Straight Ticket Voting

STRAIGHT TICKET VOTING can refer to both individuals' behavior, and an institutional feature of elections designed to simplify the process of voting. As a behavior, straight ticket voting refers to the propensity of an individual to cast all votes on a ballot for candidates from the same party. As an institutional feature, several states have, and continue to offer voters, the option to cast just one party vote that would apply to all races in the election. As of 2007, the following 13 states present voters with the straight ticket option in all elections: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. New Jersey restricts straight ticket voting to primary elections. Rhode Island is the opposite, allowing straight ticket voting only in general elections. Finally, North Carolina and Wisconsin allow straight ticket voting in all elections except those for president.

Straight ticket voting, despite its accessibility as a ballot feature in the states listed, is far more significant as a behavior. Even if all states were to do away with the straight ticket voting option, many voters who make use of it now would simply cast individual ballots for members of the same party. For both the behavior or [Page 768]the institution, it is important to know what drives individuals to select all members from the same party even if listed in other ways, or select the straight ticket option where available. There are two important individual characteristics that influence straight ticket voting: partisanship and sophistication. Partisanship can be simply defined as a psychological attachment to a political party. As typically measured, partisanship has two distinguishing characteristics. Direction refers to whether the individual considers him or herself a Democrat or Republican, whereas Independent is considered the absence of direction. Intensity categorizes the strength of attachment to the party label. As partisan intensity increases, there is more likelihood of straight ticket voting behavior. Simply, as one's attachment to a political party increases, one is more willing to vote for every candidate representing that party. Sophistication has the opposite effect from partisanship. As sophistication increases, a voter is expected to be more knowledgeable about politics and the candidates, and less reliant on party labels as cues to perceived proper behavior.

As an electoral behavior, straight ticket voting refers to the propensity of an individual to cast all votes on an election ballot for candidates from the same political party.

Institutionally, there has been increasing resistance to straight ticket voting. Since 1994, four states have successfully abolished the institutional practice of straight ticket voting: Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and South Dakota. Michigan attempted to abolish the practice by law in 2001, but the law was repealed in 2002 by statewide balloting. Proponents of the option believe that it increases turnout by providing individuals with an easier means of participating in elections and by making lines at precincts move more quickly. Those who oppose straight ticket voting argue that it promotes decreased responsibility among voters for becoming knowledgeable about issues and candidates. Additionally, it may limit electoral choice by [Page 769]disadvantaging Independent and third-party candidates. If the situation in Michigan is a bellwether to public opinion regarding straight ticket voting options, voters appear to prefer having the alternative available on the ballot, despite objections from elected state officials.

...