“Do no harm” is the heart of the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. It should hold for political reformers, too. Thus it is fair to ask advocates for a multi-party system some common questions.

1. Does fusion voting change or complicate voting for the citizen? What about vote tabulation for the clerks? 

Fusion is a very simple system, for voters and election administrators alike. There is no data that suggests voters have trouble understanding how to vote. This is probably because it is an intuitive system: “Vote for the candidate you favor under the banner of the party that best reflects your values.” Anecdotally, voters seem to enjoy being able to vote not just for a candidate but also for a party. 

Expert witness affidavits submitted in the New Jersey case by former Connecticut Secretary of the State Miles Rapoport (202a) and voting machine expert Andrew Appel (83a) make it clear that fusion elections present little burden on election administrators. 

2. Is a centrist fusion party a mirage? Is it not the case that fusion is attractive only to voters and parties of the right and the left?

It’s not a mirage, but it is complicated. In Michael Bloomberg’s first race for Mayor in 2001, he ran as the joint nominee of the Republican and Independent parties. He defeated Mark Green, who also had two nominations (Democrat and Working Families). Bloomberg eked out a relatively narrow 36,000 vote win with some 59,000 votes cast on the IP line. That second nomination allowed voters who were deeply uncomfortable associating with the GOP a path to voting for Bloomberg. It’s impossible to know what would have happened had the Independents run a stand-alone candidate (as the Liberals did, draining votes from Green). But surely a system in which candidates can vote for the candidate they prefer under a party label that better reflects their values is a good thing for all concerned. The candidate understands that he has a varied coalition of support, and voters are not forced to discard their beliefs to support the candidate they favor. 

That said, it is definitely the case that fusion parties in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were mostly on the flanks of the major parties. This was true during abolition, Reconstruction, post-Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the New Deal. In living memory in New York state, the Conservative Party was built in the early 1960s by Republicans put off by the liberalism of Rockefeller Republicans, and 35 years later, the Working Families Party was built by Democrats who found the Albany Democrats overly in thrall to real estate and Wall Street interests.  

Today’s political landscape is different. Today it is the voters in the center who are more likely to feel politically “homeless.” This is especially true of those centrist-minded citizens who have historically voted Republican, but it also obtains for unaffiliated voters and moderate Democrats. A pro-”rule of law” fusion party of the center could give such citizens a much-needed political identity/home. And it would give U.S. politics much needed dimensionality and color. Politics, like life itself, is not just black–and-white .

3. Might not more third parties mean more of the hyper partisan polarization that characterizes politics today? 

A favorite question! And an understandable one. If third parties are stronger, won’t the ones on the right and the left just pull the major parties away from sensible policy positions and effective governance? 

The answer always surprises and often reassures. A fusion alliance between a major and a minor party is a consensual affair. You can’t nominate someone against their will: A candidate must accept the nomination. If a minor party goes off the rails and starts demanding too much for its support, major party candidates can and will just say “thanks, but no thanks.” This dynamic often convinces both actors in this drama to negotiate. Which is, after all, a major aspect of politics itself.   

In sum, the relationship between the minor and major party is a self-regulating, generally productive if occasionally tense one. A minor party is incentivized to work hard and make a good electoral showing in terms of the votes cast under its banner. A candidate with two (or even three) lines gets useful information about the issues that matter to various pieces of their base. And the voter gets to feel good about casting a vote with a bit more punch. The major parties may not like fusion, but they learn to live with it. And the minor parties, well, they can’t help but think that in politics, it’s better to be respected than loved. 

4. But don’t Americans hate political parties? Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the power of parties and instead move toward non-partisan solutions that put voters, not parties, in the driver’s seat?

The short answer, and the long answer, is no. There is no way to have a successful democracy without healthy, representative, and accountable political parties. Politics is about solving public problems without recourse to violence; and parties are how we structure and manage political competition. 

The push for “open” or “jungle” primaries may be well-meaning, but it misses the mark. Parties bring together people of like mind so that they might collectively express their views in public life. This is a very good thing. The single most important role of party members is to choose who should represent the party in general elections. It is reasonable and in fact desirable that this choice should be made by the members of the party. We wouldn’t want the Dallas Cowboys to influence who the Washington Commanders start at quarterback, and we shouldn’t want Republicans and Democrats weighing in on each other’s nominees (as with Open/Jungle Primaries). 

Finally, when parties are weakened or sidelined, something else will replace them. And it is never broader voter empowerment. It is superPACs, ultra-rich candidates, and exceedingly well-compensated consultants.

5. Last question. Can we really afford to focus on big systemic change when the basic nuts and bolts of our democracy are at risk?

A better question may be whether we can afford not to. It will not suffice to return to the status quo ante that left the door open to the current malefactors. We have to create the conditions for a new age of reform in America. We need to win this fight in a way that springboards us to a whole host of potential improvements. Proportional representation. Supreme Court term limits. Public financing of elections. Sectoral collective bargaining. Maybe even a Constitutional Convention that allows us to fix some of the design flaws that the Founders could not have foreseen (and maybe some that were intentional). 

So, 98 percent of time and money and resources for stopping the authoritarians. But 2 percent for impactful, feasible, imaginative reforms that will help us construct a better country.