As voters in New York stepped into the polling booths this past November, they may have wondered what Barack Obama’s name was doing in Row E of the ballot. Voters had the chance to sidestep the usual two-party system of Democrats and Republicans, and vote for Obama under the Working Families Party. This is possible thanks to Fusion voting, a method of democracy that allows voters to elect a major-party candidate, but under an alternative platform. In doing so, third-party voters don’t have to worry about what is known as a Nader or Perot effect, in which third parties “take away” votes from the major candidates, thus preventing them from winning.
Fusion voting is a policy of cross-endorsement. A third party can nominate a major-party candidate, without having a negative effect on the election. By voting for Obama under the Working Families Party, the voter is not taking away votes from Obama, like a third-party candidate would, but helping the major-party candidate by obtaining more votes for him or her. The most compelling argument about Fusion voting is that voters no longer have to settle for the status quo, having to elect either the elephant or jackass. People who voted for Obama under the Working Families Party were able to vote for a progressive platform, and this allows them to hold him accountable.
The Working Families Party (WFP) was formed in 1998. Mike Boland, Director of Field Operations for the Working Families Party, explained that “The Working Families Party is a new political party that was formed by a coalition of labor unions and community organizations to be an independent voice for working families on economic issues like health care, jobs, taxes, and education.” Boland said that the Working Families Party has been growing substantially since its formation. “Over 200,000 New Yorkers vote on the WFP ballot line, and we have close to 40,000 registrants in the State. We were formed by a few progressive labor unions and a few community organizations…and [have] since grown to include 50 different affiliate organizations.”
According to WFP, in New York 158,191 votes were tallied for Obama under the Working Families Party this past November. Scott J. Susin, an econometrician, wrote a paper for Polity, an independent British publisher, called “What’s in a Name: The Power of Fusion Politics in a Local Election.” In his paper, he outlines the power of Fusion voting, and why it is effective. Delivering as many votes as they did, the Working Families Party can now use their votes as leverage to see their party’s mission through.
Their power is not just reserved for national elections. According to Alyssa Katz, writing for The Nation, in 2004 Senator Chuck Schumer received 169,000 votes on the WFP ballot line, which comes to 3.6 percent of his total votes. The ousted and now infamous former governor, Eliot Spitzer received his WFP endorsement before accepting the Democratic nomination. Spitzer described this endorsement as “embracing progressive politics. It’s about embracing the ideas and the values that will change the lives of citizens across the state; being willing to challenge the status quo; being willing to say, if it’s broken we will fix it....You have proven that substance matters in politics.”
Susin wrote, “The cross-endorsement system in New York makes New York elections distinctive in that they in many ways more resemble a multi-party system than the typical American two-party system. Voters are able to ‘send a message’ to the government through votes for third-party candidates without ‘wasting’ their votes on candidates with no chance of victory.” By voting for a major-party candidate, and helping them get elected, minor parties are able to throw their weight around with the major parties.
Boland expands on the success of the Working Families Party, and how they use their power with main party politicians. “Elected officials understand two things—money and votes. We won’t have the kind of money when it comes down to it, to outspend our opposition, but we can deliver votes.” Boland continued to say that his party needs to establish a concrete and substantial base in order to solidify their power. Boland described one of the goals of WFP as the building of a solid block of five percent of voters in the state. By having this kind of a base, the Working Families Party would have a huge bargaining chip with the major parties. If the candidates they have previously endorsed do not represent the issues of WFP, then WFP has the power of a five percent swing, a crucial block of voters, especially in tight elections.
Mark Hauck, a third-year law student at The University at Buffalo, commented on this, stating, “I suppose it goes to inform the winner of the intent of the voters. If a third party receives five percent of the national vote, then the president knows that there are a lot of people in line with that way of thinking. It might influence some of the decisions that he makes to a degree.”
This may come off as threatening, but as Boland stated, they understand that votes equal power. If the elected official does not respond to the concerns of WFP, “They should expect that we will support their opponent or run our own candidate and take our block of votes away from them. It’s a carrot and stick kind of approach; we can reward our friends and punish our enemies.” Still, not many politicians take this kind of threat seriously.
The Director of Field Operations went on to say, “Incumbents get reelected over 90 percent of the time. This presents real challenges to us. The truth is that without competitive elections, elected officials become quite insulated from the power of grassroots pressure. It’s a real problem, no matter your political ideology. We need a vibrant, competitive democracy.” The problem is where you draw the line. While the idea of cross-endorsement is innovative and for the benefit of the voters, when a party like WFP runs their own candidate, they can spoil an election.
While some may think this is bad practice, Jenna Meyer, first-year student of the Graduate School of Education, thinks it’s politics as usual. She said, “I think it’s the party’s choice. I mean, if you’re promising something to people to get something from them (in this case, votes) and you don’t hold up your end of the bargain, it’s fair. However, if you just don’t bother or put for little effort to try and make that promise a reality, it is different than actually trying and failing.”
By using the tactics described above, the Working Families Party is using their power to get people motivated about a cause and manipulating these votes in order to achieve their own agenda. If trying to block a Republican candidate or trying to endorse a Democratic candidate, WFP will take full advantage of Fusion. But if trying to block a Democrat, the WFP will run their own candidate. This spoils the election for the Democrat; taking votes away from them, while running a candidate that has virtually no chance of winning.
Fusion voting isn’t exclusively used by parties with progressive agendas. The other side of the political spectrum is represented by the Conservative party. Susin wrote that “of 4.7 million votes cast in statewide elections, the Conservative Party line generally wins about 350,000.” The Conservative Party lists its legislative goals for 2009 on its website, citing a substantial number of tax cuts, adamant opposition to any and all tax increases, elimination of the New York estate tax, opposition to the distribution of licenses to aliens, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, support of the reinstatement of the death penalty, adoption of English as New York’s official language, and many other conservative standpoints. Attempts to contact the Conservative Party for comment were not responded to.
Boland recognizes the Conservative party as a powerful opponent. “The number of votes we get in the gubernatorial year determines our ballot placement for the next four. We want to get ahead of the Conservative and Independence parties on the ballot.”
Even with both liberal and conservative parties available to participate in Fusion voting, many states are opposed to it. According to the National Open Ballot Project, only seven states still practice Fusion voting regularly. These states include New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Vermont, Mississippi, and South Carolina. According WCIV-TV out of Charleston, South Carolina, “A House subcommittee has approved a bill to prevent a candidate from running for office in South Carolina under more than one party banner.”
A similar resolution was passed in Oregon in August 2008. The Independent Party of Oregon informed their constituents that the Marion County Civil Court ruled that in the 2008 election, any candidate who received a nomination from both a major party and a minor party will only have their name attached to the major party on the ballot.
One of the biggest detriments to Fusion voting is the court case Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Fusion voting is not a constitutional right, and that laws banning Fusion, in this case Minnesota state law, are not unconstitutional. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court, saying that the Fusion ban does not hinder the rights of Twin Cities Area New Party because their preferred candidate, a Democrat, would still be appearing on the ballot. According to this reasoning, just because it is under a different party doesn’t mean that his chances for being elected are different.
Also, it is perfectly legal for a third-party candidate to still be nominated, and this third-party candidate will still appear on the ballot, the same as the Democratic or Republican candidates, so no constitutional amendment is being violated in this case. Minnesota was afraid that if Fusion was allowed, it would allow third-party candidates and minor parties to associate themselves with popular catchphrases, party lines, and slogans. Another fear is that minor parties would “bootstrap” their way onto the ballots and advance themselves into major party status, finding a loophole in state regulations of what defines “bona fide minor and third parties [that] are granted access to the ballot.”
Hauck disagrees with Rehnquist’s ruling. “The First Amendment protects political speech, and the endorsement of a candidate is likely classified as political speech…I don’t see what harm this type of balloting would cause. I suppose if the candidate did not agree to be endorsed by the party in question then there may be some problem but excluding that, it’s difficult to see the harm,” he said.
Amanda Kras, a sophomore international business major, does not think that Fusion voting is either necessary or important. “I think that if you have a candidate like Barack Obama on the ballot more than once, it can get confusing to regular people.” Kras continued, saying that, “With such a popular candidate like Obama, what does it matter that a minor party nominated him? A candidate from a major party is going to be elected anyway, and it’s more than likely that these candidates aren’t going to take the minor party’s views seriously anyway.” Kras voted for Obama under the Democratic ticket, and she didn’t even see his name under the Working Families Party.
Next time you step into a voting booth, keep an eye out for a candidate’s name being repeated. While Working Families Party is at the forefront of the revolutionizing of Fusion voting, they are far from the only third party in New York. The Independence Party and the Conservative Party regularly cross-endorse Republicans such as New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, and former Governor George Pataki who was elected as a result of Fusion voting as well. The Right to Life party, which runs on an anti-abortion platform, is also a regular staple on the ballot in New York.
While Fusion voting is only legal in a few states, it has the potential to revolutionize American politics. With a linear two-party system, a centrist view is usually given by major-party candidates, leaving voters on that lean harder to the right or left by the wayside. With Fusion voting, there is a possibility to cure apathy by invoking a system where one could vote for a candidate under a progressive platform, and actually have a chance at winning. The risk of the exploitation of Fusion is also very high. A very minor and extreme party could nominate a major-party candidate, and ride the candidate’s coattails in order to gain publicity. Amanda Kras said that this is a very big problem with Fusion. “If their views are so important, why don’t they just nominate their own candidate? If they want to win so bad, they should win without having to use someone like Obama as a launching board.”
