Historian: Correcting The Myths of The Electoral College | Tara Ross | POLITICS | Rubin Report
Articles Blog

Historian: Correcting The Myths of The Electoral College | Tara Ross | POLITICS | Rubin Report

December 3, 2019


– People think that
the federal government has any power except things
that are expressly prohibited, and it’s actually
the other way around. (calm music) – I’m Dave Rubin and
this is the Rubin Report. Here’s my friendly
reminder to click subscribe and also click that little bell if you’re watching
this on YouTube so that you actually get
notified of our videos. Okay, now, joining
me today is a lawyer and the author of several books including The Indispensable
Electoral College, How the Founder’s Plan Saves
Our Country From Mob Rule, Tara Ross, welcome
to the Rubin Report. – Thanks for having me. – I am glad to have you here. You actually live in Dallas
and you sort of just missed this crazy tornado
situation, so I’m doubly glad to have you here.
– Barely made it, but I’m here, yes. – Okay, good to have you here. We’re gonna focus heavily
on the electoral college, because there’s a lot to talk
about the electoral college. I became familiar with you
because your PragerU video has 60 million views about
the electoral college. That is crazy that
that many people care. Were you shocked that that
many people care about a topic? I mean, it’s their
number one video. – It came out
before the election, probably a good year and a
half before the 2016 election. I didn’t really think about it. I mean, just to be honest,
then the 2016 election happened and next thing I know, I’m
pulling up on my Facebook feed and my face is showing
up over and over again in feeds from my friends
and I was as blown away as anybody else, but I
think that Prager has set up a good system where they
have informational videos on all these different
topics, as you know, and people were
looking for information in the wake of the
election outcome in 2016 and that was readily available and I’m so happy, so happy
that Prager did that. – Yeah, and as we now ramp
into this 2020 election, this conversation about should
we have an electoral college, why do we have it, should
it be popular vote, this whole thing keeps
ramping up more and more. So we’re gonna spend
most of our conversation talking about that, but
I thought we’d just start generally talking
about the Constitution. And some of the laws that
govern us these days, because people seem very
confused about them. Tell me a little
bit about something that we don’t know
about the Constitution that we should know. – The first thing
that leapt to my mind was people think that
the federal government has any power except things
that are expressly prohibited, and it’s actually
the other way around. The federal government
only has the power that the Constitution
expressly gives to it. Everything else is reserved
to the states or the people. And if you think about that, that’s a really
important distinction. The federal
government can only do what the Constitution
explicitly says, “Yes, you may do this”. And the federal government
has grown so out of bounds that it’s doing the opposite. Everyday, it does the opposite. – Yeah, well it seems that
that’s how we’re governed now, that almost everything is
through the federal government, and especially if you listen to the democratic
candidates now, that they seem to want
to do all of these things regardless of what states
want and things like that. How do they get away with it? I don’t mean to make
this even partisan, in general speaking, you know. – I would say both
parties do it. I don’t, I think it
starts with us, honestly. Because think about
anything that’s happening. If a natural disaster
hits, tornado in Dallas, people hopefully in
Texas a little bit less, as a Texas girl, but we
look to the government and we look, we don’t look
even to the state government. We look to the
federal government. We want our governor to
declare a state emergency because then we know
there’s more federal funds, there’s more this,
there’s more that. I think the mindsets of
everybody has changed so badly that we’re enabling the
situation to continue. So maybe we can start
at home by look, I’m from Dallas,
I’m, I hope we all, we’re pitching in, we’re
helping our neighbors, we’re hopefully looking
to our state or our city before we start looking
to the federal government. I think that if we
can work on that, that’s a really big
problem I just outlined. But- – Well, are you
shocked at, sort of, how little it seems
people know or care about our founding documents? I mean, I talk about
them here all the time, the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence are sitting on the wall in my
control room right over there. But that so few
people actually really think about the
documents that led to the unprecedented freedom
that we’re living in right now. – We live in a world
that has created that. We have schools that
teach social studies, when they used to teach history. We don’t teach the
federalist papers, which of course were the, and
the anti-federalist papers, which were the
arguments back and forth at the time of the founding
about the Constitution and why it exists as it does and what they were
trying to create. We just, we don’t
do any of this stuff in our schools anymore. And then we have
adults that grow up having never been
exposed to this, and so nobody knows. Literally nobody knows, and I think the
founding generation, if you read in the
federalist papers, especially over and
over and over again, James Madison or Alexander
Hamilton will say the people will
keep this in line. And they talk about the people as if we will be educated,
as if we will know, as if we will take all of
this into consideration when we’re voting, doing
all the things that we do, but once you undermine
education and once that’s gone, how can you possibly keep the
structure in place anymore? – Do you think that was a
miscalculation by the founders? That over time, sort of,
that the state would kinda slowly grow and then as it grew, that education would
kind of get worse, and maybe they couldn’t
envision all of that, but that that was
their miscalculation, that the people would
somehow always be engaged? – Yes. I do, they assumed the
people would be engaged. You read it over and over again. They also assumed we
would always be more loyal to our states than to
the federal government, which probably by the way
comes with the education. When you lose the education, you lose the loyalty
to your states, ’cause you stop understanding
why it’s so important, why that’s an important
part of the check, system of checks and balances. We talk about the
executive and the judiciary and the legislative and
how they work against and with each other
and how they check and balance each
other, but also, the state and the
federal government were supposed to be
checks on each other. And that doesn’t mean states
always handle things correctly, just like the federal
government doesn’t handle things correctly, but it’s all a part
of the process. We assume that everybody’s
gonna make mistakes. We assume that the system,
where there are so many competing powers going
head to head all the time, that that will in
the end protect us because everything will
be, it would be difficult to push anything
through too quickly, and in the heat of the
moment emotionally. – And isn’t that sort of the
bizarre situation we’re in, where now it’s like we’ve
had this incredible system where the states could
tinker and figure out what they wanted to do
with taxes and education and gay marriage and
marijuana legalization and literally every
topic there is, but now we’re
outsourcing all of that, and it’s like well
now if the government does some bad stuff, it’s
not that you can leave your state, ’cause the next
states gonna be the same. You gotta leave the country. – Right, that’s not good. – That’s not good. – When you were
talking about that, I was thinking there’s so
many examples from our history where Wyoming, for instance,
was the very first state to let women vote. They did it in 1892,
way before anybody else ’cause they thought
it was a good idea. Their reason was funny. They wanted more pioneers,
women, to come out and to join all the men,
’cause there were too many men and they needed women. But states used to
operate for themselves with their own interest in mind and they made decisions
on all sorts of topics, and we don’t even
consider that anymore. – So we’re here, we’re
here in California, which is probably doing
most of that wrong, and we have an ever
expanding government, and we now have this
progressive Governor Newsom, but you’re in Texas. What are some of the
things that you think maybe Texas, which is
still a little more Texas- – Yeah. – That Texas might
be doing right that maybe California
is doing wrong? – I mean, I love my
state, we’re not perfect. So I can also list
things we’re doing wrong. But- – [Dave] All right,
well let’s do both then. – Well you can’t buy
Teslas straight from the, you have to go through
all these hoops because of the automobile
lobby, from what I understand. There are things that
I think are not great. But mostly, what we do is
we regulate less, you know? If you wanna use a
straw, use a straw. If you don’t wanna use a
straw, don’t use a straw. – It’s so funny you say that, ’cause I was telling
you, I was just in Dallas this past weekend and you guys
still have plastic straws. – [Tara] We like them. – And I was in New York
a couple days before drinking out of this
soggy straw and I’m like, this is horrible. – I know. Look, there’s arguments
for an against it. Whatever, I’m not trying to
dis anybody’s opinion on that, but it’s just, in Texas
I think we are probably more likely, not uniformly,
but more likely to say make your own decision. We add fewer taxes, which
I consider a great thing, you know there’s no income tax. But we do have property
taxes, but you choose to buy a house and then
you pay the property tax when you choose
to buy the house. I hope that we’re a little
bit more free down there, just to kinda make
up our own minds, but I think the founders
would have liked that. – They definitely
would have liked that. So, right now we’re
seeing what I think are major assaults particularly
on the First Amendment. So we’ll start with that. Particularly on free speech. Now, people are
very confused about encroachments on free speech
relative to the government versus just sort of mob rule
that we see all the time. Are you, well, do
you agree with me that free speech really
is in a tenuous state, that maybe it hasn’t been, say,
in the last couple decades? – Yeah, I do. It’s, yeah. I think we kinda went from
a place where there were a whole bunch of things
that we were trying to become more tolerant of,
and then we got to the place where we’re more tolerant
of a whole bunch of stuff, and now we’re at a place,
we’re on the other side, where now you’re no
longer to even say things that were the norm
20 or 30 years ago. It’s like flipped on it. It’s very weird to me. There’s certain things
that I think you just, you can’t say without
all sorts of bad things coming down on your head. – If you had to sort of grade the way the system’s kinda
functioning right now. – We’re broken. We’re broken. I’ve been saying
that for a while, and we’re just, we’re broken. I do think, we’re talking
about the electoral college a little bit, I think that
is one thing that will help. I do think we’ve
been broken before and we’ve come out of it. We were broken in the
years after the Civil War. It was a big mess then. We had multiple elections
where, you know, the electoral vote and
popular vote did not match up. And there were two
elections where the recorded national
popular vote winner did not win the election. There was year after year
where the electoral map looked really really similar,
very closely divided. The red areas always
seemed to red, and the blue areas
always seemed to be blue, which is what we’re doing now. Eventually because of
the electoral college, we came out of
that, is my belief. Because if you think about it, if you’re a democrat in
the south in those years, you cannot win the White
House, at all, period. Because you don’t have
enough electoral votes in your safe areas. But if you are a
republican, you kind of have the opposite problem
where you have enough in the north, northwest, which
is where it generally was, to win but kinda just barely. And if the democrats
made any inroads at all, you’re gonna lose. So both sides over time had
to reach out to the other side and listen and figure it out. So that’s why I think
we’re there now. I do think that’s
what’s happening. But I also have hope that
this, because of the structure of the system, even
though we’re not educated enough about it, that
we will come back to a better place where we
just have to figure it out. – All right, so before
we do the full dive on the electoral college,
– Sorry, yes. – Which we’ll spend the rest of the conversation
talking about, because I really
really want people to understand why the
founders started this idea and why it actually is the
right idea and all of that, but in terms of
the system working or not working at the moment, do you think part
of it is just that the way we operate,
that the presidency, the cult of personality
around the presidency is such that people think
that it’s the president’s job to do everything? So they, if you like
Trump, you kinda think oh he should just
do whatever he wants and executive actions are okay, the same time when
Obama was for it, you probably weren’t
for executive actions. Or right now, listening
to the candidates, you know, the everything
that they want to do, they don’t realize they
are actually not the ones that are supposed
to write the laws. They’re just supposed
to sign the laws. Do you think that that’s just
a cult of personality issue that we just pick one
person, almost like we yearn for a king in like, some
really perverse sense or something like that? – So, to really
get geeky on you, it goes all the way back-
– Let’s get geeky, let’s go.
– It goes all the way back to the 17th Amendment,
which of course changed the way that we
elect United States senators. And it used to be that
state legislatures would pick those,
and now of course we have a popular election,
just like anybody else. Which makes senators more like
the house of representatives which is not what they
were supposed to be. They were supposed to
actually represent the state as a state in the
congress so that the laws and the process and
all of the stuff that was happening in congress
would reflect the interests not only of the people
from the house side, but also the state
legislatures, which are expected of course to be an
important check and balance on the national government. Well, unsurprisingly
when we turned the senate into something more
like the house, we lost a check and now,
the congress has just become a place to try to get the people as much as we feel like we want. You know, whether it’s
good for the country, whether it’s good
for the state or not. And so that has, but
then also it’s hard, and congress I think they defer. They push it off into
an administrative agency or they delegate
power to the president or they do these
different things to be able to give as
much as they possibly can without always having
to be as blunt about it as maybe they would
have to be otherwise. – So before the 17th Amendment, did things function a
little bit differently because they were chosen
by their own states, they had to come
back and deal with, it was their own states, yes.
– The state legislature, right.
– Yes, their own state legislature.
– Well if you’re a United States senator
before the 17th Amendment and you vote for a
bill that includes an unfunded state mandate,
you’re not gonna get reelected because the state legislator’s
gonna be really mad at you. So you’re accountable to just
a different set of people which is healthy because that, or say the federal government
wants to take power in some area, whatever it is, they change the drinking age and federal funds for
roads went along with that. But if you’re a state
senator and you know that your state, a
United States senator and you know that
your state legislature prefers to be in charge
of its own roads, you’re not gonna
vote for that bill. It changed the
dynamics completely and made it much much easier
for the federal government to swoop in and take
over from the states on a whole variety of issues. But I think it
also made it easier for the congress to
delegate to the president or to an administrative
agency or, there was just less
accountability overall
for any of this. And of course, the more power
the president’s delegated, exactly what you’re
saying happens, which we think the president, the president has become such an all important
elected official in so many ways that
didn’t used to be true. – Yeah, all right, so with
all that in mind then, let’s do electoral college 101. Where did the idea of
the electoral college
first come from? – Well the delegates at the
constitutional convention spent the whole summer
going back and forth, should we have a
national popular vote, just like people want now, should we do something else. And they had crazy ideas. Maybe we’ll have
three presidents. Maybe we’ll have, they talked
about legislative selection. That was one of the
main ideas on the table. Maybe we’ll have congress
select the president. They talked about governors
selecting the president. They had a whole bunch of ideas, but the two ideas that
were there at the end, the primary ones, were
a national popular vote and congress picks
the president. Nobody knows exactly
what happened, because there was a committee
for unfinished business and they went
behind closed doors and there’s one-
– [Dave] Some things haven’t changed that much, that’s what you’re saying.
– Right. And so there was one
report that James Madison took a pen and paper and
sketched out the idea. They came back and presented
to the whole convention. The convention was surprised
that they had deviated from national popular
vote, but this is what, this is what they
had decided on. And it solved the concerns of
the big versus small states that had been going back
and forth the whole summer. The big states by and
large were more comfortable with national popular vote idea. The small states were
really uncomfortable. They thought they
would be tyrannized. And there’s a great quote
from a Delaware delegate and he says, “I do not
trust you, gentleman. “If you have the power-“,
he says gentleman, which I think is funny. “I do not trust you.” It’s like underlined in
italics, you know, gentleman. “If you have the power, “the abuse of it
could not be checked “and you would exercise
it to our destruction.” And that’s what the
small states felt, that we will be destroyed
if you have this kind of a system in place. And I think it’s important
to note, by the way, that the divide here was
not slave versus not-slave, it was small versus large. And there were some large
states that had more slaves than not, and there
were, and vice versa. And the same thing
with the small states. Somme had slaves, some didn’t. It was not a slave
versus not-slave divide. It was a small versus large. – Were there any reps,
say, from big states that actually were for
the electoral college? Because that would’ve
been giving power away, but we do know that
a lot of the founders were trying to
curtail that power. – So James Madison’s
from Virginia, and I think he was more
comfortable in the beginning with just a national
popular vote, but he came, he felt like
this was the better compromise in the end, obviously
he sketched it out behind closed doors. – Right now, when people
say, and we’re hearing this more and more, we should
just have the popular vote. That you know, the
current president lost the popular vote, he’s an
illegitimate president. What is the counter argument? – I really wish
people would stop and just think about why
the democratic party lost. The people who were upset
on the democratic side because they lost, they’ve
spent a lot of time blasting the system and
criticizing the system, criticizing Trump,
and I wish they would spend more time thinking
about why they lost. And the reason they lost
is because Hillary Clinton spent too much time
doing exactly what the electoral college
does not want her to do, or any candidate to do,
which is she focused too exclusively on
one kind of voter. It’s the kind of voter
that happens to live in big cities in New York
and California, mostly. She got 20% of her vote from
only New York and California, and most of her vote
in those two states came from the big cities. Towards the end of
the campaign she, people don’t usually know this, but she thought she was about
to win the electoral vote and lose the popular
vote, so she actually doubled down on that strategy and she started
spending a lot of time and resources on safe areas. Areas that she was already
expected to do well, because she wanted to
drive up the popular vote in those safe areas so
that she would not have that discrepancy between the
electoral and the popular vote. But of course, if she’d
instead gone to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
spread out her base of appeal, built coalitions,
worked on that, she probably would’ve won. It was within reach and
she could’ve done it, but she didn’t. – So is the main argument
then that basically, you will create a situation
where a state like California which has, what, like the tenth
biggest economy in the world or something like that,
this huge population, it’s a huge land mass,
and then New York with the huge huge population, concentrated in big
cities, that if we get rid of the electoral college,
that almost everything, but especially the
middle of the country, will just be completely ignored
by the federal government. So it’s the same issue
from 200 years ago, right? – Right. I mean, if you’re a candidate,
you have limited time, you have limited resources. That’s just human,
that’s not good or bad, it’s just what it is. And you cannot, physically
cannot, go everywhere. You cannot, it’s not
productive or efficient to try to strategize
how to bring in people from different parts
of the country. What is most productive as
a purely strategic matter is just to go to where
people already like you and just start
drumming up support. I mean, if you’re a republican,
maybe you go to Houston and you look at the oil
interest and you say I’ll give you this, I’ll give
you that, I’ll give you this. And you just try to drum up
as many people as you can. If you’re a democrat
maybe you say I’m gonna give the environmental
lobby everything they want. I’m gonna go to LA
and San Francisco, I’m gonna start drumming
up support there. I’ll ban plastic straws
in the whole country or something, I don’t know. So it’s just, it
is just practical. It’s not even malevolent
or anything at all. It is just what it is. It is a huge, big
diverse country and if you don’t give
candidates a reason to care, they’re not going to. – What would you
say to the people that would just say, tough. We should do this by how many
people vote for somebody, and you know what, if
you live in Missouri in a small town, that’s tough. You don’t live in a big city,
but the big city person’s vote doesn’t count less than yours. – You know, it’s just,
it’s so interesting to me that people think that because there is not any other context where we would just say tough. You know, we wouldn’t say
if one race can outvote the other race, tough. You know, we can do
whatever we want. Nobody would say that. We shouldn’t say that. So, why is it okay to say,
yeah if the big city people outvote the farmers,
eh who cares. I don’t think that’s right. I think what’s right
is to create a society that is just and to do our best to take into
account a wide need, a wide variety of needs
and if you think about it, if you let the big cities
dictate to the farmers, where they do most of the
producing in this country, by the way, you’re
telling the people who are the end users
that they can tyrannize over the producers. That’s going to create
a really bad situation. – We see this in
California all the time. If you drive up the coast
where all the farmers are complaining
about water rights and then the big cities
are getting all the water and it’s like guys, they’re
the ones growing the food. Does anyone care about the food? – And so you have these
dynamics in the states, it’s in New York too, it’s
in a couple of other states, and it’s in Texas really. Why do we think that we
can change the system and that these problems
that already exist at the state level will not
happen at the national level? Of course they will. So I have actually long
said I think California, Texas, a handful
of the big states, for their governor, should
have an electoral college kind of thing going on. I think it would be, it would
produce better governance in the big states
where this happens. – Interesting, so you take
an electoral college concept and apply it even
to those big states, because that way you could
sort of control their need to just serve the big,
you know, Dallas and say, Los Angeles.
– Why should farmers in California be tyrannized
by people in the big cities? Why should people in
the middle of Texas where there’s very
small population cities, why should they be tyrannized
by, I live in Dallas, but why should they be
tyrannized by us in Dallas or Houston or San
Antonio or Austin? They have different
needs and concerns, and I, you know, I’m not sure
the gubernatorial processes always reflect that. – So I know that we don’t
know everything that went on in these meetings
where James Madison’s sketching this all out, but where did all the
numbers come from? – Well, the numbers
come from congress. So you have the
same number electors as you do members of the
house, plus your two senators. So that is true for
every single state. That’s how, I’m from
Texas, we have 38 electors. We have 36 congressman
plus two senators. – So these can change
over time, right? – They do change over time, yes. – And does that,
how does that effect the way everybody’s
drawn up demographic maps and all kinds of stuff? – Well, I mean, it’s really
just based on the census and so you have, and it’s
based on after the census they decide how many people
are gonna be in the house and then we reallocate the
electors just to match it. – So do you feel that the system is actually functioning
as it should, then? Even if the people aren’t
being as responsible and maybe don’t know civics
the way you would want them to and all of those things,
do you think that the basic election system, and
especially again, ’cause we’re rolling
into an election. We’re gonna hear about
election rigging, we’re gonna hear about
foreign influence, we’re gonna hear about popular
vote verse electoral college. But do you think
that the elections are basically safe and
secure and that this is sort of the best way
that they can operate? – Yeah, I do. Look, I think we’re
a mess right now. I think both parties are
being really super stubborn about fixing themselves. I think pretty much everybody
could do a better job of working to build coalitions
and of being inclusive and trying to
understand the people that don’t fall in line
exactly where I am. And until we figure that out,
it’s going to look like this. I hope we figure it out soon, ’cause I’m kinda tired of
it, as everybody else is. But the system is
not not working, and the reason we’re
having close elections is because everybody
thinks stubborn. Which is, like I said, what
happened after the Civil War. – Is the irony here
though that if the states would actually take
back some of the rights that they’ve been
sort of outsourcing to the federal government, that none of this would
matter that much, right, because the presidency
would have less power. So that really is the, that to
me strikes me as the answer, right, like you keep as
much as you can local and then it won’t
matter that much what the executive
branch can do. – And if the states
were back in charge then there would be less
for the judges to do, which means the
judicial nominations would be less of a, you
know, less of an influence. I think people are
just so worried that their preferred policy
preference on whatever it is, it’s going to get decided
by judicial nominations or by the president
or by, you know. And so it becomes so important, and it’s, the system that
was created by the founders is very decentralized. There should never be that
much power in one place. There shouldn’t
be that much power in the supreme court
or the presidency. It should be spread out. And if it were, yeah exactly. What would there be to be, who, why would I be mad
about anything? Why would a Texan care
what a Californian decided about straws? It wouldn’t matter. Who cares? It doesn’t matter. – As it shouldn’t matter. – As it shouldn’t, exactly. – What do you make of
the executive action
portion of this? What do you think the
founders would be saying about the way we
govern, where you know, and again everybody does
it, so this is not a, this is not a partisan thing.
– [Tara] No, it’s not partisan,
both sides do it. – GWB did it too, and then Obama reversed a lot of it,
– [Tara] President Obama. They all do it.
– And now Trump reversed a lot of that. I mean, that’s a really
dangerous way to govern, right? – I agree completely. And it, I see it all the time and I wish it weren’t happening. I wish that people cared
enough to say something, to call their
congressman and say, you know, go take that back. That power that just
got usurped from you. Go take it back. – Do you think it’s maybe
that everything seems to be more about optics than the way things are supposed
to be governed? You never hear
anybody talk about, well you, I can’t
say never, I say, a guy like Rand Paul maybe and Mike Lee from
your home state. A couple guys that
will actually talk about the Constitution
and things like that. Did you see that moment
during the debate when they were
asking Kamala Harris about confiscating guns
via executive action, and Joe Biden said it
has to be constitutional which of course is
the correct answer. And Kamala basically
laughed at him and said, “Joe, can’t
we just say yes we can?” Like this terribly
smug answer meaning, ’cause what she’s
saying is I will take whatever power I can
to literally take away one of your, second
bill of right. – Again, I think it goes
back to not knowing history, because if we knew our
history what we would know is that, British, when they
were trying to keep us down, the first thing they did
was they went after our guns and our ammunition, and that’s
why the shots were fired at Lexington and Concord. The British were
marching to go take it, and we said no
you can’t do that. And it’s, and it happened,
it actually happened in several cities. Lexington and Concord
is the one we know about from our history books, but
there were several places in ’75, ’76 where the
British were trying to take our arms and ammunition
because they knew we wouldn’t be able to
put up a fight without it. And so the founders when they
created our Constitution, it was one of the most
important things to them. They felt like our
liberty is protected when we can protect ourselves. And it’s not only about
hunting, you know. It’s about protecting
your liberty. And people like to
laugh at that, I guess, and say well our arms
don’t match the Army’s. And you know, I
guess that’s true, but at the time of the founding, the arms that, it’s
not like they had cannons on their
farms, you know. I mean, that was-
– Right, some well-armed people that are really committed to protecting what’s
theirs can do a lot. – But over and over again, you
see examples of the British. There was the Battle of
Pell’s Point in New York. The British were,
they had trouble because there was
literally a colonist behind every bush with a rifle. And they were just
having trouble. And it changed their strategy and it changed what
they were doing. And so, and actually they got, those people that were
behind the bushes and stuff, they delayed the British so much that George Washington’s
Army got away. That’s the outcome
of that story. But you just, if you
know your history and you know what
happened in the Revolution and you see these
stories, what you see is a founding generation that knew the government cannot be
the only one with arms, and so that’s why they
created the Second Amendment. – All right, so another
thing that people always talk about
with elections is that now we’re in a
position where we know that certain states
are basically always gonna be blue,
we’re in one right now, states are pretty much
close to always being red, you live in one in Texas. Although that one’s even getting
a little iffy these days. But that now we’re
putting so much pressure on these few swing states. So, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Florida, things like that. Do you see a risk in that, that then they do, almost
like an overcorrection where they pretty much ignore, like if a democrat’s like, well I’ve got
California in the bag. Forget California, and
then I’m gonna spend all my time focusing on
these three other states. – I’m not one who thinks
that red states stay red and blue states stay blue. I think that there
are periods of time where there is a stretch,
and that might happen, but if you look at California, as recently as 1988, you guys
voted for George HW Bush. That wasn’t that
long ago really. And you can look at any, if
you look at the whole history of states voting,
what you really see are states that,
well let me back up. I also don’t buy the idea
that only swing states matter. Safe states are important. Like you just said,
no democrat wants to go in the election without
California in its back pocket. So what do they do to
make California happy? It has to do with
the governance. It has to do with the
laws that are passed. I mean, California
is happy and blue because it’s happy with what
democrats have been doing in office for the four years
that preceded the election. And when they start
to become unhappy, they’re gonna let people
know pretty quickly. – I don’t even know
that they’re happy in this state anymore. I think it’s just like oh,
we’re blue, we’re blue. That’s just kind of how it is. And the republicans here who,
I’ve talked to some of them, are just so defeated. They’re like, we’re
trying so hard. We’re watching
our state crumble, and high taxes and
more homeless people and more drugs on the
streets and all this stuff, but they’re just kind of
throwing their hands up like we’ve just lost so
many times in a row now. – I always wonder
what would happen if people just
voted without regard to how they felt about it. For every state. Like what if all the
democrats came out in Texas and didn’t assume that
they were gonna lose, they just came out. What if all the republicans
came out in California and didn’t assume
they were gonna lose, just came out to see
what would happen. But also if you
look historically, you can find lots of
examples of states that just changed unexpectedly. Or, they’ve threatened to change and the parties reacted. Utah in 2016 was threatening
to vote third party. So they were just
unhappy with everybody. And Mike Pence was
dispatched to the state to make things right
because republican party did not want to lose its small safe little red state of Utah. In 2000, West Virginia flipped. They flipped because they
became really unhappy with the environmental policies
of the democratic party and they swung the election. We all focus on Florida,
but without West Virginia, there was no way
that George W Bush was gonna win that election. So a safe small state flipped
and changed everything. And you can look through history and you can see states
changing their allegiance, you know, back and
forth over time. So I tend to say look, you know, the safe states
matter, they just are, they made up their minds
earlier in the process based upon the governance
that came before and swing states are just
late to make up their minds. They’re indecisive. But everybody’s important. You can’t get to 270
without some combination of safe and swing states. You simply can’t get there. So you gotta do something
to get them on your side. – So is there
anything you would do with the way the electoral
college is set up? To tweak it, to
tighten it or anything? Or do you feel it’s
basically as perfect a system as we can do in a country of
320 million some odd people? – I like it. When I first started this,
close to 20 years ago, there were small
things I would change. I thought well maybe we
could automate the elector, so it’s not, there’s
no possibility of
elector independence. Or maybe we could change the
contingent election process where the president’s
elected by the house if nobody can get a majority. And I thought maybe
we could tweak it, but the more I study
it, the more I look, the more I think, this is
just a really delicate balance and if you change one
thing, you don’t know what kind of domino
effect that might have. And so I would just
leave everything. I think it’s, and it
may not be perfect, but it’s the best we’re gonna
do in an imperfect world. I steal something Winston
Churchill said sometimes, and he said, “Democracy is
the worst form of government, “except for all the
others that we’ve tried.” So I say the electoral
college is the worst possible form of
presidential election, except for all the others
that have been tried. It’s the best we can do
in an imperfect world and it’s got a lot of benefits. – So this is a slight deviation from the electoral
college specifically, but what do you think of sort of the state of people believing that the system itself works? That the election process works and is un-tampered with
and Russians and hacking and all of these things and,
right, just fraud in general, because it seems to me
that no matter what happens in the next election,
half the country is gonna claim that
it was illegitimate, and we’re seeing this even now. I mean, just in the
last couple of weeks now that Hillary’s
sort of reappearing, you know, she’s
basically calling Trump an illegitimate president
because she did win the popular vote,
as we talked about. So it’s like, it
seems to me that, that again comes to
the optics part of it. Where it’s like we’re
setting up something where half the country,
no matter what, every four years
is going to think that something illegal or
immoral or awful has happened. – Well this is what
I would observe. There’s, again, there’s no
such thing as perfection. There will always be
people that want to cheat. There will always be people
that will look for a way to steal an election
if they can. I can’t fix that,
nobody can fix that. The electoral college
can’t fix that. But what we can do is we can
make it as hard as possible. We can throw up as many
hurdles as we possibly can. And if you have a national
popular vote system, then what you have is one
centralized national base, database that, or just
voting system, tabulation, whatever you just have
to hack one thing. Okay, you have to, and
that means by the way also, that you have to be on defense in every single
precinct of the country. So you can be in the bluest
blue California precinct, and if votes are stolen
there, you affect everybody. Or the reddest red
Texas precinct. That vote affects everybody. Right now we have a situation
where you don’t have to be on defense absolutely
everywhere, you just have to be on
defense in a few danger spots, which means you can focus
all of your resources there and that’s better. Also, by the way, if you’re
talking about hacking, it’s not just hacking
one national tally. You have to actually
hack multiple tallies around the country,
’cause there are 51 different election systems,
50 plus DC, election systems. So you’d have to
identify which one would be, you know,
the most relevant. Which state’s gonna be close, which state could swing this, can I hack it, and you
have to be able to do all, have to have all of these
things working for you before you can actually
steal an election. Is it impossible? Probably not. I’m not gonna claim that, but again, you can make
it as hard as possible, and make it so that
they have to get through as many hoops as possible
before they can influence you. – Right, so okay, so as
somebody that obviously, you like state’s rights
and you’re trying to set up a system the way it was
originally set to be, which is that you’re
trying not to give too much power to the
federal government, would you leave the voting
mechanisms to the states or should we have a federal, a federally mandated
system of voting? Because right now
it’s like we got hanging chads in one state and we got electronic
voting in another state. Some states have receipts
after the electronic voting, some states don’t, and a
zillion other punch cards, and a gajillion
different things, which that in and of
itself seems really messy. – I think one of the
most important things that people don’t
appreciate or know about the electoral college
is how important it is to protect a state’s
prerogative just to choose its, to run its own election,
choose its own electors, and to be in charge of itself. And maybe the best way
to demonstrate that is to show what would
happen on the opposite side. If we did have one
national tally, well what that means is
a national election code, a national
bureaucracy, you know, a new presidential appointees
for, to run this whole thing that you’ve put in place. And so now, you’ve
got a, potentially an
incumbent president in charge of his own election because he’s in charge
of the federal machinery that will make it happen. But how it is now, every
state makes its own decisions. Some states will make better
decisions than others. You know, again, it’s like the laboratories of
democracy kind of idea. They’ll see what works, what
doesn’t work, they’ll change. But everybody will be
in charge of themselves and that by itself
is a protection. – If we wanna isolate one clip and next time
somebody says to me, “Dave, why do you think the
electoral college is good?”, can you give me like, the
sort of bumper sticker video that we can use to just
push out to people? In a couple minutes, the
cleanest clearest reasoning for the electoral college. – I just wanna say it makes
presidential candidates reach out to a wide
variety of voters. Given how big and
diverse our country is, that’s important. The founders thought
that 13 states was too large and too diverse
to have anything else. Well we’re so much
bigger right now. And so people say it’s outdated. I say the opposite. It’s more important now. How can we expect
such a diverse country to govern itself
if we don’t have, this is the only person
expected to represent all of us. The only one. There are senators
that represent states. You know, or congressman
that represent districts. Everybody else represents
a smaller subset of people. The president must elect
the most liberal person, or represent the most
liberal people in California, and the most conservative
people in, you know, Mississippi or something. So it’s just, you gotta have a special system
in place for that, to make him or her
take into consideration as many people as possible. – I think I know your
answer to this one, but would you say that
our founding documents are basically the greatest
man-written documents? – I do, I think so. I think they came together
at a special moment in time. They were not perfect people, but they had no
partisan interest, in the way that we
think of it today. There’s so many misperceptions about the founding
generation and, it’s become so easy
to demonize them. It makes me sad. I, look, they owned slaves
and they did some things that we obviously don’t
want or approve of, or think it was a big mistake. But also what I think is, look, they lived at a
moment in time where the king could tell you
what religion to be. You know, women
couldn’t do anything. Yes, there were slaves. But my point is there was
a whole mess of problems and it wasn’t just America. It was everywhere. And so our founders
did something amazing, and they broke free
of part of that and they said we can
be self-governing. You can just make up your
own mind about religion. And there were some
things they got right. And they took an important
first step down the road. And we look at them
and we criticize them for not running
the whole marathon. – Right then and there. – And it’s not, it was
more like a relay race where they ran the first leg, and they passed the baton
to the next generation, and the next generation took
it a little bit further. And what I’m really
proud of in America is that we are always
going for more freedom. Every generation has done more. And so instead of criticizing
the founding generation I wish we would just
look at them and say, thank you for running the
first leg of that race so well. You did great. – That is how you
end an interview. For more on Tara, follow her
on the Twitter, @taraross. If you’re looking for more honest and thoughtful
conversations about politics instead
of nonstop yelling, check out our politics playlist. And if you wanna
watch full interviews on a variety of topics, watch
our full episode playlist all right over here. And to get notified
of all future videos, be sure to subscribe and
click the notification bell.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. After the Oklahoma City bombing, their governor notably turned down some Federal assistance. He basically said , "Thanks, we got this."

  2. Dave, Dave, Dave. You keep repeating a lie. Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote, she only got the most popular votes. The Electoral College is not decided by who gets the most electoral votes, it is decided by who gets over 50% of the electoral votes. A national popular vote would need to require over 50% to win. This leads to a whole different look at what happens when 50% is not reached. Does the election go to the congress like the Electoral College or is there a runoff like all other elections. Also there is the nightmare of recounts. There would likely be a lot more challenges to a national vote. We have seen how bad it is when only one state has to recount, imagine if the whole country has to recount.

  3. There is no video on prageru that has 60 million views, or even 16 million views and all the videos that have anything to do with electoral college have several hundred thousand views – up to a few million views. 60 million people have not seen this woman.

  4. If you want to change the Electoral College then first get rid of the special electors. Second, do away with the 'Winner Takes All' state election outcomes.

    Replace the old system with the winner of the majority of votes in a state's single congressional district will win that single electoral point. The overall first and second place winners of a state's total congressional electoral points will each receive one of the two senatorial electoral points for that state.

    The candidate to reach a total 270 (current total needed) electoral points then becomes the President Elect.

    This removes the possible fraud of special interest party selected electors from changing their votes. It puts every single congressional district into play with none superior to any other district, ends the 'starvation' of third party candidates in receiving electoral points and ends the pandering to large population centers in attempts of secure an entire state's electoral points.

    Also, every state, regardless of population size, needs to install an electoral college style system of their own.

  5. 12:17 "…all the way back to the 17th Amendment…" The destruction of the Republic began with the 14th Amendment (as it has been applied) and the 16th. I contend these have had far more impact than the 17th and I do not dispute the significance of the 17th.

  6. The one thing i dont understand about the electoral college is why the House Representatives dont vote with their district but they vote with the state. Like why does a liberal rep from texas vote Trump but a conservative in cali votes hillary?

  7. The electoral college is not working properly because of states that have a 'winner take all' implementation of it. That is not how it's supposed to work because it doesn't property represent people by geographic region.

  8. The reason we don't elect the president by popular vote is because we're the united STATES of America. Not the united uneducated morons of America. It's the STATES that are voting. The moment you take away the electoral college, most states never again have a voice or representation in the union. And that causes secession. So why should less populous states have more voting weight? To protect the minority from the majority. Wyoming can't live by California's laws. Neither can California.

  9. Jefferson advocated for Local Public Schooling because the country was growing so quickly and immigration was on a rise, that he felt the need to assure that the people would keep abreast of the knowledge of what our Government was about. Ben Franklin's warning, we have a Republic if can keep it !

  10. A government will never use weapons of mass, or large destruction, such as tanks (main gun), Air power, Seapower, bombs etc to subjugate it's populace.  A Nuke, can not hold a street corner, A fighter jet can not storm a residence and arrest or search for contraband.  These weapons are used to destroy an opponent, including it's infrastructure.  As a tyrannical government, you want the populace in tact, just subjugated.  You do not want to rule over ruins.This is why an American Populace armed with 'just' semi-automatic rifles, like an AR15 CAN keep a tyrannical Nat Govt at bay, with their bombs, tanks, missiles etc.  This is way EVERY tyrannical government, disarmed it's people before subjugation.  If lesser firearms weren't enough, then why do that?

  11. Great video and interview. Great guest. I have no problems with any of that. Just one point for consideration: If you are looking to find out where tyranny lies, go look at your local zoning ordinances. See how they're written. Most of them start out "You are prohibited from doing anything with your own real property unless specifically permitted herein." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but go look, see where the tyrannical rule lies.

  12. 1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.
    2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.
    3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
    4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
    5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
    6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
    Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

  13. I want Tara Ross to admit she is pro-affirmative action for small town folks. It's defensible, but dishonest to pretend that is not what she advocates. Or she can just call herself NOT in favor of one person, one vote. She is afraid of tyranny against non-majority groups. There are rights (equal protection) that apply to everybody to deal with this. She wants rules that don't apply equally to everybody. If I have to cater to every petty concern of non-majority groups (I'm not talking about basic, equally-applied, rights), why can't I as a group of 1, get my own special treatment? Every time a law is passed that I disagree with, is this not a form of tyranny, in her view?

  14. These two are discussing this topic like we're still in the 18th century. Guys, we have national companies and an economy that operates across the nation. Bank of America, Blue Cross, Walmart, Apple, these are not state companies, but national. Americans move between states ALL the time, and expect uniformity of law, policy, etc, at least to some basic level. What they advocate is impractical and would be incredible expensive.
    This is the challenge conservatives fail to meet. The solutions you propose do not work for the modern world.

  15. @18:00: Counterpoint- Hillary got 20% of her vote from roughly 18% of the population (NY & CA). It sounds way worse when you suggest that 1/5 of her votes came from 1/25 of the states, but if you look at population, it’s a very different picture, I’d say.

  16. Mob rule? How about corporate rule? Why is the People's House limited to 435 members? The Constitution says no more than 1 per 30,000 citizens and we are at 1 per 800,000. What are people afraid of in having more representation in the fed at Washington DC?

  17. She had me, intently listening up until she denied the danger of demographic change. We know that both illegal and legal immigration is changing states forever and they are never changing from Blue to Red. These are "fake" conservative talking points. I do believe that we stand a good chance of changing the black vote, because they are realizing just how bad the DemonRats have taken advantage of them. Immigrants come from corrupt socialist governments and think that is just the way things go so I will try to get as much free shit as I can.

  18. Realize that over 50% of all elected "officials" have been attorneys, barristers or members of the bar. That is a conflict of interest.

  19. Well the election definitely was "hacked", as it were, if you have listened to anything from that Dr. Epstein, who was actually a long time Democrat and voted for Hillary but was so alarmed by the corruption of the election system that he had to speak out and has done great research on this, and he actually spoke to some Congressional committee about where he found that Google, by their manipulation of information available to people who were searching, actually swung 2 to 10 million votes to Hillary Clinton. this kind of manipulation of the elections by these big powerful and biased tech giants is the biggest threat we have now. So she didn't actually win the popular vote in a fair election, and also we have to figure in how many millions of illegal immigrants voted. And that was a problem in the state of Texas, for one, by the admission of people in the voting authority.

  20. If you want to make the Electoral College closer to popular vote then increase the House Of Representatives closer to 10,000 members.

  21. More than any previous election, the 2016 election proved the wisdom and foresight of the Founder in creating the electoral college. Without it, the election would have been decided by the two large mega-urban centers on the East and West coasts. What happened in "fly-over" America would have been largely irrelevant. The whole concept was to insure the votes of those in less populace states mattered and to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

  22. I think you just produced the BEST video on the reason for the electoral college. And as another commenter already has said, the 17th amendment fundamentally changed our republic.

  23. The entire discussion is academic. The only way the Electoral College goes away is to have a Constitutional Amendment. I seriously doubt that any generation will be able to find 38 states willing to give up their electoral powers to 2 or 3 states. Simply isn't going to happen.

  24. 21:55 boom💥 Electoral college in big states!! Fantastic idea! I live in the central valley of California and The coastal elites determine everything involved. What a valley farmer or foothill Rancher values and desires is something completely different from someone living in San Francisco or Los Angeles wants or needs!

  25. The founders never would’ve imagined that the federal government will be in charge of the public school system

  26. People must get into the habit of reading documents to verify what is being said about them. This must start in Junior High.

  27. And shit canning the EC would mean that everyone would have to make a pilgrimage to the nearest major metropolitan area. And if THAT happens, then I bet Democrats would become pro voter ID REAL quick. Mark my words, lol. That would help ensure conservatives from less populated areas going into the cities to vote.

  28. Bill told Hillary a few weeks before the election that she was in trouble and needed to campaign in the Rust Belt states. Queen Hillary ignored this advice (what did Bill know about winning elections, after all), and got what she deserved. Her arrogance saved the country from what would have been a disastrous presidency.

  29. The electoral College prevents the dictatorship of the populous areas. No it wasn't a miscalculation the cure is Amendment 2 which creates a n overwhelming army of ,millions these days as an answer to overbearing and abusive Government.

  30. My notes,

    05:34 "did the founding fathers miscalculate?"
    Definitly NO.
    Here is the proof, the first and second amendement.
    Both are like the twin guardians of the sacred hope of USA.
    The founding fathers knew the innate threath, they have calculated it, and they passed down the solution; the twin Guardians.

    6:05 "..assume mistakes.."
    it is rooted from humility. Founding fathers assume mistakes might happened therefore they left something to help passed down transcend through generations. The way to check and balanced the process going towards the hope.
    Like a father knows that one day he won't be there for his children when they faced a problem, so the father left something to their children, the thing that will be always usefull to answer their problem.

    15:38 James Madison do his magic.

    16:08 One sheep stated his concern "what if you 6 wolves decided to eat us 4 sheeps?
    What if Mobocracy started to take shape.
    How do we ensure/make sure Democracy won't turn into Mobocracy.

    16:34 the Divide, between large vs small. Majority did not become "mob mentality". The Power established through election/vote not corrupted.

    18:23 so instead of blamming the rule those loosers should blame their stupid candidate with her campaign team due to making bad decision not to win the small state people vote.

    19:10 making sure the leader (president) will also take concern of the little state needs. Be fair to the little guy.
    Mandala, attention given closer to center of power increased, attention further away from center of power decreased.
    Making sure attention given closer or further, to or from the center of power is fair.

    20:13 ".. Big diverse country.."
    To ensure unity of all States, big and small, because it (the unity) is based upon freedom not based on forced or coerced.
    Uncle James saw it, the representative of small state was about to leave and went on its own create its own country.

    21:45 Mandala of mandalas. Electoral applied in big Cities election.

    25:15 problems due to the failure to distinguish unity and diversity.
    Which one is the oneness.
    Federal government takes care the oneness which ensures unity.
    Balance of rights are for those who pays for it.

    25:38 because some Californians were led to believe Texans straws caused climate change that will end the world in about 10 years or so. Thats why.
    There are bad people try to create false "oneness". Climate change thats one example.

    Gin,

  31. "Why should rural folks be tyrannised by people in the big cities?" Ummm… Why should people in the big cities be tyrannised by rural folks? I don't get it…

  32. It seams that a majority of the problems that we are having all stem from the garbage that is being taught in schools.

  33. Do you think that all of these states that are passing National Popular Vote Act will experience a "backfire" at one point? Meaning that, a state like California may have to vote red if a Republican candidate wins the popular vote. A number of states have passed this bill, and I can only see it backfiring on them…….

  34. My partner and I are new conservatives in California with every intention of being a part of the establishment of the real republic of America

  35. This needs to be shared by all you folks that have social media accounts. Constitution and the nations history needs to be brought back to school. Not three repetitive years focused on slavery and only that. Have them read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, high school make them read federalist papers, make them have a conversation about that.

  36. Good show. I enjoyed it very much. I believe there should be way more education, knowledge and public awareness of how our counties, states and country work. Example, we have stupid TV's in gas pumps now for commercials. Instead,How about the most recent legislation or bill that will be voted on.

  37. The Democrats are sore losers and attack the Electoral College when they lose, I believe they wouldn't be complaining if the vote was reversed. I look at the election map by state and county and find it hard to believe the Democrats win any elections. I also think of all the people who live in rural areas and are legislated by the votes of a bunch of city people. I would be in favor of who ever wins 26 or more states by popular vote wins the election.

  38. Think of it like a Slam Dunk contest, three pointers don't matter even though you may score more points. It's a Slam Dunk contest not who scores the most points.

  39. The leftists in the education system don't want Americans to know our Constitution, they want us ignorant so they can do whatever they want, and unfortunately they're doing a good job of that.

  40. One of the reasons for the electoral college is that there was the expectation that no one would win a majority in the election, hence the electors would hash it out .

  41. This lady is a liar she didn't even bother to mention what they said about giving the poor and the uneducated the illusion that there vote counted because what do the poor and uneducated know about running a country

  42. IF we didn't have the Electoral College California, New York and Illinois would pick the presidents every four years.  The three Communist states, wouldn't that be a joy.

  43. it's the world series.

    7 games. you might score more total runs in all the games. but if i win more games i win the series.

  44. States wanted to keep slaves…other states did not. There was a Civil War about "state's rights".
    You can't have it both ways.
    You want Texas to be solely responsible for emergency declarations after Hurricanes and then charge other states higher petroleum prices to make up the cost?
    Jefferson once wrote in a letter to James Madison that "The Earth belongs to the Living"

    …the solution is simple. A constitutional Convention to re-write things. The Founders would approve.

  45. It's probably less accurate to say that the founders ran the first leg of the race and more accurate to say that they invented this particular game, which has allowed all successive generations a chance to run.

  46. The president is not chosen directly by the people because he is not governor of the people. He is president of the Federation of states. Thus, chosen by the states. That's why it's called the FEDERAL government.

  47. I just dont understand how little respect there is for the founding fathers. Even worse, these damn kids think they know better.

  48. Just like this generation criticises founder generation for owning slaves, next generation will criticize us for killing innocent animals and eat em.

  49. Hillary lost because she is a criminal… USA has a population of 330 million people.. and you only have two people to vote for.. one is a jerk and the other one is a criminal… well done..

  50. Who cares about middle America they are not even real Americans they are racist and fascist abd should be ignored.

  51. it's funny how some people want to get rid of the Electoral College, while people like me think it should be expanded and its effect. When the system was initiated the most populous state got 10 electoral votes wow the least populous state got three. Now the most populous state gets 55 electoral votes while good old Wyoming still only gets 3. The state that proportionally provides more natural resources per capita can any other state gets the lowest representation. As our nation's population grows, especially in population centers, the Electoral College advantage is gradually disappearing.

  52. Unfortunately the federal leviathan is so egregiously huge and has grabbed so much power that I believe it’s probably impossible at this point to put the rabbit back into the hat. I think think that we are doomed and it’s only a matter of time before the republic is in a very steep decline and on its way out. How very sad.

  53. Have you people forgotten that the system the Founding Fathers created fell apart disastrously in 1861 after less than 100 years. I don't wish to distort the reasons for the Civil War the best resource is the actual secession documents written by the states. Apparently this is a case of historical amnesia.

  54. "Hillary got 20% of her national vote from big cities in 2 states"

    Annnnnd that's why we need the Electoral college. Because we're not a government by the big cities for the big cities, and the fact that more people live there doesn't mean they get to vote to enslave the entire test of the country…

  55. Only 2 minutes in and it is almost unwatchable. How did it get this way? Real answer: the courts; her answer: it is us, the people. No – the cajun navy was just the latest example of the fact that we do not want the Feds being the answer to everything.

  56. Politicians in 1929 arbitrarily capped the house seats at 435. This is distorting electoral college. Both sides are wrong on this issue. The founders wanted the EC but it was designed to be much more proportional

  57. Bottom line is that Americans want a King/Queen. Most of the rhetoric continually begs the federal government to assume more and more control. We crave, more than anything else, to be ruled by a central power with supreme control. Year after year, we keep empowering the presidency to do more and more. We're at the point where we applaud our presidents and candidates who promise to or do enact law through independent edicts. Somehow, that's what we want. We want to be controlled — please, federal government, take control and tell me what I can and cannot do.

  58. I wonder if popular vote would ignite the conservative people that don't vote in blue states. I think Hillary still loses the popular vote if the electoral college was gone.

  59. The Founding Fathers NEVER considered the nation would descend into a total retardation of intelligence and wisdom.  They assumed that Americans would always be proud of their country.  They also NEVER considered the impact party affiliations and party politics would have.  Again the Fathers assumed that Americans would be proud of their country and the freedoms it would offer.  They NEVER considered the levels of stupidity and apathy Americans now have.

Leave a Reply

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