Forum:A Practical Method to Shake Up the Two Party System

From Campaigns Wikia

Fusion Voting isn't something I claim to be neutral about. I work long hours knocking on doors in support of the ballot initiative that I hope will change politics in Massachusetts. It deals with "fusion" or "cross-endorsement" voting, a system that allows minor parties to nominate the same candidate as one of the majors on a seperate ballot line.

Ever since I learned to think for myself (an unintended by-product of my college education) I have believed that the two party system in the United States offers voters little more than a continual game of "Who is the lesser of two evils in this election?" The "winners" in the game, apart from the politicians themselves, are special interests from the business world and groups that organize around hot button issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage.

Electoral Fusion challenges this equation in two ways. First off it can be used to hold politicians from the major parties accountable on the issues. When an endorsement comes with a demonstrated number of votes behind it the politician who recieved these votes is on notice. If they fail to follow through on the specific promises that helped secure that endorsement they will lose it, and thus lose the votes that it represents. For an individual, voting on a minor party line lets the voter send a strong message about the issues and values that are most important to them, without feeling sidelined by voting for minor party candidates without any realistic chance of winning.

What I think is even more exciting, however, is the potential for a minor party to use fusion as a stepping stone. Using the strategy of endorsing major party candidates that make concrete promises on specific issues a minor party can gradually grow its base of supporters until it has the numbers to field its own candidates. Over the long term I believe this would lead to a more healthy democracy with real choices and (dare I hope?) a better informed and more involved electorate.

So, there's the opinion of a lefty fusion enthusiast. I deliberately left out the con sides of the argument, anyone out there who can supply it please step forward.--Vive42 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What state is the initiative campaign in? Chadlupkes 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The initiative I'm involved with is in Massachusetts- I did mention the state at the beginning although I suppose I didn't specifically say the initiative (question 2) is on the ballot in MA. Fusion is legal in New York and Connectucut also, and there are states other than Mass that are at some point in the process to re-legalize fusion. New York is the only state in which fusion is commonly used by minor parties in the manner I described, but I for one have high hopes that all that will be changing soon.--Vive42 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why fusion voting rather than proportional representation? You mention fusion as a stepping stone for third parties, but stepping stone to where? As long as they are third parties, they will always have to choose between endorsing a major party candidate and risking, at least in people's minds, splitting the vote. At best you'll make it easier for a new party to one day suplant one of the existing major parties and take its place in the two party system. Although there are good reasons why state laws that prohibit fusion candidates should be gotten rid of, fusion itself won't solve anything.DeusVolt 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that fusion won't solve the problems directly- it's useful as a tool to crack open the 2-party system, not as an end in itself. I'm personally in favor of other election reform ideas, such as proportional representation (that just doesn't happen to be a ballot question I will have a chance to vote on in November).

As for your objections, first off I don't see at all how you think fusion would lead to one particular minor party displacing one of the majors. If an insurgent independant party grew to be more powerful than one of the 2 parties currently in power today then that party and every other minor party would still have fusion as a tool to use in a strategic manner.

Right now independant parties have a hard time getting 3-5% of the vote in any election. Fusion would give independant parties a useful role in the system immediately, and a chance to grow to the point where they could put up candidates that actually had a chance of winning elections. Once the candidates that a party is fielding actually have a chance of winning the race they could no longer be considered "spoilers"- I'd call them "challengers".

I come from a state where we don't have a 2-party system, we have a 1 party system, with the only exception a whipping-boy governor from the other party as a sure sign that voters can tell there's something wrong with the system, but lack any practical means to change it. So many races feature establishment candidates running unopposed it's no wonder most people here are registered as unenrolled or independant. As a practical, intelligent lefty my current options are to either support Democrats that don't represent my views or fight for my issues or else to vote for fringe candidates that also don't represent me AND don't have a shot at winning and thereby changing anything I feel is wrong. With fusion I could have another option- the ability to vote for a Democrat now in a way that sends them a message about the issues I care about and also help build the strength of an entity that actually comes close to representing my values.

Fusion can and will shake up the 2 party system. What happens after that depends on the electorate... Which I believe is the definition of "Democracy". It certainly isn't a sure thing for those on the left like me, but it will bring more voices and more options both on the level of individuals and the level of political parties.--Vive42 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. I'm also from MA, though I recently moved and so won't have the opportunity to vote there in November; I know about the 1 party state. I don't think fusion will shake up the 2 party system. No, it's more likely to reinforce it. I wasn't saying that fusion stood any chance of causing a minor party to displace a major one, I was just offering a best case scenario. The two major parties are "big tents," allowing them to get votes directly from a minor party will only make them stronger. They will see their tent expanding. The minor party that had been getting a meaningful portion of the vote while it supported a major party candidate will be under the illusion that it is competitive, but just as soon as it decides to run a candidate of its own it will discover its mistake. By allowing fusion you won't be making the major parties beholden to the minor ones, you will be making the minor parties choose between running candidates and getting votes. If I were there, I would vote for fusion, but I would know that it will accomplish nothing more than the illusion of change. The two party system is too firmly rooted for such a simple change to do anything meaningful.DeusVolt 12:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already widely know to exist, it's called coalition Government and it's practiced in several countries such as Germany. For example, In the previous term the minority Green Party was in power in coalition with the Social Democrats. But coalition governments have their weaknesses too. They tend to be indecisive and slow.

I personally favour the Single Transferable Vote system, because it gets rid of tactical voting to some extent (thus giving smaller parties a fair chance to reach "critical mass") and at the same time only one party is fully in charge.

Of course, the mainstream parties are fully aware of the threat that Single Transferable Voting poses to them, so of course they will never introduce it. 137.222.40.132 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Coalition government is very different from fusion. A coalition is formed when a majority of legislators decide that their interests coincide enough to allow them to govern together. Fusion does nothing of the sort. Fusion only supports individual candidates, and more importantly doesn't get any candidates into office whose primary loyalty is to a third party. It will only help to get major party candidates into office by encouraging, for example, Greens to vote for Democrats, which they generally already do. It might, possibly, check the perpetual drift to the center, allowing for a wider variety between candidates, but not only do I have my doubts about the likelyhood of that, it also would still only allow voters to choose between two candidates in any particular race. Proportional representation is the way to go if the goal is to give smaller parties a chance.DeusVolt 14:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)