• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    presidential party primary

    There was an autocorrect there, but if that doesn’t clear it up:

    A primary isn’t binding.

    That was the DNCs legal argument for why if they rigged it, that would be legal.

    The entire primary process is merely a survey.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is really a good argument for nonpartisan blanket primaries, which in other countries would be known as the first round of a two-round system. And it really should be advertised that way so people don’t just write it off as “just a primary”.

      California adopts this system. You vote for one candidate in the primary. The top two candidates appear on the second round ballot. Most votes in the second round wins.

      However, the fact that parties choose the candidates is really not unusual at all. In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process. In most countries, interested candidates apply for the party’s nomination, and then the party’s central leadership or local party committee vets the applications and nominates their favourite candidate. Only the chosen candidate gets to stand with the party’s rosette.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process.

        How?

        The primaries are non binding and can be legally rigged because of that…

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Two things:

          • It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens. Just like how the DNC’s argument that if the elections are rigged, it wouldn’t be illegal is not an admission that they rigged it. This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.
          • Influence is not the same as control.
          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens

            Have you ever thought about what a great investment a bridge is?

            There’s one a Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Why do you suppose I included this sentence at the end of that bullet point?

              This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.

              …and why did you, having read that, assume I made that implication anyway?