The Trouble with the Electoral College
Articles Blog

The Trouble with the Electoral College

October 15, 2019

In a fair democracy everyone’s vote should
count equally, but the method that the United States uses to elect its president, called
the electoral college, violates this principle by making sure that some people’s votes are
more equal than others. The Electoral College is, essentially, the
538 votes that determine who wins the presidency. If these votes were split evenly across the
population every 574,000 people would be represented by one vote. But that’s not what happens because the Electoral
College doesn’t give votes to people, only states. Which has some unfair consequences. For example there are 11,500,000 people in
Ohio so, to fairly represent them, it should get 20 electoral votes. But the Electoral
college doesn’t give Ohio 20 votes, it only gets 18 — two less than it should. Where’d those other votes go? To states like
Rhode Island. Plucky Rhode Island has 1.1 million people
in it, so it should have about two votes, but instead it gets four! Those extra two votes that should be representing
Ohioans go to representing Rhode Islanders instead? Why? Because, according to the rules of the electoral
college, every state, no matter how few people live there, gets three votes to start with
before the rest are distributed according to population. Because of this rule there are a lot of states
with a few people that should only have one or two votes for president but instead get
three or four. So Georgians, Virginians, Michiganders & Jerseyites
are each missing one vote, Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, Ohioans
& Hoosiers are missing two, Floridians are missing 4, New Yorkers, 5, Texans 6, and Californians
are 10 short of what they should get. Because of this vote redistribution, the Electoral
College essentially pretends that fewer people live where they do and more people live where
they don’t. An American who lives in one of these states,
has their vote for president count for less than an American who lives in one of these
states. In some cases the Electoral College bends
the results just a little, but if you live in a particularly large or small state, it
bends them a lot. One Vermonter’s vote, according to the Electoral
College is worth three Texans’ votes. And one Wyomingite’s vote is worth four Californians’. Now, hold on there son, you might be saying
to yourself right now: you’re missing the whole point of the electoral college. It’s
to protect the small states from the big states. Give the small states more voting power and
the presidential candidates will have to pay them more attention in an election. If that’s the goal of the electoral college,
it’s failing spectacularly. Here’s a graph showing the number of visits
the presidential Candidates paid to each of the states in the last two months of the previous
election. If it looks like there are a few states missing,
you’re right. Only 18 of the 50 states received even a single visit from a candidate. And
just two of those states, Mane and New Hampshire have very small populations. The area of the country with the most small
states is conspicuously missing. The Electoral College doesn’t make candidates
care about small states. But, interestingly the biggest states, California,
Texas and New York are missing as well so what’s going on? Looking closer, just four states, Ohio, Florida,
Pennsylvania and Virginia received a majority of the candidates’ attention during the election. And if you follow the money, it’s the same
story. Why do candidates spend so much money and
time in so few states? Because the way the electoral college works forces them to do
so. The elections are winner-take-all. As long
as a candidate gets just over 50% of the popular vote in a state he wins 100% of that state’s
electoral votes. That means winning by millions of citizens’
votes is no better than winning by a single vote. So candidates are safe to ignore states where
they poll with big margins. Instead, the electoral college makes candidates
intensely interested in the needs of just a few states with close races, to the detriment
of of almost all Americans, which is why it should be abolished. But wait! You might say, won’t abolishing
the electoral college and voting directly for president cause candidates to spend all
their time in big cities? That wouldn’t fair to most Americans either. This sounds like a reasonable fear, but ignores
the mathematical reality of population distribution. There are 309 million people in the United
States, only 8 million of which live in New York, the largest city by far. That’s 2.6%
of the total population. But after New York, the size of cities drops fast. LA has 3.8 million and Chicago has 2.7 but
you can’t even make it to the tenth biggest city, San Jose before you’re under a million
people. These top ten cities added together are only
7.9% of the popular vote hardly enough to win an election. And even winning the next 90 biggest cities
in the United States all the way down to Spokane is still not yet 20% of the total population. So unless there’s a city with a few hundred
million people hiding somewhere in America that’s been left out of the census, the idea,
that a candidate can just spend their campaign Jetting between New York, LA and Chicago while
ignoring everyone else and still become president is mathematically ludicrous. Want to see the real way to unfairly win? How YOU can become President with only 22%
of the popular vote by taking advantage of the Electoral College today! Don’t believe that’s possible in a democracy?
Just watch: Here’s the action plan: win the votes of the
people who count the most and ignore the people who count the least. Start with Wyoming, the state where 0.18%
of Americans live but who get 0.56% of the electoral college votes for president. And, because it’s a winner take all system,
you don’t need all of them to vote for you, just half plus one or 0.09%. Next up is the District of Columbia where
winning 0.1% of the population also gets you an additional 0.56% of the electoral college. Then add in wins in Vermont, and North Dakota,
and Alaska. Notice how the votes your getting to win the
presidency go up much faster than the percent of the population who voted for you because
of the Electoral College’s rules. Next is South Dakota, then Delaware, Montana,
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri,
Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. Congratulations, by taking advantage of unfair
rules and winning states, not people, you’ve won a majority in the Electoral College even
though 78% of the population voted against you. This is not Democracy, this is indefensible. While this particular scenario is unlikely,
if you have a voting system that allows losers to win, you shouldn’t be surprised when they
do. Not once, not twice, but thrice in American
history the candidate with the most votes from the people actually lost because of the
electoral college. Three errors in 55+ elections is a failure
rate of 5%. Would anyone tolerate a sport where, by a
quirk of the rules, there was a 5% chance that the loser would win? Not likely. Given how much more important electing the
president of the United States is, that’s a rather dangerously high percentage of the
time to get it wrong. If we abolish the Electoral College and simply
let citizens vote for the president directly, all of these problems will go away and everyone’s
vote will be equal.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Lol. Ofcourse it would be less than 10% of the population for the biggest cities. Because you counted the population in cities. Not states. Make a fair comparison grey… Smh

  2. All of the people who comment about how undemocratic the electoral college is are idiots. We don't have a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic so we don't have to be democratic.

  3. You shouldnt have talked about population of cities, but the population of states. Californians would carry the presidency every time and screw over smaller states.

  4. The main election to elect the the President should be counted as a whole. Not decided by a state. ALL americans should be counted as one. Republicans know this but they may never win elections so they will keep the old non Democratic system so they have chance to win

  5. To be fair, your ending is misleading. The city of New York may only have 8 million people, but the metro area (which is what people consider all of New York) is more than double that. Add the metro areas up and see what percentage it is

  6. No, the electoral college does not give votes to states. The fact that each state is its own self contained governmental body and handles it's internal voting process separate from the other states, is a fundamental part of this country's nature. There is no constitutional way to change this.

    Getting rid of the electoral college would mean that each state would have a single vote.

  7. English colonies of America, that refused new taxes by England, resulted in the young USA, a republic of states modeled upon the Iroquois Confederation. Mutual defense through unity, each state having its own govt. The English had brought the enslaved Africans, which created conflict amongst the States, long before the Civil War. Only landowners could vote, and only males. USA has evolved since then, with the federal govt growing far past the original mutual defense concept. The 2 Party system since 1856 has not evolved for the good of the republic. The House of Representatives is owned by lobbyists & money for campaigns. They basically oversaw the genocide of Native Americans over centuries, and segregation of US society. Also, US Congress cancelled the Bracero Program in 1964, leaving the border open for workers to cross without documents, but never providing common sense solutions. Half a century of chaos on the border, thanks to US Congress.

  8. For someone so smart, you really don't get this one. The goal was never Democracy here. Votes were NOT intended to be equal. Zero evidence of that. Read Debates On The Constitution Volume II for more data.

  9. So, I'd suggest you go back and take a middle school government class. The United States is NOT a democracy. That's about the only thing on this video you got right. The UNITED STATES (that is not just a name but a description as well) is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. That's day 1 of a basic elementary government class.

  10. The founders of the United States never intended the government to be a “Direct Democracy”. The intent in the electoral college system was to govern the U.S. through a “Democratic Republic”, in which there is a system in which states have equal representation, as well as the citizens of those states.

  11. 0:01 "In a Fear Democracy" … Exactly!!! USA is no t a direct DEMOCRACY!!! And that's one of the reasons why is one of the greatest countries in the planet.

  12. Abolishing the Electoral College for pure popular voting would also mean that we will have a one party, totalitarian system. Currently among all registered voters (meaning people who can actually vote in the Presidential election rather than people who are simply old enough to do so (big distinction)), 31% of all registered voters are Democrats, while only 24% of registered voters are Republicans. Assuming those registered voters vote for their party, a Republican running to become president would have to acquire an additional 7.01% of the entire vote from purely the independent voters, who only make up 42% of the vote. Granted, the independents are the majority. However, you have to acknowledge the fact that the Democratic candidate would be getting votes from some independents too. So the Republican candidate would not only have to get 7.01% of the total 42% of the independent vote (or expressed another way, that would be 16.69% of all independents), but also get an additional amount of votes from the independent votes equal to the number of independent votes the Democratic candidate had received. Suffice it to say that that would probably never happened. So effectively we would end up casting out the Electoral College that might make 31% of the populations votes sometimes worthless for a system that would make 69% of the populations votes actually worthless. And this pattern of there being a rather overwhelming majority in one party over another party has been present pretty much ever since the United States was founded. Now I don't know about you, but if I lived in a country like the United States where only one political party ever got their candidates elected President, I don't think we'd be talking about the Civil War as a singular occurrence. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on four civil wars that the U.S. would've had by now if that were the case, and I think one of them would probably have been as recent as 2008 and still be occurring as we speak. Thankfully, we do not live in that reality.

    Now I'm not going to say that the electoral college is the best voting system ever made. But, one of the main principles of the system was to set in place a system in which no political party could ever turn the United States into a Republican Dictatorship, or some other kind of faux government that claims to give their citizens a vote that matters and freedom of choice without actually giving them any. And with the Electoral College in place, I'd say it is a wild success. If you look at nearly every presidential campaign and look at the percentage of registered voters for the political parties at play compared to the overall population, you will see that no matter how large a single party has become there has always been a chance or even a victory for another Presidential candidate. And yes, Donald Trump is on that list of victors. But so was Benjamin Harrison who, despite CGP Grey pointing to his victory as a failure, was a staunch abolitionist who was the only other acting President outside of Lincoln to attempt to grant African Americans more rights as citizens in the 19th century, created national forest reserves (both as a thing and an idea), and oversaw huge federal trade reforms such as, but not limited to, the Sherman Antitrust Act. While probably not the most amazing President, I'd say having a system that gave him a chance to win the election, which he did, is better than any system in which that would not be the case.

    And yes, I realize there are other voting systems that could be implemented and have watched Grey's videos about them. But if we wanted to get any of those voting systems enacted over the Electoral College, we would need to amend the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, you would need to get a 2/3rds majority in both the House of Representatives and a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to agree on it, which like Grey said in this video is a total of 538 votes between those two groups. You'd have to get them all to vote on replacing a system of voting that has been in use for about 200 years for a single idea that *you*, some collective of people on the Internet who I'm assuming possesses the political power of a wet noodle, tell them is totally better and in their best interests to go for. You know that whole explanation I did just two paragraphs ago about how that situation would be basically impossible? This one would be like four times more impossible than that.

    tl;dr A Republican, or any other person from another political organization for that matter, will never be able to become President over a Democrat for the forseeable future with a pure popular vote voting system unless they basically sweep the independent vote, I will personally take the electoral college over a Democratic run dictatorship, and other voting systems would never be amicably agreed upon.

  13. For those of you thinking the college exists to suppress minority voting, let me educate you. The electoral college helps ensure that balance for a large combined territory is in place. Also, consider that Trump lost the popular vote by an amount equal to half a major city. Those cities are Democrat strongholds, with rural areas thus always being outvoted. Also, the majority of the states in US elections run by the idea that the popular vote winner of that state would win its electoral votes. Thus, California, highly populated, highly liberal, does not suddenly become a gigantic benefit for the liberals. It makes candidates go outside their cities and go see the rural areas and the inner country. If it ran by direct voting, no one would be travelling to, say, Utah, or Ohio. In the case of the 2016 election specifically, It prevented all you finatical extremists from drowning out the voices of the population of reasonable, educated voters. That's why these people on the far left are against the electoral college, because the political equaIity it imposes lost them the control over our nation they so desperately hungered for. It forced the entire country into the equation, which no reasonably minded person can say is truly a bad thing. Its not about racism, it's about equality. The founders of America knew what they were doing, stop acting like you know better than they did, especially when you most clearly don't.

  14. If we were to go by the Popular Vote ONLY and your a Democrat, then Sure this sounds like a GRAND idea..because you would just need to win OR, WA, CA NY, CT, RI, MA, all of these state have GREATER population then say Montana, Iowa and so on…and typically always vote for Democrats. Also, take into consideration the SWING states that lean more one way than the other…OH and PA, MI, WI….so you must comparing in those states to win…that is how President Trump did it.

    Also, the Electoral College is there to protect the people and the country. If an individual is found to have committed HIGH CRIMES, treason, murder etc…that is found out AFTER the election, then the electoral college votes for the person that is not quilty.

    it's not perfect, but its better than anything else.

  15. Huge problem with this. He conflates cities with states. What I mean by that is he says combining the largest cities in the US populations doesnt even make up 20% of the total population. But the idea is that STATES with larger populations would be the ones in charge. The large cities within states would majorities within their states, making the entire set of electoral votes count toward what those few voters want. And this is actually the case in a lot of the states. California, New York, Illinois, and so one. And the reason candidates dont go to every state is because they simply dont have to. The other states are more than likely already guaranteed because of their party. California for example is undoubtedly Democrat 19/20 times. Texas, is normally Republican, although interestingly they were seriously divided over the senator race last year. But still. My point is their trying to win over the most influential states. The ones that are undoubtedly in the air, uncertain of which way they'll lean. Another thing is this: states are governments. You could think of the United States as 50 countries United under one nation. Each is supposed to govern and care for itself except with the few federal laws and leaders that are supposed to come into play. So you could say the electors are supposed to represent the majority of each of their states population. Or at least the ones who voted. With that said. I highly doubt Wyoming with 1 vote would have any sort of chance to have an impact on what goes on in California with its potential 65 electors if it really is missing 10. Think of it as a Republic made up of small democracies. And each representative or set of electors needs to have a decent say in what goes on with the federal level as the others. This is probably poorly explained because it took so long to type and I dont wanna read back over it again, but I think people like Grey have the wrong idea of what America is and is supposed to be. That's why I think he was able to buy into such a misconception as the "abolish the electoral college" bogus. I think his logic was fine except for his cities and states mix up and the mindset and view he started the video with.

  16. The only moronic video CGP has ever made… Why are you rebutting state visits as the reason for the electoral college. State visits only partially explain how big State dominate smaller ones.

  17. The electoral college is only a problem because the left lost bigly in 2016(and will lose even more bigly in 2020). The magic negro is busy doctoring the voting districts to favor the communist left. Shows just how desperate the communist left really is.

  18. I get the arguement, but it's still not that simple.
    The electoral college shouldn't be viewed as 'picking the winner' rather than 'influencing their policies'. This is because policies and campaigning determine votes, and since the electoral college changes how votes are counted, the policies will change to reflect that.
    It doesn't determine a winner, however. Saying that is like saying that a chess match where one player checkmates the other (even if he lost more pieces in total) wouldn't have won if the rules were different. If the electoral college didn't exist, candidates would campaign differently. And so it doesn't necessarily follow that the electoral college picked the 'wrong' candidate, since there is no reason to think that candidate wouldn't have won anyway if it didn't exist.

  19. "Republic" means to avoid admitting lack of public representation in a political system, typically by distracting people with a conversation about word definitions.

  20. But you still dont want LA, NYC etc making unilateral decisions for the parts of their respective states outside of those cities, right?

  21. There reason why every state starts out with at least 3 votes is so largely dense populations can’t tell the rest of the country what to do

  22. First the USA is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. This system is to keep huge cities from dominating the entire country's politics.

  23. you miss that the USA is not a centralized country but a federation of states. popular vote only ever is fair if much of th epopulation's lifestyle, work habits, industry is identical. this is why the – beloved by globalists – EU has a very similar system to elect its useless parliament. also, the role of the president of the US is vastly exaggerated. for internal politics the most important power the president has is probably appointing judges.

  24. Seems to me that if the president is going to affect everyone, everyone's votes should count for the same. We have a better system in Denmark because our government is based on proportional representation, but we still use the size of landmasses in our electoral system which is just ridiculous to me

  25. States' rights.

    Edit: These people agree to be part of your union, so you can't dominate their way of life or deny their freedoms by population alone.

  26. in the US, they don't count votes, they count acres
    it was a method of ensuring that farmers still had a voice, instead of it being dictated solely by their ideological opposites in hive cities like LA

  27. You failed to take into account the importance of the Electoral College's ability to decentralize control and to mitigate election interference, which is why the framework of our constitutionally limited republic is fine the way it is. However, if you desperately want to blame someone or something for the problems you currently perceive in our system, then simply turn your attention to the three branches of government that DO NOT obey the Constitution as it was originally intended. Congress continually passes laws that abridge/infringe upon our god-given freedoms and liberties; it codified the "Federal" Reserve to replace gold/silver with fiat currency (worthless paper money); it allows our U.S. military to police the world with nearly 800 bases in over 70 countries; it spends so much every year that we are now $24 trillion dollars in debt; it permits federal agencies to spy not only on foreigners abroad but also on U.S. citizens at home; it grants the U.S. government the ability to topple foreign governments; it approves the funding of terroristic regimes; it forfeited and delegated its constitutional power to declare war to the executive branch (e.g., the president); and so on. Don't forget that it is our job, as the citizenry, to ensure both state governments and the federal government adhere to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. If, by chance, we fail to do that, then it's not the Electoral College's fault; it's ultimately our fault.

  28. the part where you say that the argument for the electoral college is wrong, the big city voters part, surely another problem is that first off, not everyone votes, so the admittedly few people that live in cut off rural areas and have no interest in politics make everyone else's vote technically stronger by population. Also that just saying the LA only has 3 to 4mn people and that being only a tiny percentage ignores the rest of california for example, where there are 40mn people with a track record of voting dems. just an interesting and more nuanced thought

  29. The claim is that the electoral college doesn’t make candidates care about small states. I’m so confused by the assertion because if you take away the electoral college, candidates would obviously care even less about small states. The electoral college alleviates the problem it definitely doesn’t cause it.

  30. Why use the deceptive population numbers for cities instead of real numbers which reflect the whole metropolitan areas. Instead of 8 million, New York is really over 20 million

  31. You know when I hear people talk about the electoral college they miss the point

    It's the only way we can maintain a republic and be fair

    Like for instance if California had more votes then why even run if we already know who they are going to vote for?

    Giving each state atleast 3 electoral college votes means that in the grand scheme of things there votes still matter

    As well

    Swing states will always happen no matter how much we want them gone because people change there minds.

  32. The problem here is (drum roll)…REPRESENTATION.

    If the representation isn’t there then it’s wrong no matter how it’s calculated. Regardless whether or not the voting is based on popularity OR the electoral college, the fact is that as long as our voting percentages remain deplorably low, THER. IS. NO. ACCURATE. REPRESENTATION.

    It’s not the Electoral College that’s flawed. It’s not the Popular Vote that’s flawed (in and of themselves), it’s that as long as the percentage of voters showing up to the polls is less than 50% in almost every state, you CANT logically expect realistic representation BY ANY METHOD.

    It’s why it’s so important to vote…but here we are, averaging 30-50% turnout BUT NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY ITS ALL “SO UNFAIR” after the fact.

  33. without the electoral college the large population centers win , and those in "fly over America" do not receive a voice. It is exactly why the founders set it up that way. I always hear this cry for an end to the electorate everytime a democrat loses. Because it "couldn't possibly be the candidate"

  34. Wow. A few videos in and I only now noticed how wrong/false your statements become.
    Try not to confuse states with cities. That could be a good one.
    And consider someone actually winning all the very different states you used in your(unfair) example.
    If you can get those different groups on one side you might actually be an incredible leader for a country..
    Your explanation of what you dislike about what to a Dutchy like me is already a really strange system made me distrust the popular vote more than anything.
    So… Great job I guess.
    The us might want to look into letting the states split their votes according to the votes instead of this all or nothing deal.
    Although after your terrible depiction of the popular vote would be hesitant of even that

  35. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the solution would require a constitutional amendment because Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 decides how our elections are won.

    To change this is very problematic.

  36. U called Illinois Hoosier

    This ain’t Indiana

    We are ILLINI’S

    AND I KNOW Houston is somewhat population the size of Chicago but Chicago has like 200,000 more ppl than Houston more like Chicago 2.8, and Houston 2.5

    Get the math right we still hanging on to third 😂

  37. electoral college today tomorrow and forevermore otherwise it will descend to mob rule and the black and brown will r in everything I we can't wont tolerate that

  38. your conflating visits with actual benefit to te state. In the day of internet they dont even need to stop by to hear them.
    Just look at the election map. Trump won 2626 counties while Hillary won 487. Democrats are holed up in their cities.
    She won only 18% of the counties in te US. System is functioning as intended. Protecting small towns from ivory tower elitists.
    To future proof a system you have to think about all the ways someone is going to try and screw it up.
    Which is situations like we have now where one side is living in a different world ridiculing the other while thinking they are better.
    Todays left and right on avg dont live in the same places, dont work the same jobs, dont get the same salaries.
    and the divide only seems to be getting larger.

  39. the electoral college is still the best system for our government. There is no national elections it is a series of state elections and a popular vote national election in the US will go to the person who shells out the most money every time.

  40. After the 1968 Presidential Election, 80% of Americans wanted to get rid of the Electoral College, including most Republicans. However, it was filibustered by a group of mostly Southern US Senators.

  41. I don’t know why electoral college does not “split” votes. Why does a popular vote give all the electoral votes to the prominent party in the states? Why isn’t the electoral vote not proportional to the popular votes?

  42. i know this video is ancient but it's predicated on the premise that the US is a democracy

    it's not

    it's a constitutional republic

  43. You missed a large part of the argument. Without the electoral college New York and California would decide the presidency

  44. Proof electoral college is good:
    Hillary won popular vote, 487 counties
    Trump won 3,084
    Without it population centers control countries, like how LA and San Francisco control California

  45. In fact, the fairest way is the way of the Electoral College.
    And I'll make this easy for those of you with thick skulls.
    If you do away with the Electoral College, all you would need to be president are the 20 states that Hillary won. Yes, the 20 states that Hillary got the majority vote. DO YOU GET IT NOW?
    Just because you lost to Donald Trump doesn't mean you can all of a sudden change the rules. What a bunch of little children!

  46. Yeah but what about when the majority population doesn’t actually think for themselves their votes depend on the D or R next to a candidate?

  47. The difference is the United States is not a democracy it is a republic, you have a democracy in your state the republic is designed to represent those States think the EU just you can't leave,

  48. also doesn't pay attention to the fact that no one has argued that cities would decide the outcome of elections but a select few of States mainly Texas New York and California, Minnesota in a popular vote system might as well go fuck itself into

  49. There is no perfect plan, and the nature of things when the electoral college was choosen was different from today's reality. The US can decide to change it, but other methods also have the same or worse flaws, do not kid yourself.
    Today, if you change to popular vote system a presidential candidate can win the election by getting the votes of basically 9 states (California,Texas,Florida,New York,Pennsylvania,Illinois,Ohio,Georgia,North Carolina, as per 2019 sensus) only, which do represent over 50% of the american population. Sure, to get 100% of the votes in those states is an impossibility but I am being as hyperbolic as the person in the video with the "22%" assertion.
    The times where different when the electoral college was defined, the things that affected that decision were part of that time, not sure most of those reasons apply today. Today a presidential candidate is widely publicized, the whole country can easily find out who he is both personally as well as professionaly. Their careers are widly scrutnized. No more "no one knows who he is".
    The idea that "only educated men should vote", which was part of the deliberations and might have had an impact in the decision, is no longer accepted in any way or form.
    The popular vote is just that, the one with the most votes win, period. Is that always the best choice? Maybe. That does gives advantages to populists, that is widely known throughout the world, what the founding fathers called "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" is always a risk, not that the electoral college would necessarily prevent that but in the end this was also part of the deliberations at that time.
    Would that disproportionally enphasize the areas with the majority of the population? No idea. But it should be easy to find out, there are countries out there with that system and there should be data to point what actually ends up happening.
    The final consideration is that the president does not represent one state, since the US is a nation of states, he represents of all of the states and so should focus on the needs of the nation as a whole. But we know politicians, we would be naive if we consider they think in those lines, one would hope.
    Have a nice day.

  50. No I haven’t if your referring to me. I can’t seem to find the original comments and since YouTube doesn’t take me back to the comments at least it isn’t for me. I can’t see all of your reply YouTubes notifications section isn’t displaying all of it only the first line or so.

  51. So there is one slight problem with all of this. We are not a democracy. Never has it been intended to be a democracy, the founding fathers knew democracies never lasted. We are in fact as our national pledge suggests a republic.

  52. First of all the electoral college is in the constitution, you can’t just abolish it, it only takes 13 states to reject the amendment. I can name about 21 states that would reject the amendment.

  53. You left out many of the reasons why electoral college is critical. It sounds pretty good to take it away but the electoral college must stay.

  54. Yeah its much better that 51% of voters decides the fate of the other 49%. Democracy is a scam, no matter how you put it.

  55. This video is dumb we are not a democracy we are a union of states that is why The People who live In the territories don’t get a vote it is not to Protect the little states it is for the states to Choose the president and that’s why every state gets 2 Senators we are not a democracy the thing he said about how he big cities Wouldn’t decide the president my be true but urban areas would Decide leaving the rest of the people to suck it like in here in Alaska Anchorage decides everything even though more than Half of the Population lives there is it fair to say that the rest don’t matter more than half of the population lives in a urban area but dose the rest of people not matter

  56. At 5:35 you spelled it all out. By winning states, not people. Each state is like a sovereign country. That country(State) holds a vote and whatever presidential candidate is chosen by the people of that state , WINS that individual States vote. The amount of votes won per state is based on its populations federal representatives plus 2 votes(Senate seats). Then the federal electors carry that States choice forward. We the individual persons choose our state reps and governors etc. as those people are directly answerable to what's going on Inside each State.

  57. The bigger problem is letting people vote that don’t even know who the president is or what they are voting for What a joke. Why would we let a person that doesn’t even know anything about the process vote. Why would we let people vote because of the color of a persons skin. We have a lot bigger problems than the electoral college and the popular vote is a joke. Do we really want the most popular person or the most qualified person. The entire system is flawed because we have way to many people voting that don’t have a clue as to what is going on in the country. It’s insanity. Every single presidential candidate will say government is corrupt. Yet you will vote for one of the most corrupt people in Washington. Hillary Clinton. So I guess it’s okay that our government is corrupt as long as you win. Right. Unreal.

Leave a Reply

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