Walz, Kamala, and the Electoral College
Walz said the quiet part out loud:
“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go. We need a national popular vote,” Walz said Tuesday during a campaign fundraiser at the home of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Walz made similar comments at an earlier fundraiser in Seattle, as well.
While running for president in 2019, Harris said she was “open” to the idea of abolishing the Electoral College.
That seems like it’s on the Democrats’ agenda, although ordinarily it would take a constitutional amendment. There’s also the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which wouldn’t abolish the Electoral College but would get around it and make the national popular vote supreme, and would have the advantage (if SCOTUS found it be constitutional, which is doubtful in the present court) of not requiring an amendment to be implemented.
However, much as Walz and Harris and their supporters might long for the national popular vote to be ascendant, they seem to have walked back overt statements of that sort:
Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, remained silent Thursday on whether he still supports eliminating the Electoral College, after the Harris campaign insisted his position did not reflect that of the campaign’s. …
… [A]ccording to campaign officials pressed on the issue following Walz’s remarks, eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote is not an official position of Harris’ current campaign.
And here’s how they tried to undo what Walz said:
“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket,” a Harris campaign spokesperson said in a statement sent to select media outlets like CNN and USA Today. “He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”
That doesn’t fit what he said.
And let’s hear from demagogue Jamie Raskin:
Just last month, Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin suggested there could be deadly consequences for Americans if the Electoral College was not done away with. Raskin said a national popular vote was a far better option than the current “convoluted, antique, obsolete system from the 18th century, which these days can get you killed as nearly it did on Jan. 6, 2021.”
The article also mentions that Walz signed a bill that made his state of Minnesota a party to The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That seems to be another indication of wishing to override the Electoral College, which is seen as an impediment to Democrat power.
I wonder, though, if abolishing the Electoral College outright would be a question of “be careful what you wish for.” In states such as California, where the Electoral College guarantees that all the electors will vote for the Democrat because the Democrat always wins the state, there probably are many people who would otherwise vote for Republicans but who just don’t bother. Those people might be more energized to get to the polls and vote if the Electoral College were to be eliminated and they would be contributing to a national popular vote that would determine the winner.
A national popular vote for president is a stupid, mean, deceitful idea. It would make the 5 largest cities, e.g. L.A. and Chicago, all Democratic swamps, would determine the course of the USA, disenfranchising W. Va.,Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Vermont, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, among others, where the Dem-GOP vote might be split 48-52.
If the Electoral College is gone, then you can really dial up the ballots cast in the names of illegals. Imagine California Democrats trying to bleed the state of every vote they can–we would see 75-25% splits in favor of the Democrats in presidential elections.
The perpetual Democrat lament: “The Constitution gets in our way. We don’t like the EC, we don’t like the Supreme Court, we don’t like it that small states get two senators, we don’t like it that yahoos in rural Idaho get a vote that’s just as equal as a Puerto Rican’s vote in NY.”
So just remember, when they say “our democracy” what they mean is “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Well, well. Finally, a government college that they don’t want to fling endless buckets of money at.
Now that made me Laugh. A very good one, Marion
They are just living up to their party’s name. They will not be happy until the US is a pure democracy, with all the attendant evils even the Greeks recognized after suffering.
At least, marginally, the Republicans seem to believe in the republic.
If the Electoral College is tossed, it will open the door for several (many?) states to secede from the union.
And this time, they will have a damn good, legitimate reason for doing so.
The 13 original colonies VOLUNTARILY decided to join together and create one nation. There is nothing in the Constitution that speaks to a state wishing to leave the union.
Have any of them heard of “The Connecticut Compromise ?”
I doubt it.
@neo:if SCOTUS found [the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact] to be constitutional, which is doubtful in the present court
I’m curious to know what would be the basis of ruling it wasn’t Constitutional.
Article II, Section says
and I’m not seeing any language in there about that would forbid the NPVIC. It seems the legislature appoints a slate of Electors in any way they want, including based on the outcome of the national popular vote, and they can change that at any time with or without a compact of other states, from what I can see there or in the amendments.
Currently they choose to do it how they do it now, but they didn’t used to, and nothing in the Constitution appears to require that they tie it to the outcome of any vote at all.
If the Electoral College favored Democrats, the Democrats would be leading the charge to keep it intact.
**AND**
If the Electoral College favored Democrats, the Republicans would be leading the charge to abolish it.
[Wellll, Republicans rarely lead a charge to do anything. Whaddaya say we amend “leading the charge” to wording that is kinder, gentler.]
Mark my words.
The (usual, canonical) pro and con arguments pale in comparison to “whom would it favor these-a-days?” — ignoring just whom might it favor in future days.
MJR
Ridiculous argument. Despite the GOP loosing presidential elections, I doubt any have ever called for abolition of the EC
What is needed are two major reforms.
-1- We need to make voting precincts as nearly equal in population as would be practical. If that results in many more than 438 congresscritters, so be it.
-2- We need for electoral votes to be assigned by each voting precinct voting for one elector from that voting precinct, plus two electors-at-large for the state as a whole.
I have no clue as to how either of these measures might ever pass.
Fire away . . .
@M J R:The (usual, canonical) pro and con arguments pale in comparison to “whom would it favor these-a-days?” — ignoring just whom might it favor in future days.
I’ve seen this expressed as “procedural arguments are always insincere”.
physicsguy (5:51 pm), thank you for your kind words [smile].
Actually, it’s *far* more an observation than an argument. It’s not an argument at all.
Never was.
Niketas Choniates (5:52 pm) has it just about right.
M J R:
Democrats are called Democrats for a reason, and Republicans are called Republicans for a reason.