Sunday, May 08, 2011

Abolish "Straight-Ticket"? Why??

Now here's a journalist who actually 'journals'!! That's Craig Gilbert, folks.

Yet it’s the GOP that is now poised to abolish straight-ticket voting, a longstanding feature of Wisconsin elections that lets voters choose a party’s entire slate of candidates instead of picking individual contestants race by race.

This bright idea comes from some guy in Bonduel. Not surprisingly, it's a very, very, very small town.

So what’s behind the move in Wisconsin to get rid of straight-ticket voting?

“There is no partisan angle to it,” said Craig Arrowood, aide to Gary Tauchen, the GOP state lawmaker from Bonduel who added the measure to the Assembly elections bill. Tauchen “wants people to consider the person, not the party."

Arrowood said Tauchen made a similar proposal several years ago, and views straight-ticket voting as an anachronism that puts pure partisanship ahead of the merits of individual candidates...

The Representative from Bonduel would like all of us to interview each candidate personally to get to know them.


Mark this page. Fred Kessler and I agree. KEEP straight-ticket voting as an option.


jimspice said...

What if I were tell you that (D)s are much more likely to vote a straight ticket? Would that change you mind? I'm sure this partisan consideration has nothing to do with WI(R)s taking this up.

Dad29 said...

Well, that's not the impression one gets by reading the newspaper article linked in the story.

Actually, it goes both ways, depending on the year.

See, Jim, there's a reason that the Republicans are called "The Stupid Party."

Anyhooo...I cherish the tradition, regardless of whom it may benefit.

jimspice said...

The academic literature suggests it is a MUCH more complicated issue than a simple perusal of a couple of counties in a couple of years in one state would illustrate appropriately. But your observation that "it goes both ways" is an apt one. Split ticket voting generally tends to favor the "in" party. So though it may work in favor of the (R)s in the short term, they may regret the decision down the road. And by the way, the literature generally agrees that once you control for a huge bunch of relevant voter, candidate and election characteristics, yes, disallowing straight party voting actually favors (D)s (thought the effect is not huge). I don't know, maybe WI-GOP employs actuaries who plugged in the numbers, and found that not to be the case in WI, but given (R) disdain for science and academia generally, I kind of doubt that.

Deekaman said...

Not really a disdain for science, just the academics who are bought and paid for by their government grants. Get the result the regime wants, get more money. There has been little "science" from academia for a very long time.

John Foust said...

Somewhere in the Constitution is says you have a right to vote for Parties, not People?

Anonymous said...

Representative Tauchen & Craig Arrowood are correct. You vote for the person. The stright-ticket option is more a thing of the past. If you are a person who still cares to vote as such, it is not difficult to check a couple/few extra boxes, honestly. Educate yourself, vote for the person. This comes along with the right to vote.

Dad29 said...

Politely, Anony, the representatives are wrong. This is another example of "If it works, change it, because change is good."

Wrong thesis, wrong application.

But I'll give you a counter-proposal. Have the representatives forgo Party affiliation (and money.)

After all, the voters will 'educate themselves,' right? So who needs Party money and connections?