What is “ballot fusion”?
Ballot fusion means that a single candidate can appear on the ballot multiple times for multiple parties, so (for instance) you can vote for Cuomo, the Democratic candidate, or Cuomo, the WFP candidate, but all votes for Cuomo will still go to him.
All of which has nothing to do with the libertarianism of the Koch brothers. My father was an alcoholic who ran out on us when we were young. Are you going to judge me on my fathers actions or beliefs?
We live in a world with personal responsibility. We have responsibility for our children, but we do not have responsibility for our fathers political beliefs when we are growing up.
Welcome to non sequitur city.
Thanks.
I think he’s saying that just because their father had certian view, that doesn’t mean the Koch brothers have those views.
Obviously.
What disconcerted was the “All of which has nothing to do with the libertarianism of the Koch brothers.” Unless some dialect of English uses “all” to mean “some”, Mr. Wuzzy was so eager to defend the Kochs that he couldn’t bother to finish reading my post, let alone watch the Greenwald documentary.
By all I meant all of that part of your post that I highlighted. All of which attempted to tar two people with the political beliefs of a person from a previous generation.
OK. Sorry. I actually didn’t even notice the highlighting; maybe you should follow my example “All” – bolding, italicising, and underlining 
… as well as deleting irrelevant ports of a quote.
Fair enough, yes I probably should have just deleted the part of your post not relevant to my reply.
Or once with more than one party listed after his name; that’s another way to do it.
Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose, though? If there are multiple listings, then you can say that X% of the candidate’s vote came from the third-party listing, and if X is large enough, that’s a sign that the major party needs to pay serious attention to the third party’s platform. If it’s all on one line, though, you can’t tell… What’s the value to the third party then?
If either of the major parties, with the organizational and name-recognition advantages that come with that status, can’t get that many signatures, shouldn’t they just write off that seat?
This is actually a stronger argument for having one rule for everybody.
The value is the concessions they can extract from a major-party candidate in exchange for the third-party nomination. But, granted, that still works better with a separate ballot line. OTOH, it can be argued that it is unfair to list a candidate twice on the ballot – increases his chances of random votes if nothing else – and might tempt candidates to seek the nominations of all kinds of tiny splinter parties that exist only as websites, just to pump up their ballot-presence.
I don’t know where this guy gets the idea that unions control who loses their jobs. Most places I’ve worked hiring and firing are strictly the purview of management, whose political bent is usually conservative,