DOCSLIB.ORG

Straight Ticket Voting in Texas, 1998-2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Straight Ticket Voting in Texas, 1998-2008 REPORT #3 STUDIES OF POLITICAL STATISTICS: STRAIGHT TICKET VOTING IN TEXAS, 1998-2008 PRESENTED BY ACC PROFESSOR LARRY WILLOUGHBY ON BEHALF OF THE ACC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY & POLITICAL STUDIES DECEMBER 2008 ACC Center for Public Policy & Political Studies: Office of External Affairs 5930 Middle Fiskville Road, Suite 414 ● Austin, TX 78752 ● 512-223-7069 (O) ● 512-223-7210 (F) www.austincc.edu/cppps (Web site) [email protected] (Email) William “Peck” Young, Director SUMMARY OF STRAIGHT TICKET VOTING IN TEXAS 1998-2008 REPORT The following is the third of multiple studies, presentations, and reports that have been and will be conducted by the students and faculty of the Austin Community College Center for Public Policy & Political Studies. Periodically, we conduct non-partisan analytical studies of political statistics (e.g. election results, voter registration, turnout patterns, etc.) to see what these studies reveal about political processes in Texas, and the Austin political community specifically. Associate Professor of History Larry Willoughby prepared this report, with the assistance of Center for Public Policy and Political Studies staff. The maps were prepared by ACC student Rhonda Roundy. This statistical political study is an analysis of straight ticket voting in the Texas elections of 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. “Straight ticket” voting occurs when a voter casts a ballot for all candidates within a party line, e.g., all Democratic or all Republican candidates. The ACC Center for Public Policy and Political Studies (the “Center”) will use the information to observe voting patterns and political trends in Texas. Center staff gathered the data for counties constituting 83% of the total votes for the 2008 General Election. This information was combined with archival data (1998 to 2006) to compile this report. The data and analysis supports the following conclusions: 1. Contrary to expectations, straight ticket voting reached a ten-year high at 57.59% of all votes cast. This exceeded the previous record high in 2004 of 55.55%. 2. Republicans won the straight ticket vote as they have for ten years. However, the Republicans won the straight ticket vote by the smallest margin in 10 years, receiving 50.28% to 48.99% for the Democrats. 3. With only 1.29 percentage points separating the two parties in straight ticket voting, the Republicans margin of victory in the Presidential and U.S. Senate races came by winning the swing (non-straight ticket) vote overwhelmingly. In the Presidential election, the margin among swing voters was 63.1%-36.9%. In the U.S.Senate race, the margin among swing voters for the GOP was 63.9%-36.1%. 4. The good news for the Democrats was that in the nine counties that represented 54.32% of all votes, straight ticket voting represented 59.83% of all votes cast and Democrats won straight ticket voting in these nine counties 52.73% to 46.45% for the GOP. Democrats also won six of these nine counties. These counties were Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Travis, Fort Bend, and El Paso. 5. Finally, of the 21 counties that represent 70% of all votes cast, straight ticket voting represented 57.07% of all votes cast and Democrats won 51.41% of this straight ticket vote to 47.89% for the Republicans. Apparently, at least for this election cycle, straight ticket voting was a majority of the votes cast, but was so evenly divided, it by itself was not decisive. The Republican victory in 2008 came not from control of straight ticket voting, but of swing voting. Report 3 Studies of Political Statistics: STRAIGHT TICKET VOTING IN TEXAS 1998-2008 FOCUS of STUDY – This statistical political study is an analysis of straight ticket voting in the Texas elections of 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Information gathered has enabled the ACC Center for Public Policy and Political Studies to observe voting patterns and possible political trends in Texas among straight ticket voters. METHODOLOGY - Data for these six elections was compiled from Texas county voting statistics. County officials were contacted until sufficient response represented 83% of total votes cast statewide in Presidential races. The inquiries started with a list of counties from largest to smallest. For the elections from 1998 to 2004, data came from the archives of the director of this center. For the 2006 election, four Austin Community College students (Brad Burnett, Elise Swaving, Anastassia Travina, and Josh Whitcomb) contacted county officials and compiled statistics that represented 73% of the total votes cast throughout Texas. The students asked for the number of total ballots cast in the county, the total straight ticket Republican votes, the total straight ticket Democratic votes, and the total straight ticket Libertarian (or other) votes. The data was obtained verbally over the phone or was taken from a website provided by county officials. For the 2008 election, ACC staffer Maxine Kaplan obtained all the data. Most of the information was obtained from web sites, with some acquired through verbal surveys over the phone. In total, data for this report was compiled from phone surveys, web site reports, and the archives of the director of this center. Findings and Analysis: I. Before the November 2008 General election, pundits expected a record turnout in Texas of young, minority and first time voters. As a result, the experts expected a drop in straight ticket voting because they felt that these new voters would vote for one or more individuals, but not for a Party or “brand.” Therefore, the logic was that although many first time voters would be Democratic, Republicans could still expect to hold a safe edge in straight ticket voting statewide. Only the record turnout prediction of this projection proved to be true. Based on an analysis of 47 counties, which represents 83% of all the votes cast for President in Texas in 2008: • There was a record turnout of 59.5% • Straight ticket voting represented 57.59% of all votes cast. That is higher than the previous high of 55.55% in 2004. • The Republicans won straight ticket voting (s.t.voting), but by the smallest margin since this analysis began in 1998. The GOP received 50.28% of the s.t. vote, while Democrats received 48.99% of the s.t. vote in 2008. In summary, in 2008 in Texas, more people than ever voted, the largest percentage ever voted straight ticket, and the Republicans got the lowest percentage of straight ticket votes in the 10 years of this analysis. II. In the last three Texas General elections, nine counties have made up between 51-54% of the total vote: Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Collin, Denton, Fort Bend and El Paso. In 2004, these counties represented 52.93% of the total vote. • In 2004, straight ticket voting represented 60.97% of total votes cast and Republicans won 54.43% of the s.t.vote. Democrats won 45.57% of the s.t.vote. • In 2006, straight ticket voting represented 48.29% of total votes cast in a four- way Governors race, but Democrats narrowly won the 2006 s.t.vote with 49.45% of the votes compared to 49.39% for the GOP. • In 2008, these nine counties represented 54.32% of the total vote. In 2008, their straight ticket votes were won by the Democrats - 52.73% to 46.45% for the Republicans, indicating an acceleration of the trend that began in 2006. Further, straight ticket votes represented 59.83% of total votes cast, which was higher than the statewide level. • Lastly, the Democrats won the s.t. vote in six of the top nine counties. In ‘04, Democrats won three. In ’06, Democrats won the same six counties, but by smaller margins. III. In 2008, only 21 counties in Texas represent 70% of the total votes cast. These counties, in order of turnout size are: Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, El Paso, Williamson, Montgomery, Hidalgo, Brazoria, Galveston, Nueces, Lubbock, Bell, Jefferson, McLennan, Smith, Cameron. Among these results, the Center found some interesting patterns: • In these counties, straight ticket votes represented 57.07% of total votes cast. • Here again, unlike statewide, the Democrats won 51.41% of s.t. votes to 47.89% for the Republicans and .7% for the Libertarians. • Democrats won the s.t. vote in 10 of these twenty-one counties including the six they won of the top nine. IV. Though the straight ticket vote was divided between the two major parties by 1.3 percentage points, the Republicans won the straight ticket swing vote with 63%+ in both the Presidential and U.S. Senate races. • The Democrats lost the straight ticket vote by the narrowest margin in the ten years of this study. • In the Presidential Election, the Republicans won the swing (non-straight ticket) vote with 63.1% to 36.9% for Democrats. • The Republicans in the U.S. Senate Election won the swing vote by 63.9% to 39.1% for Democrats. • In short, in Texas in 2008, the swing voter belonged to the Republicans statewide. Straight Ticket Voting Percentages in Texas since 1998 YEAR S.T.% OF TBC GOP% OF S.T. DEMO% OF S.T. 1998 47.60% 52.68% 46.61% 2000 49% 51% 49% 2002 49.60% 52% 48% 2004 55.55% 57% 43% 2006 45.04% 51.33% 47.44% 2008 57.59% 50.28% 48.99% Presidential Elections Only YEAR S.T.% OF TBC GOP% OF S.T. DEMO% OF S.T. 2000 49% 51% 49% 2004 55.55% 57% 43% 2008 57.59% 50.28 48.99% Legend: S.T.% of TBC Percentage of Straight Ticket Votes of Total Votes Cast GOP% of S.T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21St Century
    This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting — © 2004 Bev Harris Rights reserved to Talion Publishing/ Black Box Voting ISBN 1-890916-90-0. You can purchase copies of this book at www.Amazon.com. Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century By Bev Harris Talion Publishing / Black Box Voting This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Contents © 2004 by Bev Harris ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Jan. 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever except as provided for by U.S. copyright law. For information on this book and the investigation into the voting machine industry, please go to: www.blackboxvoting.org Black Box Voting 330 SW 43rd St PMB K-547 • Renton, WA • 98055 Fax: 425-228-3965 • [email protected] • Tel. 425-228-7131 This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting © 2004 Bev Harris • ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Dedication First of all, thank you Lord. I dedicate this work to my husband, Sonny, my rock and my mentor, who tolerated being ignored and bored and galled by this thing every day for a year, and without fail, stood fast with affection and support and encouragement. He must be nuts. And to my father, who fought and took a hit in Germany, who lived through Hitler and saw first-hand what can happen when a country gets suckered out of democracy. And to my sweet mother, whose an- cestors hosted a stop on the Underground Railroad, who gets that disapproving look on her face when people don’t do the right thing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decline in Ticket Splitting and the Increasing Salience of Party Labels
    A Decline in Ticket Splitting and The Increasing Salience of Party Labels David C. Kimball University of Missouri-St. Louis Department of Political Science St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 [email protected] forthcoming in Models of Voting in Presidential Elections: The 2000 Elections, Herbert F. Weisberg and Clyde Wilcox, eds. Stanford University Press. Thanks to Laura Arnold, Brady Baybeck, Barry Burden, Paul Goren, Tim Johnson, Bryan Marshall, Rich Pacelle, Rich Timpone, Herb Weisberg and Clyde Wilcox for comments. The voice of the people is but an echo chamber. The output of an echo chamber bears an inevitable and invariable relation to the input. As candidates and parties clamor for attention and vie for popular support, the people's verdict can be no more than a selective reflection from among the alternatives and outlooks presented to them. (Key 1966, p. 2) Split party control of the executive and legislative branches has been a defining feature of American national politics for more than thirty years, the longest period of frequent divided government in American history. Even when voters failed to produce a divided national government in the 2000 elections, the party defection of a lone U.S. senator (former Republican James Jeffords of Vermont) created yet another divided national government. In addition, the extremely close competitive balance between the two major parties means that ticket splitters often determine which party controls each branch of government. These features of American politics have stimulated a lot of theorizing about the causes of split-ticket voting. In recent years, the presence of divided government and relatively high levels of split ticket voting are commonly cited as evidence of an electorate that has moved beyond party labels (Wattenberg 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the MIDDLE DISTRICT of NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE of WOMEN VOTERS of NORTH CAROLINA, Et Al
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-660 RULE 26(A)(2)(B) EXPERT v. REPORT AND DECLARATION OF THEODORE T. ALLEN, PhD THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION 1. I have been retained by Plaintiffs’ Counsel as an expert witness in the above- captioned case. Plaintiffs’ Counsel requested that I offer my opinions as to: (1) whether HB 589, if it had been in effect in the most recent general election in North Carolina, would have caused longer lines at polling places and longer average waiting times to vote; and (2) the possible effect of such waiting times, if any, on voter turnout. As explained below, I conclude that eliminating seven days of early voting before the 2012 election would have caused waiting times to vote on Election Day in North Carolina to increase substantially, from a low-end estimate of an average of 27 minutes, to a worst-case scenario of an average of 180 minutes of waiting. Moreover, I further conclude that, as a result of longer lines, a significant number of voters would have been deterred from voting on Election Day in 2012 (with a conservative estimate of several thousand). Finally, I conclude that, barring some additional changes to the law or to the resources allocated to polling places, HB 589’s reductions to early voting are likely to result in longer average waiting times to vote in future elections.
    [Show full text]
  • The Many Faces of Strategic Voting
    Revised Pages The Many Faces of Strategic Voting Strategic voting is classically defined as voting for one’s second pre- ferred option to prevent one’s least preferred option from winning when one’s first preference has no chance. Voters want their votes to be effective, and casting a ballot that will have no influence on an election is undesirable. Thus, some voters cast strategic ballots when they decide that doing so is useful. This edited volume includes case studies of strategic voting behavior in Israel, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom, providing a conceptual framework for understanding strategic voting behavior in all types of electoral systems. The classic definition explicitly considers strategic voting in a single race with at least three candidates and a single winner. This situation is more com- mon in electoral systems that have single- member districts that employ plurality or majoritarian electoral rules and have multiparty systems. Indeed, much of the literature on strategic voting to date has considered elections in Canada and the United Kingdom. This book contributes to a more general understanding of strategic voting behavior by tak- ing into account a wide variety of institutional contexts, such as single transferable vote rules, proportional representation, two- round elec- tions, and mixed electoral systems. Laura B. Stephenson is Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario. John Aldrich is Pfizer- Pratt University Professor of Political Science at Duke University. André Blais is Professor of Political Science at the Université de Montréal. Revised Pages Revised Pages THE MANY FACES OF STRATEGIC VOTING Tactical Behavior in Electoral Systems Around the World Edited by Laura B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Party Ticket States
    Voting Viva Voce UNLOCKING THE SOCIAL LOGIC OF PAST POLITICS How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States DONALD A. DEBATS sociallogic.iath.virginia.edu How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States | Donald A. DeBats 1 Public Voting How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States by The alternative to oral voting was the party-produced ticket system that slowly Donald A. DeBats, PhD came to dominate the American political landscape. In states not using viva voce voting, political parties produced their preferred list of candidates and made Residential Fellow, Virginia Foundation for that list available to voters as a printed “ticket” distributed at each polling the Humanities, place on Election Day. Before Election Day, facsimiles of party tickets appeared University of Virginia in the party-run newspapers. Increasingly often, tickets were mailed to likely Head, American Studies, supporters to remind them of the party’s candidates and how to vote when Flinders University, Australia they came to the polls. The voter came forward from the throng and joined a line or ascended a platform where he was publicly and officially identified, just as in a viva voce election. But instead of reading or reciting a list of names he held out the party-produced Cover and opposite These three Republican Party tickets are from the years of the Civil War and reflect the Party’s rise in the states of the Old Northwest and the far West. All three tickets are brightly colored and are strongly associated with the preservation of the Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstention in the Time of Ferguson Contents
    ABSTENTION IN THE TIME OF FERGUSON Fred O. Smith, Jr. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2284 I. OUR FEDERALISM FROM YOUNG TO YOUNGER ........................................................ 2289 A. Our Reconstructed Federalism ...................................................................................... 2290 B. Our Reinvigorated Federalism ...................................................................................... 2293 C. Our Reparable Federalism: Younger’s Safety Valves .................................................. 2296 1. Bad Faith ................................................................................................................... 2297 2. Bias .............................................................................................................................. 2300 3. Timeliness ................................................................................................................... 2301 4. Patent Unconstitutionality ....................................................................................... 2302 D. Our Emerging “Systemic” Exception? ......................................................................... 2303 II. OUR FERGUSON IN THE TIME OF OUR FEDERALISM ............................................. 2305 A. Rigid Post-Arrest Bail .................................................................................................... 2308 B. Incentivized Incarceration............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Truth Validation of Survey Estimates of Split-Ticket Voting With
    Ground Truth Validation of Survey Estimates of Split-Ticket Voting with Cast Vote Records Data∗ Alexander Agadjaniany Jonathan Robinsonz August 26, 2019 Abstract From signaling trends in nationalization and partisanship to clarifying preferences for divided government, split-ticket voting has received copious attention in political sci- ence. Important insights often rely on survey data, as they do among practitioners searching for persuadable voters. Yet it is unknown whether surveys accurately capture this behavior. We take advantage of a novel source of data to validate survey-based estimates of split-ticket voting. Cast vote records in South Carolina (2010-18) and Maryland (2016-18) provide anonymized individual level choices in all races on the ballot for every voter in each election, serving as the ground truth. We collect an array of public and private survey data to execute the comparison and calculate survey error. Despite expectations about partisan consistency pressures leading to survey underesti- mates, we find that surveys generally come close to the true split-ticket voting rates in our set of races. Accuracy varies, but notably is more consistent for split-ticket voting in a given dyad of national races (e.g., President vs. U.S. House) than in one with state races, as the former is often of greater interest in research and practice. ∗Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Wash- ington, DC, August 29 { September 1, 2019. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2019 American Association for Public Opinion Research Conference (Toronto, Canada) on May 17, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting System Failures: a Database Solution
    B R E N N A N CENTER FOR JUSTICE voting system failures: a database solution Lawrence Norden Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law about the brennan center for justice The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communication to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. about the brennan center’s voting rights and elections project The Brennan Center promotes policies that protect rights, equal electoral access, and increased political participation on the national, state and local levels. The Voting Rights and Elections Project works to expend the franchise, to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote, and to ensure that every vote cast is accurately recorded and counted. The Center’s staff provides top-flight legal and policy assistance on a broad range of election administration issues, including voter registration systems, voting technology, voter identification, statewide voter registration list maintenance, and provisional ballots. The Help America Vote Act in 2002 required states to replace antiquated voting machines with new electronic voting systems, but jurisdictions had little guidance on how to evaluate new voting technology. The Center convened four panels of experts, who conducted the first comprehensive analyses of electronic voting systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions for Voting a Paper Ballot by Mail
    Instructions for Voting a Paper Ballot by Mail Marking your Ballot: Mark your ballot with a pen. Mark your choices clearly with an "X". The instructions below the title of each office on the ballot will tell you how many people you may choose for that office. Voting a Write-In Candidate: To vote for an official write-in candidate, print the name of the candidate in the space provided (the blank line above the phrase “Write-In, If Any). You may request the list of write-in candidates from your county clerk. Straight Party Voting: If you vote a straight party ticket in the General Election and choose a candidate of a different political party, that vote will override your straight party vote for that office. If you choose a candidate of a different political party for an office that asks you to vote for more than one candidate, vote for each of your choices for that office because your straight ticket vote will no longer count for that office. When you finish marking your ballot: 1. Fold your ballot, place it in the envelope marked No. 1, and seal the envelope. Note: Do not remove the stub from your ballot. 2. Place the sealed envelope No. 1 (containing your ballot) inside of envelope marked No. 2 and seal envelope No. 2. 3. Complete and sign the top section of the form on envelope No. 2, titled “Voter: Complete and Sign the Following.” 4. On the other side of envelope No. 2, next to the county clerk's address, sign your name across the seal of the envelope - this protects the security of your absentee ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • SYNOPSIS Black Box Voting Has Filed a Formal Letter of Complaint and Request for Investigation with the United States Dept
    330 SW 43 rd St Suite K – PMB 547 Renton WA 98057 A national 501c(3) nonpartisan nonprofit SYNOPSIS Black Box Voting has filed a formal letter of complaint and request for investigation with the United States Dept. of Justice Office of Antitrust and with the Federal Trade Commission. CONTENTS: 1. THE COMPANIES 2. MONOPOLY MAP 3. HORIZONTAL MONOPOLY: HERFINDAHL INDEX 4. VERTICAL MONOPOLY: a. MONOPOLIZATION AND CONCEALMENT OF ESSENTIAL PROCESSES FROM END TO END b. VERTICAL MONOPOLIZATION THROUGH LOCK-INS FOR SERVICES AND PRODUCTS 5. OUR RESEARCH SHOWS A PAST HISTORY OF ANTICOMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR 6. REGULATORY AND COST OF CERTIFICATION STRUCTURE AFFECTS ANTICOMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT 7. THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, THE TECHNICAL GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, AND PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION 8. REVOLVING DOOR BETWEEN REGULATORS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND VENDOR PERSONNEL 9. ACTUAL OWNERSHIP NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND DISCLOSED 10. HISTORY OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES: EXAMPLES 12. HISTORY OF THE EFFECT OF LACK OF COMPETITION: LOW QUALITY, SLOWDOWNS, POTENTIAL SHUTDOWN OF ELECTIONS 13. COMPLAINT THAT THIS ACQUISITION IS A MONOPOLY, SHOULD BE PROHIBITED UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT, TITLE 15 U.S.C. § 1-27 et. al. APPENDIX A: PARTIAL UNRAVELING OF OWNERSHIP TRAIL ON ES&S This research is the culmination of seven years of work by Bev Harris and the Black Box Voting team. We also collaborated with Florida Fair Elections Coalition, a former DoJ investigator, voting rights scholar Paul Lehto, the Election Defense Alliance and others in preparing the evidence. The Honorable Eric Holder Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C. 20530 Letter of Complaint - Request for Investigation Re: Federal antitrust concerns Asserted under the Clayton Act, Title 15 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Straight Ticket, Split Ticket and Mixed Ticket Voting
    Options for Straight Ticket, Split Ticket and Mixed Ticket Voting Michigan is one of a few states that allow voters to vote “straight ticket” in a General Election, which means voters may fill in one oval or box next to a party name to cast a vote for every candidate of that political party. Michigan also allows for voters to select the straight party option but then cast votes for individual candidates of a different party (“split ticket”). In the November Election, voters have the following options: “Straight Ticket” Voting: Voters may vote in the straight party race and select the party of their choosing - this will award votes up to the maximum allowed (and maximum candidates available) for each partisan race for the voter’s chosen party. The candidates receive “indirect votes” based on the voter’s single straight-party ballot selection. For example: Casting a vote for the Ice Cream Party in the straight party race will indirectly cast a vote for all candidates running under that party to the maximum allowed for each race in which the party is participating. If there are any races in which the Ice Cream Party is not participating, no votes will be cast in that race. If the voter wishes to vote in any non- partisan races and proposals, the voter must make selections in these races separately. “Split Ticket” Voting: Voters may vote in the straight party race and select the party of their choosing, but then vote directly in an individual race (or multiple individual races) by directly voting for a candidate from a different party, voting for a candidate with no party affiliation, or casting a write-in vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems
    Strategic Ticket Splitting 259 ROBERT G. MOSER University of Texas at Austin ETHAN SCHEINER Stanford University and University of California, Davis Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems This article examines ticket splitting in five different mixed-member electoral systems—Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Lithuania, and Russia—and indicates the shortcomings inherent in any analysis of such ticket splitting that does not take into account the presence of the personal vote. We find that the personal vote plays a central part in shaping ticket splitting in all of our cases except for Germany, a heavily party-oriented system in which we find evidence of only a weak personal vote but evidence of substantial strategic voting. Mixed-member electoral systems have gained substantial attention as growing numbers of states have adopted systems that provide voters with two ballots in elections for legislative office—one for a party list in a proportional representation (PR) tier and one for a candidate in a single-member district (SMD) tier (see, for example, Massicotte and Blais 1999; Moser 2001; and Shugart and Wattenberg 2001). Analysis of strategic voting in such systems is particularly well established in the literature. Scholars cite ticket splitting, in which voters cast a greater number of votes for large parties in the SMD tier than in the PR tier and, conversely, a smaller number of votes for minor parties in the SMD tier, as evidence that voters react strategically to electoral rules that tend to deny representation to minor parties.1 Yet such analyses often do not account sufficiently for another factor that can drive ticket splitting: the personal vote, defined here as additional SMD votes cast for a candidate due to the candidate’s personal appeal to voters rather than his or her strategic behavior.
    [Show full text]