518
submitted 2 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/usa@midwest.social

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 112 points 2 months ago

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

[-] growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 43 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 months ago

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

[-] growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 9 points 2 months ago

Completely agree!

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 2 months 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 5 points 2 months 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 4 points 2 months 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 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago

This and Ranked Choice Voting.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 3 points 2 months 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

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Eight years of right wing malignancy left, may the odds be ever in your favor.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 58 points 2 months ago

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

Respect.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago
[-] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jack@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

what's really crazy is thinking this anything other than absolute fluff that will never even be gestured at if they win

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 43 points 2 months ago

"but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr"

-the party of fuck your feelings get over it

[-] qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

If you live in a state that hasn't joined the NPVIC push your state legislature to adopt it.

[-] SlakrHakr@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

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

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] aquinteros@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

there wouldn't be a republican president ever again. they won't allow this

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kokesh@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

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

[-] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Apparently some Americans were, too.

[-] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months 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

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

electoral college is DEI for conservatives

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Not to mention that a popular vote would be much more secure, and cheaper.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

The republicans will see this as a threat to their way of life. Idiots.

[-] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months 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 4 points 2 months 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 3 points 2 months 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 3 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
518 points (97.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2020 readers
623 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS