(LibertySociety.com) – Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz sparked debate on Tuesday by calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, prompting the Kamala Harris campaign to clarify its position. Speaking at two West Coast fundraisers, including one at California Governor Gavin Newsom’s home, Walz argued that the Electoral College forces candidates to focus excessively on key battleground states, which undermines broader national engagement.
“I think all of us know, the Electoral College needs to go,” Walz said, emphasizing the need for a national popular vote. He pointed to battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada as examples of how the current system overly concentrates political attention. He acknowledged the current reality, stating, “I’m a national popular vote guy, but that’s not the world we live in.”
Following his comments, the Harris campaign issued a statement saying, “Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College,” emphasizing that his remarks were meant to highlight the campaign’s focus on securing the necessary 270 electoral votes.
Walz has long supported the idea of electing presidents through a popular vote. In May 2023, he signed Minnesota into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between states to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome within their own state.
The debate over the Electoral College isn’t new in the Democratic Party. After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump despite winning the popular vote, many Democrats, including Clinton, have called for its elimination. During the 2020 Democratic primary, prominent figures like Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sanders also voiced support for a national popular vote. Kamala Harris herself, while not explicitly advocating for abolition, said in 2019 that she was “open to the discussion” of reforming the system.
The Electoral College, established in the Constitution and modified by the 12th Amendment, was designed to balance influence between populous and less populous states. Critics argue that it undermines the principle of “one person, one vote,” while defenders claim it ensures broader geographic representation in presidential elections.
Copyright 2024, LibertySociety.com
