Walz says "Electoral College needs to go," but campaign says that's not its position - CBS News

No Tim, not all of us know that the electoral college needs to go. But let's have a convention of states and see how that works out.

Maybe with the removal of the electoral college, Good luck! We could include a few other items, a balanced budget amendment? term limits? code of ethics? 

It finally sunk in. They are going to win the popular vote but lose the election.

As Walz recently admitted: "I can be a knucklehead."

"I think all of us know the electoral college needs to go," Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said.

The last time we heard Democrats calling for the EC to be removed they had lost an election.  Could this be an indication that the democrats KNOW they will be losing this election?

This is not an unpopular opinion. I disagree with it though. I think there may be an argument on how votes are allocated and I hate that state reps are allowed to draw their own district maps, but I have no problem with the electoral college. 

but I have no problem with the electoral college

The electoral college no longer represents the people. 

Electoral college gives equal weight to low population non-urban locations.  The votes are supposed to represent the people, not uninhabited square mileage.  This has been glaringly obvious when the election winner is not appointed POTUS despite winning millions of more votes than the candidate that the Electoral College appoints.

The people should chose the winner, not anything else.

The electoral college no longer represents the people. 

I disagree.

Electoral college gives equal weight to low population non-urban locations. 

If you start fucking over the people who grow your food, you might find yourself hungry. It wasn't all that long ago conservatives were bitching about the EC and liberals were all for it. No system is completely perfect, but I like this one.

If you start fucking over the people who grow your food, you might find yourself hungry.

How is giving people equal representation in the election process "fucking them over"?

It wasn't all that long ago conservatives were bitching about the EC and liberals were all for it.

Care to provide examples of that?  With accompanying links.

No system is completely perfect, but I like this one.

We have the technology for 1 person 1 vote, now.  What would be wrong with that?

"The people should chose the winner, not anything else."

That would amount to mob rule. The USA is not true democracy, but a representative republic.

The Founders were very aware of the dangers of a few populous states running the country to the detriment of the lesser populated areas and created the EC, which has stood the test of time. It's what's allowed democratic presidents to be elected.

That would amount to mob rule.

Something we agree on.

The Founders were very aware of the dangers of a few populous states running the country to the detriment of the lesser populated areas and created the EC...

No, the Founders used the Electoral College to insulate the federal government from popular opinion. They did not want policy decided by the masses. 

How is giving people equal representation in the election process "fucking them over"?

Because the majority of votes would come from the coasts and anyone that wanted to be elected would cater to them, largely ignoring the rest of the country. 

Care to provide examples of that?

There's a start with a bunch of links - cnn

After a second convincing Electoral College victory by President Barack Obama in 2012, some were convinced the Electoral College needed to go if Republicans were to be competitive in presidential campaigns.

That would amount to mob rule.

That would amount to democracy, the opposite of mob rule.  Majority would have the choice (democracy) not the loudest minority (mob rule).

Because the majority of votes would come from the coasts and anyone that wanted to be elected would cater to them, largely ignoring the rest of the country.

1 person 1 vote.  Why should less populated state voters be worth more than 1 vote?

There's a start with a bunch of links

You've got a point, conservatives are now all for the EC because that is the only way they can win.  I was hoping for links showing that liberals were recently FOR the EC.

Why should less populated state voters be worth more than 1 vote?

Less people means less votes for a candidate. California alone has 11% of the population, while Wyoming has less than 1%. 

I was hoping for links showing that liberals were recently FOR the EC.

Do you think that when the Republicans were talking about dumping the EC because they were losing elections the Democrats were agreeing with them? 

Less people means less votes for a candidate.

So what?  That does not equate with the electoral college.  People cast votes, 1 person 1 vote.

California alone has 11% of the population, while Wyoming has less than 1%.

So what?  States do not vote, people vote and each individual person in California has as much right for their vote to count as each individual person in Wyoming does.  What the electoral college does is tell California that Wyoming voters' votes are worth more than California voters' votes.

Do you think that when the Republicans were talking about dumping the EC because they were losing elections the Democrats were agreeing with them?

I don't know.  I look forward to your links that show that they did, like you imply.

States do not vote, people vote and each individual person in California has as much right for their vote to count as each individual person in Wyoming does.

If you think a candidate would give a shit about those individual voters in Wyoming when they can spend more time and more money attracting more votes in California you are naive. 

I don't know.

I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse or not, but I remember having that conversation on the old News Vine back then and making the same argument I'm making now. 

If you think a candidate would give a shit about those individual voters in Wyoming when they can spend more time and more money attracting more votes in California you are naive.

Then why the rallies?

I don't know if you are being purposely obtuse or not, but I remember having that conversation on the old News Vine back then and making the same argument I'm making now.

Then you shouldn't have issues providing those links again.  However since you stated that "it wasn't long ago" those links may no longer be relevant.

It wasn't all that long ago conservatives were bitching about the EC and liberals were all for it.

I'll bet they'll change their tune if a few million progressives decide to move to the "battleground" States. Right now, conservatives seem ready to fight to the death to defend the EC but if this was in reverse and the majority of Americans, by several million, were conservatives and it was liberals and progressives who were the minority but got to decide the elections in their low population States, you know conservatives would be fighting as hard as they could to get rid of the EC and screaming about how unfair it was to the majority of Americans.

It really is a stupid system to let a minority of bitter poorly informed often poorly educated hillbillies determine who the President is of our entire nation. Sure, let them choose their own loser Governors and representatives, but why do the rest of us have to suffer these delusional conspiracy theorists all because our founders made a compromise to get slave States on board. They should have renegotiated after the Union kicked the confederacy's ass and just made all Americans equal where their votes all had the same weight and given all Americans including women and people of all colors and cultures a vote and done away with the EC at that time. Perhaps that would have forced the bigots to give up their imagined superiority a lot sooner and our nation wouldn't have such a deep division as we see now.

Patently un-Democratic, the Electoral College was conceived as a way to mollify slave states, is long outdated and needs to be eliminated...

All thats needed is a constitutional amendment to eliminate it , and there are 2 methods of proposing one .

 I highly doubt that national popular vote initiative/ compact some states are signing up for , will pass congressional scrutiny , let alone constitutional scrutiny in the USSC., and i say that because it infringes on the will of the majority  voters in states that vote differently than the national popular vote .

IMHO , it would be better to better align the actual vote of the states people to apportion EC delegates in line with their states voting , do away with winner take all , it also makes each state more competitive through the course of the presidential election  .

Break is down by Congressional districts with 2 for the state, this way no winner take all states. 

I dont think 2 per state would work , too much of a chance for a tie . keep the current EC count per representation , but change from winner take all to an apportioned method like Maine or Nebraska use, that way more of all the votes in state are counted as they are cast . 

That NPVI has a chance of going against a states voters wishes , which WILL end up in court as disenfranchisement , imagine a state signing on , and the national popular vote goes against what the tally is of the majority of voters in the state cast ? A clusterfuck of empirical and epic proportions .

 IMHO all the NPVI is is an attempted end run around having to have an amendment through dictated process to do so , that would still need congressional approval to be implemented .

Sorry if i wasn't 100% clear, 1 per congressional district and 2 per state. so Wyoming would get 3 just like they do now, so if you win Wyoming you get 3 EC's. where it comes into play is the monolith states like Texas and California, where instead of winner get all the winner of the Congressional district gets the EC for that district while the overall winner gets 2 for the state (the Senators vote).

Gotta go with Walz on this one.  The EC needs to go.

I differ , i think the EC needs to be tweeked in such a fashion that it more correctly reflects how the voters actually vote ,  But that as well would need a CA to change things from winner take all to reflect the voters will and not disenfranchise anyone  that votes .

 I am of the opinion that most states went winner take all , simply because they decided to be lazy and it fits a 2 party system .

But that as well would need a CA to change things from winner take all to reflect the voters will and not disenfranchise anyone  that votes .

The states can change how there EC's are distributed, but to make it fair they all would have to have the same rules,

Very true, it is the states purview of how to distribute those EC votes , they at this time , are somewhat disinclined to do so to reflect the actual vote , from what i see. 

 once a power is granted it is seldom given up willingly by those that hold it . which is why a CA would be needed to move from winner take all to an apportioned system , keeping in mind , the office of the presidency is the only one that uses the EC .

Maybe the reason so many people in Wyoming are disillusioned with the government is that nobody cares about what the people there think.  Being a pretty solid red state means that Presidential candidates never go there unless they're looking for money.  Dumping the EC will fix that.  Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan should not be the sole deciders of our Presidency.

Dumping the EC will fix that.  Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan should not be the sole deciders of our Presidency.

Dumping the EC just shifts the sole deciders to the coasts where the largest populations are.

How does the EC benefit Wyoming?  How about Montana?  Alabama?  With no EC politicians will be forced to consider them.  There would be no red or blue states.  Only voters.

With no EC politicians will be forced to consider them.

They only need 50.1% of the vote... why waste time and money in an area that has less than 1% of the population? 

Very true , Wyoming is a pretty solid red state for presidential candidates, the last time the state sent a democrat to congress in DC was in 1977 i think if i remember right , and the last time a democrat was in the governors mansion was some time in the 90s and he was rather popular too . But he was considered by the voters of the state to be a conservative democrat , something that is pretty much extinct in the democratic party today .

Dumping the EC wont change how the voters in the state will vote , they will keep right on voting for their best interests as they see them , just so happens , they dont see anyone running as a democrat as in their interests . And it doesnt mean democrats will suddenly decide Wyoming is in play and worth the money to campaign here .

If you're not spending all your time and money in PA you'd be amazed how much time and money you have to spend in other places.  Wyoming only has 3 electoral votes so is not likely to attract a lot of attention even if it was a swing state.  That's just the price you pay for wide open spaces.  Sensible folks might think that's a good deal.

The democrats war on our norms continues.

Right from the start the Electoral College was a flaw in the Constitution, being undemocratic and an in-your-face affront to the principle of equality under law.

1. It makes minority rule possible. It's happened twice in just the past six elections, both Republicans. That got us Bush's invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, and, well...Donald Trump.

2. It forces candidates to focus too much on appealing to voters in a small number of contested areas instead of the country at large. For example, out of 155 million votes cast, the 2020 election was ultimately decided by only 45,000 votes in a handful of battleground states.

3. It makes voters unequal in power across the country depending only on where they live, even though everyone is subject to the executive authority of the same president, regardless of where they live. Everyone is voting for the same nationwide office, but at the worst extreme a voter in Wyoming has almost four times the electoral power of a voter in California.

4. Every other election in the country is decided by popular vote. The rest of the free world does it that way, too. Not exactly a radical concept.

5. There likely wouldn't be such a large and bitter divide between the parties if they were forced to appeal to the entire country to win via the popular vote.

I made this table for illustrative purposes. Note the differences in electoral power based on nothing but where a person happens to live.

*Including the District of Columbia 

** 2020 Census Data    

Electoral College Map

Right from the start the Electoral College was a flaw in the Constitution, being undemocratic and an in-your-face affront to the principle of equality under law.

The EC was created to insulate the federal government from the mob rule. The Founders did not want policy influenced by popular vote. 

Thank you. 

We are also a Democratic Republic where everyone gets a say, not just a few large population states, hence the whole meaning of the EC.

The EC was created to insulate the federal government from the mob rule. The Founders did not want policy influenced by popular vote.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Different founders had different ideas and couldn't agree on a single method. Some indeed wanted a popular vote, others were afraid people of the time were too ignorant of matters of state, and too disconnected from information in rural areas. The idea to use electors from the various state governments was a compromise just to get something worked out for the new constitution, and that original method barely even worked. It had to be modified just a few elections later in 1804 with the 12th amendment.

It's not like using electors was some kind of masterful first-choice for everyone with all kinds of wisdom rolled up in it. It was basically a stop-gap measure, because they couldn't agree on anything else.

Also, it isn't 1789 anymore. 

where everyone gets a say

That would be election by popular vote, with votes of equal power, just like every other election in the country.

not just a few large population states, hence the whole meaning of the EC.

That's a myth. The largest (most populated) states had overwhelming shares of electors and dominated elections right off the bat. Virginia alone ended up with over a full quarter of the electors necessary to win, with Massachusetts and Pennsylvania not far behind.

The electoral college was made to save ourselves from ourselves.

It was instituted in a time when only certain people could vote and was seen as an anti-populist backstop. Everyone should be able to vote today and you can plainly see that it's function as a backstop is no longer valid since the EC is proportioned per state. It is an anachronism and should be done away with, no matter who is the most "popular" at the time.

It's function was abrogated. Get rid of it.

Get rid of it.

Lets do it, I can't wait to see how a convention of states would turn out for the congress. because once they meet, they can propose anything.

The comments were immediately seized on by the Trump campaign and prominent Republicans, who accused Walz of attempting to throw the results of a victory by former President Donald Trump into question if Trump were to win in November.

That's possibly the funniest and most ironic thing I have read in weeks.  If Trump loses, we will be hearing about it until he passes away or is incapacitated by his advancing old age.

Fortunately Canada has one less anachronism to deal with.

As smart as the framers were, they were not gods and their original intentions scattered in the winds of reality.