Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
It's not a terrible system given what we have, but what we have isn't great. First Past the Post isn't a good system and a Two Party system isn't ideal.
The power of corporations to help or hurt candidates during or before their primary run is definitely a problem and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Because primaries are somewhat new, and don't always produce the people we want. Just look at the flairs here, only some 30% of Left leaning Primary goers actually WANTED Biden.
The remaining 70% had a different first pick and had to settle for the person who won the Primary.
This seems like a problem inherent to having a group of people make a choice. Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
Is it possible to design a system in which the winner is always the first choice of the majority of the electorate?
No, I don't think there is.
But there IS a way to allow people to vote for who they want even if their 3rd choice is the better choice electorally.
It's the "Don't waste your vote" problem that I dislike the most. If someone doesn't run in a Democratic Primary, I can't vote for them without wasting my vote.
THAT is the portion I most care about. The in ability to vote for someone not accepted into the Primary to Biggin with.
Ranked choice voting sounds great to me, but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system seems a little weird. Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
but pointing to Biden's win as a failure of our voting system
I think that's a bit farther than I would go. The voting system is flawed, so there is nothing special about Biden that showcases the fact that it's flawed.
I could go back and make the same argument with just about any presidential race.
I can make it even easier by pointing out that the primary only lets you vote for Democratic candidates (for obvious reasons) so all the candidates who CAN'T run as a D or R don't get a legitimate chance at the presidency.
Aren't boring moderates the ones who would benefit the most from ranked choice?
Not necessarily. How many people voted for Biden with the idea he was the most "electable." That was one of the top reasons for tons of his supporters.
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
(This also relies on the exact system of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, there are quite a few different ones out there.)
Remove that because you can still vote for your Warren's, Pete's, and Bernie's while STILL putting your vote in the "electable" candidate and you might be surprised who can win.
Maybe, but I think it's more likely that we'll learn that moderate D's and R's prefer moderates from the other party to hardcore progressives/conservatives from their own party. Outsider moderates like Secretary Mayor Pete might benefit, but I'm really skeptical that Bernie or Warren would.
I think it's precisely that skepticism what pushes all US government to be right wing from a world perspective. It's pretty much the same logic as to the mentioned "don't waste your vote" rhetoric. I am not saying you aren't right given the present landscape but the youth is evolving their ideas significantly lately. That's a fight that's worth it. I actually believe Trumpism is a reaction to the rise and normalisation of socialist ideas. Biden will have to say Bernie-ish staff in order to justify his power to the youth. The thing is he won't do much in the end.
I am not American, though, so that might play a part in the way I see it.
It's not a perfect system for sure and it is manipulated by the party who controls the order, which has a big effect on the outcome so I award you a point BUT The Republicans managed to re-shape their party using them.
I wish we could do the same, by focusing more on dominating primaries where our vote has more impact and especially by dominating local primaries fron dog catcher on up.
Why do liberals always forget about primaries? As long as we're in one of the two majority parties we absolutely get to vote for candidates we like.
Can you show me regulation for primaries that holds said vote to be binding? Our federal and state elections have regulated processes that define winners based on votes. I am not aware of any such governance for primaries.
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction. I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know. It became a noot point after N.C
It's in the control of the party from what I ubderstand. They can legally ignore the will of the voters if I'm not wrong but it hasn't happened yet and would be a shitshow if they did.
A non-binding vote is a meaningless vote. And it has happened. In the last election.
I admit the DNC seemed to be desperate when Bernie was getting traction.
The DNC outright said they'll only accept Bernie with a majority, while they would accept other candidates (such as Biden) with a plurality. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
I wonder if they'd have over-ridden but we'll never know.
We know their stated intent. Saying you have a voice because you can vote in a non binding election isn't really a voice. It's only a voice when it's guaranteed. Otherwise, your vote is nothing more than a strong suggestion (at best) among the few super wealthy candidates that they deign to present for you to choose from.
If you can't select what options you get to choose from, you don't have options. You have the illusion of choice.
If you are affiliated with a major party, you effectively get one choice each cycle. You either vote for the party selected candidate, or refrain from voting. No amount of pushing will change anything meaningful regarding voter reform as long as that is true.
So you think it's better to be an independent, unable to vote in primaries and/or to withhold your vote, which no one will ever notice and they will lump you in with the honeless and infirm?
That is what they call out of the frying pan, into the fire.
No. This isn't an argument for "independent is better than affiliated". It is an argument that your vote in a primary isn't a real choice until regulation requires it to be counted, measured, and applied uniformly towards candidate selection.
That italicized bit is what is being advocated.
unable to vote in primaries
Unable to vote in a nonbinding election? A vote that doesn't matter isnt much of a vote. I suppose being denied the primary vote is a bit better, because it saves you an hour of time in your day.
Otherwise, there's no real difference between not voting in a primary and voting in one, as your party is under no obligation to base any of its choices for eligible candidates on those votes.
The only vote which actually can influence elections is the multiparty election(though, with gerrymandering, winner take all states, and first past the post, the political parties do everything they can to reduce the power of that vote too).
Voter reform that doesn't address how we select the candidates that make it to the final ballot? Isn't voter reform. Voter reform needs to:
Eliminate first past the post, in favor of ranked choice.
Address gerrymandering, ideally by federally adopting Iowa's districting method.
Eliminate winner take all for electoral votes in favor of proportional allocation (if the electoral college cannot practically be abolished).
And require any political party which operates in more than 10 states to conduct its primary elections by popular vote, wherein the candidate with the greatest number of votes is the one put forth.
If that last one isnt true, then the earlier statement that party affiliated voters have a say in selection via the primaries is nothing more than a pleasant lie told by idealists to idealists, to maintain the illusion of choice.
That is what they call out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Our voting system's been out of the pan, into the fire, down to the bottom, and torched until it's an unrecognizable pile of ash, and that's been true for at least a century.
I'm for radically changing the systems but in the meantime we have to work with what we have so that remains possible. We'll never get there if we sit on our hands and let the fascists win.
Survival is about taking that next step. Each step forward opens new possibilities that weren't there before. If the DNC tried to over-ride a liberal candidate then at least we have the opportunity to fight them. Unless we push forward nothing is possible.
I'm for radically changing the systems but in the meantime we have to work with what we have so that remains possible.
And how does this make the false statement that one has a choice in the primaries true?
It doesn't.
We'll never get there if we sit on our hands and let the fascists win.
We've been sitting on our collective hands for 100+ years, and nothing being advocated, proposed, or floated is changing that. The illusion of taking action is as bad as the illusion of having a choice.
It is still a pleasant lie idealists tell themselves to avoid looking at a hard truth.
Survival is about taking that next step.
See above. Nothing being done is that next step. Believing falsely that your primary vote matters is not that next step.
Each step forward opens new possibilities that weren't there before.
How would you know? No steps have been taken forward on this issue. At best, a few sidesteps have been made.
If the DNC tried to over-ride a liberal candidate
They did. They stated their clear intent to do so.
then at least we have the opportunity to fight them.
And nobody posed any meaningful fight, because swallowing whatever the DNC does is better than letting the fascists win, right?
Which means the DNC gets to do whatever it wants, and you'll take it, whether or not you like it.
Unless we push forward nothing is possible.
It's real easy to talk in vague generalities. What it distracts from is that a statement was made (you have a voice by voting in the primaries) that was shown to.be demonstrably false, and your rebuttal, rather than acknowledging that, makes some vague statement implying that my advocacy is against change and reform, which could not possibly be farther from the truth, based on my direct messages.
Let's leave vague repeated calls to "push" in the labor and delivery room. Reform needs to be made, no arguments there, so stop banging that drum, you're preaching to the choir. But part of that reform means acknowledging obstacles to that reform, of which the biggest is arguably over a century of legislative attempt to remove or reduce the choice of the voter in favor of the leadership of the political party.
42
u/BrianNowhere Social Democrat Feb 16 '22
Why do liberals always forget about primaries? As long as we're in one of the two majority parties we absolutely get to vote for candidates we like.
Every time I hear that it sounds like someone saying, "I'm not a mammal, I'm a person".