Drutman makes a persuasive and important case about both the need and the strategy for moving beyond a sclerotic two-party system. His core recommendation—reviving fusion voting to empower more parties—would simultaneously protect and invigorate American democracy. We must embrace politics by creating new vehicles for individuals to participate in collective political expression while also incentivizing electoral and governing coalitions.
History teaches us that defeating authoritarian movements requires an expansive, potent “united front” that might not agree on much besides their preference for living in a pluralist democracy. Drutman lays out how fusion voting could empower disaffected conservative and independent voters who are dismayed by Trump and Trumpism, but are not at all at home in the Democratic Party, to create a robust new political identity. One can only devoutly hope they do so. Does it make us uncomfortable, given our differences with such people on too many topics to mention? Of course. But a united front implies a wide range of forces, and if you’re not uncomfortable, your movement probably is not that wide and definitely won’t be powerful.
Fusion could also do the same for the left. This year, some voters who are discouraged or angered by the Democrats’ stance on Israel and Palestine will undoubtedly be tempted by quixotic minor-party presidential campaigns or, even more likely, opt out of the election altogether. In this context, imagine what a fusion-legal system would mean in, say, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
The Working Families Party is publicly 100 percent pro-ceasefire and is working hard to pressure the Biden administration and Congress to change course. Many progressive organizations actively engaged in “uncommitted” campaigns that carried a similar “pro-ceasefire, anti–unconditional aid” during the Democratic presidential primary, producing north of 10 percent of the vote in Minnesota, Michigan, and New York. These campaigns gave voters a way to actively participate in a party endorsement process, making them much more likely to keep participating through the November election.
Progressive groups and many “uncommitted” voters understand the danger of a Trump restoration. In a fusion-legal electoral regime, a pragmatic and principled minor party could organize a very powerful message: “The Democrats have been wrong on Gaza, and if you share that view, then vote for the Democratic nominee on a pro-ceasefire line and send a powerful message. It keeps Trump out of power, but also says to the Democrats, ‘You must change course.’” There is little question in our minds that such a party would get a solid chunk of votes, but instead of spoiling the election, it would help save it. Instead of these voters opting out, they can opt in: fusion would give them a powerful, proactive, and electoral means of expression.
Ultimately, we know that the best long-term bulwark against authoritarianism is to increase voter agency and democratic participation. Changing the rules of our electoral system—including but by no means limited to party-centric reforms like fusion—is thus of utmost importance. In Minnesota, the We Choose Us coalition won an astounding set of reforms to democratic practice in 2023, including restoring the right to vote for those who have a felony conviction, automatic voter registration, and pre-registration for sixteen and seventeen year olds.
These changes clear the way for more voters to participate, but voting itself does not transform an individual into a political actor who has the experience of agency. That requires a means of collective expression—organizations and parties that bundle shared interests into political power. We Choose Us, like the WFP, is a broad-based, community-labor coalition. In a sense, it bundles “people’s organizations” into a quasi-party that can advance a shared interest in voting rights and multiracial democracy, and as such it validates Drutman’s point that “partisanship” is not the source of America’s broken politics. The problem is that there are only two parties, limiting the political expression of all of their “parts,” increasing cynicism and dissatisfaction within the voting public, and creating perverse incentives in the policy-making process.
Reformers who decry “polarization” are working to take the politics out of politics. This is a fool’s errand. Individuals don’t engage in political participation in an interest-free vacuum; the truth—as every organizer knows—is that people naturally band together under common interests and build vehicles to advance them. That’s the essence of civil society. And when voters don’t see themselves or their interests reflected in those vehicles, they are less likely to vote at all. If we want more people to participate—and to participate in a way that genuinely captures and reflects their values—then we need more vehicles.
But fusion does more than just increase the participation of individual voters. It also strengthens the political, small “d” democratic landscape, which we believe is necessary for democratic resilience moving forward. Fusion can strengthen and incentivize the power of people-centered organizations that build new, minor parties. Former ACORN leader Bertha Lewis and former Citizen Action of New York director Karen Scharff have both argued that being part of a political party opened doorways and opportunities to statewide power far beyond the local bases and power centers of their organizations. It also incentivizes bargaining and coalition between major and minor parties, which means those same community and labor organizations have more ability to negotiate policy victories.
This dynamic has proven especially valuable for increasing Black and brown political power. The community groups that helped build WFP in New York and Connecticut had primarily Black and brown membership bases. In states without fusion, the influence of these groups is largely limited to the majority-minority Congressional and legislative districts of their members. But by having a statewide ballot line, they were able to build cross-region multiracial coalitions and project power far beyond their traditional geographic strongholds. In a sense, fusion provides a powerful complement to voting rights laws: it builds power for Black Americans that amplifies the Black representation gains inherent in the (now weakened) Voting Rights Act. This goes for Native, Chicano, Latino power in the Southwest, and Asian communities on the West Coast and beyond.
One piece of the puzzle that Drutman doesn’t mention but surely must understand is how much the major parties will oppose the relegalization of fusion voting. These institutions, which have become increasingly hollowed out of robust local participation of grassroots activists, are perfectly happy with the two-party system. And they detest the way that fusion parties—on the left and the right, and perhaps sooner than later in the center—can make demands on them.
In both Connecticut and New York, Republicans and Democrats have tried repeatedly over the decades to do away with fusion. Most famously, WFP battled for years with Andrew Cuomo. WFP was the nerve center for a broad network of organizations who took him on directly, ending the Republican majority he orchestrated in the Senate. Cuomo struck back hard, threatening union affiliates and even changing ballot access rules to destroy the state’s minor parties. He failed, but the fact that he tried so aggressively to functionally ban fusion is a testament to the power conferred by the ballot line.
Of course, no single reform is a silver bullet. There is an enormous amount of coalition building underway in the forty-eight non-fusion states that is just as good and important as that in the two fusion states, and the work to legalize fusion is going to take some time. But electoral politics and functional governing coalitions are essential to achieving our ends. Power never concedes anything without a demand, and nothing turns demands into progress like a party.
