The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election

CGP Grey
27 440 Áhorf 2,8 m.

Footnote: ispulse.info/video/mn2vbImBaZ6jlqo.html
Thank you, my patrons, for making this video possible: www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=227816
## Related
Faithless electors: ispulse.info/video/p4LOj22qZGOykqo.html
## Special thanks
Amelia Grant, Andrea Di Biagio, Awoo, Bear, Ben Schwab, Bob Kunz, Bobby, Carlin, Chris Amaris, Chris Chapin, Christian Cooper, chrysilis, Colin Millions, Dag Viggo Lokøen, Darcy Morrissey, David F Watson, David Palomares, David Tyler, Derek Bonner, Derek Jackson, Donal Botkin, Elizabeth Keathley, Elliot Lepley, Emil, emptymachine, Erik Parasiuk, Esteban Santana Santana, Everett Knag, Freddi Hørlyck, Fuesu, George Lin, Guillermo, Henry Ng, Hunter S Zimmerman, iulus, James Hoskins, Jason Lewandowski, Jeffrey Podis, John Buchan, John Lee, John Rogers, Jordan Earls, Joshua Jamison, ken mcfarlane, Kermit Norlund, Kevin Costello, Kevin McLain, Kodi, Leon, Maarten van der Blij, Marco Arment, Martin, Maxime Zielony, Michael Mrozek, Michael Reilly, Michael Williams, Mikko, MJ, Nevin Spoljaric, Nick Fish, Nick Gibson, NotGac, سليمان العقل, Orbit_Junkie, Peter Lomax, Phil Gardner, Rhys Parry, Richard Barthel, Richard Jenkins, rictic, Robert Webb, Ron Bowes, Saki Comandao, Shallon Brown, Shantanu Raj, ShiroiYami, Stephen Drollinger, Steven Grimm, Steven Snow, Tómas Ãrni Jónasson, Tex Simon, ThatGuyGW, Thunda Plum, Tijmen van Dien, Tristan Watts-Willis, Tyler Bryant, Veronica Peshterianu
Music by: www.davidreesmusic.com

Ummæli

  1. CGP Grey
    CGP Grey
    2 dögum síðan

    An update, sort of: ispulse.info/video/p4LOj22qZGOykqo.html

    1. Matanumi
      Matanumi
      Degi Síðan síðan

      and of course... nothing happens

    2. Soulwrite7
      Soulwrite7
      2 dögum síðan

      @TROPtastic I am using riots to describe riots, and would have specified peaceful protests as well if I had any opposition to them, which I do not. There are certainly other examples which could be used, though your thoughts given the example certainly telegraph your own political standing? The current president does seem to speak first, providing ammunition to the media, only then to get outraged when the ammunition is used.

    3. TROPtastic
      TROPtastic
      2 dögum síðan

      @Soulwrite7 It's interesting how using the word "riots" to encompass the mix of riots and peaceful protests identifies you as being of a certain political persuasion. Leaving that aside though, it's absurd to talk about the *left* trying to violently take over states when the *right* in America has been much more willing to strut around brandishing weapons and to murder their political opponents. Also, if you're concerned about a weak candidate getting elected based on meaningless words and a lack of sound policies and ability to govern, you should be outraged about the current POTUS.

    4. Soulwrite7
      Soulwrite7
      2 dögum síðan

      The more I think about this, the more terrifying it is. Look at the chaos of the 2020 riots. Everything going before the Supreme Court is the best case scenario. The other option will be for example if the primarily left voters have all the votes go to the right, they violently try and take over their state and succeed, or recast. Or if you have an already establish incumbent president who lost they may refuse to give up their power, because there are many people in these states who had their vote subverted which could lead to a divide in government and a civil war. Finally if you end up with this all passing, and have a direct democracy ( mob rule ) you would be more likely to end up with some charismatic candidate promising homogeneity and doing a knock-off Charlie Chaplin impersonation.

    5. christopher thompson
      christopher thompson
      2 dögum síðan

      Seems to me like that would solve the whole electoral college minority vote problem. Am I missing something? Surely you would be very pro this judging by your other videos.

  2. insertswear
    insertswear
    2 klukkustundum síðan

    Did you use the word "cromulent?"

  3. zorq2
    zorq2
    5 klukkustundum síðan

    5:12 "And there is no problem with this plan at all..." Actually, there IS no legal problem for this plan at all. There will be nobody charging into the SC. Not only are states allowed to send ANYONE they want to the EC, but the people they send can vote ANYWAY they want to too. Sure, they might get some jail time from certain states if they vote against the mandate their state sent them with, but votes from even faithless electors are still valid votes for president.

  4. NoThisIsPratickStar
    NoThisIsPratickStar
    7 klukkustundum síðan

    People forget that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. Day one of 8th Grade Constitution class, or did things change since 2011?

  5. Burner Account
    Burner Account
    10 klukkustundum síðan

    How to start a civil war

  6. Kenzo Noguera G
    Kenzo Noguera G
    10 klukkustundum síðan

    2:20 The flag changes

  7. Blake Kendall
    Blake Kendall
    10 klukkustundum síðan

    The premise of a republic is to not allow the masses to rule society, but rather, to have a compromised representation in society amongst the various states. I would argue that today, the importance of republic is to underrepresent the misinformed, domesticated humans that live predominantly in the cities under their metropolitan overlords, so that the conscious and informed Americans, that stay far from the urban centers, can influence the outcome of society. Truthfully, this wouldn't be an issue if we just kept government constitutional and minimal. One of the problems with the STV or scored vote systems, is that they all still leave room for strategic voting and paradoxical outcomes, which are capable of completely disenfranchising low intelligence voters. While I don't care for tyranny of the masses, I don't want to rob stupid people of representation altogether. That would be very sneaky.

  8. Bennett Carlson
    Bennett Carlson
    11 klukkustundum síðan

    You retarded republicans screech and whine about this plan to make elections actually represent the will of the people and yet turn a blind eye to gerrymandering if democrats did it half as much as republicans you would say that they are actively surrpressing their voices and dems are just evil and undemocratic

  9. Steelmage99
    Steelmage99
    12 klukkustundum síðan

    "The states less populous produce preponderant presidential picking power per person". I noticed that, and appreciate it. The alliteration, that is....not the rule.

  10. Warrior Link
    Warrior Link
    13 klukkustundum síðan

    National popular vote is like 5 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what's for dinner. Pure democracies don't work out well long term. Good video!!! Oh, and only tax payers should be allowed to vote!!! 👍

    1. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      A direct democracy is when the people vote directly on laws if we got rid of the electoral college congress would still exist the only difference is the president is elected by the majority of people

  11. jahenders
    jahenders
    14 klukkustundum síðan

    One other note, the 'plus 2 representation' isn't the main/only reason the EC can sometimes pick a winner that nationwide most citizens didn't vote for. The other, bigger reason the EC outcome doesn't more closely reflect popular voting is because most states award their electoral votes winner-take-all (vice proportionally). If they awarded them proportionally, it would be a closer match in most cases (and would better reflect the will of the people in each state). So, if someone wants to modify the EC in a positive way, instead of NPV they should have a compact where all states would award their EVs proportionally. As it is now (and assuming 2 candidates) if 49.99999% of the people of CA (or most other states) vote for candidate A, their candidate gets exactly ZERO EVs from CA (though that clearly wasn't the will of the people of CA).

  12. jahenders
    jahenders
    14 klukkustundum síðan

    If it goes into effect, comes into play in the election, and causes multiple states to vote for a candidate their people didn't vote for, it will be judicial mayhem. However, it will NOT just be the non-participating states that rush to court. If the NPV overturns the will of the people in, say, Kansas, you can bet your life that voters in KS will be quick to challenge in the KS Supreme Court (moving to block the KS Sec State from validating the results) AND in the US Supreme Court. Then, of course, there's the repercussions in the states that overturned the will of their people. This may be too late to affect that election, but the cynical act of agreeing to the NPV causes the state to vote AGAINST its own citizens, the citizens are going to be pissed and they're going to push hard to pull their state out of the NPV (possibly causing it to become inert). In some cases, the fear of political repercussions could cause a state governor, Sec State, or court to decide that they just don't dare go so flagrantly against the will of their people and they delay to let court challenges decide otherwise.

  13. A Wandering Rōnin
    A Wandering Rōnin
    14 klukkustundum síðan

    This "plan" by mostly left-leaning states to subvert the Electoral College and change the way we elect our President to whoever gets the Popular Vote is blatantly unconstitutional and should be squashed by the Supreme Court immediately. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution says that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,..."

    1. A Wandering Rōnin
      A Wandering Rōnin
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      @Bennett Carlson I suggest you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 by James Madison. He explains my positions on the Electoral College in far better words than I ever could.

    2. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      So what your advocating for is a system of government where a minority of people can tell the majority what to do

  14. Richard Daw
    Richard Daw
    15 klukkustundum síðan

    Is that supposed to be a QR Code at 5:08?

  15. Rolf Mützelburg
    Rolf Mützelburg
    15 klukkustundum síðan

    I can't wait for New York and Calofornia to rule the entire country. They already run roughshot over every state citizen not living in one of thier 3 major cities, why not just run over the entire midwest and surrounding coastline too. No one respects the republic anymore, just a bunch of dogmatic BS about muh democracy.

    1. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      New York and California together only have a fraction of the nations population if they were in charge then getting rid of the electoral college would allow the republicans in those states to have their voices heard

  16. Tskmaster
    Tskmaster
    16 klukkustundum síðan

    1:28 I know, I get it, Rhode Island refused to sign the Constitution for years. Time to let it go. It's still the 13th state after being the 13th colony because it's a lucky number. Yessir, lucky 13.

  17. ida schmidt
    ida schmidt
    16 klukkustundum síðan

    i used the electoral college to destroy the electoral college

  18. Merita M
    Merita M
    20 klukkustundum síðan

    So instead of campaigning on solutions for issues citizens are concerned of, parties are trying to break the law to essentially have the election be decided by states with the highest populations? Resulting in Civil War 2.0 (with free WiFi)

  19. Mark J P
    Mark J P
    20 klukkustundum síðan

    This guy is pathetic!! imagine, the lawless states of California and NY being able to elect the pres of the entire US?? but thanks God it takes 67% of Congress and 75% of 50 States to amend this Great Nations perfect Constitution.. it will never happen

    1. Asterisk, the Gaming Star
      Asterisk, the Gaming Star
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      ah yes our perfect constitution where slavery was legal and women couldn’t vote

    2. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      Even without the electoral college California and new York together represent a fraction of the total population plus getting rid of the electoral college would allow republicans in those states to have their voices heard

  20. Solly vs. The Mole-Men
    Solly vs. The Mole-Men
    22 klukkustundum síðan

    If there ever was a more plausible scenario for a 2nd american civil war this would be the catalyst. A bunch of blue states join together to subvert the constitution with the NaPop Interstate Compact, Election day comes, blue side says their candidate won based on the popular vote, the red side claim that no, their guy won based on the Constitution..there you go... civil war part 2. Also it is not the supreme courts job to make law, only to interpret the law. The electoral college will not go anywhere without an amendment to the constitution which would require a 2/3 majority which is never gona happen. and the blue side knows this, idk why the supreme court would even be involved, the Constitution falls under the Legislative branch, and the supreme court is the judiciary branch. They should for all intents and purposes have ZERO say in the elections.... This country has become so as backwards

  21. Dip Dinger
    Dip Dinger
    23 klukkustundum síðan

    This is how you end up with an entire country being ran by a few populous centers

    1. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      The republicans in those popular centers would actually have their voices heard tho

  22. Tom Ryan
    Tom Ryan
    Degi Síðan síðan

    If you live in a state with low population your vote won't count so why should a politician represent you

    1. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      It doesn't count under the electoral college anywaysnyour vote only counts if you live in a swing state fetting rid of the electoral college would turn america from red states and blue states to purple states

  23. Jahnandri Villanuevas
    Jahnandri Villanuevas
    Degi Síðan síðan

    People should elect the president not the electoral college wtf are congress doing I though we elected the president and they come up with these bullshit that elected people we dotn k ow nothing about elects the president how do we k ow they aren’t been bride .

  24. Ratchet4647
    Ratchet4647
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Cute scarf and mittens for Alaska I'd like to see more of the states have cultural accessories.

  25. Belgiumelephant
    Belgiumelephant
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I dont like this idea I'd rather have educated people choose my president

    1. Cabbage
      Cabbage
      7 klukkustundum síðan

      You should..... Probably think way harder about what you just said. Cause that is a very very dangerous and elitist line of thought. And it tends to not end well because "education" is veeerrry subjective.

  26. Dragodonv2
    Dragodonv2
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I would love to see cute state girl art.

  27. marsjacobvolta
    marsjacobvolta
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I love how you called it a coup because that's exactly what it would be. I would much rather see an argument of substance rather than just doing a shady deal to overthrow the system. We can change the system but we should do it together. Using loopholes to subvert the system is a great way to turn a cold civil war into a hot one.

    1. 404Dannyboy
      404Dannyboy
      5 klukkustundum síðan

      How would making an unfair system fair by using the system be considered a coup?

    2. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      "We" can't change the system because by definition a broken system will always favor on group over the other do you think the republicans would be for the electoral college if it was against them?

  28. MrBobberino01
    MrBobberino01
    Degi Síðan síðan

    We should go back to only land owners can vote.

  29. lukassnakeman
    lukassnakeman
    Degi Síðan síðan

    democratic republic governments made sense when information traveled at the speed of horse and sail, and most everyone was illiterate. but in the modern 21st century we are ready for a direct democracy

  30. Ernest Bywater
    Ernest Bywater
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Thus, all it takes is a few states to allow non-citizens onto the voting register to change the balance of the Electoral College votes.

  31. Watersmith53
    Watersmith53
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I am seeing something in a plausible future, say, 20 years down the road, maybe even 8-12, where the national popular vote squeaks into the "red" zone, and California, Massachusetts, New York, and DC, among others, must vote "red," and I'm thinking, "Yeah, they're going to let that happen. Right?"

  32. Lorenzo La Bella
    Lorenzo La Bella
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Dude, your Constitution just basically sucks.

    1. jghgiroot
      jghgiroot
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Lorenzo La Bella I mean...I did make it perfectly clear that I didn't want to engage? Dont know if I hit a nerve or it's just bruised ego, all I'm saying is go into a conversation with understanding next time...lol. I also find it quite ironic that your "wall of text" reply said absolutely nothing and had no actual retorts to my "wall of text" and actually continued in what seems to be a theme of your replies, incorrect statements.

    2. Lorenzo La Bella
      Lorenzo La Bella
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @jghgiroot ... You're wasting time and walls of text on these, not me. Your political landscape? Don't make me laugh. Your two parties are the result of the limitations of the electoral college: once two pinnacles of blandness with virtually undistinguishable platforms in order to have the broadest appeal possible, now one pinnacle of blandness and one of assholery. If the electoral college was actually representative, you would have a multi-party system like almost every democracy under the Sun. If citizens in rural areas were really to be represented, their votes would have to hold exactly the same weight of those of the citizens of urban areas, which is to say one for each person, which is to say direct election, which is to say no electoral college, as many, many videos like this one have already proven. As for the 2nd amendment helping drive up gun crimes, read statistics and confront them with those of countries who don't have a similar law (or have gun control: the effect is the same). You will find my claims are founded on reality. I have said all I needed to say and judging by the condescension with which your wall of text was dripping with, it's not debate you're interested in, but proving the other guy's argunents are invalid. I'm not interested in this mode of communication. Therefore you may reply as you wish to this reply of mine, but you'll waste your time. I won't waste mine by reading it and replying to it and perpetuating a vicious cycle. Goodbye.

    3. jghgiroot
      jghgiroot
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Lorenzo La Bella Alright, I guess you really want to waste your time on this. With your first point (first off it's the 13th, not the 14th amendment), I don't think you understand that generally in liberalism (in it's classic sense at least, which the us constitution is based on), you maintain freedoms until you infringe on another person's freedoms (which criminality tends to be punished on), at which point we basically allow the state to take you against your will and completely restrict your freedoms (basically turning you into a "slave" in every sense of the word), now I can agree that maybe extracting slave labor out of a criminal doesn't necessarily produce good outcomes for society in the long run and I concede that point to you that we should probably amend that part, but make no mistake, it absolutely completely restricts your freedoms to the fullest extent when the government takes you and throws you in prison for a crime. Now another thing we could do in the US is probably focus more on rehabilitation than punishment for criminals-but this has nothing to do with the constitution you're so vehemently against for whatever reason. As for this whole 2nd amendment thing you wrote, I highly doubt you could actually justify your position unless you're authoritarian or maybe get your ethics from some kind of religious base-that the threat of political violence against a government of a country by it's citizens is necessarily a bad thing. If you're looking at outcomes which it seems that you are, an easier way to just produce much better outcomes than what we have is to heavily increasing screenings for gun ownership and licensing, and maybe start treating it much more responsibly than we currently do, and also deal with a lot of mental health issues that cause gun violence in the first place(again things that have nothing to do with the constitution your so worried about)-this deals with all the outcomes that you seem so worried about by a ton without even exhausting political capital for a position that might not even be necessarily morally good. As for the electoral college, you continue to prove how little you understand about it, or even political philosophy in general, like how you keep using this word "democratic" without fully understanding it's ramifications, I mean I don't know if you understand this but being fully democratic means every issue is voted by referendum (and you keep saying "presidential republic"-America is a constitutional republic, so I don't know what you mean). The reason for the electoral college is so that people in states with smaller populations/rural areas could have somewhat of a say in who gets to run their country, now if the outcome of this is that maybe bad people get into office because of how rural areas tend to be more ignorant, that isn't even necessarily a problem with the constitution itself and more a problem with the education system in this country. And to be more clear, I don't know if I necessarily even agree with the electoral college, I just don't understand why ignorant people think it's such an easy fix especially in a country like the US, which seems to be the problem with all the shit you're saying at the end of the day-It seems like the shit I hear Europeans say (especially the ones lacking academic knowledge on this) about the problems in America and their ideas for solutions seem to be from a place of complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the demographics, culture, population and just general ignorance of the political landscape in the country (which I think is very ironic considering it's one of the things Americans get lambasted for), the fact that even in the end out of the 27 amendments in the constitution you were so fixated on using 3 to discredit the whole thing just proves how little you know of this matter. If you're going to criticize something, understand it a lot more.

    4. Lorenzo La Bella
      Lorenzo La Bella
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @jghgiroot Well I won't "stop there", because my criticism was perfectly solid. The 14th amendment abolishes slave labor unless when it is a punishment for criminal offenses, read the U.S. constitution if you don't believe me, you ignoramus. The 2nd amendment, meanwhile, is even worse. The U.S. wouldn't have all the gun crime, shootings, and accidental gun deaths if it had no 2nd amendment. States that have stricter gun laws, like England, Italy, France, etc, are proof of that. Secondly, the U.S. constitution does indeed impede democracy with the Electoral College. It is undemocratic, AND goes against the principles of a presidential republic (head of state elected by vote of all the citizens), which the U.S. purports itself to be.

    5. jghgiroot
      jghgiroot
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Lorenzo La Bella slavery is basically legal? What us constitution are you reading? I mean there is so much wrong with everything you wrote in your reply I could write essays on why this makes absolutely no sense, I mean starting from your first sentence it's already contradictory. You say its "undemocratic" because it wasn't even necessarily a "democracy" ever in it's pure sense, and you acknowledge that by calling it a republic. I could go on and on but I'll just stop there. I suggest you study political philosophy before criticizing its products or else your criticism would always come off as lack of knowledge.

  33. Bo Jangles
    Bo Jangles
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I’m on board 100%

  34. Kevin McMahon
    Kevin McMahon
    Degi Síðan síðan

    There are Amendments to the US Constitution. Can new amendments be made? A Universal Vote (a Referendum) to change a law for voter rights, reproductive rights, or anti-religious rights? When was the last time the common citizen changed the Constitution?

  35. Hörmetjan Yiltiz
    Hörmetjan Yiltiz
    Degi Síðan síðan

    The states less populous produce preponderate presidential picking power per person.

  36. Nunya _
    Nunya _
    Degi Síðan síðan

    Great...now I want popcorn. 🍿

  37. FragmentalStew
    FragmentalStew
    Degi Síðan síðan

    I think, if enacted, this would significantly increase the number of people who vote because people would know that their vote actually contributes to who wins.

  38. Dj Clabe
    Dj Clabe
    2 dögum síðan

    "The states less populous produce preponderate presidential picking power per person" I see what you did there 👀

  39. Matt T
    Matt T
    2 dögum síðan

    For the states outside of this agreement, this will be seen as a coup d'état. I can very much imagine widespread violence and fighting in the aftermath.

    1. 404Dannyboy
      404Dannyboy
      3 klukkustundum síðan

      @BFN Valley Yes, and making it more representative isn't a coup d'etat.

    2. BFN Valley
      BFN Valley
      3 klukkustundum síðan

      404Dannyboy Good thing we live in a representative republic then.

    3. 404Dannyboy
      404Dannyboy
      5 klukkustundum síðan

      If the application of democracy is a coup d'etat, then you are on the wrong side of history anyway.

  40. Cody Christie
    Cody Christie
    2 dögum síðan

    Travel back in time to the writing of the Constitution, & all the folks have ribbons & pig tails? Maybe wrong dimension.

  41. Michael Timpson
    Michael Timpson
    2 dögum síðan

    Actually if they did this so that they counted ALL the popular vote, meaning ALL American citizens, regardless if they lived in a territory, overseas, etc. then it would be perfect. But you would definitely need laws preventing faithless electors. Also, you can't have some state dropping out of the agreement right after the election, but before the electoral college meets either....

    1. Michael Timpson
      Michael Timpson
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Also, many inputs were designed to take ADAT 8 tracks...including regular common digital inputs. In fact, the machines were easily syncable so that you could modularly build up to as many tracks as you need.

  42. Cara Barnes
    Cara Barnes
    2 dögum síðan

    I mean it's 2020 so anything can happen this year

  43. SammyJammyBammy
    SammyJammyBammy
    2 dögum síðan

    Hey! that's Doune castle @2:20 - the castle used in Monty Python: The Holy Grail - this has got to be one of grey's Easter eggs!

  44. john jones
    john jones
    2 dögum síðan

    Well, I mean sure, there have been plenty of times when the president is not the person who got the most votes, but the thing is, it is so the states are equal and not ignored, if it was not like this you would only need to focus on the states with more people, meaning the president does not need to represent the most states, just the most people. So those states that have less population would most likely feel like the government does not care about them.

  45. Zolfried
    Zolfried
    2 dögum síðan

    it happended once, it can happen again.. lets do brexit the american version..

  46. irmuu sanaa
    irmuu sanaa
    2 dögum síðan

    Yeaaaa... there are exactly ten 10 states who have joined this mess.

    1. irmuu sanaa
      irmuu sanaa
      2 dögum síðan

      Arnout H it’s still a horrible idea since it will just replace swing states with population centers and based on current political mind sent could theoretically create a one party system with out knowing it.

    2. irmuu sanaa
      irmuu sanaa
      2 dögum síðan

      Arnout H oh yea I was looking at a map from 2019

    3. Arnout H
      Arnout H
      2 dögum síðan

      You mean 16, right?

  47. TheHobgoblyn
    TheHobgoblyn
    2 dögum síðan

    "a thousand generations of this Republic".... uhh... how long do you think the U.S.A. has been around? That's got to be one of the dumbest lines I have ever heard uttered on a history channel. The U.S.A. hasn't been around for even 10 human generations and, even if you mean 4 year cycles, that would be 4,000 years. Even if you could possibly mean 1-year cycles? Dude-- the U.S. hasn't been around for even 250 years (though it is coming up on that.)

    1. Arnout H
      Arnout H
      2 dögum síðan

      Since when is this a history channel? Also, ever heard of hyperbole?

  48. AestheticSloth
    AestheticSloth
    2 dögum síðan

    And now the electoral votes have to go to the popular vote thanks to lobbyists in the supreme court. Big RIP

  49. liam gil
    liam gil
    2 dögum síðan

    This seems silly. Why would a state give up its political power to citizens who it doesnt represent? There is no benefit.

    1. Bennett Carlson
      Bennett Carlson
      11 klukkustundum síðan

      A fair and accurate election seems pretty good to me

  50. Vince Marenger
    Vince Marenger
    2 dögum síðan

    How is America even a real country? Even the electoral system is incredibly messed up!

    1. Vince Marenger
      Vince Marenger
      Degi Síðan síðan

      ​@Jacob In Canada, you can actually choose between multiple ideas (expand the social-democracy, maintain it, diminish it, Green Party and Quebec's interests) See that? They ARE ALL currently in the parliament!!! THAT'S the average western democracy!!! ***** In the usa, you can either choose between neoliberalism, or neoliberalism. (that is, you get sick, you either die or go bankrupt) Too bad, so sad : ( ***** Want a real western democracy? Start by dismantling the "electoral college". That would be the first step

    2. Jacob
      Jacob
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Ser_Lagsalot Something can only be messed up if it is doing something incorrectly. However that is not what is happening in the U.S election system, as it is operating as it was meant to operate. It being counter intuitive is also falsity the electoral college was designed as a compromise between the thirteen colonies as at that time they were all de facto independent and trying to create a federal republic tying them together as one country. The electoral college operates as it does because states are an important part of American governance and they did not want one state or several ( at the signing of the constitution that state being Virginia with the largest population) to have a greater say then other less populous states. It does its duty of electing a President with marveling efficiency. If people would call it messed up then they would really have to nitpick. If we had any other form of government would the system be any less “messed up”?

    3. Ser_Lagsalot
      Ser_Lagsalot
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Jacob 'Working as intended' doesn't necessarily preclude the notion that it's a "messed up" design, though. From the outside, it looks like a counter intuitive system of elections within elections to decide who actually gets to vote, and where the value of a vote is determined by geography.

    4. Jacob
      Jacob
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Vince Marenger It’s not messed up. Did you even watch the video? It’s working exactly as it was intended to work.

  51. Alexander Eick
    Alexander Eick
    2 dögum síðan

    I like the consequences but not the means

  52. Mark Ingoldsby
    Mark Ingoldsby
    2 dögum síðan

    What the heck does "gromulent" mean? TIA

  53. Some Guy
    Some Guy
    2 dögum síðan

    If this wins, states with small populations won’t see a lot of campaigning. Like, at all. In fact, wasn’t the whole point to begin with to prevent people from nabbing the election by focusing only on big cities? This seems like it would kind of make the system wors-

    1. Jarry Pota
      Jarry Pota
      18 klukkustundum síðan

      @Some Guy most minds have been made up in swing states it just happens that theres about an equal amount for both of the parties so those few non aligned voters have more of a sway as to who gets the majority.

    2. Jarry Pota
      Jarry Pota
      18 klukkustundum síðan

      @Some Guy but if you tally up all the people who vote against the majority in all the safe states you get quite a sizeable unrepresented group of electorate.

    3. Some Guy
      Some Guy
      19 klukkustundum síðan

      Jarry Pota People living in safe states do have an effect, it’s just that they’re likely to vote for whoever the rest of the state votes for. If there were enough people willing to vote for the other side, it wouldn’t be a safe state anymore.

    4. Some Guy
      Some Guy
      19 klukkustundum síðan

      Neven Tomičić Think of it this way, would you rather the focus be states where minds haven’t been made up and there would therefore be competition between political factions, or would you rather the focus be a number of high-population city states which mostly vote one way anyway.

    5. Jarry Pota
      Jarry Pota
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Most campaigning already happens in swing states. Anyone living in a safe state doesn't have an effect on who should be in charge. A popular vote would empower rural voters in majority metropolitan States.

  54. KAY DE
    KAY DE
    2 dögum síðan

    I’m basically that stick figure that just said wait what? o.O

  55. David Kirkland
    David Kirkland
    2 dögum síðan

    Eventually states will ignore the national majority and just agree to vote for who the elites want. We will have reached full-blown banana republic. Soon because the "silent majority" stays silent (denial).

    1. 404Dannyboy
      404Dannyboy
      4 klukkustundum síðan

      @David Kirkland It allows the majority of the population to control the vote. The majority of the population is urban. That is the only way in which it empowers the urban over the rural. Further you are glossing over the fact that the current system gives rural people more power than urban people. It is removing an imbalance, not creating one.

    2. David Kirkland
      David Kirkland
      5 klukkustundum síðan

      @404Dannyboy Not true. The intent of the states agreement is to agree to vote in a block, which in effect allows urban areas to control the nation. Our founding fathers resisted this and designed a decentralized government for a reason. Go read the Anti-Federalist Papers.

    3. 404Dannyboy
      404Dannyboy
      5 klukkustundum síðan

      You do know that is easier to do in our current setup than with the states agreement, right?

  56. William Dunhan
    William Dunhan
    2 dögum síðan

    It's treasonous. No sugar-coating it. No Technicality. No greater good. It's treasonous & it's evil.

    1. William Dunhan
      William Dunhan
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Arnout H it was a bill passed by Congress that, for all intents & purposes, sold America. The system we are currently under is the United States of America inc. When tjey say "it's just business" believe them.

    2. weetdirt
      weetdirt
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @William Dunhan Changing the way that works has happened several times. 17th amendment, 14th amendment (sorry, feds now get to tell you who votes), Congress fixing the number of representatives in the early 20th century and therefore inflating the power of small states, 3/5 compromise giving slave states outsize representation, and that's just what I can recall.

    3. Arnout H
      Arnout H
      Degi Síðan síðan

      William Dunhan I did, I couldn’t find anything.

    4. William Dunhan
      William Dunhan
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Arnout H look it up.

    5. Arnout H
      Arnout H
      Degi Síðan síðan

      William Dunhan what fundamental change are you talking about?

  57. stawksop
    stawksop
    2 dögum síðan

    Wait; if we go based off of popular vote; how will rural areas truly have representation. For instances; farmers in California having their water rerouted to the cities. :\

    1. Alexander Fergus Stormer
      Alexander Fergus Stormer
      Degi Síðan síðan

      This is only looking at the presidency and not the local representatives who look after the water routes, i'm not sure how this would affect that. All this does is make sure that the presidency is voted upon by the majority of the country and wouldn't effect the representation of those areas. Their representative would be in congress or senate

    2. Arnout H
      Arnout H
      2 dögum síðan

      The EC already doesn’t represent them at all.

    3. Some Guy
      Some Guy
      2 dögum síðan

      That’s why the EC exists to begin with. Grey kinda tries to sidestep that whole issue though and make the guys who wrote the constitution look like they didn’t care at all about the people.

  58. Ricky N
    Ricky N
    2 dögum síðan

    2:56 America’s Vegetable Taxes 🍆

  59. ZoddtheGod
    ZoddtheGod
    2 dögum síðan

    GROND!

  60. Shaddykack
    Shaddykack
    2 dögum síðan

    Constitutional subversion has never backfired on anyone ever. Yup. Not even once.

  61. Cole Scheer
    Cole Scheer
    2 dögum síðan

    This is all great and all, except for: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress... Enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state, or with a foreign power.”

    1. Thehaiku Samurai
      Thehaiku Samurai
      2 dögum síðan

      you're an absolute genius, somebody right that down!

  62. Jordan Kalmov
    Jordan Kalmov
    2 dögum síðan

    Welcome to the oligarchy

  63. benzbubblecat
    benzbubblecat
    2 dögum síðan

    the best thing about this video that I never noticed before is that Alaska wears a scarf

  64. Ethan Stoehr
    Ethan Stoehr
    2 dögum síðan

    this plan didn't age well

  65. Yesid Antonio
    Yesid Antonio
    2 dögum síðan

    1000 generations???? lmfao settlers are so much this country was founded in the late 1700s that was at most a couple dozen generations ago

  66. silveredgeshaid
    silveredgeshaid
    2 dögum síðan

    "Do you even own land?" "No" "Than why would we listen to you?"

  67. RealmRabbit
    RealmRabbit
    2 dögum síðan

    Is there anything that locks a state into the plan? Because if states don't get locked into the plan then perhaps they could pull some game theory with a few other states to use the plan for their own other plan by making those states think that they'll vote for the popular candidate when really they'll instead vote for the unpopular candidate their states want... When you're trying to get people who've been competing for so long to suddenly instead cooperate, kinda natural to expect betrayal if they think it'll be to their gain without any consequences that outweigh the benefits...

    1. viktor1496
      viktor1496
      2 dögum síðan

      Yes, states that have signed it are legally obligated to enact it as soon as the compact would go into effect.

  68. Adam Pickard
    Adam Pickard
    2 dögum síðan

    So theres this stupid partisan idea (I'm british so I'm chill pointing this out) in which republicans are/ have become absolutely uncomfortable calling their country a democracy, and instead insist it is a constitutional republic (perhaps citing the electoral college) and that the two things do not mix like oil and water. But the idea of democracy is rule by the people (kinda like the preamble of the consititution begins we the people), the notion of an electoral component isn't the defining factor, though commonly a chosen citizen leader or body of representatives (or both) wield the power of the people and are susceptible to removal at the pleasure of the people (unlike elected monarchs which go way further back and do not stem their power from the people). Moreover republic really doesnt mean what people think. A republic isnt a post-monarchy or post-colony. Republic comes from res publica or public thing. Thing in this context may be an assembly body or common good (its very ambiguous). A public assembly ruled by an elected citizen isnt a contradiction. The term republic comes from the period of roman history defined by its complicated patrician democracy

    1. AestheticSloth
      AestheticSloth
      2 dögum síðan

      Almost like the Republic need democracy to survive but too much is deadly

  69. Gage Barbour
    Gage Barbour
    2 dögum síðan

    It's bizarre that it's framed as an EC issue when the Census determines the amount of EVs each state gets. The real issue is that the congressional districting is based off of an inconsistent number. Meaning that California doesn't have over 1,000 EVs, though it should. Framing that Wyoming has 1 vote per 192,000 is disingenuous becuase it includes two senators, which is proportionally higher in Wyoming than California even if the standard was balanced.

  70. Nata1014
    Nata1014
    2 dögum síðan

    I don’t want to be in the U.S when this shit happens.

  71. David
    David
    2 dögum síðan

    That enters terrain of the Federal level, and can be taken to SCOTUS.

  72. seigeengine
    seigeengine
    2 dögum síðan

    To be clear, a direct democracy IS a republic.

  73. Dan H
    Dan H
    2 dögum síðan

    I would prefer a solution that involved the alternative vote system. I like the idea of people voting for who they actually want instead of voting against the guy they don’t want.

    1. Dan H
      Dan H
      Degi Síðan síðan

      Alexander Fergus Stormer which is why I would prefer it. I feel the cycle has gotten stale and I want to get off this hell ride.

    2. Alexander Fergus Stormer
      Alexander Fergus Stormer
      Degi Síðan síðan

      This would also require a more than 2 party system which at this time does not seem like it would occur. Though an AV system may allow other, non-main party candidates to put themselves forward and so may increase the number of possible parties available to vote for.

    3. Dan H
      Dan H
      2 dögum síðan

      M McCoy I was referring to one of his other videos from a couple years ago. He goes over a series of voting systems other than popular vote

    4. M McCoy
      M McCoy
      2 dögum síðan

      That would be rank choice voting.

  74. Gokibro S
    Gokibro S
    2 dögum síðan

    fuck this gay earth oL_o

  75. Stephen Gallagher
    Stephen Gallagher
    3 dögum síðan

    So, I was wondering if the 2020 Supreme Court ruling about electoral votes having to be cast for the same candidate that the majority voted for in that state, did it mean the end of NaPoVoInterCo. But, I’m guessing not. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t require that every state’s electoral votes be cast for the candidate who won the majority in that state. The ruling simply means that an individual state can require that the electoral votes in their state must be cast for whomever won the majority in that state - but it doesn’t have to require it. Obviously NaPoVoInterCo states wouldn’t have such a requirement. But, using Grey’s words, this Supreme Court ruling will make for an even more “amazing” conflict to watch should NaPoVoInterCo ever succeed in doing what it was intended to do.

  76. 1jtwister
    1jtwister
    3 dögum síðan

    also... the "compact" you refer to doesn't expire for any state ever... this means , they can wait years and years and years until that final state says yes and the whole thing kicks in... NOTY on coastal 'elite' crybullies handpicking our president

    1. mangalores-x_x
      mangalores-x_x
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Some Guy you ignore that because the US uses "winner takes all" you get the worst of any electoral system. The rural regions of California get shafted because they do not matter, the urban centers of the coastal staes do not matter because they are "safe" majorities, the sparsely populated Mid West does not matter because the states are too small. If the actual states would convene to decide instead of by proxy of the college you'd give states more sovereign power for a federal union, if you'd force the states to give their votes by proportion of their own results you'd get better representation of the popular vote. The electoral college is not even the problem, the entire English practices election process which uses first past the post to negate large groups of voters and aims at creating an antagonistic parliament is a mess. That is why the UK and the US are a mess, while New Zealand and Australia who mixed up their systems as well as continental European democracies using different setups with more modern concepts are still a bit away from that.

    2. viktor1496
      viktor1496
      Degi Síðan síðan

      @Some Guy Fair enough, I shouldn't have called it a Strawman. Although you were trying to derail with non-issues. If you think the smaller states have a voice, just look at how many visits are made to them on the campaign trail....none. A republicans vote in Hawaii doesn't matter. Just like a democrats vote in Utah doesn't matter. Saying these states "might become a battleground" is nothing but admitting that they don't matter unless they would become a swing state..... which is not going to happen unless a candidate would already win by a landslide to begin with. The electoral college and first past the post voting were implemented in the 18th century. They haven't changed since and it's ridiculous to defend it in the current day and age

    3. Some Guy
      Some Guy
      Degi Síðan síðan

      viktor1496 Firstly, look up what a strawman is. Secondly, the compact takes advantage of rules already in place, and is not designed to change them. It’s reasonable for politicians to focus on convincing areas that might, but aren’t confirmed to vote for them. The states that consistently vote one way do have a “voice” because if they were to become battleground states the candidates would focus on them too. It’s just that their vote, which matters, is already known to be cast one way. It’s still obviously significant.

    4. viktor1496
      viktor1496
      2 dögum síðan

      @Some Guy And if enough states agree on it, those rules can be changed. And oh come on, like presidents during an election give a flying shit about New Hamsphire, Alabama or Washington state. All they care about is swing states and keeping them happy, the whole system ensures the states who consistently vote one way don't have a voice at all to begin with. The whole "low population area" argument is one big strawman.

    5. Some Guy
      Some Guy
      2 dögum síðan

      viktor1496 “Rightful president”. The rightful president is the president who won according to the rules of America’s system, not the system you THINK should be in place. What’s really partisan is trying to create a system where the opinions of areas with low population density become completely irrelevant to who rules them, and where candidates can win by focusing exclusively on the big city areas. Honestly I’m not even American and I can see the purpose of this system.

  77. Andre Van Slyke
    Andre Van Slyke
    3 dögum síðan

    For those commenting recently - the Supreme Court ruling doesn't prevent this from taking place. It actually ALLOWS a State to enforce this method at a judicial level once it goes into effect. Basically, the ruling from the Supreme Court states that the Electors need to Vote based on how their State Law says they need to vote. So if State Law says "An Elector must vote for the candidate who won the State" then the electors have to follow regardless of how they want to personally vote (aka faithless electors). If, HOWEVER, the State Law says "An Elector need to vote for the candidate who won the National Popular Vote" then regardless of how the voting in that State turned out, the electors would be required to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote.

  78. The Steel Curtain
    The Steel Curtain
    3 dögum síðan

    Not anymore

  79. Darth Nerd
    Darth Nerd
    3 dögum síðan

    Napovo sounds like COMMUNISM

    1. raffle baffle
      raffle baffle
      2 dögum síðan

      @Darth Nerd no i thought you were being serious with the context of the rest of the comment section

    2. Darth Nerd
      Darth Nerd
      2 dögum síðan

      @raffle baffle Yes, its a joke. You dont get it?

    3. raffle baffle
      raffle baffle
      2 dögum síðan

      do you know what communisim is....

  80. Robert Riggs
    Robert Riggs
    3 dögum síðan

    I wonder how this will play out since the supreme court ruling.