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.
ABOUT FUCKING TIME
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.”
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Six months? I think you mean a year and a half.
Yah, I bet the DNC apparatchiks are fully behind this. This should totally not interfere with their complicity agenda.
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.
Send mayor Mamdani to the White House again. He did well in that cesspool last time.
STAR voting is simpler and
peer-reviewed, topping the charts in all studies of accuracy and representativeness.
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.
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 mean, Ken was for it when he ran Minnesota…
I don’t know why he wouldn’t be for it now.
Does Israel approve? Doubt it because then they’d have to buy more politicians from new political parties with our tax dollars
It would only work if they converted to a national vote, instead of state by state elections with individual ranked choice votes.
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.
The threat of wasting votes is what forces people to the mainstream centrist candidates and away from radical positions. So it will not happen.
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.
Ah yes, the Mamdani nominated under RCV “supports status quo” 🙄
