Talk:Split-ticket voting

United States Section Contradiction

"Ticket-splitting was less uncommon in the 1940s, with just 6 states splitting tickets for President and Senator in 1948. However, by 1968 ticket-splitting became more common..." These two sentences don't make sense next to each other. "Less uncommon" and "more common" mean the same thing. Huz and Buz (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Ruling

Someone who has more time than I currently do should add a paragraph or two at the end of the article about the Supreme Court ruling that political parties are private associations and, as such, have the free association right under the First Amendment to restrict their participation in primary elections to those voters who are members of their party - since it's the party's nominee who is being chosen, not the people's nominee. 76.126.3.38 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Page Comment

Shouldn't this page be two separate pages? I'd copy over the straight-ticket information, but I don't have anything to add, so it'd just be a repeat of what's on this page.

controversies

I'm trying to clean up this page, but the "controversies" section is a real mess. It says that in a South Carolina primary election certain questions about health insurance and government spending appeared only on the Republican ballot and not on the Democratic ballot. Now I don't know that much about US politics but I thought primary elections were about choosing a party's candidate, not a legally binding election. Given this, were the questions about health and spending legally binding referenda or simply proposals for party policies? If the latter, then how is it a controversy that they only appeared on one party's ballot, since presumably only that party would be making those suggestions as policy proposals?

The controversies section also says that some states do not allow split ticket voting. Again, does this mean in real elections or just in the primary elections? If the latter, how is it a controversy? Allowing someone to select the Republican Party's presidential candidate and the Democratic Party's gubernatorial candidate would surely be utterly absurd.Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been no response for over a week, I've removed the entire "controversies" section until someone can fix it up so that it makes sense. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge pages?

do we really need separate pages for straight and split ticket? one is simply the opposite the other Gjxj (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]