On September 12, the Working Families Party of New York, and Andrew Cuomo, each announced to the press that Cuomo will be the Working Families Party nominee for Governor. Cuomo is expected to also be the Democratic Party nominee and the Independence Party nominee. See this story. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the news.
Normally is isn’t newsworthy when the Working Families Party cross-endorses a Democratic nominee. However, in this case there had been some doubt.
I can’t stand the Working Families Party. Fusion doesn’t work. It hurts the voters. It doesn’t keep the candidates honest. It’s an ugly thing. We need to get rid of fusion in New York.
People frequently forget that fusion works sometimes to help minor party members get elected. The Libertarians elected four of their own members to the New Hampshire legislature in 1992. All four were able to get the nomination of a major party as well, which helped. Same with the two Libertarians elected to the New Hampshire legislature in 1994, and the Vermont Libertarian elected to the legislature in 1998.
— the teachers union (and “ACORN” by whatever name) controls the WFP in NY. With that fact in mind, Tuesday the GOP primary will I believe narrowly nominate Palodino instead of Lazio, BUT Lazio will easily win the CP primary and USCA2C will be motioned tomorrow to remove the IPNY unconstitutional state committee nomination of Cuomo (based upon the unconstitutional legislative districting of assembly districts (as well as state senate and NYC/county municiple districting) — got all that?? isn’t fusion great? once every four years and a third of the state registered voters have absolutely no access to the partisan nominating process (just independent nominating petitioning)
Without reference to the party’s political point of view, I regard this as a great victory for all who want to democratize elections and open the ballot wider to
third parties and independents. WFP members hold the numbers 2 and 3 posts currently in NYC (behind Bloomberg
himself), and the party has a lot of clout elsewhere in the state. Ironically, WFP was in serious jeopardy of losing its ballot status after Nov. 2, and this development should put that matter to rest.
Fusion is a two-edged sword, but as Richard points out, it can be of considerable benefit to third parties.
The problem is that Andrew Cuomo is Andrew Cuomo. He’s a pure career politician who will change his views to reflect the views of his constituancy, and then he’ll claim that they were his view all along. The WFP could show a little background here by running more far left candidates down ticket. They’re supposed to be the far left in new york. Why not act that way. Cuomo’s trying to sound like a republican this year. He’s running on what a fiscally conservative platform. If that’s what he wants fine. The major parties are often indestinguishable anyway. But the WFP really should do more to pull him to the left.
Because New York is such a big state, it would be highly influential on national politics if they got rid of fusion. Yes some movements would suffer early on. But if we got rid of fusion the parties that got ballot status would be emboldened because they would have had to have proven themselves with their own candidates. The WFP wouldn’t exist w/o fusion. The Greens would grow. We would make strides in establishing a national climate where parties like the democrats, republicans, libertarians, and greens all had national presence.
I continue to think that New York State would profoundly influence national politics to the betterment of currently minor parties by getting rid of fusion. A few people have tossed the idea around. But it’s gone nowhere.
I’m not sure how fusion is used in NY, but the idea of fusion is a bad idea, especially when it means having one name on the same ballot more than once.
There are certain guidelines that make pure proportional representation work, it’s about a “team” (of 100?) elected equals. There is no other more perfect system than pure PR, including fusion. If there is, post it here, please. I’d really like to know what it is.
Pingback: Cuomo Accepts Party’s Nod – Wall Street Journal
Pingback: Cuomo Accepts Party’s Nod – Wall Street Journal | newslive.biz
I agree with Dr. Gillespie’s statement “fusion is a two-edged sword.” This is the way it should be. While fusion gives 3rd parties a better opportunity of having their ideas heard, and sometimes, as Richard points out, a winning candidate espousing those ideas, but at the same time such 3rd parties leaders MUST understand every voter or candidate is NOT going to dot their “i’s” and cross their “t’s” just the way the 3rd party bosses think they should.
I’m not a fan of Cuomo, but my hat is off to him for “giving the Working Families Party a wake-up call.” Third parties have played and can continue to play a meaningful role in American politics, but 3rd parties need to get off their “utopian” mindset and help make the nation a better place, guided by the doctrine of reality.
“An Alabama Independent Says:
September 12th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I agree with Dr. Gillespie’s statement “fusion is a two-edged sword.” This is the way it should be.” […]
I say there are too many lives being lost by the hour on ill advised forrays before the battle of Normandy Beach was launched. Those lives were in vain. Alabama Independent wishes to fight with two edged swords in those battles and to waste time and effort. If we’re going to invest soldiers lives, why not do it with overwhelming superiority and firepower, and with a plan that isn’t going to half heartedly go nowhere?
We need a Normandy Beach like battle, and even that is not a for sure victory. But one thing is for sure, investing in anything less will only extend the losses.
The WFP isn’t an independent third party by any definition. They claim to be the left-wing conscience of the Democrats and yet they desperately seek out the approval of the most right-wing Democrat who’s been nominated here in my long lifetime. Fusion is fusion, and craven is also just craven.
The clearest indication that fusion can benefit third parties is that state legislatures–dominated by Ds and Rs–have banned fusion in most or all elections in all but eight of the 50 states. In Timmons v. Twin Cities New Party (1997), the Supreme Court specifically recognized the third-party benefits of fusion and then declared that they are NOT benefits which the Constitution requires states to protect. Of course the Supremes themselves are in effect Ds and Rs.