But tell me would you take there job.

Jonah Davis I'D TOOK THUR JEORRRRRRB!

I'd take their job, in a heart beat, because its a high paying job .

I know I feel bad for TruTV...

back then, the electoral college was extremely useful, as information took days, even weeks, to get from place to place. the electoral college was set up so that America didn't need to wait for every citizen to receive news of the election and vote. now it sucks and should go.

Jake Glenn MAJESTIC

It’s all the hot air in his head.

Better than mein president trumph

That's no hair, it's a space station

Attack the character not the argument, classic

It was filibustered because the EC, it is necessary for a republic to flourish. Pure democracy never works, two wolves and a lamb vote on what’s for dinner. Two wolves voted the lamb, and the lambs vote doesn’t matter because majority rules in democracy. Checks and balances are so important in society so that there is not too much power in one place.

@@lonniesmith7580 but the electoral college also sucks at that...

@@lonniesmith7580 then why does every other Republic not use it?

@@bt3743 I have no clue. They should implement it in every republic because it is objectively the best system. There’s a quote from a wise man. “Government by the people, for the people…. But the people are retarded” so EC was implemented. Living in the 21st century does not mean that people are more intelligent, in fact I argue that people are dumber now than ever before. It would be stupid to let the pure majority decide what happens as they’re all STUPID. Can’t let morons dictate the govt

​@@lonniesmith7580literally every other democratic nation uses a different system, such as Parliament, and they've all been doing fine.

Me in a nutshell.

He is a great actor with all the flopping he be doin lol 😂

This was said before space jam 2

Over 40 unless voting for third party

If George Carlin didn’t vote, he doesn’t get to complain about the outcome.

2016 proved that he was wrong. If voting was meaningless, Clinton would have won in a landslide.

Matthias Neidenberger he actually argued the opposite saying that if u voted for a guy that got in and messed everything up then you had no right to complain about it

Thats really not true and isn't a good mesage

haha! the flopper!

+Juan Borrero he was in a movie so he is an actor

That comma in your quote does not need to exist. Please delete it immediately.

+The rarest seal. Normally, I detest grammar checkers but that was SOOOOOOO FUUUNNNNNY!! "Please delete it immediately." God, I don't know why, I'm still laughing at that. Lmao.

Terminate the comma. Free the grammar.

The fact the the U.S. is a democratic republic does not mean we have a good voting system.

@P S If that was presented by the government, over fifty percent of the population voted in favor of it, and their weren't any other branches of government or other countries that watched it critically, sure. I'm not saying a representative democracy is wrong. What I'm saying is that our current system which allows gerrymandering and counts the popular vote as secondary is flawed.

@Corn Pop's Mutton Chops dude a lot of other nations have represantive democracy but their still manage it on person = one vote like my country of germany.

America is not a democracy. Democracy allows mob rule. A good politician should have a healthy balance so that down cities on the coast don't control the whole country

Well, I for one, am pleased that they are trying to educate themselves! Maybe you would prefer they didn't, so that you can continue to feel superior??

IOWA GOD DAMMIT

As much as I love this fact and it's source, it doesn't help me explaining it to people because I live in California (not on the list)

Iowa tends to vote Republican and this is the time every 4 years to show the people of Des Moines who really runs the state .

Can, and most often don't. In most of those States the elector can be replaced if they attempt to cast their ballot against the majority vote of their State.

24 states! Add one more, and it’s literally half the country!

Nebraska and Maine clearly have a superior model. The founding fathers obviously didn’t want population to dictate the country, because then California and New York would rule the other 48 states. Nebraska and Maine’s model would eliminate swing states and Republicans and Democrats would get their equal worth of votes from California, Texas, and every other state, like they should.

@@aaronlandry3934 Only problem is, you'd either have to get a red/blue state to decide to give up half of it's safe electorates, some of each to promise to change their system by the next election, or abolish Winner-Takes-All all at once. The second is really hard to coordinate and the other two are just impossible

@@quentinthernize6678 I agree

The founders understood that absolute democracy is mob rule and tyranny of the majority. It seems that you people always forget that

There is a difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. In a Democracy in order for a bill to become law every citizen in the country would have to vote for the law. In a Republic citizens vote for someone to represent them in the government that then vote for laws. In a Constitutional Republic the government has limited power granted to them by the people.

canonically he has 6

Or Texas?

Each state has their own government and their own laws. That being said opinions of each state differ from others. For example states like West Virginia went Republican because a lot of people thought that a Clinton presidency would kill the coal mines, and that's a big source of income for many people. So the majority vote went to Trump because that is what most of the people in that state wanted. On the other hand states like California and Illinois went Clinton because of large cities which tend to go liberal. The problem is if we determined the election based on who wins the popular vote states like West Virginia would have very little say. So states that are more populated receive more electoral votes than states with a smaller population. States with a small population give fewer electoral votes than big states, but because of this votes from smaller states weigh more than states with a big populations in regards to how many are needed for a single electoral college vote. It's a balance of power to keep the large cities from solely deciding the elections.

It means stupid people in California and New York, would always vote Demarcate and win with popular vote.

***** Then what about Texas? Or the fact that California and New York haven't always voted Democrat and that as recently as 1992 New York and California didn't even vote for the same candidate? What about the fact that New York, California and Illinois have enormous rural areas, covering more real estate and with more sparse country population than states like Wyoming or New Hampshire?

I don't believe in depending on just the swing states. Look what happened to Michigan and Pennsylvanian.

+SpraxIAKS Don't most of them lean to democratic candidates? I go by libertarian and lean republican or somebody who actually thinks like a libertarian such as Rand Paul.

+'I'm an anti-social anarchist' Very true. I am Republican but I think we need stricter gun laws. And that we should let in Syrian refugees.

Conner Broeker Stricter laws on what?

TH3REDSP1R1T On gun control. The buying and selling of guns.

Conner Broeker Making them stricter won't help your issue trying to reduce crime rate. It'll just be harder for citizens to buy one and use one for self defense. Criminals never follow the law and they don't buy them legally and they do through the black market instead. So how would making stricter gun laws affect criminals? Also making them stricter is a violation of the 2nd amendment because it limits our ability to exercise our right.

Tbiblaine23 it's just easier for ppl to understand

Tbiblaine23 exactly.

Actually, that's a BS right-wing talking point to justify the archaic system. This link should help: factmyth.com/factoids/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-democracy/

bmbc1310 were a representative republic... its to avoid mob rule. It means that we are represented to try and balance out what is best for the cultures, rather than people... if it were people, cities would rule as a consequence, and that doesn't represent every walk of life. It's an attempt to make it as balanced as possible to make sure a majority doesn't control. People from similar areas tend to hold similar views on life, so it also dilutes those views to balance out perspectives on life. We don't want popular influence to have all the say. Just because a majority is ok with something, it doesn't determine the morality of it. It's the best method our founding fathers had to try and avoid this at all costs. So no, were actually not a democracy and had no intention of ever being one since they saw what happens when influence and a majority's views are compared to the best moral interests of the people. Same reason the senate is the way it is. Hope this helps :)!

bmbc1310 so it is silly to play with words. I read the article, and it says basically what I'm saying... just trying to play with words. It works how it works lol. Nothing more to worry about it than that. So yes it has elements of a democracy, but that's in the representation aspect. Republics fall to democracies that degenerate into despotisms.... point is it is still a republic formally

You're right. We are a republic. True democracy gives 51 percent more power over the 49 percent

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DUMB ASS. DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA IS A MYTH MADE UP BY THE DIPOCRAP POS IDIOTS YOU LOVE TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY.

STEVE MCGILL Stop, you’re such a phony. Us republicans don’t act like that. Idiot. That name tho. STEVE MCGILL. Edit: Also, republicans are supportive of America being a constitutional republic. I also see that your account was made the same day you posted that comment.

@@Joey-ef8dh now you have 1% having the power of 99%! Good job mate! :D

Joseph Sanders Wait... why should the 51% rule over the 49%? Isn’t the alternative the 49% ruling over the 51%? I am just trying to understand why you think that any better.

i thought that was just common knowledge for ppl whom payed attention in highschool, least the video is a refresher for those that didnt

That's actually the antithesis of what Adam wanted. If you actually watched the whole episode, he says he did not want to discourage voting at the end.

thisissparta789789 Well maybe that should be included in the clips on KZfaq, like, seriously 😑

Point to me where the word democracy shows up in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

+katten elvis Great channel,

+Asahiko Matsuda what's the name of the video?

+Asahiko Matsuda +Lionel Keys Yeah Adam basically rehashes everything Grey said 3 years ago in this one

+katten elvis Backstory all the way!

SAME!!!!!!!

@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, the Presidential election is defined by the Constitution - specifically, the Electoral College. The states are responsible for determining who is in the Electoral College - no election necessary. That's right - there is no need for the hullabaloo over the Presidential election. It's not even a thing - as defined by the Constitution.

@@nothingbutathing8532 hilariously, defined in the constitution... because of the states. The smaller states wouldn't have ratified the constitution without the electoral college.

@@lagg_coreyt7625 There are many reasons why the Electoral College exists. The point is: a general election is not required.

They also thought it works for now and can be revised later, along with no parties. The US both formed parties and then didn’t really revisited the idea. You all are running the beta version, bugs and all

@@Nevertoleave Amendments are the revisiting part. Bugs are being worked out.

+lilkimchim yeah mots of us were then forgot it by age 18

+lilkimchim There are billions of people outside of the USA who actually hears how it really works for the first time. All we've ever seen are red states and blue states, and we have no idea why Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are swing states every damn time.

+lilkimchim The quality of teachers in the USA fail to teach. Thanks to the leaders cutting education budgets. I know 60 year olds who did not know this.

+uhhh what Well I knew that really are doing is picking is you're elector

+techfan42 That is a good point. Of course we don't waste money on making the Queen have a great life when she really is just a figure head. If Hilary Clinton is President (look her up) I'll probably move to England.

Travis Maz liberalism is a mental disorder

Aside from liberalism being a mental disorder, they're kids who've either never learned this stuff or have forgotten 6th grade.

Travis Maz well, mr. Technical I guess it's every 2 years.

LinusMLGTips you misspelled liberalism.

Lots of liberals feeling butt hurt because they LOST. They like stupid stuff that makes them feel good about themselves and their views (however wrong). Liberalism appears to be a mental disorder.

Because a 2 party system is all this country will get. It's ignorant to think 3rd part and libertarian can't get on debates without 10% of the vote. What if they earned that 10% on stage?

@@HinduSpartan it'll happen at some point. old habit die one way or another

@@randomboys1000 but at the cost of how many lives? Most Americans like me are just begging for affordable healthcare and at this rate it'll never happen

@William Dale most people are looking for affordable Healthcare but don't understand why it's unaffordable now. They just want somebody to make it more affordable, but that can't happen until we all accept what the problem is

Neuromancer yep!

Omg thank you!!! It was killing me I knew she looked familiar.

My god, she still looks so beautiful!

@@MadMarch25 same

+daniel cruz echeñique They probably just went back in time to post-Revolutionary War America when only property-owning white males could vote.

+daniel cruz echeñique Hopefully they make a follow-up video, but basically in the time of the Founding Fathers, only White males who owned land could vote meaning that the woman in the video couldn't vote and neither could Adam as he doesn't own any land. This didn't change until the 1820's when most states had universal white male suffrage, 1870 for non-white men, and 1920 for women.

+daniel cruz echeñique If you don't know, you don't really care.

+Lord H4773Rthe2nd True to the Greek Tradition of Democracy

+daniel cruz echenique They go back in time when the founding fathers were putting together the electoral college. Not everyone could vote then. It was only white males who owned land. They bring out an expert and he explains that the founding fathers had a lot to consider - they were a fledgling country and didn't know what was going to happen. They later go over the legal cheating that is gerrymandering. And Adam explains how the only other country with a system like ours is France. They may not put the rest of the episode up. It's on TruTV. I watch on Amazon.

Do you know what a direct democracy is? Representative democracy?

​@@sophiallama Direct Democracy was created in Athens and proved to be a sensational form of government in which any and every male citizen of Athens who had achieved a certain age could, at any point, attend meetings and vote on the management of the city-state. Unfortunately, the system developed a major flaw in the fact that the majority was easily able to overpower and oppress the minority. Any time those with enough influence or audience appeal wanted something that would either give them power or benefit, they could usually get it by convincing others to vote with them. This eventually led to the fall of Athens following major oppression by mob rule that severely marginalized the minority. To put it into perspective, if we had a direct democracy, we would never have freed the slaves nor would we have progressed to a point of giving equal rights to women or members of the LGBTQ+ community. A Representative Democracy was a form of democracy that was developed in order to apply the government concept to a national size. Clearly, not every citizen could come and vote across a nation and such votes took time. This system involved the people electing representatives to power to make decisions on their behalf and pass laws. This body of representatives also often selected a leader for themselves. This system too, however, does not really work so well because, again, majority rule could lead to oppression of the minority. Additionally, another danger with this system is that you already have the set up for an oligarchy, rule by a few, to form since you already elected a group of individuals to govern your nation and hold power. Corruption and violation of rights became rampant and this system too could only last so long. In the modern day, Representative Democracy gets tossed around to describe the American Government as well as others, but that's because we define the term as any government in which the people elect representatives. By that standard, any government with elections qualifies, and a republic is a derivative of such a model, but the key difference is that a republic is rule by law. By the time the Romans came around, they saw the merits and faults of these systems and created a Republic. In this system, the people again voted for representatives who held power to govern and pass laws, but they added a government document known as a Constitution. In this document, they set out the way in which the republic would work. This led to the defining characteristics of a republic being the protection of the innate rights of the citizens and the limitation of powers for government officials. It was a great and revolutionary form that addressed the issues of corruption and oligarchy in a representative democracy and the oppression and mob rule in a direct democracy. The Roman Republic fell, however, due to its constant changes to the constitution that eventually lead to the establishment of the triumvirate and an imbalance of power that led to the Roman Empire. The founders looked to the past and saw that a republic worked best, acknowledged its flaws, and made changes. They knew that the issue was an imbalance of power in the Roman state so they established three branches of government that checked and balanced each other, outlined a constitution that specifically limited the government so as to protect the people from tyranny, and established a Bill of Rights that protects the innate rights of the people. Those three things are characteristic of a republic and must exist for that term to be used, but they are unnecessary for democracy of any kind as a democracy can simply be any government where the people vote. The finer details are often overlooked and ignored, but they are also often the key to truly understanding why two things really are different.

@Movies&&Highlights!!! your comment operates on a complete misunderstanding of what our government is. As explained above, we are a republic. However, more than that, we are a Federal Republic: that is, a Federation with a Republican Central Government. What is a Federation? Put simply, it is a form of government in which a larger nation is made up of a centralized power as well as smaller member states that operate with their own autonomy. At the founding of America, we had 13 Colonies, all of which had their own unique reasons for being colonized, their own unique culture and values, and their own reasons for leaving England. Upon deciding to embark on the revolutionary idea that was the founding of America, one major concern dominated the thinking of the time: if we leave Britain and form our own government, then who will determine what is to be done in each colony? After all, their biggest complaint was that Parliament and the King were making decisions that involved the colonies without anyone being present to speak or represent the colonies themselves. Essentially, what went on in their local environment was being determined by men who had never once experienced the lives and cultures they had in the Colonies. The founders wanted to ensure that everyone would be heard and that consideration would be given to the fact that each State would have their own culture, geography, ideals, and government with each requiring different things. When it came to the Legislature, they were able to easily resolve the matter with Representatives and Senators; allowing for the representation of population size and an equal voice for the States. Two Senators per state, and (initially) one Representative per 30,000 people. When it came to the presidency, they wanted to take the same issues into consideration. The President would, obviously, be the most important and powerful man in America. If he was selected merely by national popular vote, this would overlook the fact that populations might not be equally dispersed. The fact is that people can only be expected to vote on issues based on their own experiences and environment. If a majority of the population was located in one environment, then they could only be expected to make a decision that is best for the situations within that environment. But what if there were three to five other environments with their own unique issues and situations in the country that simply didn't have many people living in them? They wouldn't have enough voting power, even unanimously, to overpower or even equal the popular vote. Similarly, simply saying that each state gets one vote would be unfair and inconsiderate since one state might vote in favor of a situation that is only present within their borders, yet a large part of the population may be within their state. Now how does the President play into this? the President is meant to campaign on issues and the votes he receives is indicative of the fact that people believe that he presents solutions that best help their situations and environments. Thus, it was important to the Founders that the President be selected in a manner that guaranteed that the most amount of people and situations possible would be considered in the selection of President. So they designed the Electoral College to have the votes of each state equal to the number of representatives in Congress. This would thus give equal representation and consideration in the decision of President as each person has in Legislative decisions. Essentially, this system gives two votes indicative of the State and the rest are indicative of the people by district. Moreover, it takes into consideration that, as they did not plan on there being only two candidates each time, there may be a tie or that none may win an absolute majority that would be necessary to guarantee the best possible leader. To resolve any instances such as these, the Electoral College uses the House of Representatives, the House of the People, to decide who should win by a series of ballots where each state gets one vote. This series must continue until an absolute majority wins. As demonstrated, this system is the best possible way to balance the interests of a federation to consider equality of member States and the interests of the people as a whole based on what a majority of the population experiences. Put simply, in the name of equality and preservation of rights for all, the Electoral College seeks to create a balance between population density and regional divide. Now, are there perhaps some issue in the way these votes are distributed? Yes, however, such issues are matters of the State. The States were given the power to decide how their electors for president would be chosen and, thus, how their Electoral Votes would be distributed. Based on Madison's views, it would appear that he did not approve of giving all of the Electoral Votes to the Statewide winner, but rather, he appeared to be in favor of the System used by Maine and Nebraska. This system gives two votes, indicative of the Senators, to the Statewide winner and the rest are distributed based on district winners. Based on these facts, it would probably be a more logical approach to adjust the system so that all States used the Maine and Nebraska system with some added features. 1) that the electors would be randomly selected from the voter population instead of predetermined party delegates. 2) that these electors would not vote until the predetermined electoral vote after election day. 3) that electors would be required to vote for the person who one their district if they won by an absolute majority (greater than 50%), else they would be free to vote for their choice in the event of a tie or if no one wins an absolute majority. 4) that electors would be required to vote for the person who won the State if they won by an absolute majority, that one State elector would go to each in the event of a tie, and that they would be free to choose if no one won an absolute majority (this would include a three-way tie because that would mean each got 33.333% of the vote whereas a two-way tie is 50-50). This adjustment to the System is in line with the writings on the Electoral College by the Founders, their comments when seeing the system in use, and the fundamentals evident within the way the Electoral College is structured. Of course, that does not mean everyone has to like it. Just consider this, in a National Popular Vote, someone could win with 49% if everyone else had less. At least with the Electoral College, when a person is selected with less of a popular vote, they are selected with an undeniable regional favorability and broad appeal. We may not always like who is chosen to lead, and it's okay to feel that someone should have more support, but we all have to understand that the person with the most support is not always what's best. The Founders designed this system with the intention of getting the person most appropriate to lead. By all logical perspectives, based on how our government works and structured, the best choice for president is found within the balance of State and Popular interests. We have to face the facts, California and New York do not know or understand what is best for Kansas or Texas, but someone running for office must consider what is best for all four if he wants to win their votes. To give an example, imagine if the World were one government with the UN as the Legislature and the Secretary-General was the Executive. Let's now consider the influence that the Secretary-General has on subjects such as third world assistance. Finally, let's consider two methods of how he might be elected by the people of the world. 1) Popular Vote: two candidates run. one person wants to put more money towards third world assistance and the other wants to put the money towards other initiatives. Assume that nations like Haiti are in desperate need of these funds and that they will not receive benefit under the second candidate's initiatives. the first candidate appeals to as broad a base as possible, but the second appeals to the largest nations by population. The end result, despite losing many regional battles, the second candidate wins due to his appeal to larger, population-dense, countries. 2) Electoral Vote: Same situation, same candidates. In the end, the first candidate wins despite losing in popular support because his broad appeal and concern towards third world countries earned him many regional victories that helped to boost him to success. In the end, he may have had only 48% of the vote, but it's made up of the most diverse amount of support possible proving that he is supported by the interests of a majority of the different demographics in the world that will be affected by his choices. To close off, yes, there may be some work to put in to improve the Electoral College, but abandoning it is an extreme that should not be encouraged or rushed into the moment things seem unpleasant. A quote from one show I've recently rewatched that fits here. I can't recall the exact wording, but the sentiment was this: Before abandoning something, first consider what alternatives exist. My proposed adjustment above is only one idea I believe would resolve the current rough spots and complaints, but it's by no means the only one. Just don't jump to the extreme of abandoning a system that works (and yes it does work) just because the person you liked lost. Sometimes you lose, that's just part of living in a Free Country. Having complaints about the system that you'd like to fix are also fine, but again, they are not a reason to abandon a system that still works.

@Movies&&Highlights!!! ​ The two have no connection or similarity. Slavery was an aspect of Southern Culture and Economy that benefited and became necessary for their financial growth and success. The Electoral College simply acknowledges that we are more than just one nation, but that we are a Federation. As I stressed this point in my previous comments, I can only surmise that it has missed your attention so I will further express it. A National Popular Vote works and makes sense for places such as France because they are one Nation comprised of all people, but the United States is a Nation comprised of smaller nations. A misconception that is present is that the different States within the US act simply as Administrative Regions to help improve government infrastructure, but that is simply not the case. In France, there are 18 regions that simply act as a vessel to manage the government of France over the Country's landmass more effectively. These regions are lead by the President of the Regional Council, but these officials do not have any power beyond administering the Government over that region. Regions have no legislative power and, by all intensive purposes, they act simply as vessels for national power. In the US, however, a State is given much more autonomy. State's are allowed to select their own form of State Government, pass their own State laws, build their own militias (it's in the constitution), and overall operate with a sense of independence in the management of the society within their State Borders. Because of this autonomy and independence, the states within the United States are proven to be much more than simply Administrative powers or vessels of the National Government. Each state acts independently to deal with their own affairs. After all, the idea of America was that they would be a country of states united for mutual benefit and protection, but separate for individual pursuits. Now, this comes to the point of why a National popular vote does not work for our system of States. Again, I've expressed this in the previous comment, but I can only assume that I was not clear enough, so let me remedy that. As the President of the United States maintains a great amount of power and influence towards the Agenda that a Nation may pursue, his selection is of vital concern to the States. As mentioned, States operate with much Autonomy to pursue their own interests, and thus, they have their own problems as well as their own means and ideas of how best to fix their problems. if a president is selected who is in favor of a National Policy that would worsen a State's problem, or prevent the State from effectively pursuing their chosen course of action, then this president would hurt the State. Since population may not be equally dispersed between the states, a National Popular Vote might not consider whether or not a President is best for these states. A majority of the population as a whole may want a President who is in support of on policy, but that policy might not be beneficial for a majority of the States. Now, many would agree that the interests of the People as a whole within this nation should not be ignored, but I believe that we can all also see that ignoring the individuality and independence of the States would lead to much more problems for much more people. Therefore, again, I assert that the Electoral College was designed to balance the interests of the people and the States as the United States Election System is meant to specifically consider the unique needs of the United States. Stating that another Country uses the Popular Vote without issue is not a valid argument against the Electoral College unless the Country in question is structured the same as the United States. Broadly stating that the System is out of Date is also invalid as 1) you do not state how it is out of Date and 2) the Structure of the United States has not changed in this regard. We are still a Nation comprised of member states that operate with autonomy and independence to pursue their own interests. As for 2020: the only way in which the Electoral College System would not be used in that election would be if Congress spontaneously passed an Amendment to the Constitution that abolished the system by November. This is unlikely to occur. In conclusion, I again remind you of the last point in my previous comment that we cannot operate on the mindset that we dislike something, therefore, let's get rid of it. If you have issues with the system then the best course of action is to first ask yourself why these issues are part of the system. Next, study and learn more until you find your answer. Once you've found your answer, rethink your position to see if you still disagree with the issue. If so, consider what solutions may be offered aside from removing the system as a whole. That's how you address problems and find solutions. Moreover, whether you like the system or not, you should still go out to vote in every election possible. Don't sit at home and sulk because you don't like something. Even with the Electoral College, every vote counts and you never know whose vote will determine the winner. Aside from that, if you don't vote, nothing can get better and you'll have no right to complain about the result because you refused to engage. The danger of blindly and broadly complaining about the Electoral College is that people are getting discouraged from voting which only leads to more problems.

@@mysticalarchives7821 wow thats was great

Lol I'm sure you had a thorough understanding of politics when you were ten.

I don't have a thorough understanding of politics now. I was excited about it when I was younger. The year 1988 was the first election year where I was old enough to have some grasp of what was going on and learning about the election process in school was fun. Then I learned about the electoral college which straight up told me that the popular vote was pointless.

Yo, local elections/and state elections matter. People like you are why we have a government that can't get anything done. IE: You have a majority of voters that basically can't be bothered but to vote during Presidential elections only, even though unless you live in a swing state your vote matters less.

I live in Florida so.. EVERYONE HAIL ME!!!! Lol jk

You had interest in politics before you were ten?

Ace_421 stop

But why should Wyoming have more power then California

Fun fact: Did you know that they are republicans in California and New York and democrats in Wyoming and Alaska

We are a constitutional Republic.

@@slydog1080 And an Indirect Democracy.

We will still be a Republic without the electoral college

Adam runs voting season 1

free salves

+Mohamed Elhaddade Not even the slaves are free, they cost money.

Huy Bii hhh lol thats true

+murmani khoshtaria "America, Land of the free?"

+Brandizzleizzle If your a Christian like me your losing a lot of freedom

it's meant to be a educational comedy, but it sometimes leans a bit too much into one side or the other

Why not try to get the real thing instead of keeping an illusion?

+Dave Beeen head straight for mars

well bye then but watch the whole videos end

or move to rhode island

+Treven Stanley explain please

bangasou12 You would have more power in Rhode Island because it would be the smallest state in the country so that would have the most power

You fair to understand the reasons behind the concept. See, majority of population lives in places like Cali and New york, usually a country(let's take India as an example since I'm Indian) has somewhat of a consistent population distribution and since there is no radical differentiation in opinions we can remain a democracy but the difference in ideas and lifestyle of people in Wisconsin and California is staggering. Since India's population is consistent the people representing their needs is directly proportional to the population but in America, take California for example, 4million people voted for trump and 8 million for Hillary but Hillary got all the votes just like in a democracy but other states with smaller states didn't.

Only thing he didn't bring up in this clip is gerrymandering and campaign finance. I'm sure it's in the rest of the episode

Aww, cute little kid just copying anything Crowder says.

And you wonder who the tools really are.

Kevin Rouse I've been saying this long before Steven Crowder did.

He's a conservative youtuber. He made a response to this video on the 3rd of December 2016, over a year later to this. I agree with his points, but making a video a year later is pathetic. These people coming over from that video acting smug yet never having seen this video despite it being out for 13 months looks sad and moronic.

Kevin Rouse Was there some information regarding our form of government that wasn't available to Adam a year ago? The reason we are responding to it now is because people are suggesting we get rid of it because Trump won. I say, we should correct all misinformation.

won

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote

Mhm, 4th time the person with the popular vote lost because of the electoral college.

Presidential election of 2000 was even worse. Al Gore had 500 000 more votes but still lost.

Starting to notice how it's always the democrats who get the unfair shake in this "college" Get the most votes but still lose to this dumb system.

Next up: How politicians are actually dinosaurs.

Birds were more similar to dinosaurs than reptiles were.

The 2016 election is a perfect example of the why electoral works.

if hillary won california by just one vote instead of 2.5 million, then trump would've won the popular vote by 2 million and the electoral outcome would remain the same

Yeah..... But the amount of swing States has drastically decreased since the 60's and there's no strong evidence that there going to increase in the near future.

@@bobbiddero9 Actually, in my lifetime, I've seen states become a swing state that had never been one before (in my lifetime). Your statement is pure conjecture.

@@gabb159 do you have any source to back your claim? I remember hearing about swing states decreasing from a journal article called The Contemporary Presidency: How The 2012 Presidental Election has Strengthened The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The article is a little old but was very informative. My main issue is that a lot of the candidate's campaign resources are almost focused on swing states alone.

Iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa iowa Only matters every 4 years

yes,that is true,but we dont have to care about ALL of the swing state,only 4 state:florida,ohio,pennsylvania,and virginia is enough.(those 4 state get 57% canidate visit and 55% adverytising money from the canidate)

Plus he took the "John Ewards" debacle out of context..anyone who knows anything about the EC knows that they vote for one president and one vice president, and they have to vote for someone not from their state

I agree with him, it is not a perfect system and it has flaws but I believe the concept is sound. Regardless of your opinion of people in less populace states, they are United States citizens and they are guaranteed a vote and because there is simply less of them they would never have a chance in any election in any bigger state. Places like California and New York already command a great deal through their enormous economies. This about protections for the minority. This is a concept that been in democracies for a long time. The majority will always overwhelm the minority so they must balance out. Imagine (in an alternate universe) That different cultures and races of people lived in distinctly different places (this still happens today) One could easily dominate the other if it had a greater population and put its interests first every single time an election comes around because the minority would never ever win. In this system, R and D are about 50% win/loss ever few years.

Should be 1 person has 1 vote in a national scale. It is the fairest you can go. From there, you follow state rights.

Another thing to think about is the natural desire for the majority to oppress the minority (I'm referring strictly to political views here, not ethnic groups). Consider this: Without the system of representation for smaller states, one could get a large enough group together (through media manipulation, fundraising, donations, et cetera) and exercise absolute control over who gets elected without challenge. Such a situation would inevitably lead to tyranny as the governing body would be free to elect only officials and execute legislation that followed it's agenda. That situation would lead to a breakdown in our society (civil war/coup/unrest) that would leave our country vulnerable. Having opposing political views (even if they're unpopular) is good since it stimulates discussion. No political group should feel comfortable in office. The majority can be bought, fooled, convinced, or scared. The popular opinion isn't always the right one.

That’s just not true. If you somehow get 100.00% of all of California and New York’s population, you’d still have only 17% of the vote. Where did you get 20% for just California from? And secondly, the EC doesn’t help small states, you can still win the EC with the 11 biggest states. Thirdly, under a national popular vote system, regardless of your party (unless your a third party voter), your vote will matter. Democrats in Oklahoma and Republicans in New York won’t have there votes not matter because they are in a heavily blue/red state since there isnt a winner-take-all system like in the EC.

The Supreme court also needs to be done away with, they should not be on the supreme court for life. There is a lot to do with each party in terms of equality

That's what we keep being fed. I keep hearing that america is the greatest democracy of all time. Can't bkame people for thinking that after being bombarded by all the propaganda.

It’s a republic

Exactly what I'm trying to say. I agree with you Amanda.

Do_odle You obviously don't get it doodly head

Do_odle The point she was trying to make, which I agree with, is that with a popular vote as the determinant for the winner, more if not all people will go out and vote because their vote in all essence of the matter, would "count". Literally. You say she knows nothing about it but she knows a thing or two about it with the valid points she makes. Right now and for the past decades, many people don't vote because their State would always go one way. And with the electoral college with the way it is, with a winner-takes all method, whoever wins would take all of the electoral votes of that state.

I agree with Tagatta Maoi as long as only Citizen and Permanent Resident are allowed to vote. Nobody on a temporal Green Card or Work Permit Green card shall be allowed to vote on the future of a Country that they might not be there to experience the outcome.

So you want that cities with most population will decide for rest of the country how to run things?

THANK YOU!!!!!

No we like that disgusting Skyline Chili!

i dont really like soybeans and ketchup is ok with fries. otherwise meh. i love chocolate and steak.

Ohio is weird, and im saying that from ohio Its like if you combined cultures from pretty much everywhere into one state, Although one thing will stand true for all of ohio: We will always rival michigan

on TruTV, they just upload clips here. Full episodes are there (and you need to pay ofc...)

Not there anymore, all the episodes are down except the election special.

You are correct, but I will add to it. m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qah6oNKY3p_IZok.html

That is wrong. The electoral college makes just as much sense today as it did at its inception. Remember The United States isn’t a democracy we are a constitutional Republic. Our nation is 50 individual states united under one federal banner which is why we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. In regards to elections states are responsible for state level elections and federal elections. There are technically no federal elections. Each state holds elections and votes on a president. Each states gets assigned a number of electors based on population and whoever that states citizens elect as president their electors or the votes they are assigned goto who that state elected. That’s a super simple explanation. The reason why this is better then a straight popular vote is using our system a candidate has to get elected by more then one section of the country. Remember people in the South have different needs then people out west And in the northeast. People in the Midwest have different needs them those In the South. With a popular vote system a candidate can focus on basically California and New York ignore the majority of the country and still be president. That being the case what will keep a president from ignoring the low population states referred to by libs and democrats as fly-over states. The electoral college forces a presidential candidate to campaign and to take the issues of low population states seriously.

@@derekjuarez9762 There are two big differences between the electoral college and a direct democratic election, the one you stated is debatably needed today, but the other simply no longer has a place. The debatable one is smaller states having more power per person, and that's a whole debate in and of itself, but the other issue is a far simpler one. The far less debatable difference is electors not having to abide by the votes of their constituents, there's simply no need for electors to have such autonomy in the modern day and age. Even if the electoral college system is kept, electors should still be gotten rid of, and the electors' votes should simply be decided by the votes of their constituents.

@@giorgitsiklauri1283 as far as the electors go that’s more of a procedural thing, they always vote the way the constituents. That’s not really an issue. Regarding that, it’s Democrats and liberals that try to over turn legally elected or appointed people based on their feelings then cry foul when republicans do It back to them. Democrats In 2016 all challenges trumps win same as he did to Biden. When they do it, it’s patriotic republicans do it and it’s a coup attempt. Same with SCOTUS Biden actually started the idea of A president not electing court members during election years, and stopped a republican nominee that way, then they cried corruption when republicans did It back to them: Our system and laws work as long as the people in power don’t get in the way and enforce the system and laws properly, and not down party lines

@@derekjuarez9762 While faithless electors are generally not very common, only 16 in total throughout American history, a whopping 7 of those were during the 2016 election. 2 electors changed from Trump to Clinton, and 5 changed from Clinton to Trump. This of course was not enough to change the outcome, but if it had been a closer race it may very well have been enough.

And it does.

@@joshdunham7167 -- not distributed evenly.

@@Supremax67 of course not.

Survival of the Fittest I think the Adam ruins everything show originally came from collegehumor. I would check there.

it was a joke they dont exist, but thanks anyways!

Survival of the Fittest haha I'm a dork, sorry!

Your all good, we all dorks =D

Barack Obama won both the electoral college and the popular vote

I couldnt, holding back the giggles would be too great.

The Black Hat did you not see the video? lmao

metalsquirrelgamer Yes. I was being completely facetious. I know my vote doesn't count.

James Smith lol

You are right. It isn't a pure democracy because those have been proven not to work and to be corrupt. If we didn't have an electoral college, the smaller and center states would have zero say in presidential elections. The country would be ruled by the often corrupt and rich people in states like New York and California who would just keep voting in people that screws over working people or people that most states don't want. The presidential election is an election by the states more so than the citizens. And the president isn't always the winner of the popular vote to keep us safe from the tyranny of the majority and to help keep really bad people out of office.

@@dragonninja3655 thing is, sometimes it doesn't even matter what we choose. As stated our reps don't always vote toward what we want so... Yeah we may as well not even have a voice. Winner take all is also an issue... if gerrymandering isn't an issue in itself this is

Besides Ohio, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa

so one farmers vote should count for ten shoeshiners? the way its set up now values empty farmland equal to densely packed cities. valuing land over people, how american.

why do you deserve more of a say in how our country is governed than do people living in populous states?

@@mitchellseymour1090 Aren't you assuming he's from one of those smaller states rather than just explaining it in general?

@@mitchellseymour1090 because democracy is the rule of majority the majority can't always be right

@@mitchellseymour1090 it's so California, for example, cannot force their policies on Arkansas. So maybe ppl in Arkansas don't agree with paying for Healthcare and Housing for Illegal Aliens, etc. Just because you have a bigger population doesn't mean you should be able to force PROGRESSIVE AGENDAS such as CRT, LGBTQRSTXYZ, ETC, on other ppl. If you do not like Arkansas or any other state, MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU FEEL YOU BELONG!!

@@mitchellseymour1090 cities need rural populations to survive, yet urban policy regularly punishes and hurts rural communities. Since a majority of people live in cities, urban policy would always pass without representative systems like the electoral college, thus hurting both rural communities and urban communities in the long term. By giving the little guy a bigger voice, the system actually is more fair this way

Somehow I'm quite sure they already know this...

They created this whole system they know it's unfair

Whoo democratic republic!

It's a republic, not a democracy, and that's by design. Pure democracy is mob rule wherein the large cities drown out the rural population. Besides, liberals never try to demolish the EC when it works in their favor.

Is this about democracy versus direct democracy?

Actually not true because combined population of 50 biggest cities in the U.S. account for only 15% of the population. I think popular vote would work. It would even the playing field and the campaign would not focus on a few swing states. More if not all people would vote because they would actually feel like their vote counts. This will even it out across the whole nation. It does not matter if cities have more people because not all of them would vote one way especially when everywhere, city or rural, way more people would go out to vote.

I was being a bit over-simple in my comment just due to my own laziness. The point being that the slight majority of people, enough to just be the majority and win every election every time live in metropolitan areas. And most people don't concern themselves with lifestyles and policies that don't directly affect them. For example if you put it to a popular vote to ban say fracking (oil/ gas), in my opinion, most people in the metropolitan areas and therefore most people in the country would vote to ban it. Many would do this not thinking of its far reaching consequences. Not the least being an increase in the price of everything from fuel to plastics, or the complete destruction of the areas who's entire economies depend on that industry. Think of it this way, each electoral segment is a single person, in that all the people in that area have the same basic ideals and belief systems. Or better yet, if you prefer, think of them as tribes/cultures. Is any one tribes value systems, opinions or interests more important than another? Is the Chinese culture more valuable than the Saudi Arabian culture just because there are more of them? I argue that they are not. So if you look at the last election's electoral leanings you can see that far more differing groups of people or tribes or interests agreed on one candidate than the other. So in another matter of opinion I think the electoral college is a better representation of democracy than a pure popular vote, and so did the founding fathers.

I'm doing a speech about the electoral college's flaws, but in the end, I'm suggesting that the system be changed, not eliminated.

Adam is my wife.

+Odnetnin This show is my favorite anime...

+Odnetnin Adam is your wife? I'm pretty sure he didn't go Bruce Jenner

same.

+BUNGIE halo Me 2 and Im not an adult

What more ridiculous is allowing the citizens of San Francisco to vote on the lifestyle of a lentil farmer from Montana. Have you traveled the US? It’s like visiting different countries and different time periods. These communities large and small have very different lifestyles, values, morals.

@@monkey3964 Instead, the lentil farmer is able to decide the lifestyle of the citizens of San Francisco. And this is better than the reverse, for some reason.

@@monkey3964 How about the San Francisco voter allowing the Lentil farmer to choose what lifestyle he wants? You know that Government doesn't dictate your will, right?

@@monkey3964 My dude, that’s what the house, senate, and state government are for

It isn’t if you live in a state that doesn’t have a massive population and actually want some say in presidential elections. The point is to give smaller states a say in national elections. It’s a feature, not a bug.

that is still 10% of the time where electoral vote gives you the wrong president

Loke Ho Not wrong, its how the system was set up so small states don't always lose to the bigger states. It's a good system that we should keep

Jesse Norwalt bc of gerrymandering politicians only care about swing states anyway

Loke Ho Gerrymandering literally has 0 to do with the presidential election. It only affects congressional races. But because of the electoral college candidates only go to swing states. But it makes sense because they are the people in between so our candidates should have to appeal to them.

Loke Ho That's not true. They worry about states like New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa. they only worry about swing states, some big some small. The founders didn't want a direct democracy, they wanted a republic where people elect people who make the decisions. That's how it should be in my view.

Firstly, if you combine the Top 100 cities in the US you would still not reach 20% of the population. And Secondly, The Electoral College doesn’t protect small states. You can win the Electoral College with the 11 biggest states. Thirdly, the Electoral College as said in the video gives swing states the most attention. Because the candidates don’t need to go and campaign in places where they are already 99% likely to win that state. In 2016 California had no campaign events, while Florida had 35 or more from both candidates.

Like Maine and Nebraska

We shouldn't do it by congressional district. One word: GERRYMANDERING.

Except... while the Canadian system isn't as bad as the American one, its still a representative democracy, which means if you live in a riding that heavily favours one party and you vote for one of the other two major parties (or a minor party) your vote is essentially meaningless. Thererfore, PM candidates really only have to campaign in ridings where the vote is close. Direct democracy certainly isn't perfect, but its the only kind of system that's truly democratic.

Canadian voters do not directly vote for the Prime Minister. They vote for the party of Member of Parliament in their riding. Then the party with the majority of seats won in the general election becomes the government and whoever the leader is of the winning party becomes the Head of Government as Prime Minister. So a Canadian vote counts towards the election of a Member of Parliament, not the selection of the leader of the majority party who becomes the Prime Minister..

thedreameater I am

lickit yuh mame one policy he has done with majority approval

Amnion that’s a ignorant statement to understanding freedom. The founders understood that 51% should not control the other 49%. They understood that in a free society every vote should matter therefore we have 51 individuals elections and the outcome of those elections decide the president so even the minority’s in every district isn’t dominated by a overwhelming elite group. Yes the popular vote does win. It wins district by district.

@@lancebaize1136 California and New York will always decide presidential elections if you get rid of the EC.

Mario Badia exactly what I said but in a more historical way

@@mariobadia4553 I might be ok with getting rid of the electoral college, but only if California and New York get no votes for being garbage states

@@mariobadia4553 Can you please explain your math to me? As far as I can see, about 48 Million Americans live in either NY or California. That's less than 15% of the US population. You can't win a popular vote plurality with 15% unless there are like 7 major candidates running.

@The Flexsealist "Watch this other guy moan about electors and address the big cities issue half-assedly in other video."

Look at Meichigan Clinton thought it was for her....but they stooped the trend

Actually, a study showed that if it was "who got more votes in terms of people and not cities", Hillary would have won. This said, I dont think she would be a good president anyway, not that Trump is doing a great job, either way, but there were more candidates we should have payed more attention to

and the counties matter why to you? Hillary in the end won more people what you are basically saying is that trump deserved to win even though he got less votes but the people who voted for him were more spread out. thats not people getting the decision thats land.

@@rouge1ful yep with all those dead people voting