Last week Charley and I spent nearly an hour talking with Jim Fleischmann, Ben Healey, and (for part of the time) David Sirota, all of whom are strongly behind ballot question 2, which would legalize “fusion voting” or cross-endorsement in MA. For more info on how this would actually work, here’s the Mass. Ballot Freedom website, which is behind the question. The Secretary of State’s summary, with brief pro and con arguments, is here.
We had an interesting and free-wheeling discussion — Charley and I threw as many counter-arguments at them as we could think of. You can listen to our conversation here (large file: about 13 MB). Charley and I will also write up some thoughts separately.
Please share widely!
… before you start making arguments based on assumptions. The last time this came up, the two arguments against were:
<
p>
1- People would mark multiple versions of the same candidate, invalidating their ballot.
and
2- Candidates would make up a bunch of parties and have them all endorse them.
<
p>
A reading of the question demonstrates question 1 is false (marking a candidate under more than one party is still valid, there’s just no party associated with the vote) and that question 2 is impractical at best. Parties must receive 3% of the vote for their own candidate before they can appear on the ballot.
That second one, if true, I didn’t know. Where is that standard noted? (No really, I’m dense here, and too busy to look for it…)
I was partially correct but also wrong. My apologies:
A political party requires 3% in the previous election (2 if this initiative passed) in order to be a “political party” in Massachusetts. All political party nominations are to be placed together at the top of the ballot for any position. So if the Green Party (a designation) had decided to endorse Gore in 2000, the ballot would have read:
<
p>
However, there is also a mention of ‘political designations.’ I hadn’t noticed this (the 3% is mentioned in a seperate portion and I guess I assumed). I went through MA election law and found:
<
p>
So it does not allow true fly-by-night endorsements in that it sounds like you need at least 2 years advance notice. Additionally, the standard for political designation could be changed to something requiring a bit more substance pretty easily.
<
p>
Still, my bad for being so stringent on that point when I wasn’t accurate (at least not completely).
…to begin a Flat Earth Party with the SOS.
<
p>
What is YOUR definition of ‘fly-by-night’? Six? Three?
Fifty people is what you need to start a political designation (no ballot line!). In order to create the Flat Earth Party you’d either have to run a statewide candidate who garnered 3% of the vote, or register 1% of the electorate into your political designation.
<
p>
There are currently about twenty political designations in our state and some of them probably qualify as “fly by night”. However, there are only two parties with ballot lines (guess who?).
“Parties must receive 3% of the vote for their own candidate before they can appear on the ballot.”
<
p>
Not sure this is totally clear. To quote the question:
The proposed law would allow a political party to obtain official recognition if its candidate had obtained at least 3% of the vote for any statewide office at either of the two most recent state elections [my emphasis]
<
p>
Do we emphasize the candidate’s prior record as an individual or the party’s prior record (with the candidate merely being a representative of the party)?
<
p>
That is, would a former Dem who got 20% of the vote in the prior election running as Green get the Green party on the ticket even if their earlier candidates got <3%? (Like Lieberman did with “Conn. for Lieberman”).
Or would the Green candidate–no matter how they had done in earlier elections for a different party–not appear on the ticket until another Green candidate made it over 3%?
<
p>
The wording makes me believe the first, which would potentially allow anyone who got over 3% of the vote in earlier elections to do exactly what you suggested in making up parties to endorse them.
…as the candidate of the political party they were seeking to create. Thus, earning 20% in a previous statewide election as a Dem. would not allow that person to therefore create a new — let’s say — Labor Party at whim. They would have needed to run as a Labor Party candidate and received 3% of the vote in that election for that party to then become official.
Though it makes me wonder what’s at work in Connecticut’s fusion voting system that allowed “Connecticut for Lieberman” to come into being. Different implementations, I suppose.
…is how the assumption is that only progressive parties will emerge. (I will pass over how the MA Ballot Freedom graphics got onto the SOS web site).
<
p>
Are you really so certain that the Mass. Anti-Gay Marriage party and the Mass. Repeal Roe vs. Wade parites won’t emerge?
<
p>
What will Steady Sue do THEN?
In reality, we all know that there won’t be a party named “Anti-Gay Marriage”. Instead it will have some innocuous sounding name like the “Protecting Families Party”. Some voters might not know what the parties stand for and their votes will be misinterpreted.
When the candidates win with a slug of votes coming from certain parties, like the Green Party, it Sends a Message, but if the candidate wins with votes from certain other paties, like the “Save Our Families” party, it will be because voters’ intent was misinterpreted.
<
p>
This Sounds like a “No” just to avoid the silly gamesmanship.
But an anti-gay party calling itself something innocent? Or, if you like, a far-left party calling itself Democrats for Business?
Most people I have talked to assume that the Dem party will some how separate into the factions that currently hold it together. I have always thought that fusion voting would give the conservative and Republican moderate people (yes there are plenty of them in Mass) an opportunity to do an end around by the inept Republican party in this state.
toward the very end of the conversation. They think it’s relatively unlikely. But I agree with you — I have little doubt, frankly, that right-wing parties will emerge in response to the possibility of cross-endorsement.
Is that it makes the Dem and Rep parties work harder to retain their voters…or it should.
<
p>
If lots of people are voting on a single-issue party or a third party which has lots in common with one of the main parties but has some differences, it will show the main parties where they are lagging and by how much on those issues, and might make the party reevaluate.
<
p>
And a deceptive name, for instance one that is for an anti-gay group but doesn’t sound like it, doesn’t have the impact on the main party that actually saying what the third party is for (say, calling itself the “anti-gay party”), the Republican party can sorta dismiss the impact due to the fact lots of people were probably tricked into voting on that line. So that idea sorta weeds itself out…
…I would just argue (strenuously) that our side is the one leaking voters out of both our left flank and to the ranks of the unenrolled. The New York experience has shown that cross-endorsement can help get ’em back.
<
p>
Of course, I’m also of the opinion that voters having a stronger tool to send a message on the issues they care about most is a good thing, regardless of ideology.
Thanks, P.P. I’m very uncomfortable with selling any electoral change on the basis that it will help one side or another. I support this on the basis of its principle, with the understanding that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’ll take my chances as to whether it hurts or helps my cause.
They already have one that embraces their views.
and in fact I asked those guys about it. Jim doesn’t worry so much about it, Ben does acknowledge that indeed conservative parties would flex more muscle.
I think this would only confuse people (I find it confusing). It would be especially bad if you had multiple candidates with similar names. And it doesn’t seem to accomplish all that much.
<
p>
I would much rather see an initiative to introduce some form of preference-based or instant-runoff voting.
<
p>
This is a system that existed for most of our country’s history and is run without problem in CT and NY State (and to a lesser extent in 5 other states). I don’t know why it would be considered confusing. While I recognize that IRV or some other preference based voting would be nice – its also much more confusing. Do you use a point system (5 for first, 4 for second or 10 for first, 5 for second….) or a pure runoff?, do you have to enter a name for every ‘slot’?, what do you do with primaries?, etc. I don’t get why one would oppose this measure because its slightly more complicated because its probably not as ideal as the extremely complicated (and not realistically going to be implemented anytime soon) IRV.
<
p>
I don’t quite understand why having similar names would be a problem in this ballot but not a regular ballot (and that would be an even bigger problem in IRV ballots).
Maybe I am just stupid.
<
p>
I don’t think that preference based systems are all that confusing for the voters: list candidates in order of preference. Anyone can understand that. They only get complicated when you have to explain the rules for determining the final tally.
The whole idea seems confusing to me as well.
<
p>
In my mind we should make voting as simple as possible, and having a candidate’s name appear more than once won’t do much to simplify the process.
As I understand it, the state house in Albany is divided between Democrats and Republicans, same as every place else. The only place these “parties” seem to have any significance is in NYC, but it is common to have different “parties” or associations in municipal elections…where I live, the municipal elections are officially nonpartisan. In Cambridge, where I used to live, municipal elections were between CCA and “indpendents”…now that the CCA is gone, Cambridge elections are essentially nonpartisan, too.
<
p>
If people really want a space for parties to grow, some form of IRV is the answer. It doesn’t have to be complicated, especially with computerized tabulation system.
I think this would only confuse people (I find it confusing)
<
p>
In practice, where it is used, people don’t find it confusing. I think the confusion is about understanding what it will be and how it will work; that’s different from confusion once you actually have it and see it. It’s a matter of poor explanation of the system, not of the system actually being confusing when it’s in place.
<
p>
It would be especially bad if you had multiple candidates with similar names.
<
p>
I don’t think so. We can have multiple candidates with similar names under our current voting system and it can be equally confusing (think of the people who voted for “S Diaz” in the Second Suffolk). If there are candidates with similar names, you could still just pick the one with your favored party label and vote for them that way, fusion voting or not.
<
p>
And it doesn’t seem to accomplish all that much.
<
p>
In Massachusetts, I agree with you – but only because it won’t apply at all to most of our most important elections. The ballots won’t be affected.
<
p>
It can be used as a very powerful organizing tool in partisan elections, as both the Conservative and Working Families parties in NY have shown. That doesn’t mean it “accomplishes much” on its own, but that’s not the point.
<
p>
I would much rather see an initiative to introduce some form of preference-based or instant-runoff voting.
<
p>
Yes, that would’ve been truly useful, and solved the biggest problems in our current voting system, while also allowing the people who pushed fusion to organize the way they wnt to. It’s very frustrating that people put all this time and energy into a pointless, useless reform (fusion in MA) when they could’ve done something useful.
Geez, the more I think about this idea, the worse it seems in my eyes. Bad enough that it could confuse voters, and provide narrow interest groups (like the anti-equality folks from Kansas or wherever they originate) a vehicle to get on the ballot.
<
p>
But I’m going to revive the tired centrist v. flank argument. This is an initiative beloved by the fringes in the two big parties. The Greens and Libs hate it, but question two is loved by the “working families party”. I put them in lowercase because they aren’t so much a political party as a leveraging instrument fronting for organized labor. I’m a union member, so that’s not my problem.
<
p>
But the fact is, a lot of Democrats get elected with centrist votes and left-wing money. A lot of Democratic state reps are propelled by individuals donating based on labor rights, or marriage equality. That isn’t mentioned in their campaign literature. But imagine, now, a centrist voter goes to the ballot box, and sees this:
<
p>
Democratic Party: Joe Smith
working families party: Joe Smith
Pro-Equality Party: Joe Smith
<
p>
Do those other two “endorsements” make Joe Smith more or less likely to receive that vote?
Is your point that this will artificially inflate Joe’s vote by influencing unaffiliated voters? Joe has to earn those endorsements (as well as win the Democratic primary). It’s a way for people who are down on the two-party system to participate in the real world instead of floating no-hope candidacies at the expense of the next-best candidate, for example. I don’t see this as any more flawed than the way it works now.
I don’t think the “Moderate Party” would get too far. Instead, parties with narrow interests would force candidate to go further to the edge to win that endorsement.
…but I’m not sure it would have to work that way. Instead of developing their platforms in “smoke-filled rooms”, candidates might have to actually listen to voters from these different parts of the spectrum to find out what kind of broad -based case they need to make. And from the other side, a party like Working Families has to have a much broader appeal than you’re suggesting in order to have any pull at all on the voters or influence on any candidate.
<
p>
My sister-in-law in NY is registered as WFP, partly because she isn’t represented by a union. Her interests overlap somewhat with, but aren’t entirely represented by, the unions. Without the fusion option, she would have to vote Democratic and cross her fingers that anything good will happen. The WFP is not the Socialist Workers’ Party. It’s pretty moderate, with a bunch of common-sense, reasonable platform planks that defend the interests of two pretty large demographics — working people, and families. The only way they are radical is against the context of the nation’s rightward shift, but then Ward and June Cleaver are pinko terrorists in that context.
<
p>
But that’s just one example; the ballot question is not all about the WFP. My point is that I don’t think people will vote anywhere else on the spectrum than they would, but the spectrum will be divided into more than two pieces, and that’s good for understanding more accurately where public support is for candidates and issues. I think it will also reduce the “fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” factor in elections.
Right next door in New York, we have a long history of fusion voting used in that way, so instead of guessing, we can look and see what actually happens. In a state where Democrats and Republicans are more evenly matched (NY is “blue” because of NYC, the rest of it is much more balanced), and where the “centrist” vote is much more important theoretically, we see that in fact, Republican candidates who don’t get the Conservative Party ballot line, hardly ever win. It’s almost a rule of thumb that Republican candidates need the Conservative endorsement to get elected. And “Working Families” helps Democrats, too. So it doesn’t appear to work the way you speculate it might.
I just don’t see a meaningful difference there. Republicans have to be conservative, Democrats have to be pro-union. So what?
The New York GOP has been eviscerated, and will be whittled even more in two weeks. They’ve been pulled to the right by the Conservative Party, where the wingnut assemblage that is the NYCP convention could spike Weld’s campaign earlier this year by refusing to endorse him.
<
p>
Thankfully, the working families party doesn’t seem to have that outsize influence in New York. At the moment.
<
p>
I guess for that small number of moderates that still care about party politics, it would be bad. For people on the wings who want ever more stringent litmus tests, it’s good.
It seems like what’s happening in NY is also happening in a lot of states without fusion voting. And Weld himself has already had his ambitions thwarted at the national level by Republicans who didn’t consider him conservative enough.
<
p> – Dan
…where people voted for Buckly (GOP) for Rep. and Patrick for Governor. Or Frisoli and Bergstrom (Dem).
<
p>
what we REALLY need to do is close the primaries and have the 50% pick a party. It would promote moderation, and would go a long way towards ending ’boutique’ candidacies.
If you ever read this thread, you should know that I voted (absentee) for Q2 – actually gave it quite a bit of thought after we spoke at the Hudson Dem. Town Committee meeting.
<
p>
Thanks,
Mark
I’m just getting through this thread now…and I appreciate the thought you put into the question. Given all of our partisan leanings, I do understand the skepticism that people on this site have about bringing the voices of independent parties more meaningfully into the system, but Pat Walrath’s “people just need to choose one side or the other, they can’t stay focused on their own issues” argument (as you might recall her making) continues to fall flat for me as a real strategy for re-engaging all those former Democrats who have drifted into the unenrolled column over time.
<
p>
Anyhow, keep up all the good work in Hudson — it’s definitely districts like yours that will make the difference for Deval on the 7th!
Thought it interesting the opposing summary cites an illustration that could also be used in support:
You could make a case that, if that election had been conducted under the proposed rules (yes, I know, that’s national; this is just an illustration) the whole mess might have been avoided. I say might because there’s no guarantee someone like Nader wouldn’t still insist on driving his tricycle onto the freeway anyway.
shame on me for not blogging it earlier, but i talked with alex from the campaign last week at DL. my main concern is that I didn’t understand how this would play into the liberal movement’s most useful tactic lately (using the primary to beat conservative Democrats.) Alex explained that in places with a huge number of liberals, the cross-endorsement allows liberals to “vote twice”: first in the primary by voting for the liberal candidate in the primary, and second in the general by voting for the liberal candidate on the WFP line, thus guaranteeing that the liberal candidate will “stay honest” when he or she is elected. an interesting mechanism, to say the least.
<
p>
.. of course, the WFP has stopped selling cross-endorsement as “voting twice” publicly because people hear it and think, “you can’t vote twice, that’s illegal!”
With a gun – that’s really a starter pistol – to their head?
<
p>
I wonder how many incumbents will tremble over the loss of the Flat Earth endorsement, which in some districts (apoligies to Marzilli) is more of a noose around your neck than a help.
Of course if it had been here in 2004 when Carl Sciortino ousted Vinnie Ciampa in the Democratic Primary — they would have endorsed Ciampa. Look at the list of the WFP. Most of the groups that made an endorsement in that race were with Ciampa. Little revisionist history folks?
<
p>
The progressive movement in MA has been making progress and winning elections. Of course, most of labor has not been part of it (has gotten its butt kicked, in many cases) so now they’re trying to change the rules and co-opt the movement that is here.
<
p>
Rather then do what any Deval volunteer now knows is how you run a campaign (talk to voters, one at a time) the Unions believe that all they really need to do is create a line for the labor stamp of approval and the voters will respond.
<
p>
Any progressive activist who thinks that this group is really trying to advance OUR agenda is naive.
<
p>
If this passes, it will be even MORE difficult to elect progressive candidates than it is now.
I learned grass roots politcs “talking to voters, one at a time” from the WFP.
<
p>
I say a progressive activist who thinks there agenda is different than organized labor (working people and their organizations” isn’t a progressive.
They want to have more influence with conservative Democrats who are in office. Most in the progressive community want to CHANGE who is in office. Look at who these unions endorse — every Democratic incumbent. Most of them endorsed Tom Reilly for Governor. And I am SURE that’s who the WFP would have endorsed as well.
<
p>
When is the last time the AFL endorsed against an incumbent Democratic legislator in this state? Didn’t happen this year. Didn’t happen in 2004.
<
p>
Too bad, maybe we could have taken out Joyce Spiliotis or John Fresolo (and I could name many more). Thanks for nothing!
<
p>
In other states, maybe Labor is a good team player with the progressives. Not here. And that is a shame because our agendas SHOULD be the same.
I’ve been on the ground for some of these key progressive victories, and I do indeed recall labor stepping up for progressive Democrats; most recently, SEIU going to bat for Pat Jehlen, and the Boston Teacher’s Union for Tim Schofield. Some unions did endorse Deval Patrick in the primary.
<
p>
Labor unions do not always endorse intelligently, that is true. But quite often they do. Your rather nasty anti-labor are totally overgeneralized and largely unfounded.
SEIU and the Teachers Unions are better than most. But they are not the majority at all. We’re mainly talking about the Building Trades. The AFL.
<
p>
Jehlen didn’t get the building trades at all. They went with Joe Mackey.
<
p>
Schofield had almost ALL of labor up against him as they were with Moran (while all the progressive groups were with Schofield). Without the opposition from labor, he would have won.
<
p>
That same time, AFL was backing Stacey Monnahan against Linda Dorcena Forrey for Finneran’s old seat. Same basic breakdown… AFL on one side, Progressive groups on the other.
<
p>
Again, when has the AFL endorsed against an incumbent Dem? And, since the answer is sometime before you were born, how could increasing labor’s power through the WFP allow us to better challange bad incumbent Democrats.
<
p>
So, they don’t go up against bad incumbents, and they endorse a non-progressive in MOST open seats. Tell me again, with a straight face, that my points are “unfounded.”
NARAL endorsed Moran, not Schofield. And a whole host of other progressive groups as well.
Jim Fleischmann, here. Three points I’d like to make:
<
p>
1. Ballot confusion tends to be less about the way in which people vote/votes are tallied, and more about ballot design. Voters can follow many different types of ballots, as long as they provide clear instructions. On the other hand, the 2000 Florida debacle happened under the current prevalent system of voting (and was largely due to physical problems with the actual ballots, i.e, punch ballots or chads).
<
p>
Fusion is legal and commonly practiced in NY, where voters don’t seem to have problems understanding the ballot. Does anybody think that New York voters are somehow smarter than Massachusetts voters?
<
p>
2. The concern that fusion will help to proliferate a raft of marginal, splinter parties is vastly overstated (see Wendell Woodman in today’s Metro). Creating a bonifide political party in any state still requires significant organizing. In Massachusetts, you have to either run a statewide candidate that wins 3% of the vote (and do it every two years or lose your ballot line), or enroll 1% of all registered voters in your party.
<
p>
How many people can name more than five political parties that have had ballot lines in Massachusetts in the last fifty years? Re-legalizing fusion won’t change how parties get a ballot line. It will only change what they can do with their line (endorse another party’s candidates) and what they have to do to maintain it (garner 3% for a statewide candidate every four years, instead of two).
<
p>
3. Fusion was once legal everywhere, including Massachusetts. A number of great Massachusetts politicians were elected on multiple ballot lines, and the support they received on minor party lines bolstered their abilities to advocate for certain unpopular issues. Horace Mann (public education crusader), Charles Sumner (abolitionist), and Benjamin Franklin Butler (labor rights advocate), were all elected on multiple ballot lines and the votes on their minor party lines were a public demonstration of support for their advocacy on their signature issues.
<
p>
Universal suffrage, social security, the minimum wage and many other things we may take for granted were advanced by minor parties that cross endorsed (fused). In the Bay State, supporters of single payer health care, indexing the minimum wage to inflation, and in-state tuition for children of immigrants (to name a few issues) might see their issues well-served by a re-legalization of fusion.
So are you saying that Horace Mann couldn’t advocate for public schools unless he was part of another party? It’s the same candidate no matter what party you choose to vote. I tried to look at this with an open mind, but I just don’t get it. A candidate with their own signature party, the more I read the more I see this as a dog. You are going to need to make a better argument; we did this before or New York does it, is not enough.
If it were not for fusion we would still have slavery… except in New York.
<
p>
Why is this so difficult to understand? You know, we didn’t even have democracy until minor parties were able to advocate for it. In fact, HUMANS didn’t appear on earth until fusion voters created them!
Do you ever actually contribute in a constructive way to political debate or are sarcasm and belittlement your only rhetorical tools?
My natural reaction to ridiculous claims is sarcasm. If you put forward an argument having to do with MA sometime in the last, say, 50 years, I’d be happy to respond seriously.
<
p>
I think you guys are doing something that will cause harm to the progressive movement in this state, and you come up with arguments having nothing to do with elections today, and what WE are actually doing.
<
p>
My main point still stands — the majority of groups on your WFP list have endorsed the NON-progressive candidate in any number of Democratic Primaries over the last 10 years.
<
p>
This isn’t about Progressive power. It’s about YOUR power. If you had ever given any indication that you were really supportive of us and wanted to CHANGE who was in office, I’d support your having more power. But you don’t.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong, after the primaries we’re all on the same side most all the time. But in THIS state, the primaries ARE the elections that matter, and the list of groups on the WFP list have been on the wrong side!
<
p>
Failure to get in-state tuition for children of immigrants. Inability to get the minimum wage increase indexed to inflation. These are two specific examples of issues that advocates would almost certainly have had greater success on if some legislators had been elected (partially) with votes on a ballot line controlled by a minor party that advocates for these issues.
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t understand your points or your language. How will our effort hurt this progressive movement? “You guys” is our coalition, a very diverse group of labor organizations, community organizations, and public interest groups that see the cross endorsement as a viable way to build electoral power. Many of them don’t make election endorsements. To say that the “majority of them have endorsed the NON-progressive candidate” is to fail to realize that many of them have endorsed different candidates in the same race and many don’t make candidate endorsements at all.
<
p>
And who is WE and how does an organization (or individual) qualify to be a member of “the progressive movement”?
<
p>
<
p>
You’re absolutely right. It is about building power for our 60+ endorsing organizations and the hundreds of thousands of senior citizens, teachers, people of color, low-wage workers, and working families that they represent. We are not bashful about this fact (and you can find out who we are at [http://www.massballo…]. Just who are you and who does the progressive movement you purport to speak for represent?
<
p>
<
p>
After the primary you and the progressive movement may be all on the same side. For our supporting organizations, their members and constituencies, after the primary they face a new batch of elected officials that they have to hold accountable to their issues.
You are living on a different planet. The labor groups on your list almost ALL endorsed every incumbent Democrat that voted against indexing and/or against in-state tuition.
<
p>
Stop making things up.
Since the unions that support Question 2 are all so soiled, which unions are in your progresive movement?
I am saying, narrowly, that the Unions and the progressive community are WAY too often at odds with each other in Democratic Primaries in this state. Those are the elections that matter in Massachusetts.
<
p>
In pretty much every other case, I am 100% pro-union, so generally I don’t make a big deal out of it. But now you guys are trying to do something that will put these Unions FAR more in the drivers seat… that IS your goal.
<
p>
My goal is to see more progressive dems get elected, and you’ve given me NOTHING to either express understanding that it’s not too reassuring that Labor was with Reilly, backed nearly incumbent Dem and opposes none, and routinely is on the other side of the bulk of the progressive community in open seat elections.
<
p>
Why don’t you address that? I’ve posted these points 100 times. Why the hell would we want you guys to have more power in MA elections? Why don’t you explain why your organizations supported Vinnie Ciampa against Carl Sciortino? Why the Trades were against Pat Jehlen? Why you were with Monahan and Moran when the progressives backed Dorcena-Forrey and Schofield. Why you were with Moroney instead of Provost? Why you went with Gottwald and Feeney instead of Peake and Naughton (Feeney even supported the tax rollback, but you still supported him!)
<
p>
It would be different if it was an occational case, but it’s the NORM for the elections that most matter for the progressive community.
<
p>
But instead of addressing the fact that your members are fighting AGAINST the progressive community in MOST democratic primary elections, you are trying to bait me into a discussion that would make me sound anti-labor. I’m not anti-labor, I just want to see you guys show that we’re on the same side before you ask me to support giving you more power. But you don’t. I don’t even think you get it.
The unions were with a progessive candidate when they chose Moran over Schofield.
Votes cast for David Soares in 2004, successful candidate for Albany County DA, on the WFP line, were widely and correctly interpreted as votes to reform the repressive Rockefeller drug laws. After he was elected, the NY Assembly began the process of dismantling these laws and a wide variety of observers attributed this to Soares’ election.
<
p>
Nobody is saying that fusion is a panacea. We’re only saying it’s a useful organizing tool and one of several constructive and necessary electoral reforms.
So I check in to BMG and am pleased to see Q2 at the top! After going through the whole thread I’m in a mood to say OK, I’ve been opposed to this so far, let’s just wipe the slate clean, with a wide open mind, and give it one last honest chance.
<
p>
After downloading (13 minutes over DSL, ugh!) and listening to the whole hour conversation my thoughts now are “hmmmm….”. This is the closest I’ve been to actually crossing into yes-on-2 territory, but I’m still not there yet.
<
p>
In the few scattered discussions on Q2 so far, my primary objection to Q2 is that it does absolutely nothing to address the “spoiler effect”. When you have three or more candidates, fusion does you absolutely no good. It’s still possible for someone to win with less than 50%, and it’s still possible for the “wrong candidate” to be elected (a minority preference prevails when the majority is split). After reading and listening here, and by their own admission, I am now thoroughly convinced that this is true, and fusion is useless in countering the “wasted vote” phenomenon. Fusion is certainly not the panacaea that some have proclaimed it to be.
<
p>
Also in past discussions, the doomsday scenarios abound:
<
p>
Vote for president: Republican – George Bush Democrat – George Bush Green – George Bush Libertarian – George Bush
<
p>
Yes, yes, I know that’s national too, etc., but the point is that voting on your own party line is absolutely no consolation when your vote counts for someone you don’t support. Admittedly, this scenario is preposterous but what about the frightening possibility that the Dems would nominate McCain? (again, this is now much less likely than a year ago, but you see the point). Finally look at a much more real-world-right-here-right-now scenario: the Secretary of State race. Let’s say the Greens wanted to nominate Bonifaz. The primary ballot would be:
<
p>
Democrat: Galvin
Democrat: Bonifaz
Green: Bonifaz
<
p>
Ok, granted that no single ballot would list all three since they are split by party, but look at the result. Galvin wins the primary and then what? Would the general then be:
<
p>
Democrat: Galvin
Green: Bonifaz
<
p>
Would Bonifaz then be compelled to switch to G since 100% of his vote came on the Green line? Of course, since Bonifaz is not actually a Green (contrary to some hysteria otherwise), why on earth would he agree to be listed as a Green? If he declined the nomination, we’d be right back where we are (not a bad place since in my mind I can’t see how you have any credibility calling yourself a progressive unless you vote for Stein, but I digress).
<
p>
So, with all that aside, now comes the however, and it’s a big HOWEVER. Given that fusion is useless at actually solving the main problem, and that it would almost certainly not be used by the existing parties in the way MBF proposes, is there merit to the idea that it is “just an additional option, a potential tool for progressive change”? This is where I say “Hmmm….”. Maybe.
<
p>
Let’s assume for a moment there are no negatives (ok, there’s that word, chuckle, but the opposing argument on the SoS site is so weak and the “confusion” argument is such a red herring, let’s just try to give it a chance). Would it be so bad to have this tool, even if arguably only marginally useful? Honestly, I’m not sure. And the potential negatives could easily push me right back into the solid NO column. I’m really trying to give Q2 a fair chance.
<
p>
One thing is abundantly clear however. If Q2 fails, it’ll be such a shame to see all of MBF’s efforts go to waste when instead they could have pushed for real reform with IRV.
<
p>
I think that’s the argument that has me weakly on the YES side. Your entire aregument is right and you position is almost exactly what I think. In the end, I’m going to vote yes because anything that expands the democratic process, even only marginly, is good for democracy.
The way things work now, Bonifaz is not on the ballot. If the Green’s cross-endorsed him, at least he’d be on the ballot. Isn’t that a better option?
I don’t see your point. For one, in order to get a nomination, there is still a primary process. If a candidate managed to win the primaries of those parties, there’s no way he or she is going to lose the general.
<
p>
And this measure does nothing to remove bad candidates from your partyline… but it doesn’t add them either.
<
p>
I don’t see this initiative as a way to get different candidates on the ballot (at least not initially). Instead, its a way to effect those who are elected.
<
p>
Look at CT: Ned Lamont won the Dem primary largely on an anti-Iraq war platform. Almost instantly, every candidate in the state took notice and shifted their rhetoric closer to Lamont’s anti-war message.
<
p>
This initiative posits that a similar effect will occur towards governance. Parties that represent labor, our freedoms, or social justice (or a host of conservative ideas/moderate ideas) can effect how the pols govern because they want those group’s support. This allows third parties to influence elections without necessarily entering their own spoiler candidates.
<
p>
I think Grace Ross is not in this race with Q2. She knows she has no chance but she wants to influence the debate. With cross endorsement, she can do that.
<
p>
And yes, the Right Wing can do the same thing… but so can Moderates. In Parliamentary systems, the “Centrist” or “Moderate” Party is often the party in power. National surveys that ask people if they are liberal, moderate or conservative register at least as many moderates as libs or cons. A Moderate Party, a Centrist Party, etc could certainly move candidates to the center as much as to the extremes. Jon Stewart can file the papers.
As an attendee at the Libertarian State Convention in September, I can report that fusion voting was debated at considerable length before the convention came down against. It was not a hostile against to my ear, just a ‘nothing here for us’ against. A substantial minority took the other side on the matter, namely that there were positive opportunities here. Fusion can make sense for a small party to the left of the Democrats or the right of the Republicans, as seen in New York where I once lived. The Green, Constitution, and Working Families Parties will all potentially benefit. However, for a Libertarian, left of Democrats on some issues and right of old-fashioned Republicans on others, fusion does not contibute much, because no matter whether we help the D or the R candidate, our set of issues are not on the average advanced.
Attendee? You’re too modest.
<
p>
I would like to humbly and respectfully suggest that fusion voting could help Libertarians participate in elections in a more constructive way than they have up to this point, because frankly, that hasn’t advanced the full set of Libertarian issues, either.
<
p>
I’m glad to hear about the discussion of this at the convention, but disappointed the State Libertarian Party as a group couldn’t see the value in it for them. I sort of understand why: There’s a “None of the above” component to this that might be split into its underlying, specific, and potentially opposing philosophies, which could end up represented by other parties specifically organized around them.
<
p>
On the other hand, if at the convention they discussed the tradeoffs in a particular election, and decided as a party, for example, that the defense of civil liberties was more important — at that time — than the shrinking of government (and/or that the Republicans had done a piss-poor job of doing either one), they could endorse the Democrat, for one election cycle and without any future obligations, and have some ongoing visibility, because that would register as a Libertarian vote.
<
p>
In short, to the extent that the Libertarian Party actually stands for anything specific, I think fusion voting would be a positive for it. To the extent that it insists on nurturing all of its inherently contradictory positions, no variation of the election process will advance its cause.