OPINION: Why Do We Need Bipartisanship at the Polls?

For decades, a political phenomenon called straight-ticket voting (STV) has provided a simple way for a voter to fill the ballot with party-inclusive marks. Rather than jumping from section to section marking individual candidates, STV allows the voter to mark one selection that automatically ensures a vote for every runner of the same political party. This results in a completely Republican or completely Democratic vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 

While this ballot option might simplify the process for the radical left or right voter, it does little to encapsulate the complexity and the multifaceted nature that is the election ballot.

Though NCSL reports that straight-ticket voting has become less popular over time, it is still offered in seven states, including South Carolina, Alabama and, most recently, Nevada. Clearly, the straight-ticket voting process is one employed by fewer people yearly. 

According to the South Carolina Election Commission, the state is allowing for a straight-ticket voting option that would select all candidates of the same political party, leaving only nonpartisan candidates and unrepresented fields blank. While this option does not encapsulate the voting process, it minimizes voting choice and limits the voter to one chosen party.

In asking whether straight-ticket voting is effective, the foundational question that requires an answer is really, “How effective is bipartisanship?” Mainstreaming a vote that encases the same values, priorities and policies across the board not only eliminates the duality of political structures, but also disintegrates any diversity of thought that might prove useful. Those subscribed to the Democratic party are more attuned with such issues as environmental efforts or civil rights than their counterpart. Meanwhile, those in the Republican party concern themselves with things like freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

If the straight-ticket vote was utilized by even a slight majority of those entering the booths in coming years, some of these issues — which carry weight in their own regard — would fall by the wayside. Ironically, a general approach to the voting system would most definitely further divide the United States of America. If this were treated as the final outcome — if all politics were partisan, all voting straight-ticket — then issues of foreign policy, national debt, humanitarian concerns, civil rights, freedom of speech or religion, border control, international relations and so on would be forsaken in some regard; there would be no one to raise an objection to the train of thought which inhabits the political realm.

Therefore, mainstream, straight-ticket voting simplifies politics, forsaking bipartisanship and replacing it with the interests of a select group of voters in the United States. Utilizing this method of voting at a large scale would be un-American, unconstitutional and elevate few over the whole of the United States.

Because this form of voting is steadily decreasing, though, it seems to be a viable option for the free-thinking Americans. While it might not cover every candidate or office wisely, it is still the choice of the voter to select candidates from one party. For the voter that desires to select every GOP candidate or every democratic candidate, that freedom should be afforded him or her. For the voter who wants a diverse palate, carefully making every individual selection, the same should be true.

While straight-ticket voting has not been received well over time, it might still find its way onto the ballots of certain states. Voters should not be surprised to see that option; nor should they be discouraged that it may invalidate the voting process, despite how many issues it raises.

Bower is an opinion writer. Follow him on Twitter.