9 responses so far ↓

• 1 d.eris // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  I’ve recently come across some criticism of NY’s fusion voting system (i.e. candidates, more often than not duopoly candidates, getting endorsements from multiple third parties) along the lines of “party for sale.” Apparently many other states have done away with this practice. Anyone familiar with the debate? thoughts on pros and cons?

• 2 Richard Winger // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  Laws making it illegal for two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate are anti-liberty. If two parties want to jointly nominate the same candidate, what business is it of the government to tell them they can’t?

  Fusion has always been legal in Idaho, but it is never used. It has always been legal in South Carolina but it is very seldom used. It was legal for a century in Arkansas and South Dakota, but those two states banned it in the last decade. Just because fusion is legal, doesn’t mean that those states will turn into imitations of New York. It’s legal in Delaware and Vermont but not used very much in those two states. It’s legal in Mississippi but seems not to have been used in decades, if ever.

• 3 Trent Hill // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  Is it really legal in MS? That’s interesting. It’s also interesting that it’s legal in Idaho.

• 4 Ross Levin // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  Trent, did you get my email about election reform stuff?

• 5 d.eris // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  thanks for the info Richard.

• 6 Richard Cooper // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:07 pm

  Some LPNYers share the hostility to so-called fusion tickets, believing that the LPNY should always go it alone.

  Some LPNYers believe that fusion tickets are acceptable if they aren’t with the major parties.

  Some LPNYers (like myself) believe that it is justifiable and wise to judiciously cross-endorse other candidates. For example, we helped elect Ira Raab to District Court in Nassau County. He was later elevated to the Supreme Court (lowest level in the state system) and was the best vote getter for Supreme Court in our judicial district. He had LPNY endorsement but not a line due to the vagaries of our election law.

  Richard Cooper, former Chair LP Nassau and former Chair LPNY

• 7 Richard Cooper // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  I forgot to mention that Judge Raab, since retired to Florida, was a Democrat.

• 8 Green Ferret // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:35 am

  I agree with Richard Winger that states should be making ballot access less restrictive, instead of more. At the same time, I am not a proponent of fusion, since fusion in practice little resembles fusion in theory.

  If you favor opening the electoral system, and you’re operating with the assumption that people vote for certain parties in the belief that those parties share certain principles and priorities with them, then proportional representation is a much better reform.

  In the context of privately-funded, winner-take-all elections in the US, fusion cross-endorsements are more about money and power than about principles. Smaller parties that cross-endorse (in NY, that’s Conservative, Liberal, Independent and Working Families) pay their bills by trading major-party endorsements for cash later, to D-R candidates who can then boast about how independent they are. Democrats have pushed fusion in states like Oregon, because the best way to stunt the growth of independent progressive parties is to pump money into a fusion Working Families-type party that will attract progressive voters to Democratic candidates.

  In Connecticut, the Working Families Party joined the Ds and Rs in testifying for a public campaign financing bill that imposes tougher requirements on small parties to qualify for funds. The WFP representative claimed that small parties with a “well-developed electoral strategy” can meet the requirements. What is the CT WFP’s “well-developed electoral strategy”, you may ask? They endorse and work for Democrats, ensuring a steady cash flow.

  When considering electoral reform, perhaps a good question to begin with is “how is Michael Bloomberg attempting to purchase total power over New York City, and what improvements can be made to the system to prevent us all from becoming vassals to the nascent class of billionaire-kings?” Bloomberg has already gotten the Independent line, after he promised to pay a large sum to that party. The GOP endorsed him afterwards, since they need a winner pretty badly these days, and they have no other option. Now he’s courting the Working Families Party; some people think it’s a long shot, but can the WFP resist the big bucks that such an endorsement would inevitably bring? Bloomberg’s payoff would make the paltry few hundred thousand received from Governors Spitzer, Paterson, and various other Dems look like a drop in the WFP bucket.

• 9 Oregon Independent // Apr 27, 2009 at 8:47 am

  Green Ferret is simply wrong about fusion voting, at least in Oregon. Democrats are not pushing fusion voting in Oregon. The Independent Party of Oregon, in coalition with the Working Families Party and some elements of the Libertarian Party are pushing for it.

  In practice, fusion voting was in place during the early 20th century — easily the most progressive era in the history of Oregon politics.

  In practice, fusion voting enables minor political parties to collaborate with major party candidates around the core ideological issues espoused by some minor political parties, and to the extent that minor parties would like to have relevance beyond simply playing a spoiler role.

  So far as I can tell, the real question with regard to whether or not a minor party should support fusion voting will turn on whether that party is serious about building political power.

  To date, the greens have not been able to build sufficient political power to get IRV adopted outside of a handful of municipalities.

  Fusion voting could give them a vehicle to build that power — for example, by cross-nominating candidates who support IRV.

Leave a Comment