What are the arguments against allowing a ballot option to vote

[Atticus]

"straight Democratic" or "straight Republican". This used to be allowed in Illinois and was a convenience for older voters who genuinely did want to vote for all candidates of one party. It would also shorten voting lines in crowded precincts and, I believe, encourage more people to vote.

Thoughts?

[mobeau69]

1. It's a convenience to straight ticket voting and no hinderance to ticket splitters. nt

[SoCalNative]

2. I would say that it might be difficult

when races for non-partisan offices (judges, etc) are involved.

[Atticus]

3. I would think that could be accomodated just as split-ticket voting

is. Non-partisan positions, which are relatively few, could be segregated to a separate section, presented in different typeface, etc.

[jayfish]

4. That's The Way It Used To Be Here...

in Michigan. It was a long ballot today and took much longer than it should have. ...both waiting to vote and the actual vote itself.

[AlexSFCA]

5. impossible in Cali due to open primaries

I really don’t think straight ticket voting is a good idea, we need to be more engaged and learn about what’s on the ballot.

[Atticus]

7. Here in flyover country, the problem is that a LOT of people who will not spend the time

to "be more engaged and learn what's on the ballot" would, nevertheless, vote Democratic if it was easier and took less time. Many elderly Democrats need help to get to the voting booth and no longer have the ability to "know" in detail what a particular candidate is advocating. But, all many really care about is voting for THEIR party. I think we should let them do it by marking one box to vote for all candidates of the selected party.

[displacedtexan]

6. The problem is downticket candidates, issues, and propositions.

Most judges, commissioners, board members, and other local and other state offices don't always list party affiliation; hence, there's no way to assign a party line vote option. You just have to do your research and cast each vote individually. As for issues and props, most are yes/no votes and can't be assigned a party line vote, either.

It's vital that everyone vote for every office and issue in every election. That's why republicans have been able to take over local and state governments in a majority of states, which makes it easier to control national campaigns and elections. Lee Atwater was the one who figured this out many decades ago. All you have to do is look around today to see how much control they've taken of the country.

Straight ticket is a great idea, but you have to be sure your state allows you to vote downticket as well. Otherwise, you're conceding lots of offices and issues.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. One argument: Suppose a voter picks "straight D", for example, but

then decides he likes the "R" person running for Secretary of State, so marks that circle as well.

If it's a mail-in absentee ballot, it will be rejected, and that person's intentions will be lost. If it's done at the polling place, hopefully there's a machine that will reject it immediately, so the voter can fill out another one, and this time not pick the straight ticket.

The time advantage of the straight ticket is probably not much. It only takes a few seconds to fill in the circles next to the "D" candidates. Then you move to the non-partisan offices and the proposals, a tedious process that the straight ticket does not help.

MI lost the "straight ticket" option this year. I didn't see it as a big burden on this voter.

[Atticus]

9. In the past in Illinois, your scenario would award votes to all Democrats EXCEPT the

one specific Republican marked. That is exactly how one voted a split ticket.