The Fusion Movement: How Third Parties Can Not Only Survive, But Thrive

[AthenaAwakened]

 Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate. Distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot, the practice of electoral fusion in jurisdictions where it exists allows minor parties to influence election results and policy by offering to endorse or nominate a major party's candidate.

Also from the Wiki

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the Populist Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation."[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Mississippi
New York
Oregon
South Carolina
Vermont

In several other states,[which?] notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

Today, Rev. Dr. William Barber, NC State President of the NAACP, (Leader of the Moral Mondays Movement and the speaker who set the DNC in Philly ON FIRE) is leading a call for the return of fusion politics and fusion social movements.

Unless we face the fact that America’s first two Reconstructions were undermined by the monied elites of plantation capitalism, we can’t even name the challenge we face today.

In seeking a higher moral ground, we must break out of dead-end racialized framing. We must intentionally challenge the ahistorical and amoral tendencies that many public intellectuals–black and white–fall into when the historical and moral challenge of our time is raised: how to dismantle the system of racism. We cannot dismantle what we have not named. Our attention to the language of Reconstruction is a direct challenge to those who cry, “You are playing the race card” whenever anyone dares to name the continuing reality of entrenched structural racism. At the same time, it helps us remember how fusion coalitions have created spaces of interruption in our long history of racial injustice. These concrete victories in Movement history give us hope to say with Langston Hughes, “America never was America to me / and yet I swear this oath / America will be!”

http://religiondispatches.org/a-third-reconstruction-rev-william-barber-lifts-the-trumpet/

 

[Rhea]

I 100% support this effort. It is a great way to be a rising minority opinion without losing ground on values. We should completely embrace it if we are honest with ourselves about wanting the entire electorate to participate.

I would like to see sample legislation made and advertisements crafted and ad-buys collaborated to promote it.

 

[Rhea]

One of the best features of this is that it allows the candidate to understand the wishes of the constituency better. If a candidate wins with 60% of the vote, and it shows that of that 2/3 are democrats, 1/6 are Greens and 1/6 are Libertarians, the candidate can better craft legislation that will be acceptable AND SOUGHT by a majority of the voters.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if the Sanders Party represents only 1/6 of the voting public, one can make sure that one promotes all of the policies that will appeal to BOTH Dems and Sandersites. Uncovering the intersection of the sets, as it were.