There’s also the fact that Harris has to appeal to the electoral college. She’s not just trying to win our votes.
If she took a firm stance on stopping the killing in Gaza the electoral college could very easily hand their votes to trump. Like they did in 2016.
I’m fairly certain it’s a big contributing factor as to why democrats keep inching to the right on certain issues. The electoral college has too much power. At the end of the day it’s their votes that count, so Harris has to appeal to them too.
I wonder if there’s some misunderstanding on your part about the electoral college or if I’m just not interpreting your phrasing correctly. It’s not an entity to appeal to, it’s a flawed system that has subsets of the popular vote represented by electors who are pledged to a certain candidate.
So I can say now with certainty that you’re not clear on how the EC works in the US. Unless there is a faithless elector, the chosen electors represent the majority vote in their state (or district, in the case of Maine and Nebraska). Some states, due to higher population, have a greater number of voters represented by each elector.
The EC has no mandate to follow the national popular vote. That is by design. Electors sent to the EC are beholden to the popular vote in their state (or district).
Campaigns do not directly court the EC, but they do game the system by focusing on states with a large number of electors and traditionally narrow margins in the popular vote. That’s where we get the term “battleground states.”
So the “for whatever reason” you allude to in 2016 was absolutely for a known reason: Clinton won in heavily lopsided blue states with high populations while losing in lower population red states and closely contested swing states. Faithless electors did come into play that year, but their impact was negligible. Clinton lost handily in the EC despite taking the popular vote.
It’s not that not don’t understand how things are supposed to work… it’s that fewer and fewer parts of the government are functioning free of corruption.
Forgive me for not assuming the electoral college is functioning outside of that type of influence.
Learning how things actually function vs what we were taught are two different things.
There’s also the fact that Harris has to appeal to the electoral college. She’s not just trying to win our votes.
If she took a firm stance on stopping the killing in Gaza the electoral college could very easily hand their votes to trump. Like they did in 2016.
I’m fairly certain it’s a big contributing factor as to why democrats keep inching to the right on certain issues. The electoral college has too much power. At the end of the day it’s their votes that count, so Harris has to appeal to them too.
I wonder if there’s some misunderstanding on your part about the electoral college or if I’m just not interpreting your phrasing correctly. It’s not an entity to appeal to, it’s a flawed system that has subsets of the popular vote represented by electors who are pledged to a certain candidate.
The whole system is basically fucked. The Supreme Court can be bought and so can other politicians via “gratuities”… including the electoral college.
They already did not honor the popular vote in 2016 for whatever reason, and it’s not the first time it’s happened in recent history.
I can imagine Harris doesn’t want to give them anymore reason to just say fuck it and hand us another trump presidency.
So I can say now with certainty that you’re not clear on how the EC works in the US. Unless there is a faithless elector, the chosen electors represent the majority vote in their state (or district, in the case of Maine and Nebraska). Some states, due to higher population, have a greater number of voters represented by each elector.
The EC has no mandate to follow the national popular vote. That is by design. Electors sent to the EC are beholden to the popular vote in their state (or district).
Campaigns do not directly court the EC, but they do game the system by focusing on states with a large number of electors and traditionally narrow margins in the popular vote. That’s where we get the term “battleground states.”
So the “for whatever reason” you allude to in 2016 was absolutely for a known reason: Clinton won in heavily lopsided blue states with high populations while losing in lower population red states and closely contested swing states. Faithless electors did come into play that year, but their impact was negligible. Clinton lost handily in the EC despite taking the popular vote.
It’s not that not don’t understand how things are supposed to work… it’s that fewer and fewer parts of the government are functioning free of corruption.
Forgive me for not assuming the electoral college is functioning outside of that type of influence.
Learning how things actually function vs what we were taught are two different things.