October 8

Blog #140 – Time to get rid of the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is one of a kind.  No other country uses this system to elect their leaders – in fact, no other American politician or judge is elected using an electoral college – they all get elected via majority vote.  Only the President of the U.S. is chosen with this cumbersome system.  Throughout American history, the presidential candidate with the most votes has lost the electoral vote 4 times, twice lately (in 2000 and 2016).  So why do we have it?

Some textbooks and teachers (including this one!) have said that the Framers of the Constitution didn’t trust the American voter to pick the right candidate, so someone else should pick the president.  Hence, charges of elitism.  Others have claimed that the EC protects the small states from being overrun by the larger states in an election, where a candidate from a small state would never get elected.  While others claim that the EC has its roots in racism and the protection of the slave states who feared that the Northern states would dominate the South b/c there were more voters in the North than in the South (based upon landownership). But, before we get going any further, please watch this video for a better understanding of the Electoral College, what it is, and how it works.  It also includes some arguments for and against it.

To counter the argument that the Framers were elitist, one must remember that only landowners were the voters (except in Massachusetts where all males had the right to vote), supposedly the best people in the community and not the “rabble” that some have characterized American voters were in 1787.  The Framers most likely didn’t trust local politicians given the insanity that happened between 1781 – 1787 in states like Rhode Island (remember the paper money fiasco).  Furthermore, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, only Elbridge Gerry expressed any concern about “the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.”  No other Framer expressed a similar sentiment.

To counter the argument that the Framers created the EC to protect small states, all one has to do is to look at Madison’s Notes on the Convention and see that this idea never appears in the notes.  This doesn’t mean that delegates didn’t care about the difference between the large and small states, it just means that in the discussions for choosing the president, the issue of large and small states didn’t come up (though it definitely did when figuring out the configuration of Congress).

When discussing how to chose the president, one initial suggestion was by Edmund Randolph of Virginia who said that he/she should be chosen by the national legislature.  James Madison later suggested that the lower house of Congress should pick the president.  There was also significant debate as to how many people should be president – should it be one person, a pair, or several?   James Wilson made a proposal that the president be chosen by a popular vote, using the example of New York and Massachusetts popularly electing their governors.  Gouverneur Morris also made an argument for a popular vote: “he ought to be elected by the people at large, by the freeholders (landowners) of the Country… If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation.  If the legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal (conspiracy), and of faction…”  Southern delegates, for the most part, opposed popular vote because the Northern states had more voters than the Southern states despite having similar populations (because the enslaved didn’t vote).    The popular vote idea would eventually be voted down.

Eventually, in mid July, Oliver Ellsworth proposed that electors appointed by the state legislatures chose the president and that the number be determined by the state’s population.  Madison feared that the South would never be able to affect the outcome if it was based upon the free population because there were more free white and Black folks in the North than in the South.  Madison would then support the EC because of the 3/5 Compromise which would give the Southern states a bigger say in who became president.  This can be seen in the 1800 election.  Jefferson had more votes than Adams because of the 3/5 Compromise but without it, Adams would have won.  In fact, 10 of the first 12 presidents elected, from Washington to Taylor, would be slaveholders.  So it might seem that the EC was created to the benefit of slave states.

For some more modern arguments about the EC, here is Adam Ruins Everything on why we should ditch the EC:

They bring up an interesting point in this video, that if the winner – take – all system was gotten rid of, you wouldn’t have so many solidly blue (Democratic) or red (Republican) states.  In the article that I asked you to read for this blog, it states that 2/3 of the states don’t even matter in a presidential election because they’re not battleground states, and that in 2016, 94% of the candidates’ visits were limited to just 12 states (and 2/3 of the visits were in just SIX STATES!).  Somehow, a popular vote would fix this, get rid of battleground states, and make sure that the candidates get around the country to go see everybody in order to get their vote.

For the other side of the argument to keep the EC, here is a video by Prager U:

The video states that the EC promotes coalition building and protects against voter fraud.  The video also stated that the Framers didn’t intend to have a pure democracy (or popular vote) when it came to the president (or the Senate for that matter).  In the article for the blog, they stated that the Framers were worried about only a few large states picking the presidency while the rest would be ignored.

Just so you know, in order to eliminate the EC, it would require a Constitutional amendment.  That would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all of the state legislatures.

So, please answer the following:

  1. Which video – Adam Ruins Everything and Prager U – had the more persuasive arguments?   Why?
  2. Do you believe that the electoral college should be eliminated?  Why or why not?
  3. Should the winner – take – all system of how states assign their electors be changed to be proportional?  Why or why not?  For instance, Texas has 38 electoral votes which Trump won in 2020 by a margin of 52% – 47%.  If the electoral votes were assigned proportionally based upon the vote, Trump would have won 20 and Biden would have won 18.

Your total answer for all 3 questions should be a minimum of 350 words.  Due Monday, October 11 by class.  

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted October 8, 2021 by geoffwickersham in category Blogs

57 thoughts on “Blog #140 – Time to get rid of the Electoral College?

  1. Julia Benedict-Kauffman

    1. Pager U had a stronger argument when talking about the elector college. They talked about why the founding fathers created the system. They also talked about the whole elector college. Like how if you are voting for the democratic president candidate you are voting for the 4 representatives when talking about Rhode Island with their elector college votes. They also made the case to help the founding fathers. They said that when the founding fathers created the system they looked at stuff in history that has happened in the past. Which shows what really goes on during the election. This also shows that when making the elector college the founding father put a lot of detail in to show how history has happened today.
    2. I think the elector college should go. Cause the elector college could be unfair in many ways. They could vote opposite if they chose to. Like one year an elector college member voted for John Edwards. Which makes the voting of the elector college unfair for many Americans. This shows how much power each state elector college members votes matter. Though the founding fathers tried to put in a lot of effort by looking into the past. But the data from back then had changed from what the times are now. This shows that the elector college should be changed or get ridden of completely.
    3. I think they need to change how the states assign their elector to be changed to be equal. One state could over rule the other state with elector votes like Wyoming and California. More get counted in California per vote. Less do in Wyoming which can over power the elector votes in the voting process cause they benefit from more votes. Which means the counting when forming was of cause even though its trying to get each state equal power it isn’t working. Back when the founding father created the system they didn’t have a lot of people living in the Americas. They had the count a certain way. But most populated cites don’t have an equal count as other states.

  2. nathanlucken

    1. I think that the Adams Ruins Everything had a more convincing argument because it gave us solid reasons why a winner take all election style for winning states is bad. It shows us why for some people in safe states their vote doesn’t matter as much because it’s hard to flip that state and that the votes in swing states matter more. I thought that the Prager U argument was weak because it kind of showed us why swing states are the only important states for an election and that safe states have been safe for many years. She tried to show us that California actually voted republican, but it was in 1988, almost 35 years ago. And she tried to tell us that Texas voted democrat one time, but conveniently left out when, which leads me to believe it was even longer ago than 1988. I think the only valid argument the Prager U video had was that the electoral college protects against the tyranny of majority which means the presidential candidate only appeals to what the majority wants and discards and does not care about what the minority wants. But, even if we got rid of the electoral college a candidate could still try and u just appeal to the majority.
    2.I believe that the electoral college should be eliminated because if you vote the other way in safe states, your vote often doesn’t matter so it is basically like your vote gets thrown out. Many people know this and that’s why some people do not bother voting. If we got rid of the electoral college, it would motivate people to vote because their vote actually matters, therefore our elected representative would actually be representative of what our country wants. Even if we don’t get rid of the electoral college we could make it so it is not a winner take all situation and that would be almost the same as fully getting rid of the system.
    3. Like I stated before this would be a better option than getting rid of the system fully. It means that people’s vote would count more in the safe states (and everywhere else, for that matter) and people would be more motivated to vote. Furthermore, no other democracy in the world elects their leaders the way we do (including every other position in our government.) Sometimes being different is not better.

  3. Julia Feber

    In my opinion, the video, Adam Ruins Everything, was the most persuasive. It talks about how every part of the state may have a different outcome in the election that eventually gives the entire state an electoral vote. It argues that every vote does not count because if the electoral college bases its votes on a winner-takes-all system, and if it did not some states would be split half and half in its electoral college votes. In the video, Prager U, explains that the electoral college is based upon every single vote and that it was created to protect against voter fraud, promote coalition building, and that the founding fathers never actually intended for the country to have pure democracy. According to the video, the Framers of the constitution were concerned that if we used the popular vote to determine the presidency, the large states would benefit and choose the presidency and the rest of the states would be ignored. Comparing the two videos, Adam Ruins Everything had a more persuasive argument because it proves that because of the electoral college only the votes of about eleven states actually matter in determining the presidency and this is unfair.
    My personal belief is that the electoral college should be abolished because in the late 1700’s when the founding fathers were deciding how to elect the president they had different fears. They were afraid that if only the popular vote were counted, their would-be mob rule. The Framers wanted a barrier between the president and the people. Now in 2021, the electoral college serves no purpose. We only use this system to elect the president, no other form of government is elected a President using this system. The electoral college should be eliminated because if we used the popular vote the president would have been who the people wanted. In 2016 the popular vote went to Hilary Clinton but Trump was elected based on the number of votes that the electoral college had. If we as a people are only electing the president based upon the size of a state and the vote that most people had instead of putting the power in the people and letting them choose who they want their leader to be, what is the point of voting? The electoral college serves no purpose if you want the people to elect who they believe should win and be their leader and therefore should be abolished.
    The winner-take-all system should be proportional so the votes are more equal. If one candidate wins by only 51% percent but gets a large number of votes then everyone who voted for the other candidate had a meaningless vote. If the system were proportional then every state could split its votes based on candidates and the outcomes would change drastically. The candidates would need to focus their campaigning on more than just the ten or eleven large states and need every single vote. I think that if every vote was counted and not just a majority, winner takes all, more people would vote.

  4. Priya

    1.) I think the Adam Ruins Everything video had the more persuasive arguments. He shows clear examples using actual statistics and strong reasoning that support his argument. One specific thing he mentions, that I haven’t thought about before, is how much power small states have. Adam uses math to explain how small (population) states actually have more power in the Electoral College than larger states because it takes less people to secure an electoral vote. In the Prager U video, their argument is based on how it was like in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Life in the U.S. has changed since then which sort of invalidates that argument. The Founding Fathers based the Electoral College around the division of the North and South. Even Prager U admits that when you vote, you’re actually voting for the Electoral College electors and not the President directly.

    2.) I believe that the Electoral College should be eliminated because it makes the statement, “every vote counts”, completely false. It is a lie that every vote counts when it really only counts when you vote the majority. As Adam Conover states, “Anyone who votes for their state’s losing party, might as well just stay home.” It’s also about how states with a larger amount of electoral votes tend to lean towards a certain political party, this doesn’t make it fair at all. It’s also not fair to the electors of the Electoral College itself. Why should all electoral votes be given to the majority winner when that’s not how it was voted?

    3.) The best thing would be to completely get rid of the Electoral College. But it’s too difficult to amend, so the second-best thing would be to get rid of the winner-takes-all system. It would be a lot more fair if the electoral votes were proportional. The winner-takes-all system just seems silly to me. It seems like a system that should only be used in games that kids play. It doesn’t seem like something that should be used in something as serious as the Presidential Election. Using the 2020 election example, it makes a huge difference in the election when Trump secured all 38 votes vs. if Trump and Biden received the proportional votes they were originally assigned (20-18).

  5. Nicolette Handler

    1. Although both of the videos had very persuasive arguments, I think that Prager U had a slightly more persuasive argument. One of the arguments that Prager U made that I think is good is the one about small states being campaigned towards. Prager U argued that if there was no electoral college then candidates would not bother going to campaign in them. If the president was chosen by the popular vote, candidates would spend a lot of their time in the bigger states trying to win over all of their votes. With the electoral college candidates just have to get the majority in each state which allows them to campaign in a lot of different states. This helps the things that the candidates do/promise to do be geographically diverse and not just favoring the bigger states.
    2. I think that the electoral college, for the time being, should not be eliminated. In the future, if bigger issues regarding the electoral college come up then we should eliminate it, but I do not see the point of creating mayhem at the moment for something that is mostly working completely fine. There is likely no way that the requirements will be met to abolish the electoral college, so I do not see why we should make it a big issue when there is no chance that two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states will vote to get rid of it. In addition, the electoral college helps smaller groups of people be heard by making it so what they are promised can make candidates lose or gain a significant amount of electoral votes.
    3. I think that we should keep the electoral college as a winner takes all system. Changing it to be proportional makes no sense because then it is just population-based with a few more steps. Like I have already said earlier in my answers, the electoral college makes candidates have to suit the needs of people from all different areas, and not just people from the more populous cities and states. Without the electoral college being winner takes all, farmers and other people living in rural areas needs could be ignored while with the electoral college being winner takes all the concentration of groups of people within certain states makes it so candidates need to meet their needs.

  6. Cameron Little

    1. PragerU had the more persuasive arguments. This is because the video mentioned a main point that America has been fearful of since the AOC, tyranny. Having a popular vote to determine the next president gives the people more power which is important because it gives Americans a voice, but can also be a bad thing because too much power can result in some votes possibly being fear-stricken or the votes of the people who don’t care will be more pushed to vote one side than the other. The video also explained that the Electoral College promotes more national campaigning. With the electrical college, more states can have an impact on who is voted into the presidency because they elect more or fewer delegates that represent their beliefs for the second voting- also because presidential candidates have to go to more states and regions encouraging people to vote because they cannot gain 270 electoral votes from only visiting one region. Without the electoral college, candidates don’t have to go to so many different states, only to the large ones because they have a higher population than the smaller states. With no electoral college, the smaller states have less of an impact on the presidential election than the larger states.
    2. I don’t believe the electoral college should be eliminated. Even though the people don’t have as much of a say in the election, the electoral representatives still become the representatives of the state because of the majority party (democratic/republican) that the citizens elected. It is also better for every state to have a little bit of a say in who’s president than few large states to have all the say. The electoral college is more inclusive in the end than the popular vote would be because no state ends up overpowering another.
    3. There should be a proportional system in how states assign electors because in the example used, Biden almost beat Trump’s electoral votes in Texas yet Trump still took all the votes. The winner-take-all method of electoral votes seems unfair because in this case, the Democratic party votes were completely thrown away when Trump only won by 2 votes. If Trump actually won all 38 votes he would have been voted for by all 38 electors. By giving Trump Texas, he got 18 free electoral votes that weren’t his votes. In general, not using a proportional system in assigning electors seems like it takes away from the purpose of having both parties vote if one is outnumbered because then that creates strictly zero chance of the fewer party or fewer votes to win anything in that state’s election.

  7. Kathryn Kubicz

    Which video – Adam Ruins Everything and PragerU – had the more persuasive arguments? Why?
    The PragerU video in favor of keeping the Electoral College was more persuasive than the Adam Ruins Everything video in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. Adam Ruins Everything turned to describing why the Electoral College is not a true democracy whereas PragerU explained, right off the bat, why true democracy is nearly unattainable–”bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of the country, pure democracies have never functioned properly in the past”–and countered each of the arguments Adam Ruins Everything presented in his video.
    PragerU argued with more logos by treating us to solid facts and historical inferences to support their infographics. The entire election is shown to be not in the hands of states with smaller populations but in fact any and every single one of the states. PragerU claimed that although in smaller states more popular votes were worth more, it is still only worth a small fraction of Electoral College votes, thus maintaining a balance carefully curated to population size while simultaneously remaining equal.
    The Adam Ruins Everything skit used clear ethos to appeal to modern audiences. They showcased the state representatives as drunken people who landed the job by chance. If these impressionable, spoiled people are only in this small sample Adam Ruins Everything also commented that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t want most of us to vote. If we interpret the Constitution strictly, their argument is correct, but if we are to believe that “All Men Are Created Equal” is and was an aspiration, their latter argument would have been used for the sole purpose of drawing anger from their audience (ethos). Adam Ruins Everything cites that smaller states have more power than large states in the Electoral College but fails to recall that while citizen votes are worth more, Electoral College votes in that state are worth less.

    Do you believe that the electoral college should be eliminated? Why or why not?
    The Electoral College should not be abolished. It gives all states the same amount of power, whether during the first phase or the second phase of the election. It is a perfect compromise between the original Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. All states, large, small, and swing, can benefit from the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the closest to pure democracy that has been established in history while still maintaining the voice of the people’s common sense.

    Should the winners-take-all system of how states assign their electors be changed to be proportional? Why or why not? For instance, Texas has 38 electoral votes which Trump won in 2020 by a margin of 52% – 47%. If the electoral votes were assigned proportionally based upon the vote, Trump would have won 20 and Biden would have won 18.
    The winners-take-all system should stay in place. Otherwise, the vast minority (whether Republican or Democrat) could still make sweeping victories for decade after decade. While it may be perceived as unfair in coin-flip cases such as the 2020 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, it has in most cases been in favor of the popular vote. The only presidents who have won the votes of the Electoral College but lost the votes of the people were John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, which means not even 11% of presidents have won the election this way. This event is rare and the distance between them in most occurrences is stretched out.

  8. Nitzan Blank

    1. In my opinion, the Adam Ruins Everything video had the strongest and more persuasive argument. Rather than simply explaining their side (as the Prager U video did), they included reasons why keeping the electoral college is erroneous with statistics that would appeal to the viewer. The electoral college made the small states on an equal plane as larger, more populated states. This, however, makes it that it takes fewer people in states such as Wyoming to get one electoral vote, whereas, in California, it takes more people to get the same (proportional) vote. This, in turn, makes that the people in the smaller states have more say in who the next president will be. He then explains that the president/party could essentially ignore many forms and only care about the ones that matter. The Prague U video also had valid persuasive arguments, but it was not worded or emphasized enough. It was almost as if the woman was hiding some statistics, as her statements weren’t compelling enough. Overall the Adam Ruins Everything video explains and brings statistics that would make you question why we have the electoral vote. While the Prager U doesn’t really solidly argue.
    2. Personally, I do not think that the Electoral College should be continued. I believe that some essential parts of our lives have changed from what theirs were a long time ago. For instance, people are more likely to be educated and make the right decision of who they want. The electoral college was made to protect from the many. The winner takes all situations also undermines the others in the state. Not everyone who lives in a State thinks the same, and this way, depending on where you live, your vote becomes as unimportant. Making it so the state’s vote wouldn’t be winner take all would motivate people, but more importantly, it would put the person who the country wants as the next leader.
    3. Yes, I believe that the winner-take-all system should become proportional. It would exemplify who the winner should be, allowing for a more realistic view of the country’s wants. I believe that the winner-take-all system is flawed and ultimately discourages people in safe states from voting. If this were to change, we would get a more accurate portrayal of who the overall winner is.

  9. Shir Dvir

    I think that Adam Ruins Everything was the most persuasive. It talks about how if the winner takes all system was gotten rid of, we wouldn’t have so many solid democrats or solid republicans. In the video, it explains that the electoral college is based upon every single vote and that it was created to protect against voter fraud and that the founding fathers never intended for the country to have pure democracy. The framers of the Constitution were concerned that if we used the popular vote to determine the president, that large states would benefit and the rest of the states would be ignored. Adam Ruins Everything is the most persuasive because it proves that because of the electoral college, only the votes of large states matter.
    Personally, I believe that the electoral college should be abolished. When the founding fathers were deciding on how to elect a president, they all had different fears. They were afraid that if only the popular votes were counted, there would be mob rule. The framers wanted a barrier between the president and the people. The electoral college should be eliminated because if we use the popular vote then the people will bet who they wanted. The president is only being elected based on the size of the state. In 2021, the electoral college is irrelevant, it serves no purpose. In 2016, the popular vote went to Hilary Clinton but Trump was elected based on the number of votes the electoral college had.

    The winner-take-all system should be proportional so that the votes are more equal. If the system were to be proportional then every state could split its votes based on the candidates and the outcomes would change. If one candidate wins by 51% but gets a large number of votes then everyone who voted for the other candidate had a meaningless vote. The candidates would have to focus, not only on the few large states but every state. I think that if every vote was counted and not just the majority, the winner takes all, more people would be likely to vote.

  10. Delphine McLaughlin

    1) In my opinion, the PragerU argument was more persuasive than Adam Ruins Everything’s. It had a stronger argument that supported the idea that we should keep the electoral college and why the electoral college is so important. The video described clearly how majority-ruled democracies are easily corrupted, and how the electoral college prevents that. If the vote was based purely on population, the minority could easily be tyrannized by the majority. Along with that, the video states how the running presidents must gain support from many different types of states and voters. To win the election, they cannot win by gaining support from only one part of the country, support from all over is necessary. If winning were based only on popularity, the campaigning presidents would only target populated states and cities. Lastly, the electoral college makes stealing votes much more difficult. The electoral college makes certain that every voter in every state is important.

    2) I think we should keep the electoral college to maintain the same way of voting that we have always used. The electoral college has been proven to create fairness and prevent popular majorities from taking over the government. If we were to eliminate the electoral college and pick the president based on the majority, eventually the whole voting would just become a popularity contest. More times than not the winner of the popular vote also wins the electoral votes. This shows how the electoral college is in place to maintain balance and how it creates fairness. The creators of the constitution created the electoral college due to extensive research on how democracies based on majority vote implode easily. They wanted our country to stay a democracy and were proud of this creation to keep voting fair. We should keep the electoral college because without it comes many uncertainties.

    3)I think electoral votes should be split up proportionally so that campaigning presidents don’t only worry about states such as California, Texas, and Florida. If the electoral votes were split up proportionally, this system would be even fairer. The winner takes all system is unbalanced because even if you lose a state by one vote, you get no electoral votes. If the states were split up by votes the running candidates could be less focused on big states and spend more time campaigning to smaller states as well. Overall I think the electoral college would be more honorable if the winner takes all approach was removed.

  11. Lilly Dimmer

    1. I think that the video “Adam Ruins Everything” had the more persuasive argument over “Prager U” because for me, it was more understandable in the way that the people were speaking and showing visual and real examples. In the Adam Ruins Everything video, they were talking about how the small states basically have more voting power, which I never knew, and how that doesn’t make sense since bigger states have more people. In the Prager U video they were also talking about how the founding fathers carefully thought the electoral college through. But that was decades ago, and there also used to be slaves that they took into account when deciding how the electoral college should be. Now, we don’t have slaves and everyone is an equal voter.
    2. I believe that the Electoral College should be eliminated because it isn’t fair and it’s an old system. We shouldn’t have the random people that aren’t very qualified in the electoral college deciding who should become president. Also, if you live in a safe state, your state probably won’t change what side it’s on, and your vote wouldn’t really matter all that much since the state will probably end up being whatever side (democratic or republican) it’s was on for the previous years (that may also make people not want to vote because they might think that their vote doesn’t count). Like I said earlier, everyone is an equal voter and there are no 3/5 of people anymore to skew the elections.
    3. The winner – take – all system of how states assign their electors be changed to be proportional because it would be more fair than just giving all of the votes to the other person just because they had more votes. Since Trump had 52% and Biden had 47%, Trump got all of the 38 electoral votes even though it should have just been split proportionally to have Trump have won 20, and Biden to have won 18. It still would’ve been fair and made more sense. Also, smaller states have more power over bigger states just even though they have less people.

  12. Jacob Noorily

    1. The PragerU video was much more persuasive than Adam Ruins Everything. It was more persuasive because of the type of language used, and the basis of their arguments. In Adam Ruins Everything, he used unprofessional language and fast-paced speaking. He used terms such as “messed up” and “suck a big one”. The arguments made by Adam Ruins Everything are very miniscule and heavily opinionated. For example, he uses a rare mistake of an elector writing the wrong candidate to try to point out the flaw in the Electoral college. Adam also says how it is pointless to vote in non-swing states. These arguments are not solid. He points out a very rare mistake made to try to hint that the whole system is completely corrupt. He also loosely ties a statistic to the argument that it is pointless to vote. In 2016, safe states were flipped because people did not feel the need to vote proving this mindset wrong. In the PragerU video, the host also speaks in a very slow and professional way so you can understand and digest the arguments she is making. She says how swing states are important but they constantly change political parties. This is backed by a strong example of how Texas used to be democratic and other states. Overall, the PragerU video is much more persuasive because the arguments in it are presented better and have stronger evidence to back them.

    2. I think we should keep the electoral college while making changes to it rather than an alternative system. Although the electoral college has its fair share of flaws, to me it is still the most solid option. It makes sure the candidates do not just have to campaign in the highly populated states. The Electoral College also helps protect against voter fraud. The main reason we should keep it is because there is no clear-cut better option. For all of these reasons, I believe we should keep and attempt to improve the electoral college.

    3. Yes, the winner takes all system should be changed to proportional votes. This should happen because it will be more fair to the losing candidate of that state. It is counterintuitive that a candidate should win all of the electoral votes to a state in which he/she only won by a slim margin. It is also misrepresenting the states because they are clearly not just a red or blue state. Doing this would also give voters more power and motivation to vote. This pushes people to vote because their vote would be more important to the distribution of electoral votes than it is now. The winner takes all system is very flawed and illogical. Because of this, we should change this process to a proportional electoral system.

  13. Aidan Taylor

    1. I think that PragerU won the argument simply because of facts and logic. Although the EC is an awkward system it still makes sense to use it. Adam Ruins Everything explains why the EC is an unjust form of voting because of smaller states having more power over the bigger ones, which we all know to not be true. The whole reason the EC exists is so that bigger states have less power over smaller states and vice versa, it was made so that every vote no matter which state and how large your state is, the votes would be equal. And so that no one state would ever have an advantage over another because of its size.
    2. No, I believe that the EC should stay, so that equality of votes would still be equal. There’s also not really a point in changing it. We’ve been using it for more than 2 centuries and it’s been a moderately efficient system so far except for 2016, and a few others. Even though it makes no sense voting wise, the Electoral college has done a pretty good job on deciding who the best candidate is for president. The Electoral college shows all of the different sides and point of views people have to offer. Simply because of all of the different backgrounds people come from. But I think that even though it has its flaws so do a lot of other things so it deserves to stay.
    3. Yes they should be changed to proportional, because it doesn’t make sense for one candidate to get all the electoral votes for one state when he or she didn’t win all of those votes. It should be whoever wins those Electoral votes should keep them and then whoever has the highest amount of electoral votes wins the election. If Trump won 20 votes but Biden won 18, why should Trump get all 38 when he only won 20 of them? Winner takes all is unfair because it allows one’s opponent to get the upper hand simply because they had a few more Electoral votes.

  14. Lily Montgomery

    In my opinion the Adam Ruins Everything had a stronger, more persuasive augment. For starters I feel that the video was easier to understand.he used many visual prompts and infographics. He also used clear examples and used many different statistics that were easy to understand. He explains how the voters in less populated states have more power then voters in larger states because it takes fewer people to get a electoral vote. He also explains how votes aren’t proportional, they win all the votes in a state which isn’t necessarily how everyone in the states wants the votes, instead of some of the votes going to republicans and some to democrats, all the votes in one states goes to one candidate. In the Prague U video their examples and statistics weren’t very recent, so they weren’t as strong an argument.
    I believe that the electoral college should be abolished, because it is unfair in many ways. For starters the electors don’t actually have to vote the way you or anyone else in your state want’s them to vote so in the end your vote won’t really matter and you won’t really have an impact on who becomes president. Also the votes aren’t even proportional to what the people want their proportional and if they were proportional some candidates may have ended up with more or less votes. The votes in the electoral college should reflect what the people want and they don’t always do that.
    Yes, I think that the winner takes all system should be changed to proportional. With the winner takes all system who the people want as president isn’t clearly reflected. Some people in a state may want one candidate some people want a different candidate but it isn’t counted like that all the votes go to who the majority want ad doesn’t reflect what the other people want. Also there would be a more accurate representation of what the people want as an end result if it was proportional. There may even be a change in who was voted president if there was a big enough difference.

  15. Talya Rotberg

    1. I think that the PragerU video was more persuasive than the Adam Ruins Everything one. The PragerU clearly stated what the electoral college was and how it worked. It explained why it is important and why we should keep it. It helped us understand that the candidates need to focus on all states and not only the ones with larger populations. Each vote counts and will help them win in the long run. The video also helps us to understand that if voting was only based on population the majority would dominate over the smaller population. If it was only based on population then the candidate who was more popular would win right away instead of giving a fair chance to the other candidates.
    2. I believe that the electoral college should remain how it is and continue to vote and elect the president the same way it has always been done. If we abolished the electoral college then the more popular majority would start to completely take over and would make the voting unfair. If one candidate became more popular than the other one they would have an unfair advantage in winning the election. The electoral college should stay in place because it maintains fairness in the voting and election process.
    3. I think that the winner-takes-all system should be replaced with a more proportional system. This will give the minority of the votes a better chance at possibly winning. For instance, in the example used, Biden was extremely close to beating Trump in the Texas electoral vote but because Trump had won the majority of the votes they all went to him instead of giving each candidate the votes they fairly won. If it was proportional they each could have taken away the votes they won in that state instead of giving all of the votes to the majority and completely discarding the votes the minority won. If it was a more proportional system then the candidates could focus on getting votes in all of the states and not only the more populated ones. They wouldn’t have to worry about beating the other candidates in the bigger states and they could center on getting as many votes as they can in all of the states because each vote would count.

  16. Alaina Williams

    In my opinion, I feel; that the video “Adams ruins everything” had much more persuasive arguments than Prager U. The video “Adams Ruins Everything” has two perspectives/opinions on the electoral college and didn’t sugarcoat many things. It gave a clear cause and effect for the two sides of the coin. They even provided examples of how the electoral college played into real-life election processes. Like in the Obama vs Romney election. The video also explained swing states and effects on large states vs smaller states. They give examples of how smaller states are given more votes,m which uplifts their voice in a way. Despite the lower population.

    I feel that the electoral college should be abolished. The reason for this particular circumstance is the fact that some states have primarily negative views that would negatively affect a great many people. Rather it’s human rights, class-standing laws, etc. I feel that the people who come out and vote should be the real determinants of who is put and only them solely. Again, they have less power than these selected representatives from each state, and things would be judged on what the people think since the election results will “make or break” them. I feel that this doesnt offer a diversity of political opinions to be uplifted, especially in a society where peoples views influence one another. This causes a lack of differentiation between poliutical parties, it causes a repeitive system over who do you like better vs. who will better this country as a whol.e
    The winner of elections, or in opther words newly elected president should not get this much power. I feel this is an easy way to put too much power into the wrong person and we have been able to see that for a great many years. Again, I feel; this power should be solely given to the people on the fact that election results affect them more than people in Senate or Executive branch for example. Especially when it comes to low income families or minorities where political candidates are known for oppressive methods. Theyre given too much power under this particular system.

  17. Alexis Heller

    1. I believe that the Adam Ruins Everything video had more persuasive arguments. It showed the many flaws of the electoral system as well as how unfair it is to different states and voters. The electoral college isn’t based on majority votes making it easier for someone that people don’t like to become president. Even if a different candidate has more votes, they can still lose the election based on electoral votes. This is shown in many elections throughout time. This system makes many voters feel that their votes don’t count because of being in safe states or how the votes ultimately go to the electors. The electors are a group of people chosen to vote for the president based on which side the people of that state voted for. In the video they talk about how some of these electors, in 24 states, don’t have to vote for who the people want. The electors may choose a different person anyways, making the voters feel that their vote doesn’t matter. Along with that, voters in safe states believe that their votes count much less than those in swing states. The video states that candidates focus more on swing states to win the most electoral votes making safe states feel excluded and small. Overall the video shows many ways that the electoral college system is unfair and makes less people vote/feel like voting.

    2. I think that the electoral college should be eliminated because of the unfair treatment of everyone’s votes. Living in different types of states affect how different voters feel about voting. The video called Adam Ruins Everything shows how safe states are less likely to be focused on by candidates. The candidates are more likely to focus on swing states to gain more of the electoral votes. Even after the people vote they are voting for electors rather than the actual president. In some of these states (24 as stated in Adam Ruins Everything) these electors ultimately vote for who they want, not who the people of that state or the country want. One example of this was when an elector voted for John Ewards not John Edwards. The system would be a lot more fair and inclusive if we got rid of the electoral college.

    3. I think that the electoral votes should be assigned proportionally in the states. This would support my previous claim and create a system where all voters would feel that their vote was equally as important as others’ votes. Everyone’s votes would count rather than just those who were in the majority of a certain state. The swing states and safe states would no longer be labeled that way and get equal attention. Candidates would have to fight for every state and prove to all citizens that they are worthy of being elected.

  18. Kaitlyn Stievater

    1) I believe that the video Adam Ruins Everything had a more persuasive argument. The way the video was formatted worked well to show the reasons the electoral college was bad. The way the man and women worked together to talk about counter arguments and prove those counter arguments were wrong was very persuasive. I liked the infographics and maps that the video used. Overall I feel like the video Adam Ruins Everything was more persuasive.

    2) I do believe that the electoral college should be eliminated for many reasons. First off it creates swing states, and that causes the candidates to really only focus on those couple of states instead of all states equally. I also do not like the fact that you aren’t actually voting for the president, you are only voting for your state’s electors, and in 24 states they could completely change their vote if they wanted to. Finally, I don’t like that depending on what state you live in, it changes the power of your vote. For example, if your state has less people, like Montana, you have more power than if you lived in California. The electoral college system is unfair and I believe it should be eliminated.

    3) I believe that the winner take all system should be eliminated. ⅔ of the states’ votes don’t even really matter because they aren’t swing states. Having the majority win system for every state causes them to constantly vote one party versus the other. For example Wyoming is almost always Republican, whereas Massachusetts is a very Democratic state. This causes the Democrats in Wyoming and the Republicans in Massachusetts to have no power whatsoever in the election since their state is always going to be majority wins. This is unfair because this causes some people to not be able to have a say in who they want to represent their country. With the winner take all system there are also some discrepancies between who technically won elections. For example, the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Based on the popular vote Hillary Clinton technically had more votes, but based on the electoral college Donald Trump had more. This led to Trump becoming president even though the majority of people in the United States wanted Clinton. This issue is another reason why I believe we should get rid of the winner take all electoral system. Another example is how some “steady” Republican states or some “steady Democratic states, aren’t as “steady” as some may think. In 2012 over 3 million Texans voted Democratic, and almost 5 million Californians voted Republican. If votes were not based on majority, 16 of Texas’ electoral votes would have been democratic and 20 of California’s electoral votes would have been republican. Because of our system, the Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California, have no say in how the election turned out. Our winner take all system has many faults and needs to be removed.

  19. Nina Attisha

    1) I think both videos were very interesting; however, I think “Adam Ruins Everything” had more persuasive arguments about the electoral college. Not only was he funny, but he also had clear visuals and infographics that highlighted important facts. He reiterates the problems with the electoral college, especially the imbalance of influence of certain states. He also clearly shared the racist roots of the electoral college. I also found the Adams video to be more non-partisan. I did not find the “Prager U video” persuasive because the arguments were not clearly supported by facts and could also be used to justify the elimination of the electoral college. The Prager U video seemed to be driven by conservative ideology and the support of the status quo. I was disturbed by the notion that pure democracy – the popular vote – would lead to unrest. On the contrary, our current system of democracy which does not value all votes or all people has led to a loss of democratic values. (ie: gerrymandering, voter suppression, insurrection)

    2) I strongly believe that the electoral college should be eliminated. The winner of the popular vote should be the winner of an election. This means that every person’s vote, no matter if they live in California or Michigan, is weighted the same. The current system means gives more power to certain states and thus the individuals who live in those states. Some states are ignored during presidential elections; the candidates only visit undecided states. I also think it should be eliminated because of its racist origins (slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person) and the power it gives to white-majority southern states. Several times, most recently in 2016, the winner of the presidency did not win the popular vote. This would be eliminated if we eliminated the electoral college. There is a current bi-partisan effort in Michigan and other states to have all state’s electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. This would support the popular vote for the presidency.

    3) If it was not a popular vote system, then the next best thing could be electoral votes by proportion rather than the current system of winner take all. The proportionate system would make it more representative. People’s votes would matter more than the current system. In addition, candidates would pay attention to all states and all votes – rather than only campaign in swing states.

  20. Nils Ericsson

    1. PagerU had a more persuasive argument because it gave more reasons as to why the Electoral College works. They argue that the electoral college protects from voter fraud by making sure that the votes stay in that state. Another argument is that the electoral college reminds candidates to not forget old safe states. An example of this is in 2008, where Goerge Bush managed to win the state of West Virginia which has been a historically blue state. Swing States constantly change so we should not ignore a state for too long without consequences. Although the other video says that in recent elections, 80% of all vote casts have no impact on the outcome, he ignored the fact that the electoral college system encourages coalition building and national campaigning. A presidential candidate needs support from different types of voters. He/she cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of the country is supporting them. Furthermore, if the election is based only on popular vote then the small cities/states will be ignored.

    2. I don’t think that the electoral college should be eliminated but I also believe that it isn’t perfect and needs change. The electoral college protects against voter’s fraud, small cities and states are not ignored, furthermore, it creates national campaigning. However, the electors can vote for whoever they want without consequences, and that needs change. The electoral college was built more on equity than equality, states that have less people have more power than larger states/ states with a higher population. For example, in Wyoming, one electoral vote is equal to 135,000 people, but in California, one electoral vote is equal to 411,000 people. Although the electoral college system has its benefits, there are still things that need to be changed to better represent the people.

    3. The winner-takes-all electoral system should be changed to make each candidate get the electoral votes they get based on the amount of popular votes they received. If a candidate wins the majority of the electoral votes in a state, they receive all the electoral votes in that state even if the state is one by one popular vote. This does not accurately represent the state’s voters and should be changed.

  21. Josh Glick

    I think that Adam Ruins Everything had a more persuasive argument because it gave clear simple arguments to its points, like when they talked about how some voters, votes don’t matter or how the winner takes all the system has been a deciding factor in a lot of elections. Meanwhile the PragerU video made weak arguments in my opinion like when they said that swing states don’t affect elections as much as they are made out to because the swing states change over time. Just because the states that are swing states now weren’t a few decades ago doesn’t mean anything, a few decades is a long time. Also it doesn’t matter what states are swing states, if they are swing states then they will be the main focus of an election.
    I believe that we should get rid of the electoral college because two of the main reasons why the founding fathers made the electoral college in the first place are not a worry anymore. In the late seventeen hundreds most of the population was uneducated so the electoral college was like a safety net for the nation, but that reason dosen;t hold up nowadays when everyone grows up with at least a basic education. Another reason for not doing the popular vote was that the southern states had a lesser population than northern states and were scared of being out voted by them, but nowadays slavery, obviuisly is not a thing so that is not a worry anymore
    The winner-take-all system should be replaced by the proportional way because then someone who loses the popular vote can’t still win the election and give every voter an actual impact. For instance in the example of Texas in the 2020 election that Trump won fifty two percent to forty seven percent that forty seven percent of votes meant nothing. Another upside to the proportional way would be that if people thought that their vote really counted then more people would vote.

  22. Chloe Alkatib

    In my opinion, Prager U had the more persuasive argument. The video included the founding fathers and explained how they created the EC and how they wouldn’t want it to be taken away. It also explained the swing states and the safe states and how they decide if the state is democratic or republican. Going back to the founding father’s topic, the video included the detail and work that the founding fathers put into this idea. It also includes how the EC would make it harder to steal elections, as it said in the video, “Without the Electoral College, any vote stolen in any precinct in the country could affect the national outcome.” It persuaded me more to keep the electoral college and how it keeps everything safe and fair.

    No, I do not think that the electoral college should be eliminated because first of all, we have had it since the founding fathers, they created it and detailed it down to everything they thought was correct. For all of these years it’s worked for our country so why should we eliminate it? The electoral college also keeps the smaller states relevant, if there was no EC then the small states wouldn’t have too much of a say on who would win the election. The country is more stable with the electoral votes. You don’t have to go back and count all the votes in each state, you can just count the state that is questionable.

    No, the winner should not take all. It would be fairer for them to split the electoral votes according to the popular vote. Like the example of Texas during the 2020 election, it’s such a close race that it would make more sense to split the votes and account for the whole population. The winner takes all system would be unfair and it would not be an accurate count for the opposite party. If the electoral votes were split, it would give a chance for the smaller, weaker party. All the state population would be represented, and no one would feel that the winner stole the election.

  23. Cabrey O'Gorman

    1.I think that the video that was stronger and had a more persuasive argument of Adams ruins everything. I think this because in the video they talk about how the smaller states have more power because in the smaller states it takes less people to have an electoral college vote and they talk about how everyone’s votes are more or less based on what state they live in which is very unfair. The video also talks about how the people who are running for president tend to get some states to vote for them because by doing that they know that they will automatically get more votes. Another reason that I think this video was more persuasive is because they did not just sit there, they used props which made it more entertaining and not boring and helped me take more information away from the video.
    2.I personally think that the electoral votes should be eliminated. I think this because I learned that based on the majority of your votes in your state that’s what your electoral vote will go to. I think that this is extremely unfair because not everyone in your state has the same opinions. With that being said it shows how unfair it can be because if you know that your state is most likely going to vote one way but you don’t think that is the right way why would you even bother voting because you vote will not even matter.
    3.I think that the winner takes all system should definitely be changed. This system is very unfair in a way that if your state is split up but the percentage is just a little bit higher on one side that person gets all the votes. This doesn’t make sense because not everyone in the state will agree and if your state is one of the states will more electoral votes and one side is only a little higher in the percentage it is very unfair to the people who lost because even if other states majority is what you wanted your state automatically has more electoral votes. In a way this is also unfair because some people who vote, their vote doesn’t even matter.

  24. Leah Dabish

    1. I beleive that Adam Ruins Everything had a more persuasive argument because of a point he made about votes not being equal in every state. This makes states with a larger population have porpotionally less electoral votes than those with a smaller population. In my opinion, nobody’s vote should count less than anyone else’s, especially with elections being so close recently. In a truly fair system, every person’s vote should matter the same amount. Another point from the video that I liked was that minority voters in safe states often dont really have a say in who’s president. This seems unfair because like the last point, everyone’s vote should matter, especially when deciding something as important as our nation’s leader. While the language used in Adam Ruins Everything isn’t the most professional, it makes sense based on the fact that it is a TV show, and must be entertaining to watch. The PragerU video also didn’t really make sense to me. They mentioned “The Tyranny of the Majoity”, but isn’t deciding the president based on the majority’s opinion just a regular and fair vote?

    2. I beleive the electoral college should be eliminated entirely, and that the rpesident should be chosen based on popular vote alone. I think that the use of the electoral college favors one political party over the other. We see this in instances when the popular vote does not match the electoral votes, as all modern examples of a president winning the election and losing the popular vote were republicans. This doesn’t mean that republicans “cheated” or anything, it just means the system favors them at the moment.

    3. The elctoral votes should be porportional to the percept of people who voted for each candidate. This system would make it so that minority voters in safe states would have an oppurtunity to make a difference in thier state’s electoral votes, even if it happens to be only one electoral vote. We know by recent elections that every vote counts. The amount of electoral votes in swing states would also close represent the views of the people in that states, rather than represent a slim majority. A porportional electoral college would better represent the people of america as a whole and would help to give votes more equal representation when voting for president.

  25. Michael Dolan

    The Adam Ruins Everything video was more persuasive as it gave more convincing reasons for the EC being flawed. The main reason for the electoral college being flawed is that safe states exist. Why would someone in California vote republican? The majority of the time the vote will be irrelevant and it discourages people from going to the polls. The PragerU video also made the claim that presidential candidates cannot afford to ignore states with fewer electoral votes, but this claim doesn’t seem realistic. From my experience observing presidential elections, most of the campaigning happens in swing states.
    The PragerU video wasn’t nearly as compelling in part because they did not explain how tyranny of the majority affected presidential elections. They mentioned its importance, but did not lay out a process, so the argument wasn’t very convincing to me.

    I don’t think the electoral college should be eliminated completely. The PragerU video outlines how the electoral college makes voter fraud and election stealing more difficult to organize and execute. I think this is valuable. If a crazy person manages to fabricate 10,000 votes in the favor of a candidate, the electoral college may effectively erase these votes. In a true democracy the number of fraudulent votes needed to swing an election is smaller. The electoral college should be modified instead. Protecting against fraud and tyranny of the majority is important for preserving democracy long term.

    I think the electoral college should be modified to vote proportional to the state population. Voting this way, the presidency would still be difficult to steal, as far more votes have to be fabricated to swing an electoral vote one way or the other. With this system, the chances of a candidate losing the popular vote and winning the election are reduced, and the president may become a better representative of the United States people’s interests. This change would also increase the value of the individual’s vote. This might motivate more people to go to the polls on election day. If more people vote, the president picked will likely be a more accurate representation of what the people want.

  26. Jordyn Jacobs

    1. PragerU was the video that had the most persuasive arguments. In the video, the speaker stated more information and background on why the president is chosen this way, how it works, and why it should stay based on how effective it is. The speaker talks more about how this system is done, an example from this video was the 2012 election between Barack Obama and Mitt Rommey. In Rhode Island, if voters voted for Barack Obama they were voting for the state’s four democratic electrons. In December along with five hundred thirty-four more electors who would officially vote for their next president. According to the speaker as well, the particular reason the Electoral College was chosen and continues to be carried out is that to win a candidate has to have the support of many types of voters all over the country. Instead of focusing on a handful of states because their votes were counted as more, everyone’s vote would be valued. You could not win two hundred seventy electoral votes by only one part of a country supporting you.
    2. The electoral college should not be eliminated because it shows what the majority of the country wants without featuring a popularity contest. It provides all of the states with an equal opportunity to put their say in on the discussion of power. It makes sure the smaller states don’t possess more power than the larger states. The electoral college also makes it harder to steal elections, with all the swing states it’s hard to predict and hard to accomplish. My only concern about attempting to abolish the electoral college is that it won’t be possible to get “2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all of the state legislatures”. Indeed it is a possibility that this change can be made, but is it a high one? I don’t presume.
    3.I believe the “winner takes all system” of how states assign their electors should be changed to be proportional. It would be more accurate by allowing a more practical view of what the country wants going forward. The winner has a way of making people who don’t agree with the state’s views feel silenced and afraid to vote, or feel angered by the fact their candidate didn’t even stand a chance. For example, if you are a republican in a democratic state or a democrat in a republican state, your vote is counted and then it is thrown away because it means nothing.

  27. Brooke Reynolds

    Adam Ruins Everything had more persuasive arguments than PragerU. He states that California has one electoral vote for every 411k voters, while Wyoming has one vote for every 135k voters. This causes voters in Wyoming to have three times the power of voters in California. He used evidence and humor to convince the viewer of his point. PragerU was less persuasive because most of their evidence was obsessively patriotic thoughts, and they started off their point by stating that ‘the left is wrong’. It seemed overly opinionated and unnecessarily right-wing from the very beginning, and to me, it besmirched the rest of the video. I also disliked the way PragerU tried to convince the viewer. Adam Ruins Everything was comical and informational, but remained passive. PragerU felt like they were pushing an agenda.

    I believe that the electoral college should be eliminated. It gives smaller states more power than large states, which leads to unequal representation of voters. I dislike that when you vote, you’re voting for the party of the electors and not the actual candidate that you would like to see become president. I also dislike that a presidential candidate can win the popular vote but still lose the election because of the Electoral College. Overall, the current system seems overly complicated, outdated, and somewhat undemocratic. I think it’s a poor choice to refuse to change things because ‘the Founding Fathers made it that way’. It causes us to be stuck in the past and doesn’t allow room for necessary growth.

    I believe that changing the winner-take-all system to become more proportional would be a good idea. It could motivate candidates to visit smaller states and give them more attention. Making the system more proportional is also more democratic. Changing the system would lead to more accurate voter representation. This can be seen from the 2020 election, when Trump won Texas with a slight margin. The winner-takes-all system throws out the other ~47% of voters who voted for Biden. If we switched the system to be proportional, Trump would have won 20/38 electoral votes, and Biden would have won 18/38 electoral votes. I believe that this system is more just and democratic.

  28. Alana Bobbitt

    In my opinion, I believe that the more persuasive/convincing video was the “Adams Ruins Everything” video because it showed both views on the EC and rebuttal it. It also broke down how EC works and how the system is unfair and how your votes count for less based on where you live. The video was also more intriguing and entertaining which helped me retain the information better. Although the information in the “Why the Electoral College Essential” was also informative and had some good points, overall the first video was more fitting for me.

    Whether or not we should keep or disregard the Electoral College is something I am not 100% certain on. When you’ve had a system for so long it would have a lot of opposition towards its removal and then you would have to think about how to replace it. If we were to switch from the EC to a regular popularity vote, then I would rather keep the EC partly because I just don’t like the idea of having the person who runs our country be determined from a popularity contest. It also gives people who are uneducated or dont take voting seriously more power. Maybe if we were to come up with an alternative that was more fair, but then again not everyone is going to be satisfied with it so I am neutral.

    When it comes to the winner take all system I think we should just keep it how it is, even though I really do think the current system is unfair, But I do think keeping it how it is already would be easier and make the election process less complicated than if it were assigned proportionally. Although I do not like how a lot of the states get looked over. Like in the article and the blog we read it said that “2/3 of the states don’t even matter in a presidential election because they’re not battleground states”. And it also talked about how Presidents only really focus on getting the Electoral College votes from the biggest states like Michigan, Texas, Florida, Ohio etc.. but if we got rid of the winner take all system, wouldn’t it cause the running presidents to focus on the bigger states even more knowing that they could only get half of the normal electoral votes they usually would have gotten ?

  29. Jackson Quinn

    1. In my opinion, Adam Ruins Everything had a much more persuasive argument. He addressed multiple facets of the electoral college, provided their strengths, and subsequently countered them with the much more erroneous weaknesses. Prager U took a very defensive stance, and used language that appeals to a very specific demographic; old rich conservatives. They did not address the counter arguments, but said things like “the founding fathers were geniuses” (paraphrased), and “the founding fathers believed in the electoral college, so shouldn’t we believe in it too” (paraphrased). When considering all of the elements of a quality argument, Adam Ruins Everything hit all the necessary components, and Prager U did not.

    2. Put simply, the Electoral College is a flawed system and cannot be a part of any reasonable democratic society. The Prager U video states that candidates can’t ignore small states, and claims that there is no such thing as a safe state, but as we look at elections through a historical lens we can see that those statements are simply false. The voting habits of states may change, but this just means that they are going from a safe state in one direction to either a swing state or a safe state in the opposite direction. The electoral college puts higher value in swing states than it does in any safe state. In a state such as California, all 55 electoral votes are almost guaranteed to go to the democratic candidate, even though roughly 20% of the state did not vote for them. This system takes the votes of people who vote contrary to the more popular party in their state and makes them virtually useless. A true majority would put equal value in each vote, instead of making the votes of any contrarians in a state essentially null and void. It is a deeply flawed system that does not fairly represent the American vote, as seen in the multiple elections where the more popular candidate, the winner of the true majority, was denied the presidency because of the electoral college and the unequal values that it places on votes and voters.

    3. I think that a proportionate electoral vote in each state would be more effective than the current electoral college, but still would not be ideal in states with low numbers of electoral votes such as wyoming, with 3 votes. In a state such as this a candidate could win 51% of votes and receive 67% of electoral votes. This disproportionate spread of electoral votes is exactly what the abolishment of the electoral college would destroy. Without the electoral college, each vote would carry the same weight. Until the electoral college is abolished, we will continue to see an incorrect representation of voters in the USA.

  30. Mikayla Benavides

    I think that the Adam Ruins Everything video was more convincing than the PragerU video. It showed a visual representation of their perspective and they gave strong reasons to back their argument. He explained that swing states are the only states that really matter in the Electoral College and smaller states actually have more power over the election than bigger states do. The video proved that the Electoral College causes candidates to campaign only to swing states, as they are reliant on their safe states to vote for them. The PragerU video, in my opinion, contradicted itself in a way and it felt like her arguments seemed to be running in circles. Her main argument was that some states voted the opposite that they do now, therefore “safe states” are constantly changing. This is completely misleading as she could only give us two states that changed, and they didn’t even swing the other way in this century. Tara Ross’s argument, while making points that are worth listening to, is weaker than Adam Conover’s due to her contradicting and outdated statements.

    I think that the Electoral College should be completely eliminated overall. Our country is constantly changing in all aspects (congress, population, beliefs) each year, so it simply doesn’t make sense to rely on a system created 280 years ago. As explained in the “Adam Ruins Everything” video, just because someone didn’t win majority in a state, doesn’t mean every vote for them should be erased. That is completely ruining the idea of democracy and voting rights in America which further adds to my argument as to why the Electoral College does not promote equality and democracy in America, and should be discontinued.

    Yes, I think that the “winner takes all” system of how we elect our presidents should be abolished. If we cannot not change the voting system from the Electoral College to popular vote, I think splitting up the electoral votes based on which candidate got more individual votes in that state, would create a more equal election and would allow everyone’s voice to be heard. Currently, if you live in a state that is mainly republican but you vote democratic, the republican candidate will take all of the electoral votes from your state and your vote is essentially thrown away, which in my opinion, is violating our rights as an American. These points not only contribute to why I think the winner – takes – all system should be erased, but also to why the Electoral College should not be the way presidents are elected.

  31. William Dinkeloo

    I think that the Prager-U video had a more convincing argument then Adam Ruins Everything. I think this because it made more points on the goods of the Electoral College and I think that Adam Ruins everything didn’t make as many or as convincing points. In the Prager-U video, one thing that convinced me is that it talked about how without the Electoral College, candidates would most likely ignore states where the votes would barely matter for winning and I agree that that might be a problem without the Electoral College. I also think that the video made a good point about how even if we aren’t directly voting for the president, we are still voting for people within our party that will vote for the person we want. Overall, I still liked the points that Adam Ruins Everything made, but I just felt that Prager-U made a more convincing argument.
    I don’t feel that the Electoral College should be eliminated because of all the ways it helps keep the election more fair. But I
    do feel that we should tweak it a little bit so its even more fair for people. One reason I think the electoral college is good is because it helps even out power between states but even if it is trying to even out power between the states, it still might be giving too much power to some states over other states, which might be unfair. Another thing that I really like about the electoral college is that the Electoral College helps prevent voter fraud, which popular vote might not be able to do.
    I do think that the winner-takes-all system should eventually become proportional. I think that it should change to proportional because this would even power and the votes out between states and make the election more fair. Another reason is that it also gives candidates a chance to win parts of “safe states.” Finally, I think that if we change it to proportional it could bring the Electoral College closer to popular vote, but keep the good things about it that help the country.

  32. Amanda Hamze

    1.) Although I feel that the electoral college should stay, the Adams Ruins Everything video had a more convincing and persuasive argument. I believe that the electoral college is a little messed up, and the video explained that well, highlighting the big issues with the electoral college one main one being the imbalance of power different states have. The man doing the explaining was funny and easy to understand all while giving actual infographics and statistics.

    2.) I believe that while the electoral college can be unfair and definitely has its flaws, it should stay because overall it protects against voter fraud, ensures that all states are involved in selecting a president of the United States and guarantees certainty to the outcome of the presidential election. But knowing this, I also think that if it does stay, parts of it should change. For example, I don’t think that “Swing States” should get as much power because that basically allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states, giving all states a say but not an equal one. I also think that another flaw of the electoral college is that it ignores the will and voice of the people. There are over 300 million people in the United States, and yet only 538 decide who will get to be president. And sometimes this flaw can really mess up the election and who should actually be president versus who those 538 want to be president.

    3.) Yes, I feel that the Winner Take All System should be changed to be proportional because each candidate gets a certain amount of votes in each state, and should keep those votes, and not get more based on their opponents loss. It’s not fair to the people of that state seeing as one party’s votes get completely thrown away due to the fact that they lost by a couple votes to their opponent. The electoral college is already flawed and unfair, and this system just adds to that. Plus its stupid to give one candidate all the votes just because they won that state by maybe a couple of votes, it totally alters the election and raises the winners ego.

  33. Kennedy Cook

    1)I feel like Adams Ruins Everything had the more persuasive argument. While watching the video I liked how the narrator simplified the evidence against the Electoral College to make it easier to understand. It reminded me of how Common Sense persuaded almost all citizens because it was easy to comprehend. The Adams Ruins Everything video brought up how most states don’t matter in the election because they’re not battleground states. He also mentioned that smaller states have more important votes using the example of how 1 California vote equals 411k people but 1 Wyoming vote only equals 135k people. Finally he talked about how the founding father designed the system to be as bad as it is and it’s not the fault of corruption overtime. The founding father didn’t believe the citizens should have been able to vote so why should we follow their rules?
    2)I believe that the Electoral College should be eliminated. The Electoral College’s biggest rule shuts out the voices of many Americans whose votes don’t end up counting. The Adams Ruins Everything video describes how a lot of states would be more purple if we included everyone’s vote instead of taking the majority. Another reason the Electoral College should be eliminated is because the voters can vote for whoever they want in almost half of the states making the system unfair. In my opinion they might not even be qualified enough for that position due to the incident in 2008 where one of the electors voted for John Ewards who wasn’t even running for president. The reasons for creating the Electoral college were different for the founding father back then compared to how they are now. Taking all of the data into consideration the Electoral college should be eliminated.
    3)I think the electoral votes should be assigned proportionately. I believe this because it would give the states citizens more of a vote on who becomes their next president. One of the main flaw with the Electoral College is that anyone voting for their states opposing party becomes unimportant but, if they proportionately divided the votes everyone’s opinion would count and make it a more system. It could also drastically change elections and I’m interested to see how they would play out,

  34. Brady Glime

    1. I think that the video “Adam Ruins Everything” had the more convincing argument against Prager U because I thought, it better explained in the way that the people were speaking and showing engaging and realistic examples. The Adams Ruins Everything video, he was talking about how the small states basically have more voting power in a very reasonable and convincing way. The Adam ruins everything video also says how the elections should not come down to just a “few swing states”. He also talks about how larger states in popularity shouldn’t have less power since larger states have more people. In the Prager U video they were also discussing about how the founding fathers thoroughly thought about how the electoral college would work, however that took place was many centuries in the past, and slaves were a factor to them and they took that into account when deciding how the electoral college should be.
    2. I do not think that the electoral college system should be entirely eliminated, however it could still be changed with a few changes. I think that the states should have it where there is not a complete winner take all situation, but the system should still not be entirely a popularity contest. If there is a way for the electors’ votes to be evenly distributed amongst voters, but not become a contest of popularity, I would definitely recommend that.
    3. The winner takes all system of how states assign their electors should be changed to be proportional because it would be much more even than simply giving all of the votes to the other person just because they had more votes. In the videos, they gave examples about how the different parties would get a significantly different amount of votes in certain large states which could better represent the population better if there is a state that has a lot of voters but we already know which party is going to win that state, it would give more purpose to all of the voters. Also, smaller states have more power over bigger states just even though they have less people.

  35. John Foret

    I believe that the Adam Ruins everything video had a better argument than the PragerU video because he explained very clearly how the Electoral college is flawed. He explains very clearly how some people’s votes simply do not matter because they live in a certain state. Why would someone vote Republican in California or Washington, or vote Democrat in Texas or Arizona? Most of the time their votes simply don’t matter because they live in safe states, which will always vote blue, or always vote red. Adam also points out that the fact the entire election is determined by just a handful of states, swing states, is messed up. Presidential candidates can focus their campaigning in these few states because they know that their safe states will vote for them no matter what, and they only have to focus on the ones that could swing red or blue, hence the name, swing states.

    I believe that the electoral college should not be eliminated, but it should be revamped. The PragerU video points out how the electoral college keeps us safe from voter fraud. If the president was decided on only a majority vote, any votes switched from one party to another could completely decide the election. PragerU also points out how in a pure democracy, the bare majority can tyrannize everyone else, as they explain in the two wolves and a lamb situation. In the end, the electoral college is flawed because the votes of the minority in safe states don’t matter.

    I do believe that the winner takes all system of how states assign their electors should be changed to be proportional to population. This would eliminate the problem of safe states, and everyone’s vote would count more. A person who votes blue in Texas may decide to go out and vote because their vote could actually count for something. Republicans in California or New York could do the same. Besides, I think we can all agree that the winner takes all system is very flawed. Once a state goes a certain way, everyone who voted the opposite of that vote simply doesn’t matter anymore, and their vote counts for nothing. This proportional way of distributing votes would better let us understand what the American people want.

  36. Tessa Trivax

    After watching both videos discussing the electoral college, I felt the PragerU video provided a more compelling argument than the Adam Ruins Everything video as to why the electoral college is essential. The original founding fathers’ justification for having the electoral college is still as valid today as it was 250 years ago: “pure democracies do not work.” I am persuaded by the PragerU argument that majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of the country. If we elected our president by popular vote, then the states with larger populations, like California and Texas, would decide each election and the votes of individuals from states with smaller populations would have very little impact on the final result. The electoral college is just as important to our country as is the system of checks and balances and the different numbers of Representatives for different states in Congress: it prevents any one state, party or system from getting too powerful. Because of this, I do not believe the electoral college should be eliminated. As described by the PragerU video, there are two phases to the presidential election system. The first, which they describe as phase 1, are the 51 popular elections (one in each state and one in Washington, D.C.) in November of a presidential election year. I believe this part of the system is important to retain. The rationale for the second phase, where the 538 electors voted in December of that same year, is less convincing to me. Two-hundred and fifty years ago, during our founding fathers’ times, it made sense that electors would be necessary and why we would vote first for electors, followed by the voting by electors in December. Today, however, when the two main presidential candidates can crisscross the country each day by plane spreading their messages, utilize the internet to spread campaign ideas and can even enter our living rooms during town halls, the role of the elector seems outdated and unnecessary. We want our candidates to care about every state — not just states with big populations. The swing states that change party preferences frequently are equally important. “No political party can ignore any state for too long without suffering the consequences. Every state and every voter in every state is important.” I am persuaded by this argument and that is why I believe the electoral college is so important. I also believe that the “winner take all” scenario is better for our country than a proportional process for the same reasons above: a proportional amount of votes per state is too similar to the popular vote and prevents people in smaller states from feeling like their vote counts.

  37. Zachary Lezovich

    I thought that Prager U was more persuasive than Adma Ruins Everything when talking about the electoral college. It gave valid points about why it was created and how it balanced our elections. The video was serious and asked questions making me think about why and how it was beneficial. When they gave the analogy about the two wolves and the lamb it strengthened the argument by talking about something everyone could relate to. When Prager U mentioned the different types of elections throughout the year and when we voted for Obama we were voting for the democratic electors, it showed what our vote counts for and how we do play a part in the election.

    I think the electoral college should not be eliminated because it creates checks and balances during an election. The candidates in the election would not value all the states as much as they do if we did not have an electoral college. Having an electoral college means all states have a value and without one other states with a smaller population won’t be valued as much. I think without an electoral college having an accurate count of votes is hard to have. I think if the majority of the states lean one way then having a few votes instead of millions creates a more accurate way of determining the winner.

    I think that the winner-take-all system should be changed to proportional because it would give each candidate the ability to earn more electoral votes and it would make the election more balanced, making it a closer race. It would also eliminate swing states and allow all states to have value with no state being more beneficial than the other. For example, in Michigan, it’s a 50/50 and in California, it’s a 50/50. This would mean each candidate got 50% in two states rather than winning the whole states giving each state a similar value. This would also allow for more accurate voter representation because both sides would be able to gain electoral votes. It also allows the candidates not to be able to claim the election was rigged as seen in the 2020 election, both sides would be able to gain electoral votes, reflecting all voters.

  38. Kate Nemeth

    1) I think the Video Adam ruins everything had the more persuasive argument for many different reasons, the main one being the way the video was made and the information was given to us. While Prager U made very good points, the more engaging video was Adam Ruins Everything. He designed the video in a way where I was constantly watching and extremely interested in what he saying. The way he was using the woman to ask questions that people without inside information would have made the video better because I was relating to it and my questions were being answered as he was speaking. The Prager U video had a ton of really helpful and interesting information on the topic, but I was bored watching it and I couldn’t focus. The woman was just sitting in front of the camera talking, there were lots of words on the screen and the pictures and images were boring and I was constantly getting lost or confused with the information.

    2) I don’t think the Electoral College should be eliminated. Like the woman said in the Prager U video, the founding fathers made the electoral college because with research done they concluded that pure democracy doesn’t work and that this system of government, Electoral Collage, makes the voting process smooth. Smooth as in the system works, not everyone is happy with it as this is a on going debate, but it works.

    3) I feel like the Electoral College should be modified in the proportional way. This system is more accurate to the popular vote and I feel it could reflect more of the peoples voices than the system now. While the system does work, this way of doing it could make more votes matter. An example in one of the videos was the safe states, if your state is a safe republican state and you vote democrat, ur vote isn’t impacting the over all election because your state will go red and all those electoral votes will go for the republican candidate. Whereas if you were In the same scenario but with a proportional vote, and 10% of the people in your state also voted democratic, 10% of the Electoral votes will go to the democratic candidate making the Electoral College system work in a way where everyones votes actually do matter.

  39. Sofia Audet-Abdulnour

    Just based on the first minute of each video, it is easy to say that “Adam ruins Everything” had a more persuasive argument. The graphics, attitude, enthusiasm, and use of factual evidence are all better portrayed in Adam ruins Everything’s video. Adams brings up things like how small states have up optionally higher voting powers compared to bigger states, like Wyoming and California. Adams also explains how almost all of America should not split into either red or blue because it eliminates all the in-between people. However, Prager U also had good points, like how a true democracy is achievable, which is a reasonable conclusion. Even though true democracy is unattainable, eliminating the electoral college would make it much closer, which is what Adams is arguing in favor of.

    I believe that the Electoral college should be abolished because it does not truly represent the majority of people. Another reason to eliminate it is the sole fact that it was founded on rich and powerful men who were out of touch with the rest of the population. Only the privileged were allowed to vote and had their voices heard. Why would anyone want to continue a system that was made like that? As society and technology grow, so should the government. To represent each individual, with their own power, they should have an equal vote. The EC does not give everyone the same voting power. If the majority population votes a certain person, then the person should be the one holding power. The EC can make it so that even if that certain person has a majority vote, they can still lose. In George Washington’s farewell speech one of his key points was to stay united as a nation. Making all states choose red or blue and compete against each other just contributes to the political divide in America.

    Yes, it should be changed so the votes are proportional. Not only would proportional votes represent people more fairly, but they would also create less of a stigma around political parties in their respective states. It’s also likely that it will encourage more voting since people’s votes would not be overruled in their own state.

  40. Freddy MacWilliams

    1. I think that Adam Ruins Everything made a better argument on the electoral college. He brought up lots of statistics that supported his argument, and they were shocking as well, like how there were almost 5 million Californians (blue state) that voted red in 2012, as well as over 3 million Texans (red state) that voted democrat the same year. He also talked about how voters in Wyoming, the lowest populated state, have three times the amount of voting power as voters in California, the most populated state. On the other hand, the PragerU made much weaker arguments, and they were mostly supported by patriotic claims, and stating that the left is wrong.
    2. I do believe that the electoral college should be eliminated. At the end of the day, our president should be decided on who has the most supporters. With the electoral college in place, campaigning for president is a strategic matter, where they focus on states that could vote either way, and pay less attention to states that are expected to vote towards a certain person. Basing the results off the popular vote would require politicians to reach as many people as possible, from all across the country, because every vote would actually count. Especially in a day and age with technology and the internet, it should be normal to reach as many people as one can.
    3. I believe the electoral votes should be given out proportionally in each state, instead of adapting a winner takes all system. While many sources that encourage people to go out and vote say that “every vote counts”, for many that live in safe states, that’s just not the case. For example, if you were a republican voter that lived in California, your candidate would have no chance in your state, and all 55 votes would go the democratic candidate, while your vote and millions of other individual votes in your state would add up to 0 electoral votes. If the electoral votes were rewarded proportionally, then minorities of voters in each state would actually matter in the overall election, and could encourage more people to vote.

  41. Gabe Mazius

    I think Adam Ruins Everything video made more sense, this is due to the fact that it really showed the problems of the electoral college. This was done in ways such as how pretty much 80% of the country’s votes don’t matter as they are in a safe state. Making the swing states the only important ones. It also points out how in many states the electors don’t even have to listen to the majority and can vote for whoever they want. This doesn’t make it a very fair system to those who live in safe states or ones where the electors don’t have to listen to the majority. If you’re in a safe state and are of the non majority party there, there is practically no point even voting as your state is already set on who to vote for.
    In my eyes the electoral college should be abolished as it has made its problems clear in the past recent years where the majority of the country voted for one candidate while the other got the presidency due to them getting a higher amount of electoral votes. This system was fair in its making as the founding fathers believed the people couldn’t be trusted and who is to blame them. Though as time progressed it became more and more different for the situation. Don’t misunderstand, I still agree that people are not smart enough to vote for the correct candidate most of the time, though the status quo has changed in the past couple hundred years.
    I believe in this new day and age that the electoral college, if not removed, should be altered as making it proportional where if it’s a 30/70 vote then one candidate gets 30% of the electoral college votes and the other gets 70%. This I feel would make the system much better for everyone and easier to block the problem we have been facing of candidates with less votes getting put in office anyway because of the electoral college. The other issue with the electoral college is that it is unbalanced as mentioned in the video people in smaller states get more votes compared to those in largely populated states. Along again with the issue of only caring about swing states making it seem like only part of the country actually has a somewhat mixed opinion.

  42. Nichole Mangoba

    Which video – Adam Ruins Everything and PragerU – had the more persuasive arguments? Why?

    I believe that PragerU had the more persuasive arguments than Adam Ruins Everything. Prager U’s arguments were highly informative. The woman in the PragerU video, Tana Ross, clearly defined what the electoral college is, how it came to be and why we shouldn’t get rid of it. In Adam Ruins Everything, Conover states that “the entire election is determined by just a handful of states (a.k.a the swing states)”. However, Ross made a counterargument that “safe and swing states are constantly changing”. This means that we can’t really think that “safe states” are actually safe because an example from the PragerU video would be that California (that usually votes Democratic) voted safely Republican in 1988 and Texas (used to vote Democratic) is now safely Republican. Ross’s definition, “No political party can ignore any state for too long without suffering the consequences”. Ross gave numerous reasons as to why the Electoral College is essential. These reasons are it encourages coalition-building and national campaign, protects against the tyranny of the majority, and discourages voter fraud.
    No offense, I think that this Adam Ruins Everything show is aired for comedic purposes (which it is based on my research). I don’t know if the information he says on the video is truly accurate or not (don’t take my word for it).

    Do you believe that the electoral college should be eliminated? Why or why not?

    If you ask me, the electoral college should not be eliminated. This is because IT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION CAN ONLY BE CHANGED by getting SUPERMAJORITY OF CONGRESS AND 3/4 OF THE STATES, which is PRACTICALLY POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Also, it doesn’t make sense that we remove right now, we’ve been using the electoral college for over 200 years. I believe that the electoral college is a fair system so that the presidential candidates have to pay attention to both SPARSELY POPULATED STATES and densely populated states (basically the whole country). If the U.S. is to hold elections using popular vote, this then motivates candidates to campaign in populous states and leaving out the rural states.

    Should the winner – take – all system of how states assign their electors be changed to be proportional? Why or why not? For instance, Texas has 38 electoral votes which Trump won in 2020 by a margin of 52% – 47%. If the electoral votes were assigned proportionally based upon the vote, Trump would have won 20 and Biden would have won 18.

    I think the winner-take-all system should remain. If all states assign their electors to be changed to be proportional, it will concentrate the huge advantage the Democrats have in states like New York, California, and Illinois and vice versa. By changing the winner-take-all system, it’s practically similar to a popular vote.

  43. lilah farra

    1.) in my opinion, the Adam Ruins Everything video was more persuasive than the Prager U video because it was overall more persuasive. I feel that the Electoral College is very far from perfect, and Adam highlighted those key arguments using more visuals and interactment. He focused a lot more on safe states that were predicted to vote the same political party in each election. The Prager U video was rather boring and she kept the same tone of voice throughout the whole video, and made weak arguments, talking about how swing states didn’t really effect elections, when in reality they add electoral votes needed to win.

    2.) even though I feel like the electoral college is messy and unfair, it does have benefits, and it exists for a reason. These reasons include protection against voter fraud, and it keeps smaller states relevant in an election. Without the electoral college, it would turn unfair as to the fact that the majority of popular voters would completely dominate the election, making it unfair. Another major reason being it ensures every state somehow has a say in who they want to win the election, instead of of it being a popular majority situation. on the other hand, i think some changes should be made to ensure voter fairness, because considering that the Founding Fathers came up with it, things were very different back then. Now, these “swing states” are given way too much power and control as to which party wins the election. With swing states, they do become relevant with their say in the election, but unfortunately its not equal.

    3.) i think the Winner Takes All system should be shifted to more proportional. This way, the presidency would be more difficult to swing over and to not base it on the opponents loss. This flaws the election, and makes it more complicated than it has to be. This system set in place that the loser loses some of their votes to their opponent and a party’s votes get completely tossed away needs to be fixed. It is completely wrong and obviously hasn’t been altered since the Electoral College was first created by the Founding Fathers.

  44. Cameron Beem

    1. I believe the video made by Adam Ruins Everything was more persuasive than the video made by Prager U. One thing specifically that drew my vote more towards Adam Ruins Everything video was the fact that they show the counter-argument and disprove it. Using this technique helped me understand more of what was being said and understand both sides of the argument. I did enjoy both videos concerning information and how it was presented, in the animations they each had and the comedy factor in the Adam Ruins Everything video.

    2. I believe the electoral college should be eliminated and the presidential election should be decided on the popular vote. First of all, people’s votes are worth more in different states, which is very unfair. AS described in Adam Ruins Everything’s video, a vote in Utah is worth 1/135,000 of an electoral vote, while in California, a vote is worth 1/411,000 of an electoral vote. This is unfair because all people should be getting the same amount of power with their vote, which should be 1/every voter. Since the president decides policies for the entire country, they should be a representation of what the majority of the country wants, which means abolishing the electoral college, since you can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. Also, every other person voted into office is decided by a popular vote. For example, each governor is voted into their position by a popular vote of the state. There are no power distributions based on residency which can sway the elected runner. If everyone else voted into office is decided by a popular vote, why shouldn’t the president?

    3. Although I still believe in the abolishment of the electoral college, assigning senators to vote proportionally is a better idea than what we currently have. I think having senators vote for the presidency is dumb since in many states they don’t have to vote for who their state chooses, which isn’t representing their population well. But, proportioning electoral votes is a great idea compared to what we currently have, since it shows the popular vote and may increase voters in states that were predominantly one party, as their vote matters more.

  45. Shaniah Cooper

    Adams Ruins Everything has a more persuasive argument going. He explains more of what I believe some people may not know of the Electoral College including the fact that smaller states can have more power than some larger states. The video overall gives stronger reasoning than Pager U. The video gives a very strong and solid reasoning especially towards the votes in safe states not mattering very much because of how hard it would be to change that state’s normal political choice. The Pager U video was not very strong in it’s argument and seemed to be reaching for evidence in certain areas. For example, the mention of certain states like California and Texas voting for a party outside of their normal ways isn’t as valid of a reason being that this happened very many years ago. While the example mahy be true, it’s not very strong in it’s argument. The Adams Ruins Everything video also brought a more modernized appealing way of getting me to understand what the Electoral College is for and why it is unfair and needs to be abolished.

    I do believe that the electoral college should be abolished, and there should be a new form of voting during the Presidential election. I believe that the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage towards some states (specifically some that are not safe states). I think that it’s unfair to voters that their vote may not have much influence given that their state generally votes one way. Not only do I believe the system behind the EC to be unfair, but I do believe that it’s outdated. There should be more set standards when choosing our President. ​​

    The “winner-takes-all” system should not continue on for elections to come. It is one of the more unfair things about the Electoral College and should be abolished as well. If the electoral votes were assigned proportionally, we as a country would be able to see votes of the people more realistically. The “winner-takes-all” system discourages the states that are considered safe, and would make them not want to vote at all. Overall the Electoral College has a system that is flawed and should either be modified, or abolished.

  46. Jake Rosenwasser

    In my opinion, Adam Ruins Everything had a more compelling and persuasive argument when it came to the necessity of the Electoral College. In Adam Ruins Everything’s video, he says that 80% of the country’s votes pretty much don’t matter in the current system of the Electoral College. This is a strong argument because the whole point of voting is that each and every vote matters, but in the system of Electoral College, as stated by Adam Ruins Everything, every vote doesn’t matter. In addition, in Adam Ruins Everything, Adam outlines how using a popular vote can get rid of swing states, and safe states, which hurt the true credibility of the elections. The argument in Prager U that majorities do not work is not very strong because the point of a republican government is that the people have the power, and if a majority vote for a president loses, then that is a true republican government.

    I believe that we should get rid of the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote. As a true democracy, there is no reason for the majority of people in our country to vote for one person over another, and the person with less total votes wins the election. That is not true democracy. Plus the swing states being a crucial part of every single election is bad for the country, because the presidential candidates just focus on the swing states, and don’t pay attention to the safe states. The fact that the presidential candidates don’t pay attention to your state could completely change the outcome of your individual vote, which could in turn change the outcome of the popular vote, which should be the system in place.

    If we are going to maintain the Electoral College, the winner-take-all system has to be replaced with proportional representation. As the United States of America, we are a group of united states, and there’s no reason to completely eliminate part of a state’s population’s votes, just because they weren’t the majority in the state. We are voting on a national president, and therefore, the boundaries of the states should not play a factor in the voting process. To use the example stated in the question, Biden deserves those 18 votes that he would get from Texas if a proportional system was used because 47% of the people in Texas wanted to vote for him, and the fact Trump got 38 electoral votes completely erased the votes of 47% of Texas’ population.

  47. Lilia Chung

    1) The adam ruins everything video has more persuasive arguments. His video uses real evidence and examples to support his claim. He also went into more detail about why he made that argument by breaking it all down, for example, If your state has a smaller number of people then your state has more power. He showed good graphics about his claims and talked about why they don’t necessarily make sense compared to just saying it without any supporting information. Adam also uses statistics and years to back his arguments giving them a stronger impact when thinking about them. In the PragerU video, they mostly focus on the creation of the electoral college and how it was originally designed and created. But since then, things and times have changed and I believe that the electoral college should be eliminated.
    2) In my opinion, the electoral college should be eliminated. Even though the electoral college served an important role in the past, it no longer does, and it almost defeats the purpose of voting. The worries that were in mind when the constitution was being created are not worries anymore. The electoral college has in the past, and in my opinion, ruined an election. Like in 2016, without the electoral college the other candidate, who receives the majority vote would have won. But because the electoral college voted in favor of the other candidate, they won the election. In the video, they talk about how you could get absolutely zero votes from the states, but get the majority from the electoral college and win. I believe that this is completely unfair and that the majority vote is the only fair way to elect the president of the United States.
    3) I think that the winner-take-all system should be eliminated altogether. Doing it this way makes some people’s votes completely forgotten and useless. Even if one candidate gets only one more vote, then the elector automatically votes for them, disregarding all of the millions of other votes that oppose the decision. Having this system in place may even discourage some people to vote, thinking that if the majority of the people around them have differing opinions that their vote isn’t worth anything. I think that if the electoral college is abolished altogether then the winner-take-all system should be as well.

  48. Natalie Wooldridge

    1. Although both videos make good points, I think “Adam Ruins Everything” is more convincing. In the video, it is shown that Wyoming’s voters overpower California’s voters, in a 3 to 1 ratio. This is unfair because it is not proportional. In a perfect country, every vote would be counted equally. Another point made was how candidates can rely on safe states to vote for the same party while paying more attention to the swing states. Especially, the swing states that have more electoral votes. This is unfair because the candidates need to focus on the country as a whole, and not just individual states.
    The video, “Pager U”, seemed to be coming from a political ideology and had fewer facts. They stated the electoral college helps represent the smaller populated states. I think the smaller states should not have a better advantage, but a fair one.
    2. I think the electoral college should be eliminated as a whole. Not only does the electoral college come from racist roots, but it also does not represent everyone equally. The “win and take all” situation, allows for only one party to be represented per state. Your vote doesn’t really count if your state won the opposite party. Also, our current election process allows the candidates to get away with putting their focus mainly on the swing states while expecting the safe states to vote for the same party. In addition, I think it is completely illogical that your electors don’t have to vote for the party that they are representing. To conclude, the electoral college leads to the unfair representation of voters.
    3. I think we should not continue the “win and take all” system because this would solve the problems with the swing and safe states. This will allow for the candidate to focus their campaign on the whole country because it is about the popular vote. Instead of depending on safe states, the candidates would depend on every vote (even the ones outnumbered in each state). This would be more beneficial to the voters of opposite parties in safe states. Overall, This is the best way to represent everyone’s vote equally.

  49. Briana Kim

    1. I believe that the “Adam Ruins Everything” video had many more persuasive arguments compared to the PragerU. I think this because the video was able to show the flaws of the electoral system along with how unfair it is for varying states and voters. One topic discussed was how the electoral college isn’t based upon majority votes, resulting in unfair votes. If a particular candidate has more votes, they can still lose the election because of electoral votes. This system of electoral votes gives voters the impression that their votes may not be as impactful as others or how the votes ultimately go to the electors. In the video it discusses how some of these electors don’t have to vote for who the people want, the electors could choose a different person anyways, making the voters feel once more that their vote doesn’t matter. Meanwhile, the PragerU video made weak arguments, for example, they said that swing states don’t affect elections as much as they are made out to because the swing states change over time. Their examples and statistics also weren’t very recent, so they weren’t as strong an argument. Overall the video shows many ways that the electoral college system is unfair and keeps current problems rather than century-old news.

    2. I think the electoral college should be abolished because of the voting powers in different states. Purely based on what state you live in can affect how much of an impact your single vote can make. In “Adam Ruins Everything” illustrates how candidates are often more likely to focus on the swing states during a presidential election. In twenty-four of the states, these electors ultimately vote for who they want, rather than who the people of that state or the country want. An example of this would be when an elector voted for John Ewards rather than John Edwards.

    3. 3. I think the abolishment of the electoral college is necessary because of the unfair advantages it can get depending on the state. Most notably, the votes in the electoral college should reflect what the people want and they don’t always do so. The election of 2020 is a great example, it makes a huge difference in the election when Trump secured all 38 votes compared to if Trump and Biden received the proportional votes they were originally assigned (20-18). The electoral college leads to candidates focusing on the swing states rather than all of America. This old outdated system requires a change to better suit a society that in America.

  50. Sofia Scott

    The PragerU video had a more persuasive argument than Adam Ruins Everything. Tara Ross is able to clearly present her argument in a well-spoken manner. The PragerU video provides simple visuals which add to the understanding and persuasion of the video. The PragerU argument is supported by appropriate language, unlike Adam Ruins Everything where unfit language is used. Conover does not deliver his argument with accuracy; he does not connect his arguments with evidence/reasoning as well as Ross. I recognize Conover’s video included jokes and is meant to be an educational/entertaining visual, but from an educational/accuracy approach, PragerU had a much better argument.
    Although there are flaws in the electoral college, I believe it should be kept. The PragerU video argued presidential candidates would only try to win over the states with large populations if there was no EC. I believe the representation of smaller states is appropriately displayed with the EC. With the electoral college, candidates can focus their persuasion and attention on smaller states. When George W. Bush won the 2000 election, he did so with the help of Virginia, a previously safe state flipped from Democratic to Republican. When Bush focused his campaigning on a small state like Virginia, it helped him win the election. The EC ensures that every voter in every state counts. Therefore, the electoral college should be kept.
    I believe the winner takes all system should be eliminated and changed to be proportional. The current system drives candidates to focus on the bigger states with more electoral votes leading the larger states to have an advantage. If the system was removed more people would be motivated to vote and the smaller states would have a more fair playing field when it came down to the electoral votes. I believe the representation of the voters from all the states would be more accurate if the electoral college was changed to be proportional.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*