- 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.
deleted by creator
Missouri tricked people into banning it by making it sound like they were banning non-citizens from casting multiple votes and the dumb dumbs who don’t read anything just voted for it.
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Make the Constitution consistent with state law by only allowing citizens of the United States to vote;
- Prohibit the ranking of candidates by limiting voters to a single vote per candidate or issue; and
- Require the plurality winner of a political party primary to be the single candidate at a general election?
It boils down to this: If you support the direct will of the people in choosing a candidate, you probably like RCV. If you want the party to have significant influence in choosing a candidate, you probably don’t like RCV.
It is possible the Democrats are realizing that their establishment selected candidates are not competitive against modern Republicans.
It’s also possible they are considering somebody more radical but want plausible deniability about how that person came to be elected.
Or it’s possible they are just out of ideas. Or maybe all three…STAR voting is simpler and
peer-reviewed, topping the charts in all studies of accuracy and representativeness.
It bothers me that whenever alternative voting methods are talked about RVC is the one chosen despite having some bad flaws compared to other alternative voting methods.
I just wish that whenever this topic came up a commitee is formed by the organization looking to change voting methods to make a better informed choice. Just picking RVC is lazy because it’s the most well known (but neccesarily best) alternative voting method.
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.
I just want to point out that Ranked-Choice Voting was on the ballot in Colorado in 2024. It ultimately failed because it was opposed by both parties. I was surprised, because I talked through the issues with a friend who considered herself “very progressive” she mentioned she was against Ranked-Choice Voting because her Democratic Voting Guide recommended voting against it.
From https://tsscolorado.com/colorado-voters-easily-reject-ranked-choice-voting/
…it angered both Democratic and Republican party leaders and drew opposition from prominent Democratic backers, including a plethora of unions, progressive groups and some environmental organizations.
If you blindly follow a Democratic Voting Guide, you’re not “very progressive.” Probably not even “kind of progressive.”
It was combined with a top 4 jungle primary that was not ranked choice, which was why a lot of people who might have voted for it otherwise voted against it. It looked like a way to implement ranked choice while creating a system where less moderate candidates would be eliminated in the primary.
The problem with the two party system, is the only thing they’ll always agree on is that it should remain a two party system.
We had the same issue in the UK. We had the choice of something else and it was dismissed as “too complicated” and “too expensive”.
So instead most of us have their votes thrown out locally, and then most of the rest have them thrown out nationally.
It has already passed in Alexandria VA for the 2024 elections and the DNC sued to prevent it from being implemented. They kept rcv option off the ballot in DC.
Even if it were implemented across the country no capitalist politician would be ranked on my ballot
Ohio passed a law this year banning state funds to any municipality that implemented ranked choise voting. Only one or two representatives voted against it. The only bi-partisan bill they passed thos year
Yeah, politicians are scared of anything that will disrupt their power structure.
Following a democratic voting guide has got to be the least progressive you can be as a Democrat
This shouldn’t be that surprising, RCV will completely topple the establishment politics apple cart. When people are no longer forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, they can instead choose someone who’s a halfway decent human being who will represent them instead of corpo pac donors. It would be absolutely transformative to roll this out nationally.
Democrats will ratfuck progressives under any ruleset.
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
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.
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.
They stagger primaries to manufacture the party choice for their chosen candidate
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.
Then what is the media going to talk about for 6 months?
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.
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 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.
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.
Six months? I think you mean a year and a half.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Does Israel approve? Doubt it because then they’d have to buy more politicians from new political parties with our tax dollars
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.
Let all the states vote before declaring a winner. I’ve never voted in a primary with more than one active candidate.
Make them open. Make then count. Make them accountable.
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.
So they plan to kill super delegates?
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.
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.
Straight popular vote for a candidate is a great way to almost guarantee losses for the electoral college.
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
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.
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…
Yesssssss!!!
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.
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.
