Massachusetts Election Ballot Question 2

A quick look at Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s web page explaining the ballot questions gives us:

1. Wine sales at supermarkets (and many convenience stores).
2. Multiple Party endorsements for elections.
3. Ability of child care workers to collectively bargain with state.

With this posting, I want to focus on the second: Multiple Party endorsements for elections, or Fusion Voting.

I am recommending voting FOR Question 2.

A quick definition of this question is:

A Yes vote: would allow a candidate for public office to be nominated for the same office by more than one political party or political designation at the same time.

A No vote: would make no change in the laws governing nomination of candidates for public office.

The whole idea here is that minority parties that are formed around a cause or a point-of-view, often are considered something to ignore. They are considered “in the way” and “spoilers.”

You see, people try to join together to make a point, knowing that they cannot win an election. They get in the way during debates, and thier issue gets lost in the process.

This new system would allow for a candidate to be nominated by multiple parties.

This way, if there is a party, such as the “No New Nukes” party, rather than running a candidate for office, they can choose to support one of the major candidates who are running.

A candidate running for office would also work to gain support from multiple parties as well. A Democrat may seek the nomination of the “Children’s Welfare” party and the “PETA” party. These smaller parties would be getting their issues into the mix via the major candidates, without having to waste their resources on running a candidate. The major candidates gain supporters, and can keep their focus during the campaign and debates on the other key candidates and their issues.

Groups like Mass Taxpayers and Citizens for Limited Taxation could become minor parties if they so wish, becoming formal political entites if they so wish.

When election day comes up, a candidate would choose which or all of the party nominations to put on the ballot with his name.

From The Eisenthal Report:

New York State has a system not dissimilar to this. New York has had the Liberal and Conservative Parties for many years. These third parties have made a difference in the politics of the Empire State.

Opponents, including Rep. Anthony Petrucelli (D – Boston), Chairman of the House Committee on Election Laws, argue that the change would create voter confusion and only benefit “fringe” parties.

The only negative brought up so far about this question is that it could create “voter confusion”.

I don’t buy this. If someone is not intelligent enough to be able to understand voting.. maybe they just shouldn’t do it.

This practice is successful in a number of states. Its only the major parties who are against it. They fear that the minor “fringe” parties will gain clout in the form of major candidates having to court their interest.

Conclusion:

All in all, I see Fusion Voting as giving minor parties some input to the system without the need for them to spend excessive money running candidates that have no real interest in winning… yet they still can if they wish to. The major candidates can gain additional support and identity by attaching themselves to one or more minor parties as well. I see no negatives and all positives on this one.