this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
1183 points (97.7% liked)

Political Memes

8643 readers
3673 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Well since he was selected as their first choice, presumably they would still choose their first choice when only given one choice. Ranked choice plays a role for everyone else down ballot and for automatic runoffs. People don’t put someone as their first choice that they don’t actually want as their first choice. So yes, they would have.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes they do, all the time. I wanted to vote for Bernie in the 2016 election, but I actually voted for Hillary because I thought that splitting the vote would let Trump win. If we had ranked choice, I could have put Bernie on top while knowing that I wasn’t opening the door tor Trump.

[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

While I understand your statement here in the Hillary v Trump scenario, I don’t think it necessarily applies here, as if anything , I would think that Lander supporters would’ve instead put Mamdani as their first choice if they only had a single choice, given the announcement. The down ballot races would have been less successful.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.org 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the entire point of ranked choice is that you can do this. You can put unknown candidates up top without having to be afraid to „waste“ your vote, as you would have, with FPTP.

I am pretty confident that this would not have happened were it not for ranked choice. People would have voted the „safe“ candidate instead.

[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Right, but the benefit of ranked choice in this election would have been “I’m gonna vote Lander or Michael Blake in 1 but put Mamdani second since I’d be happy with him”. Realistically who is the safe candidate that isn’t Cuomo? The only viable candidate is Mamdani. Cuomo is still going to be in the ballot as an independent, so you really would’ve only voted Cuomo here because you’re staunchly establishment dem, in which case you wouldn’t be putting Mamdani but you also would’ve put Cuomo in first.

But I think this is all ridiculous. If the argument is “don’t vote in primaries unless they’re ranked choice”, that’s a defeating argument and we should absolutely abandon that as wise advice. The argument should be “vote in every primary, especially ranked choice, and vote for the furthest left candidate you can if you don’t want more of the same corporatist democrat melange”. I hope we can agree on that.