Electoral alliance: Information from Answers.com

Logo for an electoral alliance (Coligação Democrática Unitária - Unitarian Democratic Coalition - in Portugal)

An electoral alliance, bipartisan electoral agreement, electoral agreement, electoral coalition, electoral fusion or electoral bloc is an association of political parties or individuals which exists solely to stand in elections. Each of the parties within the alliance will have its own policies, but will choose temporarily to put aside differences in favour of common goals and ideology. On occasion, an electoral alliance may be formed by parties with very different policy goals, who agree to pool resources in order to stop a particular candidate or party from gaining power.

Unlike a coalition formed after an election, the partners in an electoral alliance will usually not run candidates against each other, and will encourage their supporters to vote for candidates from the other members of the alliance. In some agreements where a larger party enjoys a higher degree of success at the polls, the smaller party will field candidates under the banner of the larger party, with the elected members of the smaller party sitting together with the elected members of the larger party in the cabinet or legislature. They will usually, but not inevitably, aim to continue co-operation after the election, for example by campaigning together on issues on which they have a common viewpoint.

By offering to endorse or nominate a major party's candidate, minor parties can influence the candidate's platform.

1 History
2 Articles
- 2.1 Notes/References
3 Examples
4 See also

History

United Kingdom

For more details on this topic, see Co-operative Party.

Electoral alliance survives to this day within the Labour Party which fields Labour Co-operative Party candidates in general elections in various areas.

United States

Electoral alliance was once widespread in the United States. In the late 19th century, however, as minor political parties such as the People's Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation." (Spoiling for a Fight, 227-228). The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.

Fusion has sometimes been used by other third parties. For example, the Independent Party of Oregon cross-nominated five major party candidates, winning races for the U.S. Senate, Oregon Secretary of State, and the Oregon House of Representatives in 2008. The Libertarian Party used fusion to elect four members of the New Hampshire state legislature during the early 1990s.

In 1864 the Democratic Party split into two wings, over the peace question. The War Democrats fused with the Republicans to elect a Democratic Vice President, Andrew Johnson, and re-elect a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

Occasionally, popular candidates for local office have succeeded in being nominated by both Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1946, prior to the current ban on fusion being enacted in that state, Republican Governor of California Earl Warren (a future Chief Justice of the United States) managed to win the nominations of the Republican, Democratic, and Progressive Parties.

In the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, controversial white supremacist David Duke, running as a Republican, unexpectedly made his way to second place in the state's jungle primary. Many prominent Republicans endorsed his Democratic opponent Edwin Edwards. While not a de jure example of electoral fusion, it was an unusual example of both major parties joining against a candidate.

New York

Fusion has the highest profile in New York, where it was a major weapon against Tammany Hall. Small parties significant in large part for their fused ballot lines include the Working Families Party, Right to Life Party, Liberal Party, Independence Party, and Conservative Party. Most judicial elections are won by candidates endorsed by more than two parties.

In the 2002 New York gubernatorial election, Andrew Cuomo got the New York State Liberal Party nomination, and was running against Carl McCall for the Democratic nomination. McCall had secured the Working Families Party nomination. Cuomo dropped out, and endorsed McCall. This led to the Liberal party not getting the 50,000 votes for governor that it needed for an automatic place on the ballot, and led to the Liberal party becoming defunct.

Oregon

Prior to 1958, Oregon practiced a form of fusion that required the state to list multiple nominating parties on the candidate's ballot line. Sylvester Pennoyer was elected Governor in in 1886 and 1890 as a candidate of the Democratic and People's Parties. In 1906, 7 members of the Oregon House were also elected as candidates of the People's party and either the Democratic or Republican parties. In 2008, a lawsuit was brought by the Independent Party of Oregon against the Oregon Secretary of State claiming that modifications to the ballot design statute in 1995 once again required the state to list multiple nominating parties on the candidate's ballot line. The lawsuit gave rise to legislation ^[1] to allow candidates to list up to 3 party labels after their name. This bill passed both houses of the Oregon legislature during the 2009 legislative session. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law on July 23, 2009.

Netherlands: Lijstverbinding

Lijstverbinding ("list connection") is the Dutch for an electoral alliance between two parties.

In a system of proportional representation not all seats are immediately divided, some seats remain undivided remainder seats. In the Netherlands these are allocated by the D'Hondt method. This method strongly favours larger parties (often smaller parties get no remainder seats, whereas the three largest parties get two each). But if smaller parties form an alliance their votes are added up for the distribution of seats, so this increases their chances of getting one. With a lijstverbinding or kartel two parties can pool their votes in order to gain more remainders seats.

Often these two parties are ideologically related, in the 2003 general elections for example the socialist SP and the green GroenLinks formed a lijstverbinding. In the 2004 European elections the social-democratic PvdA and GroenLinks formed a lijstverbinding. The Orthodox Protestant SGP and ChristenUnie also usually form a lijstverbinding.