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.

  • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
    7·
    2 days ago

    What?

    The opposite of this is true. Assuming you’re not describing a different thing by the same name - an American speciality - ranked choice allows you to vote for the most extreme option as first choice and if/when they are eliminated, your vote is not wasted but assigned to the next most extreme option. How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      22·
      1 day ago

      How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.

      I think you’ve pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.

      Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it’s likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often “teamed up”, with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.

      I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 day ago

        I mean, what would you suggest instead? Some system where a simple plurality can elect your fringe candidate? We could give the seat to whatever candidate Passes the Post First?

        What you’re describing has nothing to do with the voting system. If your candidate is so far to the fringe that they can’t overcome the gravity of the primary center then they should probably be in their own party. If the voting public wouldn’t rank them above all other weak moderates in the general then that’s a problem with your electorate and election funding rules.

      • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
        1·
        1 day ago

        Sorry, you don’t get how it works or how voters behave at all. This isn’t some hypothetical. This works in dozens of other countries, thousands of other elections. You’re hand-wringing about who people choose to vote for. Letting people vote for their preference is literally the point. Completely eliminating the biggest thing stopping Americans from voting for the person they actually want to vote for.

        America’s biggest problem is that votes don’t transfer. All this rhetoric that everyone has to weigh in behind the “viable” centrist candidate - consistently drifting right - or “it’s a vote for the Republicans”. And the establishment expects you to vote for that person who can win, their policies don’t matter, so long as they have the best chance of beating the other guy. Republicans are doing this too. Potential third party voters are doing this too.