If Democrats seem extreme now, wait until they adopt ranked-choice voting. Some activists inside the party want exactly that — a reform that would push presidential nominations even further left and force establishment figures to navigate an ideological gauntlet to win.
Multiple reports indicate that Democratic Party activists and elected officials are pressuring the party to adopt ranked-choice voting for its 2028 presidential primaries. Axios notes that the push has grown serious enough that top party officials met in late October with advocates including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, and representatives from FairVote Action.
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left.
Such an effort fits a long pattern: For decades, Democrats have shifted presidential nominations away from party leadership. On ranked-choice voting specifically, several states already use it — Maine and Alaska among them — along with deep-blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle.
Ranked-choice voting takes multiple forms, but New York City’s model illustrates the dynamic. Voters rank up to five candidates. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate drops out, and those voters’ second-choice votes are redistributed. This “loser leaves” process continues until a candidate secures a majority.
Assuming rational behavior, Democratic voters would likely rank candidates from more extreme to less extreme. That pattern would advantage the leftmost candidates again and again as lower-preference votes transfer upward.
This structural boost would encourage both supply and demand for extreme candidacies. Candidates on the ideological edge would have more incentive to run. Voters who prefer them would have more influence. Ranked-choice voting’s supporters tout this expanded participation as a virtue.
Offering voters multiple choices would foster coalition-building. Knowing the race may go to multiple rounds, candidates would angle for second- and third-choice votes. The horse-trading once done in old convention “smoke-filled rooms” would unfold publicly through a series of ranked ballots.
But the key question is simple: Why would ranked-choice voting necessarily supercharge extremism inside the Democratic Party? Because the system rewards voters for casting marginal votes — and among today’s Democrats, “marginal” means “further left.”
The party’s ideological shift is measurable. In Gallup’s 2023 polling, 54% of Democrats identified as liberal — an all-time high. Support for democratic socialists in major-city mayoral primaries shows how rapidly the party’s activist base has moved left. In 1995, the liberal share of the party was 25%, roughly equal to conservatives. Three decades later, conservatives make up just 10% of Democrats.
Exit polling confirms the trend: In 2024, 91% of self-identified liberals voted for Kamala Harris; only 9% of conservatives did.
Extrapolate from this trajectory, and the danger becomes even clearer. Extreme candidates increasingly win Democratic primaries in major cities. Those cities dominate statewide Democratic politics. And in closed primaries, only Democrats vote — meaning the hyper-engaged activist left already sets the terms of competition. Ranked-choice voting would amplify that influence. The same voters who nominated democratic socialists in New York and Seattle would wield disproportionate power in a presidential contest.
RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem
Consider how the 2020 Democratic primary might have played out under ranked-choice voting. Joe Biden — an establishment candidate favored by moderates — would have faced a field dominated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, and others to his left. Ranked-choice voting would have forced him through a gauntlet designed by the party’s most ideological voters.
This trend is not new. In 1972, George McGovern reshaped Democratic nominating rules and then benefited from the changes. Since then, the party has repeatedly weakened its establishment’s role (with key exceptions). Ranked-choice voting would accelerate that shift dramatically.
With moderates now only 36% of the party, according to Gallup, how could they resist a move toward ranked-choice voting? More importantly, which remaining moderate or establishment Democrat could survive a ranked-choice system dominated by the party’s left wing?
Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left. The only question is how long it takes for the party to adopt it — and how long the party can remain viable nationally if it does.
Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.
Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.
Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.
Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.
The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.
History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.
The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.
But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.
RELATED: Inside the Portland ICE facility under siege by Antifa extremists
This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.
Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Liberal activists and their fellow travelers in business, government, and media frequently cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on what qualifies as a hate group or an extremist organization.
That's despite — or because of — the SPLC's heavy left-wing bias, the frequency with which it smears law-abiding conservatives as "extremists," and its link to alleged domestic terrorism.
'First, they wanted you to affirm, and then they wanted you to celebrate, and then they wanted you to participate.'
Exuding liberal sanctimony with an air of legitimacy helps keep the SPLC — a nonprofit sued numerous times for defamation, accused by one former staffer of exaggerating hate to "bilk" donors, and given an F-rating by Charity Watch — awash in cash.
After all, what's not to like when the SPLC largely fundraises on the premise that it is "exposing hate and injustice"?
True to form, the SPLC smeared agential conservatives in its latest annual hate and extremism report.
This time around, the smear merchants focused their attack on Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, characterizing it as a pro-Christian extremist group with an "authoritarian vision for the country that threatens the foundation of our democracy."
But Kirk wasn't having it, responding in a statement that "the SPLC has added Turning Point to their ridiculous 'hate group' list, right next to the KKK and neo-Nazis, a cheap smear from a washed-up org that's been fleecing scared grandmas for decades."
"Their game plan? Scare financial institutions into debanking us, pressure schools to cancel us, and demonize us so some unhinged lunatic feels justified targeting us," continued Kirk. "But it's 2025, and nobody with a functioning brain buys their garbage anymore. The SPLC is a laughingstock, a hollowed-out husk of an organization that's been exposed as a grift time and time again."
According to the SPLC — whose recent top targets include Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok fame and the parental rights advocacy group Moms for Liberty — TPUSA is "emblematic" of the American political right's supposed embrace of "aggressive state and federal power to enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy" against a backdrop of "patriarchal Christian supremacy dedicated to eroding the value of inclusive democracy and public institutions."
RELATED: Own the hate: Why patriots should wear the 'hate group' smear with pride
When trying to make the case that TPUSA somehow is an extremist outfit or at the very least extremist-adjacent, SPLC contributor Rachael Fugardi, aided by a pair of DEI-credentialed researchers, noted that Kirk:
The report also clutched pearls over TPUSA's supposed encouragement of "parents to be fearful the government was harming their children in schools" and its criticism of critical race theory and LGBT propaganda in the classroom.
'DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors.'
This desperate attempt on the part of the SPLC to paint Kirk and TPUSA as extreme might have less to do with the conservatives' views and more to do with their political effectiveness in changing minds and curbing the abuses of the left — as well as their alignment with President Donald Trump.
TPUSA videos notched billions of views in the lead-up to the 2024 election — and it was at this precise time that its members were engaging young Americans on college campuses across the country and promoting Trump. That momentum and engagement still have not tapered off.
Kirk stressed on X, "Being on their list is a badge of honor. It means they're terrified that we're so effective. Keep crying, SPLC — America’s done with your scam."
While evidently worried about TPUSA, the SPLC also warned of the "merging of anti-immigration and anti-LGBTQ+ activism with fear of demographic displacement" and framed efforts to dismantle the racist DEI regime as a campaign to "whitewash American society and protect white supremacy."
Yet, a study published late last year by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University concluded that "DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment."
RELATED: Damning study reveals what DEI does to people — and unsurprisingly, it's really bad
Having evidently missed or ignored this damning insight into the divisive and dangerous nature of DEI, the SPLC claimed that DEI initiatives "are essential in ensuring pluralism, reducing inequities that spur division, and promoting democracy."
Working off the basis that DEI is necessary — and necessarily good — the leftist outfit attacked those attempting to eliminate it, including Moms for Liberty, normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck, Republican states and officials, and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo.
The SPLC also conducted a number of drive-by hits in its annual report, deeming, for instance, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom a "hate group" and suggesting that reports indicating the Obama administration worked to debank conservative clients was somehow a "false narrative."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrats have a long history of defending and electing party leaders engaged in the worst behavior imaginable, while Republican voters are still rejecting extremists.
As of Tuesday, the Democrats and outlets parroting unsubstantiated claims that Trump somehow incited the disaster had yet to correct their framing.
Democrats and their allies in media, academia, rent-a-mob, and activist circles have ramped up incendiary language.
thefederalist.com