Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Finally the dems are saying it out loud. They should have been yelling this from the treetops since Bush vs Gore.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The first step towards change is elevating the conversation to high office, though, so this is something.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • growsomethinggood ()@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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!

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

        • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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!”

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

      • MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Here’s a comparison of Bill Clinton’s, Al Gore’s, and Barack Obama’s election results in Florida:

            Election Year Democratic Candidate Vote Percentage Republican Candidate Vote Percentage Margin
            1992 Bill Clinton 39.0% George H. W. Bush 40.89% -1.89%
            2000 Al Gore 48.84% George W. Bush 48.85% -0.01%
            2008 Barack Obama 50.91% John McCain 48.09% +2.82%

            Florida is reliably blue now, right? Since 2010, the Hispanic proportion of the state has grown by 5 percentage points while the white proportion has shrunk by a similar number. It’s gotta be like Dem +8 by now.

            • kandoh@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Florida is different because conservatives move there when they retire or to escape COVID restrictions. And don’t forget, those Latinos in Florida are Cuban, so race isn’t as good an indicator.

              Texas is really opposite. It’s getting large influxes of left-wing voters each year.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Yes yes, we all have our post hoc excuses for why a state with a historical trend toward the Democrats didn’t continue on. All of those excuses were happening when Florida was getting bluer. It’d be great if all we needed to do was kick our feet up and demographics would solve our political problems, but this isn’t a new idea. People in 2000s thought the Democrats would have a permanent majority by now. Turns out the money behind the Republican party isn’t going to just sit back and let them wither into nothingness.

                In 10 years we’ll have a good excuses for Texas too. It will be obvious that some Hispanic group was going to turn conservative because they were fleeing failures in nominally left wing states, or were very religious, or had a machismo culture or something. The young people moving to Texas for economic opportunities will be scared away by the abortion bans. Or they’ll crank their media propaganda to 11. Or maybe Texas really will go blue and we’ll have an entirely different set of turning-point states. The Democrats weren’t doomed to be unable to win the presidency because Florida is no longer a swing state and somehow after all the Republican’s failures and odious behavior we’re still in a toss up now.

                If it was a simple matter of waiting for Democrats to break the cycle and win forever, it would have happened by now. People have been predicting the impending collapse of the Republican party for decades.

              • njm1314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Actually a lot of people moving to Texas tend to be conservative from other states moving explicitly for the politics. Conservatives from California in particular.

                For instance in Ted Cruz’s last election he got a higher percentage of Voters from new residents than he did from native Texans and of course the inverse.

                https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/11/09/native-texans-voted-for-native-texan-beto-o-rourke-transplants-went-for-ted-cruz-exit-poll-shows/

          • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think we can cite a trend when the last two, soon to be there rounds have been with Trump on the R side. A sizable part of the gains can be attributed to people desperately looking to keep him out rather than any grand shift in attitudes of the state.

            Look at the results for Governor and that with the way they’ve behaved on immigration, abortion, educational standards. That should be more telling.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wow, that’s crazy a VP candidate for one of the two parties is actually saying this.

    Respect.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s a joke here somewhere, but you get a visit from the secret service if you say it…

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            If the only thing you want is everything right now, you’re going to be very disappointed your entire life.

                • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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?

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 month ago

    “but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr”

    -the party of fuck your feelings get over it

  • 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    I was shocked when I first heard about some people deciding, instead of how many people actually voted for a candidate.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

  • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.