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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • undercrust@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • lilsip@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • undercrust@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 month 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.

            • undercrust@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              1 month 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month 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?

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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.

          • lilsip@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month 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.

            • Maeve@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              No you’re coming across as white privilege who wants to keep that. It’s not nice, cool or * admirable in any way, form or shape.

              • lilsip@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Damn now talking like normal people is privilege. No wonder everyone else is fucking crazy.

                And also thanks for commenting on all my comments. Love you

                • Maeve@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  That’s not normal. It’s sick and selfish. And I say that yes, with love for you and my homeland. It’s not hate to want my neighbor in the hospital on life support to get well, but it may be selfish if they don’t fully recover. It’s not hate to want my alcoholic family members to get well. It’s not hate to want my diabetic neighbors to check their blood sugar and help find them affordable insulin. And it’s not crazy to expect my fellow citizens to not be sociopathic, fearful, or accept a false scarcity.

                  • lilsip@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I’m sick?I don’t love my neighbor? You think you can talk to me like I’m a monster?

                    Not getting rid of ec :: because I believe that it’s too easy to sway public opinion one way or another and there should be protections in place for communities that are smaller than say, NYC.

                    Not increasing the minimum wage :: because I believe that this will cause our already rising cost of living to increase faster.

                    Not taxing the fuck out of corps for an arbitrary profit margin :: because that’s a persons entire life. That could be you. It could be my son. It could be the girl at the local mosque who was raised in foster care and worked her ass off to become successful. And then some little ant online thinks it’s okay to tax the fuck outta her just because she’s done something with her life.

                    PLEASE. I’m begging you please tell my how I’m the monster.

        • Maeve@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          So why don’t you want one wage earned to be able to support their entire family or corporations to pay their fair share so we all call have quality health and education? The EC is rubbish, btw.

          • lilsip@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s pretty simple really. Raising the minimum wage will cause inflation to everything else to balance out and we will be right back where we started. People can’t afford anything. But now with even higher and overly inflated prices.

            That’s just how economics works. None of that trickle down bs or any other partisan view.

            Simple cause and effect, and scarcity.

            • foggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not if you’re also taking care of monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry in a way that creates meaningful competition.

              • lilsip@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yeah man I’m all for killing monopolies. Hasn’t happened, won’t happen. Money drives the world, those monopolies are spending a considerable amount of their time and money lobbying the gov to make it so they can make MORE money, not less.

                Now. If we also get rid of lobbying and make it a federal offense or treason to manipulate the legislative branch for monetary incentives, we got something.

            • Maeve@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Corporate greed is why no one can afford anything. There’s no scarcity either. It’s a matter of logistics, but that’s going to quickly change if the very well off people and corporations don’t curb their insatiable appetites, and that can be done with the 50s era 93% tax rates on very high individual earners and adding that same rate to megacorporations. No more tax cuts for donating to self-serving, self -directed “philanthropic” causes anymore, either. That tax money can be used to clean up the environment, well - feed, educate, home and health for EVERY individual at the same providers. No campaign donations of any form, fashion or sort. Campaigns are debates and past voting history, only, and every broadcast radio station and television station will be required to air them multiple times. Every print newspaper too, and taxes can fund that. No corporate or wealthy lobbiests.

              Then let’s see how charitable the wealthy really are.

      • lilsip@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month 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.