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/

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      215 hours ago

      Which was the point of the EC in the first place:

      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.

      https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes

        Could you explain this sentence please? English isn’t my first language and I can’t make sense of it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          93 hours ago

          Southern states owned a lot of slaves, and thought the slave owners should get to have the slave’s votes in addition to their own. They thought that if they couldn’t do that, the South couldn’t have a loud enough voice in the election.

          It’s kind of related to the 3/5th compromise.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          63 hours ago

          White slave owners in the south didn’t want abolitionists to vote away their supremacy over blacks, and thought the EC would be a good way to make sure the abolitionist voting bloc would be kept in check.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            33 hours ago

            History is riddled with the results of people on the right side giving so much to the losers that the losers win in the long run.

            They were monsters that treated humans like property… fuuuuuuuuck them so hard.

            And here we are, back again cuz someone didn’t smack them hard enough

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Madison was saying that blacks in the south were enslaved and couldn’t vote. They made up a significant portion of the southern states population which put them at a disadvantage giving them poor representation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      23 hours ago

      You think the midwest will have any say in what happens in the USA without it?

      All the campaigns will spend time in NY, California, Texas, and nearby states. Campaign money goes where the votes go. Then government spending goes where the votes are.

      Coroprations will own the midwest while farms exist, and care not about voting because their lobbying is paying the ad spend on the coasts.

      This is a deep issue. The founders may have been white (mostly, remember hamilton isnt an opera) and flawed but they werent stupid.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        130 minutes ago

        The flip side is that people who live in states with a big land area but relatively small population have a way oversized vote compared to people who live in high population states. Why should a small number of people in the Midwest be able to outvote the majority?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        All the campaigns will spend time in NY, California, Texas, and nearby states.

        As opposed to spending all their time in cities in swing states like they currently do? The EC is an abysmal failure at preventing candidates from ignoring huge swaths of the country. Fuck the EC. What is even dumber about the EC, is that basically every other office in the US counts all votes equally, and yet this isn’t a problem at the state/local level.

        One person, one vote. We are all born equal, all votes should be equal. Nobody is more deserving of a voice than any other.

        Coroprations will own the midwest while farms exist, and care not about voting because their lobbying is paying the ad spend on the coasts.

        That’s already the case.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 hours ago

        Campaign money goes where the votes go. Then government spending goes where the votes are.

        You mean to say, power will be more evenly distributed per person instead of per acre?

        I’m ok with this.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 hours ago

        I want my devalued vote back. Any other rationalization is an assault on “one person one vote”.