2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I agree with fusion voting, but against fusion "lite" or aggregate fusion.  I really do think that fusion voting will give third parties a chance to start coming out of the depths of obscurity and become known to voters and, hopefully, liked and supported.  I think this system may change the traditional diametric platforms running against each other every election.  On the other hand, fusion "lite" will not get rid of the often seen two candidates and spoiler candidates.  That is, there will still be obscure candidates that, although they may stand for your issues, a vote for them is just one less for the two front runners.  I think fusion "lite" is a step in the right direction, but a jump would be better.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context