Charles you and I are not the norm on voting. Most people see the ballot for the first time when they walk into the booth. They come for a name candidate, in the case of this year it was Obama. They know there is the rest of the ballot. In many cases they just don't want to be bothered. As such, dogs get votes and good candidates miss out. It happens in both parties. So Ds could benefit from Rs not being able to vote straight ticket as well.

RBear - I agree with what you say. I'm just amused by how much hand-wringing there's been over straight-ticket voting since Democrats won all those elections in Harris County. Plus, I thought the two "experts" quoted came off like condescending windbags.

LOL, you're right about that. It looks like the Rs may be a little worried about the sudden uptick in D voters. You know, I don't think I've ever straight ticket voted. I just had that fear of the dog I might have voted for down the ballot. Guess I'm a little too paranoid. We'll see where this goes.

I have went to a bank after the election and the clerk told me "I just voted straight ticket Democrat for a lot of people I don't know," while he was shuffling $100 bills.

I asked him, "Why would you vote for a person you don't know? You wouldn't give the $100 bills to someone you do NOT know. You should NOT vote for someone you do NOT know."

I may have personally voted for as many Democrats as I did Republicans but I know I didn't vote for someone I do NOT know.

It is wrong to me for all the candidates you and I write about to work hard all year hoping to succeed based on their committment to hard work, education, military and community service, fairness and family values or credibility credentials and then to get a vote equal to someone next to them on a ballot that may have done NONE of those things simply b/c they were on same side of an aisle.

I saw at the polls were people were not saying x candidate is good or his opponent was bad but simply vote straight ticket.

I would rather someone win b/c x candidate is good or a opponent is bad.

Hence, is why our odd year elections in Houston, our school board, community college and city council elections are so much more fun because folks do at least have to see the names of those in which they award their sacred vote.

When I read in that article about how other states don't use straight ticket voting, my first thought was that my ballot in New Jersey was a lot shorter, so I never would have considered it as an option. In Texas, especially big urban counties like Harris, the ballot is huge, and straight-ticket voting is probably saving both the voters and the registrar a lot of resources (or keeping a lot of people from being discouraged by the sheer amount of information and the lack of ease of finding it about some races). Voting for candidates who generally share a set of ideals is supposed to be what straight-ticket voting gets you, after all.

Maybe if the ballots were shorter, it would be different in terms of time and opportunity cost to participate. To me, the handwringing over ignorant people voting for candidates they don't know enough is all about keeping voting in the hands of the "right" class of people (i.e., people who agree with the complainer), which annoys the crap out of me.

When I read in that article about how other states don't use straight ticket voting, my first thought was that my ballot in New Jersey was a lot shorter, so I never would have considered it as an option. In Texas, especially big urban counties like Harris, the ballot is huge, and straight-ticket voting is probably saving both the voters and the registrar a lot of resources (or keeping a lot of people from being discouraged by the sheer amount of information and the lack of ease of finding it about some races). Voting for candidates who generally share a set of ideals is supposed to be what straight-ticket voting gets you, after all.

Maybe if the ballots were shorter, it would be different in terms of time and opportunity cost to participate. To me, the handwringing over ignorant people voting for candidates they don't know enough is all about keeping voting in the hands of the "right" class of people (i.e., people who agree with the complainer), which annoys the crap out of me.

Why does anyone think that voters will know more or do more research if they can't vote straight party? Is there research that indicates this? Seems like the uninformed voter will just click whoever's got the right initial (R or D) after their name if we take away the straight ticket option. So absent research that indicates otherwise, I don't buy the claim that nixing the straight ticket option will result in more informed voting.

Also, why is party affiliation NOT a good way to choose whom to vote for in the absence of other information? Party seems like an excellent way to differentiate among candidates, especially if you are not interested in politics or don't have time to figure out who's who.

The idea that we should vote for the individual rather than the party ignores the primary role the two major parties play in how power is divvied up and decisions are made.

Really? Grant Dorfman, Bill Boyce, and Jeff Brown weren't worth voting for?

at least then they will see individual's names of who it is they are or are not voting for and giving their sacred vote-a vote is too precious to be given a way in bulk!!

at least then they will see individual's names of who it is they are or are not voting for and giving their sacred vote-a vote is too precious to be given a way in bulk!!

Leif - I'm sure they're decent judges. But it was well past time for the bench to get some diversity of viewpoint, and I was satisfied with all the Democratic challengers (well, except for one, on a different bench; I skipped that race), so no, none of them were worth my vote. Ask me again next time and we'll see if it's different.

I think I must be interpreting "worth voting for" differently than you. You appear to mean that you preferred their challengers; I don't think I would use that phrase unless I was talking about someone repugnant or unqualified to hold office.