My guess for Trump vs. Harris is that one will win the popular vote while the other wins the Electoral College and becomes president. If that happens, the debate over the Electoral College will be more intense than ever. What are your election predictions, and how do you feel about the Electoral College? By the way, watching the entire video helps the channel and spreads the conversation. Thanks for your support!
Good job on the video, I was wondering if you could make a video where the AI's discuss other Christian sects like Catholicism and Protestantism since you did a great job on the other religion videos.
I don’t think there’s any reality in 1,000 parallel universes where Kamala wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote. Why didn’t you just come out and say that?
I don't see Kamala having the popular vote. That is evident in her rallies vs. Trumps rallies. Trump should win the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Kamala is a very unpopular candidate that did not even get one vote from the party. In fact they did not even have a primary. So how is she even a legitimate presidential candidate?
I want a Trump vs. Kamala debate where the AI moderators will call out nonsensical answers. For example, if Kamala is asked about a policy and she responds by saying "she was born in a middle-class family," the AI will say something like, "Your response did not answer the question. Please try again. "
@@Staf00plz I was confused when I saw this and I thought it meant the AI moderators would yell out random sequences of words as answers before I read the entire comment lol
Good point, with American's Social Security numbers being out on the dark web since the leak; voting online, seems practically ineffective. In my mind.
Here in California, the majority votes to have enough water to water their lawns and small farms are denied it. This allows for corporate owned farms to prosper and mom and pop farms to suffer. That’s just one of many examples, but city people are completely ignorant of these things or just don’t care.
Yes, and that's a minority. Voting the other way would help the minority, but not the majority. Voting for majority helps more people than the minority.
The challenger's argument is predicated on the idea that we were intended to be a democracy; We were not. We were and still are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers condemned direct democracy.
We are a democratic republic. We still vote for mayors, governors, and congressmen and women. We ARE intended to be a democracy but it’s within a republic.
@@Jfloyd Ok, but that’s what we are. This might be hard to hear, but the founding fathers weren’t infallible gods, and they didn’t say everything with perfect precision. The fact of the matter is we are a democratic republic, where our citizens vote (democracy) for representatives to represent them and make laws in their stead (republic).
Democracy = rule of people Republic = elected ruler Those terms are not mutually exclusive. USA is democratic constitutional republic, as the power rests with people and they elect their leader whom have powers defined by constitution. This is type of representative democracy, democracy in which people chose their representatives.
we're a representative democracy. the founding fathers also condemned women & blacks from voting. how many times do we have to go over this? the founding fathers didn't have infinite foresight. wanna know the other thing several founding fathers condemned yet Americans have embraced emphatically? political parties. should we get rid of those?
The challenger makes good argument... however for these argument to hold, a few premise needs to be true... 2 of them being. The voters are intelligent and informed. The voting system is reliable and safe. Which I dont think any smart, intellectually honest person can agree with those premises...
@unsilencedderp9411 The deepstate is literally just the body of unelected federal bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people, yet are directly responsible in making very important decisions. It just self-evidently exists.
I’m a confident because people are more informed then ever I will admit also more misinformed but genuinely more people know and can find credible information on anything they want. Are voting system are safe enough to elect a president and I don’t think there will be much difference with online voting but think we need a hybrid so people can vote in person also. Our system is always target but we detect and defend it every time yes some will watch Russian propaganda and vote aligned to it or other examples but we do a good job to counter and prevent that it is not able to change the outcome of a election
They will never be wise enough to tell the difference between what is good, and what is not good. That's why altruism has never worked without direct punishment. That's why we can not give up this balanced system. If we do, we'll only have an oligarchy by the political class.
@@emanueljames7801the issue with being informed is you have to inform yourself, not read what an informed person tells yous. I have a master degree is chemistry. Let’s say i tell you the reason sometimes green food dye turns some oils red because the 4th carbon on is pronated. You would believe me because I have a master degree. You also don’t have time to fact check me because you couldn’t just look this information up online, you would need to get a degree in chemistry. Now what if I told you the reason green food dye turns some food red is because of the turmeric found in the dye. I lied to you previously, i could lie to you again. In democracy to be informed you are at the mercy of the person with the information. If they lie you are uninformed and make a bad choice.
@@sordidknifepartyBro, everyone said in 2016 if trump gets elected, he'd dissolve democracy and in 2 years execute dissidence. That didn't happen. Why would it happen now
While interesting this debate failed to address the core issues underlying the differences between a republic and a democracy. The assumption that majority rule is a good thing was not challenged in any significant way.
@@anedz4005some benefits of minority rule in the context of a republic protects minority rights, protecting against “the tyranny of the majority”, a common example of this is the Weimar Republic which lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. The debate often revolves around how best to balance power, doing the public will, and ensuring to protect rights deemed inalienable regardless of what the majority might decide at a given moment.
@@anedz4005 I think what jonathan meant to say is that populist systems with majority wins isn't always the best for the nation, and I would agree, but with the caveat that specialists make such decisions against the popular will due to their expertise in their field, such as scientists deciding to increase a tax to design a system to prevent a volcanic eruption devastating a local region similar to the Mount St. Helens eruption (if there was a way to do so), or reinforcing dikes and levy's similar to the Netherlands to prevent storm damage similar to Hurricane Katrina. People are often going to say no to taxes, especially when they do not see the problem, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Similarly, banning fishing in a popular fishing spot to prevent devastating a fish population would require a specialist (since a populist would say we can fish there more and win, and seem right, until the population collapses after they are no longer in power). Populism is like high school student council elections, the best choice is probably the person who is taking all the advanced courses and makes good personal financial decisions and handles responsibility well. Not the funny person who is attractive and maybe the ace on a sports team of the highschool with a large network of "popular" friends. Majority rules makes sense, but so does minority rights, and so does specialists in specialist roles.
honestly i dont really mind the states +2 votes thing but really the core issue is fptp which has got to go for literally anything (just put on the books that states can change their electoral college votes to vote again after a canidate gets eliminated, something along those lines)
I think one of the ways you can pick out how one argument is at least more likely closer to reality is if someone can come back at an argument with "actually, if anything brining that up only makes my point stronger!" 7:43 oh boy that seems like a nightmare. The thing is most people will vote purely for who they think will win. Nobody likes fighting a losing battle. So if we have a live vote count, people will see whoever pulls ahead first, and if they where going to vote counter to them, they'll just give up. Or even vote for the currently leading candidate. Its not logical, but its how people work.
I think that the reason the AI leans more towards the challengers' argument is due to an innovation bias we all have for new and novel ideas. However, most people realise the risk of overhauling a corrupt but not oppressive or genocidal governance system. Sice such risk is more than just data points in most people's minds incremental reform is preferred.
Sonnet 3.5 was on the side of the defender the whole time. Since it's vastly smarter than most of the models present, that tells you all you need to know. Although given the suspicious consistency of the placements across rounds, I suspect context poisoning is at play...
I think it's crazy that the defender AI tries to claim that our two-party system makes for more continuous policy making, it seems like the presidency switches every, or every other, term- the same with the Congress. Nobody can get anything done because the Voting is divided right down the middle
It's supposed to be that way so that you work through bipartisanship. If you can't work through bipartisanship to get things done then it's not the system, it's the people within the system that are the problem. Unless of course you forgot that the system used to function with ease until The Obama administration came to be.
@@Jason-TheChad-Muska_circa1995the claim wasn't that the two party system helps create cooperation between the sides, it was that the two party system was efficient at getting things done. It is not because it is always in stalemate
Of course... notice who trains the LLM's.... I mean are we going to forget that Google's model portrayed racially diverse founding fathers and German soldiers in WW2?
@@mabeScand that’s exactly why our founders didn’t want it. It’s exactly why other countries end up with communism and millions of people dying from starvation. The left has a higher population than the right but it’s the right that feeds everyone. When the left begins legislating on things they have no knowledge or understanding of, everyone suffers. That’s also why the 1st amendment and open discussion is so important.
Voting 2 day national Holiday and if you choose to vote then you receive a tax credit when filing for that year that pays you for the entire day salary. ID to vote with proof of citizenship and paper ballots hand-counted only. That's how you do it.
It's interesting that i immediately noticed that the arguments immediately became a right vs left issue. One was concerned with equity in suffrage and utilizing modern technoligies to fast track the election process. While the other is concerned with public trust and representation of rural communities.
Imagine if a baseball team complained that it wasn't fair for them to lose a game even though they had more hits than the winning team. The electoral vote is akin to runs scored, and the popular vote is like the hits. It's an interesting stat that is more likely to correlate with a victory, but one that doesn't matter for the outcome. Only losers want to change the system to make it so that they can presumably win all the time. By the way, we are talking about a popular vote that is impacted by the existence of the electoral college. Those complaining assume that a straight-up popular vote without this factor would lead to the same outcome. Maybe the disenfranchised Republicans in populous states like CA would vote in droves over disenfranchised Democrats in the many less populated red states, who knows, but I doubt most people think that far.
I think the part you added at the end is one of the key arguments against the electoral college. I think it’s a good thing that disenfranchised voters on both sides would get to feel like their vote counted more or that it could make a difference. Even if the outcome may not be the same, it still means more people participating in our system
You can look up why FPTP (the generic non-America-centric term) was created and why it's used across the world to easily come to this conclusion without AI.
@@Shark-pj8in what else makes sense? Popular vote leaves massive margins of representation out and the current system for how the electoral college works leaves out whole populations in each state, ranked choice voting is too consulated and easily corrupted. Proportional representation proves the same type of representation that the electoral college is supposed to offer but by every voting block by each state. So every voting block will be truly represented in each state. What else makes sense? Genuinely curious
@@sonnyankau9239 what else makes sense? Popular vote leaves massive margins of representation out and the current system for how the electoral college works leaves out whole populations in each state, ranked choice voting is too consulated and easily corrupted. Proportional representation proves the same type of representation that the electoral college is supposed to offer but by every voting block by each state. So every voting block will be truly represented in each state. What else makes sense?
Wow I love this. This is exactly how debates should be. It’s surprising because I expect one sides to give a solid answer and the other to employ debate tactics. Maybe we should use AI to debate certain topics, hmmm 🤔
Go with ai islam vs. Christianity (who has more historical evidence+which is better), contradictions between both and who has more contradiction, and how they can defendant does contradiction, make it with 13 judges. Pleasee🙏🏻
of course the ai thinks this way, you should ask the ai how frequent civil wars become when a group is locked out of political power for multiple generations of election cycles. the answer shouldn't surprise you.
Could you do a debate over what is justice? With one side taking a more Thomastic and divine approach and the other side from a Machiavelli/Rousseau/Hobbs side.
Can you do a video about superheroes in real life and how in real life helping people is the difference in fighting the bad guys. Thank you, i really enjoying the videos you do!
It seems that LLMs without guiderails respond with the appearance of more critical thinking, otherwise they are too ready to accept the dismissal of their argument by machine or human. If you pick models without censorship you'll see a more critical thinking process especially with chain, or multi shot reasoning.
The biggest weakness to your AI debates is that you let them monologue for far too long. While humans are also given one minute to make their statements, humans speak in a much more moderate tempo and they spend time underlining their strongest arguments. Meanwhile, these AI speakers simply spew argument after argument. They make a reference without elaboration (a human would not do that in a debate because a human would not expect the listener to immediately know what is being referred to, as these AI speakers do). Because of the ridiculous number of arguments they spew, the opponent never addresses all of them. As the amount of arguments they can respond to is limited, what do they do? They do the same annoying thing humans do, which is attacking the opponent's weakest arguments and ignoring the strongest. See round 1. The challenger's strongest argument by far is the disengagement of safe state voters. That argument is not answered. I am fairly certain that that is the main reason the jury AIs sided with the challenger in that round. I would be much more interested in a format where as soon as one AI states an argument, the other is required to directly respond to it. As it stands right now, both in human and in AI debates, the current format allows the debaters to ignore the opponent's strongest arguments while decimating their weakest arguments and that frustrates me to no end
This is easily fixed by prompting the AI to give shorter, more natural responses and increasing the number of responses per side per round. Unfortunately Jon doesn't seem too skilled with their use yet...
@@sonnyankau9239 You desperately need reading comprehension. It's not about my attention span, it's about the fact that the AIs lose sight of each other's arguments. Just like you completely missed the point of my complaint
Problem trying get rid electoral college that is design for two party that USA is in these two parties has been around since constitution was created and the only way greatest change Americans politics for better is to get rid of BOTH Democrats and Republicans party and create new system that allow more than three people to compete for President while allowing people stay informed.
States with NPVIC legislations in places like New Jersey make it more difficult for Republican voters to have a voice in an otherwise solid blue state. Meaning, *gasp,* the bigger cities in New Jersey have a much louder voice than the rest of New Jersey does. If you want to abolish the electoral college, then you might as well abolish the Senate too.
I don't want New York and California telling the rest of the country how to run. That's what the electorial college prevents. Without the electorial college you basically get Panem from the hunger games.
🤔 . . . I’m all for replacing our electoral college system. However, it should be something that actually meets the highlights of why the electoral college system is actually good & such.
And you know what? If she loses the electoral college she deserves to! You cannot ignore the rural christian voter and expect to win. You need to appeal to the farmer like it or not, and guess what? Farmers don't want schools trans-ing children. THAT is radical. Majority rule can be wrong, it has been wrong as history shows. Adolf Hitler was majority rule. Mao Zedong was majority rule. Lenin/Stalin was majority rule. We live in a republic that protects liberty, and it does this by making the federal process slow and deliberate (i.e. bicameral legislature). This is why we don't have parliament and I'm glad we don't.
@@anedz4005 "Unfair?" give me a break. Whats unfair is if the electoral college wasn't a thing, no candidate would ever leave the coastline states. The electoral college, senate and house of representatives play the perfect balance between proportional representation and states rights. (Urban vs rural). If you can't see the danger making it easier for a large government to make rules that 49% of a country may not support, and then enforce that rule with guns? You are very niave and misinformed. This goes for and against both republican and democrat policies and opinions (think abortion and gun control for example). Don't assume to know my opinions, very judgmental. I disagree with a lot of what the modern republicans do. Just like i disagree with a lot of what the modern democrats do. Read the federalist papers you might learn something about why our country is framed the way it is, and why it is important to have a government framed in a way that prioritizes liberty instead of getting things done quickly (parliament). If you are not from an immigrant family, your ancestors fought and died to actually get AWAY from a parliamentary system. Think about that before bed tonite and have some perspective.
@@anedz4005If the republicans have an advantage over the democrats, then how come the last 12 out of 16 years we’ve had a democratic president? That doesn’t make sense to me
NSDAP was third party in the German elections when Adolf Hitler became chancellor. Mao won a civil war against the nationalists and consolidated China. Lenin led a revolution and won a civil war as well. Stalin used his bureaucratic power to undermine far more popular candidates for the position of the Secretary-General. So, no. None of the examples show that majority rule can be wrong because they have nothing to do with that.
Watching two AI argue idiocy was frustrating. How does the defender fail to point out the most basic and indisputable point??? We are NOT a democracy. Full stop. End of debate. We are a constitutional republic. The people don’t even elect the president, the college of electors does. The people elect representatives in the house. And now we elect senators because morons didn’t understand how our system of governance was designed because no one likes to study history. Senators were always intended to represent the state, not the people. The executive represents the federal and is elected by a representative government of the house and senate combined. In that way there is representation of the people and the states to the federal executive branch. Looks like even AI failed history and basic poly sci. Bring back School House Rock… we’re becoming less intelligent with each generation.
I’m seeing a pattern with challenger AI. He keeps ignoring the points revolving around mob role, and less populated states. And he keeps making points about majority rule without engaging with the defenders point on majority role, and how it might not potentially show fully what the country actually thinks.
The founders made it so the electoral college, and by that, the electors elect the president---not the people--- as outened in article 2 of the constitution, the electors can vote for whoever they want, the only reason they do not is because they probably would lose their job, but, anyway, the founders were afraid of a direct democracy/participatory because it solves short-term issues and not so the long-term issues because the voter votes for what is best for them at the time of the vote, and the hot ideas of the people and, so, had tempers on the ideas of the people, many of these tempers was the senate, which, before the 16th amendment, were elected by the state legislature, and the electoral college was made, so the people had a smaller voice in the election of the president rather than the sole voice of it. The only reason it does not reflect the popular vote is because of the fact that electors in every state, other than Maine and Nebraska give all their votes to the person that won the state rather than splitting it up between the Canidates. The electoral college is not a bad thing because of the fact that people are not perfect---nor is the electoral college---but is a reliable system made to fill a purpose that it has filled in every single election in American history, but whether you agree with me or not is an entirely different story. Ane ro4 those who might want to prove my argument wrong because we are a democracy, meaning people power, or rule, there are 3 types of democracy, participatory, or direct democracy, pluralist, or many groups vying for control or elitist, or a small, elected, group of people in control. The founders out these types of democracy into our government, participatory with the house of traps, pluralist with the parties (despite George Washington's wirings), and indirect election, such as the electoral college and the fact that we are a representative republic, and that we send people to represent our interests to the capitol, which, in our form of government today, is not always the case. TL;DR electoral college made by founders for a purpose that t fulfils diligently.
Why do the AI debaters assume a popular democracy hasn’t historically led to national bankruptcy and terrific disasters of government over and over? We’re a republic specifically because it’s only a matter of time before populations raid the treasury and spend the country into debt until collapse and other horrible outcomes. Statistically speaking, half of people have sub 100IQs. Even >100IQ doesn’t guarantee wisdom or scruples. Even if people’s votes mattered, you want millions of people thousands of miles away from where you live, that know nothing about you to rule your life? With a country as big as ours, where no one can know everything, majority rule simply gives power to the best propagandists and when liars can promise the moon on a credit card, they have a huge advantage. Kids would vote for cake every meal. Why would we expect uneducated, amoral, legally adult children to be any different when it comes to voting themselves benefits that we can’t afford or fighting wars no one wants? This is de facto centralized power among an insanely small minority rule, and centralized power has only been good at proving how bad it is at just about everything other than maintaining a monopoly on violence/power. Our country was never meant for an amoral, selfish citizenry. Only Jesus can save us from the slide into a Brave New World that we’re currently in. Stop being selfish. Vote secular government as small as possible. Repent and follow the one true King, Christ Jesus! His Kingdom lives in the hearts of every believer in the source of love, light, and life.
I wonder if the people arguing for popular vote realize that there are now more registered Republicans in the country then registered Democrats. Much of that is just due to a reluctance to party affiliate, but it still suggests greater percentages of people rejecting left wing politics.
The US is not one society but a collection of societies with a common throughline, and although this aligns their interests on an international and comercial level, it does not mean that they have eachother's best interest in mind. The Texans have there own way of life with there own distinct values. So to do Hoosiers (Indiana). Explain to me why members of one society have the right to tell members of another society how they should be run. The senate gives each of these societies an equal place at the table so that the larger societies can exert imperial pressure on the smaller. The people which comprise this collective nation are given their own chamber in which as a citizenry their voices may be heard. It is the balance of these 2 bodies that form the constituency known as the governed. The senate, representing the constituent governments, must determine whether they are best suited to be the arbiter of power in any situation. This is the precise reason that the senate is responsible for the confirmation of judicial appointees. It is their laws that would be usurped by the federal courts, therefore they must consent to its practitioners. The president presiding over the nation and its laws, and serving as representive of the nations peoples to the world, is in the unique position of deriving authority from both factions of the governed. It is for this reason that a balance must be struck between the people and the governments which comprise the executive constituency. The electoral college is this ballance. E PLURIBUS UNUM, out of many one. This is how a nation of 50 distinct societies can come to form a cohesive body politic.
Stay the course. If you go to a popular vote then you lose any challenge to the popular party with no chance of winning with any other party. Them we most likely will become the largest banana republic. Just as the AI challenger pointed out that in states where one party is dominate, we would have the same one party dominance on a National level with just a few states. The Electoral College is fine the way it is.
Citizens should have never been used by states to choose electors. Beginning around the time Jackson was president most states went to this system of letting its citizens choose the electors which is why people think nationwide popular vote should be the system. Orginally states let their state legislature pick the electors. These people were more knowledgeable with their particular states issues concerning its relationship with this union it belongs to. The chief executive, or the entire federal government, according to our constitution is not supposed to be as powerful as it is today. But even still the executive branch does have control over certain things that can have a big effect on a state. This is why state legislatures are way more qualified to choose these electors than the general population. Just ask random voters to quote the tenth amendment. If they cant get the wording exact that is ok but they should get it very close and understand what it means. If they cant even do that then how can they be trusted to be involved with picking the chief executive of the federal government? Today this position is nothing but a popularity contest in which two major parties with help from the media choose the candidates and more often then not the winner. This is why we get the candidates we do. Thinking a national popular vote would be better is hilarious.
Either we need to eliminate the Electoral College and directly elect our President with a national popular vote, or America needs a new constitution where a direct election of the President is guaranteed!
Direct democracy in America will ultimately fail. The urban areas of each state will take precedent over the rural areas. Thus, high population would be subject to all sorts of influences from those that profit around them. Any socalist nation can yell you, the will of the people is not the will of the powerful, they would buy and sell out political parties and make puppets out of all political bodies. The entire reason we picked the electoral system, is so that one area can not dictate to the whole as a nation. Without the electoral system, the ten most popular states would be enough to win any federal election. That would certainly subject the other 40 states to will of the most popular states by population. It would make a populist oligarch system, that could restore the nation without a minority voice. That would directly conflict with equal voting, as even with minority voices in these states, the divergent function would leave interstate and international policies to the political strongholds crafted in these areas. They would have to change opinion, since propaganda is legal for media access in the US. Thus majority subjects positive reasoning, and now they control all forms of international appeal, while oppressing descending idea from the interl system. Making everyone subject to large centers. The same outcome has happened in so many authoritarian systems, and it always leads to the death of difference, and the policing of the classes by a singular political class. It would fundamentally leave us to either be directly puppeted by the elites classes, or for their replacement from the political class itself.
You're doing all this fear mongering about popular votes but the strongest democracies in the world (the nordics) all use popular vote systems and they work fine with far less friction between urban and rural communities than America currently has...
@mrkenan1 they also have a very narrow difference between both cultures, and the perception of those cultural differences are very different than in the US. It's not fear mongering if you take into consideration the aspect a social group consists of since that is a huge indicator of how people believe things should be done.
@@heres1for2day that would make sense if America at the end of the day didn't work seemingly fine with 2 parties in actual power, while the Nordic countries are represented by 8-12 parties in the parliaments. Is it really that politically diverse if your politics can be consistently divided into two boxes?
@mrkenan1 we mave have coalition ideas, but without that system, the iver 40 groups that make up our system would have direct competition. Given our diverse make up and differing ideas, only the highest majority would be crafting law based on this system. Last time I took a look at it, that would be one group over 40, so not a good idea for difference given that around 40% of the nation has diverse history and might see it as a direct attack upon them due to bias from the majority. Your basically arguing that a we are comparable to those Nordic countries, when they have a national identity while we don't. The only bond we hold is in the ideal of the nation as a whole, not in the people. So, you'd be inviting conflict between groups based on subjective difference. Read up on the civil rights era and how diversity was built up by minority voices and how the majority squashed much of that via group identity. Also read up the reason the South was sculpted out, as it was in defense of the minority group.
We as humans need to level up and ascend to a position of Integrity & Accountability. We need to function as a cohesive civilization acting with constant awareness of Intent. "Birds of a feather flock together" which makes/turns us into "products of or environment". We all wish for change but thereafter, are we seeking/acting to see it to fruition? Ask if your conducting yourself as the change you want to see. If you find yourself "triggered", take the moment to pause & "put the shoe on the other foot" (even for maybe entertainment reasons) or "Do unto others and be kind as you to yourself". We're so quick to judge but slow to try and understand. Maybe "slow'n our roll and stay'n in our lane" would perpetuate into being less guarded, hardened and numb. Given a little time I'd like to think that we as a civilization would attain a level of harmony where we "wouldn't ever" even comprehend the thought to turn the other cheek, bow down or do injustices to others. The thought of helping each other up rather than stepping on toes should be the direction we all seek. With a little time & diligence, the world would turn into a utopia. BUT, we need to recognize/address the rut we may find ourselves in & strive for being better so that one day, we look upon each other with Kindness, Empathy, Patience & Understanding so we'd Care too & Love one another… If you've taken the time to read this, I appreciate you & would like to pass on some info to shed light and explain the cause & possible reasons for why the current events have been/are going the way they have. 2 movies on RU-vid: Kymatica- Ben Stewart & Thrive- What on Earth will it take, Thank You!
it should be an eltoral college in each state to decide who takes the state or atleast let each county get ther percentage of elcoral votes by state that match there percentage of the popultaion of the state the eltoral college makes it so 3 or 4 state cant pick the potus wihtout any input form the other states wihtout it california new yoprk and illinois could basiclly poick the potus wouldnt matter much how the rest of the nation voted
is sjould be noted that we have representive democracy within the bounds of a constituional republic we are not just majority rule we have certain protections to keep the amjority from overuling the rights and opinon of the minority the majority has more say in most things
The challenger and the judges that sided with him seem to ignore that we are not just a single homogenous country but a union of the fifty states. If you implement a national popular vote, you eliminate any power the smaller states have in selecting the president. If this were somehow forced on the country, I wouldn't be surprised if it caused a mass exodus of states secedeing, which could be the catalyst for another civil war. This video tells me that AI is not ready to make political decisions for a country it doesn't seem to understand.
The defender keeps implying that Rural America isn't fairly represented by a direct voting system, but I don't agree. It seems to me that if you choose to live in a place where very few other people choose to live, that that somehow entitles you to Greater representation in the government. The groups that we choose to associate ourselves with often dictate the amount of power we have, and if you choose to live with a very small group of people, you can't expect you to have the same voice as a million people choosing to live together
It’s a good thing though. Not a bad thing. It’s a check in populous areas from running roughshod over less populated areas. I like it when candidates campaign in all 50 states, not just the most populous 5-10. We are the United States of America, not the United States of heavily populated urban centers.
"if you disagree with what the majority agrees with you deserve to not have your views heard or respected and your needs ought not to be met" Youre describing tyranny by mob rule dude. Rural people aren't "entitled to greater representation" they're entitled to representation period, without the electoral college urban people enact tyranny on rural people and you get war.
@@stevied3400I simply disagree. I think each person should get the exact same amount of representation, regardless of what choices they make in where they live or who they live with. A city of 3 million should have a much much larger voice than a community of 300
Interesting, this is the first time, if im not mistaken, the AIs have consistently disagreed with Jon. As ive said before, Jon obviously puts his viewpoint into the blue female AI, its kind of obvious if you look at it. Consistently, its the more rightwing, traditional, Christian view, that is represented by the blue female AI. which of course applies here, the idea of keeping the electoral college is, naturally, more traditional. But this time the AIs consistently disagreed. I wonder if its because he changed from a /10 points system to a "yes or no"?
My opinion of the electoral college? A simple reform. If one wins the electoral count and popular vote, they win the presidency. If one wins the electoral vote, but not the popular vote, they win the presidency, given they did not lose the popular vote by much. If one wins the electoral vote, but not the popular vote, they do not win the presidency, given that they did lose the popular vote by a considerable amount. What is that considerable amount? Let America and the government decide
Ooh I was mentioned, as a California Republican, and I also agree with the challenger that my vote besically doesn't matter, but I don't think the problem lies with the electoral college, at least not solely, but the synthetic ways we are grouped and represented, ie the states. Without going on a whole rant about how the arbitrary-drawn boundaries, we call states, are such a poor way to represent us, I'll just say that reform is necessary...
