Why do Dems only care about voting when it doesn't go in their favor
watch this
Mat you're on the right track here but the way you describe things makes you sound like a middle schooler
alright so this man's argument is
-the quote "crux" of the argument against the electoral college is that it is undemocratic, but america is a republic and is thus not bound to democratic principles (nothing is said about the differences between the two)
-pure democracy is stuff because mob tyranny and removing the electoral college will lead to pure democracy
-less populated states should have to have their voices per capita heard over more populated states
-assuming that because lower population states have more votes they cannot be ignored
-swing states change so they are ok
-the electoral college encourages intellectual diversity by giving voices to those from less populated states
-some other bullstuff i missed probably
alright so first off the differences between a republic and a democracy are nonexistent unless dealing with a direct democracy. both are systems of government where the people elect representatives to deal with the governing shebang and, since he doesn't define how a republic is different from a democracy, i am unable to ascertain what the forget he actually meant. he then assumes the removal of the electoral college will lead to a direct democracy which is a loving lie, nobody will be voting on anything more than the president who, by the way, they already vote on. if people go loving nutter when exposed to voting in representatives the senate would be a disaster.
his arguments for why people in lower pop states should have a bigger voice than the reverse are all based on that tyranny by majority stuff and some bullstuff about having an intellectually diverse culture, the latter i will touch upon soon. its further supported by the same direct democracy fear mongering and some stuff about the feds forcing people to build bathrooms for a third gender. i am not sure how letting people elect their president will somehow erode state's rights other than because he believes the other side winning will do that. furthermore states arent one loving ideology and all contain the same mix of cities, suburbs, rural stuff, and ect. giving a state more votes because it has less people is just giving people of every ideology in the state more votes and praying they are republican.
he completely missed touching on how the electoral college ignores all votes from a state's losing party, an important point in the video he is rebutting. of course you wouldn't know any of this stuff because he doesn't talk about or show any footage relating to this issue despite it being a significant portion of the video he is rebuking. he goes as far as to misrepresent an argument by taking a clip about smaller states having more of an impact and saying something along the lines of "since small states have an impact, politicians have to pay attention to them", despite the original context stating that, because of the winner take all system, politicians can only reasonably campaign in states with 50/50ish vote splits. also the stuff about the electoral college encouraging diverse opinions is completely false and it does the opposite by removing the power of any political stance that isn't a state's majority.
instead of having rebutting the original video all that he does is spray scatted clips he rebukes and then drivels into some "forget liberals" pathos bullstuff later on and you lapped it up. stop posting videos of this sensationalist jackass and actually write out your opinion so i never have to watch anything else he makes. this post probably isnt as comprehensive as it could be but forget it
