 Back to teens on topic. I'm your host, Cedric Hughes, and today I'm joined by three special guests. Hi, I'm Joseph Hendricks. I'm Zoe Poffingay. I'm Daniel Ostrom. Today we'll be discussing the Electoral College. So now let's turn to members of the Davis community to see what they think. So with the 2020 election coming just right up, what are your thoughts on the Electoral College and do you think it's a fair system? So I don't think that the Electoral College is a fair system. So it tends to transmit power from bigger states to smaller states and it has a lot of ripple effects through our current electoral process. So obviously it's been the determining factor in the 2000 election. It was the determining factor in the 2016 election. It was the determining factor in the 2004 election. And it's very likely, at least that's how it appears to be shaping up to be a major factor in the 2020 election. And when the Electoral College goes in the opposite direction of the popular vote, it's hard to continue to justify it. This would be the fourth election that we've had where the Electoral College is in opposition to the popular vote. And to me, that doesn't seem like that's acceptable. So do you think as a country we should switch to a more fair system such as the popular vote, just as being the deciding factor? Yes. So there are costs and benefits to either system. So a popular vote does mean that states with large urban populations are likely to get precedence. But as we stand now, what are the four largest states in the country in terms of population? So California, then Texas, then Florida, and then New York. And so those states as of now have split pretty readily between red and blue. And so I don't think that you would be in the long term steering toward a particular party if you went to the popular vote. Demographics may steer things a little bit more toward Democrats. But I don't think the system by itself would steer the process toward one party or another. It's frustrating knowing that my vote doesn't count as much as somebody from Vermont or Iowa. So now I think a popular vote would make the presidential elections feel more legitimate. For sure. I get why states that are from less populous areas, they don't want to be overlooked. But at the same time, the Senate also functions to kind of give them more say than they would deserve proportionally. Not should we get rid of it. And it's clear we need to get rid of it. It was created for a different structure of government at a different time. And the question is how to get rid of it, because it's obviously benefiting a lot of people who obviously want to keep it. But it's similar to other systems like here in the city of Davis. Students who happen to live on campus can't vote in the city. They can vote in the county or a state and national elections and so on. And a lot of people never register because they're just here for a couple of years and they don't feel they belong in the city like my roommates. One of them is even a pre-law program and she hasn't registered to vote locally and it's just strange. So it's like pervasive thing about keeping people not aware of and participating in the best mechanism to really make democracy work in the least imperfect way it can. Well, I mean there's popular vote and then of course there's the issue of representatives from different states. And senators for the whole senator system and that's also a problem. And then of course money in politics. I mean so it seems like it's a good idea to look at the specific little parts of it, but the whole system is just rotten. And I'm not sure if it's how much possible reform there could be in changing the little pieces of it. It's such a bad deal from what we have experienced in recent history that so many of the states are going to the extreme length of by legislation saying that they will donate all of their delegates to the biggest vote-getter in the nation in country-wide elections. Well thank you to everyone in the community that contributed. So what do you guys think about some of the responses that we heard today? I have to say I wasn't trans by the one man who talked for a while. He mentioned something about sort of being an old system for an old system of government. I have to disagree. I don't think our governmental system has changed that much. Yes we've grown significantly and it's grown across the country and it's grown millions of people. I think to say that it's a broken system for an old system of government, I think that's wrong. I mean I don't disagree that the electoral college should be different. I think it is definitely difficult for being in California. It's difficult for me knowing that if I do, well when I vote, it's not really going to have much of a say. I mean I am going to contribute to that 55 that California gets, but it's just going to be 55. And I don't, that's not as fair as say someone from Wyoming getting a larger vote. But I think a lot of people, especially the people in there, they, I think definitely sort of overlooked how once you get into a popular vote it just becomes mob mentality. I mean is that really what you want? I think it's really difficult because there's a lot of people who, like someone mentioned in there, they feel overlooked. You go over them, you have populations who are really small. And yes, popular vote would reflect the majority of the country, that is true. But I think that it does look over people who still should be addressed within the country. Zoe, what do you think about some of the responses that we heard today? I feel like when I heard that man say a different structure for maybe a different, older government, I interpreted it more as like the society that we live in. That sounds a bit cheesy, but we have definitely changed the society in terms of numbers and social media, news coverage, media, all of that has changed so much. And so I feel like I agree in the sense that we have changed very significantly for an electoral college to have that much of an equal sort of balance in between all the states. Like if we told one of the founding fathers that they were going to be 40 million in California, they'd be like, there's how many in the where? Like they would not be able to, that's not what they had in mind when they had the electoral college. So I feel like in that sense of the word, it's outdated, but I agree with Daniel in the sense that it's not the government that needs that much changing, that much repairing. It's not the government that has changed that much. And about mob mentality, like you mentioned, with social media and with news coverage, that means everyone knows everything at the top of the finger almost instantaneously. And so I appreciate that spread level of education. However, with that instantaneous finding information as quickly as you so secret, there's also that idea that you see the very surface of an argument, you see the very surface of an article, and then that stir of passion sends you to the majority. Yeah, definitely. Joseph, what do you think? I agree with Zoe that, you know, when the founding fathers, they created the electoral college. I don't think they predicted how many people lived in America, you know, when at the most there was a couple million living in, you know, 13 states or whatever. So yeah, I definitely agree that they had no way of knowing. So I think it's an outdated system. Yeah, I think one thing that's really interesting is that we're talking here about what the founders intentions were with the electoral college and how that would play into our political system. And now this was touched on in the interviews is the disproportion between large states and big states. And Daniel, you brought this up with the number of votes that we get versus say a state like Wyoming. Now, I think that on one hand, you know, I see what you guys are saying, but I think many members of America would say what about those small states as was brought up in the interviews with the community. If we did do, for example, a popular vote as a counter, then what happens to states like Iowa or like Wyoming? Do they get overlooked and is that fair in our political process? No, I definitely think with a popular vote, they would get pretty shut down with a popular vote like California and Texas would rule. And yet they are opposing sides. They are theoretically opposing sides of the party. They would still kind of stomp on everyone else. And so I don't think a popular vote is the right way to go. Unfortunately, I'd have to think about it a little bit more to think of a more viable solution because I feel like both Electoral College and Directive Makarshi, such as a popular vote, are both outdated methods that would not work in a society as complex as we live in today. And I think it's really easy for us in California to say, yeah, no, popular vote's the way to go. Because I think it's really, especially within the community of Davis, and I think you run into this issue, especially when you talk to people in Davis. Most people in Davis hold, especially of a certain type and especially those at the farmer's market, will typically hold a certain belief much more liberal. So it can be difficult to say, yes, I think that popular vote is the way because I don't, even though I live in California, I don't believe it is the way because I think you do overlook people who may hold different views than you and to just say, well, popular vote because my idea is the popular one and I think that's the way it should be. I think that's a little difficult and I think that's not really the way to go. Daniel, I think that that's a really great point is that would we have seen those responses differ if, say, we shot this show in Wyoming? Would people at a Wyoming fair say something different? And I think that they would. They want to have their representation too. So when we're talking about proportional vote, and you brought this up, was that people who live in these small states, they wouldn't be getting the representation nearly at all, so you talked about how California and Texas, how the ideological ideals that come from our states would really trample. So just looking back in the past few elections, like in 2016, we saw Trump really appeal to farmers in America and to the agricultural vote. Even though that is a relatively small percentage of the popular vote. So if we were to go off of a popular vote system, do we think that those votes would get represented? Do we think that farmers benefits would be represented and others in those small states? Joseph, what do you think? Yeah, I think so because I think there's always going to be politicians who represent those sorts of people. Like, I mean, obviously Trump did not win the popular vote, but he was going for agriculture people and stuff like that. So I do think that they're going to be represented in some way. I think it's just not through the electoral college. I think that idea of that they still get representation, we saw that brought up in the interviews, is that there still are safeguards within the system like the Senate. So no matter big or small, your state will still get to senators. So we still see representation of people in there. So I think moving away from just the popular vote versus the electoral college system, are there any other systems of electing that you guys think would be better? I think someone, when discussing this, they mentioned, not in that interview, but they mentioned taking into account demographic parties rather than like state population. Like focusing on demographics, not racial or economic or just social beliefs. And so I thought that was really interesting. It seems like a lot more complicated of an idea to really work, especially with such a large population in America, but I just thought that was a really interesting concept to look at the demographics and then take that demographics with universal vote and then move to the next one. They were pretty vague on it, but yeah, I just thought that was an interesting perspective. I think it could be possible to maybe split. You could probably split America into different regions based off of population and do it from there, and I think that might be more reflective of a more popular vote while still giving people in different areas more of a say. But I think one of the problems is once you run into going into anything other than electoral college and popular vote, you start going out of democracy. And while America is not a strict democracy, it's not, I know the word and it slipped my mind, but we're more of a republic than a democracy, a democratic republic, there we go. But you start moving into different forms that I think, I don't know, can be difficult. We do see other forms in other countries, for example Britain and Europe. They have a parliamentary system whereas we operate off of a pluralist winner-take-all system where you don't need to win over 50%, you don't need to win that popular vote in order to be represented and with that winner-take-all, even if your party wins 10% of the seats, they will get no representation whereas we see in other countries like Britain where if a party wins 10%, they're going to still have a 10% representation in Parliament. So do you think that that would be a more fair system for Americans to adopt a parliamentary measure? I'm not sure because that's just, you know, we left Britain to get away from that. So it's honestly, I'm not exactly sure what system we should replace with it, but I don't think it should be similar to a parliamentary system because that's what we left. I feel like with that, sorry, I feel like with that kind of system, it's just, there would be too much argument, there would be too much argument, too much deliberation and I know that was the design of the government, so we wouldn't be thrown into pits of passion here and there, but I feel like that would be, there would just be too much argument for any real progress to get done. Yeah. Yeah. Daniel? I actually believe that a parliamentary system would work better. I don't necessarily agree with Britain's parliamentary system with the House of Lords and House of Commons. I don't agree with the House of Lords. I think it's a little ridiculous. It is definitely an outdated system, but definitely more parliamentary system of having it based more on percentages. I think that's definitely better for the population because we're better reflected and I don't think that that's really the reason that America left Britain. I think it's more based off of other issues that happened at the time. I think it was less about the parliamentary system and more about the monarchy. Britain now, it's basically just a democracy, it's a parliament. So I think a parliamentary system would work fine. Again, yeah, you don't want to end up with arguments, you don't want to end up in issues and like Zoe said, I'm not an expert on the topic and we probably have to research it more before I made a true decision. Yeah. That was just my thoughts. Well, I think that, you know, even discussions like these are very telling and we know that the political system that we deal with now is, isn't perfect and that no political system will ever be perfect but going forward we need to, you know, we look at what can be the most fair and what can represent Americans best. So I think that that is going to be a question for our government moving forward and it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few generations of America. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.