Now, the Harris/Walz Campaign Is Distancing Itself From Walz’s Electoral College Comments

Will these people never get their messaging straight? Of course, it’s better for the nation if they don’t, but now, Tim “Great Walz of China” has screwed up so badly that the campaign is now having to do damage control over his comment on eliminating the Electoral College. Now Walz, presumably after being the recipient of what my Grandma would have called “a darn good talking-to” from the campaign, is keeping his mouth shut on the topic:

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.

“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. However, according 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.

Messaging discipline, people. A campaign spokesman, through a statement to the Washington Examiner, has sought to clarify things:

“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.

“He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes,” the spokesperson continued. “And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”

That sounds a lot like damage control.

See Related: Harris Supporters Panicking Over Lack of a Coherent Message Before Election Day: ‘Scared to Death’

‘She Has No Role in the Process’: DeSantis Blasts Harris for Sticking Her Nose Into Milton Response

Of course, doing away with the electoral system by which we choose presidents is the dumbest political idea since Prohibition. Without the electoral system – which, by the way, would take an (unlikely) constitutional amendment to do away with – presidential candidates would be elected by New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, with a little bit of input from a few other major population centers. States like Wyoming, New Mexico, Mississippi, Vermont, Maine, and yes, Alaska, would have precisely no say in the matter. Oh, yes, I know, politicians are fond of quoting how the “national popular vote” is sometimes at odds with the electoral votes. That doesn’t matter. There is no “national popular vote.” I’ll say it again – (Stomps foot three times) – there is no national popular vote. The Constitution mentions no such vote, anywhere. That tally is a statistical curiosity, and nothing more.

But that doesn’t stop constitutionally-illiterate politicians like Tim Walz from complaining about the current system. And he’s not even the worst; Rep.Jamie Raskin (D-MD) recently claimed: 

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.”

What? Seriously? The Electoral College can “…get you killed”? How? When has anyone, in the 234 years since the Constitution was ratified, ever been killed by a presidential election? Raskin, of course, feels obliged to mention January 6th, when, yes, one person was killed on that day – and it was one of the protestors. 

But the Electoral College system had nothing to do with that. Jamie Raskin is just blowing hot air, as he so frequently does.

Our system for electing presidents is perfect for the government we have – a constitutional republic, with federalism as one of the founding principles. We are the United States of America, after all, not the United State of America. Our elections are managed by the states. The electoral system guarantees that every state has some say in the process, and makes sure that a few major population centers don’t dominate national politics.

We should be glad, by the way, that the Harris/Walz campaign can’t get their messaging act together. If you go back and take a look at what few policy positions the Harris/Walz campaign has come up with, eliminating the Electoral College is far from the only stupid idea they’ve had.

This post was originally published on this site