Gotta hit that 10 minute mark

@FratboyOX

4 жыл бұрын

I’m unfamiliar with KZread rules, does a video hitting the 10 minute mark mean anything specifically?

@fatstacksfatlips8708

4 жыл бұрын

Lokeshfro Ignore the other dude, when a video reaches 10 minutes you can put 2 ads on it as opposed to 1 ad on say a 9:59 video.

@juthikajana8153

4 жыл бұрын

@@sachin2842 to add onto that, when the 10 min videos gets recommended more often, it will be watched more often ,more ads will be viewed on the video, the video will generate more revenue.

@marvingonzalez2735

4 жыл бұрын

@@FratboyOX you can actually put more than 2 ads if it's over 10

@josephleonard6695

4 жыл бұрын

10 minutes is the new 270

“peaceful transfer of power for over 200 years” my boy straight forgetting we had a civil war

@MrDmuny944

3 жыл бұрын

@Krzysztof Milański not sure this is a sincere question original poster didn’t mention anything about political parties. Just the fact you can’t really have a continuous peaceful transfer of power if It caused a civil war ( secession started when Lincoln won). If Lincoln won when the electoral college was in effect saying 200+ years is incorrect. What do you know about the civil war? I’m actually curious.

@AHSears

3 жыл бұрын

@Thomas Quisenberry The civil war had far less to do with the transfer of power and far more to do with the condemnation of slavery. The transfer of power itself went smoothly. The war happened later. www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-civil-war

@OhNotThat

3 жыл бұрын

straight up, the whole us civil war kicked off the moment southern states realised lincoln won. 1860 wasn't even over yet and they were rebelling.

@AHSears

3 жыл бұрын

@@OhNotThat No, unrest is not war. If that were true, America would be at war with itself now. And, that unrest was fomenting due to the reservation of the Southern states to condemn slavery, not the election of Lincoln.

@Cowman9791

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, if it wasn't for the electoral college, trump would have conceded by now, 7 million is too big of a margin to say there is fraud

I now understand why people say that voting third party is throwing away your vote. When there's winner take all your vote doesn't matter.

@Perehenaa

3 жыл бұрын

It depends on the country. The more powerful two parties in the country are, the less third party votes matter.

@eifbkcn

3 жыл бұрын

On the contrary, third party votes matter a lot in most states as part of gaining ballot access for those parties. Here in NY, there was a massive 2020 campaign for the Working Families Party in order to help them survive an increase in the vote requirement for qualified parties, although almost all our elections utilize electoral fusion, and the WFP cross-nominated Biden in 2020. Still though, we got to see top Democratic leaders such as AOC, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders urge New Yorkers to vote on the WFP line instead of the Democratic line, so that's kinda noticeable

Peaceful? Prevents recount chaos? This vid didn’t age well.

the states wouldn't join the usa if there was a popular vote. that is what they said in 10 minutes

@danielsilvers2896

4 жыл бұрын

the *slave* states, you mean, the Electoral College was the compromise free states had to make to get slave states to join the union. The Electoral College at its inception was intended to protect slavery.

@UnitedWeStand2002

4 жыл бұрын

Daniel Silvers that is a lie. The three fifths compromise was for the slave states. The electoral college ensures all states have a voice and not just the elitist coastal states.

@xJohnny_Ax

4 жыл бұрын

Daniel Silvers That’s such a wrong statement based on your wording. It was factor, but not main reason the EC was created.

@thomasbenner9621

4 жыл бұрын

Daniel Silvers now that’s a different spin. The three fifths compromise was the tool for getting the slave states to sign on to the constitution, not the Electoral College. The purpose of the Electoral College was to allow the states to elect the President. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster. Under a national popular vote, the people would elect the candidate who officers the most free stuff and that would lead to tyranny.

@thomasbenner9621

4 жыл бұрын

richard hill further, under the Original Electoral College, they were able to keep politics out of the Executive Branch. It’s a shame we no longer have that system.

This better not screw up my recommendations-

@ayoubzahyo

3 жыл бұрын

Lol I feel you

@charlesetwaroo5796

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@TillTheLightTakesUs

3 жыл бұрын

Why would it

@vee4849

3 жыл бұрын

@@TillTheLightTakesUs Because I like my recommendations the way it is.. And I only watched this for class. And I hate almost anything politics related.

@TillTheLightTakesUs

3 жыл бұрын

@@vee4849 oh you can tell the algorithm to stop recommending based on a specific video, when it recommends you something based on that on the front page.

Someone forgot about the Civil War when talking about the more than 200 years of political stability 😂

@MrRyanholder

3 жыл бұрын

​@Krzysztof Milański Could you define a political problem?

@weyjey2768

3 жыл бұрын

@Krzysztof Milański bro politics is based on society and people. They are not 2 different things.

@ajibadeadebiyi

3 жыл бұрын

@Krzysztof Milański you just said they had a difference in social problems, but the south had different political views. 😒 Politics is the govt reflection of societal issues.

@rb032682

11 күн бұрын

@@ajibadeadebiyi - You are confusing "severe differences of morality" with "different political views". Please consult a mental health professional. . Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Terrorism is NOT a societal issue.

Wasn’t this supposed to be taught in middle school, dear god our school system is absolute sh*t

@commandercaptain4664

4 жыл бұрын

Instead, we're taught about Napoleon and Henry VIII, home ec, and the highly inaccurate and convoluted English measurement system. WHO. CARES. ABOUT. THOSE. I had to teach myself the metric system, how to do my own taxes, and how to cook my own meals. Tax money well spent, the school.

@jonathansanborn7988

4 жыл бұрын

the irony of your statement is precious

@ricekrispies1917

4 жыл бұрын

@@commandercaptain4664 They really should dedicate more energy into composing mandatory classes that teach students how the flip to survive adulthood

@oldgysgt

3 жыл бұрын

This was taught in middle schools in 1958, when I was in 8th grade, but the Teacher's Unions and the Left Wing Liberals have seen that America's youth are taught a man can become a woman by simply changing his name, instead of teaching their students how the country works.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@oldgysgt - lol. Why is you head so far up QAnus? Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

Wouldn't be a problem if education system wasn't lacking...

@rogerwilcoshirley2270

3 жыл бұрын

Nighteater It exists b/c we have an anachronistic completely outdated form and mechanisms of democracy but the corrupt established good ol' boy network sees no need to change. What we should have is an internet based wiki system wherein the people directly craft legislation and policies and where we vote directly on each issue and their appropriations. We also are upside down on this allegiance issue , it is not us that should be pledging allegiance to the burocrats rather we should have them stand , face around to US and pledge allegiance to each and every one of US. Everything is totally backward!

@brianpayne4549

3 жыл бұрын

RogerWilco Shirley aww, someone is butthurt. This is a plan in operation, long before your birth, and it’s a plan that works. You lose the past 5-6 elections, and all of a sudden, it’s no good and has to go. Get over yourself.

@highgrounder

3 жыл бұрын

@@brianpayne4549 There are good points on both sides. Discussion is needed and facts have to be adressed. I live in Alabama, so a vote for a Democrat won't help them much in our current system. The only states where my vote would matter are swing states. If it were decided by the popular vote, my vote would matter just as much as one in Florida if it were in Colorado or Georgia.

@brianpayne4549

3 жыл бұрын

Will Abernathy but the system wasn’t based on the popular vote, and it shouldn’t be based on popular. In popular vote, individual states lose power, look at California, for instance: the population of California has the combined pop of the next 16 states combined (I think that was what I read, forgive me, it’s been a year or so...). That isn’t very fair.

@jeffreyiaia1776

3 жыл бұрын

@@brianpayne4549 and how is it fair that a state like north or south dakota can hold up the will of millions of Americans with a population of less than one million. Philadelphia alone has more people than north and south dakota combined. where is the fairness in that?

Once they are in office they forget those poor areas anyway.

@jeremywhitt3108

3 жыл бұрын

Are you implying that the rural areas are poor?

@Debre.

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeremywhitt3108 I mean they are.

@hmoobmeeka

3 жыл бұрын

@@J0k3rl if you're homeless, why would you want to be in a rural area? Who are you going to beg for change?

The main flaw with the EC is not the EC itself, but the "winner takes all" approach that most states use. It simply doesn't make sense that a candidate who only receives 51% of the votes within a state should get 100% of the EC votes for that state. EC votes for each candidate should just be cast proportionally to the popular vote within each state. If a candidate gets X% of the popular vote within a state, they get X% of the EC votes for that state. Simple to understand, simple to implement, every vote counts, small states still get their +2 representation, etc.

@ashvinnihalani8821

3 жыл бұрын

Do you round up and down, it also presents issues with recounts. Most states don’t do recounts even though the count may be wrong because the margin of error would probably not effect anything now you have recounts at every possible division of votes. This would also minimize the effect of small primary one party states

@pvanukoff

3 жыл бұрын

​@@ashvinnihalani8821 I didn't say anything about rounding. Let the votes be fractional. I live in Arizona. We get 11 EC votes. Suppose in the upcoming election, Biden gets 45% of the votes. 45% of 11 is 4.95. So, Biden would earn 4.95 EC votes from Arizona. As far as recounts or other such issues, obviously new recount rules would have to be created. And I don't really know what you mean by "small primary one party states".

@rdhaley96

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with this completely, and it's something I've been thinking for years now. If we're going to keep the Electoral College, this is absolutely the best way to do it. Everyone's vote should matter. Your vote shouldn't be seen as invalid just because you're a democrat in a red state (like I am, unfortunately). I think this would also largely solve the problem of people not voting "because their vote won't make a difference." I don't see a downside with this type of system at all, and hopefully if Biden is elected, we can inch closer to making it a reality.

@heyhey-by4xo

3 жыл бұрын

I Love your idea, the Republicans would never lose ever again!

@pvanukoff

3 жыл бұрын

@@heyhey-by4xo That's not accurate. Obama would've still won in 2012 by this method. Trump would've still won in 2016, but it would've been a much closer race, by only about 2 to 3 EC votes. Being an independent myself, I'm not endorsing this system because it would benefit one party or another, but because I think it's a very fair system.

1:10 Trumps son looks like he's ready to gtf back home and play Minecraft

@acurapontiac4435

3 жыл бұрын

of course. He's The Expert TM

@samiracovington493

3 жыл бұрын

👌😂😂😂😂😂

@dulciemartinez4384

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@ThreePhaseHigh

3 жыл бұрын

No you always look like that when you’re getting ready to settle in for another four years at the way home ! TRUMP ! 2020

@vjrn9945

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThreePhaseHigh thanks for ruining the joke

This is about seven minutes too long.

@Ryno_D1no

4 жыл бұрын

Your comment is 7 words to long.

@denniswolff7300

4 жыл бұрын

Ryan Walker YOUR LIFE IS TOO LONG

@amazeed8532

4 жыл бұрын

@@denniswolff7300 this reply chain is too long

@denniswolff7300

4 жыл бұрын

aMaze Ed I DISAGREE ......

@amazeed8532

4 жыл бұрын

@@denniswolff7300 are

anyone else tryna finish an essay a day before its due that you haven't even started, and desperately trying to grasp quick knowledge?

@maevebuckley3339

3 жыл бұрын

thats exactly what im doing

@babycartesian944

3 жыл бұрын

I’m doin it rn, did u end up passing?

@sirthankless

3 жыл бұрын

@@babycartesian944 nah man, I don’t do good in ap gov

@chippym8316

3 жыл бұрын

I hope all of you information hungry students a cash money night

@AA-mr3uy

3 жыл бұрын

omg how did you know...........

I don't want an electoral vote. I want my vote to count!

@christiansoldier77

3 жыл бұрын

Debbie Daniels your vote wont count with the popular vote because the big cities would dominate every election

@jimkurth

3 жыл бұрын

Papa John how would your logic work? If it’s popular vote (throw out the electoral votes because we’re not talking about popular votes get the electoral votes granted to the state), and California has a voter population of 29.6 million, and the entire US voter population is 250 million. That means, Californian voters contribute to 11.8% of the total vote. The main question I have is Why does it matter what state you’re from if we’re using a national popular vote? States don’t matter when you count everyone.

@jmp0428

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimkurth God damn it youre a genius! I'm serious btw.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@Papa John - The bigger question is why do YOU not know why the Electoral College exists? Why are you ignorantly repeating old bulshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimkurth - Agreed. Don't expect any kind of logic from Papa John. His head is firmly embedded up QAnus.

Just imagine if we didn't have the EC today and somebody just proposed it. They'd be looked at as crazy.

@Slithermotion

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think so. Without the EC campaigns would probably only happen in big cities with a big population. What would be the point in campaigning in small states or small cities? I'm not american, I don't like trump but think objectively the EC isn't a bad thing for the representation of people in the rural area.

@TheCorrectionist1984

4 жыл бұрын

@@Slithermotion , yes why don't they just give people in rural areas the right to vote 5 times? Same thing. Those rural areas get massive over representation in the Senate. They are not ignored. Campaigns visit all 50 states and believe me they don't care about North Dakota's 3 electoral votes. Because of the EC, they give most of their attention to 10 States and the big cities within those States. Your argument does not reflect reality.

@chatman2a

4 жыл бұрын

Slithermotion You could have made your point about the EC without interjecting your dislike of Trump. So, why did you?

@Slithermotion

4 жыл бұрын

@@chatman2a Often people like to frame an opinion. Meaning he thinks X so of course he thinks Y and Z as well. I wanted to make clear that I don't think the EC is good because it elects trump but it represents rural areas better. And I don't see anything wrong in saying that I just don't like trump as a person that doesn't mean that I think everything is wrong that he did. Neither was everything right. So if you think that there was some kind of secret meaning in my statement....no I just pointed out that I don't like trump. That's it. And just because the DNC lost to someone like trump doesn't mean that it's good to change an election system that worked as long as the EC.

@commandercaptain4664

4 жыл бұрын

Electoral college: Counting everyone's votes in a democracy is just SO HARD. Tell ya what, lemme just... take... all'a these right chah... aaaaand I'll decide for you okay deal. Citizen: ... ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE A "COLLEGE"? Cuz you sound like a electoral kindergarten.

04:29 in other words politicians don't trust the very people they represent to elect them.

@LFOD4US

4 жыл бұрын

Not in the slightest, that is just this guys ideas or perspective. The founders werent all politicians, and definitely didnt trust all politicians.. thus the EC and constitutional-republic was rectified. Whether you side with CNN or fox, it is quite obvious from both sides the power of persuasion... Anti trump strongholds remained to be the urban areas where social/welfare programs are needed as there are more people than jobs and so many have a jobless friend/family... Rural america is different, where there is less cash flow because smaller populations but are still heavily affected by taxes and how they are implemented. A $50,000 debt for a degree is not necessary to grow corn or soybeans, definitely not needed for harvesting them as for many jobs in rural areas. Anyways point is that you cant expect the urbanites to care about rural areas and certainly cant hope their ideas will benefit those places but without the EC the rural wouldnt have a voice which is a very very bad idea that urban people tend to ignore.

@mykolt

4 жыл бұрын

That guy is an idiot. Note the network producing this video

@mykolt

4 жыл бұрын

@JM I agree with your comment, and yes I could see a small disagreement and just move on...lol. All I wanted to add is that most farms producing anything measurable these days, are operated by farmers with agricultural degrees and business degrees. They run 600 acre farms and employ hundreds of people and invest millions in equipment. Farming is much different these days.

@LFOD4US

4 жыл бұрын

@@mykolt I agree with you but still, those really large companies (who hire their specialists, not become the specialists) only make up about 45% of total farming production and still are only like 9% of the total farming workforce... the other 91% of farming operations are largely generational farmers, knowledge from books, family and local ag departments which provide more than enough information on modern growing practices and products.

@LFOD4US

4 жыл бұрын

@@mykolt another side note: Often large farming outfits lease other farmer lands, equipment and possibly their labor to grow the crop. For example: r.d. offutt, not all their potatoes actually comes from their own farms.. theres a hundred different farmers growing potatoes here and then r.d.o. harvests, stores and resells them.

You've been warned. Lots of ignorant comments below

@wolfmantroy6601

4 жыл бұрын

Wow you weren't kidding. I gave up.

@JeffreyGoddin

4 жыл бұрын

This it the internet, I don't need the warning, lol!

@Sp1n1985

4 жыл бұрын

@Samael Yoda uhh? That makes no sense

@berdboy

4 жыл бұрын

LIBERALISM IS A DREADFUL DISEASE..

@riptyurass302

4 жыл бұрын

Proper progressivism is pretty new though and it’s absolutely hypocritical and obnoxious

Sound like the argument itself is confusing and not convincing.

@MrTsiolkovsky

3 жыл бұрын

It absolutely is dead simple: the people who grow food and raise animals to feed cities should not be absolutely ruled over by those city dwellers just because of the necessity of low population density associated with FARMING. It was true in 1783, and it is true now.

@bimi4057

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTsiolkovsky California has the agricultural production of any state, FYI.

@ChrisF_1982

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrTsiolkovsky If it didn't occur to you. All states have agriculture. This is no longer even close to a valid argument, if it even was 200+ years ago.

It’s the way y’all didn’t address slavery’s role in the creation of the electoral college at all for me *yikes*

@MrDmuny944

3 жыл бұрын

@Jesus Christ time to crack open the good book again. Talk to your daddy if slavery affected the electoral college. You’re divine but yet still human I forgive you for forgetting.

@Nakar2

3 жыл бұрын

@Jesus Christ You should watch this one to know the slavery's role: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k56V2NWGkqbHoLw.html. Basically the northerners did do it to appease the south to agree to the constitution.

@MrDmuny944

3 жыл бұрын

@Jesus Christ incorrect the 3/5 compromise was introduced an adopted in the constitutional convention (mentioned in the first 2 minutes of the video!) and also was not brought forth by Hamilton. It’s time to retire and learn how to google. But let me help you as it seems I am more benevolent than you. Here is a link you can read to make it real easy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise. Between the start of the college up until 1868 the law was written so that disenfranchised slaves (generally blacks) helped boost the voting power of the enfranchised (generally whites) of that state. Th e representatives boosted in numbers by the disenfranchised (blacks) were not compelled to assist the well being of blacks (can’t be voted out or forced to follow a law). This created artificial power for slave holding states that held a friction creating the first and only American civil war to date (not sure how you would define a side note pretty big deal for me and for the millions of lives affected). Was the civil war all about slavery? Not completely at a high level it was a power struggle from two distinct side with conflicting view points of the direction of a young nation. Power from one side which was artificially inflated by the forcefully disenfranchised. Now the big question is how could have this information been placed in the video. Literally in the first two minutes were the expert talked about how it was a imperfect comprise from the constitutional convention (that’s when the 3/5 compromise was added as well Jesus!) a listing of everything wrong with the original agreement could have been read at the least. The video could have also listed all the times the electoral college radically deviated/changed from the original agreement. All of which would be aligned with the video without turning it into a “black facts force feed” media extravaganza. But one has to think that if you are going to ridicule a valid question about American and black history (haughty ignorance) then double down on some bs (Hamilton did it and side notes) makes me wonder if we should have a ton more of “black facts” videos. Side note: I find it hilarious that you come off as a vindictive ignorant incel and not the compassionate all knowing deity you name suggests. 😂 maybe there needs to be term limits or something. I’ll talk to your daddy while you google “blacks and the electoral college”👍

@MrDmuny944

3 жыл бұрын

@Jesus Christ the original poster alludes to the fact of how slavery played a role in the electoral college. Cite the constitution and tell me otherwise. 🙃. I would tell you where it is but based on your reply I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t really look things up. It will be a good exercise for you. Also you can’t call the constitution revisionist. The only question is if you have the mental strength and fortitude to find the section. I honestly think you will reply by changing the subject. Regardless I’ll wait...

Yes, We don't vote for president, we vote for who in the Electoral College is voting for the president.

@taltalmilal5495

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong. The candidate has to win the popular vote in a state to get that state's electoral votes.

@zachbunch8701

4 жыл бұрын

@@taltalmilal5495 and even then they dont always vote in line with the states popular vote

@mayainverse9429

4 жыл бұрын

@Sperup AD the electoral college is the closest thing to "one citizen one vote" if it was the system you want a huge part of the country would effectively have zero votes.

@DavidTrumbly

4 жыл бұрын

@@mayainverse9429 Except they would get exactly as many votes as they deserve. People vote, not land.

@simonwinn8757

4 жыл бұрын

It's called the United States and the states vote, the only thing citizens vote for is how the state will vote.

That’s why Census is so important, huh?

@TheOneBigRed

4 жыл бұрын

yes

@RickyJC

4 жыл бұрын

Yep, and why we should have a census question that asks if you are a citizen. You don’t want non Americans to affect a state’s power and receive too much power from state representation and vote power. This is why many states that have a lot of non American residents (which are generally Democrat) opposed to the citizenship question because they could lose seats and power.

@jgallardo7344

4 жыл бұрын

Texas is about to get 4 more Electoral votes as the state becomes more politically diverse. If it flips blue, it will refute any talking points about the liberal elitist cities argument. California is projected to lose one electoral vote as the state is too expensive. States like Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Alabama, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and West Virginia are also expected to lose votes as agricultural jobs are dying and coal is less profitable.

@Starforge1

4 жыл бұрын

If they stopped counting non citizens, California, NY and Illinois would be estimated to lose roughly 18 electoral votes combined. Yeah, non-citizens can't legally vote, but they still influence how much your vote counts.

@andresp1582

4 жыл бұрын

Starforge1 they don’t count non citizens lol

Time for change. Electoral college no longer represents the true will of the people

@zanvoy6848

3 жыл бұрын

It never did.

@mitingant

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrLanghalee do you prefer swinging states dictate their will to the rest of the country?

@bimi4057

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrLanghalee People's needs in California differ from people's needs in Kansas. So do you mean people living in California are not real people and their living should be dictated by the crowd living in Wichita?

@dumbviddumpchanneliguess7201

Жыл бұрын

@@bimi4057 I've played Cyberpunk enough to confidently say yes to this.

@goo1358

Жыл бұрын

You take out the electoral college, you guarantee that US will forever have a democratic president. Anytime you start playing with the constitution, it will never end.

Most informative video I’ve seen on this, with sufficient explanations of not only how it works, but the thinking behind it, from US founders to present day, pros and cons. Thank you!

@71nadra

3 жыл бұрын

Except for the fact that they completely ignored the role slavery played in the creation of the EC

@71nadra

3 жыл бұрын

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count. time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

@keithwardonline

3 жыл бұрын

@@71nadra - Thank you for that insight. It most certainly should not be ignored.

So, is there any wonder why people don't vote? That people don't feel that their vote counts? Very frustrating.

@artemisameretsu6905

4 жыл бұрын

Doesn't matter if in the end your candidates opponent can go round the low population states and ring up enough electoral votes there that your vote literally doesn't count. Individual votes *don't* count. Only the states votes do. Doesnt matter if more people voted for the same candidate as you if the states those people voted in either don't get enough electoral votes to matter, or more people *in that state* voted for someone else. So no, your Individual vote doesnt matter in the long run.

@zachb1706

4 жыл бұрын

Artemis Ameretsu because appealing to almost 40 states is easier than the top 11

@chrisg2788

4 жыл бұрын

@Chris L Except for when it doesn't and faithless electors do what they want.

@richardlouis8295

4 жыл бұрын

If the majority of state A vote for candidate B then candidate B should get the electoral votes for state A.

@timmyjohnson2099

4 жыл бұрын

One or two states aren't going to decide who wins, thank God above.

It's all in the name: United States.

@Surfbird11

4 жыл бұрын

Alex Mercer True, but there wouldn’t have been a federal government without it. Basically, Virginia was the California of that time. The smaller states like Rhode Island did not want Virginians rolling over them. Today that would be a state like Wyoming, which feels the same way.

@bukcot

4 жыл бұрын

@tree man True. Some are American and normal while others are Democrat.

@aaendi6661

4 жыл бұрын

It should be called the Ducked-Taped Together States of Inconsistant Size and Power Distribution.

@hazard4648

4 жыл бұрын

@@Surfbird11 A democratic election is based on the priciple that every vote counts the same. If you give the votes of people of smaller states a higher value, you abandon basic democratic principles. Besides smaller states can't be overrun by a few big states, since the senate as the state representation could block nearly everything. The US-System basically leads to a situation, were a few states are relevant to the election, because they are disputed, while the candidates basically don't care about safe states. In the past the states with the highest population like NY, Texas and California are the states that were the least visited by the candidates and nobody cared about them. And that's a big part of the voting population which got basically ignored. Thats not how democracy should work and is a big issue in the US. European countries for example have established far better election systems in the past decades.

@Surfbird11

4 жыл бұрын

Hazard 464 But we are not and never have been a democracy. We are a republic that was formed by 13 newly independent nations (aka states) which agreed to bind to each other as a larger nation (United States of America). In other words, people have never voted directly for President. They vote for electors who then represent the states. It is states that actually vote for President. Hence the electoral college. If you don’t like it there is a procedure to change the Constitution.

I don't care what people say. A candidate that wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote is like a football team winning the Superbowl because of bad officiating. I would love to see America get rid of the electoral college. It just doesn't make sense.

@TheBigdaddypickle

3 жыл бұрын

How so?

@Doamino41

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheBigdaddypickle In my opinion the popular vote should always determine a candidate in an election. Sometimes the Electoral college voters will vote against the popular vote. Which in my book is cheating. Kind of like a bad call against a team that costs them the game. Also cheating. As you probably already know it's the Electoral college voters that pick the president and vice president of the United States. Get my point?

@CMLee-dq7bi

14 күн бұрын

@@Doamino41It’s cheating when overwhelming masses of coastal city lazy welfare bums silence the less populated mid American farmers who are the nation’s economic backbones !!

THE REASON FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE... The reason we have the electoral college is because the STATES weren't just big counties, they we're more akin to NATIONS. That why the United States were originally configured as a CONFEDERATION, similar to the E.U. There. Saved you 9:30

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@Eric - You have no proof to back up your idiotic claim. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA! (There. Saved you from years of willful ignorance.)

@EchoTangoSuitcase

3 жыл бұрын

Wow. That’s an awful lot of words just to demonstrate your historical illiteracy.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you saying the USA Constitution is incorrect? Are you saying the math in the USA Constitution is incorrect? Are you claiming that many events in USA history never really happened? Please prove me wrong. I would rather not live in a country with such a long history of terrorism, so PLEASE prove me wrong. Good luck.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@EchoTangoSuitcase - Are you a citizen of the USA?

@EchoTangoSuitcase

3 жыл бұрын

No dumdum... I’m saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If electors can't vote against the states popular vote than why do they even exist? The position could be automated. And a winner take all system means that unless you are in a swing state your vote really doesn't matter.

@KevinSmith-qi5yn

4 жыл бұрын

I think it was because of how the country was setup at the time of the founding and an amendment has not changed the clause in the constitution. How do you reliably get information to Washington DC in 1789? Someone physically goes there. With communication today, you can do without the electors while maintaining the electoral college. Also how electors are selected is done by the state not the fed since this is a state's decision.

@50kal44

4 жыл бұрын

Kevin Smith actually the winner of the state selects its own delegates (loyal to the party or candidate) this prevents (for the most part) people changing their votes, in some states it’s illegal to do so, but in most states they could change their vote, this is how Collin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle got electoral votes in 2016.

@c0mpu73rguy

4 жыл бұрын

ThereIs NoSpoon And with a direct system, it’s if you live in less populated areas that your vote doesn’t matter.

@mansory7996

4 жыл бұрын

If the electors could vote whoever they want, the candidate can bribe electors to make them vote who gave them money. This will make the popular vote useless.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

Your personal preference doesn’t work even in the case of your city government.

It's amazing how these people didn't say what the "compromise" was. we all know what it was.

If getting rid of the electoral college i would suggest getting rid of two-party system of money donations and removing two-party label for each candidate for president only. Non-partisan and the character of the candidate for the country to vote who the president will serve well by popular vote.

@926paaja

3 жыл бұрын

That is socialism or communism.. so yeah... NO!

@samename1st

3 жыл бұрын

I agree the two-party system is a huge fault in the system, it causes such hard lines that have no point as so many are somewhere in the middle. A political party should be little more than a campaigning group with a given platform that candidates should fight for endorsements from base on what they stand for. This would allow people to find more common ground, and more diversity of thought in politics and society. This would require a more informed voting population, but that is needed as is. This would also have more transparency in what a candidate stands for between who endorses them and who they accept endorsements from.

I think we are in chaos now. You should interview that man again.

Not to be picky or mean, but if you’re going to talk to “experts” you should probably read the notes from those at the Constitutional Convention, letters and pamphlets and so on from these folks about the Constitution they wrote and their intentions so that way you make sure these “experts” are presenting accurate, honest historical information rather than their own modern biases. All this information is available both online as well as in the National Archives for free to the public. The Electoral College exists as a compromise by those writing it. But not as presented by modern constitutional “experts” be they biases politically right or left. It isn’t about slavery as those on the left presume or about ensuring candidates visit rural areas as the right presume. In the notes and letters as well as writings after the Constitution was adopted and the first real election happened after Washington declined to run again, these folks make it clear that there was debate about either letting the people vote directly for the president or to have Congress vote for the president. Each side had good reasons for their proposal and against the others. The Electoral College is the compromise. The idea the authors thought of was that the people wouldn’t vote for actual candidates, they’d vote for electors. The electors would be trusted people in the states who would campaign in electoral districts on behalf of their chosen candidates. People then would vote for the elector in their electoral district whom they felt had made the wisest decision about which candidate to support. Then those electors would go and cast their votes as they had told the people they would. The authors figured that this would mean that different electors in a state would vote for different people and they assumed that multiple people would be running, not just two, which is why the second place winner gets vice-presidency in the original version. They figured that because of this system as they were thinking of it, with candidates essentially getting a kinda proportion of the vote, this would lead to no one candidate getting a majority and thus that would lead to Congress actually choosing the president and vice president via votes as outlined in the Constitution for each chamber for just such a purpose. Thus the people would kinda vote for the president, there would be wise people to ensure that candidates were qualified via the electors, but Congress would have the ultimate final say which was to go with what the electors vis the people had chosen or go a different way. Once you read their notes, letters, etc you realize that elections like the one that saw the president become John Quincy Adams were much more like how the authors had intended them to go. Indeed, some of the authors bemoaned how things had turned out after the elections that followed Washington saw states and the American people operating it differently than imagined and forming into two political parties which they likewise hadn’t foreseen had the time of debating and writing the constitution. Interestingly they did not weigh in on suggestions to fix or change it, but rather left that to others. They seem only to discuss how things had differed from their intentions. Great video, though. Very insightful. Just wish media would call out people and politicians when they talk about the Constitution and are not factual like these “experts” or even politicians making obvious misstatements about what the Constitution says. No one called out a Democrats or Republicans during the impeachment every time they kept using the phrase “the high bar the Constitution sets for impeachment.” There is no such high bar. The few paragraphs on impeachment are vague and the reasons given include misdemeanors. So technically the Constitution allows Congress to impeach over a speeding ticket if they want to. Likewise the Senate can find someone guilty and still not remove them. The language is vague in that it only says that the Senate, if they find a federal official guilty, may only choose to remove from office; it doesn’t say it has to actually do it. The “high bar for impeachment” mentioned by the esteemed Congresspersons is from precedent and tradition that Congress created and more often is higher for the president than the cabinet members, agency officials, and federal judges that Congress has impeached and removed over the 200+ years as a nation and the reason that people in Congress aren’t impeached is based on precedent and tradition based on the idea that both chambers set their own rules for members beyond what the Constitution says; indeed the Constitution grants the chambers that authority to set their own rules. I mean, we have the shortest constitution in the world so it’s pretty easy to read it and call people out when they’re saying it says something it doesn’t actually say. It’s small enough that you can make pocket size versions to carry and read on the go and even with all the letters, noted, pamphlets like the Federalist Papers, etc those still aren’t voluminous (though certainly not easily as pocket size...more like pocket New Testament size! Lol).

@rescue08jrgaming72

4 жыл бұрын

No leftists are going to try to refute this.

@miketheman4341

4 жыл бұрын

ganapatikamesh That’s what scholarship is for! It’s why we see the opinions of scholars here as no scholar is going to defy the existing consensus that would result in a tremendous harm to their reputation among other scholars. Lastly this is not a research paper. It’s a news story! It falls to viewers to do the research and scholars would never use this as a resource.

@miketheman4341

4 жыл бұрын

BTW language changes and we have been debating the meaning of concepts for centuries. This is one of those issues that is not debated. We understand its intent very well.

@jrsands11

4 жыл бұрын

Repeal the 17th Amendment

@thelonerick2344

4 жыл бұрын

While this debate will be ongoing it is my opinion that the Electoral College is the way to go in order to keep individual states on equal footing provided the electors go with the popular vote of each state also voter ID laws will continue to be hotly debated until evidence suggests large-scale fraud which is one thing that concerns me about California as they've already discussed giving the vote 2 illegals and do allow some of those illegal votes to be counted in local races

under the electoral college you can win by having 27% of votes in a specefic case , by winning all the votes in small states and winning big states by 1 vote difference

@guroux

4 жыл бұрын

why would you need to win all the votes of a small state? just win small states by 1 vote and lose big states by all the votes. This general strategy will work because smaller (population) states have proportionally more electoral college votes per population.

@alextheonewarrior

4 жыл бұрын

Because let's just ignore the fact that most states are heavily leaning one direction, and that you also have another major opponent that should be able to see that and fight back.

@0xCAFEF00D

4 жыл бұрын

@@alextheonewarrior The that's a way bigger issue. Whoever isn't aligned with their state outcome is not a voter in effect. It truly is a waste of time. That's part of the argument for the popular vote system. It sidesteps both issues entirely and gives safe states back the right to vote. The current system may have safe seats where a minority is still winning. Because why would you vote for the opposition in a safe state? Wasted effort. So even if opinion shifts it'd have to shift so much that you'd win you need to beat the apathy. Hopefully polling gives some insight into that though. I haven't heard people bring that up so presumably that's not a big issue.

@starventure

4 жыл бұрын

loo boo A mathematical black swan event. Trump pulled it off only because of a perfect opponent who couldn’t keep their mouth shut. After Trump is gone and the Democratic Party gets a reset, all will be back to normal.

@jaimes350

4 жыл бұрын

@@starventure wont happen till 2024.

Can we really call 2020 a peaceful transfer of power?

@dani5645

7 ай бұрын

Good point.

The electoral college needs to go away

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

Propose an amendment 36 states will agree with.

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

@BorsMann The compact clause of the constitution says no state can enter into a compact with another state without approval from the federal. So I doubt this will hold up. But if the SCOTUS rules in favor it will be ugly for all. If I live in Florida and the people chose candidate Bigger but my electors decided to pick candidate Slobber instead, I would be a little unhappy. The states pick the chief executive and if unfaithful electors become common we will have a constitutional crisis. I doubt this pact will hold up for 2 reasons though. As previously mentioned the compact clause will shoot it down. But the SCOTUS has in the past ruled based on INTENT. If this pact changes an election or the current balance of power between the states then it will be brought to the SCOTUS. I suspect it will be the end of unfaithful electors when this happens. I pray it never comes to this. A lot of people in this country or very emotional right now and it seems it would not take much for things to get ugly. The sad part is. We the people seem to think the chief executive is the be all in control of our lives. The reality is he or she is head of one branch of the federal government. Unfortunately from the perspective of the states the regulation of commerce between the member states is one of the 2 basic functions of the federal government. This is why the member states need an equal voice in this selection. But for mine, my neighbors or your day to day life the chief executive of the federal government is much less important than our mayor, city council and state legislatures.

dont a lot of countries have peaceful transition without an electoral college?

@jimmefz3328

4 жыл бұрын

not consistently for 200 years

@jimmybrice6360

4 жыл бұрын

@Jon Emery who are you kidding ? trump is gonna win by a landslide

@JohnJohnson-dj2dv

4 жыл бұрын

The United States isn't 'a lot of other countries' and for good reason!

@joncash929

4 жыл бұрын

@@jimmybrice6360 yeah, LANDSLIDE BY KILLING MORE AMERICANS.. REMEMBER THIS BIRD BRAIN LOST THE POPULAR VOTE 🤔.. IT'S BEEN ALL ABOUT HIM EVER SINCE. IT'S NOT ABOUT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.. IT'S ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A REAL STRONG LEADER.. REBUBLICANS NO LONGER STAND BY HIS WAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE AMERICAN WAY..

@latetotheparty4785

4 жыл бұрын

Jon Emery I fantasize his departure will look Assange-esque

Thank you, CNBC, for making an unbiased video not just trashing one side.

@joeleicht5764

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I must admit, I was surprised by CNBC's even-handedness in this case. Not what I expected, but appreciated.

@GoddessOfWhim2003

4 жыл бұрын

this popped up after i watched the Prager U vid on the EC. i had to see if CNBC could be fair on the topic, and they were so good job to them

@AnitreaSadi

4 жыл бұрын

Cant deny that at all, it was actually good reporting.

@gottrance4631

4 жыл бұрын

Same here, in my mind I was telling myself "ok let's hear why they don't like the current voting system" Good work CNBC

@TheMadArab138

4 жыл бұрын

Still leans left because it doesn’t point out that it’s the left who wants to change this.

How you feel about the electoral college depends on how you view the country. Do you see the US as a collection of states, or do you see the US as a nation divided into states?

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

You nailed it. It is a constitutional and philosophical discussion I have been having with some. But yes you are absolutely correct in that this is exactly what it come down to

@Pocketrose3

3 жыл бұрын

@@bobbywise2313 would you mind explaining a bit further

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

@@Pocketrose3 I can try. Our founders were very weary of a central government to strong and believed the colonies could be united but be totally independent. Under the Articles of Confederation the central government was mostly symbolic and could not enforce anything. It was basically like the UN. Some like Hamilton wanted most power to be in the federal government, while others like Jefferson was an Antifederalist. These two ideologies came together in a compromise in which the federal government has exclusive powers on certain things and guaranteed protected rights of all citizens. But all other powers not given to the federal government in the constitution is up to the states. So essentially we are 50 countries United by this contract that defines the powers and limitations of the federal government. The states can govern how they wish as long as it is not unconstitutional. Now this is obviously not exactly what we see today. The federal government has taken on powers that are not constitutional powers of the federal government. Over time it has become extreme. But the constitutional framework sets up an awesome balance of powers between the states and the union. We have just stopped following it..

@inigobantok1579

2 жыл бұрын

A collection of semi independent sovereign states unified as a nation under one binding constitution.

@jasonh5547

2 жыл бұрын

Under our system of federalism it actually is more of a "collection of states". The federal government is not a typical central government like is seen in many nations in the world. The federal government in theory is only supposed to have powers afforded to it by the Constitution with the states otherwise retaining all other powers. So in theory power is mainly supposed to be at state level and does not flow down like central governments in other countries. Our federal government in theory is basically a quasi central government but is supreme to the states(Supremacy Clause) in the limited powers that the Constitution does give it.

Let's be real heal not everybody votes matter at all....

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

Oh it does. Look at how close the senate is. The republicans picked up in the house. And that is just in federal elections. The more important ones should always be local and state elections though.

@davegurrobat2089

3 жыл бұрын

@@bobbywise2313 but those top positions though....

"we've had a very stable government for the past 200 years" Civil war: Yeah I don't think so

@Tris_muc

4 жыл бұрын

Him it’s Stable who said it wasn’t it’s just not good

@olatunjiolakunle6908

4 жыл бұрын

You wrong. the civil war was based on another issue (slavery) not a voting/electoral issue. Hell, Lincoln was elected during the war and there was no issue about it.

@yolamontalvan9502

4 жыл бұрын

*The USA Is the only Republic in the World where the LOSER by 3 million votes becomes A FAKE PRESIDENT.* That’s not Democracy. We have no right to tell other nations to be Democratic because we are not a Democratic Nation.

@videobruceb8879

4 жыл бұрын

Not stable at all since 1981.

@300nate

4 жыл бұрын

Yola Montalvan good thing we are a constitutional republic not a democracy🤟

Personally I feel that the states should choose electors based on a percentage of popular vote rather than a winner takes all method

@ianmarkhammes2071

4 жыл бұрын

Personally, I think you should consider other factors.

@jfpei9315

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. The electoral college is not the problem. The problem is the winner-takes-all rules by 48 states (except two), as oppose to proportional to popular votes.

@coolbeans6148

4 жыл бұрын

Centralized government is the causation of every empires collapse in history. Decentralize government, is imperative. If it was up to me, each state would have 1 vote, regardless of population. To go even further, each county within a state would have only 1 vote. The government would be "bottoms up" instead of how we have it now. The local levels would have the most say, the state even less, the federal government even less. This would prevent cities from holding rural states as hostages, stopping them from forcing them against their will.

@derekkluck1120

4 жыл бұрын

As someone who lives in Nebraska, I personally think that the electoral college would be much better if more states followed our system. In Nebraska, the person who wins the whole state gets 2 points (the senators points), and then each congressional district votes on who its vote will go to. This retains some emphasis on winning the state, but also allows for even more localism. If more states adopted this approach, I think that the founder's intention of making candidates reach out to more areas would be better achieved

@imjashingyou3461

4 жыл бұрын

@@derekkluck1120 Yeah and Omaha and Lincoln basically determine who wins Nebraska. You typically have 1 electoral vote at most going anywhere else in the state out of the 5. Its effectively the same system. And it cause Warren Buffets famous strategy in 2016 where he focused ONLY on Omaha for Clinton. It was an outlier like the 2016 election in general where Lincoln and Omaha didn't go the same way and basically carry the state.

As someone living in Southeast Asia, it always baffles me that America, the country that's known for its freedom and democracy, still has a two party system, electoral college and winner takes all policy. Here we have 10+ political parties, several candidates, proportional parliament based on threshold and whoever gets the most votes becomes the president. And our country is just 75 years old with a long history of dictatorship that ended in 1998.

@ademhawilson5579

3 жыл бұрын

there are more than 2 parties but the 3rd party candidates usually get under 10% of the pop. vote. I do think the electoral college should abolished.

@ramsessevenone416

3 жыл бұрын

The two party system is a problem. The Electoral College is not. The EC guarantees equal representation for votes amongst ALL states, not just the ones with the highest population. In other words, you need to win each state based on regions, not just population alone.

“preventing recount chaos” Oh boy, that did NOT age well.

The great compromise with the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan You learn this stuff in middle school

@srgreeniii

4 жыл бұрын

Some of us did anyway.

@alezar2035

4 жыл бұрын

Not if you are not from the US, it may seem very obvious to you but not to foreign people who want to learn

@Jkizz-ki7hj

4 жыл бұрын

Dr Sum middle school... decades ago for those that don’t take refresher history courses

@lancewalker6067

4 жыл бұрын

Not no mores!

Pretty damn sad in this day and time need a news report on why the electorial college was put into the constitution. Says a lot about the education system today.

@gustavkir5298

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. Its not only made for americans it is just as much made for europeans or other people from other countries than America, that want to learn about your voting system

@krismine99

4 жыл бұрын

I just wanted to see how they would represent both sides, mainly since they are owned by Comcast

@eleanorcummings9699

4 жыл бұрын

Why do you think they took teaching Civics in the schools?

@Dankdalorde

4 жыл бұрын

Do YOU understand it? It’s a lot more complicated than the average person can understand. Both sides accuse each other of fraud. That and caucuses and super delicates make it much more complicated

@HablaCarnage63

4 жыл бұрын

Mark Jenkins It’s not a hard concept. In my day they all knew both of those things and promptly forgot them because it had no immediate impact on their lives because the government itself had very few impacts on daily life besides periodic military slavery and after 1913 a math problem in advance of an annual robbery. Start with reading and writing in English. Then teach them math, physics, and maybe chemistry. Then teach reading and writing in other languages. Everything else is a form of indoctrination. Best to keep government out of that business.

Thank you for this. As an Australian I’ve heard about the electoral college, but knew very little about how it functioned and its history. I found this very helpful.

Hillary winning the popular vote never ceases to amaze me.

@scootermarcydog

3 жыл бұрын

That doesn't take in account the fact that there was broad fraud on the part of Hillary's people.

@bascal133

3 жыл бұрын

Living Waters Fellowship of Watertown New York false. Trump created a commission to investigate fraud after he won and they didn’t find anything then disbanded quickly.

@kamp1875

3 жыл бұрын

@@bascal133 Voter fraud is very real.

@bascal133

3 жыл бұрын

Hans Becker russia did interfere with our election though that’s not debatable. And they interfered to help Hilary and hurt Trump. It’s not true that Trump was in on it or organized it but they said hey we can help you and he said sure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

@bascal133

3 жыл бұрын

Jru XO based on what? Trump and Q?

its so three states cant control the whole country....

@surfblue7336

3 жыл бұрын

So true . And every vote will count in every state I guess some people don't get it on the Democrat side.

@sveda22

3 жыл бұрын

@@surfblue7336 As it was said in the video, EC is not the problem. The problem is that in 48 of 50 states winner takes everything. EC votes should be shared according to the result of the popular votes in each state. This way every vote would count. Today if anybody wins any state by 1% for example, the votes for the opposing candidate are thrown into the bin. Millions of Clinton votes were thrown into the bin this way 4 years ago (same for Trump, but to a lesser extent). You could either be happy or sad about it, but it surely isn't fair.

@surfblue7336

3 жыл бұрын

@@sveda22 well we'll see if the Democrats will cheat or not. I am hoping Trump wins

Al Gore won Florida until George's brother Jeb put his two measly cents right where it doesn't belong.

When a state "joined the union" one of the "enticements" for the smaller states was the electoral college. "Even though you are a small state you will get at least 3 electoral votes" was the promise that was made all those many years ago. To take that away would, in my opinion, be grounds for succession.

@Phoen1xGen

11 ай бұрын

But…why would anyone secede in this day and age? Everyone wouldn’t want to leave the most powerful country currently existent.

@millevenon5853

10 ай бұрын

​@@Phoen1xGenthat's false. Even in Europe countries want to secede like Scotland and Northern Ireland or Catalonia

@Phoen1xGen

10 ай бұрын

@@millevenon5853 Are those the most powerful countries in the world? No.

@inigobantok1579

2 ай бұрын

@@Phoen1xGen no but the principle still stands, constitutional, civil rights or political violation of a government of the nation towards a particular state (Scotland and Catalonia) can be grounds for secession. Personally, i'am against it but the right of the governed including those states must be recognized which is what Scotland did in 2014 with a close no for secession from the UK and what Catalonia did in 2017 with an overwhelming yes to secession but the latter was shot down by the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain.

@Dragonette666

11 күн бұрын

most red states would be 3rd world countries in no time. If they try to go it alone many have economies that are smaller than the Dominican republic, Some southern states are on par with Uganda. If they do form a confederation , Texas isn't going to want to pay for them. Goodbye roads , schools , electricity. And when you come crawling back the US may not want you.

Short story. Having the electoral collage ensures that the candidates travel the country to fight for their votes and to know the specific issues in EACH state. If we went by the popular vote, then no one would go to all the states in the middle of the country.

@mfrmospfr

3 жыл бұрын

you'd have to get rid of the winner takes it all principle... with that every vote would count, so candidates would have to campaign everywhere

@HeadCannon19

3 жыл бұрын

Fun fact: in 2016, just 4 states (FL, NC, PA, and OH) received over half of the total visits, whereas half of all states didn't receive any, with 14 more receiving 3 or less. Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, DC, and New York were all in the 0 category, and Texas and California had 1 each, so it had nothing to do with big/small or urban/rural. What the electoral college actually does is make the entire election dependent on just a few swing states, forcing the politicians visit all of those a lot, while ignoring the safe states, not forcing them to visit all states.

@bobbywise2313

3 жыл бұрын

@@mfrmospfr I think the percentage of the votes received for chief executive from each state should be added up and divided by 50. This guarantees every state equal representation but also gets rid of the EC.

@donald598

3 жыл бұрын

Watch the cgp grey video on this. It does a very good job of explaining the problems and benefits. But your argument isn't the case

@nebelparder9

3 жыл бұрын

@@donald598 Thank you, that was a really good hint!

It's not a bad conversation to have, but it's not the most productive, either. Ranked choice voting would have the greatest structural impact, and revoking corporate personhood and the free speech rights of dark money organizations right behind.

@maverick9708

4 жыл бұрын

I 100% agree, Also the false dichotomy of our two party dominance system really pigeonholed a lot of voters. It makes people feel like 3rd party votes are throw aways and give too much authority to the parties already in power.

@musicfan789

4 жыл бұрын

@@maverick9708 True

@jwil4286

4 жыл бұрын

“Revoking corporate personhood” So they shouldn’t have to pay taxes?

@JeffreyGoddin

4 жыл бұрын

@@jwil4286 Huh? They shouldn't be able to exist for longer than the term specified in their charter, or to engage in activities other than those detailed by their charter, in exchange for the limited liability they enjoy. Corporations paid taxes before they achieved personhood via Southern Pacific 1886, where the 14th Amendment was somehow interpreted to give corporations the same rights as people, including freedom of speech. Our founders specifically warned about allowing corporations to gain power beyond their originally limited scope. Look it up.

@coryhebert2070

4 жыл бұрын

Hows that ranked choice voting working out in Iowa?

It's called a national election, but in reality fifty states holding elections and the winner of each state's election gets the electoral votes, hence the designation of a blue or red state. Without this system it would come down to a Top Ten Urban Population election. So, you either have a small segment of these large cities that don't get in some cases a popular candidate in their city, but an entire state's majority candidate would be the loser if the election was based on the national number. Larger cities are more democrat so popular national votes is good for them more than the rest of the country, so people with their own best interest in mind will choose their own best interest.

@scotthullinger9955

4 жыл бұрын

Not at all hard to understand. Your explanation exists for the benefit of Leftist imbeciles, no doubt.

Very outdated, back then people couldn't follow on tv or basically had no idea who or what they voting for.

@joseph4321

3 жыл бұрын

What does that have to do with the electoral college?

@aragti6060

3 жыл бұрын

@@joseph4321 ..it's the subject on video.

@smurfiennes

3 жыл бұрын

A fair system for the US for its huge population (330 million) and vast area (almost 10 million km2). It’s been around for longer 200 years and elected 45 presidents.

@mandisaw

3 жыл бұрын

People still don't know who they're voting for - or why. Many voted for Bush III because he seemed "like a guy you could have a beer with", and similarly folks back Trump because "he says what we all want to but don't". In both cases, Bush & Trump wouldn't wipe their ass with anything "regular Americans" had handled. It's all aspirational fantasy instead of realistic policy. Although some of these new-progressives are just as clueless - where is all that money for Medicare or GND supposed to come from??

@dkarina871

3 жыл бұрын

@@mandisaw many voted for obama just because he was black but he did 0 for blacks......

Thank you Bobby for your prompt reply. Changes to the electoral system will take a major political willpower something like Canada's talk about revamping the Senate or upper house. Good luck with that one ! I'll continue my reading studies as suggested. Your comments about metric measurements is another interesting historical study that I was personally involved with. Regards.

So wait, the Electoral College was created so candidates wouldn't neglect small places... Well, it hasn't worked where I live as no President has campaigned here in many years, over multiple election cycles.

@williamcleland2369

4 жыл бұрын

Probably because where you are is insubstantial to their victory.

@mydogskips2

4 жыл бұрын

@@williamcleland2369 That is correct, I live in a deep blue state with few electoral votes, but my point is that ALL votes(which are representative of people) should matter, and if there was proportional awarding of electoral votes perhaps candidates wouldn't completely neglect the voters in my state, because even here the vote is usually split about 55/45.

@Nojintt

4 жыл бұрын

Yep, unfortunately only mid to large size "swing states" like Florida actually matter to their victory. Which means they end up spending a disproportionate amount of time and money here in Florida compared to Vermont or Wyoming. If we had it based on popular vote, there'd be reason to at least spend the amount of time and money proportionate to the population (and assumed number of changed votes), but as it stands it's 0%.

@russhamilton3800

4 жыл бұрын

It's all about you...

@ForrestWhaling

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nojintt So....the Electoral college does exactly the opposite of what it was designed for? haha

It’s hard to describe in the US situation but I think the UK does a decent job at fixing this issue. The country’s spilt up into 650 constituencies with fairly equal populations in each one (60,000ish). This means constituencies in rural areas are geographically huge compared to urban constituencies, but it makes no difference since the population in each one is roughly equal. Each constituency votes, whichever party wins that constituency gets to send someone from their party as a member of parliament (MP) to parliament (obviously). Whichever party wins a majority of constituencies/MP’s (326), wins the election. In the US, each state has different numbers of electoral votes and different populations. Tens of millions of votes simply don’t matter because they’re in safe states. 24 million people could vote GOP in California, but if 25 million vote democrat, the whole state goes blue. The opposite of this almost happens in Texas. Each UK constituency has equal numbers of people and equal number of seats in parliament, one. The system isn’t perfect, but it prevents the popular vote losing the election.

@dotnuts

4 жыл бұрын

But what if the U.K. was voting for a single position? i.e. a President? In the U.K., the leader (secretary-general) of the party becomes the prime minister who leads the country. In this case, we're talking about voting for a single person to become the President.

@herbertvonzinderneuf8547

4 жыл бұрын

I am old enough to remember Labour winning the 1974 election, after failing to win the popular vote. But, you are correct, the UK system generally prevents such a thing.

@imjashingyou3461

4 жыл бұрын

And you have a comparably unstable government in the UK when it comes to the Head of State position. Prime Ministers, leave or resign all the time when their coalition collapses, the loose support in the party, are unable or unwilling to execute the will of the people (Brexit), when new elections happen. Our house of representative is set up exactly like your consitutenties and i believe we predate your system. We have our "parliament" change and possibly change the ruling majority every two years. While the senate which is equal representation based upon state is every 6 years. Apart from deaths or Nixon committing criminal acts we have never had a president leave office outside of an election.

@joetaylor8602

4 жыл бұрын

@@imjashingyou3461 A president can resign just like a prime minister. It's just we've had plenty of them recently because of weak leadership.

@imjashingyou3461

4 жыл бұрын

@@joetaylor8602 and we have had 1 in 244 years. Because he was about to be removed because of crimes. Point is we are stable in the US. You are not. There is nothing in the US to fix. You also don't have the vastly different experiences in the UK you get in the US. Thats the point of the electoral college system. So that voters in New York, California, and Texas can't simply dictate with thier different needs and awareness on the issues to North Dakota, or Idaho. Its so also a political party doesn't move to one region form a slight majority off that region and then vote on thier issues and needs and completely disregard the rest of the nation. Even if a small majority says they want this president it must be broadly acceptable to the US.

one single queation: why does the popular vote still exist?

This could have been done in 5 minutes. The low information density made my head hurt

@ogladaczr.t.3168

3 жыл бұрын

dude, as someone not from states, shut up, its useful

@MsKpop-yg5uq

3 жыл бұрын

@@ogladaczr.t.3168 I didn’t understand any of it lmao

The folks against Voter ID laws also tend to be against the Electoral College.

@christopherbell2846

4 жыл бұрын

The folks for Voter ID laws also tend to be for the Electoral College

@christopherhand4836

4 жыл бұрын

Because they want to cheat

@hellstromcarbunkle8857

4 жыл бұрын

@@christopherhand4836 Voter ID won't fix a problem...because none exists as the 18, count that EIGHTEEN convictions in 2016 could NOT make a difference. That's 18 across the nation 14 of those were absentee that no Voter ID will fix. Voter ID is voter suppression

@hellstromcarbunkle8857

4 жыл бұрын

@Sir Walter Raleigh You don't have a constitutonal right to equal driving.

@robertderexsonii6033

4 жыл бұрын

@Sir Walter Raleigh the Democrats dont want a voter Id because illegals cant vote then, plan and simple

1828, 1876, 2000, & 2016. Four times the electoral college has defeated the popular vote.

Can we get rid of the 'all or nothing' aspect then?

@JustAnotherJarhead

3 жыл бұрын

you miss the point of the College. Subdividing CA's 55 electoral votes would not be possible, you can't have fractions.

@robertotelleria7109

3 жыл бұрын

@@JustAnotherJarhead thank you !

@truthseeker1934

3 жыл бұрын

@@JustAnotherJarhead you don't have to be so accurate to divide it in fraction.

@JustAnotherJarhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@truthseeker1934 the Constitution doesn't have any provision for anything but...an all or nothing approach. Its literally almost impossible to alter how its done. That isn't accidental either, the Framers wrote the guidelines with that in mind, to not be easy to change.

@rawn4203

3 жыл бұрын

@@JustAnotherJarhead What OP is saying that if Canidate A wins say 40% of CA's total votes cast, then give them 40% of CA's EV's (and round to the nearest whole # to avoid fractions). That would be a good compromise between the Electoral College and a national popular vote. Remember Bush won FL in 2k by about 600 votes yet ALL 25 EV's from that state went to Bush, that didnt exactly accurately reflect the will of the people of FL, and giving the overall election to bush when 500k more wanted Gore obviously made the same mistake too. The EC is a sickness that needs to be put to pasture or at the very least modified.

Oh God! Thanks for letting my country have an electoral system where the president and the authorities are picked with the half + 1 of the votes from all the citizens 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

Electoral votes should be proportional to the candidates' votes in that state.

@ispartacus1337

4 жыл бұрын

@cafemartini I love how you just assume hes a liberal. There are many Republicans that think this same way.

@LosCristeros317

4 жыл бұрын

Phalanx you and I both know he’s significantly more likely to be a liberal so what’s your point? There will always be outliers in statistics... The vast majority of republicans support the electoral college and the rest of the constitution while the vast majority of liberals actively seek to undermine and destroy the electoral college and everything else in the constitution.

@inkey2

4 жыл бұрын

The only people against "The Electoral College" are those who's candidate lost the electoral votes and won the popular vote. If Hillary Clinton won the Electoral Votes and lost the popular vote do you really think Democrats would all yell WE DIDN'T REALLY WIN_!

@inkey2

4 жыл бұрын

Leech.......google this phrase....."THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" as it relates to the electoral college. Not trying to give you a hard time. It would be good to read it for more info.

@chadwilliams9141

4 жыл бұрын

@@LosCristeros317 do you not see the hypocrisy in what you typed? This is the problem we see red or in your case blue and the bias begins.

You’re telling us in 200 years no one has had a better way to change this?

@rickdfw5005

4 жыл бұрын

Yea. Lots of better ways. The problem is getting all 3 branches to agree at one time.

@rickwest2818

4 жыл бұрын

Here's a better way. Give each state 1 vote.

@rickwest2818

4 жыл бұрын

Not really, but you see how a debate can start. You have to understand that when the founders wrote the constitution, the states were considered sovereign nations that were joining a union. Think EU.

@jgallardo7344

4 жыл бұрын

There is hope. Only within the last 100 years were we able to vote on our Senators directly. 50 years and counting of the Voting Rights Act. Many states are currently adopting independent redistricting commissions. Maine adopted Ranked Choice Voting at the state and federal level. Some states are giving felons their right to vote back. One step and one state at a time

@jgallardo7344

4 жыл бұрын

Rick West that would be extremely disproportionate. California:Wyoming is 77:1

Put in in layman's terms Trump didn't win the popular vote, Hillary had more people vote for her. But Trump had a wider spread of districts/ and counties vote for him giving him more electoral votes than Hillary. If we got rid of the electoral college and solely voted only with the popular votes only big cities with large populations would matter in an election. So it's an oversight not to have it as if you live in a small state/or small population area your voting power would be ignored or unimportant. Popular vote alone would let big cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco to decide what would happen for the rest of the country. It's by no means perfect but it keeps the small states and lower populations a say in the election. I think from the map it opens up a bigger discussion on maybe where the democrats reached and where the republicans reached. The democrats were more popular in densely packed cities with high populations. They focused more there in the cities than say all the rural counties. I think that from the map democrats just need to do more to win over rural or lower population voters. The republicans don't do so good in big cities such as chicago, new york most of the time. But somehow managed to convince the people in lower population areas to turn out for them that day. I'm looking at this from a middle view, if the democrats plan to win this election they need to get all those many spread out districts and counties not just the cities to like them. The republicans on the other hand, probably aren't as socially adaptable to the urban and city people and should work on being more likeable to them. This is just my thoughts on it.

@mariaorsic9763

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed!

@ronnyfields540

3 жыл бұрын

Trump won 30 of 50 states and 70% of districts.

@TerrellAmari

3 жыл бұрын

This made more sense to me.. thanks

@nourestani

3 жыл бұрын

This is utterly nonsense now... Because now you have minority ruling over majority you wouldn't like it if it was you... How do you think it's fair that 50 vote from California equals one vote from Ohio? This is not democracy this is nonsense... The white slave owners so-called the forefathers knew that one day they going to be minority and they going to all live in Midwest so might as well create a system to still control the country

@papabear8549

3 жыл бұрын

first off, this is a very well written and respectful comment. Im glad you're thinking about it and stating how its your thoughts. This is just my point of view on it. The EC was created to give a voice to the people in less populated areas, which is a good think and was needed in the past. The way voting took place would be a lot more difficult to get a general idea of how people felt in those areas. But now states are more connected than ever with the voice of the people being ever more present with the use of social media. as much as i agree that the abolishment of the EC would lead to the focus on larger cities, the current state of how campaigns are ran arent much different. The candidates only go to a select set of states during the campaign trail, the swing states. If a Republican was running, he'd have more of an incentive to go to Florida than Alabama due to how the vote is almost guaranteed there and the same could be said for a Democrat. and if we're talking about keeping power to even between the minority and majority, the EC is even short in that aspect. In a state, its usually winner takes all when it comes to electoral votes, even if the state is 60% red and 40% blue all of the electoral votes are given to the republicans. This kind of over shadows the minority of democrats in the state. I think if the winner takes all system of the states were to be abolished, the perception of the EC would be a lot more positive. As much as i think the EC had its use and was needed in the past, i now believe it has become out dated and forces the majority of the people to be forced to live under the rule of the minority, which isnt fair either. Now I'm just a freshman in college who admirably only started getting into politics this year but of what i learned, the EC is now seen as more of a hurdle than an asset.

Simple answer. To "creatively influence" the results of an election.

@heyhey-by4xo

3 жыл бұрын

That's a stupid answer!

@MechanicalMarketer253

3 жыл бұрын

It’s more like “to convince the smaller states to be a part of the US in the first place”

Bought and paid for .

@JeffreyGoddin

4 жыл бұрын

Campaign finance is another issue, Citizens United especially.

@phiksit

4 жыл бұрын

So most states have winner take all system... but we need a middle man to cast a vote to make it legit somehow??? mmmmkay

Way too many people have no idea how our election system works. The president is elected by the states, not directly by the citizens. The citizens of each state elect that state's representatives of the electoral college who, in turn, vote for the president. Each state has its number of electoral votes based on its population. It's done this way so each state has a say in presidential elections. Issues important to large states and cities may not be as important to smaller states, and visa versa. The electoral college keeps one group from having total control over who becomes president. If the election were by popular vote, candidates would promise everything to half a dozen states with the largest populations in order to get elected, ignoring the rest of the nation. Many Democrats are against the electoral college because, while winning the popular vote, they lost the electoral college vote. I can guarantee you that had they won the electoral college but lost the popular, they would be all for the electoral system and it would be the Republicans against it.

@joudo7

4 жыл бұрын

Bryan McMillin I appreciate your brief explanation and neutral stance. Thank you. And as a moderate that is left leaning, I agree with your last statement.

@freeloguy3387

4 жыл бұрын

So really it isnt about democrats or republicans. It's about one side winning using an unfair method and the other trying to fix the unfair method to be fair. So in other words the right/logical thing to do is to go by popular vote? You seem pretty knowledgable in this. What are the cons of popular vote? And why are many people against it?

@sandwitch911

4 жыл бұрын

@@freeloguy3387 He mentionned it in his comment. It's the part about differing interests between different states. Essentially, it's to avoid a tyranny of the majority. In the context of the US, it would be, for example, the differing interests between rural and urban areas. States like New York or California have a mostly urban liberal voter base as well as a higher population, and as such, respond well to policies such as the removal of tariffs, lax immigration laws and additionnal social benefits. Now on the other hand, more rural states, say Nebraska or Wisconsin, who have a largely industrial and agricultural worker voter base, would respond well to policies which correspond with their interests, such as protectionnary tariffs that protect their local economies, farming subsidies and harsher immigration laws. The electoral college essentially forces presidential candidates to consider the interests of states with vastly differing demographics, and not simply base their campaign off a few, yet populous, urban states if they want to win the election. Campagning takes time, effort and money, and if a candidate could garner a majority support by just campaigning in the few high density coastal states, you can bet that's what they would do.

@PBryanMcMillin

4 жыл бұрын

@@freeloguy3387 The cons of using the popular vote is that a few states can determine the president for the entire nation. In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million votes. However, she won California by over 4 million votes. That means that Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by over a million votes. Basically California would have chosen the president despite the rest of the country having preferred Trump by +1million votes. Candidates would cater to a few large states because that's where the votes are. In 2016 one state would have nullified the collective wishes of the rest of the nation, as a whole. The government is set up so that the House is directly elected by and represents the citizens. The Senate is meant to represent the will of their state and the president is meant to oversee the entire nation as a whole and not just large population centers. Make it a popularity contest and flyover country becomes just that.

@Herman47

4 жыл бұрын

Each state would have a say without the Electoral College, it's just that that "say" would be proportional to its population. Bryan, think about what you favor. You favor that the vote for President of each Rhode Islander should be weighted twice as heavily as the vote for president of each Texan. Please explain to the Texan why that's fair. Let me get you started: "Texan, it is perfectly fair that Rhode Island gets twice as many electors per voter than you get because________(fill in the blank)". You think that without the Electoral College candidates would be promising special favors say for the voters of Texas. What favors could those be? Right now with the Electoral College, candidates do face pressure to offer special enticements to toss-up, battleground states. Trumpy is a good example here. In 2016, he favored restrictions on free trade, that is, protectionism, believing that it would be helpful to him winning Michigan & Ohio. What Texas & Calfornia & New York and even Rhode Island & Delaware didn't enter the picture. You favor discrimination against voters based on the voter's location. Do you also favor discrimination against voters based on race? Or how about occupation?

Andrew Jackson wanted to get rid of the Electoral college. He also believed that tenured positions like the Supreme Court like the should be rotated between qualified candidates

So if the Electoral College decides on the final step, then what is the point of asking the population to vote?

@giannapspsmeow

Жыл бұрын

that’s exactly what i’m thinking

So essentially ensures that all voices are heard, to me that seems like exactly what this country needs

@BJ-xm6bi

4 жыл бұрын

The electoral college does not ensure all voices are heard. 3 million more people voted for hillary clinton under the electoral college and she still lost, so 3 million voices were not heard. If you count each vote individually, then all voices are heard. You can only do that with the popular vote.

@masteryoda5150

4 жыл бұрын

@@BJ-xm6bi Then the candidates would do a different campaign. The electoral college was made so that majority doesn't rule out the minority. You need to get more states and not more people.

@masteryoda5150

4 жыл бұрын

@@BJ-xm6bi Also this isn't a democracy just recite the pledge of allegiance.

@BJ-xm6bi

4 жыл бұрын

@@masteryoda5150 In the US the majority doesn't rule out the minority or even the individual citizen because as an american you are guaranteed certain rights. You are correct about that, but the electoral college has nothing to do with that. *Your individual rights are guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, the bill of rights.* Look at the constitution closely. You have rights such as the right to free speech, religion, bear arms, right to the due process of law, etc, etc. These are your rights regardless of what the majority thinks. This cannot be changed regardless of the popular vote or the electoral college. This is too important of a point to give credit to the wrong concept! The majority can't rule over the minority because of the constitution, please don't confuse that with the electoral college. Having the majority of states rule out the minority of states is no better than mob rule. If the EC was designed to protect against majority rule then it fails 90% of the time because the electoral college and the popular vote produce the same result almost 90% of the time!

@BJ-xm6bi

4 жыл бұрын

@ILeftTheLeft Well you are paranoid but that is much better than being stupid.

See the remarks beginning at minute 7: It would seem that if all 50 states would scrap the winner takes all approach and adopt a proportional delegate system as Maine and Nebraska have done, we could retain the strengths of the current electoral college system and still allow for a more popular vote. This could be handled without changing the the US Constitution - it is a state law matter. It is interesting that this simple common sense approach does not get more attention in the media.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@Rick - There are no "strengths" in the Electoral College, only corruption. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!

@highgrounder

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 Whoa, there. There are some good points there, but electoral college supporters have some too. There should be civil discussion and not boneheaded shouting.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@highgrounder - Why do you consider a "welfare benefit" for terrorists to have ANY level of validity?

@captainwafflez3630

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. However, one should keep in mind that this solution would still not be as proportional, democratic, and fair as a popular vote system because... 1. Faithless electors 2. There can't be half a delegate or half a vote, meaning that there will be some rounding when it comes to how many electoral votes are assigned in accordance with population 3. The two votes afforded to every state regardless of population (senate) would additionally scew the proportions a bit more

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@captainwafflez3630 - Agreed.

Says 6 min in we've had a stable government for the last 200 years. Guess he never learned about the civil war.

@tremedar

3 жыл бұрын

If you round up from the actual length of 155 years...

Who has to watch this for their school

@dulciemartinez4384

3 жыл бұрын

Here😂

@dulciemartinez4384

3 жыл бұрын

Did you do the homework??😁😂

Federalist 68 "...The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements..." Democracy is a vote by large groups to trample smaller ones - popular votes give license to strong groups to damage lesser groups. Human nature never changes. Our Republic has built-in safeguards against such convulsions (like the Electoral College, The Bill of Rights, The Jury System, Due Process).

@MichiganUSASingaporeSEAsia

4 жыл бұрын

George Somaru really? It’s a corrupted system. California has all of the power with over 55 electoral votes. That means both parties will give that state anything they want in order to win that state. Unethical and a silly system that puts the other states at a disadvantage

This is what the Electoral College means to me, and to many I've talked to, in terms of what the E.C. does during an presidential election- It seems that 'they' (the Electoral College) are the deciding votes for who wins the election. In 2016, many sources reported that Hilary Clinton WON by the popular vote, and yet, Trump won the election due to the Electoral College. What that tells me, even 'if' it is far fetched, is that Biden could be winning by 100,000 votes, and the Electoral College will just happen to have 100,001 votes show up for Trump. This is one of the main reasons many have not and will not vote. Many don't see their vote as being important, so why even try. This goes back to WHY we vote, as we should vote for someone who will not just 'say' that they have the best interests of the American people in mind, but that they will follow through with that commitment. We need a LEADER who understands why people come to this country, seeking a better life, not a judgmental hate mongering dictator who wants to create 'his' version of a great America. Right now, many sources are showing that Trump 'could' lose by a landslide. However, I wouldn't be surprised that a last minute win at the buzzer victory comes through for Trump....all thanks to the Electoral College.

@tomatodamashi

4 жыл бұрын

The Electoral College is not these deep state entity hiding in the shadows that is only there to help Trump win. It is a way to balance out the scales a little so that small states matter. It is balanced by population to some degree, which is why California gets 55 votes compared to Alaska's 3. If you simply just do a popular vote then why would any candidate care about issues in places other than California, New York and Texas? THAT is the compromise to help those in smaller states have a bigger voice. As for Trump, obviously you don't like him, and obviously rhetoric is more important to you than policy. I'm sure you were horrified with the pictures of immigrant children in cages...which were taken under Obama's term in office. I'm sure you are horrified when police used water cannons in freezing weather on peaceful protesters...under Obama's term in office. I'm sure you were horrified when Trump bombed 90% the wrong people (civilians) with drones...oh wait that started under Obama. In actuality, the war crimes, lack of care for the poor, war hawkishness has been in American politics for decades. People like you only think that Trump is an aberration. I put it to you that Trump is only more honest about the evil policies that the government does, but they are really no different to those before him. You say you want a "LEADER" who understands blah blah blah, well then voted for him. Bernie WAS that candidate and yet all the young people, minorities and blue collar workers failed to show up. Now we are left with Trump and Biden...a veritable Sophie's Choice of awful. Even if Biden wins, the country still loses.

@hunkydude322

4 жыл бұрын

it already sounds like the system is already rigged, by default.

@commandercaptain4664

4 жыл бұрын

The electorate has already shown that it doesn't even need money to be corrupted, merely basing their "feelings". Though I would never count money out of their equation.

@herbertvonzinderneuf8547

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomatodamashi The difference, of course, is that if Biden wins, it will be the will of the majority of the US electorate.

@marysueeasteregg

3 жыл бұрын

@@hunkydude322 Rigged? In 53 of the 58 total elections held so far (about 91 percent), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. The exceptions have been: 1824 (JQ Adams v Jackson), 1876 (Hayes v Tilden), 1888 (B Harrison v Cleveland), 2000 (Bush II v Gore), and 2016 (DJT v H Clinton).

headline of "why the electoral college exists" doesn't touch on the real reason.

So, if the Electoral College was needed to entice smaller states to join the Union, how many states will leave the US if it is replaced by the popular vote today?

@GotoHere

3 жыл бұрын

Sue Thornton About 46 out of 50 would leave.

@bascal133

3 жыл бұрын

Sue Thornton I don’t think any? Why would we not want our individual votes to count. I hate that if my state goes for A they get all the votes even though I voted for B

@suethornton8089

3 жыл бұрын

Your individual vote does count... in your individual state. Just as it has for 230+ years. People should be more careful/thoughtful before messing with things that work

@bascal133

3 жыл бұрын

Sue Thornton it hasn’t worked though, we got bush and Trump from the electoral college 😶 presidents the people didn’t want

@suethornton8089

3 жыл бұрын

Bacall, somebody wanted them, THEY WON! and they won the ACTUAL contest, not some fantasy contest they weren’t trying to win.

Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

@pramitvyas3747

4 жыл бұрын

The electoral college is few wolves voting on the rights that lots of sheep get

@axegrindin

4 жыл бұрын

@@pramitvyas3747 actually no. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand how the EC works.

@ram76921

4 жыл бұрын

Keith Bucco it’s not, they just choose to bluntly ignore what’s best for other states and only care about their feelings of said candidate. Getting rid of the EC would result in the destruction of the country. States like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio would never be represented and all programs or laws moving forward would only benefit large urban areas. It’s not hard to understand that

@Ixions

4 жыл бұрын

@@ram76921 Laws are made by Congress so this is sort of a moot point. The States remain represented and so should the people. You should be asking yourself whether you would like to vote your conscience or remain a choice between A or B and a country divided by two parties?

@derekwestbury6955

4 жыл бұрын

ram76921 How would they not be represented? there vote counts too.

If we’re not going to move to a popular vote then we need to go to a proportional electoral college LIKE IT USED TO BE. This is something every video misses or glazes over. States used to divide electoral votes proportionally. It wasn’t until the early 1800s that all the states started switching as a domino effect. So Trump won Wisconsin by less than 1%. In the old system he would’ve gotten 6 electoral votes and Clinton would’ve gotten 4. This makes it so it’s actually worth it for a Republican to go to California and New York and makes it worth it for a Democrat to go to Tennessee or South Carolina. As of now there’s 10-15 states that are “competitive” and that’s where the candidates hang out 24/7.

@JAYTEEUSA

4 жыл бұрын

It would also be much fairer to 3rd party voters (the by far most oppressed voting group in U.S. history).

@NoobNoobNews

4 жыл бұрын

Trump would have still won, but that would be a better system. It would remove the overwhelming power of large states and improve representation.

That's why the electoral college needs to be replaced by a one man - one vote system.

@barnacles1352

4 жыл бұрын

Keenan Hunt the electoral college put 3 reps even though they lost popular vote

Peaceful transfer of power for the last 200 years, well here comes Trump to break that record.

@SWest00072

3 жыл бұрын

Bahaha!! The Obama administration weaponized the US intelligence agencies against a Constitutionally elected President. Go take that Mainstream Media load of garbage somewhere else!

The electoral college was created more out of an argument between small states and big states than it was about the uninformed voter issue. The video spins things in that regard. Also, because high population states, like California, almost always go to the same political party, they've basically decreased their own importance in the election. If California was a swing state it would be worth five smaller states and get a lot more attention. As it is now, candidates basically only go there to raise money.

@brookeking8559

4 жыл бұрын

Zkeleton Z amen. And if California allocated electoral votes proportionately, the swing votes would be worth a medium-sized state. When I was a Californian for two decades, I liked that idea. I mentioned it to the current head of Common Cause in California, and she liked it, too, because it would be more democratic and get California more attention than just fundraisers.

@zkeletonz001

4 жыл бұрын

@@brookeking8559 That would be a good idea. I doubt it will happen anytime soon though since the Dems have a stranglehold on power there and they'll never allow even a single electoral college vote to go a Republican as long as they can stop it. Even though it means diminishing the states influence overall.

@samcalven12

2 жыл бұрын

@@zkeletonz001 you should mention Texas then

And what ever happened to "We the People"

@CzarsSalad

4 жыл бұрын

more like "we the few"

@thisoldmtb3815

4 жыл бұрын

that’s just a selling gimmick, it makes you feel warm thinking you mean something

@YoChocoTube

4 жыл бұрын

It's bought by the rich.

@flamingfrancis

4 жыл бұрын

And..."for the people by the people" This creates a "Government by the middle man"...How very American.

@PainBlame

4 жыл бұрын

You clearly didn't watch the whole video, if it changes back to popular vote. You will have groups of large numbers controlling the presidential election. This goes for the KKK for example with at one time in the 1920s had 5 million people! In a time when there was only 100 million americans and 30 million voted.. thats a 30 percent control over the election!!! That means if the leader of the KKK tells his followers to vote for a candidate than, thats a large amount easy control over the election. But since we don't have that system, and the KKK is really only in 3 southern states. They can ONLY have power in those three states and not the entire 50 states, like it is now. They would have to change residency throughout all 50 states and vote in those states. Clearly that wont work because thats only 100k votes per state which won't make any difference when some states have a minimum of 3 million residence.

The Supreme Court rulled that the electors has to vote with the winning state and not to there own vote in other words if Colorado voted for Clinton then all the electors have to vote Clinton not the other candidate

@Evereghalo

4 жыл бұрын

Which was after this video.

US already has a check and balance system by divided power into Executive, Legislative and Judicative branches. Electoral system degraded the meaning of one man one vote concept.

@ygus3030

4 жыл бұрын

Maaku :: I tought Hillary Clinton had the most votes but not elected as the President.

Seems to me the electoral college would be more fair if every state replaced the “winner takes all” with a system that awards electoral votes to each candidate in proportion to their % of popular vote.

@okxa8857

4 жыл бұрын

That's almost exactly what the National Popular Vote wil do, here's a good video kzread.info/dash/bejne/pomMj8irnLGoerw.html

@MDP1702

4 жыл бұрын

@@okxa8857 Almost, yes. But not exactly. The two extra electors make smaller states still have more power proportionally.

@lucthin6245

4 жыл бұрын

Maine & Nebraska divid their allotted electoral vote between regions instead of winner take all. With a diverse population a state can give some votes to both presidential candidates.

@LucianLusilver

4 жыл бұрын

www.yang2020.com/policies/proportional-electors/

@TheLastWalenta

4 жыл бұрын

Why acknowledge that the popular vote is better and then not use the popular vote? "I know I shoudn't use heroin but I do anyway."

Don't forget that there are zero electoral votes in Puerto Rico where there are over 3 million people.

@colinreed8077

4 жыл бұрын

Chelsea Trivette they are. The only non US state with electoral votes is DC.

@mitchellquartero

4 жыл бұрын

@@ctrivy3849 same thing if your in guam or AM samoa or Puerto Rico your a us citizen cannot vote there but come to Hawaii and the rest of the us you can vote in the presidential election

@mmcgahn5948

4 жыл бұрын

President is chosen by the STATES, not by popular vote. It is actually 50 individual elections.

@GreatRajsel

4 жыл бұрын

It's not a state, that's why

@RaymondHng

4 жыл бұрын

​@@ctrivy3849 The USA is federation, a union of partially self-governing states. The existence of each state is protected by the US Constitution. The federal government cannot dissolve a state, split a state, or merge states by simply passing a law. All the states in the union plus the District of Columbia are the only ones that vote in the presidential election, so there are 51 presidential elections. And a presidential candidate must win an absolute majority of the electors from those elections. Initially, the nation's capitol could not even vote for the president as stipulated by the Constitution. A constitutional Amendment had to be proposed by two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then sent to the states for ratification by the state legislatures in at least three-fourths of the states. In short, DC needed permission from the federal government and 38 states to be able to vote in the presidential election and they were finally able to vote in the 1964 election. In addition, DC gets _no more than 3 electoral votes_ no matter how many people live there. Even if the population of the nation's capitol were to be greater than any of the populations of the states with 4 electoral votes, DC still gets only 3. Furthermore-and many people are not aware of this-if no presidential candidate receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives votes en bloc by state for the president, *but* the District of Columbia *_cannot_* vote. DC is once again left out in the cold. American Samoa (population 55,212), Guam (168,485), Northern Mariana Islands (53,883), Puerto Rico (3,193,694), and _United States_ Virgin Islands (106,405) are *Devolved Presidential Constitutional Dependencies* . These territories of the USA totaling 3,577,679 in population cannot vote for the president and they have _non-voting_ members in the House of Representatives. Many other countries are federations. Some of them are: Argentine Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, Republic of Austria, Kingdom of Belgium, Federative Republic of Brazil, Canada, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of India, Malaysia, United Mexican States, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Swiss Confederation, United Arab Emirates, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In contrast, other countries are unitary states or devolved government within a unitary state.

Well, in my lifetime, the Electoral College has given us two obscenely rotten Presidents: Bush 2 and Trump. So I say, "Nice try, but let's see if something different works better..." I understand the original idea that the population differential between states with large metro centers and those with mostly rural areas affects the proportion of votes, but I agree with those who also said that the "winner takes all" approach is flawed. They should all count the percentage of state votes towards whichever candidate received them, not give all of the electoral votes of that state to whoever got more popular votes (like the 51% example).

@theradioramires

3 жыл бұрын

when obama was elected 2 TIMES you didn't complain, you scoundrel

@duArtj

3 жыл бұрын

@@theradioramires Obama won the popular vote on both elections, Einstein.

@thatleftyjames2893

3 жыл бұрын

Trump is a good president, thank God for the electoral college.

@suzannalytle2758

3 жыл бұрын

I personally loved and still have a certain fondness for President George Bush jr. It's interesting that when making scathing comments in regards to former presidents everyone seems to forget Clinton not doing a dam thing in response to the first attack on the World Trade Centers.

@ChrisF_1982

2 жыл бұрын

@@theradioramires Obama won the poular vote. Kind of wonder ing if the average I.Q is slipping to a new low. Perhaps we should give those witgh higher a I.Q.more weight to their vote. No, I'm not kidding.

Best compromise is to make it based on congressional district or even county so no one candidate wins or loses all the electoral votes of one state.

It is also merely coincidental, that the party who wins, think the Electoral College is a " beautiful and essential part. " of the election process.

@TheTlost72

4 жыл бұрын

Johnny Zeee just remember is America not all votes are equal. So no American dose not have a democratically elected government. So America can never call itself a true democracy. Congratulations. Yep you can keep this stupid system

@johnnyzeee5215

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheTlost72 Well, grammatic and orthographic coventions notwithstanding, yes. We don't have a " democracy ", we have a federal republic, with democratically elected representatives. And yes, the Constitution does not provide for direct popular election of the President, hence the Electoral college, for the reasons given in the video.

@TheTlost72

4 жыл бұрын

Johnny Zeee I understand that , and thank you gramma police, but the why has every American I have ever spoke to claim to live in the greatest democracy, when all votes are not equal. ? Can you please stop doing that. Because unless all votes are equal ............ Just saying there is a reason no other free country on the planet has this unequal system.

@undertaker11ism

4 жыл бұрын

Johnny Zeee Democrats only complain about the electoral college when they lose

@TheTlost72

4 жыл бұрын

joel robert then stop gerrymandering, have you seen the shape of gym Jordan's district, I mean seriously explain that to me without using gerrymandering as an excuse

The president need support from all the country not just california and new york. Thats the electoral college.

@xcrazyghostx9566

4 жыл бұрын

you mean uneducated people should choose an election?

@andrewcogger7586

4 жыл бұрын

texas is bigger than new york, so your talking point is stupid.

@zacharyking6171

4 жыл бұрын

Actually, more people in california and new york would get a say if there wasn't an electoral college. So Republican's votes in states that always go blue would count and democrats votes in states that always go red would count. It is actually decided by new york and california now be if they always go blue thats automatic points for the democrats.

@damarmar1001

4 жыл бұрын

Anti democratic thats what it is

@CClaudio21

4 жыл бұрын

xCRAZYGHOSTx he means that the “educated” communists shouldn’t beat out the rest of the country

Why does it have to be ‘States’?Scrap the States and let the people vote.

@SWest00072

3 жыл бұрын

This is The United States of America Dante. If you don’t like how the country operates, go leave for corrupt China, Russia, or even Venezuela!!

I love the confused look on people faces when I tell them the popular vote means nothing.. Evidently they slept through civics, and the teacher was required to pass some of those even snoring

@wingates8399

3 жыл бұрын

That's because you are wrong. The electors must vote how each state tells them to vote. Without the Electoral College, Presidential candidates would have no incentive to go to states like Arkansas, Nebraska, Vermont, or Hawaii. What for? All they would need to do is concentrate on urban areas with the highest population, i.e. NY, LA, SF, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Miami, etc. Why would any candidate bother going to Jackson, Mississippi or Cheyenne, Wyoming? The electoral college forces candidates to court voters from everywhere, and prevents the states with the highest population from ruling over the other states. The United States is not a true democracy. A true democracy is mob rule...51% telling the other 49% how to live. That stomps on individual freedoms, which goes directly against the US Constitution. America is, instead, a Constitutional Republic, which values and protects the individual from the mob.

@kevinrehberg8758

3 жыл бұрын

@@wingates8399 Depends... something called "faithless votes" are constantly suggested and the penalties for such actions are minimal comparatively.. And the state "none or all" rules are frequently challenged/suggested..only 2 states have split-able Electoral votes.. maybe a few more states with the free Electoral Votes to vote as they choose even against the wishes of the majority of another section of the state would be a good thing.. Washington is a good example... East of the Cascade mountain divide Trump carried all counties but one.. but because Seattle Tacoma Everett and Olympia were heavily democrat it didn't matter what the people of Spokane Yakima or the Tri Cites wanted

@wingates8399

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevinrehberg8758 you would get that on a national scale if the electoral college were abolished. The highest populated regions would rule over everyone else. That is mob rule, which is what a pure democracy is. It stomps all over a citizens individual right which is protected in a Constitutional Republic, which is what America actually is.

@Namath1000

2 жыл бұрын

The NATIONAL popular vote means nothing, but the popular vote in each state determines who the electors will be.

So the thing that's hanging up this being a fair system, is giving the electoral college voters the right to choose, outside of the expressed will of the people of their state? I guarantee that the census count in the southwestern and coastline of U.S. is innacurate. So, number of electors chosen per capita, by census...there's yet another flaw. As for recounts....how about beginning with voting on a weekend and for a solid week? (not One Tuesday, when rural and working people, cannot travel. How about ceasing to fight against the U.S. postal service & mail in /absentee ballots?(which have already been in place for the military). What about laws and strict enforcement against the Gerrymandering of voting districts, by demographics? And even before all of this, taking the money out of who can run for office by allowing X amount per campaign spending to come from the fat lined wallets of those elected (and otherwise)that supposedly are elected to serve the people. This never was a gov't. based on... for, by and Of "the people" we've a high ideal in that and obviously a long way to go. Have conversations, educate yourself about the true history of U.S. government (not the names and dates as in school, but the Purpose behind it's actions. Money, dominating power over the population with largely black & other people's of color as it's most Obvious slaves...dialogue, learn, share, learn to better co.operate, to speak your truth, to listen to others, be as respectful as peaceable as you want others to be. Do all you can to stop "us and them" and start constructively re.learning, re.considering, re.doing. Stop re.acting, start looking for how you can begin to be a part of a change for the better. "you may say I'm a dreamer..." I hope you'll begin, if you haven't already

@sylviarucker4658

4 жыл бұрын

If it were to change to popular vote this would probably be the end of the republican party. The 1% would no longer rule and people like trump and their racist and demonic ideas would be insignificant. The playing field would be more equal. Then this would make a real change in the United states. I believe this would even help the country become more humane and not totally reliant on finances. Also their need to be better qualifications to run for office.because the rich would elect pee wee herman if it furthers their apparently racist and overly biased opinion. For example trump. This is new times civil war.

@dagored4077

4 жыл бұрын

Elections in the US are little more than revenue streams for a multitude of businesses. It's ludicrous that the only people who can get their names on a ballot paper are those who can raise the most cash. None of which is ever given without some sort of quid pro quo. Limit the amount of spend per candidate and see where that will get you. FYI I'm in the UK and we have strict limits allowed on campaign spending - not always adhered to but failing to do so is a criminal offence.

@dennisschwartzentruber3204

3 жыл бұрын

Totally RAD !

@marysueeasteregg

3 жыл бұрын

@@dagored4077 Yes. I am convinced the reliance on Big Money by both parties is a much more profound threat to democracy than the Electoral College as such. Electoral College reform, or even abolishment, is a side issue compared to campaign funding.

Why is CNBC using a guy from the Heritage foundation as their main talking head???

@deepattison9329

4 жыл бұрын

Heritage foundation is conservative.

@ableskeever6875

4 жыл бұрын

@@deepattison9329 Heritage Foundation was formed to initially find arguments against progressive ideas and couldn't so they began generating falsehoods and twisting facts out of context to make their case. I'm with Joel ---- why have someone from that place discuss anything?

@PhillySortsFan46

4 жыл бұрын

Because they actually want to relay factual information, which I have to admit is unprecedented for a liberal news outlet. They usually just tell you want you want to hear.

@9UaYXxB

4 жыл бұрын

@@PhillySortsFan46 Facts out of the Koch playbook.

@garryuyahoo

4 жыл бұрын

Did you seriously not notice that they had opposing viewpoints? I mean SERIOUSLY? How blind do you have to be to watch all of that and not see that two sides were being presented: one from Heritage Foundation and one from the National Popular Vote?

A "government by the people and for the people" but you're not allowed to pick a candidate. Someone does that for you, and they don't have to pick who YOU want. What's wrong with this picture?

@fastzebrazoom4454

3 жыл бұрын

@@breakingthe4thwall260 The big picture is that they can still vote for whomever they want. That's not democracy.

@fastzebrazoom4454

3 жыл бұрын

@@breakingthe4thwall260 "For the people, and by the people" is democracy. How this country operates in practice is another thing. In fact, it operates as a fascist regime. And no, they are not required to vote for who won the popular vote, that's the problem. Not sure what your issue with socialism is. In practice, it just means taking care of everyone. Don't be so hung on labels. In practice, Jesus was a socialist, so take a hard look at what you're really saying.

@fastzebrazoom4454

3 жыл бұрын

@@breakingthe4thwall260 Okay... so what's your point? Just put up with it because Venezuela is horrible??

@fastzebrazoom4454

3 жыл бұрын

@@breakingthe4thwall260 Dude, if you're not aware that they can still vote any which way they want to, regardless of the popular vote, then there's no point continuing.

@fastzebrazoom4454

3 жыл бұрын

@@breakingthe4thwall260 I thought you were done. Bye.

Phew I'm glad candidates are campaigning in rural areas and not ignoring large swaths of the voting population