Turnout for what!

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Mordhaus.

I'd guess that the main problem is the electoral college, and being too lazy to mess with the status quo of how many electoral votes each state gets and how many are required to become president, etc.

Which makes it just another flaw in that already pretty shitty system.

If they want to be a state, they can vote for it (At least Puerto Rico was given $2.5M last year to hold a referendum, which if 50%+ voted to become a state, Congress would get the ball rolling to start the process).

Keep in mind that people in the US Territories do not pay federal taxes, but they do get some of the benefits of being a state. Given the all time low approval rating of Congress and the lack of faith in politicians, would you blame them for not wanting to join the party?

Truth. The electoral college is utter BS, popular vote should be the rule.

Most of the time I've paid attention to PR, they've been fairly close to evenly divided 33%/33%/33% between staying as they are, becoming a state, and becoming independent. That third option really screws up their chances to get any single choice up to 50%, which is sort of a problem.

Unblock that worked for me:

http://www.zalmos.com/

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Had no idea this was blocked for Australia. Just checked Canada, Germany and Hong Kong. All working. Wonder why Australia is blocked. Seems odd. Anyone else blocked?

Works fine in NZ. Maybe Tony Abbott doesn't like John Oliver anymore

http://videosift.com/video/LWTwJO-Tony-Abbott-President-of-the-USA-of-Australia

CGP Grey also covered this *related=http://videosift.com/video/American-Empire-CGP-Grey

American Empire - CGP Grey has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

The US Political System is a Farce that the people of the US tolerate and let happen. Only the citizens of the US, can stand up and make the change happen.
It is not up to one person, or someone within the system to make that change. If you're waiting for someone in politics make that change, you will forever be wasting time.
Start Banding together as a people, and stop fighting each other as a nation divided.

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.

Maybe Guam just needs to get pissed off to care. Maybe that's what banded us together as united states in the first place. If the people are in a slump, you're saying that's their fault? There have been all types of breakthroughs in our understanding of how depression and dependence can affect populations. I don't know myself, but your arguments are pretty sound beyond actually understanding the socio-economic conditions there. Which I don't know, so you being the expert, can you shed some light on why their population hasn't the motivation to move forward? Humans don't just behave as they do for no reason. (How is their educational system?)

My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, March 9th, 2015 1:14am PDT - promote requested by blahpook.