History
Fusion was legal throughout the United States in the 19th century, and it was common for both major parties to run fusion tickets with various smaller third parties. The most famous fusion candidate of this period was Democrat William Jennings Bryan, who in the 1896 Presidential elections also ran on the Populist line in 28 states. But high-profile fusion candidacies were common, from the Whig candidate for New York Governor in 1854 who also ran on the "Negro" party line, to the candidates of the Progressive Party and Non-Partisan League of the 1900s and teens.
Fusion ballots became most important in the last decades of the 19th century, with the rise of the Populists and other small parties representing farmers, artisans, and other groups left out of the industrializing economy. Populism spread like wildfire in rural and small-town America, but its supporters never amounted to a majority and so depended on fusion to elect candidates and affect government policy.
The Populists were a major force throughout the Midwest and West, and parts of the South. Populists ran joint candidacies with both major parties, depending on which was more responsive to the needs of small farmers and craft workers. In the South, multi-racial fusion tickets united the Populists and the Republicans. In the West and the Plains, the Populists and similar small parties generally joined with the Democrats. Both major parties found it a valuable tool to build diverse coalitions and bring in new groups of voters.
According to historian Richard Argersinger, fusion was a critical tool in this period because:
minor parties regularly captured a significant share of the popular vote and received at least 20 percent in one or more elections from 1874 to 1892 in more than half the non-Southern states. Even where their share was smaller, it represented a critically important proportion of the electorate. [1]
In Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota, fusion tickets were decisive in control of state legislatures. In these states, as well as in Ohio, the Dakotas, Washington, Indiana and elsewhere, fusion voting allowed the Populists to elect candidates and so gave struggling small farmers a voice in state government.
The small farmers wanted affordable railroad rates to ship their produce to markets, an end to the gold standard, and relief from onerous debts. By the early 20th Century, the railroad and banking interests that opposed these reforms had succeeded in banning fusion voting in almost every state where it had been widely used. In 1890, there were at least 450 fusion candidates for U.S. Congress, Senate and Governor. In 1910, there were fewer than 50. [2]
In the 1890s, third parties – not only the Populists but also the Citizens Party, the Union Party, and others – regularly elected more than a tenth of many states’ legislatures. The end of fusion spelled doom for these parties. In Oregon, for examples, the 1895 legislature had 12 third-party members. Ten years later, it had none. As one Michigan Populist put it, the end of fusion voting "practically disenfranchise[d] every citizen who does not happen to be a member of the party in power." For the small farmers, it meant the loss of a voice in government. And for the major parties that had allied with the Populists and other small parties, it meant the loss of a critical electoral tool.
Today, fusion is legal in just eight states, and commonly used only in two, New York and Connecticut. In those two states minor parties like Conservative, Independence and Working Families have worked together with the major parties to mobilize voters and broaden the viewpoints represented in government.
[1] Peter H. Argersinger, "'A Place on the Ballot': Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws" 85 American Historical Review (1980).
[2] Howard A. Scarrow, "Duverger's Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American Third Parties," Western Political Quarterly, 39, 4 (December 1986).
