+Exobyte Monolith Third-party-candidate wins!

*No Third Party Candidate* Well, shit- Wait, what's this- Oh.... *goes around the corner and burns "Deez Nuts"'s Candidacy papers*

hmm, my, what a problem, (the coin landed in a crack) do we both win, or do we both lose?

Just do 'heads I win tails you lose' next time against your opponent if they're gullible enough

+Kevin Chiem Simple, they both become -king- president

What an honest politician...

I live in Alaska and that is our rep his name is papa bear

If you look up the rep for Alaska he kind of looks like a bear

Zorbak962 I

Honestly we need a new representative. Don Young has been our rep since 1973 for god's sake. Thats 46 years!!! Talk about career politicians am I right.

bruh

Bruh

bruh

bruh

bruh

I certainly do. Sadly, Idk how many others do. Sometimes I wonder if the Founding Fathers moonlit as fortune tellers

Literally impossible as long as people disagree

Oh yeah me and ol' george go way back. Clever man he was.

STAHP they way he helped set this system up, it was inevitable

@@josephandersonslaugh4923 agreed but parties are not always terrible just when people only vote for one party no matter what. There are a supprising number of people who only vote one way because that's how they always voted

Ezio133798 lol same

That sounds like a good t-shirt

Ezio133798 Basically, to make America, say, communist, win support of the smaller states, tie the Democrats and Republicans, and boom, America is communist.

@@alohadubs7683, not quite. America's president is communist. The president has limited power, and depends on Congress to pass laws. Without Congress' favour, a Communist president would have a hard time doing much communism.

...And vice versa

This comment aged very well.

*_YOU FOOL, YOU DOOMED US ALL!_*

coronavirus

Dude...

Ho boy, this is gonna be fun...

Would be interested to see vp vote for self

And if There is A president from the different party elected. It would get really weird. Real fast...

I wonder why this situation isn’t treated the same as a Presidential impeachment trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate so that the Bono’s removed from a situation involving Presidential succession.

Wait so does the current house vote or the newly voted house that comes in January.

@@J.C.3 newly voted House

Most underrated comment

No he couldn't. He got in too late to register for most states, leaving him with like 5 states to run in.

@@DaDARKPass I think he meant that theoretically the Congress could vote in Kayne as the president in the case of electoral votes tie.

@@py8554 Kanye would need to win at least 1 state or have one of the electoral college members go against their states wishes in order to be in the top 3

The small states love him.

Some Person The 12th amendment (which dictates this crazy shit) was written in 1804(19th century).

@@iustinianconstantinescu5498 4 years

My motto is: if it's old, it must be wrong.

Ever wonder what happens what the government does when you say things publicly that people dont like? Or what the government can do to you for practicing your own religion? Dont worry, theres an 18th century solution to the problem!

MJ Willard It survives by the continued confidence of the population to retain it, and groups who write new constitutions include clauses like freedom of speech and thought in their new documents as well. How many people would have ever come up with this type of method for resolving a tie like this today?

Strider755 u are right. the vise president is the president of the usa senate. he or she can break a tie.

The senate could however fail if two candidates were to tie for second place, and the senate vote continually ends with nobody taking a majority.

That's impossible because the Senate picks from the top two.

Strider755 If two people are tied for second however, they'd have to pick between more than two.

The Senate is guaranteed to get a winner first vote. They only consider the top two, and the veep breaks a tie. This is deliberate, so there will be an approved, properly elected person to act as president if the house can not make up its mind.

i really hope it does

@@whitephoenixofthecrown2099 would be pretty funny

mhm

Hmmmm

@@sawri uhuh

That's what I was thinking I don't know when they decided not to that anymore but you can tell it was a negative to let the party decide it's own vp it should always be second runner up. Scary as that is now to think about it hillary VP to trump.

The 11th amendment they passed rhe 12th around the same time it was used to cheat Jackson out of the Presidency the first time he ran. Jackson at least felt cheated since he won the popular vote and wanted to abolish the Electoral college but never got around to it.

@@revan1202 In other countries that do it I am pretty sure it not the runner up for president the VP is different election all together.

+Stephen H well studies show that flipping a coin is a 51-49 chance in favour of the starting side... so its not quite democratic enough for MURICA

No, we mean flip a fair coin. (Seriously, six flips, all for Hillary? That's a 1.5625% chance of happening? Bernie may have the one in a billion chance of a bird going to his podium, but that 1/64 Chance Hillary got was more valuable)

+JonHT96 The laws of probability don't work like that. Each coin flip is a50-50 shot; they don't stack to make it more or less likely to land a certain way up, every flip of the coin is a stand-alone event. You can flip a coin a billion times, all of them somehow landing heads up, but that doesn't affect the laws of probability one iota; flip number billion and one will still have the same exact 50-50 chance as flip number one. Also, just because there is a low chance of something happening doesn't mean that it makes that improbable event impossible, it's just improbable. An example would be the odds of a meteor entering a particular part of the Earth's atmosphere at a particular time of day and so on. The likelihood of such an event may be astronomically low once all the factors are calculated, but that won't stop such events happening all the time. It's the way the world is; no conspiracies, just the nature of reality. Just a friendly reminder of how mathematics works in the real world (and before you call me a Trump loon, yes I'm a Democrat).

republicazi32 Oh, I know it wasn't impossible. I know that wining six flips in a row is possible. And while yes, it was 50/50 each time, that still means winning six times consecutively is 1/64. After that first 50/50, the next thing would be 50/50 too. Well, that means winning both would be 1/4 or 25% because you were dividing up the 50% in two again. And again. And again. And again. Annndddd again. And by the end, the chances of winning all 6 is 1/64, even if each is 50/50.

+republicazi In fact, you have a 100% of flipping one side. If you had a 50% of flipping both, you could actually flip both at the same time.

give us an example of a better method

Well, in the US you could have the Representatives vote directly, they're an odd number after all. In our case? Run another election. And if that still doesn't work, have the City Council vote between the two (it'd be a good idea as the Mayor has to work closely with the Council, so it's logical to have the majority support for budgets and projects).

Pah. That is just the office of mayor's. Take a look at Sweden between 1973 and '76, there you'll find true lunacy. The parliament at that point had 350 members, and that year the result was split 175 - 175 between the socialists and the liberals. And so every single issue where they couldn't compromise, the issue was decided by drawing lots, thus earning that election the name "the lottery parliament". The liberals won at lottery 40 and the socialists 39 times.

Smygskytt #1 Now THAT is crazy. Maybe even crazier is that the split was almost a perfect 50/50... and probably each party got the bills passed that they didn't care so much for, so that both became angry ^_^

Ildskalli From what I can find, there was very few times when the drawing of lots was actually required. Instead, the governing socialists sought a broad support and compromise across the parliamentary parties.

hi

hello

sup

Its looking like it will.

Lol. Yes. Frick yes.

I wouldn't bet on NC going Biden, MI and PA are looking more likely.

Shut up

What was the viewer count a week ago?

@@jonathanwalther 3.0 M

@@thomase5746 yeah it blowin up then

I believe that tgey've been offered it several times if I'm not mistaken. They keep refusing; not seat in Congress but less taxes. They feel it's a win.

They don't want to be a state when they get the benefits without paying taxes

But now they have to either leave the country or become a state, or spend years upon years toiling as slave labor for the owners of their debt.

Also, they do pay SOME taxes, just not all of them.

Alexander West False, only people in PR that pay federal taxes are people that work for the federal government

I'm working on one right now! :D

That wouldn't be a fan fic, that would just be fiction.

Luna it's your idea you should write it :) I would 100% read it. But don't make it 4 years make it like 2-3yrs then the president gets it and fucks everything over ;)

If you really are and post it give us the link!

There are two difficulties with this concept. 1. The Senate would simultaneously be voting for vice president, and if a VP is elected then he would immediately replace the Speaker as Acting President. Not sure if the sitting VP would break a tie in the Senate. 2. The House isn't allowed to conduct any other business until they elect a President. So they literally couldn't introduce any legislation at all, in which case the Acting President wouldn't exactly be able to made to look good.

None of these fanciful scenarios will happen in real life practice. All these are a bunch of cute little math exercises meant to misinform the uneducated. Nothing to get worried about.

+D Smith Imagine a popular independent candidate and a close situation between the 2 largest parties. Getting 26 states is the hardest part. But it can be achieved if they are granted special treatment during the presidency. I'd suppose that many of the smaller states (and alaska with just one guy who could receive easy reelections) would vote for this independent candidate because they'd have a huge advantage over the bigger states. A feast for any representative. It's mostly unlikely due to the two-party system. Not because of the needed steps to become president.

+NagencaTV Simply imagine Trump running as third party candidate. Neither the Republican nor the Democrat candidate has the majority. Then the House of representatives would have to decide. Who would win ?

+Fatortu Good question. Right now, we don't know who the Democratic or Republican nominees will be. Assuming that Trump runs as an independent and to the right of the Republican nominee, he could possibly swing a few red states to the Democratic nominee. If Trump runs to the left of the Republican nominee, he could win a couple of red states and maybe a couple of small blue states. If in the unlikely event that Trump could win enough states to cause a contingent election in the House of Representatives, it is likely that the election would go the nominee whose party controls a majority of House delegations but not necessarily the party that holds the House majority.

D Smith I think the Republican nominee would get elected because the GOP usually control more states and congressmen are unlikely to vote for Trump...

Or, a simple popular vote?

The Garden of Eatin I was going to suggest a pumpkin chunkin contest but your idea just might be crazy enough to work too.

Whoa there... this is the internet. You won't last long here with your "rational, reasonable thinking" nonsense.

Penalty shoot-out.

Rouverius i would prefer turning all candidates lose on an island, and make it a presidency of the survivor. But then the Democrats would find a way to rig that too.

I got this UKposts recommendation on November 11, 2020, just after the 2020 federal election, and early in the electoral turmoil. Thankfully, a candidate got more than 270 electoral votes this year, so this election could have been crazier!

DONT LIKE ITS AT 69 *NOICE*

Let the censorship begin!

@@legendgames128 censorship?

In order for the people to vote directly for President, the electoral college must be abolished. In order for the electoral college to be abolished, there must be a Constitutional Amendment. In order to pass a Constitutional Amendment, a proposed Amendment must pass 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives AND pass a 2/3 vote in the Senate AND pass a majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures. Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is a lot of work. Voting directly for President likely will never happen.

Is it too much work to instate a more functional government-wait, never mind.....

Is it too much work to pick a book or Google subjects such as federalism or the US Constitution? Apparently for some people it is. The Constitutional Amendment process deliberately made it difficult to change the Constitution. The Constitution is not and was never designed to represent the will of the majority of the people. The Constitution is the Rule of Law meant to protect the natural rights of everyone.

Jude Pelaez That would be a bad idea. The democrat candidate would never lose which would be bad because then we'd have essentially a one-party system which might as well be a fancy dictatorship. Pure popularity voting is a pretty bad idea overall because it doesn't accurately represent the different cultures and opinions within a voting system, it just lets the popular guy stay popular forever and never have any competition which is quite not good.

julian1000 1. US has a term limit. 2. The person who get most votes in the electoral has most often the most popular votes too. 3. Election is a popularity contest, direct voting wouldn't change it. 4. Both system are bad. Uni-chamber Parliamentarianism is the way to go. Remove the senate and let the Congress elected the president/prime-minister. Which is how it is done in most European countries. There is no point of having a president that doesn't have support in Congress. And having a senate would just cause grid-lock and not an effective government.

You must be dumb

I have no idea

Basically in 1776, British colonists in the 13 North American colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence, where they basically said "Fuck you Britain, I'm on my own, fuck off". Then the colonists fought the British off the colonies until they just left the US alone.

+ArgumentNotValidRBLX America is a continent, he is not dumb, he is right

+- TheRActivator - He said country

Zacho Gilman nice observation skills!

Aw man

so a creeper is house of representative

+mf4361 A prophet predicts things, not describe something that could theoretically happen. Im sure he didnt throw in the coin comment by coincidence.

some the olde time prophets were often dudes that warned people and governments to repent, behave, and get it together. kinda like Bernie actually often real pains in the ass. Now the oracles, they predicted the future. Or else they said what the king wanted, even better.

Prophets don't actually predict things. A prophet is a person who delivers a message from God. That message doesn't have to be about the future. I think you're thinking of a fortune teller or a psychic :)

Caucuses are such a stupid way to cast votes. Everyone has to stand around in a school gymnasium for hours, listen to speeches, and publicly admit their vote. Other than retired people who have nothing else to do, who has time for that? And why would anyone mandatory publicity to their vote?

best of 3, as it's written in the constitution

@@wolfganggluck6199 it’s called rock paper scissors, though.

How F-ed up does the United States have to be, for anybody to refuse to be President when offered the position?

it’s rock-paper-scissors in america

Actually, the office would go to the next in line, the Senate's President Pro Tempore. After that, it goes to the Secretary of State, and so on. There's a list of 17 people in line to the presidency.

Well put my friend! Also, you get a brohoof. /)

Or a 12 sided dice. That could work. Or, just get them to play Civ V and see who wins.

+Matthew Chapin Heads- Dem Tails- Rep Edge of the coin- 3rd party

so.... a dice?

Roll a d20

He used to put a creeper in all of his videos as a joke

Did you see the one at 0:28 though? Note: He only puts it in videos where he has images of a big seating, like the house or United Nations.

Zacho Gilman or videos with images of distant castles

WOW, nice observation.

"Thats a bad idea" -the people who started the country

Because all democrats are pussies, except Sanders but he's a socialist

+Kenpachi Zaraki How does that matter? That's a good thing!

***** why not?

***** Socialism as an economic system has the same progression through classes as capitalism. However, profits are shared equally rather then just to the top executives. The easiest way to think about it is that the board of directors is made up of every employee in the company. Equal say. Democracy in the workplace. Wanna outsource a department? Everyone votes on it. Want to save a buck by using dangerous chemicals? Everyone gets a vote.

***** alright

HOUSE: WHY DID WE GET A TIE AGAIN! IDAHO: DONT WORRY WYOMING IS SICK!

Just convince them to come, it's how caesar was assassinated

Grey is a fairly vocal opponent of the electoral college.

Popular vote should be the only valid vote Change my mind

@@masicbemester Agreed. The electoral college system is semi-democratic unlike popular vote systems which are fully democratic.

@@masicbemester Cities and heavy populated states would decide everything. All a politician would have to do is win over the population of New York and Cali because it's shown that people In the same general area have similar thoughts and values. With the electoral college every state is important and helps prevent basically two states from ruling over the others.

Also you got to consider the size of each state. An American state is more comparable to an entire European country in size and population. Each state having its own culture,laws, and values.

They do not elect the head of the government by popular vote.

This kind of system has a high chance of ending up with a hung parliament and nothing ever gets done other than petty squabbling

Ah yeah Germany with it's famously decisive, easily ruling, and not-hung parliament?

Popular to be a cynic now a days.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Did you check out the last season? One of the screenwriters was definitely inspired by this video.

It's worse when the actor is a rapist.

@@whoami30204 The accusation was dropped, so stop acting stupid

Unless there are three or more candidates

Nathan only the top two candidates for VP would be up for vote to prevent a tie. But that doesn’t mean a Senator won’t abstain, causing the Senate to be deadlocked.

*democracy is paralysed* @bjdon99: bUt wHat DoEs ThIs MeAn FoR WaLL sTrEeT??? THaT's tHe BiGgEst ConCeRn

Ya it's really awkward during meetings.

It's actually a man named Don Young, who has had the position since 1973. Alaska is a district where he polls with large margins, and has an extremely safe seat.

James Madison is the closest thing to a final authority we can get on the constitution since he wrote the thing. Each law and amendment should be examined by the rhetoric used to pass it. If we alterted such meanings then redraft a law that suits our modern needs.

The 24th amendment of all things suggests that's not very true. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President... ... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

@Aditya Chavarkar This would be equivalent to the EU members electing the EU parliament by popular vote instead of each country having equal say. The entire continent's policies would be dictated by a couple countries and all the policies would benefit only those countries at the expense of the rest. The end result would be 1) The entire continent would suffer 2) The sovereignty of all of the the member States would be obviated and 3) the EU would collapse into war.

@@GoSlash27 seats in the EU parliament are already distributed based on the population of each member state

@@GoSlash27 well in EU it works a bit different because formally EU has three different acting presidents (president of European council, president of European commission and president of European Parliament) each one is chosen in a different way. President of European Parliament is chosen from Members of the European Parliament (and those members are elected by all adult citizens of the EU), president of European Council is elected by heads of state of each member country and president of European Commission is chosen by the European Commission and then elected by European Parliament.

Yes. That's exactly what it means. It's stupid I know

Where do you live?

jesusthroughmary Finland. I've been trying to understand the whole US presidential election process for the past few months.

It's even worse, because only 26 of the states requires their electors to vote as the people want. The other 24 can basically flip off their citizens and cast a vote for who THEY want, not who the PEOPLE want.

The popular elections are in reality state elections to elect the state's electors to the electoral college. The US as a federation puts real sovereignty in the states, not the people. To be very technical about it, it is the states who decides how their electors are selected. They just happen to all have them decided by popular vote.

Just the other day I learned about a story where the next King is chosen by throwing the head of the last king out into the crowd -- the person who caught the head was the next King. The term of the king was limited to 1 year.

​@@alpheusmadsen8485 so you are king for 1 year and then gets beheaded? Does that story by any chance is in france??

lol

Except that he didn't. All he did was stop a recount that had gone 8 times already in Bush's favor.

The margin got more narrow each time the votes where counted they ran out of time to recount anyways. maybe gore actually won Florida but unfortunately we will never know now.

***** Okay.

...replaced with what? We still have the EC because no one has conceived a better plan to elect the POTUS. Dont say national popular vote. NPV has been shot down numerous times and is obviously a bad idea.

dandyky What makes it a bad idea?

Problem is like the speaker said electoral college favors the small states. And, to change the electoral college requires 3/4 of congress and 2/3 of the states. So the smaller states have vested interest in keeping the EC. This means it won't be changed.

+0011peace +1

ranerk inasa yeah and it sucks because you can win popular vote but not the electoral vote

Like what just happened.

David Kovalev cgp made a video on how it happens

Carson Smith Yeah, I've been re-watching those lately, it's crazy how complicated and stupid the electoral college is.

Carson Smith yeah but if you live in a small state like me. It sucks being steamrolled by California or any other state with a large population.

AKA Software fails us all

Well done and thank you! The EC is intended to balance the power between the population and the states. Its that simple!

dandyky Thank you. What irks me about what CGP Grey does here is that he takes the populationist stance not as the conclusion of his argument, but as a premise, unquestioned, without any apparent support. I know it's just a three and a half minute video, but it just seems deceptive to ignore the history of how this whole situation came to be. I think many of his other videos are really great though. :)

I've become somewhat more suspicious of CGP Grey in the past few years. Now I think he wants places where Democrats live to get more representation not because they have more people (although this is admittedly true) but because they have more Democrats.

I think dead one wins is better

nancy for president!

In a contingent election, according to the 12th amendment, the House must choose from the top 3 presidential candidates, and the Senate must choose from the top 2 vice-presidential candidates. So they could not just vote for a presidential candidate instead. HOWEVER. If someone ran for both the presidential AND vice-presidential tickets, or enough faithless electors voted a presidential candidate for the vice-president ticket, then it would be possible. But, extremely unlikely.

Remove the have and ed, we might need it again