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/

  • Furball@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

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

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      26 days 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.

      • sygnius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        25 days ago

        I’m pretty sure it’s still very popular for a lot of Republicans considering that conservatives have only won the popular vote once in the last 35-ish years. The only time they won was George W. Bush’s second term after the events of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Why though? We call baking people bakers, why shouldn’t we call enlaved people slaves?

          It’s not as if their circumstances become more human that way.

          • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            26 days ago

            This very succinctly summarizes what I hate about the “unhoused” brand of pedantry. Pretty sure they want shelter more than some rich college kid making sure everyone on the internet gets their fucking nouns right.

            • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              26 days ago

              Changing the language you use about a thing changes your perception of that thing. This is data driven reality of making small changes to the way you talk actively changes the thought process on it. You can be lazy and not do it, it’s your own language. But that’s all your doing. Being lazy, or actively reactionary.

          • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            26 days ago

            It’s just good to reinforce the idea that enslaved people’s were people who were enslaved. Not a profession, slave was not their job, it was their status.

            Plus studies have shown that by using these people first language, especially while teaching the subject, results in higher empathy for enslaved people and reminds that their status as a slave was one forced upon them and continually so rather than the simple status they were born with.

            It’s not a huge problem or anything, but it isn’t hard to toss in every now and then and only does good.

            • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              26 days ago

              “Good” like derailing conversations that were about content and making them about semantics. “Good”.

              • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                26 days ago

                God forbid someone on a thread based system bring up a related topic on the side. Like, is that really your complaint? Oh no guys, the humanization of enslaved people’s is derailing this 3rd person’s quip. Quick, we must stop him!

                Silly billy you are.

          • chaosCruiser@futurology.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            26 days ago

            I think there’s a difference between the two. The term “salve” says nothing about what happened. It just tells you how things are. However, the term “enslaved” clearly indicates that the person used to be free, but was later forced into slavery by someone.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              26 days ago

              Words have a definition, slave is the appropriate word to talk about enslaved people and them being enslaved is what makes them slaves therefore it’s implied that they are enslaved if they are slaves. Now stop with the PC bullshit to derail the discussion.

              • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                26 days ago

                Derail a thread with a small side suggestion. That’s a lot of pushback to a small request. Almost like you actively wish to not have enslaved people humanized in conversation.

                You can always just not say it yourself. To actively try and start fights about it implies malice.

            • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              Imo it’s more that “enslaved people” emphasizes their humanity, something that slavery itself typically removes from a person. Therefore “enslaved person” can be seen as radical phrasing that works against the goals of slavery

      • Dwraf of Ignorance@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        26 days ago

        I think it was progressive who demanded it to be 3/5 if then conservative had their way they would happily count slaves as two people. It’s was in their favour to do so. Slaves could vote and it inflated their population count which will grant more seat. I’m neither American nor have I been there.

        • Mbourgon everywhere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          26 days ago

          Nope, but not bad. The free states wanted them to not count for representative purposes, since they couldn’t vote.

          From Wikipedia:

          Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse. The compromise counted three-fifths of each state’s slave population toward that state’s total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives, effectively giving the Southern states more power in the House relative to the Northern states.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          26 days ago

          The progressives demanded none to be counted as they wanted slavery abolished. It was the centrists that made the compromise just so the southern states to ratifiy the constitution and join the union.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      26 days ago

      Exactly, the result is decided but free starts and for example Republicans in California and New York feel their vote doesn’t matter at all.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        with the amount of money being spent to woo swing state voters I feel like being an “undecided voter” is some kind of career at this point