We have an illegal war, an environment in crisis, apparent stolen elections, increasing probability of losing a major city through nuclear terrorism, the ever-increasing influence of special interests in politics, and we need to crush what?
Fusion Voting? Give me a break. Fusion Voting, like Approval Voting, is a device for improving the position of third parties without major revision of how elections function. Approval Voting only requires eliminating the no-overvoting rule, a rule which has caused a great deal of mischief over the years and which appears to have no sound justification. But Approval Voting does create, under modern national election conditions, one small problem: how to deal with the assignment of public campaign finance allocations and how to deal with ballot rights. The Approval Voting solution that makes sense, without complicating ballots, is to split the funds. Fusion Voting has a somewhat similar effect, in practice, but awards the funds and ballot position entirely to the voter's party of choice. From this point of view, it is clearly superior to both Approval and the status quo in most jurisdictions. However, Fusion Voting has been in use in New York, it is not mere theory. It *does* help third parties. It avoids the spoiler effect, for a third party that chooses to use it. I'd prefer to see Asset Voting, myself, which would allow votes for a third party to be reassigned *as the candidate decides*. But that would require much more serious changes in law. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
