What is the BEST argument for the Electoral College? What is the BEST argument against it? Edit: I made a follow-up video to this one: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aJ-LqJSLmNveXcY.html

@rin_etoware_2989

5 жыл бұрын

Something something equalizes the power of the small states with the big states.

@randomuser5443

5 жыл бұрын

For, Wyoming and California can go toe to toe with each other every other year Against, it put Trump and Obama in office

@leealexander3507

5 жыл бұрын

Abolish it. It's undemocratic. Why bother to vote when the loser wins as often if not more often than the winner. I learned about in civics decades ago. Don't they still teach civics?

@leealexander3507

5 жыл бұрын

@@goodoldrickets2002 We only have one Chicago. That video has far than one error and, I agree, is not a good reference.

@dagnurd

5 жыл бұрын

I agree it is undemocratic, but that is part of the plan for America. It was purposely designed not to be a pure democracy where the big states would control the small states, hence the Senate/House compromise. The reason that it is better than a simple majority is that in a majority, polarization increases wildly as all that is necessary is campaigning in cities, which would leave rural America out to dry. Also, the good thing is that, although swing states have too much power, the swing states change over time through drift in beliefs, like people claim is happening with Texas.

Voting is stupid we should have our candidates fight to the death in a cage match

@timeland8343

3 жыл бұрын

@General Pinochet Trump is a fat tub of lard. Biden is honestly pretty lively for his age

@DJ_107

3 жыл бұрын

@@timeland8343 Trump would easily fuck Biden up. Biden can barely button his own shirt

@timeland8343

3 жыл бұрын

@@DJ_107 luckily for everyone, he’s about to become irrelevant

@andresolmos8639

3 жыл бұрын

@Alan emtriez I'm pretty sure he meant that Trump was going to become irrelevant

@daredevilwrestling7290

3 жыл бұрын

@@timeland8343 Jill can’t come in and defend him

Candidate: **has 38% of the popular vote** Electoral College: *WINS BY A 50 STATE LANDSLIDE VICTORY*

@Paranoid_Found

3 жыл бұрын

Same thing in UK. The Tories won 43.6% of popular vote, less than all pro-EU/soft Brexit parties combined. They won a landslide majority

@thiccbroniggboithethird872

3 жыл бұрын

Same everywhere lol

@Paranoid_Found

3 жыл бұрын

@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 not with proportional representation

@ronanconley2595

3 жыл бұрын

That’s literally not how it works, you would have to win 50% of every state are you win 😂 Y’all really don’t get it why the electoral college is so important

@s4gr_n0s3y

3 жыл бұрын

@@ronanconley2595 can you not realize I’m trying to do a joke right?

I am 100% in support of ranked choice voting. This, along with term limits for Congress, are two of the biggest changes we need to make in our government.

@jjescorpiso21

Жыл бұрын

Your Congress has no term limits?!?!?!?!

@AmaraJordanMusic

Жыл бұрын

Amen.

@diamondrg3556

Жыл бұрын

Ranked choice voting will not get the most popular guy elected. You can look up Alaskas use of it. My (hopefully) simple explanation is: If candidate A gets 40% rank1 and Candidate B gets 50% rank 1, but Candidate C gets 5% rank 1 and 70% rank 2, Candidate C goes to Congress, despite the fact that nobody really wanted him there. Also, the more complex voting is, the easier it is to cheat. With such low public trust in elections, on both sides, making it more complicated is a bad idea.

@diamondrg3556

Жыл бұрын

@@techtutorvideos I recommend looking up the election in Alaska, it was closer than that, 20/40/40 ish.

@arthurpeters1996

Жыл бұрын

@@diamondrg3556 Ranked-choice voting is fine in Alaska. The reason the Democrat won was because Alaskans really don’t like Sarah Palin

"Of the 10 people living in the room, 7 wanted the room painted blue and 3 wanted it painted red. But because the 7 people were standing close together we painted the room red." Logic.

@georgebrantley776

2 жыл бұрын

Because the 3 who occupied 3 distinct quadrants of the room threatened to cordon off the quadrant of the room in which the other 7 stood, for the sake of keeping the room united, the 7--having the least space--gave in, for the room would've been 3/4 red anyway.

@nosrednugj

2 жыл бұрын

The federalist system that was created was a decentralized system. There should never have been one vote to choose the color for the whole room.

@Asemodeous

2 жыл бұрын

@@nosrednugj And turned out to be a massive and hilarious failure that did not even last 80 years before falling apart.

@nosrednugj

Жыл бұрын

@@Asemodeous ... It never fell apart. It was fundamentally undermined and altered by Progressives. The era of USA that you call a massive and hilarious failure was a world leader in the abolition of slavery, was a world leader in the industrial revolution, and expanded from 13 fledgling states to 44 states by 1890 (approximately 100 years). In what way was nineteenth century America a failed state?

@Asemodeous

Жыл бұрын

@@nosrednugj You don't consider the civil war to be a hilarious failure of the system? Yikes. Huge yikes. The civil war happened because the founders were too incompetent and cowardly to end slavery when they had the chance and kicked the can down the road. Which ultimately lead to a civil war that still claimed the most lives lost of any American war. Also, you are counting years of America were slavery was legal as a "success". Again, huge yikes. The vast majority of progress in America during this era was made off of the backs of slave and migrant labor which were treated as less than human and brutalized for decades. How dare you call yourself an American you POS.

Wait a minute, you're not Mr. Beast.

@tiimshuuguushuu7894

4 жыл бұрын

yeah

@ender3960

4 жыл бұрын

That's actually his name lol

@Sasha-gd8xi

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah you are right. But this guy is better

@NickB-md1oy

4 жыл бұрын

Sasha- 007 they make entirely different videos hahaha I love them both

@Rainb0wzNstuff

3 жыл бұрын

Mr beast hisotry cousin

This guy seems like he's still upset about getting kicked out of Weezer before they made it big

@iammrbeat

4 жыл бұрын

@HexagonBright You literally made no sense.

@ljack-dr7kx

4 жыл бұрын

@HexagonBright Chill out.

@Joshricattiofficial

4 жыл бұрын

@HexagonBright Uhh... what?

@MoeDavinci

4 жыл бұрын

@Mr. Beat dont mind him, he's just on that powder.

@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.

"the founding fathers wanted" is one of the worst arguments not only because of all the existing reasons people cite like "they didnt live in our world today" and "under a lockian social contract theory we have to voluntarily enter into our social contract and determine our own government and laws" but for the simple fact that the founding fathers were a big group of different people who constantly disagreed and bickered. They never wanted a single coherent thing and compromised. You brought this up briefly. I just feel anyone trying to rely on "the founding fathers wanted" should have to be much more specific who? At what time in their life? Did they change their opinion later?

@Mrswissblue

9 ай бұрын

It's not that they wanted it, it's why they thought it was a good idea.

@RedMoonLoop

9 ай бұрын

They also thought blood letting was a good idea. A few notable historic figures died from that very practice. Founding fathers may have been smart but that doesn't mean they were always right. Ironically the founding fathers agreed with that. Which is why they left the constitution open to amendments in the first place.

@DanielCurtis1980

8 ай бұрын

yes, they may have been smart but that doesn't mean they weren't horrible.

@clarencekavanaugh7747

27 күн бұрын

@@RedMoonLoop so you like democracies. How would you feel if 51% of the population decides that they want the other 49% to be enslaved to provide them with the standard of living that they believe that they're entitled too. Would you still want democracy if you were in the 49%? 🤔

From what I remember from my US political history class was that the founders feared someone like Julius Caesar who endangered the republic despite unanimous popularity. In such a situation they wanted the electoral college to have the power to deny such a person a win by vote. I believe they called it "tyranny of the majority?" Personally I think it was adequate gor the early 1800's but after that if such a scenario would happen such a decision by the electoral college would likely result in Civil War. Personally I think the founders fears of which was worse, tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority, actually is demonstrated pretty well when you see how the House of Representatives vs the Senate was set up in how they represented voters.

@BossXygman

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but the Roman Republic is not the US. Just because it's called a republic doesn't mean that it was all that democratic. Plus, only free Roman men were allowed to vote, it's a lot easier to establish a cult of personality with your voters if your voters are a relatively small group of people

@Ezraknapp-qi2sr

4 ай бұрын

We had a civil war already in 1860 because of Lincoln's election

@jamisojo

3 ай бұрын

​@@BossXygmancult of personality? What do you call this 2024 election? Cults of 3-second sound bytes with massive participation from people exhibiting a decision-making style that is the opposite of "thoughtful." The vote is controlled by shock media preaching to our not-deep-thinking population.

@danielvaldez2203

3 ай бұрын

@@BossXygman *Um Acchtully* in the original framework of our republic, only free white landholding males had the right to vote or be deemed citizens. Jacksonian Democracy cemented this belief by the 1820s. OP was right, the founders were deeply inspired by the Roman Republics and other European Republics. It wasn’t until very recently that universal voting rights were recognized. For citizens above the age of 18 anyway

@BossXygman

3 ай бұрын

@@danielvaldez2203 The US is still not Rome, and doesn't need to follow Rome's customs. I never said he was wrong about the Founding Fathers' intentions. I'm saying that following what Rome did doesn't work.

CGP Grey: The electoral college is bad *everyone agrees* Mr. Beat: The electoral college is bad *civil war*

@dsmith9964

3 жыл бұрын

CGP Grey and Mr Beat are both inexcusably ignorant about the electoral college and its intents and purposes.

@jonasmejerpedersen4847

3 жыл бұрын

@@dsmith9964 yeah of course they are

@dsmith9964

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 thank you! The numerous factual errors in their videos clearly demonstrate their willful ignorance.

@jonasmejerpedersen4847

3 жыл бұрын

@@dsmith9964 Erhm, sorry but i was being sarcastic

@dsmith9964

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 And I was stating a fact. Both Mr. Beat and Grey are basing their entire arguments on assumptions and misinformation.

Fun Fact: The Electoral College was almost abolished in the year 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans & Democrats. President Richard Nixon even endorsed the amendment to replace the system with a two round vote system. It looked like 3/4ths of the state were going to ratified the amendment and it did pass in the house unanimously; but was filibustered in the Senate by Southern lawmakers who feared that with a direct election for president than African Americans in the south would count equally to white voters.

@joshuabenton3785

Жыл бұрын

Ahh the sweet smell of racism (I am being sarcastic)

@MM-vs2et

Жыл бұрын

How fitting, the electoral college, a dogshit mechanism, is being prevented from abolished by filibustering, another dogshit mechanism, and dare I say by dogshit racist people. Mmm the Cycle of Dogshit of America

@WickedMapping

Жыл бұрын

You can bring up one of its original reasons for existing, but that doesn't really matter today. All citizens can vote, so it now just serves the purpose of preventing smaller states from getting stomped on.

@jnayvann

Жыл бұрын

@@WickedMapping If all people can vote, then the electoral college shouldn't be a problem right? I mean, African Americans did have the right to vote when Nixon was president...

@WickedMapping

Жыл бұрын

@@jnayvann I don't see what your point is.

I totally agree. When I first learned of this in childhood, I thought it was inane and misrepresentative of the people’s votes.

@jackreacher.

9 ай бұрын

Like... when you were in your late twenties?

@Delimon007

Ай бұрын

And when I first learned of it I thought it was great because it gives smaller states a say and a reason to be in the union. Funny how you're forgetting history. Also smaller states still get far less electoral votes and oohhhhh boy they get almost no seats in the house. Lets not act like smaller states are power houses or something.

@clarencekavanaugh7747

Ай бұрын

That's only because you've been indoctrinated with the belief that the majority should rule. Democracy is best represented by 2 wolf's a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

I would argue that the electoral college is more an expression of us being Federation than being a republic. It's designed to give each individual state representation rather than the people within those States. It's function is also outdated because it was designed with State politics being primary and the Federal system being secondary to the states. I do think that moving towards congressional districts voting would be more representative however I am in favor of true proportional electorates. As an example in 2016 my home state of Utah loaded for 46% Trump, 27% Hillary, and 22% McMullin so a 4/1/1 split would have been more accurate to what Utahns wanted. It may have even encouraged more people to vote for the 3rd party if more people thought they could show displeasure at both of the national parties' nominations.

@aaronTGP_3756

Жыл бұрын

While an election based on Congressional districts would be better in some ways, it would also be severely vulnerable to gerrymandering.

@mikebronicki8264

9 ай бұрын

Proportuonal voting, like congressional district voting, also does not change the fact that Utah votes are worth more than Texas votes.

While we are at it, we should also get rid of gerrymandering. Then the government would truly be brought back to the people.

@loganmcvey3339

4 жыл бұрын

Troubled Sole won’t ever happen because of “states rights”. Government doesn’t care about blatant corruption since it keeps them in power no matter which side is in office.

@omkargadewar2932

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, I agree, though gerrymandering is only good when it gives minorities a vote

@oldmansilas559

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, U.S. Government is no longer a, for, of or, by the people government. It’s now corporate America. How else can millionaires in the congress and, senate? In my humble opinion.

@thedonald4391

4 жыл бұрын

Or letting illegals vote in California

@rb032682

4 жыл бұрын

@@thedonald4391 - Bullshit! Even Trump's own hand-picked commission to investigate voter fraud could find no evidence of illegals voting in California. Why are you repeating reich-wing bullshit propaganda? Please remove your head from QAnus.

18k likes 11k dislikes Electoral College has determined that the Electoral College is NOT terrible. Thank you for your broad and widespread guidance Electoral College. Edit: Well this comment aged for sure lmfao

@bakaflaka298

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao

@leviticus2001

3 жыл бұрын

Underrated Comment.

@2FadeMusic

3 жыл бұрын

LMFAO americans be so brainwashed that they're anti democracy

@jackwilson2418

3 жыл бұрын

@@2FadeMusic .....your expecting me to say "The US is a republic not a democracy" aren't you? but my new years resolution is not to argue with people about politics online and I am somewhat trying to keep that goal so I hope we can agree on something and end this discussion with both of us satisfied we both made our point and our logic behind our point

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI

3 жыл бұрын

19k likes and 12k dislikes Likes beat dislikes by 22 points LOL (61% to 39%)

"We're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic." Yeah. Kinda like I don't drive a vehicle, I drive a car.

@megahunterkiller

Жыл бұрын

Furry profile pic. Argument disregarded.

@bencarter8423

Жыл бұрын

More like “I’m not driving the car. I’m simply pushing down on a pedal on the floor with my foot to make the car go, while using my hands to operate a wheel in front of me that controls the direction the car is going.”

When I first heard of the electoral college, I thought that it was a needlessly overcomplicated system that's not very transparent to the voters on what actually happens behind the scenes. EDIT: Now that I have found out that by winning the plurality of a state, you win the entire state's electors, the electoral college sounds even more stupid and lacks transparency even more. Seriously, having a proportional system in each state like Maine would do a lot to improve the electoral college. Or bring in MMP voting.

@msdarby515

Жыл бұрын

Well, we don't get to control each state's election process, which is exactly the point. Individual states can choose what is best for them.

@nfpnone8248

Жыл бұрын

@@msdarby515 Yes, each States process is controlled by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the States only have the authority to appoint the electors, not to determine the choices the electors make which is governed by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment. My favorite political trivia question is; what are the requirements to run for President in the United States? The answer is that there are no requirements to run for President because you cannot run for president in the United States, the requirements in Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment govern the electors choices, meaning the two persons they put on their ballots must meet the requirements of age, residency in the United States, natural born citizen, and at least 1 of the choices must be a person who resides in a State other than the elector themselves. Then the lists are reviewed to make sure that all the electors have made choices which comply with these requirements, if they do not, then that elector is instructed to change any person who doesn’t meet those requirements before the list is certified, sealed and transmitted to the seat of government directed to the president of the senate. The time for the States to make a choice by vote, 1 vote per State, is after the top candidates are identified and placed on a ballot for the States to consider, and the choice is made by a majority of all the States, not just the States present!

@msdarby515

Жыл бұрын

@@nfpnone8248 What I was getting at is the state legislatures do have the authority to pass a bill that would make the electoral votes proportional. I get extremely frustrated by people like the OP who thinks that all states should be run the same, that there is only one right way to do things, and that not doing it the way he believes is less than adequate. The entire point is that states like New York have very different needs, even as far as elections are run, than states like, say the Dakotas or Alaska (where I live). Voting by mail-in ballot has been a thing here for a very long time because of how rural we are. However, the ballot must be requested, they don't just ship out stacks of ballots and count whatever comes back to them. Also, I enjoy trivia, but I fear my response to your trivia question (age and American Citizen) would have been very inadequate in your eyes. LOL

@mikebronicki8264

9 ай бұрын

The easiest way to end the Electoral College today is for states to pass the National Popular Vote compact. State legislations in 16 states plus DC have already enacted it. These states represent 205 electoral votes. Another 7 states have bills pending representing an additional 63 votes. When states totalling 270 votes have enacted the compact, it will become law in those states, effectively ending the EC. (When enacted each state agrees to award their Electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote nationwide.)

@willmont8258

9 ай бұрын

@@mikebronicki8264 Sounds like that would be unconstitutional. A State can't give its electoral votes to someone who didn't win that State.

I like how he said there was still a third of people who thought the electoral college is a good system and then exactly a third of the like to dislike ratio was a third

@Stanzafly

Жыл бұрын

Wish I could see that dislike to like ratio...

@lyricusthelame9395

Жыл бұрын

@@Stanzafly Oh how the times have changed. You should use the return youtube dislikes extension, really works!

@Ikamara21

Жыл бұрын

@@Stanzafly The video has 19k dislikes right now. I have an extension that allows me to see dislikes.

@OakNuggins

9 ай бұрын

The third was a third?

when you realize this channel is actually older than mrbeast

@Polyglot_English

3 жыл бұрын

****VOTE THIRD PARTY****

@twinglocks9304

3 жыл бұрын

How so ?

@twinglocks9304

3 жыл бұрын

@Bsauce i dont understand ? whats an about page

@hundgawf9506

3 жыл бұрын

@@twinglocks9304 Really nigga

@xiphactinusaudax1045

3 жыл бұрын

@@twinglocks9304 Click his icon under the video. Then click the header that says "about." There will be a description with the date the channel was established

I agree with you 100% about electoral college. Keep on educating! Other things I would change about the electoral process (at least for any federal office): 1) each potential candidate must submit an application with a resume and tax documents and finger printed. They will be thoroughly vetted by the FBI, Interpol, IRS. All results reported to the voting public. 2) each candidate will be given a fixed sum of money (I.e. $10K) to spend on campaign ads, etc. No one will take contributions from PACS or any special interest groups. 3) all candidates from any party running for office will not be excluded (marginalized) when events (I.e. debates) are held. I believe these are the type of changes that would level the playing field and elect leaders on merit rather than skin color and wealth.

@mingus445_gaming

Жыл бұрын

why interpol? just curious

@ICHope1

Жыл бұрын

@@mingus445_gaming no hiding international criminal activity.

@stuckerfam

9 ай бұрын

What if the politician was running with the platform that the FBI and the IRS are corrupt? If a politician has to be beholden to them, then there is no way to critique them from without.

@KRADAK6

3 ай бұрын

Remember my teacher in middle school saying all you need to do to run for president is follow these 3 easy criteria! Fvckng bs

I always found the electoral college extremely dumb. I am from Cali and I have conservative friends who will always tell me they feel their vote doesn’t matter because cali will always be blue. Think it’s dumb that a ton of citizens don’t feel like their vote matters

@MichelDurat

9 ай бұрын

Thing is that if you decide to go under the rule of the majority, almost every election will be blue and politicians will to resort to just go to high volume voter areas

@supervideomaker9136

9 ай бұрын

@@MichelDurat I mean if the majority of people are blue, then their voices should be heard. Majority people should have their voices heard instead of just the minority having so much power.

@harlanseago4876

8 ай бұрын

They can move then

@Sicilianus

3 ай бұрын

@@supervideomaker9136 what about hitler?

@father0f4ll

3 ай бұрын

@@Sicilianus??????lmao?

In addition: Without the electoral college, democratic candidates would be forced to campaign in Texas, where half the population votes democratic, while the Republican candidate would be obligated to campaign in California, where there are millions of Republican voters. Both would need to visit small states, because every vote would count. Let's ditch the Electoral College.

@WickedMapping

Жыл бұрын

California as a general region in a popular vote system would still vote heavily blue. The Inland Empire would always vote Republican in spite of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and any other large cities in the state, just like most of Illinois would vote Republican in spite of Chicago. Certain things would never change.

@hayatobonds7736

Жыл бұрын

@@WickedMapping Are you implying that presidential candidates will only continue to focus solely on swing states if the Electoral College were removed? If so, I disagree because individual votes would hold much more value than they currently do and ignoring states would be detrimental because obtaining votes wouldn't be as straightforward as it is today. This would force presidential candidates to put more effort into gaining support from the majority instead of appealing to a specific demographic.

@WickedMapping

Жыл бұрын

@@hayatobonds7736 Candidates would still just focus on purple areas, even if it isn't strictly determined by state borders.

@hayatobonds7736

Жыл бұрын

@@WickedMapping Not really. For example, California, widely considered as a "democratic stronghold" has experienced an increase in independent voters over the last 20 years. Roughly half of the population there is democratic, while a quarter of the population is republican, and another quarter is independent. This is only one example, but the majority of states aren't dominated by one political party as the media likes to portray as is. The reality is that most states have a decent percentage of voters that are independent, and that number will only continue to keep growing as long as the US retains its bi-partisan approach to politics. Like I said before, a popular vote-based system would force candidates to focus on gaining support from as many Americans as possible, which means expanding their focus on independent voters. Instead of focusing on a few states, they would be focusing on the growing of number of independent voters in nearly all states. Currently, the US needs to reform its approach regarding presidential elections because the electoral college doesn't accurately represent the people of the US. A voting system that incorporates aspects of popular vote while keeping the electoral college intact may be the most likely solution.

@Seth9809

Жыл бұрын

@@WickedMapping That would be stupid, California would literally provide more Democrat and Republican votes than Arizona every single time.

"candidates would just ignore the smaller states!" Easy fix for that! Just have every state do what Maine and Nebraska does. Have each Elector chosen by a district, not a state. Instead of winner-take-all for the entire state, each elector represents the 761,000 people of a voting district. In that event, *each district is equally important, no matter where it is in the country*

@bobbytutton3270

Жыл бұрын

Actually, I prefer proporational represenation. If in one state/commonwealth - a candidate get 42% of the popular vote - he gets 42% of the EC in his home S/C (other than the 2 "senate vote" the overall winner would get those.

@Geojoe677

Жыл бұрын

And what if we set every states electoral vote to 1 so there would be no swing states and would allow people from 1 state to have the same voting power as a person from any other state

@kevinhenry3476

Жыл бұрын

@@Geojoe677 problem with that is it gives way more political representation to smaller states which is rather undemocratic

@nicaraguaeast6740

Жыл бұрын

no i like the idea of winner takes all. nebraska and maine can keep their rules to themselves. Applying this rule in every state would over compicate things and make it confusing. Plus how will canidates have time to campaign rallies in all districts of states. 50 states and other territories of land is already alot of places to campaign in. its better to have canidates campaign in key states, swing areas, etc imo. plus those swing states change every election cycle.

@leeames9063

Жыл бұрын

@@nicaraguaeast6740 Its only complicated and confusing for the poorly educated. As for having time to campaign? Radio, TV, social media, newspapers, internet...

Eventually when 80%+ of the population live in cities and their immediate suburbs the 12 largest will have 270 electoral votes in keeping with Congressional redistricting requirements. You could have the highest ever in history turn-out in the remaining 38 states with record low turn-out in the 12 largest states and it wouldn't matter the 12 largest states would easily prevail. By the way we're already at the point where 80% of Americans live in cities or the nearby towns. Once either Texas or Florida flip to the Democrats as both states have fallen to less than 5% Republican advantage, the path to 270 would require that Republicans flip three Democrat states to make up for the 28 or 38 electoral votes. Republicans are going to be absolutely HATING the electoral college in a few years.

half of everyone liked that half of everyone hated that hmm I wonder why

@iyoutubeperson4336

3 жыл бұрын

Liberals still mad they lost 2016 and conservatives wanting to keep it that way

@yogatonga7529

3 жыл бұрын

Luckily, there is no Electoral College to determine how the like/dislike ratio is.

@Decco6306

3 жыл бұрын

@@yogatonga7529 Oh shush XD

@foxt.5043

3 жыл бұрын

@@iyoutubeperson4336 you dont have to be a liberal to be mad at a clown being elected president. I'm all for good jokes but this one got taken a bit far

@iyoutubeperson4336

3 жыл бұрын

@@foxt.5043 found the liberal still mad that they lost

Mr. Beat: *makes the video at the end of 2018 no where near an election on purpose me: watches it 6 days before the 2020 election

@barryscott3327

3 жыл бұрын

Hilarious

@jorenbosmans8065

3 жыл бұрын

I know that feeling

@leowagner1366

3 жыл бұрын

I'm watching in the middle of the 2020 election!

@thiccbroniggboithethird872

3 жыл бұрын

I’m watching this while the kids in my basement try to escape

@houseking9211

3 жыл бұрын

@@thiccbroniggboithethird872 sweet

With the access to the technology we have today, voting can be done by its people and not these inconsistent and unhelpful representatives

Why aren’t smart people like Mr. Beat not in charge in this country? Politicians are so frustrating

@Strider91

Жыл бұрын

Because you (the voter) don't vote for smart people, you vote for exciting people. Evertime someone like beat has run, they have failed to excite the electorate

@opossumlvr1023

Жыл бұрын

Mr. Beat is a dumbass and can't understand simple sentences. 19th amendment "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." You have to be an idiot to think this grants women the right to vote. It clearly applies to both men and women and does not grant a right but prohibits the infringement of a right that a person already has. Also it only applies to the United States and State governments, County and townships could limit there elections to only men or women if they choose and not be in violation of the 19th amendment.

@Cluefan

11 ай бұрын

Its a billion dollar business behind keeping people stupid, and installing dumb corporate shmucks

@craigmak

8 ай бұрын

Smart ppl were elected. Smart Republican ppl realize that they are outnumbered & must have a terrible system to be competitive. Republicans no longer support democracy because they are outnumbered. Democrats can’t change the system without some support from the Repubs & they’re not going to get it.

@suuujuuus

6 ай бұрын

​@@Strider91I want Rambo as a president. A real man!

Election loser: "See, this is exactly why the electoral college needs to be abolished!" Election winner: "No, this is exactly why the elector college needs to be preserved!"

@Asemodeous

2 жыл бұрын

Only republicans have benefitted from the electoral college being a thing.

@DennysGrandSlam2

Жыл бұрын

this system is just bad in general

@user-kg2lp8jz2r

Жыл бұрын

💀

@nicaraguaeast6740

Жыл бұрын

We should definitely keep electoral college as whole but only thing i agree removing is the faithless electors. Also the EC is benefiting republicans i know that but you do realize that this could go both ways right? republicans can possibly win popular vote but lose EC giving democrats the win. This is about strategy and letting both small as well as big states more of an equal say in elections. Edit: Didn't know mrbeat fans were this clueless. They clearly have no understanding of what I was saying.

@callidusvulpes5556

Жыл бұрын

@@nicaraguaeast6740 “People were okay with electoral college and even defended it but ever since hillary lost” Guess you were still in diapers when George Bush Jr. “won” against Al Gore lmao. There’s no point in keeping the electoral college, removing faithless electors would improve it, (still wouldn’t make a difference because faithless electors didn’t make Trump win or Bush win) but the inherent problems with such a system such as your vote being more or less valuable based upon your geographic location (the state you’re in) are unavoidable without practically removing it or outright removing it.

-be me -sees video title -puts on hazmat suit -enters comment section

@somerandomdude827

2 жыл бұрын

You will need more than a hazmat suit to protect you

@awhahoo

2 жыл бұрын

You forgot -sorts by new*

@mega7269

Жыл бұрын

100th like

here in Brazil, we solved the problem of "being elected with less than 50% of the votes" a long time ago... we call it the "2º turn". If no candidate has more than 50% of the votes, we have another turn of voting, with just the 2 candidates with more votes. so the winner will have to make more than 50% of the votes and are just 2 to choose. all problems solved. In the first turn, you don't need to make a "utility choice" (to the candidate that has more chance against the guy you don't want to be elected) because every vote that is not to the favorite helps to lead the election to the 2º turn. so if a candidate has 40% of the votes but 60% don't want him elected, people don't need to change their votes to the second place to win, people can vote to their favorite and the election will have a 2 turn. the candidate with 40% in the first turn will loose in the second, even if he was the candidate with more votes in the 1º turn. it's a more simple (to the voters, it's harder to make the structure of the election twice) way than ranked-choice voting. and our election it's on Sundays, not Tuesdays. and it's a holiday for those that have to work on Sundays. and all votes are equal. and all votes are electronic (and very very safe, it has a prize of millions for anyone who can hack an election. true, if you prove you can change the results of the election, the government will pay you a fortune. no one ever won), so 2 hours after the votes stop (in the majority of the country, we have two time zones, so 1 hour after the votes stop in the late time zone) we already have the results. in municipal elections, the majority of cities have the results less than a half-hour after the votes stop.

@RaymondHng

Жыл бұрын

That is called a runoff election.

@fm56001

Жыл бұрын

Brazil is more democratic then the us lol

@fm56001

Жыл бұрын

AND it has a way way better healthcare system

@PROPAROXITONO

Жыл бұрын

@@fm56001 In fact, Brazil is a mess. But we, at least, try. The US is a bigger mess but with a lot of money. and that is the distinction. They have problems that the world solved in the last 100 years and act like it is normal... How there is a country that still uses the imperial system? so we still have to measure TVs in inches because this fuckers don't feel like changing it. and that is the smallest problem I have with them..

@Seth9809

Жыл бұрын

@@fm56001 Assuming it doesn't have another coup.

Something I tell people when they say if we got rid of the electoral college then california would choose the president. Well, in 2020 the Republican candidate got more votes then the entire populations of the smallest 30 states... The Republican candidate got more votes in CA then in ANY other state. Yea, more people voted for the Democrate candidate but it's not a winner takes all with the popular vote. 6 million votes in CA just became completely useless. I don't know about you but I like to feel like my vote mattered and with the current, winner take all system, my vote doesn't matter in my state...

A quote from Benjamin Franklin as he left the secret confab which hammered out the U.S. Constitution. A woman asked what kind of government had been decided upon - a republic or a monarchy - Franklin replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

@lordzorg2498

5 жыл бұрын

and Washington was soonafter offered the crown (thank goodness he refused)

@yuhboik.g.8118

5 жыл бұрын

Well, a republic is inherently democratic. Although there are many definitions for both terms, both have, in common, the idea, that: power is vested in citizens, whose power is exercised by the use of elected representatives that are responsible to said citizens, and govern accordiang to law. (Merriam Webster) Not to mention Benjamin Franklin was one guy, amongst many whose thoughts and ideas conflicted. Regardless, the U.S. is a republic, a democratic republic. It's just term "democratic" seems arduous to keep in, due to the fact that many republics, are democratic.

@allanrichardson1468

5 жыл бұрын

Keiji Ahdeen / The Ninja Gamer A number of republics founded in the 19th century and later (including many in the 20th) are or were actually ruled by dictators, through a single party or other oligarchic means of selecting “representatives” to fill a “parliamentary” body that implements republican legal processes keeping the dictator in power. In such countries, there are either rigged elections in which everyone “votes,” or secret votes by a very small group of “eligible” voters. Iraq, for example, was once ruled by a parliament, until Saddam Hussein took over. During one speech in 1968, Saddam began naming and pointing out the members who had opposed him, and during the speech they were arrested, taken out, and executed. But technically, Iraq was still a republic under Saddam, since he wasn’t technically a monarch (a tactic used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, and almost every 20th century despot).

@voltagedrop5899

5 жыл бұрын

​@@yuhboik.g.8118 1) whereas democracy starts with the premise that voting is a birthright, republicanism does not, and can therefore never be considered "inherently democractic" (even the merriam-webster definition you quoted addresses this: "supreme power resides in a body of citizens *entitled* to vote") 2) democracy does NOT govern according to law because it recognizes no such thing. in fact, law is the very antithesis of democracy because it curbs the mob's ability to exercise supreme power. in a democracy, the law is simply the current mood of the mob without any limitations imposed upon it. if 51% of people decide to burn your house down, there is nothing to stop them from doing it. on the other hand, republicanism treats law as a force even stronger than the will of the electorate (which is reflected in its name: republic = res publica = public thing = the law), making sure that burning your house down remains unlawful even if the electorate votes to do it. 3) since democracy doesn't put the law above the will of the electorate, it is incapable of guaranteeing the rights of its citizenry, unlike republicanism. in a democracy, the rights to life, liberty and property aren't rights, but privileges that the mob can take away from you at any moment (hence the term "tyranny of the mob") 4) the us is most definitely not a "democratic republic", as such a thing is but an oxymoron. the us is a constitutional representative republic, and the only thing it has common with democracy is the fact that people vote for their representatives, which isn't much at all, considering that's also true for oligarchies, dictatorships and even monarchies, with the only difference being the definition of "people"...

@yuhboik.g.8118

5 жыл бұрын

@@voltagedrop5899 1) Voting isn't a birthright, it's not really a right at all. You're not born with the right to vote, in the U.S., you have to register to vote. Then you are granted the "right" to vote. But, like I said, voting isn't really a right. Rights aren't rights if you can take them away, convicts and ex-convicts don't have the "right" to vote. In certain states without proper ID, you cannot vote, as ridiculous as those laws may be. As such all citizens able to vote in the U.S. are entitled to vote. 2) I didn't say the U.S. was the verb of a democracy, I described it's republic as democratic, or "democracy-like", an adjective. 3) Like before, I'm not describing the U.S. as a democracy, I'm describing it as a republic with democratic values, like being able to vote. 4) I don't see how "democratic republic" is an oxymoron, democratic means "of, RELATING TO, or favoring a democracy" it means that it can be LIKE a democracy. The terms are not mututally exclusive, those being democratic and republic. We could also say we live in a constitutional representative democratic republic. You even said we had something in common with democracies, voting. And like you said in republics you can vote, in democracies you can vote. Since republics, in most cases, hold the value of being able to vote, similar to democracies, they are in turn democratic. And since this is so common, putting democratic in front is redundant. The U.S. is a democratic republic.

This is why we should start teaching civics again...

@ameyas7726

5 жыл бұрын

Why not America have a advisory referendum if people wants to keep the electoral collage or not!

@willnapolitano148

5 жыл бұрын

@@ameyas7726 We don't have national reforendums. Also, abolishing the EC, which I'm not in favor of, requires amending the constitution. To ammend the constitution, the ammendment needs to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate, then approved by 3/4 of the states, or 2/3 of the states call for a convention and then 3/4 of the states approve the ammendment. It's not so simple, just as intended.

@dl2839

4 жыл бұрын

This is why we should get rid of the disgusting monopolization of public schools.

@stephenmikolaitis4384

4 жыл бұрын

@@marcusstarman1849 how is he misinformed or an idiot?

@dsmith9964

4 жыл бұрын

@@stephenmikolaitis4384 If you had paid attention in 7th grade Civics and Government class, you would clearly see how wrong Mr Beat is.

Preaching to the choir, my friend. And nice touch the way you included the telltale call of the low information voter: “‘merica’s not a democracy; it’s a republic!“ SMH. Thanks for another great video!

1 vote should always equal 1 vote

“Democracy is cringe, read some Aristotle” -John Doyle 2020

@michaelkoch7230

3 жыл бұрын

The man is spreading the word of my mans John Doyle

@MrTallformyheight

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it’s almost as if there are thousands of years of political philosophy and theory after to directly address Aristotle’s arguments 🤔

@MrTallformyheight

3 жыл бұрын

@TheOfficialUnofficial ...no. Read some Locke, read some Rousseau, read some mill, read some Marx.

@fartinshort1341

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrTallformyheight "read Marx" No thanks, not a cringetard

@MrTallformyheight

3 жыл бұрын

@@fartinshort1341 imagine dismissing the most cited author in western canon bc you disagree with him Pretty cringetard-y to me.

America: communism is dangerous because there just just one almighty party Also America: *has only 2 parties that actually choose themselves*

@roodlyfbuts8006

3 жыл бұрын

That's not why communism is bad

@MrVecheater

3 жыл бұрын

@@roodlyfbuts8006 It's one of the main arguments I hear I'm not here to debate. Just to point that out

@lobo7361

3 жыл бұрын

Communism isn't dangerous, it is murderous. The Constitution says nothing about political parties; However the two major parties you are talking about have twisted it into oblivion.

@roodlyfbuts8006

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrVecheater I'm not here to debate I'm just pointing that out

@MrVecheater

3 жыл бұрын

@@roodlyfbuts8006 good job copying my reply

Roughly one third of the us voting population adhere to one of the three major parties, Dem, Rep, and Independent. Combined with modern communications and travel, it is far past time the EC was eliminated. I have been advocating for this ever since I became politically active in the early 1980's.

I never want to hear what Steven Crowder thinks about ANYTHING!

Hey look, this video is 100% liked according to the electoral college!

@iammrbeat

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly my point :)

@bl7828

3 жыл бұрын

😂

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@david - lol!

@gasscentral4728

3 жыл бұрын

Because the majority of people that watch this video probably agree with his opinion.

@eifbkcn

3 жыл бұрын

FPTP, not nessesarily the college. You don't know where these likes come from. The dislikes may come from "small states"

Having grown up in northern Virginia (DC metro area), it used to surprise me that Virginia used to be a swing state. Having gone to college not near a big city in Virginia for the last four years, it no longer surprises me.

@BGtypiu1850

2 жыл бұрын

I used to live in alexandria right by old town and the thing with virginia is southern va is conservative while northern va is liberal but it now only goes blue because there are more people in the north

@studiouswadoo5027

2 жыл бұрын

I mean any city especially in northern VA where it’s a lot of government places will definitely be blue. Southern VA is just all red but since the population is more dense in the northern counties it’s a blue state

@sylviadailey9126

2 жыл бұрын

Virginia is unique for breaking in two during the Civil War. So I can see how they can be a swing state to this day.

The only reason we still have an electoral college is because its operation has favored the Republican Party. Since 1824, every time that the popular vote winner did not become President, the Democratic nominee lost out: 1876 (Tilden got most votes, Hayes became President), 1888 (Cleveland got most votes, Benjamin Harrison became President), 2000 (Gore got more votes. George W. Bush became President); 2016 (Hillary Clinton got more votes, Trump became President). How will this change? When a Democrat becomes President despite losing the national popular vote. Maybe 2028. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Green outpolls Gavin Newsom in popular vote, but enough blue states make Newsom President. Then watch Republicans start dissing the electoral college. ⚖️

@jamisojo

3 ай бұрын

Nah. I just don't think our largest cities and urban populations should be be dictating our president. We are 50 states. The states choose our president. That is fine with me. Direct democracy would have plenty of its own problems.

@arlosmith2784

3 ай бұрын

@@jamisojo The electoral college was created to protect slaveowners. John Adams actually won the 1800 election among white voters, but Thomas Jefferson was made President because of the 3/5 votes each slaveowner got to case for slaves. No wonder the White Supremacists all love the electoral college 👎

@Victorcai-um3op

3 ай бұрын

I don't think banning the electoral college makes a direct democracy the electoral college also takes away rural population election powers. NYC dominants NY, and upstate Republicans aren't represented

I just drove through Kansas for the first time, down 81, its a very nice and quiet place, and the people are very friendly from who I met, and that's a Canadian saying that.

All states should vote by congressional districts like Main and Nebraska.

@firstthingtocometomind658

3 жыл бұрын

What are congressional districts?

@sigmaballsnetwork

3 жыл бұрын

First thing to Come to mind they are the districts that vote for a representative in the House of Representatives

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@Phillip - That would only give more incentive for states to gerrymander even more than what is already occurring. That is not a solution.

@richierepath8216

3 жыл бұрын

Democrats won’t be bout that. They get fronted almost 200 Electoral votes every election since Clinton. This would break up California, New York and most of the East and west cost. You think the people away from the coast in the state of California vote blue? Hell no they don’t.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@richierepath8216 - Stop parroting reich-wing bullshit. There is no coast, or city, or state or region of the USA which is pure red or pure blue. The entire USA is various shades of purple. Some areas a little more bluish, some areas a little more reddish. Please stop with your ignorant bullshit propaganda.

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” -Donald J. Trump, November 6, 2012

@TheBigdaddypickle

3 жыл бұрын

Key word “democracy”

@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383

3 жыл бұрын

But the electoral college helped him win the election. He lost the popular vote 😂😂😂😂😂

@greatestapest73

3 жыл бұрын

He lost the popular vote by a few percent witch isn’t allot

@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383

3 жыл бұрын

@@greatestapest73 That "few percent" means 3 million voters

@greatestapest73

3 жыл бұрын

@@cristinazamfirkalogirou1383 I know but this country has 350+ million people so don’t even get me started

I am only halfway through and I am wanting to know if there is anything legally stopping anyone not associated with D.C. political parties from being on the Presidential ballots? I have always wanted to know if you actually had to be nominated by a party or if they are just yanking everyone's chain.

@harrygarris6921

Жыл бұрын

It's different for every state. It's very difficult to get on a presidential ballot if you're not affiliated with one of the major political parties but it's possible if you petition your local state to run as an independent candidate.

@eifbkcn

Жыл бұрын

In some states it is possible, in others it hasn't been feasible for decades. Ballot Access barriers are the backbone of the two party system because they allow those in power to disqualify any new party that might challenge them.

@MinhNguyen-nl8zz

Жыл бұрын

Constitutionally, Electors are like any other elected or appointed federal official, he is free to exercise his judgement. State legislatures may say differently but an elect legislatures can’t be require to vote the way he promised on the campaign trail why should electors?

"Why should people living in big cities choose the president for people living in rural areas!? That's why we need to electoral college!" Why should people in rural areas get to pick the president for people living in cities? They shouldn't! Let the person who gets the most votes from the most voters become the president. Our current systems enable terrible people to hold power. Not just the electoral college, but paywalls existing as barriers to political candidacy. It costs $5k to run for president or for congress. Who's got that much money to throw at a job they might not get, and skip working for the better part of a year to promote themselves as a candidate? The US has 300M people. I guarantee you that George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden are the best and brightest (certainly not the most ethical) our country has to offer.

It's really simple. Those folks are pissed you took away their great grandparents' slaves

FUN FACT: the 2nd definition for a republic is 'a country without a king or queen'. According to this defintion, North Korea is a republic while the United Kingdom is not. Talk about a meaningless distinction!

@TheManWhoTypes

5 жыл бұрын

2nd definition..

@jb894

5 жыл бұрын

everyone knows uk isn't a republic tho

@robertmoore8839

5 жыл бұрын

The People's Republic of China also considers itself a democracy and they do not have elections. Yet the majority has had it say on basically everything for at least 50 years.

@StefanMilo

5 жыл бұрын

Brit here, can confirm that's our opinion of the word. The argument that america is not a democracy is silly. We don't have to follow some narrow classical version of Athenian democracy just to call ourselves a democracy. Also, considering how many ballot initiatives are in US elections, many important decisions are in fact directly voted on.

@alexrodriguez1534

5 жыл бұрын

FUN FACT: The Unite Kingdom is technically still a monarchy, aside from also being a socialist dictatorship.

A republic is essentially a representative democracy.

@nestoons4539

3 жыл бұрын

That’s it’s literal definition

@alexandredumas5191

3 жыл бұрын

@@nestoons4539 Exactly

@Calruxio

3 жыл бұрын

Yup. So when someone says "we're a democracy" I say "Yes." When someone says "we're a republic" I say "Yes." They're both right, but when used as a counter argument for each other, then they're only half-right because if they understood that a republic=representative democracy=democracy, then they wouldn't be using that argument. When people say they don't like the EC and want a popular vote, they just want a direct democracy and that's not what this country supports. Plus if they really cared about the difference between "people per vote," they could just move to those states which would help the overall sustainability of small towns that are slowly diminishing in size, they'd get a second viewpoint of the country from the rural side, and it would level out the people per vote if enough people moved. Unfortunately, that won't happen considering they chose to flock to those big cities in the first place.

@derkatwork33

3 жыл бұрын

And yet the uneducated people (mostly democrats) don’t understand the necessity of the electoral college and the protections it provides. Granted, they also don’t understand federalism, but that’s another topic.

@mrbrainbob5320

3 жыл бұрын

@@derkatwork33 pretty sure you along with Republicans and crowder dont understand. Everyone here is talking about how stupid crowders argument is.

Best argument for electoral college: it allows the two party duopoly to reign.

Maine has implemented Ranked Choice Voting!

@ootoot2152

4 жыл бұрын

Good job Maine, good job.

@theguywhoasked5591

4 жыл бұрын

That’s where I live

@ootoot2152

4 жыл бұрын

@@theguywhoasked5591 Wow, I wasn't expecting Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China , to live in Maine!

@theguywhoasked5591

4 жыл бұрын

Oot Oot I got to relax sometimes. CCP hard work. Need break from dealing with Coronavirus cause escaped from Wuhan lab. Ah, I mean US troops in Wuhan

@jimcort1

4 жыл бұрын

RANK choice has not been a great thing for Maine. We are in the process of getting it repealed.

I did the math one time. To win a majority of the population, you'd have to win the top 40 cities and their suburbs. And you can't win them by a simple majority. You have to win them by 100%. There is no city that goes 100% for a candidate let alone suburbs. St. Louis city went 80% for Clinton, but the metropolitan area as a whole went to Trump. Even if you only focused on those 40 metro areas, that covers a wider range geographically than candidates typically do now. You have to keep in mind, there are many metro areas that extend into 2 or even 3 states. I have lived in 2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.

@woodchuck003

5 жыл бұрын

'2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.' that is something unique to the New England area, with Kanasa City being an exemption. This is not something you find in Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Phoenix, AZ, San Antonio, TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas, TX, San Jose, CA and that's just what I feel like posting here. The vast majority of the cities in the top 50 have greater metro areas that are in one and if you notice Califonia, Texas, Flordia are in here a lot, you are missing many states. In fact, you can get to get to 51% of the population by only adding up 9 states. Would you call 9/50 a covers a wider range geographically? And by looking for the URL for you I found that by 2040 it will be 8 states, so the problem will only get worse. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-us-population-lives-in-just-9-states-2016-6 pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/07/13/by-2040-just-eight-states-nc-included-will-hold-50-percent-of-u-s-population/

@raney150

5 жыл бұрын

@@woodchuck003 the Chicago area extends into 3 states. Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

@raney150

5 жыл бұрын

@@woodchuck003 also, I looked at metro areas, not states. States are not homogeneous. Someone who wins the urban areas of a state are more likely to lose the less urban areas by a landslide. Also, it is no guarantee that if you win one metro area in the state, that you can win the others. Let's look at Florida. Metro Miami goes Democrat, but Metro Jacksonville goes Republican. In Illinois, the metros of Chicago, Peoria, and Champaign-Urbana go blue, but the ones for Danville, Bloomington-Normal, Decatur, Springfield, and Metro East do not go blue.

@woodchuck003

5 жыл бұрын

@@raney150 So wiki says metro area or commuter belt, is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing. This seems way too broad but it agrees with you. This does include suburbs so I am assuming you have never been to the suburbs of Chicago. And because I currently live in one of the metro areas you mentioned I would have to disagree with how homogenous it is, but I have been wrong before, it just seems odd you want in increase representation by allowing candidates to go to fewer places.

@umarsoofi9349

5 жыл бұрын

raney150 I live in a Metropolitan area which has two states and one territory (DMV)

Thank you for this video! I've been arguing against the EC for a while now and one thing to consider that I didn't see in your video is that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea when representatives were still being added to the House to maintain consistent representation. In fact, many times I hear the argument that the EC was established to protect the smaller states, but that was NEVER the case... What is happening is that people are confusing the EC with the 5/8th rule, that WAS deigned to give smaller states more sway by allowing their citizens to count each of their slaves as 5/8ths of a person in the census that determines how many representatives a state gets. Of course the 14th Amendment made that obsolete. Leaving us with a more honest account of our representation. But then I *think* it was in 1910 - Congress decided to stop adding seats and the number froze at 435. THEN the problem started as the population surged in urban regions, forcing the citizens to share one representative with an ever increasing number of constituents. I think it's important to know this because it exposes the fact that it's not a static problem. It will actually get worse if urban regions continue to grow and rural region continue to stagnate.

5:14 You leave out that after the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the Revolutionary War there was not ONE country called the United States of America. According to the Treaty there were thirteen individual colonies. Five years later the thirteen states decided that they needed some type of Federal Government. So, the Federal Government came out of the states, not the other way around. Each of the fifty states is entitled to a say in each federal election. There is a popular vote for the president, and it is in each state.

@callmeconvay7977

Жыл бұрын

"There is a popular vote for the president, and it is in each state". No, as the video explained. Each state votes for electors, and each elector represents a percentage of the population. If your population is larger, you have more people to a vote. Then, the (unfairly proportioned) electors vote for president.

@jasona9

Жыл бұрын

@@callmeconvay7977 I see your point, but you’re dismissing the most important part of my post. The federal government came out of the states. If there were a straight popular vote from all fifty states, only four of the fifty (California, New York, Florida and Texas) would be needed to win. That’s not fair to the other forty-six. With the EC, all fifty states have a say and all fifty deserve a say.

@callmeconvay7977

Жыл бұрын

@@jasona9 I don't care about each state, and I don't care about how the states became the US. Not for this discussion anyways. 1 vote should be equal to 1 vote. I couldn't care less about where each voter lives. If they all live in Wyoming, so be it.

@jasona9

Жыл бұрын

@@callmeconvay7977 well those are the facts, like them or not. You don’t care about the states? Our founding fathers did.

@callmeconvay7977

Жыл бұрын

@@jasona9 I recognize that the founders cared about states, but they're not holy saints who did everything perfectly, even for their time. Frankly, the founders would be social pariahs if they existed today. The average college graduate knows more and is more capable of creating a nation than any founding father, and most of them were racist, sexist, and elitist. I don't give a shit about them, and neither should you. I don't care that they designed the EC with 'states rights' in mind, because it makes the US worse. I don't care to discuss why our system was designed because it doesn't fucking matter to the conversation at hand. All I care about is the proportional power of each voter, which is handled in a spectacularly reprehensible way by the existence of the EC.

I've always found the language of "a republic not a democracy" bizarre. It's like saying Britain isn't an island, it's a union of 3 nations. The two things are not exclusive.

@rb032682

4 жыл бұрын

@Daekj32 - Why are you stupidly repeating bullshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda? Are you a citizen of the USA? Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states? Daek - Are you a citizen of the USA?

@RichieK2005

4 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure Britain is an island containing the nations of Scotland, England, and Wales which, along with Northern Ireland, form the United Kingdom. Just wanted to say in case someone was curious.

@RichieK2005

4 жыл бұрын

a republic is a representative democracy so it technically is a kind of democracy so people who say that just weird me out

@hydrolito

4 жыл бұрын

Britain consist of more than one island, that's why it is called the British isles. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales is more than 3.

@ian_b

4 жыл бұрын

@@hydrolito Britain is the main island (England, Scotland Wales). The British Isles is the whole island group including Ireland. Hence "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland".

The Federal Government is supposed to have the smallest impact on our individual daily lives. The Electoral College isn't about the people, it's about the States. Wyoming should be able to govern it's residents differently than California.

@BraintrustDoesStuff

5 жыл бұрын

Keith Holt yeah we tried making the fed gov very weak(Articles Of Confedration)then Shay’s Rebellion happened.Search it up.

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

Do you think Wyoming should be able to secede from the Union if it wants to? How much federal land is in Wyoming? How much federal funding do citizens of Wyoming rely on? Federalism has evolved.

@josh65hend

5 жыл бұрын

Mr. Beat how much land did the federal government take from Wyoming, how much money does Wyoming pay into the federal government, if the states kept the money in the state no federal funding would be needed, the federal government is supposed to be small

@thegrayghost1786

5 жыл бұрын

@@josh65hend You know there was an entire war about how big the federal government should be right? Hint hint, the union won.

@josh65hend

5 жыл бұрын

John Doe LMAO California is 1.5 trillion in debt

Many state legislatures attempted to emulate the house and senate formula used by the federal government. I am not sure how it was structured but the Supreme court struck it down and required one man-one vote representation in both house chambers in the individual states. One solution would be to not count the senator's 100 votes. Reduce each state's electoral vote by 2 votes.

My biggest issue with the Electoral College is faithless electors. I believe that each state should outlaw faithless electors and if any elector attempts to vote for another candidate that they didn’t pledge to vote for, they should immediately be fired and replaced by another elector and that should apply for all 50 states.

@jaybee9269

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely.

@nicholastrudeau7581

Жыл бұрын

I agree with you, but why is it that your biggest issue with it?

@jetdooley7609

Жыл бұрын

Even if the issue of faithless electors was resolved as you suggested, that's not the only issue with the electoral college. The electoral college would still give more power to less populated states than more populated states, making a rural persons vote worth more than the urban vote. Whatever happened to one person one vote?

@jaybee9269

Жыл бұрын

@@jetdooley7609 >> Yeah, but the electoral college is not nearly as big a problem (feature?) as ballot harvesting, currently. It destroys the chain of custody and therefore the secret ballot and further enables undue influence on voters. Fix that first.

@nicholastrudeau7581

Жыл бұрын

Actually, the faithless elector issue should direct us to the primary issue with the Electoral College which is the winner take all. The fact that all candidate needs to do to win every single electoral vote in a state is Win by the plurality is ridiculous! The issue you mentioned, speaks to the DraStic need for an increase to the number of seats in the House, which has not been updated in over 100 years, so that the ratio of votes to electoral College vote are much closer to equal comparing state to state.

But wait MrBeat, without the electoral college, we wouldn’t have had our lord and savior Rutherford B. Hayes as our 19th President.

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

HAIL LORD RUTHERFORD.

@woodchuck003

5 жыл бұрын

Or Abraham Lincoln.

@Adeon55

5 жыл бұрын

@@woodchuck003 Oh

@KnuxMaster368

5 жыл бұрын

That wasn't all the EC's fault.

@woodchuck003

5 жыл бұрын

@@KnuxMaster368 if the Electoral College is wrong than the Electoral College is wrong. You can't pick and choose you have to be consistent. That is not how logic works.

Broke: We live in a society Woke: We live in a republic

@iamgoo

4 жыл бұрын

We litterally live in a democratic republic. USA

@cheapbastard990

4 жыл бұрын

@@iamgoo Wrong! We live in a constitutional republic. It was actually designed to prevent democracy, and for very good reasons.

@johnhuys3434

4 жыл бұрын

@@cheapbastard990 wrong! We live in a constitutional republic and a Representative democracy.

@cheapbastard990

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnhuys3434 That is simply false! Of all the branched of government only one of thet two houses in the legislative is even representative. The senate is not, and wasn't even elected until the 17th amendment. his is not and never was a democracy. It was designed to prevent democracy and other forms of dictatorship.

@ericjohnson7384

4 жыл бұрын

@@cheapbastard990 A republic in which the representatives are chosen democratically. Definitely a democratic republic but more emphasis on the republic part

Without the Electoral College wouldn't candidates not only ignore small states, but also ignore all but the most populated states?

@rendomstranger8698

Жыл бұрын

You mean the areas where the most people who would be impacted by the decisions of those who are elected live? Even if that were true, I don't see the problem. All alternatives result in a tyranny of the minority instead of the preferable tyranny of the majority. Not to mention that civilized countries have something called proportional representation or a system that comes close to it. A system under which a single party almost never has majority rule and as a result needs to form coalitions with smaller parties. Not that such a system will be implemented without a violent revolution in the US. Once a country has regressed to a 2 party government, there is no hope of bringing real democracy back.

@shawnb4938

Жыл бұрын

@@rendomstranger8698 Most in the U.S. don't live in small states. If elections were simply by voter count California and New York would be the most powerful states, having the most people. And that's why some want to get rid of the electoral college. Large cities with the most people in the states with the most people would have huge influence, and politicians would never leave those cities, except when many smaller ones banned together. The U.S. has always been mostly a two party country. Independents have had an effect, but few are elected, and the same is true for libertarians. Several founding fathers didn't want political parties, but the formed anyway, as like minded members of Congress began to work together and they eventually named themselves as a party.

@rendomstranger8698

Жыл бұрын

@@shawnb4938 Yeah, you're correct on which areas would have the most influence. Your point being? They are also the areas where the most people who would be impacted live. Get rid of first past the post, implement a representative voting system and everyone else would still end up having say. And all your second paragraph tells me is that the US has always been a false democracy. Because that is all the electoral collage does. It turns the US into a false democracy controlled by the rich. Not that I'm that surprised seeing who the founding fathers were. The US government was designed to be corrupt.

@shawnb4938

Жыл бұрын

@@rendomstranger8698 if you read the Federalist Papers and the counter arguments to them you'll see that your wrong. The Federal government was designed to be small, with more control coming from the states. The people have more say on the local level. Lazy people have simply allowed the government to go unchecked and allowed it to gain more power than intended.

People only care about this issue one way or another if it helps or hurts them.

@grutarg2938

Жыл бұрын

Let's say I give you 1 cookie and your sister gets 3. You claim this is unfair and everyone should get 2 cookies. Your sister says you are only saying that because you want more cookies. Does this mean that your clams to fairness are incorrect?

@BigPapiCapone

Жыл бұрын

@@grutarg2938 exactly my point. Personally I believe that if people want a certain candidate they should get him. But I know that democrats would’ve be complaining if it was them benefiting.

I think the electoral college should be split proportionally, so for example if you win 40% of the popular vote in California, you win 40% of the state's electoral votes (22 out of 55).

@garyrose9805

4 жыл бұрын

Name Last Name First if this was the case for 2016 what would the tally be for each person and who would have won

@fireskorpion6044

4 жыл бұрын

If you are going to make it split like that you might as well just use popular vote instead

@garyrose9805

4 жыл бұрын

Fire Skorpion yes if there is only 2 candidates it’s a lot of effort! All the odd numbered electoral votes would go to the state winner There is a lot of 3,3,3,7,3,7,ect

@freeman7296

4 жыл бұрын

Then no one will win - it sounds like a good idea until it create more uncertainty.

@garyrose9805

4 жыл бұрын

Free man but it is a function that must be done and the person who made the videos has valid points. However a simply pop vote is an obvious bias towards heavily populated areas. City areas all ready get a much greater division of accumulated spending, correctly so I believe. This is fair as it’s these citizens who contribute more but city’s can only exist because of rural areas. By the demographic they need to be low population high production necessities creators. It can never be even close to fair if these lesser population ares don’t have their issues addressed. There are places where main roads aren’t even paved and others were they are building high speed rail to cut down peoples travel time! This system needs to be bias to them in order to fair. The problem is people who have a greater number who pay tax seem to pay a larger sum therefore it’s logical more should be done for them. This validates a majority rule population vote. BUT. By that same logic the rich regardless of population contribute more money to this system so fair, should be that the rich get their issues fixed and the less put in the less u get. The whole point of the government tax system is to not do that but help the have nots improve. The electorate college seems to be a rural urban issue that is being addressed as a state to state one, I don’t know a solution on how to balance this issue but it’s going to need one!

Me: Coming up with the greatest possible solution to the Electoral College. Me: Realizing that Maine and Nebraska already do it.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

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

@insertaliashere1379

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 Well, I agree that the KKK is a low-life gang.

@jaketaylor2923

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 funny cause it was the opposite. Populace slave states were like ya let’s vote by population! (Virginia) and small northern states said no we need some way to prevent tyranny of the majority (New Jersey)

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@jaketaylor2923 - It doesn't really matter who wanted "what", or why they wanted "it". What matters was what was written in the USA Constitution and how it was used.

@jaketaylor2923

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 “slavers wanted it” dude you brought it up, you can’t shift the ground cause it turns out you were historically wrong.

It makes sense that an elector in a small state is more powerful than one in a large state because voting is not a right of the people, but of the states. This is why the territories are US citizens but cannot vote in the presidential election. D.C. should not have the right to vote because they are not a state.

''Only 30% of people are for it'' or as the electoral college would say, the majority is in favor of it

@eddardgreybeard

Жыл бұрын

The people that are against it know that once they abolish it they will never lose another election, because placed like Los Angeles will overrun the entire Midwest region. Miami, la, new York, etc will win every election. The problem that exists locally will become a nationwide issue

I would advocate for reforming the Electoral College, at least to eliminate the winner-take-all rule as an option.

@TheAndrewSchneider

5 жыл бұрын

But the idea is about how to effectively ensure that whoever is chosen as President is independent of whoever is elected to Congress. (Even if such proposals might be idealistic and quixotic in the long run and rely on there being no political parties.)

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

Me too.

@TheAndrewSchneider

5 жыл бұрын

And I do love your videos, btw. I would also say that whatever replacement method should take into due account how to deal with what happened in 1872. #riphoracegreeley

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

Well that means a lot. And let us make #riphoracegreeley trending.

@RihannaIsIluminati

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Olson See, that’s the thing. Every single time a candidate won despite losing the popular vote, it’s been a Republican.

10:20 Nevada is also a swing state, hence why Las Vegas gets so much attention during elections

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

Did you do an absentee ballot in 2016?

@CynicalHistorian

5 жыл бұрын

@@iammrbeat I was in California for 2016. But I did do absentee for NV this year, online surprisingly enough

@aaronbradley3232

5 жыл бұрын

@@CynicalHistorian yeah Nevada and Montana were willing to pay at anyone who would call them swing States

@woodchuck003

5 жыл бұрын

There are currently 13 swing States. And with the last two elections you ac argue that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Texas, could be on there. I think you can have an easier time arguing that consistent states like Califonia who does get ignored is due to the problems with the states political parties. The residents may vote one color because one state party got too much control of the state legislator and made it vote one color. Califonia making another good example they want to move up their primary thinking candidates will care about them more. The reality is it doesn't matter when you vote if you allways vote blue both the blue and red people will ignore you.

@LordBummingtonThe3rd

5 жыл бұрын

They also like the campaign funds from the big casino owners.

Getting rid of it would make gerrymandering pointless at least with regards to federal elections.

To be fair, in California police will often pick up homeless people and bring them to cities. Homeless people in areas like El Dorado Hills are constantly moved to Sacramento. Some people are forced into cities.

One way to reform the Electoral College, would be rather than a state giving all their electoral votes, they proportionally represent their state, in other words, states would be able to show their voting pattern which is reflected in the Electoral College. Basically, if California for example distributed its 55 electoral votes to reflect the republican supporting counties and the democrat supporting ones. It would (I word it cautiously), in an ideal world probably better reflect the popular vote

@robograham12

5 жыл бұрын

That would be an improvement but it doesn't address the problem of votes in small states be worth more than votes in large states.

@iammrbeat

5 жыл бұрын

I think that would be a big reform and I totally support it.

@michealcormier2555

5 жыл бұрын

That's how it originally was. But, sometime early in the 1800s Tennessee (as I recall it being that particular state) went to a winner take all for its electorates to shore up its power as a state within the union. James Madison, who is considered a major architect of our Constitution protested it saying that it wasn't the original intent. But, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee's favor forcing most all the other states to do the same thing in order to insure they had as equal a voice to Tennessee's in the Federal Government. The biggest obstacle to reforming the Electoral College isn't so much the politicians in Washington as it is each individual state wanting to keep a sense of power in a Federal Republic. That is a government that is made up of individual autonomous or at least semi-autonomous governments working together. so, proportioning the Electoral votes would be going back to the original intent. After further research, I found that Alexander Hamilton went so far as to try to put in a Constitutional Amendment that would ensure the Electoral College would be determined by district and not by state.

@andrewjohnstone7943

5 жыл бұрын

@@michealcormier2555 this leads to my (admittedly mediocre) solution: ranked choice voting in winner take all systems. An easy sell for current politicians, and hopefully it breaks up the duopoly by removing wasting votes by third party. Then, candidates just need to be willing to wield their electoral votes to cobble majorities, and the system is at least better, and better able to move further forward

@noodles7193

5 жыл бұрын

SiVlog that is a great idea, but all states should immediately also subtract two of their electoral votes and base the number of their votes on how many seats they have in the house

We should reform the electoral college to make an odd number of votes. WHY even have the POSSIBILITY of ties broken by undemocratic means???

@owenf2299

3 жыл бұрын

@Tomas Flores I don't see democracy in the minority choosing the president

@dylanwhitt7352

3 жыл бұрын

@@owenf2299 it’s not necessarily the minority. Just protecting the rights of the minority so you don’t just campaign in New York and California

@owenf2299

3 жыл бұрын

@@dylanwhitt7352 so instead swing states should be the only states that matter and candidates campaign in?

@Anonymous-xp7ze

3 жыл бұрын

Take one electoral vote from DC, which makes 537. Problem solved no more ties.

@shravan5348

3 жыл бұрын

exactly, I'm a strong defender of the electoral college but I believe in the instance of a tie, the winner should be decided by who won the popular vote

my personal political beliefs have never really lined up with either of the 2 major parties so honestly never felt like my vote mattered. living in a state where majority is against me, i normally just dont vote.

@jackreacher.

9 ай бұрын

Please run for public office and make change great again.

The "faithless elector" problem is the easiest to solve. Simply change from flesh-and-blood electors to virtual electors determined solely by vote count in the state in question. That is, if the Rhode Island election is won by candidate B, then the electoral college votes automatically get tallied for candidate B. Having all states use the Maine/Nebraska method is a really good idea if the EC is to be kept. A more complicated adjustment would involve removing the 435 representative limit while also redefining the necessary population for a district. For example, set district size as 1 per 1 million votes (rounded to nearest million, with a minimum of 1 per state). This would actually decrease the number of representatives from 435 to (currently) 332. Another change would be to reduce the senate from 2 senators per state to 1 per state. Pretty much all of these would need a constitutional amendment.

Crowder meant “America has never been a [direct] democracy”, that is pretty clear

@napoleon5174

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@mrbrainbob5320

4 жыл бұрын

Well we are a republic with a representative democracy system so yes we are a democracy.

@rb032682

4 жыл бұрын

People like to use that old csa/kkk terrorist phrase as if that dismisses any argument against the Electoral College. BUT, nobody has ever explained how the "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers) determines what form of government is used in the USA. Crowder is full of shit. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists. What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed? One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!". What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government? The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens". After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

@danphan99

4 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 that was one big mess. maybe just try restructuring your argument. or dropping it completely. you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

@johnnyzeee5215

4 жыл бұрын

And neither does the UK have " direct election ", either. America was British for its first 180 years.

Puppet: We live in a Republic Mr. Beat: We live in a Democracy Me: We live in a society

@lucaslevinsky8802

2 жыл бұрын

We live in a period

@lb5299

2 жыл бұрын

We live on a planet

@Cybernaut551

2 жыл бұрын

@@lb5299 We all live in the Yellow Submarine!

@ryanchristopher8848

2 жыл бұрын

Nah recording to this supposed history teacher we live in a democracy but if you actually read the Constitution it never say democracy

@hoodedmaniac3602

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanchristopher8848 "We live in a society" - Joker

Alaska has ranked choice voting. It's wonderful - every state should use it. It helps ensure that elected candidates actually have a majority support.

The two-party duopoly needs to die

A Republic is a system of government where a series of representatives are voted in by the people to represent them. Some have called this a Representative Democracy, but true democracy is where the popular vote can decide everything.

@Paul21691

4 жыл бұрын

because it is a representative democracy...do you have an issue with that actual facts

@michaelbledsoe9296

4 жыл бұрын

Right. A presidential election decided by popular vote wouldn’t then be “true” democracy because the masses don’t decide any policy- they elect a representative to do that for them. And it still falls neatly into the definition of republic.

@holechek

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbledsoe9296 Plus big cities are always democratic. It would seem wrong for the big cities to decide everything for the country.

@michaelbledsoe9296

4 жыл бұрын

Markus Brandon This debate is about the electoral college, which only decides the presidency. The president can hardly “decide everything.” President power is quite limited. Most legislative power is vested in Congress, which massively over-represents rural states and under-represents urban ones. This is not only the case in the Senate, but also the House, which is supposed to be apportioned by population. Unlike Congresspeople, the president is elected to represent the United States as a whole. There is no reason to make any distinction between Americans when electing the president. Are big cities “always democratic”? Until 60 years ago most cities were Republican strongholds, but I will admit there is a trend in cities voting democrat. But cities are not monolithic. I live in New York City. The current mayor is a democrat, but the two previous mayors were not. One of the five boroughs voted for Trump. But the votes of urban republicans will never matter under the electoral college. If we abolished it, they would. We don’t apply that logic to any other situation. We don’t say we need to weigh the votes of African Americans because it seems wrong for whites to decide everything. We don’t say it’s unfair for men to decide everything, or the elderly. This convenient logic only comes out when debating the EC. There has never been a good reason as to why rural people need protection from urbanites but other minority populations do not. In a Representative government, if you do not receive the majority of votes, you have not received the consent of the governed.

@richardthenryvideos

4 жыл бұрын

And since we're not a democracy having the electoral college is essential

More people need to be made aware of ranked choice voting, no matter what your political view is ranked choice voting seems the most fair system I am aware of.

@SergeantSquared

5 жыл бұрын

you'll do anything to have a 'pure democracy' and that's all you're arguing for here. So, since you're so educated, please tell us all how much you k ow about why democracies have always failed, and why the founders of the United States categorically rejected democracy, and gave us a Constitutional Republic. However be warned, the first time you use words like "republic' or "democracy' while contextually talking about forms of government, the proper definition to an intelligent educated person will be the actual *legal/political definition* which is not arbitrary and is not subject to change based on preference. Also be aware that using those words contextually improperly will result in much mockery and laughter at your expense, and it will be justified.

@minimonkey252

5 жыл бұрын

@@SergeantSquared my god you are an annoying and stupid shitheel.

@sleuthman

5 жыл бұрын

Except for the fact that any partisan will seek to rank those running against his/her favorite in reverse order of how much of a threat they view the opponent to their candidate! If there are 6 people running, and you support A, you'll rank B last if he's the closest rival to your guy. It opens up a whole can of worms for electoral manipulation and dirty tricks. Like ridiculous "open primaries," in which people cross party lines to vote for the candidate in the opposing party that they think has the least chance against theirs. It's absurd.

@minimonkey252

5 жыл бұрын

@@sleuthman you don't understand ranked voting. Like at all. Go get educated dude.

@muslimmetalman

5 жыл бұрын

@@SergeantSquared Because the USA was founded on colonialism, the "Constitution" is a pro-slavery document - the "Founding Fathers" believed that those who owned society deserved to run it, and that "the purpose of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority". It's barely superior to a feudal society, incredibly authoritarian

I think it makes campaigning more interesting tbh. Going into it idk who will win whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing

It would be much better if the representatives were forced to vote for whom ever won their district/state

I was really hoping you would talk about ranked choice as a solution. Ranked with runoffs seem to be our best chance at better representation

@eifbkcn

3 жыл бұрын

RCV and top two runoffs are two very different things. Top Two runoffs simply kick the third parties off the ballot in the second round.

@donaldwobamajr6550

3 жыл бұрын

Ranked choice voting is better because it allows a voter to show their views on multiple candidates, but I do not believe that it will have nearly as large of an impact on the party composition of congress as its strongest supporters think it will. We will, at most, have only 2-3 people not from the main 2 parties elected each election.

@maddyrevenge

Жыл бұрын

Ranked choice is how it works in my country, and it's surprising how negligent the difference is in terms of who ends up elected. We still have what amounts to a two party system, and we still tend to alternate between stretches of conservative vs liberal, with the former holding government for almost the entire last decade. I still believe it's a far better system than the electoral collage, if only for the fact that I could not imagine a figure like Trump would be capable of being elected here.

He doesn't even let Crowder finish what he is saying.... He even says that we are a democratic republic in the video. He doesn't stop at just a republic

The States are countries. The United States is a Union. The electoral college should be kept as its based on population of the States, like the House. Without the electoral college, only the votes of the heavily populated Started need to vote. The president represents the States of the Union. The governors represent their States.

The idea behind the electoral college, and why it is still good in practice today, is that America is not one homogeneous people. We are different groups of people living in vastly different places potentially thousands of miles apart from one another. What is good and valuable for the people of Nevada may not be in the best interest for the people of Maine. What's good for the people of New York may not be good for the people of Idaho. Its not about making small states more powerful, its about ensuring a small states ability to protect their liberty from larger states who could dominate them given the differences in populations. Perfect example of this is the minimum wage argument. $15 an hour in Wyoming is an different salary that $15 an hour in NYC. Why force business in Wyoming to pay that when cost of living is so much lower. Let Wyoming decide what's good for Wyoming and New York what's good for New York, not let New York decide what's good for Wyoming.

@tophers3756

5 жыл бұрын

We're taking about the president of the nation, not local wages. To your point, how is having two or three states deciding an election thanks to the EC a better scenario than every vote in each state counting equally?

@Avrysatos

5 жыл бұрын

That's what congress is for though. And our state legislatures.

@whyamimrpink78

5 жыл бұрын

@@tophers3756 , the president is there to serve the states as that is the role of the federal government. That is why states decide elections and not people.

@tnwhitley

5 жыл бұрын

Matthew Stone yeah he certainly likes to gloss over many things that do not support his arguments doesn’t he? Glad you brought up ‘states rights’ which he didn’t. He’s also assuming 100% voters voting & ignoring all the actual illegal/non-citizens that voted. He reminds me of a statistics class I took in college that very handily pointed out how people use them (statistics) to prove their point even when the actual facts prove otherwise. Thank you.

@Avrysatos

5 жыл бұрын

@@tnwhitley except Matthew stones argument is garbage. The electoral college does not make things equal. And we would not be run by California for example if it were gone unless you can cite a statistic that shows California even remotely votes 100% democratic? States rights come on to play with who we send to Congress. And the equalizer to keep big states from ruling us is a place called the SENATE. did none of you go to grade school?

Democracy is the "how" and the Republic is the "what." We exercise our right to elect our representatives via voting, which is the how. The government structure is the "what."

@Claudius_Ptolemy

4 жыл бұрын

@SkyCop Wife the "i can't differentiate the difference between government types and governing systems so i come up with a Benjamin Franklin quote which only debunks direct democracy" argument,my favorite

@firefyfe6211

4 жыл бұрын

The how is really far more important.

@itchyscientist0576

3 жыл бұрын

FireFyfe they are both equal cause the system would be very different otherwise

Keep going hard Mr. Beat. Just came across your channel, you got some good content 🔥

Thank you for showing the episode of Adam Ruins Everything. I've referenced his show many times. I completely agree with abolishing the Electoral College. Great content.

@jebalitabb8228

Жыл бұрын

Isn’t that the guy who somehow made Joe Rogan look educated when he went on his show

@photlam9769

Жыл бұрын

@@jebalitabb8228 I just watched that and jesus Adam had no idea how to react

I enjoyed the video, and while I respect your opinion, I disagree with it; or at least most of it. It is possible I could be convinced of some Electoral College (EC) reforms, such as more careful selection of the actual electors, and perhaps splitting delegates based on the proportion of congressional districts won such as that used by Maine, but never it's abolishment. You suggest that Hillary should have won because she won the popular vote. In this, you make the mistake of discounting the other voters in the election: The States. These are sovereign entities with the same responsibilities and demands as an individual. The EC ensures states have proper representation in the election; similar to the way the Senate ensures this in the Legislature. You further suggest that 70% of Americans support abolishing the EC. I'm not convinced 70% of Americans understand the EC as initially envisioned and the arguments for its existence. This video, in my opinion, is an example of the misinformation and misrepresentation that surrounds the College. You brushed over the difference between a democracy and a republic. While you are correct in what you stated, I think you purposefully misunderstand what is being related. Conservatives are saying that our system of government is a representative republic and not a direct democracy (more accurately still, a Constitutional Federal Republic). For those interested, Madison explains why this form of government was preferred in Federalist # 10. I do agree with Mr. Beat that the current two party system negates some of the benefits of the republican system, but I would disagree with him that doing away with the EC would improve it. I contend it would do more damage. Hamilton, in Federalist #68, argues that the people must be confident in the electors and that those electors should be persons whom the people themselves select. So former party members or influential community leaders is not only expected but desired. Another important goal of the EC was to spread the votes among the many states so that no one region can exercise undue influence over another when selecting the executive. An argument can be made that this happens already, but I suggest the EC is not the reason for this condition. The two-party system, with the addition of a biased media (both 'right' and 'left'), conspires to inflate the polarization of the electorate such that there are large numbers of people who will vote for their party regardless of who is running. This leaves the undecided voters making the decisions for most of the elections, and that is why swing states are swing states. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won because he chose to campaign in both the blue and the red states. He understood that he had to convince areas of the country not considered his base that they should vote for him. So in fact, in this case, the EC extracted from Trump precisely the kind of transregional attention Hamilton predicted. In contrast, Hillary Clinton ignored important blue regions because she was convinced those votes were hers. Let me also reply to the notion of 'winning the popular vote.' In the 2016 election, more people voted against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump than voted for them (68.5 million and 71.5 million against, respectively. Those third party voters do matter. I voted for neither, for example, because I view both Trump and Clinton unfit for office, albeit for different reasons). So yes, Clinton won more individuals than Trump; but Trump won more states than Hillary. Both of these constituencies require a campaigns attention; Trump provided that attention, and he was rewarded for doing so. But the fact that either candidate was opposed by more people than they were supported is a much bigger problem than the EC (Those figures above are the rounded up numbers of Democrat, Republican and third-party votes cast). One last reason why I think leaving the EC alone is a simple one; the system is working despite all the arguments to the contrary. We peacefully transfer power every 8 years (though on occasion we have a one-term president) and very rarely is that transfer to a member of the outgoing president's party, and we have done this since the republic was founded. This means the electorate isn't hostage to either money or ideology. That is my opinion. There is so much more than could be argued on this point, but I've probably already lost most of the folks reading this, so I guess I'll end here.

@dsmith9964

5 жыл бұрын

Excellent post! Thank you! 👍

@tinkandtory

5 жыл бұрын

He takes Steven Crowders position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation. Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements. This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying.

@johncouch8174

5 жыл бұрын

​@@tinkandtory EDIT: I incorrectly assumed that Blitz9726 was referencing my reply and not the video by Mr. Beat, so the following is my unfounded criticism of his response. This edit serves as my apology to him. I'm leaving the post unaltered as context to allow other readers to know why I'm apologizing to him. I said in part of this he ha jumped to a conclusion when in fact I had actually done so. Steel prices must be low as there is an oversupply of irony here. You claim I made a straw man argument by creating a straw man argument to make that assertion. Interesting, but let us dissect your reply. > "He takes Steven Crowder's position and uses a straw man argument as the basis for his misrepresentation." No, I am taking James Madison's position. I don't know Steven Crowder's full argument because I didn't watch his video, just the short clip that Mr. Beat played. I also didn't misrepresent Madison's view. Madison's view is well known historically, and I provided a reference point for those wishing to know more. This is Federalist #10. But that is also irrelevant since that wasn't my argument. > "Specifically, Crowder states that the United States is not a democracy, not that the United States does not have democratic elements." You are right, this is not a valid statement, and I said so. I wrote specifically "While you are correct in what you stated...". That is why I purposefully clarified what Madison's actual argument was because it is very important to the need for the Electoral College. >"This basic inability to understand someone's argument and the inability to see the logical fallacy is severely detrimental to his credibility. If you are going to use someones misinformation as an example you must first understand what they are saying." I agree, but the problem is that you have not understood my argument. My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible, and I was providing this opinion based on the invitation at the end of the video. You have stated my argument was a defense of Steven Crowder's statement in the clip. That is not correct. >straw man argument So, for those not familiar, here is a definition: 'You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack' or 'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.' This is what you have done; you stated my position was something it was not, and then attacked that assertion. My argument is that the Electoral College is not terrible and I make no other argument in my post. I do give supporting statements as to why I have this belief. I start off by clarifying the type of democracy we are because that is important to the discussion. If we were a direct democracy, the Electoral College would be a travesty. I then explain why I think one of the principal problems Mr. Beat was concerned about was not caused by the Electoral College, but rather the nature of polarization in America. I then explain why the popular vote is misleading because it implies a plurality of support when it does not. I then summarize that "we don't need to fix what ain't broke." I can only assume that you didn't read my entire post because you responded to none of it. I think you read the part about the republic and jumped to a conclusion. I don't mind that others disagree with the college. I don't need to convince anyone; it's a constitutional process and anyone wanting to remove it has the daunting task of following Article V of the Constitution to change it. I am convinced that once educated on how the College works, and why it was enacted, many of those who support it will no longer be of such mind. (edited to remove extra line breaks) (2nd edit to apoogize)

@tinkandtory

5 жыл бұрын

@@johncouch8174 Dude, I was arguing against Mr.Beat's video. I was confirming your opinion.

@johncouch8174

5 жыл бұрын

@@tinkandtory I read the post believing that you were referencing my reply. So, in fact, I was the one who jumped to a conclusion and must apologize to you. I will leave my response to you posted so that this apology has both meaning and context, but will put an edit at the top explaining.

Besides getting rid of the electoral college, the U.S. also needs to pass a law banning corporate campaign "donations" (i.e. legalized bribes) so that politicians stop serving corporate interests and CEOs and start serving the people who voted for them. That would end the current state of plutocratic, oligarchic corporatocracy, and turn the U.S. into a democracy.

@marcogonzalez2266

3 жыл бұрын

Your skewed reasoning left out $$ from China and Russia!

@johnspurrier0001

2 жыл бұрын

You do realize the SC ruled in favor of corporations under Obama, correct? If you think Republicans are the worse... just remember who else is playing the game.

@aothanhhuy2814

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnspurrier0001 supreme court justice are appointed for life,and all justice that vote for the corporation are appointed by Republicans presdient

@hunterburroughs4911

2 жыл бұрын

Disagree with getting rid of the Electoral College. Agree with trying to get rid of corrupt lobbying.

@princebunnynutz8082

2 жыл бұрын

Ok so say we get Rid of the electoral collage, Wyoming has zero representation. Every state above Nebraska(except the eastern most and westernmost states) has zero representation, Maine might as well not exist. And Fuck everyone from states with smaller populations than the deep south states. Ya see how that could go wrong?

When the EC was established the communications were slow due to methods of transport. If something changed, it took a while to inform people. So someone was elected to represent a group of people at a voters convention. Instantaneous communications eliminates need for college.

I know. This is so broken. I think we need to make a second constitution. We need a government that focuses on the majority, and the people, not holding on to power.

Popular vote: everyone's vote is equal Electoral college: some people's vote some worth more than others Inexplicably still a lot of people in the US: the electoral college allows everyone to have a voice

@bjbell52

3 жыл бұрын

Popular vote -> California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan picks the President every time. Try looking at the map of which states voted for Trump or Hillary. 12 states for her, 38 for him. It looks like the electoral college does a better job at making sure states are represented.

@crazyclemsonfan8305

3 жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 States have representation in Congress. The election is supposed to have representation from people not states. Every single vote is equal no matter where you live with popular vote. My vote isn't a vote from Texas it's a vote from me. The past 20 years my vote has been irrelevant for who wins the election the same is true for about half the country.

@bjbell52

3 жыл бұрын

@@crazyclemsonfan8305 I googled for advantages of the electoral college. Here's what one source said... One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president - since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold.

@crazyclemsonfan8305

3 жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 Oh wow you googled something. Did you even watch the video at all? The argument is completely invalid as candidates are already incentivized to visit the larger swing States. States aren't supposed to get a voice in the presidential election people are that makes absolutely no sense yes the states with more people should have more of a voice not the states who are close in the election.

@Roanix1

2 жыл бұрын

@@bjbell52 that would make sense in a non digital, non connected world. but everybody can just go on the internet and learn what they need. Don't Google without thinking critically.

Over here in Norway, I'm a Republican. But all that means here is that I want to remove the royal family, and have an elected president instead. As that is more democratic. Now, Norway is ranked the most democratic country in the world by the Democracy Index, and we'd be even more democratic if we were a Republic. So the US being a Republic *is no excuse* for it to not have proper functioning democratic electoral systems.

@saftsuse866

5 жыл бұрын

@Vlavitir glutginskiya Of course the US is a democracy. It's not a full democracy, it's not a proper democracy. It's a flawed and corrupt democracy. But it's still a democracy by most standards, agreed upon by most all experts. You cannot just invent your own personal definition of a word, then pretend the rest of the world has to follow it. The definition of democracy is as follow; _" a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."_ and the US falls under that definition. Hence the US is *obviously* a democracy. If you want to have your own private definition of what a democracy is, then that's fine, just don't bother other people with it. Other people do not follow your private definitions, and neither do we give a shit.

@saftsuse866

5 жыл бұрын

@Vlavitir glutginskiya I don't give a fuck about the founding fathers and their intentions. You treat the founding fathers as if they're some kind of religious dogma or something. We cannot go around stuck in the ideas from the 1700s. We've progressed since then.

@dbojangles1597

5 жыл бұрын

@@saftsuse866 Yea i'm not so sure we have to be honest.

@bulbasaurpokemon3573

5 жыл бұрын

Most modern jews are Caucasian Khazar jews not Semitic people, most modern jews usually look like white Europeans but are not white Europeans. There are also Asian, Hispanic, Arabic and African jews who do not look like white Europeans.

@GErwin-ki6eo

5 жыл бұрын

Seft Suse They get this from crap the Heritage Foundation and ALEC and other Lobbyist-Right wing-Think tanks. Which sponsor Entertainers on FOX. All to get the stupid to vote against their own economic interests. Since they're is not enough Multi-Millionaires or Billionaires to vote in these policies. They have been squawking crap like 'Democracy does not mean a good Economic system" and "not big fans of Democracy" even quoting Stalin(real Patriotic)"Democracy can be 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner...Dawrrr....!"

The electoral college was a great idea when our fore fathers thought it up. It clearly has failed. There provision for changing it, however, Our fore fathers never took into account how bad political division would become.

The thing is, if our education isn't good enough, then any sort of democracy will run the nation into the ground And seeing how civics isn't very promoted in school, yeah...

@Qspjsgpuwthpvjsvpu

11 күн бұрын

And thats the thing, the smaller and rural states are (on average) less educated, so they are more likely to run the country into the ground

The Mr. Beat in Ohio: “Why the electoral college is AWESOME!”

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

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

@mattfishfrog5797

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 Slavers were not terrorists. The North already had to much power and were hurting the south so obviously they want something to even it out more. It applies the same today where the big people try to control the little people and that's not right. What evidence do you have to call slavers terrorists? Black things weren't people so they cant be terrorized.

@rb032682

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattfishfrog5797 - terrorism: the use of violence, or the threat of violence, as a means of coercion.

@mattfishfrog5797

3 жыл бұрын

@@rb032682 the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” here's the actual definition by law and slavery was lawful therefor it was not terrorism

@internetperson9813

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattfishfrog5797 Just because slavery was legal back then and black people weren't considered people doesn't mean that it isn't terrorism.