On September 11, Cleveland, Ohio city councilmember Brian Cummins posted an identical comment both to IndependentPoliticalReport, and to this site, saying he is both a Green Party member and a member of the Democratic Party. He is in the news because he is in the November 2009 run-off for re-election, and his opponent in that run-off, Rick Nagin, is a member of both the Communist Party and the Democratic Party. See here. Scroll down to comment #8.
— an example of “fusion” at its best or worst.
how do you join more than one party?
It’s easy to be a member of two parties, and to hold oneself out to the public as being equally loyal to both parties, in states in which voters are not asked to register into any political party. Texas is another state like Ohio, which helps Ron Paul maintain loyalty to more than one party.
This new finding is unfortunate.
Definition of “who is a Green Party candidate/officeholderâ€
“A Green Party candidate (or officeholder) is someone who is a member of the Green Party in his/her state – but is not also a member of another political party.â€
http://www.gp.org/elections/Candidate-Officeholder-Definition.shtml
Mr. Cummins posted the same notice at Green Party Watch. Brent quite correctly points to the national party policy. As I understand it, Cummins is in a non-partisan race. If true, the question of his being both a Green and a Democrat are perhaps less important.
South Carolina is a fusion state. In a partisan race we could have the prospect of a Green running as the nominee of both one of the corporate parties and the Green Party. Because so many elections are uncontested, securing the Republican nomination in a predominately Democratic area or visa versa is likely to be filing the paperwork and paying the fee. Unless someone else entered the primary, the Green would have the corporate party label to run on, and the Green Party label to promote.
We realize that doing this would present the national party with a quandary as to how to “handle” it, but for Greens on the ground, where elections are actually won, the question of party membership is not necessarily as vital as is getting someone you consider to be a party member gets elected.
At any rate, we at GPW will not be constrained from covering Cummins, and so long as his state and/or local consider him to be a Green I expect our writers will want to cover him. Stay tuned!
What exactly is the purported benefit of fusion? It certainly doesn’t seem to have made any positive difference in the most prominent example of New York State.
I understand that New Hampshire has fusion, but the sole result has been to create Democratic-Republican hybrids.
What is that, someone who alternates NRO talking points with those from Huffpost? Or maybe it’s just signaling “I’m open to bribes from any source.”
icr,
I think the purported benefit of fusion is a better shot at winning enough votes to get elected. I can’t speak to it’s actual effectiveness, and in some ways fusion between smaller parties holds out some interesting ideas. As an example, if we could get most of the seven ballot qualified political parties to agree to push one candidate for Attorney General on a “protect civil liberties” platform there is a better chance that whoever is elected will think for a moment before agreeing with federal law enforcement when asked to help spy on South Carolinians.
Remember, for some political parties, smaller parties are there to apply pressure on one of the larger parties, or to keep dissidents both inside and outside of one of the corporate parties. Sort of a “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” philosophy.
I’m one of the Green Party of Ohio’s candidates this year and I was there when we endorsed Cummins. I haven’t been involved with the party very long, but Mr. Cummins has. We were wary that he is a registered Democrat, but the main factor was that the race is non-partisan.
Brian’s website doesn’t say “I’m a Democrat” all over it though. It says he’s endorsed by the Green Party of Ohio and the Cleveland Stonewall Democrats.
By constrast, from CSD’s bylaws:
8.4 DEMOCRAT ONLY MANDATE
“Only Democratic candidates may be endorsed; however, if no Democrat
has filed as a candidate, the club may endorse any person who has filed
as a candidate. This rule is not subject to suspension.”
For endorsements you really need to determine if someone is a “Democratic Candidate” if the race is non-partisan. Regarding the Green Party’s anti-fusion stance, they are okay with minor parties like the Socialist Party in Matt Erard’s case: http://www.erard2008.org/ (but that was soft fusion as well). I don’t know any cases where a Green ran on two party labels (hard fusion). I think the Greens should loosen their views on fusion a bit. As should this party I recently found out about: http://www.ohiostatelaborparty.org/
A huge benefit of fusion for minor parties is that minor party members can get their own party’s nomination, and the nomination of a major party as well, and get elected easier. This is how 4 Libertarians were elected to the New Hampshire legislature in 1992, and 2 in 1994. It is also how a Libertarian was elected to the Vermont legislature in 1998.
Richard Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It’s easy to be a member of two parties, and to hold oneself out to the public as being equally loyal to both parties, in states in which voters are not asked to register into any political party. Texas is another state like Ohio, which helps Ron Paul maintain loyalty to more than one party.
Phil Sawyer adds:
California does ask. However, if one is a member of small parties that do not have ballot access, that is not a problem. Although I am registered as “I Decline to State a Political Party”; I also hold membership in both the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA. Please see my comments in previous messages on this website.
At the present time, I plan to vote in the Democratic Party Primary Election next year (the Democratic Party, along with the American Independent Party and the Republican Party, allow IDTSPP voters to participate in their primary elections – in the Golden State).
On the flip side it ended up making the Democrat-Farm-Labor Party that doesn’t respect the F or L as much as it used to.
The merger of the Democratic Party of Minnesota with the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota in 1944 is an entirely separate subject. That was an instance of two parties merging, not of two parties jointly nominating the same candidate.
My mistake, I thought that was a case with fusion.
It’s easy enough for me to vouch for Brian Cummins’ background. The local he co-founded in 2000 was my first Green local, the Central Ohio Green Party, based in Columbus. I remember early meetings of that local with 40+ people at them, something I’ve never seen anywhere else. That strength didn’t last, but that had a lot to do with people like Brian moving out of the area (in his case, to Cleveland.)
The people of Cleveland are a lot better off for having Brian Cummins on their City Council. But I certainly don’t consider him a Green officeholder, not so long as he maintains a dual party identification. And while his presence on the Cleveland City Council is a good thing for the people of Cleveland generally, to the best of my knowledge, it’s done nothing to help build the Green Party of Ohio. That’s not a condemnation of Brian; I think the situation presents too complicated a series of questions to offer much beyond observation.
It’s probably likely that he couldn’t have been elected to that position in the first place without a Democratic affiliation of some kind. But the question is whether his presence there will somehow help substantiate the ability for people like him to get elected _without_ such an affiliation; or, perhaps, whether some other kind of political paradigm might emerge that would be harder to describe now because we don’t know what it is yet. Certainly major American cities have unique municipal politic terrains that may require very different approaches; a city council seat in Cleveland has much less in common with a city council seat in Chicago than a state legislative seat in Cleveland has in common with a state legislative seat in Chicago.
Brian is likely trying to tear down the walls of corporate control. I respect that. Similarly, the vital importance of maintaining a clear party identity can’t be understated. And so in similarly trying to tear down the walls of corporate control, there is a fault line between Brian’s approach and that of the Green Party generally. That’s okay. I can consider him an ally and a colleague without considering him a Green officeholder.
Well, the Green Party of the United States is not in a strong position currently. The honorable Ralph Nader, running as an independent in 2008, took a lot of votes that otherwise would have gone to Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party nominee. Likewise, President Barack Obama took many votes that otherwise would have gone to Mr. Nader.
The Green Party has a lot of work to do if it wants to continue on as a viable political party (and not die on the vine). In California, the Green Party has ballot access but it is about as weak as the Peace and Freedom Party is. Although both of these parties may be able to hold onto ballot access next year, that is about it (unless they make serious changes). The Peace and Freedom Party is still controlled by the Old Guard Leaders. I do not know enough about the Green Party of California to say what changes it has to make.