Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013


Angus Campbell
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Warren E. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Extract

The extraordinary discrepancy in the popular vote for President Eisenhower and the vote for Republican Congressmen in the 1956 election dramatized a privilege which the American electorate exercises almost uniquely in the democratic world, the right of voters to split their ballots between the candidates of opposing political parties.

The fact of ballot splitting in American elections is of course a commonplace but it has not been widely studied and it is not well understood. The aggregative statistics from the 1956 election make it apparent that millions of voters must have chosen President Eisenhower and a Democratic congressman but they do not tell us how many voters split their ballots in the opposite direction or how many voted for president but not for Congressman, and they give us only the vaguest indications of what was in the voters' minds when they crossed party lines in marking their ballots.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1 The study from which these data are drawn is being carried out under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. A full report of the study will become available at a later date. Statements of the sample design and sampling errors and copies of the questionnaires may be obtained from the Survey Research Center upon request.

2 At the time this analysis was undertaken we had in hand an unpublished manuscript entitled “The Split-Ticket Voter in 1952,” written by Professor Daniel M. Ogden, Jr., of the Department of Political Science of Washington State College, and based on data collected by the Survey Research Center in its 1952 study. We wish to acknowledge Professor Ogden's generosity in making this manuscript available to us.

3 See Campbell, A., Gurin, G., and Miller, W. E., The Voter Decides (Evanston: Row, Peterson & Co., 1954)Google Scholar.

4 Because the voting patterns in the North and the South differ so profoundly the subsequent analysis in this article considers only the Northern portion of the sample. The restricted size of the Southern sample precludes a parallel presentation of those data. Tables II through VII include those voters who either did not vote a complete ticket or did not give us full information about their vote. For a discussion of uncompleted ballots, based on aggregative election data, see Key, V. O., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, 3rd ed. (New York, 1952), pp. 654–57Google Scholar.

5 The Book of The States, 1954–55, ed. Smothers, Frank (Chicago: Council of State Governments, 1954)Google Scholar. Ballot Forms Table, page 82.

6 We may also note that the single choice type of ticket appeared to hold Democratic identifiers more securely to their presidential nominee than did the multiple choice ballot. In the single choice states, 91 per cent of the “strong” Democrats voted for Stevenson, nine per cent for Eisenhower; in the multiple choice Btates, the percentages were 86 and 14. “Weak” Democrats gave Stevenson 70 per cent of their votes in the single choice states, 30 per cent to Eisenhower, and in the multiple choice states, 64 and 36 per cent. The votes of Republican identifiers in the two types of states did not differ.

7 This finding is not changed when the voters of single choice and multiple choice states are compared. There is more straight ticket voting in the single choice states but those voters who “cared a great deal” whether or not they voted were more likely to vote a straight ticket than those who did not in both groups of states.

8 Miller, Warren E., “Presidential Coattails: A Study in Political Myth and Methodology,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 19 (Winter 19551956), pp. 353–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 18 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-nqzjh Total loading time: 0.537 Render date: 2020-12-02T03:57:22.022Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Wed Dec 02 2020 03:06:13 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *