- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Democratic activists are looking to overhaul the party’s presidential primary process with ranked-choice voting.
Proponents of the idea have privately met with Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin and other leading party officials who want to see ranked-choice voting in action for 2028. Those behind the push include Representative Jamie Raskin, the nonprofit Fairvote Action, and Joe Biden pollster Celinda Lake.
Axios reports that ranked-choice supporters told a DNC breakfast meeting in D.C. that they believe it would unify and strengthen the party, prevent votes from being “wasted” after candidates withdraw, and encourage candidates to build coalitions. The publication quotes DNC members as being divided on the issue, with some being open and others thinking that it is best left to state parties.
You must log in or register to comment.
My state is currently in the process of banning RCV statewide :(
Dems are the only party that’s supported it, they’ve been working on getting it statewide in places that can, now they’re bringing it to a national scope. And the only thing they have to gain is possibly being usurped by a third party for real. Sooo this is one of the perfect examples of the Democrats not being evil at all, actually being progressive at their core, albeit limp-wristed for the past few decades. They are not your enemy, they should be part of your tent if you want to grow it.
Dems are the only non third-party that’s supported it
FTFY. Dems and repubs have historically teamed up to oppose RCV when third parties would benefit. Dems support it when it benefits them over republicans. Republicans can’t benefit from it over dems.
Interesting given that in the recent past the Democratic Party opposed implementing RCV 👀.
I’m still betting they oppose it. They’re just not in power right now. The second they have a majority again all RCV initiative stops. Maybe a state or two flips over to RCV in the mean time if we’re lucky.
Yeah, they know the progressives will beat them if they allow rcv
I mean, Ken was for it when he ran Minnesota…
I don’t know why he wouldn’t be for it now.
Not new at all.
Ranked choice voting tends to boost moderate candidates. While this is valuable in a general election, during a party primary it protects the status quo.
It’s hard for me to look at this as anything other than Schumer and Jefferies putting obstacles in the way of Progressives.
What?
The opposite of this is true. Assuming you’re not describing a different thing by the same name - an American speciality - ranked choice allows you to vote for the most extreme option as first choice and if/when they are eliminated, your vote is not wasted but assigned to the next most extreme option. How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.
How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.
I think you’ve pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.
Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it’s likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often “teamed up”, with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.
I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.
I mean, what would you suggest instead? Some system where a simple plurality can elect your fringe candidate? We could give the seat to whatever candidate Passes the Post First?
What you’re describing has nothing to do with the voting system. If your candidate is so far to the fringe that they can’t overcome the gravity of the primary center then they should probably be in their own party. If the voting public wouldn’t rank them above all other weak moderates in the general then that’s a problem with your electorate and election funding rules.
Sorry, you don’t get how it works or how voters behave at all. This isn’t some hypothetical. This works in dozens of other countries, thousands of other elections. You’re hand-wringing about who people choose to vote for. Letting people vote for their preference is literally the point. Completely eliminating the biggest thing stopping Americans from voting for the person they actually want to vote for.
America’s biggest problem is that votes don’t transfer. All this rhetoric that everyone has to weigh in behind the “viable” centrist candidate - consistently drifting right - or “it’s a vote for the Republicans”. And the establishment expects you to vote for that person who can win, their policies don’t matter, so long as they have the best chance of beating the other guy. Republicans are doing this too. Potential third party voters are doing this too.
Ah yes, the Mamdani nominated under RCV “supports status quo” 🙄
You got that math wrong, buddy.
This doesn’t fix the electoral college or the state electors corruption. It just changes how they’re gonna ignore peoples vote for the popular vote anyway.
I expect government corruption will continue, but this could have a positive effect in various areas. It’s not like there’s any perfect solution to eliminating corruption. So all you can do is try things that make it better in some ways.
I agree. I am for RCV, but pretending that it is a solution to the broader problem is delusional.
The issue surrounding voting are well known: everything from IDs and voter registration, local polling stations, gerrymandering districts, voting during the week, purging voter roles, vote by mail, digital voting machine security, lack of paper trail etc. Not to mention campaign finance laws and citizens united and corruption.
None of that is addressed by switching to RCV.
I have a suspicion that a candidate chosen in a RCV primary would have a mathematical advantage in a general election against one from another party not chosen by RCV, but I’d need someone with better math and electoral analysis skills than me to address the question.
Just gotta make the dumbasses in the Pedo Party to think Ranked Choice is somehow good for them, or that they came up with the idea.
They had it in Alaska until it helped a dem win
To be fair, that Dem is not the Condorcet winner.
It is good for the voters.
Just not the establishment politicians clothing to their power and wealth
Send mayor Mamdani to the White House again. He did well in that cesspool last time.
ABOUT FUCKING TIME
Could we also make it so primaries don’t take six months? I’ve never voted in a presidential primary where my vote affected the outcome at all because every state I’ve lived in was late in the schedule.
Then what is the media going to talk about for 6 months?
Don’t get me started on the electoral-media complex that makes our elections too damn long.
If we’re making impossible demands on the system I’d also include 60 day election cycles. No political advertising or campaigning more than two months before the election.
But I’m a bad American who hates the GDP.
It all comes down to the political parties. Which is partly why our elections suck so much.
You’d think either party would want the chance to talk about their candidate for an extra few months. But maybe they’re worried familiarity breeds contempt.
Actual policy ideas instead of horse race polling, maybe?
The real problem is with the people consuming the media. They would rather see the horse race polling than actual policies.
Six months? I think you mean a year and a half.
Oh but don’t you want to know first which Democrat places like Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas would like? You know, those bastions of democracy.
/s, like it’s needed lol.
I kinda get why they drag it out, it allows canidates to respond to the electorate better.
My suggestion would be to make it take 3 months and divide the delegates evenly between all 3. Hell let Iowa be a week early. Plus with ranked choice if a canidate drops out those votes can be reallocated
I do just feel like there’s something about these long races that allow us to get a much better idea of who a canidate is. Once they begin to feel the pressure they start to change.
Except candidates have been less responsive to the electorate than ever before
You still get to see how they handle under pressure. Which i think is important especially when picking a residential canidate.
“Seeing how they perform under pressure” has yet to allow me to actually voice my opinion before the current system prevented it from mattering.
Yet they love to tell me that “every vote counts” after my vote didn’t count.
Man I didn’t mean to call the party perfect or desirable in any way. I was just trying to express how I do think longer primaries can be beneficial but the current system should be reworked.
If you want to complain, and rightfully so, how bad the dems are there’s at least 20 other threads where that is the exact topic of conversation. You don’t have to force it in here
I wasn’t forcing anything. This thread was the elongated primary season. I voiced a very real issue with the current length. That fits in perfectly with someone singing the praises of a system that has not gone to the end of primary in like two decades.
It doesn’t matter how long they endure the pressure if the race never lasts long enough for the last states to get a real vote. Staggering those states doesn’t add anything to the equation.
Right issues on promary length is fine. You quickly pivoted into “dems are bad and out of touch” as a point of policy. Not due to length of the primary. You were right with those thoughts just not at all what I was talking about.
Tbh, it’s exhausting. If the dems even hint at doing something slightly better it quickly becomes an absolute dog pile of “since the dems are not becoming literally perfect overnight this is still bad”. Like I’m starting to think people don’t want any improvement in our political systems
They stagger primaries to manufacture the party choice for their chosen candidate
Same here, it’s such bullshit. Then people scold me when I complain as if I didn’t go to the primaries when typically it’s the primary that doesn’t come to me. How dare I not go vote for someone who already conceded, I must be what’s wrong with democracy.
Neat. You caught up to… alaska.
Yah, I bet the DNC apparatchiks are fully behind this. This should totally not interfere with their complicity agenda.
Does Israel approve? Doubt it because then they’d have to buy more politicians from new political parties with our tax dollars
It’ll be an uphill battle since Ranked Choice Voting would weaken the power of both Democrats & Republicans and party leadership knows it but I also support it strongly for just that reason.
If it gave party leaders more in depth knowledge of which candidates had broad appeal (which is likely - knowing how popular each first + second choice combination is gives power to data analytics), they could more accurately spend resources to win more general elections. Actually giving the party more power.
Eventually. They would have to completely rebuild many of the established campaign strategy tools. I think sunk cost fallacy (we invested in these tools, we can’t switch to a system where our expensive software and stuff isn’t used!) is a more powerful block here than power hunger.
This is just for the Democratic primary, not the general election - but the same idea applies there, as it weakens the ability of the party leadership to choose who wins
Party Leadership dont get to be our scapegoat, the US People chose Hillary and Biden over Bernie by massive numbers.
