3 ms·

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for tha

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for that election cycle, but for future ones too, where candidates could have made their names known even if they did not end up getting the nomination.

overfeed 7mo ago
> The problem is that there was no primary. I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".
- afiori 7mo ago
  Intra-party elections should definitely be some variant of ranked-choice voting. To at least try to avoid the current fractal polarization.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks. Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a weakness.
  - overfeed 7mo ago
    > Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. There's always a cost/friction between internal democratic competition and external adversarial competition. This is why the US didn't (and doesn't) have direct voting on war declaration - hell, a handful of recent presidents decided that even Congress is too slow for them. You could argue that the lack of a referendum before declaring war is an "anti-democracy talking point"
    - Yizahi 7mo ago
      This is a loaded explanation. Yes, war does require quick response, which is hard to achieve in a decentralized state. The small nuance is that war or similar events are comprising a tiny fraction of what a government does (not by impact, but by total amount of things to do). And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as any and all taxes, industry wide restrictions or permissions, economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, education, social security and so on.
      - overfeed 7mo ago
        > And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as ... economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, ... How would 2 countries wirh direct voting negotiate a trade treaty that requires give and take? Have a referendum on each proposed clause modification? How long would that take? Even though you dislike it, representative democracy is a necessary optimization, which is why every surviving polity uses it to a degree. Even coops like Mondragon appoints officers for say to say operations. Can you name a single entity with more than 500 members, and operates daily that uses direct voting?
        mmooss 7mo ago
        Lots of places use direct voting on many issues, including Switzerland, California, ... > negotiations It doesn't seem hard to conceive of and it's widely done: The negotation is done by representatives, who bring the final agreement to their constituents for approval. For example, that is how unions handle collective bargaining agreements, and sometimes the leadership's proposal loses.
        Yizahi 7mo ago
        There is no country with direct voting (aka democracy) since Ancient Greece. Swiss are close and they are alone. But I wish that such a country existed. Also, I didn't say that ALL decisions needs to be directly voted upon by the whole population. But core concepts should be. And there should be a mechanism to surface people's concerns to a referendum level too, e.g. after getting a certain amount of signatures or votes. Getting to your question, people can decide in general, do they want to join a trade treaty with countries a, b, c and that should be enough I think, at least for the early form of such democracy.
- myvoiceismypass 7mo ago
  The 2020 primary did not devolve into into what you are describing.
Yizahi 7mo ago
"Primary" is fundamentally anti-democratic concept. It basically says that we, oligarchs, will pick whoever we want and you, plebes, will vote for him. Just like the first past the post system, where two oligarch's candidates are having a nice little internal contest, is anti-democratic. Until that is fixed, no amount of pleading and rationalizations will help "fix oligarchy".

overfeed 7mo ago

> The problem is that there was no primary. I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".

afiori 7mo ago
Intra-party elections should definitely be some variant of ranked-choice voting. To at least try to avoid the current fractal polarization.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mmooss 7mo ago
> I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. Primaries and the included competition weed out candidates who can't handle attacks. Democracy works far better than governments that aren't chosen openly by their people. It's an extraordinary strength, not a weakness.
- overfeed 7mo ago
  > Ironically, that is an anti-democracy talking point. There's always a cost/friction between internal democratic competition and external adversarial competition. This is why the US didn't (and doesn't) have direct voting on war declaration - hell, a handful of recent presidents decided that even Congress is too slow for them. You could argue that the lack of a referendum before declaring war is an "anti-democracy talking point"
  - Yizahi 7mo ago
    This is a loaded explanation. Yes, war does require quick response, which is hard to achieve in a decentralized state. The small nuance is that war or similar events are comprising a tiny fraction of what a government does (not by impact, but by total amount of things to do). And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as any and all taxes, industry wide restrictions or permissions, economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, healthcare, education, social security and so on.
    - overfeed 7mo ago
      > And guess what, direct voting is just fine and fast enough for such thinks as ... economic focus, foreign policy, immigration, ... How would 2 countries wirh direct voting negotiate a trade treaty that requires give and take? Have a referendum on each proposed clause modification? How long would that take? Even though you dislike it, representative democracy is a necessary optimization, which is why every surviving polity uses it to a degree. Even coops like Mondragon appoints officers for say to say operations. Can you name a single entity with more than 500 members, and operates daily that uses direct voting?
      - mmooss 7mo ago
        Lots of places use direct voting on many issues, including Switzerland, California, ... > negotiations It doesn't seem hard to conceive of and it's widely done: The negotation is done by representatives, who bring the final agreement to their constituents for approval. For example, that is how unions handle collective bargaining agreements, and sometimes the leadership's proposal loses.
      - Yizahi 7mo ago
        There is no country with direct voting (aka democracy) since Ancient Greece. Swiss are close and they are alone. But I wish that such a country existed. Also, I didn't say that ALL decisions needs to be directly voted upon by the whole population. But core concepts should be. And there should be a mechanism to surface people's concerns to a referendum level too, e.g. after getting a certain amount of signatures or votes. Getting to your question, people can decide in general, do they want to join a trade treaty with countries a, b, c and that should be enough I think, at least for the early form of such democracy.
myvoiceismypass 7mo ago
The 2020 primary did not devolve into into what you are describing.

Yizahi 7mo ago

"Primary" is fundamentally anti-democratic concept. It basically says that we, oligarchs, will pick whoever we want and you, plebes, will vote for him. Just like the first past the post system, where two oligarch's candidates are having a nice little internal contest, is anti-democratic. Until that is fixed, no amount of pleading and rationalizations will help "fix oligarchy".