The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election
Added 2019-11-20 16:57:30 +0000 UTCThank you, my patrons, for making this video possible.
Footnote: https://youtu.be/6JN4RI7nkes
Discuss these videos on the reddit
Comments
I would love to see a video redoing a few recent elections with updated projections of new electoral numbers.
Michael Ball
2019-11-25 08:00:34 +0000 UTCI like the idea behind this plan, except... How can you be sure that some state won't quickly back out the first time an election doesn't go their way?
Quark Twain
2019-11-22 09:08:58 +0000 UTCThe problem with more Representatives is that we don't have that many media outlets investigating them. And it does nothing about the primary blockade of the Senate.
Crissa Kentavr
2019-11-21 18:04:29 +0000 UTCWell. we (Israel) have our 3rd elections and no real government for a year now, so it can be worse.
Ni Knight
2019-11-21 10:35:31 +0000 UTCConfirmed: I absolutely need a "Top Sneaky" rubber stamp to apply liberally to... well, a very large number of things. Consider this for merch? But if not... please don't hold it against me if I go out and make one for personal use. =)
Quantum Cat
2019-11-21 04:55:58 +0000 UTCI commend the prominent use of the Colorado state flag. It’s underrated, imo. :)
Charlie Cooksey
2019-11-21 01:20:41 +0000 UTCI don't know why you call it "sneaky," Grey. There's nothing really sneaky about it. And it's almost certain not to reach critical mass before the 2020 elections. Your title seems disappointingly clickbaity.
Vandy Beth Glenn
2019-11-20 21:32:13 +0000 UTCThe part about how this system was designed to be unrepresentative is missing an important piece of historical context: Back in the founding father days, states had one representative (and thus one electoral vote) per 30,000 people with no cap, but this was changed by the permanent apportionment act of 1929, which capped the number of representatives at 435. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/#:~:targetText=On%20this%20date%2C%20the%20House,delegation%20depended%20on%20its%20population. Under the rules as originally written, California's 39.5 million people wouldn't get 55 electoral votes, they would get 1,318 Electoral votes from their representatives, plus two from their Senators, for *1320* total), whereas Wyoming's 577,737 people would get 22, Wyomingites are actually still a little disproportionately represented this way, but it's far far less unbalanced that the 1929 Act made it.
Daniel Kelly
2019-11-20 20:23:43 +0000 UTCGlad to see this getting attention from a somewhat mainstream source!
Olivia Appleton
2019-11-20 18:17:51 +0000 UTCI saw the footnote on apportionment and I also keep a spreadsheet with the Census estimates released in late December. I can share the numbers with you, perhaps material for a video on why and how seats change :)
Dennis Negron-Rivera
2019-11-20 18:13:30 +0000 UTCHad to watch a few times, but I dig it. I find your videos and conversations about voting methods so fascinating! Also, has the iPad and Apple Pencil been on the desk in all the videos or am I just noticing now?
Tom Kelly
2019-11-20 17:45:13 +0000 UTCDid you just use the adjective "Grondian" in reference to a battering ram? Love it!
Ryan Smith
2019-11-20 17:38:24 +0000 UTCAnd thank you for making these videos.
Professor Metal Gear
2019-11-20 16:58:23 +0000 UTC
