Monday, June 19, 2006


Monday's editorial in the News-Leader supports the recently signed Voter ID bill. Whatever. We don't agree, but neither do we have a huge problem with a bill that requires people to show identification before they vote. Especially if the bill provides free ID cards for people who don't have them.

But the bill, signed last week by Gov. Matt Blunt, also eliminates straight-ticket voting. Why? Because more Democrats vote straight ticket than Republicans, and the GOP-controlled legislature didn't want to give their political opponents any break.

The News-Leader's position is summed up in one lame sentence:
[The bill] also gets rid of straight-ticket voting, which we believe is a good idea.
Why is it a good idea? The newspaper's editorialist never explains. Might be tricky, trying to defend the indefensible. Why would the paper be against a voter having the right to choose a straight ticket?


Anonymous said...

You can still vote a straight ticket but you have to mark your candidates individually. I am in favor of the change but for me it has nothing to do with which party uses it more. It has to do with getting people to look at the candidates and decide on the merits of the candidates. I have known way too many people that go in and punch a republican straight ticket instead of examining each candidate. Yes, many people will probably still vote just for their party. But I hate it when the only reason people vote for someone because they are of a certain party. Party affiliation is no guarantee of a good candidate. Check out our last two Governors for example. Sorry for Blogsquatting in your comments.

Anonymous said...


Surprisingly I agree with Larry on this. I can't believe that people actually still vote a straight ticket and don't consider each and every one of the candidates as individual parts of the whole. I may end up voting for every Democrat on the ticket but I do believe that every one of those candidate deserves my time and effort into researching what their positions are (if you can find the info) and voting for them and not their challenger.

I would have thought that after the last two major election cycles, most would want to not throw all of their eggs in one basket... so to speak.

Ron Davis said...

Larry, Bryan:

So you both agree that we should make it HARDER for voters who choose candidates from one party?

I've never voted straight ticket. But why should we stop someone from making that choice on their own?

Anonymous said...

Why not make it easier for voters to pick the best candidates rather than the ones from one party or another? I have also never voted a straight ticket.

On a different subject, I am looking forward to our drink together tomorrow night.

Ron Davis said...


Voters already have the option you suggest. It's called the ballot. Just because neither one of us has ever voted a straight ticket doesn't mean everyone else should be denied that opportunity.

Now, let's talk Tuesday about ways to get people educated about candidates and issues, and how to get them out to vote.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you. We should discuss ways to better educate voters and to get the vote out. That is the root of the issue.

I find our discussion interesting. I see the straight ticket vote as a tool of laziness that should never be used and you see it as a tool of opportunity for others. You made your points well. I see your point even though I don't agree with it. This is the great things about these discussions.

Anonymous said...

I vote straight party ticket, because I know the party matters. I find most people who say they pick the "best person" uninformed, they're just copping out of making a decision of what party best identifies them. They'd rather sit on the fence and curse both parties than get involved and make a difference. The party does matter, especially in the legislature. To think otherwise is polly-annish.

Give me my straight democrat ballot back!