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
    88
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours 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
      11
      ·
      9 hours 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
        5
        ·
        7 hours 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.

    • lilsip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      6 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            4 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.

            One person, one vote. Anything less is a failure of a system.

          • undercrust@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              5 hours ago

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

              • undercrust@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            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.