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.