SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Ask 100 Oregonians how they'd reform the voting system and you'll likely come away with 100 different answers. Besides the major party labels, voters can register as an independent or as a member of one of several minor parties. One relatively recent addition, the Working Families Party, has been trying to make fusion voting the law since its inception.
Fusion voting in Oregon allows candidates to list their endorsements of multiple parties on a ballot. This might seem like a small change, but opponents like the Democratic Party of Oregon say it could change elections: Causing confusion at best and misreprentation at worst. New Yorkers have been using fusion voting for more than a decade, and the Working Families Party there says it has strengthened the power and influence of their party.
A representative for Governor Ted Kulongoski says he is still considering whether to sign SB 326 into law. The same bill would make it easier for independent candidates to run for office in Oregon.
What impact would these changes have on voters in Oregon? Would they strengthen or weaken minor parties in the state? What's the best role for minor parties to play in state politics? Would it be better to leave the current two party system unchanged?
Guests:
- Barbara Dudley: Co-chair of the Oregon Working Families Party
- Ian McDonald: Political Scientist at Lewis & Clark College
- Dan Cantor: Chair of the New York Working Families Party
Tagged as: voting
Photo credit: funtouser/ Flickr /Creative Commons
-
I am chair of the Independent Party of Oregon, which is Oregon's largest minor party, formed 2 years ago.
Oregon law has always allowed parties to cross-nominate candidates, and candidates to accept a second (or third) nomination. A party nomination is a very specific legal act, and is not the same as a mere "endorsement," a word that does not have legal definition in Oregon. SB 326 will restore the long historical tradition in Oregon of allowing the cross-nominations to be printed on the ballot, giving voters more information, but it does not create a new system of cross-nominating.
A candidate must accept a party nomination by signing a certificate (either the certificate as a primary election winner or a certificate of nomination by a minor party). If a major party candidate does not wish to seek a cross-nomination from one of the minor parties, the party is always free to nominate a competing candidate, or not field a candidate.
Cross-nomination offers the minor party the choice of collaborating and building a coalition for a candidate, and not merely running a candidate in opposition. Cross-nomination offers a candidate a way of potentially reaching different voters or emphasising a platform position advocated by the minor party.
In the 2008 election cycle US Sen Jeff Merkley and Treasurer Ben Westlund sought & received the Independent Party nominations. We cross-nominated Joel Haugen (R) in the First Congressional District and several state legislative candidates (Rs and Ds). In other races we fielded a candidate to offer a choice, especially when there was not a real two-party choice offered (as there are many non-competative state districts).
-
This bill is not fusion voting. Separate Party lines are not provided in this bill. Sb 326 is a cross-nomination bill. It allows candidates to run for political office with the nomination of up to three political parties. It is a step toward full fusion voting.
Fusion voting is good for democracy. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. Fusion provides more choices, more information, and more accountability to more people. Fusion voting allows small political parties to play a positive role in our elections rather than a spoiler role. Full fusion voting was legal in Oregon 100 years ago and served farmers and working people well. Fusion voting allowed coalitions of urban and rural progressive citizens to elect populist candidates. Electing candidates by fusion voting makes polticians of both major parties deal with real issues affecting the daily lives of citizens. The political act of making of fusion voting illegal was in some form a political enclosure act. The political elite of the Republican and Democratic Parties set boundaries through and around the common rights of political association.The oligarchic duolopy funnels policy through a few leaders of the dominant party. Those leaders decide policy for the entire government. Fusion voting in practice forces real consensus and coalitions rather than the forced centrism of present politics which limits the boundaries of real debate. Over one quarter of Oregon voters are non- aligned. Fusion voting mandates nothing of the voters yet provides more opportunities for knowledge and a chance to be a part of a greater consensus than is presently allowed.
david strader
-
My Great Grand Father was elected to the Oregon House of representative in 1900 through fusion voting.He served from the Forest Grove Area. He was a member of a minor party called the Union Party which consisted of Farmers, Grange, Catholics and others. He and two other members of the UP fused with the Democratic Party. I am a fan of fusion voting. The major partys should not fear full participation of the electeral system. I encourage the Governor to sign the Resoration of voting rights bill... er I mean, The Fusion bill. The same
Jeff Anderson
-
Exactly, it has been around forever, and in the early 20th century fusion voting was a key component of the progressive movement. Beyond that, it doesn’t take a genius to see that more parties, more choices would be a good thing for democracy in Oregon or anywhere else. Usually, third parties don’t get too far because people don’t want to cast their votes for someone who just can’t win. Seems like fusion would get you around that – vote third party without wasting your vote.
-
Having lived in New York I've seen first hand the value of Fusion Voting. It will be an important addition to Oregon politics giving voters an opportunity to express support for specific issues that parties support
-
A giant step forward in letting people vote for both the candidate and the issues for which they stand.
-
I believe our collective democratic voice has been compromised by the rigidity of our two-party system, and those who want to consolidate power within one of those parties. This bill brings us closer to true representation, by opening up the electoral process to accommodate more voices and candidates.
-
I have been intrigued by fusion voting since first reading about it in Noam Chomsky's "Understanding Power". As a result, I volunteered for the Oregon Working Families Party as soon as I found out the party had formed.
I hope this bill is signed into law because I believe it's good for everyone. Empowering minor parties to support the candidates of major parties will make minor parties less inconsequential and hopefully make the winning candidates feel responsible to the concerns of the parties providing them with endorsement.
I only wish that this bill was introducing full fusion voting, but one small step in the right direction is very welcome.
-
I am an independent voter, this does not mean I am with the Independent Party quite the contrary, it means I vote for candidates that support the issues I am concerned with and measures I support.
I support the concept of Fusion Voting and would add that we should have a, none of the above on all ballots as all of the candidates might be unacceptable and would force parties to recruit better candidates. I wish also we had a no confidence vote available after a period of time that could remove candidates that have not lived up to their promises and failed to represent the interests of their constitutes.
It is the voters that should be leading the decisions and the candidates that are informing us, keeping us abreast of the issues, debates and be honest brokers representing our interests and the interests of the State and Nation.
Governor please sign SB 326 and fusion voting
-
Fusion voting might increase turnout. I know lots of people who don’t want to vote for either of the major party candidates, but they don’t want waste their vote on the Greens either. With fusion you can vote for a third party without throwing your vote away. Fusion voting used to be really popular across the west, including Oregon, and turnout was much higher in that era.
-
I agree – people who don’t vote don’t vote because they don’t like the choices they’ve been given (or they think the choices are the really the same). More ways to vote means more voters.
-
Wouldn’t this system give more information to voters? One of the problems of only having two parties is that just knowing someone’s party doesn’t tell you all that much about them. Paul Wellstone and Joe Lieberman were both Democrats – but they had nothing in common. If you had a Christian party that endorsed only socially conservatives Republicans, you’d know a lot more about the people they endorsed just from the information on the ballot.
-
How could you not be for allowing this? Anything that gives us more choices or that weakens the big two party machines is a good thing.
-
Totally agreed! I don't understand why this isn’t this allowed in the first place!? Seems like a scam by the Dems and Repubs to keep other parties off the ballot.
-
The Socialist Party of Oregon (SPO) supports legal measures that allow all political parties a chance to have their candidates appear on the ballot, and that make progress towards a true multi-party system. The SPO is a “multi-tendency” organization, where socialists of all stripes are welcomed so long as a commitment to democracy in both means and ends is maintained. Through our differences we reach consensus towards common ends and support common candidates in a manner similar to the concept of fusion voting—many divergent perspectives coalesce towards a common goal. Through fusion voting, historically marginalized candidates and the citizens who support them have a greater chance for their voices to be heard, and we move ever closer to the American and socialist democratic ideal.
One recently voiced objection to the possibility of 'fusion voting' is that, objectors claim, it might make political parties beyond the current two-party paradigm little more than brand names, promoting candidates making political concessions to gain a wider audience and pool of voters. We should all have more faith in the citizenry of Oregon, and in their ability to vote for candidates because of their political positions and values, rather than their flashy new cross-nominations. Allowing fusion voting will serve to help silenced voices speak, marginalized votes be cast, and hopeless voters have faith again—and that is something we should not lose sight of.
- Jeff Ewing, Lane County socialist
-
Yea, Jeff.
-
As a long time Democratic precinct person and former member of the State Central Committee, I fully support SB 326.
It will be great to have minor parties able to nominate and support major party candidates they agree with. Now, minor parties can only be spoilers in elections.
We need more voices and participation in Oregon politics. I hope Governor Kulongoski does not cave in to Democratic Party staff's selfish interests. The DPO did not ask me what I think about fusion voting, and I oppose their attempt to torpedo a bill that got majority support from Democrats in both the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate.
Stefan
-
It’s not surprising that the powers that be, the Democrats, are against this.
Do you or any one know what the Republicans and or Libertarians say about the SB 326?
-
We appreciate OPB doing this program. Fusion voting is a stonger version of democracy, and allows candidates to receive nominations from more than one party.
This stengthens our process, and gives minor parties more leverage with candidates. Candidates can either support party positions, and commit to endorsing such positions, or parties can go elsewhere with their nominations. This gives alternative parties more of a voice in what is supposed to be democracy. It can easily be argued that with a two party system, choices for the people, are seriously limited.
It is our hope that Governor Kulingowski will stand up a for strengthened democray, and sign SB 326.
Kurt Geist
The Organizing Collective
-
I used to live in New York (Albany) and really liked the fusion system there. It did two things for me as a voter. First, it gave me a bit more information about the candidates if I didn't know a lot. I am generally a well-informed voter, but sometimes on a down-ballot race, I didn't know as much as I would have liked. But knowing what third parties endorsed a major party candidate gave me more of an idea. Second, it allowed me to send a message as to WHY I was voting for a candidate (at least in terms of true fusion voting where there is a separate line for the party). By voting on a third party line, I could say "I am voting for you because you support the issues of this party."
Therefore, I support true fusion voting, and I commend the legislature on passing this first step towards that.
I also work for OSPIRG now, and our platform includes support for fusion voting. We urge the Governor to sign this legislation and we hope he will also support true fusion in the future.
..Jon Bartholomew
-
I recently moved to Portland from New Zealand. Their electoral system extends the franchise to all residents who have lived in the country legally for one year or more.
They also use a mixed-member proportional electoral system, which gives people two votes in national elections: one for their local constituency representative and one for the party whose platform they support.
People can choose to allocate their party vote to the same party as their constituency or to another party. Since adopting this process, neither of the two main political parties has achieved an outright majority in Parliament. As a result, they have formed coalitions that have given many minority voices access to the process of governing.
I think a system such as this would help reframe issues of local and state concern in ways that the current two-party system oversimplifies or neglects altogether.
-
As a voter, I feel this would be a great step toward empowering those of us who have felt for some time that the overwhelming pressure to appeal to the "center" has left all major political races a wash. This would allow me, as a member of the WFP, to send a clear message to candidates to stay true to the issues that are important to me. Too often, candidates are forced to capitulate and sacrifice, and fusion opens the door to voters to remind their candidates the reasons they chose them in the first place.
-
I agree with fusion voting, but against fusion "lite" or aggregate fusion. I really do think that fusion voting will give third parties a chance to start coming out of the depths of obscurity and become known to voters and, hopefully, liked and supported. I think this system may change the traditional diametric platforms running against each other every election. On the other hand, fusion "lite" will not get rid of the often seen two candidates and spoiler candidates. That is, there will still be obscure candidates that, although they may stand for your issues, a vote for them is just one less for the two front runners. I think fusion "lite" is a step in the right direction, but a jump would be better.
-
Maybe I missed something at the beginning of the show but "How is this different than an endorsement?"
-
Political parties have First Amendment (and OR Constitutional) rights to assemble and nominate candidates. "Nomination" is a specific legal term which applies only to the official and certified nominated candidates of actual parties. " Endorsement" is an indefinite term meaning approval and not a legal term. A "group" of activists can endorse, but only political parties can nominate. It takes thousands of signatures or a very large convention to form a political party in Oregon. Once formed, it must continue to maintain members and poll some votes for its candidates in order to maintain its existence.
-
With all due respect, I think this is mostly a discussion about how to best arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If you look at the periods of genuine progress in the USA (abolition of slavery, reining in of corporate excesses in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, the civil rights struggles, the antiwar movement), they have all happened against a background of growing -- dare I mention the word? -- revolutionary sentiment.
It is exceptionally rare for any system of power to concede any reforms when presented with anything other than the threat of a total loss of power.
If you want real change, start thinking outside the (ballot) box. -
I would prefer fusion regular to fusion lite, but I'll take what I can get.
I do NOT like what the two party system has been doing to us lately and would like people to STOP taking "party" sides and start voting their own views and not just their party's view. And I HATE it when members seemingly vote against something simply because it is supported by the opposite party.
Hopefully this will blur those opposing camps.
-
I was glad to be in the Senate gallery when this bill passed--but mostly for the other part of the bill which overturns the stupid law which says if you vote in a major party primary can't sign a petition for a non-major party candidate. This is needed because of that Haugen for Cong. situation in 2008.
But is it as more important than nonpartisan voting or campaign finance reform?
And what about the people who vote the individual rather than the party--for instance would consider Max Williams or Brian Clem for Gov. as bright young men they know well, but don't have much use for the party they belong to?This has been fought out over the decades (perhaps before B. Dudley got involved in Oregon politics)--Democrats for McCall or Frohnmayer or Paulus or Hatfield, Republicans for the legislative candidate who lives down the street from them and who they know on a first name basis.
Dudley's theoretical view doesn't seem to include that--"groups bring ideas forward to be acted upon" sounds more theory than Oregon practice in the 3 decades I have been involved in politics. Oregon's Beach Bill, for instance, involved McCall, Straub, and many others of both parties.
With regard to fusion voting, the debate sounds more theoretical than specific, but then maybe that is because it is a major issue on the WFP website and they don't have a long history in Oregon.
-
I am against fusion voting and the OWFP for the simple reason that both create a redundancy that will dilute the power of the Democratic Party of Oregon to be the strongest and staunches supporter of working families as it has been throughout modern history.
Why redundant? One only has to read Article 3 of the Democratic Party of Oregon Democratic Principles: Our Responsibilities and Rights as Workers and Business People, to understand that Labor already has a political party to protect and advocate for the needs of workers . To wit:
Labor: Ensuring Workers Rights, including Retirement Security
We support the right of workers to blow the whistle on unsafe or unethical practices in the workplace without retaliation, particularly workers not represented by organized labor.
We support workers’ rights to form a union and its right to assess non-member workers for cost of representation directly benefiting them.
We oppose the use of public funds for decertification of unions, opposition to union organizing, or interference in labor disputes.
We support international fair trade that meets standards set by the International Labor Organization.
We support International Trade Treaties that protect American Workers.
We support the global right of international workers to form unions without fear of retribution.
We oppose the privatization of public sector jobs and the outsourcing of public and private sector jobs and services.
We support direct hires.
We oppose the sale of goods made by forced and/or sweatshop labor, and condemn the exploitation of children in the workplace.
Sustainable job creation should be a public and private enterprise priority.
-
These minor parties are usually single issue groups that are a long ways from a majority. I do not see how this bill would have much effect. Both major parties are divided. The Democrats between those that want the whole agenda right now and Republican light. The Republicans between the cultural conservatives and the financial conservatives. If there were four parties coalitions of any three could form, work out compromises and effectively govern. I hope.
-
While this is a useful feature to add, it's more like paint on a rustbucket. If we really want to get some viable options in politics, we have to switch to Approval or Instant Runoff voting so that a vote for who you really want isn't effectively a vote for the greater of two evils.
-
Comments are now closed.
It has been said that both major parties want the same things for Oregonians, they only differ on how to acheive them. Will fusion voting and mulitiple nominations bring more clairity to candidte positions on issues?
If candidates refuse to cross nominate, how will third parties respond?