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

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

Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has called for the electoral college system of electing US presidents to be abolished and replaced with a popular vote principle, as operates in most democracies.

His comments – to an audience of party fundraisers – chime with the sentiments of a majority of American voters but risk destabilising the campaign of Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, who has not adopted a position on the matter, despite having previously voiced similar views.

“I think all of us know, the electoral college needs to go,” Walz told donors at a gathering at the home of the California governor, Gavin Newsom. “We need a national popular vote. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, and win. We need to be in western Wisconsin and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win.”

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      242·
      26 days ago

      Why though? We call baking people bakers, why shouldn’t we call enlaved people slaves?

      It’s not as if their circumstances become more human that way.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        2·
        26 days ago

        This very succinctly summarizes what I hate about the “unhoused” brand of pedantry. Pretty sure they want shelter more than some rich college kid making sure everyone on the internet gets their fucking nouns right.

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          21·
          26 days ago

          Changing the language you use about a thing changes your perception of that thing. This is data driven reality of making small changes to the way you talk actively changes the thought process on it. You can be lazy and not do it, it’s your own language. But that’s all your doing. Being lazy, or actively reactionary.

      • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
        56·
        26 days ago

        It’s just good to reinforce the idea that enslaved people’s were people who were enslaved. Not a profession, slave was not their job, it was their status.

        Plus studies have shown that by using these people first language, especially while teaching the subject, results in higher empathy for enslaved people and reminds that their status as a slave was one forced upon them and continually so rather than the simple status they were born with.

        It’s not a huge problem or anything, but it isn’t hard to toss in every now and then and only does good.

        • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
          31·
          26 days ago

          “Good” like derailing conversations that were about content and making them about semantics. “Good”.

          • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
            22·
            26 days ago

            God forbid someone on a thread based system bring up a related topic on the side. Like, is that really your complaint? Oh no guys, the humanization of enslaved people’s is derailing this 3rd person’s quip. Quick, we must stop him!

            Silly billy you are.

      • chaosCruiser@futurology.todayEnglish
        59·
        26 days ago

        I think there’s a difference between the two. The term “salve” says nothing about what happened. It just tells you how things are. However, the term “enslaved” clearly indicates that the person used to be free, but was later forced into slavery by someone.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          132·
          26 days ago

          Words have a definition, slave is the appropriate word to talk about enslaved people and them being enslaved is what makes them slaves therefore it’s implied that they are enslaved if they are slaves. Now stop with the PC bullshit to derail the discussion.

          • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
            24·
            26 days ago

            Derail a thread with a small side suggestion. That’s a lot of pushback to a small request. Almost like you actively wish to not have enslaved people humanized in conversation.

            You can always just not say it yourself. To actively try and start fights about it implies malice.

        • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.worldEnglish
          74·
          26 days ago

          Imo it’s more that “enslaved people” emphasizes their humanity, something that slavery itself typically removes from a person. Therefore “enslaved person” can be seen as radical phrasing that works against the goals of slavery