Complicating voting

[kitanzi]

Snopes points out that simply voting "the straight ticket" may, in some states, mean you didn't vote for president at all. Just a heads up - whatever you choose to vote, get it counted.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/straightticket.asp

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

So if you wanted to, you could vote McCain/Biden (or Obama/Palin, I suppose). I wonder how many will.

That is a useful tip though. I wonder why it's set up that way...

[kitanzi.livejournal.com]

I would like to think it's to encourage people to think when they vote. I suspect it's either to boobytrap the process or just bad design.

[madfilkentist]

No, we can't do that. In the US, we don't actually vote for presidential candidates; we vote for a slate of electors that's committed to voting to a presidential and vice-presidential candidate. The electors usually aren't even named on the ballot. They can, in principle, change their minds, and sometimes they do. One that stands out is that in 1972, an elector committed to Nixon bolted and voted for the Libertarian candidates, John Hospers and Tonie Nathan.

This, incidentally, provides the answer to the trivia question, "Who was the first female presidential or vice-presidential candidate in the US to get an electoral vote?"

[cellio]

I think anyone who uses the "straight party line" button/lever/chad deserves to not have his vote counted. I think that at the very least people should have to see the names of all the candidates. I would like to banish the straight-party option from voting machines.