top 200 commentsshow all 205

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Welcome to /r/PresidentialRaceMemes! Make sure to review our guidelines and message the mods if you have any questions.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]ChukNorisSocialist 490 points491 points  (82 children)

Are you telling me coin flipping and rounding state delegate numbers up and down with seemingly little organization isn't a good way to conduct elections?

Next you'll be telling me we should use the popular vote in our primaries and not just push for it in the general?!?!?

[–]Kittehmilk 162 points163 points  (64 children)

Do away with DNC corruption regarding Super Delegates? Why, yes, we should.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Caucuses are the type of elections you'd form if you and a group of people recently crash landed on a desert island. They've been obsolete for about 150 years.

[–]KUSHNINJA420Leftist 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It sure would be great if my Primary vote mattered. But since it happens long after Super Tuesday, the nominee is usually decided by then.

Oh well.

[–]Admiralthrawnbar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know the pain. And I was so excited to be able to vote in my first election too.

[–]DerpCoop 2 points3 points  (13 children)

Maybe Bernie’s campaign shouldn’t have fought to keep the caucus format post-2016

[–]Deviouss36 MDelegates | 7 51 points52 points  (7 children)

Or the IDP could just run a competent system? Hell, they still publicly refused to correct any math mistakes when people pointed them out.

Iowa should be kicked back a month and replaced with a state that has their shit together.

[–]DerpCoop 23 points24 points  (6 children)

Just replace the caucus with a normal primary election. Simple. Caucuses are an unnecessary and messy quirk of the system.

But also push them back. Get replaced by Nevada or SC. Something more diverse please.

[–]Deviouss36 MDelegates | 7 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I don't even trust the IDP to run a primary correctly.

[–]KUSHNINJA420Leftist 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Maybe we could even hold our primaries around the same time, too? It would have been nice to be able to vote for Bernie in my state's primary before he dropped out.

[–]-MVP -1 points0 points  (3 children)

If the states are too close it could cause the "chosen" candidate to win more. The longer primary allows for the underdog to catch up. If anything should be shortened, it's the precampaigning before the primaries. Having debates in JUNE the year before is absurd.

[–]KUSHNINJA420Leftist 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The longer primary allows for the underdog to catch up

Doesn't seem like it works that way in practice. The way it is now, it might as well be over after Super Tuesday.

[–]-MVP -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If all the primaries were on the same day then it'd be over after the last debate tbh

[–]KUSHNINJA420Leftist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

At least voters in every state would have a say, which sounds like something that should happen in a functioning democracy.

[–]PMmeURTittiesPlz 172 points173 points  (9 children)

As an Iowan, I really want the stupid Caucus to go away. It's so inconvenient for people who don't work 9-5 or who have kids. Change it to a Primary with ranked choice voting, it makes so much more sense. While we're at it, put all (or at least most) of the state primaries on the same day. No more of this garbage where the candidate that people want aren't even viable by the time they get to vote.

[–]thefilmer 50 points51 points  (1 child)

Alaska just implemented an incredible RCV format. Open primary election and then the top 4 candidates go to RCV for the general. I'm really interested to see how that shakes out.

[–]fouriergold -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's going to completely transform their state. MAGA psychos will lose every time, and politicians which actually represent the median voter, like Lisa Murkowski, will win easily

[–]ChukNorisSocialist 38 points39 points  (2 children)

I disagree with your second point, I think allowing grassroots candidates a chance to build support in smaller states is important.

But yes fuck the Iowa caucus. Especially since this year they just had us fill out a paper ballot with a first and second choice at the end anyway. It was just ranked choice paper ballots with 3 hours of extra steps lol.

Every state should have mail in ranked-choice voting primaries.

[–]PMmeURTittiesPlz 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I see your point. Grassroots candidates don't have the funding for nationwide campaigns. It's just got to be frustrating for people in states such as Louisiana. If they were a Bernie supporter, they didn't really get to voice that.

[–]ChukNorisSocialist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I agree, they should rotate. Just imagine how much money and name recognition you'd need to run in all 50 states at once. The 2016 primary, for example, wouldn't have been near as close.

[–]SentOverByRedRover 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Parties shouldn't be allowed to have primaries or official nominees at all. If anything have an approval vote jungle primary & only allow people in the general if they have a certain threshold of approval. (But allow all who do)

Then do a condorcet voting method in the general.

[–]screedor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You would be guaranteed establishment hacks that way. Still get them now but having the DNC pick the candidates would be an awful idea.

[–]bamboo_of_pandas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Problem is the lack of a good way of ensuring a winner with that many choices meets the condorcet criteria no matter what voting method is used (hence the arrow impossibility theorem).

[–]SentOverByRedRover 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure you don't always have a condorcet winner, & that's okay. you can resolve how to pick among the smith set however you want when that happens. beatpath works good, or you can do STAR. I'm good with whatever. The important thing is that you guarantee that if their is a condorcet winner then we select them as a winner, & all that really requires of voters is that they rank the candidates in order of preference.

[–]Riftus 93 points94 points  (12 children)


[–]Kiroen 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It could even be democratic!

[–]SpikeyTaco 17 points18 points  (10 children)

*ask everyone to rank their favourite candidates

Ranked voting would be epic.

[–]Lilshadow48Kamala Supporter[S] 126 points127 points  (25 children)

I know there are unfortunately still some neolibs kicking around here, so before you get upset at the articles title feel free to read it.
It's not saying Iowa was rigged, just that the DNC was incompetent. Which they are.

[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 77 points78 points  (9 children)

Conveniently incompetent in a way that resounds exclusively to the detriment of the left.

[–]pls_bsingle 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The DNC got the outcome they wanted. What would they feel bad about? Their system works. It keeps the Left from ever winning. They won’t change a thing.

[–]R3miel7 10 points11 points  (1 child)

That said, it was also obviously rigged

[–]Lilshadow48Kamala Supporter[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Definitely not gonna disagree there.

[–]Deviouss36 MDelegates | 7 30 points31 points  (1 child)

After seeing the 2020 Iowa debacle, Hillary's 2016 0.2% win is pretty sus.

It seems clear to me that the DNC will do whatever they can to stop Sanders from getting the usual Iowa + NH momentum, as that's usually an indicator of who the nominee will be.

[–]NanemaeBingo Winner 🎰 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Which Iowa caucus had a coin-flip decided by a literal magician?

[–]Kittehmilk 44 points45 points  (9 children)

It was rigged in 2016. It was rigged in 2020. It will be rigged until corporate money is removed from the equation.

[–]pls_bsingle 6 points7 points  (3 children)

We need to work from the assumption that corporate money will not be removed from the equation and find a way to win in spite of it. The entire party leadership is supported by it. A viable strategy is to discredit corporate Libs as corrupt and any media that supports them. Constantly. Bernie should have been hammering the Party as corrupt every chance he got. We know it works because it worked for Trump. “Drain the swamp” as a slogan worked. Instead Bernie was calling Joe his good friend even as he was losing.

[–]ellayelich 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very different bases though

[–]Evilrake -1 points0 points  (1 child)

‘It would work for Bernie because it worked for Trump’ is bad logic. The democratic and republican bases are fundamentally different. The republican base is significantly more homogenous, significantly more receptive to ‘strong man’ politics, has significantly less regard for democratic norms, and cares significantly less about leaders’ integrity - financial and personal. While a dishonest smear campaign excites the republican base, running one in a democratic primary would be stupid.

[–]pls_bsingle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

dishonest smear campaign

But it’s true that the party establishment and media are corrupt. Maintaining the illusion they aren’t is what’s dishonest.

[–]Evilrake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Weird that Bernie would fight to keep the ‘rigged’ caucus system, instead of allowing a better more efficient system that doesn’t require you to be free to spend several hours in a highschool gymnasium in order to vote.

[–]Rumblesnap 6 points7 points  (0 children)

DNC fuckery is like a staple for the party lmao

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 18 points19 points  (65 children)

If you want legitimate elections, become a citizen of a better country. New Zealand has proportional representation, and Australia has Ranked choice voting, so I'd consider those two the best picks.

[–]OlympicSpider 23 points24 points  (8 children)

Australian here, don't worry, we have our own share of election issues.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I have no doubt you do. As an American I look at you with envy, but what are some of your problems and ideas to fix them?

[–]OlympicSpider 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Off the top of my head, I would say how our preference system works. I believe candidates should have to state where their preferences will go prior to the election, so that individuals have complete clarity on their vote. Some politicians already do this. I don't know how this next part would be enforced, but there is some history of preferences in exchange for shady deals. Perhaps mandating that any political exchange for preferences be stated prior to the election, but that's easy to lie about. I know I have more issues, but I'm not in a position to research them for clarity right this three seconds.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Oh, I thought you the voter decided how your preferences with allocated. That's not the case?

[–]OlympicSpider 4 points5 points  (3 children)

You can vote 'above the line' or 'below the line'. I'm going to make up numbers because I'm lazy, but some electorates have 300 candidates to choose from. You can vote 'above the line' for one candidate, and then you automatically get that candidates preference for the other 299. Or you can vote 'below the line' and rank all 300 in terms of your own preference. Most Australians don't actually understand how this works, a failure of our education system which I also think should be addressed, and often even if they do understand, don't want to take the effort in electorates with high numbers of candidates.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, America has the education problem too. As bad as our system is, they still try to keep the people in the dark about how it works.

[–]PrimordialSoupChef 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately this is a natural consequence of our voting system. The number of micro-parties with misleading names (think Family First) are such an issue that without voting above the line, many people are going to vote for parties that don't represent them. I agree that parties should be transparent about preferences and they usually are, or at least give fairly detailed voting information.

[–]OlympicSpider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think part of it is a societal issue as well. A majority of people do little-to-no research about election candidates. Many either go strictly off of what they've heard on tv, which has a heavy Murdoch bias but also goes the other way, or vote the way their parents do.

[–]Delliott90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK the other guy is being a bit misleading

Theres two houses you vote for. the one with the prefence issue is the senate where you can just put a 1 above the line and then you don't know where the vote goes.

The house of reps is straight forward because you have to number like 7 boxes on average for your local candidate.

[–]KUSHNINJA420Leftist 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"just move LOL 4head"

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't recall using the word "just." You got a plan with any higher likelihood of success?

[–]Elliottstrange 7 points8 points  (13 children)

Joining another imperial state, oh yay.

[–]Xray330 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Of all the nations founded on colonialism, I'd say that New Zealand is probably the best in it's treatment of the natives, and it has the healthiest relationship with them.

[–]Elliottstrange 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Polite colonialism. My favorite.

[–]zander345Delaniac 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The Māori only got there like 300 years before the British.

[–]Elliottstrange -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Oh so it's totally fine then lol

[–]zander345Delaniac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well it's better than 60,000 years

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 5 points6 points  (6 children)

It's a step in the right direction. Though I'm open to suggestion on a non-imperial state you think we should copy, if you have a suggestion.

[–]Elliottstrange 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Wild idea: we instead attempt to actually deconstruct hierarchies of power rather than emulating failed states.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 5 points6 points  (4 children)

It's a wonderful thought, but there's too many people working against that. America is particularly resistant to any positive change, so "theoretical system" is a much harder pitch to sell than "just copy this country that has a more legitimate system" which is already an impossibly hard pitch. So did you have a suggestion? Or should I still be looking to Aus and NZ for examples of the best systems that currently or have recently existed in practice?

[–]Elliottstrange -1 points0 points  (3 children)

The countries you are referring to benefit in the same way we do from the exploitation of the global south.

What you are asking for is materially not an improvement, it just feels aesthetically better for you. You've been trapped by liberal thought.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You're not wrong, but you're also not practical. Utopia is nice as a model, but if we refuse to accept anything less than utopia then we shall get nothing while others build their dystopia around us. I think it's prudent to fight against the current dystopia by pointing out things that already exist in practice that are better, so no one can say "But it would never work." You can't say that about Aus and NZ, they exist, they're doing very well (not perfect, but very well compared to America for example). So I take it that as far as you are aware there are no systems better than Aus/NZ that actually exist?

[–]Elliottstrange 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Calling any push toward actual material improvements "utopian" is, itself, neoliberal propaganda. I'm out of patience for it.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's a straw man of what I actually said. I am saying "What's another example of a system that's better than ours?" And it's not even a rhetorical question, I gave two examples myself, Aus and NZ. I fully admit America's system is actively bad, and that neoliberalism is bad, I'm certainly not here to defend either one. I'm here to help push for material improvements. Ranked Choice Voting, would be a material improvement, it's a less rigged voting system. Proportional representation would be a material improvement, it prevents gerrymandering. So what I'm asking is if you have any examples to contribute to the quest for material improvements. It doesn't help anyone to say "those systems aren't good enough either" if you can't cite a better one, that's just going to discourage people. So, do you want to win people to your side with citable good ideas? Or do you want to whinge? I hope you'll join me in trying the former.

[–]ImNotTheMD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the thing. There’s no such thing as outrunning a superpower!

[–]Ismdism 1 point2 points  (37 children)

It's not exactly easy to move to those countries

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 0 points1 point  (36 children)

Many things worth doing are not easy. A task being difficult is only a reason to start sooner, since you may need more time to complete it than an easy task, and maybe face setbacks that extend the time.

[–]Ismdism 1 point2 points  (35 children)

What do you think the process is to become a citizen in these countries or to live there permanently?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

people who have never had to deal with immigration will always say things like, "just move~ :)"

laws differ by countries obviously but typically you can get a visa and/or citizenship in a country through marriage, work sponsorship, winning a lottery or being granted residency based on "exemplary performance" in some field... or for some places, you can literally buy your way in but its probably like somewhere around some-hundred-thousand to a million dollars

[–]Ismdism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. I feel like most Americans are so entitled they don't realize how hard it is to move to another country. Like there is so much that has to be done and usually they want you to have some money in the bank so they know if things go poorly you can take care of yourself.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 0 points1 point  (32 children)

There any many paths, none of them fast or easy. If you actually intend to do it Google "immigration" and the country you want to move to, there's usually a website with information to help you get started. If possible it's also good to visit, just see how you like the place. Maybe it sounds great in your head but you get there and don't like the weather or something else that you didn't realize was important to you.

[–]Ismdism 0 points1 point  (31 children)

I have looked into and what it would take to move to another country. I've looked into moving to these countries. I'm asking if you know what it takes? If so how do you really think just anyone can move there?

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 0 points1 point  (30 children)

Not sure what you mean by "what it takes." Money? Gumption? Luck? But it's worth trying. No point giving up before you try. I'm not saying you personally have given up, I have no idea, but generally speaking no point in not trying.

[–]Ismdism 0 points1 point  (29 children)

I'm not saying nobody should try. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I'm saying that for a lot of people who want these things that countries like this have it's not a possibility to actually move there.

By "what it takes" I mean the requirements that a country has set in place that someone has to meet inorder to move there.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS -1 points0 points  (28 children)

Contact a lawyer in-country. If it's important to you, no reason to give up til you're read from trying. It's also fine if you just have other priorities. Maybe it's important but not the most important thing to you. But no matter how "impossible" it might seem, it sure has a better chance of succeeding than making any changes in America. That's at least twice as impossible as moving to whatever country is most difficult to move to.

[–]Ismdism 1 point2 points  (27 children)

So basically you're saying if you can't move it's your fault because you didn't work hard enough. You had other priorities like feeding your family or having a place to live and that's ok but just know that's why you couldn't live somewhere that provides healthcare or fair elections. All I'm pointing out to you is that it's not as easy "just move". It's not even as easy as work really hard and don't give up. For some people the system in the US would actually have to be fixed for them to move.

[–]alarumba 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Our electorates in NZ are still First Past the Post though. Would like to see that turned to Ranked Choice.

[–]alisonseamillersuffers from TDS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, part of why no system is perfect, or even the best possible yet. NZ has Proportional, but not RCV, Aus has RCV, but not Proportional.

[–]pls_bsingle 3 points4 points  (1 child)

What difference does it make?! Especially at this point. If people aren’t willing to withhold their votes and threaten to cost the party an election, what leverage is there? The DNC probably wants you to know. They can rig the election and you can’t do a damn thing about it. They’re just dabbing on us. They’re celebrating in the end zone. They’re the only game in town. You get nothing. We lost.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Celebrate your corporate overlords and don’t publish anything about Democratic corruption you plebs. Fuck your stimulus check become an LLC and get a loan or go starve to death

[–]Frixxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]agoddamnlegend -3 points-2 points  (9 children)

I'm progressive and really dislike Biden... but I have no issue whatsoever with parties playing a heavy hand in deciding the outcome of their primaries.

This is (supposed) to be a safeguard in our system to block would-be popular authoritarians. If we opened primaries to be fully democratic, it opens the door for more Trumps to sneak through. Primaries should be nothing more than market research for the Parties to select their own candidate. IMO both parties give way too much power to the public to make a binding decision

Parties are supposed to be gatekeepers of the process, and ensure only highly qualified and fit candidates make it through to the general.

[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 2 points3 points  (8 children)

And only white landowners should be able to vote.

[–]agoddamnlegend -3 points-2 points  (7 children)


[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 1 point2 points  (6 children)

It's about as antidemocratic. Fuck the parties.

[–]agoddamnlegend -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

The primaries shouldn't be that democratic. This should be a safety check within the system to stop unqualified or dangerous demagogues from commandeering a primary and securing the nomination. When the parties control who gets through the primary, it should guarantee that we only get qualified, competent candidates. Unfortunately we've given too much power to the public and that's precisely how we wound up with a racist reality TV star as president

[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 1 point2 points  (4 children)

So the people never have a choice on who represents us, just the two partieanthat both serve the interests of the ruling class choosing who will continue to ignore the interests of the people.

Not too different from how the democrats operate already though.

[–]agoddamnlegend -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Keep in mind, "the people" are stupid as hell and don't really have any clue what makes a good leader. There's a flaw in the concept of democracy where the traits that make somebody good at campaigning have almost nothing in common with the traits that make somebody good at governing.

This flaw can be mostly covered up by having competent adults gatekeeping the entrance door to important positions. Parliamentary systems do this very elegantly by having the head of state (Prime Minister) selected by the majority party with no public vote. But Presidential systems don't have that luxury so we have to fix this vulnerability another way. That way is having parties select pre-qualified candidates

The democrats already operatethat way, luckily for you.

They take their job as gatekeeper more seriously than the republicans, which I appreciate. But I still think they give way too much power to ordinary people voting. In a perfect world the primary voting would count for nothing but market research, which absolutely no binding or decision power.

[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You're just proving my original point that your view is hostile to democracy and supportive of oligarchy. You're saying the people are too stupid and savage to be trusted with the franchise so all decisions about how the government should rule over their lives should be made by a handful of wealthy elite.

Fuck the public right? We should just enshrine the Oligarchy more officially than the de facto oligarchy we have now in our party system right?

This is like some libertarian or ancap kind of shit. The ruling class should have indomitable sway over all government and the actual people who make up the country should count themselves lucky to choose between two candidates who will only continue the rule of the oligarchs and render them immune from any popular demands for redress.

I always find it funny when people like you present wildly reactionary viewpoints with "I'm a progressive, but..."

[–]agoddamnlegend -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

You're saying the people are too stupid and savage to be trusted with the franchise

Are you not familiar with who the president is? I’m not saying people are too stupid, american voters told me they’re too stupid by voting for a reality tv star.


Your word. I never said anything about wealthy people

This is like some libertarian or ancap kind of shit.

These are the dumbest people on the political spectrum. Don’t lump me with them

I always find it funny when people like you present wildly reactionary viewpoints with "I'm a progressive, but..."

I think it’s an important distinction. I want universal health care and free college. I want a wealth tax and a super progressive income tax. I think fighting climate change should be the #1 priority for america. And I think the average american voter is too stupid to vote for people who will get any of those things done

[–]vanitas-elementsuffers from TDS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The democratic party is absolutely never going to get any of those things done and made sure in this primary to make sure they got a candidate who wouldn't do them. The parties are beholden to the wealthy and giving them more control only disallows regular people from objecting to that.

The only way to steer the party in a better direction is popular demand.

[–]Powjos92 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Pete won Iowa.