Ballot Question 2: Fusion Voting
Oct 29, 2006 23:55 | Election
On November 7, we'll have three ballot questions to
vote on.
Question 2 is "Ballot Freedom," also called "fusion voting."
Many people would like to vote for a third-party candidate -- to send a message about what they want, even if that candidate can't win -- but they are afraid to throw away their vote, or to be a "spoiler," threatening the victory of the mainstream candidate they prefer and inadvertently helping the candidate they want least (think Nader or Gore vs. Bush).
It's something like run-off voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates and their vote is automatically transferred to their choice with the greatest number of votes. Instant run-off is better because the party platform is more specifically articulated by a party candidate. But right now, we have a chance to vote for fusion, and it's a start toward more political representation across the spectrum.
With fusion voting, different parties can support the same candidate, but the vote numbers show where the support came from, giving the independents some real power in shaping the winner's agenda. It's a tool for coalition building and focusing campaign energy and resources on a candidate that would be more specifically accountable to all of those who vote him/her into office.
It's all very well explained at www.massballotfreedom.com.
Fusion voting isn't an experiment; it has a long history, and is still used in several states. I think it's a great way to bring out more voters, because they know that their vote will say what they mean.
Does anyone know of a down side to it?
Question 2 is "Ballot Freedom," also called "fusion voting."
Many people would like to vote for a third-party candidate -- to send a message about what they want, even if that candidate can't win -- but they are afraid to throw away their vote, or to be a "spoiler," threatening the victory of the mainstream candidate they prefer and inadvertently helping the candidate they want least (think Nader or Gore vs. Bush).
It's something like run-off voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates and their vote is automatically transferred to their choice with the greatest number of votes. Instant run-off is better because the party platform is more specifically articulated by a party candidate. But right now, we have a chance to vote for fusion, and it's a start toward more political representation across the spectrum.
With fusion voting, different parties can support the same candidate, but the vote numbers show where the support came from, giving the independents some real power in shaping the winner's agenda. It's a tool for coalition building and focusing campaign energy and resources on a candidate that would be more specifically accountable to all of those who vote him/her into office.
It's all very well explained at www.massballotfreedom.com.
Fusion voting isn't an experiment; it has a long history, and is still used in several states. I think it's a great way to bring out more voters, because they know that their vote will say what they mean.
Does anyone know of a down side to it?
|