Confusion? No.
The only other argument I’ve seen against Question 2 is that it will be confusing to voters. Experience in states where fusion voting is still legal shows that isn’t the case.
Why is it confusing? Because the same candidate name can be on the ballot twice? Party labels will be on the ballot to help voters choose which line to vote for, but even if they remain confused, the worst case is that they’ll vote for the candidate they want to vote for, on the party line they’re most confident about, whereas they might otherwise have voted on the other party line. Big deal. If lots and lots of voters do this (and experience shows otherwise), they’ll still elect the right candidate. The only effect would be a weakening of the usefulness of fusion, as people revert to voting for their favored party.
What’s actually confusing is when two different candidates with the same name are on the ballot. But guess what? That’s already legal! In elections where fusion applies, you can at least always fall back to voting by party when you’re not sure which candidate is which. But two candidates with the same name can legally run in primaries or for municipal office, where there are no party lines, and you have to pick out the candidate by their age and home address. This kind of real confusion already happens. Question 2 neither allows nor prevents it.
Third Parties
I’ve seen people oppose fusion voting because they don’t like third parties, or fear spoilers. I agree with much of what they say. But again, we already have them. If you think third party organization is a bad idea, convince people not to do it. If you fear spoilers, convince people not to vote for them. Fusion doesn’t cause third parties to be spoilers, it adds a new non-spoiler option third parties might choose to use instead.
Progressive Organizing
Question 2 was placed on the ballot by a campaign inspired by New York’s Working Families party. They’d like to use it to start a similar Working Families party here in Massachusetts. Bad idea! If Question 2 passes, I may write more posts about why I think it’s a lousy organizing tool for progressives, but I’ll summarize here.
Organizing around fusion voting, they would start a third party that rather than competing against the Democratic party, works with progressive Democrats to help shift the party. In principle, that sounds find, and it has worked pretty well in New York.
The problem is, here in Massachusetts, you can’t use fusion in most of the elections that really matter. In New York, municipal elections are partisan, which means they have party labels on the ballot; in Massachusetts, they’re not. In New York, the state house and senate are split between the major parties; in Massachusetts, they’re both dominated by Democrats, and the real splits are intra-Democrat. In New York, there are a lot of state legislative and Congressional seats that are competitive in the general election; in Massachusetts, only a tiny handful.
The upshot is this: In Massachusetts, an overwhelming majority of the competitive elections that really make a difference in where our state goes, are elections where there are either no parties on the ballot (municipal) or one party on the ballot (primaries), so a third party organized around fusion can’t participate. In New York, most elections that matter are contested general elections where fusion can be used.
This isn’t an idle difference, because to organize around fusion is a big investment of time, energy, and people, You can’t just decide to run fusion in a handful of elections without setting up a statewide infrastructure for it. You need a party. You need statewide media exposure. You need a “brand” that people know and understand. Which means you need to use it often, in a lot of elections, for it to work – people need to get used to it, or it won’t be effective.
Spending a lot of time and energy organizing these things works well in New York, because it pays off in a tool you can use in a lot of important elections – for mayor of New York, for Congress, for control of the state legislature. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, it means you’re not putting your energy towards competing in Democratic primaries and municipal elections where your fusion party can’t participate, but where most of the real choices are made. You’re spending your time and energy putting together something that will only matter in the general election. By shifting that organizing effort away from primaries and into the general, you’re disadvantaging your cause, because the contest here in Massachusetts is usually not “will the Democrat win?” but “which Democrat will it be?”
If the point of voting for a 3rd party on a fusion ballot is to end the spoiler effect but allow your voice to be heard (that you’d like your guy to move the way of the Greens, say), how does fusion do this in any way? If the Green-Rainbow party had nominated Deval instead of Grace Ross, and done fusion voting, wouldn’t have HURT the message of the Greens? All their votes go to Deval and there’s nobody to be at the debates as the standard bearer of their ideals.
<
p>
Does that make sense? Or is this my 2am mind at work?
What you’re saying is a variant of “the tool fusion provides is one that would not be useful”, which isn’t a reason to vote against question 2, it’s a reason not to make use of fusion.
<
p>
You may be right about the Green party, but clearly the Working Families Party has a different message. In New York, where they exist, they mainly endorse Democrats. Here, even if the Green party did want to endorse some Democrats, it’s possible those Democrats wouldn’t want it because it’d hurt their message. To use fusion effectively, either an existing third party would have to change their brand somewhat, or a new third party (such as Working Families) would have to start, with a brand that isn’t anti-Democrat. My argument is that in Massachusetts, that effort would be an unproductive waste, since they couldn’t put it to use in most of our more important elections.
<
p>
So, for a different reason than you state, I agree that fusion is not useful for progressive organizers in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Fusion won’t end the spoiler effect on its own, it’s only a tool to allow third parties to compete with a different, non-spoiler strategy, if they choose to. The Greens’ current strategy is a non-fusion one, and we don’t know whether they’d change anything if fusion became available.
<
p>
To actually end the spoiler effect, we need instant runoff voting, which would be genuinely useful to all of us.
Extremists cannot govern because they must cling to ideology over issue. That is why fusion is a ba idea – it gives greater power to the wings on both sides.
<
p>
Please remember – isn’t the acutal PURPOSE of politics governance, not just winning?
I think for at-large executive offices, the primary importance is for moderate governance, which is why IRV is the best method of achieving the moderate majority-supported candidate.
<
p>
But for legislators, ideology is important, and a wide variety of those, for real contructive debate and compromise. We have at least 3 or 4 rough ideaologies represented in the General Court, but close to 90% are Democrat, regardless. Proportional voting by multi-member districts is the best IMO, as it keeps local representation and increases ideological diversity: but fusion voting is a good way to achieve similar goals. If we’re stuck with a one party dominating, I’d much rather know who are Conservatives, Working Families, Green, Rainbow Coalition, Progressives, Libertarians… a large variety of ideas being represented clearly and debated.
As much as I disagree with Marie Parente on the issues, she (for a while) was a popular leader in her community, and I know her personally from when she spoke at my eagle scout ceremony, so I recognize that she truly loved to serve her community. She had some huge probelms: she was anti-immigrant in an high immigrant population area, and she was anti-equal marriage in an area increasingly transition from quasi-rural to yuppie suburban, so facing a democratic primary population that is increasingly economic conservative and socially liberal. I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that John Fernandez will beat Robert Burns in the general, but I do believe that if Marie Parente had been cross-endorsed by say the Conservatives or the Republicans, she would be waging a competetive re-election campaign right now. I believe this would be a good thihg, just as I believe that Lieberman running as an independent is the right thing despite my support for Lamont. So it owuld be very interesting how that specific example would change under cross-endorsement.
fusion seems like another strategy option for party activists, but i’ve yet to hear a compelling case for how it would benefit the public at large.
<
p>
the ‘other voices heard’ argument seems pretty nebulous compared to the real life complications that would be caused in the during the contest.
<
p>
criminy, look at how the diaz(r)-diaz(d)-wilkerson(d) race unfolded. and on paper, that was pretty straightfoward. whereas, i’ve read the fusion referendum about 6 times, and i’m still not 100% sure i get it.
There’s not much to understand.
<
p>
Under current law, if a candidate gets the nomination of more than one political party, they must choose one, and only that one nomination will appear on the general election ballot. If Q2 passes, that rule is lifted, so all their nominations could appear on the ballot.
<
p>
If a candidate is listed on the ballot more than once (for more than one party), all their votes still get added up to one total.
is the Law of Unintended Consequences limbering up for that trip along the road paved with good intentions.
…but I’m glad this failed.
Like I said, I see no reason for fusion to be illegal, but I also think it’s useless here.