|
Fusion is a simple reform that gives candidates for elected office the freedom to run with the endorsement of more than one political party.
Throughout the 19th and into the early 20th century, fusion voting was legal in nearly every state of the union. Today, fusion voting remains technically legal in seven states, though only still implemented in a few. It is part of common electoral practice in New York, and is enjoying a revival in Connecticut and South Carolina. Fusion proponents argue that legislators should consider fusion voting as a tool for invigorating our elections and as an antidote to sinking levels of voter participation and citizens' increasing alienation from the political process.
As an election reform, fusion voting is straightforward to understand and implement: voters get a choice of candidate and a choice of party, and costs and technological changes are negligible.
The mechanics are simple. Parties gain ballot status and nominate candidates exactly as they do now. But candidates are no longer limited to seeking the nomination of the party in which they are enrolled, and may gain the nomination of more than one political party if they wish and if members of other parties support them. Candidates appear on the ballot once for each party that nominates them, and voters may choose to vote for their candidate of choice on any one of those party lines. Votes for each party are tallied separately, but all of a candidate's votes are added together to determine the winner of the election.
How Fusion Strengthens Democracy
There are several advantages to fusion voting.
First, fusion makes for a more informative ballot.
Today, voters do not always know where candidates stand, especially with regard to down-ballot races. With fusion, a candidate will typically have one major party endorsement, just as today, but may also have one or more minor-party lines. An endorsement from a minor party can clarify a candidate's positions and allow voters to cast a more informed vote. While it is true that organizational endorsements convey the same information, endorsements which appear right on the ballot are accessible to every voter, making the job of casting an informed vote much easier.
Second, it gives a greater voice to citizens who feel alienated from the political process.
Other voters may be better informed but don't vote because they don't feel well-represented by either of the major parties. In addition, a significant minority of voters choose to support independent third party candidates instead of the Democrats or Republicans in many elections. Today, those votes only rarely--if ever--help to elect candidates or influence policy. Minor party supporters are a smaller group, it is true, but many of them are highly motivated and engaged, and may have valuable ideas that would enrich our public life. Moreover, all are citizens who deserve a voice in government.
By allowing minor parties to support candidates who have a real chance of winning, and allowing all voters to vote on their own party's line for their candidate of choice, fusion voting gives them a more constructive role to play in state and local politics.
And third, it solves the "spoiler" problem facing minor parties and their supporters under the system that most states currently have in place.
Under the current (nonfusion)system, minor parties sometimes become "spoilers," allowing a candidate towin even when they're opposed by the majority of the electorate. Obviously, this is badfor democracy. Fusion voting solves this problem, because it allows everyone to vote for the party they believe in and for a candidate with a real chance of winning.
Reports
Fusion Voting: An Analysis
- Myriah Pahl, Demos; Benjamin Healy, Public Policy Institute: March 2007
|
