- cross-posted to:
- truthabouttimwalz@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- truthabouttimwalz@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/
You must log in or register to comment.
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! 🤬
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t this kind of missing the point, though? The reason neither party wants to change a thing about the current system is the whole point of abolishing the electoral college is to remove the spoiler effect that eventually leads to a two party system. If the electoral college ends, there’s no such thing as swing states, gerrymandering will be moot, candidates will actually have to have policies that people want, they’ll have to actually campaign, and many corporate “Democrats” will probably get outed by more progressive candidates.
There are other benefits, but I really don’t see this getting any traction, regardless, until we can get money our of politics and a wealth tax that makes sense (like 70%+ on the ultra wealthy).
I agree with your sentiment that Democrat ideas – more likely the progressive Democrat ideas – will likely be the candidates that win the most. However, we’ll likely never find out cause both parties will fight this with all of their being and financial ghouls.
There are other benefits, but I really don’t see this getting any traction, regardless, until we can get money our of politics and a wealth tax that makes sense (like 70%+ on the ultra wealthy).
Seems like an infinite loop by design.
Okay, a couple things here are way off. The electoral college is not a cause of the two party system. FPTP is the primary driver of that.
No, both parties don’t want the electoral college. Pretty sure the Dems would love to win nearly all modern presidential races. This is a pretty lame “they’re both the same”.
Please don’t vote-splain. You’re arguing semantics. The electoral college just gives states the ability to decide to honor or ignore the will of the people. It also gives rural states more per-capita power than they’d othereise get. Until relatively recently, most states had nothing on the books to force delegates to vote the way the people wanted.
Sure, some of the younger crowd may want to abolish the electoral college, it won’t happen unless states force an amendment. The fossils in Congress, as well as the enshrined political surnames, will all use their collective power and wealth to shut that shit down for as long as they can.
In terms of they’re both the same, you are naive if you think the Democrats really care about you or power. They just don’t outrightly tell the populous to fuck off like the Republicans do. The party tolerates progressives, but does everything they can to keep them out of power. Look to Adam Schiff these last couple of years for a good example. If I recall, didn’t he politically champion and/or donate to a candidate running against a progressive Democrat in his state? When the Democrats, or even the Republicans for that matter, have all three branches, they still never seem to get anything done.
Hmm, 🤔… It’s almost like they want the current status quo to persist, even when empowered to do something without barriers.
It’s not like Walz or Harris can do anything about it anyway. Legal scholars have said that it would take a Constitutional amendment to change the electoral college system to anything else, as it is mandated by the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution requires ratification by 75% of the 50 US states after passing a 2/3 majority of Congress.
It’s best to be realistic and not get worked up about things you can’t do anything about.
Did you have a comment reply to make? I’m not watching anybody’s youtube link.
There’s a way to circumvent the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s in progress, but not triggered yet until a few more states adopt it.
If states totaling at least 270 electoral votes sign on, then it kicks in. Every state in the compact will send the electors for the party that wins the national popular vote, regardless of how their state votes. Electoral college rendered meaningless without a constitutional amendment.
(The video is good, it’s CGP Grey’s explanation of this compact.)
Thanks
That video is worth watching just for the LOLs, but also does a great job of explaining exactly how the whole thing works.
If you can keep the train of thought through ads.
Not like the dnc couldn’t lean hard on party representatives to make them fall in line.
We are slaves to the ruling class forever then.
We really have nothing to lose in that case, and may as well do anything and everything to end the electoral college.
I’m not a slave, I do whatever I want and life is great. Perhaps you should try just doing whatever the fuck you want to sometimes.
For real, ENOUGH already with the milquetoast Dem leadership being so terrified of actually taking a stand about any issue.
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.
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.
CGP Grey calculated it @ 22%
Well technically the ‘minimum’ has almost no bottom. One tortured example, if you had a single voter per state for the biggest 11 states all vote for one candidate, but every other one of the 118 million eligible voters in other states voted the other way, then those 11 people will win.
Watched it. The video is 12 years old, and the article I shared is 8yrs old. I am tempted to do the calculations myself with current numbers, but I am excelled out for the day.
I was showing my 3yo how to run a DOE with his hotwheels track and the cars that work best current tests are on mass. The favorite mass is 29-32g/car to complete the track. The range is 10g-43g/ car. Below those masses, they fly off the track most of the time. Above those masses, they fail around 1st to 2nd loop.
Still have about 10 cars to test.Next steps measure wheel base, length, thickest section, car height, and running in reverse vs forward. Finally time trials.
It’s always a good day when CGP Grey gets mentioned.
Unless it is because of ‘The Dragon Tyrant’ video, agreed.
I like the legal maneuvering, but the places that have adopted this so far will almost certainly always go with the popular vote anyway.
Well I am guessing it needs some good voter turnout so that the other states can get it through
We are all slaves to the ruling class until this is done.
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
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.
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.
Thanks !
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.
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
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.
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.
I think we can mostly agree that the electoral college system is not working as intended. It was designed to give people outside the cities an extra boost to their representation, But it was certainly never designed to let fascism take hold.
Unfortunately there’s no such thing as a fair and representative voting system. In all their cases you either end up underrepresenting the rural, over representing the rural, or forcing people to pick between candidates that they don’t want.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly down with what walls is calling for as it gives my intentions the best chance and at the same time will keep fascism from just popping in because they’re good at propaganda. But I’d still like to see some other way.
I always hear that excuse about the rural areas not being represented without the electoral college, but my only reaction is GOOD. Rural areas are large in land ans small in people. Why should they get an equal voice as a Metropolitan area with the majority of people? A government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. The not ALL the people, that would be impossible, but but an average of the majority of the people.
Additionally, the government at the federal level has relatively minor impact at the local level. The federal level is broad strokes, the local government is fine strokes, and the state level is somewhere in between. Rural dwellers can run their local government however they like as long as it doesn’t violate state or federal laws.
The real problem is that the size of the House of Representatives has been frozen for 100 years. The number of electoral college votes a state has is equal to the number of reps and senators they have. Since the House hasn’t grown alongside our population, the relative representation for rural areas has steadily grown more and more.
Ending the cap on the House would balance out the electoral college issues and help reduce the constant congressional deadlocks we’re seeing.
ent at the federal level has relati
Not equal, but at the same time you don’t want to collectively just shit on all your farmers, although, they don’t seem to have any problem shitting on us so maybe?
I’ve always been and always will be a Ranked
ChoiceVoting advocateCan I persuade you to consider Approval or STAR?
RCV has some structural flaws that make it less than optimal. Flaws that exist in an Ordinal voting system but RCV puts a slightly odd twist on them, in some ways making them worse.
Approval or STAR on the other hand, are both Cardinal voting systems. They work on a different core principle and thus are immune to the flaws found in Ordinal systems.
Honestly, I’d be happy with any sort of ranked/cardinal voting system, and it looks like STAR is just a better RCV though. RCV just seems like the most likely to pick up steam in the US, tough I could be mistaken
RCV does have some money behind it, but it also has some deep-seated structural problems that come up with disturbing regularity.
Which leads to a situation where the results of an RCV election can be so bad that the district/state decides to axe voting reform entirely and go back to First Past the Post.
This has happened a few times now, and it sets efforts for real voting reform back. If you walk into Burlington, Vermont and say “I have voting reform that will fix the problems of First Past the Post” They will tell you to fuck off because they tried RCV, and it failed horribly because it’s a bad system.
So an attempt to get STAR going will face that much more pushback. So it’s better for everyone to resist RCV and push for STAR or Approval.
Approval has gotten some wins, and is also picking up steam. I’d be happy with it, even though STAR is slightly better.
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.
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.
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.
so what? We’re talking about a national vote for president. Your specific voice gets heard through local elections, not the president. Every person should have an equal vote. Period.
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?
I want my devalued vote back. Any other rationalization is an assault on “one person one vote”.
And so we’ll remain until we can also get rid of the two party system. This would be a good start, but we also need to change our voting system to anything but this awful first-past-the-post system.
Recall also need to be universal, and vacancies not appointed.
Removing the electoral college does nothing to change our two party system so I don’t understand why you think it solves billionaire class rule.
Maybe I’m to clinical but I think this means the petty bourgeois is a safe bet for the ruler class. That needs to change.
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.
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…1840s. It existed to preserve slavery
I was taught something different growing up and had to check myself with a quick read. Holy shit. You’re right. Thanks for sharing.
Even in the 1940s it didn’t make sense anymore.
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.
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.
For sure. It’s definitely a multi layer problem and our voting system is trash. We’ll always be stuck with a two party system as long as we stick with first past the post. And as long as we are stuck with two choices it will always be a shit show of “us vs them.” But at the same time the electoral college only makes things worse. I live in a very red area of the US even though I disagree with 70% of what they believe in. And even though I vote, I know for a fact that my vote literally means nothing outside of the popular vote. And it’s pretty disheartening to know that. I’m sure there are plenty of people like me that don’t even vote because they think it doesn’t matter so why even bother.
I won’t lie and say the solution or the problem are super easy. I’m just saying it’s fucked and definitely needs to change. And I’m a strong advocate for a two round system or something similar so people don’t have to just vote against the candidate they don’t want.
They need to make it easier for other parties to get * on the ballot.
Why can’t we end it then.
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.
I think the electoral college has become pretty unpopular with pretty much everyone except committed republicans in recent years
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.
Small suggestion to use “enslaved people’s” rather than “slaves”
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.
It helps humanize them
Seems a lot of people here are against the humanizing of enslaved people’s. Weird.
Honestly, I think people just find you annoying more than anything specific to what you’re saying, but that’s just a guess.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thank you
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.
“Good” like derailing conversations that were about content and making them about semantics. “Good”.
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.
Idk why but the apostrophe is bugging me. Enslaved peoples.
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.
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.
I called baked people high
This is the term we use in my sex dungeon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
not the undecided swing state voters.
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
Not like the actual voter gets the money.
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.
I very much doubt that. Their metric is fundraising, and the money/rich people is/are on the right.
The real money is from corporations. And they don’t give a fuck about social issues. So long as they get their free pass to fleece the masses.
Lol
The programs that Walz champions speak for themselves.
His comments – to an audience of party fundraisers – chime with the sentiments of a majority of American voters
I guess you missed this bit
I think I want him to be president.
That would fit the pattern (provided Harris wins) Obama/Biden -> Biden/Harris -> Harris/Walz -> Walz/??
Maybe.
Walz really is the ideal politician but he might be rough around the edges after 8 years. He already looks a bit older than what he is and I don’t consider his speaking to be quite as good as Harris’s. It would preferential if we started looking towards building up younger politicians within the party with people like Walz providing support.
We really do tend to vote for charisma over statesmanship, which is incredibly problematic.
I feel that but society has been like that forever. Trust me, it used to be something that frustrated me excessively but I’ve just come to accept that even throughout history people are just shallow.
One could argue you can learn to be a statesman, but charisma is something innate.
ls that the kind of man you need? Loquacious type?
Walz/Obama 😄
Yes! Bring it full circle. I love it.
Rank choice voting for all federal elections
Approval/STAR*
I also highly recommend this analysis of STAR and RCV
Appreciate the links. This is kind of my thing.
Edit: As a big Ranked Choice voting advocate, this was a interesting and informative read. I never did think about this particular situation:
RCV doesn’t take all rankings from all ballots into account and so is not the most accurate way of counting ranked ballots. If your first choice candidate is eliminated in later rounds your second, third, or fourth choices may never be counted. (Ranked Pairs, Schultz, and Bucklin Voting are much more accurate ways to count ranked ballots.)
I will need to go over this a few more times, but it seems I am going to switch my preference to STAR as well because of your comment.
Really anything other then First-past-the-post will do, but it’s nice to look ahead and plan for a future where people are free to vote for who best represents them.
Thanks again.
The sneaky thing about RCV that the second link points out is the the fact that RCV doesn’t actually eliminate the spoiler effect. A way to think about is that RCV is idential to FPTP, just done over several instant rounds. So it has some of the same issues, just lessened.
I wish Walz was at the top of the ticket.
I’d eagerly vote for him, as opposed to skeptically voting for Harris.My hope is that she chose him, so she likes him, maybe for the same reasons we do.
When she was in the senate she was statistically the closest to Bernie in voting.
Now she’s trying to distance herself from the most progressive policies she supported in the past. That makes me a little concerned. She has a history of saying whatever she thinks the people want to hear. Then claiming “It was a debate” when pressed on comments she made in the past, as though it’s silly for anyone to think she believes what she said. That’s why I feel we don’t really know what to expect from her.
I hope she’ll be as progressive as possible and actually try to take some big swings. But I have doubts. And actual fears she’ll remove Lina Kahn, and go back to more Clinton-esque, Corpo friendly, policies we’ve seen for the last several decades. That’s where the lions share of her donations are coming from.
you already seem to know her history of behavior. Why would she suddenly start acting like a different person than she was before? -Last time in your life you were put in a position where you were pressured to make big decisions, did you rely on what you knew, or did you completely pivot your behavior to try something new?
Being the president with real power, is very different from being a single senator with very little power. And again most of her money is coming from big corpo donors.
Also, you’re never going to get a perfect candidate. There’s always going to be something people don’t like
Perfect people are booring. Who wants that?
Apparently a large chunk of Lemmy thinks that her stance on Israel (which is the same as 99% of other politicians) is a good enough reason to disregard her as a candidate.
You wish they were at the top of the ticket and you would eagerly vote for him so i guess you agree with him that “the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there”
Of course! I always agree with everything a person I like says. I’ve never disagreed with any friend, family, coworker, actor, director, or key grip.
This is not just something your friend or coworker said, it’s the political agenda of someone running for vice president
deleted by creator
Are you commenting under the wrong post?
Don’t worry. As soon as Waltz said an overwhelmingly positive thing, Kamala distanced herself from it.
Yawn……
The electoral college is good for one thing and one thing only: boosting confidence that election fraud in one place won’t impact the result of the election.
Winner takes all was always stupid and needs to be replaced with proportional allocation, preferably with a more direct ratio to the actual population of votes. Basically, everyone doing what Nebraska and Maine do.
It’s also really good for making sure that whoever wins the most acres of land gets a huge electoral boost. Because that’s important.
what if we make a compromise on the land area, say 3/5?
It’s also really good for making sure that whoever wins the most acres of land gets a huge electoral boost. Because that’s important.
Is it? The most disproportionate representation in the EC belongs to the people of Delaware, last time I ran the numbers of EC votes per capita.
State population is all that matters. Very small populations still get an EC vote for each Senator, which is the root of the problem.
Delaware has 3 electoral votes and a population of 1.018 million.
Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 584,000.
Wyoming is almost twice as over-represented as Delaware in the electoral college.
California currently has 54 electoral votes. If CA was as represented in the electoral college as Wyoming is, it would have 200 votes.
So you could argue that both Wyoming and California can claim to be more disproportionately represented by the EC than Delaware.
Lol, wrong. Delaware’s surpassed by like 6 other states. Wyoming is the most disproportionally represented per voter.
Ah, Wikipedia makes it really easy to list by per capita representation.
The top 10 in “lowest population per electoral vote”:
Wyoming Vermont District of Columbia Alaska North Dakota Montana Rhode Island South Dakota Delaware Maine
Even if we keep the electoral college as a means of allocating points we need to get rid of the electors. I’ve been saying this since before Jan 6th 2021.
Finally!
Cool. Not going to happen, but…. Cool.
Yeah, it’s a hopeless quest. Truly eliminating the EC would require 3/4 of state legislatures, an almost impossible task when the majority of states would be effectively voting against their self-interest.
Effectively neutering the EC only requires that the states with 50% of the EC votes agree to follow the national popular vote. But, it would be a fragile detente, since any state legislature could back out and break it.
It still sends a message. Which in and of itself is good.
It surprises me how many people still don’t know about the NPVIC
Well I did link to it in my response.
The NPVIC has a number of problems. The biggest one is impermanence: Many states, faced with assigning their electoral votes to the least popular candidate in their own state, will rush back to the their halls of legislature to gut the compact.
I mean, can you really see the progressive legislators in MA or CA assigning their electoral votes to a conservative winner who got whipped in their own state something like 60-40? The only states willing to enforce the NPVIC are the states whose internal popular vote mirrors the national popular vote.
Tim Walz is 100% correct. Dump the out dated Electoral College.
Probably not the popular opinion, but I think EC is important to America being what it is & as large as it is. From Wikipedia:
The electoral college is fundamental to American federalism, in that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, and increases the political influence of more rural states. Whether by design or accident, one of its effects is to help prevent a tyranny of the majority that would ignore the less densely populated heartland and rural states in favor of the mega-cities
Imo without the EC, the Democrats would just roll the elections and the entire Republican party would have to pivot. Serving the rural / conservative view would be a losing strategy. Then resentment would grow that a big cultural force in America no longer has any say
Rural states have a large advantage in the house, huge advantage in the senate, and of course significant skew in the electoral college. And much of it comes from compromises with slave owners.
Abolishing the EC would not mean rural regions get completely ignored, not only would they have reps and senators still courting their votes (and campaign donations), civilized countries with functional democracies have multiple parties. A rural party would show up, which could court voters in all rural areas, instead of only in swing states.And to expand on what you said, they wouldn’t be spending all their time in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia. They would likely visit every state to hoover up as many votes as they could. It would also give a voice to those who live in heavy red or blue places who don’t vote because they feel their vote is meaningless (it’s not. Get out and vote anyway).
Democratic presidential candidates only ever come here to Indiana during the primaries. They know there’s no point in the general.
Bernie didn’t even announce his schedule when he was here in 2016. He did one public event and then it turned out later he did a couple of other things of note (like visit the Eugene V. Debs museum here in Terre Haute).
Did Biden/Harris even come here in 2016? I was under the impression that the Democrat presidential Candidates abandoned indiana ~10 years ago.
I don’t remember them doing so. I just remember finding out Bernie came and left town and never told anyone.
Don’t conservatives resent democrats either way? They have so much of an advantage through the EC that the democrats have to go liberal+progressive big tent, but still they complain/fear the amount of non-whites and atheists in big cities.
Also don’t black americans + lgbt also resent their underrepresentation? Why should rural white populations get to speak over them? Just because historically that’s been the case and we don’t want to hurt their feelings?
Say it ain’t so… the Republican party would need to become more attractive to moderate conservatives and be less alienating? What a travesty that would be.
Conservativism, as it exists in modern America, is simply a fringe belief that only survives because of our broken ass election system that forces us into two parties.
One, the Republican party needs to pivot, or die, frankly. They’ve gone so far down the fascist rabbit hole at this point that they’re a danger to the very fabric of this country. Perhaps if they couldn’t get away with chiefly appealing to a minority of this country, that would push them to do so.
Two, the idea of the current system serving the rural/urban divide is a complete lie. Do you think the people of Kern County, CA are served by the electoral college? Do you think the people of San Antonio, TX are? No, they are completely and utterly ignored because they happen to be in states that vote the other way. To say nothing of the fact that the people who generally do vote with their state are ignored almost as much, because they can be taken for granted.
If you want every American to count, then you need to count every American. And if that upsets some people who have gotten used to welding outsized power over the rest of us and now think that’s their birthright, oh fucking well.
So your plan is to hand power to the minority of people? And you think we should agree to this minoritarianism, because the rural / conservative view holders would get resentful?
Why don’t we just hand the country back to the indigenous people and let them, an even bigger minority than the rurals, run shit for a while?
Anyway "rural / conservative view"s are already represented in their communities, towns, cities, and states. By their local, city, and state governments.
And by your “logic” shouldn’t all those conservative counties that vote red be forced to give greater weight to their liberal residents, yah know so their liberal voices aren’t drowned out and they suddenly become resentful or something.
I’m completely on board with letting indigenous rule for a while.
I used to agree, and perhaps that concept made more sense in the 18th century when the urban/rural divide was not nearly as stark and separate.
The same goes with the Senate. I have no problem with it in concept, but unless we can also have a House that is actually proportionally representative, then it doesn’t really make sense.
Resentment grows either way.
