NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently sent in my absentee ballot, and I was worried by this straight party voting option. I'm not sure if every ballot has this option, but lets you check one item, and your votes will all go towards the candidates in that party.

How lazy have we become? I didn't use this option, and I only had to draw 18 lines. Try drawing 18 lines, it isn't that time consuming.

It's not even the laziness that bothers me, but this option only incourages the idea "My daddy's a {Insert Party Name Here}, so I'm going to be one too!" By letting people vote straight party, they no longer have to be informed. Voting shouldn't be mindless! The party name may stay the same over the years, but the candidates change. If you want to vote for a single party, go through the ballot and choose the individual party members. Straight party voting should not be an option.

my ballot did not have that
but i did vote the party lines

I had to draw about 60 lines on my ballot. No exageration. I would have voted straight-party had my old employer not been running for district court judge on a Republican ticket, or had a Green Party member not been challenging our Country Clerk.

Straight party voting may save time, but there are other issues on the ballot besides candidates, and that kind of doesn't do much for those issues.

Good god. America doesn't need MORE help in becoming a bunch of lazy little fucks.

On my school "ballot", I voted for mostly Democrats and one or two Libertarians. Plus the issues. A few (like the anti-gay-marriage amendment) were quite partisan, but some (like the expansion of the medial marijuana act) were much more muddled.

That's absolutely disguisting. I really have no respect for people who vote by party, rather than by the stances of the individual.

If all the people in a single party on your ballot happen to be people you agree with, that's one thing. If you just go down the line and vote for whoever's in your party, that's another, and it belies true ignorance and apathy on the part of the voter. Say you vote for a Democrat. if you don't know who the people are, you don't know if you just voted for a Howard Dean or a Zell Miller. That Republican you just voted for could be a George W Bush or a John McCain. Party doesn't mean as much as people tend to make it out to mean.

Personally, I'd be just fine with doing away with the party system altogether, and just putting names on the ballot. That way, people don't get the illusion that they know who the candidate is based on what letter sits next to their name, and more people might take the time to actually find out what the candidate stands for.

I don't agree with straight party voting options. I agree with the author of this thread that such an option encourages laziness. I would probably vote straight party anyway, but on propositions and such, rather than candidates, sometimes I don't support the democratic party's "official stance." However, I do not vote republican, unless the democrat is Zell Miller or someone of similar ilke.

party line voting options have been in place for a long, long, time. in my youth if you didn't vote party line, democrats, in Chicago you had to pay property taxes. a good way to enforce party loyalty if not an honest government.

Straight party voting is not about laziness. It is about people who vote based upon ideology. I know many people who proudly proclaim, "I vote for the person, not the party." I suppose if you are voting for class president or prom queen that approach is fine.

However, there are different philosophies in this country about the role of government, civil rights, equality, the environment, and a whole host of issues. These philosophies are represented by the platforms of the two major parties (as well as a whole host of minor parties who, because of the U.S. Constitution, are insignificant). The party in power gets to push forward their agenda and, if they control the White House, gets to nominate judges who will interprete laws based upon their political philosophy. Therefore, if you find those kinds of things important you will vote for the party, not the person, in hopes that your political ideology will be implemented.

Straight party voting is not about laziness. It is about people who vote based upon ideology. I know many people who proudly proclaim, "I vote for the person, not the party." I suppose if you are voting for class president or prom queen that approach is fine.

However, there are different philosophies in this country about the role of government, civil rights, equality, the environment, and a whole host of issues. These philosophies are represented by the platforms of the two major parties (as well as a whole host of minor parties who, because of the U.S. Constitution, are insignificant). The party in power gets to push forward their agenda and, if they control the White House, gets to nominate judges who will interprete laws based upon their political philosophy. Therefore, if you find those kinds of things important you will vote for the party, not the person, in hopes that your political ideology will be implemented.

This is a very good point. While many people believe that induviduals of varying quality run for office and that the "best man for the job" should be the one to get your vote; others are entrenched in their ideology so deeply that they feel any deviation from the party line that they ascribe to will hurt their chances of imposing that idealogy on others.

Like running a war, or an ad campaign, you try not to care if your canidate is wholly unsuited for the task or is perfect for it; you simply want them to win. Because if they do win its one part of the collective government that you have won for your party. The more of the whole that you control makes for the more of society you can dominate with your influence.

I personally find this deplorable. Sadly it has seemingly proven effective in the short-term. Like most mobilizations of large groups, these party-power idealogues gain tremendous power quickly, taking advantage of divisions amongst its percived adversaries and poking loopholes in the system.

It unites their party under ideology at the expense of their "soul" as it were. They tout party slogans and lines but become intellectually bankrupt from within; this is because the party must always be right in order to remain in power, especially if its wrong. Soon wrong and right become intertwined and the ideology suffers because of it. Because the "best man for the job" is immaterial you mix capable people with incapable or corrupt people, placing all in positions of power.

After a while the implementation of party power overcomes the need for advancing a party ideology. Thus the party power become an end unto itself rather than a means to an end. After that the party either collapses under the weight of its corruption or undergoes drastic revision and revitalization when a new generation emerges (or an old one fights its way up again).

Simply put; Talk of putting the party in power as the means unto an end without regard for little details like corruption and incompetance and you invite the collapse of the very party you want to succeed.

For that oversight, I call the advocates of Party Power fools of the highest order. They should see it coming; they would see it coming. But they are blinded by their lust for power.

I ask all straight ticket voters this: In pursuit of your ideals, are you willing to sacrafice your party, your intellect, and in the end...your ideals?

Straight party voting is not about laziness. It is about people who vote based upon ideology. I know many people who proudly proclaim, "I vote for the person, not the party." I suppose if you are voting for class president or prom queen that approach is fine.

However, there are different philosophies in this country about the role of government, civil rights, equality, the environment, and a whole host of issues. These philosophies are represented by the platforms of the two major parties (as well as a whole host of minor parties who, because of the U.S. Constitution, are insignificant). The party in power gets to push forward their agenda and, if they control the White House, gets to nominate judges who will interprete laws based upon their political philosophy. Therefore, if you find those kinds of things important you will vote for the party, not the person, in hopes that your political ideology will be implemented.

However, and here is the flaw with the two-party system, is that there has to be two poles. THis process makes for awfully broad views of idelogies and distances both of them from the mainstream of the country. For instance, I support Pro-choice and I support the Death Penalty. Which party do I vote for? However, if there were three or more parties in control, then natural alliances on common issues would allow individual isues to be resolved in a mainstram way without resulting in the current either-or choice we have here. It's one of the biggest reasons why I think it would be of tremendous benefit to the country to get some Libertarians and others into the House and Senate. Ultimately, I'd like to see no single party have 50%+ majority. So much more would get done.

I think it would be of tremendous benefit to the country to get some Libertarians and others into the House and Senate. Ultimately, I'd like to see no single party have 50%+ majority.

I quite agree. I would love to see a multiparty system wherein each party more closely represented the ideals of their adherents, rather than the bland two parties we have now that have to water down their agendas to win 51% of the vote.

The problem, however, is the Constitutional blueprint for our government which creates the winner take all election process resulting in two parties. Because a candidate must defeat his/her opponent in order to be elected there will never be smaller, but politically viable, third parties.

In a parliamentary system a party that garners 20% of the vote has a seat at the table and is able to be a political player in a system of coalitions. However, the current (and traditional) American system requires new parties to win a majority (usually 51%), meaning that even if they do consistently defeat one of the two major parties it will only be to BECOME one of the two parties (i.e. see the Republican Party's replacement of the Whigs 1850s).

Like running a war, or an ad campaign, you try not to care if your canidate is wholly unsuited for the task or is perfect for it; you simply want them to win. Because if they do win its one part of the collective government that you have won for your party. The more of the whole that you control makes for the more of society you can dominate with your influence.

I personally find this deplorable....

Thus the party power become an end unto itself rather than a means to an end. After that the party either collapses under the weight of its corruption or undergoes drastic revision and revitalization when a new generation emerges (or an old one fights its way up again).

Of course ideals can, and often are, forgotten in a quest for power. One need no political parties for this to happen. It is human nature. However, you yourself describe the correcting mechanism for this: "The party either collapses under the weight of its corruption or undergoes drastic revision and revitalization when a new generation emerges."

I would prefer real political parties, representing more narrowly defined, specific ideals, rather than the coalitions of interest groups that are our current political parties. However, until we change the Constitution to allow this to happen (see above) it is foolish to think a vote for "the person" has no impact on the ideological influence of "the party." We are not governed by 535 individuals (536 including the President), but rather by two political parties who strive to gain control of the 435 seat House, the 100 seat Senate, and the Executive branch, in order to implement their political will through our legal system.

One of these political parties more closely represents my political and social philosophy more than the other, so I continue to vote the party. I wish it were other than it is, but that is the system we have right now.