Presidential vote now determines 98% of House outcomes. One-dimensional partisan conflict is authoritarian-friendly territory. Could fusion voting restore competitive dimensions?
Resulting in a fascist “coalition” and a non fascist “coalition.” Notice the OP doesn’t talk much about republicans re-forming their party, because they won’t.
Fusion voting would be a helpful short-term patch on the current American electoral system, but the more fundamental problem is that political "parties" in America are just ballot lines, and real political parties (with control over their own slate of candidates) are illegal in the United States. FPTP systems incentivize two-party systems anyway; the primary system means that even minor third parties are a complete non-starter, unlike in other FPTP systems like Britain that have historically had small and regional parties that still effectively contest some elections. I don't think the US can have effective, ideologically coherent political parties unless it reforms its electoral law. And of course, some kind of proportional representation and/or STV would help also.
Very informative and useful article! I came here to make two points - one similar to Jonathan Bell's response to SteveF: Isn't what you're recommending what the Working Families Party has been doing in New York at least (while also operating elsewhere)? Odd to not mention it given you mention creating a "working class party" -- but maybe there is indeed a distinction or you assumed your audience was already familiar.
My second point is a question about what the evidence is that voters wouldn't just "see through" fusion voting to the issue of control of congress (which you recognize drives partisanship to begin with). Would a voter not see a "D" on the other line and still know that ultimately it's a control of congress question and therefore be less likely to vote for them? I.e. it seems like there would be a significant difference in the fraction of population that might vote for an independent (in a ranked choice or other electoral structure where they won't throw their vote away) vs the fraction that might vote for a candidate that also appears on the opposing party line -- the latter presumably being smaller. Would welcome any thoughts or analysis on this!
Ben- you know what the problem is with the Working Families Party as a project to bring in more cross-pressured voters specifically to focus on working-class issues? It does not stick to strictly working class and economic issues, but instead takes a liberal/progressive stance across the board on economic and social and cultural issues, so it ends up duplicative of the Democrats or “like the Democrats, but with more feeling!”.
Thanks for the perspective Rob -- can you provide some examples where they get out of the working class lane? Their rhetoric on their webpage is pretty workers-oriented. https://workingfamilies.org/about/ Lately I've actually had the opposite problem as you, where I'm not actually clear what their stances _are_ beyond the broader narrative of corporate exploitation and govt elite capture!
The visualizations (and math behind them) in this article are awesome! Although I believe that the ultimate goal should be sortition (because representative random samples are the most accurate way we have to understand large populations and thereby accurately reflect the will of the people), I think fusion voting might help us work towards that goal. The inflexibility of party alignment also supports the strategy of running candidates in the primary of the party that wins each district, regardless of ideology. You can read more about that here: https://open.substack.com/pub/sortitionusa/p/how-we-win?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6mdhb8
Lee, brilliant analysis but with depressing implications for the immediate future (2026 and 2028). In that context, could you say more about whether a moderate Presidential candidate (from either party) has the ability to sufficiently modify the party brand to make a difference? I felt like Clinton did that in 1992 but you may tell me those days are over. And what are the prospects of fusion voting coming back any time soon? Thanks, Belle Sawhill (isawhill@brookings.edu)
Thanks Belle! I do think a winning presidential candidate could potentially realign our politics, but it would really have to be somebody who is willing to actively challenge their party and court some unlikely collaborators on the other side. I'm not sure I see anybody on the horizon, though. There are some prospects for fusion coming back... https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/how-fusion-voting-builds-the-new
How do you recommend fusion voting working in a PR system? Let's say there is a MMD of 5 with an open-party list voting system. Electorally, what would that look like?
Perhaps the voting division can be explained by asking a candidate if they would vote for the 1964 and 1965 Civil and Voting Rights Acts today.
Political discussions would be so much more simpler if it was openly acknowledged that the US has a white supremacy party and party tagged as multiracial by the white supremacists.
Agree that multiparty democracy is needed in the long term, but doesn’t seem like fusion voting or PR is likely to materialize or make a meaningful dent in the next few years. Given rapid ongoing democratic backsliding, what are our best options for something quicker? You briefly alluded to the Democratic Party undergoing a massive overhaul - could this plausibly help undercut polarization? Or are the underlying forces truly a one-way street?
Fantastic piece, Lee. So much to love about your thesis to break the binary duopoly through dimensionality, and make it simple for voters to support nuanced candidates from both parties without asking them to give up their partisan identities.
Fusion voting and the notion of the “Fusion Party” is, in my view, the perfect “hack” to change incentives within our entrenched system, help citizen voters reclaim power from the parties, without requiring massive structural changes to our electoral systems.
One question that will likely arise will be: Who gets to choose the Fusion candidates? How will they be identified? Subjective selections will be unlikely to activate the swing voters from both parties who will be extremely cynical about ideological motives of each particular selection. Instead, we’ll need an objective method to inspire this voting bloc, who together can help break the hyper-partisan game of tug-of-war.
We believe that Bridge Grades (a new non-partisan measure that uses objective 3rd party data to score how collaboratively or divisively each member of Congress governs) is a viable method to be such an objective method to identify such Fusion candidates. Those who already earn “As” on Bridge Grades are exactly the candidates you are talking about in your piece (Hi Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden, Josh Gottheimer). This measure is non-partisan, citizen-led, open-source, transparent, and protected from special interests.
In other words, Bridge Grades are all about adding the dimensionality you champion here.
I am with you in hoping that the pending court cases support fusion voting, But even if they don’t, I agree with you that a version of this is our best way forward to activate citizen voters on the sidelines, and bring back competitive races even when the parties clearly don’t want them to be.
I have no problem with DSA office holders or even MAGA office holders in America. The voters decided. My comments represent my angle that 67% of Americans can be welcomed and nurtured into a new Big Tent in between Socialism and MAGA. I can, however, provide you with verified facts about DSA claiming it has drawn the Democratic party leftward, DSA members' assertions that AOC and others haven't sufficiently carried the DSA banner, and the internal struggle within DSA about divorcing the Democratic party. Then there are facts about internal conflict within the Democratic party about DSA endorsements. And of course I can provide ad nauseum quotes from MAGA about how anyone to their left is a leftist, socialist libtard. Really, it's time to stop angling and to find the right angle for most Americans.
Existential crisis vs turf, that's the rub these days for a slew of politicians and pundits. Lots of angles out there so here's mine. I'm just a retired former moderate Republican turned independent to escape MAGA (NeverTrumper) and just part of what I call Route 67.
There are already three parties if the Democratic party will do the right thing in this Existential crisis - work right now to divorce itself from DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). DSA has at least five factions. Any DSA member on their far right can just join Democratic party as a progressive, or maybe progressives might want to be Socialists instead. That's OK, don't be afraid to clear the air about this long brewing problem.
Sure DSA isn't a formal political party. But if this is done DSA will probably rebrand and reform as their former Socialist Party of America self. If not, at least they will no longer be on the D ticket. Some factions of DSA have made it clear they don't want to be associated with the Democratic party anyway.
If this is done, the onus is on the Democratic party to drive consensus - which is NOT the same as being a centist - and take their message to 67% of Americans wary of the two-party 50/50 polarization, to welcome and nurture independents and disaffected Republicans who will finally feel and follow something that overall matches their common good approach to life. Voters want problems to be solved and are more fluid in their thinking than politicians and pundits give them credit.
Frankly, naming any new parties will only confuse and turn off our already disillusioned electorate. People understand these three "parties" and it will be up to the Democratic party to make clear THEY are the ones between socialism and MAGA (really there is no Republican party anymore - it has become the POT, Party of Trump.)
I encourage every politician and pundit fighting Trump's regime to meet together ASAP and strategize how to get beyond their own angles and find the "right angle" along Route 67.
New York is a state that already has more parties on the ballot than just R and D, and has had them for many years. Can you write something based on an analysis of how these other parties have affected voting in this state? Are they “fusion parties” as you use the term or something different? In my limited understanding, they seem to lie outside the mainstreams of the major parties (e.g., further left than D and further right than R) but that may be my ignorance. If I’m right, though, does that keep them from being “fusion parties” and therefore not helpful with the “doom loop” problem?
Hmmmm…so your solution to the U.S. being taken over by the fascist party is to…break up the not fascist party into smaller parties?
Actually, it sounds good to me. The 'fascist' party will be broken up too.
Resulting in a fascist “coalition” and a non fascist “coalition.” Notice the OP doesn’t talk much about republicans re-forming their party, because they won’t.
I dont think umder this proposed system the fascist coalition will be nearly as big as it is now.
So trump isn’t good at abusing coalition members into submission?
Fusion voting would be a helpful short-term patch on the current American electoral system, but the more fundamental problem is that political "parties" in America are just ballot lines, and real political parties (with control over their own slate of candidates) are illegal in the United States. FPTP systems incentivize two-party systems anyway; the primary system means that even minor third parties are a complete non-starter, unlike in other FPTP systems like Britain that have historically had small and regional parties that still effectively contest some elections. I don't think the US can have effective, ideologically coherent political parties unless it reforms its electoral law. And of course, some kind of proportional representation and/or STV would help also.
Very informative and useful article! I came here to make two points - one similar to Jonathan Bell's response to SteveF: Isn't what you're recommending what the Working Families Party has been doing in New York at least (while also operating elsewhere)? Odd to not mention it given you mention creating a "working class party" -- but maybe there is indeed a distinction or you assumed your audience was already familiar.
My second point is a question about what the evidence is that voters wouldn't just "see through" fusion voting to the issue of control of congress (which you recognize drives partisanship to begin with). Would a voter not see a "D" on the other line and still know that ultimately it's a control of congress question and therefore be less likely to vote for them? I.e. it seems like there would be a significant difference in the fraction of population that might vote for an independent (in a ranked choice or other electoral structure where they won't throw their vote away) vs the fraction that might vote for a candidate that also appears on the opposing party line -- the latter presumably being smaller. Would welcome any thoughts or analysis on this!
Ben- you know what the problem is with the Working Families Party as a project to bring in more cross-pressured voters specifically to focus on working-class issues? It does not stick to strictly working class and economic issues, but instead takes a liberal/progressive stance across the board on economic and social and cultural issues, so it ends up duplicative of the Democrats or “like the Democrats, but with more feeling!”.
Thanks for the perspective Rob -- can you provide some examples where they get out of the working class lane? Their rhetoric on their webpage is pretty workers-oriented. https://workingfamilies.org/about/ Lately I've actually had the opposite problem as you, where I'm not actually clear what their stances _are_ beyond the broader narrative of corporate exploitation and govt elite capture!
The visualizations (and math behind them) in this article are awesome! Although I believe that the ultimate goal should be sortition (because representative random samples are the most accurate way we have to understand large populations and thereby accurately reflect the will of the people), I think fusion voting might help us work towards that goal. The inflexibility of party alignment also supports the strategy of running candidates in the primary of the party that wins each district, regardless of ideology. You can read more about that here: https://open.substack.com/pub/sortitionusa/p/how-we-win?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6mdhb8
Lee, brilliant analysis but with depressing implications for the immediate future (2026 and 2028). In that context, could you say more about whether a moderate Presidential candidate (from either party) has the ability to sufficiently modify the party brand to make a difference? I felt like Clinton did that in 1992 but you may tell me those days are over. And what are the prospects of fusion voting coming back any time soon? Thanks, Belle Sawhill (isawhill@brookings.edu)
Thanks Belle! I do think a winning presidential candidate could potentially realign our politics, but it would really have to be somebody who is willing to actively challenge their party and court some unlikely collaborators on the other side. I'm not sure I see anybody on the horizon, though. There are some prospects for fusion coming back... https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/how-fusion-voting-builds-the-new
How do you recommend fusion voting working in a PR system? Let's say there is a MMD of 5 with an open-party list voting system. Electorally, what would that look like?
Perhaps the voting division can be explained by asking a candidate if they would vote for the 1964 and 1965 Civil and Voting Rights Acts today.
Political discussions would be so much more simpler if it was openly acknowledged that the US has a white supremacy party and party tagged as multiracial by the white supremacists.
Agree that multiparty democracy is needed in the long term, but doesn’t seem like fusion voting or PR is likely to materialize or make a meaningful dent in the next few years. Given rapid ongoing democratic backsliding, what are our best options for something quicker? You briefly alluded to the Democratic Party undergoing a massive overhaul - could this plausibly help undercut polarization? Or are the underlying forces truly a one-way street?
Damn this is a great and super depressing article.
I wish I believed in your solution because that would be easier than “changing the identity of a party” in our nationalized environment
Fantastic piece, Lee. So much to love about your thesis to break the binary duopoly through dimensionality, and make it simple for voters to support nuanced candidates from both parties without asking them to give up their partisan identities.
Fusion voting and the notion of the “Fusion Party” is, in my view, the perfect “hack” to change incentives within our entrenched system, help citizen voters reclaim power from the parties, without requiring massive structural changes to our electoral systems.
One question that will likely arise will be: Who gets to choose the Fusion candidates? How will they be identified? Subjective selections will be unlikely to activate the swing voters from both parties who will be extremely cynical about ideological motives of each particular selection. Instead, we’ll need an objective method to inspire this voting bloc, who together can help break the hyper-partisan game of tug-of-war.
We believe that Bridge Grades (a new non-partisan measure that uses objective 3rd party data to score how collaboratively or divisively each member of Congress governs) is a viable method to be such an objective method to identify such Fusion candidates. Those who already earn “As” on Bridge Grades are exactly the candidates you are talking about in your piece (Hi Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Jared Golden, Josh Gottheimer). This measure is non-partisan, citizen-led, open-source, transparent, and protected from special interests.
https://www.bridgegrades.org
In other words, Bridge Grades are all about adding the dimensionality you champion here.
I am with you in hoping that the pending court cases support fusion voting, But even if they don’t, I agree with you that a version of this is our best way forward to activate citizen voters on the sidelines, and bring back competitive races even when the parties clearly don’t want them to be.
I have no problem with DSA office holders or even MAGA office holders in America. The voters decided. My comments represent my angle that 67% of Americans can be welcomed and nurtured into a new Big Tent in between Socialism and MAGA. I can, however, provide you with verified facts about DSA claiming it has drawn the Democratic party leftward, DSA members' assertions that AOC and others haven't sufficiently carried the DSA banner, and the internal struggle within DSA about divorcing the Democratic party. Then there are facts about internal conflict within the Democratic party about DSA endorsements. And of course I can provide ad nauseum quotes from MAGA about how anyone to their left is a leftist, socialist libtard. Really, it's time to stop angling and to find the right angle for most Americans.
Existential crisis vs turf, that's the rub these days for a slew of politicians and pundits. Lots of angles out there so here's mine. I'm just a retired former moderate Republican turned independent to escape MAGA (NeverTrumper) and just part of what I call Route 67.
There are already three parties if the Democratic party will do the right thing in this Existential crisis - work right now to divorce itself from DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). DSA has at least five factions. Any DSA member on their far right can just join Democratic party as a progressive, or maybe progressives might want to be Socialists instead. That's OK, don't be afraid to clear the air about this long brewing problem.
Sure DSA isn't a formal political party. But if this is done DSA will probably rebrand and reform as their former Socialist Party of America self. If not, at least they will no longer be on the D ticket. Some factions of DSA have made it clear they don't want to be associated with the Democratic party anyway.
If this is done, the onus is on the Democratic party to drive consensus - which is NOT the same as being a centist - and take their message to 67% of Americans wary of the two-party 50/50 polarization, to welcome and nurture independents and disaffected Republicans who will finally feel and follow something that overall matches their common good approach to life. Voters want problems to be solved and are more fluid in their thinking than politicians and pundits give them credit.
Frankly, naming any new parties will only confuse and turn off our already disillusioned electorate. People understand these three "parties" and it will be up to the Democratic party to make clear THEY are the ones between socialism and MAGA (really there is no Republican party anymore - it has become the POT, Party of Trump.)
I encourage every politician and pundit fighting Trump's regime to meet together ASAP and strategize how to get beyond their own angles and find the "right angle" along Route 67.
New York is a state that already has more parties on the ballot than just R and D, and has had them for many years. Can you write something based on an analysis of how these other parties have affected voting in this state? Are they “fusion parties” as you use the term or something different? In my limited understanding, they seem to lie outside the mainstreams of the major parties (e.g., further left than D and further right than R) but that may be my ignorance. If I’m right, though, does that keep them from being “fusion parties” and therefore not helpful with the “doom loop” problem?
DSA has 90,000 members who collectively hold 250 out of more than 11,000 state and federal elected offices. Your concern is factually unjustified.