Dean Phillips got right around 20% even with the fact that Biden did a write in. I’m honestly kinda surprised it’s that low. I would have expected there to be more than that considering the write-in.
Not that it matters since the DNC took away New Hampshire’s say in the matter by nullifying their delegates. It is kinda horrifying that a private organization (the DNC) can just decide who has a say in choosing which candidates of the 2 we get to choose between.
The reality is that in any other country a private organization (=a party committee) decides who is the candidate for their party, and therefore who the public can vote for
DNC doesn’t need to even have primaries. The political parties aren’t public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC’s rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I’m assuming you mean might where you put ‘foundy’. I don’t know how that got there but I’m guessing a phone keyboard.
It’s stupid that primaries aren’t all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you’re in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won’t have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
It’s ‘fair’ because you just accept that they’re the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There’s a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It’s very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you’ll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
the USA isn’t really supposed to have political parties like you do now.
Washington and other “founding fathers” argued against a party system, and there are no references to parties in the Constitution or other original documents mandating how elections are conducted.
Dean Phillips got right around 20% even with the fact that Biden did a write in. I’m honestly kinda surprised it’s that low. I would have expected there to be more than that considering the write-in.
Not that it matters since the DNC took away New Hampshire’s say in the matter by nullifying their delegates. It is kinda horrifying that a private organization (the DNC) can just decide who has a say in choosing which candidates of the 2 we get to choose between.
The reality is that in any other country a private organization (=a party committee) decides who is the candidate for their party, and therefore who the public can vote for
DNC doesn’t need to even have primaries. The political parties aren’t public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC’s rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I’m assuming you mean might where you put ‘foundy’. I don’t know how that got there but I’m guessing a phone keyboard.
It’s stupid that primaries aren’t all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
Agree 100%.
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you’re in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won’t have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
The problem here is the state law having any say in an intra-party election. That shouldn’t be a thing.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
It’s ‘fair’ because you just accept that they’re the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There’s a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It’s very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you’ll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
the USA isn’t really supposed to have political parties like you do now.
Washington and other “founding fathers” argued against a party system, and there are no references to parties in the Constitution or other original documents mandating how elections are conducted.