Lee Drutman and Beau Tremitiere have this article in Bulwark, advocating that states legalize fusion. They favor disagregated fusion, which is the type that lets the voter chose which party he or she supports, when voting for a candidate who is the nominee of two parties. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
The authors are advisors and supporters to the Moderate Party of New Jersey, which has a lawsuit in New Jersey state court, arguing that the New Jersey Constitution requires the state to permit fusion.
It’s better to vote by party without any candidate voting. That would eliminate any possibility of fusion. The parties then pick officeholders and replace as needed. Candidates are counterproductive. Candidate voting is schoolyard “hot or not” voting on looks and charisma, so not optimal.
Disaggregated fusion could be used to determine which party qualifies for ballot status, and which party gets the certified electors, if two or more parties nominate the same Presidential candidate, but have competing, or inconsistent, slates of electors.
One problem is that fusion, like RCV and other electoral reform proposals, needs to come with easier ballot access so more parties are eligible to participate.
Hehehe
ANY AGGREGATE CONCRETE IN NJ CONTAINING FOES OF THE REGIME ???
Huh?
@AZ,
Con-fusion not con-crete.
If you like that a party nominated your fave candidate send them a contribution.
Wait, do some state constitutions actually say explicitly that a candidate may not be nominated by more than one party (or appear more than once on a ballot)?
Most of them, if I’m not mistaken. Although it may be statutes rather than constitutions. Your laws, like ours, are far too overcomplicated.
does MAxZim work for Putin/FSB —
gathering intel about elections in USA and all States/DC ???
so that 2024 elections can be subverted ???
Elections in 1999-2023 Putin Russia about as free as elections in 1933-1945 Hitler regime ???
@AC,
Texas generally disallows dual office holding. Consistent with that it does not permit a candidate to run for two offices or appear on the ballot more than once. There are also certain offices a candidate must resign to run for another office. This happens when a candidate is in the middle of a 4-year term. If they were elected to a second office they would have to resign the other. By resigning the first, it permits an election to be held.
Wow, what a vivid imagination AZ has. As previously mentioned any number of times:
1. I work for myself as a business owner. I’ve never worked for FSB, KGB, or any Intel agency. Everyone had a government job in the USSR. I have not had one since. Back then, I was a student, served in the military, and worked as a diplomatic attache. I studied abroad for postsecondary studies in the US and UK and got into business as it became legal at the end of the Soviet period. I’ve been a businessman ever since.
2. Your 2016 election was not subverted by Russia. Your 2020 election was subverted by China. Russia has no interest in subverting your elections.
3. In the most recent Presidential election in Russia, 23% voted against Putin. I was one of them. I voted for Zhirinovsky, like in previous elections. Imagine 23% voting against Hitler in Germany during the early 1940s. Absurd.
4. My interest in American elections stems from my time there and my continued visits and contacts, etc. I’ve explained all this before. The study of American foundung patriarchs was very key to the development of my proposals. I basically took the goals they laid out and looked at what went wrong since, and tried to fix their errors. It’s a set of maximalist proposals and a work in progress. Incremental steps are welcome.
5. It’s a hobby which has nothing to do with my businesses.
Note that I said nothing at all about Russia in my original comment. AZ has an unhealthy obsession with my country, which he more than likely never lived in, and quite possibly never even visited. I spent several years living in the USA and visit there often. AZ seems to enjoy writing dystopian fiction about Russia, and about me. Weird hobby, I must say.
@JR
Thanks. I see how “more than once on the ballot” could be interpreted as running for multiple offices. But fusion is for the same office.
6 RUSSIA
+ 6 CRIMEA
+ 6 V. PUTIN
= XXX
SOLVE FOR XXX
HOW MANY WAGNER FOLKS IN RUSSIA DEAD OR ON A PUTIN PURGE LIST ???
Zero, much like your intelligence. Where you got 6 on any of those is, well, rather absurd. Number of letters in English translation? But then you fail on Putin (5). Why would the number of letters be in the English translation? Is your language somehow more important than ours? The answer you were going for doesn’t derive from addition, which would yield 17. The whole thing is nonsensical, and you seriously need new medications, or perhaps just adjustment in levels. Please, go see your doctor immediately.
More than once on the ballot is also more than one party nomination. We’d be better off without ballots or candidates. Standing count vote by party only. Winning party picks and replaces officeholders.
6 aBSURD
6 zEALOT
6 VOMITS
HOW MANY PSYCH MEDS AZ SHOULD BE TAKING BUT ISN’T ????
Max is right about the standing count for sure.
@AC,
In 1952, Allan Shivers ran for governor as both a Democrat and Republican. He did so because he didn’t want Yellow Dog Democrats to skip voting for Eisenhower. Shivers was head of Democrats for Eisenhower. At the time the national government was trying to confiscate oil in Texas territorial waters.
Eisenhower carried Texas, and Shivers was re-elected. Republican Shivers received enough votes to require the Republicans to nominate by primary in 1954.
This could be considered to be an example of disaggregated fusion having the effect on party qualification.
As a result of the 1952 election the Legislature made it illegal to have a name appear twice on the ballot
Before the 1960 election they added the LBJ exception which permits a presidential or vice presidential candidate to be on the ballot for another office.
Max makes good points in all of the comments above. I also agree with Burt and Sam.