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.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    173·
    7 hours ago

    Crazy idea. What if the Democratic primary was actually a democracy? Let the candidate who wins the most states with an electoral weight be the candidate.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      2·
      3 hours ago

      Let all the states vote before declaring a winner. I’ve never voted in a primary with more than one active candidate.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      7 hours ago

      Good news!

      The voting members of the DNC agreed with you 8 months ago when they elected a chair with a decade long track record of fair primaries and then putting the full weight of the party behind every candidate in the general.

      We’re also very unlikely to see a push to consolidate behind a “winner” after only a handful of states vote.

      I don’t think the current DNC chair has ever weighed in on any primary. Even for Mamdani he waited till the day after the primary. And Martin loves Mamdani almost as much as trump does.

      So we can expect neutrality till the very last state reports their primary result.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 hours ago

          Super delegates only vote in the second round. That’s been on the books since 2020. Sure, it doesn’t remove them entirely, but you just need to have the majority of pledged delegates for it to not matter.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          7 hours ago

          There was a rule vote in 2024, the same time Martin got elected, that changed some stuff. So I’m assuming Martin didn’t want to immediately override them when it won’t matter for years.

          But ideally I’d want to see the removal of all delegates, supes and normies.

          Straight popular vote in the primary, 1:1 representation, and the candidate is just the person the most Dems want to vote for.

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            01·
            5 hours ago

            Straight popular vote for a candidate is a great way to almost guarantee losses for the electoral college.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              01·
              5 hours ago

              Huh?

              I thought you wanted representation…

              But you don’t want actual 1:1 representation?

              I’ll never guess it, you’re going to have to share what “moderate” level of representation you believe is ideal. And obviously people are going to question why you believe more representation than that would be a negative

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                4 hours ago

                You need a way to ensure the presidental candidate is popular across many states, because that’s part of the election. Straight popular vote can easily skew to a candidate that wins a few states by a large margin, but ultimately loses the election.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  4 hours ago

                  What hypothetical candidate would win all of a large state like Cali by a huge margin but lose to a Republican in enough smaller states that they lose the general?

                  Like, you know the EC is relatively proportional like the House, it’s not set up like the Senate…

                  • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                    1·
                    3 hours ago

                    It’s not all that proportional. It claims to be, but fails miserably at it due to the lack of enough seats. It’s been a century since we expanded it. Population has tripped since then.