Tim Walz calls for scrapping of electoral college to decide US presidential race - eviltoast
Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

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/

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    28·
    1 month 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

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      1 month 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.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17·
        1 month 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.

      • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        1 month 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.

        • xenoclast@lemmy.world
          15·
          1 month 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

          • Maeve@midwest.social
            3·
            1 month ago

            Now we’re all still property, but must find a way to feed, clothe, home ourselves and get to our mostly underpaid jobs. It’s fine if it’s extralegal, until we’re caught or turned in.

      • Otkaz@lemmy.world
        31·
        1 month 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.