Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda
That’d be great!!!
I live in a deep red state. My vote won’t matter as my states EC votes will go for the Republican candidate.
A popular vote would make my vote count finally.
The far easier plan is to simply increase the size of the House of Representatives. All it needs is a change, or repeal, of the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. Replace it with something like the Wyoming Rule and done.
Not only does that fix Presidential Elections it would also fix or substantially ease a pile of other problems like Gerrymandering by giving the denser population areas the Representation they should have.
The HoR being fixed at only 435 seats is at the core of so many problems in this country.
Nah, even then the smaller populated states like mine have an outsized influence because it is sentate (2) + house (population) number of votes per state. Our votes don’t deserve to count more for the head executive (President) that represents everyone.
Wow, that’s crazy a VP candidate for one of the two parties is actually saying this.
Respect.
I want Walz as president.
Finally the dems are saying it out loud. They should have been yelling this from the treetops since Bush vs Gore.
This and Ranked Choice Voting.
It’s easy to say and harder to do anything about. I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to fix on the national scale, or “opt-in” from enough states on the state level.
The first step towards change is elevating the conversation to high office, though, so this is something.
Completely agree!
The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more because it allows flexibility in sampling the public opinion of who they’d want. Think of any question a poll could ask you where you feel there isn’t a clear yes/no or single answer. Isn’t it better when it allows you to pick from a few choices that together reflect your answer? An election not only could turn out more voters, it could give statistical nuances on how people lean among the ones that voted in the winner. Eg., how many that voted both Democrat candidate as well as certain other parties.
Just had a thought that we could even see a person vote Democrat and Republican on a ticket. But at least they got their vote in and showed how they’re torn.
The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more
Those solve two different problems. The first solves the problem of a candidate winning despite having fewer votes; the second solves the spoiler effect.
Yes, the compact is definitely a way to get around the current system, not to overhaul it (which it desperately needs but would require 2/3 approval instead of >50% of the electoral college). I agree that if we are able to get constitutional amendments on the table, we should be looking at ranked choice or approval voting systems! But one of the big issues right now is unfamiliarity with either of those systems, and a lot of familiarity with popular choice. That’s why it’s so important that the many, many local and statewide initiatives for ranked choice get support!
Agreed, the more we see ranked choice locally the more support there will be to expand it. Also “easier” to get it changed at that level.
By 2032 Texas will be a solid swing state and the EC becomes near impossible for the GOP to ever win again
We can wait them out, and reap the benefits
Eight years of right wing malignancy left, may the odds be ever in your favor.
People argued this idea of a permanent Democratic majority in the 2000s and then again after Obama’s election but it never materialized. GenX, with its liberal sensibilities, the rise of college educations, and increased diversity among the population will make it impossible for Republicans to win. Then GenX got older and more conservative and people realized that minorities and college grads could also be made to hate immigrants and queer people.
This idea that “just waiting” is all it will take to end conservatism and other bigotries is a fantasy.
Regardless, the only feasible way to go from the EC to the Popular vote will be if Republicans think they’ve lost the advantage the EC gives them.
I’ve been hearing that for a while. Of course then again the people that said that don’t seem to have an answer for the fact that in 2022 Republicans swept the entire state by like 10 points. So maybe we should stop counting on that.
Here’s a comparison of Barack Obama’s, Hillary Clinton’s, and Joe Biden’s election results in Texas:
Election Year Democratic Candidate Vote Percentage Republican Candidate Vote Percentage Margin 2012 Barack Obama 41.4% Mitt Romney 57.2% 15.8% 2016 Hillary Clinton 43.2% Donald Trump 52.2% 9.0% 2020 Joe Biden 46.5% Donald Trump 52.1% 5.6% This is the trend
“but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr”
-the party of fuck your feelings get over it
I was shocked when I first heard about some people deciding, instead of how many people actually voted for a candidate.
Apparently some Americans were, too.
Wouldn’t this allow like three states to dictate the other 47?
Sure popular vote sounds nice. But is it really practical if the goal is to raise the quality of life for everyone?
A popular vote would allow the leading majority to neglect 49% of the active voters and groom the 51%. It’s the majority’s tyranny.
Where the fuck have you been living for the past 24 years, in which we had TWO shitcunts rule by tyranny of the minority?
This take can sound reasonable at first but it’s not the right way to look at it.
51% deciding the election is better than as low as 25% or so deciding in the system we have now. I mean, look at the candidates, they’re only visiting a few swing states and ignoring the rest. The issue you’re worried about is already happening.
You know what, you’re right. It is much better for all of us if a small group decides things for the rest of us. We really should just get rid of voting altogether to streamline government.
No that’s how it is now. Like 3 to 5 States decide the election. Without the Electoral College no States would decide the election, just the voters.
But the President doesn’t dictate much of anything (as much as the media salivates at the idea), our representatives in Congress do. The President appoints Judges and can veto bills.
Our country is built on representation of districts and states, so voting for President is also built around representation of districts and states. Not the ideas of the majority. That is reserved for districts and states. The country is physically huge and all 333 million of us don’t live in similar situations economically, environmentally, ethnically, culturally, etc. So we vote based on our local circumstances and (at that level) it is a majority rule. That’s why you can have some states that are much more socialist than others. Or some states that are much more conservative than others. And we as individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make change we would like to see at that level, or we have the freedom of movement between those areas.
I didn’t think I would need to do a basic civics lesson today.
Wouldn’t this allow like three states to dictate the other 47?
No, that’s both not mathematically possible and big states aren’t uniform. And all your other statements don’t in any way address how the current system achieves any of those goals. There’s no perfect voting system, but we know our voting system is very bad. Right now most voters are completely irrelevant to a presidential campaign. Not 49%, 80%. If you’re not in a swing state, it doesn’t matter to the campaign what your issues are.
Unlike Norway, we don’t have a parliamentary system, so there’s no multi-party viability, only first-past-the-post which promotes a 2-party system. We do have state based representation in the Senate, which allows equal representation by state, and district level representation in the House. So ultimately any legislation has to go through both those to pass, removing any “tyranny” those of us who live in populous areas might have on the rest of the country.
- The current system allows for less than a 50% majority to decide the president (as what happened in 2016). The current system is worse than your concerns about a simple majority victor.
- The three biggest states do account for a lot of votes (more than a quarter of the votes cast in 2020 came from CA, TX, or FL). However, your point goes against reality - TX and FL are right-leaning purple states whereas CA is a strongly blue state. They don’t cancel each other out, but they alone definitely WOULD NOT decide the election nor “dictate the other 47”.
- “neglect 49% of the active voters and groom the 51%” - You make things sound so static. About 36% of voters are moderate voters and will shift. You can’t just assume that your 51% base will stay same and can be groomed. And that’s not even considering that people are dying and becoming 18+ years old everyday. Politicians in a simple majority election would have to appease the general public. They no longer could simply focus on making the swing states alone happy (though, on the flip side, I’m sure they would emphasize visiting larger population states).
On top of what everyone else has said:
Changing the electoral college impacts the presidential election, the one who’s supposed to represent everyone
You still have the other branches and local governments, the small states don’t get magically fucked by this and it’s weird people think they do
