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/

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    22 days ago

    It is the single most logical and devastating blow that the democratic party could work on to stop fascism.

    Disallow corporate entities from owning residential property.

    Increase minimum wage.

    Break up monopolies and oligopolies to reintroduce competition. Get off this “stop price gouging greedflation” horse shit. Break up monopolies and oligopolies, lower the bar to competition.

    End forced arbitration outright.

    Set a maximum document length limit to stop frivolous lawsuits, “drowning in paperwork”.

    Set term limits for all govt positions, especially SCOTUS.

    Harsher punishments to corporations. No more of these fines that are simply the cost of doing business. C suite execs should do time on behalf of law breaking ‘corpirate citizens.’

    Tax the fuck of our anything making over $100M in profit. I mean, the fuck out of it.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      22 days ago

      I agree with all of this and I think many people on Lemmy do as well. My concern is: Will the population that is excited to vote for candidates that are willing to push these changes through have the staying power?

      These are huge changes to a system that has been manipulated to benefit a small group of well connected, very powerful, very wealthy people. It’s not something that can change in one or even two presidential terms. These are changes that will take many election cycles to complete. These, and other big changes, need sustained focus.

      Not saying it can’t be done - it can. The republican party has proven that. Over the course of 40+ years they have reshaped America to fit their ideals. But it took 40 years. One part of how they did it was/is by keeping the pressure on their voting base even during non-election years through FOX news, rush limbaugh, alex jones, and other pieces of shit. So when it was time to vote their base was already “educated” on why they had to vote for the republican candidate. It made/makes it easy for the republican candidate to step in and just say the right words and phrases to the voting population and they were guaranteed a certain % of the vote.

      So if the left wants to re-shape how America looks and how it treats it’s population then they have to be willing to play the long game.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 days ago

        I agree with everything here except the concept that there’s such a thing as a non-election year, which is a big part of the reason the engagement discrepancy you’re talking about exists in the first place.

      • Maeve@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        The candidates have to work hard to get and keep voters excited, no backpedaling on platforms.

    • Maeve@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 days ago

      I’d be okay with execs and board members doing community service for first offense, if it means picking up trash on roadways, working in nursing facilities, harvesting crops, and other things Joe and Jane Average would be doing for community service.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 days ago

      Disallow corporate entities from owning residential property.

      And tax the shit out of second (and third and beyond) home owners. If you don’t reside there it is absolutely a luxury. Nobody on the face of this Earth needs more than one dwelling.

      • TheHotze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 days ago

        There are reasons for owning one or two more houses. Maybe you just moved and need to sell the second house, or maybe you got a house for a friend or relative. Still think the tax is good, but should be applied to the fourth house and up unless you are renting to someone.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      And none of this happens until we ditch the two party system. Because the Dems will just continue to do the bare minimum to win elections while still serving the billionaire class.

    • lilsip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      22 days 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
        ·
        22 days 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
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          22 days 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
            ·
            22 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              22 days ago

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

              • undercrust@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                22 days 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
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  22 days 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
            ·
            22 days 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
            ·
            22 days 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
            22 days 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
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              21 days 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
                21 days 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
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 days 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
                    ·
                    20 days 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.

          • Maeve@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 days 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
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              21 days 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
                ·
                21 days 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
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  21 days 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
                ·
                20 days 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
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          21 days 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.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Yes, I would rather think you’re a troll than beleive someone is actually seriously that cruel and dumb. It’s better for my mental health.