We need this because this is how progressives can easily win. Otherwise progressives need 6 other moderates running to split the vote.
drtolmn69 on
In several decades of voting, I have never once seen a presidential primary candidate that I favored make it to the general. A shake-up is not unwelcome.
bruceki on
As a Bernie Sanders delegate in 2016 I would love to see this happen. We got hillary crammed down our throats and that meant a lot of people stayed at home. Voila! President Trump!
RavynRush on
Ranked-choice voting makes sense. It gives voters more say and can prevent extreme candidates from winning just because the majority splits their vote. Most people would see that as fairer.
GoldenTriforceLink on
This would still require states to change their primary election laws and red states absolutely won’t. Hope they can get around that somehow
jayfeather31 on
Honestly, this would have been welcome in either 2016, 2020, and 2024, and would go a long way towards mending party divides.
ratedsar on
This should have been part of the John Lewis voting act and Biden’s fight for Democracy; doubling congress appropriations, and with ranked choice voting would have been a deflection of it benefiting a single party (is really better for third parties)
OpenImagination9 on
Maybe we’ll finally get some credible choices.
Flat_Hat8861 on
The presidential primary would be a great use case. Elections happening on different dates and candidates dropping out for any number of reasons even after their names were printed on ballots in other states alone would make this valuable.
Aldo, since a primary is a consensus gathering activity, traditional RCV, Star, or Approval voting will help guage support of the wider party members.
I agree, let’s go.
LorderNile on
> A second DNC member was more skeptical: “We should follow the lead of the states. They know better.”
I can assure you, they do not.
Cyndakill88 on
Yes, who doesn’t want an actual second and third option?
itsatumbleweed on
The primaries are actually the perfect place for ranked choice voting as well. The field is so big at the start, and people may stay in if they are 2nd in some early primaries where the first person is likely to drop or something.
Parzival_1775 on
While I am in favor of ranked-choice voting on general principle, it’s (usually) a lot less relevant in a primary. People usually vote for someone other than their preferred candidate when they are more concerned about ensuring that a candidate that they strongly oppose is kept out of office than they are with getting the person that they want most *into* office. That is usually far more relevant in the general election.
WylleWynne on
I’m all for the spirit of Ranked Choice Voting, but there are so many variations that we need to make sure we do it right. We should invite specialists to give us a good system.
caststoneglasshome on
How about ranked choice for general elections, it’s often use by the party in the primaries to gatekeep.
7figureipo on
There really isn’t any reason not to have at least ranked choice voting. Condorcet would be better. And the primaries should all be on the same day, or at most within a few days of each other.
Crimkam on
Does this address the problem with super delegates in the dem primary?
CivicDutyCalls on
You can get RCV fairly easily implemented in your city. You don’t need the national or state apparatus to support. And RCV can bypass the primary entirely.
The great thing is that the winning coalition to get this passed nationally doesn’t need a majority of cities to pass RCV. You don’t need 50%. You just need enough to break the monopoly on the system we have. You need a majority of democratic controlled areas. So 25%ish.
mosswick on
Ranked choice voting. Let’s make it 2-3 rounds via national primary days. Let every Democratic voter have an equal voice in deciding the nominee.
agree-with-me on
If Democrats want to save the nation, they should usher in ranked-choice voting all over this land.
People are more liberal than the map shows and while Democrats may lose a bit of ground to other parties, they could drive the narrative.
From where they are now, that is a good survival option.
crohnscyclist on
I did my part. I organized a chili cook-off and had people vote using a rank choice. People liked the concept.
ThirstTheory on
It makes a lot of sense for primaries. Instead of picking one candidate and worrying your vote won’t matter if they drop out, you rank your favorites. It encourages candidates to appeal to a broader group and cuts down on negative campaigning. Many would see it as a fairer, smarter way to pick a nominee.
SavageSan on
It got off to a rough start during a pandemic giving NYC Adams, but RCV really shined this past election. I was honestly skeptical about it because of how it went during its first use. I know it exist elsewhere, but NYC is a large stage with millions of voters and it was important that they got it right there to give RCV merit nationally. I think it makes voters feel more like they are part of the process.
A_Nonny_Muse on
What’s the point in a Democratic primary when the DNC decides who will be their candidate?
aleph32 on
I hope they do. That would accomplish two things:
1. Choose better candidates.
2. Get Democratic voters used to the idea of ranked-choice voting to later help push it for general elections.
Titan3692 on
AOC , AOC and third choice… oh yeah, AOC
Reasonable_Automobil on
The DNC will just ignore the results and have a coronation again.
ReneMagritte98 on
I assume every state primary/caucus would have to make the switch individually. Or is there a way to do it in one fell swoop?
spicy-chilly on
Ranked choice voting is only good if the elimination in each round is done by least rankings in any position, otherwise you’ll end up with broad coalition candidates getting knocked out in favor of candidates that can’t win because people thought they were unsupportable and left them unranked and then people don’t get what they want. More first place rankings doesn’t mean they have broad approval or a winning coalition.
If you had everyone ranking someone second place, and a plurality ranking someone else first but everyone else won’t support them under any circumstances, it’s the latter that should be eliminated.
Lunarmeric on
That will never happen. Ranked-choice voting gives people more say in the electoral process. The DNC will never allow itself to be sidelined in the nomination process.
Are we talking about the same DNC that gave the Clinton campaign oversized influence over its operations before even the primaries started, or the one that leaked town hall question to the Clinton campaign, perhaps it’s the DNC that pushed for the inherently undemocratic notion of superdelegates or maybe the same DNC that changed the state primary calendar to prioritize a red state uncompetitive state like South Carolina, that hasn’t been won by a Democrat since 1976, so that their preferred candidate would get a boost from establishment hacks like Clyburn aka the Joe Biden Special.
The DNC is corrupt to the core as long as people like Schumer, Jeffries, and Clyburn are running the show. Thank god Pelosi finally retired. Praying for AOC to primary/replace Schumer for good.
Altruistic_Ad_0 on
Ranked choice voting is a horrible system. Along with any ordinal voting system. Only cardinal systems should be considered
35 Comments
If this happens, I will be leaving Newsom and Harris unranked.
Ranked choice voting is already used in [47 US cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States), it’s long overdue to be rolled out for primaries
We need this because this is how progressives can easily win. Otherwise progressives need 6 other moderates running to split the vote.
In several decades of voting, I have never once seen a presidential primary candidate that I favored make it to the general. A shake-up is not unwelcome.
As a Bernie Sanders delegate in 2016 I would love to see this happen. We got hillary crammed down our throats and that meant a lot of people stayed at home. Voila! President Trump!
Ranked-choice voting makes sense. It gives voters more say and can prevent extreme candidates from winning just because the majority splits their vote. Most people would see that as fairer.
This would still require states to change their primary election laws and red states absolutely won’t. Hope they can get around that somehow
Honestly, this would have been welcome in either 2016, 2020, and 2024, and would go a long way towards mending party divides.
This should have been part of the John Lewis voting act and Biden’s fight for Democracy; doubling congress appropriations, and with ranked choice voting would have been a deflection of it benefiting a single party (is really better for third parties)
Maybe we’ll finally get some credible choices.
The presidential primary would be a great use case. Elections happening on different dates and candidates dropping out for any number of reasons even after their names were printed on ballots in other states alone would make this valuable.
Aldo, since a primary is a consensus gathering activity, traditional RCV, Star, or Approval voting will help guage support of the wider party members.
I agree, let’s go.
> A second DNC member was more skeptical: “We should follow the lead of the states. They know better.”
I can assure you, they do not.
Yes, who doesn’t want an actual second and third option?
The primaries are actually the perfect place for ranked choice voting as well. The field is so big at the start, and people may stay in if they are 2nd in some early primaries where the first person is likely to drop or something.
While I am in favor of ranked-choice voting on general principle, it’s (usually) a lot less relevant in a primary. People usually vote for someone other than their preferred candidate when they are more concerned about ensuring that a candidate that they strongly oppose is kept out of office than they are with getting the person that they want most *into* office. That is usually far more relevant in the general election.
I’m all for the spirit of Ranked Choice Voting, but there are so many variations that we need to make sure we do it right. We should invite specialists to give us a good system.
How about ranked choice for general elections, it’s often use by the party in the primaries to gatekeep.
There really isn’t any reason not to have at least ranked choice voting. Condorcet would be better. And the primaries should all be on the same day, or at most within a few days of each other.
Does this address the problem with super delegates in the dem primary?
You can get RCV fairly easily implemented in your city. You don’t need the national or state apparatus to support. And RCV can bypass the primary entirely.
The great thing is that the winning coalition to get this passed nationally doesn’t need a majority of cities to pass RCV. You don’t need 50%. You just need enough to break the monopoly on the system we have. You need a majority of democratic controlled areas. So 25%ish.
Ranked choice voting. Let’s make it 2-3 rounds via national primary days. Let every Democratic voter have an equal voice in deciding the nominee.
If Democrats want to save the nation, they should usher in ranked-choice voting all over this land.
People are more liberal than the map shows and while Democrats may lose a bit of ground to other parties, they could drive the narrative.
From where they are now, that is a good survival option.
I did my part. I organized a chili cook-off and had people vote using a rank choice. People liked the concept.
It makes a lot of sense for primaries. Instead of picking one candidate and worrying your vote won’t matter if they drop out, you rank your favorites. It encourages candidates to appeal to a broader group and cuts down on negative campaigning. Many would see it as a fairer, smarter way to pick a nominee.
It got off to a rough start during a pandemic giving NYC Adams, but RCV really shined this past election. I was honestly skeptical about it because of how it went during its first use. I know it exist elsewhere, but NYC is a large stage with millions of voters and it was important that they got it right there to give RCV merit nationally. I think it makes voters feel more like they are part of the process.
What’s the point in a Democratic primary when the DNC decides who will be their candidate?
I hope they do. That would accomplish two things:
1. Choose better candidates.
2. Get Democratic voters used to the idea of ranked-choice voting to later help push it for general elections.
AOC , AOC and third choice… oh yeah, AOC
The DNC will just ignore the results and have a coronation again.
I assume every state primary/caucus would have to make the switch individually. Or is there a way to do it in one fell swoop?
Ranked choice voting is only good if the elimination in each round is done by least rankings in any position, otherwise you’ll end up with broad coalition candidates getting knocked out in favor of candidates that can’t win because people thought they were unsupportable and left them unranked and then people don’t get what they want. More first place rankings doesn’t mean they have broad approval or a winning coalition.
If you had everyone ranking someone second place, and a plurality ranking someone else first but everyone else won’t support them under any circumstances, it’s the latter that should be eliminated.
That will never happen. Ranked-choice voting gives people more say in the electoral process. The DNC will never allow itself to be sidelined in the nomination process.
Are we talking about the same DNC that gave the Clinton campaign oversized influence over its operations before even the primaries started, or the one that leaked town hall question to the Clinton campaign, perhaps it’s the DNC that pushed for the inherently undemocratic notion of superdelegates or maybe the same DNC that changed the state primary calendar to prioritize a red state uncompetitive state like South Carolina, that hasn’t been won by a Democrat since 1976, so that their preferred candidate would get a boost from establishment hacks like Clyburn aka the Joe Biden Special.
The DNC is corrupt to the core as long as people like Schumer, Jeffries, and Clyburn are running the show. Thank god Pelosi finally retired. Praying for AOC to primary/replace Schumer for good.
Ranked choice voting is a horrible system. Along with any ordinal voting system. Only cardinal systems should be considered
Gavin Newsom 2028 baby
Eh, I think it might make things too complicated