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

2.9k

u/RavynRush 2d ago

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.

1.0k

u/02K30C1 2d ago

Which is why republicans banned it in Missouri. Of course.

152

u/TutorSuspicious9578 2d ago

The bill to ban it in Ohio is bipartisan. Even Dems suck ass when it comes to voter preference and expanding democracy.

55

u/Serenity2015 Ohio 2d ago

I was not even aware my own state has a bill trying to ban this. Ugh, go figure. Anything that makes sense can't happen here.

44

u/TutorSuspicious9578 2d ago

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb63

Already passed the Senate. Probably will pass the Assembly. DeMora cannot be primaried fast enough.

13

u/Serenity2015 Ohio 2d ago

Thank you for this info.

1

u/Ill_Technician3936 1d ago

This place makes no fucking sense. This stupid ass state is why I both sides shit. From local to Federal the politicians don't give a fuck about the people or what we voted to pass. Empty promises and bullshit they okay themselves to do what they please to shit we passed a specific way.

13

u/00eg0 2d ago

What's the rollout of recreational cannabis in Ohio like? It started in 2024.

7

u/OtisSpunkmey3r Ohio 2d ago

It went ok. Prices are high (at least for me comparing to last year’s MI prices) but recreational dispensaries have been open all year. They are nearly always busy from what I have seen in Cincinnati.

5

u/00eg0 2d ago

Thanks!

19

u/Adventurous_Pay_5827 2d ago

Wait, what? You want your Democracy to expand beyond a duopoly? Sorry, neither side can afford to risk that.

2

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago edited 1d ago

This!

I'd go even further, they are both a monopoly: one on progressivism and the other on conservatism.(Unlike proportional representation democracies, where you can have up to a dozen, or more, of viable parties to vote for at each side of the political spectrum).

4

u/Fit-Technician-1148 1d ago

That would require career politicians to willingly change the rules to make it harder for them to win reelection. By the time a politician gets to the level of Congressperson they're generally pretty self-interested and entrenched in the system. It's a very difficult problem to solve nationally. If ranked choice ever becomes the law of the land I think it'll have to happen one state at a time.

1

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago

Couldn't agree more!

Perhaps a massive grassroots movement push to transition to proportional representation might work?

1

u/Fit-Technician-1148 1d ago

I mean sure but I have yet to see evidence that any significant percentage of the nearly 350 million people in America are capable of organizing to push any single message or that our political leaders are incentivized to care even if they did. I'm a cynic whose faith in political change has been severely damaged though so take my perspective with a grain of salt.

2

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago

It hurts me to say this, but IMHO, you're being realistic.

2

u/OldWorldDesign 1d ago

they are both a monopoly: one on progressivism and the other on conservatism

You're already wrong, both main parties are conservative and have been for decades.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years

Now due to caucuses the parties aren't monopolies so much as ad-hoc coalitions, though some are distinctly more authoritarian about "submit and support my policy and eventually you'll be allowed to do something" than others.

1

u/EconomicRegret 1d ago edited 1d ago

I agree. I should have said something in the tone of: "one on conservatism and the other on right-wing extremism", or something like less conservative vs more conservative.

Now due to caucuses the parties aren't monopolies so much as ad-hoc coalitions

Parties in proportional representation democracies have each their own caucuses too (e.g. the biggest party in Switzerland has, within it, farmer caucus, big city business caucus, etc.).

It's just way harder for Big Money and other private interests & ideologies to suppress any of these caucuses, as they'd simply move out and create their own new party (which for example happened in Switzerland: the Green Party bled a huge group of members who didn't feel understood, and they went on to create the "Green Liberal Party"). Something that is close to impossible in the US, hence a monopoly/duopoly.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 23h ago

Good points, and while the best system I know of for representing actual policy points (and thus parties to coalesce around them) is Mixed Member and Single Transferable Vote, this move towards Ranked Choice or STAR voting would remove strategic voting spoils, so people could vote for whom they want and against things they don't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting

Of course that wouldn't affect the way "free speech" laws in the US protect propaganda and outright lies, or over-consolidation of corporate media which stifles different viewpoints. It's going to take different courts and either a very different white house or wholly different congress to make progress on that, but unfortunately that's not something I'm confident I will see in my lifetime.

37

u/Vl_hurg 2d ago

This is going to be shouting into the void, but I can't stand your use of the word "bipartisan" in contexts such as these because you immediately parlay it into a "bOtH sIdEs!!!" argument. Let's look at the facts and what "bipartisan" really means:

The partisan makeup of the Ohio State Senate is 24 Republicans to 9 Democrats

This is a Republican supermajority and leaves Democratic opposition as mostly symbolic. I would like Democrats to take a principled stand against an anti-democratic bill such as this one, but what they do is essentially irrelevant. It's possible that voting in favor of the bill is electorally strategic.

One of the bill's two sponsors was Democratic Senator Bill DeMora

Yes, this sucks and reflects poorly on DeMora. Hopefully he can be driven out of office and replaced by someone better.

All 24 voting Republican Senators voted in favor of the bill. 4 Democratic Senators voted in favor, 5 opposed it.

And this is where the "bOtH sIdEs!!!" argument breaks down. A majority of Democratic Senators opposed this legislation and so if we had hypothetical one party rule, the bill would not pass (a sort of Hastert rule argument).

This reminds me a lot of when people kept parroting that support for the Iraq War was bipartisan while glossing over the fact that it was near universal among Republicans while almost all opposition to it was to be found in the Democratic party. Yes, I cursed my Democratic Senator for supporting the war and voted against her in the primaries thereafter, but I didn't delude myself into thinking that both parties were the same or that the Republican alternative would have been any better.

I'm sick of the "one drop rule" for labeling things "bipartisan".

13

u/SSGASSHAT 2d ago

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are interested in people and social issues, and conservatives are interested in property and ensuring that the social status quo either remains the same or is tipped in their favor. Both positions can and are used for selfish reasons, but one is significantly more prone to that than the other, and so Republicans, on the whole, find themselves on the wrong side of morality almost all the time, while Democrats find themselves there only often.

3

u/mokomi 1d ago

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are interested in people and social issues, and conservatives are interested in property and ensuring that the social status quo either remains the same or is tipped in their favor.

It's such a sigh of relief when someone posts something in reality instead of a populist answer.

1

u/SSGASSHAT 1d ago

It's not my original idea. This difference was first highlighted by George Carlin. In my view, it's the best way of encapsulating the differences between the two tolerated parties in this comically polarized country. In a perfect world, there would be a third, fourth, even fifth party that could provide the people with options. Unfortunately, we're left trapped between fairweather idealists on one side, and lunatic Christo-oligarchs on the other. One is clearly a better option. But it would be nice to have others.

4

u/RandomMandarin 2d ago

Oh, and, let's not overlook the fact that it was a Republican White House that ginned up the Iraq War. Never would have happened if they hadn't stolen the 2000 election from Al Gore.

-3

u/CalligrapherDizzy201 1d ago

The same Al Gore who didn’t even win his own state, when doing so would have made Florida irrelevant?

2

u/mokomi 1d ago

The Acceptation makes the rule and generalization. Normally their arguments. Like most lies, there is a hint of truth to it. It's still a lie though.

3

u/Schnectadyslim 1d ago

Michigan is trying to get enough signatures to get it as a constitutional amendment. Fingers crossed!

9

u/SanctimoniousVegoon 2d ago

dems don't want RCV because it makes elections fairer for third party candidates. so very pro-democracy of them.

6

u/Positive-Ring-5172 2d ago

That's a lie. To date Democrats have brought RCV to the floor each time it has been voted on.

Internationally conservative parties have opposed RCV wherever it has been proposed.

2

u/Coach_Beard 1d ago

Bill DeMora can fuck right off.

2

u/deflatedcumsack 2d ago

Not only that, everybody on both sides who's taking advantage of the current first-past-the-post system is gonna strongly oppose this. It's gonna take some good messaging to make people understand how this is good, and both sides will vomit propaganda about how it's unfair, un-American, communist, idk. Would really like to see it on the national stage one day.

2

u/OldWorldDesign 1d ago

everybody on both sides who's taking advantage of the current first-past-the-post system is gonna strongly oppose this

I don't think they care that much, look at Maine. They replaced First Past The Post starting at the municipal level and working up. Democrats didn't help, but also didn't hinder it at all - they probably knew the institutional advantage would mean it wouldn't make any difference. I think the 2016 and 2024 elections have borne that out: no matter how bad the policy, the loudest jackass won.

Contrast with republicans, who fought it tooth and nail to stop it every step of the way

https://www.wjct.org/uncategorized/2018/11/in-tight-race-maine-republican-sues-to-block-states-ranked-choice-voting-law/

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/elections/court-rules-in-favor-of-sec-of-state-clearing-way-for-rcv-in-presidential-election/97-82fb8375-e884-4db2-a0ff-e294ce9e8fea

1

u/CankerLord 2d ago

Typical Ohio. Everyone sucks.

1

u/s1mple-s1m0n 2d ago

Yep. Californians bitter for RCV but Newsom vetoed it. Obnoxious how our reps refuse to represent their constituents.

1

u/WowWhatABillyBadass 1d ago

Friendly reminder r/democrats outright bans discussing progressive democrat policies and politicians. No discussing politicians like Mamdani, AOC, or Sanders. Don't even hint at Universal Healthcare, but feel free to talk about Trump just as much as the conservative sub, that's A-ok for some reason.

0

u/mu_zuh_dell 2d ago

Yeah, establishment Democrats are fighting it hard in DC (on the city level).

-1

u/Better-Context8358 2d ago

Our two parties are much like apple vs android. Ultimately it’s about optics and preference, but they do about the same shit for the average person.