Maybe we should consider this for our other elections, state wide. This would be the ideal time to consider a variety of changes, as we start looking at updating our election processes, including changes to reflect better technology, and as we start to look at replacing voting equipment that is wearing out.
Besides things that reflect technological progress, like considering online voter registration, there is there something else we should consider as a change in our election law - fusion voting.
As context, let me note the recent Gallup Poll which shows that Americans view the GOP less favorably than Democrats. Superficially, that looks better for Democrats than for Republicans, and it is, marginally; but that is simplistic and misses some of the key points we need to understand:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans still rate the Republican Party less favorably than the Democratic Party, 39% vs. 46%. But both parties' ratings are down from November 2012. The Democrats' rating dropped more, from 51% just after President Barack Obama won re-election. Americans' ratings of the Democratic Party are now more on par with readings earlier in 2012, while their ratings of the GOP are the lowest since May 2010.
And in the same approximate time period, we also have seen these, which the above should be leading us to consider:
Five myths about independent votersBut then look at this about independent voters - because it is important:
1. Independent voters aren’t really independent.
Perhaps the biggest myth about independents is that they are closet partisans or “leaners” who are independent in name only but regularly vote with one party. True, about half of independents do fit into this category, but the rest are truly independent; their allegiance swings from election to election. They are persuadable, not polarized partisans. A recent Pew Research Center poll puts the number of swing voters this year at 23 percent — almost a quarter of the electorate.
2. Independent voters are less engaged.
In hundreds of interviews with independent voters, I found that they tend to be well informed and care about the political process — even though the two parties have done their best to alienate them through attacks, gridlock and dysfunction. About two-thirds of them say they are independent because “both parties care more about special interests than about average Americans,” according to a Pew survey.
Independent turnout is typically lower than it is among partisan voters. But in more than half of the country, independents are not permitted to vote in primaries, so they have no say in the candidates selected in the general election. It’s no surprise, then, that they are usually less satisfied with their candidate choices than partisan voters are.
3. Independent voters want a third party.
I found no unanimity: Some of them think we do need a third- or multi-party system and consistently vote for outsider and third-party candidates, while others accept that this is a two-party nation.
4. Independents are centrists.
Independent voters are more diverse in age, race, gender and income than Republican and Democratic voters. Most independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives. Sixty percent of independents say they are not aligned with a party because they agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.
I think of independent voters as falling into four key constituencies: NPR Republicans who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative; America First Democrats who tend to be male and more socially conservative (formerly known as Reagan Democrats); the Facebook generation of voters younger than 35 who lean libertarian on social and economic issues; and Starbucks Moms and Dads, suburban voters who make up a huge chunk of the electorate and are reliably unpredictable.
5. Independent voters are disillusioned with President Obama.
In 2008, Barack Obama won 52 percent of independent voters to John McCain’s 44 percent, the largest margin a Democratic presidential candidate has received from independents since 1996.
Independent Voters Exceed Party Registration in Key StatesWe have a lot of people in this nation, and in this state, who are becoming disaffected with politics and with both parties. This applies to those who identify as independents, but in my observation increasingly, the party labels of any kind are less significant and informative.
Out of the 28 states that record party affiliation upon registering to vote, Massachusetts, Alaska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have the highest percentage of independent or no party preference voters in the country. Unaffiliated voters in Massachusetts and Alaska are the majority with about 53 percent of voters in both states declining to register with a party.
I would suggest that in addition to experimenting with ranked voting, and possibly expanding it beyond Minneapolis, that we should revisit what is called 'fusion voting'. Fusion voting was possible at one time in Minnesota, and it was a key legal decision involving Minnesota that changed it. The very origins of the DFL in Minnesota date back to the 19th century practice, when because it did not benefit them - although it did work well for the electorate - the Republicans opposed it:
Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the Populist Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation."[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states,...In the last election cycle, 2012, the Independent party did not split the vote by opting NOT to run an independent candidate against Michele Bachmann in CD6. While not formally endorsing Jim Graves, which they could not do, the effect in practice was the same as if we had permitted fusion voting.
In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.
The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.
Fusion has sometimes been used by other third parties. For example, the Independent Party of Oregon cross-nominated five major party candidates, winning races for the U.S. Senate, Oregon State Treasurer, and the Oregon House of Representatives in 2008. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire used fusion to elect four members, Cal Warburton, Finlay Rothaus, Andy Borsa and Don Gorman, to the New Hampshire state legislature during the early 1990s.
In 1864 the Democratic Party split into two wings, over the peace question. The War Democrats fused with the Republicans to elect a Democratic Vice President, Andrew Johnson, and re-elect a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.
Fusion voting is not any more free of problems than other systems, but in view of the history, and the current dissatisfaction with partisan politics, I think it is one we should revisit. It is being revisited, both pro and con, in other states, nationwide, as diverse as Connecticut and South Carolina.
Clearly, if Minneapolis can survive a change in how we conduct voting in elections, with ranked voting being successful, it is worth looking at other changes that better address both those involved in partisan politics, and those growing numbers of voters who as independents appear to be under-served.
As noted in a policy brief from the Center for State Innovation:
Every voter should have the opportunity to vote for candidates that best reflect the voter’s views. Yet in most states, election laws undermine the viability of third-party candidates. The two-party system is constructed so that the presence of third-party candidates often allows major parties towin without a majority of the vote. Thus, voters often feel that they must choose between major party candidates that they do not fully support in order to avoid “wasting” their vote.
Fusion, or open ballot, voting helps to give voters more choice by allowing multiple parties to endorse the same candidate. This allows voters to both support the party of their choice and vote for a candidate with a realistic chance of winning.
Prior to the late 19th century, this practice was commonplace in many states. To strengthen our democracy, fusion voting should be legalized in states where it is not already in place.