[In Missouri,] One-party (straight ticket) vote no longer an option

[NHPolitico]

One-party vote no longer an option

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats won the straight ticket battle by 10% two years ago. This is something to watch. It might really only affect lower ballot races, but who knows. Could be just enough voters to give Talent a narrow win.

[Eraserhead]

This is totally absurd.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only reason the Democrats got more is probably because of black voters. Should have no effect, now those people just vote Democratic on every race, no difference. They're obviously not going to vote for Talent.

[Nym90]

I support the straight ballot option. I see no reason to force voters to check every candidate if they indeed want to vote for all candidates of the same party. It also reduces the odds of an error or a mistake in the counting of the vote since voters only have to darken one circle or punch one hole instead of 35 seperate ones.

[NHPolitico]

The only reason the Democrats got more is probably because of black voters. Should have no effect, now those people just vote Democratic on every race, no difference. They're obviously not going to vote for Talent.

Black voters have a higher share of spoiled ballots every election than white voters. If they can't vote straight ticket, you'll have more instances of "no" votes. I wasn't suggesting these voters would vote for Talent.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

As someone for whom straight-ticket voting might be more convienent ... I support what Missouri has done and strongly oppose the option.

I might vote Republican in virtually every election, but I cherish the right and responsibility to choose each person for each office for which I am entitled to be an elector.  A voter should have to review and select each person that they are voting for.

This is America.  We vote for the man or woman who holds an office, not a political party.  The straight ticket voting option is a relic of the past, of dirty machine politics.  Welcome to democracy, Missouri.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only reason the Democrats got more is probably because of black voters. Should have no effect, now those people just vote Democratic on every race, no difference. They're obviously not going to vote for Talent.

Black voters have a higher share of spoiled ballots every election than white voters. If they can't vote straight ticket, you'll have more instances of "no" votes. I wasn't suggesting these voters would vote for Talent.

Actually, this change might reduce the number of spoiled ballots in Missouri depending on how their straight party voting law worked.  In some jurisdictions, if you cast both a party-line vote and a vote for an individual candidate, it's treated as a null vote.  South Carolina at least is not that bone-headed.  Here if you do both, the choice made on the individual race gets counted if you do both, which makes it convienient if you intend to vote a mostly straight-party ticket with a few exceptions here and there.  Our bit of boneheadedness comes from the quirk Presidential ballot is not part of the straight ticket option.

[Nym90]

As someone for whom straight-ticket voting might be more convienent ... I support what Missouri has done and strongly oppose the option.

I might vote Republican in virtually every election, but I cherish the right and responsibility to choose each person for each office for which I am entitled to be an elector.  A voter should have to review and select each person that they are voting for.

This is America.  We vote for the man or woman who holds an office, not a political party.  The straight ticket voting option is a relic of the past, of dirty machine politics.  Welcome to democracy, Missouri.

I still fail to see how it helps democracy to take choices away from the voters. You most certanily still have the right and responsibilty to choose each person for each office; allowing the option of a straight ticket vote doesn't take that away from you. If we started requiring everyone to cast a straight ticket vote and didn't allow voters to cast a split ticket, you'd have a point. I don't see anyone advocating that.

As a matter of general principle I also don't think that in a democracy we should be dictating why or how people should be voting. I agree that overt partisanship and mindlessly voting a straight ticket option are something that should be strongly discouraged; no argument on that point at all. But not by ostensibly making it more difficult to do so; I don't support decreasing the choices available to the voters in a ham-fisted attempt to get them to vote the way we in our infinite wisdom feel they "should" be voting.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I still fail to see how it helps democracy to take choices away from the voters.

Take choice away from the voters?  Should we have a button on each machine that allows voters to vote a straight male or female ticket?  How about a button that lets people vote for everybody whose name begins with an L.  In Memphis, it might be helpful for the "choice" of voters to have a button that casts ballots for all members of the Ford family.

Partisanship is a fabrication of our political system.  I have no problem with partisan primaries or party affiliations being listed on the ballot.  However, having a lever or button that automatically casts ballots for all candidates of a certain political party is a bridge too far. 

Having a straight-party option can also lead to voter intimidation.  Choosing candidates in each race can take a few minutes.  A husband could accuse a wife of "taking too long to vote" if they didn't just press the quick Dem or Rep button.

Every office in each election is separate, special and unique.  Voters should be responsible for making their selection separately for each office that they are entitled to vote for.

[RBH]

The guy who took away straight-ticket balloting (State Sen. Delbert Scott) is facing an Independent opponent who has outspent him so far. (That candidate has spent around $200K, mostly from his own funds. Scott has spent $40K).

With straight ticket, Democrats would have voted straight Democrat, registering no vote in Scott's race.

This year, they're more likely to just vote for the Independent candidate. Therefore giving him a good scare.