612
submitted 11 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Heikki@lemm.ee 24 points 2 hours ago
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 29 points 3 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 5 points 2 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.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 73 points 8 hours 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! 🤬

[-] d00phy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour 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.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours 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.

[-] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours 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.world 1 points 42 minutes 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 2 points 1 hour 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.

[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 60 points 8 hours ago

I think at this point pretty much everyone I've ever talked to thinks the electoral college is bullshit. Even my dad and he's a trumper.

[-] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Well one doesn't necessary need to get rid of electoral college, if the electors were appointed by proportional vote and representation. At that point it would be just a smudging filter. National popular vote with extra steps and some added in accuracy due to one being able to do so much proportionality given how many electors there is.

So the main problem is not electoral college, but the voting method. Just as note since also getting rid of electoral college isn't a fix, if the direct popular election uses bad voting method. Like say nationwide plurality vote would be horrible replacement for electoral college.

Though I would assume anyone suggesting popular vote would mean nationwide majority win popular vote. Though that will demand a "fail to reach majority" resolver. Be it a two round system (second round with top two candidates, thus guaranteed majority result) or some form of instant run-off with guaranteed majority win after elimination rounds.

TLDR: main problem I winner take all plurality, first past the post more than the technicality of there existing such bureaucratic element as electors and electoral votes.

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Let’s not forget the unfair ratio of citizens to electoral votes across the different states. California, for instance, is on the low end of electoral vote fraction per citizen compared to smaller states. That absolutely needs to be fixed as well.

[-] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago

It makes sense to exist... In the 40's.
But with modern day society and how small the world has become, it makes no sense to me to still exist tbh..

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

Even in the 1940s it didn’t make sense anymore.

[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 37 points 7 hours ago

1840s. It existed to preserve slavery

[-] derek@infosec.pub 14 points 5 hours ago

I was taught something different growing up and had to check myself with a quick read. Holy shit. You're right. Thanks for sharing.

[-] Veedem@lemmy.world 35 points 10 hours ago

While I agree with him, it’s also a stupid thing to say out loud during the election when they’re CLEARLY trying to sway moderate and uneasy right leaning voters.

[-] Furball@sh.itjust.works 124 points 10 hours ago

I think the electoral college has become pretty unpopular with pretty much everyone except committed republicans in recent years

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 31 points 8 hours ago

It's become unpopular with everyone except the people who originally demanded it so they could count their slaves as 3/5 of a vote.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 37 points 10 hours ago

Maybe they're finally realizing that instead of chasing right wing voters they should try to tap into the much larger pool of left-wing voters. Or at least one can hope.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
612 points (98.3% liked)

News

23096 readers
3707 users here now

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.


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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS