The reason for this system is historical. 13 separate colonies gained independence and then formed a confederation. After they found that lacking, they got back together to form the current federal system. The 13 states picked a way to chose a president, and the way they chose to pick a president was to give each state a certain number of votes according to population. This system was first used in 1789 and is unchanged to this day.
Was the video about the animal elections taken down? Because, well, I can't find it. And I can't remember the actual name, or, maybe I'm insane. Still, I had planned to show it to my world History/Government/Sociology teacher, and I felt like a fool when I couldn't find it. Help?
@DottsnSpotts Which one? All of this guy's election videos involve animals. Are you talking about the "first past the post" one? Just search for first past the post, it's the first result.
It should be noted that true direct democracy is mob rule, even if it's republicanized (i.e. given representation; not the party). This mentality is what destroyed the Greeks back before modern-day Greece emerged. Honestly, in a world full of corrupt politicians or tyrannical rulers, the best you can do is have a moderated republic, which is bigger than an oligarchy, but smaller than a true democracy.
America is NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. There's a difference.
@MegaHayzer Just so you know, It was not Direct Democracy that destroyed the Greek Empire, it was intra-social conflict and civil war that fucked them over (i.e. Peloponnesian Wars). Secondly, his thoughts do not subvert Democracy but merely challenges the notion that the Electoral College truly represent the notion of "popular rule" that was put forward by our founders.
@Obi250 Greece wasn't an empire until Phillip II which took place at the end of the Peloponnesian Wars. And it was after Alexander died that the civil war chaos began. But inter-social conflict, I concede to.
The main problem I have with abolishing the system is that America will just devolve into mob rule. It would also necessitate the demise of our Constitution, because it's one of its main aspects. It'd be bad if the president follows in the footsteps of the Senators through direct election.
The fraction at 0:20 should be people per electoral vote, not electoral votes per person. Also, at 0:30 the denominator should then be people per electoral vote, so that the end result is 20 electoral votes (People / People per electoral vote = electoral votes) instead of how it is now (People / Electoral votes per person = people^2 per electoral vote.)
My college professors key argument to why we use the electoral college was "because getting everyones vote would take too much time"... The entirety of the class bought that except me. Extreme sadness.
I just read where the Australian prime minister won a decisive victory to remain in office. Funny, I couldn't find ANYWHERE in the article what the popular vote was.... Oh, that's right there isn't a national "popular vote" in Australia either... or in the UK, or in Germany, or in Italy, or in Israel, or in... and so on and so forth, so STOP WITH THE "POPULAR VOTE" TALK HERE ALSO.
@macarion The point is, that there are many other first world countries where the leader is not elected by the people. Yes they are parliamentary systems where the elected legislators elect their leader and we are a FEDERAL REPUBLIC where the states elect the leader.
@pastoh1 Those are OTHER COUNTRIES. By your logic, if slavery were allowed in other countries, we would feel obliged to STOP WITH THE "ANTI-SLAVERY" TALK HERE ALSO.
@gregslife7 Actually, 43 presidents have won because of the Electoral College. The only election not decided by the Electoral College was 1800 when both Jefferson and Burr received 73 votes sending the election to the House of Representatives. Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot in the House.
@pastoh1 You misunderstood my point. My point was that 4 presidents that LOST the popular vote won because of the electoral college. This means that the wrong person was chosen 9% of the time.
@gregslife7 Actually, I fully understood your point, but my point is that the NATIONAL "popular vote" is a nonexistent construct. The states elect the president and each state gets a specific amount of votes according to its representation in Congress (two votes for its senators and one for its representative). If more people will realize that the STATES elect the president and not the populace, then perhaps this issue of the National "popular vote" can finally be put to bed for good.
@pastoh1 Actually I was wrong also. J.Q. Adams election wasn't decided by the Electoral College either. Adams won 31.41% of the vote, the House of Representative awarded him the election. As for your other elections, Hays won with 50.14% of the vote, but there was so much corruption in Florida and Louisiana that the validity of election is still in question. Harrison won with 58.10% of the vote and Bush with 50.37% of the vote.
In 1824 JQ Adams won 82 votes, Jackson Won 102, Crawford won 40, and Clay won 37 votes.
In 1876 Hayes won 185 votes, and Tilden won 184 votes
In 1888 Harrison won 233 votes and Cleveland won 168 votes
In 2000 Bush won 271 votes and Gore won 266 votes.
In all the cases except for JQ Adams, the winner won the majority of the votes. As for 1824, the House of Representatives decided the election, as set forth in the Constitution.
@pastoh1 Remember, the national "popular vote" is an artificial construct that is not recognized by me, or much more importantly, is not recognized by either the US Constitution or by the laws of nation or any state (with the exception of the nine states who have enacted the National Popular Vote law,and they don't recognize it yet.)
@pastoh1 Obviously. I wan't referring to the electoral votes; I was referring to the national vote total, where every person is equally represented, or the Popular Vote, which you seem to despise so much.
@macarion I am very susceptible to logic, and when I see some, I will succumb to it. Stating that we live in a democracy and stating that the populace votes for president is not logic, it is just a fantasy. There are good arguments to say that we should change that; I don't agree, but there are good arguments. Nonetheless, currently, the states vote for president and all the reporting on the national "popular vote" will not change that.
@pastoh1 I KNOW WHAT WE "CURRENTLY" DO, YOU FUCKING INCORRIGIBLE SIMPLETON. YOU KEEP REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. STOP SAYING THE POPULAR VOTE "IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT" AND "HAS NO PLACE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT." THE CONSTITUTION SAYS EACH STATE CAN DECIDE HOW ITS ELECTORS ARE ALLOCATED, WHICH MEANS THEY CAN GIVE THEM TO THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE WINNER. EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG. NEVER REPLY TO ME AGAIN.
Nothing I have said is false. "Each state can decide how its electors are allocated" (allcaps omitted) therefore, the popular vote in the state is real, but the national "popular vote" is not unless the STATES make the bad choice to accept it is fact. If the National "popular vote" is so great, then why, pray tell, do the states who have passed the NPV wait to enact it. I say to the 9, start now and lead the way.
Whether or not it is a bad choice is a matter of opinion, and I will leave that at that.
As for the NPV, according to the laws as written, when enough states enact it to bring the delegate count to 270 the states will start using it. That will disenfranchise all the rest of the states.
Also, there will come a time when (I'm using an example here) California votes for the progressive candidate by a margin of 3-1 or 4-1 yet the conservative candidate wins by 50.1%. Then by their own law, the "will of the people of California" will be nullified.
@pastoh1 The will of the people of the country as a whole is more important than the will of one state. I'm sure there counties in California that consistently vote for Republicans. Are those people being disenfranchised?
Actually I don't despise it, as much as it might seem. I just am a scholar of the founding fathers and I truly feel that they had it right in this case. I also view the "popular vote" as being artificial and being detrimental to the states and their sovereignty. All nine states that have legalized the National Popular Vote have ceded their rights as sovereign states as delineated in the Constitution.
As I have mentioned before the national "popular vote" is an artificial construct which has no place in our constitutional government and therefore I do not recognize it. The actual vote count in 2000 was as follows: Bush had 271 actual votes nationwide and Gore had 266 actual votes nationwide. It was one of the closest tallies ever, but still Bush had the majority. If neither failed to get a majority, then the House would have settled it.
The reason it was originally made was because the government thought that the people weren't educated enough to decide the presidency. The electoral college representatives would vote for president bearing in mind what the vote results were, but could make their own decisions if they wanted to. Over time, they started just using the vote results. Now, states have almost gotten rid of the EC altogether by giving their vote to the national popular vote winner (see nationalpopularvote . com).
@eXcommunicate1979 I thought that compromise was the one that decided the number of seats in the House and Senate, not the votes for the president, but correct me if I'm wrong.
@eXcommunicate1979 Actually, the census proportion for the House of Representatives was a slavery compromise and while that did help to decide how many Electors each state had, the Electoral College itself was not a compromise for slavery, it was the means for the STATE LEGISLATURES to elect their president.
@gregslife7 That doesn't change the fact that small states get a larger say than big states. Also, the electoral college still functions: electors are not 100% bound to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote.
@CommanderOrion732 I can't really respond because I have no idea which comment you are replying to. But yes, you are right in that electors CAN ignore the election results. However, it is very uncommon.
5:12 Jesus Fucking Christ, it's ne-vAE-dah, not ne-vAH-da.
Sincerely, a smart Oregonian. The only people out of the Northwest I have ever heard who got Oregon right were from the Deep South, and that's just because of their accent.
50.1% of voters in 50.1% of districts in 50.1% of states! However, that is assuming all states and districts are the exact same size (which it would be a lot easier if it were) and so it probably is more like 20-25%.
@greghmn No, it's not "50.1% of districts." Only two states allocate electoral votes based on district winners, and they still give their remaining two votes to the state-wide winner.
@macarion I said theoretically. Not with the US system, but the whole system in general. The US uses a slightly modified system which makes it slightly higher, but still well under the 50% plus one person that it needs to be.
2001 I discovered the unfairness of the electorial college when Bush got elected. My Political Science ask the question on how should get ppl more interested in elections and I said get rid of the Electioral college. He responded "w/o being cynical how can we fix voting in America?"
chose the electors themselves without resorting to a statewide referendum to see which way the state will go. The way the framers created the Union, the states chose the President and the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1) and the voting populace chose the representatives (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1). The states no longer chose their representatives to Congress (Amendment XVII). If we remove the states right to chose the President, then why, sir, should we have states at all?
@pastoh1 "If we remove the states right to chose the President, then why, sir, should we have states at all?"
Because states would still be able to make their own laws. Without the EC, we wouldn't have this convoluted system where some votes count more than others. Article I section 4 of the US constitution says that each state can determine the manner of its own elections, so I don't know why you're trying to invoke the constitution in your support of the electoral college.
@macarion Article I Section 4 reserves to the states how they chose their senators (nullified by Admendment XVII) and how the people are allowed to elect their representatives (Note I wrote how "the people" not how "the states" elect representatives). That deals with districting, and according to said section, can be altered by congress. Currently many states must get their districts approved by the federal government; ergo, they don't have that right either.
I feel that it must be pointed out that the United States of America is NOT a democracy, it's a republic.
Your solution actually harms the US of A the same way making US Senators elected by popular vote did... it leaves out the states' representation.
If you want to fix the Electorial College to be more representative, give all states and territories 1-3 votes for winner take all (1 for gov, one per senator). The rest, based on Reps., are proportional.
I never said to mandate stop reporting, but if the American people were a little bit more educated then the interest in the "popular vote" would decrease and we would stop having reports that someone won the presidency but lost the vote.
@macarion You failed to address the important reason for the electoral college. It has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes for vote tallies to be computed or the amount of time it takes to get the votes to the national capitol. It is in place because the STATES
@pastoh1 not the PEOPLE vote for president. As I have said, that is the final vestige of state sovereignty and if we do away with that, then we are compelled to do away with the several states as well.
@bsabruzzo The United States is a representative democracy. We use democracy, and purport to value it. Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world. The argument that "we're a republic, not a democracy" is completely meaningless and stupid.
@macarion "The United States is a representative democracy" The existence of the Electorial College is the definition of republic: We elect people to elect others, to make the laws for up. You use the term "representative democracy" as a way of saying republic.
"Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world." To the detriment of the world. Mob rule with no sense of liberties and rights and with no rule of law.
@macarion "The United States is a representative democracy" The existence of the Electorial College is the definition of republic: We elect people to elect others, to make the laws for up. You use the term "representative democracy" as a way of saying republic.
"Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world." To the detriment of the world. Mob rule with no sense of liberties and rights and with no rule of law.
@macarion Our leaders only started speaking loftily about "democracy" in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the Progressive Period. People worldwide were being influenced by Herr Engels and Marx, the USA included. There is a good argument that their philosophy has failed. Democracy at its heart is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Poor, poor Mr. Grey. Please be honest with your viewers. First, the United States is not, nor never has been, a democracy. The founding fathers abhorred democracy and calling someone a democrat was an epitaph. We are a union of states and that is why the states elect the President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 US Constitution). The "popular vote" is merely a convention set in place by the various state legislatures, when in fact, they all can (And should, in my opinion)...
even Indiana in this video dosent get much :( bein showen as Illinois and all. even though they are kinda like our twin with a giant glowing light on their head
Hoosiers are from Indiana not Illinois. Being from Illinois, I've never been called a hoosier before. The proper demonym for one from Illinois is Illinoisan.
NYC Metro, 8,021,860 votes. Overwhelmingly Democratic party. Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.
LA Metro, 3,023,431 votes. Overwhelmingly Democratic party. Los Angles County only.
These two cities represent 8% of the total vote in 2008. That was a lot of work but I think its clear that if continued to the top 10 cites, your simply mistaken. Not only would removal of the EC lead to a chase for big cities, we would only get candidates from them as well.
@macarion You keep asking that question and I don't understand what it has to do with anything.....You are asking why don't candidates focus hard on cities that they don't need too? If you are suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't have NYC LA and Chicago on lock down...you very very wrong.
@jerrysoldier I'm not talking about New York City and Los Angeles, you mouthbreather. You've said that eliminating the electoral college will cause candidates to only focus on the biggest cities and ignore everyone else. If that were true, why don't they already do that? Why don't they only focus on Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland, and ignore everyone else?
@macarion Well it would take a great deal of effort to see exactly what went down in Ohio. Without researching Id guess more money was spent in Cleveland and Cincinnati than Oakwood. Your entire premise on this question makes no sense. A great deal of strategy goes into exactly which cities to vists inside a state.
@jerrysoldier The premise makes perfect sense. You're just fucking stupid. Why did Obama come to Elkhart, Indiana, instead of ignoring it and just focusing on Indianapolis?
@jerrysoldier but when you add in the 100's of small towns that are overwhelmingly republican it cancels each other out. The EC is incredibly flawed and everyone knows it stop being so ignorant
I just did my own math and I found that 30% of the entire US population lives in 9 Metro areas. That is radically different than what you have presented here. You need to take this video down.
@jerrysoldier Metro areas are inconsistent between states and often hilariously large. The NYC metro area includes whole other cities and rural areas that have no place being included in a city.
@CGPGrey You are simply covering for your being wrong. The numbers you give for NY and LA are laughably low. You literally have the pop of same state NYC millions of people too low. YOU are trying to gerrymand. If you cared at all about presenting fact, this video would come down. It is riddled with lies. I live in Omaha Nebraska, it has a metro area larger than what you listed in your top ten cities. Even if you take out Council Bluffs Iowa. This is just one issue. There are several.
Your points are so detached from reality and basic logic that I can only hope you are trying to be annoying. Your selective failure to comprehend what a hypothetical question is further suggests you are not worth taking serious.
@donfolstar Had Gore spent as much time in Nebraska as he did in Florida in 2000 he would have won the election. Thats exactly why the EC works. His strategy of ignoring the Midwest completely cost. him.
@macarion Maybe if he spent half his family fortune here he would have won it. Obama won Omaha dude. If Gore wouldn't have blown us off he very well may have won. We have huge history of electing Dem Governors.
@jerrysoldier You've said that eliminating the electoral college will cause candidates to only focus on the biggest cities and ignore everyone else. If that were true, why don't they already do that? Why don't they only focus on Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland, and ignore everyone else?
@CGPGrey I agree with @jerrysoldier that what you have described is not accurate. You have to remember that it's not only the city itself where the candidate makes their campaign impact because they are not just campaigning to people within the city limits. The media footprint and word of mouth of the message goes to the entire metro area, not merely within those boundaries. It's population density that really matters, and 30% of voters in 9 areas is very influential.
@macarion yea i know i thought u might believe me tho since u really think 30% of the total population of the US lives in only 10 cities...thats on average roughly 9 million per city which is more people than any city in the US
correct math:
24513008/313074440 multiplied by 100 to become a percent equals 7.8%
ur percent error by the way is 284% u should be president
[Part 1] I think the problem with your argument lies in how you said big cities really aren't that big yet winning a bunch of electoral votes can be achieved through very small places. Either the population is spread out and is not concentrated in the cities or it is concentrated in certain states, which allows you to gain a disproportionate number of votes. You left out the fact that big cities often have large amounts of populations nearby, even if those people are not in the city. [Continued]
[Part 2] @Savaniel This means that a candidate could, in fact, travel to a city and still affect a large amount of the popular vote by being close to a population that is much larger than that of the city itself. Travelling to the city doesn't only leave an impact on the people in the city but all the people close to it as well.
Also, you failed to mention that a few states split their electoral votes, making the election just a little bit more fair. It probably doesn't affect the [Continued]
I would say the whole reasoning behind the Electoral College is to give states more power over the federal government. It gives more purpose which, while it may be a little misguided, unifies the people in the state. I will agree with you, though, that it does seem a little unnecessary in our time.
@Savaniel "Travelling to a city" doesn't do anything. We have things like TV and the internet now. No one gives a shit about where the candidates physically are.
@macarion Sure it does. Why else would politicians go around campaigning? While news sources can give you facts and such, there are few factors as motivational as rallying with like-minded individuals and supporting a cause. Being with fellow party members and cheering for a candidate can do a lot more than a simple TV ad can. While we ideally ought not need to be influenced by our fellow Americans, rallies can help secure votes by cementing your ideas through approval from your peers.
@Savaniel Right, and if your theory were true, candidates would already campaign solely in the largest cities in swing states. Miami, Philadelphia, Cleveland. They wouldn't go anywhere else. That's not what happens, though. They go to Elkhart, Indiana. They go to Buttfuck, Minnesota. They go to all of these places, because they have to. And getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't change that.
I don't think anyone has said anything about where a candidate would visit expect you. I don't think anyone disagrees that with or without the EC their visits wouldn't change. Getting rid of the EC for one guarantees that the Democratic party wins the presidency for the foreseeable future. Which would lead horrible resentment from the several states who have literally NEVER chosen a democrat. Removing the EC would seriously threaten the Union.
@macarion That's very true. Candidades definitely need to go to obscure places and not just cities. And the swing states are often much more important than the ones who are locked in their ways. Swing states don't often have concentrated population like larger states but it is well worth travelling around in order to try to sway the voters. I agree wholeheartedly with your information. :)
Is there anything we can even do to get rid of the electoral college system? Riot? Become president? I mean, what can we, as individual America's, do to earn the right to ACTUALLY vote for our president?
@xoplazma There's something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would make the states that sign it give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It started in 2007, and 8 states + DC have signed it, which are worth 132 electoral votes. It'll only take effect if the signatories represent a majority of the EC (270 of 538). Urge your state legislature and governor to pass the NPVIC.
Also, when you were ticking off the States needed to win 270 electoral college votes, you should have counted the States. It was ~40 States that would have won the Presidency, which would be a landslide in any election cycle.
Also, in America you DO NOT have a right to vote for President (because only Electors vote for President). You have a right to vote for Electors.
Your videos are good, but this one needs some work, mainly because you assume the way things should be are not actually true
@Snoopz0087 What are you talking about? CGP Grey (and everyone else) is certainly aware that people vote for electors and not directly for the president. We're saying that should be changed.
And no, winning only 22% of the vote would not be a landslide.
You have one BIG assumption that leads to this entire video being incorrect: American is NOT a democracy, America is a Republic. The Constitution is a compact between the People AND the States, which is why the electoral college distributes its votes so awkwardly at first glance.
Its not a 5% failure rate. Your impossible scenario requires you win 40 states by one vote. It is proof that the system works exactly the way Alexander Hamilton and the others designed it. The inverse of you argument is that you should be able to win 10 states by one vote and lose 40 and still be elected. That's exactly why our current system protects us from.
I actually agree with you, I think. I think I'll become president (by cheating the electoral system, of course), and then I'll try to see if I can remove it, ok?
@StuffedAnimalPlanet I wouldn't call winning 40 states cheating. I'd call that the most lopsided election in the history of elections. Its easy to trick people with numbers and graphs. Please use your heads people.
Direct democracy would been a disaster. If we eliminated the electoral college the smaller states would lose their rights. Your graph about visits has no value.
@MRibSTEVE Our country was never intended to be a direct democracy. Electing the president by popular vote would instantly lead discrimination against the minority. How does a graph showing where a candidate visited during one specific election mean anything? It doesn't. If you want an argument for why extra care needs to be taken to give the small states a louder voice there is plenty for you to read. I'd start with the Federalist papers. Hint: They were written by the founding fathers.
@jerrysoldier No, the smaller states wouldn't lose any rights. We'd still have the same constitution and the same senate. If your theory about candidates not caring about rural areas were true, why do they focus on them now? Why don't candidates just focus on the largest cities in swing states? And the EC does not protect us from a candidate winning 10 states and losing 40. Right now the 10 biggest states are worth 264 electoral votes. If CA and TX keep growing, which they will, you'll be wrong.
@macarion First off swing states change. Second the EC is a balance between states being represented equally and higher population states having more say. Republicans win the rural states and Democrats chase population centers. Because that's the natural order of it. When Gore lost in 2000, the year he won the popular vote he lost 30 states. The EC did protect the the collective smaller states against a few large ones.
@jerrysoldier And something to note. The math in the video is completely flawed and needs to be thrown out. Neither Bush nor Gore received 50% of the popular vote in 2000. Both candidates were rejected by the majority. It was only the extra emphasis on the importance of each states individual right to make the choice in their best interest that produced the result.
@jerrysoldier No, the electoral college is not part of that sovereignty. Shut the fuck up. It's clear now that you're just a super partisan Republican who likes the EC because it puts the Democrats at a disadvantage. If you really believe abolishing it would "threaten the union," you're delusional.
Answer this question: Why don't candidates currently only focus on the biggest cities in swing states?
@jerrysoldier How? This isn't about states. The federal government craps all over the rights of states anyways, it has nothing to do with how we elect the president.
A direct vote for president is the simplest system. Also, have EVERY SINGLE VOTE physically counted in public, while being recorded and monitored the entire time. Voter fraud is treason, and EVER possible measure should be taken to safeguard against it.
@UnknownXV Well I guess I disagree with your entire premise. Its has always been about states. The Constitution is contract that creates a Union of States. States individually chose the President. Changing it negates the Union.
@jerrysoldier Each state remains intact and has all the powers it normally has, the only difference is the voting system actually makes sense in a modern day era.
The easiest way to do this would be to pass amendments to each state's constitution which assigned the electoral votes of that state to the candidate who won the popular vote in the entire country.
@byrnecobain They're already doing that. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Eight states + DC have signed it, for a total of 132 electoral votes. It won't take effect until the states who have signed it make up a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538). It only started in 2007, so it actually might happen relatively soon.
@CGPGrey thats the point, america is not a democracy, but a federalist republic. The state governments must have a say in the presidential election because the power of the states and the national should be more or less equal. By having direct elections for president the power of the federal government will grow even more, just like after the ratification of the 17th amendment, which established the election of US Senators by popular vote. This increased the power of the Federal government
Something interesting to see (but hard to check or count) is if for example party x has an unfair advantage because in every state they are mainly represented the people's vote counts less.
Interesting final comment that is an absolute: "If we abolish the electoral college, all of these problems will go away, and everyone's vote will be equal". How hopelessly utopian of you to assume that just because something might happen that it logically follows that it must. Perhaps you should go into science where one data point is extrapolated as valuable and valid for every other possible one.
what baffles me is that there are video's like this and the first past the post one with only 200,000 views.. These should be shared around as much as possible guys! facebook makes it easy.
Great presentations; but what if instead of candidates campaigning in the largest cities, they campaigned in the largest markets? Detroit has only 750,000 ppl, but Metro Detroit (Detroit + rest of Wayne County, all of Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, and Livingston Counties) you get about 5 million, or half the state. Wouldn't the number change significantly from 5% to somewhere in the ballpark of 50% if you counted the media markets of metro areas like NYC, LA, and Chicago, etc?
This is why I'm French!
gunicado 1 hour ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
WHY Americans!! WHY THIS SYSTEM!?!
LeReVaQ 1 hour ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
@LeReVaQ
The reason for this system is historical. 13 separate colonies gained independence and then formed a confederation. After they found that lacking, they got back together to form the current federal system. The 13 states picked a way to chose a president, and the way they chose to pick a president was to give each state a certain number of votes according to population. This system was first used in 1789 and is unchanged to this day.
pastoh1 1 hour ago
wow. The United States claim to spread democracy all over the world when you aren't even a real democracy. P.R. is the way to go
HonkeyTonTon 4 hours ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
you should make a video on what the president actually does
TheStreats 11 hours ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
Was the video about the animal elections taken down? Because, well, I can't find it. And I can't remember the actual name, or, maybe I'm insane. Still, I had planned to show it to my world History/Government/Sociology teacher, and I felt like a fool when I couldn't find it. Help?
DottsnSpotts 15 hours ago
@DottsnSpotts Which one? All of this guy's election videos involve animals. Are you talking about the "first past the post" one? Just search for first past the post, it's the first result.
macarion 15 hours ago
It should be noted that true direct democracy is mob rule, even if it's republicanized (i.e. given representation; not the party). This mentality is what destroyed the Greeks back before modern-day Greece emerged. Honestly, in a world full of corrupt politicians or tyrannical rulers, the best you can do is have a moderated republic, which is bigger than an oligarchy, but smaller than a true democracy.
America is NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. There's a difference.
MegaHayzer 16 hours ago
@MegaHayzer Just so you know, It was not Direct Democracy that destroyed the Greek Empire, it was intra-social conflict and civil war that fucked them over (i.e. Peloponnesian Wars). Secondly, his thoughts do not subvert Democracy but merely challenges the notion that the Electoral College truly represent the notion of "popular rule" that was put forward by our founders.
Obi250 15 hours ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
@Obi250 Greece wasn't an empire until Phillip II which took place at the end of the Peloponnesian Wars. And it was after Alexander died that the civil war chaos began. But inter-social conflict, I concede to.
The main problem I have with abolishing the system is that America will just devolve into mob rule. It would also necessitate the demise of our Constitution, because it's one of its main aspects. It'd be bad if the president follows in the footsteps of the Senators through direct election.
MegaHayzer 14 hours ago
Hey! You pronounced Oregon correctly!
nateslovebug 17 hours ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
yeh minecraft
TallerThanShort 19 hours ago
Somebody isn't going to win both Massachusetts and Utah-the scenario is impossible unless you are some kind of small state advocate.
123456lvr 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fraction at 0:20 should be people per electoral vote, not electoral votes per person. Also, at 0:30 the denominator should then be people per electoral vote, so that the end result is 20 electoral votes (People / People per electoral vote = electoral votes) instead of how it is now (People / Electoral votes per person = people^2 per electoral vote.)
nal1200 1 day ago
My college professors key argument to why we use the electoral college was "because getting everyones vote would take too much time"... The entirety of the class bought that except me. Extreme sadness.
XenovannHellwolf 1 day ago
on the contrary, i believe people from Indiana are Hoosiers. i am from Indiana. i should know. at least i hope im right :P
theoriginalkittycat 1 day ago
I just read where the Australian prime minister won a decisive victory to remain in office. Funny, I couldn't find ANYWHERE in the article what the popular vote was.... Oh, that's right there isn't a national "popular vote" in Australia either... or in the UK, or in Germany, or in Italy, or in Israel, or in... and so on and so forth, so STOP WITH THE "POPULAR VOTE" TALK HERE ALSO.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@pastoh1 What exactly is your point? Who cares what those countries are doing? They use parliamentary systems anyway.
macarion 1 day ago
@macarion The point is, that there are many other first world countries where the leader is not elected by the people. Yes they are parliamentary systems where the elected legislators elect their leader and we are a FEDERAL REPUBLIC where the states elect the leader.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@pastoh1 The point is, people want that to change.
gregslife7 19 hours ago
@pastoh1 Those are OTHER COUNTRIES. By your logic, if slavery were allowed in other countries, we would feel obliged to STOP WITH THE "ANTI-SLAVERY" TALK HERE ALSO.
gregslife7 19 hours ago
Ahhhh, this explains why their presidents can only give false promises. Makes sense now.
WakaWakaWakaBoom 2 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
It's like they expected people not to notice this stuff...
Malanaks 2 days ago
shouldn't we first have good candidates for presidency first then worry about the electoral college?
retaliatestupidity 2 days ago
@retaliatestupidity I agree. We haven't had a really good candidate since Reagan, and before then......... I have no idea.
pastoh1 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, there were four presidents that won b/c of the electoral college:
John Quincy Adams,
Rutherford B. Hayes,
Benjamin Harrison, and
George W. Bush.
That's a 9% failure rate, not a 5%
gregslife7 2 days ago
@gregslife7 Actually, 43 presidents have won because of the Electoral College. The only election not decided by the Electoral College was 1800 when both Jefferson and Burr received 73 votes sending the election to the House of Representatives. Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot in the House.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@pastoh1 You misunderstood my point. My point was that 4 presidents that LOST the popular vote won because of the electoral college. This means that the wrong person was chosen 9% of the time.
gregslife7 1 day ago
@gregslife7 Actually, I fully understood your point, but my point is that the NATIONAL "popular vote" is a nonexistent construct. The states elect the president and each state gets a specific amount of votes according to its representation in Congress (two votes for its senators and one for its representative). If more people will realize that the STATES elect the president and not the populace, then perhaps this issue of the National "popular vote" can finally be put to bed for good.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@pastoh1 Actually I was wrong also. J.Q. Adams election wasn't decided by the Electoral College either. Adams won 31.41% of the vote, the House of Representative awarded him the election. As for your other elections, Hays won with 50.14% of the vote, but there was so much corruption in Florida and Louisiana that the validity of election is still in question. Harrison won with 58.10% of the vote and Bush with 50.37% of the vote.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@pastoh1
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. The House decided the presidency.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush.
gregslife7 19 hours ago
@gregslife7
In 1824 JQ Adams won 82 votes, Jackson Won 102, Crawford won 40, and Clay won 37 votes.
In 1876 Hayes won 185 votes, and Tilden won 184 votes
In 1888 Harrison won 233 votes and Cleveland won 168 votes
In 2000 Bush won 271 votes and Gore won 266 votes.
In all the cases except for JQ Adams, the winner won the majority of the votes. As for 1824, the House of Representatives decided the election, as set forth in the Constitution.
pastoh1 19 hours ago
@pastoh1 Remember, the national "popular vote" is an artificial construct that is not recognized by me, or much more importantly, is not recognized by either the US Constitution or by the laws of nation or any state (with the exception of the nine states who have enacted the National Popular Vote law,and they don't recognize it yet.)
pastoh1 19 hours ago
@pastoh1 Obviously. I wan't referring to the electoral votes; I was referring to the national vote total, where every person is equally represented, or the Popular Vote, which you seem to despise so much.
gregslife7 19 hours ago
@gregslife7 The guy you're arguing with is not susceptible to logic. Just stop trying.
macarion 19 hours ago
@macarion I am very susceptible to logic, and when I see some, I will succumb to it. Stating that we live in a democracy and stating that the populace votes for president is not logic, it is just a fantasy. There are good arguments to say that we should change that; I don't agree, but there are good arguments. Nonetheless, currently, the states vote for president and all the reporting on the national "popular vote" will not change that.
pastoh1 3 hours ago
@pastoh1 I KNOW WHAT WE "CURRENTLY" DO, YOU FUCKING INCORRIGIBLE SIMPLETON. YOU KEEP REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. STOP SAYING THE POPULAR VOTE "IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT" AND "HAS NO PLACE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT." THE CONSTITUTION SAYS EACH STATE CAN DECIDE HOW ITS ELECTORS ARE ALLOCATED, WHICH MEANS THEY CAN GIVE THEM TO THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE WINNER. EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG. NEVER REPLY TO ME AGAIN.
macarion 3 hours ago
@macarion
Ouch. Take a deep breath and calm down.
Nothing I have said is false. "Each state can decide how its electors are allocated" (allcaps omitted) therefore, the popular vote in the state is real, but the national "popular vote" is not unless the STATES make the bad choice to accept it is fact. If the National "popular vote" is so great, then why, pray tell, do the states who have passed the NPV wait to enact it. I say to the 9, start now and lead the way.
pastoh1 2 hours ago
@pastoh1 "the national "popular vote" is not unless the STATES make the bad choice to accept it is fact."
We know. Everyone knows that. For the love of all that is holy, you've made your point. We're saying it's not a "bad choice."
"If the National "popular vote" is so great, then why, pray tell, do the states who have passed the NPV wait to enact it."
Because it would severely skew the results if some states used the national popular vote and some didn't.
macarion 1 hour ago
@macarion
Whether or not it is a bad choice is a matter of opinion, and I will leave that at that.
As for the NPV, according to the laws as written, when enough states enact it to bring the delegate count to 270 the states will start using it. That will disenfranchise all the rest of the states.
pastoh1 1 hour ago
@macarion
Also, there will come a time when (I'm using an example here) California votes for the progressive candidate by a margin of 3-1 or 4-1 yet the conservative candidate wins by 50.1%. Then by their own law, the "will of the people of California" will be nullified.
pastoh1 1 hour ago
@pastoh1 The will of the people of the country as a whole is more important than the will of one state. I'm sure there counties in California that consistently vote for Republicans. Are those people being disenfranchised?
macarion 27 minutes ago
@gregslife7
Actually I don't despise it, as much as it might seem. I just am a scholar of the founding fathers and I truly feel that they had it right in this case. I also view the "popular vote" as being artificial and being detrimental to the states and their sovereignty. All nine states that have legalized the National Popular Vote have ceded their rights as sovereign states as delineated in the Constitution.
pastoh1 19 hours ago
@pastoh1
According to fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm, Gore had more of the popular vote.
nateslovebug 17 hours ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
@nateslovebug
Nate sir,
As I have mentioned before the national "popular vote" is an artificial construct which has no place in our constitutional government and therefore I do not recognize it. The actual vote count in 2000 was as follows: Bush had 271 actual votes nationwide and Gore had 266 actual votes nationwide. It was one of the closest tallies ever, but still Bush had the majority. If neither failed to get a majority, then the House would have settled it.
pastoh1 3 hours ago
Comment removed
gregslife7 2 days ago
The reason it was originally made was because the government thought that the people weren't educated enough to decide the presidency. The electoral college representatives would vote for president bearing in mind what the vote results were, but could make their own decisions if they wanted to. Over time, they started just using the vote results. Now, states have almost gotten rid of the EC altogether by giving their vote to the national popular vote winner (see nationalpopularvote . com).
gregslife7 2 days ago 10
@gregslife7
The electoral college was also a slavery compromise.
eXcommunicate1979 2 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
@eXcommunicate1979 I thought that compromise was the one that decided the number of seats in the House and Senate, not the votes for the president, but correct me if I'm wrong.
gregslife7 1 day ago
@gregslife7
That compromise also dictates how many electors each state has.
eXcommunicate1979 1 day ago
@eXcommunicate1979 Actually, the census proportion for the House of Representatives was a slavery compromise and while that did help to decide how many Electors each state had, the Electoral College itself was not a compromise for slavery, it was the means for the STATE LEGISLATURES to elect their president.
pastoh1 1 day ago
@gregslife7 Do you think the current electorate is educated enough to vote?
pastoh1 1 day ago
@gregslife7 That doesn't change the fact that small states get a larger say than big states. Also, the electoral college still functions: electors are not 100% bound to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote.
CommanderOrion732 16 hours ago in playlist Liked videos
@CommanderOrion732 I can't really respond because I have no idea which comment you are replying to. But yes, you are right in that electors CAN ignore the election results. However, it is very uncommon.
gregslife7 15 hours ago
@gregslife7 your top comment. And yes, it is very uncommon, but the power remains.
CommanderOrion732 13 hours ago
You make a good point there but there is only one problem that makes it useless for the US government. It makes sense.
bigguy1028 2 days ago 9
Comment removed
gregslife7 2 days ago
Yay I live in Virginia. Gimme dat majority attention!
BrianRobertsfan 2 days ago
Can I move to Mega City One now please?
San6 3 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
5:12 Jesus Fucking Christ, it's ne-vAE-dah, not ne-vAH-da.
Sincerely, a smart Oregonian. The only people out of the Northwest I have ever heard who got Oregon right were from the Deep South, and that's just because of their accent.
greghmn 3 days ago
4:20 In theory, it's just 13%:
50.1% of voters in 50.1% of districts in 50.1% of states! However, that is assuming all states and districts are the exact same size (which it would be a lot easier if it were) and so it probably is more like 20-25%.
greghmn 3 days ago
@greghmn No, it's not "50.1% of districts." Only two states allocate electoral votes based on district winners, and they still give their remaining two votes to the state-wide winner.
macarion 3 days ago
@macarion I said theoretically. Not with the US system, but the whole system in general. The US uses a slightly modified system which makes it slightly higher, but still well under the 50% plus one person that it needs to be.
greghmn 2 days ago
Creeperfornia D:
verdigo1 4 days ago
2001 I discovered the unfairness of the electorial college when Bush got elected. My Political Science ask the question on how should get ppl more interested in elections and I said get rid of the Electioral college. He responded "w/o being cynical how can we fix voting in America?"
J5MARLON 4 days ago
Mind = Blown
XxParamoredxX 4 days ago
1:30 Am I the only one who noticed that North Carolina was originally orange, and then it switched to yellow?
StarDoorStudios 4 days ago
chose the electors themselves without resorting to a statewide referendum to see which way the state will go. The way the framers created the Union, the states chose the President and the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 1) and the voting populace chose the representatives (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1). The states no longer chose their representatives to Congress (Amendment XVII). If we remove the states right to chose the President, then why, sir, should we have states at all?
pastoh1 4 days ago
Comment removed
macarion 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pastoh1 "If we remove the states right to chose the President, then why, sir, should we have states at all?"
Because states would still be able to make their own laws. Without the EC, we wouldn't have this convoluted system where some votes count more than others. Article I section 4 of the US constitution says that each state can determine the manner of its own elections, so I don't know why you're trying to invoke the constitution in your support of the electoral college.
macarion 4 days ago
@macarion Article I Section 4 reserves to the states how they chose their senators (nullified by Admendment XVII) and how the people are allowed to elect their representatives (Note I wrote how "the people" not how "the states" elect representatives). That deals with districting, and according to said section, can be altered by congress. Currently many states must get their districts approved by the federal government; ergo, they don't have that right either.
pastoh1 3 days ago
I feel that it must be pointed out that the United States of America is NOT a democracy, it's a republic.
Your solution actually harms the US of A the same way making US Senators elected by popular vote did... it leaves out the states' representation.
If you want to fix the Electorial College to be more representative, give all states and territories 1-3 votes for winner take all (1 for gov, one per senator). The rest, based on Reps., are proportional.
That makes reflect the pop. vote.
bsabruzzo 4 days ago 2
@bsabruzzo
I think a better move would be to STOP reporting a popular vote, something that doesn't truly exist anyway.
pastoh1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pastoh1 "I think a better move would be to STOP reporting a popular vote"
But that pesky freedom of press gets in the way.
But our freedom of speach flummoxes that, too.
Any poll is open for reporting. Any voter is open for influencing...
Ah, the reson democracy is so dangerous.
Then there's Weasel (see the other video about voting).
bsabruzzo 4 days ago
@bsabruzzo
I never said to mandate stop reporting, but if the American people were a little bit more educated then the interest in the "popular vote" would decrease and we would stop having reports that someone won the presidency but lost the vote.
pastoh1 4 days ago
@pastoh1 If the America people were a little bit more educated, we wouldn't use the electoral college or the first past the post system.
macarion 3 days ago
@macarion You failed to address the important reason for the electoral college. It has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes for vote tallies to be computed or the amount of time it takes to get the votes to the national capitol. It is in place because the STATES
pastoh1 3 days ago
@pastoh1 not the PEOPLE vote for president. As I have said, that is the final vestige of state sovereignty and if we do away with that, then we are compelled to do away with the several states as well.
pastoh1 3 days ago
@bsabruzzo The United States is a representative democracy. We use democracy, and purport to value it. Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world. The argument that "we're a republic, not a democracy" is completely meaningless and stupid.
macarion 4 days ago
@macarion "The United States is a representative democracy" The existence of the Electorial College is the definition of republic: We elect people to elect others, to make the laws for up. You use the term "representative democracy" as a way of saying republic.
"Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world." To the detriment of the world. Mob rule with no sense of liberties and rights and with no rule of law.
bsabruzzo 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macarion "The United States is a representative democracy" The existence of the Electorial College is the definition of republic: We elect people to elect others, to make the laws for up. You use the term "representative democracy" as a way of saying republic.
"Our leaders speak loftily of spreading democracy to the rest of the world." To the detriment of the world. Mob rule with no sense of liberties and rights and with no rule of law.
bsabruzzo 4 days ago
@macarion Our leaders only started speaking loftily about "democracy" in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the Progressive Period. People worldwide were being influenced by Herr Engels and Marx, the USA included. There is a good argument that their philosophy has failed. Democracy at its heart is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
pastoh1 3 days ago
Poor, poor Mr. Grey. Please be honest with your viewers. First, the United States is not, nor never has been, a democracy. The founding fathers abhorred democracy and calling someone a democrat was an epitaph. We are a union of states and that is why the states elect the President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 US Constitution). The "popular vote" is merely a convention set in place by the various state legislatures, when in fact, they all can (And should, in my opinion)...
pastoh1 4 days ago
Why would i want to watch a 20 min ad
MrINFAMOUSCOOKIES 4 days ago
even Indiana in this video dosent get much :( bein showen as Illinois and all. even though they are kinda like our twin with a giant glowing light on their head
heyzeus97862 5 days ago
Hoosiers are from Indiana not Illinois. Being from Illinois, I've never been called a hoosier before. The proper demonym for one from Illinois is Illinoisan.
wilridher 5 days ago
NYC Metro, 8,021,860 votes. Overwhelmingly Democratic party. Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Manhattan.
LA Metro, 3,023,431 votes. Overwhelmingly Democratic party. Los Angles County only.
These two cities represent 8% of the total vote in 2008. That was a lot of work but I think its clear that if continued to the top 10 cites, your simply mistaken. Not only would removal of the EC lead to a chase for big cities, we would only get candidates from them as well.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier Then why doesn't that already happen? Why don't candidates only focus on the biggest cities in swing states?
macarion 5 days ago
@macarion You keep asking that question and I don't understand what it has to do with anything.....You are asking why don't candidates focus hard on cities that they don't need too? If you are suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't have NYC LA and Chicago on lock down...you very very wrong.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier I'm not talking about New York City and Los Angeles, you mouthbreather. You've said that eliminating the electoral college will cause candidates to only focus on the biggest cities and ignore everyone else. If that were true, why don't they already do that? Why don't they only focus on Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland, and ignore everyone else?
macarion 5 days ago
@macarion Well it would take a great deal of effort to see exactly what went down in Ohio. Without researching Id guess more money was spent in Cleveland and Cincinnati than Oakwood. Your entire premise on this question makes no sense. A great deal of strategy goes into exactly which cities to vists inside a state.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier The premise makes perfect sense. You're just fucking stupid. Why did Obama come to Elkhart, Indiana, instead of ignoring it and just focusing on Indianapolis?
macarion 4 days ago
@jerrysoldier but when you add in the 100's of small towns that are overwhelmingly republican it cancels each other out. The EC is incredibly flawed and everyone knows it stop being so ignorant
Bragera51 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just did my own math and I found that 30% of the entire US population lives in 9 Metro areas. That is radically different than what you have presented here. You need to take this video down.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@jerrysoldier Metro areas are inconsistent between states and often hilariously large. The NYC metro area includes whole other cities and rural areas that have no place being included in a city.
CGPGrey 6 days ago 23
@CGPGrey You are simply covering for your being wrong. The numbers you give for NY and LA are laughably low. You literally have the pop of same state NYC millions of people too low. YOU are trying to gerrymand. If you cared at all about presenting fact, this video would come down. It is riddled with lies. I live in Omaha Nebraska, it has a metro area larger than what you listed in your top ten cities. Even if you take out Council Bluffs Iowa. This is just one issue. There are several.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier
Your points are so detached from reality and basic logic that I can only hope you are trying to be annoying. Your selective failure to comprehend what a hypothetical question is further suggests you are not worth taking serious.
Stop making Nebraskans look bad.
donfolstar 5 days ago
@donfolstar Had Gore spent as much time in Nebraska as he did in Florida in 2000 he would have won the election. Thats exactly why the EC works. His strategy of ignoring the Midwest completely cost. him.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier Al Gore lost Nebraska by 29 points. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
macarion 5 days ago
@macarion Maybe if he spent half his family fortune here he would have won it. Obama won Omaha dude. If Gore wouldn't have blown us off he very well may have won. We have huge history of electing Dem Governors.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
@macarion Ben Nelson is a hero here. A Democrat in the heart of read.
jerrysoldier 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerrysoldier You've said that eliminating the electoral college will cause candidates to only focus on the biggest cities and ignore everyone else. If that were true, why don't they already do that? Why don't they only focus on Miami, Philadelphia, and Cleveland, and ignore everyone else?
macarion 5 days ago
@CGPGrey I agree with @jerrysoldier that what you have described is not accurate. You have to remember that it's not only the city itself where the candidate makes their campaign impact because they are not just campaigning to people within the city limits. The media footprint and word of mouth of the message goes to the entire metro area, not merely within those boundaries. It's population density that really matters, and 30% of voters in 9 areas is very influential.
NGinuity 5 days ago
@CGPGrey What part of NYC? :D
snuckles108 4 days ago
@jerrysoldier yea ur math sucks because when i did my math i got 12.77% lives in the top ten most populated urban cities sources i used :
wikipedia for the city populations
and the US census population calculator
the math turned out to be 313074440/24513008=12.77
bakalakpal 3 days ago
@bakalakpal That's not how percentages work.
macarion 3 days ago
@macarion yea i know i thought u might believe me tho since u really think 30% of the total population of the US lives in only 10 cities...thats on average roughly 9 million per city which is more people than any city in the US
correct math:
24513008/313074440 multiplied by 100 to become a percent equals 7.8%
ur percent error by the way is 284% u should be president
bakalakpal 2 days ago
[Part 1] I think the problem with your argument lies in how you said big cities really aren't that big yet winning a bunch of electoral votes can be achieved through very small places. Either the population is spread out and is not concentrated in the cities or it is concentrated in certain states, which allows you to gain a disproportionate number of votes. You left out the fact that big cities often have large amounts of populations nearby, even if those people are not in the city. [Continued]
Savaniel 6 days ago
[Part 2] @Savaniel This means that a candidate could, in fact, travel to a city and still affect a large amount of the popular vote by being close to a population that is much larger than that of the city itself. Travelling to the city doesn't only leave an impact on the people in the city but all the people close to it as well.
Also, you failed to mention that a few states split their electoral votes, making the election just a little bit more fair. It probably doesn't affect the [Continued]
Savaniel 6 days ago
[Part 3] @Savaniel election much, though.
I would say the whole reasoning behind the Electoral College is to give states more power over the federal government. It gives more purpose which, while it may be a little misguided, unifies the people in the state. I will agree with you, though, that it does seem a little unnecessary in our time.
Savaniel 6 days ago
@Savaniel "Travelling to a city" doesn't do anything. We have things like TV and the internet now. No one gives a shit about where the candidates physically are.
macarion 6 days ago
@macarion Sure it does. Why else would politicians go around campaigning? While news sources can give you facts and such, there are few factors as motivational as rallying with like-minded individuals and supporting a cause. Being with fellow party members and cheering for a candidate can do a lot more than a simple TV ad can. While we ideally ought not need to be influenced by our fellow Americans, rallies can help secure votes by cementing your ideas through approval from your peers.
Savaniel 6 days ago
@Savaniel Right, and if your theory were true, candidates would already campaign solely in the largest cities in swing states. Miami, Philadelphia, Cleveland. They wouldn't go anywhere else. That's not what happens, though. They go to Elkhart, Indiana. They go to Buttfuck, Minnesota. They go to all of these places, because they have to. And getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't change that.
macarion 6 days ago
I don't think anyone has said anything about where a candidate would visit expect you. I don't think anyone disagrees that with or without the EC their visits wouldn't change. Getting rid of the EC for one guarantees that the Democratic party wins the presidency for the foreseeable future. Which would lead horrible resentment from the several states who have literally NEVER chosen a democrat. Removing the EC would seriously threaten the Union.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@jerrysoldier Also should be noted. Several of those 40 states required have never voted the same and never will.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@macarion That's very true. Candidades definitely need to go to obscure places and not just cities. And the swing states are often much more important than the ones who are locked in their ways. Swing states don't often have concentrated population like larger states but it is well worth travelling around in order to try to sway the voters. I agree wholeheartedly with your information. :)
Savaniel 5 days ago
Is there anything we can even do to get rid of the electoral college system? Riot? Become president? I mean, what can we, as individual America's, do to earn the right to ACTUALLY vote for our president?
xoplazma 6 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
@xoplazma There's something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would make the states that sign it give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It started in 2007, and 8 states + DC have signed it, which are worth 132 electoral votes. It'll only take effect if the signatories represent a majority of the EC (270 of 538). Urge your state legislature and governor to pass the NPVIC.
macarion 6 days ago
Also, when you were ticking off the States needed to win 270 electoral college votes, you should have counted the States. It was ~40 States that would have won the Presidency, which would be a landslide in any election cycle.
Also, in America you DO NOT have a right to vote for President (because only Electors vote for President). You have a right to vote for Electors.
Your videos are good, but this one needs some work, mainly because you assume the way things should be are not actually true
Snoopz0087 6 days ago
@Snoopz0087 What are you talking about? CGP Grey (and everyone else) is certainly aware that people vote for electors and not directly for the president. We're saying that should be changed.
And no, winning only 22% of the vote would not be a landslide.
macarion 6 days ago
@macarion 22% in that scenario could be the highest vote earner. Most presidencies are won with far less than 50% of the vote.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have one BIG assumption that leads to this entire video being incorrect: American is NOT a democracy, America is a Republic. The Constitution is a compact between the People AND the States, which is why the electoral college distributes its votes so awkwardly at first glance.
Snoopz0087 6 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
Comment removed
Snoopz0087 6 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
Its not a 5% failure rate. Your impossible scenario requires you win 40 states by one vote. It is proof that the system works exactly the way Alexander Hamilton and the others designed it. The inverse of you argument is that you should be able to win 10 states by one vote and lose 40 and still be elected. That's exactly why our current system protects us from.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
I actually agree with you, I think. I think I'll become president (by cheating the electoral system, of course), and then I'll try to see if I can remove it, ok?
StuffedAnimalPlanet 1 week ago
@StuffedAnimalPlanet I wouldn't call winning 40 states cheating. I'd call that the most lopsided election in the history of elections. Its easy to trick people with numbers and graphs. Please use your heads people.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
Direct democracy would been a disaster. If we eliminated the electoral college the smaller states would lose their rights. Your graph about visits has no value.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
@jerrysoldier please explain why you say that, cause so far he makes a much more sensible argument then just "it has no value"?
MRibSTEVE 1 week ago
@MRibSTEVE Our country was never intended to be a direct democracy. Electing the president by popular vote would instantly lead discrimination against the minority. How does a graph showing where a candidate visited during one specific election mean anything? It doesn't. If you want an argument for why extra care needs to be taken to give the small states a louder voice there is plenty for you to read. I'd start with the Federalist papers. Hint: They were written by the founding fathers.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
@jerrysoldier No, the smaller states wouldn't lose any rights. We'd still have the same constitution and the same senate. If your theory about candidates not caring about rural areas were true, why do they focus on them now? Why don't candidates just focus on the largest cities in swing states? And the EC does not protect us from a candidate winning 10 states and losing 40. Right now the 10 biggest states are worth 264 electoral votes. If CA and TX keep growing, which they will, you'll be wrong.
macarion 1 week ago
@macarion First off swing states change. Second the EC is a balance between states being represented equally and higher population states having more say. Republicans win the rural states and Democrats chase population centers. Because that's the natural order of it. When Gore lost in 2000, the year he won the popular vote he lost 30 states. The EC did protect the the collective smaller states against a few large ones.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
@jerrysoldier And something to note. The math in the video is completely flawed and needs to be thrown out. Neither Bush nor Gore received 50% of the popular vote in 2000. Both candidates were rejected by the majority. It was only the extra emphasis on the importance of each states individual right to make the choice in their best interest that produced the result.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
@jerrysoldier Do you think gubernatorial elections should use an electoral college to "protect" rural areas from big cities?
macarion 1 week ago
@macarion No. States are not designed as a union of counties. Our country however is a Union of States. States that have sovereignty.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@jerrysoldier Without the electoral college, the states would still have their sovereignty. Everything you say is wrong.
macarion 6 days ago
@macarion The EC is part of that sovereignty.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@jerrysoldier No, the electoral college is not part of that sovereignty. Shut the fuck up. It's clear now that you're just a super partisan Republican who likes the EC because it puts the Democrats at a disadvantage. If you really believe abolishing it would "threaten the union," you're delusional.
Answer this question: Why don't candidates currently only focus on the biggest cities in swing states?
macarion 5 days ago
@jerrysoldier How? This isn't about states. The federal government craps all over the rights of states anyways, it has nothing to do with how we elect the president.
A direct vote for president is the simplest system. Also, have EVERY SINGLE VOTE physically counted in public, while being recorded and monitored the entire time. Voter fraud is treason, and EVER possible measure should be taken to safeguard against it.
UnknownXV 1 week ago
@UnknownXV Well I guess I disagree with your entire premise. Its has always been about states. The Constitution is contract that creates a Union of States. States individually chose the President. Changing it negates the Union.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
@jerrysoldier Each state remains intact and has all the powers it normally has, the only difference is the voting system actually makes sense in a modern day era.
UnknownXV 6 days ago
@UnknownXV They have all the power they normally have expect to a have an individual choice in who becomes president.
jerrysoldier 6 days ago
has Ron Paul seen this vid ?
0pink0bubble0 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
@0pink0bubble0 Why are people so freaking obsessed with Ron Paul?
mcdiddles123 1 week ago
@mcdiddles123 I don't know it just seem's that if you put this in to action then ANY ONE could be the next leader
0pink0bubble0 5 days ago
The easiest way to do this would be to pass amendments to each state's constitution which assigned the electoral votes of that state to the candidate who won the popular vote in the entire country.
byrnecobain 1 week ago
@byrnecobain They're already doing that. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Eight states + DC have signed it, for a total of 132 electoral votes. It won't take effect until the states who have signed it make up a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538). It only started in 2007, so it actually might happen relatively soon.
macarion 1 week ago
@byrnecobain The states would never do that. Why would a state pass an amendment that require them to vote opposite of how their state voted?
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
I'm going to send your vote for collage
when you vote for president,
giving them an unfair advantage
counting by state not resident.
The folks who wrote our constitution
had an idea for this plan,
trying to cope with distribution
but the Internet can stop this ban.
:D
imacds 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
You should do a video for why people support the electoral college.
n3ngtha0 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
@n3ngtha0 He explained in this video why people support the electoral college, and then shot down those arguments with logic.
macarion 1 week ago
@macarion haha...duh me. Nice point.
n3ngtha0 1 week ago
@macarion faulty logic.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
1:16 - Since when do Hoosiers live in Illinois?
BrenDoneIt 1 week ago
@BrenDoneIt Since when do you not read annotations?
macarion 1 week ago
@CGPGrey thats the point, america is not a democracy, but a federalist republic. The state governments must have a say in the presidential election because the power of the states and the national should be more or less equal. By having direct elections for president the power of the federal government will grow even more, just like after the ratification of the 17th amendment, which established the election of US Senators by popular vote. This increased the power of the Federal government
SomebOOOOdE84 1 week ago
hoosiers are from indiana
themihatzis1 1 week ago
I live in CT and still hate this.
BionicleKid97 1 week ago
Something interesting to see (but hard to check or count) is if for example party x has an unfair advantage because in every state they are mainly represented the people's vote counts less.
fedobear 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
its not like it matters. Whoever wins, republican or dem, you will get screwed.
IamYoddle 1 week ago
Welcome to America where freedom isn't actually freedom. Enjoy your stay :)
Fourmarduk666 1 week ago
Interesting final comment that is an absolute: "If we abolish the electoral college, all of these problems will go away, and everyone's vote will be equal". How hopelessly utopian of you to assume that just because something might happen that it logically follows that it must. Perhaps you should go into science where one data point is extrapolated as valuable and valid for every other possible one.
USSResolute 1 week ago
what baffles me is that there are video's like this and the first past the post one with only 200,000 views.. These should be shared around as much as possible guys! facebook makes it easy.
natia499 1 week ago 5
Great presentations; but what if instead of candidates campaigning in the largest cities, they campaigned in the largest markets? Detroit has only 750,000 ppl, but Metro Detroit (Detroit + rest of Wayne County, all of Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, and Livingston Counties) you get about 5 million, or half the state. Wouldn't the number change significantly from 5% to somewhere in the ballpark of 50% if you counted the media markets of metro areas like NYC, LA, and Chicago, etc?
tomipcfto 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
Nebraska isn't in the electoral college, why is it counted at 5:13? Just wondering
KillAllHumans52 1 week ago