Drutman thinks fusion will best usher in "party-centered reform" that the two-party system so badly needs -- and maybe even proportional representation
I learn something new every time I read this blog. I hadn’t thought of RCV as candidate-centered reform, but now comparing it to fusion voting, I see the contrast to party-centered reform. I’ve been thinking of RCV as voter-centered reform.
It seems that over time our political parties have become entrenched in their right to wield power instead of their privilege to serve they way voters want them to. Won’t more strong parties result in the same scenario and individual voters still be in the same spot we are now.
What about the fairly large percentage of Americans who aren’t “joiners” by nature? I’ve been thinking of RCV as a way for them to fully be heard without forcing them to choose between parties first, then specific candidates? Sort of like parties being the middlemen. (Although pondering my support of union organizing, I do see the value of organizing parties. I’m just not sure that government has to be run by faithful party joiners who become more attached to their party than their voters).
And I hadn’t been aware of the widespread adoption of fusion in the 19th century. I’m curious to know why it all but disappeared.
I was surprised by Mr. Drutman's argument here. I read his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," which was very pro-RCV. And that was written in 2019 -- hardly a lifetime ago!
Mr. Drutman -- if you're reading this, could you elaborate on what changed in your thinking? Was there some political event that changed your mind?
Well, I appreciate his intellectual honesty, for sure. It takes guts to say, "I learned more about this and I changed my mind."
But I'm not sure I understand how fusion can help smaller third parties gain power, unless they're in the center.
Like, I DO understand how the Moderate Party (in NJ) could wield some power under fusion voting: they can cross-endorse either the Republican or Democratic candidate in the race. That gives them leverage to extract concessions.
But taking the example of the Working Families Party: what's their leverage? They're solidly on the left -- it's not like they can tell Democrats, "do what we want or we'll endorse the Republican instead." (I guess they could threaten not to endorse anyone -- but if they did that, wouldn't most WFP-aligned voters just vote for the Democratic candidate? I doubt there are many voters whose preference order is WFP > Republican > Democratic...)
Both you and Lee seem to agree that WFP has indeed gotten concessions from the major parties, so I guess they're making it work somehow...?
The threat/leverage that a progressive minor party like WFP has over the main center-left party, Democrats, is to run candidates against those Democrats and potentially split the center-left vote and cause the Democrat to win. The WFP does sometimes run its own candidates in NY, a few have even won a seat every now and then. The Conservative Party in NY also has used fusion in that way, and years ago in the 1970s elected a US Senator, James Buckley (brother of conservative leader William Buckley). That threat/leverage vis-à-vis the major parties is only as real as the perception that your party is willing to run candidates if the major parties are not offering up candidates to your liking. The Independent Party in Oregon, for example, another fusion state, doesn't seem to ever run any of its own candidates. It calls itself a moderate party, and does have a history of endorsing both Democrats and Republicans. But it has not been very influential in Oregon politics, according to politicos I know in Oregon. In terms of the Moderate Party in New Jersey, those who are advancing this idea seem to think it might be a vehicle to give moderate Republicans or, at least, non-Trump Republicans, something else to vote for besides a Trump Republican. But if they are not going to run their own moderate candidates – and apparently that is part of the plan, no candidates – then the hope is that moderate GOP voters will vote for a moderate Democrat rather than the Trump Republican because they can cast their vote via the Moderate Party, which will have cross-endorsed the moderate Democrat. I wonder if that is a realistic strategy – will Republicans of any stripe vote for a Democrat through the vehicle of a Moderate Party?
I learn something new every time I read this blog. I hadn’t thought of RCV as candidate-centered reform, but now comparing it to fusion voting, I see the contrast to party-centered reform. I’ve been thinking of RCV as voter-centered reform.
It seems that over time our political parties have become entrenched in their right to wield power instead of their privilege to serve they way voters want them to. Won’t more strong parties result in the same scenario and individual voters still be in the same spot we are now.
What about the fairly large percentage of Americans who aren’t “joiners” by nature? I’ve been thinking of RCV as a way for them to fully be heard without forcing them to choose between parties first, then specific candidates? Sort of like parties being the middlemen. (Although pondering my support of union organizing, I do see the value of organizing parties. I’m just not sure that government has to be run by faithful party joiners who become more attached to their party than their voters).
And I hadn’t been aware of the widespread adoption of fusion in the 19th century. I’m curious to know why it all but disappeared.
I was surprised by Mr. Drutman's argument here. I read his book, "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop," which was very pro-RCV. And that was written in 2019 -- hardly a lifetime ago!
Mr. Drutman -- if you're reading this, could you elaborate on what changed in your thinking? Was there some political event that changed your mind?
Answering my own question here: Drutman recently posted "How I Updated My Views On Ranked Choice Voting" on his own Substack: https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/how-i-updated-my-views-on-ranked
Yes, I saw that. What did you think, upon reading it?
Well, I appreciate his intellectual honesty, for sure. It takes guts to say, "I learned more about this and I changed my mind."
But I'm not sure I understand how fusion can help smaller third parties gain power, unless they're in the center.
Like, I DO understand how the Moderate Party (in NJ) could wield some power under fusion voting: they can cross-endorse either the Republican or Democratic candidate in the race. That gives them leverage to extract concessions.
But taking the example of the Working Families Party: what's their leverage? They're solidly on the left -- it's not like they can tell Democrats, "do what we want or we'll endorse the Republican instead." (I guess they could threaten not to endorse anyone -- but if they did that, wouldn't most WFP-aligned voters just vote for the Democratic candidate? I doubt there are many voters whose preference order is WFP > Republican > Democratic...)
Both you and Lee seem to agree that WFP has indeed gotten concessions from the major parties, so I guess they're making it work somehow...?
The threat/leverage that a progressive minor party like WFP has over the main center-left party, Democrats, is to run candidates against those Democrats and potentially split the center-left vote and cause the Democrat to win. The WFP does sometimes run its own candidates in NY, a few have even won a seat every now and then. The Conservative Party in NY also has used fusion in that way, and years ago in the 1970s elected a US Senator, James Buckley (brother of conservative leader William Buckley). That threat/leverage vis-à-vis the major parties is only as real as the perception that your party is willing to run candidates if the major parties are not offering up candidates to your liking. The Independent Party in Oregon, for example, another fusion state, doesn't seem to ever run any of its own candidates. It calls itself a moderate party, and does have a history of endorsing both Democrats and Republicans. But it has not been very influential in Oregon politics, according to politicos I know in Oregon. In terms of the Moderate Party in New Jersey, those who are advancing this idea seem to think it might be a vehicle to give moderate Republicans or, at least, non-Trump Republicans, something else to vote for besides a Trump Republican. But if they are not going to run their own moderate candidates – and apparently that is part of the plan, no candidates – then the hope is that moderate GOP voters will vote for a moderate Democrat rather than the Trump Republican because they can cast their vote via the Moderate Party, which will have cross-endorsed the moderate Democrat. I wonder if that is a realistic strategy – will Republicans of any stripe vote for a Democrat through the vehicle of a Moderate Party?