While the data on approval voting is limited since it is a newer voting system, advocates have stated that it allows greater expression of voter choice. They also claim that it prevents candidates from splitting votes while encouraging them to have a broader appeal and enables more people to effectively run for office. Another benefit is that there are no complex ranking or runoff systems, as with rank-choice voting, and it reduces party polarization and extremism by allowing voters to approve multiple candidates. Furthermore, approval voting is said to lead to less negative campaigning, as attacking opponents (like we see today) would risk losing approval from supporters. 

One drawback of approval voting is the lack of ability to express preference order, which can be done when using rank-choice voting. A case study in North Dakota demonstrated that some voters only approve one candidate regardless of the opportunity to approve multiple, weakening the purpose of the system. This system has also not been widely adopted or tested, which means that there is currently not enough data to show that it could work on a large scale. And similar to fusion voting, it could lead to voter confusion as it also requires voters to be well-educated about the voting system.

Fargo, North Dakota was one of the first places to adopt approval voting in 2018, and they used this system in the 2020 elections. The study conducted during the elections has shown that Approval Voting tends to result in higher voter satisfaction (per their exit polls), and leads to the election of more women and independent candidates. However, the Governor of North Dakota is preparing to ban approval voting, as well as rank-choice voting through state legislation. His reasoning is that these methods are less transparent and that having a single voting system across all jurisdictions creates a simpler system.  

St. Louis, Missouri also used approval voting, specifically in the 2021 alderman elections. In that election, more moderate candidates gathered more votes and there were signs of less divisive politics. Data shows that 60% of St. Louis voters want to continue to use approval voting to elect other officials according to Election Science. Despite efforts to repeal the use of approval voting in St. Louis, the system has been able to remain in place due to the support it has and legal protections.

In its limited use, it was said that Approval Voting helped reduce extremist legislation, as politicians weren’t able to rely solely on extremist supporters (i.e. Fargo, North Dakota reports that City Commissioners are more collaborative when policymaking). Similar to fusion voting, it could reduce gridlock in the political system, but it leaves researchers skeptical about large-scale implementation due to the lack of data. Approval voting also has the potential to increase bipartisan bills, reduce lobbyist influence, and promote evidence-based policies by incentivizing candidates to shift their focus away from a narrow political base. However, there has not been any real impact on legislation nationally - or even statewide - thus far, due to its fairly new emergence. Approval voting has some early adopters, but it still remains largely unknown and unadopted, and will more than likely stay that way due to strong opposition from major parties who preemptively ban it.

Critique of fusion and approval voting

While both fusion voting and approval voting aim to address flaws in the U.S. electoral system, neither offers a flawless solution. When examined critically, each system reveals underlying limitations that may hinder its broader effectiveness. The implementation of a Fusion Voting system could disproportionately affect minority voters as barriers to voter education and outreach may limit access to understanding the system. As far as its effectiveness, votes contributed by smaller parties flipped an election in only 2.6 percent of congressional races in New York and Connecticut from 1976 - 2022. In the 2022 election in New York, fusion voting made a small difference for Republican candidates, who were able to win over Democratic Candidates for the first time in a decade. Three congressional seats were flipped to Republican candidates. (NY-04, Anthony D’Esposito, NY-17, Mike Lawler, and NY-22, Brandon Williams). Fusion voting in New York and Connecticut has also resulted in very small increases in voter turnout rates.

Fusion voting and approval voting have seen vastly different levels of financial investment and resultant progress, despite both having strong academic support. Fusion voting has struggled with minimal funding, with only about $3 million spent in total by third parties, like the Working Families Party, on lobbying and legal efforts in the past election. This limited investment has translated to stagnant growth, with no new states adopting fusion voting in the last ten years, leaving it legal in just eight states. By contrast, approval voting has benefited from slightly more organized support, particularly from groups like the Center for Election Science, with an estimated $2–5 million spent over the same period. When compared to the billions spent on traditional elections, or even the $50 million+ poured into ranked-choice voting advocacy, fusion and approval voting remain severely underfunded. The cost barrier is significant: even modest ballot initiatives require hundreds of thousands of dollars per city or state, often facing resistance from fixed political interests.