Between the first modern Europeans arriving in 1492 and the Victorian age, the indigenous population of the new world dropped by at least 90%.
Not the conquistadores and company -- they killed lots of people but their death count is nothing compared to what they brought with them: small pox, typhus, tuberculosis, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, mumps, measles and more leapt from those first explores to the costal tribes, then onward the microscopic invaders spread through a hemisphere of people with no defenses against them. Tens of millions died.
These germs decided the fate of these battles long before the fighting started.
Now ask yourself: why didn't Europeans get sick?
If new-worlders were vulnerable to old-world diseases, then surely old-worlders would be vulnerable to new world diseases.
Yet, there was no Americapox spreading eastward infecting Europe and cutting the population from 90 million to 9. Had Americapox existed it would have rather dampened European ability for transatlantic expansion.
To answer why this didn't happen: we need first to distinguish regular diseases -- like the common cold -- from what we'll call plagues.
1) Spread quickly between people.
Sneezes spread plages faster than handshakes which are faster than… closeness. Plagues use more of this than this.
2) They kill you quickly or you become immune.
Catch a plague and your dead within seven to thirty days. Survive and you'll never get it again. Your body has learned to fight it, you might still carry it -- the plague lives in you, you can still spread it, but it can't hurt you.
The surface answer to this question isn't that Europeans had better immune systems to fight off new world plages -- it's that new world didn't have plagues for them to catch. They had regular diseases but there was no Americapox to carry.
These are history's biggest killers, and they all come from the old world.
Let's dig deeper, and talk Cholera, a plague that spreads if your civilization does a bad job of separating drinking water from pooping water. London was terrible at this making it the cholera capital of the world. Cholera can rip through dense neighborhoods killing swaths of the population, before moving onward. But that's the key: it has to move on.
In a small, isolated group, a plague like cholera cannot survive -- it kills all available victims, leaving only the immune and then theres nowhere to go -- it's a fire that burns through its fuel.
But a city -- shining city on the hill -- to which rural migrants flock, where hundreds of babies are born a day: this is sanctuary for the fire of plague; fresh kindling comes to it. The plague flares and smolders and flares and smolders again -- impossible to extinguish.
Historically in city borders plagues killed faster than people could breed. Cities grew because more people moved to them than died inside of them. Cities only started growing from their own population in the 1900s when medicine finally left its leaches and bloodletting phase and entered its soap and soup phase -- giving humans some tools to slow death.
But before that a city was an unintentional playground for plages and a grim machine to sort the immune from the rest.
So the deeper, answer is that The New World didn't have plagues because the new world didn't have big, dense, terribly sanitized deeply interconnected cities for plages to thrive.
OK, but The New World wasn't completely barren of cities. And tribes weren't completely isolated, otherwise the newly-arrived smallpox in the 1400s couldn't have spread.
Cities are only part of the puzzle: they're required for plages, but cities don't make the germs that start the plagues -- those germs come from the missing piece.
Now, most germs don't want to kill you for the same reason you don't want to burn down your house: germs live in you. Chromic diseases like leprosy are terrible because they're very good at not killing you.
Plague lethality is an accident, a misunderstanding, because the germs that cause them don't know they're in humans, they're germs that think they're in this.
Plagues come from animals.
Whooping cough comes from pigs, and does flu as well as from birds. Our friend the cow alone is responsible for measles, tuberculosis, and smallpox.
For the cow these diseases are no big deal -- like colds for us. But when cow germs get in humans thing things they do to make the cow a little sick, makes humans very sick. Deadly sick.
Germs jumping species like this is extraordinarily rare. That's why generations of humans can spend time around animals just fine. Being the patient zero of a new animal-to-human plague is winning a terrible lottery.
But a colonial-age city raises the odds: there used to be animals everywhere, horses, herds of livestock in the streets, open slaughterhouses, meat markets pre-refrigeration, and a river of literal human and animal excrement running through it all.
A more perfect environment for diseases to jump species could hardly be imagined.
So the deeper answer is that plagues come from animals, but so rarely you have to raise the odds and with many chances for infection and give the new-born plague a fertile environment to grow. The old world had the necessary pieces in abundance.
But, why was a city like London filled with sheep and pigs and cows and Tenochtitlan wasn't?
This brings us to the final level. (For this video anyway)
Some animals can be put to human use -- this is what domestication means, animals you can breed, not just hunt.
Forget a the moment the modern world: go back to 10,000BC when tribes of humans reached just about everywhere. If you were in one of these tribes what local animals could you capture, alive, and successfully pen to breed?
Maybe you're in North Dakota and thinking about catching a Buffalo: an unpredictable, violent tank on hooves, that can outrun you across the planes, leap over your head head and travels in herds thousands strong.
Oh, and you have no horses to help you -- because there are no horses on the continent. Horses live here -- and won't be brought over until, too late.
It's just you, a couple buddies, and stone-based tools. American Indians didn't fail to domesticate buffalo because they couldn't figure it out. They failed because it's a buffalo. No one could do it -- buffalo would have been amazing creature to put to human work back in BC, but it's not going to happen -- humans have only barely domesticated buffalo with all our modern tools.
The New World didn't have good animal candidates for domestication. Almost everything big enough to be useful is also was to too dangerous, or too agile.
Meanwhile the fertile crescent to central Europe had: cows and and pigs and sheep and goats, easy pests animals comparatively begging to be domesticated.
A wild boar is something to contend with if you only have stone tools but it's possible to catch and pen and bread and feed to eat -- because pigs can't leap to the sky or crush all resistance beneath their hooves.
In The New World the only native domestication contestant was: llamas. They're better than nothing, which is probably why the biggest cities existed in South America -- but they're no cow. Ever try to manage a heard of llamas in the mountains of Peru? Yeah, you can do it, but it's not fun. Nothing but drama, these llamas.
These might seem, cherry-picked examples, because aren't there hundreds of thousands of species of animals? Yes, but when you're stuck at the bottom of the tech tree almost none of them can be domesticated. From the dawn of man until this fateful meeting humans domesticated maybe a baker's dozen of unique species the world over, and even to get that high a number you need to stretch it to include honeybees and silkworms. Nice to have, but you can't build a civilization on a foundation of honey alone.
These early tribes weren't smarter, or better at domestication. The old world had more valuable and easy animals. With dogs, herding sheep and cattle is easier. Now humans have a buddy to keep an eye on the clothing factory, and the milk and cheeseburger machine, and the plow-puller. Now farming is easier, which means there's more benefit to staying put, which means more domestication, which means more food which means more people and more density and oh look where we're going. Citiesville, population lots, bring your animals, plagues welcome.
That is the full answer: The lack of new world animals to domesticate, limited not only exposure to germs sources but also limited food production, which limited population growth, which limited cities, which made plagues in The New World an almost impossibility. In the old, exactly the reverse. And thus a continent full of plague and a continent devoid of it.
So when ships landed in the new world there was no Americapox to bring back.
The game of civilization has nothing to do with the players, and everything to do with the map. Access to domesticated animals in numbers and diversity, is the key resource to bootstrapping a complex society from nothing -- and that complexity brings with it, unintentionally, a passive biological weaponry devastating to outsiders.
Start the game again but move the domesticable animals across the sea and history's arrow of disease and death flows in the opposite direction.
Several experts helped fact-check this video, and I'd like to particularly mention Dr Carolyn Harris who helped add in some vital details and without whom the corrections section below would have been embarrassingly long.
The official name is 'Wars of the Roses' not 'War of the Roses'.
Music by Kevin McLeod, not McLead.
1066! The start of the royal family on these fair isles. Well, there were kings and mini countries before that and druids before that, and Pangaea before that, but we have to start somewhere and a millennia ago is plenty far -- if that leaves out Æthelred the Unready, so it goes.
William the Conqueror, conquered in the 'Norman Conquest' -- Norman here being code for French.
Because it's the olden days, people had lots of kids, but to keep things simple this family tree is going to leave out many of them on each branch because not every child matters.
So William had three kids we care about: William II, Henry I and Adela.
If you've seen the video about royal succession -- click here if you haven't -- you'll know that formal rules for passing on the crown will get established, but for now, it's a free-for-all, home team advantage to the eldest son, but never forget bigger-army diplomacy.
Upon William the Conquerors death, William II became king.
William II didn't marry, and on a bros day out with Henry died in a 'Hunting Accident' that gave Henry I the crown.
Henry I had at least 26 children of which only two were 100% legit. He declared his daughter would rule next (after his son died in a ship wreck) and swore his knights to honor Empress Matilda by crossing their hearts, hoping to die, sticking a needle in their eye -- but when Henry I died while Matilda was in France, many ignored this while her cousin Stephen raced to Westminster using faster army diplomacy to get coronated first.
Empress Matilda did eventually return and start a decades-long civil war -- that was pretty much a stalemate because turtling in the 1100s was an effective RTS tactic.
While she did rule part of the island, as Matilda never had an official coronation, her monarchical status is disputed.
Now, as Stephen's children were either dead, disinterested, or a nun -- his crown went to his nephew, Henry II who had four sons: Henry the Young, Richard the Lionheart, King John… and Geoff. (Guess who died before his turn?)
Henry II saw the history thus far of conquering, assassination, (maybe) usurpation, attritional war -- and decided waiting until after the death of the current king before sorting out the next king didn't work.
So Henry II changed the system and crowned Henry the Young co-king with him, invoking the rule of two: one is none. Two is one. If it's important, you need a backup.
It was a good plan for stability, helped by the young King's popularity, but unfortunately -- the apprentice rebelled against the master, rallying his brothers -- which resulted in another civil war of disputed monarchs during which Henry the Young died of dysentery, Henry the Elder died of fever, and Richard I took the crown.
After Richard came John and four eldest son successions in a row: John to Henry III (insert Magna Carta here) to Edward I (Longshanks) to Edward II -- to Edward III.
Actually Ed II was overthrown by Isabelle of France A.K.A the She-Wolf of France A.K.A. his wife. After deposing her husband, she acted as regent for their son. Every one of these arrows glosses over a bit of complexity.
Edward III had five sons: Edward the Black Prince, Lionel, John, Edmund, and Thomas, none of which would wear the crown.
When Edward III died, his throne would have gone to The Black Prince, but he was dead at the time so the crown went to his boringly named son Richard, now the second.
There's a bunch of drama lamma stuff around Richard the second which your English teacher might force you to read about -- but spoiler alert, history's ending is always the same: bigger-army diplomacy, this time from Henry IV who gets the crown and Richard II gets starvation in captivity.
Another Henry before we get to the War of the Roses:
A war that strikes terror (and boredom) in the minds of students of history the nation over who have to deal with this family tree 'simplified' to explain why everyone was angry, but the shortest version ever is Edward III's great, great, grandsons duked it out, even though one of them was dead for part of the fight -- but we can't get into that now so Henry VI to Edward IV to Henry VI to Edward IV. The end.
Edward IV, on his deathbed left his crown to his son. But being twelve he needed protection, so Richard, his best-ist uncle in the world, promised to take super-good care of him. Edward V then promptly disappeared under suspicious circumstances that left Richard to become Richard the third.
But he didn't stay king for long because Edward III's great, great, great, great grandson Henry VII -- took the crown, put a ring on Elizabeth of York to lock down that royal legitimacy and then sired Henry VIII -- splitter of churches, and ladies.
Henry VIII thought it was high time to formalize the rules of inheritance, so he wrote them out in his will -- basically saying oldest boys first, girls only if there aren't any boys -- and Parliament approved the rules.
Which should have made everything neat and tidy, but we're about to enter the really messy time...
… Because Henry's son lived just long enough to screw it up -- inheriting the throne at 9 there was, of course, a scheming protectorate running things, yet he still declared at 15 that his father's rules were dumb and his sisters were dumb and that his first cousin once removed, Lady Jane Grey, should be the next monarch instead.
Then he died and Lady Jane Grey became queen at sweet sixteen, sort of -- in a disputed status way for nine days, until beheaded by Mary, the first really, truly officially nobody doubts it Queen.
Mary didn't have any kids, and passed the crown to Elizabeth I who became the second queen in a row… to also not have children. But, no problem because Lady Jane Grey was next in … oh. Right.
Now, this is the point at which we acknowledge, Scotland Exists. They'd been doing their own royal thing which for our purposes joins the English branch where Edward III's great granddaughter married into it in the 1400s and then goes: James, James, James, James, James, Mary Queen of Scotts, James. Bringing us back to the 1600s.
Henry the VIII's sister importantly also married into this line of the family giving it English legitimacy points in the eyes of the English Parliament, which asked to borrow Scotland's James, making him king of two countries with two numbers in his name depending on where you're counting from.
James had a son, Charles I, and you might think this unification of the monarchs means the very messy time is over.
Cromwell didn't like kings and beheaded Charles I: declaring no royals no longer, making himself The Lord Protector which was in no way like a king -- even though he was in charge and it was a hereditary office passed to his son.
But the Cromwells didn't last -- mainly because his son was a fancy country squire who didn't follow rule 0: keep the army happy -- giving Charles's son, Charles II, the ability to reestablish the monarchy.
Charles II had lots of children, all of which were illegitimate, leaving his brother, James II next in line. But James II was Catholic and ever since Henry split the church, Catholics had terrible approval ratings. But conveniently, he had nice Protestant daughters, one married to a Dutch Prince who by the nature of these things was the grandson of Charles I. Bonus English legitimacy points, plus, who doesn't like the Dutch?
With James so unpopular and William and Mary so popular, the army and nobles pretty much invited the royal couple to 'invade' and James II fled.
William and Mary ruled as co-monarchs, but without children the crown went to Queen Anne, who also didn't produce any heirs, though not from lack of effort -- she was pregnant seventeen times.
Again, finding themselves with a no-royals-no-longer situation, Parliament decided it was really, truly seriously the time to sort out the rules of inheritance to avoid pretenders from every branch of this messy tree fighting over the crown.
Parliament did a royal reboot to clear the cruft, defining Sophia of Hanover -- the granddaughter of James dual numbers to be the new starting point for all claims to the crown.
These rules finally stuck, thus ending the very messy time.
George I, son of Sophia, was the first king under the new rules, then his son George II, to George III, and even though he lost America and his mind, never fear, the rules are here, so the crown continued to calmly descend the family tree, going to George IV, who didn't have any surviving children, to William IV who had ten children -- all illegitimate, then passing through his dead younger brother to Queen Victoria who started her reign in 1837 and made it to just over the finishing line of the 20th century. Which is a doubly impressively long time given the state of medical technology then. After the end of her age, the crown went to her son Edward VII to George V…
to Edward VIII who finally breaks up this neat and tidy (and somewhat boring) line of succession by committing a scandal: marrying a commoner. An American Commoner! An American Commoner divorcee! twice over
Actually, the divorces were a real problem and weren't compatible with the Monarch's role as Head of State and also the Church of England in the 1930s. Edward abdicated to his brother George VI -- who was reluctant to take the crown, and then had to oversee World War II and the subsequent breakup of the British Empire -- which drained the reluctant King's health, who died at 56 leaving the crown to Elizabeth the Second, in 1952 at the age of 25. Seven years older than Victoria, her great great grandmother was on her coronation day, but in early September, 2015, Elizabeth became the longest-reigning Queen in not just British history, but world history.
From Elizabeth II the crown continues on to Charles, the longest heir apparent in British history, to his son William, to his son George.
And that, is a brief history of the royal family.
The Lord of the Rings has lots of different kinds of people: elven people, dwarven people, tree people, half-sized people, even people people.
There's like a million pages of background explaining this world that goes much deeper than the books or the movies, but if you don't want to read it all here's a four minute summary, starting with Wizards:
It's easy to mistake the wizards as humans trained in magic, like elsewhere.
But in the Lord of the Rings, wizards are low(ish) level angels. They're called Istari (get ready for lots of names in this video) and there are five of them -- Sauroman the White, Gandalf the Grey, Radagast the Brown, and the two blue wizards.
Their power comes mostly from being supernatural and not so much from book learnin'.
They're sent (by who? We’ll get to that in a second.) to help the people of world stand against evil -- not wildly successfully either. Sauroman, the leader of the five with a mind of metal and wheels gets corrupted, Radagast, gets distracted by all the pretty nature, the blue wizards just kind of fade into the East -- possibly starting cults of magic and it's only Gandalf that stays true to the quest.
Now, where there's angels there’s a god and in this Universe that's Eru Ilúvatar.
In the beginning there was naught but Eru and the infinite timeless nothing, which is rather boring so he created lots of angels to keep him company.
Ilúvatar 's angels are called the Ainur and are divided into two groups The Valar (Guardians of the world of which there are fourteen or fifteen depending on who you want to count) and their servants The Maiar.
The Wizards are the Istari a subset of the Maiar, which serve the Valar, all created by Ilúvatar.
Ilúvatar and all his angels sang together to make the world. The harmony started out great But there was one Valar named Melkor, and just from the name Melkor, you know what's going to happen, even before learning he's also the smartest, and the most powerful of the angels. And also a bit of a loner.
Melkor didn't want to just be part of the chorus like his dimmer Valar co-workers, he wanted his own song and creations and so his voice became discordant from the others and... created all the suffering and evil in the world.
But Melkor's song also attracted some Maiar to his side including the balrogs. Which means the balrog is a low-level angel making him on the same level of the power org chart as Gandalf: which explains why an old man can hold his ground against a giant lava monster.
Through his discordant singing Melkor also created some of the evil creatures in the world such as the dragons and trolls. Which finally gets us to things that aren't angels.
Other Valar, also made their own non-angelic creations, though in a cooperative spirit with Ilúvatar.
Manwë makes the Great Eagles.
Aulë made the dwarves and his wife Yavanna made all of the animals and plants in the world before capping off that minor task with the Ents, her own race of sentient creatures.
While Ilúvatar seemed happy to leave it to his Valar to make most of the stuff -- he did personally create men and elves which makes them special and kind of above all the other living creatures. (Sorry Dwarves)
And of these two, the men are Ilúvatar 's favorite children: and he show's this by giving men shorter lives than everybody else and also the gift of death? Thanks a lot, Dad. But their short lives set them apart from the other creatures and they aren't tied to the music of creation and the world like everyone else and so are the able to forge their own futures. These qualities make them the get-stuff-done species of middle earth.
Elves, on the other hand, are so connected to the world they're practically made of nature. Same with the Dwarves in their own way, and the Ents of course. These species all but follow the flow of nature and it's partly why the humans have such a hard time getting them to do anything.
Even when faced with armies of Orcs, which brings us to Orcs. Melkor was powerful but couldn't make his own creatures as great as the elves and men and so cheated by corrupting some of them in the beginning and selectively breeding them over the generations into these creatures.
This business Melkor was up to of torturing elves, making monsters, recruiting angels from the other side eventually, but unsurprisingly, led to a war that Melkor loses and got him banished into the void.
All of the conflict in the Lord of the Rings comes long after the epic good vs. evil fight of that universe. Sauron, the Big Bad who caused all of the trouble in these books was just one of the Maiar, though an unusually powerful one, who started his career as Melkor's lieutenant -- after the war he did make a ring to focus his strength, but that's a story for another time.
Last, but not least, we have the hobbits. Even though they seem related to dwarves, what with the living underground and the vertical challenge, hobbits are a subspecies of men. For such an important and pivotal race there is little written of their origin other than the phrase 'related to men.' Turns out with a million pages you still can't talk about everything, just like in a four minute video.
Extra: STV Election Walkthrough
Queen Lion is looking to make the elections in her animal kingdom more fair. Currently she divides her citizens into ranges each of which selects one representative to go to the jungle council which makes laws for the kingdom.
But her citizens are unhappy, and it's easy to see why: the council is full of monkeys. Of course some of her citizens are monkeys, but not all of them. This council doesn't fairly represent her kingdom.
Queen lion visits one of the ranges to find out what's wrong and how to fix it.
In this range there five monkeys, four tigers, three owls, two lynx and one buffalo. One of each runs for representative and all citizens vote for their own species.
The election rule is that the candidate with the most votes wins, which is the monkey. But it's a pretty unsatisfying result considering that 2/3rds of citizens in this range aren't monkeys and wouldn't vote for monkeys.
This is the same across all the ranges of the kingdom, the monkeys have more votes than anybody else, so they win all the elections, even though they are a minority of the total population. Closer inspection reveals that the independent advisors hired to draw the range boundaries in the first place weren't as independent as they first appeared.
The result is unhappy citizens who don't trust the jungle council to make the fairest laws for all, quite rightly.
Now Queen lion wants to maximize the number of citizens happy with the election results. One way to do that is to abolish the ranges and use a proportional system... ...But her citizens want local representatives.
So Queen lion needs a system that both make her citizens happier by having a more representative council while keeping local elections in place.
After doing a little research she finds out how: Single Transferable Vote.
The big change with STV is that ranges send more than one representative, which may seem weird, but queen lion decides to test it out: she takes three ranges which used to each send one representative and combines them into one bigger range that will send three.
On election day citizens go to the polls and the results in this new range are just the same as they were in the old ranges: 34% for Monkey, 33% for Owl and 33% for Lynx.
But this isn't most votes wins: with STV to figure out the winners take the total votes and divide by the number of representatives needed, in this case 3 which gives 33% as the amount a candidates needs to win.
So all three candidates go to the council -- which accurately represents the citizens in the range.
Whereas under the old system each range would have sent a monkey. Leaving 2/3rd of the citizens without representation. A bigger range with more representatives allows the range to be more proportional.
This test turned out well, but it was also as simple as could be -- now Queen Lion wants to see what happens in a race where not everyone is a winner.
The next big range she tests has five candidates running for office: Gorilla, Tasier, Monkey, Tiger, and Lynx, three of which can be representatives.
Election day comes and goes, and here are the results of citizens first choices:
Tasier gets 5% Gorilla gets 28% Monkey gets 33% Tiger gets 21% Lynx gets 13%
As before, a candidate needs 33% to win. Monkey has that as so is immediately selected as one of the three representatives.
But no one else reached the winning 33% so how are the other two representatives selected?
Step one: get rid of the biggest loser. Sorry tasier -- you really had no chance at all.
Now, when the citizens voted, they could have just put an X next to the candidate they liked most but with STV they can also rank their favorite candidates. This is important because it shows how the election would have turned out if one of the candidates hadn't run.
Tiny and Worried Tasiers would have voted for the big calm gorilla without tasier in the race. So if their candidate can't win, they want their votes to go to Gorilla instead. This pushes gorilla up to 33% and he become the next representative.
Ranking allows citizens to support their favorite candidate without worry -- there's no point in strategizing about how everyone else is going to vote. The system works to maximize voter happiness with the result.
Back to the range: there's still one representative to select, so the next biggest loser is Lynx. His voters don't like simians, but they do think tiger's interests are similar to theirs and so if Lynx can't win they want him to have their votes. Tiger gets reaches 33% and becomes the third and final representative.
The election result looks pretty good especially considering citizens first and second choices.
Now more citizens have a local representative they can feel comfortable approaching, whereas using the old system, everybody gets a monkey.
Lastly queen lion wants know what happens in a range with just two political parties. Under the most-votes-wins systems, multiple candidates from the same party would be a disaster: they'd split their voters and hand the win to their opposition.
Queen lion makes one last test range with 2/3rd tigers and 1/3 gorillas that as before, needs three representatives.
Because with STV citizens rank their candidates there can be more than one candidate running at the same time without any problems.
The tigers run two candidates as do the gorillas.
White tiger becomes the first representative, but what happens next? While tiger seems to be the biggest loser, it's also obvious that he would have gotten way more votes if white tiger wasn't in the race. If a candidate has more votes than they need, like white tiger does, the first step is to give the extra votes to their second choice. This gets tiger to 33% and he becomes the next representative.
If that seems strange, there are two things to consider:
1) If instead the extra votes were ignored, and tiger eliminated then the gorillas would get the remaining two wins, which would obviously not be represent the range.
2) Ignoring these 'extra' votes is punishing citizens who backed the popular candidate, which makes voters start thinking about how everyone else will vote, rather than what they really want. If a candidate gets extra votes in the first place it also means that those who voted for him are a big section of the population and thus fairly should get more representation.
Right: after the extra votes go to tiger, the election finishes as before: Silverback came in last, is eliminated and his voters' second choice is the younger candidate so gorilla gets in. And the results are fair.
Queen Lion has now seen STV work. Whether a range has one party or lots the process is still the same:
- Citizens rank their favorite candidates.
- Any candidate above the threshold wins immediately,
- 'Extra' votes go to their next choice.
- If no winner, last place is eliminated, and the votes to go their next choice.
- Repeat until all the winners are found.
This whole this process is designed to maximize the number of citizens who are happy with the result.
This process gives STV has many advantages over the old, most-votes-wins system:
- Citizens can honestly vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about what everyone else is going to do.
- It's more proportional. So monkeying with the borders matters less.
- Almost all citizens will have a local representative they actually voted for.
In the end Queen lion decides to switch the council's elections to Single Transferable Vote to make a better jungle council for all.