An Introduction to Fusion

Fusion voting, an electoral system in which multiple parties can nominate the same candidate, once played a significant role in American political life. It was widely used in the 1800s, particularly in the 1840s and 1850s, when abolitionists formed new political parties such as the Liberty Party and the Free-Soil Party. After the Civil War, fusion voting continued to gain popularity, allowing minor parties to flourish in local governments across the country. However, in a movement led largely by the Republican Party, many states banned fusion voting by the early twentieth century.

For a brief time during this period, New Jersey permitted certain forms of fusion ballots. In 1921, however, the Legislature passed two laws: one barring candidates for public office from being nominated by a political party if they had already accepted the nomination of another party, and another (enacted the following year) prohibiting a candidate from appearing on the ballot more than once for the same position. During this decade, New Jersey, like many states across the country, also passed several laws that made it more difficult for political groups to become “established political parties” and for their candidates to gain ballot access. Today, most states have statutes similar to those of New Jersey, which directly or indirectly restrict or prohibit fusion tickets, and these statutes have been largely immune to voters’ attempts to challenge their constitutionality in the courts.

Most recently, a New Jersey Appellate Court in In Re Tom Malinowski, Petition for Nomination for General Election November 8, 2022 for United States House of Representatives New Jersey Congressional District (February 26, 2025) held that New Jersey’s prohibition of fusion ballots did not pose an undue burden on a voter’s ability to support a candidate, nor did it prevent a third party from endorsing or supporting a candidate nominated by another party. Claims of unequal treatment between major and minor parties went unheeded, and the Court dismissed the allegation that the prohibition of fusion voting preserves the two-party system by declaring such prohibition as a policy choice that could be changed by the Legislature. As a result, it found the statutes effectively barring fusion ballots to be constitutional under the New Jersey Constitution. Already in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court had found fusion bans constitutional under the Federal Constitution.

Voter Choice New Jersey sympathizes with fusion advocates in their struggle to open the electoral system to more voices and parties. However, we believe these advocates can accomplish similar goals by supporting ranked-choice voting in place of fusion voting.

What is fusion voting, and what are its goals?

Fusion voting is an electoral system in which multiple parties can nominate the same candidate, allowing voters to support both their preferred party and their preferred major candidate with a single vote. Once playing a significant role in American politics, fusion voting helps alternative parties remain relevant without acting as “spoilers.” Most importantly, the system allows alternative parties to demonstrate their ability to deliver votes to major candidates in exchange for policy commitments. In doing so, fusion voting enhances the visibility of alternative parties and helps them grow their base.

Similarities Between Fusion Voting and Ranked-Choice Voting

Fusion voting and ranked-choice voting (RCV) share several attributes that many consider beneficial. Both electoral systems reduce the “spoiler effect,” the phenomenon whereby an alternative party candidate draws votes away from the front-runner, making it possible for an opposing and less well-supported candidate to win. Fusion voting mitigates the spoiler effect by allowing multiple parties to nominate the same candidate. Voters can support their preferred party without the fear of wasting their vote or helping their least favorite candidate win. For example, if a candidate is listed under the Democratic Party as well as the Working Families Party, a supporter of the Working Families Party can still vote on that party’s line, while also knowing their vote will count toward the candidate’s total. However, this requires minor (alternative) and major (established) political parties to agree to endorse the same candidate. Otherwise, the spoiler effect operates. Ranked-choice voting is similar to fusion voting in that voters can express their preferences for their favorite candidate accurately without wasting their vote. In ranked-choice voting, if a voter’s first choice cannot win, their vote automatically supports their next choice instead. Unlike fusion voting, ranked-choice voting does not require major and minor parties to co-endorse the same candidate.

A second benefit of both electoral systems is that they encourage more positive campaigning. Because candidates are incentivized to appeal to constituents beyond their own party, fusion voting supports coalition building. In a ranked-choice voting election, candidates must compete for the back-up votes from their opponents’ supporters to secure majority support. Candidates therefore have less incentive to run negative and polarizing campaigns that attack like-minded opponents, and instead focus more on highlighting issues that unite their coalition.

Advantages of Ranked-Choice Voting

While fusion voting offers important democratic benefits, ranked-choice voting builds on these strengths and provides additional advantages to voters. One important benefit of RCV is that it ensures majority support. Candidates must receive over 50% of the vote to win, making it impossible for a candidate opposed by most voters to be elected. Fusion voting can only ensure majority support if all alternative parties surrender their ability to field their own candidate and align themselves with the two largest parties, and even then a winner is not assured to receive a majority of the vote.  Only ranked-choice voting uniquely ensures majority support in all New Jersey elections regardless of the number of candidates putting their hat in the race, and whether a race is partisan or nonpartisan.

Notwithstanding, ranked-choice voting is especially compatible with non-partisan races, in a way that fusion voting has no discernible impact.  Non-partisan races are common in many New Jersey municipal elections, especially in its larger cities, with more diverse populations, and in all school board elections. In all such races, ranked-choice voting eliminates the need for a separate runoff election in jurisdictions where such runoffs are required, making it a more efficient and cost-effective electoral system. Runoff elections are costly, requiring a second round of election infrastructure, including ballot equipment and poll workers. They also impose an opportunity cost, as voters must find time again to cast their ballot, a burden that falls especially hard on low-income individuals with less flexible jobs or limited access to transportation. Because ranked-choice voting eliminates the possibility of runoff elections as it serves as an “instant runoff,” it ensures that the candidate has true majority support without any of the aforementioned disadvantages. In both partisan and non-partisan races, ranked-choice voting acts as an “instant runoff.”

Additionally, the system allows alternative parties to run their own candidates, increasing the diversity of candidates and encouraging more people, including women and people of color, to run. Unlike the traditional plurality system or fusion voting, RCV does not discourage alternative party candidates from running their own candidate for fear of splitting the vote. If a candidate does not win, their votes are reallocated to the voters’ second choice. When voters see a greater variety of people and opinions represented in the candidate pool, they are more likely to turn out to vote. This effect is especially visible in off-year elections and in youth turnout. Importantly for alternative parties, running their own candidates allows them to more easily distinguish their platforms and messaging, attracting voters who would not otherwise support an established party candidate.

Finally, ranked-choice voting offers a clearer path to proportional representation, which is the most effective method we have for helping alternative parties win real power. Proposed ranked-choice voting legislation in New Jersey would require proportional ranked-choice voting for multi-seat elections, including school board and at-large elections for council members. In a fusion election, if an alternative party receives 30% of the vote, it might influence the frontrunner. In a proportional ranked-choice voting election, however, that alternative party could elect its own candidate to office and demonstrate their unique values and policy positions through its candidate's voting record.  Proportional ranked-choice voting also prevents issues unique to our plurality-block elections. Our existing plurality-block election creates an opportunity for bullet voting that artificially gives strategic voters a disproportionate power to make sure a candidate with their view is elected. Plurality-block’s lack of proportional results also causes a  “seesaw effect”, where an entire slate of incumbents are wiped from power because of a small change in the popular vote.

Conclusion

Both fusion voting and ranked-choice voting offer promising ways to make elections more representative and to increase voter turnout. However, ranked-choice voting goes further by encouraging more diversity in candidates and removing the need for costly and burdensome runoff elections. These advantages were highlighted in the recent New York City mayoral primary, where relatively unknown Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani upset former Governor Andrew Cuomo, sending Mamdani to the general election as the Democratic nominee. City Comptroller Brad Lander was a leading contender but quickly dropped to third place. Rather than splitting the vote, Lander embraced the coalition-building aspect of RCV, cross-endorsing Mamdani, a move that was pivotal in securing Mamdani’s victory. The Working Families Party of New York also played a key role, encouraging voters to embrace ranked-choice voting and promoting a slate of candidates with the aim of defeating Cuomo. The outcome highlighted how ranked-choice voting not only encourages more candidates to run, but also strengthens coalition-building and party development that our politics needs now more than ever.