Sunday, June 11, 2006

Fusion Voting

Stumbled onto this commentary at reason.com this morning. It's a rather convoluted (in my opinion) piece about how third parties can engage the two party system without embracing either.

He's referring to ballot fusion, or allowing candidates to be nominated by more than one party. That's only allowed in a handful of states right now but used to be fairly common.

The Libertarian Party has actually had some candidates win using ballot fusion, the last one I recall being a state house member in Vermont. Neil Randall was elected under a Republican/ Libertarian fusion ticket but, last I heard, he renounced his association with the LP after he took heat from Vermont libertarians for voting against some gay rights bill.

It would be nice if more states allowed ballot fusion. It would have been nice, back during the Gray Davis recall, if the LP of CA could have backed Tom McClintock for Governor as opposed to wasting the time and effort it took to have Ned Roscoe as the LP candidate.

Other times I'm not so sure I'd agree with such a practice. I wouldn't have wanted the LP to endorse any of the other candidates in the last three or four presidential elections. Of course, just because fusion ballots are allowed, doesn't mean third parties necessarily have to endorse a candidate from another party. They just have the option.

It's not a bad idea, though, and kind of goes along the line of part of what I try to do with this blog: Trying to get people to look at things in a different way so they'll be more accepting of individual liberty and thus more cautious in how they vote. If the Libertarian Party can gain strength and affect policy by interacting with the two major parties, that would pretty much work towards the same goal.

Then again, if more people could be persuaded to come around to a live and let live philosophy and respect for each others liberties, maybe there wouldn't be a reason for the Libertarian Party to be involved in electoral politics at all, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

23 Comments:

At 1:38 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Party affiliation really is nothing nowadays anyway.That's why there's an upsurge in DTS's.Too much conflict between the central committee members(who usually have something at stake)and general members.The Democratic central committee here endorsed Neely,even if not in writing,by not endorsing Richard.In my opinion,it was a huge mistake made by them.Questions need to be asked by general members(and by Marks)as to why they preferred a runoff between Neely and Flemming,over Neely and Marks.This whole thing does make it look like Local Solutions runs the central committee.I hope that's not the case.With PAC's having so much power,what's the point of affiliating with parties anyway?

 
At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

fusion is illegal in cali and most other states.

 
At 6:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mresquan is right. hcdcc didn't endorse Geist, but endorsed Gallegos and Neely (tacitly), ignored Marks. Lcal Solutions does run the Central Committee.
Marks is right wehn he called them a private PAC.

 
At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

loco solutions has now taken over the green party central committee too. alice woodworth finshed ninth place but was still appointed by david cobbs gang. looks like both demos and greenies need to take back their parties.

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but they won't. people are asleep at the wheel.

 
At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. HCDCC is an elected body of people representing all five supervisorial districts in Humboldt County.

2. Richard Marks has not been involved with HCDCC in the last few years while the rest of us have been battling Arnold's misbegotten initiatives and Bush's ruiniation of the republic.

3. If Marks had been around we might have known who he was. Maybe he could have talked with some of us about some help.

4. By the time Marks showed up in this race, it was over. He would not have beaten Arkley's money (Flemming) without a lot more himself.

5. Bonnie Neely is a liberal republican. Why do you think Harvey Harper bailed on her after all those years? It's the liberal part.

6. The governor appoints members of the coastal commission. Do you really want Flemming? About 30% apparently do - around the same as the national percentage on Bush.

7. Shane and Richard are welcome to attend HCDCC functions and get to know this open and patriotic group of local people.

8. Conspiracy Theorists Abound.

 
At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Shane said...

1. You know that I do attend HCDCC functions, and I volunteer at them. I've been around for a while now.

2. Richard hasn't been in the area because he's been on the road as a union organizer for the last few years. Before that he was very involved in the Central Committee.

3. Liberal Republican?

4. Richard would have beat Flemming if he had HCDCC support.

5. http://www.pdhumboldt.org

 
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no about us on thst site, shane, just alot of left-wing fringe-group links, stand up and say who you are

 
At 10:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 11:50 Phyllis is that you?

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phyllis Taborski? HCDCC member...secretary is it?

 
At 11:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if the HCDCC is so open why do they prevent stephen lewis from speaking? isn't he a democrat?

 
At 7:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets look at Shane's comment #4:

"4. Richard would have beat Flemming if he had HCDCC support."

If it were Neely vs. Marks: 2002 all over again as Republicans would elect Marks much like they did Gallegos...

I'm sure they didn't think Richard would do so well, but Monday Morning Quarterbacking says the HCDCC screwed up on this one.

 
At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phyllis, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 
At 9:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HCDCC screwed up by assuring Bonnie's re-election instead of helping Marks beat her in November??? 25% in a primary does not a general election make. Shane and Richard ran a very fine campaign. HCDCC did the right thing. Reality bites. Now let's get back to work.

 
At 9:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HCDCC is a corrupt and secretive little bunch. It is not the rank and file, not the lifelong democrats. It has become something very very weird.

Marks is right. It has become a private little political action committee - a wolf in sheep's clothing, out to fleece the rank and file, trick them into seeing something that is not there.

They are also vicious and nasty, biting little people. Spend a little time with them... a patriotic bunch, Phyllis, PLEASE!

 
At 11:56 PM, Anonymous Shane said...

"HCDCC is a corrupt and secretive little bunch. It is not the rank and file, not the lifelong democrats. It has become something very very weird."

Misguided? Yes

Corrupt and secretive? No

They are a mostly good group of people who sometimes suffer from a group-think mentality. The only way to change that is by working within the party.

Now what's your beef with Phyllis?

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

any group with bobby harris as a member has invited mental illness into the room. we can look forward to another season of city council insanity in arcata. of course kevin hoover will make all the excuses in the world for bobby just like his friend rob amerman. like rob, bobby will also lose.

 
At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Shane, I agree with 9:27 on this.

Corrupt - yes. Secretive pretty much. How about all those open meetings when they ask the public (democrats) who show up to leave. Didn't Riggs escort Richard Marks out during the February meeting so the HCDCC could collaborate on the committees support for Neely and anti ballon tract...And that the presentation was by no other than Salzman.

Sorry to bust your balls Phyllis, but you all should be ashamed. Frankly I am disgusted by you hypocrites and for the first time, disgusted at my party. Your non support of Marks was the last straw.

 
At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

non-support of Marks, and non-support of Geist, non support of anyone who isn't part of the Cult of Paul.

No pretense at supporting Democrats even if the name is the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee and is supposed to support democrats, and reflect the rank and file.

Marks called it. He sees it, he's had first hand experience with it, he was betrayed by them, and it is despicable.

 
At 4:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am still confused. Is Bonnie a better Democrat than Marks? Is this the bottom line question?

 
At 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bonnie has put a finger into the political wind and decided her best political chance lay with salzman, loco solutions and the orks, and they are falling all over themselves at the thought of adding a supervisor to their stable. one more vote and they will have three. The magic number.

 
At 12:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"non-support of Marks, and non-support of Geist, non support of anyone who isn't part of the Cult of Paul."

My understanding is that Marks is a Gallegos supporter. He fit the bill as a liberal Democratic Candidate, even for this Central Committee's politics. But they put power before their politics - that's the real reason that so many of them supported Bonnie Neely.

 
At 8:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:01 is right.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home