Electoral College Documentary

[jkillah999]

~T.R.I.N.~

[jkillah999]

Wow, now that was suprising. Who knew that so many people didn't know what the electoral college was or its function. People would assume at first glance that i would be the one who didn't know, but thats because the american public are assholes. The "powers that be" would never leave the final decision for the presidency to the public. Do sheep choose their sheperd? The public doesn't give a damn about globalization, but a potential presidential candidate had better....if he wants the job.

[WilliamHCarney]

Fuck that. We should use the Popular Vote. For the people by the people. EXACTLY what it says. I understand the 3 forms of government, the amendments, the articles, foreign policy, etc. The electoral college is old news. Like I've been telling people for years. Life in all areas is chabgung so you better learn to change with it.

[shamrock0515]

if we left it up the the popular vote we would have the Jersey Shore cast in the white house. I think most people lack the competence in deciding which candidate is the best for for office of President of the United States. I agree with the electoral college

[HiawathaMohawk]

What's wrong with these people, is everyone in America retarded? The electoral college today in America is secretive and the elector's hide in the shadows. Who are these electors this is what we need to know, so they can be held accountable.You'd have to be crazy to let these retards decide the fate of America. If you don't know what the electoral college is or what the "Bill of Rights" are you can't vote. Also only property owners can vote and only natural born Americans, so Obama couldn't vote

[radomu1]

What's the point of organizing presidential elections into regions (states)? How on earth is it right that someone living in Maine has any voting advantage over someone in California? It's ridiculous.

[whitehousesvc729]

This video is dead.

Let's revive the comments! =D

[sniped101]

lol.. this is sad.

[Slipknotyk06]

If you want to correct the Electoral College, get rid of the winner-take-all states. That one bit both Gore, and Kerry in the ass. It also is part of the reason for how substantial McCain's loss was.

I'm expecting Republicans to take most states west of the mississippi in 2012. NM, CA, OR and WA are the only exceptions. the midwest will be divided. (IN, ND, SD, IA, MO will be red, with the rest blue.) New England will be majority blue. The south will be entirely red, as usual.

[bonncaruso]

Nice quick documentary. For all of it's shortcomings, I said, mend it, don't end it, just as Larry Sabato recommends in his book "A more Perfect Constitution". The EC discourages the splintering of our system into many small parties, which has both advantages and disadvantages. What I would like to see, however, would be a reapportionment of the EC, with 1000 electors, based only on the census data. That would mean that 501 is needed to win.

[mvymvymvy]

In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

NationalPopularVote

[unclejay1000]

You missed the point by a mile.. The electoral was set up to represent by population. As slaves and women were not alowed to vote states with greater number of people were given more electoral votes. When women and blacks finally were given the right to vote the college in theory was no longer necessary. So in a way power was NOT given to the general population and we STLLl have the college.

[skud99999]

Wake up people...government almost NEVER retract policies, bills or laws no matter stupid or irrelevant they are. For example:

- Alabama:

1. It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.

- Alaska:

1. It is illegal to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

- California:

1. Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of water.

Google "stupid laws" there's a brazillion of them.

[MrsChelseyPrice]

does it matter if I like the electoral college??

[BigChiefMike]

the electoral college is the stupidest thing i've ever heard of. they even said that the electors don't have to vote the way the majority of the people in their state do. so we basically hand in our right to vote and let a hand full of people decide.

change to popular vote!!!!!

[NitPickyWorryWart]

Use your heads for something besides a hat-rack, folks!! 80.8% of the US pop is in the cities and suburbs. National Popular Vote would allow 6 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA) to decide ALL presidential elections, THE OTHER 44 STATES BE DAMNED. Those 6 have 123 MILLION population & at 60% voting, more than enough to carry ANY election. THAT'S FAIR?? Under Electoral College they have 189 EC votes (70% needed). Under EC smaller states at least have a chance their voices will be heard. KEEP THE EC!

[prooc]

Your right and if you follow the logic of these idiots then there should be no need for each state to have to senators each because that isn't based on the population either. By their logic California should have ten senators to Wyoming's one.

[VINVEEZY]

IF THE PEOPLE PICKED THEN ALL U WOULD NEED IS someone such as 50 cent or akon or someone famous to win the domb ass and their u go u won the vote. the goverment know ALL the facts. the people should not be trusted yet. i hope that soon people will wise up and research their shit not just by what TV tells ya.ya no

[ycipressi]

If it has no use it should be dissolved. In our time of great financial difficulty anything that is not effective should be bagged. It is outdated and most people agree that it's time has passed.

[josephdupont]

so how do we get rid of it?

what is the purpose.

[cneyr]

It's probably been said, but If we switch to a Popular vote, then New York, San Fransisco, Los Angeles, and Atlanta would decide the President, and the candidates would spend their time there, as opposed to having to go all over to get their college elections.

[macarion]

Yeah, because Wyoming was the center of this election, right? All the candidates were gunning for Wyoming. All those voices in Wyoming sure were heard.

Suck my cock.

[DamonShivers83]

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 did not vote in your vote for the president doesn't count for shit.

[NitPickyWorryWart]

Could be anyone, even you or me. Get your political party to consider you. When the votes are counted, the state winner has HIS electors represent the state at the national level. That's why the electors generally don't "jump the ship" and vote for someone else - they are loyal to their candidate that was elected in the state election. P.S.> Senators and Reps are BANNED from being electors by the Constitution. Except for a few states (2 or 3) electors ARE REQUIRED to vote as their state did.

[kakaduck2]

Electoral college is alright because it makes sure election is geographically balanced.

Just get rid of the part where they give all states an extra 2 electoral votes for their senators. The way it currently works people in Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota and other small states get votes worth 2 to 3 times that of people in the rest of the Country and that's BS.

[RoninTXBR549]

Another way of looking at the Electoral College is this... SUPPOSE we only used the popular vote, and a given election was decided by only 5,000 votes in 49 states all for candidate "A", but was decided by 500,000 votes in TX for candidate "B"... Should TX politics and social values get to decide who will preside over all 50 states? The Electoral College ensures balanced voting representation for populace + states. And, it's usually the losing party or those who don't understand that complain.

[WhiteCamry]

Both the Big Two parties understand the EC very well. They hijacked it with the winner-take-all racket in 48 states and DC, with the added benefit of locking out third parties. It was the real cause of the fiasco that was the 2000 recount.

If in 2000 FL chose their electors like in ME and NE (2 statewide, the rest by district)then 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.

[CaptainCarthex]

@RoninTXBR549 Suppose lots of people had an opinion about how the election should go, say, enough members of the other states such that the texans wouldn't have won in this particular example, but not enough of them actually went to the poll to vote. Should those voters have a right to complain about TX politics and social values getting to preside over all 50 states if they didn't even try to vote against it?

[RoninTXBR549]

The Electoral College gives balance to the system. Follow me here... Each state has 2 senators giving each state equal voting power in the senate. Each state has one house rep. per 650,000-700,000 residents, giving voting power to the populace. Each state gets an electoral vote for every senator and house rep. So, the electoral college is a combined representation of House/Senate representation. This keeps the mass populace of CA, NY from skewing elections left, or TX, FL from skewing it right.

[animefrik111]

so who can vote for electoral college??...

[NitPickyWorryWart]

Actually, you first have to graduate Electoral Prep School. LOL

[My1Vote]

I'm Voting on November 4th for the first time ever. "If you don't participate in politics, politics will participate in your life in a most disagreeable way".

[rrhynes]

I don't believe the Founding Father's envisioned the world we live in today. It's a great question to ponder, but why would they have discouraged it. Did they envision all the nonsense about the chosing of delegates? I doubt it. Let's face the facts, it's an inconsistent mess.

[rrhynes]

As far as "minorities" and special interest groups being represented, their votes shouldn't count any more or less than anyone else's. You'll never have a free America as long as you continue to give special treatment to certain races, religions or colors.

[Policritic]

It's not about vote weighting, it's about uniting disparate parts of the country into one voice. This is not intuitive to people who think direct democracy was the Founding Father's intent.

[rrhynes]

I can't imagine why we would need such a system in this day and age. Each state is represented by their senators and representatives on a continual basis. Teh EC won't go away until our youth discover how utterly useless and skewed it really is and make a conscious decision to end it.

[proctors3099]

The electoral college is a safeguard against the people idiotically electing some charlatan for President. It's not about being useful or helpful, it's an insurance measure by the founders against mob rule. The country was founded by the gentlemen elite, and at the time, only property owners could vote in the first place, so they didn't even trust the property owners, let alone the teeming masses of simple workers! My guess is that the founders would still want this insurance measure in place.

[reignJesus]

Though it may have served a other purposes in the past, the Electoral College still provides the states representation according to the total number of representatives and senators it sends to Congress. This is especially important to the smaller states, which agreed to becoming part of a "united states" as long as this amplification of their voting powers was provided for so as not to be overwhelmed by the larger states. Its unlikely a sweeping move towards a direct popular vote would pass.

[Policritic]

But these 50 states' voters must unite behind one president. If they cannot, they demand secession. Happens all the time.

[strappinggermanlad]

well it was useful back then, but i bet the founding fathers wouldve gone with popular vote, if it would have been possible.

They are probably pretty disappointed watching this from heaven ^^

[flylike1]

it was useful then because the people that voted were mostly uninformed...the same reason the founding fathers with their astounding knowledge didnt allow men that didn't own land or women to vote. the founding fathers seem to be the "safe" choice when it comes to debates. but the constitution is merely a guideline, a guideline which can be amended, especially when it's outdated. the lack of popular vote in a country where every adult can legally vote is rediculous

[Policritic]

Not at all. It works just as they had hoped. They would be disconcerted, though, by all these people who seem antagonistic to the results of their intended system of representative democracy.

[strappinggermanlad]

that maybe... but comon... whats really better about it? the electors where once supposed to make the best decision for the country, kind of make the decision for you. now it's 99% clear for whom they are gonna vote, so whats the point?

seriously, what about it is better than direct election? other than that a person with an actual minority vote can become president, which is a very subjective positive.

[Policritic]

The point is not to choose a simple majoritarian result based purely on vote tallies. Why? Because regional and locational preferences differ significantly. We live in a very large pluralistic society - it's not like Germany or France. Geographic divides lead to secessionist movements - just look at recent world history. In order to keep this large republic united and strong the distribution of support matters. A direct vote will heavily favor high population density politics. The EC balances.

[Policritic]

With 130+ million voters a popular vote difference of several thousand is statistically meaningless, so the popular election result is indeterminant. How do you count one side or the other as a majority or minority? We have the EC to deal with these problems, and only when it matters.

When somebody votes in extreme state, their vote does count, it's just not determinant. But neither are single votes anywhere else. "Swing Vote" was a fictional movie you know...

[strappinggermanlad]

yes, but you aren't electing a govener here. you are elcting the president who rules over ALL of the states, and over each and every citizen.and thats why a public vote, where 'each and every citizen' counts is really the most reasonable way to do it.The EC just distorts the actual votes.

It shouldnt matter where you come from.for example if you are a democrat in a red state,your vote pretty much doesnt count,and a shift in voters won't affect anything.thats totally unfair from my point of view

[Policritic]

You're supporting my point. A state has more homogeneous interests and less geographical differences than a nation. This is why a 50 state nation that is highly diverse needs a election process that balances regions and interests. Our current divide is urban vs. rural and the largest population states would dominate a direct majoritarian vote, causing rural states to be marginalized and thus demand representation or secession. This is that happens around the world - take a deeper look

[Policritic]

Think about it. What does "each and every citizen counts" mean anyway? You think it means to tally up each vote, like we were all in a room. Does this mean minority views shouldn't count? Think of rural people as lonely minorities not living in a city - don't these votes matter? And yet your proposal would require these people to adopt urban interests, which are completely different than their own. You're arguing that "each and every citizen" such as these shouldn't count. Not democratic at all.

[strappinggermanlad]

so your giving more weight to the vote of rural people? what the fuck? they can let their voices be heard and people will listen.

not having equal weighing votes is undemocratic from my point of view, and also to just forget about the near other half of the people in a state that voted against the chosen party.

i think we can agree though, that a democratic vote should be fair and i don't see how the present system is any fairer than public-vote system at all.sorry, that was not very convincing

[Policritic]

It's not more weight - interests get balanced. Look, the point is that a direct vote ALWAYS favors urban areas interests and these happen to dominate certain states and regions.

We have a Senate to balance the House and we have an EC to make sure the distribution of presidential support is broad and not narrow. I can't explain it any more plain than that. It's not a problem and this year we will probably get an urban-based president. Voila.

[RoninTXBR549]

FYI ... Presidents preside... they don't "rule". We're not socialistic yet, thank God.

[strappinggermanlad]

doesnt matter what you call it, he makes the final decisions, that's what I meant.

sorry if i offended your anti-social way of thinking ;)

[whitehousesvc729]

Well, this is kinda a tough decision. I think the EC is pretty necessary cuz some pple mite just be spiteful wen they vote. What i mean is that some1 wouldnt vote 4 Obama just cuz hes black (im srry if i hurt any1 saying that, its just the truth) But it does make my votes seem kinda useless...hmmm... maybe if 2/3 of the power went 2 the EC, and 1/3 went 2 us, but that still kinda sounds unfair...

Well, I DONT KNOW!!! lol srry if i just wasted ur time! lol

[Nimadan]

whitehousesvc729 posted:

"some pple mite just be spiteful wen they vote. What i mean is that some 1 wouldnt vote 4 Obama just cuz hes black"

Spiteful, huh? But all the blacks who are going to vote for Obamasama BECAUSE he's black are what? Not spiteful?

I love you fucking people...

Progressive Philosophy 101:

White racism, bad;

Non-white racism, not bad;

Anti-white racism, GOOD!!!

[whitehousesvc729]

Sorry, i didnt post that. i think my bro hacked into my account that day.

[benbel15]

electoral college is bull crap!

[petermunch]

You can argue that it distorts the majority vote - but it also protects minorities. "Bull Crap" seems like streching the truth ;)

[supraman321]

How does it "protect minorities"? By giving them disproportionate weight in the election! I believe that ALL VOTES SHOULD CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT!!! Just because you may live in Alaska doesn't mean your votes should me more than in New York. We're all equally Americans!

[Policritic]

Good start. But it seems few people take American Government classes in high school. The EC insures a broad distribution of support across 50 states for an elected president. It only differs from the popular vote when the popular vote is too close to call with any statistical significance. Regional political divisions have characterized our politics for 200+ years and the primary intent of our voting system is to insure the strength of the union of states. The EC works.

[Ikoris]

Not when you consider the fact that it is easier to bribe a few hundred men than a few million. Also the voting power is disproportionate and gives the advantage to Republican states. How is that fair? Who the hell would vote Bush into a second term? A fucking idiot or a puppet, that's who! Thank you EC for Iraq and thank you for your upcoming election of McCain who has already stated there will be more wars. I don't think we should use the EC or the popular vote. How about a 3rd option?

[Policritic]

Like I said, individual voting weights don't matter in keeping the union of states together and strong. The regional distribution of those votes matters more. People seem to be confused on what their vote means in this republic. It ain't about getting an individual voice, it's about participating in a process that is greater than the sum of its parts.

BTW, the American people voted in Bush in 2004 with a clear majority of the popular vote. Why can't AnybodyButBush voters deal with democracy?

[WhiteCamry]

The real problem with the EC is the winner-take-all racket by which the Big Two hijacked it. In 48 states (and DC) they both bet to win all a state's electors by winning the minimal statewide majority. It was the real cause of the 2000 Fiasco and is why the Dems never called for reform after that. Recounts, yes, but never reform.

[ncd1986]

Electoral college makes it sound like my vote is useless cause I live in Massachusetts the most liberal biased state in the country and I'm gonna vote for McCain and the last candidate to win Mass was Regan. This makes my vote basically useless. God Bless America