How can just 5 Counties Decide The Next US President
video description
Date: 2024-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
knowledgia
The Uneven Electoral power between the states is intentional. Our founding generation did NOT want a popular vote system. They considered the voting for the President to be handled by Congress, but decided that the political winds in Congress shouldn't dictate the politics of the President.
Therefore, an Electoral College, whose jobs it is to deliberate and determine who should be President, was provided. Representation is based upon the same number of members at given state has in Congress. Washington, D. C. gets 3 Electoral Votes due to an Amendment to the Constitution. They did NOT what a pure democratic system because the presidency needs to have a clear winner. The Electoral College decentralized the process and makes the winner clearer, and therefore has fewer issues with legitimacy.
The winner-take-all system is not present in the States of Nebraska and Maine. This is because the Electoral College is not a winner take all system. The other 48 states decided to make it so, but it was not the intention of the founders.
The founders wanted the electors to be chosen by the state, and they are. However, when we vote for a given candidate, we vote for the electors that are intended to vote for that candidate. Originally, this was not intended. Electors were to be chosen much sooner for the election of the president (the first electoral college lasted over a year before it elected George Washington, who ran basically unopposed, and deliberation was expected to be a free choice.
Today, most states have decided that they want the popular vote in their state to be the method to determine who gets the votes. Most of these states have decided that Faithless Electors will be punished. Meaning that if they vote for someone other than whom they were slated to vote for, then they can serve jail time. However, not all states have these requirements and still let their electors vote their conscience as was intended by our founders.
Basically, most criticism of the Electoral College come from people who either don't understand what it's supposed to do and conflate the States' modifications and think that it's a Federal imposition of the Electoral College, or they simply want a true democracy, which is what we are not.
The beauty of the system is that it prevents the smaller states from being run over politically. It makes them matter more, to ensure that the rural population is never neglected. Think about it, our founders always understood that you should never bite the hand that feeds you. If you alienate the farmers (from whom most of the soldiers are also born) then you risk a civil war that you can't easily win.
Some people are also critical of the fact that we have swing states. The problem is that the swing states do change over time. For example, the states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and Indiana were all considered swing states about 20 years ago. The states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina were not swing states back then. Go back even further, Texas was a blue state and California was a red state. Presidents Nixon and Reagan were both prominent Republicans from California. President LBJ was a prominent Democrat from Texas. The Red, Blue, and Swing states always change over time.
The reason for this is that the politics of the nation do change, and the people and the parties are affected. As a result, we can't consider these blocs of states to be permanent. However, there will always be a reliable bloc of states for the Republicans and the Democrats respectively, so long as these two parties remain relevant to the people.
reply
The Uneven Electoral power between the states is intentional. Our founding generation did NOT want a popular vote system. They considered the voting for the President to be handled by Congress, but decided that the political winds in Congress shouldn't dictate the politics of the President.
Therefore, an Electoral College, whose jobs it is to deliberate and determine who should be President, was provided. Representation is based upon the same number of members at given state has in Congress. Washington, D. C. gets 3 Electoral Votes due to an Amendment to the Constitution. They did NOT what a pure democratic system because the presidency needs to have a clear winner. The Electoral College decentralized the process and makes the winner clearer, and therefore has fewer issues with legitimacy.
The winner-take-all system is not present in the States of Nebraska and Maine. This is because the Electoral College is not a winner take all system. The other 48 states decided to make it so, but it was not the intention of the founders.
The founders wanted the electors to be chosen by the state, and they are. However, when we vote for a given candidate, we vote for the electors that are intended to vote for that candidate. Originally, this was not intended. Electors were to be chosen much sooner for the election of the president (the first electoral college lasted over a year before it elected George Washington, who ran basically unopposed, and deliberation was expected to be a free choice.
Today, most states have decided that they want the popular vote in their state to be the method to determine who gets the votes. Most of these states have decided that Faithless Electors will be punished. Meaning that if they vote for someone other than whom they were slated to vote for, then they can serve jail time. However, not all states have these requirements and still let their electors vote their conscience as was intended by our founders.
Basically, most criticism of the Electoral College come from people who either don't understand what it's supposed to do and conflate the States' modifications and think that it's a Federal imposition of the Electoral College, or they simply want a true democracy, which is what we are not.
The beauty of the system is that it prevents the smaller states from being run over politically. It makes them matter more, to ensure that the rural population is never neglected. Think about it, our founders always understood that you should never bite the hand that feeds you. If you alienate the farmers (from whom most of the soldiers are also born) then you risk a civil war that you can't easily win.
Some people are also critical of the fact that we have swing states. The problem is that the swing states do change over time. For example, the states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and Indiana were all considered swing states about 20 years ago. The states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina were not swing states back then. Go back even further, Texas was a blue state and California was a red state. Presidents Nixon and Reagan were both prominent Republicans from California. President LBJ was a prominent Democrat from Texas. The Red, Blue, and Swing states always change over time.
The reason for this is that the politics of the nation do change, and the people and the parties are affected. As a result, we can't consider these blocs of states to be permanent. However, there will always be a reliable bloc of states for the Republicans and the Democrats respectively, so long as these two parties remain relevant to the people.
reply
BXMKE
From the Bronx, New York. Now live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I just went from mattering to nobody to mattering to the whole country jk but seriously that’s crazy though that people take the swing state stuff too seriously. You can change anyone’s mind anywhere and the only reason why swing states switch their parties more often than others is because they get more money and campaigning in their state which gives them a higher percentage for voter turnout which changes the vote because every time there’s a big difference in number of people than there’s a different outcome. Today that would be like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
reply
From the Bronx, New York. Now live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I just went from mattering to nobody to mattering to the whole country jk but seriously that’s crazy though that people take the swing state stuff too seriously. You can change anyone’s mind anywhere and the only reason why swing states switch their parties more often than others is because they get more money and campaigning in their state which gives them a higher percentage for voter turnout which changes the vote because every time there’s a big difference in number of people than there’s a different outcome. Today that would be like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
reply
justinmiller3883
I think most Americans would have no issues with a popular vote. The problem is iron clad voting laws are not in place. At the minimum voter id laws need to be in place nationwide to prevent any question of fraud. Mail in voting is something that needs to be done away with as well. As long as there are potentials for fraud the electoral college is what needs to stay in place. The problem is you have one side claim discrimination of ID laws, yet you need a government ID for everything. Its hard to say there is no fraud when one side is so dishonest in their arguments.
reply
I think most Americans would have no issues with a popular vote. The problem is iron clad voting laws are not in place. At the minimum voter id laws need to be in place nationwide to prevent any question of fraud. Mail in voting is something that needs to be done away with as well. As long as there are potentials for fraud the electoral college is what needs to stay in place. The problem is you have one side claim discrimination of ID laws, yet you need a government ID for everything. Its hard to say there is no fraud when one side is so dishonest in their arguments.
reply
knowledgia
People forget that most safe states were swing states not long ago. Voting patterns are mutable countrywide when you consider a few decades. You might think your vote doesn’t count as much this time, but there’s a good chance that your state was a swing state not long ago or it will be one in a few election cycles.
The biggest advantage of the electoral college in my view is that it forces the candidates to appeal to the moderate vote: you can’t win a race by just pandering for the converted in states that already vote for your party.
reply
People forget that most safe states were swing states not long ago. Voting patterns are mutable countrywide when you consider a few decades. You might think your vote doesn’t count as much this time, but there’s a good chance that your state was a swing state not long ago or it will be one in a few election cycles.
The biggest advantage of the electoral college in my view is that it forces the candidates to appeal to the moderate vote: you can’t win a race by just pandering for the converted in states that already vote for your party.
reply
visionary4787
There’s another layer here: it doesn’t just change the candidates’ strategies; it shifts the public dialogue, too. Instead of talking about universal issues, we see intense focus on regional or state-specific concerns that may not reflect the needs of the broader electorate. This system raises big questions about fairness and representation. Should these counties dictate the direction of the entire country Or should we reconsider how we measure and balance voter influence to reflect national sentiment more accurately
reply
There’s another layer here: it doesn’t just change the candidates’ strategies; it shifts the public dialogue, too. Instead of talking about universal issues, we see intense focus on regional or state-specific concerns that may not reflect the needs of the broader electorate. This system raises big questions about fairness and representation. Should these counties dictate the direction of the entire country Or should we reconsider how we measure and balance voter influence to reflect national sentiment more accurately
reply
mikiaization
the Electoral College is very much needed still for the same reasons it was created in the first place.
restrict mob rule (majority rule. let the minority have a voice)
localize election integrity
states rights / power over federal
the feeling of powerlessness can be alleviated though if we all take the model of Nebraska. each state can break up its votes into subsections. you would still have the safeguards of the electoral college while getting closer to the individual so they have more power(relatively)
reply
the Electoral College is very much needed still for the same reasons it was created in the first place.
restrict mob rule (majority rule. let the minority have a voice)
localize election integrity
states rights / power over federal
the feeling of powerlessness can be alleviated though if we all take the model of Nebraska. each state can break up its votes into subsections. you would still have the safeguards of the electoral college while getting closer to the individual so they have more power(relatively)
reply
bridgerfinch131
I believe that the electoral college is overall a good thing to have, although arguably flawed in some ways. The reason why is because in a nation of 46% republicans and 49% democrats, if we voted strictly on popular vote, the democrats would win the presidency every single time leaving almost half the population unrepresented except for congress. However, maybe the electoral college could be improved, perhaps by splitting votes by district kind of the way Maine and Nebraska do.
reply
I believe that the electoral college is overall a good thing to have, although arguably flawed in some ways. The reason why is because in a nation of 46% republicans and 49% democrats, if we voted strictly on popular vote, the democrats would win the presidency every single time leaving almost half the population unrepresented except for congress. However, maybe the electoral college could be improved, perhaps by splitting votes by district kind of the way Maine and Nebraska do.
reply
dhawthorne1634
Maine and Nebraska are NOT winner take all. They split their electors proportionally to match the popular vote. There is also legislation working its way through 13 states to change from winner-take-all to proportional voting.
Another possible reform through the inter-state treaty called NaPoVoInterCo that will use the Faithless Elector protections to ensure a proportional Electoral College once they have enough member states to control the majority of electors.
reply
Maine and Nebraska are NOT winner take all. They split their electors proportionally to match the popular vote. There is also legislation working its way through 13 states to change from winner-take-all to proportional voting.
Another possible reform through the inter-state treaty called NaPoVoInterCo that will use the Faithless Elector protections to ensure a proportional Electoral College once they have enough member states to control the majority of electors.
reply
julius-stark
After seeing many discussions about this for decades, I honestly do think the Electoral College is the least worst way to choose the president. Going purely by popular vote will just create mob rule; the largest demographic will be catered to while the minority demographic will be ignored, while at least having to win certain counties/districts means you have to win a wider array of people who may have wildly different issues.
reply
After seeing many discussions about this for decades, I honestly do think the Electoral College is the least worst way to choose the president. Going purely by popular vote will just create mob rule; the largest demographic will be catered to while the minority demographic will be ignored, while at least having to win certain counties/districts means you have to win a wider array of people who may have wildly different issues.
reply
jypsridic
If these 5 counties voted for Candidate A and the rest of the country voted for Candidate B then Candidate B would still win correct Then those 5 counties do not decide the election.
Also Trump has a meaningful lead in all those states, you might as well be saying the 5 most populous counties in Texas are deciding it because if they went 100% blue texas would flip.
reply
If these 5 counties voted for Candidate A and the rest of the country voted for Candidate B then Candidate B would still win correct Then those 5 counties do not decide the election.
Also Trump has a meaningful lead in all those states, you might as well be saying the 5 most populous counties in Texas are deciding it because if they went 100% blue texas would flip.
reply
dhawthorne1634
While a very well written and informative video, as always, I disapprove of your only showing two of the four candidates actually running for the office. If we are ever going to break this entrenched two party stalemate we've been fighting for the past half of a century, people need to see ALL of the candidates represented in educational media such as this.
reply
While a very well written and informative video, as always, I disapprove of your only showing two of the four candidates actually running for the office. If we are ever going to break this entrenched two party stalemate we've been fighting for the past half of a century, people need to see ALL of the candidates represented in educational media such as this.
reply
Smdjrjj
Because we live in a democracy and that’s how it should be you may not like it but the electoral college forces candidates to travel all over the country and listen to different voters different races and different issues that’s a good thing without the electoral college dems would win every single election that sounds an awful lot like have a king
reply
Because we live in a democracy and that’s how it should be you may not like it but the electoral college forces candidates to travel all over the country and listen to different voters different races and different issues that’s a good thing without the electoral college dems would win every single election that sounds an awful lot like have a king
reply
hoangvu220
The electoral college has got to go. I am upset by the fact that every citizen's vote does not count the same. Let the people decide. After all, the US government is of the People, by the People, and for the People, not. of/by/for the electoral college! What is ancient has got to go; it may have made sense 150 years ago, but no more.
reply
The electoral college has got to go. I am upset by the fact that every citizen's vote does not count the same. Let the people decide. After all, the US government is of the People, by the People, and for the People, not. of/by/for the electoral college! What is ancient has got to go; it may have made sense 150 years ago, but no more.
reply
vere9652
Counties doesn't matter, because winner of that county doesn't take all. If one of your swing counties would shift by 5000 votes, but other 10 not swing counties would just shift to opposite dirrection each by 600 votes, than the swing county doesn't matter. It is not like a swing state, where winner takes all
reply
Counties doesn't matter, because winner of that county doesn't take all. If one of your swing counties would shift by 5000 votes, but other 10 not swing counties would just shift to opposite dirrection each by 600 votes, than the swing county doesn't matter. It is not like a swing state, where winner takes all
reply
Thomk121
And people will still argue against the electoral college. Its crazy to me. the popular vote can be won by just a dozen major cities. The president would be decided by the populations of the east coast and west coast cities. Leaving the middle of the country completely unrepresented.
reply
And people will still argue against the electoral college. Its crazy to me. the popular vote can be won by just a dozen major cities. The president would be decided by the populations of the east coast and west coast cities. Leaving the middle of the country completely unrepresented.
reply
abbbbbbb4482
To say these counties decide is like saying the last person to score in a tight game won the game. That ignores all the other prior scoring.
Harris will win because she wins a large number of stares plus the swing states. That is true for Trump.
reply
To say these counties decide is like saying the last person to score in a tight game won the game. That ignores all the other prior scoring.
Harris will win because she wins a large number of stares plus the swing states. That is true for Trump.
reply
vitaliche5563
1. Eleminate the majoritarian election system based on the false principle The winner-take-all. 2. Establish a democratic election system with both candidates recognized as winners (win-win principle. 3. Create a Trump-Harris coalition government.
reply
1. Eleminate the majoritarian election system based on the false principle The winner-take-all. 2. Establish a democratic election system with both candidates recognized as winners (win-win principle. 3. Create a Trump-Harris coalition government.
reply
mikekgasda
How counties vote matters - No it matters at the state level always. And for good reason. It just happens that some counties flip left or right. This changes every election and every 10 years the value of these changes even more cause of the census
reply
How counties vote matters - No it matters at the state level always. And for good reason. It just happens that some counties flip left or right. This changes every election and every 10 years the value of these changes even more cause of the census
reply
knowledgia
Azimov had a short story where elections where decided by an AI and an interview with just one person. And it was the most efficient way to choose a leader that was reprentative of the will of the people. It was fascinating thought experiment.
reply
Azimov had a short story where elections where decided by an AI and an interview with just one person. And it was the most efficient way to choose a leader that was reprentative of the will of the people. It was fascinating thought experiment.
reply
jcarp1776
Considering just 1 bellwether county exists after the 2020 election strengthens the argument that fraud occurred in that election. Let’s not repeat the mistakes and inadequate security of one of our most prized rights again this year.
reply
Considering just 1 bellwether county exists after the 2020 election strengthens the argument that fraud occurred in that election. Let’s not repeat the mistakes and inadequate security of one of our most prized rights again this year.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
