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.

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

      • Jeffool @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        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.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          It all comes down to the political parties. Which is partly why our elections suck so much.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          The real problem is with the people consuming the media. They would rather see the horse race polling than actual policies.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      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.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          You still get to see how they handle under pressure. Which i think is important especially when picking a residential canidate.

          • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            “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.

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              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

              • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                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.