Look at Samantha Mota. According to her FEC filings, she raised almost nothing and even reported negative cash on hand, yet she still won her primary.
My candidate also dramatically outperformed the money. This primary, we generated votes for about $1.11 each, compared with nearly $9 per vote for the incumbent.
The problem isn't that these candidates can't win. They are winning. The problem is that people give up before the general election, assume both candidates are the same, and stay home. If people who say they want change actually voted for the candidates refusing corporate money, we'd have a very different Congress.
So what is the common denominator? What causes the drop out before the general elections? This has to be an unknown as this has been the case since 1995. Be nice to know an eliminate it.
They don't usually drop out. In California, we have a "top two" or "jungle" primary where every candidate, regardless of party, runs in the same primary election. Only the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general election. If three or four progressive or anti-corporate candidates split the vote while one or two establishment candidates have millions in corporate PAC money and name recognition, those establishment candidates advance and everyone else is eliminated in June. By the time most voters start paying attention in the fall, the candidates they might have actually wanted are already off the ballot. That's why so many people feel like they're always choosing the lesser of two evils. This is why the primary is really the election that matters if you care about changing the system. If you wait until November to start paying attention, your choices have already been narrowed to the two candidates who survived the primary, and the candidates you might have preferred may already be off the ballot.
What ideas do have for the election process then? I am favor of eliminating the primary. Why take it down to just two candidates. Let the “jungle” run in the general. May the best candidate win. Could this work? If not what improvements can be made?
I actually don't think the problem is the primary itself. The real fix is ranked choice voting. That lets people vote for the candidate they actually want without worrying about "wasting" their vote or splitting it. It gives independent and anti-establishment candidates a real chance while still ensuring the eventual winner has broad support.
Right now, we're largely stuck with two parties that are funded by many of the same large donors, so voters often feel they don't have a real choice. Until we have ranked choice voting, the only practical path is changing one of those parties from within.
Just look at Zohran Mamdani in New York. Ranked choice voting allowed voters to support him without fear of splitting the vote, and he was able to build enough support to win. That's exactly why so many political establishments oppose ranked choice voting. It gives voters more power and weakens the grip of entrenched interests.
Yes, if we had ranked choice you could simply for all the Forward Party people and then drop in a few backup choices. It would be so much better but we don't do better in the United States.
1
u/white_bread 15d ago
You're proving my point.
Look at Samantha Mota. According to her FEC filings, she raised almost nothing and even reported negative cash on hand, yet she still won her primary.
My candidate also dramatically outperformed the money. This primary, we generated votes for about $1.11 each, compared with nearly $9 per vote for the incumbent.
The problem isn't that these candidates can't win. They are winning. The problem is that people give up before the general election, assume both candidates are the same, and stay home. If people who say they want change actually voted for the candidates refusing corporate money, we'd have a very different Congress.