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/

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    1403·
    22 days ago

    but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

    Fucking hell! Every time either of them says something truly based, some DNC lackey comes and spoils it by saying that! 🤬

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      441·
      22 days ago

      And all interest in this statement was lost in record time. Even though it would help Democrats win every time, as swing states would stop being a thing, and the Democrat voters in Wyoming and Texas and every other sold-red state is now something to seriously count.

      • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
        211·
        22 days ago

        Not every time. Republicans have won the popular vote before. What would happen, though, is the Republican Party would have to adjust its platform to become more in line with the majority of Americans.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        72·
        22 days ago

        Are you aware of what is minimally required in order to pull off this kind of change? There is no outcome to this election that will result in the Democrats having even the faintest possibility of doing this.

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        14·
        21 days ago

        Isn’t this kind of missing the point, though? The reason neither party wants to change a thing about the current system is the whole point of abolishing the electoral college is to remove the spoiler effect that eventually leads to a two party system. If the electoral college ends, there’s no such thing as swing states, gerrymandering will be moot, candidates will actually have to have policies that people want, they’ll have to actually campaign, and many corporate “Democrats” will probably get outed by more progressive candidates.

        There are other benefits, but I really don’t see this getting any traction, regardless, until we can get money our of politics and a wealth tax that makes sense (like 70%+ on the ultra wealthy).

        I agree with your sentiment that Democrat ideas – more likely the progressive Democrat ideas – will likely be the candidates that win the most. However, we’ll likely never find out cause both parties will fight this with all of their being and financial ghouls.

        • Maeve@midwest.social
          41·
          21 days ago

          There are other benefits, but I really don’t see this getting any traction, regardless, until we can get money our of politics and a wealth tax that makes sense (like 70%+ on the ultra wealthy).

          Seems like an infinite loop by design.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          43·
          21 days ago

          Okay, a couple things here are way off. The electoral college is not a cause of the two party system. FPTP is the primary driver of that.

          No, both parties don’t want the electoral college. Pretty sure the Dems would love to win nearly all modern presidential races. This is a pretty lame “they’re both the same”.

          • Ænima@lemm.ee
            33·
            21 days ago

            Please don’t vote-splain. You’re arguing semantics. The electoral college just gives states the ability to decide to honor or ignore the will of the people. It also gives rural states more per-capita power than they’d othereise get. Until relatively recently, most states had nothing on the books to force delegates to vote the way the people wanted.

            Sure, some of the younger crowd may want to abolish the electoral college, it won’t happen unless states force an amendment. The fossils in Congress, as well as the enshrined political surnames, will all use their collective power and wealth to shut that shit down for as long as they can.

            In terms of they’re both the same, you are naive if you think the Democrats really care about you or power. They just don’t outrightly tell the populous to fuck off like the Republicans do. The party tolerates progressives, but does everything they can to keep them out of power. Look to Adam Schiff these last couple of years for a good example. If I recall, didn’t he politically champion and/or donate to a candidate running against a progressive Democrat in his state? When the Democrats, or even the Republicans for that matter, have all three branches, they still never seem to get anything done.

            Hmm, 🤔… It’s almost like they want the current status quo to persist, even when empowered to do something without barriers.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
      182·
      22 days ago

      It’s not like Walz or Harris can do anything about it anyway. Legal scholars have said that it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral college system to anything else, as it is mandated by the Constitution.

      Amending the Constitution requires ratification by 75% of the 50 US states after passing a 2/3 majority of Congress.

      It’s best to be realistic and not get worked up about things you can’t do anything about.

    • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      22 days ago

      This is just like all those times Republican candidates hedged about Roe v Wade… right up until they finally got it overturned. Sure, the majority of voters agree the EC is outdated and needs to go; but saying as much can scare moderates, and doesn’t get you any new liberal voters. Never forget, “undecided” voters in the US are just fickle assholes who don’t want to vote for someone who “feels” too conservative or liberal. Unfortunately, with FPTP voting, they carry a lot of weight.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      102·
      22 days ago

      For real, ENOUGH already with the milquetoast Dem leadership being so terrified of actually taking a stand about any issue.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      92·
      22 days ago

      I can understand the strategy this time

      One of the big motivators for the left is that Trump has made credible threats about undermining votes and folks have signed up for it. A fear of having your voice forever silenced in the political system is a strong motivator. You can see because pundits for Trump keep trying to turn it around and say “nuh uh, the Democrats are the ones that will take away your voice”, which generally rings hollow because there’s zero history or rhetoric in the Democratic party to even suggest that.

      This could be the sort of rhetoric those Republicans have been wanting. A Democrat proposing a fundamental change to the biggest election that everyone knows would usually prevent a Republican win for that office. We wouldn’t have had either Republican president in the last 30 years. This could energize scared Republicans or feed the “but both sides” distraction.

      It may make tons of sense, but it’s a huge risk of scaring people to vote against Democrats that might have otherwise sat it out.