Summary
âž¡ In 2022, Congress passed a law to clarify the vice president’s role in the Electoral College and make it harder for objections to disrupt the process. However, there are still ways to exploit the system. Some suggest replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote system, but this could disadvantage less populated states. Other proposals include modifying the Electoral College to address its issues, such as awarding electoral votes based on the proportion of the popular vote each candidate receives within a state.
âž¡ The article discusses the role of the Electoral College in U.S. presidential elections. It suggests that the Electoral College was intended to balance power among states and prevent post-election disputes. However, it argues that the Electoral College has not prevented political disputes or legal battles, and has instead intensified them. The article also suggests that the Electoral College gives disproportionate importance to swing states, and that a national popular vote might be a fairer system.
âž¡ The text discusses the concept of the Electoral College and its role in U.S. elections. It explains that the Electoral College was not designed to favor any political party or to support racism, but to prevent the government from becoming too large. The text also clarifies that the Electoral College ensures that elections are nationwide and not just focused on densely populated states. Lastly, it argues that the Electoral College is not outdated, but a necessary guard against tyranny, ensuring that smaller states and rural areas have a voice.
âž¡ The text discusses the concept of diversification, the electoral college, and the three-fifths compromise. It explains how these systems were designed to balance power and encourage the abolition of slavery, not to support it. The text also discusses the controversy of the 1876 election and the role of faithless electors. Lastly, it criticizes the idea that the Vice President can change the election outcome and the recent changes to the electoral vote certification process.
âž¡ The text discusses the complexities of the U.S. electoral system, emphasizing the importance of individual electors and state legislatures in the process. It criticizes the idea of a national popular vote and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, arguing they undermine the federal republic structure of the U.S. The text also highlights the role of the House of Representatives in resolving situations where no presidential candidate receives a majority of electors. Lastly, it argues for a return to the original electoral college system and emphasizes the U.S.’s unique status as a federal republic, not a democracy.
âž¡ The speaker discusses potential reforms to the electoral college system, including adopting the Nebraska and Maine style of awarding electors, the winner-take-all method, or a proportional plan. They express frustration with people who don’t understand the system and fear that changes could make it worse. They also mention their upcoming work, including an article and a possible return to making videos. The speaker ends by thanking their audience and promoting their book and blog.
Transcript
Yeah, I think, I think specific. At the bottom it says the electoral College sucks. Yeah, I think it’s exact words. Well, you’ll see that because that’s exactly what it starts with. It starts with the electoral College sucks. So that said, you know, I feel it’s, you know, this is a topic that I know Doug can address that, you know, so many people out there think that the electoral college is antiquated and it’s bullshit. And we need to go back to, we just need to go to a, you know, to, to a vote or to, to a word.
I’m looking for a popular vote. Matter of fact, he calls it antiquated, but because he’s a lawyer, he actually uses the word anachronistic. Yeah, well, you know, this, this is my, this is my opinion. Anybody who is, who has a degree, like a big, like a fancy degree, the more letters they have behind their name, the more stupid they are. Now that doesn’t mean that they can’t think on their feet, but it means that they’re indoctrinated into a way of thinking. And sometimes they can’t think outside the box or look critically at what something is supposed to be.
They look at it as what they want it to be. So that said, what do you say, Mr. Gibbs? Let’s go ahead and play this thing so that we can get this off of our. And folks, don’t worry, we’re going to address all. Yeah, we’re going to hammer. We’re going to go through it all. So here we go. And this is a smug dude. Oh, he. Yeah, I think you’re, you’re being kind when you say smug. College sucks. Since 1992, 32 years ago, Republicans have only won the popular vote once. And that was George W. Bush’s second term following 9 11.
Yet the Republicans won the presidency three out of the last eight times. That is deeply disturbing. But imagine this world, this just in. Given the influx of Californians to Texas, thanks in large part to a certain South African billionaire re domiciling all of his tech companies in the Lone Star State, Texas has now flipped Blue. Now all 40 of Texas electoral College votes will go to the Democratic candidate, and Republicans will never win the presidency again. So I guess we all love the Electoral College now, right? Actually, no. Everyone still hates it here. This is super bad, too, from the standpoint of democracy.
And that’s because the Electoral College is a terrible institution that was used to entrench slavery, kill Reconstruction, and deny the American people the right to pick their leaders. And on top of that, it deeply distorts the election, even when it benefits your favorite team. Now, getting rid of the Electoral College completely would require a constitutional amendment. But in the last 200 years, there have been more than 700 attempts at fixing the Electoral College. In fact, more proposals for constitutional amendments than any other subject. So if the Electoral College is so despised, why is it still here? Well, today we’re going to tackle your burning questions about the Electoral College.
What it is, why it exists, and what we can do to fix this terrible, terrible institution. Now, when Americans vote in the presidential election, they are technically not voting directly for president. Instead, they are voting for a slate of electors pledged to vote for their chosen candidate. Each state is allocated a certain number of electorals based on its representation in Congress, which equals the number of senators plus the number of representatives in the House. Washington, D.C. is also allocated three electors under the 23rd Amendment, and this brings the total number of electors to538. A candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
In 48 states and the District of Columbia, the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in that state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. This is a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska use a different method where one electoral vote is awarded to the winner of a popular vote in each Congressional district. The two remaining votes go to the statewide winner. This is called the Congressional district method. But why does this weirdly anachronistic system exist? Well, in school, they probably taught you that the Electoral College would protect smaller states, but actually it was just another compromise caused by slavery.
By this time of the Constitutional Convention, delegates had already agreed to the Three Fifths compromise, which counted five slaves as equal to three free people in order to increase the South’s representation in Congress as compared to getting no representation based on the people that those states enslaved. The Compromise allowed slave states to count 60% of their enslaved population, boosting their representation in Congress and their influence in the presidential elections through the Electoral College. James Madison preferred popular elections, but he had to find a compromise. He said that although the people were the fittest to choose the president, the right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states.
And the Southern states could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. And thus the Electoral College was designed to placate the slave state. Now, it would have been nice if this politically expedient compromise hadn’t outlasted slavery itself. However, the Electoral College’s worst moment has yet to come. The election of 1876 was a mess in ways that should sound familiar. Four states sent two rival slates of Democratic and Republican electors to Congress. And the Democrat, Samuel Tilden, won the popular vote, but was one vote shy in the Electoral College. A panel of legislators and Supreme Court justices awarded the disputed electors to Republican Rutherford B.
Hayes. Democrats initially refused to go along with the plan. Then Hayes offered compromise. He agreed to withdraw Northern troops who were stationed in the south to protect black voters if Democrats dropped their opposition. Democrats agreed, and Hayes was inaugurated. And at this point, there were hundreds of black men serving in Congress, state legislatures, and local offices all across the South. But this compromise effectively ended Reconstruction, ushering in decades of segregation and voter suppression. So, yeah, have no doubt the Electoral College is one of the last institutional pillars of slavery. Now, when you look at how the Electoral College works today, there are some obvious weaknesses.
Let’s start with the electors. After the popular vote. The winning slate of electors in each state convenes in December to cast their official votes for President and Vice president. Electors are usually people who have been active in the state political party, and the electors send their votes to Congress, where the results are officially counted in early January. Electors are generally expected to vote according to the results of their state’s popular vote. However, some electors have historically been what are known as faithless electors, meaning they did not vote as pledged. Some states have passed laws to prevent this.
And in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states can require electors to follow the will of voters and enforce penalties on faithless electors. And of course, certain law school professors have advocated for faithless electors to follow the popular vote and screw Trump out of another Trump presidency. But what happens if a state doesn’t have a law penalizing faithless electors? Well, we don’t really know. Although a majority of states penalize faithless electors, Pennsylvania does not. And here’s an unfun fact about the 2024 election. One third of Republican electors in battleground states participated in Trump’s fake elector scheme in 2020.
Now, I’m guessing that might pose a few problems, but I don’t know. I’m not James Madison. Now, the problems don’t stop there. The newly elected Congress meets in a joint session in early January to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner. This used to be pretty uneventful, but in 2024, we’ll all be holding our breath to see if Congress remembers how to count and whether there’s another violent insurrection. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has already said he’s not sure if Republicans will be voting for the person who receives the most electoral votes, if that person’s name is Kamala Harris.
And speaking of Kamala Harris, the vice president, in their role as the president of the Senate, presides over the session. Every reputable legal scholar who has not sold their soul to the devil agrees that the vice president has no authority to change the outcome of the election by rejecting electors. But in 2021, Donald Trump and the Republican Party asserted that Mike Pence should have had the courage to make Trump president again. And in the interim, Congress has since addressed some of the weaknesses of the law regarding the Electoral College. In 2022, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement act, which clarifies that the vice president’s role during the certification of electoral votes is strictly ceremonial.
The act also changed the threshold for objections. Previously, only one senator and one representative were required to object to a state’s electoral results. The new law increases this threshold to one fifth of both the Senate and the House, making it harder, but not impossible for frivolous objections to delay or disrupt the process. The law also includes provisions to prevent states from submitting multiple slates of electors. It mandates that each state must resolve any disputes over electors before submitting its official slate to Congress. But of course, there are still loopholes that bad faith actors can exploit. The the act provides that in most circumstances, the governor of a state, rather than a local elections board, must certify the slate of electors.
That minimizes some of the risk of malarkey, but as lawyer Neil Katyal points out, a governor could still certify a fake slate of electors. If a governor certifies a fake slate, that will be hard for Congress to fix. And some Republicans are already arguing that the act is unconstitutional anyway. If a candidate receives a majority of 270 electoral votes, they are declared the winner. If no candidate reaches 270 votes, the the election is decided by the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote to choose the president. If neither candidate gets to 270, then the outcome depends on who wins.
A very gerrymandered House of Representatives. And this might be the best argument for dumping the Electoral College altogether, or at least watching that one episode of Veep. Now, obviously, if you’re trying to amend the Constitution, you’ll want a good lawyer. But if you want a great lawyer, let my law firm, the Eagle team, help. If you’ve suffered a data breach, especially if you got one of those data breach letters saying that your Social Security had been leaked, it would all be over in less than a month after election day. Talk about a snoozefest. Aren’t we supposed to be having fun America? But yeah, the good old US Of A.
Is the only country in the world which uses the Electoral College system. And I bet we get much bigger ratings because of it. TV ratings being, of course, the most important thing here. So if we want to be a basic, boring democratic republic, we probably have two choices. Elect the president through popular vote or reform the Electoral College. Now, the first reform proposal would abolish the Electoral College and implement a single nationwide popular vote count. The candidate to receive the most votes would win, although some proposals include additional requirements. For example, the winner would be crowned only if they meet a minimum threshold, usually 40% of the vote.
If the winner needs a plurality of the vote and no candidate reaches this threshold, a second election would be held between the top two candidates. Or if you want more punishment, you could have Congress select the winner in a joint session. Now, proponents of a direct popular election argue that it offers the simplest, most democratic process for selecting the president. In this system, every voter’s choice would equally contribute to the election outcome, and all votes of the people would count the same, preventing any one state from being disproportionately advantaged or disadvantaged. But of course, there are some problems with direct election.
Larger states where more people live, like Texas and California, would have more voting power. Critics say this would hurt states with lots of land but little population, like the to Dakotas. And under a popular vote model, the candidates might spend all of their time in the six most populous states instead of spending their time in the six swingiest states. But of course, it’s kind of inchoate to think about states at all when you’re talking about the one national election that we have in this country. State borders themselves are arbitrary and irrelevant. When you’re talking about the person who’s the president of the entire country.
But in any event, it’s definitely the case that this kind of direct election model would absolutely require a constitutional amendment. But you might have heard of something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is an agreement among several states and the District of Columbia to allocate their electoral vote to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote regardless of the outcome in the individual states. Now, this compact only takes effect when enough states have joined to total 270 electoral votes, the minimum needed to win the presidency. The idea is to ensure that the winner of the National Popular Vote becomes president, bypassing the current electoral college system without needing a constitutional amendment.
Now, supporters of the popular vote compact say that states have the authority to change the rules for electing the president because of Article 2, Section 1, which gives states the rights to appoint presidential electors in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct. But if the National Popular Vote compact is a true interstate compact, then it may violate the compact clause, which provides the quote, no state shall, without consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state. In other words, the compact might require congressional assent, but still it would be way easier to get congressional consent rather than getting a constitutional Amendment.
But Article 2 of the Constitution may also be a barrier to reform through the popular vote Compact because it provides that the election of the president should occur indirectly through the election of the electoral college. Can the state simply opt out of the indirect election which is effectuated through the electoral College? Well, the best argument would be that Article 2, Section 1 provides the states with the power to appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may directly the electors who represent the state in the electoral college. Facially, the Constitution’s primary limitation on the power of a state to select its electors is the final number of electors awarded to each state.
So if you take that viewpoint, as long as enough states have joined to equal the total of 270 electoral votes, then the plan is constitutional. And there are some Supreme Court cases which would support this reading. However, in 2023, the Supreme Court decided a case called Harper vs. Moore, which shot down the independent state legislature theory. This radical interpretation of the Constitution would have given state legislatures almost total authority to regulate federal elections without interference of state courts or state constitutions. Before the ruling, it was theoretically possible that state legislatures could override the state constitutions when setting presidential election rules, including voter eligibility.
However, after more, it’s clear that states cannot ignore their constitutions when determining election results, and many State constitutions have specific restrictions on voter eligibility, and if even one state constitution forbids the state legislature from altering the voting base in presidential elections, the compact might not be able to take effect in that state, and it might then drop the total below whatever threshold would be required for it to take effect. Which is not to say that the National Vote Compact would definitely not work as currently conceived. But it is to say that to be perfectly certain, you would still need a constitutional amendment.
And that certainly has happened. In 2021, after the Capitol riots, Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen of Memphis proposed an amendment to elect the president by popular vote. It would have made the following changes to the system Provide for direct election of the President and Vice President by the people define voters as electors of the most populous branch of the state legislature in each state empower Congress to set uniform age qualifications formalize the joint candidacy of President and Vice President on the same ticket declare the candidates winning the greatest number of votes to be elected authorize Congress to provide for the times, place and manner of holding such elections and entitlement to inclusion on the ballot and authorize Congress to provide by law for the case of death of a candidate or candidates departure from the ticket.
But the resolution made so much sense that it died in committee. But there are also reform proposals that keep the Electoral College but modify it to address some of the problem areas. The first reform would be forcing all 50 states to adopt either the district plan used by Maine in Nebraska. The second reform would be to mandate all 50 states use the winner take all plan used by 48 states. The third plan would be a system that would award electoral votes in direct proportion to the percentage of votes gained by the competing candidate in each state.
That would address some of the inequities of the current system. In winner take all states, it doesn’t matter how close the popular vote is, the person who wins gets all the electors, and critics say that this disenfranchises voters who choose the losing candidates. If the US Switched to a proportional plan, electoral votes would be awarded based on the proportion of the popular vote each candidate receives within the state. And the argument goes that retaining the Electoral College will be closer to the Founders original vision for the US As a democratic republic. In a republic, the states have a legitimate role in many areas of governance, including the presidential election, and the reform approach would not completely dilute the voting power of smaller states.
But in 2009, the Congressional Research Service surveyed the popular vote model and the reform proposals and concluded that without the Electoral College acting as a filter, the Political system could fragment popular election, quote, would foster acrimonious and protracted post election struggles rather than eliminate them. For instance, as the presidential election of 2000 demonstrated, close results in a single state in a close election are likely to be bitterly contested under direct election. Those favoring the Electoral College argue every close election might resemble the post election contests in 2000, not just in one state, but nationwide, as both parties seek to gain every possible vote.
Such rancorous disputes could have profound negative effects on the political comedy in the nation, and in the worst case, might undermine the stability and legitimacy of the federal government. Well, that kind of made sense in 2009, but honestly, it’s kind of funny how naive that congressional report is in this day and age. Proponents of keeping the Electoral College did not foresee what would happen over the next decade. The Electoral College did absolutely nothing to stop the rancorous disputes, nor did it do anything to discourage protracted legal battles. On the contrary, it flamed them. Right now, the United States is so politically polarized that the government is arguably already unstable and the election hasn’t even happened yet.
And there are already over 125 lawsuits pending, in part because the vote in the six to seven key swing states matter way more than anything else. So political advertising and lawfare is extremely important in those states alone and basically nowhere else. In a world where the Electoral College didn’t exist, there would be little incentive to spend so much money and effort on the marginal votes in these arbitrary states, because the national vote is rarely close. And even if it is, so what? Great. Then there were roughly equal votes on either side. And it’s not going to be distorted by the electoral vote of some random state.
Of course, if your preferred presidential candidate doesn’t win this year, you may want to flee the country. And if you do, you’ll probably still want to get cellular data at a great price while abroad, which. All right, so we get that smug liberal off the phone or off the, off the screen. Yeah, so it was all I could do to watch that a second time. It took it. It took a lot of, A lot of willpower. Yeah, I, I had to hit the mute button to keep everybody from hearing me snort, grunt and laugh. Yeah, I mean that.
So I don’t know that guy. He, he very, he may well be. He may well, very, very, very well be a nice person, but he is definitely poisoned with left leaning politics. And. Well, it’s not just that, but also mainstream ideas regarding the Constitution. Exactly. I mean, when he talks about how the, the electoral College was done to because of slavery. I’m like, dude, what are you talking about? We’ll get to that. So, but anyway. All right, so the floor is yours, my friend. All right, where to start? Well, thing is, a large part of the video is not about what is said, it’s what’s not said or what is assumed.
Without providing context of history or the original mechanisms for the functioning of Electoral College, they created it. Let me say it in this way. The Electoral College right now is better than national popular vote. However, than the Electoral College. As good as it is at the moment was better. The problems that are arising and he spends a lot of time talking about the problems of the Electoral College, a lot of them. A vast majority of those problems wouldn’t exist if the Electoral College was operating as it was originally intended. But because the Electoral College is not functioning as originally intended, now we have these different problems pop up.
The 1876 election that he refers to, for example, was a direct result of us not following the Electoral College as it was originally intended. So a lot of this is just because we’re not even following the way it’s supposed to be, number one. Number two, because we believe it to be things that it’s not. And a lot of. And it’s funny too because there’s also a misappropriation. What I mean is this. There’s a part where he quotes James Madison and he makes it sound like the James Madison’s quotes were regarding placating the slave states at the time.
His quotes, when he made those quotes were made separately from the Constitutional Convention and the Electoral College. He was in a different setting saying it is true that the slave states don’t get the type of vote that they could get if, you know. And it was regarding three fist clause. And so, and so he kind of misappropriating the quotes a little bit. But, but I actually, if you don’t mind, I came up with a, a 25 point list and I, I doubt we’ll get through them all. I, I wonder if this might go to a number two.
I don’t know, maybe I can go through these quick enough. So he begins, the last 32 years, the Republicans have only won the popular vote once. Twice if you count 2024. This video obviously was made before election day. No, Was it? I thought it was made okay. I didn’t see that, I didn’t see the date that it was made. Yeah, he, he, he recorded it prior to. Oh, you know what, you’re right. He did record it because it but it was uploaded on November 5th. Yeah, they record it beforehand. But anyway, okay, so this is a talking point by the left a lot.
Therefore, the Republicans aren’t willing, really winning elections. And, you know, it just shows how unfair it is. Well, the reality is, if the Republican Party is or was the minority party, that’s exactly the reason for the Electoral College. And I’ll get back to this point later on. But in a nutshell, the purpose Electoral College was to answer. Well, to answer the idea about factions battling factions. And In Federalist number 10, James Madison addresses this. He says there are many factions, and the best way to keep the majority factions from controlling everything is to set the minority factions against them.
You can’t do that in a democracy. But with the Electoral College, what it does is it lifts up the minority factions so that there’s a closer, more battle, there’s a better voice for the minority voice, so that the. Because remember, the fear here is democracy, mob rule, major tyranny of the majority. You want there to be checks and balances. Okay, so point number two, the Electoral College is super bad. From the standpoint of democracy, he’s actually very correct. From the standpoint of democracy, it is bad. We’re not supposed to be a democracy, though. We’re a republic.
And this idea that we need to be more democratic is very dangerous. Founding Fathers have many quotes against democracy. The Electoral College, absolutely, from the standpoint of democracy is super bad for democracy. We don’t want democracy. And we’ll get deeper into that as we go. Point number three, Electoral College was used to entrench slavery, kill Reconstruction, deny the American people the right to pick their leaders. Once again, let’s work this one back from the end of the first, because we’re not a democracy, that does not mean you don’t pick your leaders. That means that your leaders locally are going to be a more direct election.
And then as you get further up, there’s going to be checks and balances, and it’s going to be indirect election or indirect democracy or a republic in many ways with the checks and balances like we see with Electoral College and other things like that. If we were democracy, we’d be voting on the Supreme Court justices. We’d be. We’d have a vote for amending the Constitution. We’d have a vote on, you know, the treaties. I mean, there’s mechanisms there on purpose to make sure that there’s checks and balances, that one group, including us, with our vote, doesn’t control everything.
As for the part about entrenching slavery. Slavery and killing Reconstruction. The Electoral college was not designed to entrench slavery. And the reason why I know that is because the founding fathers, and there’s many quotes that support this, believe that slavery would be gone within their lifetime. If they knew it was on its way out and they believed the Constitution would send it on its way out, why would they try to entrench it? They were trying to make a compromise so they could get all the states willing to sign the Constitution when it came to the House and the Senate.
As for the Electoral College, it wasn’t a compromise. It was designed to do, as I said earlier in federals 10, as explained by Madison, to give the minority voice the opportunity to have a voice. As for killing Reconstruction, it wasn’t. The Electoral college was not being used for that reason. There was some shenanigans going on by the Democrats. But to say that it was being used, that fashion is an inaccurate view of history. What was that? Too bad. Reconstruction was absolute. Well, I was. It was horrible. Anyway, you know, the more, the more I learn about Reconstruction, the more, the more I’m actually convinced in a way there was a party switch, but the party switch happened much earlier.
And the, well, the party switch wasn’t racism to not racism. It was big government to not big government when it came to Republicans. Right. And the in. Anyway, I mean, but you know, the, the. It’s interesting how he talked about how, oh, well, we’ll just, we’ll take the troops out of, of the state. Oh, you know, the south was under federal occupation for what, like 12, 13 years. When you say federal occupation. Understand, audience. He means military occupation. Yeah. And, and yeah, I should have been that way in the first place. I agree. Yeah. All right, point number four, the Electoral college deeply distorts the election.
Doesn’t distort it. It makes sure that it’s not a democracy. It protects us from the excesses of democracy. And he kind of goes over this later on in the video where he does correctly indicate that if we went, let’s say, to a national popular vote, which we’ll get back to later, that only the larger populated states would be where the campaigning would be. The other states wouldn’t matter. And so it doesn’t distort the election. It makes sure that the election is countrywide. Number five, getting rid of the Electoral college completely would require constitutional amendment. Correct. He nailed, he actually nailed something.
Got it right. Over the last 200. Broken clock is right twice a day. Number six, over the last 200 years, there have been more than 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Just because something is attacked often or it’s expected to be reformed often, doesn’t mean needs to be gotten rid of, first of all. Second of all, a lot of those reforms that went through are the problem. Right. What once again should be back to the original originally what it was, which as we go through this, we’ll get to that. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself here.
Number seven. When Americans vote in a presidential election, they are technically not voting directly for President. They’re voting for a slate of electors pledged to vote for their chosen candidate. That’s the way the it is. Now here’s the way it was originally. The Americans did not vote for President, did not vote for the person. They voted for their elector. Your elector represented your congressional district. Remember, the number of electors is based on the number of representatives and the number of senators, though the electors based on the house representatives were voted on by congressional district because that’s how many there were.
And each congressional district would vote for their electorate and then their elector would vote for President. So yes, the people never voted directly for President, but they didn’t vote for a slate of electors. They voted for their elector, the single elector. The other two that are appointed by the senate were given to the house and senate of the state legislature. So each house of the state legislature also got to choose an elector. Then those electors, two of them put in place by the state legislature and the rest of them by the vote of the people, then would vote for President.
Not based on how the people voted for President because they didn’t vote for President, but how they’re the people who voted for them would want them to, but they could vote any way they wanted. If a majority of the people thought they’re going to vote for this guy and they want to vote for that guy, well, for one thing, they’d probably never be an elector ever again. But they were able to do that. This was. There was checks and balances once again. All right, so now the slate of electors term is interesting because the way they look at it now is the.
The electors are not singular individuals. They are a slate or a group. And what. So what happens today is each state gets two slates of electors, A slate of Republican electors and a slate of Democratic electors. Who wins the state gets that slate of electors. Once again, originally intended, there was no slate. The elector represented the district or house of the state legislature that chose him. Right. And they did not. In other words, the in other words, the elector was the elected representative, right, of that congressional district or of that state legislative house. And it wasn’t a slate, first of all.
Second of all, there was only one set of electors, one for each congressional district and then one for each senatorial choice, which basically was the two that the state legislature would choose. Now, what we, and, and what it says, the Constitution, is that the choosing of those electors is based on what the legislature, state legislature wants. Now what we have is we have two slates of electors, Republican and Democrat, who are chosen by the parties. And then they say, yeah, but the legislature says they’re okay, well, that makes it very ceremonial. But it’s really the parties ultimately who are controlling who the electors are, which is completely unconstitutional.
And once again, there should only be one slate, not a second slate. Number eight. Each state is given a number of electors based on its representation in Congress. And that is true, once again, that the number of representatives and the two senators. And what this does is it creates the number. It gives the smaller states a little extra boost because of those senators. So when it comes to the electors voting, your more rural states and your smaller states are going to have a little bit bigger of a voice. Now, someone like him would say, yeah, to placate the slave states back then, because they were the rural states once again, they knew slavery was on its way out.
The, the point of electoral college was not to make sure the slave states got a voice, was to make sure that the rural states got a voice. And at the time, true, they were slave states, but once again, they were expecting slavery to be gone within their lifetimes. This was not created because of slavery. It was created because of looking down the road when it came to the dangers of democracy where the cities control everything. All right, so number nine, a candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of the state’s electoral votes.
Winner takes all system except Nebraska, Maine, who used the method of addressing electoral votes for each congressional district to the candidate the district wins and the two electors representing the two given to the Senate to the statewide winner. That’s essentially kind of sort of the way it was originally done when it came comes to Nebraska, Maine. Each elector for each electorate goes where it goes. This winner take all was not originally intended. It was not in. Now constitutionally, it’s not in there. So if the states want to do winner take all, constitutionally they can, but that’s not the way originally was, and that’s what was originally intended.
It would be completely possible the way it was originally created where if you had four candidates, you could have electoral votes in one state going in four different directions. The electoral vote went where that elector voted. Period. There was no winner, take all 10. Why does this weirdly anachronistic system exist? Anachronistic means outdated, antiquated, old fashioned, or appropriate to an earlier period. See, the problem with the left is they believe since we are so progressed, so modern, that anything that used to be done another way must be changed because we are more advanced, we are more evolved, and therefore those are just old methods that don’t work in reality.
What was created was looking back on history and realizing that when, when civilizations get into what they consider to be modern and progressive, they’re actually regressive and dictatorial and they are guards against that. This old fashioned system’s wonderful because it was created based on a, looking back on history about liberty and tyranny. Liberty and tyranny doesn’t change. The logos might, the icons might, the names of the people involved might, the names of the parties might, the names of the dictators might change. But what really is tyranny and liberty doesn’t change. The methods are essentially the same.
And it comes down to centralizing the government and using one voice to get control of everything. In this case, you’re trying to use democracy. Because see, in a system where there’s all kinds of checks and balances, tyranny can’t get control. But everything’s democracy. All they gotta do is pump a lot of money into the guy, give him some nice hair, nice smile, boom, he gets all the votes. And then if he doesn’t get that all the votes, that’s okay, they’re counting the votes. That’s beside the point. So this idea is, it comes down to the old saying, right? You don’t put all the eggs in one basket, right? You diversify.
Why? Because if you put everything in one place and something bad happens, you’re screwed across the board. But if you got checks and balances, you got other things going on, it disallows it from going that bad direction because not all of the parts will go, some of the parts will not. And that’s where, you know, you once again, checks and balances, that’s what the system’s all about. It’s about the appropriate distribution of power and the power of the vote as well. All right, number 11, in school they probably taught you that the electoral college would protect smaller states.
Yeah, I, I don’t think they’re teaching that in school anymore. But that Is the correct answer, but actually it leads to another compromise caused by slavery. Once again, it was not a compromise about slavery. They believe slavery could be gone before their. The end of their lives. First of all. Second of all, the three fifths compromise, and he talks about it a few times in this video, was not about giving the states extra. It was about guarding the states from having too much power and to encourage them to get rid of slavery. See, if your slaves are only being counted as 60%, 3/5, but you free them and they become citizens, guess what? They go from 60% to 100%, your representation goes up.
As Frederick Douglass so aptly explained, the three fifths clause actually encouraged the abolition of slavery, not the opposite. And the electoral college, while at the time, yes, slave states got a little bit more voice in electoral college, at the time, it wasn’t about slavery. It was about populated states versus rural states. And that’s what it was about. Once again, they expected slavery to be gone. They weren’t trying to placate slavery. They weren’t trying to encourage slavery. They were trying to get rid of slavery. But there were some compromises made absolutely, like the Fugitive Slave act and things like that.
But it was just to make sure that they kept the harmony and kept the union together until slavery could be gotten rid of. All right, number 12, 3/5 compromise allowed slave states to boost their representation of Congress, therefore allowing them to boost their influence in presidential elections through the electoral College, actually just went over that Frederick Douglass. Once again, three fifths clause didn’t necessarily boost their voice as much as it did limit their voice and encourage them to abolish slavery. Number 13, James Madison preferred popular elections, but had to find a compromise. He actually preferred popular elections prior and at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention.
If you read his letters between him and Jefferson during the convention, he moves from popular elections to understanding the importance of checks and balances. He goes from a guy who believes the big state should be in control to a guy who understands the importance of a federal republic. So if you quote Madison prior or. Or early on in the convention, you’re gonna get those answers that he. This. This video maker is saying. But if you quote him later on, then you realize he changed along the way. Having some technical difficulties with me, Doug? Yes, Doug. Yeah.
Okay, so go back about a minute and a half. About a minute and a half. I don’t know. I don’t remember exactly what it was. No, you froze. You froze and you were gone for, like, about a minute and a half. Oh, that’s weird. Okay, well, here, let me do something just to be on the safe side. Now you’re frozen again. Hang on. All right, so what I did is I killed a bunch of. Of tabs I had open. Hopefully that’ll help. Okay, well, then I guess people are telling me it must be on mine, so.
Doug was not frozen. Oh, okay. Everybody’s telling me you’re good. It was frozen on my end, so. My apologies. I only know what I see. Hey, yeah, you know, for all I know, there’s a cat back there playing games on some device. It’s interfering with your Internet connection, you know. Well, I am. Apparently, I am a. I’m an anti government conspiracy theorist, so. That is true. All right, so. So the quotes that he gave on James Madison also were misapplied. Once again, Madison’s quotes weren’t directly related to electoral college. And a lot of those quotes that he came up with were at the beginning of the convention and before the convention.
Madison changed as he got older. All right, number 14, election of 1876 caused controversy. It did. Disputed electors removed a haze to placate southern states and then and ended reconstruction. Electoral college is the last vintage that was used to placate slavery, racism. Now, the reason why that controversy in 1876 even appeared in the first place is because people were voting for president, and then the slates of electors were expected to vote as those people voted. If they had never done that and gone back to each elector voting independently, individually for their congressional district, not a winner take all, that election of 76 controversy would have never happened.
So the controversy doesn’t show us that we need reform. It shows us that they’ve screwed up the electoral college by changing it. As for being used to placate slavery and racism at the time, you’re just trying to hold together the Union. It has nothing to do with racism and slavery. At the time, it was more about their belief that they were trying to hold together the Union. Number 15. Electors are generally elected to vote in line with the popular vote of the state. Once again, I’ve told you that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. However, some electors have historically been what are known as faithless electors, meaning they did not vote as pledged.
Some states have passed laws to prevent this. And in a Supreme court case in 2020, the High Court ruled the states can require electors to follow the will of voters and enforce penalties on faithless electors. There’s nothing in the Constitution, first of all, that allows for that. Second of all, the he he acted like he said something at one point where, like no one knows why when it comes to these faithless electors, why is it even they even allowed to do that? Because originally they could vote for who they wanted. Because originally it wasn’t take winner take all.
Because originally it. The, the electors didn’t vote based on the vote of the people. The faithless electors or that phenomenon supports the idea that it used to be different. It used to be that they could choose as they want to choose. They didn’t have to follow the vote of the people. They’re confused about faith electrons, like they don’t understand. Well, how is this even possible? We don’t understand. It doesn’t fit our. It’s because that is a vestige of the way it used to be. We need to go back to what it used to be. All right, number 16.
Counting the votes who become counting of the votes became a violent insurrection in 2020. No, it didn’t. That was. If a bunch of conservatives believe in the Second Amendment, that was an insurrection. There was a piss poor insurrection. That’s beside the point. There wasn’t. If, listen, if there was an insurrection, they’d know. They’d have known it. The whole world would have known it. And we’re going to get into some of this because it was based on ideas that aren’t necessarily true. Every reputable legal scholar, he, he said, who has not sold their soul to the devil agrees that the Vice President, as President Senate, presiding over the counting of electoral votes, has no authority to change the outcome of the election by rejecting electors.
That’s true. He’s actually right. The, There is the. The Vice President has no. He’s there to count the electoral votes and that’s it. But in 2021, he says Donald Trump and the Republican Party asserted that Mike Pence should have the courage to make Trump president again. No, that’s not what they were saying. There were some people saying that Pence had that ability, but Pence himself and a lot of other people said no. The question was not overturning the election as the left wants to put out as a narrative, but whether or not the electoral votes, electoral votes from certain states were legitimate.
That’s what was the question. Then he says it was corrected by the Democrats of 2022 with the electoral Account Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement act, which clarifies that the Vice President’s role during the certification of electoral votes is strictly ceremonial. It’s not a certification, it’s a counting of votes. The electors certify their votes all that is is accounting of votes. I hate the fact that they call it a certification. It is not a certification. And it changed a threshold for object for objections from only one senator, one representative to the requirement to object to a state’s electoral results to a threshold of one fifth of both the Senate and the House.
Making it harder but not impossible for frivolous objections to delay disrupt the process. Process. Constitutionally there’s no authority for anybody in Congress to object and send back their electoral votes. Then what if they are flawed? What if there is a problem? Then the state legislatures and this or the states through the people are to call back those electors if they believe there is a problem. Of course there wouldn’t be problems if they weren’t based on the vote of the people. It would be each of them voting individually, period. It’s hard to con use fraud and something like that.
So that whole idea is based on the. The idea that our electoral college is something different than it is number 17 ruling. The ruling also prevents the states from submitting multiple slates of electors. Shouldn’t be able to. Like I said, there’s not supposed to be slates of electors. It’s individual electors, one slate, one group for each state. But each one is individual. They’re not supposed to be slates. Not supposed to be Republican electors and Democrat electors. So the whole idea once again is unconstitutional in the first place. Local election board must certify the slate of electors.
However, it still allows a governor to certify a fake slate of electors. The governor is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution having anything to do with the presidential election. It’s all about the legislature that is unconstitutional. Having the governor have any ability to certify anything. Well yeah, but what about the Secretary of state? Works for the government. I don’t care. Constitutionally, it’s up to the legislature. We’ll get to the legislature thing in a minute. He goes after it again a little bit later. Number 18. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electors, it is resolved by a very Jerry gerrymandered House of Representatives.
A very Gary man. It doesn’t matter. See, these people don’t seem to understand if it does go to the House of Representatives because nobody gets a majority. It’s not based on the representatives, it’s based on the states. Each state gets one vote, gerrymandered or not. It still comes down to each state gets one vote. And chances are whether it’s gerrymandered or not, certain states can go certain ways. And guys, some people have called it gerrymandering. But the proper. The proper pronunciation is gerrymandering. Yeah. It’s just FYI, if you guys are confused, that. That, you know is.
The proper pronunciation is Gary Mandarin. Yeah. Last guy. The guy’s last name Gary, when it’s based on. He had a. He had a. They. They did a special deal for him district. And. And someone said it looked like a salamander and his last name was Gary, so they called it a Gary Mander. That’s where it comes from. All right, well, I just. I. I just wanted to clarify because. No, no, I’m glad you did. I almost said gerrymander. I almost. Because it said so much, I had to correct myself. But anyway, number 19 is fun. America is the only country in the world using the electoral collar system.
Exactly. That’s why we’re exceptional. We don’t fall for the same crap the rest of the world does. We’re not falling for things that don’t work. We created something that is different. That’s why we’re exceptional. An exception to the rule. I’m glad we’re not like the rest of the world. We don’t want to be like the rest of the world. Or as mom used to say, if the rest of the world was jumping off a cliff, would you? Okay, Right. And you know, there was. Because I was paying, I kind of looked through the comments of that video and there was somebody who said, oh, yeah, well, in our country, what we do is we do a hierarchy system where, you know, you vote for your first, second, third, and fourth choices or whatever it is.
It’s just totally parliamentarian. And I was like, yeah, okay, well, we don’t want to be Canada and we don’t want to be Australia. So, yeah, no, thank you. Right. All right, number 20. If we want to be a democratic republic. No Federal Republic, we have two choices. Elect the president through popular vote or reform the electoral college. There is a third choice. Go back to the original electoral college to be a proper federal republic. Well, in the original. In the original electoral college, isn’t that when the loser became the vice president? Well, yeah, but that got changed by 12th amendment.
What we’re talking about is that each elector was voted in by the district and votes regardless of how, because the people aren’t voting for president. And. And then the other two, the ones that are appointed by the Senate are represent each state legislature. House number 21. National popular vote proponents state it’s the simplest democratic method. Well, yeah, if you want to be a democracy, which is dangerous and always, always democracy is a transitional system that always historically goes to an oligarchy, dictatorship, authoritarian system, whatever you want to call it. Problems with direct popular vote. He said states with larger populations would elect president, but aren’t states.
But. And this is, and I’m kind of paraphrasing a little bit because he spent so much time saying this, but he basically said, aren’t states irrevocably irrelevant when it comes to one national election? State borders themselves are arbitrary and irrelevant when they’re talking about the person who’s president of the entire country. This is an idea that basically says that the state should be nothing more than provinces. Having states no longer matters. State sovereignty, the states doing things their way internally is the point of this country. We are not a nation. We do not have a national government.
We are a union, a federation of states that have a federal government that handles the external issues and, and the issues regarding holding together the union, preserving the union, and then everything else is left up to the states. In other words, internal issues. That is what it’s about. If you don’t have state borders, then what you have is a national government that dictates the whole country what to do. And that quickly becomes France or whatever else you want to scoff at, we are not a democracy. And I’m gonna say it like this so you’ll remember, we are not a democracy.
We’ve never been a democracy. There is not a mention of the term democracy in any of our founding documents. Number 22, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among states and D.C. to send electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Supporters say it is constitutional because Article 2, Section 1 gives each state the authority to appoint presidential electors in such manner as the legislature. They’re made direct. Opponents point out that if it is a true compact that violates the compact clause in Article 1, Section 10. There’s actually two clauses in Article 1, Section 10 that disallows the states to form an alliance or a compact.
The second one, the compact clause does allow them to do it if approved by Congress. The first one doesn’t allow it at all. So important, they mentioned it twice. 23. So the National Popular Movement is what I’m saying is unconstitutional. It’s a compact. 2023 actually. Can state simply opt out of indirect election? No. Because it’s a constitutional requirement established by Article 2. Opponent opponents point out that if it is a No, I. I skipped. Oh, he. Then he called. Then he said, In 2023, the Supreme Court shot down the independent State legislature theory. Then he called the case in question there, Harper v.
Moore, a radical view of the Constitution. No, it’s the original view of the Constitution. The state legislatures are able to act independently on things that the federal government has no authority regarding, period. That’s not radical. That’s the original intent. The state legislatures don’t have to answer to the federal government on things that are none of the federal government’s business. And it’s funny, because the Democrats agree with me when it comes to things like, you know, marijuana, but then suddenly they don’t agree with me when it comes to something that goes against their narrative. Either the states are independent and the state legislatures can operate independently on things.
That’s none of the federal government’s business, or they cannot. One or the other. Yeah. Well, I want to address something that Mel just says. Thank you. I hear. If I hear one more person saying Trump is a threat to democracy, I might find a ripe fish to swat them with. And I agree with that. And I’ll even take it one further. The next time I hear Trump say it’s a fricking democracy, I’m going to fricking slap his ass because he says it, too. You know what I say when someone says to me that Trump is a threat to democracy? Absolutely.
I’m excited. We’re supposed to be a federal republic. I hope he’s a threat to democracy, but I just. I hate hearing him even say, oh, we’re, you know, talk about the democracy. No. Well, you know, you watch Fox News Democracy 2024, you know, you got Tucker. I mean, you know, and. Yeah, well, I’m. I’m actually getting. I haven’t finished my. I haven’t finished my resume yet, but I’m actually applying to the Trump administration to be Constitution czar. You told me that last week. Yeah, and so if any of you guys wanna, you know. Anyway, all right, let Trump know to make sure I get picked up.
All right. By the way, there’s somebody in the chat room real special. Ed, I just got back from vacation. Your book is probably in the mail tomorrow. And I added a second book for you because you kind of went above and beyond. Just wanted to let you know, since I got your ear here. All right. All right, so number 24. Reform could include. Include Congress either mandating that each state adopt the Nebraska and Maine style of awarding electors, B, mandating that each state adopt the winner take all method or see a proportional plan. How about we just go back to the original and each elector votes for who they voted for they want to vote for regardless of anybody’s vote.
And that there is no winner take all. Each. Each elector goes where it went. And finally 25. Wow, look at this right at the end. Electoral college encourages law fair and post election struggles. Due to close elections. It inflames rancorous debates or disputes. I mean eliminating electoral college eliminates swing state problem using the popular since the popular vote is rarely close. So what you’re saying is you want runaway elections where there’s. Where the other side has no chance. Basically came across to me. That’s the way I interpreted as well. Yeah, because there’s a debate and a dispute doesn’t mean you stop using it.
If anything, that’s all the more reason to use it because that means that the other side has a voice too. Correct. Look at that. Finished. Right on time. You go boy. I like this format. This was, this was kind of a very impromptu guys that we were planning on, you know, just continuing on with the Constitution. But when I saw that video this morning, I literally like came out of my skin with rage and I sent it to Doug and I said hey, let’s. I want to talk about this because I’m just ah, just freaking drives me nuts.
You know when, when people do not understand our system of government and how it was set up by the founding fathers and how brilliant they were. No, these guys are talking about trying this, this particular individual is talking about trying to fix things and really all he’s. All he’s going to do. If he had his way, all it would do is make it worse. Well folks, if you want to visit me douglasvgibs.com I’m gonna write an article about this by the way, so if you can’t remember all this stuff, I’m gonna put a lot of this down.
Very good. I’m glad I inspired you. Thank you. Thank you. Heck, I might even get back to doing videos. I haven’t done them in months. Aside from the ones with you and, and Warhamster. By the way, Warhammer and I start doing videos again. Well, listen, I have told you for the longest time that I would love to get you on if you want to talk about the, you know, a couple of things. I know, I know your, your area of really, really true expertise is the Mexican American war. That’s one of them. Yeah, yeah. But, but I know that you have quite a few things in there that, that we could get on that is definite.
That certainly would qualify as untold history. Absolutely. Oh, one of my favorite things and actually When I was doing some research not too long ago, I kind of stumbled upon it and the warhammer was like, really? You didn’t know that John Tyler is probably the most constitutional president in the history of this country. Yeah. Because he didn’t do anything and most people don’t even realize who he was. And what’s even funner to talk about him is this is a dude that was so constitutional that it led him getting kicked out of his party and he was good with it.
But stuff like that, yeah, there’s, there’s history is great. Matter of fact, I’m working on part two still of my history book. Part one is out there if you guys want it. That’s what a real Special ed ordered from me. But he wanted, he wanted an autographed copy. So he got a hold of me at constitution speaker@yahoo.com put something like book or autograph book in this and the, in the subject line. Otherwise I may accidentally miss the email because I get so many. If you want one and we’ll, we’ll work it out so we get a book to use.
It took me a while to get it out to Real Special Ed because he, he did it like right as I was going to go on vacation. So I’m, I’m sending him an extra book because it took a while and also because he went above and beyond when it came to payment. But once again, douglasvgibbs.com if you want to check out my blog post and, and become a patron. $9 a month by hitting join link there or and constitution speaker@yahoo.com constitution speaker yahoo.com right now for email. I’ll be changing that in the near future, but for now that’ll be the one.
Make sure you put. If you’re trying to get a book for me and you don’t want to buy it from Amazon because you want an autograph, let me know. Put subject line book or autograph book or something like that. Very nice. Alrighty. Well, thank you there, Mr. Gibbs. I appreciate that. I thought that was extraordinarily well done. Thank you. Yeah, very well done, sir. Appreciate, appreciate the appreciation. Thank you. All righty. All right, guys, well I will see you back here in a little, little less than a half an hour with Tuesday with Mike. He’s going to be talking about how the globalists are scared of the, not the military industrial complex, but the Q version of the military industrial complex.
So Melvin, try, try the patron thing again and if you still have problems, let me know at my email address. Constitutional speaker yahoo.com and I’ll talk to my, I’ll talk to my guy who runs my site and Warhamster put a link in there about he and I doing a show on electoral college. Be sure to check it out. Yeah, that’s when he, he talks in there because he was mentioning in the, in, in the chat how he, he, he said ah, expand the electoral college. And that is something that I absolutely agree with. So and that link is to that particular video.
So if you guys don’t. And if you guys don’t pay attention to Warhamster, he, he’s starting to do a little bit more stuff regularly with, with the Colonel, Colonel Roxanne Towner. And she does a space every week day at. I think it’s roughly, roughly it’s like 4pm Eastern. And she just goes through a chapter on her in her Gladio series and it’s actually really cool because if you’re on Twitter or X you can jump in there and participate so. And ask questions of her. It’s actually really cool. So just giving her a little, a little plug because I part.
I try to participate that. Participate in that almost every day, but I don’t get to. But, but in any event, thank you for tuning in today and thanks. Real special. A great deprogram, guys. Yeah, there you go. Exactly. Amen. Thank you. Thank you, RC. Absolutely. And all right there, Mr. Gibbs. Well, thank you for your time, sir and wish you a very, very happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. And look forward to seeing everybody here in about to about 25 minutes. So thanks everybody. Have a good night and I will see you shortly. Take care, Doug. Appreciate it.
All right, ciao ciao.
[tr:tra].
Author
