Why does America Have An Electoral College? Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Moonday
The thing about the college, which many people don't realize. Is that it is completely switched up every time we perform the census every 10 years. So over a long process and as times change it can reflect how a country is feeling based on the times. This is why a party switch argument falls flat in any state or county. The lines themselves change and encompas different populations. Many reflect on previous elections by how the states voted but if you want a true look at how most of America actually thinks you have to compare County by county elections. We do not elect based on popular candidates, we elect based on how many counties vote a certain way until about 51% go for one side and the state sends their entire collegiate for that candidate. Because direct democracy is arguably controlled by populations and populations tend to vote emotionally rather than in their best interest. We see this in our current situation where the USA is in the shitter because many people vote based on what they hear rather than how they feel. The college is by no means perfect, but without it. One party would constantly have a super majority and it is much harder to botch nationwide elections, however at a local level corruption can still occur. But corruption in Cali rarely affects Texas and vice versa. However, culture and population shift definitely can. It is complex and not simple to answer and it may not even play out exactly as described. But that's exactly why it's critical, because it's hard to fluke an election.
reply
The thing about the college, which many people don't realize. Is that it is completely switched up every time we perform the census every 10 years. So over a long process and as times change it can reflect how a country is feeling based on the times. This is why a party switch argument falls flat in any state or county. The lines themselves change and encompas different populations. Many reflect on previous elections by how the states voted but if you want a true look at how most of America actually thinks you have to compare County by county elections. We do not elect based on popular candidates, we elect based on how many counties vote a certain way until about 51% go for one side and the state sends their entire collegiate for that candidate. Because direct democracy is arguably controlled by populations and populations tend to vote emotionally rather than in their best interest. We see this in our current situation where the USA is in the shitter because many people vote based on what they hear rather than how they feel. The college is by no means perfect, but without it. One party would constantly have a super majority and it is much harder to botch nationwide elections, however at a local level corruption can still occur. But corruption in Cali rarely affects Texas and vice versa. However, culture and population shift definitely can. It is complex and not simple to answer and it may not even play out exactly as described. But that's exactly why it's critical, because it's hard to fluke an election.
reply
Matthew
There is also another issue I'd imagine with getting rid of the electoral college OR even the Senate which some have argued for. While mostly liberal states won't care, even the smaller states in the Northeast besides maybe Maine or NH, a lot of states signed up to join the country on the premise of their representation being protected via electoral college and especially the Senate. Should thither be appealed, it would be the result not even of states changing, but of cities simply overrunning enough states. We get a situation where a state like Illinois, where nearly 90+ percent of the land is republican but Cook County that contains Chicago overrules the entire state due to such a large vote share and a large Democratic majority. While it isn't unfair, when applied to the whole country, it becomes weird. And this occurred to me just recently.
Imagine being in a country where by popular vote, you may lose 51-47 due to immigration, liberalization of schools and academia, and then people just cramming into few cities just enough for electoral majorities.
Well in this scenario, you may have 51 percent of the population, which control perhaps 10 percent of the land in America, actually make rules for the other 47 percent, most of whom control the other 90 percent of the land and live completely different lives.
I understand land doesn't vote, but to some extent it becomes bizzare to allow citizens crammed into 10 percent of the Land Mass to control 100 percent despite living on just 10.
reply
There is also another issue I'd imagine with getting rid of the electoral college OR even the Senate which some have argued for. While mostly liberal states won't care, even the smaller states in the Northeast besides maybe Maine or NH, a lot of states signed up to join the country on the premise of their representation being protected via electoral college and especially the Senate. Should thither be appealed, it would be the result not even of states changing, but of cities simply overrunning enough states. We get a situation where a state like Illinois, where nearly 90+ percent of the land is republican but Cook County that contains Chicago overrules the entire state due to such a large vote share and a large Democratic majority. While it isn't unfair, when applied to the whole country, it becomes weird. And this occurred to me just recently.
Imagine being in a country where by popular vote, you may lose 51-47 due to immigration, liberalization of schools and academia, and then people just cramming into few cities just enough for electoral majorities.
Well in this scenario, you may have 51 percent of the population, which control perhaps 10 percent of the land in America, actually make rules for the other 47 percent, most of whom control the other 90 percent of the land and live completely different lives.
I understand land doesn't vote, but to some extent it becomes bizzare to allow citizens crammed into 10 percent of the Land Mass to control 100 percent despite living on just 10.
reply
education
1) We are a Federated Union of States not a top down nation/kingdom.
2) We have a hybrid legislature (Congress) proportional seats in the House. 2 equal seats in the Senate for big or small states. Both agreeing, are required to pass bills.
3) as he said, Congress can't select an independent president. The president selected by Congress will be their puppet to keep the job or get it in the first place.
4) the EC provides the same math as Congress, with a one day special purpose election congress. Your states proportion, plus two electors.
5) there was always a national election day for the people, with voting laws regulated locally by the state legislatures. These votes are to advise the electors. Today they BIND the electors by practice.
So if one hates the EC because they think everything should be solely proportional. eliminate The Senate. because it isn't proportional. Why should Sanders, Graham or Warren have just as much say as Ted Cruz or Dianne Feinstein? Because this is a Union of States.
While you're at it, change the UN and give China and India the biggest vote, give the EU only one vote.
There's lots of federations and member Union assemblies not fully proportional all over the world that people aren't questioning: G7, UN, EU, WEF, WB, IMF.
One can trust an American on this or one can trust a Brit that doesn't live in the system. Would you trust me to give you the purpose of Parliament?
reply
1) We are a Federated Union of States not a top down nation/kingdom.
2) We have a hybrid legislature (Congress) proportional seats in the House. 2 equal seats in the Senate for big or small states. Both agreeing, are required to pass bills.
3) as he said, Congress can't select an independent president. The president selected by Congress will be their puppet to keep the job or get it in the first place.
4) the EC provides the same math as Congress, with a one day special purpose election congress. Your states proportion, plus two electors.
5) there was always a national election day for the people, with voting laws regulated locally by the state legislatures. These votes are to advise the electors. Today they BIND the electors by practice.
So if one hates the EC because they think everything should be solely proportional. eliminate The Senate. because it isn't proportional. Why should Sanders, Graham or Warren have just as much say as Ted Cruz or Dianne Feinstein? Because this is a Union of States.
While you're at it, change the UN and give China and India the biggest vote, give the EU only one vote.
There's lots of federations and member Union assemblies not fully proportional all over the world that people aren't questioning: G7, UN, EU, WEF, WB, IMF.
One can trust an American on this or one can trust a Brit that doesn't live in the system. Would you trust me to give you the purpose of Parliament?
reply
Sam
States are arbitrary divisions of the population. The entire voting population chooses the president, therefore the only fair and logical method is direct election, where each vote has equal weight. The EC skews the weight of votes towards the smaller states, because each state must have at least three EC votes no matter how small its population. This system may have worked when it was designed, but we live in the 21st century where the candidates can easily cross the country in a short time, and visit each state to campaign. As things stand, candidates don't spend much time in states they are almost certain to lose, and those who vote for the opponent in those states - for example, millions of votes for the Republican candidate cast in NY - don't have their vote count for anything under the EC system, because it's winner takes all. Also also, while it's rare, the candidate who does not get the most votes winning the election thanks to the EC math makes absolutely no sense.
reply
States are arbitrary divisions of the population. The entire voting population chooses the president, therefore the only fair and logical method is direct election, where each vote has equal weight. The EC skews the weight of votes towards the smaller states, because each state must have at least three EC votes no matter how small its population. This system may have worked when it was designed, but we live in the 21st century where the candidates can easily cross the country in a short time, and visit each state to campaign. As things stand, candidates don't spend much time in states they are almost certain to lose, and those who vote for the opponent in those states - for example, millions of votes for the Republican candidate cast in NY - don't have their vote count for anything under the EC system, because it's winner takes all. Also also, while it's rare, the candidate who does not get the most votes winning the election thanks to the EC math makes absolutely no sense.
reply
romulusnr
One thing you don't mention is that each state picks a number of electors that is not exactly proportional to the state's population, so it's fundamentally undemocratic as low population states get a much higher bang for their buck in terms of people per elector than larger states. Each state gets an automatic 2 electors to start and then at least 1 more based on population (except for DC which Congress hates. So even if your state has 1/3 the people of another state you're still guaranteed 3 electors while the other state might get 4 or 5. Then of course it's the FPP method of state electors being awarded in all but 2 states. If 51% of the state votes for A vs B, 100% of that state's electors will be for A and zero for B.
reply
One thing you don't mention is that each state picks a number of electors that is not exactly proportional to the state's population, so it's fundamentally undemocratic as low population states get a much higher bang for their buck in terms of people per elector than larger states. Each state gets an automatic 2 electors to start and then at least 1 more based on population (except for DC which Congress hates. So even if your state has 1/3 the people of another state you're still guaranteed 3 electors while the other state might get 4 or 5. Then of course it's the FPP method of state electors being awarded in all but 2 states. If 51% of the state votes for A vs B, 100% of that state's electors will be for A and zero for B.
reply
Micah
Another factor to why the Electoral College was ultimately chosen was, of course, slavery. The House of Representatives had been designed to distribute representation to slave states disproportionate to their free population (the North and South had roughly equal populations at the time, but the South's population was about one-third slaves, hence the Three-Fifths Compromise, and Southerners wanted to keep that advantage, which a popular vote would eliminate. Meanwhile, most people agreed that the executive should not be chosen by the legislature itself, so the solution was to appoint a body that mirrored the distribution of the legislature for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president.
reply
Another factor to why the Electoral College was ultimately chosen was, of course, slavery. The House of Representatives had been designed to distribute representation to slave states disproportionate to their free population (the North and South had roughly equal populations at the time, but the South's population was about one-third slaves, hence the Three-Fifths Compromise, and Southerners wanted to keep that advantage, which a popular vote would eliminate. Meanwhile, most people agreed that the executive should not be chosen by the legislature itself, so the solution was to appoint a body that mirrored the distribution of the legislature for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president.
reply
Jaye
The so-called popular vote is a non-thing. It is a made up statistic that has no basis in the Constitution or American law. It is a construct used by the losers to whine about being cheated out if their rightful victory. The only alternative to the Electoral College even considered was a congressional vote. It was the representatives who were to be elected by the people to represent them in the new government. The states appointed or elected the senators to represent the states. The president is elected by Electors to represent the nation and carry out his duties given by the Constitution and federal laws.
reply
The so-called popular vote is a non-thing. It is a made up statistic that has no basis in the Constitution or American law. It is a construct used by the losers to whine about being cheated out if their rightful victory. The only alternative to the Electoral College even considered was a congressional vote. It was the representatives who were to be elected by the people to represent them in the new government. The states appointed or elected the senators to represent the states. The president is elected by Electors to represent the nation and carry out his duties given by the Constitution and federal laws.
reply
Robert
What drives me nuts about the electoral college is how inaccurate it is. It doesn't matter if you win a state with 51% or 95%, you get the same number of electors either way. So a party with a strong regional advantage in large states (like the Democrats) ends up with a lot of useless votes. If we're stuck with the E. C, let's at least divide up each state's votes by congressional district, like Maine and Nebraska do. Of course we would have to ban gerrymandering first, or it would infect the result. I'm dreaming, of course. The GOP will never be persuaded to take their thumbs off the scale.
reply
What drives me nuts about the electoral college is how inaccurate it is. It doesn't matter if you win a state with 51% or 95%, you get the same number of electors either way. So a party with a strong regional advantage in large states (like the Democrats) ends up with a lot of useless votes. If we're stuck with the E. C, let's at least divide up each state's votes by congressional district, like Maine and Nebraska do. Of course we would have to ban gerrymandering first, or it would infect the result. I'm dreaming, of course. The GOP will never be persuaded to take their thumbs off the scale.
reply
Alvin
Not bad but I don't think there's any validity to the idea that the EC was created to keep smaller states or rural regions from being dominated. This is more of a trope and a common misbelief. I think it was Federalist Paper 64 (somene in the 60's) where the author just flat out says that the reason we have electors is because the common man doesn't have the information/wisdom necessary to pick the leader of the country so they've taken that out of our hands. Plus, the logisitics of the day would make it impossible to run a nationwide campaign.
reply
Not bad but I don't think there's any validity to the idea that the EC was created to keep smaller states or rural regions from being dominated. This is more of a trope and a common misbelief. I think it was Federalist Paper 64 (somene in the 60's) where the author just flat out says that the reason we have electors is because the common man doesn't have the information/wisdom necessary to pick the leader of the country so they've taken that out of our hands. Plus, the logisitics of the day would make it impossible to run a nationwide campaign.
reply
Peter
Pretty unbelievable that there was no mention in this entire video about how the number of electors per state are allocated and the connection to slavery. The primary point of the compromise was to prevent the more populous northern states from dominating the southern states, which counted 2/3 of their slave population in determining the number of representatives and electors even though they couldnt vote. A situation many of the southern states are doing their best to recreate today by disenfranchising as many people as possible.
reply
Pretty unbelievable that there was no mention in this entire video about how the number of electors per state are allocated and the connection to slavery. The primary point of the compromise was to prevent the more populous northern states from dominating the southern states, which counted 2/3 of their slave population in determining the number of representatives and electors even though they couldnt vote. A situation many of the southern states are doing their best to recreate today by disenfranchising as many people as possible.
reply
Maxwell
Can you imagine if the EC favored Democrats over the GOP? The right would be burning down Capitol buildings in protest. Oh wait they already tried doing that. France is currently having its Presidential Election. Their system is infinitely better for many reasons. Voting is on a Sunday. They use the popular vote one person=one vote. The first round has a dozen people allowing for more parties to participate. Finally the lack of billboards, tv ads, and spending of billions ( 2020 cost 14. 4 billion.
reply
Can you imagine if the EC favored Democrats over the GOP? The right would be burning down Capitol buildings in protest. Oh wait they already tried doing that. France is currently having its Presidential Election. Their system is infinitely better for many reasons. Voting is on a Sunday. They use the popular vote one person=one vote. The first round has a dozen people allowing for more parties to participate. Finally the lack of billboards, tv ads, and spending of billions ( 2020 cost 14. 4 billion.
reply
Jaye
One point kind of glossed over was the fact that there would have been only 26 senators and about 13 representatives in the first Congress. That made it feasible for a very wealthy presidential candidate to bribe just a few members of Congress to win the election. So, political corruption was to be avoided by the states (not the people) electing Electors for a brief period of time, who supposed knew the qualification of the candidates, to vote in the next president.
reply
One point kind of glossed over was the fact that there would have been only 26 senators and about 13 representatives in the first Congress. That made it feasible for a very wealthy presidential candidate to bribe just a few members of Congress to win the election. So, political corruption was to be avoided by the states (not the people) electing Electors for a brief period of time, who supposed knew the qualification of the candidates, to vote in the next president.
reply
Ian
The point that he makes here about the electoral college existing to prevent smaller states from being disenfranchised is one of the key points in understanding why it still exists. If the electoral college were abolished today, states with small, rural populations would see their voting populations entirely disenfranchised. There is literally no way that their votes could balance those of the more urbanized states like California and those in the Northeast.
reply
The point that he makes here about the electoral college existing to prevent smaller states from being disenfranchised is one of the key points in understanding why it still exists. If the electoral college were abolished today, states with small, rural populations would see their voting populations entirely disenfranchised. There is literally no way that their votes could balance those of the more urbanized states like California and those in the Northeast.
reply
Gamin
The relationship between the states, federal government, & people is really interesting. Its true that the states can overpower the federal government (and vice versa. Now, this is on purpose! Balancing the power between all 3 is an integral part of the Constitution.
The main issue with the electoral college is that they put all of the votes towards the most popular candidate in the state instead of dividing it evenly between the candidates.
reply
The relationship between the states, federal government, & people is really interesting. Its true that the states can overpower the federal government (and vice versa. Now, this is on purpose! Balancing the power between all 3 is an integral part of the Constitution.
The main issue with the electoral college is that they put all of the votes towards the most popular candidate in the state instead of dividing it evenly between the candidates.
reply
Linda
The simplest way to explain, being that we are a Republic and not a democracy is that in a democracy, 2 wolves and a sheep get to vote on what's for dinner. The founding fathers set up the electoral college to give states with lesser populations fair representation. Otherwise the big cities on both coasts would always be deciding the presidency for everyone else.
The electoral college doesn't always come in to play as the deciding factor
reply
The simplest way to explain, being that we are a Republic and not a democracy is that in a democracy, 2 wolves and a sheep get to vote on what's for dinner. The founding fathers set up the electoral college to give states with lesser populations fair representation. Otherwise the big cities on both coasts would always be deciding the presidency for everyone else.
The electoral college doesn't always come in to play as the deciding factor
reply
Christian
While they said it was rare and happened five times in our nations history, when a candidate lost the popular but won the electoral vote, two of those times have happened in the past 20 years. And those administrations have been questionable at best, disastrous at worst. Combine that with our two political parties becoming more and more partisan, you can see why so many people want to do away with the electoral college
reply
While they said it was rare and happened five times in our nations history, when a candidate lost the popular but won the electoral vote, two of those times have happened in the past 20 years. And those administrations have been questionable at best, disastrous at worst. Combine that with our two political parties becoming more and more partisan, you can see why so many people want to do away with the electoral college
reply
Justin
The do-nothing Congress is beneficial to all of them because it maintains a status quo and doesn't interfere with their ability to make money on the job. So nothing will really happen. Also after January 6th and other different incidents can we blame some officials who blame mob rule for a lot of problems in this country? The Electoral College as a filtering mechanism to prevent randomness. Most of the time that is
reply
The do-nothing Congress is beneficial to all of them because it maintains a status quo and doesn't interfere with their ability to make money on the job. So nothing will really happen. Also after January 6th and other different incidents can we blame some officials who blame mob rule for a lot of problems in this country? The Electoral College as a filtering mechanism to prevent randomness. Most of the time that is
reply
Xymos
As an American, I'm happy we have the Electoral College. People hate on our political discourse, but it's suppose to be fractional with the interests of individual states represented first and foremost.
If there was a change to be made, then I would say each electoral vote should be portioned out based on the number of Congressional districts one wins, not the overall popular vote of a state.
reply
As an American, I'm happy we have the Electoral College. People hate on our political discourse, but it's suppose to be fractional with the interests of individual states represented first and foremost.
If there was a change to be made, then I would say each electoral vote should be portioned out based on the number of Congressional districts one wins, not the overall popular vote of a state.
reply
Bru
Popular vote does not count. I cant remember the last Republican president that won with the popular vote. The biggest issue is that the value of electoral votes is skewed. Its not based on population or state value to the union. The values are just valued evenly red/blue close to placate to the whims of the southern states. Now, its biting America because the minority controls.
reply
Popular vote does not count. I cant remember the last Republican president that won with the popular vote. The biggest issue is that the value of electoral votes is skewed. Its not based on population or state value to the union. The values are just valued evenly red/blue close to placate to the whims of the southern states. Now, its biting America because the minority controls.
reply
Jay
The Gridlock in congress is not a bug, its a feature. USA was designed in a way where most things were supposed to take place at the state level, that's why they have a direct democracy. At federal level, its a Republic and not a democracy. Every Direct democracy in the history has died. If the system is designed in a way where 50% + 1 rules the rest, it is destined to fail.
reply
The Gridlock in congress is not a bug, its a feature. USA was designed in a way where most things were supposed to take place at the state level, that's why they have a direct democracy. At federal level, its a Republic and not a democracy. Every Direct democracy in the history has died. If the system is designed in a way where 50% + 1 rules the rest, it is destined to fail.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
