Fusion: The Value of Independent Organizations (Or, Because the Angel Moroni Won't be Back Anytime Soon)
Yesterday I wrote about how fusion voting works in New York:
By allowing voters to support a major party candidate on a minor-party line, fusion solves the “wasted vote” and “spoiler” dilemmas that otherwise plague third parties. There have been many fusion parties in our nation’s history – the Populists being the most famous – but it can be used by left, right and center. Democracy means everyone gets to play.
For a progressive-minded party like New York’s Working Families, we have almost always cross-endorsed (or “fused”) with Democrats, but occasionally we will endorse a decent Republican, run our own stand-alone WFP candidate against the major parties, or leave our line BLANK when there didn’t seem to be a good reason to endorse anyone.
By delivering 8,000-plus votes for Brian Higgins in his 2004 Congressional race, we were the margin that put another good Democrat (make that, Dem-WFP) in Congress. By delivering 155,000 votes for Eliot Spitzer for Governor, OK, we weren’t close to the margin of victory, but we did signal that a substantial fraction of the New York electorate expects real progress toward universal health care, public election financing, and universal paid family leave and sick days over the next four years.
Great, that’s New York. Why should the rest of the country care? Here’s why.
Nathan Newman, a TPM regular and long time friend of the Working Families Party, has been predicting for some time that the election of a Democratic president will trigger a fracture of left blogistan and progressives generally. Barring a devastating ferret invasion or divine intervention by the angel Moroni, this prediction is very likely to be put to the test in January 2009.
The lines of the split are already visible. On one side are those who see progressives as the loyal foot soldiers of elected Democrats. For them, the inevitable difficulties and disappointments of the coming Democratic era will be testimony to the inherent inertia of American politics and the tenacity of Republican dead-enders. Every setback will be a further argument for tighter discipline and a narrower focus on the achievable.
On the other side are those for whom the program, not the party, is foremost. If, come year three of a Democratic administration, American troops are still in Iraq, millions of Americans still lack health coverage, and K Street is still thriving, it will be a sign to some that the strategy of supporting Democrats has failed. You can go through the exercise yourself of guessing who will fall on which side, but there’s no question there will be a split.
In the classic tradition of practical politicians, I’d argue that both sides are right.
Atrios, who is as likely as anyone to bridge this divide, says “More and better Democrats”. That’s right. At the Federal level especially, the damage done by the Bush crowd is monumental and monumentally depressing, and the first rule is to get control and STOP. Of course, the more we elect “better” Democrats, not just more, the happier we’ll be. That means maintaining our independence, institutionally as well as intellectually, so we can insist in a meaningful way on what it means to be a good Democrat and get actually existing Democrats to come closer to this standard.
It’s not a new problem. It’s the same dilemma that faces any institutional actor whose heart still beats on the left – unions, immigrants, gays and lesbians, health care advocates, students, whoever. As a practical matter, the more Democrats are in office, the more likely we are to get at least some piece of our agenda enacted. At times, electing Democrats can be literally a matter of life or death.
But on the other hand, the more firmly we bind ourselves to the Dems, the less leverage we have over them. The Democratic Party isn’t like Old Labour in the U.K.: unions and other organizations don’t have any direct role in governing it. (Actually, it isn’t really a party at all, but that’s a subject for another time.) Power means voice or exit; if we don’t have a voice we need the option to exit; but where, realistically, are disillusioned progressives to go?
Not to third party candidates, that’s for sure. Under America’s winner-take-all electoral system, third-party politics is a chump’s game. Anything short of a plurality might as well be nothing. So at best you should have stayed home; at worst you accomplish the exact opposite of what you intended. (See Nader, R.)
At the local level there are times and places when third party candidacies do make sense, but building them into a coherent movement is another story. Electing progressives in Democratic primaries is a much more promising approach, but it does nothing to build a lasting organization that can work 365 days a year to advance our issues in real-time. People who go this route become, for better or worse, part of the vague, amorphous milieu of Democratic politics. The Jesse Jackson campaign was the most exciting effort to build progressive power within the Democratic Party in the past generation, and left a positive institutional legacy – but it’s still just a legacy, and not an organization. Michael Harrington used to say that true leftists had to build organizations. He was right.
We need a strategy that allows us to wholeheartedly work for “more and better Democrats” without simply being absorbed in the Democratic Party. And we need a strategy that lets us build our own distinct progressive institutions without losing sight of the need to exercise real power in the here and now. I DON’T claim that fusion is the ONLY approach that resolves this dilemma, but it’s certainly one of the most promising ones.
Fusion allows progressives to actively, wholeheartedly campaign for good Democrats without giving up the idea of a distinct party for working people and their allies. In fact, progressive Democrats in New York – both elected officials and organizational leaders from labor and community and environmental groups – are our strongest allies, because we all want the state and nation to move in a better direction, and this is a uniquely potent tool for making that happen.
Some readers don’t think the left needs its own independent political structure, supportive of but distinct from the Democrats. That’s a legitimate view, and if you’re in that camp, you don’t need fusion or the Working Families Party.
But if you do think there’s a space for a political structure to prod the Democrats in a more progressive direction [think MoveOn], then fusion is the ticket. Our strategy, in fact, might be understood as providing a ballot line that could and hopefully will be the natural and happy home for MoveOn members, union members, ACORN members, Sierra Club members and so on and so forth.
I don’t mean to be a bore, but third parties without fusion (remember – it was once legal in EVERY state) are just writing themselves out of politics. Run in a close election, and you spoil. Run in a safe Dem district, and you might as well run in the Democratic primary instead. And whatever the district, you’ll never recruit candidates to run year in, year out, which is what it takes to develop a reliable vote. Whatever you want to call the political orientation TPM readers share, there are a lot of us, but not a plurality. And 3 percent or 5 percent or even 10 percent just doesn’t allow you to accomplish anything under winner-take-all.
With fusion it’s a different story. The Working Families Party supports Democrats in close races – just ask the five Congressional Ds who owe their election in some measure to the votes they got on the WFP line – that’s the “more Democrats” part. But, unlike other organizations that support Democrats in particular races, every election under fusion is also a chance to enlarge the population of reliable progressive third-party voters. And we don't need to recruit candidates to run in each of the hundreds of districts we're present in each year. Fusion is about the organization, not the individual candidate.
Without fusion, progressives have a stark choice. Support the Dem and forego the chance to develop an alternative political identity. Or run a third-party candidate and help send a Republican to Washington. With fusion, we get to have it both ways. We help elect the Democrat, but we also increase the pool of voters voting on the WFP line, giving us a credible threat to exit if the Dems don’t deliver.
Good deal for progressives? Absolutely. But what’s in it for the Democrats? That’s the subject for my next post.
Barring a devastating ferret invasion or divine intervention by the angel Moroni, this prediction is very likely to be put to the test in January 2009.
I couldn't get past this point in the post. It strikes me as an attack on a specific religious group -- not just questioning religion generally -- and that makes me cringe and makes me angry. Surely there would have been some better way to make the point that a fracturing on the Left is very likely to occur. Why throw in this sentence?
July 3, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every election I get slate cards sent out by a variety of organizations, many of whom are just commercial entities selling "endorsements" to candidates who then get listed on the card. Each of these organizations could easily become a "fusion" party, and be listed on the ballot. And, that includes those who sell their endorsement. Not good for democracy.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question for ya, though... The Working Families Party endorsed Hillary Clinton during both of her Senate runs. Hillary doesn't satisfy a lot of progressives and is seen as a too "moderate" or too much a DLC-backed candidate.
Do you think that perception is wrong and that's why WFP endorsed her? Or do you think Hillary moved substantively to the left on any issue in order to get the WFP endorsement? If she did, please name the issue.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 3, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more question: Why should I give your party my vote if you're endorsing Republican candidates?
Or, do you only do that if there's no Democratic opponent?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 3, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
viviane,
I found Ted Kennedy's attack on Mitt Romney's religion when Mitt was a challenger for Kennedy's Senate seat extremely hypocritical and found others to agree. George Romney, Mitt Romney's father, remains a man I think would likely have been a superb president if given the chance.
I hate the injection of religious intolerance in campaigns though I have no more respect for Ted Kennedy's cult Catholicism (so described by Eric Hoffer) than Mitt Romney's Mormonism or, for that matter, Karl Marx's bizarre atheistic religion.
While sharing some of your feelings, I take exception to your claim that irreverent mention of the angel Moroni injects religious intolerance into the discussion anymore than a slighting reference to the imaginary St. Patrick would be.
If Mitt Romney were anything but a most contemptible fraud, I would be looking awfully hard to find some reason to vote for him BECAUSE he is a despised Mormon.
Just a difference of opinion.
Best, Terry
July 3, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the others. It sounds just like a group lobbying for something. It could be a Right to Life party; in your case it's a labor-movement party. But it's still not clear to me it's doing the job it promises or even wishes to. And I'd sure like Fulani's psycho sect and Harding's corrupt backroom to go away. Do you see yet what I mean by the difference between a party with a broad agenda across the board and someone with chips on a pet issue or personal power to cash in? It's almost the opposite of the Labour Party in early 20th c. England.
I'm hoping you're right and that this will elect more representatives backing things like universal health care, but it's not clear it does more than make candidates indebted in ways we may not not wish. For that matter, if as you say we don't get universal health care in three years of a new term, I bet it's a sign that smear ads and the GOP lockstep are back, not that we need the flexibility to back GOP candidates. (Note: in strong contrast to Nathan, are you willing firmly to back up your wish for universal health care here by detaching it from employment, presumably a chip in organizing employees for you?)
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 3, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Steve WFP gave me an answer regarding my Blue Dog Democrat representative that I think is applicable regarding WFP-endorsed Hillary Clinton. (I voted against Hillary.):
To me, Mike Arcuri is an example of how fusion holds candidates accountable. He joined the Blue Dogs, but he still votes the right way on issues like raising the minimum wage and bringing the troops home from Iraq because he can see that's how the voters in his district want him to vote and he can see that voters in his district will base their votes on those issues.
http://tableforone.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/jul/02/spotlight_on_fusion_voting_the_lost_tool_of_american_democracy#comment-265499
One can see that as an excuse rather than an explanation but I find it reasonable to a point. IMO Hillary is an anti-union Tory and would get no vote from me if she were to be endorsed by the sainted Russ Feingold but that is a disagreement over opinion rather than tactics.
Best, Terry
July 3, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also the case that in NY politics minor party lines are used by candidates to blackmail the major parties into supporting them, or else running as spoilers. No matter how you look at it, it's still bad-old 3rd Party politics.
July 3, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I read that exchange and thanks for reprising it here.
I'd still want an example of how Clinton actually changed a policy position in order to get the WFP endorsement. That's because I'm skeptical that such an example exists.
And I guess I'm more skeptical of this whole idea than I was before Steve started posting here. Candidates matter more than parties do. Lieberman is proof enough of that.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm intrigued by this idea, at least in part because I've always been bemused by the way so many laud the "two party system" as somehow carved on stone at Mount Philadelphia when the Founding Fathers descended to reveal the Constitution to the rest of us. I think our thinking is too constrained on assorted methods by which democracy could be preserved, if not improved, and often that constrained thinking is designed to preserve the benefits of incumbency for both parties.
Every political party represents a coalition of interests, I suppose. These interests aren't all geographic. When a candidate wins, that win is trumpeted as a victory for view "x" regardless how much the number of persons who voted because of view "y" contributed to the victory. Because we don't have plebiscites in this country (we do have initiative, referendum and recall in some, but not all states), there is no real way to prove which of the electors provided the most "ooomph" to the candidate's poll.
Here's a little hypothetical. Suppose some sort of formal contractual fusion could be created in advance--an explicit umbrella representing diverse factions rather an an implicit one.
The results would be a lot more precise than "exit polling" and would be some indication of what issues truly mattered the most to the electors participating in the process.
aMike
Incidentally, in at least one instance a modern left of center party was created by the fusion of two parties. Minnesota doesn't have a Democratic Party. Minnesota has a Democratic Farmer Labor Party, the good old DFL. So does North Dakota, come to think of it.
July 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
viviane, would your reaction be the same if he had said the Second Coming of Christ?
July 3, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, theoretically you would be voting in an election in your own district and if you don't like the WFP's endorsed candidate, then you don't vote for them.
That seems simple enough.
This conversation isn't necessarily about whether or not we should all vote WFP, but about the viability in using fusion as a tactic for advancing progressive public policies.
I think one question we should ask of the NY WFP folks is, since the inception of the WFP, has there been a perceptible shift towards progressive public policies coming from NY elected officials?
July 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otherwise known as "wielding power to get what you want" which is kind of the definition of politics.
Why should progressives be afraid to wield power?
If a group has enough votes to spoil, why shouldn't their views be represented in the legislature?
July 3, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, interesting question. I think my reaction would have varied in two different directions. First, your proposed revision talks about Christ, which is a bigger deal than Moroni. More central to Christian beliefs. So in a way, the revision would have been more dismissive. In contrast, though, something about the Second Coming would have targeted all Christians, and not just a particular group of them. In that sense, it wouldn't raise my hackles quite as much. Does that distinction make sense?
Let's see... I have a hard time thinking that Mr. Cantor would have subtitled a piece "Or Because Jesus isn't Coming." And I think that's my complaint. Why is it okay to single out one particular Christian group for derision? Not to mention that, as far as I know, there's no Mormon doctrine talking about the return of Moroni. So the subtitle also shows a lack of knowledge of the group and belief that is being mocked.
July 3, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How come a most intelligent student of history like yourself doesn't understand elections have far more to do with passion than reason?
The electorate is nearly always far more liberal than the politicians and yet vote for the troglodytes for reasons that are beyond my ken. Perhaps it is a matter of comfort in an uncertain life like the sinner preaching religion.
The most obvious example is the matter of legalization of marijuana for medical use. Voters in numerous states have voted for legalization. The proof of efficacy is undeniable despite our revered Supreme Court unanimously voting there is no evidence of medical benefit. In most any jurisdiction, a politician who dared say otherwise is doomed to defeat. Jesse Ventura was the most notable counter example and perhaps the very symbol of the difficulty of trying to get reason to prevail over passion.
Our closest neighbor, and a most wonderful one he was, died last year after a very lengthy and agonizing battle with non-hodgkin's lymphoma. NHL has the fastest expanding list of victims of all cancers.
Don's son once gave him a joint to smoke. The comfort was blessed but Don told his son never to do that again. You see it was against the law.
Those going blind from glaucoma can preserve their sight a bit longer, the MS victim can lose her "shakes" for a time, the wasted cancer patient can gain some weight and feel some relief from the poisonous chemotherapy so they can take some more poison.
It is against the law said the Supremes unanimously because there is no medical benefit because the politicians all say that.
The voters say otherwise and then vote only for the politicians who perpetrate the lie and appoint the judges who all know it is a lie but say it anyway.
How to figure?
Best, Terry
July 4, 2007 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delete redundant post.
July 4, 2007 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's easier to trigger reflex responses like jingoism and tough-on-crime than to promote thoughtful consideration. It's a Gresham's Law of political discourse.
Marijuana laws are particularly idiotic. The push for criminalization came from congressmen bought by Dow, to suppress hemp. Dow wanted no competition for its wood-pulp paper business, in the '20s and '30s.
Marijuana is safer than every single drug in the cabinet, safer than coffee, not addictive in the pharmacological sense, and seems more likely to be actually good for you than to have any downside. It has no toxic dose.
But because it became a moral issue---"There are no soft drugs", Carter's Drug czar---pols are on thin ice trying to back away from the disapproval stance.
July 4, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Viviane on this.
The Moroni comment targets one particular sect of Christianity and one candidate in particular.
If we have to face off with Romney, I'd hope we take the high ground and leave the Mormon bashing out of it.
Which is not to say that Mormon jokes are necssarily out of bounds. But there's a high bar to justify racial or religious gags and this one didn't meet it. As Viviane pointed out, it came from out of nowhere, seems to lack context and diminishes the rest of the post for anyone who didn't kind of shrug and skip over it.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 4, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Counter-argument: I don't see anything wrong with saying that the Angel Moroni won't be back anytime soon.
I am beyond tired of the notion that any religion anywhere needs to be deferred to simply because it is a religion. Besides, the same people who get upset when their own religion is mocked are usually quite happy to see other religions mocked.
I say, judge the idea on its merit and not on its legacy.
July 4, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that's getting pretty damn personal. :-)
I don't know if you are right or not. Have no personal experience with marijuana though I have been plenty of places where I have smelled some extra strong cigarettes. I assume marijuana does impair driving though many drugs do that. Lung damage may be ameliorated by eating the stuff but I imagine few do that.
Funny stories about marijuana.
- Marinol is a longtime, FDA-approved synthetic marijuana that has gone generic. It has two serious drawbacks:
(1) A very expensive pill prescribed for treating nausea may end up being flushed down the toilet.
(2) The pills give what patients call an unpleasant extreme high compared with measured puffing on a joint.
- Hefty doses of marijuana may be useful in treating brain cancer while longterm recreational use may induce the same cancer, something like the use of radiation in treating cancer.
The laws are a form of insanity that perhaps a joint or two could treat successfully but there is reason to question that. Endogenous cannibinoids may be triggered when drug warriors haul sick people off to jail for smoking marijuana. I think the drug warriors should turn themselves in for abuse of marijuana laws in their own heads.
Best, Terry
July 4, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I didn't see the comment as a lack of deference but as mockery. And I don't enjoy seeing anyone's religion (or sacred beliefs) mocked.
July 4, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Studies I have heard about include the one that showed some expected reduction in driving skill (simulator) but much less than even small amounts of alcohol, and the kicker--subjects that had taken alcohol showed improved scores after then smoking pot. (They slowed down, the usual rsponse to driving while high.)
The Dutch have an interest in the subject and found in a recent survey that lung cancer correlation that would be expected doesn't show up. And a Harvard study found some anti-carcinogenic effects in mice with tumors. Don't remember how marijuana was introduced, or which form of it used.
July 4, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poland all right with you? There are numerous studies around the world that go beyond the usual miracle mouse studies. The following is one:
Brain Res. 2007 Mar 16;1137(1):161-9. Epub 2006 Dec 23.
Distinctive pattern of cannabinoid receptor type II (CB2) expression in adult and pediatric brain tumors.
Ellert-Miklaszewska A, Grajkowska W, Gabrusiewicz K, Kaminska B, Konarska L.
Department of Biochemistry and Clinical Chemistry, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland.
The efficacy of cannabinoids against high-grade glioma in animal models, mediated by two specific receptors, CB1 and CB2, raised promises for targeted treatment of the most frequent and malignant primary brain tumors. Unlike the abundantly expressed CB1, the CB2 receptor shows a restricted distribution in normal brain. Although brain tumors constitute the second most common malignancy in children and the prevalence of histological types of brain tumors vary significantly between the adult and pediatric populations, cannabinoid receptor expression in pediatric tumors remains unknown. In the present study, we compared the expression of the CB2 receptor in paraffin-embedded sections from primary brain tumors of adult and pediatric patients. Most glioblastomas expressed very high levels of CB2 receptors and the expression correlated with tumor grade. Interestingly, some benign pediatric astrocytic tumors, such as subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA), which may occasionally cause mortality owing to progressive growth, also displayed high CB2 immunoreactivity. The high levels of CB2 expression would predestine those tumors to be vulnerable to cannabinoid treatment. In contrast, all examined cases of embryonal tumors (medulloblastoma and S-PNET), the most frequently diagnosed malignant brain tumors in childhood, showed no or trace CB2 immunoreactivity. Our results suggest that the CB2 receptor expression depends primarily on the histopathological origin of the brain tumor cells and differentiation state, reflecting the tumor grade.
And here's a clinical study in humans:
Br J Cancer. 2006 Jul 17;95(2):197-203. Epub 2006 Jun 27.
A pilot clinical study of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.
Guzmán M, Duarte MJ, Blázquez C, Ravina J, Rosa MC, Galve-Roperh I, Sánchez C, Velasco G, González-Feria L.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid 28040, Spain. mgp@bbm1.ucm.es
Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth and angiogenesis in animal models, so their potential application as antitumoral drugs has been suggested. However, the antitumoral effect of cannabinoids has never been tested in humans. Here we report the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action, specifically a pilot phase I trial in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme were administered THC intratumoraly. The patients had previously failed standard therapy (surgery and radiotherapy) and had clear evidence of tumour progression. The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration. We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters. A dose escalation regimen for THC administration was assessed. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and could be achieved without overt psychoactive effects. Median survival of the cohort from the beginning of cannabinoid administration was 24 weeks (95% confidence interval: 15-33). Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.
Best, Terry
July 4, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given some of the discussion down in this thread...
Where does the WFP stand on the legalization of marijuana, or on the legalization of medicinal marijuana?
I know that WFP is for a repeal of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws in New York, but that's just a small step.
Where do you stand on the larger issue?
Your Web site doesn't say.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 4, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good searching. Thanks.
July 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
AFIK, WFP's membership and active leaders as well as their various chapters don't have a position on this particular issue. So far, it would seem, it's not something that has been a priority for its membership.
But you are correct that the WFP is in favor of completely revamping the criminal justice system's approach to drug crimes...
July 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jes' call me a cockeyed optimist, I guess.
aMike
July 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cousin Vincent, in his autobiography modestly titled A Lion In The Courtroom, told of a partner dying in his 30's of what Vincent described as a dissolute life.
The partner beckoned to Vincent to lean close and then whispered with his last remaining breath, "Man oh man, will we have a party if I get out of this."
Then the partner exited the Big Party.
That was a real optimist.
The rest of us are dour pessimists.
Best, Terry
July 4, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because if refers directly to the credibility of the leading candidate? Rational, reasoning, fact-based government for me, not magical thinking, thank you.
July 5, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And most "Christians" would argue with you that Mormonism is in any way Christianity.
July 5, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most Christians do not consider Mormonism to be Christianity.
So you may be showing a lack of knowledge of the group and belief that may very well deserve "mocking."
July 5, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it depends on your definition of Christianity. If that entails believing in Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior of the World, and worshiping him as the Christ who was crucified and resurrected on the third day, well, I'd say that the Mormon Church -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- counts as Christian.
My understanding is that the disagreement comes from different understandings of the Trinity. Whereas Catholics and most Protestants believe in the Trinity as established by the Nicene Creed (one being with three aspects, both infinite and minute), Mormons believe in a godhead -- made up of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost -- as three distinct being who are united in purpose.
Perhaps gonzone feels that the Mormon church -- and its members -- are deserving of mockery. Perhaps that's a valid opinion. But it certainly does not belong in a discussion of fusion voting!
July 5, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Candidates matter more than parties do.
Fusion is a way to push back against that by letting minor parties take a distinct stance on a core set of issues and push those issues through their endorsement and ballot line.
Put another way, usually third parties can't develop an identity because they can't elect anyone. Since fusion lets minor parties endorse winning candidates, fusion parties develop an issue-based identity that voters can recognize.
July 9, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Nathan.
The Working Families Party's biggest win in New York has been passing a statewide minimum wage increase through the legislature. The WFP has also passed a number of stronger living wage laws locally, helped pass New York City's strong lead paint laws, and been on the forefront of fights for local pro-immigrant laws and reforming Rockefeller drug laws.
July 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the added benefit that under fusion you can show that you represent a significant number of voters by helping candidates you support win with votes on your ballot line instead of by spoiling.
July 9, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article make fusion sound like nothing more than a tool for keeping the status quo two party system. I'd rather like to see this become a true party with elected office holders. I think where third parties run into trouble is when they try and run for executive offices like Governor and Presdent. They should instead build up the Party first through lower offices until the party is truely strong enough to run for an Executive office.
September 1, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink