The Herald’s basic premise is that question two is all about special interests because it is a way to get these admittedly minor interests to be represented by the larger parties.
We must have missed the memo detailing the crisis of getting politicians to pay attention to the demands of special interests. Funny, in our experience, thats what pols do best. Its getting them to pay attention to the concerns of regular citizens they have trouble with.
Again, I have some reservations about question 2 but I do not think it is accurate to paint fusion voting as a plug for special interests. I think it is safe to say that fusion voting is intended to help those causes of significant importance that get little attention, like fair wages, to find a more prominent place in campaigns. Fusion voting helps bring out issues that rarely, if ever, make the debate.
Allowing cross endorsement voting in this state will, without doubt, spawn a cornucopia of liberal-leaning parties, enhancing the advantage of liberal candidates to the detriment of moderates and conservatives.
Here the Herald is trying to scare everyone by saying that the scary moon bat liberals will somehow be able to gain more influence in the big bad Dem Party should fusion be law. Not true. If anything fusion voting could hypothetically “splinter” the big tent we have built in Massachsuetts (a tent we should be reminded that somehow harmoniously includes a liberal like Sen. Pat Jehlen and the very conservative Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty) by encouraging the interest groups to form parties that are more representative of their issues. Also it becomes completely possible to have a Republican “endorse” a Democrat or vice versa (just look to Connecticut where the Republican Party there would love to be able to give even more of a helping hand to Joe Lieberman)(ok so I mispoke because Connecticut does have fusion voting, I wonder why they Party won’t endorse good ol’ Joe?). There are actually examples of this in New York state where fusion voting has been in place for quite some time.
The bottom line is that voting reforms are needed everywhere in this state and in this country. Fusion voting may or may not be the appropriate vehicle for such reform but to say that no reform is needed indication of factual ignorance. Calling any effort that attempts give more power to influence an election to more people is further evidence of ignorace. I know that to many people the empowerment of the voter is a very scary thing but unfortunately for the Herald editorial board that is what democracy is all about.
I was leaning against question 2 until I read the argument against it in the brochure that Galvin mailed out. The basic argument was that it would cause massive voter confusion, and as an example cited Florida in 2000. Since Florida did not have this particular feature, it seemed a pathetic excuse, especially considering the real problem on some of the ballots was too many distinct candidates. It was written by Rep. Anthony Petruccelli of the Election Laws Committee, and he provided a good illustration of massive confusion but not in the way he intended.
<
p> – Dan
… for the reason you cite, Andy; that fusion voting would likely dilute the power of the Democratic Party. While that may not seem like much of a menace statewide, there are areas of the state where that could hurt us.
<
p>
I’d favor (at least) two other voting reforms over fusion voting. One is IRV, the other is closed Primaries. I believe these would also strengthen the Democratic Party, in good ways.
<
p>
Instant runoff voting has been tried with great success in other locales (San Francisco comes to mind). I think it would be great if MassDems used it at Convention time as a demonstration of how it would work. If Andrea Silbert hadn’t been gracious enough to concede the Convention endorsement to Tim Murray, we might still be there counting the votes. IRV would ensure that there is always one and only one ballot for each contest.
<
p>
And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of those damnable paperless voting machines!
How does a city as big as San Francisco deal with the logistics of IRV? I would expect it would take forever to compute the results unless all the voting were on machines that could communicate results directly to some central computer. Could it work on a state level (with each municipality having its choice of mechanism)?
<
p> – Dan
As I recall, there was a (software) glitch in SF with the new system — it took them a day or so to get the “instant” results — but no one, in the end, complained. All the candidates thought it fair.
<
p>
Like any new system, there will be software problems that need to be worked out, and that’s the reason for trying it small-scale at first (like at the MassDems Convention), but the concept is robust.
<
p>
And, yes, the “instant” part of it requires computers that speak to each other, so we always need to have that paper trail in case of disputes.
In all fairness, nowhere in his post does Andy suggest that fusion voting would likely dilute the power of the Democratic Party. He doesn’t endorse Question 2, but it sounds to me like the jury (for him, at least) is still out.
<
p>
Regardless, let me begin my substantive comments by laying a few more of my cards on the table. I’m a registered Democrat and even served four years in office as an elected Democrat in CT before moving back home to Boston. So I hope I’ve got a little bit of Party cred.
<
p>
Now maybe it’s impossible for me to convince hardcore Democratic Party activists, who believe that our Party is the only mechanism for achieving social change — even with all its entrenched, old-school pols, who still dominate so much of our state’s politics — that passing Question 2 is valuable. Nonetheless, I’d at least like to quote former Berkshire County D.A. (and current New York State Senator) Eric Scheiderman on the issue:
<
p>
The emergence of the [fusion-based] Working Families Party over the last four years has been the biggest boost the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has gotten in decades.
<
p>
As I’ve discussed before, the WFP that Schneiderman references is an economically-populist party that usually cross-endorses Democrats, sometimes endorses progressive Republicans over conservative Democrats, and every once in a while runs its own…but it always focuses on elevating economic justice issues within the public debate.
<
p>
They’ll likely deliver 250,000 votes to Eliot Spitzer this fall. Of course, Spitzer is going to win anyway — but those votes will send the New York legislature a real message about what its priorities should be. Now, just imagine if an independent, authentic Working Families Party could cross-endorse Deval and deliver him votes from the culturally conservative working class voters in Southie and Dorchester and Malden. Not only might that help his margins, but imagine the crystal clear message that it would send to our entrenched legislature…and how it might strengthen his hand to govern with a more progressive agenda.
<
p>
Just some thoughts, of course.
NYS is a different animal.
<
p>
And, not to be overly defensive, but when you say “nowhere in his post does Andy suggest that fusion voting would likely dilute the power of the Democratic Party” I think you’re overlooking this:
<
p>
You’re right: NYS is definitely a different animal.
<
p>
But we’ve put in safeguards to ensure that even with open primaries, it would be very hard for candidates who aren’t cross-endorsed progressives to earn a spot on the Working Families ballot line.
<
p>
Rather than getting into the legalese in this forum, though, if you care enough to let me try and convince you, drop me a note at ben@massballotfreedom.com, and we could have some back and forth.
<
p>
And, on our other point of dissension, I suppose you’re right about Andy’s point above — he definitely discusses “splintering” the Democratic Party. I guess I’m just not sure it weakens those who are actually fighting for the issues I care about if folks like Gene O’Flaherty were to campaign under a banner other than that of the Democratic Party.