You would think everyone would want a stimulus package, but no. The Democrats want money for this, Republicans want less money. They say their is wast. Nobody wants negotiation
@@harrisontucker8397 The Democrats motive is not more money, it's that they don't want Trump to be the perceived winner of anything. That has consumed them on every issue for the last 4 years. The issue could be legalizing a cure for cancer and they would vote it down if Trump was the one who proposed it
@@nekad2000 Like the way that Republicans' motivation in the previous 8 years was to stifle anything that Obama tried to do? Face it, the Republicans started these issues. You can't now complain that the same is being done to you. Besides, you don't think for one second that a major reason for the Democrats' "behaviour" is that Trump's a turd who doesn't know what the hell he's doing? Remember, it wasn't the Democrats' fault that he couldn't get anything done in the first two years of this shit show.
@@JumboCod91 I kinda laugh at popular anti-establishment views keep changing. "Oh no, politicians are agreeing with each other." being the complaint to "Oh no, politicians are arguing with each other." being the new one. I mean even 4chan seems to turn from "cool rebel kids" of 2000's to "reactionary assholes" of 2010's. Even the Internet turned into disappointment lately since I've seen people complaining about sensationalism while also posting such articles because "durrr, muh anti-establishment" (i.e.- Alot of my "rebel" friends online).
This video misses one key aspect of it: The method through which a state is to appoint its electors is up to the state legislature to decide. That was done to allow for the states to have maximum flexibility in deciding their own systems of government. At the time, voting rights varied a lot between states, and having a single direct popular vote for president would have required uniformity of voting rights across the country.
AND the manor of power vested on those electors: some are iron clad bound to vote along their state elected numbers lines, while other states basically have no control of their elector once appointed, he (usually a he) can vote any way he wants to, no matter what his state did.
@@galfinsp7216 Well, National Popular Vote *Interstate Compact*. Which is basically an agreement between the signatory states that they'll give their electoral votes to whoever won the national vote instead of their respective states' vote.
What are you talking about? America and the Vatican City are nowhere near famous as the great island of Madagascar. Do America and the Vatican have their own Dreamworks movie?
@@merrittanimation7721 it technically is a gradient of blue, I think, with closest to sun being lighter blue, getting darker blue the further you go from sun, up to a point. Even in hypothetical scenarios you could argue, lol
I love that Arizona is now a Swing State. When I first lived in AZ, it was staunchly Republican. But the last few years that's changed. Candidates have to pay attention to us now. Suck it California! (Isn't it wild that staunchly liberal Democratic California has contributed 2 republican Presidents?)
@@billt8504 I hate to be blunt but the reason is because not of the Arizonan people but the people from your southern border jumping on in Just like how Texas is somewhat competitive (well that might just be the Austin stupidity, pretty fucking worthless city)
The American political system was designed by the Framers to result in gridlock. It's all in the Federalist Papers. Such an important document yet Americans don't know it.
I only know the systems of Germany, the US and the Vatican. But those 3 are allready very different from each other. So i guess the term "electoral college" is used in a very wide definition.
In Germany, the president is pretty much useless. He is only a figurehead. Except if there is dissent between the head of government and the parliament, then he can decide which one will be reelected.
the Pakistani president has a grand total of 0 powers he can exercise without the consent of the Prime Minister (who's elected by the legislature) so hes just a figurehead
What this fails to mention is that one of the features of the Electoral College system is that if no one wins a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses the President. This feature was part of the compromise, as it was believed that this would happen often, and made the system more appealing to those that wanted Congress to choose the President. Still, this video is fairly well done, better than the CNBC video on the subject.
This has happened in 2 elections: 1800, where both Jefferson and Burr recived 73 electoral votes (They decided Jefferson as pres and Burr as VP) and 1824 where nobody got a majority of the vote to win. There is also a feature in which the Senate choses the VP if nobody got a majority of votes in the VP race, but the only time that happened was in 1836.
It was also designed in an age when information traveled very slowly and where national media was nonexistent. The idea was that a group of well educated men (who did not hold any elected office) would be able to gather together and review all up to date information as they made a decision. There was some merit to this idea since it could literally take months between a major event happening in Europe and voters in rural America first even hearing about it.
Also, at the time, each state had its own laws on who can and cannot vote. It wouldn't make sense for, say, a state that only has land owners vote also be in the same popular vote pool as a state that has universal male suffrage. That was a real concern, and is the reason why they also decided that the Census would apportion seats in the House, but wouldn't tell the states how to select seats. It was common in southern states for their Congressional delegation to be entirely chosen by the state government.
Someone may have, but there wasn't an internet. People still thought up clever turns of phrase, but if they didn't send them to a newspaper, almost nobody else would hear of them.
@@TheSSUltimateGoku It stems from what Alabama did in that election. Instead of the ballot listing Kennedy and Nixon, the ballot listed the individual presidential electors. Voters could vote for up to 11 and the top 11 vote-getters would cast the state's electoral votes. All of the state's 11 Republican electors were pledged to Nixon, but of the Democratic electors, 5 were pledged to Kennedy and 6 were unpledged. In the end the top 11 electors were, in order, the 6 unpledged Democratic electors, followed by the 5 Kennedy electors. The unpledged electors all voted for Harry F. Byrd. So the question is how you actually "count" Alabama's popular vote as if it was run as a standard one-vote-for-one-candidate election. One method involves taking the top Democratic elector's vote total and dividing it proportionally between the unpledged electors and the Kennedy electors, while taking the top Republican elector's vote total and giving it all to Nixon. Doing so leads to a nationwide popular vote victory for Nixon.
That's the difference between America and the rest of the world we are a Constitutional Republic not a direct Democracy because they don't work....they lead to Tyranny sooner or later.
There was another embarrassing situation about the Electoral College that was changed very quickly. In 1796, John Adams won the Presidency, yet his on and off friemy Thomas Jefferson, who was campaigning for very different things to Adams, was elected Vice President, leaving two opponents awkwardly working together
But it was changed after the next election when Jefferson and Burr were tied. Most of the nation did not favor Adams as a president forgoing four years of Justin Trudeau style administration. Most states wanting a change voted for Jefferson and Burr...assuming Burr would be VP. Oddly enough Jefferson disliked Burr but Democratic-Republicans in the nation did. The original rules were written like a gentleman's club, so it was revised to running mates for those two situations....AS quickly politics got nasty and political parties created themselves....then inserted themselves into the process.
This seems like parents naking two fighting kids sit in the back seat next to each other in an attempt to force them to get along. I would pay good money to see politicians have to do that
@@ebnertra0004 Adams was politically both a genious and naive, and Jefferson played him, stabbed him in the back, and had his cronies finish the job. One term President. Then went home.
@@thedwightguy What I find interesting is that Adams wanted to talk about their old political fights in his letters but Jefferson opposed that desire, so they never talked about politics again.
Yep. At the time the process was that each elector in the college voted twice, being required to vote for two different candidates. The person with the most votes, provided that that number was a majority of the electors, would be the President while the person with the second most would be the vice president. But after the rather tense relationship between ideological rivals President Adams and Vice President Jefferson and the chaotic election of 1800, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed which created the electoral college system we have now. Now the election for President and Vice President are two separate elections with each member of the college voting only once in each one.
I like how generally neutral this explanation is. That makes this better than if a pundit had said yay or nay on the validity of the system. Plus hey, it maximizes video comments. Smart!
Almost every state has flopped between the parties at some point so Oklahoma may have vote Democrat, then realized their mistake and switched to Republican. Even Texas and all of the old south once voted for Dems but now they ussually vote Republican.
This video might have benefited by reading the explanation of Max Farrand, the great historian and compiler of the records of the Constitutional Convention, of why the Electoral College was invented. It was actually meant to prevent deals between States to decide the Presidency, and bring about a more genuine nationwide selection process in an era when most things were State-centric, there was little nationwide travel or nationwide media.
Yeah, keep in mind they also wanted the runner up in presidential elections to be Vice President. I think they wanted the different perspectives to work together to to run the states. But This lead to a lot of feuding in the government when the first parties emerge mere years later. Nothing like Presidency divided among themselves over whether the country should be a farming or industrial power. That’s why presidential tickets have both positions on it. Also VP got his own position nerfed.
@@1InVader1 I'd love that. Seriously. The Libertarian, Green and Constitutional party all need to step up. The others are even more fringe than them but who knows?
(looks at the overwhelming votes from California for Hillary Clinton vs. Trump, then looks at the rest of the country) In some cases... No, you cannot trust the people.
Donald Trump opposed the electoral college when he thought Obama would be president but lose the popular vote. Republicans only like it because in recent elections it gives them the unfair advantage.
The use of "Your party" to make it seem a bipartisan phenomenon is a little misleading. In point of fact, since the development of the modern two-party system in U.S. politics, every president who won the electoral college vote while losing the popular vote has been a Republican. So, not saying that the Republicans wouldn't behave the way you describe, but so far they've had no reason to. It's only Democratic candidates who've ended up on the short end of the electoral college stick, despite securing the most popular votes.
@@rderran5377 yes, because otherwise California and New York would be electing every president. The electorial college works as intended, keeping crazy lefty's from owning the country.
@@UniqueBreakfastTaco Spoken like someone truly ignorant of history. The first time the phenomenon occurred, the candidate who benefited (the Republican) would more likely have fit the "lefty" label you've used so sloppily. At that time, the Republicans were the more progressive party; the Democrats were the conservatives. The second time it happened, the nature of the candidates was such that trying to apply "left/right" distinctions to them would probably be meaningless. The third time it happened, the candidate who benefited (G. Bush) could fairly be called conservative. The most recent time, it only makes sense to use the lazy "left/right" label because Trump desires to be an autocrat, not because he's a conservative. Anyone who thinks Trump's a conservative is profoundly delusional (as any true conservative would tell you).
Well if you eat the poor then you don’t have to pay tax rebates or welfare (ie free money) and there’s no more poor people to be poor This seems like a foolproof governing idea to me
@@looinrims I mean if you look realistically at our government’s definition of poor it’s literally over 70% of Americans you eat that much of the population America becomes South Korea fairly quickly and also a good percentage of the military mostly e1 -e4s are considered por
XCodes it’s not a problem. Mob rule and populism have been the end of every democracy in history... probably including this one. Human beings respond to incentives and gov’t officials being humans especially respond to the incentive to increase their power, influence, and relevance.
@CommandoDude the problem at heart here is that mob rule is the destroyer of freedoms and the ender of republics like ours, and are fundamentally flawed in most every possible way. The electoral college is flawed, yes, but would you rather live with a system that has a few flaws or one that has flaws in every aspect of it's being?
@CommandoDude I wouldn't say bigger, but definitely as big a problem. This is why the electoral college is so good, it provides equal representation, unlike a direct democracy.
History Matters, every single video you give me a new reason to love you. That Warhammer meme was tight but you being English I really should have seen it coming.
Honestly it's a good thing, think about how bad it would be if they were able to continue pumping out more and more regulations without any hold up. Our nation would be gone in a week.
The two party system is a problem. Both sides just oppose and demonize one another no matter what. They will follow their party to hell no matter what. We need more parties to make a better balance where compromises have to be made to get things done rather then nothing getting done because no on wants to agree with the other.
@@LordJaric Ranked choice voting would solve a lot of these issues, too. Americans agree on a lot. Our representatives never do. Even if it's something reasonable, the system as it is now demands that they oppose the other party and pretend it's all of a sudden a morally relevant issue. Check 80% of polls on issues. If you ask about Americans' stances on ISSUES, we agree on a surprising amount. That, and the party system means we're always voting _against_ something, rather than _for_ anything we'd actually like, as well as the fact that those we elect are heavily influenced by campaign contributions - so our system devolves into further dysfunction all the time, while never failing to pass legislation which favors the entities which already have (and "donate" plenty of) money. It's dysfunctional for the people. It's working perfectly well if you're the right type of dollar-laden entity.
And I do add that there was a property requirement in the states to vote in the first place when the electors were first implemented, so seeing it as a defense against the rabble would have been somewhat strange. At best it could have been deliberative within each state's capitols rather than a riot, but that would have required the electors to not have personal loyalties of any significant magnitude.
1:30 "...didn't want (election)....dominated by growing urban population at expense of those living in rural areas" yeah, so now we have a mostly urban population dominated by those living in rural areas.
@@Bd-ng1zv Who said they weren't important? I'm just saying if having an exaggerated representation of a minority is inherently unfair, then it's unfair whether it's urban or rural populations who benefit from it.
Why does he keep mentioning him at the start of his patreons? Did that dude donate thousands to him, or what? I know it’s some type of running joke.. but why?
@@randomeastasian347 wrong again open a history book. The rules on the electoral college changed in 1820. So that means there has not been a fair vote since then.
Ruthefraud Hayes is more about him actually rigging the elections in South Carolina, where turnout was 101%. And yes, “there were more people voting than there were voters” is a thing which actually happened, but in the 19th century, not 2020.
"Good luck getting Congress to agree on anything" couldn't be more true. You could tell them water is wet and a quarter would launch an investigation into water, another quarter would try to rebel against it or outright impeach it. The 3rd quarter would claim that water had violated some right or another.....and the 4th quarter would try to make every molecule of water vote for them.
Democrat congressmen: "the sky is green!" Republican congressmen: "no it's not." Republican congressmen: "the sky is yellow!" Democrat congressmen: "no it isn't." Average layman/normal person: "the sky is blue!" Congressman: "our education system sucks!"
I'm now imagining an alternate universe were Warhammer Fantasy's lore was progressed to the point were many of the *"Old World"* nations and kingdoms have firmly established colonial empires and overseas holdings in the New World of with its regions of *"Not-North America" (Naggorath), "Not-Central America" & "Not-South America." (Lustria)*
@@lancemuller9556 If you rank the states by the polls and assume that a candidate, who wins a state also wins all, in which his polls are better, Biden could also win with Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the ones in which he is better.
@@0000-z4z I could see Wisconsin flipping to blue, but Pennsylvania I see trump holding because of Bidens flip flopping on fracking and saying that he will destroy the oil industry
You forgot one major reason: Slavery. The more rural states were especially afraid of giving more influence to the more urban states because of the growing abolitionist movement there. This is also the reason for how slaves were counted. Three-fifths clause led to the slave-holder states having a third more Congressional seats and since Electoral College votes are determined by House plus Senate seats this also meant a third more EC votes. They wanted to prevent or at least stall the election of an abolitionist President by not having the popular vote decide the presidency, and they kinda succeeded by stalling until 1860. And even then, Lincoln did not run on abolitionment. The South only feared he would abolish slavery and declared independence due to that.
