The split ticket system refers to a process in some U.S. states that allows voters to choose candidates from different political parties for various offices in a single election. Rather than having to vote a straight party ticket, which requires voting for candidates from only one political party, voters in states with a split ticket option can mix and match candidates from competing parties on their ballot.
How does the split ticket system work?
In states with a split ticket system, voters are presented with a ballot that has different rows or columns for each elected office position. This includes offices like president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, state legislators, and more. Voters are able to move between the different rows or columns to select their preferred candidate for each position, regardless of the candidate’s affiliated political party.
For example, a voter could select a Republican candidate for president, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, and an Independent candidate for state representative. The voter is not forced to vote for only Republican, Democratic, or Independent candidates. They can split their ticket between multiple parties if they choose.
Straight ticket voting
The split ticket system differs from straight ticket voting, which requires picking candidates from only one political party. Some states offer a straight ticket voting option where voters can select a single party, like Republican or Democrat, and it automatically selects that party’s candidate for every office on the ballot. Voters can then go back and change individual selections if they don’t want to vote a complete straight ticket, but the default is a straight party ticket unless changed.
Mixed systems
Some states employ a mixed system that allows both straight ticket voting and split ticket voting. Voters can choose to vote a straight party ticket if they wish, but also have the option to split their ticket between parties on an office-by-office basis. This provides voters flexibility in how they approach their ballot.
Where is the split ticket system used?
The split ticket system is currently used in more than 40 U.S. states. States that allow split ticket voting include:
| Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California |
| Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Georgia |
| Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa |
| Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland |
| Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri |
| Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey |
| New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio |
| Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina |
| South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont |
| Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming |
A few states do not allow split ticket voting and require straight ticket voting only. This includes states like: Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and South Carolina.
Why do states use the split ticket system?
There are a few key reasons why many states utilize the split ticket voting system:
Promotes voter choice
The split ticket system gives voters more flexibility and freedom of choice. Voters can evaluate candidates on an individual basis and select the person they feel is best for each office, regardless of partisan affiliations. They are not forced to choose along party lines if they do not wish to.
Encourages candidate evaluation
By getting rid of straight ticket voting, the split ticket system encourages voters to learn about each candidate’s background, positions, and qualifications. Without just selecting a single party, voters have more incentive to critically assess each candidate.
Discourages partisanship
Split ticket voting can help reduce strong partisan identities and affiliations. By voting across party lines, voters may focus less on Republican vs. Democrat ideological battles and more on individual candidates’ merits.
Prevents one-party dominance
The split ticket approach prevents a single political party from easily winning every elected office. It makes it more likely that both major parties and third parties will gain some representation in government. This can encourage compromise and coalition-building.
What are the benefits of split ticket voting?
There are some potential benefits that advocates argue the split ticket system can provide:
Checks and balances
Split ticket voting can create greater checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. If the governor and state legislators are from different parties, for example, it may encourage bipartisan negotiation and oversight.
Split power
Similarly, splitting power between the two major political parties can prevent one party from implementing their agenda unilaterally. It forces bipartisan discussion and moderation of extreme policies.
Dedicated decision-making
Voters can make a dedicated decision about each race and select the person they feel is truly the best candidate for that particular office when not confined by party.
Focus on issues
The emphasis shifts more towards issues and policies rather than partisan identities. Voters look at what positions a candidate takes rather than just their party affiliation.
Minority representation
Split ticket voting can help third party and independent candidates gain representation where they may otherwise be shut out in straight ticket voting. This gives minority viewpoints a voice in government.
What are the disadvantages of split ticket voting?
There are also some potential drawbacks opponents point to with the split ticket approach:
Weakens parties
Too much ticket splitting can diminish the strength and cohesiveness of the major political parties. It can hinder their ability to effectively organize the government and enact a policy agenda.
Causes gridlock
Frequently splitting power between competing parties can lead to partisan standstills, gridlock, and difficulty passing legislation. It may produce a less efficient government overall.
Promotes individualism
The focus on individual candidates over parties could further the personalization and individualization of politics rather than party principles and platforms. Voters care more about personality than substantive issues.
Obliterates party differences
If voters mix and match candidates from across the political spectrum, it could blur the distinctions between parties. Voters may not be able to easily discern core partisan differences and values.
Confuses voters
Split ticket voting takes more time, effort, and political knowledge to evaluate multiple candidates for different offices across parties. Some argue many voters do not expend this effort and make uninformed decisions.
Conclusion
The split ticket voting system offers voters more freedom and flexibility compared to straight ticket voting. It allows mixing candidates from different parties on a single ballot. More than 40 states currently use some form of split ticket system. Proponents argue it promotes choice, moderation, and bipartisanship. However, critics contend it weakens parties, creates gridlock, and confuses less-engaged voters. There are merits and limitations to both perspectives in the ongoing debate over split ticket vs. straight ticket voting.
