Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Sivana

It must have been more common back in the day
(1896: Bryan ran on Democrat and Populist lines - as far as I could figure it was quite a few states).


15 posted on 08/02/2020 4:22:58 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: scrabblehack

Explanation from Wikipedia:

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the Populist 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.”[3] The birth 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:

California (Presidential elections only)
Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Mississippi
New York
Oregon
South Carolina
Vermont


16 posted on 08/02/2020 9:37:03 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson