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/

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is the single most logical and devastating blow that the democratic party could work on to stop fascism.

    Disallow corporate entities from owning residential property.

    Increase minimum wage.

    Break up monopolies and oligopolies to reintroduce competition. Get off this “stop price gouging greedflation” horse shit. Break up monopolies and oligopolies, lower the bar to competition.

    End forced arbitration outright.

    Set a maximum document length limit to stop frivolous lawsuits, “drowning in paperwork”.

    Set term limits for all govt positions, especially SCOTUS.

    Harsher punishments to corporations. No more of these fines that are simply the cost of doing business. C suite execs should do time on behalf of law breaking ‘corpirate citizens.’

    Tax the fuck of our anything making over $100M in profit. I mean, the fuck out of it.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      I agree with all of this and I think many people on Lemmy do as well. My concern is: Will the population that is excited to vote for candidates that are willing to push these changes through have the staying power?

      These are huge changes to a system that has been manipulated to benefit a small group of well connected, very powerful, very wealthy people. It’s not something that can change in one or even two presidential terms. These are changes that will take many election cycles to complete. These, and other big changes, need sustained focus.

      Not saying it can’t be done - it can. The republican party has proven that. Over the course of 40+ years they have reshaped America to fit their ideals. But it took 40 years. One part of how they did it was/is by keeping the pressure on their voting base even during non-election years through FOX news, rush limbaugh, alex jones, and other pieces of shit. So when it was time to vote their base was already “educated” on why they had to vote for the republican candidate. It made/makes it easy for the republican candidate to step in and just say the right words and phrases to the voting population and they were guaranteed a certain % of the vote.

      So if the left wants to re-shape how America looks and how it treats it’s population then they have to be willing to play the long game.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree with everything here except the concept that there’s such a thing as a non-election year, which is a big part of the reason the engagement discrepancy you’re talking about exists in the first place.

      • Maeve@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The candidates have to work hard to get and keep voters excited, no backpedaling on platforms.

    • Maeve@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’d be okay with execs and board members doing community service for first offense, if it means picking up trash on roadways, working in nursing facilities, harvesting crops, and other things Joe and Jane Average would be doing for community service.

    • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Disallow corporate entities from owning residential property.

      And tax the shit out of second (and third and beyond) home owners. If you don’t reside there it is absolutely a luxury. Nobody on the face of this Earth needs more than one dwelling.

      • TheHotze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are reasons for owning one or two more houses. Maybe you just moved and need to sell the second house, or maybe you got a house for a friend or relative. Still think the tax is good, but should be applied to the fourth house and up unless you are renting to someone.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And none of this happens until we ditch the two party system. Because the Dems will just continue to do the bare minimum to win elections while still serving the billionaire class.

    • lilsip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      Agreed with everything except getting rid of ec, increasing the minimum wage, and taxing the fuck out of corps for an arbitrary profit margin.

      But damn. Solid otherwise.