The Electoral College is the system that dictates how our next president is elected. Contrary to popular belief, when you or I go to the polls to vote, we are not actually voting for a presidential nominee. We are voting for an elector.
Enjoy the video and please subscribe to my YouTube channel for more educational videos:
We often believe that we live in a purely democratic nation. That we live in a nation in which the people elect their leaders through their votes. That the people get to decide who the next president will be. And while this idea is part of our national story, it is not entirely true. In fact it is not the people who get to elect the president, but instead the members of an electoral college.
You see, every four years a presidential election happens and it is not you or me, but the Electoral College that directly elects the president. Citizens who vote for a presidential candidate are actually voting for what are called “electors.” These people pledge to vote for the presidential candidate that gets the popular vote in their state.
Electors are represented in each of the 50 states. The amount of electors each state has coincides with how many Congressional members there are in each state. For example California right now has 53 members in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate, therefore California gets 55 electoral votes. Washington D.C. also gets an electoral vote which is based on the same number of the least populated state. Right now D.C. gets 3 electoral votes and there are a total of 538 electors who make up the electoral college. That means only 538 people make the final decision on which presidential candidate becomes president.
Most electors have pledged to vote for which ever candidate has won the most votes in a particular state. So for example during the 2012 election between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, Obama won the popular vote in New York and all 29 electors in New York voted for Obama. The only exceptions to this pledge is in Nebraska and Maine which both use a congressional district method. Despite this difference, in every election both states have never split their electoral votes and have always ended up following the statewide popular vote.
One strange fact is that electors are not required by law to vote for the candidates that they have pledged their votes toward. Despite its legality, however, there have only been 157 cases of electors who have voted contrary to their pledge. These are called faithless electors. It should be noted that not once in the history of an election, have faithless electors changed the outcome of any presidential election. There are also many reasons why most electors remain faithful. Most electors have been chosen due to their loyalty to their political party and run the risk of political retaliation and possible criminal penalties in some states, if they vote against their pledge.
The way a president wins an election is by receiving at least 270, or the absolute majority, of electoral college votes. If no candidate receives a majority, or at least 270 votes, then the House of Representatives will select the president.
Months before election day, electors are nominated to their positions by each political party. On election day when you or I are at the polls and when we are voting for a presidential candidate, we are actually voting for an elector. These electors, will then meet up in their respective state capitols and sign something called the “Certification of Vote,” which is then delivered to the Office of the President of the U.S. Senate. It is on January 6 when the U.S. Congress convenes and announces the Certificates of Vote and declares the official winner.
SIMPLE SOLUTION: ALL votes count if state electoral votes are divided by percentage of popular vote— if candidate wins 40% of state's popular vote get 40% of state's electoral votes.
But 💯, the electoral college was NEVER about fairness, protecting against populism (obviously right!!) or the flaws of a pure democracy… Check American history: The electoral college was created SPECIFICALLY to offset the voting disparity & advantages created by slavery!!!
People talking about preventing CA & NY from running over ID & ND need to understand that the # of electoral votes (& the # of House Representatives as well) IS NOT proportionally EQUAL to state populations & severely lesd than the original # of citizens per representative in the Constitution's design, otherwise CA & NY would & should STILL be running the country!! An single electoral vote in a smaller population state represents fewer individual voters than an electoral vote of the largest population states, meaning the individuals in the smaller populations have more power & representation in the country than a person living alongside the most people.
In other words… The FEWEST Americans are given the MOST influence & power in America!!! Exactly the OPPOSITE of the original intent of the electoral college.
Cause guess what… neither Bush nor trump would've won & the minority of voters wouldn't have superceded the majority if state electoral votes weren't all or nothing but actually reflections of every state voters!!!
Ok so since the electoral college members are the people who choose the candidates for president, how come if they don't reach the 270 votes mark they give the power to the house of representatives? Why not give it to the people to make a final decision? We don't even know these people, they already got to choose the candidates to be the potential president why should they make both decisions?
It's not true that women weren't allowed to vote before 1920. Some states allowed them to and some states did not. In a few states women were "accidentally" allowed to vote, as the law said limited the vote to property owners and small number of women did own property, though some of those states later changed the law so that only male property owners could vote.
Why did you draw the entire north america continent. Canada is not part of the usa neither Mexico or Honduras or Panama and I'll pass on the few others depicted on your map.
Mostly, the electoral college problem is purely a problem of the us
One thing you left out is that anyone who is 18 or older can become an elector and wind up serving as part of the Electoral College thus dispelling the mumbo jumbo that's often spewed out about how the Electoral College is an elitist organization.
When you vote in a Presidential election you are voting for the candidate of your choice not for an Elector as Electors names do not appear on the public ballot. It's simply that, under our Constitution and system of electing the President, that a slate of Electors is chosen through the political convention process, as part of each State's (including DC in this explanation) law, and - as you pointed out with the exception of Maine and Nebraska - the candidate that wins the most votes (plurality not necessarily majority) had their Electors vote in December after the public election has taken place.
Thanks for at least pointing out that the oddball Electors who have, from time to time, not voted for the candidate they were pledged to vote for have never changed the outcome of a Presidential election.
I doubt the point was even to descriminate. If they could they would gladly take white people as slaves and send them to work. The point of why they wanted to keep slavery seem to me to be in large part for hey wanted the easy work force. :/
There's a saying out there. It goes like this. "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" the wolves being the big states, the sheep being the small states. If the electoral college didn't exsist, America would be chaotic.The United States is not a democracy, and never has been! WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!
Technically you are correct that faithless electors have never affected the outcome of a presidential election. They did affect the vice-presidential election once. Virginia’s 23 electors were pledged to vote for Vice President Martin Van Buren for president and Kentucky Representative Richard M. Johnson for vice president. They did cast their vote for Van Buren who received enough votes for president. For vice president, they voted former South Carolina Senator William Smith. This dropped Johnson below the number he needed to win the election. The election then went to the senate where they had to vote upon the two top candidates; Johnson and New York Representative Francis Granger. Johnson eventually won 33 – 16.
If the Electoral College is ever removed from the election process,
which has survived 45 elections, that will be "The Beginning of the End"
of the "United" States as we know it today. For Democrats in the 2016
election, It has gone beyond the sore loser mentality; the opposition
some of whom claims to be about "We the People" are also lamenting
that the E/C should be abolished which displays their hypocritical
ignorance, by contradicting the Founding Fathers who understood both
concepts as being one. The Founding Fathers brilliantly placed the
Electoral College into our election process in the name of "equal and
fair" representation for all or "We the People".
Case in point; Clinton won LA & NYC by a margin of 3.2 million
votes. Clinton’s overall margin in popular vote was approximately 2.9
million votes, and there it is ! Keep in mind we are only factoring in
two cities just to illustrate how the rest of the country opposed a
Clinton Presidency. Factor in just one or two more cities and you could
start to see clearly how widespread "The People" throughout the rest
of the country "STRONGLY" opposed her candidacy as President.
In any event removal of the Electoral College would allow for those two
cities “or” a few group of cities to control the entire United States,
yet with hypocritical audacity the question is asked by uneducated
liberal minded simpletons; "wouldn't that be fair to all Americans"? We
are already hearing the "non subtenant" clichéd arguments; "it's a
laughable spin", or that Trump winning 3084 Counties, to Clinton's 57
"means nothing", and in doing so those 3000 counties were referred to as
"Empty Acres" .
Meanwhile, not a thought was given to the constituents who reside in
those "Empty Acres" and control her resources. The pathetic irony is
that LA and NYC could not survive without support from the rest of the
country. Those two cities would implode; without taxes, without water,
without food, without fuel; without "The People" who provide those
cities with her resources, they fall, and they fall big time.
Ok, so how it works is a canidate needs 270 electorial votes to win. Each state is given a particular number of electoral votes based on number of Reprensatives(based on population) and Senaters(each state has 2) they have in the US Congress. When the popular votes are counted on election day, the winning of thepopular vote in each state gets that states electorial votes. the person to get 270(or just over half) wins the Presidency
The founding father's didnt trust pure democracy, as pure democracies always fall apart since small majorities can easily tyranize a bare minority. What the US has is a reprensitive republic, and that is what we push around th world as it allows the people to select leaders insead of bloodlines
Where are you geting that the 14th changes qualifications to vote within the state, thats all left to the sate by the constitution are there US acts or laws concerning this, and showing a confederate flag is very wrong, at the time of the 14th a peace was declared the 13th was passed and most of all the states would not pass the 14th so the federal gov came and concorred the southern state and they were dissolved those states no longer exsist, new states were created during reconstruction with carpet beggars and scalawags controlling them and jim crow was their invention, after the civil war anyone that participated with the confederacy could not vote, so no southerners could vote at the time when you say the slave states restricted black people from voting and were not punished for it, but the people running the federal gov and the people running the state gov were the same people why do you think the fed gov did not punish for not letting black people vote
STOP PROMOTING HATE AND RACISM
THE NORTH WON AND THEIR SYSTEM WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE SOUTHERN STATES WHY ARE YOU SHOWING A CONFEDERATE FLAG
ANYONE THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONFEDERACY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 14 AMENDMENT AND WHAT HAPPEND AFTER, BUT THEY DID PASS THE 13 AMMENMENT AND FREED THE SLAVES
One thing people never talk about is the fact that the number of delegates a state elects is not acuratly porpotional to the state population. For example, California has a population 70 time larger than Wisconsin's, however California gets to elect only 18x more delegates. It's not really democratic.
Mpmc Mpmc YASSSS!! THANK YOU!!!! SAY IT LOUDER!!!!!! More people need to understand that the # of electors IS NOT proportionally EQUAL to state populations, otherwise CA & NY would STILL be running the country!! An single electoral vote in a smaller population state represents fewer individual voters than an electoral vote of the largest population states, meaning the individuals in the smaller populations have more power & representation in the country than a person living alongside the most people.
In other words… The FEWEST Americans are given the MOST influence & power in America!!! Exactly the OPPOSITE of the original intent of the electoral college. Check American history: the electoral college was created to offset the voting disparity of slavery!!!
The first part of this video is pretty accurate. The second part of this video is biased and its explanations are one-sided. Several of the founders wanted to avoid direct popular vote of the president because they were aware that historically democracies always implode. So they wanted a system were government was strictly limited.
Totally biased by negative comments about the south. It took awhile, but we solved the voting problems. Based on the last election, it seems the northern states are corrupt in many of the states. Oh by the way, we don't have a democracy, we have republic which accounts for sectionalism. This is what's kept this country together by using the electors rather than common vote.
He didn't make a valid statement, he just made broad allegations of corruption with no substance. His point that we are a constitutional republic is correct, but beside the point of saying "corruption!"
The electoral college is a flawed system. Any system which discourages voting is flawed. We have a 55% turnout in 2016. That is pathetic. The low voter turnout is due to the electoral college. Only a handful of states matter. The rest are set in stone.
Our entire political system is INSANE! It's time to get rid of the College Electoral Voters. Let all of America decide our future, not a few stuffy electors from each state. Most say it is needed to keep voting fair among less populated states but a vote is a vote no matter where you live.
And as almost happened this year, Article II and the Twelfth Amendment requires a majority of electors, not just who had the most votes in a three party or more party democracy. With the tie in the electoral college during 1800, the House of Representatives chose the president with the representatives voting by state, not individually. Precedent has been set. Thus California could end up in a tie with the same number of votes as all of the other states, one... By now California should be happy they have 55 electoral votes... There is a reason why the small state of Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, and even little Rhode Island who didn't send anyone to the convention ratified the Constitution too...
Good video but it says "no law against voting contrary to what public want electors to do" then says "faithful electors may face political retaliation and some states may have criminal laws against it (or something like that)." Please keep it consistent
She withdrew from the presidential election on national television. It's called a concession speech. She should no longer be on any ballots for anyone to vote for, electoral college either. A recount can't be conducted in her name, she gave up, and her name should be removed, she conceded. She asked for her name to be removed from the race when she
conceded. There is ZERO hope, and this is non-news. The electoral college did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do... The popular vote is subject to fraud. Not saying she cheated, that remains to be seen. She has ZERO authority to call for anything, she quit the race. Her
supporters can ask, get mad, etc. but she quit the presidential election race, we all watched that speech on national television. Let's go back to grade school here, there's no take backs of your take backs... My god you liberals are seriously retarded... Grow up... This isn't grade
The guy that made this video needs to go back to school. Originally anyone that owned property could vote regardless of color or gender. So there have been people of all colors and both genders voting all along.
Not true. It was state-by-state, and in most states, if you were Black, you could not vote no matter what you owned. I believe it was just MA and NC where Free Blacks could vote. Maybe others. I forget - but not all! And women couldn't vote anywhere - except maybe MA. And property requirements were vastly different among the 13 states.
In what country with an election and that doesn't happen? Well I'm a Vietnamese, so my votes don't count anyways, but in every single country that holds a democratic election, this is bound to happen. IT IS AN ELECTION YOU IDIOT.
Wow you guys are so smart. It really opened my eyes. lol obviously you guys actually didn't watch the video. Unless your candidate gets the majority of the vote, your vote doesn't matter. The electoral college was created when there was only 3 million people in the US and before there was the internet.
No did you listen to what was said? its 51 separate elections which is why they campaign in individual states with different strategies or ignore them all together. So the representative of the winning candidate from each state plus D.C go on to vote. If we didn't have this system the nation would be ruled by California, New York, Illinois ( Chicago) or Texas, Florida, and Georgia. let me make an assumption here, you hate Trump right? would you rather have a Socialist pervert or a psychopathic cunt in office?
One question. I have heard that before the 14th amendment it was if you were white and a male you could vote. My understanding was that you had to be a property owner. You note that "men of color" could not vote. How was that determined and did it actually state that? Like did they have a test for whiteness? I've met some crazy dark Germans and Sicilians who think of themselves as being a "Caucasian". Would they be unable to vote before the 14th Amendment?
When the constitution was written, most states(if they had a popular vote to elect electores) has a property requirement to vote, but by 1820(when all states had electors based on popular vote) that requirement had been greatly reduced or eleminated. Before the 14 amendment was passed, anyone who wasnt white with an American Accent wasnt considered a US citizen. Fun Fact: the 14th amendment(according to the Supreme Court) only applies to people born in the United States to legal residents or US Citizens. If your parents came to the United States illegally, the 14th amendment does not technally apply
That depends on the people really. I've seen many in these comments and in videos on the electoral college saying that pure democracy (aka direct democracy) always fails, and its bad etc. But Switerland has been a pure democracy for a long time, and they do quite well with it, But then they have an extremely well educated populace, the percentage of their country that recieved higher education is the highest in the world, and when something is voted on there has to be a majority of 75%+ for it be enacted into law.
There are other systems that could be used and would be better than the way the electoral college is implemented imo,
The Electoral College was created to protect the far less populated States, such as New Hampshire and Vermont from having their voters votes being wiped out and obliterated by the much higher populated States, such as California or New York.
And now, just the opposite occurs: The much higher populated states have their votes wiped out by the far less populated states.
The fact is, a person living in Wyoming shouldn't have their vote count the same as 10 people in California. That is corruption.
hear is the reality of the electoral college, you as the people of each state have the right to vote for your representatives for your state these people then become your electors to represent you on the presidential elections, these elections take place for the representatives at different times in your states, and not all at the same time like a national election does, so as a example if the majority of people would of voted for the representatives to be all of the same party and then on election day for the president the people all voted for the same party as all their representatives, then their state vote more then likely be for the party the majority of the representatives they have elected, the states long ago all come to a consensus on the number of electors/ representatives they wanted for their state. this helps to prevent national take overs of a single party system. cause at different times in your state elections for representatives the people in your state vote for your representatives that best represent you at the time no matter if they are on one side or the other. so to put it short if you didn't like the way the elections turned out maybe you should take more part in who you elect as your representatives and take part in your state elections in a far bigger way, this will insure you the people who actually stand up the most during all elections and just a presidential one, the process was created this way so that the american people will take more effort in the way their states run and how they want it to be represented. we are a republic not a democracy meaning we dont allow any majority on any side get to rule over the people indefinitely because when that happens then you are in danger of an overthrow of your country by a oligarchy system where you only be come servants to the government instead of the other way around like we are here in america where we the people hold all the power. you all need to trust the system we have as it has been well thought out when it was founded so that we as americans wont allow our nations sovereignty and our values to be destroyed by any single majority.
so now as the way it looks the republicans will have majority control of the government, so now say you are a democrat and you want to have your side to be represented so that next time you vote for a pres that your vote would be in the direction you hoped for then every time hear after you would want to vote strictly for representatives who are of only your party. and hope that they will as well vote the same direction as you wish them to vote.
this also rarely happens as through out all voting seasons the people vote for the best candidate that represents them more then the other no matter what side they are on that way your values are more supported in congress, so to put it simply the people already voted for who they wanted the president to be as a whole before any national election takes place cause the representatives you already voted for, are the people that best represent your core values in each state, now that dont mean that just because a president is on one side or the other gets elected gets to control our country, this is why we have 3 branches of government, so that each keep the others in check so that as a nation we move in the direction that always has the interest of the people in mind at all times, but when there is any part of the government or even 2 that steer in the wrong direction the third part will have the power to stop the others from succeeding in any plots against the best interest of the people, the system is all designed so that at any time in our history the best interest of our people are always at the for front in all matters of our country. now for you who dont have the understanding of the systems we have and why they are made the way they are, this is now a learning opportunity for you just like it has been through out our history to educate your self on how our systems of government works and how it was designed in such a way that it will have every chance it can to remain for many generations to come so that our values as americans will endure through out history so that we can be a shining light of liberty through out the world.
We don't. First of all, there has to be good reasons to abolish the electoral college. There are none currently. Secondly, we must have something to replace it with. No one has a workable plan to replace the electoral college.
btw based on this guys logic, Obama should not have won back in 2012 because he didn't get the popular vote. This is what happens when you have uneducated voters.
Washington D.C. should not have any electoral votes ~period! It was never established as a populace region! It was established to provide a center for government activities to be carried out on behalf of the united states! This is part of the problem from the onset.
Essentially decided based on population. Because the electoral votes are equal to the total number of that state's representatives in Congress. A State's representatives in the House are based on their population. Each State has 2 Senators.
The electoral college failed us then. Hillary got majority vote but trump got the electoral college. How are we supposed to trust them then? How can we trust our voices can be truly heard? Why did they vote the other way? What benefits do they get? So many questions that I fear will never be answered.
Opal White if the popular vote was the decider of the election, California and New York, and big cities alone would potentially decide the election. the electoral college was created as a balance of powers. I know it seems unfair but it's also unfair for small states like Wyoming where the pop. is 500,000 compared to California's 39,000,000. Big states and small states are heard and the map can favor either side
Different states have different populations and different numbers of electors so whole majority vote was for Hilary the overall vote when taking into account all states so as not to devalue those in smaller population states voted for trump. The popular vote may have come from just the big cities and thus wouldn't be a reflection of the country as a whole
Because your votes decide the Elector, who essentially represent your vote. Its like playing for a team and selecting a captain to speak for the members. What they say is based on what the team decides, rather than the entire team speaking up at once.
No, most of the states that Sec. Clinton won she won by very large margins -- especially in the most populous state of them all, California. In a lot of the more populous states that President Trump won, he won by very narrow margins.
Your vote decides who the electors from your state will be. When Sec. Clinton won the state of NY, it was 29 electors all pledged to vote for her who became NY's electors. When President Trump won Texas, it was 38 electors all pledged to vote for him who became Texas's electors.
Outstanding presentation! Very easy to follow and very easy to understand. It covers every detail precisely and accurately and delivers the governing principles and considerations of the US election system and its background and purpose clearly and meaningfully throughout the information delivery process . WELL DONE! VERY VERY WELL DONE! I will use this here in Denmark to explain the US election considerations to those interested - thank you very much.
LOL ironically this video I think demonstrates a big problem... after explaining how it works, you ask "Why was the system made that way?" - the question should be "Why is this outdated system still being maintained?" - but Americans are TERRIFIED of changing traditions, especially ones from when the country was founded... and it will be our downfall.
well look it in the other way, the candidates will go out there and make everything possible to get the people to vote for them, you wont need any achievements or anything, just people to like you, like you pick your high school president, you vote for the coolest guy or girl in the class. If that applies to actual elections then it would be a problem. Basically, this is another way of creating a tyranny and dictatorship
FYI, In Maine and Nebraska (the only 2 states that award electoral votes on something other than a statewide basis) it is equal by district. In each case, the congressional district winner gets 1 electoral vote and the statewide winner gets 2 electoral votes. And IN NO CASE, is an elector bound to vote for someone from the same party. That's just silly.
Oh no! We think it's bad now with the election coming down to just a few states. Only 90 of the 435 Congressional districts are even remotely competitive. That means that the election of the president would boil down to a few Congressional districts. Also, it would increase the incentive to Gerrymander districts. Now districts decide who goes to the House. Imagine if they also decided the presidency. Gerrymandering would be off the hook.
lamo543 .. Yes you're right. They use congressional districts to allocate electoral votes rather than giving all electoral votes to the candidate that wins the overall popular vote in the state. The split is still done by population density however, and not an "even" split by the number of elected representatives. In Maine for example the winner of district one gets 3 of the states 4 electoral votes. .It would be interesting to see what the election results would have been had all states used the congressional district system. My best guess is that it wouldn't change the result however. Trump won because he captured 30 of the 50 states. That's 60%. I would bet that a district count would yield about the same result given that while he might have lost some districts in the red states, he would have gained some in the blue states. .
Most misleading video ever we are a representative democratic republic, ok, not a direct democracy. You make it seem as if the electors vote for the president they don't the people do. How you may ask, the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets all the electoral votes. This may not be how it directly happens, but it is what happens
There are more than 2 sets of electors. EVERY CANDIDATE on the ballot submits their own slate of electors. Whatever candidate gets the most votes in that state (or in some cases, district) has their slate of electors elected.
Kathelleen Parsons the majority of the states cannot be tyrannized by the small majority of the people. a purely popular vote would make sure that only people in the biggest states and cities are ever heard.
I don't fully understand. One candidate may win the popular vote. But the opposing candidate may have won at least 270 Electoral votes. This video suggests that we vote for the Electors, not for the candidates. I learned that in the 2016 election, one Washington state Elector won't vote for Clinton even when Clinton won the state of Washington.
As I understand, each state has two sets of Electors--one Democrat; the other is Republican. So if your state is entitled to 10 Electors, there are actually 20 Electors--10 Dem, 10 Repub. But I could be wrong.
What if an Independent wins a state? Who will be the Electors for that state?
+scott burry, what exactly is wrong about what the OP said? they are exactly right if you ask me, people forget America is a REPUBLIC, the people we elect are supposed to represent us not subjugate us.
So how are the electors appointed? Theoretically America doesn't just have two parties(though practically, because you don't have any form of proportional representation, you do), so the "electors" shouldn't just come from the two main parties.
No, President Bush lost the popular vote nationwide but won the electoral vote -- just like President Trump in 2016. Other than one Gore elector who didn't vote at all (and that didn't change the outcome), there were not faithless electors. This issue in 2000 was that the state of Florida was very, very close.
PLEASE help me get the word out about the Electoral College!! If the people in any state vote for Trump he doesn't just ' get those electoral votes ' all that does is decide which Electors go to the December 9th meeting!!!! those Electors are actual people, appointed political insiders, who can vote for WHOMEVER THEY WANT or abstain and still stop Trump from being elected,...all they need to do is keep him from reaching 270 and it then falls to a simple majority vote in Congress to decide the next President!!!
just let me be clear my videos simply state that this effort is underway I never said I supported it I dislike Hillary Clinton as much as I dislike Donald Trump butt if your debating philosophically the existence of the Electoral College as currently constituted that's an entirely different argument for another video
Wow...just SO much incorrect about that statement. First: No one is ' cheating ' states out of their votes,...The results of the popular election are not now and NEVER HAVE BEEN legally binding....( That's from the Founding Fathers not me or any liberal ). Second: There have been multiple times in our history where the Electoral College over ruled the popular vote in both directions. It is WHY they were put there,...as a second level of security. Third: these Electors are appointed by the members of the Party WHO WON THE POPULAR VOTE in that state....in this case these are (R) appointed Electors....If THEY decide to abstain or switch their votes you have to believe they have a very good reason to,....Fourth: In the 2000 Election a woman named Katherine Harris , a (R) appointed State Attorney General from the state of Florida decided unilaterally to throw out millions of votes because of ' hanging chads ' and other nonsense like that,....and that was PERFECTLY within her rights to do in the state of Florida and that is why GW Bush became President and not Al Gore.....Elections in this country have rules and procedures and I fault the MSM ( FOX, CNN, etc,,...) for this BS coverage that " awards votes " based on exit poll numbers,....it is completely incorrect,....all state elections do is determine the make up of the Electoral College meeting on December 19th....In this case 309 (R) Electors and 229 (D) Electors will meet. If Trump cant get 270 from that meeting its HIS fault no one else's,.....
So cheating individual states out of their votes. Why can't liberals ever just accept defeat? Either they are winning, or their opponent is somehow cheating. Or, in your case, they decide to cheat for the "greater good."
And no, just because you didn't know how elections work doesn't mean you get to change the system so your candidate wins. That's what dictators do.
I want to know how to get rid of the Electoral College? Also how do we the people get rid of the Federal Reserve; The Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation and absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Government; It is my belief that the corporate owners control the Electoral College and the money system as we know it!!!
SOO YOU WANT STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK AND Other HUGE populous states to always pick who our president will be.. you just do not understand your ass from a hole in the ground do you dummy....
No it keeps tone state from dominating also reduces chance of fraud. As no matter how many extra votes you put into California or Texas it won't effect the election. While its still possible with the EC(some believe this happened in Illinois Kennedy beat Nixon because dead people voted in Chicago) and Bush v Gore in Florida the election has to be close in the EC. Otherwise you must steal several states. Most of which if they had large upswing in voter turn out it would be noticeable. You could add a million votes to Texas or California and not set off alarms. Do that to any other state it would set off alarms.
Since California is entrenched Democrat and Texas entrenched Republican an extra million of that party goes unnoticed and with EC doesn't effect the race. The EC is much like many parliaments elect prime ministers except since parliaments directly elect their leaders the parliament majority party is the prime minsters party. With EC we can have one party hold the president and another hold congress. The difference between the president and other elections no other election is national At most people are elected by one state not 50 states and DC except for the presidency. Also, using your logic we should get rid of presidential term limits. Neither the senate or House has term limits. And, it can't be changed without the consent of 2/3 of the states and 3/4 of congress. Also, there would have been a nationwide recount this time without the EC. Hillary won the popular vote with margin less than her spread in California. Excluding California she lost the popular vote.
Why would you want people on the opposite side of your state to decide who to elect as senator? I have nothing in common with them at all. OH wait its one man one vote, thats the way a republic works. Yeah every other office goes on the popular vote, not the president though. I suppose keeping a pathetic remant that was put in place to please the slave states is a good thing right?
There are not an even number of Democrat electors and Republican electors. The electors don't get chosen until we actually vote. When Sec. Clinton won NY, for example, all 29 of her electors became NY's Electors. Wen President Trump won Texas, for example, all 36 of his electors became Texas's electors.
Actually, in 2008, Nebraska did split the vote. McCain won the overall vote, as well as the First and the Third Districts. Obama won the Second. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008-certificates/index.html#ne
+Miriam Vincent And, originally, states didn't "elect" the original Electors. They were appointed by whatever method the state legislature directed. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The popular vote didn't come into play across all states until 1824, when the Senate began tracking it.
Thanks for this informative video! I honestly think it is time to change the system to a popular vote, but we'll see what happens. Also, do you do all the drawings for the videos, because they're really good!
The Problem with that is, without the electoral college, a candidate can only focus on big cities and states and still win the Presidency while ignoring more than half of the country. For instance if you look at the 2016 election, when broken up into counties, Hillary CLinton only won 14% of the country,
The Infohub Obviously you guys do not understand why this system was put in place...take a history lesson...direct democracy is a horrible system that always leads to anarchy. This was an ingenious plan put in place by our Founding Fathers knowing the corruption of society. We have and hopefully never will be a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
Interesting to think that over the course of our history, not a single event where a faithless elector votes contrary to the popular vote, results in a change of outcome for winner of the presidential election
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.