He is the person I second-most want to get the nomination in 2020. The person who I most want to get the nomination in 2020 is Tulsi Gabbard.
I already told you that Bernie was second. I would take Elizabeth Warren third, Pete Buttigieg fourth, and, maybe, Cory Booker fifth. In ranked choice voting, that is how I might fill out my ballot if it called for me to select my top five choices. No one has to select five, but they risk having their vote not count if all the candidates they select get eliminated in one of the rounds of calculations.
The rules for the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in 2020 are that the votes of superdelegates will not be counted in the first round. If any candidate has a majority of delegates, they get the nomination. If no candidate has a majority of delegates, then votes from the superdelegates will be counted.
This logic comes from the same people who think the Electoral College should be eliminated in favor of electing the person with the most votes. However, they know quite well that it is likely for Bernie Sanders to be the person with the most votes. The superdelegates can quash his nomination if enough other people get enough delegates that "the most delegates" is not also "the majority of delegates." Then it becomes a free-for-all for someone to garner a majority to win the nomination.
That gives the superdelegates the opportunity to vote for an establishment candidate whose delegate total with their votes counted becomes the majority. You see, both Republicans and establishment Democrats are beholden to rich special interests, and Bernie's popularity really screws that up for them.
Here is how ranked choice voting solves that dilemma without involving superdelegates. It is hypothetical, so you can adjust it to whichever candidate you want to get nominated winning it all.
This was my hypothetical ranked choice ballot from above:
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Bernie Sanders
- Elizabeth Warren
- Pete Buttigieg
- Cory Booker
If no candidate has a majority of votes as the number one choice on the ballots counted, whoever came in fifth is eliminated. Ballots with that candidate as the number one choice will have their second choice counted. Ballots with only that candidate selected are no longer counted, thereby reducing the number of votes needed to attain a majority of counted votes.
If that round does not result in a candidate having a majority of votes, the ballots with the fourth-place finisher in the top position are eliminated. Those will be the ballots with the fourth-place finisher either in the number one position, or in the number two position with the number one position previously eliminated. Again, ballots with only the two eliminated candidates, or with only the fourth-place candidate selected, are not counted in any subsequent rounds.
It goes on until one candidate has a majority of the votes as the top remaining candidate on counted ballots. If my ballot is used as an example, and in the next-to-last calculation Tulsi Gabbard finishes third with Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg finishing in the top two spots, my vote for Gabbard becomes a vote for Sanders. Unless the next round ends in a dead-even tie, one of those two will have the majority of the top remaining votes.
If not ranked choice voting, just give it to the person with the most votes.
If that is what the Democrats truly believe is the standard that should elect the president, why is it not sufficient for the party nomination? It's as if they only believe in plurality when it gets their person elected! When they know Bernie Sanders will get the plurality, they must raise the standard to democracy, and do what they can to prevent him from getting a majority.
Oh well, it is, at best, an intellectual exercise. The rules are set for 2020. I would like Tulsi Gabbard to be the president, but, intellectually, I know that Bernie Sanders has a better chance to get the nomination. I also understand why both are rejecting the notion to run as third-party or independent candidates. The ultimate objective of the political revolution is to seize control of the Democratic party from its rich donors and return it to its rightful owners: the voters.
I favor the concept of majority over plurality. Majority rules is the definition of democracy. Pluralities can have absurd results. Majority is such an important concept that corporate rules prohibit the passage of things as mundane as board minutes without a majority of directors approving them. If a mere quorum is present for the vote, passage requires a unanimous vote.
It is the superdelegates getting an extra vote when a majority is not reached that I don't favor. I think I should get to pick for whom I will vote if my preferred candidate is the least popular. Ranked choice voting upholds the integrity of democracy by requiring a majority of votes cast to win. It also upholds the integrity of "each person gets one vote" by letting me continue casting my vote as my highest ranked candidates gets eliminated in any of the rounds.
If using ranked choice voting worked well at eliminating the need for superdelegates, perhaps a discussion about using it to eliminate the Electoral College would follow. For now, I'd like to see the Democratic party put its mouth where its money isn't but where its votes are.
