How nice of the NYT to enlighten us that political patronage is a product of fusion voting. Maybe without other ballot lines the major parties will only appoint reliable, independent, citizen-minded people to positions under them 😛
The editorial is no so much anti-fusion, as it is anti-patronage politics. Parties which simply cross-endorse Democrats or Republicans inevitably become mere patronage machines for the party leadership. The history of the Liberal Party of New York illustrates the point.
How do other states with legal fusion avoid the creation of parties that exist solely for the purpose of winning patronage or pushing single issues? It seems like in most of those states (e.g. Vermont and South Carolina), fusion is more the exception than the rule, and the qualified parties are largely real parties. What is different in those states as opposed to New York?
Assuming that the laws are identical (I don’t know, but let’s assume) one difference might be the amount of money at stake. New York politics is more lucrative and media-driven than Vermont politics, I believe.
After ballot access law changes, the second most important way to safeguard representative democracy is to split states. 100 or 150 wouldn’t be unreasonable, and this new state of affairs would provide the voter with a better product.
The NYT includes a good reminder that Rudy Giuliani appointed an embezzler to office, indeed an embezzler who liked child pornography.
We need to remind the voters of that before they make Rudy “America’s Mayor” into Rudi “America’s President.”
As far as I know, only three states allow fusion and New York is the only one of the three that actually allows “real” fusion. “Real” fusion being defined as a candidate listed on more than one line but all of those lines he is listed on will be added together for the total. This type of fusion has just led to the proliferation of parties in New York State. Only a couple of them are qualified and none of these qualified parties run their own candidates. They just cross endorse the Dems and Reps, which is how they became qualified. The only three that continually try to run their own candidates are the Greens. Libertarians and Socialists. As listed on my website http://www.nysthirdparty.com, which tracks third parties in the State, there are currently 19 of these third, or minor, parties. Some, of course, are more active than others. This has led to many candidates being listed as many as 3 or 4 times on the ballot. Sometimes, the Reps and Dems will create their own third party line since it’s a common belief you can’t win unless you’re listed on at least two lines. I suppose patronage is a problem but as I see it, the proliferation of parties happens because a couple people like the idea of politicians come begging to them for their endorsement. It’s purly an ego trip and they love guarding their little fiefdom that they created. As a New Yorker, I would love to see this type of fusion ended so only the true third parties will have the attention of the voters. As it stands now, with 19 minor parties asking for the vote, the votes are spread to thin to challenge the two main parties.
How nice of the NYT to enlighten us that political patronage is a product of fusion voting. Maybe without other ballot lines the major parties will only appoint reliable, independent, citizen-minded people to positions under them 😛
The editorial is no so much anti-fusion, as it is anti-patronage politics. Parties which simply cross-endorse Democrats or Republicans inevitably become mere patronage machines for the party leadership. The history of the Liberal Party of New York illustrates the point.
How do other states with legal fusion avoid the creation of parties that exist solely for the purpose of winning patronage or pushing single issues? It seems like in most of those states (e.g. Vermont and South Carolina), fusion is more the exception than the rule, and the qualified parties are largely real parties. What is different in those states as opposed to New York?
Assuming that the laws are identical (I don’t know, but let’s assume) one difference might be the amount of money at stake. New York politics is more lucrative and media-driven than Vermont politics, I believe.
After ballot access law changes, the second most important way to safeguard representative democracy is to split states. 100 or 150 wouldn’t be unreasonable, and this new state of affairs would provide the voter with a better product.
The NYT includes a good reminder that Rudy Giuliani appointed an embezzler to office, indeed an embezzler who liked child pornography.
We need to remind the voters of that before they make Rudy “America’s Mayor” into Rudi “America’s President.”
As far as I know, only three states allow fusion and New York is the only one of the three that actually allows “real” fusion. “Real” fusion being defined as a candidate listed on more than one line but all of those lines he is listed on will be added together for the total. This type of fusion has just led to the proliferation of parties in New York State. Only a couple of them are qualified and none of these qualified parties run their own candidates. They just cross endorse the Dems and Reps, which is how they became qualified. The only three that continually try to run their own candidates are the Greens. Libertarians and Socialists. As listed on my website http://www.nysthirdparty.com, which tracks third parties in the State, there are currently 19 of these third, or minor, parties. Some, of course, are more active than others. This has led to many candidates being listed as many as 3 or 4 times on the ballot. Sometimes, the Reps and Dems will create their own third party line since it’s a common belief you can’t win unless you’re listed on at least two lines. I suppose patronage is a problem but as I see it, the proliferation of parties happens because a couple people like the idea of politicians come begging to them for their endorsement. It’s purly an ego trip and they love guarding their little fiefdom that they created. As a New Yorker, I would love to see this type of fusion ended so only the true third parties will have the attention of the voters. As it stands now, with 19 minor parties asking for the vote, the votes are spread to thin to challenge the two main parties.