This stupid topic again

But sure

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ideally, yeah, but think about the logistics of pulling something like that off. And would it be a full primary redo? Like fresh ballots sent out to all dems? Or do you mean a mini primary just with the existing delegates? Because we already voted in the Democratic primary election…

    I’m just really trying to be pragmatic about this, I can’t imagine a scenario where we pull this off and come out stronger. I would love to be wrong.

    • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Saying a month is “plenty” of time to plan and run any kind of election on a national level is so ridiculously out-of-touch I read it back like five times thinking maybe it was sarcastic. Off the top of my head there’s booking polling places, securing & training staff, voting machines, ballots that need to make their way through the entire supply chain starting all the way back at pre-production. Mail in ballots alone usually go out like a month ahead of time to compensate for issues with the mail.

      At this point in time, there’s a higher probability of Superman flying around the world backwards to rewind time and correct the gunman’s aim to actually hit Trump at that rally than there is of the Democrats being able to successfully pull off a second primary in a month. And that’s not even to touch the “coming out stronger” piece of it, which again, no chance in hell that happens with the kind of chaos a second primary would cause.

      • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        People live in their fantasies, where national primary elections are just a cut and paste affair that takes two days to set up.

        • Bilb!@lem.monster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          You know, they could be. But I agree right now they aren’t.

          Personally, I don’t think it matters in this case. It’s not like we had a robust primary from the Dems this time around.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        The idea that elections take years is an artifact of our broken news cycle. England can call for snap elections and install a new government just 25 days later, and that’s England.

    • WraithGear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote. If their going to only be Democratic when it’s convenient, they might as well as course correct. I am for replacing Biden, but if they are even talking about it now they best get a move on. Apathy is gaining ground every second they are not at the wheel.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Probly just the superdelegates choosing in secret, like they threaten too if they don’t like the public vote.

        Feeling free yet?

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      If we used Ranked choice voting, then we could simply switch to the next in line. That is, if the democrats would grace us with a primary.

      Please sir, but a scrap of representative democracy.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If there is an actual primary, it will not be with actual voters, but amongst the named delegates (99% of whom are pledged to Biden and are obligated to vote for him of he is still in the race) and the superdelegates.