Without Fusion Voting, It's an Uphill Climb for Independents Like Missouri's John Wood
Several weeks ago, John Wood was a senior investigator for the House Select January 6th Committee. Now, he is an independent candidate vying for the open U.S. Senate seat in Missouri. Wood self-identifies as a “life-long” Republican: He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, served in several top administrative roles and as U.S. Attorney under George W. Bush, and was general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Yet, he’s running as an independent because he sees the GOP primary as “a race to the bottom to see who can be the most divisive and the most extreme.”
In Wood’s view, the primary frontrunner is “a danger to our democracy.” Among other public controversies, that candidate’s recent campaign ad shows him wielding a shotgun and breaking into a home alongside an armed tactical team, offering a stern warning: “Join the MAGA crew. Get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.” In this environment, can Wood really bring together a winning “coalition of common-sense voters” in order to “send somebody in the mainstream to the U.S. Senate”?
There are good reasons why Wood believes that the “middle” path he’s charting might be wide enough to win: He has unquestioned conservative bona fides, yet he’s served in a high-profile role exposing the details of the January 6th insurrection; the leading Republican candidate is plagued by scandal, and the national Democratic brand is non grata throughout much of Missouri. But if history is a guide, Wood is facing steep odds. Since 1980, only two independent, centrist candidates have won a seat in the U.S. Senate: Joe Lieberman and Angus King.
Strategic voting is a big reason why. Many people might prefer a centrist candidate, but nonetheless cast their ballot for a major party candidate because they believe the former has little chance of winning. Not wanting to “waste” one’s vote is entirely rational. Yet, given the predominance of the Democratic and Republican Parties in contemporary politics, there is a baked-in predictive bias against other candidates which ends up being self-reinforcing. And because our ballots are categorical (i.e., they force voters to make just one selection), widely unpopular major party candidates often win with modest pluralities, even when a centrist option would be the consensus preference for a majority of the electorate.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Missouri and dozens of other states could bring back fusion voting, which was lawful and practiced nationwide throughout the 1800s. Fusion voting allows a major party and a minor party to nominate the same person on the ballot, so that different political factions can form a winning electoral coalition behind a single, competitive candidate. Today, this would be particularly valuable with a centrist minor party representing the frustrated share of the electorate skeptical of both Democratic and Republican Parties. Because each nominating party has its own ballot line, voters can choose which party’s box to check and send a clear message as to why they supported a candidate.
Many voters are reluctant to associate with one or both of the major parties, and ever-increasing hyper-polarization suggests this trend will only intensify; fusion allows these voters to nonetheless support the competitive candidate who best reflects their values because they can do so on the minor party line. As a result, voters need not associate themselves with the extreme elements of a major party in order to support a centrist who nonetheless earns the nomination of that party. For example, many conservative West Virginia voters like Joe Manchin but increasingly won’t check the Democratic Party box next to his name, worried it implies at least some support for abolishing the police, banning private health insurance, etc.
In Missouri, a majority of the electorate likely wants to elect someone committed to the rule of law, the peaceful transfer of power, and free and fair elections this November. However, these voters will likely split between Wood and the Democratic nominee, giving a pro-MAGA Republican a strong chance of winning. With fusion, Wood would undoubtedly be the top choice for a centrist minor party, like the newly formed Moderate Party in New Jersey. If Missouri Democrats agreed that the single most important objective was to elect a Senator that promised to protect democracy, they could refrain from running a traditional Democratic candidate and give their nomination to Wood, too. Aligned together behind a single candidate, Missouri’s left, center-left, and center-right would be a formidable political coalition.
To be sure, re-legalizing fusion in Missouri would not guarantee this alignment. Forming a fusion coalition forces parties, candidates, and voters with a wide range of views to make winning and defeating a shared ideological opponent their top priority. This seems obvious, but it’s often not the case. Today, minor parties regularly run a standalone candidate to “make a statement” when they know there is a serious risk of “spoiling” the race and handing the election to their least preferred major party candidate. Fusion allows them to make an important expressive point with their nomination without helping elect an ideological foe. And yet, ideological rigidity leads some minor parties in states with fusion to nonetheless run protest candidates. Even if they recognized that a traditional Democrat would have a slim chance of winning, many progressive activists would no doubt oppose giving the nomination to an unabashedly conservative candidate. And Wood himself would have to agree to embrace the nomination of a party notwithstanding deeply held disagreements with party leadership and rank-and-file on other policy issues important to him.
Compromise is always hard. But there is no reason our electoral rules should make it harder. Fusion makes it possible for a wide swath of voters to work together when they share a common purpose on issues that matter most. Without fusion, we don’t have many Senators like John Wood, and we likely won’t. With fusion, who knows?
Beau Tremitiere is a counsel at Protect Democracy, focusing on advocacy, litigation, and electoral reform against political extremism and authoritarianism.
