But then, why should someone else be penelized for living in a less populated state? Esp. if they can't afford to move or don't want to? I say leave it like it is. It works.
Also, you miss the purpose of the Electoral College in your video. It is a Checks-and-Balances voting system set up by the Founding Fathers that was EXPECTED to come out uneven on occasion. They did it on purpose to defend small state interests from large ones, just like with the Checks-and-Balances of Government/Congress.
I miss alot of points. If I wanted to put in all the points it would be too long and no one would watch it. It's designed to cater to an A.D.D. generation.
This is coming in way late but I'll just say removing the electoral college would not change a states representation in Congress nor would it altar that states legislature so what rights will be denied to the state. Why should we be penalized for moving to a more populated state by having our vote count less? Anyway I thought both videos were valid.
The problem with this video is its too political. I will not remove it from my "video responses," but you perpetuate a couple of myths of your own.
First, while only a little over half the states require electors to vote a certain way by law, there is no example within 100 years of the other states not doing so.
And second, Bill Clinton was also not elected popularly. Twice. He received only 42% of the popular vote in 1992, and 49% in 1996.
While you may be right about my example of the requirements of electors in some states I think people often miss the point with voting.
It shouldn't be about percentages it should be about numbers. Bill Clinton may have not received over 50% of the popular vote but in 1992 he received 44,909,806 whereas George H.W. Bush received 39,104,500. His votes also exceeded over Dole in 1996.
That he did. But only because there were very strong third-party candidates those years. If those votes had gone for Bush/Dole (which most historians assume they would have) the outcomes would have been quite different! There, then, was an example of the College working FOR the candidate, because--winner take all--though he wasn't the over 50% candidate, Clinton got all the Electoral votes needed.
Perhaps. But it wasn't until the 2000 election that I was aware of how our system works. I was 15 in 2000. I didn't even get to vote then.
LillianWinters 6 months ago
If it weren't for the 2000 election, this discussion wouldn't exist.
TomKaren1994 6 months ago
But then, why should someone else be penelized for living in a less populated state? Esp. if they can't afford to move or don't want to? I say leave it like it is. It works.
filmgeek1984 2 years ago
Also, you miss the purpose of the Electoral College in your video. It is a Checks-and-Balances voting system set up by the Founding Fathers that was EXPECTED to come out uneven on occasion. They did it on purpose to defend small state interests from large ones, just like with the Checks-and-Balances of Government/Congress.
playerpage 3 years ago
I miss alot of points. If I wanted to put in all the points it would be too long and no one would watch it. It's designed to cater to an A.D.D. generation.
LillianWinters 3 years ago
Yes, sad, isn't it? But I admire your fervor and I wish more people had it.
playerpage 3 years ago
This is coming in way late but I'll just say removing the electoral college would not change a states representation in Congress nor would it altar that states legislature so what rights will be denied to the state. Why should we be penalized for moving to a more populated state by having our vote count less? Anyway I thought both videos were valid.
alexbroadwell1 2 years ago
The problem with this video is its too political. I will not remove it from my "video responses," but you perpetuate a couple of myths of your own.
First, while only a little over half the states require electors to vote a certain way by law, there is no example within 100 years of the other states not doing so.
And second, Bill Clinton was also not elected popularly. Twice. He received only 42% of the popular vote in 1992, and 49% in 1996.
playerpage 3 years ago
While you may be right about my example of the requirements of electors in some states I think people often miss the point with voting.
It shouldn't be about percentages it should be about numbers. Bill Clinton may have not received over 50% of the popular vote but in 1992 he received 44,909,806 whereas George H.W. Bush received 39,104,500. His votes also exceeded over Dole in 1996.
LillianWinters 3 years ago
That he did. But only because there were very strong third-party candidates those years. If those votes had gone for Bush/Dole (which most historians assume they would have) the outcomes would have been quite different! There, then, was an example of the College working FOR the candidate, because--winner take all--though he wasn't the over 50% candidate, Clinton got all the Electoral votes needed.
playerpage 3 years ago
Great video, I agree completely!
bann3d 3 years ago
Thank you so much for watching! If you get bored watch the other one it's more ridiculous.
LillianWinters 3 years ago