chapotraphouse

13496 readers

924 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

143

Democracy is when only 14% of voters get to decide an entire election and the other 86% are functionally meaningless (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The same outcome could be achieved by holding a run-off election in the case were nobody wins 50% outright.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay that’s a good point actually. Maybe they should just be in order of population from smallest to biggest? That way anyone could win until pretty late in the thing and every state might actually matter

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks 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.