46 Comments - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:05 pm: And, to be super clear, this is not a question about the Michigan law or lower court rulings or whatever. It’s about Illinois, so please stick to Illinois. I have some errands to run and won’t be able to check on comments, so please respect my request or there will be heck to pay when I return. Thanks! - FormerParatrooper - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:07 pm: I do not see a reason not to allow straight ticket voting. Personally I think viting that way may be lazy, but if you have done your evaluation of all the candidates and believe only one party is suffice, go for it. - downstate commissioner - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:11 pm: NO!! Why make it easier for those too dumb or lazy to make their own decisions? If you don’t know who to vote for at a specific position, just skip it… I would be opposed to mandatory voting for the same reason. - The Captain - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:12 pm: We vote on computer screens. Every other piece of software has a “select all” feature, this is no different. It’s just a time saver for people who are going to vote that way anyway. - Joe Biden Was Here - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:13 pm: I think straight party voting should be allowed. It’s pretty clear that the Illinois ban was aimed at Democratic voters. What’s not clear is why Madigan et al didn’t reverse that once the string of Republican governors ended in 2003. - Anon221 - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:14 pm: 50/50 either way. Really, instead of fussing over that in Illinois, I’d like to be able to get a “checkout” receipt of my votes after my ballot has been submitted so I can check and see if my votes were actually counted. I don’t fill in every bubble for every seat/question, and the machine automatically rejects it as an undervote. Sometimes more than once in the past. Not real reassuring that my votes were actually read by the scanner. A private receipt would provide solid proof. And… I know… that costs money to implement. - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:14 pm: No, I like to labor under the delusion that people actually put some thought into voting, because I do. - Sir Reel - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:17 pm: I agree with Downstate. Encourages mindless voting. If you have no preference, skip. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:19 pm: Voted “yes” “Why?!?!” In the off-year elections with statewides on the ballot, the sophistication of targeted “Hard R” voters could be maximized, (as with the “Hard D” voters for Dems…) and it might bring out and clarify party strength by the strength of straight party ballots cast. I remember “Punch 10″, and Jack O’Malley and Devine winning. But, as Rich pointed out, it’s help and hurt both sides. It was a mistake to remove it. It would be great to have it back, for both parties - thechampaignlife - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:19 pm: There is no reason to have it. The same can be accomplished by voting for each individual race. We are not losing legitimate votes by not allowing it but we exacerbate the very real problem of uninformed voting if we allow it. - Honeybear - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:21 pm: I find myself grinning about using the work “freedom” since it is used by Tea Party folks but I think Straight ticket voting reduces “freedom” to chose and vote differently from one’s party. - Thoughts Matter - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:24 pm: No. If you must vote a single party without any thought as to which candidate would actually be better, then you can work for it. It will take you less than sixty seconds to mark the spots off. Maybe if you are forced to do so, your conscience will speak up and make you think a second. - G'Kar - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:24 pm: Maybe I’m an idealist, but I want votes to look, and hopfully evaulate each race. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:25 pm: I do recall that if you voted “Straight D”, but voted for the Repubican for, let’s say congress, the direct vote overrode the straight party vote on that race, but kept in place the rest of the “D” votes cast by the straight party “punch” It helps down the ballot with those forgetting down ballot races, as they vote straight party, but only really care about Governor, or County Board, or whatever. - Norseman - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:32 pm: No. Voting is an important function of our democracy. Folks should think at least a couple of seconds as to whom they vote for even if it is to read whether they have and R or D next to the candidates’ names. We need to be encouraging more voter education, not less. - Huh? - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:36 pm: Yes. For several reasons: 1. Shorter lines in polling places due to less number times ballot is marked. 2. Help with getting more votes cast for obscure down ballot positions. 3. Help with more votes for judicial elections. Number 2 & 3 help solve the problem of “I don’t know those people, so I’m not going to vote for either candidate.” - Springfieldish - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:37 pm: It’s just a choice, as in “all of the above.” We can editorialize and moralize all we want about it being ‘lazy’ and it leading to a less informed electorate, but frankly, it’s only a choice and thus I voted yes. I know a few very informed voters who still voted for Rauner. I know a few “informed” voters who are voting Green this year. See, informed doesn’t mean they’re actually voting any smarter. Indeed, the very word “informed” has to be considered from the individual’s starting point, and then the path they take to become “informed.” Maybe let’s keep the judgements and the moralism out of it and just give people more ways and even easier methods to vote. - ChrisB - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:37 pm: No. I’ve always maintained that you should never agree with any candidate 100% of the time and should think for yourself. Why should you be allowed to do the same for the entire party? Mindless cheerleading is what got us into this mess. - pool boy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 1:57 pm: NO. I can remember when cards where given out for let’s say a free drink and on the back they wrote punch 10. To easy to manipulate people that don’t care. - Chicago 20 - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:02 pm: Yes. It would take less time to vote a straight ticket and ultimately allow for a greater voter turnout. - DGD - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:11 pm: No. ** To easy to manipulate people that don’t care. ** Bingo. - Tough Guy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:11 pm: Voted yes. It’s just an option and can speed up the voting process. For anyone who doesn’t want to vote a straight ticket, they don’t have to. - Streator Curmudgeon - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:12 pm: No. Straight ticket voting encourages party over country. Especially in county offices, where party may not matter as much, voters should consider individual qualifications over party. - Belle - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:17 pm: Started to vote YES because I want more people to vote but decided that making multiple decisions isn’t the issue. In the end, I went with NO. We should think things through. We’re so lazy. - Dance Band on the Titanic - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:20 pm: No. It’s too easy to carry a completely inept candidate across the finish line with straight ticket voting. - Anonymous - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:27 pm: I voted yes, but only as provided by law today, meaning, If I want only GOP or DEM folks elected, I simply due my constitutional civic duty and select all of the GOP or DEM candidates. Sort of like Madigan’s version of term limits. - OneMan - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:29 pm: You should have to at least look at someones name before you vote for them IMHO. - @MisterJayEm - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:30 pm: If straight-ticket voting was the great evil that many seem to believe, one should be able to detect measurable improvement in the quality of Illinois elected officials starting around 1997. Frankly, I don’t see it. – MrJM - Kippax Blue - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:34 pm: Punch 10, and move the line. Simples. - Tom B. - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:39 pm: I go back and forth on this all the time, but in the end, I think if somebody feels strongly about one Party, they should have the right to express it. If you really want to go down the ballot and get that one race you like, then you will. - illinifan - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:41 pm: Voting for each individual candidate forces the voter to consider the person and their qualifications. Straight ticket voting is also too easy to falsify. My dad was a precinct captain in Chicago (republican) and he often found polling booths already set at a vote count before the polls even opened and the vote was always straight party. - NoGifts - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:43 pm: Very few of us are familiar with the details of an individual candidate. The party affiliation works to tell us what positions the candidate will generally stand for and allows us to vote for those ideas in general. We most often vote straight party anyway because of this. It isn’t mindless voting, it is voting with some information because you know where the party stands on issues. - Robert the Bruce - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:44 pm: Voted no, but a close decision. Ideally the straight ticket option would be at the bottom of the ballot, so people would at least have to search for it. Better yet, have it be “straight party except whatever I vote for” so folks, if they were so inclined, could vote straight D or straight R for the downballot races that they know less about, but then pick out favorites for other races (e.g., straight R but Hillary over Trump; straight D but Kirk over Duckworth) - LessAnon? - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:46 pm: No. The process of voting has been made so easy in regards to moter voter, early voting, etc. There is no reason why a person can’t consider each name on the ballot before casting a vote. I’m sure there are those that would be completely fine with it, but making things any simpler will have people just letting others vote their ballot for them. Those that want straight party voting are motivated by greed/power and not by democracy. - LessAnon? - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 2:54 pm: “I don’t know those people, so I’m not going to vote for either candidate.” I fail to see the usefulness - except for falsely inflating vote totals - of having people cast a vote for a down-party race they don’t care about. There is no requirement you have to vote for every race. In fact, I’ve been known to skip a race here or there because I didn’t care for either candidate. To sight beefing up down-ballot votes by just adding votes to a race by having people cast a vote by straight party completely oblivious to either candidate is closer to appalling to me than to any kind of usefulness. - burbanite - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:33 pm: I definitely think it would help the dems this year. - thechampaignlife - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:39 pm: While we are at it, pull the party affiliation off the ballot as well. And in this day and age, we should be able to randomize the candidate order (maybe the office order as well) so there are no positioning advantages. - Baloneymous - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:42 pm: voted Yes. its efficient not lazy. if you already know how you wanna vote, get in and get out. who cares. maybe some people don’t need to look and consider each name, I’m not gonna be the one to tell them how they should fill out their ballots. its private and personal and people should have the option if they so choose. - thechampaignlife - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:42 pm: Or, if we are all for empowering the voter with options and making voting speedy, why stop at party affiliation? We could add options to straight vote the first candidate listed for each office or the name with the most letters in it. Hey, maybe my views most align with people with names towards the end of the alphabet. - The Professor - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:56 pm: People should have the prerogative to vote the way they wish. The government should not interfere with the right to vote. The right to vote means the right to vote the way you see fit. - yinn - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:57 pm: I said yes, because I don’t think that taking away straight-party voting has improved the quality of elected officials. Also, when I was a kid, my parents sneered about anyone who admitted to doing this, so it would be kind of an equal opportunity thing, too. - Precinct Captain - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 3:59 pm: Straight-ticket voting would be great for the GOP in this state. When suburban moms are angry at Dems then boom, toss the bums out. It would also be great for true blue and red voters to vote for the whole set of candidates from their side. This whole good civic citizen argument people are offering, why not have a poll tax and poll test too? - Chicago_Downstater - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 4:00 pm: I selected No. I guess longer lines could be an issues, but would it really speed up the lines that much? I mean if you know you’re going to vote straight party, then it’s not like you’ll be taking time to contemplate each decision. Alternatively, maybe you thought you were going to vote straight-party, but then you saw on the ballot that Joe was running as a Democrat for a local seat and you hate Joe. Now you won’t accidentally vote for that jerk Joe. - zatoichi - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 4:05 pm: Voting takes a full 3-4 minutes out of a jammed packed day once you are in the booth. Those markers or computer screens are just so complicated. Finding all those Dem or Rep names and marking the correct boxes can be exhausting. Good thing the election judges are there to assist the weary after they vote. - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 4:18 pm: “People should have the prerogative to vote the way they wish. The government should not interfere with the right to vote. The right to vote means the right to vote the way you see fit.” And we express how we want to vote through who? Our elected representatives and election officials who make the laws and rules governing elections. - JB13 - Friday, Sep 9, 16 @ 4:21 pm: No. While undoubtedly many care only about party ID, we’re supposed to be voting for people, not parties. Keep it banned. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.