Election Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #36
Articles,  Blog

Election Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #36


Hi, I’m Craig, and this is Crash Course Government
and Politics, and today I’m gonna talk about an aspect of American elections that is probably
most familiar to you, at least if you’re an American and you sometimes watch TV, or look
at the internet, or read a newspaper, or breathe air. I’m talking about elections, which get a lot of
attention here in the US, and on Crash Course, possibly because they present a relatively straight forward narrative, and it’s easy for the media to cover. But we’re not going to focus on media coverage today.
No, instead, we’re going to look at why we have elections in the first place, and the institutions and procedures that structure the way elections work in America. We might even compare them to elections in other places, but I can’t make any promises. [Theme Music] Before we get into the nitty-gritty of how
elections work in the U.S., it might be a good time to ask a question that rarely gets asked,
“Why do we have elections in the first place?” A simple answer is, “Complexity.” America’s
too big and complex to hold public referendums on individual issues, although some states,
like California, try to do it. So, instead, we choose representatives. In other words, we vote for people,
not policies. Elections are as good a system holding these representatives accountable as any. Well,
at least they’re better than violence or public shaming. Political scientists and economists have a
more complicated way of describing this in terms of “adverse selection.” Because why
would we want a simple answer when we have political scientists and economists around?
Well, they gotta do somethin’. Adverse selection is a problem that can arise when we make a
choice but do not necessarily have all the information we need to make that choice. Kind
of like when you buy a used car. Elections help to solve this problem because
they are ideally competitive. The competition creates incentives for candidates to provide
information about themselves and to make most of that information accurate since their opponent
will call them out for any statements that are less than truthful. At least, that’s what
we hope will happen. Elections also supposedly make candidates
more accountable since they provide voters a chance to get rid of bad actors. Of
course, this only works when elections are competitive, and, as we’ll see in a later
episode, many elections in the U.S. really aren’t. You might think that since elections are so
important to our politics that they would be featured prominently in the Constitution,
but yeah, no. The Constitution does set up a few basic guidelines that structure American
elections, but most of the important rules that define the way elections are carried
out come out of state laws, legal decisions, and local administrative practices. So what
does the Constitution say about elections? Not a lot, as it turns out, except when it
comes to choosing the president. President just gets everything…
President’s so important. The Constitution does lay out the qualifications
for running for federal office–which we already when over in our episodes on Congress and
the President — and it describes the number of Representatives and Senators. But mostly
the Constitution leaves elections up to the states. Article 1, Section 4 says, “The times,
places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations,
except as to the places of choosing Senators. ” And the Constitution was later changed to
allow for direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, so that last clause
doesn’t matter so much anymore. The Constitution does say more about the way the President
is chosen indirectly through the Electoral College, but the framers messed that up so
badly that they had to amend the Constitution after the election of 1800. The Twelfth Amendment,
which basically means that the President and Vice-President come from the same political
party — although it doesn’t actually say that — fixed the electoral process. So now it’s flawless.
But it’s still indirect and the qualifications for the electors who choose the president
are still left up to the states. Some Constitutional amendments also help to
structure American elections. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawed poll taxes, which made
it easier for poor people to vote, and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting
age from twenty-one to eighteen. In general, when Congress addresses voting issues, it’s
to try to expand the pool of voters. Although the Constitution doesn’t specify
when elections happen, it does give Congress the power to do so, and it requires that the
day on which the electors choose the president has to be one single day. This is in Article
Two: “The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which
they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Congressional laws also help structure elections
by making them more fair. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 set up a number of systems to
increase voter participation by minority groups, especially African Americans. And Congress
also set up the Federal Election Commission, which has some say over elections. I’ll tell
you who should never be allowed to vote: eagles! You’re gerrymandered out of here. But generally, following the Constitution,
most aspects of elections are under the control of the states. State laws define how candidates
are nominated and get on the ballot, and they can influence the operation of political parties.
State laws also determine registration requirements for voting and set up the location and hours of
polling places, which vary a lot from state to state. Probably most important for federal elections,
state decide the boundaries of Congressional election districts, although not the number
of representatives each state has, which is determined by the state’s population. We’ll talk
more about election districts in a future episode. That’s what gerrymandering has to do with.
Remember when I gerrymandered the eagle? Yeah, that’s a preview for what’s coming. Although this is not always true in every
case, as a general rule of thumb, the federal government is more likely to pass laws that expand
voting, and states are the government that restrict voting, especially through registration requirements and
taking the vote away from people convicted of felonies. One important aspect of American elections
that has been set up by state laws is the way that winners have been decided.
We like to say that in America, majority rules. But for the most part, this isn’t really true,
at least as far as elections are concerned. In most states, and in most elections, we
follow the Plurality Rule, and this has important consequences for American politics. Let’s
go the Thought Bubble. Under the Plurality Rule, the candidate with
the most votes wins. The number does not have to be a majority, and the more candidates in the
race, the less likely anyone will get the majority. Suppose your election has four candidates:
A, B, C, and D. Candidate A gets 20% of the vote, Candidate B gets 30%, candidate C gets
25%, and Candidate D also gets 25%. That should add up to 100%. It does? Thank goodness! Okay,
so no one has a majority here, so who wins? Candidate B, of course, because she has the
most votes, 30%. Now you’ll notice something about this election that may be a bit of a
paradox: the significant majority of voters in this election, 70% in fact, have chosen
Not B. Yet, B is that one that wins. This is why we need to be very careful when we say
that majority rules, because in many cases, it doesn’t. But in some cases, it does. Some states do
have a majority rule in their elections. In these states, if no candidate gets more than
50% plus 1 of the vote, then the top two vote-getters go on to what’s called a run-off election. In this
second election, you almost always get a majority. In many cases, we also say that American elections
are “Winner take all.” This is the case in forty-eight out of fifty states when it comes
to electoral votes. What this means is that the winner of the election gets 100% of the
state’s electoral votes, even though it’s likely they wouldn’t have carried 100% of
the votes. It is possible for a state to decide to award its electoral delegates proportionately, based
on the percentage of votes that a candidate receives, or even by electoral district, although the latter rule
causes some problems, as we’ll see in another episode. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, the Plurality
Rule can result in the majority of people being represented by someone they voted against.
This seems like a bad system, so why do we have it? The main reason is efficiency. Under
plurality rule, you get a definite winner that you might not have under a majority rule.
It also allows for a greater variety of candidates to win, at least potentially. And it has one
key result for America’s political system: it pretty much ensures that we will only have
two viable political parties. The concept that plurality rules create two-party
systems is explained by something called Duverger’s Law. Here’s how it works. Imagine political parties
on a continuum from extreme right to extreme left. Most voters will not fall into either extreme,
so the masses of party followers will coalesce around the center-right and center-left. In these
conditions, there’s no incentive to form a third party because it’s likely to take votes away from the centrist
party, and thus throw the election to the other party. Let’s say that you’re on the right of the
political spectrum. You like the ideas of the center right party, but you think they’re
a little bit weak, and you’d like to see someone speak up more for your right-most ideas. You
could vote for the candidate whose ideology and policies are more to your liking, but
they’re not likely to win. Remember, most people prefer center-right ideas over extreme-right
ideas. That’s why they’re extreme. So, the candidate you would most like to support isn’t
going to win, but what’s worse for you is that by voting for them, you take away votes
from the candidate you partially agree with. Since people know that third-parties almost never
win, we’re left with only two parties in the U.S. Now, Duverger’s Law is important for political
scientists, and it explains broadly why we have two parties, but a look at American politics
in the second decade of the twentieth century suggests that parties are more extreme than
the model would lead us to believe. The polarization of parties is the subject of another episode
on the composition of parties and how they reflect political ideologies. But for now,
it’s still useful to understand how elections themselves work to shape the party system
we have in the U.S. This is what we sometimes call a structural or institutional view of
politics, and it’s the kind of thing political scientists really, really like. We’ll look
closely at the actual political parties and who votes for which one in other episodes.
But I hope we’ve provided a little bit of insight into how elections work in the U.S. Thanks for watching. See you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from
Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology
and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at
voqal.org. Crash Course was made with the help of this
plurality of people. Thanks for watching!

100 Comments

  • Ahmed Dilshad

    for fuck sake stop uploading videos about science, just close the channel, our teacher is opening your videos every fuckin single day, and we want some fuckin time to rest so please go and fuck the channel

  • frencheneesz

    What a great episode! Lots of excellent analysis and the tips of the hat to later episodes makes this feel like a small piece of a larger puzzle, rather than a topic viewed in isolation

  • Felix Camacho

    There should be an International Politics series explaining Geopolitical issues as well as the internal politics of other major countries.

  • Jim Goltz

    Duverger's Law assumes a simple left/right, liberal/conservative spectrum. I suspect the reality is closer to that depicted in the Pournelle chart (see Wikipedia).

  • angelcollina

    Watching all of +CGPGrey 's election videos has prepared me for this issue. I knew all about First Past the Post and why voting for a third party in this system ends up helping the other side. You should totally check them out!

  • aXios

    Electoral reform idea #12312451414

    2 candidates- Whoever gets the most wins.

    2 or more candidates- have several rounds of elections, each round knock the least popular candidate out until 1 remains

  • Heather Schurr

    Your nation graphic for the winner-take-all system is incorrect. Nebraska and MAINE are the states that do not have winner-take-all, not Nebraska and Massachusetts.

  • Matthew Strout

    Dear crash course, please learn stuff before you teach about it Nebraska and Maine are the to states that are not winner take all not Nebraska and Massachusetts.
    From high school student

  • Phonzo Cisne

    I will probably die before I see a more accurate and effective voting system like AV, STV, and MMP . First past the vote has way too many flaws to be put in a single comment.

  • Howard Luther Gilson IV

    FYI, In the graphic that shows which states are "winner take all", you have Nebraska and Massachusetts cut out, but it's Nebraska and Maine that can split up their electoral votes.

  • Christopher Rodriguez

    hey Craig can talk about the judicial elections. and how people can vote for their district judge. and how they work?

  • pete275

    No explanation on the electoral college? That's pretty much the most obscure part of politics, nobody know who they are and what they actually do.

  • Will T

    WAIT! I noticed something that is incorrect! Massachusetts does have a winner-take-all system for the electoral college, but, Maine does not. You switched this on the map. Maine and Nebraska are the two states that do not have winner-take-all for the electoral college. Easy mix up, Maine was once a part of Massachusetts after all! Sorry if this has already been addressed!

  • yarrn88

    Okay, so how am I supposed to hold accountable a politician that ruined the country by his stupid policy? Say recently Tony Blair accepted a blame on creating ISIS by invading Iraq. Okay, what's next? Accepting the blame is not good enough in a proper system he should have been on a trial and possible end up in jail. Even "competitive elections" theory can't solve that case, coz degenerates will compete with other degenerates, because they no they are not really held accountable for their fuck ups.

  • Mutex50

    I'm happy someone else besides CGP Gray is talking about the problem with pluraltiy. We should be trying to implement approval voting.

  • Alexandru Sebastian Constantin Tegus

    At 5:49, the run-off should be between candidates B (28%) and D (37%). C only has 24%, so she should not get to the second election round.

  • TracyG Crouch

    Can we have a separate episode on the purpose of the electoral college and what the framers were thinking when they made it? I'm in an argument about whether or not it was meant as a buffer between direct election and electing an unqualified person.

  • James Staruk-Peloquin

    Electoral College Thought Bubble edit: Maine splits their EC vote by House district along with Nebraska, not Massachusetts which awards in winner-take-all as the graphic suggests.

  • Zach Douglass

    My name is craig and im

    ⊂_ヽ
      \\ _
       \( •_•) F
        < ⌒ヽ A
       /   へ\ B
       /  / \\ U
       レ ノ   ヽ_つ L
      / / O
      / / U
     ( (ヽ S
     | |、\.
     | 丿 \ ⌒)
     | |  ) /
    ノ )  Lノ__
    (/___

  • Michael Jameson

    Why are you guys so damned liberal? You are teaching kids to be biased instead of looking at facts.

    There's a saying out there. It goes like this. "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" the wolves being the big states, the sheep being the small states. If the electoral college didn't exsist, America would be chaotic.The United States is not a democracy, and never has been! WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!

  • Jordan leigh Pritchard

    Minute 6:01 is wrong.
    Massachusetts has been a winner-take-all state since 2010. http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/16/winner_take_all_bill_is_okd_by_state_senate/
    Nebraska and Maine are not winner-take-all.
    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

  • Darric P.L.

    God bless the United States of America for having a free and just Representative Republic & God thank Donald J Trump for making America Great again!

  • your mom

    Why theres no representations for disabled people, acne ridden people, ugly people, fat people, and autistic people? Why so many focus on lgbt?

  • Lucas Odum

    People in America always talk about the electoral college and how it sucks but we never talk about plurality voting and the alternatives, fptp voting sucks

  • Amber Holloway

    I know no one gives a fLiP, but in case u wanna fix it… proportionally is misspelled in the transcript (DON'T HAAAAAATE MEEEE PLS, I'M OUT HERE TAKIN NOTES LMAO)

  • Leif Harmsen

    AV or a run off doesn't give you a real majority, just a fake majority, because it forces people to vote against themselves in a second or subsequent ballot. One can argue that a run-off system is actually less proportional (less fair to voters) because it's harder to vote strategically, one of the few things you can do under FPTP as a voter to better your chance of having at least some affect. Best of course would be to achieve proportional representation, which requires multi-winner districts so a number of parties/candidates can win in proportion to the votes cast for them with no absurdly unfair advantage to the twin "Demopublican" establishement parties. There's no need for or advantage to strategic voting in a fair (proportional) voting system, because by by definition PR essentially means that every vote counts.

  • Melinda Thompson

    take all in consideration voters, who been secretly offering legalizing things that are destroying our nation. brothels, drugs, and that which is against nature. that which has been destroying the structure of our nation. someone was right when they said we need a pooper scooper to clean up the poop! if I gave my child everything they wanted, even if things weren't good for them, it would make them sick! That's what our country is! it needs nurtured back to sanity

  • Melinda Thompson

    There's really no one for the younger people to look up too anymore! some lawyers, teachers, polotians, have slept with young women sold into sex trafficking

  • Melinda Thompson

    The more society. violates their conscious, to step out into areas that are normally forbidden, than they have a disregard for that which is normal

  • RB

    The Electoral College has really screwed up the USA.

    The "founding fathers" were terrorists(slavers), and they wrote themselves a welfare benefit.

    The Electoral College is nothing but a welfare benefit for terrorists(slavers)….nothing more than "free stuff" for terrorists, AND states which suppress voting. (I wonder which states traditionally attempt to suppress voting…….?)

    The ONLY reason Mr.Trump is prez is the welfare benefit for terrorists, the Electoral College.

    Therefore, Mr. Trump is the world's biggest "welfare queen".

  • Stephanie Logan

    The citizens in the territories need to count. If someone moves out of the country and their votes count, then so should people who reside in territories. They are as American as the rest of us.
    D.C. needs to be included. It shouldn't need to be said.

    The documents that are the basis of our national institutions were meant to be guidelines, I believe. Those guidelines were designed to be not stagnant and inflexible. They were designed to be able to change with the times because time doesn't stand still. No matter how many botox shots you get. Eyebrows won't move, but time keeps going.

    The founders of our nation knew that things will be vastly different in the future. And that the citizens would need to have flexibility in their government, that's why laws are designed the way they are.

    That's what the gun fans are getting wrong. Yes the second amendment gives all of us the right to bear arms (not a flannel shirt with the sleeves torn off) but it was meant to declare that the citizens were being given the right to defend themselves from the ruling party (the English monarchy) at that time (1776), which they had to do because they were being overrun with redcoats busting in their front doors and taking whatever they desired.
    There is no need to defend ourselves from military coups, or hostile invasions (with the exception of these guys: 👾👽👾👽). Nor is there a need for defensive devices that fire 800 rounds per second when you go to get a burrito (unless you order an unusually aggressive burrito, but just arm yourself with a book of matches and air freshener..and easy on the hot sauce next time).
    I keep wanting to know why people need to be armed to feel secure. WTF is so scary? Why all this fear?
    When did Americans become such chickenshits?

  • Luis Solano

    A question to ask is what are your plans to help the us economy from crashing into a bigger debt, what are your projects, projects either make money or waste money, if they don't have a lick of sense do we have to vote if both parties don't have the qualification? It takes intelligence and science, I have the solution, our technology can increase but our economy will crash worldwide, I should be president because I want to help my country, it won't happen I'm a felon and i'm not age appropriate, i need 7 more years till I hit 35 I'm still in my 20s but I figured the formula on 5 years ago, I knew how to solve the trillion dollar debt years ago I grew from there since I didn't get paid and now i'm on a level where I can see what it is,

  • Manoj Kumar Thakur

    सर् अगर कोइ बियक्ति अपना गांव में नही है व दिल्ली , मुम्बई जैसे सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे देगा । इस तरह काफ़ी वोट इलेक्शन में नही जा पाता। क्योंकि उसका नाम तो गांव की वोटर लिस्ट में नाम है वह सहर में वोट कैसे देगा । उसके लिए भी कुछ कीजिये जो गांव में नही है सहर में है वह अपना वोट कैसे डाले।

  • Robert Wagner

    I think to save our country from bad policies being voted in by casual voters we should raise the prerequisites of voting. Instead of having a nonexistent IQ peroxide to vote we should have a minimum IQ requirement of at least in the 90. I also believe that all voters should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their knowledge should be proven by a standardized test.

  • Rachel Arnold

    oh duverger's law… i wish the libertarian party could win some seats in the senate and the house and even the presidency, but that would take votes away from the republican party because libertarians genreally agree more with republicans than democrats

  • Gamer Max

    the left would disagree with you, I hear on CNN that violence is just a needed part of the fight against equality, and the alt-right, which is anyone they disagree with, including a gay reporter filming Antifa.

Leave a Reply

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