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.