08-07-2025
This Century-Old Practice Could Break Political Polarization and Empower the Center
Two years ago, the American Bar Association (ABA) formed a Task Force for American Democracy, seeking to bolster voter confidence in the integrity of our elections, to reinforce the importance of the rule of law, and to suggest actionable ways to improve and strengthen our democratic system.
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.
