I think the political system in the US is not a democracy like in most of Europe (i.e. parliamentary supremacy), but a federal republic. "We the people" there it's really "we the states" in the Constitution and small states like New Hampshire want to have a say in the matter. In a majoritarian circumstance it would never matter what they do or don't do, they'd have no say, but still have to pay taxes. Would that be fair.
"...then how does a democracy..." We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is good because it makes less populated states like Montana and North Dakota more significant in presidential elections. If it just went down to the popular vote then no one would ever campaign in Montana and everyone would only campaign in the top 20 or 30 most populated states. A good chunk of the union would be too insignificant to matter.
can you write my electoral college essay for me!? lol i'm usually really REALLY good at comprehending everyone no matter how crazy they are and how quickly they speak and how into their opinions they are (these all apply to you. take it as a compliment) considering that i am also all three of all of those things. butttt i've NEVER been good at politics or government stuff and i'm still kind of lost.
thanks for this video though as well as "how the electoral college works" they were helpful!
In case, wouldn't states with large populations be able to have more influence than states with small populations. Then, why would small states wan't to be part of the federation if they felt under-represented? Isn't this the reason the house and senate were devised in the first place, or am I missing something?
The electoral college doesn't put the election in the hands of elite voters, it shifts power to rural voters.
The founding fathers knew this in general, and it was a compromise to the small states to keep them relevant. The Civil War should have settled the question of federal vs. state dominance once and for all. Way past time to get rid of this monster.
To be a citzen of this country we have certain rights and priviledges. We also have certain responsibilities to be active in positive change. Society is a form of extended family.
"One thing the founding fathers got wrong was this convoluted system..."
I disagree. The Electoral College was designed to keep the common people from having too much power. In the 1700's/1800's the common man didn't know much about politics. Information was slow to spread, and generally- who in the hell would be concerned with politics when you have to work 6-7 days/week on a farm 12 hours/day just to avoid starvation...
Sorry Dan, I agree on most of it, but we just can't go by a popular vote usually because we have to many stupid people voting. I know how arrogant that sounded, but people refuse to use their own minds.
First off, we are a republic who uses democratic processes. We are not a strict democracy. Democracy is easily swayed by mob rule. A republic is buit on principals and this protects us from destructive short sighted trends.
Dan Brown forgot to mention to switch to a popular vote would require 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify the ammendment. Smaller states would vote no thus falling short.
Dan, your idea does have merit. If the states choose that way, then let them be.
They did it because at the time communication wasn't the best. You couldn't trust people to know the candidates properly enough that they could make a very good decision. That's why they didn't just use the popular vote. That doesn't work too well in this time though. I agree with your idea. It seems sensible, well thought out, and easy enough to do. A quick fix, one might say.
Well I agree that there should be a popular vote. And it would require a popular vote constitutional amendment. Or would it? You bring up a neat point about a house district plan but EVEN BETTER. I think there is a move afoot that would have each state pass a law that sends their electors based on the National popular vote and it has already passed several states.... Once it gets to 270 we have it!!!
Terrible idea. Federalism is largely about individual states' sovereignty, and that's why the electoral college is so important--we are the United STATES, not just a country without discrete bodies of federated constituencies...the electoral college protects the interests of less populated states from being trampled on by the overwhelming demographics of the coasts and large cities. Presidential candidates must win in individual states by taking their interests into account.
Heres how i would do it, each state is broken up into counties, whoever wins the majority of county's gets the electoral votes from that state, that means the popular vote has a direct say in who becomes the pres.
Well, the founding fathers did that because they didn't have transportation or communication systems like we do today. Counting an entire popular vote altogether would have taken too much time and too much money. So the electoral college worked well for back then (despite the whole Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams thing), but for modern days, the electoral college is just not good.
cute puppy i agree we need to change it so we can have more democrats as presidents but if u also think about it bush shouldnt of won that election they counted florida to soon on fox and then saying later that he shouldnt of won and i think that kinda shows that this dosent work the way we have it
I sort of like the electoral college because I don't like pure democracy, and the electoral college is fairly undemocratic. I don't like that ignorant stupid people that don't even try to understand issues or why they are voting for a particular candidate have the same voice in voting as I do with a more educated vote. I guess that means I am just glad we don't use the popular vote. So... I guess I don't like the electoral college either, I just like it more than a purely democratic vote...
Maybe the voting public should get their heads out of the ground and become educated. Democracy is not a right, it's a privilege. We need to work for it. And there is more to democracy then just voting. People need to get more involved in the system to get the full extent of its rewards.
Okay Dan, I understand where you're coming from. The electoral college is a tad convoluted. However, I have to disagree with your 'majority vote' opinion. This is the US, and we are NOT a democracy. We are a federal constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers meant it that way so that we weren't under a mob rule. Sure, democracy works in small groups of people, but it tends to not work so well in countries like ours. I agree with what turbod16y8 has said minus the Obama part.
im learning about the electoral college in school right now. its very confusing
they shouldnt be using now-a-days cuz back as in benjamin frankln-back-then they didnt know they were voting for. but see we've got technology where we know a lot about our candidates so now the electoral colllege is probably considered pointless now. but idk i cant vote yet so im not one to talk
The electoral college is a convoluted mess. I would also like to see a change in the primary system. I propose that every tear in the primaries the order in which states vote change. No longer have New Hampshire and Iowa carry so much weight. It may not be practical to have them all on the same day but at the very least we could change the order.
Electoral College is a tough one. I agree with you and your practical solution in the end. But the electoral college was put into place as a safe-guard in case the American population was highly uneducated and made an obvious poor choice in electing a candidate. So it may be risky abolishing it all together ... because you never know what could happen in the future. But yeah... Bush was a mistake.
If it was not for the electoral college obama would not be president, hold up before u post how i dont know what im saying, yes obama won the electoral college vote and the popular vote BUT abe lincon did not, he won only the electoral college thus making him our beloved 16th president. and if not for him being president african americans would still be slaves, or at least for some time longer, and making for a african american to become president impossible till some time after obamas life time
That is a nonsense argument. Even if the system is working for the best; it is less democratic.
We could end terrorism and war by killing everyone in the world but that doesn't mean it is the right method.
What I'm getting at with this extreme example is that the method is at least as important as the result. I would argue that the method is most important.
One thing I do like about the electoral college is that it makes New Yorkers vote with/against other New Yorkers and Nebraskan farmers with/against other Nebraskan farmers (not to imply that you're all farmers).
Presumably people from the same area are more likely to be affected by the same things (and hopefully motivated by the same issues). It's a better comparison, and the candidates are likely to make specific promises they can be measured by later.
electoral college is important in gives folks in rural communities equal voice tothosein big cities andletsbe honest mr brown you know that big cites more say so in gov than they should anyway .
its based land and tax base. popular voteincluded folks who dodnt even pay taxes .
States that have more electoral votes corresponds to the # of representatives they have in Congress. So the more powerful states won't want their powerful voice in the presidency to be split up.
Parties opinion on the electoral college will always change. Bush was said that he would win the popular and lose in the electoral in the 2000 election. Republicans hated it. But the election went to the other way and the democrats then hated it.
I agree very much that the electoral college is either outdated or unfair. Either way it is not a practical way to run a modern day country of our stature. I had the same idea as you, dan brown, did, that the electoral college should be atleast split up into congressional districts. My answer is this - it should go - But i will raise another question. IF the government agreed, that it should change, i would both a popular vote and the Proposed change would require a constitutional amendment.
Well now I don't trust in the intelligence of the voters but the founding fathers did. All their systems of government depend on a well informed citizenry.Unfortunately we have been brainwashed with fear by the bush administration
@trackstrb yeah but at least the average voter is not sponsored by Goldman Sachs or Merill Lynch. While all the congress members are sucking wall street's dick.
i think, why the crap would they take literally 120 million peoples votes and split it into 540?(state by state of course.)everybody on commercials is saying "every vote counts". but the truth is, it doesn't always make a difference. take NY for example. if theres a republican person in NY, there vote is going to be overwhelmingly toppled by the liberal vote. i think votes shouldnt be set up by where you live, but rather, who you want in office. but we would have to change the constitution.
The only thing I disagreed with was your proposal that the world would have been better off with Gore at the helm than Bush. Granted, not every decision he's made has been a stirling one, but he kinda got handed a barrel of lemons these last 8 years between economic troubles and the 9/11 attacks, it's enough to make any president look bad if not handled just right.
I think history will be much kinder to Mr Bush than most people are today.
just because the electoral collage is engraved in out constitution doesnt make it any less dumb then it is.ppl didnt have media back then. there was no predidential campaigning like there is now. popular vote makes sense. as i said...ppl think JUST because out founding fathers of this countrey made it, its automatically right
Hey Dan, the reason why the states, Nebraska and Maine, can splits there votes was because they are smaller states. They did this to give the smaller states more power.
I hate the Democrats, they bitched for 8 years about the electoral college, and I bet now that the inexperianced plague of America known as Obama is president I know for a fact that I wont here yall dumbacrats bitching about the electoral college now.
Could you just imagine the chaos it would cause using only the pop. vote... When a candidate wins by 6 million then there is not much of an issue...but when and if the votes are close like 100,000's god forbid 100's everyone would be screaming corruption! it would happen in every close election...and it would demoralize the peoples faith in the voting systems..i.e. that florida recount...every vote mattered and people still think it was fixed. but I dig the split electorials you spoke of...
The reason we have the electoral college system is so that all the states matter...nobody would really care about smaller states if the popular vote decided the election, because the population is so much greater in states like california. that's a big reason why bush didn't get the popular vote in 2000, he didn't win california.
I was unaware that nebraska and maine work like that. It would be a much better way to do things than what we have now is all states divided by district like that.
The electoral college system is the result of a compromise between people like thomas jefferson and james madison, who wanted a direct election, and a lot of the other delegates who were in the virginia conference who didnt want a direct election, and basically wanted all the power to elect the president themselves. so in order to get the constitution ratified before the whole US union idea fell apart, the framers came up with this system. it's imperfect, yes, but that's how a republic works. :)
how have u been suffering again in the last 8 years besides paying a little bit more for gas and groceries. That is all Democrats do tax and complain.
There was a point in the 1700s, because not everyone was educated and had easy + accessible sources of information. But for the past 75 years, The Electoral college has been completely pointless.
No one can take away your right to free speech. As far as the military goes, you're only not allowed to endorse, protest, or make any other kind of political statement, while in uniform.
Freedom of speech and the right to privacy are both gray areas in the military.
thats because when you're in that uniform, you represent the country and its military whether you mean to or not... i was in JROTC for 4 years, ROTC for 4 years and am in the national guard now, and when i put that uniform on, anything i say or do reflects on that uniform and the flag on it. so if you endorse, or protest, make political statements, or do anything stupid, it reflects on the country. the constitution is supposed to be impartial to party politics so you must be the same in uniform.
hmmm i thought the point of democracy was "for the people by the people" should we not be able to choose our own fucking leader? electoral college leaves ENTIRELY too much power with the government to lead itself...i say no one vote and see what they do then HAHA. i am in the military and have come to realize that the government uses us to serve itself, so fuck voting. i fight for freedom, but obviously our voting system is a skewed mirror image of freedom
I agree with you dan with the whole congressional district. We could never switch to popular vote, due to the fact that idiots live amoungst us. People that want to vote for McCain because he is the only white choice, or voting for Obama, just because he is half black. Its rediculous. If we went by popular, I could run for president when I was 35 and Im confident that I would make it pretty far in the campaign.
You're extremely intelligent. I respect anyone who can look past what's already here, understand the theories that have been set as a precedent, and amend them for modern times and the state of the society around them.
If we aren't a democracy, why does the winner of the popular vote of each state win the state? Why don't we come up with some bullshit state-level elector system involving counties instead of states?
And why shouldn't we be a democracy????? "Because of this pesky thing called the constitution." Fuck off. Don't give me that crap. It was made to be amended. And the elector college is some outdated ass shit. Come on.
In Australia and other countries we have a parliamentary system where we select our prime minister based on whoever wins the most seats in parliament. As a result, we essentially choose our leader by whoever wins the most electoral districts. It seems to work pretty well, although let's just say some mistakes have been made in the past....
the electoral college, like all things, are in place because you are owned by the global masters. the richest of the rich. the people who are so rich they dont even care about money. trust me you are closer to poverty than you know. in order to keep this insane world structure where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich need to keep the poor majority of people from deciding who rules and also from uprising and killing the rich. so they give the illusion that our votes matter.
Dan, I like your proposal to allow the votes to be allocated by district. I have become convinced that we have a related but probaly more serious problem. It is detailed below and I think that it explains why we don't have a workable energy policy or a workable healthcare system.
A state of 30 million people having the same representation in the Senate as a state with less than a million people.
The Senate gives further power to these small state senators by allowing them to filibuster and only be cut off by a 60 vote margin. That means that 21 small states, can block laws that the House, the President and 59 senators want to pass. No wonder that we can not pass effective solutions. The obstructionists only have to buy the votes of 41 small state senators.
You are reading too much into the term "republic". A republic is a form of government with a collectively determined head of state. It doesn't have to install automatically an Electoral College.
It needs to stay, but I agree with you that each state needs to cast their electoral votes in the same was as Nebraska and Maine. It's all about statistics and sample sizes. The current system in place and using the popular vote would only be accurate if every-single person who could vote, voted, but we all know that never happens. The best way to determine what the country as a whole feels, we need to split electoral votes up.
It should STAY. If we went by popular vote, then all the big cities and big population states would control the elections. The vote of the individual person would mean nothing. The electoral college was not a mistake by the Founding Fathers, it was yet another sign of their genius.
"more people live in the big cities", exactly, the big cities in the U.S. would control the election. Candidates would spend all their time there instead of focusing on America as a whole. The votes of the everyday individual would mean nothing. Nebraska and Maine need to change there way to the rest of the nation. Besides, not every state has "Congressional Districts", like my home state of Tennessee.
One of the reasons it was chosen is because candidates wouldn't spend time in states with large populations battling over every vote. Why bother with small states when you can get all those votes in FL and CA. The small population states would be left out.
Also, it was chosen because the republicans realized they are outnumbered, so they refused to budge from this. You can see that even today. The republican primary is still winnter-take-all, while the democratic primary is the popular vote.
The Electoral college used to have a reason, back when the southern states vastly outpopulated the Northern states. Other factors, such as time, and distance between the states, made this a much easier process to undergo the election of a president. However, now with near instant communication, the electoral college serves no purpose. I fully agree, we should adopt Nebraska and Maine's laws of doing this, and work on ratifying the constitution later.
A by-district system would be a little like what Canada uses, and Canada has a great system. The difference is that in Canada, each district elects a local representative who's usually affiliated with a party, but it's still the party that wins the most districts wins the election.
i agree with doing what nebraska and maine do everywhere. i live in the only democratic district of a large republican state (austin texas), so technically my vote doesn't count, which sucks! i think that if we were to do something involving constituational ammendments, a system such as the australian voting system would be the ideal one.
our founding fathers didn't want the popular vote because they considered the regular citizens far too uneducated to make good choices in rulers.
B)when the electoral college was started, it was because information didnt travel as well as it does today, so now...its basically worthless.
C)9/11 was bushs fault? wtf...i can just as easily say it was clintons fault for just packing up and leaving iraq in the early 90's....which is exactly what barry sotoero(barack hussein osama's real name) would do.
They're not mutually exclusive. The Republic of Ireland is a Democracy.
Being a Republic only denotes that a country is governed by a charter. Many Republics reserve the right to alter that charter as time goes on through democracy.
No Democracy is not a synonym of Republic but you're wrong to think they both can't exist at the same time! They can and do. i.e. the Republic of Ireland.
Also many of your fellow country-people would strongly disagree with you saying America is not a Democracy. God, we hear Bush banging on about it enough when hes talking about Iraq no?
you are right, but since many steps have been taken to make america more democratic i consider it a "democratic republic" but yes, you are technically right
I think your 10 yearly? censuses make the problem of unequal votes even more unfair given the electoral college.
However,as a New Zealander,I have to say your election nights are far more exciting: your battleground states keep everyone guessing with their winner takes all philosophy. And politics needs all the fun (and participation) it can get.
Would love to see the US try MMP and the 7 parties we currently have in parliament. It's mayhem but it feels more like true population representation
Hi suikoden! As a fellow outsider I have to say I completely agree. Politics need to be exciting and the E.C. does allow for this (all be it in a slightly perverse way!) I've uploaded a video talking about proportional representation and how I feel it can be equally exciting in a more representative way.
I thinkthey should get rid of the eletorl vote because no one wants a bush again he won because his bro was the gov and they didnt know what happened in Florida
I agree totally this is perhaps the largest flaw left to fix in our constitution I sometimes try to imagine what it would be like right now if Bush hadn't won and instead Kerry I picture it as a much more successful place a place where every country on the freaking planet doesn't hate our guts and think were all rednecks man I hate rednecks GRRRRRR x_X
Your pragmatic solution would be OK, but I think it will be hard to set up if it's not done on a federal level. If we just let the states each do it, they will be extremely reluctant to do that, because for instance doing it in New York would be a big advantage for the republicans, while doing it in Texas would favor the democrats.
Each state's leading party is therefore not likely to let that happen.
The reason we don't use a popular vote is, in part, because a popular vote was impossible in the days of the founding fathers. Additionally, states currently run elections, not the federal government. A national popular vote would mean a massive shift in power in elections, and many people wouldn't like that. However, your solution is helpful and possible, and right now California is evaluating a bill to do just that.
The founding fathers were all privvy to the horrors of the popular voting in France at the time, hence the creation of a republic v. a pure democracy.
It should DEFINATELY GO! My family would vote for McCain but they know that living in NY (and overly Democratic state) it is a waste of time! However, if out votes went to an overall popular vote it WOULD be worth voting! All the commmercials about getting out and voting are pointless bc sadly most peoples votes arent heard bc the electoral college!
Because we DO NOT live in a "democracy." LOOK at the Constitution - we are guaranteed a REPUBLIC. And we pledge allegiance "... to the Republic, of the United States of America."
We DO live in democracy (mob-rule). We DID have a Republic, but it's dead...
Look back at the Civil War, and you can see how 'withered' the Republic was. It's been dieing ever since the thought first came to our forefather's mind.
your an idiot. you have no point--> you are lost. in the world. dont teach what you never learned.
jenmaddix52 3 months ago
i think the electoral college is stupid. if someone loses the popular vote *cough cough* george bush he/she should be president
Rubix4Life 4 months ago
I think the political system in the US is not a democracy like in most of Europe (i.e. parliamentary supremacy), but a federal republic. "We the people" there it's really "we the states" in the Constitution and small states like New Hampshire want to have a say in the matter. In a majoritarian circumstance it would never matter what they do or don't do, they'd have no say, but still have to pay taxes. Would that be fair.
maegov 1 year ago
You need a history lesson.
316wolfgang 1 year ago
We have a Republic, not a Democracy. That is why we have an electoral college.
baggedyman 1 year ago
"...then how does a democracy..." We're not a democracy, we're a republic. The electoral college is good because it makes less populated states like Montana and North Dakota more significant in presidential elections. If it just went down to the popular vote then no one would ever campaign in Montana and everyone would only campaign in the top 20 or 30 most populated states. A good chunk of the union would be too insignificant to matter.
JoshMcRay 1 year ago
can you write my electoral college essay for me!? lol i'm usually really REALLY good at comprehending everyone no matter how crazy they are and how quickly they speak and how into their opinions they are (these all apply to you. take it as a compliment) considering that i am also all three of all of those things. butttt i've NEVER been good at politics or government stuff and i'm still kind of lost.
thanks for this video though as well as "how the electoral college works" they were helpful!
robynbobyn2580 1 year ago
Thank you Dan, this was a very helpful argument
tegfuller 1 year ago
In case, wouldn't states with large populations be able to have more influence than states with small populations. Then, why would small states wan't to be part of the federation if they felt under-represented? Isn't this the reason the house and senate were devised in the first place, or am I missing something?
cwilburtube 1 year ago
The electoral college doesn't put the election in the hands of elite voters, it shifts power to rural voters.
The founding fathers knew this in general, and it was a compromise to the small states to keep them relevant. The Civil War should have settled the question of federal vs. state dominance once and for all. Way past time to get rid of this monster.
darkmiles22 1 year ago
I've always wondered how Bush won that election. Now I get it! Thanks Dan!
ultraliser 1 year ago
blame obama.
mackattack314 2 years ago
To be a citzen of this country we have certain rights and priviledges. We also have certain responsibilities to be active in positive change. Society is a form of extended family.
pibbprodution 2 years ago
To continue, at THAT time the electoral college was absolutely brillant!
It let everyone have a say in government...but kept them from having TOO much of a say- being largely uninformed that's probably a good thing
It should be noted that until 1913 (if I'm not mistaken) we didn't even directly elect our senators.
The Electoral College was a brilliant idea, at one time. Now it is outdated, and badly suppresses votes
1 voter should have 1 vote, as it stands, that is not the case
flylike1 2 years ago
:40
"One thing the founding fathers got wrong was this convoluted system..."
I disagree. The Electoral College was designed to keep the common people from having too much power. In the 1700's/1800's the common man didn't know much about politics. Information was slow to spread, and generally- who in the hell would be concerned with politics when you have to work 6-7 days/week on a farm 12 hours/day just to avoid starvation...
flylike1 2 years ago
Comment removed
DeepTimeUnit37 2 years ago
obama
yyhkingsburg 2 years ago
PUPPY!!!!!!!!
radclaw1 2 years ago
at first i thought it was a pile of clothes
radclaw1 2 years ago
Sorry Dan, I agree on most of it, but we just can't go by a popular vote usually because we have to many stupid people voting. I know how arrogant that sounded, but people refuse to use their own minds.
AlaskanGenius 2 years ago 4
PUPPY!!! <3
AlaskanGenius 2 years ago
I can't believe I put a <3 on there.
AlaskanGenius 2 years ago
First off, we are a republic who uses democratic processes. We are not a strict democracy. Democracy is easily swayed by mob rule. A republic is buit on principals and this protects us from destructive short sighted trends.
Dan Brown forgot to mention to switch to a popular vote would require 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify the ammendment. Smaller states would vote no thus falling short.
Dan, your idea does have merit. If the states choose that way, then let them be.
Nononsenseman 2 years ago
They did it because at the time communication wasn't the best. You couldn't trust people to know the candidates properly enough that they could make a very good decision. That's why they didn't just use the popular vote. That doesn't work too well in this time though. I agree with your idea. It seems sensible, well thought out, and easy enough to do. A quick fix, one might say.
JeevaraniRoyal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. copy and paste
2. send this to 9 other videos.
3. hold your breath for 10 seconds
4. press refresh twice
3. LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND IT WILL BE FREAKY
thechannal 2 years ago
Well I agree that there should be a popular vote. And it would require a popular vote constitutional amendment. Or would it? You bring up a neat point about a house district plan but EVEN BETTER. I think there is a move afoot that would have each state pass a law that sends their electors based on the National popular vote and it has already passed several states.... Once it gets to 270 we have it!!!
BSS14285 3 years ago
Terrible idea. Federalism is largely about individual states' sovereignty, and that's why the electoral college is so important--we are the United STATES, not just a country without discrete bodies of federated constituencies...the electoral college protects the interests of less populated states from being trampled on by the overwhelming demographics of the coasts and large cities. Presidential candidates must win in individual states by taking their interests into account.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
Heres how i would do it, each state is broken up into counties, whoever wins the majority of county's gets the electoral votes from that state, that means the popular vote has a direct say in who becomes the pres.
Erech01 3 years ago
I completely agree with you.
iglk666 3 years ago
Well, the founding fathers did that because they didn't have transportation or communication systems like we do today. Counting an entire popular vote altogether would have taken too much time and too much money. So the electoral college worked well for back then (despite the whole Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams thing), but for modern days, the electoral college is just not good.
MannDexx 3 years ago
Wrong, the reason for the EC still exists as much today as it did back then, and has nothing to do with technology.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
DAMN! you rock!
from the time i was SEVEN until now (i'm 15) i had to live under bush thru my mid-childhood!! GRARRGH!!!!!
you should send this in to the government or something 0.o;
SRSLY!
shikamarusgirl17 3 years ago
i totally agree. Its confusing. I wanted Gore to win in 2000. (i was 6 but i still slighlty understood politics a little)
masterarbiter448 3 years ago 2
my comment is one electoral vote per. state whoever wins 26 states wins!!!(the election)
deelaregina 3 years ago
Go BUSH!!!
deelaregina 3 years ago
cute puppy i agree we need to change it so we can have more democrats as presidents but if u also think about it bush shouldnt of won that election they counted florida to soon on fox and then saying later that he shouldnt of won and i think that kinda shows that this dosent work the way we have it
kazooga1234 3 years ago
I sort of like the electoral college because I don't like pure democracy, and the electoral college is fairly undemocratic. I don't like that ignorant stupid people that don't even try to understand issues or why they are voting for a particular candidate have the same voice in voting as I do with a more educated vote. I guess that means I am just glad we don't use the popular vote. So... I guess I don't like the electoral college either, I just like it more than a purely democratic vote...
asteios 3 years ago
Maybe the voting public should get their heads out of the ground and become educated. Democracy is not a right, it's a privilege. We need to work for it. And there is more to democracy then just voting. People need to get more involved in the system to get the full extent of its rewards.
jsnyder86 3 years ago
Okay Dan, I understand where you're coming from. The electoral college is a tad convoluted. However, I have to disagree with your 'majority vote' opinion. This is the US, and we are NOT a democracy. We are a federal constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers meant it that way so that we weren't under a mob rule. Sure, democracy works in small groups of people, but it tends to not work so well in countries like ours. I agree with what turbod16y8 has said minus the Obama part.
weirdalrocks962 3 years ago
I don't really get why would people do electoral votes. Why so complex? Sometimes the simpler way is the better way.
iCookieThief 3 years ago
im learning about the electoral college in school right now. its very confusing
they shouldnt be using now-a-days cuz back as in benjamin frankln-back-then they didnt know they were voting for. but see we've got technology where we know a lot about our candidates so now the electoral colllege is probably considered pointless now. but idk i cant vote yet so im not one to talk
troop421 3 years ago
hahaha lots of big comments. mine is small.
christhejuggler 3 years ago
The electoral college is a convoluted mess. I would also like to see a change in the primary system. I propose that every tear in the primaries the order in which states vote change. No longer have New Hampshire and Iowa carry so much weight. It may not be practical to have them all on the same day but at the very least we could change the order.
briangiven 3 years ago
Electoral College is a tough one. I agree with you and your practical solution in the end. But the electoral college was put into place as a safe-guard in case the American population was highly uneducated and made an obvious poor choice in electing a candidate. So it may be risky abolishing it all together ... because you never know what could happen in the future. But yeah... Bush was a mistake.
ras3428 3 years ago
If it was not for the electoral college obama would not be president, hold up before u post how i dont know what im saying, yes obama won the electoral college vote and the popular vote BUT abe lincon did not, he won only the electoral college thus making him our beloved 16th president. and if not for him being president african americans would still be slaves, or at least for some time longer, and making for a african american to become president impossible till some time after obamas life time
skperkins144 3 years ago
That is a nonsense argument. Even if the system is working for the best; it is less democratic.
We could end terrorism and war by killing everyone in the world but that doesn't mean it is the right method.
What I'm getting at with this extreme example is that the method is at least as important as the result. I would argue that the method is most important.
RebelWithoutASauce 3 years ago
yah he never said in the past nd besides how can u think wht is goin 2 happnen, member everything effects everything!
mlee92907 3 years ago
One thing I do like about the electoral college is that it makes New Yorkers vote with/against other New Yorkers and Nebraskan farmers with/against other Nebraskan farmers (not to imply that you're all farmers).
Presumably people from the same area are more likely to be affected by the same things (and hopefully motivated by the same issues). It's a better comparison, and the candidates are likely to make specific promises they can be measured by later.
paneljump 3 years ago
electoral college is important in gives folks in rural communities equal voice tothosein big cities andletsbe honest mr brown you know that big cites more say so in gov than they should anyway .
its based land and tax base. popular voteincluded folks who dodnt even pay taxes .
rlf1967 3 years ago
The electoral college will never be gone sadly.
States that have more electoral votes corresponds to the # of representatives they have in Congress. So the more powerful states won't want their powerful voice in the presidency to be split up.
Parties opinion on the electoral college will always change. Bush was said that he would win the popular and lose in the electoral in the 2000 election. Republicans hated it. But the election went to the other way and the democrats then hated it.
trojanmaster16 3 years ago
I agree very much that the electoral college is either outdated or unfair. Either way it is not a practical way to run a modern day country of our stature. I had the same idea as you, dan brown, did, that the electoral college should be atleast split up into congressional districts. My answer is this - it should go - But i will raise another question. IF the government agreed, that it should change, i would both a popular vote and the Proposed change would require a constitutional amendment.
rldel149 3 years ago
It served its purpose in the day. IE - when the country was sparsely populated by uneducated farmfolk. In today's world, I agree...it's outdated.
PopUpPenguin 3 years ago
I agree with what you said the electoral college really makes votes from the people not count its stupid.
LPJonahOD 3 years ago
The founding fathers didnt trust the intelligence of the average voter and neither do I. Have you seen how dumb some of these people are.
trackstrb 3 years ago 11
Well now I don't trust in the intelligence of the voters but the founding fathers did. All their systems of government depend on a well informed citizenry.Unfortunately we have been brainwashed with fear by the bush administration
ournamestoolong 3 years ago
"The founding fathers didnt trust the intelligence of the average voter and neither do I."
Instead of spreading out the "unintelligent votes" across the nation, the Electoral college focuses it on 3 or 4 swing states
flylike1 1 year ago
@trackstrb I know what you mean, some of them don't even know when to use a question mark.
monkeybot1000 1 year ago
@trackstrb yeah but at least the average voter is not sponsored by Goldman Sachs or Merill Lynch. While all the congress members are sucking wall street's dick.
pong224 4 months ago
@trackstrb not that dumb, they didnt want bush to be president
Rubix4Life 4 months ago
maybe because uneducated hicks, who believe that obama is a muslim, shouldnt deserve 2 count for there vote
gopitt08 3 years ago
i think, why the crap would they take literally 120 million peoples votes and split it into 540?(state by state of course.)everybody on commercials is saying "every vote counts". but the truth is, it doesn't always make a difference. take NY for example. if theres a republican person in NY, there vote is going to be overwhelmingly toppled by the liberal vote. i think votes shouldnt be set up by where you live, but rather, who you want in office. but we would have to change the constitution.
DownWithLiquid 3 years ago
ummmm....
theres 538 Electoral votes but your point is good
ournamestoolong 3 years ago
The only thing I disagreed with was your proposal that the world would have been better off with Gore at the helm than Bush. Granted, not every decision he's made has been a stirling one, but he kinda got handed a barrel of lemons these last 8 years between economic troubles and the 9/11 attacks, it's enough to make any president look bad if not handled just right.
I think history will be much kinder to Mr Bush than most people are today.
Not saying I love the guy, just dont hate him.
BenjaminKorr 3 years ago
just because the electoral collage is engraved in out constitution doesnt make it any less dumb then it is.ppl didnt have media back then. there was no predidential campaigning like there is now. popular vote makes sense. as i said...ppl think JUST because out founding fathers of this countrey made it, its automatically right
rollingthunder9 3 years ago
Hey Dan, the reason why the states, Nebraska and Maine, can splits there votes was because they are smaller states. They did this to give the smaller states more power.
magicalme34 3 years ago
I hate the Democrats, they bitched for 8 years about the electoral college, and I bet now that the inexperianced plague of America known as Obama is president I know for a fact that I wont here yall dumbacrats bitching about the electoral college now.
ace19901227 3 years ago
Could you just imagine the chaos it would cause using only the pop. vote... When a candidate wins by 6 million then there is not much of an issue...but when and if the votes are close like 100,000's god forbid 100's everyone would be screaming corruption! it would happen in every close election...and it would demoralize the peoples faith in the voting systems..i.e. that florida recount...every vote mattered and people still think it was fixed. but I dig the split electorials you spoke of...
radiorah3000 3 years ago
without the electoral college, there wouldn't be any campaigning in Nebraska
chrisbotron 3 years ago
The reason we have the electoral college system is so that all the states matter...nobody would really care about smaller states if the popular vote decided the election, because the population is so much greater in states like california. that's a big reason why bush didn't get the popular vote in 2000, he didn't win california.
skyline44512 3 years ago
22.5% is not ross' territory...
skyline44512 3 years ago
Dude was 10 when GW Bush was elected for the first term. Only thing he knows about the last 8 years is what he has read or heard.
rhettneck12 3 years ago
You are a DUMBASS! You don't know shit, DUMBASS!
johnnyboypdq 3 years ago
I was unaware that nebraska and maine work like that. It would be a much better way to do things than what we have now is all states divided by district like that.
agwellin 3 years ago
I really like your idea of breaking it all down to congressional districts.
Iownall794 3 years ago
sorry! please delete my last comment (and this one) it was supposed 2 be a reply to someone elses on here but it didnt work.. sorry :)
bobsaget2329 3 years ago
The electoral college system is the result of a compromise between people like thomas jefferson and james madison, who wanted a direct election, and a lot of the other delegates who were in the virginia conference who didnt want a direct election, and basically wanted all the power to elect the president themselves. so in order to get the constitution ratified before the whole US union idea fell apart, the framers came up with this system. it's imperfect, yes, but that's how a republic works. :)
bobsaget2329 3 years ago
yes you are right, the electoral college,doesnt make any sense, in Democracy
astrogay100 3 years ago
how have u been suffering again in the last 8 years besides paying a little bit more for gas and groceries. That is all Democrats do tax and complain.
deanthedream17 3 years ago
ah this is what i was looking for. Wow.
Yony42 3 years ago
isnt dan brown such a fagget reply to me if u agree
joe8584 3 years ago
There was a point in the 1700s, because not everyone was educated and had easy + accessible sources of information. But for the past 75 years, The Electoral college has been completely pointless.
amarr1 3 years ago
I agree, electoral college does not make sense in the event such as in 2000. Popular vote makes much much more sense.
cubestack 3 years ago 2
onny is cute :)
highgirlstar2000 3 years ago
Actually, that's not entirely correct.
No one can take away your right to free speech. As far as the military goes, you're only not allowed to endorse, protest, or make any other kind of political statement, while in uniform.
Freedom of speech and the right to privacy are both gray areas in the military.
wannabeb3 3 years ago
thats because when you're in that uniform, you represent the country and its military whether you mean to or not... i was in JROTC for 4 years, ROTC for 4 years and am in the national guard now, and when i put that uniform on, anything i say or do reflects on that uniform and the flag on it. so if you endorse, or protest, make political statements, or do anything stupid, it reflects on the country. the constitution is supposed to be impartial to party politics so you must be the same in uniform.
bobsaget2329 3 years ago
you are awesome!!!! pogobat
jyfleee 3 years ago
this is exactly why i don't vote. it's a broken system.
2buxaslice 3 years ago
hmmm i thought the point of democracy was "for the people by the people" should we not be able to choose our own fucking leader? electoral college leaves ENTIRELY too much power with the government to lead itself...i say no one vote and see what they do then HAHA. i am in the military and have come to realize that the government uses us to serve itself, so fuck voting. i fight for freedom, but obviously our voting system is a skewed mirror image of freedom
str8iLL 3 years ago
I agree with you dan with the whole congressional district. We could never switch to popular vote, due to the fact that idiots live amoungst us. People that want to vote for McCain because he is the only white choice, or voting for Obama, just because he is half black. Its rediculous. If we went by popular, I could run for president when I was 35 and Im confident that I would make it pretty far in the campaign.
mercsan117 3 years ago
You're extremely intelligent. I respect anyone who can look past what's already here, understand the theories that have been set as a precedent, and amend them for modern times and the state of the society around them.
xman2008 3 years ago
Democracy is an stupid idea, personal responsibility works better then whining for a leader.
straksi 3 years ago
Explain yourself?
monkofcats 3 years ago
What the fuck?
macarion 3 years ago
Find out for yourself how personal responsibility and democracy works.
straksi 3 years ago
If we aren't a democracy, why does the winner of the popular vote of each state win the state? Why don't we come up with some bullshit state-level elector system involving counties instead of states?
And why shouldn't we be a democracy????? "Because of this pesky thing called the constitution." Fuck off. Don't give me that crap. It was made to be amended. And the elector college is some outdated ass shit. Come on.
macarion 3 years ago
"if we did a popular vote, america would be ruled by the mob."
THAT'S THE POINT OF DEMOCRACY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT OH MY FUCKING GOD I HATE ALL OF YOU
macarion 3 years ago
But you're not over reacting or anything.
PrincessDazzie 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Suck my dick.
macarion 3 years ago
Dan Brown is like this in every video.
mercsan117 3 years ago
WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD THAT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR REPUBLICANS TO WlN
macarion 3 years ago
"In a sense, if your not a Democrat in California, your vote doesn't count."
THAT'S WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS RETARDED YOU FUCKING RETARD
macarion 3 years ago
im a fan Dan but...
i think the electoral college
is ok.
(al gores an idiot!) he should never have
won the nobel peace prize.
but everyones entitled to thier own opinion
legendsmith1 3 years ago
i agree with you dan! and you have a cute dog!
haha, i say DAN BROWN FOR PREZ! =]
southernbellemel27 3 years ago
In Australia and other countries we have a parliamentary system where we select our prime minister based on whoever wins the most seats in parliament. As a result, we essentially choose our leader by whoever wins the most electoral districts. It seems to work pretty well, although let's just say some mistakes have been made in the past....
abs000 3 years ago
the electoral college, like all things, are in place because you are owned by the global masters. the richest of the rich. the people who are so rich they dont even care about money. trust me you are closer to poverty than you know. in order to keep this insane world structure where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich need to keep the poor majority of people from deciding who rules and also from uprising and killing the rich. so they give the illusion that our votes matter.
LostLikeYou 3 years ago
your dogs cute!!!
just4getitman 3 years ago
Dan, I like your proposal to allow the votes to be allocated by district. I have become convinced that we have a related but probaly more serious problem. It is detailed below and I think that it explains why we don't have a workable energy policy or a workable healthcare system.
gulsbyjag 3 years ago
A state of 30 million people having the same representation in the Senate as a state with less than a million people.
The Senate gives further power to these small state senators by allowing them to filibuster and only be cut off by a 60 vote margin. That means that 21 small states, can block laws that the House, the President and 59 senators want to pass. No wonder that we can not pass effective solutions. The obstructionists only have to buy the votes of 41 small state senators.
gulsbyjag 3 years ago
whats the dogs breed? its cute
magicalme34 3 years ago
You are reading too much into the term "republic". A republic is a form of government with a collectively determined head of state. It doesn't have to install automatically an Electoral College.
JeanJaures85 3 years ago
dude, i did not understand what a word you said... so i'm going to watch the one with the how college works
kirsion 3 years ago
Ditch the electoral college.
It's a tedious, complicated, uber-confusing mess of a system that doesn't always work.
Samail666 3 years ago
It needs to stay, but I agree with you that each state needs to cast their electoral votes in the same was as Nebraska and Maine. It's all about statistics and sample sizes. The current system in place and using the popular vote would only be accurate if every-single person who could vote, voted, but we all know that never happens. The best way to determine what the country as a whole feels, we need to split electoral votes up.
hawaiitshirtman 3 years ago
It should STAY. If we went by popular vote, then all the big cities and big population states would control the elections. The vote of the individual person would mean nothing. The electoral college was not a mistake by the Founding Fathers, it was yet another sign of their genius.
cadborasaurus 3 years ago
What he said, the big cities wouldn't control that. Anyways more people live in the big cities.
SkitMan86 3 years ago
"more people live in the big cities", exactly, the big cities in the U.S. would control the election. Candidates would spend all their time there instead of focusing on America as a whole. The votes of the everyday individual would mean nothing. Nebraska and Maine need to change there way to the rest of the nation. Besides, not every state has "Congressional Districts", like my home state of Tennessee.
cadborasaurus 3 years ago
OH MY GOD l WANT TO KILL YOU
macarion 3 years ago
it should go
i dont want another motherf***er like bush
boygrego12 3 years ago
One of the reasons it was chosen is because candidates wouldn't spend time in states with large populations battling over every vote. Why bother with small states when you can get all those votes in FL and CA. The small population states would be left out.
Also, it was chosen because the republicans realized they are outnumbered, so they refused to budge from this. You can see that even today. The republican primary is still winnter-take-all, while the democratic primary is the popular vote.
StewieSwan 3 years ago
Its STUPID!!! I can't beleive how dumb it is... It should be straight forward.
mgenigma5 3 years ago
how can a country with no monarchy have a republic?
firekind1980 3 years ago
The Electoral college used to have a reason, back when the southern states vastly outpopulated the Northern states. Other factors, such as time, and distance between the states, made this a much easier process to undergo the election of a president. However, now with near instant communication, the electoral college serves no purpose. I fully agree, we should adopt Nebraska and Maine's laws of doing this, and work on ratifying the constitution later.
TenchiRyokoMuyo 3 years ago
Because we're NOT a "Democracy"...Idiot....We're a Republic. There is a difference.
PocketChalker 3 years ago 2
i wish the popular vote to be back
SergioRenatoReyes 3 years ago
aha, that IS a good idea!
sisforshayla 3 years ago
A by-district system would be a little like what Canada uses, and Canada has a great system. The difference is that in Canada, each district elects a local representative who's usually affiliated with a party, but it's still the party that wins the most districts wins the election.
Spazman173 3 years ago
i agree with doing what nebraska and maine do everywhere. i live in the only democratic district of a large republican state (austin texas), so technically my vote doesn't count, which sucks! i think that if we were to do something involving constituational ammendments, a system such as the australian voting system would be the ideal one.
our founding fathers didn't want the popular vote because they considered the regular citizens far too uneducated to make good choices in rulers.
amnesiameds 3 years ago
Your mom goes to the electoral college.
12caredee21 3 years ago
cool dog
1337ELiTe28 3 years ago
i agree.. cool dog..
SergioRenatoReyes 3 years ago
A)its a republic, not a democracy
B)when the electoral college was started, it was because information didnt travel as well as it does today, so now...its basically worthless.
C)9/11 was bushs fault? wtf...i can just as easily say it was clintons fault for just packing up and leaving iraq in the early 90's....which is exactly what barry sotoero(barack hussein osama's real name) would do.
D)HAHA--Ross Perot territory
wojoness 3 years ago
They're not mutually exclusive. The Republic of Ireland is a Democracy.
Being a Republic only denotes that a country is governed by a charter. Many Republics reserve the right to alter that charter as time goes on through democracy.
No Democracy is not a synonym of Republic but you're wrong to think they both can't exist at the same time! They can and do. i.e. the Republic of Ireland.
Shane72 3 years ago
Also many of your fellow country-people would strongly disagree with you saying America is not a Democracy. God, we hear Bush banging on about it enough when hes talking about Iraq no?
Shane72 3 years ago
He never said 9/11 was Bushs fault. He only stated his dislike for things that have happened during his time in office.
AirikaB 3 years ago
a) its a democratic republic, not a republic
avenueq14 3 years ago
Correction - its a representative republic. No where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence are the words 'democratic' or 'democracy'.
naughtypagan72 3 years ago
you are right, but since many steps have been taken to make america more democratic i consider it a "democratic republic" but yes, you are technically right
avenueq14 3 years ago
I think your 10 yearly? censuses make the problem of unequal votes even more unfair given the electoral college.
However,as a New Zealander,I have to say your election nights are far more exciting: your battleground states keep everyone guessing with their winner takes all philosophy. And politics needs all the fun (and participation) it can get.
Would love to see the US try MMP and the 7 parties we currently have in parliament. It's mayhem but it feels more like true population representation
suikodenz 3 years ago
Hi suikoden! As a fellow outsider I have to say I completely agree. Politics need to be exciting and the E.C. does allow for this (all be it in a slightly perverse way!) I've uploaded a video talking about proportional representation and how I feel it can be equally exciting in a more representative way.
Consider this a text bump* :p
Shane72 3 years ago
lol one of his tags is handsome
thebandz 3 years ago
OBAMA
1t2d3s4 3 years ago
I think we need a new constitutional convention.
mustsyfart2001 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuckin nerd stop making videos.
Archmetal06 3 years ago
I thinkthey should get rid of the eletorl vote because no one wants a bush again he won because his bro was the gov and they didnt know what happened in Florida
reyvshbktie 3 years ago
cute dog
9/11 HAPPENED BECAUSE BUSH WON THE ELECTION!
show of hands
i rest my case
nitch543 3 years ago 2
doggy
Xicon329 3 years ago
dog :)
smartgamer222 3 years ago 2
*cough* after September 11th President Bush's approval rate was 92 percent so don't say ALL of the past 8 years were bad because of him...
larie2 3 years ago
*cough* bush f'd up since 02 and now is the most unpopular president after WWII
mana2432 3 years ago
8888 view
friedcube 3 years ago
cute dog
haloandmariomaster04 3 years ago 3
i think they should split the electoral votes by congresional district also
mistert2324 3 years ago
can some1 help me i cant watch any videos it says download latest flash player i try and it doesnt work
yumyums12 3 years ago
dear Dan i just Subscribed to u your videos are awsome i liked the peeing in the shower one thats good see ya later Dan
xboxwarrior1234 3 years ago
while I see the purpose of the electoral college vote, I should say the founding fathers reasoning. I dont see any purpose for it now it sucks
bluedov69 3 years ago
That dog is nice :)
STAINILIIEY 3 years ago 3
I agree totally this is perhaps the largest flaw left to fix in our constitution I sometimes try to imagine what it would be like right now if Bush hadn't won and instead Kerry I picture it as a much more successful place a place where every country on the freaking planet doesn't hate our guts and think were all rednecks man I hate rednecks GRRRRRR x_X
picklesnorf101 3 years ago
lol it wouldn't be Kerry as president if the popular vote was the method we used it would be Al Gore, and that would be horrible!!
larie2 3 years ago
doubt it. Al Gore is way smarter than Bush, but he's a fucking pussy
21alt3go 3 years ago
Your pragmatic solution would be OK, but I think it will be hard to set up if it's not done on a federal level. If we just let the states each do it, they will be extremely reluctant to do that, because for instance doing it in New York would be a big advantage for the republicans, while doing it in Texas would favor the democrats.
Each state's leading party is therefore not likely to let that happen.
dekox 3 years ago
another homo with a dog, atleast you are some what attractive.
kthankxbye 3 years ago
love the dog :)
and yer i am studing the 1929's in history i want obama to win on a landside like roosevelt did over hoover.
samjames5 3 years ago
Why is everyone getting so uptight with politics?
Obviously the REAL point of this video was to show off the doggie.
nadehh 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck democrats
danielizzcoolio 3 years ago
The reason we don't use a popular vote is, in part, because a popular vote was impossible in the days of the founding fathers. Additionally, states currently run elections, not the federal government. A national popular vote would mean a massive shift in power in elections, and many people wouldn't like that. However, your solution is helpful and possible, and right now California is evaluating a bill to do just that.
generaleskimo 3 years ago
Love the song at the end! :D
parlhem1 3 years ago
The founding fathers were all privvy to the horrors of the popular voting in France at the time, hence the creation of a republic v. a pure democracy.
liljohnnotbigjohn 3 years ago
It should DEFINATELY GO! My family would vote for McCain but they know that living in NY (and overly Democratic state) it is a waste of time! However, if out votes went to an overall popular vote it WOULD be worth voting! All the commmercials about getting out and voting are pointless bc sadly most peoples votes arent heard bc the electoral college!
KevinWood44 3 years ago
Because we DO NOT live in a "democracy." LOOK at the Constitution - we are guaranteed a REPUBLIC. And we pledge allegiance "... to the Republic, of the United States of America."
rarelibra 3 years ago
We DO live in democracy (mob-rule). We DID have a Republic, but it's dead...
Look back at the Civil War, and you can see how 'withered' the Republic was. It's been dieing ever since the thought first came to our forefather's mind.
ConsularRevan 3 years ago