Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has called for the electoral college system of electing US presidents to be abolished and replaced with a popular vote principle, as operates in most democracies.

His comments – to an audience of party fundraisers – chime with the sentiments of a majority of American voters but risk destabilising the campaign of Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, who has not adopted a position on the matter, despite having previously voiced similar views.

“I think all of us know, the electoral college needs to go,” Walz told donors at a gathering at the home of the California governor, Gavin Newsom. “We need a national popular vote. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, and win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win.”

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • lilsip@lemmy.world
    221·
    7 hours ago

    Agreed with everything except getting rid of ec, increasing the minimum wage, and taxing the fuck out of corps for an arbitrary profit margin.

    But damn. Solid otherwise.

      • lilsip@lemmy.world
        11·
        1 hour ago

        Easier to think I’m a troll than to believe someone could say those words and be serious?

        Well I’m not. So strengthen up buddy boy.

    • undercrust@lemmy.ca
      15·
      6 hours ago

      What possible reason do you have for wanting to keep such an incredibly shit voting system? Please elaborate.

      • lilsip@lemmy.world
        216·
        6 hours ago

        Because it’s not ‘incredibly shit’ it’s just not what you want it to be. It was designed to not allow mob rule. And it’s done a pretty good job at it.

        Just because something doesn’t do what you want it to do doesn’t mean it’s bad.

          • lilsip@lemmy.world
            13·
            2 hours ago

            No, I get it. You don’t know how to have a discussion in which you disagree with the person and default to dismissing them completely instead.

            That’s fine, just own it.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          5 hours ago

          https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065

          There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

          It was designed solely to allow southern states to launder the votes of their slaves, as explicitly said by James madison, the person who put it in place.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          4 hours ago

          It was designed to not allow mob rule.

          And it flat our fails at that. Under the EC, we have a ‘mob rule’ by the swing states. And candidates basically only ever visit the cities of swing states, and solidly red/blue areas for fundraising on occasion.

          One person, one vote. We are all born equal, so to should our votes be equal. Anything less is a failure of a system.

        • undercrust@lemmy.ca
          14·
          6 hours ago

          “Mob rule” in this case being…the will of the majority of voters? Some sort of national popular vote, perhaps?

          This is an insane take man, but I guess some puppets don’t want their strings cut.

          • lilsip@lemmy.world
            212·
            5 hours ago

            “Insane take” Literally the founding of our country was built off that take.

            • undercrust@lemmy.ca
              11·
              5 hours ago

              Yeah, you’re right, better to stay stagnant and not bother improving the system so that America stays true to its heritage. Everything was better back then, workers rights, women’s rights, slavery…gods the founding fathers really knew their shit. Why try to improve on perfection?

              (MASSIVE /s so I don’t get downvoted to oblivion)

              • lilsip@lemmy.world
                16·
                4 hours ago

                If any idiot here can’t tell your being sarcastic, that’s their issue.

                But yes actually. Some things shouldn’t change. From what I’ve studied/learned we really were the first of our style of government. It’s been successful thus far, when plenty of other systems have come and gone.

                Also just because the core of our system shouldn’t be changed doesn’t mean other things should/couldnt/havent changed. Soooo don’t put words in my mouth 👍

                You said it best, why try to improve on perfection?

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          10·
          5 hours ago

          If you exclude 2004 with Bush Jr (wartime president which all but guarantees reelection) the Republicans haven’t won a popular vote since 1988.

          Seems more like the EC ensures minority rule.