Why Does the United States Use the Electoral College and Not a Popular Vote to Decide the President?
- Articles, Blog

Why Does the United States Use the Electoral College and Not a Popular Vote to Decide the President?

Hello, I’m Daven Hiskey, you’re watching the
TodayIFoundOut YouTube channel. In the video today, we’re looking at why the
U.S. uses the electoral system, rather than allowing general citizens to vote on the Presidency. On December 13, 2000, Vice President Al Gore
conceded the presidential election to Governor Bush. A day earlier, a lengthy and expensive manual
vote recount process in Florida was stopped by the United States Supreme Court despite
Bush leading by only 537 votes. With Bush winning the state’s 25 electoral
votes, it gave him 275 electoral votes and put him over the needed threshold. This election result was highly unusual, not
just because of Supreme Court decisions and hanging chads. It was also only the fourth time in United
States history that a candidate had garnered a majority of the popular votes but lost the
election- Gore received 50,996,582 votes and Bush 50,456,062. Bush won because of the Electoral College
system – a much maligned and complex way of determining the future leader of America. How does it work? Why does America use the Electoral College? Why isn’t a simple vote count good enough
to determine the president of the United States of America? To begin with, contrary to popular belief,
when Americans go to the polls to seemingly vote for the next president of the United
States, they are, in fact, not actually voting for the president. Rather, they are casting a vote for a group
of electors who will then vote for the president as they see fit. To reduce any chance of confusion, rather
than having people explicitly vote for electors on the ballot, the presidential candidate
a given group of electors is pledged to vote for is put on the ballot instead. Another common misconception about presidential
voting in the United States is that the president is elected once the general public’s votes
are tallied up. Again, because the general public does not
technically vote for a president, but rather on which Electoral College representatives
will get to vote for president, the president isn’t officially elected until the following
January. Specifically, on January 6th the current vice
president opens voting during a Joint Session of Congress. It’s during this session that electoral votes
are tallied, with the deadline for those to be submitted being in late December. This may seem to be something of a technicality,
but there are many completely legal scenarios in which a different president may be chosen
than the one who appears to have won after the general public has cast their ballots
for electors. (More on a couple of these scenarios in a
bit.) So who are these voters that actually elect
the president and how are they chosen? There are only two federal laws that pertain
to who can be an elector. The first one comes from Article II of the
Constitution, which states that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office
of Trust… shall be appointed an Elector.” The second is a provision buried in the 14th
amendment that says any state official that was involved in an insurrection or rebellion
against America is also barred from being an elector. (You can thank the Civil War for that one.) Beyond those two restrictions, anyone can
be an elector. As for who ends up being an elector, that
depends on the political parties and how a given state legislature sets the method of
selection. But in a nutshell, each state’s political
parties nominate a group of electors who are extremely loyal to their respective parties. Their number is equal to the number of electoral
votes the state has, which in turn is equal to the number of senators (two per state)
and number of representatives (determined by population) said state has, or in the case
of the District of Columbia, a set three electors (thanks to the 23rd Amendment). There is also potentially one additional minor
caveat to consider when the party selects its groups of electors- an elector cannot
vote for a vice president and president who both are from the elector’s home state. This rule was meant to ensure an elector could
not vote for two of their state’s “favorite sons”. (More on why this was considered so important
in a bit.) Today, this is obviously not an issue for
anyone so long as the presidential candidate picks a vice presidential candidate from another
state than their own. On election day, whichever political party’s
candidate, be it Republican, Democratic or a third party, wins the majority of the state’s
votes, that slate of electors becomes the ones who get to vote for the president in
their respective state. For example, in 2012, Californians voted for
the 55 party-selected Democrats who in turn all cast their 55 votes for the Obama/Biden
ticket. (Note: there are currently two exceptions
to this all-or-nothing approach- Maine and Nebraska; they both use a district system. In this system, the state’s popular majority
is accounted for in some electors’ votes, but others vote based on congressional district’s
popular majority within the state. This can potentially result in a splitting
of the votes. For instance, in 2008, Nebraska ended up with
four Republican electors and one Democrat.) However, as previously alluded to, to make
this even more confusing and convoluted, there are no federal laws or Constitutional provisions
that require electors to cast their vote in accordance with the state’s popular vote
result. There are some state laws, however, pertaining
to this; 29 states (and the District of Columbia) have laws that require the electors vote the
way the popular vote has instructed them too. That said, penalties are not too severe in
most cases- failure to adhere to these state laws by so-called “faithless electors”
could result in a fine or replacement as an elector. That also leaves 21 states that do not have
such laws, allowing electors to vote as they see fit instead of how the general public
directed them too. It turns out, this seems to have been what
the founders intended. It should be noted here that, according to
the National Archives, more than 99% of the time electors have voted as instructed and
no elector has ever been prosecuted or punished for failing to vote in accordance with the
popular vote of their respective states. However, there have been 22 times involving
179 electoral votes that faithless electors have bucked the system. The most recent was in 2008 when an elector
apparently accidentally voted for John Edwards, rather than the Democratic nominee Barack
Obama. Another notable recent instance was in 2000
when a DC elector abstained from voting in protest over the District’s lack of representation
in Congress. Despite the occasional faithless elector,
to date, none of these faithless votes has ever been the deciding vote in an election. However, there have been elections where a
single faithless elector could have decided the president, such as in 1876 when Rutherford
B. Hayes, despite losing the popular vote, won 185 electoral votes vs. 184 to Samuel
Tilden. So, why does the United States use the somewhat
convoluted Electoral College when a popular vote would be drastically simpler and more
democratic? In short, it was a necessary compromise from
a time when the “united states” were not bound nearly as cohesively as today, nor the general
public very well educated on the whole or well informed about the various candidates. For the more detailed answer, the Electoral
College dates back to 1787’s Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where they were
given the gargantuan task of figuring out a solution to the mostly ineffective Articles
of Confederation. Among the many issues that needed resolving
was how the president of United States was to be elected. In order to understand the delegates’ thought
process, context is needed. The young country was only 13 states and residents
were generally extremely provincial, meaning they still trusted their own state more than
the federal government. Further, in many cases people identified more
as a citizen of their state, rather than a citizen of the United States first. From this, the founders were concerned that
citizens of each state would put their own best interest before the nation’s. On top of this, because each state’s citizens
would likely know their own candidates much better than candidates from other states (most
of whom they probably wouldn’t even have ever heard of), they were doubly likely to vote
for their own candidates. The ultimate result of this was feared to
be that the winner of each state would likely be a citizen of that state, who would in turn
have little chance of winning, or even garnering any support at all, in other states. This brings us to the first option put on
the table- election via popular vote. While more democratic, as mentioned, delegates
were very concerned that each state would potentially elect their own candidate, making
it difficult to ever get a candidate with wide support throughout the nation. Instead, they feared they’d be left with a
field of many “favorite sons.” Among these favorite sons, the bigger states
– like Virginia – would dominate, resulting in little chance of someone from a smaller
state ever becoming president, and making it so Virginia’s interests would be disproportionately
represented in the nation’s highest office. For reference, at the time, Virginia had 424,000
men eligible to vote, which was more than Georgia, Delaware, South Carolina, Rhode Island
and New Hampshire combined. The other major option proposed was a simple
Congressional appointment. Despite being inherently non-democratic, there
was a thought that the president should be less powerful than Congress and, therefore,
needed to be dependent on them. Also, the thinking went, the general public
was largely extremely poorly educated and poorly politically informed. Congressional members, on the other hand,
were not only already elected to represent their respective citizens in such matters,
but were also intimately familiar with prospective presidential candidates, their character,
work ethic, political leanings, etc. and were generally quite well educated relative to
most people. Thus, in a nutshell, members of Congress were
simply the most qualified to pick the most qualified president. Ultimately this proposal lost because it threatened
the checks and balances of the federal government. As then delegate and future President James
Madison noted, “[T]he election of the Chief Magistrate
would agitate & divide the legislature so much that the public interest would materially
suffer by it. Public bodies are always apt to be thrown
into contentions, but into more violent ones by such occasions than by any others. [T]he candidate would intrigue with the Legislature,
would derive his appointment from the predominant faction, and be apt to render his administration
subservient to its views.” Essentially- if the president was elected
by Congress, while in theory Congress at the time may well have been in a much better position
to pick the best president, those who sought the office would be constantly campaigning
and trying to impress those members, perhaps even giving favors upon election in exchange
for votes. Beyond this, no president interested in getting
re-elected could ever oppose Congress for fear they wouldn’t re-elect him or her later. Needless to say, this system was ripe for
extreme corruption. So while in theory Congress was best suited
to pick the potential best president, in practice they’d likely not have done so, or if they
did, lorded too much power over that individual. Thus, the Committee of Eleven on Postponed
Matters devised and proposed the Electoral College, a system the delegates ultimately
approved. Alexander Hamilton noted of the Electoral
College, “…if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” As to what “the manner of it” actually was
intended to be- the idea here was essentially something of a cross between a popular vote
and congressional selection- it was democratic in the sense that the popular vote could potentially
determine the state’s allegiance (in the beginning state legislatures didn’t all do
it this way), but it also limited the larger states’ influence slightly by awarding extra
votes to smaller states via an elector for each of their senatorial representatives. As for why it was also partially a compromise
for those who advocated for a congressional selection, in a time before political parties
in the United States, there is evidence that the founders very much assumed the electors,
who explicitly could not “hold an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” (to
avoid at least some of the aforementioned corruption potential), would not be bound
by the popular vote in their state or party affiliation or any such similar device. In fact, in the earliest elections, over half
the states’ legislatures selected their presidential electors with no regard for public vote, a
right state legislatures still technically retain, but is a practice that died swiftly
around the turn of the 19th century. Beyond potentially disregarding popular vote
in selecting which group of electors gets to vote for president, if a given state legislature
really wanted to, they could even decide to pick a group of electors via something completely
arbitrary like putting a bunch of mice in a maze, one representing each person who ran
for president, with the winning mouse determining which group of electors is chosen. Of course, no state legislature would dream
of doing something so outlandish. However, several state legislatures have very
recently begun banding together to use their elector picking power to potentially disregard
their own citizen’s popular choice (more on this in a bit). In any event, by 1790, along with the rest
of the Constitution, the Electoral College was ratified by all 13 states and has in the
vast majority of cases resulted in little controversy or public outcry for a change
to the original system. In fact, the Electoral College has undergone
only a few small changes since 1790. The most significant change occurred following
the election of 1800. At the time, each elector would cast two votes,
one for one presidential candidate and one for another. The person with the most votes became president,
and the person with the second most became vice president. This ensured that, at least in theory, the
second most qualified individual was vice president- ready to step in should something
happen to the most qualified person- the president. Today the person who potentially would step
in should something happen to the president is not selected by members of the Electoral
College, nor even by the citizens of the United States, but rather by the president- the most
undemocratic selection of all. As Senator Samuel White of Delaware noted
when this switch was made, the vice president is now chosen, not based on the individual’s
qualifications for that office, but rather by if “he by his name, by his connections,
by his wealth, by his local situation, by his influence, or his intrigues, best promote
the election of a president…” So what spurred the change in the Electoral
College, no easy thing to do given that it requires an amendment to the Constitution? Mainly the rise of political parties. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were
both vying for the presidency, with each having their preferred vice president within their
own party- something of a new concept. This was a problem if all electors for a given
party ended up voting for both individuals, for instance, Thomas Jefferson and his proposed
vice president, Aaron Burr. If this happened, they’d both be tied for
president. It happened. What followed was 36 rounds of voting within
the House to try to break the tie (the opposing party members muddied things up by voting
for Burr just to attempt to see their most hated rival, Jefferson, defeated). There were even threats of militia’s forming
to march on the capital to push for Jefferson, before Jefferson, who was always understood
to be his party’s choice for president over Burr, was chosen. In the aftermath, the 12th amendment was passed. This said that each elector got two votes,
as before, but instead of both votes being for a potential president, one would be for
president and the other for vice-president, thus creating little chance that a vice-presidential
candidate could be elected president. (Little chance, because, as VEEP illustrated,
it can still happen). Other than that, over two hundred years later,
the Electoral College is still essentially the same process as it was on day one. While today it’s a bit outdated given most
American’s attitudes concerning federal and state allegiances, it is a process that
has survived in no small part because it’s both relatively difficult to amend the U.S.
Constitution and, on the whole, the system has worked pretty well, not garnering nearly
as much controversy as it would need to spur a Constitutional change. All that said, following the highly controversial
2000 election between Bush and Gore, there have been attempts to tweak the Electoral
College system without the need for amending the Constitution. How would this be possible? It all comes down to the fact that states
are allowed to select their electors however they see fit, not just based on a winner-take-all
popular vote selection. Towards this end, several bills have been
proposed in various states to tweak the elector selection. In most cases, these bills looked to switch
to a district system, rather than a winner-take-all. To date, little has come of these, as most
who oppose the Electoral College want a nation-wide popular vote system, which on the surface
would seem to require a Constitutional Amendment… or would it? It turns out there is a way around this, too,
via the National Popular Vote system. This is a clever proposal in which each state
that joins agrees to give all its Electoral College votes to whatever candidate wins the
national popular vote, rather than their particular state-level popular vote. In some cases, this may well mean a state’s
legislature would go against its own citizen’s popular vote in selecting electors. Currently 11 states have pledged to this system,
for a total of 165 electoral votes. If 105 more electoral votes are pledged (making
for a total of 270), the system will take effect and the United States, while still
using the Electoral College system, will begin electing its president via electors based
on the national popular vote- no Constitutional amendment required.

About James Carlton

Read All Posts By James Carlton

100 thoughts on “Why Does the United States Use the Electoral College and Not a Popular Vote to Decide the President?

  1. Now that you know all about the electoral college check out this video and find out about That Time we Got 100,000 Subscribers:

  2. Without the electoral college California, New York and Florida would decide all elections. I don't know about you, but I find that a scary proposition.

  3. Here is an extreme example of why we use it.

    Let's say we only had six states.
    Now let's say 5 of these 6 states have 200,000 citizens each. If you know math that adds up to a million.

    Now let's say that the 6th state has 1,100,000

    Now let's say that all 1 million votes in five of the small states vote for president A. And the big large state lets say all of their citizens vote for president B

    Would it really be fair to say that president B won the election?

  4. out dated is slightly biased, a point glossed over, and point to keep the electoral college. prevention of a few more populous areas having all the political power and therefore rural areas and subcultures being overrun by 2-3 of the most populous states. example, if New York, and California, and any other populous state were of the same political agenda then any other state like Alabama, Maine, Wisconsin etc would have no equil representation.

  5. The phrase National Popular Vote is often repeated in this video. That does not exist. There are 51 popular vote elections.

  6. The fact electoral voters almost never go against the popular votes in their state pretty much defeat the purpose of an electoral college in the first place in my view. I understand why it was necessary in the earlier periods of American history, but if a big reason for the electoral college being established was because the general populace were not believed to be well informed or to be capable of putting personal interest aside, then I don't think it's truly done its job and/or is very outdated. Instead of a direct vote, the votes are more or less being pushed off to an isolated group of representative who's always going to put their parties personal interest first which sounds like the exact situation the founders hoped to avoid. Yes, I understand a direct votes has problems of its own, but the current system is equally if not more flawed.

  7. Again, another person makes the mistake of saying that Gore won a "majority" of the popular vote. Majority means the candidate received more than 50% of the vote and Gore only received 48%, which means more than half the voters did NOT vote for him. The same thing happened with Clinton and Trump. I will grant there are issues to be examined, but stop using the majority label when it is not true.

  8. The electoral college is A popular vote.
    Point in case Trump 30 states Clinton 20
    Trump 1600 counties Clinton 500
    How can this be ignored? I forgot it's the constitution
    that the socialists (AKA) the Democrat party hates.

  9. Republics and Democracies are not mutually exclusive.
    A Republic: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
    Democracy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

    So please stop saying they are

  10. But yet we go out of our way to waste our time, why, when our vote not even counted. So since Russia was accused of interfering with the 2016 election than it should be easy to prove by looking at the college electors instead of the American voters. Matter of fact with the proof of choices we had with their lack of experience in each level of their job and the countless waste of taxpayers dollars and huge headaches they give us for having to deal with their drama once the election is over with the number of women telling of having relations with or whatever it may be or making impossible campaign promises than shutting down our government 25 time because of it. Sorry but Trump has me beyond ticked off.

  11. Notice in that list of states that have approved the popular vote thing, that they are all the most liberal/democrat states in the nation??????

  12. How? Think of it like this, say 51% of NY votes blue, and 49% votes red. Well by EC standards, that means all votes go to blue and the other HALF of the state proceeds to not matter. Where if popular vote was all that mattered, you get 51% of the state, AND NOTHING MORE. Still have to go and get votes from all the other states because sure you got 51% in ny, but then go to Maine, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Georgia, and only get 30% of the votes. Which means now you're in hot water. When EVERY SINGLE VOTE MATTERS, you can't IGNORE anybody. Instead of 51% somehow turning into 100% and blue moving on with an entire state of votes, when that's not what's on paper. So many sheep in america smfh I swear. It's like do most of us even take the time to think critically about things? Or just agree with what someone else says it's right, without any logical facts to prove that its right. Morons lmao, I mean its right in your face, how can you think the EC is better then plain and simple, AND ALWAYS FAIR popular vote. This is why powerful ppl can get away with so many things in america, TOO MANY GODDAMN SHEEP.

  13. The electoral college, in short, ensues that it's not the United States of California and New York but the United States of America. Each state is represented based upon populations and electoral college votes per state can change depending on how the population changes.

    Most of this is bs… Talking about only so many states, etc. It's to ensure a couple of highly populated states don't control the rest of America.

  14. You are forgetting that the national popular vote system if it goes into effect would be uncontitutional based on the fact that states can't enter into agreements with one another without the express approval of Congress.

  15. why would we have a popular vote to determine presidency?! We aren’t even a direct democracy!!! We are a representative one!!! If we had popular vote determine presidency, we would never have any variation, the minorities would be crushed by the rule of the majority. Democracy is evil towards minorities. (When I was talking about democracy, I was referring to direct democracy)

  16. to everyone in this comment section saying that we aren’t a democracy but rather a republic, a republic is a democracy… it’s a representative democracy

  17. The ELECTION stealing attemp bt Al didn't work because CITIZENS stepped up and said no, Florida Democrats justs tried again to steal the governor's office, they print thousands of extra ballots then find the ballot boxes in school closets. The communist Democrats are trying to steal your FREEDOMS by installing a communist GOVERNMENT by cheating in elections. The electoral college votes helps prevent cheating in elections. Say No to national popular vote.

  18. Popular vote would make it so NEW YORK and CALIFORNIA control the election every year! Thats an EVIL Mob Rule system, we're not a Democracy, we're a Republic!

  19. I think the electoral collage is a great thing for the US, without it, all the elections would be decided by states with the largest populations like New New York and California, and essentially give all the flyover states no power in decision making.

  20. OMG, all of that sounded so damn CONFUSING! It still didn't EXPLAIN why the VOTERS can't just DIRECTLY ELECT our country's president with the power of our INDIVIDUAL votes. The POPULAR VOTES are the REAL VOTES, right? Why do we need ELECTORS to CHOOSE our nation's president? This is the 21st century and the MAJORITY of Americans are much more EDUCATED about politics than Americans from TWO CENTURIES ago.So, when it comes to us voting for who's gonna be PRESIDENT, our votes really DON'T MATTER! That's why I'm NEVER voting again!

  21. The attempt to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment is disastrous and demonstrates the corruption of partisan politics that put their political agenda above the law of the land. Pure democracy doesn't work because "the majority" will become tyrants and push their will against the will of the minority to the breaking point.

  22. Great video and can see why America and the people is getting back stabbed . And this is why we have Trump ! And we had George W. Bush and 911 ?

  23. So let’s just let CA tell us as a Nation what to do…I mean they are doing so well with running their own state , right. We can have a homeless where’s the shit app like they have in San Francisco

  24. USA is divided between districts, states and democrats/republicans. Only big companies and corporations care about factions. Vast majority just want to be unified and represented equally.

  25. This was posted before the 2016 Presidential election. After the huge discrepancy between the popular and Electoral College votes, it's arguable that this needs updating

  26. The reason "faithless electors" exist is another checks and balances. That's what makes the Bill of Rights and the Constitution so great. We can change the bad ideas through amendments and we can keep the good ideas. The founding fathers knew their ideas weren't the best which is why they allowed it to be changed. Extremely humble.

  27. Hey, be TRUTHFUL with the American people, dude! Those so-called Electors think that we 21st American citizens are TOO DAMN STUPID to ELECT our own leader every four years. Of course, they wouldn't actually tell us that but that's EXACTLY what they think and we should be INSULTED over that. But NOT ENOUGH of the American people really CARE about what's goin' on in our country's political process. Well, COUNT ME OUT!!

  28. my correct comment was deleted by this channel .
    the ec was invented as a criminal scam in 560BC . the federalist founders did not want anyone else to have rights let alone the right to vote ! why do they lie about Washington being a poor boy that chopped down a cherry tree and couldn't tell a lie = because they are enslavers ! your vote doesn't count . the popular vote has never counted in the usa

  29. We have the electoral college still because a lot of Americans don’t even know exactly what it is or what it does

  30. The adoption of the national popular vote compact would not be so simple. It would be challenged in the Supreme Court.

  31. One of the main reasons neither the pledge nor an amendment will abolish the electoral college is that it would require states with less power to give up what power they do have to states with more power. For the states with more power (ie. more population), this sounds like a great deal because they get what they want, and because they're the majority, they're obviously right. To states with less power, this sounds problematic, because it means there is no point for most people to go to the polls from those states since the result is dictated by the more populous group.

    Fundamentally, the need that is lost by giving up the power of the minority and simply accepting majority rule is that there is absolutely no reason for leaders to care about the minority. If blue states in such a system want to use water for a water park, red states want to use it for municipal water, and a water is definitely getting the water regardless of the impact. This isn't as hypothetical as it may sound, if you remember that California recently tried to use its population weight to justify diverting water from other states to them during the drought years, not for a water park, but for the even more fundamentally wasteful choice to live in one massive clump and divert water through vast stretches of desert into it. Also while having problems with waste by water they had contracted out to provide water preferentially to certain businesses such as almond farmers (again, in a desert…).

    However you may feel about how red states vote, history has shown consistently that this sort of power will be used to steamroll the minority with no regard to disproportionate effects, and the red states aren't stupid enough to simply let you do that to them. If you want to change the vote outcomes, find candidates who aren't wholly offensive to the other side. If you want to win elections, you will have to take people not like yourself into consideration; not simply dismiss the caricatures you've made up to dehumanize them. Compromising with the voters, not with their party that doesn't represent them any more than yours represents you.

  32. 5:50 scenes before you even hit to the topic. What could or has gone wrong has zero to do with why…

  33. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, award their Electoral College votes by who wins the Congressional district. They don't teach Civics in schools anymore. The reason for the Electoral College was to balance out larger states against smaller states. If there were NO Electoral College then Hillary Clinton would be President, winning only 20 states, while Donald Trump would have won 30 states. (Hillary won a majority of Maine's EC votes and Trump won a majority of Nebraska EC votes.) 40% of the country would be dictating to the other 60% of the country.

  34. It's nice to see somebody getting things 1/3rd correct. Here's where this gentleman is wrong:
    1.) While he may be right on what was happening in the 1800's with regards to the electors voting for the President & VP individually, after the 20th Amendment the Presidential candidate gets to pick his own running mate & the VP spot isn't even elected on period.
    2.) The method of each political party choosing a set of electors to be used if their side wins the state popular vote isn't a part of the original system. This is a bastardization brought about by the entire Congress, that was adapted in full after 1824 – when Colorado became the last state to change over to the Winner-Takes-All system – because the members of Congress felt they were losing too much power in government to the people & decided to take it back through backdoor, illegal means. The original system is for the members of the public to vote on who becomes an Electoral College member DIRECTLY, with the person's name on a ballot of its own. Once the public has determined who becomes an Electoral College member – with no thought as to what their political party is, if they have any at all (Because remember, this system was originally created BEFORE political parties even existed in this country.) – then the Electoral College votes on the President with NO outside influence WHATSOEVER. The 22 people who voted the way THEY felt like rather than following the state's popular vote aren't the faithless ones, it's all of the others who went through with an illegal – & therefore invalid – method of electing the President that proved unfaithful to the Constitution.

  35. Why? Because it preserves state power, keeps the smaller states from becoming vassals of the larger states, helps avoid the tyranny of the majority, and because direct democracy is dangerous.

  36. Its like saying "we people of the US are too stupid, please do not use popular vote, dont trust the people"

  37. This is very inaccurate. Without the electoral college cities with the largest populations would determine the president every time. This would leave smaller population areas unrepresented and irrelevant. This is not rocket surgery.

  38. WHAT A STUPID FUCKING SYSTEM….which, incidentally DOESNT WORK since the electors can vote for anyone! and who cares if Montana r Nebraska isnt represented fairly?? There's hardly anyone living there. The vote should go to the majority of the population…thats the whole point of your stupid country!!

  39. WOW!!! SO COMPLICATED. It would seem that under this system the United States population never really ends up with a satisfactory outcome for the majority. I guess that's politics. As Churchill said, "Democracy is an awful system, but all the others are so much worse,"

  40. If it was'nt for this
    Electoral system, the presidential candidates would hardly campaign at all in most of the states… NY, CA, TX, FL, etc. Would overly dominate the campaigning map.

  41. The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".

    What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?

    What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?

    The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt terrorist "welfare queens".

    After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting ………. might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

  42. It isn't outdated if it was then we would have California and New York determine every president. The Electoral College is a checks and balances of the population per state. Lets Look at the last election Trump won all the smaller districts that constitute more counties and regions, while Hillary won the big cities a smaller region overall. This Brings up the point you made in the video when Virginia would have won most of the elections when they had populations above half of the colonial states. So the electoral college still have relevance today.

  43. This is put out by a demorcrate to trying to justify and steal the next election if all else fail.

    Civil war would then break out because of the corrupt Demorcrates.
    But it would be okay because they are in power. Not!!

  44. To keep power in the hands of the 1% elite.

    The 1% that has the power to make their view of the world pervade and dominate and discredit other views. Maintaining their 'hedgemony' over the mental processes of the ruled, controlling the way men and women see social reality. The domination of the rich…

  45. Our system seems complex and unnecessary. Let ppl chose based on popular vote. Even if you are uninformed, blame literally school, family, government, and yourself for this, I’d rather have someone vote based on who they want. Literally the point of voting.

  46. 1. A National Popular vote is what's required to bring about Socialism due to the stupidity of the Average voter.
    2. If you ignore the people that farm your food in the middle of the country because you want only the big cities to have voting power then you will end up starved out, millions dead, and a huge civil war where the people with the food and guns fight the people in the cities who have no guns nor ability to get their own food.

  47. More than 3000 counties vote republican, less than 500 vote Democrat. The brainwashing by the media in the large cities is the only reason democrats have any chance at all. The inability of people in large cities to think for themselves is pathetic. Democrats have done nothing to improve anything in the cities, even though they have been running them for years. Look at the homeless problems as an example. They allow encampments, intravenous drug use, crimes,etc…. the democrats are ruining this country

  48. Why does any of this matter when you can have the 1% billionaire ruling class buying up elections and exerting pre$$ure on state representatives?
    The 1% ultimately choose who becomes the puppet president in office.
    There is no left vs right. It's the people vs establishment, it's the top vs bottom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *