The case FOR fusion
I’m against “fusion” the way it has been practiced as a sort of “sore loser clause” here is Delaware. However, there is a case for fusion. And hat case is made well in this Reason magazine article.
If you don’t have time to read the whole thing – read this next sentence.
Rudy Guliani won his race for Mayor of New York City because he ran as the Republican candidate and the Liberal Party candidate at the same time.
Thanks for posting this, Jason.
From what I could tell the article discusses the issue insofar as political and process pragmatism.
My interest in the legislation is not based on political game theory or process concerns but rather on constitutional adherence, the maximization of democracy, and the protection of civil rights.
To me, these are profoundly implicated by sweeping legislation in the form of HB 177, which goes far beyond the mere issue of “fusion” candidacies, notwithstanding the shallow, catch-phrase tenor of its only detectible proponency.
It is not necessary to reach political or process considerations when legislation like HB 177 represents such a grave imposition on free political speech rights.
Of the 10’s of 1000’s of citizen voters who are “unaffiliated registrants”, their access to free, full, equal participation in political parties is denied. HB 177 forces from these citizens a declaration to the state government that they are a “registered affiliant” of a political party. This is what HB 177 mandates of these unaffiliated registrant citizens in order to be nominated by a party that they are, IN FACT, affiliated with.
HB 177 also takes away the free speech rights of minor political parties to nominate whomever they like in accordance with their party’s internal rules and process, including the right to nominate citizens who have not registered with the State of Delaware their “affiliation” with that party.
Party “affiliation” means affiliating with a party by act and deed. This is a fundamental constitutional right – freedom of association. It should not be contingent on making declaration to state government 0 which has only the right to facilitate the process in a free and equal manner that is also orderly.
Why should anyone have to make a declaration to the State of Delaware in order to exercise the right to actually affiliate with a party by accepting their nomination for an elected office?
Why should a party be denied the right to affiliate and associate with any candidate they wish without being contingent on the candidate having made a stautorily-imposed political speech declaration to the State of Delaware.
Party registration is a constitutional and legal fiction in Delaware, at least as I read our Constitution. It is bad enough it is used to create a two-tier party system (“major” vs. “minor”). But when forced registration with the State government of a person’s party affiliation becomes a blockade of that person’s ACTUAL free affiliation with that party, this is a blatant assault on fundamental civil rights.
Thanks again.
P.S. Elections are not about “picking your team” and sticking with it.
They are about the public’s freedom to choose who will run our government. Our right to a maximum of choices in an orderly process should NEVER be afflicted by those who think pre-determined “team-picking” shoud be mandated because they think there may be too much freedom of choice.
Parties are not elected and do not exist to run our government. Candidates ARE elected and become the officials who run our government. These officials owe 100% allegiance to the public above all else including their party. HB 177 serves party interests and betrays the public interest.