This is the USA. It's been a two party system since the 1850's. Elections here aren't really "Who do you want?" but rather something like "OK fucko, pick your poison.".
@@elimgarak7330 - Again, you can win the state with only one person voting and that person votng for you, whiel the other states can have 100% turn out and ll against you, and you would still win the election.
LBJ did that in 1964...and it hasn't happened since! What I would like to see is the candidate win both Wyoming and DC and then lose every single voter in New York, California and Illinois. That whole 22% scenario is as ridiculous as it is implausible.
@@philistine3260 Please explain first of all why you make unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Next explain why you have a problem with someone telling the truth!
3:25 Another important thing to remember is that a popular vote wouldn't be winner take all for cities, the way the electoral college is for states. Even if these cities did make up over half the population, its not like a candidate could go to just the cities and win *_ALL_* the votes there. They would be going to the cities and getting _many_ votes, but not even close to all of them. As it is now, a candidate can go to Pennsylvania and win just over half the votes, but get almost 4% of the electoral votes.
I think that if the electoral college is supposed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority", making it based off of race and ethnicity would make much more sense than rural voters too.
@@surge1229 Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner. A republic is an armed sheep contesting the vote. This is why we don't live In a democracy, because in a democracy the majority can vote away the rights of the minority.
@@surge1229 Have you heard of tyranny of the majority? 51% of people could vote to torture 49% of people. That is definitely something that needs to be avoided - a system that caters to business owners primarily is not the answer though. That's tyranny of the minority.
@@dsmith9964 it doesn't matter, the possibility of it happening is enough to warrant concern. Also what do you have to say about the fact that 1 Wyoming Person's vote is equal to 3 Californians vote.
@@morbidmight7634 A vote cast in Wyoming is counted equally with every other vote cast in Wyoming. A vote cast in California is counted equally with every other vote cast in California. The votes from California and Wyoming are not combined.
@D Smith You’re right, they’re not combined... directly. They’re not combined Directly, and that’s exactly the problem. In the 2016 election, one of the candidates got about 5% fewer of the total votes but got about 20% more electoral votes. This is because the votes of those Californians is weighed less than the votes of someone from Wyoming. If the votes were counted based on the people and not on some antiquated electoral middle-man system, this wouldn’t be a problem. So yes, the votes aren’t combined (in the context of picking the president), but that’s exactly the problem.
@@wds4097 That is not a problem. That is a feature. Allowing the interests of voters in a few densely populated coastal urban areas to drown out the interests of voters in a few small states is a problem. Had Hillary obtained more broad support nationwide instead of running up poll numbers in big cities, she would have been elected.
4:40 You could add far more to this You’re assuming everyone in each state is voting If you just use turnout population You could get elected by convincing about 10% of people to vote for you
@@user-mj2dv4vw6j He means that if some people don't show up to vote the numbers will be even less. In the video I think Grey used numbers that assumed everyone living in each state voted.
And the beautiful horror of that is that it'd be self perpetuating. A pretty big reason a lot of people skip voting is because they don't feel like their votes make a difference. 10% of the population getting someone elected would dishearten the population so severely, because the evidence would be so clear, that I honestly think the next election after could see voter turnout cut in half. And then, a decent portion of those that originally voted for the candidate could be dissatisfied, because any candidate intentionally doing something like that is simply going to be extremely shady so they probably didn't keep a single promise. And then you could easily see a small enough population of the US getting someone elected, that you could fit all of them in a single city.
I actually did the math for the required metro areas to make a majority. You would need all 40 of the biggest metro areas to win, and that assumes that ALL of the people in the metro area voted for you, which is EXTREMELY improbable, especially since who’s going to win Houston, Dallas, LA and NYC
I think that’s an important note. Sure 50% of Americans live in just the 100 biggest counties but 100% of the people who can vote in those counties won’t vote for you
It's not that big of a stretch. Large cities, regardless of the politics of the rest of the state, tend to vote majority Democrat. It's not implausible to win both TX and CA that way.
It’s also extremely improbable that a candidate will win the required states CGP Grey mentioned and win the electoral vote with around 20% of the popular vote.
The saddest part of this is he never mentions how having policies that don’t align with any states values should be insurmountable which is the real point of the electoral college, to value each states goals.. and he’s right, winning votes is about campaigning and not policies, and it has been for a long time now.
the only point of the electoral college is if the governor doesn't like how the people voted they can send the wrong electors which is why we need direct democracy
@@surge1229 which almost never has happened, in 2016 only 7 electors defected, and all of the defectors were from red or blue states not swing states, before that the last time there was a even a single defector was 2004 when 1 elector in Minnesota a blue state voted for a different democrat than the democrat that won Minnesota, there are also laws in place in many states including some battleground states like Michigan where you’re not even allowed to vote for someone other than the popular vote winner as an elector
The unfair part is the winner take all. Each state should have their electors be proportionately distributed. That way a narrow win in Florida will not yield a 29 electorate gain for one candidate.
That still leaves the problem of a voter in Wyoming having four times the voice of one in California, and introduces the new problem (Not totally new, but currently restricted to Maine) of rounding error. A state with 4 votes where a race comes to 51% to 49% splits its vote 75% to 25% These are still big problems.
"A state with 4 votes where a race comes to 51% to 49% splits its vote 75% to 25%" How is that a rounding error? This is idiotic. 51% gets 2 and 49% gets 1 ok, the problem is to distribute the last vote; You can still have an error margine of 12,5% but that's way less than 24%. Do you know why they split that way?
+omer shaik the way for it to be abolished would be an amendment but that isn't likely because politicians benefit from it too much. Which is really sad because it is an antiquated system that is no longer necessary or useful for determining a leader.
+D Smith There is no valid reason to have a system the purposely keeps people from voting directly for the person who has power over 320m citizens and the world's largest military.
+BigfootPlays The office of the President is NOT intended to directly represent the people. It is intended to represent our union of states. Google 'federalism' and get back with me when feel that youve learned something.
D Smith The Presidency is intended to represent the majority of the people. The United States was not initially intended to be one country. Under the Articles of Confederation, it was supposed to be similar to how the European Union is today, but that has changed over time. The States no longer have the power to declare war, or print their own currency. The fact is that right now, the Presidency has much more authority than it previously did, and we need to change our voting system to reflect that.
@@leonardoplaza7677 True! The video is based of false information and misleading assumptions. For example, there is no such thing as a *fair democracy* and the US is certainly not one!
@Weazel wow hemade a small mistake, he must be anti-american! I'm so glad Ben Shapiro, PragerU, and Toilet Paper USAhave taught me the facts, you stoopid libruls!
@Weazel First off all he's from New York, and living abroad just makes you cling on to your national identity more than anything (I've lived abroad for most of my life but I'm American). Second off, please tell me what's "Anti-American" about this video or Grey as a whole?
One of many problems. You get one single state that splits it's electoral votes. That is honestly disgusting to consider it hasn't been figured worth trying elsewhere. Ranked voting would also be a worthy consideration in more electable positions if not the highest office. Our deficiencies are stacking up too high and it is getting to be vital that we drag our policy ideals back to center on many issues. The mandate win on the federal level is not what voters ask for but a specific number of policy points... or unfortunately with some they 'like' the candidate. With these last two presidents there are some who would have gladly considered it worth adopting dictatorship imagining that their president was a worthy person to rule over all of us fairly. As some of us live long enough to discover we are more changeable than the political parties at times and we might come to distrust the one at the top. The beloved generals or coop leaders who took the presidency in their small countries only to die in office, naturally or because eventually they were captured or slaughtered is not the optimal path for a country such as the United States. When you hear about a country far off that had a skewed election, you can imagine that they were indeed voted for by some passionate people but the undercurrent of discontent on display suggests a leader may have rigged the process and that the people have no trust left to hold. We are flipping back and forth between trust and mistrust each administration now. That is an unhealthy process for all concerned.
@@Human-gu2cx They do have a government in switzerland and they do hvae a parliament. The structure is different and there are in some cases decisions where the population is voting. But it's not like they go and vote on every single law or decision.
Yeah I think Maine and Nebraska actually have it set up where they split up their electoral votes equally. There would still be a problem between vote inequality mentioned in the video... but at least republicans in Washington, Oregon new york and California would have -some- representation and democrats in Texas (they exist... Just mostly in Austin) would have some representation as well.
I think the biggest problem is the "winner-takes-all" system. If this scheme is abolished and the votes that each state gives in the Electoral College are arranged so that it reflects the results in that state, the bias is minimised. I think that's the least that the US can do if they really want to keep using Electoral College while getting the presidential election outcomes as fair as possible. Afterall, this "winner-takes-all" system practised in almost all states is what makes the candidates massively interested only in those swing states (those where the race is tight) and not much in states where they have strong voter base.
+Smartguy561 Yes, indeed. The electoral college already causes that much problem. I know, I watched the other video too. But, the fact that nearly all states implement the winner-takes-all system really exacerbates the situation and produces (extremely) biased results. 'Ideally', they should abandon the electoral college altogether. However, we can almost be sure that the US would never eventually get rid of electoral college whatsoever (I doubt the conservatives would like them, and most importantly, both Rep and Dem parties wouldn't approve, since they gain 'profit' from the system). So, the most 'realistic' approach under this condition is to scrap the winner-takes-all rule and make the electoral college votes cast by each state reflect the result of popular voting in the state in question, probably similar to what they do in Maine and Nebraska. Create a system to proportionally convert popular votes to electoral college votes the state possesses and make all state representatives in the Congress legally bound to vote according to the conversion results. I'm sure this helps reduce the bias.
+Gray Buckley (farore3) Let's hope it will spread. I read that some other states are considering to do the same too. Btw, is it proportional to the state popular vote result or the national one? While I was searching for that, I also found about "National Popular Vote Insterstate Compact" which if I'm not mistaken is about awarding the participating states' EC votes to the winner in the national popular election (not the state result). They said, the purpose is 'to compensate the shortcomings of the current EC system'. Well, if this is indeed the trend, then the demise of the EC may one day be a reality.
+EC912 The NPVIC bill was introduced to over 40 state legislatures more than eight years ago. Only 10 states have passed it. NPVIC has stalled or failed in the other states. Do you wonder why? Maybe its because NPVIC is a bad idea altogether. NPVIC robs the individual states of a part of their sovereignty by giving their electoral votes to a candidate that did not win in those states. NPVIC will unlikely become a reality because interstate compacts must be approved by Congress. It is unlikely that such a bill could pass in the Senate.
D Smith I find it not surprising that such bill failed. I also do not think it's fair that they cast a state's votes to candidate which didn't win the popular vote in that state.
When measuring a city's population you're only taking into account the literal population within the city limits as opposed to the entire metropolitan area. Taking into account the population of New York's metropolitan area, it has nearly 20 million people. LA has 13 million people. Chicago 10 million. The next 15 largest metropolitan areas have between 3 and 8 million people. That equates to over 100 million people. I'm not making an argument here, just a point that the VAST majority of the population is in the biggest city's metropolitan area rather than the city limits itself.
Ryan Richardson... this is all super irrelevant. The whole population doesn't vote, and even if it did, cities would never vote unanimously. In 2016 as well as in 2020, the blue vote from NY, CA, and IL was 12% of the total popular vote. Meanwhile, the electoral vote from these three states is 19.3% Which means the popular vote will give large metropolitan areas LESS influence over the election, not more.
@@Poisonshady313 voter demographics would be undoubtedly different with a popular vote election. Statistics from an electoral college vote (and from easy Democrat states no less) are not reflective of what a popular vote would look like.
@@RM-jq5vi Not quite, because changing from the electoral college to a popular vote would influence voter turnout and campaign strategy--possibly enough to change the election, but it's all conjecture.
I also noticed he suddenly switched from talking about states to cities. The point being the president would ignore smaller states is still relevant, and wouldn't be addressed by destroying the EC.
@@dsmith9964 Oh no! Someone on RU-vid has an opinion!(a video, I mind, a person with 2 brain cells can piece together as being opinionated) This is an outrage! I wish people would tell the facts as it is-PragerU, Stephen Crowder, and Ben Shapiro stick to the facts, no agenda from them! Nope, not one. In case you do actually have between 0 and 1 braincells, I am being sarcastic. Insert 'strawman attack' comment after this, please. The whine of ad hominem can come later. Thing is, supposing Gray wrong, one can't interpret it immediately as a 'distortion of fact' but, at the very least 'an invalid argument', which sounds a lot less harsh, eh? I see it kind of hard to skew the facts of how the system works, how it has won 3 presidents over the popular vote, and the population distribution of states. I guess you could argue against the candidate visit graph from fairvote.org. And to 'promote an agenda'? Of fucking course! Every video on subjects like this, in some shape or form, is aiming to do something, and this is especially the case with politics. 'Stating his own opinions as fact', if you need a disclaimer of 'this is an opinion' every time someone says something, when they say it with confidence... then you don't have any idea of what an 'argument' is.
@@dsmith9964 Right I hope for the sake of yourself read this to see how silly your point of view is... but just to make it sure, intellectual honesty, in being able to honestly consider the other side's perspective, is good. Treating the other side as a bunch of liars is a triple whammy of wrong, in that it is unreasonable, unethical, and, most importantly, unrealistic. *"**fairvote.com** has an agenda. That is a fact, not an opinion."* Aight thanks for the info I already mentioned... but I think I see where this is going to go... *"Crowder, Prager and their ilk also have biases and opinions. "* They also have AGENDAS. Let us stick to wording that doesn't skew connotations. Not just 'ole opinions like "blue is a good color" and biases, a name used for psychological effects tied to everyone. *"The only difference is that Crowder and Prager stick to facts despite their biases."* Heh, all right... whatever you say. Whatever you say... I'm sure when PragerU they made the video "The left ruins everything", I am sure that there was no passion felt. They just looked at a graph and decided left ruins everything and made a video on it. No, there is more then 'facts'. Facts are easy peasy cheap stuff. Instead, to gain true insight to the world, rely on arguments, and deduction. Not so easy to distinguish then what is 'fact' and what isn't. For instance, is it a 'fact' that gravity obey's the inverse square law? Er... yes and no I guess. So imagine when you get to the social sciences how this is a lot less clear. *"Grey resorts to making false assumptions and bending the truth to support those biases."* See what I mean with the dishonest words? 'Bending the truth'. Yes, on one side, we magically have a bunch of incompetent thin skinned liars, and on the other side the righteous flawed human beings, with biases but manage to persevere to truth by sticking to the facts! Na, I am quite sure that Grey has looked at the situation, and based on his own reasoning of some of the facts and data and arguments he's seen, arrived at a conclusion. I think that, well everyone has done it like this, unless there is special monetary interests or advantages to deliberately lie about material, but even then it is very difficult to tell this is the case. *"**Fairvote.org** and organizations like it want to turn the office of the Presidency into something that it is not. The office of the Presidency IS NOT and was never intended to be directly elected by the people. That is a fact, not my opinion."* No, it is your opinion. Interpretation of intention is a large topic that arises in history for instance, and believe it or not, historical figures are complicated, as well as the interpretation of the group you have mentioned here. Really, America wasn't intended to be anything. It stumbled around as the factors of history caused twists and turns in events, say one probably crucial to the discussions being the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debates. And by the way, which higher power to be the one that 'intends'? Founding fathers? The people? God? Well, regardless, America is a representative democracy, based on voting for representatives by some method, and this was argued for by the founding fathers. I fail to see how a popular vote based on representatives is the same as a direct democracy, so I can actually claim this to be a straw man. Not even to mention that regardless of how the founding fathers intended, doesn't mean America should stay that way. These are just a few things on intellectual honesty that go a long way.
@@sarahbell180 You misinterpreted my statement of facts. Yes Crowder and Prager do have agendas and they do have their biases. Personally, I am not a big fan of either Crowder or Prager. I think that for the most part that Prager is a little too extreme on many issues. When I mentioned that Crowder and Prager were more honest, I DID NOT mean that i agree with them on every single issue. I was specifically referring to the videos on the electoral college. Referring only to the videos about the electoral college, Tara Ross of Prager U speaks the truth and gives a little history lesson as well. On the other hand, CGP Grey starts his video with the line "in a fair democracy ". The US is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutional federal republic although we do practice a form of limited representative democracy that stops at the House of Representatives. Grey then goes on to bash and criticize the electoral college using various false assumptions. The notion that the President of the United States is intended to be a direct representative of the people and thus should be directly elected by the people is a false assumption. Grey then tries to prop up his arguments by making absurd claims such as small states steal votes from large states, that popular vote for Presidential electors and the winner-take-all appointment of electors are "rules" of the electoral college as prescribed in the Constitution. Do you see what I am saying now? When it comes to the electoral college videos ONLY, Prager is more honest in their presentation. Grey makes false assumptions and he has to bend the truth to back up those assumptions. Have you seen Greys newest video? It's pretty balanced and shows less bias either way. You're welcome!
I see people say “it’s a false assumption that the us is a democracy, because it’s a republic” and to that I say “bold of you to assume these terms are mutually exclusive”
They are. Hence why the founder fathers called a pure democracy evil because a pure democracy means the majority could kill the minority if they wanted to
_In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic or _*_representative democracy._* For all those morons who think it's mutually exclusive.
@@austinbryan6759 Maybe without rule of law or protections of any kind. Of course if you say nothing about the majority voting for genocide then yeah, democracy can theoretically result in literal tyranny of the majority, but that concept itself is usually completely baseless. There are very few situations where tyranny of a well-informed majority where there is good consultation of experts before major decisions would actually be a problem. It's used in a bad-faith way to exercise illiberal concepts and disenfranchise voters when it's so easy to protect against.
@@shepardice3775 Idk man, centuries of slavery, decades of segregation, lack of rights for gay people, laws against trans people are all pretty good examples of the majority tyrannising the minority...
This will never change because the people who enjoy the advantage are the same people who will oppose a change, and their advantage in the Electoral Process extends to the Amendment Process.
IMPORTANT - The situation is even worse than CGP Grey makes out. If there's a successful third party candidate, then a presidential candidate can carry a state with LESS than 50% of the vote. In the 1968 presidential election, TWENTY-EIGHT states (more than HALF) were won with less than 50% of the vote. The worst was Arkansas, where Wallace won with only 38% of the vote. Furthermore, in the 1992 presidential election, FORTY-NINE (that's right) states were won with less than 50% of the popular vote. The worst state was Arizona, where Bush won with only 38% of the popular vote. So in CGP Grey's example, if there were a successful third party candidate, they would only need 1/3 plus one vote to carry a state. That means you could get a majority in the electoral college with only 14.6% of the popular vote. And one of the other candidates could theoretically get 70.8% of the vote and lose. Yep.
Drew .Watkins You're right, they're normally not, but speaking of this election, Clinton and Trump are so overwhelmingly unpopular that I can easily imagine Johnson and Stein getting about a third of the vote between them in some less partisan states.
Something he didn't really mentioned is that a lot of people don't bother voting at all because they believe their vote doesn't count. I grew up in New York State in a very republican town, because of how often democrats win in NY, a decent number of people didn't even bother going out to vote. They often saw it as a waste of precious work time for something where their opinion wouldn't make a difference. This is obviously a dangerous idea, but it would still be difficult to convince them otherwise.
That isn't a good analogy. Yes I would skydive if I had 5% chance my parachute wouldn't open because ib four to eight years it will for sure open back up.
@@mcroccaro It actually works pretty well as an analogy, its important to remember that a presidential election can have a permanent effect on peoples lives. Sure, the parachute will open in for years, but you'll die in the meantime
Technically, you don't even need 50% plus one to win a state. You only need to win a plurality, so you could win a state with like 40% if 3 or more candidates are running.
Insert Name Here yay!!!!!! (Btw he won the popular with citizens. There were millions of false votes like, illegals, dead people's votes, and double state votes
Landen Schliesing gotta call BS on that. Voter fraud is extremely rare. Trump lost the popular vote dispite voter suppression working heavily in his favor. This shouldn't be surprising since he was the most disliked candidate in US history, beating out even Hillary's enormous unfavorability ratings.
the most disliked? ignoreing the fact more people voted in the elections that people registered as citzens in the U.S. where do you get most disliked? give me an example of a study or poll that has been pier reviewed by people in the opposite party and more than one person reviewing the study, and i will believe you. please i am a man of logic.
In Australia, we have a preferential systems. Voters choose candidates (and therefore, their parties) in a certain hierarchy, and their votes are counted in a certain numerical sequence where smaller parties give their preferences (that is, their votes) to the two major parties in what is called a two-party preferred vote. It enables an individual to create a nuanced individual voting card that best represents their vote. Sometimes, the candidate that wins the primary vote (that is, the most number 1 votes) loses the seat, because the smaller parties give their preferences to the other major party. This has happened twice in my home state (South Australia) in the last twenty years, where the Liberal Party (conservatives) had more primary votes, but the Labor Party (progressive) won the election because the smaller parties (mostly progressive) gave Labor their preferences. I have never thought of this as undemocratic. A person can tailor their vote, and their whole vote is counted, not just their number 1 candidate. What do you all think?
I think that system is defined to make it more democratic, and I believe it is more democratic. After all, it helps prevent voter division between popular parties with similar policies, allowing the situation where the majority of people hold a general point of view but disseminated votership lose to another party with more concentrated voters.
If anyone is confused on why states have 3 electoral votes at minimum, it's because of the addition of the counts of a state's Senators & Representatives (with the acception of D.C., who was given the right to vote in 1961 with the 23A). Also, 100+435+3=538.
THE Electoral college (just the word college sounds great) is an excellent idea; yes, popular vote "sounds" great; but was something that our Forefathers and Foremothers came up with ! Yipee. This is a ridiculous scenario with the 80 percent versus the 20 percent; We are a republic (democratic republic) not a democracy. Or were you not paying attention in school
+The Reasonable One (Bijan Sheibani) The US is Constitutional Federal Republic, not a true democracy. The states have democratic state and local elections, but each has republican forms of government. Democracy by itself is tyranny. Democracy without a Rule of Law and a sound system of Checks and Balances is doomed to evolve itself into anarchy or tyranny.
The best system. :) The problem is when far too many people in our own country have no idea how it's supposed to operate and treat it like a democracy when it's a republic where the people govern themselves and we have States, not provinces.
It is not the best system. If it allows the will of the people to be overruled by the elites as well as giving some people more of a voice than others it needs to go. It made sense once, but now we no longer have a communication disconnect and can directly use the popular vote. It's time for change.
In Australia, literally every person over 18 has to vote. Basic human right imo, every person should get a say in their country. And in Australia there are booths everywhere, so that everyone can be able to get to one no matter where they are. There are booths set up in schools halls and churches in every suburb. And you're automatically enrolled on the electoral role once you turn 18, it's not a big ordeal of 'may the odds be ever in your favour' for lodging the enrolment application successfully, just to be able to act on that voting right. (Which is what causes a barrier to many Americans who might not have correct ID etc) If you don't want to vote you get a $50 fine, but you can just go to the booths and do an 'informal' vote which is where you scribble on the ballot or write something instead of ticking names. It just doesn't get counted towards the election. I've seen some funny ones too, like another tick box drawn at the bottom, "Jon Snow, King in the North!" That's all you have to do to not get the fine. That's a small price to pay for our right to vote fairly.
@@logdog6762 I did some digging on it, I do understand why Australians do it. I just think it wouldn't work in America. There are way too many uninformed people here and partisanship is way too high. We're also very wary of Federal intervention due to the philosophies of John Locke. I think CGP has forgotten that we aren't a single country, we are a union of 50 different individual entities bound together in a Union, a bit like the EU except we can't withdraw. The federal government is only supposed to guide us, handle disputes between states, and protect our God given rights, not rule directly. Local governments are supposed to have more power over our lives since they better understand what our community needs. all rambling aside, When the government forces us to vote, it is going beyond it's purpose. It doesn't matter if it's 20$ or 5 cents, it's the principle. Voting is a right, not a duty.
@@acurapontiac4435 Perhaps, though Australia has three tiers of government as well (Local, State, Federal) as well as the full smorgasboard of political opinion. If you really dont want to vote in Australia, you simply draw a big cock and balls on your ballot sheet, and you cant be penalized. You still have to get a democracy sausage though, thats the rules.
That party that wins the white house would also win 80% of the senate and 20% of the house of representatives. This is the electoral college working as intended. The senate is all by state, the house is all by people, and the electoral college is somewhere in the middle (separation of power, but with voting power in elections). Since no party wants to win the house but lose the senate and the white house (or vice versa), political parties are forced to appeal to areas with both high and low population density.
You should really start public debate and force politicians to rethink how to vote. Here in Poland (for those who do not remember, out constitution was declared 2 years after US and it was second in the world) votes of the people are counted. Winner could be even if he/she has +1 vote.
5th time they were both losers. no one won the electoral college and it went to house vote. He's talking about the number of times the electoral college has screwed the popular vote.
because "politics is not my place to be", even though paying attention to you representatives is a difference maker between good and corrupt representatives
vaiuta because Grey's point is "this is not a democracy" and he's right. America is not a democracy. It's a Republic. There is no lesson to learn. The only thing to learn is the Pledge of Allegiance, which illustrates the fact. ...And to the Republic, for which It stands..."
I’ll defend it.... America is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic where the majority can’t and shouldn’t rule over the minority. Our freedoms are natural and protected by the constitution, not granted by the government. I don’t want to live in a country where majority rules only to inevitably infringe on the rights of the minority.
Just because he says it is indefensible doesn't mean it is indefensible. That is an opinion, not a fact. If saying something was indefensible made it so, arguing would be very easy.
The fact that it is democracy is what makes america less controlled by the people which have been proven statistically to be rather dumb, People going to cities making empty promises like free stuff to a big crowd is not how they want the elections to go. The Mob cant have all the power
@@dsmith9964 How so? I could see you arguing it being generalized information. It obviously assumes full voter turn out for example, which everyone knows isn't realistic. It also doesn't adjust for the typical voting patterns of states like the south leaning red while the west coast leans blue. However, beyond sliding over details like those (which weren't the point of the video anyways) I fail to see how this is misinformation...
@@corbinpearce7686 This video is full of falsehoods and misinformation. First of all, the US is not and was never intended to be a so called 'fair democracy'. The US is a Constitutional federal republic comprised of 50 states. In the US, the US, the Rule of Law that protects the natural rights of everyone takes precedence over the will of the majority. Secondly, the office of the Presidency *is not* and was never intended to be directly representative of or responsive to the people. The President *is* executive of our union of states and is responsive to the elected officials of the states, the members of the Congress. Thirdly, the Constitution *does not* require that states hold popular elections for Presidential electors nor does it require that states award their electors on a winner-take-all basis. Fourthly, the whole 22% scenario is entirely absurd. There is *no* way that a candidate could win a simple majority of the votes in 39 geographically and culturally diverse small states and then lose 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states. No serious candidate would ever run a campaign like that! Do you realistically see a candidate winning both solid red Wyoming and solid blue Vermont while losing every single voter in Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York and California? Nope! No happenin' cap'n!
Yea...mob mentality trying to dictate what is right for the minority. Exactly why the electoral college is essential to protecting people from the slavery of tyranny.
In one of his later videos he shows Illinoi going to Trump despite Trump losing by 17 points in Illinois. Why does Grey not pay attention to the 5th most populous state that has the 3rd biggest city?
And the Electoral College has nothing to do with either of those alleged Franklin quotes. The EC is ONLY a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers) and states which suppress voting. I wonder which states love to suppress voting...............
@@rb032682 The electoral college has little to do with slavery. If it did, the electoral college would have been abolished with the 13th and 14th Amendments. The electoral college was created to reinforce the federal character of our nation and that we are a nation of states.
@@dsmith9964 - The math in the constitution as well as USA history does not support your mis-informed claim. The Electoral College is ONLY a welfare benefit for terrorist slavers and states which suppress voting. Your willful ignorance is sad.
Every state gets a electoral college vote per senator and member of the House of Representatives it has. That would equal 535. Washington DC gets the last 3 electoral college votes.
The dislikes are from those that understand and appreciate what fair representation is and how our system works. Grey apparently doesn't understand or appreciate how our system works and this silly video clearly demonstrates that.
@@dsmith9964 >likes their own comment >writes 2 long sentences that are nothing but accusation with nothing to back them up >defends a system that let's a candidate win an election despite not being liked by most of the population ok politician
@@di5963 1. I have not 'liked' my own comments and you have no proof that I have. 2. The information that I have provided in my comments is factual and accurate. You cannot prove otherwise. 3. The office of the President IS NOT and was never intended to be directly representative of or responsive to popular opinion or population based interests. You have no credible evidence to prove that it is. 4. Do you have a legitimate question? If you do, I will give to you the straight facts. You can accept them or not.
@@di5963 Actually, in the US, it is the *states* that elect the President. The primary constituents of our federal government are the *states* , not the people. When the people vote in a Presidential election, they are not voting for the candidates themselves, they are voting for slates of electors in a *state* election. Each of the 50 states holds its own election for Presidential electors. Though the right to appoint Presidential electors rightfully belongs to the states legislatures, those states legislatures have granted their eligible citizens the *privilege* of voting for electors. That is where Mr Grey is either confused or he is deliberately trying to confuse others. Once again, the President is not and was never intended to be directly representative of or responsive to popular opinion. That is the job of the House of Representatives. The President is responsive to the states and their elected officials. At the federal level, those elected officials are the members of Congress. Secondly, there is no such thing as a 'fair democracy' and there are very few stable Western nations that have a head of government that is directly elected by the people of those countries.
Ryan Whitaker I said it was ironic because he said he hates electoral vote, but won because of it. That's all. Btw, I hate BOTH the turd sandwich and the douchebag.
angeladq how is that ironic? did he change his opinion? even if he thought the popular vote should elect president, he still would be president. trump doesnt decide how tge president id elected, the law does.
+Robert flippo If you think "Animal Farm" is a book for 6 year olds, you haven't read it. it is a parable condemning Soviet Communism as practiced in the late 1940s. And "1984" is a warning against BOTH Communists and other (even "anti" Communist) totalitarian regimes.
It's relatively simply written, but it definitely deals with some complex, higher level ideas. One of the most significant is the idea that even an idealistic revolution requires the idealists to give up those ideals and recreate the old system to be successful, which is pretty important when considering concepts about the distribution of power
@@angelgodines5332 yeah... that’s what I meant because people like you and I know that direct democracies don’t work, so if you’re gonna criticize the system, don’t refer to it as a democracy
@@megadeath6720 being a republic is more than just having the electoral college, it means that you can’t infringe on people rights, and people have due process. A republic is rule by law while allowing certain people to still vote on things. Also, England is *parliamentary* democracy with a constitutional monarchy, not a direct democracy
@@daytoncoates4930 no shit lad a place where "you can't fring upon peoples righ and people have due process " is not at all uniquely american that's the fucking basis of democracy and constitutions in many asian and european countries But just because england has a monarch does not undermine their election process and India is still a republic with parliament a president and prime minister. This problem of electorial college is only american and nothing else. no big democracies of free world has this much of fundamental trust issues with their electorial process. You can spin the narrative as much you want but this is a uniquely american problem no other democracies suffer from this much of untrust in their own election process
We will not abolish the electoral college because it makes too much sense. CGP Grey has simply distorted facts and numbers to promote his agenda because he doesn't understand federalism or the roles that states play in the federal government.
JRTlover Lmfao. So we should not have our votes directly count and instead let 50% of the dumbasses in Florida decide the election as opposed to over half of the nation?
Why do call the fine citizens of Florida dumbasses? Florida alone doesn't decide who is elected President. Neither does Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa or Nevada. No candidate could win the office of the Presidency by winning those swing states alone. It takes candidates to build coalitions of voters and states to build a broad distribution of support nationwide needed to win the Presidency.
JRTlover 40-45 states already make their mind up and are biased towards one political party or another. While it just takes some massive electoral vote state like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida to decide an election. Just look at Bush. Most hated president won Florida, but everyone hated him and protested in the capitol heavily. Winning the election just takes a sleu of ads, campaigns, saying the same shit over and over, and endorsements.
The US has never had a 'national popular vote' for the election of the President. Every President since George Washington has been elected to the office of either President or Vice President via the electoral college with the exceptions of John Quincy Adams and Gerald Ford.
Barebones minimum, the electoral votes from each state should be distributed proportionately, not winner take all. That way people who vote red in traditionally blue states and vice versa could still have their votes effectively go toward the candidate they voted for. It’d give independent and third party voters a more fair shake too, as it would mean their candidates at least have a shot of getting on the board.
SFP So the minority can dominate the majority? What less people want is okay? Pure lunacy. And there is less tyranny in actual democracy. Look at the Scandinavian countries.
SFP Without the EC, everyone gets a fair voice and not a disproportionate one. What are you talking about? Lincoln won the popular vote. Are you actually kidding me? The Scandinavian countries have a better quality of life in every conceivable way than the United States. There’s a reason why their citizens are the happiest in the world. Among OECD countries, the United States is dead last in healthcare. The Scandinavian countries all have AAA credit ratings. The US does not. Brought more people out of poverty? For you it’s sunshine and rainbows. Meanwhile around the world in third world counties, people lay dead or dying because of first world countries ravaging them for resources. A worthwhile trade off? Maybe if you’re highly immoral. And evidently you didn’t watch the video. The 100 most populous cities don’t even make up 20% of the population. The idea that a candidate can solely pander to big cities and win an election is mathematically ludicrous. It’s also apparent that you don’t know basic history. Party names don’t matter. The Confederacy were states rights, conservative, and anti large government. The Union was comprised of liberal, progressive, and large federal government advocates. Tell me, which party does the KKK support nowadays?
SFP No they wouldn’t. We’re talking about presidential elections aren’t we? Candidates have a platform that doesn’t change depending on what state they’re in. Make their votes worthless? They’d be equal. The vast majority of people in the country are in need of the same basic things. It’s when you get into semantics that things change. You’re either severely misinformed or just playing dumb.
SFP It’s like your saying that people in cities don’t need jobs. Have you been paying attention..? People need jobs no matter where they live. And it’s also like you’re saying that every single person in those metro areas will vote for a Democrat. How ignorant of you. Nearly 700,000 people voted for Trump in Los Angeles county in 2016. And their votes didn’t count for anything. If anyone appeals to small town rural areas its progressives. Not the fucking GOP who panders to their wealthy donors and to corporations. They passed a tax cut for both of those groups of people and have been dismantling unions. Hardly helping the working class. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work. Each state sends its congressmen to Washington. Their they vote on legislation. A single state cannot dominate all the rest. And if what you’re saying is true, then why do all the congressmen for the most part vote on partisan lines? “They need different things so they’ll vote differently” makes no logical sense. Every person in the country needs basic things. And the vast majority need the same things. Which is why certain policies are supported by the majority of the population.
Basic forms of representative democracy: exists USA: You know what, screw voting for representatives that don't actually care about us, lets vote for people who then vote for deciding representatives who don't actually care about us
I’d suggest watching the video on the NaPoVoInterCo (or The Sneaky Plot to Subvert the Electoral College). It briefly explains why the Founding Fathers did NOT want a direct democracy in their infant nation.
I think I figured out the *true* way to fix the electoral college: every state gets one vote, and the remaining votes are split between Indiana and Michigan (totally unbiased it's not like I'm a hoosier who's a big fan of Michigan I just think it would be really smart)
4:24 It's actually possible to win the electoral college with less than 22% of the popular vote. How? Basically the same strategy, except the goal is to get a plurality and not a majority. Typically relies on a third party scooping up some votes. With that, it's really possible to win the presidency with any percentage so long as you're the plurality. A situation like this did happen in the 2016 election with 13 states giving their electors to someone who received less than 50% of their states vote.
@@cattycorner8 Plurality - more than any other candidate Majority - more than half of the total So for example, if the votes are split 45% - 40% - 15% between three parties or candidates, the first one has plurality (45% is bigger than 40% or 15%), but it doesn't have a majority (45% is less than 50%).
also, having voting districts with winner take all contributions inside those states with good gerrymandering would reduce it by another almost 50% basically, but I dont know if they do that trash for presidential or only local elections
hahahahaha DUNUL TROMP hahahahaha what a RACIST asshole amirite 😂😂 fellow hillary voters ✔️✔️hahahahahahaha he hates illegal immigrants what a RACIST human being hahahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂 this guy is so RACIST it's HILARIOUS hahahahahaha hes like HITLER hahaha HILLARY 2K16!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂👌👌👌👌💯💯💯
A few weeks ago, I went and grabbed the 2019 estimated census data for the entire country, sorted by population, and then totaled the top of the list up until I hit 50% of the US population. It took 2000 cities and towns before that happened, with at least 3 in every state and getting down to towns of just 17k people.
@@charadremur333 No, there are ~19000 cities, towns, and villages, some of which have literally no people, or places Like Bill, WY, with one person. As I said, by the time I got to the threshold of half the population, the individual populations were down to 17k people. These aren't sprawling metropolitan areas, they are mining towns like Gillette, WY or farming ones like Minot, ND.
The electoral college doesn't guarantee that candidates will visit small states but it plus the Senate guarantee that small states do have some influence-while the House also being part of Congress allows larger states to have more influence, balance the goals/values of guaranteed minimums in representation and proportionality in representation.
Ernie The minority doesn't randomly win. The minority votes what they want, the majority votes what they want. If the minority votes in the electorate outstrip the votes in the majority electorate, the minority wins.
Uninstaller Isn't the main gripe of the Democrats that minorities are disregarded? I'm not saying that the minority should win every time, I'm saying that the electorate is reflective of the populations they represent meaning they would vote with the best interests of the populace they represent at heart.
Yes, he's pracically a dictator now. But if Americans don't rise up... Hillary and Obama seem to concede the US to fascism. I'm of German heritage, I know that's bad.
crazysim264 I think what Maxi Muster is trying to say is that the House, Senate, and the president are all republican which allows them to actually do something
Unfortunately, some people think that those hypothetical scenarios are realistic. The mindset of individuals that take trifling nonsense like what is presented in this video is not funny, its downright dangerous.
This was pretty well designed for a system in the late 18th century. However, times change and now anyone from anywhere can listen to a speech no matter where it is from. I am also seeing that people that support the electoral college aren’t using the arguments that actually stick up, like how a state voting policy can effect the entire nation. I really don’t see how going only to the big cities is going to change anything if you could just get people to think of the presidential election as a federal election.
The thing was probably supposed to be replaced, but us Americans worship founding fathers like gods, and think every single say from wealthy men is true and never questioned.
The notion that one could win the office of the POTUS with only 22% of the national popular vote is nothing but a silly fanciful scenario. A candidate would have to be so offensive to the voters in the 11 most populous states receiving 0 vote while simultaneously building broad coalitions of diverse voters and receiving a majority of the vote in the 39 least populous states. Its simply not going to happen.
it can happen, but only on paper. In real life, no candidate in a two way race could possibly win with only 22% of the vote. Grey created a ridiculous implausible scenario that just can not and will not happen in real life practice.
dandyky Yes, to highlight the flaws. Sure, if you've won the election you probably got more than 22% of the votes. But that you could do it with only 22% shows where the system is failing, and how it gives more power to the voters of small states by sacrificing the power of voters of bigger states. It's an inherent feature of the system due to the minimum of three votes each state has. Is it realistic, no. But the point that taking the voting power from some people and giving it to others is wrong, is still completely valid.
5:30 Aaaand that's assuming the members of the electoral college are voting in correspondence to their states, where it's only required in 30 of 51 areas (Washington DC)
Samuel Rudy sounds like you should watch this video, because this video literally explains why you can win with a large margin in electoral votes without winning popular vote. I don't care about politics, but if you're going to comment on a video, perhaps, idk, watch it?
So you're okay with losers winning? If i get an F on a test there should be the possibility that I actually get an A despite getting the answers wrong? The Indians won the World Series despite losing 8-7? Pot isn't actually legal in California now?
The system worked as designed. A few, populous states were unable to impose their will on many, smaller states that disagreed with them. That is why the electoral system was created, and it did its job. (Whether that's a "good thing" or not is a different question...)
bcubed72 Riiiiight.....Nobody is saying the it didn't do its job. That's why the video is call THE TROUBLE With The Electoral College. Any system with such a flaw in it is arguably a bad system. Especially in a country that touts "one person, one vote" and "your vote counts" and "equality".
Trump didn't lose. He won the electoral college. He won in every since of the legal term. The popular vote (mob rule) does not matter at the end of the day.
The argument that the electoral college prevents candidates from ignoring small states makes no sense to me because no one I know has made their choice for president based on "wow this candidate has visited my state so much!"
Popular vote winner lost to electoral college winner in 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016. The electoral college is inherently undemocratic. Candidate with the most popular votes should win.
What's the point of a system that allows the losers to win? That's not something to be proud of. The system needs a revamp, maybe not a total abolish, but something needs to change.
JuiceTheLemon a Republic is a form of government in which representatives are elected by the people, and the constitution sets the rules by which elections are done. you cant have a republic without democracy.
Electoral college is 2 layers of representation instead of direct elections of representatives which is 1 layer. With or without the EC system would not change our identity as a republic.
The Electoral college is actually closer to 2.5 "layers of representation" (I never heard that before) as they are appointed by the state. Problem is, more often than not, we cannot know who these are.
Well it's a good thing America isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic! Two very different things! One is the rule of man the other is the rule of law.
Laws are still made by man. Democracies still have laws. They aren't that different in practice. Besides, whether a country is a republic or not isn't an excuse for having a system that makes it mathematically possible for a candidate with more support to lose.
True democracies have laws, but those laws can easily be changed to follow popular whims. True democracies often do not have a system of checks and balances to prevent an overbearing majority from raping the individual rights of the minority. Secondly, electing the President is and should be about electing the candidate with the broadest distribution of support nationwide and not the candidate simply with the most popular votes.
There are different types of democracies. What you are thinking of is a direct, unrestricted democracy, which can be considered the "purest" or most primitive form of democracy. The US is a restricted indirect democracy, also known as a representative democracy. A republic can be a democracy and a democracy can be a republic, though not all republics are democracies and not all democracies are republics. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand for so many people.
No. A democracy and a Republic are two different things. A democracy is plainly the rule of man the people vote, 51% beats 49% thus minorities lose and can be enslaved or discriminated against and there is nothing they can do about it. majorities have all the power. the rule of man in wrong. a Republic is The Rule of Law. that is what my country America is. We have a constitution and a bill of rights that lays down our right, no one can take them away from us if 99% of people want to take your right of free speech or your right to own a firearm they cant. everyone has the same rights even our founders considered us a Republic. When asked what kind of government america was Ben Franklin responded "A republic if you can keep it" nowhere in our founding documents does it mention that we are a democracy. our founders recognized all of the flaws with the democracy of the Greeks and they created the republic. this is what it boils down to. America is a Republic, we vote for our leaders our leaders pass laws but they cant infringe upon my constitutional and God given rights. Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of Happiness! Have a good day, God Bless you. Semper Fi
Indiana Wolf Except that republics have existed for far far longer than that, and not all republics are the same. For instance, the Roman Republic was technically a representative democracy, in that the plebians (lower class people) could vote for patricians (upper class people) to represent them in the Senate. There were also special divisions of the government that brought the needs and demands of the lower classes to the Senate. The Republic of Venice, on the other hand, was a mercantile republic, in that it was owned, operated, and ruled by wealthy merchant families, in essence an oligarchy. The United States government, while a Republic in name, is actually a representative democracy, in that we the people elect congressmen to represent us in Congress. So we *are* a republic, but we are also a (representative) democracy.
+Hendrik Little This video has numerous factual inaccuracies. First of all, the US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Secondly, Grey falsely claims that popular election of electors and the awarding of electors winner take all are in the Constitution. Grey falsely states that large states like Ohio are 'forced' to give electors to small states like Rhode Island. Grey ignores the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by making the false claim that some votes are 'worth' more than others. That clause applies only to the states because the states hold elections. The US does not hold national elections. Grey downplayed the 10th Amendment by ignoring the fact that the US is a union of states and that the states have a right to elect the President. Grey ignores the fact that the 100 largest cities have metropolitan areas and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. Grey presents a ridiculous 22% scenario and then contradicts himself by saying that it was unlikely. It is quite apparent that Grey apparently slept through 7th grade Civics and Government class.
Johnny W That's irrelevant- it is, in theory, possible to earn .00001% or less of the vote and still win, with 12 votes in the right states. I don't care if it can happen in practice, but the system allows it. nationalpopularvote.org
+Johnny Barker No, this percentage in the video was not expressing the percentage of possible voters, it was the percentage of actual voters. In your example the winner got 100% of the people that actually went out and voted. Also, how did you total up 259 votes for an opposing candidate if 0 people voted on that side? If no one else wants to vote then that's what you get, it's expected in a democracy and shouldn't surprise anyone, that's not a problem with the system, what CGP Grey pointed out is a real problem. Now suppose one person voted for the opposite side in all the other states, so now you have 12 votes, 279 electoral votes vs. 38 votes, 259 electoral votes. That is, 12/(12+38
zvxcvxcz No. 12 people vote for one candidate, and a bazillion vote for the other. The 12 are concentrated in 12 states (see original comment) and the other 139008197 are in the other 38 states and DC. I didn't say this would ever happen, just that under the EC system it is theoretically possible.
Here in 2020, you omitted a cities metropolitan statistical area (metro) (msa), for example the City of Chicago's population is 2.7mil while its msa is 9.5 mil. So if I'm a presidential candidate and I visit Chicago, it's also like visiting the metro area as well since the metro areas are associated with the actual city. So I think you are correct in that if the electoral college is abolished that candidates will spend time in more states, however I think you will see a heavy skew towards the urban areas. Also fun fact there are nearly 50mil people between NY, CHI, and LA's msas, I'd bet you'd see a lot of campaigning in those cities.
The problem with the US system is that it doesn't allow states to become independent, that way we could change the electoral college to the popular vote and if the states are unhappy with being tyrannized then they can be independent. After all, as long as slavery is illegal then I won't support a second civil war.
Dear CGP grey, no offense but just using city populations rather then metropolitan populations is delusional. New york might only have 8 million people, but it's the heart of a region with over 20 million. LA might only have 3.8 million, but it's the heart of a region of 17 million. If President candidate A visits New York, those who live in the suburbs can still easily be counted and can easily go to see the party in question. The US is an EXTREMELY Urbanized country. 80% of the population lives in cities. If you live in say Long Beach California, you are still within the Los Angeles region. Same story if you live on Long island, you are part of the New York region. Never measure a city just by it's core. Always go by it's metro. If the US has 320 million people and 20 million live in the New York region, 17 million live in the Los Angeles region, 9 million live in the Chicago region, 6 million live in the Miami region, and 6 million live in the Houston region, then those 5 Regions make up 60 million people. Thats very substantial. let alone the fact that my metro numbers are actually rounded down.
@@darthutah6649 but here's the thing those who live in big cities are time and time again left leaning cities even in Texas. Texas had almost become a blue state with just 3 large cities voting with 96% of the entire state voting red.
@@OpiumBride That's if you live in the urban areas. I've lived in both types of regions, and not everyone who lives in both types of environment votes the same way. I grew up in rural regions most of my life, but I'm what many Americans would call Liberal. There are multiple different view points in America, but until alternative voting methods are installed, most people will fall under the banner of one of the two big parties.
I'm not a big fan of Prager. But in a debate about the electoral college, Tara Ross would mop the floor with CGP Grey. The Prager videos are more honest and less biased in their presentation of facts while Mr. Grey conveniently distorts and omits important facts, creates fanciful scenarios and presents his own biased opinions as fact in a poor attempt to give the appearance that the electoral college is a horrible way to elect the President. Here's a few examples; Grey ignores the fact that the US is a federal union of states. States interests are as important as the interests of the populace. That's why we have a House and Senate. Grey chose to ignore the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. The notion that one could win the office of the President with only 22% of the national vote is both ridiculous and absurd. There is NO way that a candidate could realistically win a majority of the vote in solid blue states like Hawaii AND win a majority of the vote in solid red states like Wyoming while simultaneously pissing off every single voter in the 11 largest states. Anyone that knows how Presidential campaigns are ran knows that cannot and will not happen in real life practice.
Grey would be most likely to sweep the floor with Prager. Prager is mostly all talk and no show, and they're leader is a radio talk show host that leans towards creationist points of view and wants to deny homosexuals rights, not to mention a person who thinks the Ten Commandments are better rules for the world that the Constitutions that have set up free democracies.
Mr. Fedora Please reread my comment. I am not a big fan of Prager. But when it comes to the discussion of the electoral college, Prager is spot on accurate. In 'Do You Understand The Electoral College' , Tara Ross gives a history lesson and a clear, accurate reasoning of why the EC is necessary. Grey, on the other hand, does not give any explanation of WHY we still use the EC. Grey merely resorts to bashing and exaggerating the flaws of the EC by using flawed logic, distorting facts and numbers and creating fanciful scenarios. Sorry, this video is terribly wrong on so many levels. Prager wins this debate.
Grey actually provides statistics and evidence showing that the electoral college doesn't work in helping smaller states and only creates a system where candidates only care about the biggest most populous ones, and that the system makes it possible for a man with less than 40% of the vote could win the election, while Prager just uses apologist defenses stating that because the Founding Fathers set up the system during a time when more legitimate elections were much harder to accomplish, it must be correct. Much like most of the stuff Prager likes to put out, it's all talk and no show. Much like there ridiculous money in politics video where they never once brought up the factor of special interests when discussing about the unlimited caps of buying politicians. Grey succeeds at showing us the popular vote has it both ways, with a system where candidates have to care about more than just the biggest cities, and that a majority actually gets to decide who is president, rather than be an apologist for a system that basically provides us with a fake election in November.
+Mr. Fedora Please explain the 'fake election' in November that you speak of. The people go to the polls in November to choose the Presidential electors to represent their respective states. Grey bases his entire argument on the false premise that the US is or should be a 'fair democracy'. That is very, very wrong! The US is a Constitutional Federal Republic comprised of 50 states. The framers of the Constitution were wise enough not to implement a democracy because they knew well the perils of strict majoritorian rule. Grey plays down the role of federalism by saying that the interests a majority of Americans should trump the interests of the individual states. In fact small states do contribute a lot to the rest of the nation and their voices should be heard. Hence, the representation of the small states are protected and enhanced in the Senate and the Electoral College. Grey is also wrong when he gives the population for large cities. Grey only presents the city proper populations while ignoring the fact that large cities have suburbs and other built up areas that are not part of the cities proper. Grey ignored the fact states regulate election laws. It is the states that grant citizens the privilege of voting, not the federal government. Therefore, the national popular vote totals are irrelevant as they should be since it is the states that elect the President. I don't know why you describe Pragers assessment of the EC as 'apologist'. There is no need to apologize when you are stating facts. That said, I disagree with Prager on a lot of issues but Prager is correct with its assessment of the EC. Likewise CGP Grey is factually accurate with most of his videos but CGP Grey is dead wrong about the electoral college.
@@mrjaman3752It is not mathematically possible for a candidate with 22% of the vote to win because the probability of the scenario described happening is 0.0000000000001%.
Yeah, forget what I said before! We have to get rid of the Electoral College!!!!!!!! But, we need to use RANKED CHOICE VOTING (Instant Runoff Voting) to directly and nationally elect the President of the United States 🇺🇲!
Alas, you don't have a federal right to vote for president. The constitution gives the Legislature the power to choose the electorial college. (Edit follows) We are not a Democracy we are a republic.
No, it's a republic. You have no federally mandated right to vote for president. That right is reserved to the state legislature and can be reclaimed by the state legislature whenever they so desire.
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive (yes, I know you can't have a fully democratic government as a republic, but you can have a democratic republic). If you're referring to a federal republic as a government where you elect representatives to make decisions for you, then you can very easily make it democratic by eliminating the middleman and allowing citizens to directly vote for their representatives. Also, the modern definition of "republic" is just any country that isn't ruled by a monarch.
Why are people so passionate about defending aristocracy and the electoral college? Are they just parroting 8th grade government class? "Defend from mob rule" is code for "defend against democracy" - Democracy has never 'descended into mob rule' in history, nobody will ever let their government be a pure democracy because they can't let go of all the power.
Because we, the Americans, have been taught in the public school system that the Constitution of the United States is a sacred and near perfect document infused with the wisdom and the foresight of our founding fathers. (Excluding the parts where the slaves are only counted as partial human beings. We like to skip over that part until later.) Since the Constitution is near perfect, the electoral college must be near perfect as well. I don't get how the electoral college system is defended either, but it is, and it will take a constitutional amendment to change it. Good luck with that in this divided congress.
What do you mean by "balance between state and population"? Why is that a desirable thing to have and how does the electoral college create this balance?
***** Now, that is a good argument. I tend to think that each state is no more than, say, a district, but each state IS a state, and the US is a federation of states.
@@glitchedgame4141 Our system wasnt even designed for popular election of Presidential electors. The decision of how Presidential electors are to be appointed rightfully belongs to the states legislatures. There is absolutely no provision or requirement that states hold popular elections for Presidential electors. Therefore, so called 'national popular vote' totals are irrelevant because they really dont exist..even on paper.
