Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained – Christina Greer


Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained – Christina Greer

Translator: tom carter
Reviewer: Bedirhan Cinar Most people have heard of the Electoral College during presidential election years. But what exactly is the Electoral College? Simply said, it is a group of people appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. To understand how this process began and how it continues today, we can look at the Constitution of the United States: article two, section one, clause two of the constitution. It specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election. How do they decide on the number 538? Well, the number of electors is equal to the total voting membership of the United States Congress. 435 representatives, plus 100 senators, and 3 electors from the District of Columbia. Essentially, the Democratic candidate and Republican candidate are each trying to add up the electors in every state so that they surpass 270 electoral votes, or just over half the 538 votes, and win the presidency. So how do states even get electoral votes? Each state receives a particular number of electors based on population size. The census is conducted every 10 years, so every time the census happens, states might gain or lose a few electoral votes. Let’s say you’re a voter in California, a state with 55 electoral votes. If your candidate wins in California, they get all 55 of the state’s electoral votes. If your candidate loses, they get none. This is why many presidential candidates want to win states like Texas, Florida, and New York. If you currently add up the electoral votes of those three states, you would have 96 electoral votes. Even if a candidate won North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire. Connecticut and West Virginia, they would only gain 31 electoral votes total from those eight states. Here is where it can get a little tricky. On a rare occasion, like in the year 2000, someone can win the popular vote but fail to gain 270 electoral votes. This means that the winner may have won and collected their electoral votes by small margins, winning just enough states with just enough electoral votes, but the losing candidate may have captured large voter margins in the remaining states. If this is the case, the very large margins secured by the losing candidate in the other states would add up to over 50% of the ballots cast nationally. Therefore, the losing candidate may have gained more than 50% of the ballots cast by voters, but failed to gain 270 of the electoral votes. Some critics of the electoral college argue the system gives an unfair advantage to states with large numbers of electoral votes. Think of it this way. It is possible for a candidate to not get a single person’s vote — not one vote — in 39 states, or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by winning the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia or Virginia. This is why both parties pay attention to these states. However, others argue that the electoral college protects small states such as Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire, and even geographically large states with small populations like Alaska, Wyoming and the Dakotas. That’s because a candidate can’t completely ignore small states, because in a close election, every electoral vote counts. There are certain states that have a long history of voting for a particular party. These are known as “safe states.” For the past four election cycles — in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 — Democrats could count on states like Oregon, Maryland, Michigan and Massachusetts, whereas the Republicans could count on states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas and Idaho. States that are teetering between between parties are called “swing states.” In the past four election cycles, Ohio and Florida have been swing states, twice providing electoral votes for a Democratic candidate, and twice providing electoral votes for a Republican candidate. Think about it. Do you live in a safe state? If so, is it a Democratic or Republican safe state? Do you live in a swing state? Are your neighboring states swing or safe? Is the population in your state increasing or decreasing? And do not forget, when you are watching the electoral returns on election night every four years and the big map of the United States is on the screen, know that the magic number is 270 and start adding.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

52 thoughts on “Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained – Christina Greer”

  1. Aaron G says:

    5:04 "What is up Drama Alert Nation, I'm your host Killer Keemstar. Let's get right into the neeeews"

  2. Janay Warner says:

    Thanks for the video. Great explanation

  3. T J says:


  4. Erik B says:

    It’s simple folks. If a democrat wins it’s the best system. If a republican wins it needs completely overhauled

  5. NinjaOnANinja says:

    I normally dont learn anything from these videos, but today is the first time. Good job, for once. Duh nuhhhhh!

  6. Tic Tocer ! says:

    When it says Michigan is safe for dems. That comment doesn’t age well

  7. RuciosDubstepMixs says:

    Basically your vote doesnt matter. Popular vote should he elected period.

  8. Am Cheeze says:

    this… didn't give me an answer…

    The title is misleading. Its even made worse that you can see that they were going to explain it a bit more, but started to drift off, and forgot to come back to explaining how our vote counts.

    I really want to know.

    I would love to be able to explain to people how thier votes count, but this isn't helping.

  9. Vasilijan Nikolovski says:

    "We're not a Democracy bruh, we're a Republic" The amount of morons saying this and thinking that they're smart or informed is beyond infuriating.
    Wtf do you think a Republic, a Constitutional Democracy ARE?!! They're democracies. Stop pretending like people are talking about a DIRECT Democracy, and stop thinking that a Republic (Constitutional Democracy) is NOT a Representative Democracy.

  10. dave arc says:

    Then what is the use of voting if in the end it doesn't matter and this representatives will just vote to whoever they want to vote.

  11. Light Show says:

    Well at the same time America has a fpp system that let’s at its core a minority of the actual voters to dictate who is president.
    If 20 candidates run for presidency, only 5% has to vote for one person to win.

    From when this is posted there were 329,283,517 Americans. Only 823, 208 have to vote for one person. Pretty much any state could collectively have decided to chose one on popular vote.

    Before people say only like 6 actually run, that’s 20% needed. 65,856,703 is nothing compared to the other 80%.

    This creates a minority based voting system, if you add the electoral college not top as well.

  12. derper derp says:

    Voting is a waste of time.

  13. Jose Gamez says:

    Then why we waist our time going to vote , when the popular vote doesn’t count?

  14. aks flash says:

    Does mayor and governors elected the same way??

  15. Vernon Sheldon-Witter says:

    There is no way to explain it that makes any sense whatsoever.

  16. Donald Broussard says:

    And this is one of the important reason to have accurate census counts for US citizens!!!!!

  17. BigBleedinSteve says:

    Still better than the British system which is absolutely awful. It's pointless voting over here most of the time

  18. Dave says:

    Wow, I can't believe Democrats used to think Michigan was a safe state. Is that for real?

  19. Miss Kindness says:

    Where do the votes come from to get the ELECTORAL votes?? For example, the 55 year electoral votes from California? What defines which parties wins?

  20. Tommy Russell says:

    If it weren’t for the electoral college the vote would be dominated completely by a few costal regions, democrats would almost always win ( thanks to California ) and than there wouldn’t be equal representation to people in states that are more inland as they live a different lifestyle and without the EC presidential candidates wouldn’t care about them nearly as much.

  21. Cereal Killer says:

    I still don't get why they need the electoral college system

  22. Colonel Chuck says:

    If just the Big Cities are used the billionaires will take control of all national elections because only the populated cities would count. The Founding Fathers knew that Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, would decide the elections without the Electoral College. The Elites want to control, so do away with the Electoral College and good-by Republic.

  23. Nizwiz411 says:

    Very poorly explained

  24. Checkerzzz gaming Hi says:

    Your vote will never count both Republican s and Democrats don't care about Americans enought e mail s pictures show American lives were apart of all political paycheck as long as American s die both e mails showed they make money from imagrants stealing our identity both sides did

  25. Joey 9 says:

    Trump is proof your vote doesn't count.

  26. Eber Rodriguez says:


  27. John Sorzano says:

    This is “abzurrd” lol

  28. Charles says:

    View this video if you doubt the Electoral College's near perfect method of electing a President.

  29. Charles says:

  30. k3V says:

    5:00 and your host is killer keemstar

  31. Bard Wheelo says:

    Game on.

  32. Carmelita Good says:

    The electoral vote is unfair because it doesn’t actually honor the votes according to what the majority of people want. The electoral vote system is out of date and needs to be eliminated.

  33. RB says:

    The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".

    What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?

    What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?

    After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting ………. might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

    The Electoral College has poisoned the USA. But, I'm sure a "constitutional expert" would already know that, wouldn't they?

  34. Ray Kehr says:

    🤔 don’t think Texas and California will ever be the same color.

  35. The Marvelous M says:

    This does absolutely nothing to explain why the popular vote of The People doesn't count…

  36. Bill Wynne says:


  37. sgcl10658 says:

    If the UN has popular votes, every UN decision will be based on Chinese ppl. Therefore, UN officials will serve Chinese's needs only. The same rule applies to any country, that's why there was yellow vest movement in France, those country folks didn't have a voice in the French election. Their struggles were ignored.

  38. Channel Gee says:

    A popular vote would simply be much better. A blue vote could count in Texas, a red in California, and the swing states wouldn't hold immeasurable power over the others.

  39. Great White7 says:

    No because the Government does not run the country. Corporations do.

  40. &* says:

    the electoral college works, except for the people that lose the election. Now the losers want to change the rules so they could ever stand a chance of winning anything.

  41. Papua says:

    We need to eliminate electoral colleges. It sucks! By eliminating the electoral colleges, we don't have to worry about gerrymandering and all other frauds associated with our old voting system. Let's get it changed for popular vote system as everyone else in the world.

  42. Cpt. J says:

    so a candidate can win presidency by electoral college even if NOT a single civilian votes for them? Why do civilians even bother voting?

  43. Cpt. J says:

    There is an imabalnce of wealth and Capitalism at is core is the root of the 1% -now less than 1% having more access to natural resources than 99.9% of the World. Yet the western society is crying we are poor, starving and dying, but capitalism and the american dream will save us.
    what a bloody shame, capitalism itself is a MAJOR part of the very reason for poverty and disease and corruption. smh

  44. Kyle Wood says:

    Hkmm Iowa's abbreviation is IA, not IO. Hawaii is HI, not HA.

  45. Dr FARCE says:

    Translation = If you live in a solidly safe state, don't bother voting for president. Your vote will not count. BUT still vote for your representative!!!

  46. phunku8888 says:

    I thoroughly listen to this explaination and still confuse as heck 😑😠

  47. Nicole 's Right says:

    It should be 1 person equal 1 vote

  48. lou poh says:

    The motherfxxxer won the Eelectoral College but lost the popular votes!

  49. Maria The Slasher says:


  50. Albert Jackson says:

    Basically, as a state gets full… the iq goes down. California and New York demonstrate this.

  51. Scott Hodges says:

    There is no "the popular vote". There are 51 separate and unique votes on election day. People vote under the own unique circumstances in their own state. Tallying up those 51 unique elections and calling that a true reflection of a national popular vote is folly. The STATES elect the President NOT the PEOPLE.

  52. Nicholas Trudeau says:

    The main issue I have with the EC is that forty-eight of the states are winner take all. Which means, it does not matter if the winner won by one vote or five million votes, they would still get the same number of electoral votes. Which is a disservice to all voters, not just those who vote for a candidate in a tightly contested/swing state, because it doesnt give any value to an overwhelming win, either!

    The simplest adjustment that could be made to make the votes of every voter, regardless of state, matter more would be to split the electoral votes in each state by the percentage of the popular vote that each candidate won! Example: If a candidate won sixty percent of the popular vote, then they would get sixty percent of the electoral votes, and assuming the other candidate won forty percent of the PV would then win forty percent of that state’s EVs.

    This election is already shaping itself up to come down to a handful of states (rust belt), and that simplybshould not be acceptable!

    Andrew Yang has presented a similar idea to the one above, and I firmly believe that this would be a great compromise between the EC supporters and the popular vote supporters.

Leave a Reply

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