We're Doing Elections Wrong | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix

Summary

The script is a satirical commentary on American democracy, highlighting the divisive nature of the two-party system and the impact of winner-take-all elections. It critiques the lack of majority rule and the rise of 'negative partisanship,' where voters are driven by hatred of the opposing party rather than support for their own. The script humorously discusses the 2020 chaos, including political and social issues, and suggests ranked-choice voting as a potential solution to the current electoral problems.

Takeaways

• 😔 The script discusses the tumultuous year of 2020, mentioning police brutality, the coronavirus pandemic, impeachment, economic downturn, and the death of Mr. Peanut.
• 🗳️ It highlights that despite Americans agreeing on many issues like universal background checks and legal status for DREAMers, the current political system often fails to address these.
• 🤔 The script points out that many eligible voters choose not to vote, feeling unrepresented by a government that doesn't reflect their views.
• 🇺🇸 It critiques the winner-take-all nature of American elections, explaining how this system can lead to outcomes that don't represent the majority's will.
• 🔄 The script uses humor to illustrate the absurdity of the two-party system and the polarization it causes, comparing it to the cultural divide during the Civil War.
• 📊 It provides statistics to show how the current system has led to a more divided America, with a significant increase in political polarization.
• 😣 The script satirizes the fear within the Republican party of being primaried, which it suggests leads to extremism and far-right policies.
• 🌐 It discusses the geographical and demographic biases in the American electoral system, noting how it often favors rural white voters over urban populations.
• 🔝 The script argues that the Democratic party's need for broad appeal leads to moderate candidates and policy compromises.
• 🆚 It contrasts the big-tent approach of the Democrats with the more narrowly focused Republican party, likening them to Denny's and Chipotle respectively.
• 📝 The script ends by advocating for ranked-choice voting as a solution to the issues presented, allowing for more diverse representation and a break from the two-party system.

Q & A

What is the main issue with the American electoral system discussed in the script?

The main issue discussed is the use of winner-take-all plurality voting, which can lead to candidates winning without a majority and contributes to the two-party system and negative partisanship.

How does the script suggest that winner-take-all voting contributes to political polarization?

The script suggests that winner-take-all voting encourages negative partisanship and extreme positions because candidates are incentivized to appeal to their base rather than the broader electorate, leading to more divisive politics.

What is the significance of the 5.5% figure mentioned in the script?

The 5.5% figure refers to the percentage of all eligible voters who voted for Trump in the 2016 Republican primary, illustrating how a candidate can win a plurality without a majority and highlighting the impact of winner-take-all voting.

What is 'negative partisanship' as described in the script?

'Negative partisanship' is a phenomenon where voters are more motivated by their dislike of the opposing party than by support for their own party, leading to increased political division and animosity.

How does the script connect the concept of 'winner-take-all' to the rise of Trump?

The script connects 'winner-take-all' to the rise of Trump by arguing that the system allowed him to win the Republican primary and eventually the presidency without ever securing a majority of the vote, highlighting the potential for extreme candidates to succeed in this system.

What alternative voting system is proposed in the script as a solution to the issues with winner-take-all voting?

The script proposes 'ranked-choice voting' as an alternative to winner-take-all voting, where voters rank candidates by preference, allowing for a majority winner and reducing the impact of negative partisanship.

Why does the script mention 'Mr. Peanut's untimely demise'?

The mention of 'Mr. Peanut's untimely demise' is used as a satirical device to highlight the absurdity of certain aspects of American politics and media, by comparing it to the seriousness of other issues discussed in the script.

What is the 'Boston' phenomenon referred to in the script?

The 'Boston' phenomenon is a humorous reference to the idea that Republicans and Democrats agree on many issues, but the script uses the term to sarcastically point out that despite such agreements, little action is taken, similar to how 'Boston' can refer to both the city in Massachusetts and the band.

How does the script use humor to discuss serious political topics?

The script uses humor through exaggeration, satire, and cultural references to make light of serious political topics, making the discussion more engaging and potentially more accessible to a wider audience.

What is the significance of the 'Flavortown' reference at the end of the script?

The 'Flavortown' reference is a humorous way to suggest that despite the political divisions and the flaws in the electoral system, there is a need for unity and a call to action, even if it means rallying around an unconventional or unexpected candidate.

Outlines

00:00

🗳️ American Democracy and the 2020 Election

The paragraph discusses the state of American democracy, highlighting the chaotic events of 2020 such as police brutality, the COVID-19 pandemic, impeachment, economic downturn, and even the symbolic death of Mr. Peanut. It points out that despite the perception of deep division, there is more agreement among Americans than commonly believed on issues like universal background checks and legal status for DREAMers. The paragraph critiques the representative government for not representing the people, leading to low voter turnout. It introduces the concept of 'winner-take-all' voting as a fundamental flaw in the election system, which allows candidates to win without majority support, using Trump's 2016 primary victory as an example.

05:02

🔍 The Impact of Winner-Take-All Voting

This paragraph delves into how the winner-take-all voting system exacerbates political division and negative partisanship. It describes the all-or-nothing nature of elections, which drives relentless party conflict and increases polarization, as evidenced by the growing divide in the House and Senate. The paragraph suggests that the system may contribute to the perception of a 'Cold Civil War' and the belief that a second Civil War could occur. It criticizes Trump for worsening the division and for his inconsistent stance on protesters, depending on whether they support him. The paragraph also discusses how the system incentivizes dirty politics and extreme tactics from Republicans, while Democrats must appeal to a broader base to overcome geographical disadvantages.

10:03

🎪 The Democratic Party's Big Tent

The paragraph examines the Democratic Party's broad and diverse coalition, comparing it to a 'big tent' that encompasses a wide range of ideologies and policy preferences. It contrasts the Democratic Party's inclusivity with the more narrowly focused Republican Party. The discussion includes the challenges faced by progressive politicians within the Democratic Party, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and how the party's broadness can lead to compromises on values. The paragraph also touches on the role of the two-party system in shaping American politics and the historical context of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding political parties.

15:03

🤔 The Irony of Two-Party System and the Solution

This paragraph reflects on the irony that the two-party system, currently a feature of American politics, was not intended by the Founding Fathers and is actually a result of copying the British system. It discusses the negative consequences of the winner-take-all plurality voting system, including the suppression of dissent and the lack of a substantive discussion on issues. The paragraph concludes by introducing 'ranked-choice voting' as a potential solution to the problems posed by the current voting system, allowing for a more representative and less polarized political landscape.

20:08

📊 Ranked-Choice Voting: A Path to Majority Rule

The final paragraph introduces ranked-choice voting as a method to achieve majority rule in elections. It explains how this system works, allowing voters to rank candidates by preference, and how it encourages candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters. The paragraph highlights the benefits of ranked-choice voting, such as reducing negative partisanship and wasted votes, and enabling third parties to grow. It mentions Maine's adoption of ranked-choice voting and the positive changes it could bring to the political landscape, suggesting that this system could be implemented without needing congressional approval.

Keywords

💡American democracy

American democracy refers to the system of government in the United States, which is a federal republic with a representative democracy. It is characterized by free and fair elections, the separation of powers, and the protection of individual liberties. In the context of the video, the term is used to discuss the perceived shortcomings and challenges facing the U.S. political system, such as polarization and the influence of negative partisanship.

💡Winner-take-all

Winner-take-all is an electoral system where the candidate who wins the most votes takes all the seats or representation in a given area, regardless of whether they have a majority of the total votes. The video argues that this system contributes to the two-party dominance in American politics and leads to negative campaigning and polarization. It is exemplified in the script by the discussion of how Trump won the Republican primary with a plurality, not a majority.

💡Negative partisanship

Negative partisanship is a term used to describe a political phenomenon where voters are more motivated by their dislike of the opposing party than by support for their own party. The video suggests that this dynamic leads to increased political division and animosity between parties, as seen in the way Republicans and Democrats are portrayed as having little in common and being driven by opposition to each other.

💡Polarization

Polarization refers to the increasing divergence of political views towards more extreme positions, often with less willingness to compromise. In the video, polarization is discussed as a significant issue in American politics, with examples given such as the growing divide between the House and Senate and the cultural 'Cold Civil War'.

💡Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral boundaries to favor one party or class. It is mentioned in the video as one of the factors contributing to the problems with American elections, as it can lead to unfair representation and entrench political power for certain groups.

💡Electoral College

The Electoral College is the process by which the U.S. President is elected, where electors cast votes on behalf of the citizens. The video touches on the Electoral College as part of the broader critique of the American electoral system, suggesting it as one of the elements that may not accurately represent the popular will.

💡Ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting is an electoral system where voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed according to the voters' next preferences. The video presents ranked-choice voting as a potential solution to the issues with the current electoral system, allowing for a more representative outcome.

💡Majority vs. plurality

Majority refers to more than half of the votes, while plurality refers to the most votes among several options, but not necessarily more than half. The video explains that American elections often result in winners by plurality rather than majority, which can lead to candidates winning without broad support, contributing to the lack of representation and dissatisfaction with the political process.

💡Two-party system

A two-party system is a political system where two major parties dominate politics, often to the exclusion of smaller parties. The video discusses how the winner-take-all elections and the structure of the American political system have led to a two-party system, which can limit voter choice and stifle political diversity.

💡Voter suppression

Voter suppression refers to tactics or practices that discourage or prevent certain groups of people from voting. The video briefly mentions voter suppression as one of the issues with the American electoral process, suggesting it as a factor that can undermine the democratic principle of equal representation.

Highlights

The discussion highlights the impact of winner-take-all voting on American democracy and its role in the rise of Trump.

Explains how plurality voting leads to a misunderstanding of democratic principles, favoring the loudest voices over the majority.

Discusses the concept of 'negative partisanship' and its influence on political polarization in the U.S.

Analyzes the role of fear and hatred of the opposing party in driving political behavior.

Points out the irony of a divided country appearing to agree on more issues than they think.

Examines the historical anomaly of the two-party system in the U.S., which was not intended by the Founding Fathers.

Critiques the electoral system for favoring rural white Republicans over urban Democrats.

Describes the pressure on Republican politicians to conform to far-right ideologies to avoid primary challenges.

Argues that the Democratic party's broad tent approach requires candidates to appeal to a wide range of voters, leading to compromises.

Interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reveals the ideological split within the Democratic party.

AOC discusses the challenges faced by progressive politicians within the Democratic party's big tent.

The transcript satirically compares the Democratic party to Denny's and the Republican party to Chipotle, illustrating their differing approaches to policy and inclusion.

Explores the idea that the two-party system was the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare, contrary to popular belief.

Introduces ranked-choice voting as a potential solution to the issues with the current voting system.

Shows how ranked-choice voting allows for a more representative democracy by ensuring majority support for elected candidates.

Encourages viewers to consider the benefits of ranked-choice voting as a way to mitigate negative partisanship and encourage broader political representation.

Transcripts

I want to talk about American democracy.

You know, Mark Zuckerberg's favorite toy.

Look, 2020 has been a mess.

Horrific police brutality, the coronavirus,

impeachment, the economy tanking,

and of course, this...

Mr. Peanut's untimely demise,

and how he's being remembered this morning.

Planters confirmed the sad news in a tweet,

writing, “It is with heavy hearts that we confirm Mr. Peanut has died at 104.”

Not the first billionaire I thought we'd murder, but...

a win's a win.

We are living through rough times right now.

And it probably feels like we don't agree on anything.

But actually, as a country, we agree on more than you think.

And it's pretty surprising.

Universal background checks, ending cash bail, legal status for DREAMers.

Republicans and Democrats intersect on a lot of things.

It's a bizarre phenomenon known as...

“Boston.”

But year after year, none of it happens!

So it feels like we have a representative government that doesn't represent us.

So it makes sense that every four years

about a 100 million eligible voters

don't vote.

That's why I want to bring the focus back on November.

And I know you're like, “Hasan, November?

Dude, I don't even believe in Thursday anymore.”

But whether we like it or not,

we also have an election this year.

And we are choosing...

between this.

How?

How is this the best we could do?

I'll explain how. Now, I'm not going to tell you what to do.

I'm going to tell you how we got here.

As much as we like to say our politics are fucked up

because of campaign finance, gerrymandering, voter suppression,

the electoral college, and the cast of The View,

there's actually a much more fundamental problem:

we are doing elections wrong.

Now I'm not talking about voting machines or polling places.

Not even this one in Bel Air.

“Mouthwatering lamb chops,

crispy Chinese chicken salad, and a major dessert bar.

Did I mention there's a harpist?”

The ambiance is delightful.

the fact that I can spend less time worrying about the voting

and more time enjoying being at the polling facility

is, uh-- is probably the plus.

Yeah! Bel Air!

Nothing like getting up early, voting for Bloomberg,

and heading into work with a gut full of beef chow mein!

But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the way our elections are decided.

Think about elections for the Senate,

the House, and the presidency.

Only one person can win,

and it's winner-take-all.

You win everything, or you lose everything.

You're either Kevin Hart or Kevin Spacey. There is no in-between.

And you don't actually need a majority to win.

“A majority is when a candidate has more than half the votes.

A plurality is when one candidate receives

more votes than any other candidate.

So a candidate doesn't need a majority of the votes,

they just need more votes than

any other candidate, or a plurality.”

We misunderstand the most basic principle of our democracy!

We think we have majority rules, but that's not true.

It's actually plurality rules.

Unless you're on a yacht in the English Channel. Then it's Vanderpump Rules.

Winner-take-all voting is actually at the heart

of so many of our political problems.

It's a big reason why we have Trump to begin with.

Let's go back to 2016, right?

In the Republican primary,

Trump never got a majority of voters!

He just got a plurality.

Less than 14 million Americans

voted for him.

That is only 5.5% of all eligible voters!

Think about that for a second. Most Republicans voted for “not Trump.”

But it didn't matter. The party had to bow down and kiss the ring.

Just look at how they talked about Trump before the nomination and then after.

Donald Trump likes to sue people.

He should sue whoever did that to his face.

Thank you for being a champion

for the cause freedom and democracy in this hemisphere.

Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism.

The extraordinary vision that Donald Trump has.

I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy.

You know what concerns me

about the American press

is this endless, endless attempt

to label the guy as some kind of kook.

Aw, thanks, Lindsey.

It only took a couple months to go from

“This is the dirtiest man in politics,”

to “The bath is ready for you, my liege.”

Mainstream Republicans didn't embrace Trump because they liked him.

They hated him!

But they hated Democrats more, so they fell in line.

That fear and hatred of the other party

is the most powerful force in politics today.

It's called “negative partisanship.”

It's easier to rally people

to come out against something

than to stand for something.

And that ends up degrading our democracy.

Dude, we all vote like 13-year-olds.

Everything's about who we hate, not who we like.

And that is a direct result of winner-take-all.

Every election is all or nothing.

So the two parties just attack each other nonstop.

And it's driving them further and further apart.

Look at how much polarization

has increased in the House and the Senate.

It looks like the stock market

during the pandemic.

We are more divided than ever.

Almost ever.

This is probably the most divided

we've been since the Civil War.

We've never been this divided

since the Civil War, probably.

At times it feels as if, culturally, we're in a Cold Civil War.

A third of Americans actually believe

that a second Civil War will happen

within the next five years.

Now.

Wow.

What does that actually mean?

It means, Ken Burns is about to win another Emmy.

Shout out to Kenny B, who cut his hair at home before it was cool.

Dude, we can't even come together during a global pandemic.

We've turned public health into a culture war.

They seem to be very responsible people to me.

Yeah!

Nothing says “responsible”

like driving a tank through the middle of the street.

I'm sure he's on his way to invest in a mutual fund.

Now obviously, Trump only made this worse.

And you can see how negative partisanship

plays out in the way he treated armed protesters who agree with him

versus peaceful protesters who disagree with him.

Trump said the George Floyd protests were orchestrated by antifa.

Then said he wanted to designate antifa as a terrorist organization.

Even though that same day,

the FBI said they had no evidence antifa was involved in D.C. protests.

Trump's basically calling anyone who disagrees with him a terrorist.

Which is upsetting. I say this as a Muslim.

Donny...

I thought I was your only terrorist.

Once you start calling people who disagree with you “terrorists,”

you feel justified doing whatever it takes to beat them.

You have every incentive to play as dirty as possible,

because in politics it pays off.

If you win, you get a whole seat.

That's why Republicans have been caught countless times

using voter ID laws, purging voter rolls,

closing polling locations,

and gerrymandering.

This is Pennsylvania's 7th,

which has been referred to,

and I'm not making this up,

“Goofy kicking Donald Duck.” See that?

Ah, okay.

It's “Goofy kicking Donald Duck.”

That's what we're calling it now.

I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. They're fucking not.

And I'll get to that later.

But winner-take-all specifically pushes Republicans to far-right extremes,

whether it's tactics, policy, or rhetoric.

And if you're a Republican politician, you have to go along,

or primary voters will get you.

Why aren't more Republicans speaking up?

It's always for the same reason.

They're scared that they may be primaried.

Scared to death.

They're scared to death.

And they're scared to death.

They're scared stiff.

Boy, the fear of a primary challenge is one hell of a drug.

Basically, Republicans are terrified of getting canceled

for not being racist enough.

They're like, “No, I swear I did blackface in college!

I lost the pictures, but you gotta believe me!”

Winner-take-all encourages Republican extremism.

And then our electoral system rewards it.

That system gives way more power to white Republicans in rural states

and way less power to Democrats clustered in cities.

More people voted for Democrats in six of the last seven presidential elections,

two of the last three Senate elections,

and the last House election.

But Republicans control the presidency, the Senate,

the Supreme Court, most state legislatures,

most governorships, and 100% of late-stage Kanye.

We don't have majority rule in this country.

We have extreme minority rule.

That's why none of this feels normal.

I know, you guys are like, “I'm fucking normal. Politics is not normal.”

And Trump is the epitome

of what winner-take-all does to Republicans.

He loves going on the attack, he's super far-right,

and he never got a majority, but he still won.

Winner-take-all affects Democrats the opposite way.

They need way more votes

to overcome those geographic disadvantages.

Dems aren't playing to twelve straight up...

they're playing to twelve, and you got to win by ten.

So they picked a candidate who is undeniable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

All men and women are created by Go-- you know-- you know the thing.

You're a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.

If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump,

then you ain't black.

Wait, Dems can be racist?

Let me check with the hot sauce in my bag about this.

Dems are split.

Lots of people are happy that Biden won, lots of people are upset.

Especially Bernie supporters.

I feel that it's important to vote blue,

just because it's a step in the right direction,

but I really, really don't want to vote for Biden.

I really don't.

I get it.

Bernie stands for big, systemic reform.

Medicare for All, Green New Deal, aggressive pointing.

What is Joe Biden's signature policy?

The closest thing that we could find was just his stance on Trump.

Every single poll that's run, I beat him like a drum.

I'm going to beat this man like a drum.

I will beat him like a drum.

Like a drum.

Like a drum.

Like a drum.

How is he weirder

when he finishes his sentences?

Biden's signature policy was basically “I'm a moderate who can beat Trump.”

But that's actually way smarter than it seems,

because Democrats need broad appeal to win.

In a two-party system, you better believe

democrats need a really big tent.

We have to have a big tent.

We have a big tent.

We have a big tent.

Big tent.

We're a big-tent caucus.

You've got to have a big tent.

A big, big tent.

That's the kind of big tent we need.

Bernie has a big, beautiful, broad tent.

“Bernie's got a big, thick, throbbing tent

with prominent veins.”

Miranda, you went full Samantha on that one.

But the thing is, Bernie didn't have a big, broad, beautiful tent... Biden did.

On Super Tuesday, Biden won almost everywhere.

But Virginia shows you how much he dominated.

The state had record turnout, and Biden won 98% of counties.

Exit polls showed that Biden beat Bernie by double digits

among men, women, whites, blacks,

college, and non-college grads.

Or as Biden would call them,

“Fellas, broads, regulars, you people,

poindexters, and tough customers.”

And I know, a lot of Bernie bros are like, “Hasan...

it's the system, man. The DNC backed Biden!

This two-party system made it impossible for Bernie!”

Alright, relax, Chapo Trap House.

It's true, the establishment did back Biden.

But if you're mad at the DNC and the two-party system,

you should really be mad at winner-take-all elections.

“Why do we only have two parties in this country?”

We have single-member districts, winner-take-alls,

plurality election rules where the most votes wins.

For these reasons, we have a two-party system.

It's not unlike sports,

where if you have a sports league like the NFL with one trophy at the end

and only one team can win,

you typically divide up that professional sports league

into two different conferences.

Let's be real, politics is more like the MLB.

Constant cheating, mostly white, and nobody is in shape.

Winner-take-all creates two-party systems.

You can't afford to waste your vote,

so you stop voting for candidates who reflect your values

and you start voting for ones you think can win.

But when everybody does that, we end up with just two huge mega-parties,

even though 57% of Americans want a third party.

Think about the way we treat people who vote third party.

You'd be like, “Dennis, who'd you vote for?”

And he's like, “Gary Johnson.”

And we're like, “Dennis, what the fuck are you doing, man?”

We treat them like they just left a baby in a hot car.

We're like, “What were you thinking?!”

So, what happens to the people who don't fit in?

Well, I decided to talk to one of them.

Representative AOC, thank you so much for sitting down with me.

Of course, thank you.

So, we are here in the Watergate Hotel.

Yeah.

This is kind of like a throwback to when presidents were held accountable.

Yeah, exactly, for sure. When impeachment was a thing that was effective, yeah.

Ah! Remember when we were rooting for impeachment?

Now we're rooting for hydroxychloroquine.

Don't worry, this interview was pre-corona.

I did not put the queen of clapback in danger.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been one of the loudest voices

challenging the Democratic establishment, and I wanted to talk to her about that.

So, do you think the Democratic party is legit split?

I think there's a strong ideological split in the Democratic party, yes.

Like how big a split are we talking about? A fracture? A hairline fracture?

Out two to three weeks, but will make the playoffs?

I think it's less a fracture and more like two different limbs.

She's absolutely right.

You've got the moderate arm of the party led by Nancy Pelosi

and the progressive arm with AOC.

The problem is,

one arm is doing fucking kettlebell swings

to Rage Against The Machine

and the other arm is doing bicep curls

to the Hamilton soundtrack.

“She likes to minimize the conflicts within her caucus

between the moderates and the progressives.”

You have these wings, AOC and her group, on one side...

That's, like, five people.

No, it's the progressive group. It's more than five.

Progressive? I'm a progressive. Yeah.

“I'm a progressive. My book club read The Help. Twice.”

Democratic leaders like Pelosi need to keep everyone in the party.

So they make a big deal about being all-inclusive.

Democrats are like Denny's.

They'll serve anyone, any meal, at any time.

Doesn't matter if it's 4:00 A.M. or 4:00 P.M.

You want voting rights, renewable energy, education, drone strikes, pot roast?

They got it. Everything is in there.

That's why the inside of a Denny's

looks like the Democratic party.

It's fucking chaos.

Republicans are way more narrow. Their menu is like Chipotle.

They got a few key items:

immigration, abortion, guns, God.

You have to stick to the menu, or you're out.

And just like Chipotle, the GOP is like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, we love Mexicans.”

But you never see an actual Mexican in there.

Democrats can't afford for people to leave.

So they keep expanding the menu.

“Gay marriage? Absolutely. Cancel a pipeline? Coming right up.”

But if you're a progressive and you want some Green New Deal?

Pelosi's gonna be like, “We don't make vegan shit here.

Shut up and eat your Obamacare.”

She's not kicking you out, but you are definitely not getting what you want.

And you have nowhere else to go.

Is the Democratic party tent too big?

Well you know, I think in any two-party system the tent is going to be really big,

because what it does is that it squashes dissent.

But I do think that there are areas where, when that tent gets so big,

you squash actually talking about issues in substantive ways,

because you're not supposed to critique moderate Democrats.

Granted, I don't think the Democratic party's tent

is as awful as the Republican party's tent.

Okay.

You look on the Republican side, you have everyone who's just like...

corporate conservative,

and you have libertarians, and you have...

neo-Nazis, all in the same party.

-It's like racist Cirque du Soleil. -Exactly, it's just like that.

The GOP is totally like Cirque du Soleil.

Every time I watch, I'm like, “This is definitely going to get someone killed.”

If you're a progressive,

being in the big tent means that if you rock with Bernie or with Warren,

you're going to watch your candidate compromise on their values.

Which means you gotta compromise on your values.

So I totally get it when people are like,

“Yo, fuck politics and fuck these politicians!”

You watch them during the debates,

and it's double the Wu-Tang Clan onstage,

and they're sniping at each other

like they're trying to take out Bin Laden.

It's all about their principles.

For a socialist, you got a lot more confidence

in corporate America than I do.

Your billionaire campaign contributors.

Purity tests you cannot yourself pass.

I went on the floor and got you votes.

I am deeply grateful to President Obama

who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law.

“Yas queen. Liz never backs down.”

And that's why I'm proud to endorse Joe Biden

as president of the United States.

See?

Every time this happens, people are like,

“Dude, you guys are all either sociopaths or complete liars.

Quit telling me to stand and wear a fucking T-shirt with your name on it.”

But the reason Democrats especially have to compromise every election cycle

comes back to the way we vote.

Winner-take-all sends them running to the middle,

because the only thing they can all agree on is beating the other guy.

Biden is the epitome of this.

He's a big tent whose only focus is beating Trump.

So, you want to know how we ended up with this?

Winner-take-all.

And you know what's ironic?

The two-party system that we have right now

was actually the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare.

John Adams said, quote,

Nothing in the Constitution

says that we have to have two parties, or winner-take-all.

And I know this, because I looked through it.

And I know when I generally look through government documents,

I usually find something really racist, but not this time.

Except that, that was bad.

So...

why do we have winner-take-all plurality voting if it's not even in the rule book?

It's because the Founding Fathers just copied what the British were doing!

Dude, they didn't want us to have two parties,

but they gave us the system that got us here!

It's not often that I say this about a group of slave owners, but...

I'm disappointed in you guys.

Look, we can talk about fixing the Electoral College,

or gerrymandering, or campaign finance.

Those are important,

but fixing those things won't solve negative partisanship,

it won't break up the two parties, and it won't fix the fundamental problem

of how we vote.

So, if you feel helpless or you voted for Gary Johnson... I'm sorry, Dennis...

there is hope.

There is something we have right now that could change the game.

It's something called

“ranked-choice voting,”

where you rank the candidates

in the order of your preference.

It's easier to explain with a clip.

“Instead of voting for one candidate,

voters rank the options in order of preference.

The best way to learn is to try it out.

So I did. With some delicious local beer.”

Okay, can we just get a normal clip that just uses candidates?

“You have four candidates:

duck, gray duck, goose, and lutefisk.”

What the fuck is lutefisk? I said, “Candidates!”

“Here's the candidates

who appeared on the ballot,

from Ant-Man to Wonder Woman.”

Oh my God,

the news thinks we're all fucking idiots.

Do they think we're just rolling up

to the voting booth like, “Wait...

who's Stacey Abrams? Is she Aquaman?”

We don't dumb things down like that on this show.

So I'm going to explain ranked-choice voting to you

like you're an adult.

Let's say you have three candidates:

Baby Yoda, Paddington Bear, and Detective Pikachu.

Voters rank their favorites.

And once all the first-choice votes are counted,

if anyone gets over 50%, it's like winner-take-all... they win.

Great! Baby Yoda.

He'll legalize weed.

But... if no one gets over 50%,

in a winner-take-all system,

Paddington Bear would win.

But in a ranked-choice system,

the candidate with the fewest votes

gets taken out.

So if Detective Pikachu was your first choice,

your now vote goes to your second choice.

And now, whoever gets more than 50% wins.

Sick! He'll also legalize MDMA.

This is actual majority-rules voting.

And it's great, because you can vote your conscience

without electing some fascist like Paddington Bear.

It's true. He supports the death penalty.

In ranked-choice, candidates have to reach out to all voters,

so negative partisanship goes away.

And there are no wasted votes, so third parties can actually grow.

But the most beautiful thing about ranked-choice voting?

We can do it right now.

You don't need to go through Congress. You just need a local law.

In 2018, Maine became the first state to implement ranked-choice voting.

And voters got campaign ads like this...

What? That is the most insane thing I have ever seen in my life.

How am I supposed to know who to vote for when no one's being called a Nazi?

Dude, the vibe of that video was like, “Nice older poly couple

who lives in a tree house and makes their own honey.”

Ranked-choice voting is a long-term solution.

This year...

this is what we have.

So even principled politicians

you may love

are gonna have to fall in line.

You seem optimistic that no matter what happens, come this fall...

you will rally around whoever the nominee is.

-For sure. -Are you ready to stand by that principle?

-Yes. -I want you to go directly to camera

and say, “I'm AOC, and I endorse ‘mmm’ for president.”

I can't say that, I'm gonna get in trouble!

How about this: “I'm AOC, and I endorse Guy Fieri for Mayor of Flavortown.”

Let's go to Flavortown. Let's do it. Honk honk or whatever.

“Honk honk or whatever?”

This is what we're doing? This is the problem!

-We can't have whatever. -No. For sure. For sure.

I don't mean that jokingly. I mean that for sure.

I'll bleach my tips. Let's do it.

-Let's go to Flavortown. -Let's go to Flavortown.

So if you're wondering how 2020 is gonna end,

I don't care what side of the aisle you're on,

bleach your tips, because I guess we're all going to Flavortown.