• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the one hand, that’s just how primaries work. The field winnows down to 2-3 candidates, and then the others drop when it becomes mathematically impossible. Democrats also have a system that tries to award delegates based on performance, not winner takes all. There typically can’t be an insurgent candidate unless they are the clear favorite.

    But on the other hand, and more importantly, why do primaries have to work this way? It makes no sense to me that we space out primaries like this, and let the results influence votes. Bernie probably would’ve done better in '20 and worse in '16 if we had all the votes the same day. Trump wouldn’t have been a thing. There is some value in having drawn out races, because it lets you learn about candidates you didn’t know beforehand and they grow a base of supporters.

    I think the best path is to have multiple rounds of voting, over time, for each state. Hold a debate week 2, over multiple nights if the field is large, and then every state votes on week 6. Candidates below X% total are removed from the race. Have another debate with those who remain, and then another vote, and drop the lowest candidate(s). This should capture the best of everything.