Vermont Representative John Moran (D-Wardsboro) and eight others have introduced HB 241. Vermont already allows two parties to jointly nominate the same person, but that candidate’s name is only listed once on the November ballot, followed by the names of all the parties that have nominated that person. The bill would change fusion in Vermont, to the type used in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and South Carolina. Those states print the name of a candidate on the ballot twice (if the candidate is nominated by two parties), so voters can choose which party label they wish to support.
The bill was the idea of the Working Families Party, which is already ballot-qualified in Vermont.
New York allows more than two places on the ballot for a candidate who is nominated by ballot-status parties. It gets more complicated with parties that don’t have ballot status but Dems and Reps regularly take up three ballot lines. That damned Worker Family Party, adjunct to the Dems and quite useless otherwise (or should I say, quite useless as an adjunct to the Dems and otherwise).
The Working Families Party sometimes runs its own nominees who are not also nominees of other parties. For example, in 2010, it had its own nominee for US House in Charleston, South Carolina, and also its own nominee for US Senate in Oregon.
I trust this bill is passed. Fusion is the one way for 3rd parties to become more influential, and the leaders of these parties need to remove the scales from their eyes and support fusion.
Vermont uses multi-member districts. Will a voter be permitted to vote for the same candidate twice?
I like fusion, but would not be easier to do it like Vermont currently does? I understand that it allows people to vote for the person as the candidate of the Party they prefer, but as long as they are listed as the candidate of those parties, is this really needed? It seems to me that it could work fine either way. What are your opinions?
Jordan M. Greene. The beauty of having candidates listed twice – once as the major party nominee and once as the 3rd party nominee – is that votes are tallied separately for the candidate on each party line. Then, the 3rd party (hopefully) can show the votes received on their party line made the difference in election – thus holding the “balance of power” in the election. Where the “fused” candidate is elected, it is a reminder by the 3rd party to him/her and their major party, that you need us, and if you forget your promises to us – next time we’ll nominate our own candidate and hopefully we’ll help defeat you – thus teaching you a lesson.
This was (and is still) used in New York State, and in the early 30’s beginning with the American Labor Party and in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s with the Liberal Party, helped many Democrats win election and tow the “American Labor” or “Liberal” line. Occassionally, they would fuse with a GOP nominee to remind the Democrats, “you don’t own us.”
In 1960, the Liberal Party gave John F. Kennedy it’s line on the ballot, and the votes received by Kennedy on the Liberal line help Kennedy carry the state and win the nation. Some might argue, “well Kennedy would have won those votes anyway.” But we have no way of knowing – especially if the Liberal Party had co-nominated Nixon or nominated its own candidate.
So until 3rd parties become strong enough to run candidates on their own and win, they need to use fusion to have some influence in the election outcome. Otherwise, they’re just spinning their wheels and wasting their time.
P.R.
Total Votes / Total Seats = Equal votes for each seat winner.
See the many parties in Israel and New Zealand.
The regimes survive.
-i.e. each party gang will have to vote yes or no on each word in each bill.
Oh I agree with Fusion entirely. I was just wandering more about the styles. But from what you said it makes since that having separate ballot positions even with fusion system could help the alternative party and as you said give them the balance of power. I do like this. I’d like to see this in NC. I’ve got a bit much going on now though to tackle that too.