From Poli-Tea:
Third party voters and activists disappointed by the passage of Proposition 14 in California may be heartened by consideration of the new electoral fusion system that has gone into effect this year in Oregon. Passed in 2009, Oregon SB 326 effectively created an aggregated fusion voting system in the Beaver State, allowing candidates for partisan public office to obtain the nominations of up to three political parties. The relatively young Independent Party of Oregon appears to be the most immediate beneficiary of the new system. Founded in 2007, the IPO is already the state’s third largest party, with over 50,000 registered voters. It is thus no surprise that over 80 candidates for public office are currently seeking the party’s official endorsement.
From an announcement on June 3rd:
“77 candidates are seeking the party’s nomination for state legislative office, including 39 Democrats, 32 Republicans, 5 Independents, and a Libertarian. Of these 77 candidates, 60 of them already won their their own major party primaries. 36 of them are incumbent legislators. The party expects to have 20 contested races for its nominations, including 9 in the Oregon Senate and 11 in the Oregon House.”
From an announcement on June 4th:
“The Party qualified 3 candidates for Governor and 6 candidates for U.S. Representative. In addition to the contested primary race for Governor, there will be contested races for the Independent Party nomination in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Congressional Districts.”
The IPO does not have a platform, per se, but rather supports a series of political, structural and electoral reforms. Among other things, the party calls for: campaign finance reform aimed at limiting the power of corporations to influence elections; the institution of a unicameral state legislature; the easing of ballot access restrictions; and the empowerment of citizens through a voter initiative process. Thus, if the party’s nomination is conditional upon a candidate’s support for any number of these issues, electoral fusion in Oregon will likely lead to significant reforms aimed at empowering citizens over and against corporate interests typically represented by the Democratic and Republican political establishment.
EVERYBODY, is Bob milnes fantasizing fusion blocs, imagining…mentally ill, delusional etc.? OR… simply paulie & Tom K. just don’t get it?
Speak up you lousy losers.
Or go give The Pauls 35 million each.
And you don’t seem to understand the concept of suppressed vote. If Cato repeatedly finds potential 13-20% libertarian-which Ron Paul-faux libertarian actually GETS in 2008 primaries AND then, LP only gets 1%, that is a 19% SUPPRESSEDvote. Similar for leftists/progressives. Obama gets about 25% progressive vote within democratic party. Yet progressive GP only gets 1% in November.That vote was suppressed OBVIOUSLY voting democratic instead of GREEN.
What about this do you 2 obstinately NOT GET?
paulie, evidently you STILL don’t get it. Are you saying blocs don’t exist? Fusion is a bob milnes invention/fantasy? Just because YOU don’t get it doesn’t follow that makes ME delusional.
That goes for Tom K., too.
I wrote “we”, paulie, you schmuck.
@ 18 Neither
@ 19 The fact that you need some action is not exactly news.
We need some action, people.
paulie, you got it about right. I’d rather prop 14 failed. But since it passed, assuming it stands, court challenge, counterinitiative etc, PLAS could still get a lp or gp into Top 2. Then against either a dem or rep, well, we don’t know how that would go. In theory the PLAS candidate would have to capture @11% of the dem or rep @60%. Making it 51-49%. Seems possible.
Now, are you down with it or a schmuck?
On a different note, the Working Families Party was also reportedly involved in lobbying for fusion in Oregon. A similar effort had been underway in Maine also, I think. Dunno what’s come of it though.
The major parties offered token opposition, but could have done a lot more. It really does not screw them over in the way it does us. They have the resources to let voters know who their candidates are in the primary, we don’t. A small number will research it on their own, but most won’t – in fact, most won’t even be voting or paying attention until after the (infected) blanket primary.
We don’t have to wonder how often we’ll be in the top two. Washington State already shows us.
At least they still have ballot labels and write-ins.
I wouldn’t say “there’s *no* chance.” It is reasonable to suspect that the duopoly parties opposed prop 14 because they feared the possibility that they could be defeated in the primary election and locked out of the general election themselves (while minor parties feared the likelihood that this could happen to them).
There’s always a possibility, unless there’s simply no opposition. Unfortunately, the people of California do not seem particularly interested in alternatives.
No chance of that. They have far more money and people.
The D/R machines will strongarm independent-minded members of their parties from even running in the primaries so as not to “split the vote” (party loyalty oaths, etc). Then they will destroy the competition way back in June and have a clear field before most people even tune in.
That, plus no write-ins, closing an avenue to retention, and no party labels in June is the perfect setup for the interests that funded Top Two – big business, chamber of commerce, insurance companies, and the media corporations that squeezed out anti-top two opinions.
Make no mistake, it is a major move to further cartelize the process by the establishment duopoly. At this point they are more or less merging formally into one party and making all other parties illegal.
“And not have anyone besides establishment democrats and republicans to vote for in November.”
Unless they can be squeezed out in the “primary” and kept off the ballot themselves.
’s also the whole point we (IndependentVoice.Org) supported Prop 14. Now 3.4 million Decline to State voters can organize around our reform principles and leverage our votes with the candidates.
And not have anyone besides establishment democrats and republicans to vote for in November. Yeah, thanks a lot!
Jason – what you’re talking about is just fusion voting. What makes this unique is that it’s a party pushing mainly for electoral reform, something that’s pretty much never been successful before, and it’s doing so through fusion voting.
How many candidates of its own is the NY Independence Party running this year?
Jason Olson, I knew NY had fusion, but I didn’t know Independents were trying to do that.
Let’s see 35 million go to fusion ballots & tickets instead of to the dead end counterrevolutionary Pauls.
Let’s get on with it. I need some volunteers-at first-then paid staff. http://milnes2008.freeservers.com/ & donations. Contributions to follow as soon as I find a movement host/processor at @10% commission! I need a webmaster & a PLAS website. I need a libertarian woman vp. George, either get the LP with the program or quit & join BTP & we’ll get BTP with the program. Mary Ruwart, where are you? Tom K., just when things start to get going you go?
This is actually not new, this is what the Independence Party of New York City has done for some time, and the basis upon which the independent movement is organizing. It’s also the whole point we (IndependentVoice.Org) supported Prop 14. Now 3.4 million Decline to State voters can organize around our reform principles and leverage our votes with the candidates.
This is exactly what I have been advocating that CA’s third parties do as well. It’s time to break out of running candidacies that are mere protests and time to start leveraging our voting blocks to open up the political process.
I’m hoping that just as with redistricting reform (which the LP, GP, and P&F all opposed in 2008 but now support), the third parties will “catch up” to the independent movement on the leverage the open non-partisan primary will give us.
This is probably the best use of fusion I’ve ever seen. This is a great idea.
When you take an individual ballot & deliberately decide EITHER a lp or gp on that ballot in order to encourage progressive & libertarian voters BOTH to vote for THAT candidate on THIS ballot but a different party candidate on another ballot, you are creating a fusion ballot.
The other important factor is FUSION executive ticket. A progressive & libertarian.Nader/Tobin(except she is one year too young for 2012), Gravel/Ruwart, Milnes/Ruwart, Teddy Roosevelt/progressive democrat 1912 etc.
OK, this makes some sense. In CA in order to compensate for Prop 14, VOLUNTARILY LP & GP coordinate their blocs & ballots. De Facto FUSION. You don’t need a state law to allow it. You just need the parties to not DISALLOW it. via bylaws, tradition etc. So in CA the lp & gp HAVE TO try this or be cut out of Top Two. But it can be done in other states to go for the defacto 3 way race plurality win.
I like this idea of saying do you support x, y, and z? Then you have our support. This could work for the Pirate Party as well.