Have we talked about this yet? If so, sorry for my duplication; I must have missed this. I started a conversation on this in my own blog but it generated little interest, so I thought I’d try here.
This question proposes a change to election law that allows a candidate to run for nomination by multiple parties, and appear on a ballot multiple times as the nominee for those parties. Currently, a candidate can only appear for a single party. (The ballot campaign here)
This seems like a no-brainer to me. This would provide a solution to the “spoiler” problem, where a third party candidate “steals” just enough votes from a similarly-minded major party candidate to keep him/her from winning. In this case, if, say, Deval Patrick was democratic enough to get the Democratic nomination, and Green enough to get the Green party nomination, he could be on the November ballot twice, representing both parties. This is a big boon to non-major political parties and this seems like just a good thing to me.
I looked around the web for the anti-argument in case I was missing something. The measure is being opposed by Rep Anthony Petruccelli, but I was unable to find anything substantive about his argument against. The closest was a brief quote from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette:
A no vote on this question will protect voters from confusing ballots and prevent candidates from having their names appear on the ballot more than once for the same office, Mr. Petruccellis statement reads. This change is only a benefit to fringe political parties and designations at the expense of voters.
Anyone know what the argument against this puppy is?
as I explained when she visited UMass over the summer. She argues
that it’s a less effective way for progressives to build their influence than a third party. (She favors single-transferrable vote or “instant-runoff” to allow third parties to campaign for their own candidates without necessarily acting as spoilers, but says that her ideal would be the European system of multiple parties, proportional representation, and coalition governments.)
<
p>
It may be that a yes vote is in the interests of the Democratic Party for the very reason that she says it’s not in the interests of the Green Party.
<
p>
I believe the major backers of this are the Working Families Party, who want to organize a visible progressive faction both within and parallel to the Democratic Party. If fusion voting passes, the theoretical leverage the WFP would have on Democrats would be to withhold their endorsement and run their own candidate. If they consistently got several percent of the vote for major Democrats on their own line, they could preserve their party status and have this option in every race.
<
p>
The UMass faculty union, MSP, supports a yes vote and says that “Mass. Senior Action, ACORN, and dozens of other groups” also support it.
I greatly respect Grace Ross so that gives me some food for thought.
<
p>
However, although instant run-off voting would be great, it Ain’t Gonna Happen. Is this a step in the right direction in the absence of such a huge change in our voting system?
because it gives the voter more information and may put some pressure on the conservative Democrats in the legislature. (You might see more Democratic primary losers running in the general on a WFP line, unless we adopt a “sore loser” provision as some states have.)
<
p>
I don’t see why IRV is a non-starter politically. Ross mentioned that it was sold in California as a cost-saving measure, given that they already had a 50%-or-more rule for the relevant races — they save the trouble of an entire new election by having people pre-select their runoff vote on the original election day.
“I don’t see why IRV is a non-starter politically.”
<
p>
Well I hope you are right but I don’t see it happening. It doesn’t serve the interests of those already in power.
<
p>
And did you see what happened to Bonifaz, who was running on a platform of election reform? Yeah. that grease spot on the pavement, that’s him.
We don’t have a 50% rule for statewide races, so it wouldn’t save us runoff elections. I assume the cost of implementing it statewide all at once would be substantial, and that would discourage people.
<
p>
How about a law that any NEW voting equipment installed by any municipality be compliant with IRV? Then eventually it would be possible to implement it statewide with minimal cost. And in the meantime it might be tried in local elections.
<
p> – Dan