New York Assemblyman David Gantt (D-Rochester) has introduced a bill to prohibit two parties from jointly nominating the same candidate. The bill is A2399. It makes an exception for judicial candidates, and would continue to allow multiple parties to cross-endorse the same judicial nominees.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Not gunna happen. Republicans and Democrats in NY know that the WFP, Ind, and Con parties benefit them.
Exactly my thoughts. I wonder if a majority in the state assembly there have been endorsed by third parties.
I wish all states allowed fusion.
Banning fusion is probably a good idea.
On its face, it seems like parties should be able to cross endorse.
In reality, many parties using fusion have become extra ballot lines controlled by the major parties. Others are minor parties too small, not serious enough, or the alter-ego of some ego-maniac.
Meanwhile, the existence of these phony third parties by way of phoney fusion leaves the impression that elections are free and fair because of the existence of multiple parties.
Good idea.
Ban fusion everywhere.
in 1994 the Independence-fusion (Golisano) Party sucked all the oxygen out of the election sufficating the Libertarian (Stern than Schulz) Party. Tax-cut Now (changed its name after election) a fuzed Pataki Party with Powers as chairman gained ballot status. The RTL (Right to Life) party and SWP also had their own non-fusion candidates. Only the Liberal Party and the Conservative Parties fused. — WFP started in 1998 with fused Governor ballot line. Green Party (herman munster party) gained ballot status in 1998 and lost it in 2002 (all without fusion) Liberal and RTL both lost ballot status without fusion in 2002.
I think if “parties” were defined as actual membership organisations, and not these weird groups that don’t have many real members (ie, dues paying, etc) and little if any control over what candidates they can put forward in elections (as the primary system is controlled by the states), then I think fusion would make some sense. Then it would be parties with similar viewpoints on particular issues coming together to run joint candidates.
As it is now, with the term “political party” in the US actually meaning very little, then fusion is just a way for bigger parties to encroach upon smaller ones and have them become nominating appendages.
As a New Yorker, I would like to see fusion discarded. In theory, it should allow for multiparty democracy and a more inclusive process; in reality, it makes for an incestuous mess. The smaller parties that practice fusion (Conservative, Independence, Working Families) become nothing more than extra ballot lines for Democrats and Republicans who want to expand their brand appeal.
Proportional representation would make so much more sense – then the Dems, Conservatives, Independence-ers, Greens, Repubs and Working Fams could each have their own slice of the pie, to expand or contract based on the voters’ satisfaction with their performance.
As it is, Working Families are controlled by the Dems, Conservatives are controlled by the Repubs, and who knows what the Independence party is up to. The Greens and Libertarians, for refusing to play the sordid fusion game, get shut out altogether.
What? No fusion? How are people going to get patronage jobs now?
Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater.
The problem with Fusion in New York is that to qualify for the ballot you have to cross-endorse a major candidate for Governor. If New York changed 50,000 votes for Governor to 50,000 registered voters it would radically change. The Green and Libertarian parties would both qualify and remain much more committed to their values than the current crop of secondary parties, who would have a much harder time maintaining registration.
The Old Liberal Party elected a Mayor of New York City by fusing tickets with the Republicans. Lindsey could not have been elected to his first term as either a Republican or a Liberal. Fusion is good, the problem in New York is that the parties that don’t matter get ballot status, and the ones that do matter (Libertarian, Green, Constitution) can’t meet the signature requirements (which are extreme) when it is appropriate for them to participate in Fusion.
This looks like a bad year for fusion. Bills are out there in both NY and SC. NY’s probably won’t
pass, and I am hopeful that the do-nothing SC
legislature will not get around to the anti-fusion
bill now in the state house.
With regard to the above comments, I agree that fusion is not always a good thing for third parties. But you can bet when a group of major- party legislators begin to try to ban fusion, they
are not motivated by the desire to do third parties
any favor. The desire to ban fusion comes from the same motive as the desire to make ballot access laws tougher. Fusion always ought to be legal, and third parties left free to decide whether it is good for them or not.
one lawsuit I/we had was challenging the use of major party members as circulators/signers of independent nominating petitions — other states have also attempted to challenge this party cross-over into the independent nominating petition process — the USCA 2nd Circ refused to give relief as well as other circuit appellate courts I believe — you know the history Richard.
“Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater.”
The baby is Liberty.
Fusion is just smegma in the bath water.
How long is it going to take for “Coming back to the LP” to arrive at his or her destination? This has been going on for quite awhile now. One has to wonder if that person is having some (based on reality) second thoughts. By the way, I could not find “smegma” in my dictionary.
Regarding some of the smaller parties in New York, here is a thought: The members of the Republican Party could decide which McCain Party that they want to join – the Conservative Party or the Independence Party. The GOP is going down anyway, so those people may as well head for the life boats.
“By the way, I could not find “smegma†in my dictionary.”
Get a better dictionary, and enjoy yourself.
Well, it is a very old one, I admit. I will try a newer dictionary when I get the chance.
Okay, it is not in a newer one either. It is either not a real word or it is in one of those gigantic dictionaries. I certainly am curious now.