Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda
Finally the dems are saying it out loud. They should have been yelling this from the treetops since Bush vs Gore.
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.
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.
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.
I hope it happens but there’s no way the current Supreme Court would allow this to happen.
I am imagining a future when an amendment is ratified in the proper technique and Uncle Thomas just says “nah. Also, we give outselves that power. So, away go a bunch of other amendments!”
This and Ranked Choice Voting.
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.
could also be made to hate immigrants and queer people.
Less that and more that it turns out a lot of people don’t vote based on how their candidate or his party feels about immigrants and queer people. There are even a lot of single issue voters whose single issue isn’t immigration or queer people.
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.
There are two issues:
-
Parties aren’t set in stone, Republicans will shift some positions to appear more palatable and move some states redder
-
If they take power now they are likely to increase Gerrymandering and voter suppression to give themselves an advantage.
-
Wow, that’s crazy a VP candidate for one of the two parties is actually saying this.
Respect.
I want Walz as president.
There’s a joke here somewhere, but you get a visit from the secret service if you say it…
I don’t follow your meaning
Tim Walz will become president if Kamala is elected and later dies.
Given that she is relatively young and apparently healthy, and the US has a gun situation… the most likely cause of death would be a shooting.
Joking about killing a president gets you a serious talking to by the secret service.
Yeah, it’s not really a joke. Hence the confusion
what’s really crazy is thinking this anything other than absolute fluff that will never even be gestured at if they win
It’s pretty obvious they won’t go anywhere near it while in office. But even just saying it is a step in the right direction.
But even just saying it is a step in the right direction.
We need to have much, much higher standards for our politicians than this.
If the only thing you want is everything right now, you’re going to be very disappointed your entire life.
If the only thing you demand is empty platitudes, you can expect a lot of those and not much else.
Aren’t you away from your hive mind pack?
“if you expect anything good to ever happen you are brainwashed”
How many times do you people need to be duped by this bullshit before you finally learn?
Oh there it is, a worker bear followed someone from their hive for backup
We all see the same threads and are free to comment. That’s how federation works. If you say something remarkably stupid your comment might end up in The Dunk Tank, and then yeah, you will get a lot of people coming over to make fun of you. I’m afraid in this case your comments just aren’t that remarkable. I’m just responding to you as a browse the thread.
My question still stands though. How many times are you going to believe the shit falling out of these ghouls’ mouths? Will you ever stop believing, or will your credulity never faulter, even as your quality of life plummets to protect the political status quo?
This isn’t your fucking instance either
VP doesn’t really have any power to enact things like that so yeah
“but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr”
-the party of fuck your feelings get over it
If you live in a state that hasn’t joined the NPVIC push your state legislature to adopt it.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
Shows the list of states and each state links to a post submission to message your state’s legislature
My worry with that is the supreme court would just declare it void.
I am worried about that too, but I also think that we should still fight to improve things regardless of the threat of a regressive court undoing our progress.
I completely agree with you. The only way to get them to show us all who they are is to fight for what is right. Every time they fight against the people it becomes harder to ignore their blight. Either things get better or more people see who is making things worse. Win-win.
They are forever burning the bridge to millenials and younger. It’s wonderful.
How could they? At the end of the day isn’t it up to the states to decide who their electoral votes go?
How could they make a president immune from any checks and balances?
How could they allow states to enforce draconian laws against the homeless?
How could they work towards ending voting rights?
How could they give lower judges the power to overrule experts?
They can. They have. They will again. The states have the constitutional right to select their electors as they choose, but this court has demonstrated complete contempt for justice and fairness.
You missed the one saying it’s okay to execute innocent people.
The supreme court also overruled states trying to ban interracial marriage, implement poll taxes to unfairly target poor people, and place signs in their yard protesting war.
I was pulling from the current court, but yes. It’s almost like giving nine unelected geriatrics the ultimate authority on all laws isn’t a good idea.
Unfortunately, the supreme court has zero checks and balances, and recently has been willing to make partisan political rulings, so it may well strike it down to help Republicans.
The only easy grounds for them to do so with an actual constitutional backing would be that interstate compacts are supposed to be approved by Congress.
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.
I live in a deep red state. My vote won’t matter
It forces them to spend more money to keep the state red next time. Money they would rather use to win battleground states.
Yes I agree… part of the problem here is we are so gerrymandered it won’t matter for ages and ages.
Victors shouldn’t be permitted to write the district voting rules.
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 senate (2) + house (population) number of votes per state. Our votes don’t deserve to count more for the head executive (President) that represents everyone.
I think you’re missing the bigger picture. Right now there is 535 votes, 100 from the Senate and 435 from the House.
If the House were expanded to 574 (Wyoming Rule, based on 2010 population data) there would be now be 675, which reduces the relative weight of the Senate’s votes by nearly 1/3rd.
Nothing says it has to be the Wyoming Rule either, we could set a fixed ratio of Citizens to Representatives say 250,000 to 1. Now the HoR would have nearly 1,000 people in it and the Senate would be down to just 10% of the EC votes.
Frankly the HoR should be 1,000 seats or larger. A body of only 435 or even 574 is too small to accurately represent the interests of almost 340,000,000 people.
That would make the electoral college vote closer to proportional, but wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem that small states will always have a disproportionate impact on the outcome as long as we use the electoral college system that is based on the sum of senate + house.
We should fix it as you note for the House to be truly representational of the population though.
there wouldn’t be a republican president ever again. they won’t allow this
What if, now he’s me out, they started to adopt popular policies?
they won’t like this
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.
Repubs want an electoral college, because it’s the only way they can win
Repubs want to keep gerrymandering because it’s the only way they can win
electoral college is DEI for conservatives
Not to mention that a popular vote would be much more secure, and cheaper.
The republicans will see this as a threat to their way of life. Idiots.
You need 2/3rds majority to pass the constitutional amendment required to make this happen, so as long as Republicans exist this isn’t going to ever be the case. It means they’ll never win another election.
Not just that, you then need 3/4 of states to sign off on an amendment before it takes effect. More than 1/4 of states benefit from the electoral college, which makes it a hard sell.
There’s also that interstate compact (which if it ever takes effect will be challenged in court on grounds that interstate compacts are supposed to be approved by Congress), which is also highly unlikely to take effect for the same reason - there aren’t 270 electoral votes worth of states that are either big enough that the electoral college hurts them or willing to hitch themselves so going along with whatever the two or three largest states want.
He is absolutely right that it should be scrapped, or failing that, every eligible voter in every state is automatically enrolled in the electoral college and their ballot is also their vote cast in the college, i.e. render the whole thing a technical irrelevance. It shouldn’t even be seen as a political thing. Votes in deep red states are just as disenfranchised as those in deep blue states. Voting Republican in California or New York is as disenfranchising as voting Democrat in Texas. So if democracy is the intent, then it should be scrapped and not left to the usual “swing state” BS.
Ah, but that is the thing - democracy is not the intent. It may be the intent of some, but it is not the intent of the system as a whole.
Yes, the United States is a representative republic, and not technically a democracy.
I’m willing to switch to an electoral trial by bake off.
Here is the thing that scares me. If Republicans make every election cycle this shitty and horrible to witness over and over again I’m going to be so fucking sick of elections in less than a decade.
This exercise of over and over again deteriorating the experience of elections will wear down a part of the populace into saying “FINE! Fuck elections! Go get a king so that I don’t have to listen to hateful bilious invective for 9 months out of the year.”
I can’t be the only one in fear of that type of fatigue to fascism.
