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.
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.
Rather late than never.
My state is currently in the process of banning RCV statewide :(
Fucking hilarious that people are still falling for this shit.
The idea of ranked voting itself, you mean, or that people actually believe that the Democrats would actually do this?
Because the latter? Yeah, no, they’ll hold it up as a shiny thing and drop it the second they get into power. This IS the USA, we don’t improve, we stick to all our shitty systems that have failed us for decades, or centuries even.
The metric system is evil too, y’know! It’s the devil!
That people believe the democrats would do this.
Neat. You caught up to… alaska.
IF they manage to get this through, they better use a big chunk of their compromise money to educate people about the new way of voting. Like carpet bomb the information.
Spend 10s of millions on TV ads on which consultants get a 15% fee, got it /s
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.
Neat, help us out ween out loser dems too.
People think ranked choice, or any other alternative, will help do that. I hold out a sliver of hope that it would, but I don’t trust the fucking idiot voters to actually inform themselves before casting their votes.
Not new at all.
ABOUT FUCKING TIME
The first step to get the voting fixed shouldn’t be ranked voting. It should be getting rid of winner takes it all. If a party gets 40% of the votes, and there are 10 representatives, it should get 4 of them, not 0.
What would happens is Dem states will do proportional allocation, republican states would stick with winner take all, and you end up with a permanent republican presidency.
States run elections, states also get to decide how to allocate their electors.
Anything short of a constitutional amendment will not work.
This is talking about the Democratic Primary. What you’re saying is definitely true if we were changing the allocation of Electoral College votes for the general election – for that, we need Congress to pass an Amendment (or maybe a regular law would suffice?)
Amendment. Or as the other comment alluded to, interstate compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
That probably requires congrsssional approval. And even then, that last until the supreme court strikes it down. Or even if it doesn’t gwt struck down, its unclear if the next congress have the ability to revoke the previous session of congress’s approval of the interstate compact.
So many shenanigans.
You can solve that with state compacts which go into force when you hit a threshold where that’s not a risk
the electoral college experiment should be abandoned. It clearly didn’t serve the function it was intended to serve when it was implemented 200 years ago.
It actually largely has. It both reduced the numbers of people who needed to ride horses around to figure out the winner, and it helped keep power consolidated with the powerful.
A good chunk of our early democratic institutions were designed with a lot of influence by people who didn’t entirely trust their constituency and wanted to keep things from being too democratic. So you have several options for elected officials to disregard voters in most matters, and the president has the power to say “nah” to legislation.
Okay, but the entire idea was to allow the electors to basically go against the will of the people, if the people are a bunch of idiots and elect a despot wannabe. And when a despot wannabe actually got elected, the electors didn’t go against the idiot electorate.
Well, they didn’t specifically feel concern for them electing a despot. They were concerned simply that they might pick wrong from the viewpoint of those with political power at the time. They weren’t specifically afraid of a despot or demagogue, but someone who would either threaten the political elites wellbeing, or loosing support from the “less populous” slave states. A system that gives disproportionate weight to smaller states to buy their support while also giving themselves more influence over a check on the legislature and one of the branches of power is what they went with.
They weren’t afraid of Trump, they were concerned about Lincoln.
Now all electors are party loyalists chosen by their party, nobody aint doing any faithless defection.
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.
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.
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.
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?
MO GOP had a long history of getting illiterate voters to vote against themselves with shade language. Voters approved an anti-gerrymandering amendment but GOP put confusing language on the ballot, a year later, that tricked voters into cancelling that out.
A judge had to step in on the abortion ballot proposal because they tried to do it again. Thankfully, the judge made them out clear language on it. Unfortunately, they are trying it again with abortion next year.
https://www.kmbc.com/article/missouri-abortions-judge-approves-ballot-language/68915245
Thats because republicans have absolutely no morals or shame.
I didn’t vote for it because I can read
Lol I made a showerthoughts post about how its such a wonderful thing that global literacy rates are rising… then these shit happens…
🤦♂️
In all honesty Missouri is suffering pretty severely from braindrain, in some ways it’s worse than the Deep South. It’s probably in a worse state long-term even compared to the most rural and fucked over parts of Appalachia.
deleted by creator
Jesus fuck finally.
This is how we get rid of the one party system.
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.
Happened in Massachusetts in 2020 too. Absolutely insane that people don’t realize how much better RCV is
It really does show that 1) People in general aren’t very smart. Most people won’t do some basic research to see what they’re voting for. And 2) Most people are just going to vote how their party tells them.
If you blindly follow a Democratic Voting Guide, you’re not “very progressive.” Probably not even “kind of progressive.”
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.
including a plethora of unions
If there iwas anything that pissed me off more than the Democrats abandoning support for workers it was union leadership doing so.
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.
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.
You mean one party system.
Following a democratic voting guide has got to be the least progressive you can be as a Democrat
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.
