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/

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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…

        • derek@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          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.