Lynn Schmidt: 'Fusion voting' could challenge the two-party chokehold, spur moderation (2024)

Thomas Frank’s 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” documents the rise of populism and anti-elitist conservatism in the United States, showing how Kansas incubated those trends. Now Kansans are trying to move their state in a different direction while providing an example to the rest of us on a way to make things right.

Several states, including Kansas, are trying to revive “fusion voting” to give moderates more of a voice.

As explained by Protect Democracy‘s website: “Fusion voting refers to a process where more than one political party nominates the same candidate on the ballot, allowing voters to support their preferred candidate — without having to support one of the two major parties. Typically, this means a minor party and major party ‘fuse’ together to cross-nominate and support the same candidate. A candidate’s vote total is the sum of the votes they received on each of their nominating party’s lines.”

Imagine a ballot that includes the name and party of, say, “Jane Doe, Democrat” — and further down, “Jane Doe, Green Party.”

Or: “John Smith, Republican,” and then, “John Smith, Libertarian.”

It’s the same Doe and Smith. They appear more than once on the ballot because more than one party is endorsing them. Voters can still vote only once in each race. Then each candidate’s votes, under the banners of each party, are added together.

Fusion voting was common throughout the 19th and into the early 20th century in America. It was once used in every state in the nation. That we have gotten away from fusion voting may explain how we have gotten ourselves into a dysfunctional two-party system fueled by polarization.

Probably few Americans think our republic is working as it should. Many agree that our model has been broken by hyper-partisanship and warped incentives, leaving moderates and centrists out in the cold. No wonder polls show widespread support for third parties. People want more choices and competition.

All this has led to more than 120 leading democracy scholars to encourage states to legalize fusion voting again. To make it work, citizens need to push this initiative, because elected officials and their major political parties have no impetus to make things better.

In states with fusion voting, minor parties can play an important role in reengaging disenfranchised voters. Fusion gives voters the opportunity to cast their vote for the candidate they prefer under the party banner that best reflects their values.

Crucially, fusing also removes the risk of running a third candidate who might splinter the vote and act as a spoiler.

Fusion voting benefits voters, especially moderates, because it encourages candidates to build coalitions, and reinforces the need for compromise, which is essential to effective governing.

Candidates, if elected, will know where their votes come from and will work hard to represent their broader coalition — or they will risk losing those voters in the next election. This works to moderate the major parties’ extremes and would turn the perverse incentives of today’s politics on their heads.

Imagine the power that kind of competition could produce if those running for office had to appeal to voters outside of their base. Minor parties would have the capacity to announce to candidates: “We are a 10% party, and you need to pay attention to us if you want our votes.”

In the world of electoral reforms, fusion voting and ranked-choice voting are distinctly different. Fusion voting allows political parties, minor or major, to “fuse” in support of the same candidate, signaling to voters that the candidate has broad support. Ranked-choice voting is only a way of casting and counting votes.

In May, the United Kansas Party became a recognized minor political party, after submitting the requisite number of petition signatures.

Jack Curtis, a former Republican, now unaffiliated, and the founding chair of United Kansas, said: “No one side, no one political party, has a monopoly on good ideas. What United Kansas is aiming to do is to be able to slowly, steadily and meaningfully start playing in the middle again.”

But United Kansas has a major challenge ahead due to a 1901 Kansas law prohibiting cross-party fusion nominations. In July, this new party filed a pair of lawsuits aimed at overturning the 123-year-old ban. The litigation asks the court to recognize that invalidating the United Kansas nominations under anti-fusion voting statutes violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of “freedom of association.”

Should United Kansas prevail in state court, election officials would have to treat these nominations no differently than other parties’ nominations in subsequent elections.

Fusing two materials together occurs after heat or pressure is applied and usually results in a stronger and more durable substance. Offering more choices to the voter through more parties has the potential for a more sturdy democracy.