This is based on 43 states being considered “non-negotiable” and “set in stone” while only 7 are considered “swing” states

Also consider I specified “voters”, who are at best only 2/3 of the total population, which leaves out about 100 million extra people

  • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    We managed to “escape” the drama of primary elections this year, but the whole primary campaign trail, where the first 5-10 states decide who the candidate is is also a absolute fucking farce. For the Democrats, half of these states aren’t even going to yield a single democrat elector, but we still let them choose the candidate. South Carolina sealed the deal that we were Riding with Biden. How did they vote in the General? The whole thing is a fucking shell game.

    If you want the process to be democratic, all of these elections should occur simultaneously. And if they don’t, any state which failed to yield electors in the previous two elections should go dead fucking last.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      2020 primaries are needed to be encased and shown to everyone who still hold any delusions about democracy in USA, Bernie was constantly either in the lead or close to it everywhere, Biden wasn’t even really talked about at most i heard “Biden, nah, he’s too old and too rightwing” and then suddenly boom, nearly every other candidate suddenly quits and supports Biden, and the crowd went with pure “vote blue no matter who” extasy.

      • ZWQbpkzl [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Every state Democratic party should be pursue their own national political interest and move their primary date up to be tied with the first. Its absurd that you’d just let your states political interest be moot.

      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        And then you have the “caucuses.” Secret ballots? Naa. How about you go personally stand in a specific corner of a public school gymnasium in front of news cameras (and make it a several hour ordeal instead of punching a box and leaving).

      • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 day ago

        I actually disagree with this. The way it is now is stupid ya but having the primaries be staggered could give the chance for otherwise unknown candidates to gain traction. Since a national campaign is hard to pull off for a small candidate but if they can focus in on 1 state they can actually make an impact and then get national attention by doing well in that single state.

        Now in saying that i dont actually think liberal democracies are a good thing. I prefer a model like China has where you have elections in sequential levels with the lower level reps electing the higher level reps. It allows a more close connection to the people representing you and keeps elections small so that small candidates can make their case easily. And prevents sensationalization the way american elections are. I would combine a system like this with the ability to enact direct democratic actions via ballot measures on specific issues that people are really invested in.

          • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Campaign finance reform is never going to happen in America why would the rich give up their legalized corruption? You wont get that til theres an actual revolution.

          • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Nah cuz its still just too big and too fast. Small candidates need like time to build up momentum to get off the ground. And they cant break thru and get traction in a huge national election at all cuz they dont have the funds to buy ad space and stuff nationally yet. Limiting it to a small area makes it a lot cheaper to compete.

          • IHave69XiBucks@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            I think that still runs into the problem of the first state being like really conservative. I think if ur looking to like change the system as little as possible and improve the primary a bit maybe you could find like a low population state that also leans heavily in your favor typically in the general and start there? That way its a small test run election with your actual base. Or maybe do like city primaries? Like NYC, LA, etc have their own primary elections, party sponsored events where all the candidates get to speak, and then broadcast them nationally. Then do a big national primary a few weeks or months later?

            But tbh i think the main issue is that the primaries atleast for the dems are generally just rigged anyway. Youve got like super delegates, and back door deals to stop any left leaning candidates.