The 22% figure is assuming 1) there are only two candidates, and 2) everyone shows up to vote. You could win with a much smaller margin.

That 22% could be even worse. Voter turnout doesnt have to be the ssme in all states

America invented the presidential system, but refused to install the latest upgrades and bug fixes

5:45 UPDATE: "Not once, not twice, not thrice, but fourthice" this has happened. 2016.

I want to see the candidate who can win both Wyoming and DC.

Here in 2020, I honestly don't think any youtube video has aged better...

3:25 Another important thing to remember is that a popular vote wouldn't be winner take all for cities, the way the electoral college is for states. Even if these cities did make up over half the population, its not like a candidate could go to just the cities and win *_ALL_* the votes there. They would be going to the cities and getting _many_ votes, but not even close to all of them. As it is now, a candidate can go to Pennsylvania and win just over half the votes, but get almost 4% of the electoral votes.

It's been almost a decade, and the "Hoosiers" thing still burns my Hoosier soul every time.

4:40 You could add far more to this You’re assuming everyone in each state is voting If you just use turnout population You could get elected by convincing about 10% of people to vote for you

The unfair part is the winner take all. Each state should have their electors be proportionately distributed. That way a narrow win in Florida will not yield a 29 electorate gain for one candidate.

I actually did the math for the required metro areas to make a majority. You would need all 40 of the biggest metro areas to win, and that assumes that ALL of the people in the metro area voted for you, which is EXTREMELY improbable, especially since who’s going to win Houston, Dallas, LA and NYC

So the electoral college rolls a d20 every election and if it gets a nat1 the unpopular candidate wins

but here's the catch: who can abolish it? poloticians. who is benefiting from it? poloticians. so...

IMPORTANT - The situation is even worse than CGP Grey makes out. If there's a successful third party candidate, then a presidential candidate can carry a state with LESS than 50% of the vote. In the 1968 presidential election, TWENTY-EIGHT states (more than HALF) were won with less than 50% of the vote. The worst was Arkansas, where Wallace won with only 38% of the vote. Furthermore, in the 1992 presidential election, FORTY-NINE (that's right) states were won with less than 50% of the popular vote. The worst state was Arizona, where Bush won with only 38% of the popular vote. So in CGP Grey's example, if there were a successful third party candidate, they would only need 1/3 plus one vote to carry a state. That means you could get a majority in the electoral college with only 14.6% of the popular vote. And one of the other candidates could theoretically get 70.8% of the vote and lose. Yep.

"...By making some people's votes more equal than others." I see what you did there.

The saddest part of this is he never mentions how having policies that don’t align with any states values should be insurmountable which is the real point of the electoral college, to value each states goals.. and he’s right, winning votes is about campaigning and not policies, and it has been for a long time now.

YOU DON'T CALL AN ILLINOISAN A HOOSIER *corn husking intensifies*

I think the biggest problem is the "winner-takes-all" system. If this scheme is abolished and the votes that each state gives in the Electoral College are arranged so that it reflects the results in that state, the bias is minimised. I think that's the least that the US can do if they really want to keep using Electoral College while getting the presidential election outcomes as fair as possible. Afterall, this "winner-takes-all" system practised in almost all states is what makes the candidates massively interested only in those swing states (those where the race is tight) and not much in states where they have strong voter base.

People from Illinois aren’t called hoosiers, that would be someone from indiana

“All animals are equal. Just some are more equal than others” - Animal farm

I KNOW this mans did not just call Illinois “Hoosiers”. That’s Indiana bro

CGP Grey fetishes: Voting system New York vs New Jersey Monarchies (mostly british)

It’s really the winner take all that is the big problem.

A hoosier is someone from Indiana, not illinois.

5:45 make that 4 times buckaroo.

5:45 Four times. Now it's four...

This will never change because the people who enjoy the advantage are the same people who will oppose a change, and their advantage in the Electoral Process extends to the Amendment Process.

When measuring a city's population you're only taking into account the literal population within the city limits as opposed to the entire metropolitan area. Taking into account the population of New York's metropolitan area, it has nearly 20 million people. LA has 13 million people. Chicago 10 million. The next 15 largest metropolitan areas have between 3 and 8 million people. That equates to over 100 million people. I'm not making an argument here, just a point that the VAST majority of the population is in the biggest city's metropolitan area rather than the city limits itself.

I see people say “it’s a false assumption that the us is a democracy, because it’s a republic” and to that I say “bold of you to assume these terms are mutually exclusive”

7%.

Something he didn't really mentioned is that a lot of people don't bother voting at all because they believe their vote doesn't count. I grew up in New York State in a very republican town, because of how often democrats win in NY, a decent number of people didn't even bother going out to vote. They often saw it as a waste of precious work time for something where their opinion wouldn't make a difference. This is obviously a dangerous idea, but it would still be difficult to convince them otherwise.

In Australia, we have a preferential systems. Voters choose candidates (and therefore, their parties) in a certain hierarchy, and their votes are counted in a certain numerical sequence where smaller parties give their preferences (that is, their votes) to the two major parties in what is called a two-party preferred vote. It enables an individual to create a nuanced individual voting card that best represents their vote. Sometimes, the candidate that wins the primary vote (that is, the most number 1 votes) loses the seat, because the smaller parties give their preferences to the other major party. This has happened twice in my home state (South Australia) in the last twenty years, where the Liberal Party (conservatives) had more primary votes, but the Labor Party (progressive) won the election because the smaller parties (mostly progressive) gave Labor their preferences. I have never thought of this as undemocratic. A person can tailor their vote, and their whole vote is counted, not just their number 1 candidate. What do you all think?

5:46 make that *four*

Technically, you don't even need 50% plus one to win a state. You only need to win a plurality, so you could win a state with like 40% if 3 or more candidates are running.

i just noticed that you called Illinoisans “Hoosiers”. Sir, that’s Indiana

In Australia, literally every person over 18 has to vote. Basic human right imo, every person should get a say in their country. And in Australia there are booths everywhere, so that everyone can be able to get to one no matter where they are. There are booths set up in schools halls and churches in every suburb. And you're automatically enrolled on the electoral role once you turn 18, it's not a big ordeal of 'may the odds be ever in your favour' for lodging the enrolment application successfully, just to be able to act on that voting right. (Which is what causes a barrier to many Americans who might not have correct ID etc) If you don't want to vote you get a $50 fine, but you can just go to the booths and do an 'informal' vote which is where you scribble on the ballot or write something instead of ticking names. It just doesn't get counted towards the election. I've seen some funny ones too, like another tick box drawn at the bottom, "Jon Snow, King in the North!" That's all you have to do to not get the fine. That's a small price to pay for our right to vote fairly.

1:15 Indiana is the Hoosier state, not Illinois...

Fun fact: The USA is not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic with elements of democracy.

"L.A 3.8M people" that is when i checked the date this was made and realized this is 11 years old

"This is not democracy. This is indefensible." *Scrolls down into the comments where several people make a determined attempt to defend it anyway.*

He called people in Illinois “Hoosiers!” That is Indiana Grey! Come on

"Some people's votes are more equal than others" George Orwell approves

If anyone is confused on why states have 3 electoral votes at minimum, it's because of the addition of the counts of a state's Senators & Representatives (with the acception of D.C., who was given the right to vote in 1961 with the 23A). Also, 100+435+3=538.

Would you still skydive if there was a 5% chance that the parachute would not open?

4:24 It's actually possible to win the electoral college with less than 22% of the popular vote. How? Basically the same strategy, except the goal is to get a plurality and not a majority. Typically relies on a third party scooping up some votes. With that, it's really possible to win the presidency with any percentage so long as you're the plurality. A situation like this did happen in the 2016 election with 13 states giving their electors to someone who received less than 50% of their states vote.

Came from the updated version xD

update: this has happened quadrice times because of the 2016 election

Every state gets a electoral college vote per senator and member of the House of Representatives it has. That would equal 535. Washington DC gets the last 3 electoral college votes.

Hillary got 59,181,312 votes as of 40 minutes ago. trump has 59,043,566 votes. but he has 279 electoral votes and she has 218.

5:46 Donald Trump: Hold my beer.

78k likes..6k dislikes. Electoral college: "The dislikes have it!"

The electoral college doesn't guarantee that candidates will visit small states but it plus the Senate guarantee that small states do have some influence-while the House also being part of Congress allows larger states to have more influence, balance the goals/values of guaranteed minimums in representation and proportionality in representation.

Watching from 2016. Why didn't we learn our lesson?

Barebones minimum, the electoral votes from each state should be distributed proportionately, not winner take all. That way people who vote red in traditionally blue states and vice versa could still have their votes effectively go toward the candidate they voted for. It’d give independent and third party voters a more fair shake too, as it would mean their candidates at least have a shot of getting on the board.

I thought I knew everything there is about the electoral college. I didn’t realize how proportionately it was way off also.

This was pretty well designed for a system in the late 18th century. However, times change and now anyone from anywhere can listen to a speech no matter where it is from. I am also seeing that people that support the electoral college aren’t using the arguments that actually stick up, like how a state voting policy can effect the entire nation. I really don’t see how going only to the big cities is going to change anything if you could just get people to think of the presidential election as a federal election.

If I ever become president, I'm giving CGP Grey a personal invitation to my cabinet.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.” -Benjamin Franklin

That party that wins the white house would also win 80% of the senate and 20% of the house of representatives. This is the electoral college working as intended. The senate is all by state, the house is all by people, and the electoral college is somewhere in the middle (separation of power, but with voting power in elections). Since no party wants to win the house but lose the senate and the white house (or vice versa), political parties are forced to appeal to areas with both high and low population density.

since this video, we've had another win the presidency without the popular vote

The amount of people defending the electoral college in here is quite frankly disgusting.

What kind of half-assed system do they have down there? That is the worst I have ever seen

A few weeks ago, I went and grabbed the 2019 estimated census data for the entire country, sorted by population, and then totaled the top of the list up until I hit 50% of the US population. It took 2000 cities and towns before that happened, with at least 3 in every state and getting down to towns of just 17k people.

I think I figured out the *true* way to fix the electoral college: every state gets one vote, and the remaining votes are split between Indiana and Michigan (totally unbiased it's not like I'm a hoosier who's a big fan of Michigan I just think it would be really smart)

Why don't we abolish it? Because politics

"This isn't democracy". [Insert THANK YOU gif]

5:30 Aaaand that's assuming the members of the electoral college are voting in correspondence to their states, where it's only required in 30 of 51 areas (Washington DC)

Basic forms of representative democracy: exists USA: You know what, screw voting for representatives that don't actually care about us, lets vote for people who then vote for deciding representatives who don't actually care about us

5:46 4 times now.

Popular vote winner lost to electoral college winner in 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016. The electoral college is inherently undemocratic. Candidate with the most popular votes should win.

Here in 2020, you omitted a cities metropolitan statistical area (metro) (msa), for example the City of Chicago's population is 2.7mil while its msa is 9.5 mil. So if I'm a presidential candidate and I visit Chicago, it's also like visiting the metro area as well since the metro areas are associated with the actual city. So I think you are correct in that if the electoral college is abolished that candidates will spend time in more states, however I think you will see a heavy skew towards the urban areas. Also fun fact there are nearly 50mil people between NY, CHI, and LA's msas, I'd bet you'd see a lot of campaigning in those cities.

The argument that the electoral college prevents candidates from ignoring small states makes no sense to me because no one I know has made their choice for president based on "wow this candidate has visited my state so much!"

436 people took the time to read and comprehend the finer points of the US Constitution. The US is not and was never intended to be a direct democracy. Democracies are majority rule without respect of minority interests. The US is a republic that has such safeguards as a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers. The Electoral College is part of those safeguards against tyranny.

Hoosiers are from Indiana, not Illinois

Yeah, forget what I said before! We have to get rid of the Electoral College!!!!!!!! But, we need to use RANKED CHOICE VOTING (Instant Runoff Voting) to directly and nationally elect the President of the United States 🇺🇲!

If a system is unfair but benefits a group of people, that group will use whatever mental gymnastics necessary to defend it.

The ironic part is, Trump tweeted that the electoral vote is bad or evil ( sorry can't remember the exact word he said).

Trump disliked it 878 times

All the dislikes come from people in median-populated states.

Sure the 22% scenario is incredibly unlikely. But no system should exist where that's even mathematically possible.

5:46 four times now... this has happened four times... *sad Grey voice*

Well it's a good thing America isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic! Two very different things! One is the rule of man the other is the rule of law.

Hot tip: if you’re ever gonna convince somebody to get rid of the electoral college, never use the D-word to describe America

5:57 Mario Kart: *nervous sweating*

Make it 4 times that the loser has won

This guy should debate with Prager "Univsersity" 's electoral college apologists.

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Honestly I feel like if we’re gonna keep the electoral college we should A) change to a ranked choice voting method and B) have them win a proportional amount of the electoral votes of each state as close as they can by either grounding up or down (whichever one would be closer to the votes).

If you count 1824 (where the candidate with the most votes also lost), it's 5/56, or a 9% failure rate. If you only count the past 5 elections, it's a 40% failure rate.

North Carolina became more important between 1:34 and 1:36.

I love how he explains the percentages and the way he flat out says it he's great!

I think its fair to consider the relatively small amount of people living in cities, compared to the rest of the population. The problem is, most people live in the metropolitan area. For example, St. Louis has roughly 300k residents, the metro area has nearly 3 million residents. Not a game changer, just pointing that out

You can win the Presidency with just 12 votes CA: 1 - 0 TX: 1 - 0 FL: 1 - 0 NY: 1 - 0 PA: 1 - 0 IL: 1 - 0 OH: 1 - 0 GA: 1 - 0 NC: 1 - 0 NJ: 1 - 0 VA: 1 - 0 WA: 1 - 0 Total of everywhere else: 0 - 139008197 Grand total: 12 - 139008197 *Electoral vote:* *279* - 259

This must be old... there have now been FOUR elections lost by candidates who had the most popular votes!

We should, at the very least, do it like Maine and Nebraska. They split their electoral college votes according to the percent of votes each candidate gets in that state. Makes it more representative. I can’t fathom why the other states don’t do that.

The city argument is even worse since you’ll never be able to convince everyone in the city to vote for you. And it wouldn’t be a winner takes all situation without the EC.

And that's only 78% of voters not liking you. Almost 40% of American's don't vote, which means you only need 15% of total Americans to like you.......

Can you make a video on mob rule? I think this subject needs a little more elaboration

Thank you for the interesting education on the relative value of voters' votes. At the end you said "If we abolish the Electoral College and simply let citizens vote for the president directly, all of these problems will go away and everyone's vote will be equal." Everyone's vote might get closer to equal, but not all the problems will go away because each state regulates the various rules dealing with voting in the state by the state. Since we are voting for a national leader, I think in order to make everyone's vote equal - that the federal government would have to hold jurisdiction over the voting, which means you don't have to be "home" to vote, you can vote wherever you are. Since the federal government already has your social security number, then your vote could simply be ###-##-####-PR/PD/PG/PI/PP (Presidential Republican/Democrat/Green/Independent/People's Party), but if you really want to make an election fair, then you'd abolish parties as well. The DNC did a great deal to interfere with the primaries in this election cycle. And the Republicans are so focused on the goal and control that they will keep most of their dirty laundry private or secret in order to get their guy in, even if there are problems within the party - which are 2 extreme opposites. You correctly use the word "Citizen" as in "Citizen of the USA", not Texas or Ohio (for the Presidential vote). Continuing along these lines - EVERY adult should be allowed to vote. This would include people in prison, people on parole and any other citizens that have had their right to vote taken away by magical thinking contrasted by any clear Constitutional guidelines. In addition to that, the vote is also skewed by economics/class/race/technology/marital status/etc. What is needed is a greater incentive for any citizen to go out and vote. The more of us that vote the more accurate the vote will be. So perhaps in the beginning you get a substantial tax benefit somehow for voting. And maybe that benefit becomes cumulative - so that each 4yr Presidential voting cycle your benefit (whatever that maybe) increases per times you've voted. In 2017 the US average life expectancy age was 78.54. If you vote when you are 18 for the first time, then you will get about 15 chances to vote up to that life expectancy mark. So perhaps for every Presidential Election you vote in, you get 2 weeks of your weekly avg income declared tax free. So at age 78, 30 weeks of your 52 weeks would be tax free. You'd have to live to at least 122 to get your income for the entire year tax free. In addition to giving adults incentives to vote, we could create a shadow vote for high school students grades 9-12 (under age 18). The function of this would be to provide at least 4 years of some kind of education about how our political system works, what the policy positions are for each candidate, what their voting record has been historically from other political positions state and federal and everything else such a shadow vote system might teach young people - as well as being published nationally to give a hint at how the voters of tomorrow feel/think about the candidates of today. Another change we could make to the voting process would be to allow any adult to vote ANY time during the same year as the vote is being held on the first Tuesday in November. The purpose of this would be to give Citizens a longer period in which to cast their vote, creating 11:59:59 pm on the day of the election as the cut-off date for ANY VOTES. Such a rule/law would eliminate almost all if not all of the life events that might keep a citizen from voting in the very narrow window we currently have. Also, a proof-of-vote for each Citizen that does vote seems like it could reduce voter fraud. There are many upgrades we could create for a better government for the people, by the people. Oh and I suppose there should be a Presidential Recall as well, which would be its own vote by each citizen.

After watching so many of your videos this year, I have to wonder, did you put out a correction video about calling Illinois "Hoosiers"? ~Trav