Fusion Voting: I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Start this video at 1:32

Did you know that New York has Fusion Voting? Okay, back up. Do you know what Fusion Voting is? It's cool. I didn't either until I applied for a job with The Working Families Party in 2009. I've been meaning to write about Fusion Voting (also called Electoral Fusion) since I started this blog. Talking with colleagues this week about the rules we create when setting up electoral systems resparked my interest.

Here's how it works: WFP, or another third party, endorses a candidate already in the race. For WFP it is usually, but not always, a Democrat. Voters can vote for the candidate on either the Democratic or the Working Families Party line, and the votes for the candidate from both lines are tallied together. For example, if candidate X receives 30% of the total votes cast on the Democratic Party line and 20% of the total votes on the WFP line, while candidate Y receives 45% of the total votes on the Republican line, candidate X still wins!

In a country where we have first past the post, as opposed to party list proportional representation, critics argue that Fusion Voting doesn't make much of a difference. Voters who would have voted for the candidate on one line vote for her on the other, but ultimately the result is the same. But Fusion Voting allows voters to voice discontent with the two big political parties without "spoiling" the election ala Ralph Nader in 2000. It also allows a party like WFP to put its resources (particularly its spectacular paid canvass) behind candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Because WFP does not endorse in every election, a WFP endorsement does hold some weight in and of itself, signifying to educated voters that the endorsed candidate is someone who will take working class issues seriously. At the same time it holds elected officials accountable to these voters and their interests. A large percentage of the winner's vote on the WFP line sends the message "you were elected to fight for minimum wage, health care, affordable housing, etc and you better do it or next time you may not be so lucky."

Watch the video from 1:32 to 4:52 for a great explanation of Fusion Voting as well as the reason it is now only legal in 8 states (hint: special interests). Fusion Voting does not solve all the problems inherit in our electoral system, but it does ameliorate some. I think most Americans who pay attention would agree that we've created a system so entangled in special interests and money that it's hard to see how to pull ourselves up out the rabbit hole. So while Fusion Voting might not solve everything, at this point in our electoral history, are we in a position to turn a good idea down?

I've Been Meaning to Talk to You About That

My Quick and Dirty Thoughts on What's Been Happening in Election and Advocacy News

Oh my God you guys, I miss you so much! I seriously think about blogging the way you think about cupcakes when you're on a diet: I can't have it and I want it all the more!!! The good news is operation no-blogging-until-I-finish-finals is working. I have one paper (on the definition of women's political participation as a human right) left, plus a whole bunch of editing. However, the list of things I want to blog about has been stock piling out of control and before they become irrelevant and/or consume me, I wanted to share them with you. Below are some articles and issues I've been collecting along with one or two of my witty and incisive comments each. Hopefully this will tide us all over for the next couple of days. Here we go!

Obama-rama:
Marshal Ganz from the "too good to accept Nancy" Harvard Kennedy school talking about values vs. issues for FOCS the New Organizing Institute. I'm not always a fan of the hippie-dippier aspects of the Obama campaign, but I love this because it highlights the impact and importance of empowering volunteers to take agency not just in the context of the campaign but in their own lives.
DNC Director of technology, Bryan Whitaker, on the role of technology in President Obama's election. I love this article because it gives credence to contributions and advances made from 2004 to 2008 that made the historic use of technology on the 2012 Obama campaign possible.
Jim Messina on what's next. My favorite part of this interview is that he distinguishes between what is an isn't transferable from OFA 2012.
Speaking of technology...my friend posted the Dole Kemp website on his facebook wall recently. I'm sure the Clinton '96 site was equally visually appealing. I believe the term the kids use is LMFAO.

Today in Voter Suppression:
Voter ID bill passes North Carolina house. Booooo!
Nebraska decreases in-person early voting by five days.
Conservative Colorado Group Photoshops Out Minorities In Mailer Opposing Pro-Voting Legislation Wow. Tell me that part again about voter ID laws not being racist?
Trevor Potter of Stephen Colbert/John McCain fame makes the case for electronic voter registration. Yes!
Oregon Secretary of State pushes for automatic voter registration. A thousand times yes!
Florida bill lowers the mandated number of early voting days and hours, expands the number of early voting sights Oh, Florida...
Special interests and conservative Democrats are going after fusion voting and the New York State Working Families party, again. Fusion voting is such a good idea. You know you're doing it right when the real estate lobby hates you. For more info on why I love Fusion Voting and the Working Families Party and what those things are, click here.
And....This.

Women:
People keep asking me what I think of those new Dove commercials. Here is what I think.
Women and organizers are both socialized to say "yes" when someone asks us for something, even at the expense of our own professional priorities. Great piece by friend Cole on the right way to say "no" when someone asks you for a favor.
Lindy West's response to men asking for 'the rules' after President Obama called Kamala Harris a hottie. Is it possible to get naked and roll around in a blog post? Because that's how much I loved this. For the record, I don't think what President Obama did was that bad, but I do understand where the people who do are coming from. It's all about privilege, a topic I've thought a lot about in grad school and intend to explore on this blog going forward. Seriously, read this piece. Lindy West NAILS IT.

Candidates:
Super PAC, Ready for Hillary started galvanizing support and heavily hinting at a Clinton 2016 run. People ask me if I think she'll run all the time and I always say I hope so, but after the way the media treated her in 2008, we sure as s**t don't deserve her.
In a case of art imitating life, the Onion agrees. I thought they were supposed to do satire...
Anthony Weiner is considering a run for mayor. He acted like an idiot, but I still don't think he should have resigned. I also don't think he should run for mayor.
Roll Call reports that the Hawaii Senate race is split along Clinton/Obama lines. It's called a primary, you assholes, it happened in 2008. Find something else real and not baselessly damaging to the Democratic party to report on.
Speaking of Fusion Voting and Working Families Party, did I mention I'm going down to South Carolina to volunteer for Colbert-Busch? I am.
Because her opponent does crazy things like debate cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, and posts the phone numbers of voters who call his office. I'm not gonna say I've never fantasized about doing this, but that's what a GFY list is for.

Advocate from Where You Stand:
Ignore the tone of this article by John Hawkins who once asked me if I was going to "accuse him of patriarchy" after he pointed out that I was the only woman a panel we both sat on. (Well, now I am...) Kid wears shirt with pro-gun slogan on it to school. Kid gets in trouble. Hundreds of classmates wear shirts with pro-gun slogans on them the next day. Good for them. If anything we should be encouraging kids to engage in the process. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Momsdemandaction.org came up with these moving and provocative ads in response to the absolutely insane failure of the gun control last week. Well, damn.
Everyday Sexism Project launches in the USA. The project gives women a space and a voice to identify the myriad ways that male privilege impacts our lives on a daily basis. I'm already blowing up their twitter feed.

Republican Operatives:
Gingrich campaign worker charged with blackmailing women, dressing up as an elephant. Argh! You're making us look bad!
Former Pawlenty aid supports equal marriage. My friend who tweeted this article editorialized, "If I had a dollar for every Republican staffer or former elected who supports gay marriage..." So, true! It's clear the direction we're going on this issue...now can we just get there?
Because speaking of which...The FEC ruled that same-sex couples can't give to campaigns like straight couples. The FEC's hands were tied. They were just interpreting a shitty, discriminatory law.

And that, my friends, is what I have to say about that. As I signed my email to my volunteers the night before the Iowa caucus, see you in victory!

(Hopefully this goes better...)

Campaign Love And Mine,

Nancy

Election Words

I'd like to demonstrate one of the many things I did not like about my grad school. I was writing a report with a group of my classmates for a big consulting client and in that report I used the terms "first past the post" and "proportional representation." One of my classmates strenuously objected to me using these terms because they were "jargon" and she didn't know what they meant. First, call me my father's daughter, but I thought we went to an ivy league public policy school where at the very least if you are unfamiliar with a term you look it up. Second, I don't want to live in a world where public professionals not only don't know the difference between a first past the post and proportional representation system, but they assume that the people who work at our most prominent international peace and governance organization don't either. (Spoiler alert: those words wound up all over our report.) So lest you fall victim to my particular brand of snobbery and because as someone who gives you advice, I thought you should know, here are some common electoral system terms and their definitions*:

(Absolute) Majority- More than half.

Plurality (Aka Relative Majority)- Used in elections when somebody gets the most of anyone else, but not necessarily more than half.

First Past the Post- (Aka Winner Takes All or Simple Plurality) The candidate(s) with the highest number of votes win(s).

Single Member Legislative District- A district that returns one member to a body (for example Congress) that has multiple members.

Single Seat Plurality- The winner of the one seat in question is the person with the most votes.

Multiple Member First Past the Post- The first number of candidates, in order of highest vote, corresponding to the number of positions to be filled are elected. (If there are six vacancies then the first six candidates with the highest vote are elected.)

Fusion Voting (Aka Electoral Fusion)- two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate.

Proportional Representation- System in which the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received by that group.

Party List Proportional Representation- System in which parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats get allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives.

Closed List- A party list proportional representation in which the voters effectively vote for party and do not have any influence over in which the candidates who represent them are elected.

Open List- A party list proportional representation in which the voters effectively vote for party and have some influence over the specific candidates who represent them or the order in which they are elected.

Constituency- in this case voting distict (I know, mind blown.)

Preferential Voting/Rank Order Voting (Aka Preferential Voting)- Voters place candidates in order of preference (1st,2nd,3rd...)

Borda Count- Votes are counted by assigning a point value to each place in the hierarchy, and the choice with the largest number of points is selected.

Instant Runoff Voting (Aka Alternative Vote)- Type of preferential voting in which if no candidate gets a majority of votes, the votes voters cast for the candidate that received the smallest number of first preference rankings are redistributed to those voters' second choice and so on until some candidate receives a majority.

Single Transferable Vote- a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked voting in multi-seat constituencies. Voters have a single vote that is initially allocated to his or her most preferred candidate, and then, as the count proceeds and candidates are either elected or eliminated, is transferred to other candidates according to the voter's stated preferences, in proportion to any surplus or discarded votes.

Supplementary vote- Voters express a first and second choice of candidate only, and, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes of those eliminated redistributed according to their second choice votes to determine the winner.

Range Voting- Voting method for one-seat elections under which voters score each candidate, the scores are added up, and the candidate with the highest score wins.

Bucklin Voting- System in which all votes on all ballots that are above some threshold are counted, and then adjusting that threshold down until a majority is reached.

Exhaustive Ballots- System in which a voter casts a single vote for his or her favorite candidate. If no candidate is supported by an overall majority of votes then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a further round of voting occurs.

Open Primary- Primary election in which voters can vote in any party primary regardless of their party affiliation.

Closed Primary- People may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party prior to election day. Non-affiliated voters cannot participate.

Semi-closed Primary- Registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Unaffiliated voters can vote in any party's primary.

Parallel Voting (Aka Mixed Member Majoritarian)- System in which voters in effect participate in two separate elections for a single chamber using different systems, and where the results in one election have little or no impact on the results of the other. For example, in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Senators some Deputies and Senators are election in first past the post election and some are elected in a proportional representation system.

Plurality at Large Voting (Aka Block Voting or Multiple Non-Transferable Vote)- A non-proportional voting system for electing several representatives from a single multi-member electoral district using a series of check boxes and tallying votes similar to a plurality election. Although multiple winners are elected simultaneously, block voting is not a system for obtaining proportional representation; instead, the usual result is that the largest single group wins every seat by electing a slate of candidates.

Direct Election- A system of choosing political officeholders in which the voters directly cast ballots for the person, persons or political party that they desire to see elected (as opposed to voters electing electors who then cast a vote for the office holder.)

*Note that these definitions were crossed referenced with Wikipedia and sometimes ripped or paraphrased therefrom.
** In full disclosure, some of these I did not know before I went to grad school.

Think NYC Is A Liberal Paradise? Think Again.

Devotees will remember my devotion for (and erstwhile employment by) Working Families Party, a fairly powerful union-backed progressive third party in New York State. From their website:

Working Families is New York’s progressive political party. The Working Families Party is focused on tackling the political, economic, and educational inequality that deprive working and middle class families of opportunity. Our vision is to build a New York that is fair for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Part of the genius of WFP, and why it has been able to be effective, is a mechanism known as fusion voting. As I explained in a 2011 post:

Here's how it works: WFP, or another third party, endorses a candidate already in the race. For WFP it is usually, but not always, a Democrat. Voters can vote for the candidate on either the Democratic or the Working Families Party line, and the votes for the candidate from both lines are tallied together. For example, if candidate X receives 30% of the total votes cast on the Democratic Party line and 20% of the total votes on the WFP line, while candidate Y receives 45% of the total votes on the Republican line, candidate X still wins!

This allows voters to exert pressure on politicians to vote in line with the politics of a progressive workers party without risk of "spoiling" the vote. Fusion voting is only legal in a handful of states, most notably New York and Connecticut. New York WFP has had an impressive track record of playing in Democratic primaries.

Although New York City votes overwhelmingly Democratic, it is home to several iterations of the Democratic party (and of course some Republicans). I don't know if you've ever heard this, but quite a few rich people live in New York- rich people who have socially progressive views, but also a vested interest in opposing things like paid sick leave and raising the minimum wage.

It can come as no surprise then that some Scott-Walker-in-sheep's-clothings have been on a cycles-long crusade against WFP, under the guise of enforcing clean elections. There are literally dozens of examples; here is one. But it did come as a surprise to me this morning to find out that the latest phase of this witch hunt involves the impending arrest of my friend and mentor in NYC politics. (I am not including her name to minimize her current Googleability but you can click the link to read.) This person hired me to manage my first campaign, for a WFP-backed candidate to whom she is now Chief of Staff.

These accusations have been around since 2009 and WFP's political opponents have desperately and unsuccessfully been trying to get anything to stick. As the Daily News reported in December,

"Some close to the Working Families Party [including me] accuse Adler [the special prosecutor in the case] of having a longstanding political vendetta against the labor-backed political organization — dating back to his membership on the Kings County judicial screening committee for former Brooklyn Democratic Leader Vito Lopez, a frequent WFP advisary [sic].

Adler critics also note he lost his race for a civil court judgeship partially as a result of a reform ticket pushed by the Working Families Party.

They also point to a never before released 2012 letter from lawyer David Brown to a party official — obtained by the Daily News — which indicates Adler made up his mind two years ago that crimes had been committed and was threatening to expand his probe unless the party agreed to a settlement in the Rose case."

So you know, no conflict of interest there.

Yesterday's New York Times article explains that

for all parties, this is a matter that could have been an episode of “The Twilight Zone,” full of weirdness: what appears to be a first-of-its-kind case brought over errors that happen in many, many campaigns across the city. Normally, these errors are caught by the Campaign Finance Board, which audits political spending. The paperwork is then refiled with the proper information. Everyone lives happily ever after, with no handcuffs or police cars involved.

The article mentions that eight of nine campaigns that were subject to spurious campaign finance accusations were cleared with evidence of either no reporting errors or trivial ones. One of those eight was the campaign I managed. So for several reasons, these accusations hit close to home.

In a world where money is increasingly influential in our elections, the idea that anti-union politicians are persecuting and intimidating pro-union activists under the guise of campaign finance violations is an absolute farce. This is no better than the "beat 'em or cheat 'em" politics that Republicans use to disenfranchise their opponents through voter registration restrictions and voter ID laws. This is some horseshit. Roger Bennett Adler and the corrupt politicians he represents should be ashamed of themselves.