On August 12, the South Carolina Secretary of State, and the South Carolina Election Commission, jointly agreed that if two different parties jointly nominate the same presidential candidate and the same slate of presidential elector candidates, that the state will add the votes together (from both parties) to determine the candidate’s vote total.
This may seem as though it should have been obvious all along. The other fusion states certainly considered it obvious, but South Carolina had been equivocating this year, about that point.
I’ve lived in South Carolina my whole life, and this is just another manifestation of the backwardness of SC that everybody else in the nation got through 50 years ago.
Jason, it sounds fair to me.
Jason, I am a South Carolinian too, and there are many things that, like you, I regret about the
way things are done in this state. But I am proud that SC is among the small handful of states that allow ballot-level fusion. South Carolinia
is also ahead of many other states in setting a
relatively low and reasonable petition requirement for ballot access.
If more than one party want to nominate the same candidate, what’s wrong with that?
What are the 2 states besides South Carolina and New York that permit fusion?
CA permits fusion for presidential candidates.
Connecticut, is one fusion state I think. Check the Working Families Party website, they’re lapdogs for the Dems, and mainly seek status where they can do fusion with the Democrats.
New York is the best-known fusion state, having had
thriving third parties for many years as a result.
The other fusion states, besides South Carolina, are Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, Vermont, and (as
Deran reports) Connecticut. In the case Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party (1997), the Supreme
Court specifically affirmed the right of states to
ban fusion. So states that allow it should be applauded. There is a fine book written by Lisa
Disch that is centered upon that case. It is titled The Tyranny of the Two-Party System.
According to a piece I read on the South Carolina lawsuit involving Eugene Platt, only 4 states allow fusion.
I’ll check on it, but I don’t think Mississippi permits fusion. We have 6 minor parties, and none of them has ever cross-nominated a candidate in a state or local race; no major party nominee in such a race has ever simultaneously had the nomination of another party.
And I don’t recall a presidential nominee in Mississippi ever having the nomination of more than one party on the same ballot.
Steve,
I googled using the key words Fusion States
and came up with a very informative presentation on
state-by-state fusion stipulations by the Progressive America Fund. After googling Fusion
States, look for it under the title Fusion States That Permit Fusion. I just went back and looked, and in the write-up on Mississippi the report says
that nothing in state law forbids fusion there, but
that it may be subject to party rules in Mississippi (ie, it may be that the major parties
have banned it for cross-endorsement by a major and a minor party). So you may well be right that
ballot level fusion has not been put into actual
use in that state even though the state itself allows it. The write-ups on other states in this report are interesting too.
Dave Gillespie wrote : “New York is the best-known fusion state, having had
thriving third parties for many years as a result.”
That depends on what your definition of thriving is.
New York used voting machines that provided voters with the option of voting for an entire slate candidates by party or voting for each office individually. What fusion did was allowed the Minor Parties to list the Major Party Candidates for President, VP, US Senate and US Congress while running their own candidates for the NY State Legislature. That way the Liberals could bang voters over the head to vote for the Liberal Slate and they could land a few of their people in the NY Legislature. Once their however the major party would pass the word along to those members that they had gone as far as they were going to go with the minor parties. If the Minor Parties dare list one of their candidates for federal office the word was put out to the rank and file not to vote for the Liberals or Conservatives. They may have come close a few times but I can’t think of any instances in the last 40 years where a Liberal or Conservative was voted into Congress.
If the balloting system doesn’t allow for slate voting Fusion isn’t of much use to small parties.
Bob,
Re: Your challenge to my use of the word “thriving.” I agree, you are probably right about this.
James Buckley was elected to a six-year U.S. Senate term on the NY Conservative line in 1970.
The Independent Party of New York City is thriving and is the most active independent movement in the country. Mike Bloomberg would not be its mayor without the vote he received on the Independence Party line “Column C”. We have put our own members, “D’s” and “R’s” on our line for local, State and Federal positions. The State Party, in selected areas, are also Indepdendent. Yes, certain parts of the party are suspect, but you can not draw a wide brush when discussing the NY IP.
Dave #9: I’ve been voting in Mississippi for 40 years, and I can assure you that ballot fusion has never been practiced here.
There have been instances in NY when Republicans have been elected who also had the Conservative line. Sen. Al D’Amato, e.g., usually had the GOP, Conservative, and Right to Life lines.
In 1969, New York mayor John Lindsay lost the Republican primary. But he was re-elected with a plurality vote on the Liberal line.
Sen. Jacob Javits also usually had both the Republican and the Liberal lines, although the Liberals most often cross-nominated Democrats.
As a native New Yorker, I have no problem with fusion voting. However, in the case of a presidential race things become slightly trickier. The only way the votes could be added together is if the parties involved agree not only on the same presidential/vice-presidential candidates, but also on a joint slate of presidential electors, because those individuals are the ones for whom the vote is actually cast.
As an example, in New York it was traditional for the Democratic presidential elector slate to include several members of the Liberal party as well.
MS fusion is legal. Just because no third party has used it dosn’t mean it can not work. So find a third party and try it.
There seem to be a lot of South Carolinians who comment on Ballot Access News. We should all get together sometime.
I am glad to see that the Oregon Working Families Party is running its own candidate for AG. It seems to me that ballot-level fusion is not very beneficial to a third party if the presumption is that the third party will always and automatically cross-endorse the nominee of a particular major party. Reward and punishment, the ability of the third party to go its own separate way, is maybe the source of strength and influence where fusion is possible. Working Families parties are usually too predictible and compliant.
Scott (#16),I agree. It is good to think there may be a critical mass of South Carolinians interested in what interests Ballot Access News. I thank Jason for getting this particular conversation thread started. We all should get together some time.