Democrats Want To Change Their Primary Calendar. It Won’t Be Easy. | FiveThirtyEight
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, ABC News reporter Brittany Shepherd describes the internal debate within the Democratic Party over what a new presidential primary calendar might look like in 2024.
#election #democrats
Website: fivethirtyeight...
Merch: fivethirtyeight...
Twitter: / fivethirtyeight
Facebook: / fivethirtyeight
Podcast: itunes.apple.c...
They should do ranked choice voting nation wide on a single day. Yes it would take some time to count all the votes but that’s OK. It can take a month theirs plenty of time before the main election is up. This would take a lot of heat out of the primary and would be a lot fairer.
Hell yes
This would be a nightmare unless the parties change their rules. If no candidate gets at least like 45% in this nationwide primary, the results won’t matter. No one will have a majority of delegates, and the various delegates will be free to pick whoever they’d like.
@@user-jo1wi8fh5x no, not a nationwide primary-fifty simultaneous primaries.
@@user-jo1wi8fh5x I think their proposal would probably also abolish the system of delegates.
@@user-jo1wi8fh5x rank choice voting means that they always get to someone to more then 50% of the delegates. if they rank choice all the way down to 2 candidates one will have more then the other.
SC first is a dumb idea. Why not have NC first instead? Its a state Dems actually have a shot at winning.
Or Georgia, why even run SC and Georgia before super Tuesday
Because Jamie Harrison is DNC Chair. Surprised he wasn’t brought up in this podcast.
Because President Joe Biden wanted to reward the state that propelled him to the nomination.
Just my two cents. I agree with moving up Nevada. I disagree with putting South Carolina first, and Georgia 4th. I am tired of having both parties controlled by Evangelicals. This will give Evangelicals a clear advantage.
So, here's how I think it should be
1st Nevada
2nd Michigan
3rd New Hampshire
4th Iowa
5th South Carolina
6th Georgia
Washington might be a better option than Iowa. It’s one of the more secular states, so meets that criteria, and would give the progressive wing a state where they really have an advantage.
@@user-jo1wi8fh5x What about Oregon?
Brittany is so great
Why we have this whole lengthy process when we could have just one ranked choice nation wide primary is beyond me
Too many big/mid-size states before super Tuesday make it impossible for candidates without big donors to compete.
This felt like a middle finger to iowa from the dnc…
They mention it during this, but you may recall the faulty caucus technology in Iowa - fairly or otherwise - was perceived as a display of bad optics by the Democratic Party. Bumping IA out of even the top 5 might be retribution.
@@yabbaguy I have to say, as an Iowan myself, It comes off as the dnc taking away one of the only things we are known for, as a petty and spiteful revenge. It just feels especially vindictive, also because we went against the narrative and choose an actually competent candidate in 2020 with Pete Buttigieg or Bernie sanders.
Iowa made it's own bed by having so many issues last primary
Iowa is not reflective of the current Democratic Party. Neither is New Hampshire.
@@ssshar2176No one state really is
I don’t think state diversity is the right measure to use here. We’re talking about a primary, so wouldn’t you want to look at the diversity of Democratic primary voters?
Also, there is something poetic about Black voters in the first state to secede getting first choice in the presidential race.
I get that they want to make the primaries fairer by taking into account minorities but why not a state with a more mixed pool of voters, why from Iowa that is mostly white to South Carolina that is mostly black. It's still the same kind of unfairness, just moved from candidates favored by white voters to candidates favored by black voters... such as Biden. If the President want to return the favor to his friends in SC, then make a 3-state single election day. South Carolina for the black vote, Iowa or New Hampshire for the white vote, and New Mexico for the Hispanic vote.
South Caroline is only about 1/4 black
@@lorenzomarteen9887 is 1/4 of democratic voters voting in the south Carolina presidential primaries, black?
As always, great episode. I wonder if 538 could do a piece on the current SCOTUS, voting rights and “independent legislature”. What would change in the vote counting world?
All the primaries should be on the same day. Then no State has a disproportionate influence.
Discovery by exposure is an important benefit of the primary process. They should break up Super Tuesday to prevent more back room deals and allow time for more of the public to become informed before their primaries.
Maybe if you want to suggest "John Q. Public" or "John Doe" -- at this particular moment -- "Jill or Joe ____" is a somewhat confusing choice. At least given this subject matter. Ya know, since those are the literal first names of the current first couple....
Also, fellas ... It's subtle, but while 'triad' is arguably applicable, 'trio' is a more apt choice.
So, least populist states first....
Change is good!
I have thought about how to fix the primary calendar. I was thinking that it should be broken up into regions, with one state from each region having an election day. In addition, the early states should have the least amount of population, and the latter states should have the most amount of population. Elections would start in January and end in July. Early week there would be an election, and there would be a limit to have many states could be up for grabs each week.
Personally, I think we should avoid a Super Tuesday events, ensure that small states get their voices heard, and be in cheaper states so it gives poor candidates a chance to compete.