Careful... the choice you make will determine what happens in the next 4 years. Will you choose blue? Or red? Dude, why do you look like that? Make any noise! Sir, my mouth is shut 'cause I don't get it! What do I have to do with this? The entire world must watch and be interested in America's elections. -Especially you. -Me?! I am from Dakahlia, an Arab Egyptian farmer. What do I have to do with this? C'mon! Don't you want to have an opinion on the face that will rule the world? Every pill represents a face. Your opinion doesn't matter either way. But we are supposed to be democrats and so on! Oh! I see! So, what does this red pill do? This is the Republican pill, the right-wing party. Oh yes, I love parties. I have met nice people there, and have made a few friends. What party? I'm talking about the conservative party. They love values, family, state, law, and the free market. Well, that's nice! That is excellent! Give me this red pill. But they will steal your oil, they will control your economy, and they will start wars in your area. Bastards! My land? and my oil?! No, no, no! Forget that one! What does the blue one do? This is the democratic pill. It means liberalism, minority rights, equality, and equal opportunities for all. That's the one! Get me a cup of water, and I will take the blue pill. But careful! They will steal your oil, control your economy, and start wars in your area. Man! They are also bastards! Old man! Pops! Old friend! You must choose one! Why does it matter? You guys are cheating! I will go talk to the governor! What? No meal for you then! Hello, dear viewers! Welcome to a new episode of ElDaheeh! In this episode, I will explain to you the very complicated American elections. During the 2016 US presidential elections, candidate Hillary Clinton earned 66 million votes. At that time, Donald Trump earned 63 million votes. "One second, Abo Hmeed! "Was Hillary president before Biden behind my back?" No, my friend! Donald Trump who won the presidency! -"Is that cheating?" -No! There is no cheating at all! "Then, why was there a 3-million-vote difference?" Actually, this isn't the first time we see this in the American elections. It happened before in 1876 and 1888, and also in the 2000 elections, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush, even though he received more votes! So, the question is: How can more Americans vote for a certain president but the other one wins? Was he an ENFJ? Let me tell you that in America, the most democratic place in the world, there is no text in the US Constitution that actually allows electors to vote directly for the candidate. These aren't classroom elections. Not "the one who gets more votes, wins!" The American elections depend on what is called the 'Electoral College'. This consists of 538 delegates from all American states. These, my friend, are the ones who vote and choose. For example, in the 2016 elections, Trump earned the votes of 304 delegates, while Hillary earned 227, so he won. "Excuse me, Abo Hmeed! I won’t jump into any conclusions, because I don't want you to call me impatient or make fun of me. So, I'm asking you to explain. I don't understand!" In his book 'Elections: A Very Short Introduction', because he was lazy! Sandy Maisel said that the Electoral College system for choosing the American president although this system is 237 years old and still going, it is still a very complex system. so much so that the American citizen struggles to fully comprehend it. "Oh no, Abo Hmeed! What The Hell?! The White Citizen can't understand it, and I will?!" Did orientalism miss with your brain? It's OK. You can understand it, but not him. Trust yourself! In order to understand this system, we need to go back further in time to the moment the American Constitution itself was written. My dear beautiful viewer, America is now 13 states. It's still a start-up country. We are talking here about the year 1787. At that time, the population of America was 4 million people. In order for all of them to discuss important issues in the country, such as how to get a president, or on what basis do we choose him, it was necessary to have a congress, and representatives who represent the 4 million Americans. "We can't ask all 4 million people every time we want to put laws about something! So, we bring their representatives." Here, a question arises: each state will have how many representatives in congress? At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, held in the same year 1787, People suggested that all states should have the same number of representatives. Social justice, the status quo, and justice in distribution, etc. This proposal, although it appears fair, it upset the states that were larger in size, states with a larger population, And they insisted to have a larger number of representatives. Now, do the delegates of the smaller states say nothing? Do they say: "Oh, right, you're older, great"? Of course not, they thought such decision would allow the big states to control them. And then, a dispute happened, and it grew larger to the point that it threatened the approval of the constitution itself. Therefore, a compromise was necessary to save the situation. "They're losing the constitution, people!" The compromise is to divide the American Congress into two chambers: House of Representatives, and House of Senate. In the House of Representatives, the number of representatives for a state depends on the population density of the state. The House of Representatives fulfills the larger states' request in that they have a larger population density, so they need to have a larger representation as well. "Here that, smaller states?" However, the Senate decided to appease the smaller states, and its system consisted of two representatives for each state, regardless of the state's size or population. This compromise will be known as the 'Connecticut Compromise.' Let me tell you that this part is the easy part of the matter. The difficult question now is: How will we elect the president? The states that are fighting over the number of representatives had disagreed on everything except for one thing: that the president's authority can't be higher than all our 13 states, so that he doesn't turn into a dictator, especially since the Americans had just ended a bitter war of independence against Britain. So, "We want to be better." And each state had independent powers that were impossible to give up. "We can't fight and earn our independence, but then someone destroys us!" The founding fathers of America considered this issue to be very sensitive, because the states suffered from: chaos, unrest, and economic problems. The union between the states was fragile. The slightest sneeze would kill it! The slightest fever would heat matters up, and create a destructive civil war! "Excuse me, Abo Hmeed! I feel like you have made things more complicated. The whole population, beginning to end, is 4 million. They should go vote in boxes, and that way, we have achieved easy democracy without any trouble!" Notice, my friend, we are in the 18th century. There was no country that relied on direct election. And even if a country relied on direct election, the 4 million Americans, who you think are nothing, were spread out on the eastern coast of the Atlantic Ocean across a 1000 miles along the coast. This was at a time when there was difficulty in movement and communication. Can you imagine how the election campaign will work? It was impossible in the 18th century for a candidate to tour all these elections! Where and how could he make propaganda? With how much money? There was no internet, radio, television, or even a microphone! The candidate would lose his voice. Also, there is another issue, what if these voters made the wrong choice? A candidate somehow reached out to them, tricked them, and took their votes? People in America thought and said: "Guys, didn’t we make the Congress? Then the American Congress should choose the president." But, my friend, if you are as experienced in democracy as I am, you will know that this threatens a very important principle in the world of modern governance. It's called the principle of "Separation of powers." Simply put, we have a legislative authority, which is the Congress that puts laws, and an executive authority, the president who implements actions. and a judiciary authority, which rules between them all. In order for any country to function properly, they must all remain separate. If the Congress chose the president, he will be under obligation to listen to them. The legislative authority can't choose the executive authority. Other opinions suggested to: "Put the Congress aside, and let each state legislature choose the president." "This solution seems logical, Abo Hmeed" Frankly, my friend, this is dangerous. The chosen president would favor the states that nominated him, and beat the lights out of the ones who didn't! And like I said, the union is fragile, and any fever will bring a civil war and they can't take it! That's why Americans said: "The same way we solved the Congress issue by compromise, we will also resort to a compromise here. A solution between direct voting and the states voting." Each state is supposed to have two representatives in the Senate. It's a guarantee. Each state also has members in the House of Representatives depending on the state's size. "So, we will choose a group of representatives for each state. Their number is determined according to the total number of the Senators and the representatives for each state. And those are the ones who vote on behalf of the American people." These delegates, the plural of delegate, will form what is known as the "Electoral College." So for example, if you have a state, let’s say California that mostly chose a specific candidate, and their delegate choose another candidate. If the number of delegate votes favors the other candidate, then he wins. The Electoral College makes the choice regardless of the desire of the people of each individual state. According to political science professor George Edwards, when the founding fathers reached this agreement, they didn't think they reached an ideal process for the elections. And honestly, in short, just between you and me, the founding fathers told me this secret while we are having coffee: They are just fathers, my friend. They were exhausted from all this effort. They were tired of all the divisions and civil wars, and wanted a compromise. They feared the breakage of their union. So, they pleased the states to the point that Washington, D.C, couldn't vote neither in the US presidential elections, nor in the Congress. They wanted to deliver a message and reassure all states that the federal capital right under the government and the president will have no influence in the democratic process. "I reassure you, states. The capital will not get all the money, and income. No, the capital will not vote. Whoever the states choose to rule, will be." This situation, my friend, continued until 1961, when it was finally allowed to have 3 votes in the Electoral College, and it had a share in the Congress. But they have no right to vote on any law. This is still the case today. Indeed, my friend, the electoral college system was implemented. On February 4th 1789, George Washington was the first President of the United States of America. He was the only president in the history of America, my friend, who was elected unanimously by the Electoral College. He offered to pay off all of America's debts, and put his face on the dollar. Of course, my friend, this is a joke about that one rumor that Adel Imam will pay off Egypt's debts, and put his face on the pound. It is true that this system solved a problem, but it created new problems. It may seem to you, my friend, That "Wow, Abo Hmeed! They succeeded! They were unanimous! That means that they were in agreement, hand in hand! There are no problems! We did it! It seems like the Electoral College idea was genius, Abo Hmeed!" Let me tell you that this Electoral College system solved the problem, but it created new problems. Like I said, the population of the state determines how many representatives this state will have in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, OK? Also, the state's population determines how many delegates each state will have in the Electoral College. But the question here, my friend: Who is the population in the first place? The question that seems easy, but is very difficult: Who is the population that determine the number votes of each state in America? Can everyone be considered a part of the population? "Oh, Abo Hmeed! Looks like the editor-in-chief has arrived! Let me tell you that the Electoral College system is in its beginning considered the people who had the right to vote, or who were considered to be "population", were only two classes: the free white men and the rich. They were only 6% of American society at the time, my friend. -"My goodness!" -Yes, my friend. Let me tell you that while writing the constitution, 40% of the population of the southern states were enslaved black people. In a state like Virginia, black people were 60% of the population. If they were counted, these states would have a larger size. So, they would have more representatives in the House of Representatives. "Oh no, Abo Hmeed! This is a problem! What do Americans do in situations like this?" compromise One second! On my way. As usual, solutions begin to appear as a compromise in the form of an agreement such as the 'Three-fifths Compromise'. Simply, my friend, it is based on a principle that I'm embarrassed to say but they decided for some reason to count three out of every five black people. Kind of like a 60% discount. Honestly, my friend, I don't agree with judging the past by our present standards, but in the end, I also make a living out of this. I like to make fun of these things sometimes out of fun, but not out of my personal belief. In the early 19th century, with the formation of new American states, since they started to grow, remember, they started at 13, and then they would reach over 50. The right to vote was given for any white man, but he must be over 21 years old. This was the case in most states. After many years, the law was changed to just 18 years old. Thus, my friend, we have solved the while people problem. But white women and black men had a much more difficult problem. Black women, of course, were a hopeless case. And gay black women... well, suicide is a better option. And let's not get into trans black women problems, who are poor! Black people, women, and black women problems were much more difficult, especially with voting. Let me tell you that in 1868, America recovers from the Civil War. And the states passed the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which grants American citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. What does this mean, my friend? That those who were called slaves before became American citizens. And indeed, they gained the right to vote in 1870. "Wow, Abo Hmeed! Finally justice was achieved, and we ended racism!" My friend, this is just ink on paper. You have been deceived! Not yet, my friend! Just because it says on the store window that "everything costs LE 2.5" that everything costs LE 2.5! You know that there is still Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, and Django Unchained. There's still a civil rights movement coming! Black people in the southern states will struggle for a 100 more years, because these states will creating obstacles that prevent them from voting. For example, the state of Georgia imposed a poll tax, like "Want to vote? Give me money." -"What?" -"Pay up! Voting fees are 50 dollars. -Give me money." -"Are we not in America?" And when a black person pays the tax to vote, they tell him: "Sorry. you need to pay all the voting taxes you messed. and it must be all at once!" so, the man just loses it. Instead of voting, the man screams, faints, and his family screams too. This issue, my friend, will deprive black and poor people of voting. Also notice that most black people were illiterate. Deprived of education. Therefore, they will be given literacy tests, and even those who know how to read and write will be given difficult and complex questions. "And the passing grade, Abo Hmeed?" One wrong answer invalidates their right to vote! They must get a full mark at a time when they weren't given a proper education. they're voicing their vote! The problem, my friend, is that they couldn't even vote for candidates who will fund for example, the building of more schools in black areas. So, the problem just loops, you know? That's how it went! That was the problem. Supposedly, you pass all these obstacles, you will find other debilitating conditions, like being a descended from a father who had the right to vote before the Civil War, or a veteran. At that time, the white man had all the advantages and facilities available to him to exceeds all these conditions. "Abo Hmeed, racism is so bad!" Here's the big part, my friend! "Abo Hmeed, please! No body-shaming! Winter had just ended!" my friend, I didn't mean that, I meant the big problem. Women were not allowed to vote until 1890, until Wyoming, the strangest state name in the United States of America, becomes the first state to grant women the right to vote. In order to encourage states, such as the Western states, to imitate them. But resistance continued in the southern states. The situation remained the same until 1920, my friend. When the Constitution adopted the 19th Amendment, which gives women the right to vote fully, and completely. "Nice, Abo Hmeed! this is good news. I am happy for woman! Congratulations, women. You have a voice in American politics. Me next!" Just like how the voting law for black men was just ink on paper, chains would also be placed in front of black women, so that they do not benefit from this. Although the amendments exist legally and constitutionally, for black men and women to participate in the electoral process, but, let me surprise you and say that from 1920 to 1930, for 10 full years, no one could vote in the state of Georgia from the Afro-American Community other than 10 thousand out of 370 thousand. This means that less than 3% of black voters voted. And although the voting tax was abolished in 1964, there were still obstacles for voters. In addition to violence and intimidation that prevented them from participating. Until civil rights advocates organized a peaceful march in Alabama in March of 1965. This march, my friend, was met by state troopers with batons and tear gas. A horrific and a frightening scene that was broadcast by television cameras to millions of viewers. So much so that US President Lyndon Johnson signed a comprehensive voting rights legislation that forbids and prohibits any obstacles that arise for Afro-Americans, or any minorities to prevent them from voting. And after two centuries, my friend, we have an Electoral College system that allows all residents to vote for the first time since the Founding Fathers days! Let me remind you that we are telling the story of elections from the founding fathers' side, and from the states' side, and from the voters' side. So, the question that comes to the surface is: What about the candidate himself? Let me tell you that to nominate yourself in America you must be born in America. Your father was also must be born there, or his father lived in America for no less than 14 consecutive years. Also, my friend, the American president cannot be younger than 35. "What? The terms are easy, Abo Hmeed! Why are they complicating things, and we only see two presidents who keep coming back running for office? Why are there only 2 in the final?" The answer is that the nomination process is an expensive process. Therefore, your chances are much better if you were with one of the two major parties in America: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. "That's right, Abo Hmeed! They are always together in the Final!" Take care, my friend, these aren't the only parties. There are other American parties, such as the Green Party. Let me tell you, my friend, that these existing parties are great and everything, but for your chances to be very high in the elections, you must be in one of these two major parties: Democratic, or Republican Party. You must be in "Ahly" or "Zamalek" to go to the national team! And that is for good reason. Each of these parties defends opinions and beliefs that representing millions of Americans. "Abo Hmeed, please! tell me the difference between them so when I will run for office, I know which party to choose" The Republican Party, my friend, is represented by candidates like Donald Trump, George Bush, and Reagan. Republican Party candidates usually have the opinion that the government should stay in its lane, and leave economics alone, and not get involved in health and social care, and let the market regulate itself freely. That makes them the favorite party for the rich, because it imposes lower taxes on them, since the government here has no obligations towards the people. Also, it exempts the rich from raising the minimum wage. So, "I will give you the wage that the market allows, even if I owe you more!" As for the Democratic Party, which is represented by candidates such as Biden and Barack Obama. They encourages the government to spend more on health and social care, and raise the minimum wage. Also, they tends to impose higher taxes on the rich. Remember in the Depression episode when we talked about Franklin Roosevelt? Remember what he did? He was part of the democratic party. "Abo Hmeed, you are dishonorable! -What -"Yes, Abo Hmeed. you are very brief. Of course, the difference was not only economical." This is true, and that's why I tell you be patient with me! Indeed, this was dishonorably brief. This isn't about good and evil, and things aren't black and white. The differences are much more complex than this. There are cultural differences, for example! For example, the two parties differ on controversial issues. like the right to bear arms. Republicans love guns. Democrats say: "Guys, please! No!" On the other hand, Democrats love marijuana. Republicans say: "Please, no!" You also have abortion rights! This is supported by Democrats, and not Republicans. Typically, Republicans tend to be more conservative, more religious, and more right-wing. We can say that the Republicans are trying to maintain the status quo: "Don't bring new immigrants. Don't take weapon I've had for years from me. If life is good, we won't change." While Democrats are more open to changing the status quo in case the damages increase. "Let them fight, Abo Hmeed! We have nothing to do with it!" Let me tell you that we have something big to do with it! "Really, Abo Hmeed? We going to their elections?" No, no, my friend. Not like that! But we are affected by what is happening. We are Influenced by the background of the American president. The difference between the two parties extends to foreign policy, and the way America deals with other countries. Republicans, for example, prefer military force more than Democrats. Want evidence of this? You have the Iraq war, which was led by George Bush. Democrats, on the other hand, like to play diplomacy, politics, sanctions, and things like that. Of course, this does not prevent them from attacking planes, but they don't say: "Let's invade!" And again, my friend, it is more complicated, because Democrats also have a bad history! All of them, my friend, a bad history! It's just percentages, tendencies, and orientations! I think so, my friend, I have given you your full and complete guide to run for the American elections! I taught you all of history! I taught you the states' history! I showed you how the electoral process worked, and how it is now! I showed you the two parties that control it, and their strengths and weaknesses. Thus, you have become a prepared candidate for the American presidency! An expert in American policies The real trick, my friend, is in funding. You need money in bags! To be a respectable candidate and manage your campaign, Your party must help you. But here non-governmental political action committees show up: the SUPER PACS, the Political Action Committees. These are advocacy groups that represent entities. These entities support specific candidates in order to defend their interests. They pass laws on their behalf, and sweep away the laws against them. for example, the Zionist Lobby, AIPAC, or oil and pharmaceutical companies, or even gaming companies. Anyone who has money and an interest in the country can start a lobby, whether it is a group of American or non-American companies, or countries outside America that have interests and business there! All of it! You have money? Go ahead! It' all with money and for the sake of money, my friend! Just careful, my friend, before you go around the lobbies and take money from them. These entities cannot give the candidate money directly. That's a bribe! Also, direct donations must have a maximum limit. You can't donate too much. But notice, my friend, we are in America. The country of freedom, and expression! According to the freedom of speech Law in the American Constitution, these entities have the right to spend millions to promote the candidate. Now which one of the two parties serves the interests of the rich? The one which many institutions and companies support freely and do propaganda for? The Republican Party, the largest beneficiary of SUPER PACS, and funding of this type. The Republican Party has the lion's share of SUPER PACS contributions. This makes a Republican Party candidate a position in and of itself. Normally, the Republican Party is the party that benefits most from these SUPER PACS. Every party, my friend, has candidates. Candidates that later become the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate. So, elections are held within the party, before there is a candidate from each one. These elections are very important, my friend. Because each party will not run for the elections with multiple candidates. This would divide the votes, and the others win. All of our strength as a party must be in one person. "In order to have this candidate, we must hold elections between us." Therefore, the party first needs to filter its candidates from within, through so-called party elections and primaries. Party elections are meetings that each party organizes in large halls in the state, and they end with voters raising their hands to vote. And they filter the candidates. But this method, my friend, ended in 2016. It only exists in states like Iowa and Nevada. The most common type is primary elections, which we hear about on television. The party presents its candidates to the people, and voters in each state vote directly on who they want to represent the party in the end. When it comes to America, treat it as a continent, and not necessarily a country. If we are talking, my friend, about states, then each state has its own system to begin with. The states are like small countries inside the continent. And many states are bigger than actual countries. And the economies of many states are larger than countries. The state of California on its own, my friend, which is one state out of 50 something states, is one of the Top 10 largest world's economies. Imagine a state against other countries! It is standing next to India, China, Japan, Germany and France. In some rankings, it's number 5 or 6 in the world! So that's an example! Of course, some states are huge like Texas, which is approximately 70% of Egypt's size. The size of Texas is approximately 700 thousand square kilometers. Egypt is a million square kilometers. Each state is like a country with its own law, especially with regard to the primary elections. For example, you have states that rely on the closed system. It means state voters who vote for the party’s candidate are not just anyone. A voter must be registered as a member of a specific party, and only him can vote in his party's elections. For example, you have an open system, where all residents of the state have a right to vote in the primaries, even if they weren't party members. The advantage of an open system over a closed system is that it increases the participation rate, but its problem is that it allows meddling. I mean if I was a part of the Democratic Party, and I found a weak candidate in the Republican Party, I will go and vote for him as a Republican who supports his party’s candidate, so that he runs in the next elections, and loses to the Democratic candidate that I support. Notice, my friend, the primaries are not decisive. Its goal is for each party to settle on a candidate. The primaries show that sometimes there can be a gap between the opinion of party leaders and the people, like what happened in 1968. When the Democratic Party primaries were held, and at that time, most of the party's youth voted for candidates who opposed the Vietnam War, such as Robert F. Kennedy, while party leaders pushed for a pro-war candidate, such as Hubert Humphrey, even though he didn't even run for the primaries! This clash affected Humphrey's election campaign. And the Republican candidate against him won, Richard Nixon. This incident, my friend, made the Democratic Party allow voters to choose the candidate through elections held in every state. Then, Republicans thought this was a good idea and did it too. The primaries filter out weak candidates, like a preparation camp for the final game. Only the big ones who are able to fight the electoral battle stay. After that, the party holds a national conference to present its candidates. A candidate for President, and a candidate for Vice President. And state delegates who were chosen through the primaries often choose the same ones that the voters chose in the primaries. "Seems like people want this person to be nominated as president, so, I will do what people want." But, my friend, they are not obligated to. "Oh, again with the tricks!" The delegate can vote for any candidate, even if the voters' had different opinions. These delegates are called Superdelegates. They represent approximately 15% of the number of delegates. They are often party leaders, or former presidents or state governors. Mostly, the official party nominee is clear, known, and expected. All that he needs is to collect the votes of the majority of delegates. Here, my friend, party elections depend on delegates. The states that have a larger number of delegates do not control the choice of the party candidate alone. Sometimes the criterion is the precedence, not majority. For example, you have a small state like Iowa. It has only 6 votes in the Electoral College, but it is very critical because it was the first state to have party elections. "Abo Hmeed, I feel like American democracy's sea is a bit wide for me. And frankly, my brain is tired, I can't! My ambition is to be nominated as team member and choose a team for my class." Let me explain to you with an example. I know you love those. In 2016, the Republican Party held primary elections. They gathered the candidates and toured the states, and test to see if each candidate works or not in order for the Republican Party to choose one candidate at the end. when the party's caucus began in Iowa, which, as we said, is usually the first state. The Republican Party presented 12 candidates. And after the primary elections in Iowa, 3 out of the 12 withdrew only after the first state they went to. They were fatigued and said: "What is this? No, seems like we cannot be presidents." The next election was a week later in New Hampshire. New Hampshire didn't have an authority in the Electoral College. But it is the second state in which primary elections are held. After the New Hampshire primaries, 3 candidates would also withdraw. Almost half of the candidates realized they have no chances after the first two states they went to, and again, these are small states. Maybe if these candidates had started in California, for example, they would have had fame there and got elected. And just as candidates leave from the beginning, sometimes, candidates click from the beginning. Imagine if the first state you went to is the state you were born in. So, people in the state know you! So, You won the primaries in Iowa! People in the party say: "OK, it seems that someone on the rise over there!" And they begin to focus more on you. And your chances increase over time. There are dark horse candidates. No one thought that they qualified for the finals. Like what happened in December 2007, when a senator from Illinois, an unknown man named Barack Obama ran for presidency from the Democratic Party against the party's number one runner, Hillary Clinton, who is more famous. Her husband is a former president, so she's a very important figure in politics. Hillary was ahead of Obama by 20 points in national opinion polls. But a month later, my friend, Obama defeats her in the caucus in Iowa. Again, my friend, these are the primaries. They are running for candidacy. Obama and Hillary are still in the same party, the Democratic Party. Obama's victory in Iowa gave him higher chances. This appeared in opinion polls. Thus, his chances of raising funds for his campaign increased. And he transformed from a weak competitor into a real competitor. Without any spoilers, my friend, in case you had not lived on this planet for 20 years, Obama became the president of America, and he looked like Ashraf Abdel Baqi! Bottom line is the states of Iowa and New Hampshire in one way or another control the American president regardless of their size and number of delegates. because they are simply the first two states where elections begin. Therefore, the ones who win there receive more media coverage. "It's nice, Abo Hmeed. They are making up for it. They have a small number of delegates. So, might as well have any impact on elections. The problem, my beautiful brown friend with the daring eyes, -is that these states are 90% white people. -"What?" With our respect for all skin colours, and all the Political Correctness stuff we see on Netflix, there is still discrimination, and there are still differences between the white man and the non-white man. So, the question is: Do these two states represent the American people to the point that they make crucial decisions at the beginning? Of course, this is good criticism. But, also think about it, Obama won there. The first primaries, he won were in Iowa. The truth is that Americans tried to avoid this trap, and tried not to view these two states as indicators. In 2008, they tried to solve the issue by choosing two states with a greater ethnic diversity, like Nevada and South Carolina, and let them be them vote early. They also made many southern states vote on the same day, which they called 'Super Tuesday'. SuperPACS, Super Tuesday. Everything "Super"! If you want to participate in the American primaries the Super Tuesday is usually in early March or late February. The idea is that when a largest number of delegates are distributed across the states and vote on the same day, this gives their voice a more impact. So, it is a real test of the candidates' popularity in the entire country. Very well, my friend. We finished the primaries! Now, my friend, every party has its candidate, who got there after difficult and exhausting primaries, and after a long journey around all the states, one at a time, the candidate went from a party candidate to a presidential candidate. American Presidential candidate American Presidential candidate We haven't started yet?! On the first Tuesday of November, every 4 years, Voters go to their polling stations to vote for the best candidate in their opinion, but they do so indirectly. They vote under the delegates in the Electoral College, who are 538 delegates, and they are appointed for each state, like we said, depending on the number of stats congress members. They also change according to the population density of each state according to a census every 10 years. California, for example, has 55 delegates, while a state like Vermont has only 3 delegates. If we assume that in the upcoming elections that Joe Biden was elected, and won the majority of the votes in the state of California. I mean, the general public, voted for him in California, and it was the majority. then, the 55 delegates of California are all obligated to cast their votes for Biden, because the people chose him. Even, if he won by a simple majority. Meaning, if he eared 60% of votes in California, and we have 55 delegates. It doesn't go like 60% of the delegates vote for Biden, and the other 40% of delegates vote for trump. No! He technically won in a state: 60% against 40% So all 55 delegates must vote for Joe Biden. This is a rule in American elections. The winner in the state takes it all. A Winner-Take-All! Whoever wins in a state gets all the votes of its delegates. This system is in effect in 50 states in America. In general, delegates are obligated to vote according to the voters in each state. But this is just a common custom, or being a man of their word. Nothing in the Constitution forces them to. So sometimes, in rare cases, the delegate might vote for a candidate other than the one he promised to vote for and was given the people's votes accordingly. This is a phenomenon in the American elections known as Faithless Electors. For example, in the 2016 elections, 3 delegates from Washington State, which is not Washington D.C, don't let anyone fool you, the delegates of the Washington state were supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton against Trump, because the people of the state voted that. But what happened was that the delegates voted for Colin Powell. "How, Abo Hmeed?! Wait, One second! Didn't you say it was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Then, who is this?" This is a very valid question, my friend, "Who is this?" The truth, my friend, is that he was not even a candidate. And the ordinary voters of the state chose Hillary Clinton. They said: "We want Mrs. Hillary." The vote happened, as I understand, for a third candidate, in hopes that they would convince the Republican Party delegates to vote for another Republican candidate other than Trump, who was obviously going to win. So, they did not only cast their vote against the will of the voters, they chose a third candidate who did not run in the first place! In the 2000 elections, The representative of Washington, D.C, protested and abstained from voting because his state does not have full voting rights in Congress. And more than 30 states, my friend, obliged their delegates and said: "You must do it! Don’t improvise! Whatever the people say, vote for it. You are just a megaphone for the people's voice! You are just a USB cable! You're just an thing that emerged from the problems of the Founding Fathers!" The question is that if I were a part of the American government: If the people are the ones who choose, just let them choose! Why this mess?! Each state has a number of delegates, and the delegates of 30 states say that they must represent the will of the people, and the other 20 say it's not necessary, and delegates can, not only choose the opposite candidate, but can choose a candidate who is not in the elections at all! Why all these lumps? Let me tell you, my friend, that when some states obligated the delegates to choose what the people choose, it didn't work very well. Because it was only a matter of financial penalties no more than $1,000 and sometimes, they might remove him! Only a few states had an actual law that can invalidate the delegate's disloyal vote, or replace him with another delegate who represents the will of the people. The truth, my friend, is that this is not the real problem. The problem is that a small number of states control the elections, because the votes of most states are already known. Many states known for their historical loyalty to a certain party, and that they will probably vote for the Democratic or the Republican Party, no matter who the candidate is! Even if a mukbang guy took over America "As long as he is democratic, California will vote for him!" And "Just eat it" will be his campaign’s Slogan! That's why some candidates rarely make an effort in some states, although it may actually be one of the largest states, and have the highest number of votes in the Electoral College. This made the states who actually control the elections are states that have fewer votes, and a smaller population size. And their loyalty is historically indefinite. Sometimes they're blue for the Democratic Party, and sometimes red for the Republican Party. They're known as the Swing states, my friend. You've surely heard it on TV: The Swing states. They even used to say: "Michigan!" Remember? They said Michigan was a swing state, so, "Arabs, don't vote for Biden. Because this is an important state in the elections." These swing states results determine who wins, although their votes in the Electoral College are not much. For example, in the upcoming 2024 elections, according to a report by Axios, there are 6 swing states. These states are expected to determine the elections. Arizona has 11 votes, Georgia has 16 votes, Michigan has 16 votes also, Nevada has 6 votes, Pennsylvania has 20 votes, and Wisconsin has 10 votes. All of them combined, my friend, are 79 votes out of 538 votes in the Electoral College. But these swing states are the ones that will decide how things go. That's why the candidates will focus their campaign efforts there. "Good, Abo Hmeed. Let them focus, instead of touring around." My dear beautiful viewer, this is very dangerous! This means that only 6% of voters will determine the outcome of the elections between Biden and Trump. They will receive billions of dollars allocated to electoral campaigns. -"Abo Hmeed, I am worried!" -Why, my friend? "Because this is the same percentage that existed in the 18th century. We have gone through all this to return to the same place as the 18th century. This was about the same percentage that determined who would rule America at that time. I guess the path to civilization is a circle. It returns to the starting point." The truth, my friend, is that over the past decades, opinion polls show that most Americans prefer direct popular vote over the Electoral College. "We want people to vote themselves, and for their votes to go to the candidate, not to the delegate! Who voted for the delegate after all? Was he sent by God?" The people saw that whoever won their votes ruled them. Although the Electoral College system is old, and has been in effect for 237 years, which means it has origins, not something new, let me surprise you and tell you that during this time, more than 700 applications were submitted to Congress to cancel or modify it, and all these requests were rejected. The decision to cancel the idea of the Electoral College requires the approval of two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in addition to the approval of 38 states. Many small states will refuse, my friend. They think that candidates would go to the larger states, the ones with larger populations, because that way they are the important ones that make the difference. Then, smaller states will have no influence on the presidential results. Here, my friend, one of the proposed solutions suggested to circumvent the Electoral College system. The solution is for the states sign a charter that all delegate votes go to the winner of the public vote across the United States, not just across a single state. Simply put, the delegates represented the voice of the state. They are bound to implement the votes of the majority of people in the state. Meaning, if the majority made a choice, all delegates choose what the majority chose. What does this proposal suggest? They says that all the delegates, more than 500 delegates, will all vote for the president chosen by the entire United States of America, even if he didn't win in certain states, these states will give him their votes in the end. Because, again, the delegates will represent the entire people of America. So, officially, delegates will be featured guests. It's not just a horn or a USB, but a coaster! The coaster that we put tea on. If it is not there, its insignificant. Let me tell you that 10 states agreed to sign this charter. Among them are California and New York, who have a big impact in the Electoral College. These states control approximately 165 electoral votes alone. That seems like a nice and clever suggestion, my friend, but there is one obstacle before its implementation: That the states that approved this proposal are states loyal to the Democratic Party. Neither of them is a Republican state, nor a swing state. Most likely, my friend, the situation will remain as it is. Anyone who isn't happy should get a Schengen and go to Europe. Do a little illegal immigration, jump over the fence, and go to Mexico! Although, Americans have the right to be proud of their political history, and their attempts to search for a compromise in any conflict, and a compromise that satisfies most people, not all, but most of them are in one way or another satisfied. However, the American election system that exists now makes millions of Americans feel that their votes are unnecessary. And It has nothing to do with the final result, because they do not live in a state that can control the course of the elections. A system where the participation rate among citizens in the electoral process is the least, if we compare it to most democratic countries. A system that people find strange and unjust. And other opinions think its to be the best system for managing the United States, especially, because of its nature. According to the words of American politics expert Sandy Maisel, the two-party system excludes independent individuals. It also excludes the candidates from other parties. Kind of like a derby. Also, it forces voters to choose their party's candidate, even if the candidate is not convincing. It forces a nation of 340 million citizens to only selects 2 candidates, who are often are not the best. Trump and Biden can't be the best options in America! Trump and Biden are not the best options in their house. Here, my friend, the voter is forced to choose the least bad candidate, even if he wasn't very convinced. Biden, my friend, had reached an age where some people criticize him that he is losing memory and is no longer very aware of all the details. He can't speak, and sometimes makes mistakes. Also, his generation is separate from the millions of young people out there. Of course, Trump is a whole other case. He turned American politics into a circus! He fueled conflicts among the American people. During his presidency, his supporters attacked the Congress building in a process similar to distorting the American Democracy. Honestly, I don't know about the 340 million Americans. But I don't think that Biden and Trump are the best two in America. There are better people. The American election system, according to experts and politicians, is very attractive from the outside, but its flaws make it far from perfect. Again, my friend, because I just feel like just because it has problems doesn't mean it is bad. But it's one of the better bad ones. If we realize that it's one of the better bad ones, we can always improve it and make it better. This is what happened throughout history, across the 200 years. This system solved an intractable constitutional crisis. It helped a weak country that is still growing for two centuries to be a great country with a place in the world. 200 years, my friend, is kindergarten for countries. 200 years for countries like Egypt is a nap! We have 120 years called the First Intermediate Period of Egypt. Just a simple 120 years that went by. The "First" as well! In general, my friend, we hope that Americans have a good president, and we wish the people of the world to have a good American president as well. Because, like we said, the American president affects the foreign policy of the United States of America, which affects us in particular as people in the Middle East. That's it, my friend. Last but not least, Don't forget to watch the old episodes, and the new ones. Check the sources below, and subscribe if you are on YouTube. Delegate "Sir, they can choose whoever they want choose We will Mohamed Hany the president. He is the fittest."