Texas State House member Joe Straus, Jr. (R-San Antonio) has just introduced a bill to abolish the straight-ticket device on general election ballots. There is no bill number yet. Republicans still have a majority in each house of the legislature, but it is not known if the Republican Party of Texas will support the bill. This news story about the bill says that almost half the voters of Bexar County (San Antonio’s County) used the straight-ticket device last week, and the article also says that 56% of the voters who used the device last week in Bexar County chose the Democratic Party’s device.
States that have abolished the straight-ticket device recently include New Hampshire, Illinois, and Missouri. Apparently 17 states, including Texas, still have them. Straight-ticket devices make it possible for voters to vote for all partisan offices without even looking at any part of the ballot except the very top. The devices are especially injurious to independent candidates. Thanks to Art DiBianca for the link.
This story is a reminder that bills are already being introduced in the Texas legislature for the 2009 session, and that ballot access reformers must act quickly if they are to get a ballot access bill introduced.
High on my ballot reform agenda is the right to coalition through fusion tickets. I see the Straight Ticket Voter as the key in challenges to obtain this through court ruling and straight ticket devices strengthen this argument. While they’re still in use we need to build some challenges on fusion ticket restriction based on the voting rights of the straight ticket voter. If I’m an LP/GP/CP supporter in a fusion restricted state and the LP/GP/CP supports one of the major parties candidates in that race, by voting straight ticket my vote has been lost if that candidate is not on the LP/GP/CP row.
Or maybe the system just needs to be improved a little? How about straight-jacket voting… Although tied up, you only have two buttons to choose from and you can peck at it with your nose. The possible savings in technology cost could be reinvested in giving corn-nuts as rewards to voters.
Straight ticket voting is just lazy, and furthers the misleading notion that party affiliation is sufficient to make a decision.
Thanks – very interesting.
An attempt to make it harder to zombie-vote? I like it!
John Karr, you are either stupid [Room Temperature IQ?], misled /illogical, or an agent provacatuer!
In a perfect world term limits, straight line tickets [very popular in the 1830s] and IRV are valuable, positive elements. But the 21st Century American political scene cries out for more imput from the non Dems and non GOP. It is so important that it over rides the other element[s]!
Get rid of it! In a lot of places that use electronic voting machines, it makes it less likely for your vote to be counted, and it adds to the confusion of some voters.
In Texas there are many races with only one major party candidate being challenged by a Libertarian candidate. Ending the straight-ticket voting device will help down ballot Libertarians get votes from major party voters who don’t have their own candidate in a given race.
This is great news. I really hope this passes. Next I’d like to see all party affiliations removed from the ballot. Removing straight-ticket voting won’t really make people vote smarter, it’ll just take them longer to make the wrong choices.
the texas legislature is not currently in session, so this bill could not have been introduced.
#9: Did you read the last paragraph of the post above?
LP/GP/CP ????
While Grand Canyon sized philosophical differences exist in Open Borders and or Religion in Secular Admininstration ?????
Not in my life time!
This is interesting reading.
In the new year I plan to writing my State legislators about how NC (I live there) separates straight ticket voting from the Presidential race. I think this is dumb.
In Texas, straight ticket voting has caused problems on electronic voting devices. In Texas, you can override a straight ticket vote on individual races; and you can also vote for a candidate of your selected party to “emphasize” your support. If there is no candidate from your party in a particular race, and you make individual candidate for that race you have undervoted.
With a paper ballot, the voter is responsible for making sure that they didn’t make a mistake, such as overvoting, or skipping a race unintentionally, or not understanding how straight ticket worked. If they make a mistake, they can either try to correct it – and hope the election clerk interprets their marks in the way they intended, or get a fresh ballot.
With an electronic voting device, it is expected that the device will help prevent voter mistakes.
For example, it can prevent overvotes. If you make a second choice, then your vote can be switched. If you select a candidate a second time, your vote is cancelled. You can be guided through all races (I could vote in about 55), and then present a summary of your votes.
But if a voter votes a straight ticket, and a party doesn’t have a candidate for a particular race, then the summary will show the race as having been skipped. To a victim, “the computer lost my vote”. With a paper ballot, a voter could simply mark the party box, and walk out of the voting booth oblivious to having skipped some races that their selected party did not contest.
Or a voter might expect that if they voted straight ticket, that the device would show them as having voted for all candidates of a party. So if they vote a Democrat straight ticket, they might expect Obama and Noriega to be highlighted. Otherwise to a victim, “The computer lost my vote”. But with a paper ballot, you would not expect a giant arm to grab your hand and force you to mark X’s next to all the party candidates – even if that were what you really wanted your ballot to indicate.
But then if a voter votes a straight ticket, and clicks on a candidate’s name, what do they mean?
Let’s say that someone votes a Democrat ticket, and Obama is automatically highlighted.
If they click on McCain, they mean to override their party line vote, and the Obama vote can be un-highlighted.
But what if they click on Obama? If they hadn’t voted a straight ticket, it would mean that they were erasing their vote for that office – a deliberate undervote.
But when they voted a Democratic straight ticket, does it mean that they really liked Obama and wanted to emphasize that point – or liked all Democrats but Obama? It is ambiguous.
And if you can’t de-select a candidate by selecting them again, how can you deliberately undervote? Have an explicit, none of these candidates for every race, and have that pre-selected?
And what happens if a different party is selected after the voter has made a candidate selection in some races?
And even the summary screen may confuse voters.
If it says:
Straight Party: None selected.
County Dogcatcher: None selected.
Aren’t they equally suggestive of a possible mistake, or an unintended undervote?
So it may be possible that there is no good implementation of straight ticket voting on electronic devices.
It may also be obvious to a pollwatcher whether a voter has voted a straight ticket because of the amount of time they spent in the polling booth, infringing on the right to a secret ballot.
Since a voter can easily effect a vote for every candidate of his party, there is no need for a straight ticket device.