I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.

Your video, Awesome Wave Clouds Rolling over Lincoln, Nebraska, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You're not wrong. I'm actually glad I live in Nebraska, it's right wing obviously, but it's not total nutbag like the south. The Republicans in Nebraska did lose their shit in 2008 when the Omaha district voted for Obama and they tried to go back to winner take all. But I think cooler heads prevailed as if trends continue, urban populations will outstrip the rural areas and more traditionally red States start turning blue. At least in a split vote system, even if the state goes blue, the right still retains a minority voice instead of no voice. I had been following wolf pac but hearing about this makes me want to be a member now

Tags for this video have been changed from 'food, steak, Guinness, record, speed eating, competition, barf' to 'food, steak, Guinness, record, speed eating, competition, barf, nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

Hey, Ben -

First off, I'd like to express how much delight the high maintenance videos have provided to me and my friends. Not only are they immensely entertaining on multiple levels, but I've found them to be inspirational in my pursuits of storytelling and videography. For that, I cannot thank all of you enough.
That said, it was with much pain and reluctance I decided to *kill your videos on this site per your request. I wrestled with ideas to try to persuade you otherwise, but ultimately I failed to discover an argument that outweighs the artistic mission of your crew.
On the plus side, I'm especially grateful to have made your acquaintance and I will definitely hit you up next time I'm in NY (I'm exploring a few internships there after graduation next year). Also, you have a host in Nebraska whenever any of you pass through.
Thanks for reaching out, and I'm stoked to see the next cycles.

Warren Hale

ahh the slippery slope argument.

..gay marriage will lead to bestiality!

..marijuana is a gateway drug!!

..Anything Obama-related is the first step to socialism!

I can tell you this. No one enjoys asking their employer for a raise. I think if it were up to most people, they would never ask, but that's dependent on employers providing their workers with a living wage.

This is what happens when employers refuse to raise wages to match inflation. Even I think 15 bucks seems steep, but that's what economists say will give people shelter, food and healthcare. It's frustrating that the cost of living varies wildly in the US. I live in Nebraska where the cost of living is low so I always get sticker shock when I see prices nearby in Colorado, and even then, I know it's still cheap compared to the coasts. I wish we lived in a world where the cost of living was more even. But we don't

In a perfect world, I would say let the states figure out what's a good wage in their areas...and some do, But a lot ignore it, so it's on the fed to step in.

And it's absolutely a moral argument because it comes down to whether or not you believe even the lowest paid workers are deserving of decent food, shelter and healthcare. It's ironic because most of these corporate apologists probably consider themselves pro-life, yet they don't seem to have any problem withholding that which promotes a productive and healthy life.

It's kinda hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you can't afford bootstraps...or if you're too busy dealing with health issues to improve your job options.

Hey Warren,

I'm Ben Sinclair, the Guy from High Maintenance. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind pulling the "Qasim" episode off of this forum. I'm all for open-source sharing of information, but its part of our artistic mission to keep episodes of HM off of websites with advertising, which unfortunately this forum has. It would mean a great deal to us if you would respect that. And feel free to come say hi if you ever leave Nebraska for NYC. It's always nice to meet someone that enjoys your work.

Thanks Warren,

Ben

Happy Turkey Day, Nebraska...

MONEY!

Seriously though, a cement or brick house isn't going to make any difference if it takes a direct hit from a tornado. It will handle the debris flying around at 200+ mph much better, but cannot sustain a direct hit. There are a few structures (like steel frame houses) which might fare a little better, but the cost is prohibitive.

I think it is also important to consider the size of the region we are talking about here. According to Wikipedia, "Tornado Alley can also be defined as an area reaching from central Texas to the Canadian prairies and from eastern Colorado to western Pennsylvania." That's an area of approximately 1.5 million square miles. Where exactly do you draw the line on enforcing extremely expensive building codes? How do you justify the increased building costs in one town but not the town 2 miles down the road?

The building codes in the core of Tornado Alley (north Texas to Nebraska) are more restrictive than you imagine. They focus on strengthened roofs and secure foundations that can take a fair amount of straightline wind. But really, the odds of any given house in Tornado Alley sustaining a direct hit are extremely low (about 1 in 10 million in any given year) so it is much more cost effective and reasonable to require storm cellars which protect life instead of worrying about property. Notice how not a single person was injured in this house despite the destruction.

This is a video of a WIN not a FAIL.

There would be more stars on the flag (51), not fewer.
This is about Colorado splitting into 2 states, not about some counties in Colorado leaving the USA.

Although I think it would make more sense for those counties to just become part of Nebraska instead of forming their own state. Colorado is too square.

Cop-baitings' been a sport in Oakland, Detroit, etc. since douche grew legs-These folks in the car should know better than to poke feral rednecks with badges in "what the fuck are we gonna do we're so bored and ineffectual" Nebraska (is that you Mr. Fisk?).

All I see are four, stupid people. That stay-puft marshmallow douche should get his clesterol checked n'maybe take a few anger management blows to the skull.

Nebraska represent!

*promote

Here's the thing though. I am in favor of the split vote. It allows people in stronghold states who are in the other party to still have SOME voice and not be completely overruled by winner-take-all. There is a reason we're a republic and not a direct democracy. Direct democracy is not a good idea, there has to be at least somewhat of a buffer against mob rule and high population centers dominating every election.

The problem is, of course, gerrymandering. If the winners are allowed to redistrict as they see fit, then the whole thing is corrupt. District lines HAVE to be drawn by a strictly independent, non partisan group and/or adhere to strict guidelines so that it's fair.

The other problem is that while I favor the split vote, the GOP doesn't care what a fair system is, they just want to swing more votes their way. If winner take all gives them more votes, they'll go with that. If split vote does, they'll go with that. They don't care.

The same shit happened in Nebraska last election when Obama won a single electoral vote. The GOP there went batshit and pushed to return to a winner take all system. It was only when someone pointed out to them that in a decade or two, because the urban area's population will eventually outstrip the rural areas, NE would eventually become complete blue state that they dropped the idea.

Split vote is more fair in my opinion, but the district lines HAVE to be drawn independently for it to work.