Adjunct Professor Jerry Goldfeder was quoted in an Albany Times Union article about New York’s “fusion law,” which allows candidates to run on several party lines.
If it were not for fusion voting — allowing a candidate to run on multiple lines and aggregating their vote totals — John F. Kennedy may not have been elected president in 1960.
Kennedy won the election with 303 Electoral College votes, 34 more than the majority needed, to Richard Nixon’s 219. Harry Byrd won the remaining 15.
…Without fusion, Nixon would have won New York, bringing his Electoral College vote up to 264 and reducing Kennedy’s to 258 — and with Byrd in the picture, no candidate would have had an Electoral College majority. The presidential election, for the first time since 1824, would have been decided by the House of Representatives — and although the chamber was controlled by Democrats, the ideological splits within their ranks could have yielded a Nixon presidency.
So New York’s quirky fusion law made a significant difference in our country’s history.
But, truth be told, fusion doesn’t affect very many races. In New York’s hotly contested state legislative and congressional elections last year, only a few candidates won because of it. Newly elected state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, D-Brooklyn, would have lost to incumbent Republican Marty Golden without the Working Families vote total; and Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi won because of the aggregated votes cast on either the Working Families line or the Independence line.
So why is the Democratic Party making such a fuss about the issue now?