FUSION BALLOTS AND THE QUESTION OF ORGANISATIONAL TYPE

Abstract

The differences between political parties and interest groups are well-defined. However, how do minor parties that rely on fusion, or the cross-nomination of candidates from other parties, view themselves? To study this, I conducted interviews with prominent party officials in three minor parties in the state of New York, where fusion politics is the norm. The evidence suggests that minor-party officials develop partisan attachments and view success as being based primarily on winning office.

Notes

Before the early 1890s, fusion was widespread across the United States. However, this was a different electoral era than exists today; political parties printed and distributed ballots, which advantaged third parties. Though the findings to be presented could speak to this time period, the drastically different system makes comparisons hard (see Argersinger 1980; Schraufnagel and Milita 2010).

Only a handful of states specifically allow fusion, and it has not caught on as quickly in other states. For example, South Carolina allows candidates to have multiple party nominations on separate ballot lines, but organisations have not been created to cross-endorse to the same degree as those in New York. Likewise, major-party candidates do not actively seek the cross-nominations with the same tenacity, either.

In fact, Dan Cantor, the executive director of the Working Families Party, cites the Working Families Organisation, a non-profit, issue-centred lobbying group, as a part of the party (Halbfinger 2008).

Other minor parties, such as the Libertarian and Green Parties, were not sampled because they are not active in cross-nominating candidates; major-party candidates are less interested in receiving these nominations and the minor parties are less willing to cross-endorse anyway.

These were Independence Party of New York activists. There is a separate organisation known as the Independence Party of New York City, but activists in this group were not interviewed for this project.

Some listed activists also lacked phone or email information that was not easily available from public sources.

The one person who intended to be interviewed but failed to respond to a follow-up email with contact information indicated that s/he was not fit to be interviewed because s/he still identified with a major party (Democrats) while working in the Working Families Party. This does indicate, then, that there are likely some major party identifiers in the ranks of these minor parties, or at least the Working Families Party. However, through any method that could be used, there is a high probability that those who identify with major parties first will not admit to such (verbally, in writing, or in terms of a survey response). Still, the interviews overwhelmingly indicate that there are committed partisans, which is key to my theoretical argument. A more extensive study would be required to investigate how major parties could infiltrate minor parties that rely on fusion, or vice versa.

Some might question how a ‘non-partisan’ party, in the words of one activist, could be a political party at all. However, as noted earlier, interviewees from this party admitted to proclaiming themselves Independence Party members. This contradiction, apparently, does not pose a problem to these members, even though such a contradiction could confuse some readers.