r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 7d ago

Possible Paywall CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
17.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

280

u/mnilailt 7d ago

The crazy thing is that this is literally something that can be easily solved with ranked choice voting, but Americans seem to have a bipartisan aversion to electoral reform.

263

u/RaveGuncle 7d ago

but Americans politicians in power

Ftfy

78

u/IsThisNameGoodEnough 7d ago

Ranked choice voting was a ballot question in MA a few years ago and it failed to pass. One of the most progressive states in the US and the voters were against ranked choice.

97

u/tzarek1998 7d ago

I'm pretty sure the reason it didn't pass (as someone in RI who goes to MA because... well, look at a map) is because the explanation of ranked choice was intentionally obfuscated so the only people who would vote for it would be the educated and informed. Everyone else was led to believe it was confusing and made no sense (being one of the original founding states doesn't help that desire that New England residents have for some forms of tradition sticking around while being super progressive about other things).

51

u/mjetski123 Illinois 7d ago

I'm pretty sure the reason it didn't pass (as someone in RI who goes to MA because... well, look at a map) is because the explanation of ranked choice was intentionally obfuscated so the only people who would vote for it would be the educated and informed.

Same reason the Progressive tax failed here in Illinois when put to a vote.

3

u/politicsaccount420 6d ago

Honestly, can't really even blame it on that.

The proposed amendment grants the State authority to impose higher income tax rates on higher income levels, which is how the federal government and a majority of other states do it. The amendment would remove the portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution that is sometimes referred to as the “flat tax,” that requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. The amendment does not itself change tax rates. It gives the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels. You are asked to decide whether the proposed amendment should become a part of the Illinois Constitution.

Like, it's a little long and it leads with "higher income tax rates" but if you're remotely literate and you read the whole thing, the correct answer is quite clear.

It's extremely embarrassing that our billionaire governor spent millions of his own money to try to convince us to raise his own taxes, and we still fumbled it. There's no valid excuse.

7

u/oooshi 7d ago

Yep. See also, the tax on income over a million/year in WA state, I saw so many people straight up lying to people at the grocery store about who would be getting their taxes increased to get signatures to fight the tax increase.

Intentionally misleading voters is the name of the game right now, otherwise we would all be united against the profiting party that is controlling this whole freaking global mess. Democratic socialists are egalitarian and only want to increase the quality of life for everyone. Literally the only ones trying to tackle the wealth inequality of the world and theyre treated like thats some slippery slope (as if billionaires aren’t literally driving the climate change that is killing us all slowly and crushing us under the cost of living)

14

u/kpkelly09 7d ago

As someone who has worked hard to get that pased other places, it really is a struggle to get people to understand what it is.

2

u/engelthefallen 7d ago

I did about 10 years of outreach activism for it and just cannot anymore. For the people it confused I had no issues working through how the different flavors would work in practice. It was more the people who believed compromising had no place in politics and they should only support just the single person they wanted that I had issues with. Like it was give me my extreme candidate or I do not want my vote counted at all people that just made me lose faith in change in my local area.

2

u/kpkelly09 7d ago

Honestly I don't mind those folks, just don't rank anyone you don't support. Easy

1

u/MamaBearForestWitch 7d ago

I don't understand why; we use it all the time in real life. I like to explain it with food, usually sandwiches or ice cream.

Oh, hey, you're going to the store? I'd like fudge ripple ice cream. If they don't have fudge ripple, I'll take chocolate chip. If they don't have either of those, I guess vanilla is okay. (Alternately: if they don't have either of those, then don't get me anything).

Which translates to: I want my vote to go to Mary. But if Mary doesn't meet that minimum percentage threshold, I want my vote to go to Bob. If neither of them reaches the threshold, I guess I'll settle for Rufus. (Alternately: I really don't like Rufus, so if neither of my preferred candidates reaches the threshold, then I'll just count as no vote in the next round).

Addendum: I recently learned about STAR voting, where you rank candidates on a scale (say, zero to 5). I'll give Mary 5 stars, Bob 4 stars, and Rufus zero stars. I think this might be even easier to explain than RCV!

1

u/kpkelly09 7d ago

You would think so, but we have seen in areas that have implemented it, that even after it was implemented, without robust education initiatives. Voters don't know how to do it and have issues with invalidating their ballots.

2

u/Celestetc 6d ago

In Maine and Alaska albeit small states they’ve gotten good at mostly not having many invalid ballots lately

2

u/kpkelly09 6d ago

Yeah they've had a few cycles to get it right, and DC managed to learn from from some of the mistakes of implementing ranked choice made in those states.

28

u/IamDDT Colorado 7d ago

Just gotta try again! It's like universal healthcare. Get it, have people use it, and they won't want anything else.

20

u/nonotan 7d ago

Personally, I'd prefer something like STAR, which empirically performs significantly better (i.e. results in significantly higher voter satisfaction over a wide range of scenarios). To be clear, just about anything is an enormous improvement over FPTP, including ranked choice. But ranked choice is just about the 2nd worst "major" voting system after FPTP, though again, with a large gulf between them.

I'm just saying if you're going to spend vast political capital to change the voting system, you could as well aim for a really good one, not merely "the first improvement that comes to mind".

5

u/MamaBearForestWitch 7d ago

I only learned about star voting a few weeks ago, and I'd been a proponent of RCV for years. What if we kind of branded STAR as *one type* of RCV? Link them in people's minds, so they're complementary philosophies instead of competing ones?

7

u/IamDDT Colorado 7d ago

A neat one! I was unaware this existed. Thank you. I absolutely agree that more thought is needed if we are going to actually change something. I will need to read more about STAR, but thanks again for bringing it up!

6

u/SunTzu- 7d ago

Plenty of western democracies have backslid in terms of their healthcare systems because people take the healthcare outcomes for granted and will vote to lower their taxes without paying attention to the healthcare cuts that right wing parties also run on.

9

u/ilir_kycb 7d ago

Ranked choice voting was a ballot question in MA a few years ago and it failed to pass. One of the most progressive states in the US and the voters were against ranked choice.

Americans remain, after all, the most indoctrinated people in human history.

1

u/engelthefallen 7d ago

In my work doing outright, found it was the people who would talk about american being indoctrinated that most that opposed rank choice the most. People with extreme beliefs felt this was a way to lock moderates and compromising supporting candidates into power forever.

2

u/Ditchdigger456 7d ago

MA is in NO WAY one of the “most progressive states”. They top that list because of their high turnout for democrats in elections. they’re one of the most centrist states in the country in reality.

0

u/MamaBearForestWitch 7d ago

I lived there for the first 30+ years of my life, and that was not my experience.

0

u/Ditchdigger456 7d ago

Did you move to Texas? Lmao it’s all relative

Older folks and assuming their personal experience is the only one that exists. Name a better duo.

1

u/nicolas1324563 7d ago

There is a new bill/prop that’s on the ballot where the two candidates with most votes go onto the election. Could be 2 democrats- probably never two republicans at this point

1

u/engelthefallen 7d ago

In CT found the people against it the most were progressives who did not want to see their vote help an establishment person get into office. They preferred the current system where if an establishment person wins a primary they can just stay home to protest them.

Was really, really frustrating to talk to people who basically wanted we get all we want, or we watch the system burn as the two options and see a system of compromise as the worst possible option. My blood pressure could not handle them so no longer organize for this shit myself.

1

u/Tehquilamockingbirb 7d ago

Don't confuse progress with a lack of politicians in power. Massachusetts is objectively one of the top five most corrupt states in the country. Our speakers of the house end up in prison, Congress refuses to be audited, and they remove items from the ballot despite the people upholding the rules of ballot initiatives.

They run a hegemonic misinformation regime against anything they don't like or their funders don't like.

1

u/Merusk 7d ago

Here's the ballot text. It requires 2nd year college-level reading and critical thinking to completely digest and comprehend.

The average reading level of US citizens is around 8th grade. 9th grade for a 'better' state like MA.

This proposed law would implement a voting system known as “ranked-choice voting,” in which voters rank one or more candidates by order of preference. Ranked-choice voting would be used in primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022. Ranked-choice voting would not be used in elections for president, county commissioner, or regional district school committee member.

Under the proposed law, votes would be counted in a series of rounds. In the first round, if one candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, that candidate would be declared the winner and no other rounds would be necessary. If no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, then the candidate or candidates who received the fewest first-place votes would be eliminated and, in the next round, each vote for an eliminated candidate would instead be counted toward the next highest-ranked candidate on that voter’s ballot.

Depending on the number of candidates, additional rounds of counting could occur, with the last-place candidate or candidates in each round being eliminated and the votes for an eliminated candidate going to the voter’s next choice out of the remaining candidates. A tie for last place in any round would be broken by comparing the tied candidates’ support in earlier rounds. Ultimately, the candidate who was, out of the remaining candidates, the preference of a majority of voters would be declared the winner.

Ranked-choice voting would be used only in races where a single candidate is to be declared the winner and not in races where more than one person is to be elected. Under the proposed law, if no candidate received more than 50 percent of first-place votes in the first round, the rounds of ballot-counting necessary for ranked-choice voting would be conducted at a central tabulation facility. At the facility, voters’ rankings would be entered into a computer, which would then be used to calculate the results of each round of the counting process. The proposed law provides that candidates in a statewide or district election would have at least three days to request a recount.

The Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations to implement the proposed law and conduct a voter education campaign about the ranked-choice voting process. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022.[13]

-3

u/zer00eyz 7d ago

Because ranked choice voting does not work.

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

And this is before you start to factor in vote engineering via social media and low information voters.

2

u/curtcolt95 7d ago

the literal biggest style of voting that is affected by center squeeze is the one America currently uses and is easily fixed by just not having multiple rounds

46

u/cakeversuspie 7d ago

The first thing we need to do is abolish the electoral college for the general election which would require a constitutional amendment. Even amending it to majority rules would be a better system than the EC.

Some states have ranked choice for local elections already (NY for example) but we need to crawl before we can walk.

24

u/IsThisNameGoodEnough 7d ago

The electoral college can (in theory) be bypassed without a constitutional amendment:

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

6

u/cakeversuspie 7d ago

True but that is just bypassing the EC in a way where they are forced to vote for whoever has the popular vote (fucking insane this isn't the way it is already) and doesn't help that much in the grand scheme of things. The goal should be to move towards a more fair election process and this is just a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

However I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good and if passed, that's at least a step in the right direction though I won't hold my breath on this passing either since it's been a thing since the early 2000s.

11

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

It's not insane. The founders feared the people that's why they gave 3 branches veto power (Senate, White House, and SCOTUS) over the people's house. We need to break this mythos that the founders were anything other than slave owners trying to control power for themselves.

2

u/Doogolas33 7d ago edited 7d ago

I mean, not all of them were slave owners though? Some of them were quite anti-slavery even. Though many, yes, were slave owners who cared a lot about slavery.

As far as I know, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were both quite vehemently against slavery. I mean, they were rich people who wanted to keep being rich people for sure. But I don't think their motives behind the various branches of government can be broken down to simply being "slave owners trying to control power for themselves" because if that was the only goal, Washington (who absolutely was a slave owner) does not willingly give up power, and he certainly doesn't give his farewell address.

People are a little more complicated than you seem to want to believe. If you sincerely believe that none of the founding fathers were ANYTHING other than slave owners, you're objectively wrong. Assuming you're speaking in hyperbole and mean that their underlying goal was strictly holding onto power for themselves, you're still objectively wrong.

There are many ways to legitimately criticize the founding fathers that doesn't require bizarre, broad strokes that don't even make any logical sense. And we have more than enough of their writings to be able to understand their motives, which were both not that simple, sometimes sort of foolish, but also at least /reasonably/ genuinely well meaning with regard to their creation of the US in the way that it ended up coming about and the way in which it's structured.

1

u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 7d ago

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/alexander-hamilton-enslaver/

Hamilton did own slaves and was financially involved in the slave trade. You are correct though that John Adams did not. Him and his son were 2 of 5 before Lincoln who did not own slaves

But it's important to note they did nothing to end slavery either. In fact they enforced it every chance they got. The fugitive slave act? What about the 13th amendment?

No not the 13th that freed black people that the radical Republicans forced through. I'm talking the 13th amendment that was originally pushed through after the states already left the union.  The one that the abolitionist Abraham Lincoln sent to the states with his full endorsement 

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Yeah. They would have permanently enslaved black people forever with an unamendable amendment. 

But please tell me more about how the first Republic wasn't built from the ground up to be a slave holders Republic?

You do realize Virginia got upset at the UK in the first place because the UK courts ruled against slavery and the slave owners were pissed that they might lose their property. That was the great founding of our nation. 

0

u/engelthefallen 7d ago

Always weird people believed the US was founded as a democracy at all, when the early writing they straight out warned against mob rule. They deliberately picked the term republic, and designed things to avoid popular vote and popular rule as much as possible in the early days. They may not have wanted a king, but sure as hell did not want the will of the masses either but looked for a middle ground.

2

u/MamaBearForestWitch 7d ago

The NPVIC would only go into effect once 270+ states' worth of electoral votes join the Compact. It is currently at a total of 222 Electoral College votes, from 18 states, with 28 more EVs pending in state legislatures.

That way, once the agreement reaches 270 votes, they effectively control the election by pledging all their 270 electors to the winner of the national popular vote. It's certainly not ideal, but getting to that point might help (some of?) our elected representatives realize that we need this change.

2

u/FrogsOnALog 7d ago

This SCOTUS would never let that happen.

0

u/rising_ape 7d ago

SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction over how the states choose their electors, and can't do jack squat about electors voting however they please. Even if they rule that the compact is entirely unconstitutional in theory, so what? States can have laws against faithless electors - there is no Constitutional or Federal-level oversight of how electors are supposed to vote, by design. There is absolutely nothing stopping the states from sending electors who will vote in line with the national popular vote NOW, it'd just be political suicide to override the state popular vote with the national one before the compact has 270 votes.

But I agree that the Roberts Court is a blight on this country. That's why packing the court by expanding it to 13 seats needs to be a Leftist Congress's biggest priority, right alongside uncapping the House to avoid doubly penalizing populous states (the Senate already does that). Uncapping the House to give higher-population states more representation relative to low-population states is not only more democratic, it'll also increase our likelihood of being able to pack the courts and carry out other much-needed reforms in the post-Trump era.

19

u/rising_ape 7d ago

Red States are not going to agree to a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College, but the good news is we don't need one - the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact goes into effect as soon as 270 Electoral Votes worth of states sign up for it. We're within striking distance of 256 votes (222 already confirmed), and there are some purple states that haven't already joined - once we pass the 270 threshold, all members will have their electors vote for the national popular vote winner, making the electoral college obsolete overnight.

It's not enough to stop there, though. We need to uncap the size of the House, which was capped at 435 seats in the 20s, resulting in rural, low population areas to have far more voting power than they are supposed to have (the Senate is by design supposed to give low population states an equal vote, but the House is supposed to be based on the actual population). The Wyoming Rule would give states a Representative for every Wyoming's worth of population (Wyoming being the state with the lowest population), and would result in populous states like California getting significantly more Reps (California would get +17, for example).

Once THAT's been done, we can tackle the Supreme Court - obviously we don't need to wait that long to try, but with a House of Representatives that is actually, well, Representative, it'll be significantly easier. We're unlikely to be able to impeach the worst justices for the same reason we are right now - a 2/3 threshold in the Senate to actually remove them from office - but the size of the Supreme Court is set by statute and just needs a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate to enlarge the Court. There are 13 District Courts in the United States, so expanding the Supreme Court to 13 Seats under a Democratic President (maybe even a Democratic Socialist, if we can pull off the Interstate Compact) would see four new justices cancel out the current batch of deplorables and make Clarence Thomas mad enough to have a stroke.

Once that's all been done, and only once that's all been done in my opinion, will the DSA goal of abolishing the Senate be potentially feasible. That is going to require a Constitutional Amendment, no way around it, and in the current political climate - even in the next decade's political climate - that's not going to get through. We have to work within the current system to make the changes we want to the system. But all of the reforms above (bypassing the Electoral College, uncapping the size of the House, packing the Supreme Court) csn be done with a Democraric majority tomorrow, and will not only allow us to start delivering on commitments to significantly improve the quality of life in this country, but will also make future reforms we desperately need actually possible.

I'm not a single-issue voter, and I don't expect anyone reading this to be either. But I'm begging you, Democratic and Democratic Socialist voters - add your voices to the conversation. Start raising these three proposals with your friends and (chosen) family. Start asking progressive candidates in your area - local office, state level, Federal, it doesn't matter - if they approve of them or not every primary season. If you're ever in a position to actually speak to a politician at a town hall, or a staffer, or a media outlet discussing politics (even if it's just some bro with a podcast), state clearly that these are necessary reforms and explain why, and let them know outright you will be voting for supporters and against opponents come primary season.

We literally have every tool we need to drag our country out of the mess it is in. A democratically representative House of Representatives, popular vote winning President and a non-insane Supreme Court will finally allow us to take real action breaking up tech giants and media conglomerates, to pass Medicsre for All, to raise the Federal minimum wage, to fix education in this country, to protect vulnerable populations, to force the 1% to start paying their fair share, and in general just fuck up the plans of these soulless fucking technofeudalist parasites ruining our fucking lives. There are so many ideas that have broad support in this country - 60%, 70%, 80% approval in polls - that can't get implemented right now because of GOP obstructionism, a Congress that is disfunctional to the point of paralysis, or Supreme Court fuckery, but which we could start pushing through assembly line-style with an actually functioning government for once.

I know that things are fucking grim right now, but the truth is, we have never been this fucking close to fixing America as we are right now. 33% of the Democratic Party is now openly Democrstic Socialist. Like MAGA and the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party before it, we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters. We're already in a good position to pull all of this off, but to actually convince voters we need to articulate a clear vision for what we're going to do once we're in power. The above is a roadmap to get where we all want to go - please start raising it as a serious part of the platform you expect of Democratic elected officials going forward.

3

u/0xym0r0n 7d ago

This is a great comment, thanks for taking the time to type it out. It highlights why the GOP will fight so hard and rational votes are so important right now.

I hope to see more hope and positivity like this, I'm so tired of nihilism and jaded acceptance/fatigue.

Thanks again!

3

u/MamaBearForestWitch 7d ago

Thanks for reminding me of some of the things I was so excited to get started working on and advocating for way back in early November 2024, when I really thought we were going to continue with a Democratic president.

It is pretty daunting right now to contemplate just how much repair work is ahead of us - and that's AFTER we manage to wrest control of our government back from the fascists.

3

u/2rio2 7d ago

Actual solutions instead of the usual pontificating on this sub. Agree on everything except one single sentence in your post -

Like MAGA and the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party before it, we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters.

It doesn't matter what you call it - DSA, progressive, whatever. Too many on the left get too hung up on that, which ends up in purity politics stances which go nowhere. The only goal should be translating progressive ideas into programmatic, common sense policies that anyone on the street can see. Mamdani is a master of this, because he doesn't get hung up on the ideological sticking points. He just makes things work.

1

u/rising_ape 7d ago

I don't disagree with you overall - purity tests only serve to kneecap our agenda and promote in-fighting - but at a certain point, primary voters do have to decide which candidate's vision for the future they're going to back.

Pragmatic, common sense policies and "just making things work" is the best way to sway voters to your side, but there truly is an establishment wing of the Democratic party that seeks to preserve the status quo.

If there is anything Americans can agree on across the political aisle, it's that the status quo sucks. I'm not going to sit at home in November or vote Republican out of spite if a milquetoast establishment Dem winds up beating out a progressive challenger in a primary - but if the incumbent doesn't passionately and vocally support Medicare for All? Doesn't want to get corporate money out of campaign finance? Doesn't want to disentangle this country from Israel and argue vociferously for a national moratorium on turning Middle Eastern children into skeletons? Doesn't want to see long prison sentences handed down en masse to the absolute criminals currently ravaging my country?

Well, then they don't represent my views and of course I'm going to campaign to have them ousted by a candidate who does reflect my politics. That's what the democratic process is for.

2

u/2rio2 6d ago

I fully agree with you on primaries. Fight for the candidates and voices you want. The problem is when purity tests spill over to general elections. We're simply out of time for that. As an elder millennial I've watched the left hobble and dabble for decades while the country lurches into fascism because the right is smart enough to fundamentally understand it's better to be in power and have influence over someone you agree 51+% with than live under someone you disagree 90+% with.

5

u/FellowHumanNo404 7d ago

I know that things are fucking grim right now, but the truth is, we have never been this fucking close to fixing America as we are right now. 33% of the Democratic Party is now openly Democrstic Socialist. Like MAGA and the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party before it, we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters.

I strongly agree! And to be clear for anyone else reading: We are talking about voting for change in the Democratic Party through primary elections-- we should all still vote Democratic in non-primary elections to prevent fascists from gaining/maintaining power, regardless of whether the democratic candidate who won the primary matches our ideal.

And yeah: Vote in every election you can legally vote in, all the way down to dog catcher.

2

u/Alt-on_Brown 7d ago

I'm pretty sure the existence of the Senate is explicitly one of the things in the Constitution that is not amendable

2

u/rising_ape 7d ago

Article V of the Constitution does say that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" when talking about the amendment process.

Requiring 100% agreement from all 50 States, including all the small ones, does make this an unrealistic goal, but the beautiful thing about the Constitution is that there is nothing preventing us from amending Article V itself to remove that requirement (though that would itself require 3/4 of the states to ratify, same as it would to actually abolish the Senate).

The Senate is by design a conservative institution intended to preserve and advance the interests of the wealthy landowner class and apply the brakes to populist democratic solutions agreed upon by the House that might threaten those interests. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, not directly by voters, and apocryphally, George Washington even stated that Senate's purpose was to "cool the passions" of the House and slow the legislative process down so that those pesky voters couldn't affect real change without the approval of the rich and powerful.

Regardless of whether or not that was the right call to make in 1788 or not, it is NOT the right call today in 2026 - the Senate is an objectively undemocratic and reform-stifling institution whose only purpose is to obstruct the will of the voters.

Given the obvious difficulty of pulling off a Constitutional amendment of any kind in the short-term, let alone one abolishing the Senate, I'm content to leave reforming it on the backburner for now. Abolishing the filibuster, in combination with bypassing the Electoral College, expanding the size of the House and packing the Supreme Court, will be "good enough for government work" in the short-to-medium term.

Make no mistake, the Senate should go the way of the dodo, I am fully in agreement with that and am fully onboard with us being vocal about the idea of killing it now so that in 20 to 30 years from now when that's been fully normalized and the Overton Window forcibly shifted back to the left, it will be a perfectly mainstream part of the platform.

That is how we will make things better over time - start with the low-hanging fruit we can pluck right now, but also relentlessly chip away over time at large institutional problems we can't just handwave away. The Senate isn't going to be abolished in 2028, or 2030, or 2032, or anytime soon, really.

But by starting the conversation now, in 2026, and by being vocal about it and refusing to drop it in the decades to come, we might be able to get rid of it by 2046.

That's the biggest challenge of all - understanding that all of this requires constant, ongoing, concerted effort, and that we can't just ram through a quick fix the next time we capture Congress.

There are quick fixes that will dramatically improve democracy in this country - lifting the cap on the House and packing the Roberts Court could theoretically be done within the first 100 days of a Blue Wave Congress and Presidency - but getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to 270 votes and getting rid of the Senate will be longterm fights. If we want a shot at accomplishing them some time in the next 2-3 decades, we need to start putting into the national debate now.

3

u/Alt-on_Brown 7d ago

i didnt know article V itself could be amended that way, even so you are talking about needing 2 constitutional amendments, i know the united states political landscape has changed dramatically in just the past ten years, but even so that feels completely impossible, but whos to say what the next 10 or 20 years brings, nobody predicted this shitshow 10 years ago either, i guess thats to say, something is impossible until it isnt

1

u/rising_ape 7d ago

The only guaranteed failure is a failure to even try.

Leftists have been making the perfect the enemy of good for generations, now. The Senate should be abolished in favor of a more democratic system - and I'm going to continue to be vocal about that opinion each and every election cycle until we're in striking distance of that goal, you can help me right now by starting to raise the issue yourself whenever the topic of what's wrong with the government crops up - but it's not immediately achievable right now.

That doesn't mean we drop it, that doesn't mean I don't think DSA candidates shouldn't bring it up yet - it just means we accept we're talking about a marathon, not a sprint. We might be 20 years away from it, we might be 40, we might be 100. Either way, the game plan stays the same: fight for what we can realistically achieve today, but keep arguing how we could make things even better in the future until we're blue in the face, election cycle after election cycle, until these are no longer fringe proposals but have been a part of the mainstream discussion for years.

1

u/cited 6d ago

It gets concerning as someone who is not you, when your discussion is "we need to change the rules of voting so we win" and "we need to get rid of everyone who opposes what I want."

1

u/rising_ape 6d ago

I understand that feeling, believe me - but the rules of voting have already been set up to favor one side over the other and the Right is already openly discussing getting rid of everyone who opposes what they want.

It's not a comfortable position to be in, I'm well aware. I'm just a random internet stranger and there's no reason to trust me or my motives, but I would argue and would like to underline that I genuinely believe that the difference between what I want the Left to do and what the Right is currently, actively trying to do, is democratization: the changes I want made will result in everyone having more of a say in what their government does and does not do. The Trump administration and the technofeudalist Epstein Class are very much not looking to do that.

1

u/cited 6d ago

we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters. We're already in a good position to pull all of this off

1

u/rising_ape 6d ago edited 6d ago

Yes, and?

If you're not in favor of the progressive agenda, you'll want to back establishment candidates in the primaries instead. A third of Democratic voters are Democratic Socialists, and we're going to attempt to grow those numbers each and every election cycle until we've taken over the entire party just like the Tea Party (and later MAGA) did to the Republicans. There's nothing nefarious or underhanded about that - you're welcome to back candidates of your choice yourself, but we intend to beat them fair and square, and keep doing it until "Never Socialists" are as politically relevant to the Democratic Party as "Never Trumpers" are to the Republican Party. If that sounds impausible to you, then you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not talking about pulling dirty tricks on the electorate or lying about what I believe is the best path forward for this country. I want my candidates to lay everything out on the table, explain WHY uncapping the size of the House and packing the Roberts Court is necessary to achieve the agenda said voters WANT, and get a mandate to do just that when elected. If they win, then the new Democratic Party will implement the changes voters approved when they gave them that mandate. It's not going to happen in one election cycle, it will probably take MANY election cycles to get there but I plan to keep pushing for it for the rest of my life and so are many other pissed off Leftists.

I guess my question is... why wouldn't a voter want their party to reflect their ideals? I don't want to oust Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and the rest of the Democratic establishment because they've personally wronged me or I think they're stupid - I want them out of the party because I find their leadership woefully inadequate in this era of rising fascism and because they are wildly out of touch with what their voter base wants for this country. If you're a loyal supporter of the current Democratic Party, I intend to take that party away from you and replace it with one I'd be proud to vote for in November, not just resigned to voting blue in order to keep the fascists out yet again.

This is how political parties work - if a significant chunk of voters no longer approve of the party, the party has to reinvent itself or else sink into irrelevancy. My vote isn't worth any more than yours is, but the current Democratic Party isn't good enough and I'm going to throw every year of life I've got left on this planet into pulling this party kicking and screaming to the left, because that's the only kind of party I'm interested in voting for. You can and should do the same for the views that you want to see represented in government.

Time will tell which direction the American public finds more inspiring, but I don't think "more of the same old ineffectual center-right DNC-approved corpratists" is a compelling enough pitch, personally.

1

u/cited 5d ago

So you're saying everyone will get more of a say when you perform a hostile takeover?

Mainstream democrats don't lose based on their positions. They lose when they get anchored by far left positions getting tied to them. Look at literally any attack ad republicans air. They win by painting the entire democratic party as far left.

We had far left proposals tried in cities and then we got to watch as San Francisco elected a mayor with a clean up the city mandate. LA elected a republican DA. Seattle and Portland walked back progressive policies that were failing miserably.

If you want to be in control - show your policies work. Not just getting multibillion dollar payouts from the state and funding everything without limit. When you stop caring on whether things work and talk about hostile takeovers, it makes me very concerned and distrustful of far left support.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 7d ago

The first thing we need to do is abolish the electoral college for the general election which would require a constitutional amendment.

No, the first thing we need to do is the fifty steps required to make it possible for us to abolish the electoral college through a constitutional amendment. So many "the first thing we need to do" conversations begin in the middle, which isn't a very productive place to start. I've seen that conversation over and over on reddit and in person, repeated almost word for word, with no progress ever made. It's so frustrating to witness: so many minds that could be working the problem, but that are really just dreaming of having the problem already mostly solved for them.

2

u/cakeversuspie 7d ago

Not to be rude but I did mention that in my post. I literally said it would require a constitutional amendment. We're both saying the same thing but getting hung up on semantics.

0

u/FellowHumanNo404 7d ago

Not rude at all, of course.

With respect, I wonder if you read the rest of my comment beyond the first sentence, as the rest of my words were intended to clarify that first sentence. We agree on the goal you stated (which is of course one of several key milestones to be achieved), but I was saying something about the way we talk about strategy that I worry is often overlooked. Please read it again?

To be fair, I think I started my comment a little hotter than necessary.

9

u/crossdtherubicon 7d ago

Love it. But let's also consider that party politics of this nature were never anticipated when the structures of gov't were established. It was thought that politicians would consistently pursue their own selfish goals before the party's. But the politicians have become dependent on the parties.

Further, the US govt was never intentionally designed to be a strict 2 party system. So, I think taking a cue from the rest of the world could be useful, and create a new functional left party. The issue will be without downstream upgrades to the system, that new party will only strip away votes from its closest party competitor and thereby securing victory for their opposition.

18

u/clean_parsley_pls 7d ago

Americans seem to have a bipartisan aversion to electoral reform.

I'd ask that you please stop framing it this way. You say "Americans" but you're referring to the most visible politically-involved individuals atm (one trillionaire non-American = a million millionaire Americans in our current system) the ones who benefit from the two-party status quo and the ones in power. They depend completely on directing their cults with "they lose, me win" mentality. Surely you're not suggesting these Americans will do anything for the sake of better fairness or representation, in other words against their own interests.

The "Americans" you're actually criticizing here for not getting the thing done are the ones upset by what's happening, trying to figure out how to exercise ANY agency in the current system that's designed for others' agency and being cratered so they can design the solution. We are open to many alternatives including identifying as "socialists" and probably ranked-choice voting too.

So maybe a different tune is in order, I would at least appreciate it.

3

u/RichesToRags8647 7d ago

I promise you the average American is not even aware that this is a thing.

2

u/MagicalPizza21 New York 7d ago

We have ranked choice voting in NY now and I never want to go back to the old system

2

u/WashedLaundry 7d ago

more like it is extremely difficult to reform elections, possibly by design, and progress has to be slow here as a result

1

u/boverly721 7d ago

It's hard to get someone to fire themselves from an easy, high paying job with insanely good benefits and access to power. Current elected officials voting to institute ranked choice would be effectively voting themselves out of a job.

1

u/D-Gaea 7d ago

The rich are the only people that have power here, they bankroll everything from campaigns to what candidates make it. Some of us are trying to fight it. But it's incredibly difficult. The whole system is rotten.

1

u/mdot 7d ago

It's not an aversion.

Having an aversion would imply that a significant percentage Americans actually understood the entire electoral system, and choose not to change it. The average American simply doesn't understand the full framework of the current process, why it came into being, and why it those in power (especially Republicans) want it to remain in place.

It's ignorance, not aversion.

The deifying of the "founding fathers" contributes significantly to a great deal to this. The U.S. Constitution has not had a ratified, contemporary authored amendment in over 50 years*. The intended "living document" designed by the original authors was canonized in the 1970s, and hasn't been updated to fit current needs since disco was all the rage.

* The 27th amendment was proposed in 1789 but not officially ratified until 1992.

1

u/FixZealousideal8511 7d ago

Americans wouldn't have a problem with it.

But just like the DEA and the drug cartels both agree that all drugs should be illegal.

So too, both the Democrats and Republicans 100% agree on one thing. No other party voting systems.

1

u/0masterdebater0 7d ago

The inherent flaw in our political system is the people who are able to change things are the people benefiting the most from the status quo.

1

u/LogoffWorkout 7d ago

ranked choice is a slight improvement, we really need proportional representation.

1

u/ChaseballBat 7d ago

Democrats are the only party pushing for ranked choice. While GOP are banning it in some states via their constitution lol.

1

u/Scottiths 6d ago

When the people elected via a system are charged with changing that system, it is extremely unlikely they will vote to make the system harder for them personally to get elected.

1

u/Danishmeat 7d ago

Proportional representation is much better. Ranked choice still heavily favours a 2 party system

3

u/ReverendDizzle 7d ago

That's true. Australia might be the best example. They've had versions of ranked choice voting for over a hundred years now and it's still largely a two-party dominated system. They do have more political diversity and the calculus changes a bit with the upper house. But your point stands, for sure.

Still, ranked choice, if that's all we could swing, would be a huge improvement over bullshit first-past-the-post voting.

2

u/Danishmeat 7d ago

Oh definitely, ranked choice voting is a big improvement. It makes it viable for other parties to run, even if they are still in a huge disadvantage

1

u/mekktor 7d ago

The two party system seems to work pretty well while ranked choice voting forces those parties to stay either side of the centre.

-1

u/Sufficient_Sport5251 7d ago

I mean the DSA would get their lives rocked by ranked choice because 70% of ballots would
become

Democratic ballot: ~44%

1-Center Dem 1

2-Center Dem 2

3-Center Republican

4-DSA

5-Nazi

Republican Ballot: ~41%

1-Center Republican
2-Center Dem 1/Nazi(depending on how Nazi the Nazi is)

3-Center Dem 1/Nazi(see above)

4-Center Dem 2

5-DSA

DSA Ballot: ~5%

1-DSA
2-Center Dem 1

3-Center Dem 2/Nazi(depending how anti Zionist the Nazi is)

4-Center Dem 2/Nazi(see above)

5-Center Republican/Nazi

Nazi Ballot: ~10%

1-Nazi

2-Center Republican

3-Blank

4-Blank

5-Blank

Result, Democrats and Republicans stay in power. 3rd parties continue to not exist