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/

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
71 points

We are all slaves to the ruling class until this is done.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Which was the point of the EC in the first place:

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.

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes

Could you explain this sentence please? English isn’t my first language and I can’t make sense of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Southern states owned a lot of slaves, and thought the slave owners should get to have the slave’s votes in addition to their own. They thought that if they couldn’t do that, the South couldn’t have a loud enough voice in the election.

It’s kind of related to the 3/5th compromise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

White slave owners in the south didn’t want abolitionists to vote away their supremacy over blacks, and thought the EC would be a good way to make sure the abolitionist voting bloc would be kept in check.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Madison was saying that blacks in the south were enslaved and couldn’t vote. They made up a significant portion of the southern states population which put them at a disadvantage giving them poor representation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I think we can mostly agree that the electoral college system is not working as intended. It was designed to give people outside the cities an extra boost to their representation, But it was certainly never designed to let fascism take hold.

Unfortunately there’s no such thing as a fair and representative voting system. In all their cases you either end up underrepresenting the rural, over representing the rural, or forcing people to pick between candidates that they don’t want.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly down with what walls is calling for as it gives my intentions the best chance and at the same time will keep fascism from just popping in because they’re good at propaganda. But I’d still like to see some other way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I always hear that excuse about the rural areas not being represented without the electoral college, but my only reaction is GOOD. Rural areas are large in land ans small in people. Why should they get an equal voice as a Metropolitan area with the majority of people? A government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. The not ALL the people, that would be impossible, but but an average of the majority of the people.

Additionally, the government at the federal level has relatively minor impact at the local level. The federal level is broad strokes, the local government is fine strokes, and the state level is somewhere in between. Rural dwellers can run their local government however they like as long as it doesn’t violate state or federal laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The real problem is that the size of the House of Representatives has been frozen for 100 years. The number of electoral college votes a state has is equal to the number of reps and senators they have. Since the House hasn’t grown alongside our population, the relative representation for rural areas has steadily grown more and more.

Ending the cap on the House would balance out the electoral college issues and help reduce the constant congressional deadlocks we’re seeing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

ent at the federal level has relati

Not equal, but at the same time you don’t want to collectively just shit on all your farmers, although, they don’t seem to have any problem shitting on us so maybe?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’ve always been and always will be a Ranked Choice Voting advocate

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Can I persuade you to consider Approval or STAR?

RCV has some structural flaws that make it less than optimal. Flaws that exist in an Ordinal voting system but RCV puts a slightly odd twist on them, in some ways making them worse.

Approval or STAR on the other hand, are both Cardinal voting systems. They work on a different core principle and thus are immune to the flaws found in Ordinal systems.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And so we’ll remain until we can also get rid of the two party system. This would be a good start, but we also need to change our voting system to anything but this awful first-past-the-post system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Recall also need to be universal, and vacancies not appointed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe I’m to clinical but I think this means the petty bourgeois is a safe bet for the ruler class. That needs to change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Removing the electoral college does nothing to change our two party system so I don’t understand why you think it solves billionaire class rule.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

It absolutely does. Without Republicans gerrymandering everything to stay in the fold, they’re completely done. They’ll get bodied every election. The last time the Republicans won the popular vote was 20 years ago, and the party has radically changed since then.

Hopefully undoing the electoral college is the first step to dismantling the two party system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

So thats on me, I said “does nothing to change our two party system” when I should have said “does nothing to remove our two party system”. All this does is concentrate power into the democrats which if they had no worry of winning elections would very quickly openly turn into the Billionaire Boot Licking Society overnight. We need more political parties.

All this being said I’m not arguing against removing the electoral college, it needs to die. But Americas problems run so much deeper than the GOP

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

You think the midwest will have any say in what happens in the USA without it?

All the campaigns will spend time in NY, California, Texas, and nearby states. Campaign money goes where the votes go. Then government spending goes where the votes are.

Coroprations will own the midwest while farms exist, and care not about voting because their lobbying is paying the ad spend on the coasts.

This is a deep issue. The founders may have been white (mostly, remember hamilton isnt an opera) and flawed but they werent stupid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

All the campaigns will spend time in NY, California, Texas, and nearby states.

As opposed to spending all their time in cities in swing states like they currently do? The EC is an abysmal failure at preventing candidates from ignoring huge swaths of the country. Fuck the EC. What is even dumber about the EC, is that basically every other office in the US counts all votes equally, and yet this isn’t a problem at the state/local level.

One person, one vote. We are all born equal, all votes should be equal. Nobody is more deserving of a voice than any other.

Coroprations will own the midwest while farms exist, and care not about voting because their lobbying is paying the ad spend on the coasts.

That’s already the case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Campaign money goes where the votes go. Then government spending goes where the votes are.

You mean to say, power will be more evenly distributed per person instead of per acre?

I’m ok with this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

so what? We’re talking about a national vote for president. Your specific voice gets heard through local elections, not the president. Every person should have an equal vote. Period.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The flip side is that people who live in states with a big land area but relatively small population have a way oversized vote compared to people who live in high population states. Why should a small number of people in the Midwest be able to outvote the majority?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I want my devalued vote back. Any other rationalization is an assault on “one person one vote”.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 9K

    Posts

  • 162K

    Comments