 |
|
|
Question 2 would allow multiple nominationsLets candidates tally votes from more than 1 party
The Patriot Ledger / Oct. 13, 2006 Greens voting for Democrats. Libertarians voting for Republicans - on their own tickets. That’s what the group Massachusetts Ballot Freedom aims to encourage with the passage of Question 2. In a change that would revive a popular 19th-century election practice, the proposal would allow multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate. Supporters - among them, Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth - say the provision would give voters added leverage in tight races, while requiring more accountability from elected officials. Rep. Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston, and other opponents say the change would confuse voters and only benefit fringe parties. “I have not seen a real outcry (from voters) and a reason why we should change,” said Petruccelli, who’s chairman of the House election committee. He also doubts that fusion ballots would raise turnout or attract parties like the Greens to crossover voting. “They’re saying that the Greens would vote for Deval Patrick instead of Grace Ross?” Petruccelli said. “I don’t see that.” Pointing to last month’s higher-than-expected primary turnout, he added, “What drives people out to vote is the candidate.” Mass Ballot Freedom spokesman Ben Healey agrees - and he says fusion ballots will offer voters more ways to send a message why they’re voting for candidates, as well as give them “a way to grow parties, without having to run symbolic protest candidates.” Healey said “fusion ballots” were regularly used in Massachusetts for decades after the Civil War. The GOP-dominated Legislature abolished the provision in 1912. Most other states repealed the practice around the same time. Today the provision is available in seven states, including New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The Ballot Freedom Committee has spent more than $200,000 to revive the law here. The group has collected $252,000 and had a balance of $35,000 as of Oct. 5. There is no organized committee to oppose Question 2. Here’s how Question 2 would work. If the Greens, for example, wanted to influence a Democrat or Republican on one or two specific issues - such as alternative energy - they could list the major-party nominee instead of their own. The dual nominee would then get the vote total from both parties. If the Democrat then polled 45 percent for his or her own party and 6 percent from the Greens, the dual nominee would win with 51 percent. Question 2 has been endorsed by dozens of generally liberal groups and trade unions, but Healey said Hedlund’s support is evidence that the measure would open up the state’s elections “left, right and center.” EDITORIAL Vote Yes on Question 2Question 2 on the November ballot would revive a practice used in the 19th Century which allows a candidate to be nominated by more than one party. The practice - known as fusion voting - has flourished in New York, where over time the Conservative and Liberal parties have been key players in state and local elections. The Working Families Party is the relatively new player in New York and is the organization trying to bring change to Massachusetts ballots. The idea is that once a candidate accepts the endorsement of a third party, he or she will be listed on the ballot as running on more than one party label. It does not change the means of access to the ballot, which is based on collecting a prescribed number of voter signatures, depending on the office sought. Backers of Question 2 believe their voice on the issues is not being heard, that both Democratic and Republican candidates tend to be centrist. Their goal is to tie candidates more closely to a specific agenda. A candidate with the support of Working Families Party would be expected to pay attention to that party’s issues, once the vote count showed how many voters were supporting the third-party view. Third parties running separately, such as the Green-Rainbow Party this year, are not a good vehicle, Question 2 backers say, because they end up just splitting the vote. The ballot change is also supported by major unions, such as the Teamsters, United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union. Opponents - although there is no organized opposition to the question - believe that fusion voting would make the ballot more confusing and deter participation. We think adding a new dimension to the ballot may encourage more people to vote, to have their beliefs impressed upon politicians. And it should encourage more talk about specific issues, which would certainly be a plus. We urge a Yes vote on Question 2.
|
|