Gregory Samuel Teo Yes, that is a problem. That's why there are two federal legislative bodies, like you mentioned. There are state senates and representatives, but unfortunately that can lead to more gerrymandering among precincts. (Correct me if I'm wrong. Some of this is speculation.)

California, New Jersey, Arizona and 3 other states have an independent commission to draw the districts instead of politicians. More states need to adapt this method.

i think population (people) is more important than land mass. If 80% of the people in your state lives in cities, it should make sense that the cities get laws that benefit them, as opposed to the other way around.

@@derekfurst6233 That would put the 20% of people who live in rural areas, like farmers, at a severe disadvantage. If there were an issue that city dwellers liked that would hurt the farmers' agriculture industry, the farmers would have no way to prevent it. The point of taking land area into consideration in forming districts is to ensure that the farmers and other rural residents get a voice, too, so that issues that are important to them can be addressed. The 80% that live in the city are not more important than the 20% that live in the country. Majority rule is a bad idea in many cases. It hurts minorities.

@@jlhill17 the best solution is to allow cities and rural areas to make their own laws. And then have the overarching government only pass what laws it needs to. We could call it: federalism.

of course , they are the deepweb

+Carrot Does Gaming 😊

All3me1:3 Kawaii

John Snow you know nothing!!!

+All3me1 and so should we.

This kid. This kid is going places.

+RoboTekno Done! My surname means Weasel in English. :P

+RoboTekno and choose the country weasely. in countries like russia, if the weasel is not cautious enough and upsets the wrong people, it ends up in alleys...

+RKBock ...with multiple deep knife wounds.

Илья Ишикаев And/or multiple gunshot wounds to the back

Ah yes, just like the rest of the world does :)

STV FTW!!!

What about local representation?

@@rajashashankgutta4334 Most representatives aren't defending their district's interests but their party's interests.

Antoine Brassard Lahey yes! As a young person I don’t exactly understand these strange political ridiculousness, but this makes it fun so...

I’m 11 years old and everyone says I’m to young to understand politics so I shouldn’t have a political opinion but than I remember this stuff

Animals man... Animals everywhere

@@captainyolowaffle3160 I feel like that's super young, I'm a 13 year old boy, they think I'm an immature dumb boy that could never understand politics. While I may still be a (sometimes) immature and dumb boy, I manage to understand this super easily

And that's how I learned about gerrymandering before I even knew about politics

we've had dictionaries on the internet for a lot longer than that, and you still use "populous" wrong. some problems are not as easy to solve as they seem

lunarul Fair enough, but this one guy on the internet misunderstanding and misusing a word this one time on this one page isn't nearly as detrimental as an entire nation's (the world's largest power no less) faulty voting system for over two centuries.

If spelling words correctly would improve the world as much as abolishing gerrymandering would, I'm sure OroCrimson would be just as surprised and/or disappointed

M On the other hand, if getting everyone to spell/use words correctly was the _only_ way to improve the world, I'm pretty sure we'd all be S.O.L.

***** Haha definitely

I agree, actually.. I never think of liking or disliking videos, but I should start doing that with these

iamsaztak The algorithm will just gerrymander your likes

Same, and just noticed in the beginning one of the citizens is a Minecraft pig

ScienceKid07 holy shit ur right. great detail

Agreed

IN THE BACKWATER SWIRL-ING, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE

And in the past few months, North Carolina is having the same issue again.

The Gerrymandering in Durham is honestly *impressive*

Representatives pick their voters, instead of voters picking their representative...

“We have done an internal investigation on ourselves and found no wrongdoing”

@@AndrewAMartin there you go sir the simplest definition of gerrymandering

found Wyoming

@@skystrike8955 lmao

That would just make a bunch of Wyomings

+TheNauken My favourite line in the whole video!

We need Queen Lion.

As it should be.

Where is it at? Edit: 2:35

I wish someone would do that IRL, oh how fast democracy would get things done.

We must support a party that will be firm on the matter of Zerg Rushes!

+AncelDeLambert STARCRAFT

2:29

you must construct additional pylons.

heavyweaponsgaming Hmgdjdg

Garen Crownguard I don't get it...

***** Starcraft.

***** "You must construct additional pylons"

Aaron Lin You're a pylon of the community.

+Garen Crownguard Me too! And I was especially excited 'cause I've never even PLAYED Starcraft.

*Eagle shows up and says* Don't list to that scumbag, i have the solution! *hands the Queen two books, one is called 'Mein Kampf' and the other is called 'The protocols of the elders of snakes.'*

If one animal is not free, all are not free. Bear. Freedom.

Didn't that fail on the north half of Asia?

But behold! A frog shows up and conquers the two animals, then presents the Queen Lion with "Code civil de Français."

I disliked the comment simply because I dislike Communism. It's funny, though.

Happy 30’th birthday 🥳

I wonder how much more you have learned in these past 5 years

Because she's that awesome.

Some female lions can have a mane. The same goes for males that lack one

Because gender is a social construct and lions don't have to identify by your ridiculous fabricated gender system (sarcasm)

Its just her scruff

@@Universedarkghosts transphobic much, white boy?

Thank you for your service

This is actually a quoted rant from the grandpa on The Simpsons. I'm not sure which episode though.

@@basilbiscuit2735 S4E17 "Last Exit to Springfield" the one where the nuclear plant workers strike, so Mr. Burns gets Homer's dad and his "ol' union busting" friends, whose plan is to tell boring stories at them to get them to go away.

Animation and examples go a long way.

Spot on!

I am SHOCKED that after 5 years, you only have 25 likes because you nail it. People who are not politicly savvy will just vote for a party rather than an actual candidate. Hence the devolution of USA politics into the reality tv fiasco we have today.

I voted for the first time a couple months ago,locally. All were "non partisan" positions. And guess what? I had no idea what policies anyone supported. If there were no political parties, do you think politicians would just be more open about what they supported?

@@owlblocksdavid4955 probably... there'd be nothing but the truth that they could align themselves with.

@@louisryan5815 that might be true. I just have anecdotal evidence. But I barely had any idea what my local candidates stood for, and at least with parties you have a party platform.

i also love that

I read it to!

Onions, man. Very classy.

I started reading it but stopped when I recognized that it was a quote by Homer's dad in The Simpson's.

Nope! Now, where was I...

I obsessively go back and pause these videos to read the flavor quotes, so I saw that, and had a good laugh when I immediately recognized it, being a big Simpsons fan.

AAAAAAAAAA YAWEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

+aroseland1 That is (sorta) how most countries do it, although they just add "at large" reps to make sure the percentage of reps matches the percentage of voters for each party.

+Aaron Baker I wonder why we don't - I image that whichever party is benefiting at time would fight any change.

+aroseland1 but muh heritage

Ya but only the most conservative of conservatives would do that.

I think that's MMP. Do you live in NZ?

I was almost worried nobody else got that ;)

wrong quote I meant to talk about a NONpartisan group instead THAT came later

That's how it's done in Australia too. The Australian Electoral Commission handles the election districts. It's designed to be non partisan.

For a single official election (e.g. the President) it's totally sufficient to just not have representatives. You don't need to "travel to Washington" anymore to cast your state's vote. An overall total from all voters is the easiest and most logical way. For congress this doesn't work obviously, but you can still do what germany and austria do: They have twice as many seats as there are districts. Every winner gets a seat (to ensure local representation), but then the other half is filled in a way to make the parliament as a whole represent the overall percentages. (Example: Party A gets 30% of the vote, but wins 30 districts, and Party B gets 70% of the vote, winning "only" 20 districts - then Party A has only their 30 local reps and Party B has their 20 local reps plus another 50 members of their "list". [This is assuming, there are 50 districts, which makes for 100 seats.])

I'm sorry, yes ofcourse. I thought this goes without saying, but apparently in some countries everyone who just shows up at the booth on election day can vote °_° Blew my mind to be honest... How do you prevent double-voting?!?

@@QemeH You use your national identity card, which prevent anyone from double voting. And yes you can scan the card meaning you cannot you fake (P.S some country even require more than Identity card like driving license for example) I mean come on we live in modern time not ye olde time

@@hoseadavit3422 Well, since the comment I replied to was apparently deleted, I'm not 100% sure, but... I could vote with my actual real ID card several times, if it weren't for voting registers. Or how does an election helper in New York check weather you already voted in Texas? (If the state is printed on the ID card in the US, just pretend I named different congressional districts instead of different states!) You need to keep track of who votes where anyway, so why not use that for local representation - is, I believe, the point the (now missing) comment was trying to address...

@@QemeH Here in the Netherlands voters are sent a voting card by mail. This has to be handed in at the polling place and cannot be returned. We also require the presentation of an ID that is at most 5 years expired (can be a national ID, Passport or driver's license), but this of course does not prevent double voting. Without the voting card one could simply go to another polling place and vote a second time.

Thank you for not specifying who it was.

it was hitler wasnt it

Queen Lion what

get busy agreeing or I'll get busy eating LOL

When you live in a country where some states are as large or larger than many countries in the world, you need to relegate some power to those states. When subdivisions need to be made for such large areas, you will always have issues of gerrymandering

@@blubberdust as if decentralisation is a uniquely American phenomenon. Most EU countries have provinces and or states, with similar autonomy/legal competences as US states and a similar amount of citizens as an average state. Most of them have zero issues with gerrymandering.

@@michielvangorp9608 A quick google search will show that there are examples from all over the world, from countries in every populated continent, including countries in the EU.

that's true, with the stv in the European parliment, hopefully they'll bring fair representation to the uk

Ricardo Acuna yet, we don't see any people protesting the issue of gerrymandering. perhaps the people need to demand more from their govt?

Gregory Samuel Teo The problem isn't that people don't demand enough, people protest several issues from human rights to energy policies. The problem is that the people who are most affected by the decision making process do not take part in it. Proponents of representative government often say that the people exercise their power through elections, that they can choose not to elect bad governments and punish underperformant ones. That thesis doesn't hold to scrutiny though, because when one's choice is between coconut-vanilla and vanilla-mocha we don't have much of a choice. And the other reason it's a fallacious argument is because there are several years in between elections, in that time the public is oblivious of the decisions that were made, largely by the complicity of the media, the boredom of modern times, and the secretiveness of the government and the military.

Ricardo Acuna what? i'm merely saying there needs to be demonstrations against such issues. if you wanna lump in how completely broken the US plutocracy is, that still doesn't explain the lack of demonstrations on this particular issue. instead, we see protests against things like gay marriage all the time. sure, mainstream media is bs; but that's why we have the internet, no? i can understand if the older generation are still mostly influenced by fox news, but the younger generations?

My point is that even if people raised the issue, a demonstration won't fix anything. Politicians make the laws, politicians draw the boundaries, politicians won't make illegal a practice that benefits them. It took decades for the LBGT and civil rights movements to make a dent in the system, and they have only partially succeeded because it fell out of fashion being a homophobic racist, because when they came out politicians found out they have someone in their families or communities who is gay or black or both. My whole point is that the system doesn't work for the people in principle, the rights(temporary privileges) that we have, are not there to protect us they are there to protect the rich from an uprising, from popular dissent. Give them the illusion of rights and of choice and they will be calm, this is an elaborated theory going back to the roman empire where some emperor said let them have bread and circus. Then they had the gladiators as entertainment now we have 24/7 TV.

part one explains

Hella-expensive

Part one is not direct voting. Your vote in part 1 is part of an existing system that has representatives choose for you. i.e. Districts-->States. An example of direct voting is literally "everyone go to this URL, cast your vote by this date" Results are published for each canididate. It's still a FPTP system, and all the flaws of FPTP are still in effect (Such as the spoiler effect) but you are taking the indirect representation middlemen out (i.e. Electoral College) and taking a literal count. I don't believe it would be as expensive as viper claims. It's a system that once it's setup is rather easy to maintain, but it would create a level of transparency that the two major parties do not want. The problem with these needed changes, is you would essentially need someone to somehow get the support of their party, then while in office, go against their party; which becomes a problem as their own party can essentially force them out of office (whatever position they held, regardless if it's president or a lowly state seat)

+Sykomyke needing to coordinate a complete vote, on every contested issue, extended to every member of the Canadian electorate, possibly multiple times a month... yeah, can't see that getting expensive at all... -campaigning -data/paper usage -paid hours for ballot counters and monitors -time off work to vote -preventing methods of voter fraud... There would be FAR too much involved to make direct democracy a realistic system... especially since laws are written in 'legalese' which the layperson has no idea how to interpret

Where did I say getting a complete vote on every contested issue? We are talking about electing candidates to office. Not voting on every bill, amendment, or what have you.

This system of referenda and popular initiatives exists and works rather well in Switzerland, an extremely wealthy and highly educated country of 7 mil. There is not a chance in hell it would work well in countries like the UK or the US which have large populations of poorly educated and destitute voters.

paleocon23 Poorly educated? Come on, I'm not saying my country is perfect, but it's incredibly stupid to make such broad generalisations.

dubsll UK is fine, but the US is a bit trickier...

How do you mean? Don't you think that's stereotyping?

dubsll Not gonna lie, most Americans on either side of a debate don't know what they're talking about :/ I find myself in an awkward position when I don't just think the people on the other isle are ignorant, but that the people on my side of the argument are spouting incorrect information and logical fallacies as well :l

That´s not true. This only is relevant to the legislature. You can use your proportional system regardless of whether you have a presidential republic or a parliamentary one. Latin America often uses proportional systems these says like Brazil and Argentina, but elects their presidents independently.

He merely states something that solves a problem, does that everyone genius in their own way?

@@skllsession3993 yes

If the majority want it, then it's not tyranny it's democracy

firesteel1 I suppose if the majority wanted to enslave another race that wouldn't be tyranny because the majority desired so.

***** It would be tyranny, but it would be tyranny that most people wanted to see, so even if to you it is wrong, to them it's right. To fight that kind of situation, you should have an educated population.

***** Obviously if the majority want to enslave another race that is not tyranny that is democracy. Tyranny requires the population to be oppressed

firesteel1 Which is why we have certain unalienable rights which are supposed to prevent such things. Using represenatives and laws to stop this is the essence of a Republic.However, there is yet to be a truly perfected form of government

Because of man's factious nature.

+Broockle The biggest problem of direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority". If votes were entirely proportional, theoretically, 51% of the population could vote in politicians that only benefit them, while hurting the other 49%.

Steven Sheffey And zones prevent that? So it's more just to everyone if the votes are unfair? What a concept xD I'm not sure if I can get behind that idea lol But intriguing definitely.

We keep districts because then the people will have more representatives which equals more democracy.

+TheyCallMeGunny Hold your horses. 20% of popular vote doesn't mean the resting 80% voted against a person, although this may very well be the case in the upcoming US election.

Because people want their local area's interests to be represented, not just the common interests of their political party.