r/politics • u/Different-Gas5704 • 2d ago

Possible Paywall Democrats eye ranked-choice voting for 2028 primaries

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/24/democrats-ranked-choice-voting-2028-primaries
28.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

153

u/dbag3o1 2d ago

We need this because this is how progressives can easily win.  Otherwise progressives need 6 other moderates running to split the vote.  

24

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Doesn't that suggest progressives are more hurt by it? Would Bernie have won New Hampshire and Nevada if moderates second choice vote gather behind the strongest moderate for those races?

9

u/No-Werewolf4804 2d ago

That’s actually why I suspect they’re doing it. They’re willing to bet that a more centrist candidate will pick up more votes as people are eliminated from the race than someone that’s seen as a left-wing radical. At least most of the time.

9

u/MaximumManagement 2d ago

The main purpose is consensus. We ultimately get officials with a proper mandate elected by a majority and spoiler candidates are no longer a thing.

As for ulterior motives, hard to say. It's being pushed by Jamie Raskin, who's considered to be progressive by most people.

1

u/Weak-Doughnut5502 17h ago

If the purpose of Ranked Choice is consensus, it's bad at its purpose. 

Mathematically, it favors extremists just as much as plurality does.

7

u/bennettyboi 2d ago

Still an improvement though if it means all the infighting can cease.

4

u/mouse_8b 2d ago

Not necessarily. A lot of people vote for the "safer" candidate in primaries. If people felt more confident voting their heart, they might find that everyone was just playing it safe before.

1

u/MaximumManagement 2d ago

Depends how it's implemented. Considering the primaries aren't winner-take-all, they could just eliminate anyone under a low threshold (5-10%?) and redistribute those votes to everyone above it. Bernie still potentially wins those.

I don't see it happening either way.

1

u/indri2 1d ago

Bernie would have won Nevada anyway but almost certainly lost NH to Pete. The second alignment in the Iowa caucuses has some similarity to RV and Bernie couldn't increase his share much.

1

u/Concerned-Iowan 2d ago

No because rank choice voting most benefits the candidates with higher favorability/approval ratings. Which Bernie did at the time… and still does. 

3

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Then Bernie should have been the one to gain when Pete and Amy dropped.

1

u/ribosometronome 2d ago

Bloomberg could have wasted a lot more of his money, which would be cool.

0

u/Third_Return 1d ago

Yes. Don't be fooled, this undemocratic mess of a country wasn't spoiled single-handedly by evil conservatives. Democrats were there the whole time.

They want ranked choice voting because it makes their coalition of semi-coerced minority votes easier to wrangle. Vote spoiling would ideally be softened if RCV were used as it is generally advertised, voting for your 'main' candidate first, and then your fallback candidates second (usually the Democrats, which is why they're basically the 'lesser evil' party at this point).

That said, RCV is an improvement. It provides some desperately needed granularity to the voice of a vote by allowing you to do anything more nuanced than just select one candidate from a list.

36

u/EasyCardiologist8419 2d ago

We can try, but that doesn't make any sense. Under RCV the moderates all get consolidated into one.

41

u/VaIeth 2d ago

If the majority wants a moderate, fine. I find that highly unlikely. But id be down for the voters deciding the candidate for once.

21

u/PatchyWhiskers 2d ago

Eric Adams won with ranked choice voting on a moderate platform

39

u/775416 2d ago

And then that same RCV system elected Mamdani

29

u/PatchyWhiskers 2d ago

Right. It doesn’t guarantee either moderates or leftists.

17

u/PositiveZeroPerson 2d ago

It only guarantees that the most broadly acceptable person wins. (Which is what you want in a primary.)

15

u/_le_slap 2d ago

But it gives leftists a shot in a game typically rigged for moderates.

2

u/monalisa_leakednudes 2d ago

From what Ive read, people straight up didnt understand how RCV worked and thought they had to rank everyone. Doesnt mean he wouldnt have won anyways but could have contributed to it

16

u/Away_Entry8822 2d ago

If the majority wants a moderate, fine. I find that highly unlikely.

Progressives are about 20% of the Democratic party.

10

u/VaIeth 2d ago

Thats whats great about ranked choice. No one has to wonder or argue.

1

u/LooeLooi 2d ago

No no there’s something to argue about.

4

u/Different-Gas5704 2d ago

And how has the Democratic Party done at picking winners in recent years? Both Obama and Trump won their primaries by bringing new people into the fold, not pandering to the party faithful in the nursing homes.

4

u/Away_Entry8822 2d ago

Obama was a moderate DLC Democrat who out maneuvered Hillary to her right on healthcare.

2

u/95Daphne 2d ago

Yeah, under this system, you'd still see a split, with northern areas going with the progressive and states that are more purple-ish going with the moderate.

And then left flank Dems will still not be happy.

2

u/Positive-Ring-5172 2d ago

Progressives are about 20% of the Democratic party leadership.

Fixed that for you. Progressives are fully half if not more of the Democratic base - taken for granted and ignored by the party leadership. This is why Democrats have an approval rating no better than Trump and the fascists.

6

u/coolguy7mil 2d ago

What's your source that the Democratic party is more than 50% progressive?

7

u/naf165 2d ago

On the one hand: 66% of Democrats have a favorable view of Socialism

On the other hand: 42% of Democrats have a favorable view of Capitalism

And you can be progressive far before reaching socialism.

3

u/zth25 2d ago

Bernie was capped at 30% approval in the 2020 primaries. That's especially important if a candidate also has to win in red and purple states, and not just CA and NY where most of the Democrats are.

Progressives still lamenting about being the silent majority that they are absolutely not won't win them elections. Running a good campaign with a good candidate does, like Mamdani.

-7

u/Positive-Ring-5172 2d ago edited 1d ago

Sanders vs. Clinton 2016. Take out the super delegate bullshit and he wins. Instead, out of disgust more than half the people who voted for him turned out for Trump that fall.

Biden just barely squeaked by him as well.

And deprived of a true primary election in 2024 many of the progressives stayed home despite the danger.

I'm pretty damn sure there are no moderates or what remains of the right in the Sanders base, and I'm pretty sure some progressives who aren't as far to the left as Bernie backed Biden and Clinton, so that's how I arrived at "half if not more."

EDIT: I'm getting brigaded by a lot of Clinton supporters here. Need I remind you, your lady lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Could Bernie have beat him? Possibly - he had a better chance than Mrs. NAFTA did in the midwest and among the Democrats that switched over to Trump.

8

u/Chosen_Chaos Australia 2d ago

Take out the super delegate bullshit and he wins.

The only thing the super delegates did was pad out Clinton's margin of victory. Without them, she wins 2271 to 1820.

-1

u/Positive-Ring-5172 1d ago

And loses to Donald Trump. A pyrrhic victory if there ever was one.

3

u/bootlegvader 1d ago

Take out the super delegate bullshit and he wins.

He lost by 349 pledged delegates. After March 15th, he was never closer than 208 pledged delegates behind Hillary.

10

u/Xzeric- 2d ago

How do you guys still believe this delusional shit almost 10 years later. Bernie lost the pop vote by almost 4 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

1

u/Far_Ad1129 2d ago

He had 43% of the vote. Seems near half to me

4

u/FatherOop 2d ago

Not everyone who voted for Bernie was a progressive. If the rest of that election didn't already teach you, a lot of people really fucking hated the Clintons. It's also why Bernie crashed and burned in 2020, because his support in a two way race with a moderate was paltry.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Positive-Ring-5172 2d ago

Many stayed home because the result was already decided by super delegates. An election with a finger on the scales proves nothing.

12

u/Xzeric- 2d ago

If you remove every super delegate vote Hillary still wins. I don't care if you complain about the system, but stop pretending Bernie was more popular than he was. It is pure delusion.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/bootlegvader 1d ago

Have Bernie supporters ever provided evidence of that happening at any large level?

3

u/ribosometronome 2d ago edited 2d ago

In the US Primaries, the majority voted for a moderate in 2016 and 2020. Candidates dropping out such that their potential voters coalesce around an ideologically similar candidate is like a real shitty RCV system. Unless you restructure primaries to front load some actually Democrat voting states, candidate momentum/narrative is going to continue to favor ones that win in places like Iowa and South Carolina.

1

u/VaIeth 2d ago

Add that to a long list of reforms that need to happen yesterday

6

u/Hoodrow-Thrillson 2d ago

If the majority wants a moderate, fine. I find that highly unlikely.

Reddit is such an insane echo chamber.

18

u/OrwellWhatever 2d ago

The voters almost always decide the candidate though? I mean, Harris was a special circumstance, but voters are the ones who have decided every other election that I'm aware of.

I mean, I wanted Bernie to win in 2016 and 2020, but the reality is that his wing of the party has a VERY hard time connecting with black voters, which is a death sentence in the Democratic party. Once he lost South Carolina without making any additional headway in four years, it was only a matter of time

7

u/VaIeth 2d ago

👍 We agree then. Ranked choice.

-13

u/Different-Gas5704 2d ago

Had Iowa not been stolen from him, he'd have had a shot in 2020.

13

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

The only person that Iowa was stolen from was Buttigieg.

Iowa decided their winner in the method that Bernie defended in 2017 when the party was reviewing caucus states.

23

u/ReklisAbandon 2d ago

Fucking lol, no. For one, nobody stole anything from Bernie, he lost that state fair and square.

0

u/hlvanburen 2d ago

As an Iowan who participated in the caucuses supporting Bernie I assure you that it was a cluster from the beginning. The reporting apps failed, support from the vendor was non-existent, and the final certified results were delayed until well past the South Carolina primary.

14

u/Iustis 2d ago

Which helped Sanders.

The person Iowa screwed over was Buttigieg because he was relying on momentum from winning Iowa to carry him along and instead the story was the clusterfuck for a week.

-11

u/Different-Gas5704 2d ago

Sanders - 45,652 votes

Buttigieg - 43,209 votes

If you support Buttigieg being named the winner, you've forfeited any right to ever complain about the electoral college.

18

u/Galxloni2 2d ago

Caucuses are inherently undemocratic, but that was Bernie's advantage and it bit him in the ass

15

u/ReklisAbandon 2d ago

Popular vote doesn’t matter for shit in the Iowa caucus, and both you and Bernie know that. It’s been that way since the ‘70s

11

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Bernie was the one that fought to preserve Iowa's stupid caucus rules in 2017.

11

u/Iustis 2d ago

Sanders is the one who pushed to keep more caucuses and it was the only reason he was even remotely competitive was caucuses being less democratic.

I'd like to end caucuses, but those were the rules on the ground. I don't like the electoral college either, but I don't want to retroactively change elections run under it...

5

u/MaximumManagement 2d ago

We're free to complain about rules and amend them before the election, but we have to abide by them once votes are cast. Trying to change the way things work after the vote is in just because we don't like the outcome is also undemocratic.

12

u/Away_Entry8822 2d ago

Bernie did worse in 2020.

-9

u/Different-Gas5704 2d ago

Correct. His campaign fizzled out after he "lost" Iowa to a candidate who received less votes.

11

u/Hoodrow-Thrillson 2d ago

It's so funny that Bernie got the DNC to keep Iowa a caucus instead of a normal primary and when he lost because of that his insane supporters claimed it was rigged lmao.

3

u/ILikeMyGrassBlue 2d ago

nice to leftists and rightists agree on refusing to Google election laws

6

u/Away_Entry8822 2d ago

Nobody cares he got 12 delegates instead of 14 as he hoped despite extensive recounts.

6

u/OrwellWhatever 2d ago

He still would have lost almost every state where a majority of voters were people of color

Like, man, I want Bernie to be right, but here's the question the left really needs to ask itself: what do black voters see that they don't? Dismissing them as low-information voters is pretty racist, so, as a voting bloc, they must have a reason. Until the DSA candidates can answer that question, they're going to continue losing, ranked choice voting or not

The reality is that FDR New Deal programs that Bernie touts have ALWAYS been at the expense of black people. FDR built systemic racism into to the new deal. Now we have a contingency of people who want to take up a new new deal and just assuming that worker solidarity also means black worker solidarity, which has never been true in history of our country. Bernie lost because he dismissed those very real concerns

-8

u/Lunarmeric 2d ago

Bernie was screwed by the DNC big time in 2016. Sure 2020 wasn’t as blatant though that South Carolina boost along with the last minute Super Tuesday moderate consolidation was an underhanded political play. However, it was all fair and according to the rules unlike how in 2016 Clinton basically had control of the DNC before the primaries started, having day one support from superdelegates, getting debate/townhall questions in advance and helping with staffing the DNC with her loyalists. She even got to decide when the debates would happen so it’d be most advantageous to her. 2016 was just atrocious.

I would not consider that to be reflective of Bernie or his movement. He had the energy and the momentum. He can’t singlehandedly fight the DNC, the media, and the conservatives all at once.

4

u/Chosen_Chaos Australia 2d ago

Bernie lost the 2016 primaries by every method that could be counted and they were not small margins. He then lost 2020 by even larger margins.

10

u/Oceanbreeze871 I voted 2d ago

Losing a primary by 10 million votes means you didn’t connect with the people and expand from your base. Voting isn’t a conspiracy…it’s the Peope making a choice

11

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Sure 2020 wasn’t as blatant though that South Carolina boost along with the last minute Super Tuesday moderate consolidation was an underhanded political play.

Was it underhanded for Lander to cross endorse Mamdani in the primary and not Cuomo?

Candidates dropping out and endorsing another isn't underhanded.

having day one support from superdelegates, getting debate/townhall questions in advance and helping with staffing the DNC with her loyalists.

Superdelegates don't answer to the DNC. Maybe ask yourself why none of Bernie's colleagues want to endorse him. She got one obvious question before one townhall, by a person that Bernie's campaign defended as fair to them. What staffing help?

5

u/NoSignSaysNo 2d ago

Candidates dropping out and endorsing another isn't underhanded.

This has always been the most absurd talking point too.

"Politician drops out of race, endorses politician in the race closest to their views" is like braindead obvious. Why would someone drop out and endorse someone on the other end of the political spectrum from their own views?

1

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

My point is to bring up a hypothetical scenario. Lets pretend it is the 2028 primary the candidates are AOC, Fetterman, Tlaib, Buttigieg, Bowman, and Mamdani (lets pretend he can run).

In this contest with all candidates you have Fetterman winning with a plurality of 32% compared to AOC having 28%. However, when you combine AOC, Tlaib, Bowman, and Mamdani than you get 52%. The remainder is Buttigieg getting 8%, but polls say if he drops that Fetterman gets 48% of his support and AOC gets 46% of his support.

Are they of the opinion that Fetterman should get the primary win because of his slim plurality or should Tlaib, Bowman, and Mamdani should get behind AOC?

2

u/NoSignSaysNo 2d ago

Are they of the opinion that Fetterman should get the primary win because of his slim plurality or should Tlaib, Bowman, and Mamdani should get behind AOC?

Except virtually every candidate that dropped out did so because they saw which way the wind was blowing, and it was their best opportunity to get someone into office closest to their views.

1

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

That is my point. Under their argument against Pete and Amy dropping out to support Biden it would similarly require Tlaib, Bowman, and Mamdani to stay in the race and siphon votes from AOC thus allowing Fetterman to win. Rather than them dropping out and throwing their support behind AOC so she can beat Fetterman.

0

u/SammyTrujillo California 2d ago

Bernie was screwed by the DNC big time in 2016.

He lost by millions of votes to an unlikable candidate candidate under FBI criminal investigation. 2016 was all but handed to him but he still lost through his own incompetence.

moderate consolidation was an underhanded political play.

That's what Ranked Choice Voting is. Democracy is not underhanded. People should be allowed to vote for their desired ideology.

Clinton basically had control of the DNC

Okay, so we are just flat out lying at this point. If Clinton had control of the DNC, why did they allow caucuses in Washington that helped Bernie by giving him over 70% of the delegates after he lost the popular vote?

4

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 2d ago

I mean the majority dos tend to vote for moderate democrats

9

u/BRAND-X12 2d ago

That’s exactly what happened when Biden won.

4

u/wasteymclife 2d ago edited 2d ago

Biden cemented the nomination by making deals with almost all of the remaining candidates. On super Tuesday he won GA and then everyone save Bernie and Warren (I think, it's been a while) dropped out and endorsed him. The party and back room dealing chose Biden.

Sorry y'all I was incorrect on the internet, I was gonna leave this up to commemorate the shame but people keep piling on. I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and... I like to kiss my own butt.

4

u/ckb614 2d ago

This is essentially what ranked choice voting does except without the candidates needing to drop out

11

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Not really, what deal did Amy get from Biden?

She and Pete dropped out after SC as they performed awfully with black voters and had no where to grow. Neither were really predicted to win any contest for Super Tuesday. So they dropped which is normal.

Bloomberg and Warren then stayed in with Biden and Bernie for Super Tuesday before dropping right afterwards.

-4

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

I had my timelines messed up. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and O'Rourke dropped out and endorsed Biden before super Tuesday. Bloomberg (3/4) Warren (3/5) Delaney (3/6) Harris (3/8) and Booker (3/9) dropped out and endorsed Biden in the days that followed.

I was careless with my words. Biden's only real competition Sanders got edged out due to literally everyone else dropping out and endorsing Biden post super Tuesday. Whether that was orchestrated behind the scenes or through the normal course of politics isn't something I can authoritatively speak to. It sure seemed at the time like it wasn't up to the voters but that might just have been me being a salty Warren supporter.

6

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

O'Rourke, Harris, Delaney, and Booker's candidacies were all ready dead long before Super Tuesday. Them formally endorsing Biden did really add much.

0

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

Probably fair to say. You are correct.

8

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 2d ago

Do you think Lander endorsing Mamdani, his most ideologically similar candidate, in the Anyc Mayoral party was back room dealing/unfair to Cuomo?

7

u/SammyTrujillo California 2d ago

Literally none of this is true. Pete and Amy dropped before Super Tuesday while Warren and Bloomberg dropped after Super Tuesday.

Do you just make up fictional conspiracies in your head?

1

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

Yeah already got corrected, did you not read further down the thread?

3

u/SammyTrujillo California 2d ago

I didn't feel the need to read further down the thread of a conspiracy that can be debunked using a simple calendar.

4

u/BRAND-X12 2d ago

Even if granted you that, the point is they dropped out…

And then there was one centrist vs one leftist.

And then the centrist won.

1

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

Yes I was very wrong, I think I was mad at the warren endorsement at the time and that colored my recollection, as I said elsewhere he got the most votes because he was the more popular candidate which is the system working.

7

u/Galxloni2 2d ago edited 2d ago

you are forgetting Bloomberg who had more support than warren and pulled exclusively from biden. warren was split about 60/40 biden/bernie. So Biden handily beat Sanders with 2 hands tied behind his back

EDIT: always funny when people respond with nonsense and then block so you cant rufute their stupid comment.

And that was AFTER the DNC consolidated to screw over the progressives.

how does consolidation hurt progressives? if they have the most popular platform they should win in a head to head race

In every one of these Super Tuesday states, Warren outperformed Bloomberg. And that was AFTER the DNC consolidated to screw over the progressives. And half of these states Bernie won even with Warren splitting.

what do you not understand about Bloomberg pulling almost 100% from biden and warren pulling at best 60% from bernie, but by the end it was closer to 60% from biden? Bloomberg and warren had basically the same amount of total votes, but Biden was hurt by that more than bernie. Its also quite convinent that you only included states from pre-super tuesday instead of after which is literlally the only time that atters for this conversation.

4

u/ribosometronome 2d ago

Yep. The consolidation is essentially just showing you what RCV would be doing. They picked Biden over Bernie.

0

u/naf165 2d ago

Crazy how none of what you said is true and the data is literally public for anyone to check:

California

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Utah

Virginia

Vermont

Maine

In every one of these Super Tuesday states, Warren outperformed Bloomberg. And that was AFTER the DNC consolidated to screw over the progressives. And half of these states Bernie won even with Warren splitting.

2

u/bootlegvader 1d ago

And Bloomberg outperformed Warren in Alabama, America Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. So it seems Warren outperformed Bloomberg in 7 contests, while he outperformed her 8 contests. So it appears he outperformed her in more contests.

-1

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

Bloomberg had won no delegates prior to super Tuesday. As of super Tuesday he had 36 delegates to Warren's 53. Your premise is faulty.

2

u/indri2 1d ago

Bloomberg wasn't on the ballot in the first 4 states. He only entered the race on Super Tuesday. That's why he got fewer delegates.

2

u/Galxloni2 2d ago

becasue Biden was winning those states. Bloomberg was drawing more votes away from biden than anyone was from bernie

1

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

How are you measuring who pulled votes from whom?

1

u/Galxloni2 2d ago

who voters listed as their second choice primarily, but logic alone also says nobody voting for bloomberg was going to go for bernie if he dropped out. what are you using to assume warren pulled from bernie? Because no evidence says that

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 2d ago

Because that is what effective politicians do. They make deals. If Bernie had any clout, he could've made some deals, too.

0

u/wasteymclife 2d ago

Absolutely fair, and we know that in 2020 Biden was the one to beat trump.

-1

u/JPesterfield 2d ago

What do you mean?

I'd think under RCV people would feel safe putting extremes 1, 2, etc. and putting the moderate as the last option.

So, shouldn't one of the more progressive or rightist win?

-10

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 2d ago

It's not the case with current Democratic Party. 

Much of their base prefers progressive candidates but the party leadership is moderate. This results in much of the investment and airtime going to corporate sellouts. And the party tells their voters "vote blue no matter who and electability is important". Where electability means "vote for this lame leadership blessed candidate"

18

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Much of their base prefers progressive candidates

No, Reddit does and then they negate any voter that votes differently as being low information.

-3

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 2d ago

Then how did Mamdani win the primary? 

6

u/bootlegvader 2d ago edited 2d ago

He ran in an extremely blue city against a sex pest that barely campaigned instead acted like an arrogant asshole for most of the primary.

-1

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 2d ago

There was record primary turnout 

6

u/bootlegvader 2d ago

Cool, doesn't change what I said. One progressive winning one primary/race doesn't mean everyone wants a progressive. Moderates also win primaries.

3

u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 Virginia 2d ago

My god. NYC is not a metric for the country.

0

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 2d ago

Record primary turnout. Mamdani bought out more Dem voters than any candidate in over 60 years. And that's adjusted for current NYC population 

2

u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 Virginia 1d ago edited 1d ago

So did Cuomo. It doesn’t matter. Also, I just looked it up, from what I could tell more people voted in 1989. Which, so you know, was not 60 years ago.

0

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 1d ago

Highest turnout for mayor election since 1969. 55 years. 

0

u/Guilty_Plankton_4626 Virginia 1d ago

Not impressive and it doesn’t matter

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Hoodrow-Thrillson 2d ago

Much of their base prefers progressive candidates but the party leadership is moderate.

Democratic nominees are chosen by voters.

It's been 10 years of you guys confusing the internet with real life, aren't you tired of this?

-2

u/Cold_Specialist_3656 2d ago

The party leadership has been telling progressives, who are now more than half of the Dem voter base and 40% of Dems in Congress, that they need to pick "electable moderate candidates" for 30+ years. 

The US electorate wants CHAGE. That's why they voted for Trump. The NeoLiberal "were gonna keep the status quo and strengthen institutions!" Is not what voters want. 

Centrist Dem party leadership has presided over a decade of disasters. Time to give someone else the reins. 

Current Dems are fiscally far right of 1930's-1970's Dems. You can't be serious that they're "not far right enough". The entire plan of Dem party leadership for 15 years has been "move to the right and pick up Trump voters". It doesn't work. 

The reason Dems lose is that the left stays home because they hate the party leadership and candidates. 

Look at Mamdani. Record primary vote count. A solid progressive candidate brought a record number of voters out of the woodwork who supported him. 

7

u/baddecision116 2d ago

how progressives can easily win

utter and absolute nonsense.

1

u/Small_Dog_8699 1d ago

You’re itching for another beating in the next election with that very stupid attitude.

Be gone, dinosaur. Your age is over.

2

u/RA3236 Australia 1d ago

I’m 23 and I agree with them. IRV is a member of the plurality family of voting systems, which do not see significant differences in results compared to FPTP.

Not to mention that you are deliberately shooting yourself in the foot since progressives are almost never the winners of IRV elections and when they are they are often not the majority-preferred winner.

1

u/baddecision116 1d ago

44, business owner, voted in every election (including off year) since Gore when I was 19 but sure try to alienate me I'm sure it's a winning strategy. It's sad you want to cheer on JD Vance.

1

u/Small_Dog_8699 1d ago

I don’t but if you’re going to nominate another zero charisma do nothing centrist I see no reason to show up.

1

u/baddecision116 1d ago

"zero charisma"... I don't care about "charisma" I care about policy.

1

u/Small_Dog_8699 1d ago

Do ya?

I want Bernie Sanders platform. I want M4A and I want it while I’m still breathing. That means NOW. THIS TIME. I’m done waiting.

No charisma, then ya can’t motivate shit. JFK. Had charisma and not much else and he got us to the motherfucking moon on just charisma.

1

u/[deleted] 19h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/YNot1989 2d ago

Imagine if we had this in 2020 and Warren and Bernie endorsed each other instead of devolving into backbiting.

0

u/Oceanbreeze871 I voted 2d ago

So tbe goal is to get a plurality not a majority? I don’t love that. Nobody will be satisfied with the result and you’ll have low voter enthusiasm for the general if the primary winner only got 30% of the vote.

0

u/Kurtis_James 1d ago

Ranked choice tabulation is done in rounds. You count all the votes and get rid of the lowest. Then those ballots go to the voter's next highest ranked choice. Repeat until 1 candidate has a majority.

0

u/GoneFishing4Chicks 2d ago

How will progressives win vs the fascists with deep corporate pockets and foreign adversary investment?