The July 19 New York Post has this editorial, which argues that the New York legislature should ban fusion, the ability of two or more parties to jointly nominate the same candidate.
In 1912, the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York, ruled that the New York Constitution requires that the state permit fusion. However, the State Constitution is significantly different today than it was in 1912.
I agree
The article has what I’ve seen before: thoughtless accusation of “stealing” votes. the major parties are always given a pass on such a thing and all other parties are said to exist only to do such a thing. A better standard for vote theft is needed.
Abolishing fusion is a clearer example of vote theft than the charge against those who receive the (few) votes of voters who must be pleased they can often vote for the individual but dump the party.
Vote stealers are the major parties.
It seems as though the NY Green Party might have earned a little respect from the NY Post:
“Fact is, the New York ballot now hosts five permanent lines beyond the Republicans and Democrats. And only one of them actually functions as a legitimate political party by fielding its own candidate slate.”
Now if only they had been willing to mention the NY Greens by name. But it’s still progress and it shows that the NY Green Party’s decision to remain independent might be paying off.
NY green party is much more ethical than any of the other large or small “parties”
“progressive” but ethical
The only election system that is mathematically guaranteed to unite all voters is pure proportional representation (PR).
To settle for anything less (like fusion) will simply divide the people and cause dysfunctions and self-destruction to third parties and independents.
That’s not because people are trying to make elections unfair mind you, they simply don’t know any better.
The divisive tactics by politicians of all parties and independents who use rhetoric to divide (i.e. “I’m good and they are bad”) is laying the groundwork for a predictable finish in November 2016.
The USA and International Parliaments of course use a unity psychology which has worked perfectly for 20 years.
We want to be part of government like everyone else but we don’t need to use divisive rhetoric to attract the 100%, instead we’re for inclusion, we welcome and invite everyone to out team.
United we stand and divided we fall. We have never removed anyone nor denied one person equal treatment and free speech, and that way we’re able to promote the unity.
We have the structure to expand and work with all diverse points of view and that’s one reason why our numbers have been growing at a rapid pace of two or more registered voting members and 15 to 25 facebook names every day.
–James Ogle [Republican]
Volunteer vote counter
http://www.usparliament.org/
http://www.international-parliament.org/
New York con-fusion is not a joint nomination. The two parties do not coordinate their nominating efforts. They make separate nominations.
The New York Post editorial is based on the fact that New York “parties” in fact often are not parties at all, but merely rules exploits to get more ballot lines.
If New York would adopt Top 2, there would be no need for party lines. Candidates could simply run for office.
Fusion is fun, though, and fun is the most important thing in any election!
Alex O’Loughlin – IMDb
Richard,
Editorial said, “nearly unique to NY.”
I have heard different things:
NY is the only state and nine states have fusion.
I like fusion!
It forces D and R to pay attention to an issue.
Was it in the online version only?
I buy the Post paper for the chess column every Sunday,
and I did not see fusion.
Approximately half the states have fusion for president. For other office, fusion exists in some form for Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont.
It was published at 9:37 PM on Sunday night. If it was in the print edition it probably would have been on Monday.