Straight-ticket voting
An Overview by Jeff Toste. First published online at GreenInstitute.net.
Background
Straight-ticket or straight-party voting allows voters to make one pull, punch, or mark in order to vote for all candidates of a single political party. Straight-ticket voting originated to simplify the voting process and improve voter turnout. Unfortunately, the result of straight-ticket voting is an unfair advantage for major political parties. For those states that have it, third-party candidates must work to overcome difficult ballot access laws to gain straight-party status. However, even if acquired, straight-ticket status does not help third parties that lack name recognition. In addition, independent candidates cannot qualify for straight-ticket status. Many voters who lack understanding of the voting process, often do not realize they have options other than straight-ticket voting. As of 2007, only 17 states still use straight-ticket voting in some form. It is time to eliminate straight-ticket voting as one step towards improving our democracy.
Burden for Third Parties
The seventeen states still using straight-party voting in some form are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. However, in order to qualify for straight-party status, third-party candidates must gain ballot status. Thereby, straight-ticket voting and ballot access laws are in many ways “two sides of the same coin” for third parties. They both work against allowing third parties a level playing field in the political process.
In Alabama minor parties must petition 3% of the last gubernatorial vote for the early June petition deadline. In 2006, 3% was equivalent to approximately 40,000 signatures. For third parties with few resources 40,000 signatures is a nearly impossible task. In 2004, other states with similar requirements for ballot status include North Carolina with 69,734 signatures, Texas with 43,991 signatures and Rhode Island with 18,557 signatures. In addition to signatures, many states also require third parties to maintain a percentage of the vote for every Presidential and/or Gubernatorial races in order to keep their status.
The daunting organizational efforts and tremendous resources required to achieve initial signatures and maintain the required percentage of votes for ballot access – and straight-party status – are too often unavailable to third parties. Eliminating straight-ticket voting would improve the democratic process by helping to shift the focus away from party status to individual candidates.
Marginalization
Should a third party overcome ballot status obstacles and acquire straight-ticket status, it is of little benefit. Due to lack of name recognition and financial viability, a straight-ticket vote for a third party is an unfamiliar option. In addition, independent candidates are altogether shut out of the straight-ticket option as they cannot qualify for straight-ticket status.
Voters, like consumers, are influenced and attracted to familiar “brands” that are marketed to them, sometimes over many generations. This type of advertising requires financial resources that are beyond the means of smaller political organizations and most individuals. This money-oriented electoral climate discourages individuals from exploring alternative political choices. Whether as a candidate or voter, due to financial resources needed to effectively compete, we are left with what could be easily be characterized as a “democracy of dollars.”
The result is a marginalization of candidates and voters by effectively limiting what many would otherwise consider viable options. Straight-ticket voting is a form of political “branding” that undermines democracy.
Voter education
Voter education is fundamental to democracy. Yet “only three states have created separate state standards devoted solely to civic education,” and “a little over 24 percent of students tested [for civics knowledge] were able to achieve a proficient score.” First-time voters and those who lack an understanding of the voting process often do not realize their options.
Straight-ticket voting oversimplifies the voting process and discourages voters from examining candidates who do not belong to major political parties. “Top of the ticket” races of major parties receive the majority of media attention during election season. Straight-party votes cast with top of the ticket races in mind influence voters to overlook bottom of the ticket races. This gives an unfair advantage to those running for local office who are affiliated with the major party. Many voters go to the polls unaware of third party or independent voting options and are therefore denied those options.
Straight-ticket voting is typically the first choice on a state’s official election ballot. It does not empower the voter or encourage them to understand the importance of each office and each race; instead it oversimplifies and degrades the voting process.
Conclusion
Straight-party voting allows voters to vote for all candidate of a single political party. Like ballot access laws, straight-ticket voting only serves to give an unfair advantage to major parties with greater name recognition and resources. In addition, voters unaware of the voting process often do not realize they have options beyond the oversimplified straight-party option. The elimination of straight-ticket voting is one more step towards improving our democracy.
Other information:
Letter to the editor: “Straight-ticket voting doomed my run”, Providence Journal April 26, 2007
“Ballot Access News,” March 21, 2007, Richard Winger, Ed.
Libertarian Party Ballot Access Report & Ballot Access News
Center for Civic Education
National Assessment of Educational Progress, “The Nation’s Report Card: Civics 2006”q
