Saturday, December 20, 2014

Effects of Straight-ticket Voting in Texas



Texas is one of only twelve states that offers voters an opportunity to vote for all candidates with one selection on the ballot—straight-ticket voting (STV). Of the twelve states, six are southern states—Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia; three are Midwestern states—Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan; two are northeastern states—Pennsylvania and Rhode Island; and one is a western state—Utah. The National Conference of State Legislatures notes the declining popularity of straight-ticket voting over the past few decades. During the 1990s, three states—Georgia, Illinois, and South Dakota—eliminated the practice, and six additional states—Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Wisconsin—have abandoned STV since 2000. The most recent was North Carolina in 2014.[1]

In Texas, straight-ticking voting has become more popular among voters. As Figure 1 illustrates, straight-ticket voting has increased from 47.60 percent of the gubernatorial vote in 1998 to 61.01 percent in the 46 largest counties in Texas, which constitute nearly 83 percent of the total gubernatorial vote.

Figure 1: Percentage of Straight-Ticket Voting in Texas Gubernatorial Elections (46 largest Counties)



The distribution of the straight-ticket vote in those 46 counties has increasingly favored Republican gubernatorial candidates, as Figure 2 illustrates. In 1998, when Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Garry Mauro in a landslide, the Republican straight-ticket percentage of the vote exceeded the Democratic percentage by only 6.07 percent. By 2014, the gap between the Republican straight-ticket vote and the Democratic straight-ticket vote was 17.58 percent, the greatest gap during the period between 1998 and 2014. The Republican electoral advantage is heavily dependent on the party’s advantage in the straight-ticket vote.

Figure 2: Republican and Democratic Party’s Share of Straight-Ticket Vote in Texas Gubernatorial Elections (46 Largest Counties)


What are the consequences of the increased popularity of straight-ticket voting and the increased share of the vote by Republican Party candidates for governor? Most importantly, Democratic candidates have been faced with an almost insurmountable task in recent gubernatorial elections. Among the 46 counties, Davis won only five counties—Dallas, Travis, El Paso, Cameron, and Webb Counties.  It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of straight-ticket voting. Nevertheless, In Red State: An Insider’s Story of How the GOP Came to Dominate Texas Politics, Wayne Thorburn maintains that the importance of the straight-ticket vote in Texas elections can be exaggerated: 

The overall importance of straight-ticket voting in the transformation of Texas into a one-party Republican dominant state can be exaggerated, however. While more Texans are voting straight ticket and more of those votes are going to the slate of Republican candidates, the overall total of such votes is not determinant in statewide elections. Even without straight-ticket voting, virtually all Republican statewide candidates since 1996 would have won. It is the Republican candidates’ advantage among “swing,” or non-straight-ticket, voters that has contributed to the party’s current success. . . . Even in the contest for governor in 2010, which was a closer race, Rick Perry received 52.8 percent of swing votes in his contest with Bill White, which would have secured his re-election without the nearly six in ten straight-ticket votes cast for the Republican ticket.[2]

Despite Thorburn’s claim, it was nearly impossible for the Democratic candidate to overcome the advantage gained by the Republican candidate with straight-ticket votes. In 2014, among the 46 largest Texas counties, Democrat Wendy Davis would have had to win 54.24 percent of the so-called “swing” (i.e., non-straight-ticket) vote to defeat Republican Greg Abbott. In 10 of the 46 counties, she would have had to have won more than 100 percent of the “swing” vote to win the county. In Kaufman County, which lies east of Dallas, Davis would have had to have won 143 percent of the “swing” vote to win the county, and in Montgomery County, a suburban county near Houston, she would have had to have won 129 percent of the swing vote! In 23 of the 46 counties, Davis would had to have won at least 80 percent of the “swing” vote to win the county.

Table 1 shows the distribution of the gubernatorial vote, the votes necessary for Davis to win in the counties that she lost, and the percentage of the “swing” vote that she needed to win in order to win the county.

Table 1: Percentage of the Vote That Davis Needed to Win the Counties That Abbott Won

County
RepVGov
DemVGov
OthVGov
ST%Rep V
ST%DemV
NonSTV
V TW
VTW-STD
%SW to Win
Harris
349,109
319,454
10,242
72.66%
65.61%
211,470
329,162
119,573
56.54%

Dallas
177,972
222,819
5,803
66.65%
65.06%
140,896
197,495



Tarrant
213,012
153,100
6,635
69.83%
60.97%
128,392
179,740
86,389
67.28%

Bexar
149,647
145,674
5,539
50.24%
50.81%
149,787
144,892
70,876
47.32%

Travis
91,129
168,820
7,340
48.97%
47.62%
139,169
126,306



Collin
115,647
57,431
3,072
69.90%
55.64%
62,368
85,004
53,051
85.06%

Denton
93,506
47,134
3,076
69.44%
50.46%
53,850
68,783
44,999
83.56%

Fort Bend
73,728
56,800
1,894
76.73%
70.58%
35,049
64,318
24,229
69.13%

Montgomery
83,877
19,165
1,777
74.99%
50.49%
31,642
50,634
40,957
129.44%

Williamson
61,418
39,452
2,895
60.94%
49.93%
45,687
48,989
29,292
64.11%

El Paso
29,911
48,421
1,947
48.47%
61.33%
35,405
38,194



Hidalgo
27,903
50,290
2,007
49.16%
71.71%
29,439
38,094
24,376
82.80%

Galveston
40,240
23,105
1,225
64.65%
55.84%
25,246
31,061
18,159
71.93%

Brazoria
41,289
19,639
1,207
61.62%
52.67%
26,029
29,857
19,514
74.97%

Nueces
30,827
24,713
1,404
42.89%
45.25%
32,128
27,069
15,887
49.45%

Jefferson
26,864
25,782
540
46.63%
75.96%
20,906
26,054
6,471
30.95%

Smith
37,321
10,828
628
62.23%
70.91%
17,646
23,762
16,084
91.15%

Lubbock
36,000
10,415
717
52.32%
47.92%
23,098
22,850
17,859
77.32%

McLennan
30,505
13,091
695
47.09%
54.39%
22,590
21,452
14,332
63.44%

Bell
28,734
14,380
792
63.81%
60.31%
16,658
21,162
12,490
74.98%

Cameron
16,550
21,844
992
47.79%
57.66%
20,934
18,702



Hays
20,877
17,185
1,024
51.14%
42.73%
20,689
18,520
11,176
54.02%

Comal
26,625
7,426
660
67.14%
45.29%
13,285
16,697
13,334
100.37%

Ellis
23,584
7,957
608
65.55%
52.96%
12,346
15,468
11,254
91.15%

Parker
25,657
5,533
636
68.78%
43.01%
11,624
15,278
12,898
110.96%

Brazos
21,845
9,119
624
47.65%
41.67%
17,142
15,171
11,371
66.33%

Guadelupe
21,195
8,764
557
60.83%
53.06%
12,453
14,522
9,872
79.27%

Johnson
22,712
5,977
580
64.33%
44.35%
11,863
14,056
11,405
96.14%

Randall
24,061
3,644
430
59.34%
36.50%
12,382
13,639
12,309
99.41%

Webb
7,621
17,962
819
26.85%
64.72%
9,455
12,383



Midland
20,198
3,012
362
62.74%
55.54%
8,924
11,425
9,752
109.28%

Grayson
18,010
5,041
334
66.36%
60.37%
8,270
11,360
8,317
100.56%

Taylor
19,077
3,871
424
58.34%
49.99%
9,973
11,263
9,328
93.53%

Bowie
15,574
5,563
32
39.67%
47.85%
12,568
11,557
8,895
70.77%

Gregg
17,161
5,795
219
64.43%
67.26%
6,157
10,543
6,645
107.92%

Wichita
16,103
4,817
303
62.41%
54.91%
8,193
10,310
7,665
93.55%

Rockwall
16,042
4,639
313
68.25%
50.23%
6,988
10,185
7,855
112.41%

Kaufman
14,580
5,448
314
64.35%
55.78%
4,757
9,858
6,819
143.35%

Orange
13,398
3,599
266
55.95%
75.38%
6,890
8,367
5,654
82.05%

Victoria
12,670
4,249
260
53.10%
55.21%
7,930
8,331
5,985
75.47%

Henderson
13,105
3,687
318
63.33%
56.01%
6,492
8,238
6,173
95.09%

Bastrop
9,793
6,552
798
41.27%
42.28%
9,880
7,680
4,910
49.69%

Angelina
12,939
3,686
176
60.41%
69.83%
5,856
8,226
5,652
96.51%

Hunt
12,282
3,686
342
61.80%
45.31%
5,546
7,814
6,144
110.78%

Kerr
11,711
2,895
292
66.52%
38.38%
5,573
7,158
6,047
108.51%

Harrison
10,311
4,048
187
63.07%
65.34%
5,292
7,087
4,442
83.94%


2,182,320
1,646,512
71,305


1,508,917
1,878,706
818,431
54.24%

RepVGov= Republican Vote for Governor
DemVGov=Democratic Vote for Governor
OthVGov=Other Candidates' Vote for Governor
ST%RepV=Percentage of Vote for Republican Gubernatorial Candidate That is Straight-ticket Vote
ST%DemV=Percentage of Vote for Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate That is Straight-ticket Vote
NonSTV=Non Straight-ticket Vote
VTW= Votes Necessary to Win
VTW-STD=Votes to Win minus the Democratic Straight-ticket Vote
%SW to Win=Percentage of the Swing Vote to Win the County









   
How would Davis have fared if the Republican straight-ticket vote had not so advantaged Abbott? The data in Table 2 show that Davis would have won one additional county—Harris County—had the straight-ticket vote not given Abbott such a dominant lead. There is no doubt that Davis would have still lost the election, but there is also no doubt that Davis did much better in the so-called swing vote than she did in terms of the straight-ticket vote. The straight-ticket vote favored Abbott by 17.58 percentage points, but Abbott won the “swing” vote by only 7.74 percentage points.

Table 2: Swing (Non-Straight-Ticket) Vote Won by Abbott & Davis

County
Vote Gov
ST Vote
ST Rep
ST Dem
RepVGov
DemVGov
VG-STV
RV-RSTV
DV-DSTV
% R SW
%D SW
Harris
678,805
467,335
253,651
209,589
349,109
319,454
211,470
95,458
109,865
45.14%
51.95%
Dallas
406,594
265,698
118,621
144,958
177,972
222,819
140,896
59,351
77,861
42.12%
55.26%
Tarrant
372,747
244,355
148,745
93,351
213,012
153,100
128,392
64,267
59,749
50.06%
46.54%
Bexar
300,860
151,073
75,187
74,016
149,647
145,674
149,787
74,460
71,658
49.71%
47.84%
Travis
267,289
128,120
44,629
80,388
91,129
168,820
139,169
46,500
88,432
33.41%
63.54%
Collin
176,150
113,782
80,833
31,953
115,647
57,431
62,368
34,814
25,478
55.82%
40.85%
Denton
143,716
89,866
64,927
23,784
93,506
47,134
53,850
28,579
23,350
53.07%
43.36%
Fort Bend
132,422
97,373
56,572
40,089
73,728
56,800
35,049
17,156
16,711
48.95%
47.68%
Montgomery
104,819
73,177
62,897
9,677
83,877
19,165
31,642
20,980
9,488
66.30%
29.99%
Williamson
103,765
58,078
37,426
19,697
61,418
39,452
45,687
23,992
19,755
52.51%
43.24%
El Paso
80,279
44,874
14,499
29,699
29,911
48,421
35,405
15,412
18,722
43.53%
52.88%
Hidalgo
80,200
50,761
13,718
36,064
27,903
50,290
29,439
14,185
14,226
48.18%
48.32%
Galveston
64,570
39,324
26,017
12,902
40,240
23,105
25,246
14,223
10,203
56.34%
40.41%
Brazoria
62,125
36,096
25,443
10,343
41,289
19,639
26,029
15,846
9,296
60.88%
35.71%
Nueces
56,944
24,816
13,222
11,182
30,827
24,713
32,128
17,605
13,531
54.80%
42.12%
Jefferson
53,186
32,280
12,526
19,583
26,864
25,782
20,906
14,338
6,199
68.58%
29.65%
Smith
48,777
31,131
23,225
7,678
37,321
10,828
17,646
14,096
3,150
79.88%
17.85%
Lubbock
47,132
24,034
18,836
4,991
36,000
10,415
23,098
17,164
5,424
74.31%
23.48%
McLennan
44,291
21,701
14,366
7,120
30,505
13,091
22,590
16,139
5,971
71.44%
26.43%
Bell
43,906
27,248
18,335
8,672
28,734
14,380
16,658
10,399
5,708
62.43%
34.27%
Cameron
39,386
20,942
7,909
12,596
16,550
21,844
18,444
8,641
9,248
46.85%
50.14%
Hays
39,086
18,397
10,676
7,344
20,877
17,185
20,689
10,201
9,841
49.31%
47.57%
Comal
34,711
21,426
17,877
3,363
26,625
7,426
13,285
8,748
4,063
65.85%
30.58%
Ellis
32,149
19,803
15,459
4,214
23,584
7,957
12,346
8,125
3,743
65.81%
30.32%
Parker
31,826
20,202
17,647
2,380
25,657
5,533
11,624
8,010
3,153
68.91%
27.12%
Brazos
31,588
14,446
10,409
3,800
21,845
9,119
17,142
11,436
5,319
66.71%
31.03%
Guadelupe
30,156
17,703
12,892
4,650
21,195
8,764
12,453
8,303
4,114
66.67%
33.04%
Johnson
29,269
17,406
14,611
2,651
22,712
5,977
11,863
8,101
3,326
68.29%
28.04%
Randall
28,135
15,753
14,278
1,330
24,061
3,644
12,382
9,783
2,314
79.01%
18.69%
Webb
26,402
14,117
2,046
11,625
7,621
17,962
12,285
5,575
6,337
45.38%
51.58%
Midland
23,572
14,461
12,673
1,673
20,198
3,012
9,111
7,525
1,339
82.59%
14.70%
Grayson
23,385
15,102
11,951
3,043
18,010
5,041
8,283
6,059
1,998
73.15%
24.12%
Taylor
23,372
13,202
11,129
1,935
19,077
3,871
10,170
7,948
1,936
78.15%
19.04%
Bowie
23,175
8,953
6,178
2,662
15,574
5,563
14,222
9,396
2,901
66.07%
20.40%
Gregg
21,521
15,066
11,057
3,898
17,161
5,795
6,455
6,104
1,897
94.56%
29.39%
Wichita
21,223
12,801
10,050
2,645
16,103
4,817
8,422
6,053
2,172
71.87%
25.79%
Rockwall
20,994
13,354
10,948
2,330
16,042
4,639
7,640
5,094
2,309
66.68%
30.22%
Kaufman
20,342
12,506
9,382
3,039
14,580
5,448
7,836
5,198
2,409
66.33%
30.74%
Orange
17,263
9,689
7,496
2,713
13,398
3,599
7,574
5,902
886
77.92%
11.70%
Victoria
17,179
9,159
6,728
2,346
12,670
4,249
8,020
5,942
1,903
74.09%
23.73%
Henderson
17,110
10,461
8,300
2,065
13,105
3,687
6,649
4,805
1,622
72.27%
24.39%
Bastrop
16,953
6,921
4,042
2,770
9,793
6,552
10,032
5,751
3,782
57.33%
37.70%
Angelina
16,801
10,454
7,817
2,574
12,939
3,686
6,347
5,122
1,112
80.70%
17.52%
Hunt
16,310
9,352
7,590
1,670
12,282
3,686
6,958
4,692
2,016
67.43%
28.97%
Kerr
14,898
8,973
7,790
1,111
11,711
2,895
5,925
3,921
1,784
66.18%
30.11%
Harrison
14,546
9,088
6,503
2,645
10,311
4,048
5,458
3,808
1,403
69.77%
25.71%

3,899,929
2,380,859
1,387,113
968,808
2,182,320
1,646,512
1,519,070
795,207
677,704
52.35%
44.61%
Vote Gov=Total Vote for Governor









ST Vote=Total Straight-ticket Vote









ST Rep=Straight-ticket Republican Vote









ST Dem=Straight-ticket Democratic Vote









RepVGov=Republican Vote for Governor









DemVGov=Democratic Vote for Governor








VG-STV=Vote for Governor Minus the Straight-ticket Vote







RV-RSTV=Republican Vote Minus the Republican Straight-ticket Vote






DV-DSTV=Democratic Vote Minus the Democratic Straight-ticket Vote






% R SW=Percentage of Swing Vote for Republican Gubernatorial Candidate






%D SW=Pecentage of the Swing Vote for the Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate







The increase in the percentage of straight-ticket votes is not just in Texas. Interestingly, the Pew Research Center found that 81 percent of likely voters in 2014 planned to vote a straight ticket. Obviously, all of those voters were not able to cast straight-ticket ballots because the number of states offering STV is so small. However, what voters are expressing is their intention to vote only for candidates of one political party. This behavior is the result of the ideological polarization of political parties and the sorting of voters into Republicans or Democrats based on their ideological tendencies.[3] The Pew Research Center reported:

An analysis of voters living in areas with two or three major political contests this November shows that only 12% of registered voters say they are splitting their vote between multiple political parties. About three-quarters of registered voters (74%) in these areas say they will select candidates from the same party for all major political races in their area, known as “straight ticket” voting.
 
When narrowed to those most likely to vote in the November election, about eight-in-ten voters (81%) choose a straight party ticket. They are slightly more likely to select only Republican candidates than only Democratic candidates (43% to 36%).  Majorities of Democratic (78%) and
Republican (74%) registered voters are voting straight down their party’s ticket for major races. Even among self-identified independents who are registered to vote, 65% say they will vote a straight ticket. Independents are seven points slightly more likely to choose a straight Republican ticket than a straight Democratic ticket (33% to 26%).

Voters who hold consistent ideological viewpoints are highly likely to vote a straight party ticket. Nearly nine in-ten (87%) with consistently conservative views choose Republican candidates down the line, while 84% of those with consistently liberal views choose a straight Democratic ticket.

Even among voters with ideologically mixed views, most (61%) still choose a slate of candidates from one party; 18% split their tickets between parties.[4]

Furthermore, voters are more partisan in their voting behavior. The Pew Research Center found the following reasons for voting for the voter’s party (about 53 percent of partisans) or against the opposition party (about 29.5 percent of partisans).[5] This is illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Main Reasons to Vote for—or Against—Parties 


Source: Pew Research Center, “Political Polarization in Action” p. 12.

                Given the tendencies noted above, what’s the future of straight-ticket voting in Texas and how will it affect the electoral fortunes of Republican and Democratic candidates? Straight-ticket voting is not in jeopardy in Texas. Two legislators who have sought to eliminate straight-ticket voting—Republicans Jeff Wentworth and Dan Branch—no longer serve in the Texas legislature, and the main complaint about straight-ticket voting is its effect on judicial elections for state district courts, where counties have seen the nearly total replacement of incumbent judges because of an electoral tide resulting from straight-ticket votes. As long as the political parties remain polarized and voters sort themselves into the parties based on their ideologies, straight-ticket voting will continue to be a dominant factor in which party’s candidates gets elected in Texas. For the favored party in Texas elections to change, Texas voters’ ideologies will have to change either through conversion of voters from Republicans to Democrats or through a change in the composition of the electorate to favor Democrats. In the next three electoral cycles, neither is likely, and Republicans will continue to dominate Texas state and local governments.


[1] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Straight Ticket Voting.” May 23, 2014. Available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx

[2] Wayne Thorburn, Red State: An Insider’s Account of How the GOP Came to Dominate Texas Politics (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014), p. 211.

[3] Political scientists disagree on whether the American electorate is polarized. Morris Fiorina maintains that the political elites are polarized, but voters are not. Alan Abramowitz argues that both are polarized. For a good summary, see Alan I. Abramowitz and Morris P. Fiorina, “Polarized or Sorted? Just What’s Wrong With Our Politics, Anyway?” The American Interest, March 13, 2013. Available online at http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/03/11/polarized-or-sorted-just-whats-wrong-with-our-politics-anyway/

[4] Pew Research Center, “Political Polarization in Action: Insights into the 2014 Election from the American Trends Panel,” (October 2014), p. 7.  Available online at http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/17/political-polarization-in-action-insights-into-the-2014-election-from-the-american-trends-panel/

[5] Ibid. p. 12.