn't discussed. The House was routinely expanded until the 1920s as the population grew. Increasing the size of the house would mitigate many of the negatives associated with the electoral college and have other beneficial effects as well.

@HVACSoldier

2 ай бұрын

Exactly. Capping the House does two things that distort representation. 1) It creates MORE “DEEP BLUE” and “DEEP RED” districts, and… 2) It hurts MOST states, in that it creates resentment of the large states, over the smaller states. Uncapping the House, and basing Congressional Districts on the size of Wyoming, would bring the House size to around 575 seats.

@connorthompson66

2 ай бұрын

Expanding the House wasn't discussed because it doesn't matter. In a 2018 Op-Ed, TIME Magazine's Chris Wilson re-ran the 2016 election using different Electoral Vote totals; he found that in no "scenarios did the outcome of the 2016 election change, given that the winner-take-all system that almost every state uses for the Electoral College is impervious to the denominator." (Wilson 2018) While I personally support expanding the size of the House of Representatives, arguing that we should do so to ameliorate the Electoral College's problems is disingenuous and unconvincing.

@HVACSoldier

2 ай бұрын

@@connorthompson66 Here’s the thing. IF every state did what Nebraska and Maine does, then the candidates for President WOULD know where they stand, and they might actually campaign in more states. Maybe Republicans would visit California. Maybe Democrats would visit Texas. In 2008, IF Iowa did what Nebraska and Maine did, John McCain would get 1 Electoral vote, and Obama would get 6.

Ай бұрын

Pls explain further?

@peteboman5942

Ай бұрын

Yes, I should have provided context and been more clear. I am very concerned with the loss of confidence in our governing institutions that we have seen over the last 20 years or so. I see this as a genuine threat to our democracy. From the start, we have been both a nation of citizens and a nation of states. This is laid out clearly in our constitution and is part of our national identy. I would like to defend the electorial college along the lines that this does reflect the type of government that we have, even when the president elected does not win the popular vote (usually by a plurality, but that would be a different discussion), however with the House capped at 435 I am uncomfortable with the porportional advantage that a voter in a small state has when electing the president. There have been many discussions about increasing the size of the House and the benefits it would bring, and I was curious whether these two men thought any of those benefits would increase our confidence in Congress and if they thought that would extend to the electoral college. There have been several good suggestions and observations already in the comments, and I think that only through civil discussion can we improve our confidence in our government.

Each state has it's own rules for awarding Electors. For those who's state is a '"winner take all" state, all the voters who are in the minority are effectively disenfranchised. How much different would election outcomes be if all states were required to distribute electors in proportion to the vote in the state?

It has got to go. I want my vote to count. Not a collecrive

Ай бұрын

So if you're in WY and every single person in WY votes one way, and folks in CA votes even just 10% the other way...how much will your vote count?

@incognito3620

Ай бұрын

At least I would know the elections were not gerrymandered or republicans had to lie to win elections. I can live with the truth.

@playfulpanthress

Ай бұрын

Sweetie, you need to stop thinking SMALL. Whomever has the most votes PERIOD should win. That means politicians need to talk to MORE people, not fewer like now. There are states neither candidate goes to because it is so forgone that they already have the votes or not. If your side has nothing but empty promises and discrimination, it makes sense to want the racist electoral college. If your side has the better candidate, the better policies, this shouldn't scare you.

Ай бұрын

@@playfulpanthress you might want to learn what a Republic is.

@playfulpanthress

Ай бұрын

And you need to learn what a democracy is.

RE. 10:00, the three-fifths compromise didn't only affect representation in Congress, and thus the Electoral College, it also affected revenue due to the federal govt by the states.

I believe there is was a much stronger argument for the national popular vote as proposed by Jesse.

We the sane citizens of America welcome back all re-Patriots who have awoken from the trance and have left the RINO Maga...movement. We also believe in one person equals one vote. Abolish the Electoral College.

Why should states pick the President and members of the Senate? The President should reflect the Republic as a whole and states including rural areas still have outweighed representation in the Senate.

Ай бұрын

That's why there are 2 Houses.

@robertkier9343

14 күн бұрын

There's a danger that smaller states will secede.

The EC has the effect of setting states (and even geographical regions) against each other, exaggerating their "redness" and "blueness," and wiping out all the shades in the middle.

@rhyslucero1400

Ай бұрын

But it doesn't matter if you wipe out the middle. There are only two major parties. The parties are forced to court voters in the middle. Yes the 'redness' and 'blueness' are exaggerated, but that is due to the intense competition for the middle. Instead of people finding their party, like in parlimentary systems, the parties seek the voters.

It's not just a handful of states, it's a handful of counties in a handful of states that sway the election. It made sense when states utilized different methods to select electors, now its just an unnecessarily convoluted middle step in what is otherwise a direct election.

Inspired on the many Buckley sessions. #FiringLineShow

A compromise would be to mandate all states to proportionally allocate electors. It would give a closer match to the popular vote within a few percentage points.

The electoral college discounts ANY guarantee that every person's vote counts...in other words, your vote MAY count , but it MAY NOT also!!

Thank you, Margaret Hoover and Firing Line, for hosting a pleasantly civil debate on such an important issue. I suspect that many Americans may have never given the electoral college a second thought until Republican candidates won the Presidency while losing the popular vote. I think Jesse Wegman made the stronger and more pragmatic case for abolishing the electoral college. It is tiresome to watch Republicans continue to try to suppress voters' rights instead of simply offering voters a reason to actually cast their votes for the GOP. I am also quite concerned about the GOP's embrace of the MAGA movement which is steeped in grievances and has demonstrated a propensity for violence. As a life-long Pennsylvanian, I learned the hard way that my vote actually counts in a crucial swing-state. I sat out the 2016 election, because I had no real excitement for Hillary Clinton, and I honestly thought her win would be a lay-up. What a bitter pill to swallow when Mr. Trump actually won the electoral college! It is a bitter mistake that I vow never to make again, and I have even started voting by mail to ensure my vote is counted no matter what election day brings my way, i.e. sickness, bad weather, etc. The mail-in ballot process is quite easy, and I appreciate the fact that I can track my ballot on-line to ensure it is received well before election day. I encourage people to try the process for themselves if it is something that is offered in your state. The most important thing to remember is to vote like your life depends upon it, because as we have seen, it does!

@chrystalweaver618

Ай бұрын

🎯🎯🎯🎯

First eight words: Done. Shouldn't be a debate. Yes, abolish.

In order to end the Electoral College you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Have the electors chosen by congressional district rather than by State. That would solve both of these issues and instead of 5 swing states there would be 30 to 50 swing districts spread across all the states and every vote of every person would have equal weight.

@trevinbeattie4888

2 ай бұрын

But then they’d be susceptible to gerrymandering, which has continually plagued elections for Representatives and caused imbalances between proportions of party members in the House and political affiliations of their constituents.

@JR-pr8jb

Ай бұрын

Yeah, but why not simply count the individual voters.

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

​@@JR-pr8jb You would think this would be the only recourse huh🤔

I live in NY as a conservative. My vote for president has never counted. I’m not complaining though. Keep the EC. A pure democracy is mob rule.

One reform of the Electoral College could be to do what Maine and Nebraska. Those two states base electoral votes on the winners of the Congressional Districts. They also need to uncap the House.

Seventy counties in the state of NY. The current Governor won only nine plus NYC. Should we have an electoral college here too?

Mr Wegmans assessment is the closest to being correct and on point...the other gentleman's argument is obscurantistic....one person, one vote moves us closer to a truer DEMOCRACY!!

@yodieyuh6077

2 ай бұрын

Does true democracy mean the minority always loses?

Mr. Wegman touched on the main reason for the electoral college at the start of the interview, but then the conversation veered off into arguments which are really not pertinent. The concept of “protecting smaller states” is a red herring; the EC does no such thing. In the current system, only _large swing states_ have a real influence over presidential elections. A lot of what’s in the US Constitution is the result of compromises. Originally only Representatives were chosen by popular vote; Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures. The use of Electors in choosing the President was such a compromise in that state governments wouldn’t vote directly, but neither would the people; instead the states would select Electors from among the people with the stipulation that Electors could not be any government official. That changed when the 17th amendment said that Senators would be elected by popular vote, just like Representatives; and many states had already been choosing Electors by popular vote until that practice was standardized across all states. Now that these elections have been left to the people, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason to leave the Electoral system in place as a middle-man.

I can't believe it. I actually like Margaret Hoover on this show. I was not as fond of her over on Real Time with Bill Maher.

I just saw your interview with Vivek, and I have to say that I was impressed and glad to see how clean it was, very respectful yet very specific about the important points. It's very refreshing to see that there's still professional journalism in this country. Vivek, though he may not be the current nominee of the Republican party, has earned himself a name and is very respected not only by Trump and the MAGA base but also by his adversaries. It's very hard to win a debate against Vivek, and no surprise, he's very smart, well-spoken, respectful, and calm yet can be aggressive when necessary. He's a great father and man of God with great conviction and love for his country. And for you, I just have to say that you're not only beautiful but also very professional. I would love to see more interviews with Vivek in the future.

Never would I ever trust an Elector these days ...I would trust a computer over an actual person.

@lisalivingston6473

Ай бұрын

@jennyeidson4916 Good point! We have all seen with our own eyes that people can be corrupted.

I agree with the other comments that the discrepancy between the electoral votes and the popular votes is created by some electors being chosen due to winner-take-all state electoral count allocations. But the point isn't to approximate the popular vote, or we would just use the popular vote. The reason why this happens is because we live in a Republic. The States run Federal elections. And the States have the right to run their election how they see fit. The President isn't elected by the people - The President is elected by the States. So, it is a series, like the World Series or the NBA Finals, not like the Superbowl. As such, every State gets to hold its election and distribute electors how it sees fit. This is the only fair way to distribute the power because the Federal government doesn't run any elections.

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

You said a lot. But that's not the point.

@rhyslucero1400

Ай бұрын

@@THATBOISHAD Why give all the attention to dense urban areas? If every vote is federalized, and you don't vote in your State, what would stop a politician from going to the densest slate of votes every time - which will be the densest group of voters. Instead of having to win a majority of States, politicians will focus on urban voters in dense populations to maximize influence. Why is that better?

One way to split the baby is to move from a winner-take-all system in the states to splitting the electors within a state based on the proportion of the popular vote received by the candidate.l

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

By the reasoning, counties should have sole authority over elections? Does that sound appealing to you?

Majority rule is NOT infallible. BREXIT We have no way of measuring how well informed the electorate really is, and with the ease of spreading specious ideas and “evidence “ this means we have unbalanced, neigh, unhinged rhetoric creating tipping points.

After abolishing the electoral college, the next step is to invoke the flat tax, so every persons voice is equal!

@Lerian_V

2 ай бұрын

Also, abolish voting age restriction.

@gregoryspeth8225

2 ай бұрын

Millionaire’s and billionaires would love a flat tax. For people struggling to pay rent and buy food, their lives would get worse. With wealth inequality being so extreme in this country, a flat tax simply does not make any sense .

The electoral college gave us Trump! Nuf said!

@dennisl4331

2 ай бұрын

and Biden,Obama,Bush,Clinton and so on …..

@gregory596

2 ай бұрын

​@@dennisl4331 Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, ...

@treehugger79

2 ай бұрын

@@dennisl4331 The difference is that Obama and Clinton also won the popular vote.

@trevinbeattie4888

2 ай бұрын

​@@treehugger79so did Biden.

@connorthompson66

2 ай бұрын

Arguing for or against the Electoral College based on which party it benefits is cynical and un-American. Support or reject a system because it is fair, not because it benefits or hurts you.

First, 38 state legislatures would need to agree through a constitutional amendment to abandon the Electoral College. My preference would be that each state follow the Maine/Nebraska model of awarding electors based on congressional district rather than through the winner-take-all system which every other state uses. The states aren't likely to do that because it will dilute their political power. Second, having a national popular vote would also expose every states' election procedures to legal challenges from across the country. After the last presidential election, the Attorney General of Texas filed a lawsuit against four other states over how those states conducted their own elections. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case, stating that Texas had no interest (standing) in how other states run their own elections. Third, the national popular vote *is a statistic*, not the result, of the presidential election. It has no more meaning than the amount of money raised, the poll averages, or the number of endorsements. Sports fans will be familiar with this concept because there are always games in which the winning team did not perform as well as the loser in some key statistical measures. In fact, over twenty times the winner of the World Series scored fewer total runs than the loser. Every presidential election since 1788 has been conducted with the candidates knowing that the Electoral College would be how the election was decided. Thus the candidates have campaigned to optimize that result. One can't assume that the national popular vote for any past election would have been the same or even similar had the election rules been so dramatically different.

@yodieyuh6077

2 ай бұрын

"...knowing that the Electoral College would be how the election was decided..." Do you think it's worth differentiating between EC matching popular vote and EC splitting from the pop vote? The EC alone has only decided 5 presidential elections. 4 if one believes 2000 was won by a corrupt recount. Only 2 (or 1) since 1888.

@gregory596

2 ай бұрын

@yodieyuh6077 the Electoral College has decided every presidential election in US history.

@yodieyuh6077

2 ай бұрын

@@gregory596 And in all but 5, if it didn't exist the result would have been the same.

@gregory596

2 ай бұрын

@@yodieyuh6077 And that's where you and I fundamentally disagree. _One can't assume that the national popular vote for any past election would have been the same or even similar had the election rules been so dramatically different_ I could say that Bill Clinton would have lost the 1992 election. I could tell you that Richard Nixon would have lost the 1968 election. I can believe that those would have been the results if only we used ranked-choice voting. The point is that I can't be certain of the results of any past election run under different rules. I don't know where the candidates would have focused their resources. I don't know how the media coverage would have changed. I don't even know who may have decided to run or not run. It's unknowable.

@yodieyuh6077

2 ай бұрын

@@gregory596 How certain are you that the system you proposed would work the way you hope it would work?

Electoral College ratios need to be drastically REDUCED! HOWEVER, STILL exist ao the minority STILL has a protection. ALTERING not ABOLISHING WOULD CHANGE the CURRENT SITUATION where the MINORITY is not ONLY PROTECTED BUT HAS A COIN FLIP'S CHANCE TO RULE THE MAJORITY! WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF A DEMOCRACY OR A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. ALTER NOT ABOLISH!

Congress should elect the President 🤣🤣

@connorthompson66

2 ай бұрын

That's a Prime Ministerial system, British, and I therefore hate it. AMERICA FTW

The distortion between the electoral college and the popular vote does not exist because of the presence of the College. The distortion exists because the state legislatures bastardized the original intent of the College by awarding all electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. So, if a candidate wins the state popular vote 50.5% to 49.5%, that candidate gets 100% of electors and 49.5% of the voters votes are thrown into the trash bin. If we're going to keep the College, which I believe is an institution of a bygone era, we should require the electors be apportioned according to the state's election outcome.

@lisalivingston6473

Ай бұрын

@cheersmodreams691 Such a great point, and your proposed method would most likely align with the outcome of a popular vote count.

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

Or just count each vote.

Both Democracy and A Republic have mechanisms that prevent the Majority from oppressing the Minority. However, neither have any mechanisms to prevent the Minority from oppressing the Majority. For too long, the Minority has oppressed the Majority. However, when there is voter oppression and gerrymandering then Direct National vote will never work because the Minority will continue to oppress the Majority at the State level by intent! What we need is rank-based voting and neutral districts.

I don't like the Electoral College, but we could keep it if we could get rid of Gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a bigger problem.

If rural America were disenfranchised by the abolition of the electoral college, the Dems would have to rely on Monsanto and Deere for advice on how to grow their own food.

@paulkern7229

Ай бұрын

it's all corporate farms, dude

OMG. These discussions always have me tearing my hair out. The president is NOT the representative of the people, they're the representative of the States themselves which is why it's done the way it is. He/She is NOT a freaking king and everyone constantly acts like he is. His powers are supposed to be minimal. Their job is to implement what congress enacts NOT create laws etc. The discussion should be about getting back to limiting his damn power instead of trying to turn him more and more into a king. So no, the people should NOT be voting for him because with the constant erosion of what the founders put in place, like the idiotic change to vote for senators as well, the country moves more and more towards "mob rules" and will eventually be so eroded that it will end up with a real dictator in power. The US is NOT a democracy and was never meant to ever become one for a reason.

@jludo

Ай бұрын

Popular direct elections wouldn't make him more of a king nor lessen the republic ness of our system. That the legislative branch has ceded so much power to the executive branch is a separate issue to how the president should be selected.

Ай бұрын

Well done.

But he was still a slave owner.

The fundamental reason for the electoral college was never even discussed. (But that isn't surprising; it rarely is, and most people don't know it.) The reason for the electoral college is that we are the United **STATES** and not the United People of America. During the Constitutional Convention, this was an issue that almost prevented the establishment of the nation. The large population states (i.e. New York) wanted to abandon the failure of the Articles of Confederation which was premised on states as wholly atomic members (similar to the way the United Nations works) and shift to a completely population based approach. But the low population states absolutely refused this because it would cede governing power to the large population states. So, the reasonable compromise was the House based on population and Senate based on atomic states. And for the election of the PotUS, the electoral college was a mechanism that reflected this compromise in the (only) national election. Sooooo.... the salient question regarding abolishing the electoral college is: Do we **today** want to preserve the idea that we are the United **States**?

Ай бұрын

Thank God there are some actually sane and intelligent folks out there. This comment section is abhorrent

@danmcnamara3287

Ай бұрын

The other reason is that the more rural less densely populated areas would be underrepresented because no one would bother campaigning there.

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

So what.

Hmmm the right winger is named “Trent”. Shocking

Ай бұрын

Bigot

Problem is NOT Electoral College. The Problem is WINNER-Take-ALL law of each state that allows a 50.1% winner, take ALL votes of a State.

@playfulpanthress

Ай бұрын

The problem IS the electoral college. It was a racist system and we should abolish racist practices. The republicans are terrified of the popular vote. Why do you suppose that is? They don’t have policies people like. The more they’d have to talk, the easier people can cut through the bs. If republicans can’t get away with quip-y folksy sounding babble, they falter. Democrats have the opposite problem. They can talk in depth, at length, on policies that would help everyone. But getting them passed? And without back door weaknesses that help corporations? That’s the issue. If a candidate actually needs to appeal to everyone, there’d be more accountability and transparency.

@jludo

Ай бұрын

But the electoral college gives discretion to the states to make their elections winner takes all, so isn't it back on the electoral college system?

@THATBOISHAD

Ай бұрын

It would yield the same result