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.

  • arrow74@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
        ·
        1 day 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
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day 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
            ·
            1 day 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
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 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.

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

                Right issues on promary length is fine. You quickly pivoted into “dems are bad and out of touch” as a point of policy. Not due to length of the primary. You were right with those thoughts just not at all what I was talking about.

                Tbh, it’s exhausting. If the dems even hint at doing something slightly better it quickly becomes an absolute dog pile of “since the dems are not becoming literally perfect overnight this is still bad”. Like I’m starting to think people don’t want any improvement in our political systems

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

                  No, it was directly related to what I was saying. There was no pivot.

                  It was part of my argument against your desire not to change what is currently broken

                  Don’t pretend I’m the one holding up change when your very argument was “this bad things that people rightfully hate, is actually good”

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

                    It was part of my argument against your desire not to change what is currently broken

                    But i did want changes and explicitly lined them out…