I dont want to hear about the smaller states not getting a fair shake. Those residents can move to a more populated state. There is a solution to every problem.
I messed up on here a while ago saying that 14 states passed laws requiring the person running fire president to win that state by popular vote only. It's actually 8 and 6 are on it's way. It will be a total of 170 electoral votes to ne won by popular vote. Hell, that should have been done decades ago.
@itsjustme2919 Well then let me point out the following fact: Except for 3 times the elected president also had the popular vote, one of those times was Bush Jr. Come again?
The electoral college hedges against tryanny by the majority and legitimizes the lower populated states forceing the government to represent them as well as population centers.
This is bull - I never voted for an ''elector'' in my life - although they are supposedly a voted in entity.. Our individual votes are basically worthless . My kid has fought in Iraq for a better system than we have in this corporate owned s**thole.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The Constitution does not include the winner-take-all rule.
Actually the analogies the video uses are kind of good, but not presented very well in terms of Constitutional/legal theory, history, etc. Just a bit too flippant and cutesy I think.
This video does a horrible job and doesn't even come close to explaining the electoral college. Put most simply, it's about a candidate having to win in the sovereign individual states (as opposed to the majority of the entire country as if there were no states). Remember, we are the United States after all. Easy to forget since the federal government has grown so far beyond its Constitutional authority and usurped so much power. People forget about states' sovereignty. The EC must stay.
The will of the people should be stronger than states' sovereignty, though. A lot more Democrats would vote in Nebraska (where I am from) and a lot more Republicans would vote in states like Vermont, where the presidential race is strongly Democrat. Participation is the cornerstone to representative democracy and we could better achieve it by eliminating the EC.
By your reasoning, there'd be no consideration given to the will of states' discrete constituenties whatsoever.
Your mistaken belief amounts to the dissolution of all states' sovereign character in the election of the president, in favor of a mob-mentality holding sway from coast to coast.
We were designed to be a federal republic, not a democracy; the will of the respective states must trump the will of the teeming mobs.
By my reasoning, the will of the people does trump the will of the states. It is your mistaken belief that everything the Founding Fathers said should still be relevant. I don't think Jefferson or Hamilton could ever have imagined the gun problem the U.S. currently has.Finally, I don't see how deciding the presidential election by simply the popular vote is a "mob mentality." The states have laws unique unto themselves. They can exercise their discrete wills in those laws.The Civil War is over.
People like you really should put more intellectual rigor into your positions, rather than simply reacting emotionally to issues such as this electoral college question, and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
An understanding of the need for Federalism is even more necessary today, because the Founders didn't have to contend with massive communist brainwashing of generations of Americans in the modern public schools & media.
You do not understand nor appreciate the reason for the electoral college. It is about individual states' exercising some degree of sovereignty in the process of electing the president, and protection of the less populated states from the vastly more populated states and cities. Otherwise, every President would be elected by only the liberal massive populations on both coasts and major cities, and those in the heartland would have no say whatsoever.
If most of the people are more liberal, then so be it. The EC does not protect minority constituencies, either. Bush would have won in 2004 regardless. In addition, it doesn't make any sense to have the highest office in the world go to someone who didn't win the popular vote (Bush in 2000); that's hardly "the will of the people."
Bottom line make it simple the majority rules. Should be simple for the Democratic liberals their good at getting voters one way or the other. Only thing I'm happy about is we still have 53 Million bible and gun totin folks in our country.
and this is why every vote doesn't count or matter.
Popular vote should determine the president. After all, he is representing EVERY person in the country.
This analogy "Because 51% of the stupid masses could decide one day that the other 49% of the masses should be executed. And that ain't cool" is stupid because it would never happen.
Smaller populated states aren't as important!? Are you kidding me? The president represents every individual in them, but they should valued less. Stupid.
You're not getting it. If it went by popular vote the less populated states would have even less of a vote. The electoral college was designed to give smaller states more of a say by giving them proportionately more votes then they'd have if you just went by the popular vote.
I think the reason why electoral votes were invented is because it give 'informed' and 'educated' voters more power. (Those who survive the hideous caucus circus to become delegates.) There votes matter more than the popular vote. Why? Because this is not a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." Why? Because democracies suck. Why? Because 51% of the stupid masses could decide one day that the other 49% of the masses should be executed. And that ain't cool.
Wrong. They were created to give the smaller states more of a say because if you just went by the popular vote you would only have to appeal to a few big states and you could totally disregard most of middle america. It's pretty simple really.
Ok prooc. I may be wrong about why electoral voting was invented. But I could have sworn I've read several times that the founding fathers did not want a straight democracy where 51% of the mob could vote the other 49% to death camps (for example) just because the 51% had the majority vote.
No, it was created as an incentive to get all of the lower populated states to join the human, by making their votes worth more and giving them more of a say.
Well, that's partly correct--and that principle is the very essence of federalism as opposed to pure democracy. A federal republic, which is what the Founders intended and designed (but has been corrupted by universal suffrage, amendments, etc.) does a better job of protecting minority constituencies and limiting powers. Too bad sheeple have been brainwashed into thinking that democracy is best; it is not.
Obama will bring change: WELCOME back the Clinton administration! In 4-to-8 yrs. it'll be: WELCOME back the remnants the Bush administration, which were culled from the remnants of the Reagan administration.
Other than that it might require years of political fellatio to push and round up support for such a measure and I wouldn't hold my breath on something like that actually becoming a reality!
If the electoral college is not seated by Senators or Representatives, Then who are these state appointed people? Are they Lawyers, Judges, Business Men & Women? Does anyone know? Can I be on the electoral college? The troubling part is that these people are NOT REQUIRED to vote as the majority in their state did. Unless you trust these APPOINTED people who you do not vote for and don't know, your vote for the president doesn't count for shit.
The voters elect the Electors. When we vote for this or that candidate, we actually vote for this or that party's block of electoral candidates in our respective states. The winning block then become their state's electors and cast their electoral ballots for their party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
Do you really want to disenfranchise low population states? Do you really think they would go along with such a change? BTW, America is not a democracy, it's never been a democracy, we don't WANT a democracy. America, is a Consitutional Republic!
I still don't agree with this indirect system of democracy. Why do we need electors to cast the vote on our behalf? Why do we need this arbitrary institution between the people and the president? If every eligible person votes and votes are counted in their entirety why is it that over a million votes need to be condensed into 538 (or 270)? These votes effect ALL of America. ALL individual votes should count, not just the "swing states" and the more populous ones.
Two problems with that: 1) enough people like the EC to keep it in place, and 2) what few would-be reformers there are can't agree on reforms. Some want direct popular vote while others prefer a reformed EC.
The real problem with the Florida recount in 2000 wasn't the hanging chads and butterfly ballots but something more abstract - the winner-take all rule which awarded all 25 Florida electors to Bush.
ME and NE choose their electors differently - only two statewide, the rest by congressional district. If FL had this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 electors at stake. Bush would have received only 14 electors when he needed 24 to win. Gore would have won the election.
Who said anything about "for any one candidate"? It should be altered to break up the winner-take-all racket and let each local district in the final count, rather than let a statewide majority masquerade as a unanimity.
Lord, Without the EC, small population states would be captives in a system in which they have no say. We need to strengthen our original Federalist system, not finnish it off.
Why do we need this election system if we already count every vote anyway? I mean seriously, is it not obvious that determining who is elected by the total number of votes is a better system then our "Electoral College" system?
...and where was all this in the constitution? The electoral college is essentially another method of gerrymandering, in which politicians get to decide if your vote is worth a whole vote, or 5/8 of a vote.
StinkFingerr, txgiorgi, and Minionuup! Thank you! You guys actually comprehend the reason we have this. It was refreshing to read three intelligent comments in a row! Too bad so many people have their heads in the clouds with the assumption that the popular vote makes sense. Sure it sounds fair in essence but when you factor in everything else, you can see why the electoral college is far more fair to the entire nation.
One way to look at how the popular vote is actually unfair is to study "group think". On a scale of say, LA(CA)and New York, the lifestyles alone, being influenced by hollywood, MTV, Saturday Night Live, and the like, would lean heavily to one side. We all know what side that is. Two states consisting of a large populace being brainwashed by the media would decide everything!
The discussion is valuable for educating people that by adopting a winner takes all policy for each state individually, instead of nationally, each state counts as one. It would be nice if at least on senator from each state were elected by their respective legislatures. People would find that the interests of their states were better attended.
What the idiots don't realize is that it balances power. Worse is that if you change the rules the politicians will simply change the way they campaign. The outcome will not change. What do you expect from a generation that can't balance a check book but knows how to put a condom on a cucumber?
The Electoral college brilliantly balences regional representation with numerical representation. Without it, the people in lower population states, would have no voice.
Here's my explanation. It also gives rich old guys the power to flush 1,000,000+ votes down the toilet. It's a really out dated and old school way of doing things. Funny how the laws designed to keep the elite rolling stay around from the 1700's. While the laws and rights for peasants are ever changing.
The main problem with the electoral college is the people that represent your district are supposed to vote the way their area dictates. But they don't have to. Which means an electoral vote may not go the way the disrict wants it to. Which is bullshit.
the districts are idiots old people who like to feel they have control but they're ignorant. we can't leave it to ignorant people. we leave decisions to the best people. a lot of stupid people votes = a fail country. we only need few smart people
But we live in a Republican Democracy not just a Republic. I agree that most of the public is misinformed but if any vote is neglected then every vote might as well be. When we start distinguishing whose vote doesn't matter anymore we start distinguishing who doesn't matter and that just leads to facism.
Thanks to the Big Two's winner-take-all racket, the electors in 48 states (and DC) represent the state as a whole, not any one district. Thus, they justify their collective vote for their party's candidate as "that's what the people of the state want." Any district which voted another way - including for third party candidates - is shut out altogether from the final tally. It's why the Democrats never called for electoral reform after the 2000 Fiasco. Recounts, yes, but never reform.
In ME and NE they do it differently. They choose their electors the same way as their senators and congressmen - only two statewide, the rest by district.
If FL did this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 of that state's electors on the line instead of all 25. Bush would have received 14 of those electors when he needed 24 to win.
..and given what Bush has done to this country over the last 8 years that is every reason why the EC should be abolished, or at the very least reformed!
I think it is safe to say that something like that would be an expensive & seemingly never ending pain in the ass, just like the last time it happened, in Florida in 2000!!
I hate to admit this, but it would in the long run be quite beneficial to our country. Maybe if Obama wins Florida by a nose hair, essentially repeating the 2000 fiasco, it will happen!
I still don't get how it's more fair. I don't understand how the majority of a population can vote one way but still lose because some rich old white men want someone else. Why should we even vote if our votes don't really count in the end?
The electoral college is good because it allows for the states to be represented equally based on population. If you use popular vote then there is a chance that one state may be overrepresented. The electoral college is about giving each state fair say in who becomes president. Also the electoral college was created to balance power. The people have a say in who they want but not complete power. The citizens must be represented by a group of people from their state, the electoral college.
I see what you're saying but the electoral college still doesn't make any sense to me. State lines should have nothing to do with what the nation wants as a whole. Who cares what state you live in when you are voting for something national. You mentioned a need for the balance of power, but what power is it that needs to be balanced? I just don't understand. If 10 people want something and 1 person doesn't what difference does it make where they all live?
Ok let's work with small numbers for simplicity. Say one state has 25 registered liberal voting citizens and 30 registerd conservative voting citizens and a total of 120 citizens. 20 liberals and 19 conservatives vote respective to their political views. The state's electoral votes would be for the Democrat. These small numbers would not effect the election that much if popular vote is used, but since every electoral vote is important the state has fair say.
Most state's citizens have the same beliefs, but sometimes not everyone can make it to the polls. The electoral college accounts for this. This is the balancing of power I was speaking about earlier. A popular vote does not necessarily reflect the true view of the country because of people who don't vote, but if they would have would've voted against the popular vote.
It shouldnt be about the states, it should be about the PEOPLE. The people are the ones voting, not the states. Were voting for the PRESIDENT, and not a local mayor. With the electoral college, my vote doesnt really count. If it does, ask the 543,895 more people that voted for Gore and got there voted flushed down the toilet. That wasnt the only time something this screwed up happened with the electoral college. If that is even a possibility for the electoral college, the system is a FAILURE
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. It is somewhat complicated, but people need to make the effort to learn how it works. We are not obligated to satisfy the whimsy of the rest of the world by adopting a system that they approve of.
Unfortunately, the EC as a subject comes up only during presidential elections, and even then only among the mildly interested. Nothing short of another Florida-type fiasco within the next 20 years will force the spotlight onto it.
The electoral college is the biggest joke in our government. Something so obviously outdated should be removed. A popular vote is how president's should be elected.
Does not have to, but the electors are usually big supporters of the candidate they represent on the ballot. When you vote for a democrat you are voting for Democratic electors and when you vote Republican you are voting for Republican electors. They very rarely don't vote along party lines.
You are correct. The winner of the popular vote "very rarely" loses the election, but it DOES happen. John Q. Adams (1888), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) all LOST the election based on the popular vote, but WON thanks to the electoral college.
It's good to know that my vote almost always counts.
I didn't want Al Gore in the high seat for anything but you can bet that I was still quite pissed when he lost the election due to the electoral college. It makes no sense. The electoral college is basically dictating where you have to live if you want your vote to count. When it comes to something we vote on as a nation it should simply be who is for this person and who is for that person. The electoral collge makes no sense.
This has been flagged as spam show
very well explained. ty
lovelplants 3 weeks ago
The electoral is gay and anti-democratic.
Atheist2006 5 months ago
if this is adopted,get set to listen to Trump's inaugural speech.He can win a three way race with this system.
ImDavidGurney 8 months ago
I dont want to hear about the smaller states not getting a fair shake. Those residents can move to a more populated state. There is a solution to every problem.
WilliamHCarney 8 months ago
I messed up on here a while ago saying that 14 states passed laws requiring the person running fire president to win that state by popular vote only. It's actually 8 and 6 are on it's way. It will be a total of 170 electoral votes to ne won by popular vote. Hell, that should have been done decades ago.
WilliamHCarney 8 months ago
@BudmaudeY oh its been studied, or i wouldnt have mentioned it nor wrote a 10 page thesis on it or hell even bothered getting a degree in it.
itsjustme2919 10 months ago
@BudmaudeY Well, All I am saying is history repeats itself. As a history major I would know.
itsjustme2919 10 months ago
yes. I thought it was stupid, until someone actually pointed this out to me:
Hitler, elected by popular vote
Napolean III, popular vote
Mussolini, popular vote
Chavez, popular vote
this is how dictators come to power, then go too far.
itsjustme2919 1 year ago
@itsjustme2919 Well then let me point out the following fact: Except for 3 times the elected president also had the popular vote, one of those times was Bush Jr. Come again?
esdenaze 8 months ago
@itsjustme2919 Thank god for sombody else with a brain
The electoral college hedges against tryanny by the majority and legitimizes the lower populated states forceing the government to represent them as well as population centers.
MikeJGallagherJr 1 month ago
The electoral college helps retard the develpment of factional/fringe parties.
The benefits of the system may not be seen in any one election, but are manifest over time.
thestalkinghorse 1 year ago
This is bull - I never voted for an ''elector'' in my life - although they are supposedly a voted in entity.. Our individual votes are basically worthless . My kid has fought in Iraq for a better system than we have in this corporate owned s**thole.
mara235 1 year ago
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The Constitution does not include the winner-take-all rule.
mvymvymvy 2 years ago
Actually the analogies the video uses are kind of good, but not presented very well in terms of Constitutional/legal theory, history, etc. Just a bit too flippant and cutesy I think.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
This video does a horrible job and doesn't even come close to explaining the electoral college. Put most simply, it's about a candidate having to win in the sovereign individual states (as opposed to the majority of the entire country as if there were no states). Remember, we are the United States after all. Easy to forget since the federal government has grown so far beyond its Constitutional authority and usurped so much power. People forget about states' sovereignty. The EC must stay.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
The will of the people should be stronger than states' sovereignty, though. A lot more Democrats would vote in Nebraska (where I am from) and a lot more Republicans would vote in states like Vermont, where the presidential race is strongly Democrat. Participation is the cornerstone to representative democracy and we could better achieve it by eliminating the EC.
djamo1969 2 years ago
By your reasoning, there'd be no consideration given to the will of states' discrete constituenties whatsoever.
Your mistaken belief amounts to the dissolution of all states' sovereign character in the election of the president, in favor of a mob-mentality holding sway from coast to coast.
We were designed to be a federal republic, not a democracy; the will of the respective states must trump the will of the teeming mobs.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
By my reasoning, the will of the people does trump the will of the states. It is your mistaken belief that everything the Founding Fathers said should still be relevant. I don't think Jefferson or Hamilton could ever have imagined the gun problem the U.S. currently has.Finally, I don't see how deciding the presidential election by simply the popular vote is a "mob mentality." The states have laws unique unto themselves. They can exercise their discrete wills in those laws.The Civil War is over.
djamo1969 2 years ago
Try John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."
People like you really should put more intellectual rigor into your positions, rather than simply reacting emotionally to issues such as this electoral college question, and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
An understanding of the need for Federalism is even more necessary today, because the Founders didn't have to contend with massive communist brainwashing of generations of Americans in the modern public schools & media.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
shouldnt even be an electoral college vote . just a popular so it is just the people who have the say not who they choose to have the say.
grizz11952001 3 years ago
You do not understand nor appreciate the reason for the electoral college. It is about individual states' exercising some degree of sovereignty in the process of electing the president, and protection of the less populated states from the vastly more populated states and cities. Otherwise, every President would be elected by only the liberal massive populations on both coasts and major cities, and those in the heartland would have no say whatsoever.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
If most of the people are more liberal, then so be it. The EC does not protect minority constituencies, either. Bush would have won in 2004 regardless. In addition, it doesn't make any sense to have the highest office in the world go to someone who didn't win the popular vote (Bush in 2000); that's hardly "the will of the people."
djamo1969 2 years ago
Comment removed
xtremetrooper123 3 years ago
Partially it does.
prooc 3 years ago
No.
macarion 3 years ago
A straight democracy is two wolves & a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
Bottom line make it simple the majority rules. Should be simple for the Democratic liberals their good at getting voters one way or the other. Only thing I'm happy about is we still have 53 Million bible and gun totin folks in our country.
imissyesterday 3 years ago
Yean by registering peole that don't exist through acorn.
prooc 3 years ago
and this is why every vote doesn't count or matter.
Popular vote should determine the president. After all, he is representing EVERY person in the country.
This analogy "Because 51% of the stupid masses could decide one day that the other 49% of the masses should be executed. And that ain't cool" is stupid because it would never happen.
Smaller populated states aren't as important!? Are you kidding me? The president represents every individual in them, but they should valued less. Stupid.
toddghall 3 years ago
You're not getting it. If it went by popular vote the less populated states would have even less of a vote. The electoral college was designed to give smaller states more of a say by giving them proportionately more votes then they'd have if you just went by the popular vote.
prooc 3 years ago 2
Right, and that's retarded.
macarion 3 years ago
It shouldnt be about the states. It should be about the PEOPLE.
tatomuck18 1 year ago
I think the reason why electoral votes were invented is because it give 'informed' and 'educated' voters more power. (Those who survive the hideous caucus circus to become delegates.) There votes matter more than the popular vote. Why? Because this is not a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." Why? Because democracies suck. Why? Because 51% of the stupid masses could decide one day that the other 49% of the masses should be executed. And that ain't cool.
heydanno777 3 years ago 2
Wrong. They were created to give the smaller states more of a say because if you just went by the popular vote you would only have to appeal to a few big states and you could totally disregard most of middle america. It's pretty simple really.
prooc 3 years ago
Ok prooc. I may be wrong about why electoral voting was invented. But I could have sworn I've read several times that the founding fathers did not want a straight democracy where 51% of the mob could vote the other 49% to death camps (for example) just because the 51% had the majority vote.
heydanno777 3 years ago
No, it was created as an incentive to get all of the lower populated states to join the human, by making their votes worth more and giving them more of a say.
prooc 3 years ago
I meant to join the republic.
prooc 3 years ago
Well, that's partly correct--and that principle is the very essence of federalism as opposed to pure democracy. A federal republic, which is what the Founders intended and designed (but has been corrupted by universal suffrage, amendments, etc.) does a better job of protecting minority constituencies and limiting powers. Too bad sheeple have been brainwashed into thinking that democracy is best; it is not.
philosopheromone 2 years ago
@prooc What's wrong with that? It makes perfect sense to appeal to the more populated areas.
radomu1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama will bring change: WELCOME back the Clinton administration! In 4-to-8 yrs. it'll be: WELCOME back the remnants the Bush administration, which were culled from the remnants of the Reagan administration.
procommenter 3 years ago
If the people say they want Lassie to be President the Electoral college tells them no democracy today, try again?
part2themovie 3 years ago
Fake! We haven't even used an electoral college since the 1700's. Nice try though.
salamon1080 3 years ago
the last election Gore and bush..i think..gore won the popular vote but lost to Bush by electoral votes..
animefrik111 3 years ago
Other than that it might require years of political fellatio to push and round up support for such a measure and I wouldn't hold my breath on something like that actually becoming a reality!
SpookeyR 3 years ago
If the electoral college is not seated by Senators or Representatives, Then who are these state appointed people? Are they Lawyers, Judges, Business Men & Women? Does anyone know? Can I be on the electoral college? The troubling part is that these people are NOT REQUIRED to vote as the majority in their state did. Unless you trust these APPOINTED people who you do not vote for and don't know, your vote for the president doesn't count for shit.
DamonShivers83 3 years ago
DamonShivers83 ,
The voters elect the Electors. When we vote for this or that candidate, we actually vote for this or that party's block of electoral candidates in our respective states. The winning block then become their state's electors and cast their electoral ballots for their party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Do you really want to disenfranchise low population states? Do you really think they would go along with such a change? BTW, America is not a democracy, it's never been a democracy, we don't WANT a democracy. America, is a Consitutional Republic!
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
I still don't agree with this indirect system of democracy. Why do we need electors to cast the vote on our behalf? Why do we need this arbitrary institution between the people and the president? If every eligible person votes and votes are counted in their entirety why is it that over a million votes need to be condensed into 538 (or 270)? These votes effect ALL of America. ALL individual votes should count, not just the "swing states" and the more populous ones.
daitlist 3 years ago
daitlist,
Two problems with that: 1) enough people like the EC to keep it in place, and 2) what few would-be reformers there are can't agree on reforms. Some want direct popular vote while others prefer a reformed EC.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
The real problem with the Florida recount in 2000 wasn't the hanging chads and butterfly ballots but something more abstract - the winner-take all rule which awarded all 25 Florida electors to Bush.
ME and NE choose their electors differently - only two statewide, the rest by congressional district. If FL had this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 electors at stake. Bush would have received only 14 electors when he needed 24 to win. Gore would have won the election.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
We, cannot alter the EC, for any one candidate. Next time it might very well work to your disadvantage.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
Who said anything about "for any one candidate"? It should be altered to break up the winner-take-all racket and let each local district in the final count, rather than let a statewide majority masquerade as a unanimity.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Lord, Without the EC, small population states would be captives in a system in which they have no say. We need to strengthen our original Federalist system, not finnish it off.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago 2
ha ha Finnish it off, bileet bileet, lasten bileet
HighestRank 3 years ago
Why do we need this election system if we already count every vote anyway? I mean seriously, is it not obvious that determining who is elected by the total number of votes is a better system then our "Electoral College" system?
LordVindicator 3 years ago
hhhhhhhhhhh good
swixeeeeeeeeee 3 years ago
po q isso vou fica bom tempo sem ve essse video chato
rexterro 3 years ago
ingenious explanatory mechanism.
MThoughts 3 years ago
...and where was all this in the constitution? The electoral college is essentially another method of gerrymandering, in which politicians get to decide if your vote is worth a whole vote, or 5/8 of a vote.
NihilistImp 3 years ago
NihilistImp,
It's right there in the 12 Amendment.
There's nothing wrong with the EC per se. It's the winner-take-all racket by which the Big Two hijacked it that's the problem.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Aaron is friggin hot!
kthankxbye 3 years ago
StinkFingerr, txgiorgi, and Minionuup! Thank you! You guys actually comprehend the reason we have this. It was refreshing to read three intelligent comments in a row! Too bad so many people have their heads in the clouds with the assumption that the popular vote makes sense. Sure it sounds fair in essence but when you factor in everything else, you can see why the electoral college is far more fair to the entire nation.
accountsuck2 3 years ago
One way to look at how the popular vote is actually unfair is to study "group think". On a scale of say, LA(CA)and New York, the lifestyles alone, being influenced by hollywood, MTV, Saturday Night Live, and the like, would lean heavily to one side. We all know what side that is. Two states consisting of a large populace being brainwashed by the media would decide everything!
accountsuck2 3 years ago
The discussion is valuable for educating people that by adopting a winner takes all policy for each state individually, instead of nationally, each state counts as one. It would be nice if at least on senator from each state were elected by their respective legislatures. People would find that the interests of their states were better attended.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
What the idiots don't realize is that it balances power. Worse is that if you change the rules the politicians will simply change the way they campaign. The outcome will not change. What do you expect from a generation that can't balance a check book but knows how to put a condom on a cucumber?
They don't know their own history. How sad.
txgiorgi 3 years ago
Yeah lets get rid of the elctoral. Then NYC and LA can decide who the president will be every election.
Oh maybe now we can have an explanation of how the democratic party's "super delegate" thingy works?
Minionuup 3 years ago
The Electoral college brilliantly balences regional representation with numerical representation. Without it, the people in lower population states, would have no voice.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
Corr:balances...
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
if everybody vote would count individually, everybody would count the same. sounds better to me
gouw2 3 years ago
That's just it. They wouldn't.
StinkFingerr 3 years ago
explain
gouw2 3 years ago
Absolutely true.
TriGurHaPpY 3 years ago
this is terrible, I think it's always been a bad idea
EACH VOTE SHOULD BE COUNTED!!
screw the entire electoral system.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON DESERVES TO BE COUNTED
not thrown out.
please people, back me up.
POPULAR VOTE FTW YO!!
sockmonkey111555 3 years ago 2
Here's my explanation. It also gives rich old guys the power to flush 1,000,000+ votes down the toilet. It's a really out dated and old school way of doing things. Funny how the laws designed to keep the elite rolling stay around from the 1700's. While the laws and rights for peasants are ever changing.
bigbirdddd 3 years ago
The main problem with the electoral college is the people that represent your district are supposed to vote the way their area dictates. But they don't have to. Which means an electoral vote may not go the way the disrict wants it to. Which is bullshit.
mgalusic 3 years ago
the districts are idiots old people who like to feel they have control but they're ignorant. we can't leave it to ignorant people. we leave decisions to the best people. a lot of stupid people votes = a fail country. we only need few smart people
tommy407 3 years ago
But we live in a Republican Democracy not just a Republic. I agree that most of the public is misinformed but if any vote is neglected then every vote might as well be. When we start distinguishing whose vote doesn't matter anymore we start distinguishing who doesn't matter and that just leads to facism.
mgalusic 3 years ago
Thanks to the Big Two's winner-take-all racket, the electors in 48 states (and DC) represent the state as a whole, not any one district. Thus, they justify their collective vote for their party's candidate as "that's what the people of the state want." Any district which voted another way - including for third party candidates - is shut out altogether from the final tally. It's why the Democrats never called for electoral reform after the 2000 Fiasco. Recounts, yes, but never reform.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
And that just seems like a terrible system to me.
mgalusic 3 years ago 2
To me, too.
In ME and NE they do it differently. They choose their electors the same way as their senators and congressmen - only two statewide, the rest by district.
If FL did this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 of that state's electors on the line instead of all 25. Bush would have received 14 of those electors when he needed 24 to win.
In short, Gore would have won the election.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago 2
..and given what Bush has done to this country over the last 8 years that is every reason why the EC should be abolished, or at the very least reformed!
SpookeyR 3 years ago
Unfortunately, only another Florida-type fiasco will force the public to think hard about the EC.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
I think it is safe to say that something like that would be an expensive & seemingly never ending pain in the ass, just like the last time it happened, in Florida in 2000!!
I hate to admit this, but it would in the long run be quite beneficial to our country. Maybe if Obama wins Florida by a nose hair, essentially repeating the 2000 fiasco, it will happen!
SpookeyR 3 years ago
Well, there's always hope.
;-)
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
I still don't get how it's more fair. I don't understand how the majority of a population can vote one way but still lose because some rich old white men want someone else. Why should we even vote if our votes don't really count in the end?
rubyjeangreenbean 3 years ago
The electoral college is good because it allows for the states to be represented equally based on population. If you use popular vote then there is a chance that one state may be overrepresented. The electoral college is about giving each state fair say in who becomes president. Also the electoral college was created to balance power. The people have a say in who they want but not complete power. The citizens must be represented by a group of people from their state, the electoral college.
KeithS4789 3 years ago 2
I see what you're saying but the electoral college still doesn't make any sense to me. State lines should have nothing to do with what the nation wants as a whole. Who cares what state you live in when you are voting for something national. You mentioned a need for the balance of power, but what power is it that needs to be balanced? I just don't understand. If 10 people want something and 1 person doesn't what difference does it make where they all live?
anooseholay 3 years ago
anooseholay,
There's nothing wrong with the EC per se. It's the winner-take-all racket by which the Big Two hijacked it that's the problem.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Ok let's work with small numbers for simplicity. Say one state has 25 registered liberal voting citizens and 30 registerd conservative voting citizens and a total of 120 citizens. 20 liberals and 19 conservatives vote respective to their political views. The state's electoral votes would be for the Democrat. These small numbers would not effect the election that much if popular vote is used, but since every electoral vote is important the state has fair say.
KeithS4789 3 years ago
Most state's citizens have the same beliefs, but sometimes not everyone can make it to the polls. The electoral college accounts for this. This is the balancing of power I was speaking about earlier. A popular vote does not necessarily reflect the true view of the country because of people who don't vote, but if they would have would've voted against the popular vote.
KeithS4789 3 years ago
It shouldnt be about the states, it should be about the PEOPLE. The people are the ones voting, not the states. Were voting for the PRESIDENT, and not a local mayor. With the electoral college, my vote doesnt really count. If it does, ask the 543,895 more people that voted for Gore and got there voted flushed down the toilet. That wasnt the only time something this screwed up happened with the electoral college. If that is even a possibility for the electoral college, the system is a FAILURE
tatomuck18 1 year ago
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. It is somewhat complicated, but people need to make the effort to learn how it works. We are not obligated to satisfy the whimsy of the rest of the world by adopting a system that they approve of.
koriko88 3 years ago
koriko88,
Unfortunately, the EC as a subject comes up only during presidential elections, and even then only among the mildly interested. Nothing short of another Florida-type fiasco within the next 20 years will force the spotlight onto it.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
I'm fine with that; I don't need to hear about the EC every four years to know what it is. If people don't learn about it, then it's their own fault.
koriko88 3 years ago
The electoral college is the biggest joke in our government. Something so obviously outdated should be removed. A popular vote is how president's should be elected.
blis102 3 years ago 2
You left out the part where the electoral college DOES NOT have to vote based on the popular vote for their state.
davidmoore714 3 years ago 10
Does not have to, but the electors are usually big supporters of the candidate they represent on the ballot. When you vote for a democrat you are voting for Democratic electors and when you vote Republican you are voting for Republican electors. They very rarely don't vote along party lines.
Famder463 3 years ago
You are correct. The winner of the popular vote "very rarely" loses the election, but it DOES happen. John Q. Adams (1888), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) all LOST the election based on the popular vote, but WON thanks to the electoral college.
It's good to know that my vote almost always counts.
davidmoore714 3 years ago
I didn't want Al Gore in the high seat for anything but you can bet that I was still quite pissed when he lost the election due to the electoral college. It makes no sense. The electoral college is basically dictating where you have to live if you want your vote to count. When it comes to something we vote on as a nation it should simply be who is for this person and who is for that person. The electoral collge makes no sense.
anooseholay 3 years ago
Well done!! Funny and informative, btw just like my office :)
begeto 3 years ago
very well explained.. and lol at the "or withhold your paycheck" haha.. she was cute too.
hotgqpixcy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sub 4 sub!!!
PhuckLyfe 3 years ago
best of the ones i've seen so far.
bluelightingguy 3 years ago
Accounting deserves an Oscar.
Maggart5 3 years ago