Essay US-6 - 'Why do so many US voters 'split their ticket' when voting in presidential and congressional elections and what are the consequences of such behaviour?
Written by Gary Carter (March 2007)
Causes
Consequences
……………...
In US elections, there is a growing trend of voters ‘splitting their tickets’. This is indeed very different to how it was only forty years ago, when splitting tickets was very rare occurrence. It is important to examine the causes for this increasing trend and what the consequences for ‘splitting the ticket’ are.
What is ‘splitting the ticket’?
Splitting the ticket is where a voter will vote for one party for at one election, and will vote for another party for a different election, and both elections occur at the same time. The most highlighted of these occurrences are at the times when the presidential and congressional elections occur every four years. This can also occur at state levels with the state legislatures and governors and when state elections and federal elections cross over. This phenomenon has increased in recent years.
Causes of ‘Splitting the Ticket’
There are many causes for why splitting tickets occurs. The first is the fact that the election is not based on party lines, but is based on candidates. This means that the voter will not make their minds up on the policies of the political party, but on the charisma, personality and policies of the individual candidates. If this is the case, the splitting the ticket should be expected and not a surprise. This is because the voter is looking at the candidate. The voter will not look at the party affiliation with a great degree of importance. This means that a voter may vote for the Republicans in the Presidential election as the voter may like the Republican candidate, but may vote for the Democrats in the Congress because the voter likes the Democrat candidates for Congress.
This relates to the general consensus that there is no gap in ideology between the Democrats and Republicans. This is occurred since 1992 when Bill Clinton brought the Democrats towards the centre ground from their left wing position in the 1980’s to make the Democrats electable. While there is still the extremes of the two parties, the Democrats with their liberal left wing and the Republicans with their neo-conservative right wing, the parties are fighting over the middle ground, as seen by the front runners in the 2008 elections are more towards the centre. This is seen as a crucial reason why there is no split ticket voting. The two parties are now so similar that the only way to differentiate between candidates is to look at the candidate individually. This means that the chances of a voter voting for different parties at elections that occur simultaneously.
Another cause for this is related to the previous two reasons mentioned. This is the regional differences that occur throughout America. A voter in a Southern State such as Texas and Louisiana is very different to a voter from a North-eastern state such as Massachusetts and Vermont. For voters from different regions, the candidates for a Presidential election are different from the candidates that are seen in their local elections for Congress and state legislators. Therefore the chances of split ticket voting will increase. The political parties on the federal level are more likely to be ideologically different to those of the state level. The voter will look for the part that reflects their beliefs and ideology and on a presidential election, which may mean voting for the opposite party.
The rise of issue voting can also explain split ticketing voting. Not since Vietnam has issue based voting been at the centre of elections. This is been because of the issues surrounding the fall out from September 11th 2001, the Homeland Security policy and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. This can be seen by the 2006 mid terms as on local levels, there was little change in the state legislatures, but on a federal level, the Congress was completely changed. While this may not have involved the presidential elections, this can be seen to be already having a fall out in the run up to the 2008 presidential election. Candidates, especially on the Democrat side are now coming out against the Iraq war so they can gain the issue voters. The issue voters though, may vote on a single issue in the presidential election, but they may vote for someone in the Congressional election for different reasons, such as local issues.
The breakdown of party affiliation and party voters has led to the rise of the independent voter. The independent voter is one who is not affiliated to any party. This rise of the independent voter can be linked to the lack of an ideological gap between the two main parties. The independent voter is one who would be more likely to vote on an issue or candidate basis but they are also more likely to vote for a minor party. This splitting of tickets can lead to independents now making Congress. This is seen by people such as Bernie Sanders, who spent many years as a Vermont socialist in the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. Many people now seek an alternative voice for themselves locally while favouring the national leader to come from one of the major parties and this is a forming of ‘split ticketing’.
A theory has come about that the United States public may actually prefer a divided government. If theory is in fact correct, then this is a recent phenomenon as divided government has only been around for the past forty years. The basis for the theory is that the US people prefer a divided government as a way to add extra scrutiny to the government and ensure effective government and bipartisanship. If this was true, then some voters deliberately split their ticket to cause a divided government. This does seem very unlikely however, as it is not really feasible that the American electorate deliberately go out and split their vote. The chances of this are so remote that this theory can be dismissed.
Consequences of ‘Split-ticket’ voting
There are many consequences to the split ticket voting. The split ticket voting is the first major development of voting change since the Democrat to Republican southern switch in the 1960’s. To properly understand how rare these voting change patterns are, they happen once every fifty years or maybe even longer than that. These include the rise of the Progressive party in the late 19th century, to the development of a two-horse race in the 1830’s. The consequences are numerous and vast and it is important to recognise these.
The first consequence of this could be that the political parties will not be as ideologically rigid. This is because the political parties only have to appeal to the electorate on a candidate basis and not one on party policy or ideology. This can be seen as either a positive or a negative. The positive argument is that the lack of ideology means that the candidates can be very pragmatic and flexible and not stuck in an ideological mindset that could damage the country if that candidate won. The negative argument is that this trend means that the candidates now no longer stand for anything and are based on PR and ‘spin’. This, if true, would definitely be a negative.
This also means that the political parties no now longer stuck to a rigid party line. This is because split ticketing has made the alignment to a party ideology less popular. This can be seen as a positive and a negative. This can be seen as a positive in the eyes of the American people as they have never been keen on a rigid party line. This has always been the case in the American political system but the lack of any real coherent party line has increased in recent years. This is because the parties have broken off into so many wings. For example, the Republicans have their liberal wing, their neo-conservative wing, their laissez faire wing and their traditional conservative wing. This vast diversity because of a lack of a party line can be seen as a positive thing. This is because political parties encompass all the different areas of society so all areas of society will be represented. This can also be seen as a negative as the parties will always have to seek a compromise that doesn’t please anyone. These different wings also overlap and this can lead to an impression in the minds of the general public that the politicians are all the same and this can lead to the electorate becoming apathetic. This is definitely not a positive.
This can lead to other consequences such as the theory of the destruction of the two party state and the creation of a one party state. This is because the two parties have now overlapped so much and have become effectively one party with there no being no effective choice for the electorate.
Another consequence of this is that there could be grid lock. The split ticketing means that the Congress and the President can be controlled by different parties. This can lead to the stalling of any bills and the failure to get any business done. This can be seen in 1994 when the Republicans won the Congress and effectively paralysed the Democrat President, Bill Clinton. The prime example of this is the Medicare bill. This seemed very popular amongst the public but the Republican Congress effectively killed it by delaying it by conflict with the executive. This grid lock can be compounded if the Congress itself was divided. For example, this would be where the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republicans but the Democrats are controlled by the Senate. Spilt ticketing can lead to the paralysing of government business.
There is also the counter argument that split ticketing is actually a positive. This is because this can lead to a greater scrutiny of government actions. This is because the opposition of the parties can lead to the opposition carefully looking over the parties plans and finding the flaws. This means that all legislation will be effectively scrutinised and in theory, the legislation will be vastly improved. This can, however, lead to just meaningless political point scoring. This would definitely be a negative.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many causes for the recent trend of ‘split ticketing’. These include the lack of an ideological gap, apathy, regional differences and issue voting. This has led to many consequences. There have been some positive consequences such as the pragmatism and increased scrutiny. There are negatives however, such as closing the ideological gap and the effective grid lock that can be created by the split ticketing. Split ticketing is not a trend that will go away any time soon and the consequences are ones that probably negate themselves. This will change and evolve the American system and time will only tell if this is positive or a negative.