The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College | 5 Minute Videos | PragerU
Right now, there’s a well-organized, below-the-radar effort to render the Electoral College effectively useless. It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our presidential elections into a majority-rule affair. Would this be good or bad? Author, lawyer, and Electoral College expert Tara Ross explains.
📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79
Follow PragerU on social media!
Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/)
Twitter ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru)
Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/)
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Wow, the level of disinformation in this video is staggering 😂
This woman is a national treasure. God bless her.
The problem is that we're jumping right into the electoral college, when we should be starting with an electoral high school…
🤔
Well, what is needed is always less centralization and far less governmental control, to the point that the truth is that no possible way could any autocrat be remotely good; least of all someone appointed by God, and that they're all agents of Hell, regardless of their deeds their whole entire governmental philosophy is rooted in Hell; this includes all aristocrats as petty dictators that they are; and all monarchists and dictators, as well as by absolutely valid extension, all theocrats, bar none!
Yeah, NPV is basically treasonous and not even remotely binding at all; so it won't be adhered to.
The votes of the electors are automatically determined by the winning of the popular vote in their regions; so where's the conflict?
What the Left refuses to consider is that if the large population cities can control such elections they can alienate the hinterland enough to stop dealing with them, refusing to provide the resources the cities need but can not supply on their own. It would hollow out the country. Remember that the farms can get by on their own but the cities will become wastelands.
Great information!
This is great information!
This is so ridiculous.
Bla
Not intrested in NvP wanted to hear about lectoral college
Thank you for the clarification. NPV should never!! Come into force. If it does the American people are done for!!
So instead of focusing on only swing states, presidents only focus on big cities? That just sounds like shifting the problem to me
Me personally, I think a majority vote (AKA first-choice plurality, plurality, first-past-the-post, etc.) should be replaced with a more fair voting system, such as Condorcet (with a backup system due to condorcet’s tendency to sometimes result in ties)
Wouldn't the NPV be deemed an unconstitutional code by the Supreme Court?
Americans still have to registrate to vote? In some countries like Portugal that's automatic.
The only area where Republicans are pro DEI…
This like Nazism is an indicator as to why popular vote is not always the best vote. Plus, if we relied on popular vote, then only, like, 3 states would decide the outcome of every election.
We need to eliminate the Electoral College and with it the Senate. Why should a small number of people get an equal vote in passing laws?
Simply establish text voting through the house like on American Idol. We can get it done! Majority rules through apps!
What are the problems with her arguments?
First, when the electoral college was developed, there were no political parties. It was designed for an open election in which anyone could run.
The original design was for each Elector to vote for two candidates, one of which could not be from their own state. When tallied, the candidate with the most votes became President and the candidate who came in second was Vice President. That, of course, doesn’t sound anything like the EC we have today.
In 1788 and 1792, George Washington was elected President unanimously. The election of 1796 was the first contested presidential election: John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Adams became President, and Jefferson became his Vice President, despite the fact they had campaigned vigorously against each other. These two men, who had worked so closely together on drafting the Declaration of Independence had, by the 1800 election, become bitter rivals.
The 1800 election prove to be even more bizarre. Adams’ running mate was Charles Pinkney. Jefferson’s running mate was Aaron Burr. Adams’ private fear was that Pinkney might receive more Electoral Votes than he and he would become Pinkney’s Vice President. He need not have worried; Adams received 65 votes and Pinkney received 64. But that didn’t matter either because Jefferson and Burr both received 73. Now it was up to the House of Representatives to choose a president.
It became even more bizarre after that, including 35 votes in the House before Jefferson was elected President, and Vice President Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. But all of the above, and more, were the consequences of the Electoral College as designed by the Founding Fathers.
But let’s consider just one aspect of the arguments she presents: all states get a voice in who is elected. Eight states – Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington DC, Delaware, Vermont, and Alaska – each with three Electoral Votes, offer a total of 24 EVs. When was the last time you saw any major presidential candidate spend any time campaigning in any of those states? There are 21 states that offer 10 or more electoral votes that total 377. Those are the states that are campaigned in most vigorously, with some of the remaining 30 being practically ignored. So tell me again, how does the electoral college give those less populous states an equal voice? Any more than they would have with a popular vote?
Hard pass on this 5 states who are swing states only mattering anymore. Time to be done with the electoral college, whatever it was meant to do, it’s not doing.
Rules for federal elections should be universal. It works in Australia.
Did you understand the Electoral College before watching this?