This Century-Old Practice Could Break Political Polarization and Empower the Center
We are privileged to be members of the ABA's task force. It is chaired by two distinguished jurists—Judge J. Michael Luttig and Jeh Charles Johnson—and includes a stellar cross-partisan array of lawyers, scholars, and community leaders. We held listening forums around the country and solicited expert advice on the key issues facing our democracy, including trust in elections, election worker safety, improving public dialogue, and reducing political polarization.
It is clear that the ABA's concerns are warranted. According to Gallup, public satisfaction with "how democracy is working in this country" hit an all-time low in early 2025. Supermajorities regularly tell pollsters that they want major changes in the political system. Many appear open to giving up on the rule of law and letting a strongman run the country.
Despite these worrisome signs, we remain optimistic about the democratic prospect in America.
Democracy in America is not doomed. The ABA Task Force's forthcoming final report will offer many excellent suggestions on steps to bolster it. Among the recommendations under consideration, there is one that we especially wish to shine a light on: multi-party nomination, or "fusion" voting. Here's how it works.
Imagine a new political party of "politically homeless" centrists. Call it the Common Sense Party—a combination of non-MAGA Republicans unhappy with the direction of their party, moderate-to-conservative Democrats not overly thrilled with their traditional political home, and unaffiliated voters who have been turned off by all the grandstanding and bickering. The Common Sense Party leadership wants to elevate a few key concerns: the rule of law, principled bargaining and compromise, and civility in public life.
One thing it doesn't want to do is nominate traditional stand-alone third-party candidates. Common Sense folk aren't interested in wasting their votes or unintentionally being "spoilers." Instead, they interview the two major party candidates and nominate the one able and willing to make a credible, public commitment to the Common Sense Party's program (and its voters).
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 17: People vote in the New York Primary elections at the Brooklyn Museum on June 17, 2025 in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York...
NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JUNE 17: People vote in the New York Primary elections at the Brooklyn Museum on June 17, 2025 in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City. More
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
That candidate would have two different party nominations, and thus appear on the ballot under two separate party labels: one major and one minor. On election night the candidate's votes are tallied separately by party and then added together to produce the final outcome. Hard to believe, but this idea is only legal in two states today.
A citizen who likes what the Common Sense party stands for might well be persuaded to vote for a candidate under the Common Sense label because doing so packs a punch—it demonstrates not just who you support but why. A vote under the Common Sense label would signal support for a different kind of governance, for a more civil society. Sometimes, the votes on the fusion party line will make the difference in who wins, other times it won't. Either way the party is playing a constructive role. Again, there's no wasted vote and no spoiling when you vote for a fusion party.
For nearly a century, fusion was legal and common in every state. It allowed new ideas, new leaders, and new parties to emerge. Abolitionists, farmers, emancipated Blacks, mechanics, prohibitionists, and populists all used fusion voting during the 19th century to make sure that their voices were heard by their fellow citizens as well as the leaders of this vast, diverse nation.
But politics has changed, and not for the better. The vitality and flexibility of a multi-party system has been replaced by the brittleness and anger of a hyper-partisan, polarized two-party "doom loop." Until the 1990s, our two-party system was much less polarized and much more local. There were conservatives, moderates, and liberals in the Republican and Democratic parties, which facilitated cross-partisan cooperation and deal-making. Today, politics is deeply tribal and fully national, and it is very rare for a member of Congress to cross party lines. This hyper-polarization is not just a Congressional problem; it afflicts most state legislatures too. Today the incentives flow towards conflict rather than collaboration, stymying effective governance and making more Americans question whether democracy is working.
Unfortunately, the more people get turned off by the choices served up by our two-party system, the more they may find strongmen and demagogues appealing. Ending the ban on fusion voting would enable people in the political center to build their own political home and to pull the other parties away from their extremes. In New York City, for example, centrist candidate Mike Bloomberg was able to get elected mayor in part because the Independence Party allowed voters a way to back him that did not rely on the two-party framework.
We are heartened that the ABA Task Force's final report may encourage the states to reconsider the bans on fusion voting passed by the major parties a century ago. As we write, there is litigation underway in New Jersey, Kansas, and Wisconsin to have these bans declared unconstitutional under their respective state constitutions. The plaintiffs are the New Jersey Moderate, United Kansas, and United Wisconsin parties.
Citizens and leaders who cherish self-government and the rule of law should welcome the forthcoming recommendations from the ABA Task Force. It's not too late to restore confidence in our democracy.
William Kristol is editor at large at The Bulwark. Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek and the founder of CNBC. Both are members of the American Bar Association Task Force For Democracy.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Military Raised Water Level of River in Ohio for JD Vance's Family Boating Trip
Military engineers raised the levels of a river in Ohio so the Secret Service could provide security to Vice President JD Vance during a family boating trip, agency officials said Thursday. Taylor Van Kirk, a spokeswoman for Mr. Vance, said the vice president had not been aware the request had been made to alter the water flow into the Little Miami River on Aug. 2. The Vances took the boat excursion on the vice president's 41st birthday. 'The Secret Service often employs protective measures without the knowledge of the vice president or his staff, as was the case last weekend,' Ms. Van Kirk said. Ohio Democrats and others criticized the trip after The Guardian reported that river levels were raised for it. Anthony Guglielmi, a Secret Service spokesman, said that for security reasons, the agency asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to temporarily increase water flow from Caesar Creek Lake, which is connected to the river. The boats used by the Secret Service for security or an emergency evacuation are usually motorized and need deeper waters to operate, he said. Smaller boats like the ones the Vances were using, such as kayaks and canoes, can operate in shallower waters. Mr. Guglielmi also said that the Service and local public safety officials conducted a scouting mission ahead of the excursion. During that time, one of the local public safety boats ran aground, an indication that the water level was too low for that vessel. In 1999, as he campaigned for president, Vice President Al Gore faced questions after a local utility poured millions of gallons of water into the drought-stricken Connecticut River, to keep Mr. Gore from running aground. Eugene Pawlik, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps, said changes to water outflows are a 'recurring process' throughout the year depending on the weather and other factors. 'The Secret Service request did not fall outside our normal operating parameters,' he said. Mr. Pawlik added that no waivers were needed, and that the outflow change did not have an adverse effect on downstream or upstream water levels.
Atlantic
a few seconds ago
- Atlantic
A Political Game Could Redefine Voting in America
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Activists and organizers like to say that the world is run by those who show up, so the fact that what Texas's Democratic legislators need to do to further their agenda is not show up is inauspicious for them. Those lawmakers, most of whom are currently holed up in Illinois, are seeking to prevent Republicans from drawing new, gerrymandered districts that would help them expand Texas's GOP delegation in the U.S. House—and perhaps give the party a better shot at holding the House in the midterms, when the sitting president's party tends to suffer (even with presidents far more popular than Donald Trump is currently). Democrats hope to deprive the legislature of quorum, thus blocking the passage of any new map. Traditionally, states redistrict after the decennial Census, and those maps endure for a decade, unless courts order changes, as they sometimes do. Texas's current maps were drawn by Republicans, and in the most recent election, they produced 25 GOP seats and 13 Democratic ones. That's 66 percent of districts with 58 percent of the total House vote for Republicans—not bad. But under pressure from the White House, Texas Republicans are now trying to squeeze out a little more juice. The attempt to redistrict is an unusual, brazen, and questionable move, though not entirely without precedent. In 2003, Texas Republicans redrew maps so as to give themselves a majority of the state's House seats. Democrats, dubbed the 'Killer Ds,' fled the state to prevent a quorum. They were initially successful, but a later attempt to prevent a quorum failed when a member broke ranks, and a new map passed. Texas Democrats are hoping they can learn the lessons of that attempt and win this time. They have a strategy, they have support from governors out of state, and, as Politico notes, they have the chance to run out the clock on a new map before a December deadline. Still, if Democrats had any better options, they'd take them. Maintaining caucus discipline for the next four months will be no easy task. And that's assuming some of the more draconian ideas offered to break them fail. State Attorney General Ken Paxton wants to have the Democrats removed from office for their absence. (Experts say this is legally dubious, and the idea of Paxton enforcing rectitude and duty is grimly hilarious.) U.S. Senator John Cornyn, whose reelection hopes are teetering precariously in a GOP primary against Paxton, tried to one-up that by requesting that the FBI help locate the Democratic fugitives. (Never mind that they haven't obviously committed any crimes.) All things being equal, legislators skipping sessions to prevent a state government from accomplishing business isn't a good thing. Oregon Democrats were so sick of state GOP legislators doing so that they enacted a law blocking chronic absentees from running for reelection in the next term. Then again, opportunistic mid-decade redistricting isn't a good thing, either. Gerrymanders produce worse governance because they are less representative; they also feed polarization by making elected officials dependent less on the general electorate and more on primary voters. And what's happening in Texas has already spread further. As soon as Republicans began talking about a Texas redistricting effort, Democrats in states including California and New York threatened to redraw maps to retaliate and push out Republicans. Now the GOP is looking at other red states, including Indiana and Missouri, to gain more seats. This is a disheartening example of what I've called total politics, in which officials try to use every legal tool to gain any advantage, no matter the long-term consequences. In this worldview, what matters is what's possible, not what's wise. How successful these efforts outside Texas will be is not clear. Hoosier State Republicans appear unenthusiastic about redistricting, though the White House seems to believe it can twist their arm. Democrats, meanwhile, have challenges of their own. By some measures, the map over the past two elections has had a slight Democratic advantage. Moreover, as my colleague Russell Berman reports, Democrats have spent the past decade pushing good-government reforms such as independent redistricting commissions that are designed to make extreme gerrymandering more difficult. People such as former Attorney General Eric Holder, who has been the leader of Democratic advocacy for fairer districts, are now embracing the tactics they shunned and trying, somewhat painfully, to rationalize them. The explanations really come down to this: Democrats believe that they are losing an existential battle and must do whatever they can. But what they can do is limited. Gerrymanders that use race as a basis are unconstitutional, but gerrymanders that use partisanship are not—although, in the South, Democratic affiliation is often a good proxy for Black voters. Chief Justice John Roberts has written that partisan gerrymanders are unfair, but the Supreme Court ruled that it has no authority to do anything about them. Roberts recommended that states handle the issue on their own. This is where gerrymandering becomes a devilish, self-perpetuating problem. Voters who want to stop gerrymanders at the state level find their path blocked by … gerrymandering. Take North Carolina, which went from a 7–7 split in the U.S. House to a 10–4 GOP edge under a new map enacted ahead of last year's elections. State legislators have also gerrymandered their own maps, so that although Democrats won narrow majorities of all the votes cast for both the state House and state Senate, they hold only two-fifths of the seats in both chambers. For decades, the Voting Rights Act has provided a path by which Black voters are guaranteed representation, through the drawing of majority-minority districts that would be otherwise considered unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. (Texas has one of the highest proportions of Black voters among states.) Yet as the law professor Richard Hasen writes in Slate, the Supreme Court now appears to be considering throwing out majority-minority districts as unconstitutional. This week marks the 60th anniversary of the VRA, but after years of hollowing out by the Roberts Court, the VRA seems to be nearing irrelevance. The Trump administration has indicated that the Justice Department will move away from prosecuting racial discrimination in voting and toward pursuing bogus allegations of voter fraud, while the Court may soon eliminate the ability of individuals and outside groups to bring claims under the law. President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Texan who signed the VRA into law, once said, 'This right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless.' If the shameless use of total politics to game districts is successful, it threatens to strip the meaning from that right. Today's News President Donald Trump's new tariff policy took effect at midnight, raising the overall average effective tariff rate to more than 18 percent, the highest since 1934. Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that 'billions of dollars' will begin flowing into the U.S., largely from countries he says have 'taken advantage of the United States for many years.' Trump has directed the Commerce Department to change how the U.S. Census Bureau counts the population, aiming to exclude undocumented immigrants. A federal judge ordered a two-week pause on construction at Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center after a lawsuit raised concerns about its impact on the Everglades ecosystem. Evening Read My Brother and the Relationship That Could Have Been By Liz Krieger The day my brother died, the dogwoods were in bloom. I sat by my bedroom windowsill, painting my nails. Junior prom was just hours away. I was 16. My brother, Alex, was 18—just 22 months older than me. The car accident happened on a highway in upstate New York in the early morning. My brother was driving a group of his college classmates to an ultimate-frisbee tournament. Over time, my family has settled on the theory that he fell asleep at the wheel, though for a while my parents thought it was mechanical failure. They couldn't bear the alternative. The car flipped, and the roll bar above the driver's seat broke his neck. Everyone else walked away. This May marked 33 years after his death. Since it happened, I've been thinking in numbers: days, months, eventually years. It's a compulsion, really, this ongoing tally. My own private math. I have just turned 50, an age unimaginable to that 16-year-old girl, and I will have been without him for more than twice as long as I knew him. Here's a story problem: If I live to 80, what percentage of my life will I have spent as someone's sister? What percentage as no one's sister? More From The Atlantic Culture Break Explore. Last summer, Alan Taylor compiled photos of people keeping cool in the heat. Play our daily crossword.
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
MINI MANDANIs? Jason Rantz of Seattle Red Joins the Guy Benson Show, Discusses the Radical Seattle Mayoral Race
Jason Rantz, host of The Jason Rantz Show on Seattle Red 770AM and author of What's Killing America , joined The Guy Benson Show today to discuss his station's brand-new rebrand to 'Seattle Red' and why it reflects a pushback against the Pacific Northwest's clear left-leaning media bias. Rantz broke down how radical voices like New York's Zohran Mamdani aren't outliers but emblematic of a national trend among Democrats, including in his own city of Seattle. Guy and Jason also torched the latest woke initiative to force self-driving cars to account for 'intersectional equity' – listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below:
