Sen. Delph has introduced SB 35 concerning straight ticket voting. It would remove a voter’s option for voting, all at once, for candidates of a particular political party. Presidential electors are exempt from this prohibition.
The rationale, I suppose, is that one should consider each race individually and should not simply vote for a political party. I don’t disagree with that necessarily. I’ve never voted a straight ticket. However, if we are going to promote voter consideration of particular races and particular candidates; I would suggest that we should go a bit further and remove party affiliation from the ballot.
But, that would not happen, I suspect; because, in reality, this is not about promoting consideration of individual races by voters educated on the particular candidates. Rather, I imagine someone has crunched the numbers and found that voters exercise the straight ticket option to vote for Democrats more frequently than they exercise the option to vote for Republicans. It’s an effort to pick up a few percentage points at the polls.
Edward Cormines (I.U.) and Michael Ensley (Kent State) presented a paper about that in 2004. In their abstract they “contend that voters who have consistently liberal or consistently conservative preferences on economic and social issues are now more likely to cast a straight party ballot than voters with more moderate preferences or with inconsistent policy preferences”. This might actually encourage more thoughtful voting. So Delph wants that to happen? Has he undergone some conversion experience?
As divided as the electorate stands, I don’t know that this will matter much. I punch the straight ticket option when I vote, but because my county uses electronic voting machines, I go through and make sure all of the Democratic candidates are selected anyway. I’ll never vote for a Republican under any circumstances, so I’ll be a straight ticket voter regardless of whether or not it’s officially an option.
Me, too.
“I’ll never vote for a Republican under any circumstances”
And some on here accuse others of having closed minds.
My local Republican/Tea Party folks tell me that not only do they disagree with me politically, but they also think that the local prosecutor and child welfare officials should take my children away and charge me with neglect because I do not take my children to church or other Christian education programs. That’s what the Republican Party is becoming. Why would I support any candidate that willingly associates himself with that kind of garbage?
Behold the conflict inherent in today’s Republican party. Can’t decide if they want to be the party that gets government out of people’s lives … or the party of social conservatives that want government to only allow their worldview. They can’t serve both sides forever…
Huge issue, here, that needs some serious thinking among folks who are religious. Just because one has a strong religious belief, it doesn’t mean that it should become law. It’s a matter of separating the purposes and boundaries of religion and government, particularly when government is for everyone, religion notwithstanding. I’ll bet Sikhs have a lot of strong religious beliefs that we wouldn’t necessarily want to be law, for example. I used to think we had worked through that business of separating religion and state, but people still need to think through it to get things right. Of course, there is always Iran, where the state and religion are all in one pot. Maybe the Tea Party guys would be happier there.
Just because someone has a secular religious belief doesn’t mean it should become law.
I do know that in Marion County, straight ticket voting was an unprecedented 2 to 1 in 2012 general election for the Dem’s. So I’m sure that there was some kind of discussion considering Mayor Ballard is coming up for re-election here soon.
No No No No No!!! Lets make voting easy for the stanch Democrat or Republican and get these people thru the voting process as quick as possible. If you need to think before you vote just do the following:
Find an idiot you dislike and ask then who they are going to vote for. Then vote the opposite – thus you canceled out their vote! You are doing your country, state, county or town a great and patriotic service!!! ;)
Shit was this a serious conversation? Then go ahead research all the candidates and pick accordingly! You’ll be SORRY!!!!
I voted for Ballard! Shame on me!!!!
I’ve often heard figures like 70% of the people check the box in Marion County to vote straight ticket. I just don’t buy it. I’ve worked many elections, seen the paper ballots, and those precincts were nowhere close to being 70%, maybe 35%, one in three at best. Very few people I know vote straight ticket, even die hard partisans.
I think there are people who check the individual candidates and end up casting all Republican or all Democrat. But from what I have been told, that doesn’t count as a straight ticket…only if you hit the box to vote for a straight ticket.
For the record, Sen. Delph has always been a big supporter of good government reforms measures like this. I certainly don’t think it’s the first time he’s introduced this.
Stuart said: “Edward Cormines (I.U.) and Michael Ensley (Kent State) … “contend that voters who have consistently liberal or consistently conservative preferences on economic and social issues are now more likely to cast a straight party ballot than voters with more moderate preferences or with inconsistent policy preferences”.
This falls in the category of “duh.” They actually needed a study to figure out that this is true?
Sorry. That’s what they said.
I actually like the idea if all party affiliation is removed.
But as the bill’s fiscal impact notes, all of the costs fall down to the local level.
Great idea. I’m in favor of having no party affiliation, whatsoever, appear on a ballot. So you’re a member of a club? So, what? How does that concern a ballot?
Protip: if a politician introduces a bill to “reform” voting, it’s because the change he or she wants will benefit his or her party. Republicans have tended to be more active about this because demographic changes in the voters are not working in their favor, so they either have to reach out to nonwhite voters, or they need to game the system to ensure their base has an outsized impact. Guess which one they’ve chosen.
If they’d get rid of the REAL problem, gerrymandering, I’d go for this.
Agree.