News-Record.com

Is there a good reason for a straight ticket NOT to include the presidential vote? Could you elucidate why you think - or why you've learned - that this extra step is necessary or advisable for either of the candidates?

I don't think it matters one whit. The New York Times is mistaken, and I vote for the candidate I think can do the job best, period. This means that I do NOT always vote a straight party ticket... and I do my homework as much as possible on the candidates.

Can you elaborate if this information in the Times was written by a staff witer? Or was it on the editorial page?

Can I also ask you how you extrapolated your "not so hidden implication?"

I don't think it matters one whit. The New York Times is mistaken, and I vote for the candidate I think can do the job best, period. This means that I do NOT always vote a straight party ticket... and I do my homework as much as possible on the candidates.

Can I ask you how you extrapolated your "not so hidden implication?"

The NYT piece is an unsigned staff editorial reflecting the opinion of the newspaper.

I extrapolated what I believed to be the Times' inference based on its reference to Palm Beach 2000, when undercounts produced by a poorly designed ballot hurt Gore. It seems to me the concern is that a similar result in N.C. this year would hurt Obama. Please let me know if you think I'm misreading between the lines.

Sue, I'm not a fan of the straight party mechanism although he speeds up voting for those who are set on supporting one party down the ballot. I certainly would be fine with including the presidential vote with the straight party vote. It would make more sense. But, again, the current set-up is 40 years old now and shouldn't confuse voters.

SOmeone from New Yprk thinks folks in NC are unable to manage the voting process. SUR-PRISE...SUR-PRISE... SUR-PRISE

No, no such thing as elitism. just a figment you know.

Yes, as I said, it does presume our voters are unsophisticated, or that there's some effort to trick them.

Just a few weeks ago, you'll recall, the NYT reported that North Carolina was one of several states purging lots of voters from the rolls. But the Times hadn't done sufficient reporting here to show anything improper was happening.

They are right, Doug. The ballots were designed by the elite for the benefit of the elite majority and reflect inherent cultural bias.

So it's a ready made excuse for the wrong outcome?

Only in the eyes of a satirist such as yourself, Savage.

From the editorial:

"North Carolina has an unusually high rate of undervotes, ballots that do not record a vote for president. In the last two presidential elections, the rate has been about double the national average."

Not to deny my fellow North Carolinians the timeless pleasure of umbrage at those snooty Yankees, but there does seem to be at least some empirical case for the existence of a problem.

Doug, if you would only shout "satire" from the rooftops in your column the next time some G-Boro politician or public servant asserts this very claim.

Let me suggest an alternative theory.

We have tough ballot-access laws, which means we have fewer third-party candidates on our ballot. Lacking an option to vote for a Ralph Nader, perhaps an extra 1 or 2 percent of North Carolinians simply decline to vote for a presidential candidate.

In all seriousness, I don't reject the possibility that some voters actually are confused. There are always a few. But, come on, NYT, this is not the butterfly ballot all over again.

I voted this afternoon and the process went well. The election worker figured correctly that I had "studied" before voting. I asked her about the separate presidential vote and she pointed it out to me on the first screen (after I pressed the ready button). First, I thought it could have been bigger or more clearly identified. But the second point is bigger: had I not pressed "ready" while she was still there (and read the prior screen more closely), I can see how people might have missed the presidential vote area.

We are trained to look for the headlines; the presidential vote area was small, 1/4 of a column, and to the top left. The right column was longer and had the "next" button under it. Although I am happy with the appearance of the screens and the ease of voting, that seems kind of easy to fix, perhaps with a big PRESIDENT at the top, or a colorful border, or something eye-catching.

If Ed's citation is fact, then some NCers are missing that presidential vote and probably get caught up in the 7-page ballot and might honestly ignore it out of a poor visual cue.

A straight ticket is age-old and should include all the candidates for all the offices (whether or not you agree with straight-ticket voting) but not putting more visual emphasis on the presidential area just seems a little silly because it's easy to fix. Now that we're no longer complaining about the light turnout (yay! for democracy), perhaps we can focus more on election mechanics and improve the NC system.

I voted in Oak Ridge today and the person showing me voting machine clearly explained the need to choose twice if you wanted to vote a straight party ticket. I am sure that the NYT thinks than anyone south of the Potomic River is a rube and unable to comprehend something as complex as touch screen voting. I am surpirsed that the people in the "big city" even accept Federal tax money because it may come from some of us uneducated folks.

Maybe we could just print a big picture of each presidential candidate and then not let anyone leave the voting booth without pointing to one.

I think the only assumption the Times made is assuming that there are some voters who are stupid or may be confused in NC. If it were like as close as Florida in 2000, then something like 1 in 5000 voters being stupid or misunderstanding could make the difference. I hardly think that's an indictment of all NC voters.

Actually many countries, particularly those with low literacy levels, do put pictures on the ballot. I don't think it's such a bad idea.

If the current system is 40 years old, I bet it was set up at the end of segregation so people could vote straight Dem for state offices as would no doubt have been quite common while not having to vote for the Dem at the top who'd be a bit more progressive. Call it the Wallace ballot. Just speculation.

But ... the assertion that this confused voter effect could make the difference implies that voters on one side are more likely to be confused than voters on the other, right? If there is such an effect, shouldn't it take votes equally from both sides, given the premise of a very tight race? On what basis, then, does the Times suppose that one side's voters are more susceptible to confusion/stupidity?

To drill down a little further on the statistic I cited above (NC has had twice the national average of incomplete ballots in recent elections): "A Duke University researcher estimated that more than 90,000 people who voted in North Carolina [in 2004] inexplicably did not cast a vote for president. That's 60,000 to 70,000 more than researchers would expect." link.

More: "In 2000, more than 75,000 ballots were cast that didn't include a choice for president."

Sorry, Doug, but you ignored the one meaningful statistic in the editorial, and a quick Google search suggests there may be something more to this than your glib post suggests.

"But ... the assertion that this confused voter effect could make the difference implies that voters on one side are more likely to be confused than voters on the other, right?"

One would assume that those voting for the first time would be those most likely to make the mistake, and most likely Obama will win a large majority of first-time voters.

Ed, your numbers don't drill down a millimeter unless they explain why this is happening. Has anyone investigated the relative impact of fewer ballot choices in North Carolina than in most other states? With no Nader/Buchanan on the N.C. ballot in 2000, for example, I suggest it's possible plenty of voters here didn't care to make a Bush/Gore choice. Perhaps there was a similar effect in 2004. Bush/Kerry wasn't universally regarded as a good choice.

I have a proposition. Let's wait and see what it looks like when the votes are counted this time. If, as Andrew suggests, so many new voters are coming out to support Obama -- and I accept that notion -- then I believe they will accomplish their task without confusion. Now, there may be some Republican/unaffiliated voters who won't vote for Obama but can't bring themselves to hit the McCain button, either, so we'll still have some presidential undervote, but it shouldn't be a higher percentage than other states.

I do not argue with the numbers Ed cites but simply don't agree they prove there's something wrong with the construction of our ballot without further evidence of causality. Bottom line: I'm not willing to concede that significant numbers of North Carolina voters can't follow the plain and simple instructions for casting a presidential ballot.

But I will reconsider if the pattern persists this time around.

Now, they've finally given up trying to play baseball in Philly tonight, so I'm turning in.

Those 2004 numbers do seem high, because that year there wasn't as much of an issue as candidates not on the ballot, and 2.5% showing up to vote and then not voting for president seems odd. The root problem here is that for a national election there should be a national standard for the ballot. An interesting thing about our fragmented electoral system is that it causes so many inconsistencies that our own State Department wouldn't be able to rule our elections free and fair if they were looking at it from outside. This goes along with my firm belief that we should get rid of this 18th Century anachronism known as the electoral college.

Now that's another can of worms.

Funny about the N.C. ballot, though, that this is just becoming a big concern when a Democrat has a chance to carry the state.

Doug, your arguments with the data may or may not hold water -- I find the 2000 no-third-party hypothesis to be doubtful in explaining the scale of the non-votes, and of course it doesn't apply to 2004, and it fails to address the report that the number of incomplete ballots in NC runs twice the national average.

What's clear, though, is that in your eagerness to beat up on the NYT you dismissed an issue that clearly deserves some attention.

Ed, you're simply dismissing my theory on a hunch. You're wise but not quite all-knowing.

Why wouldn't my idea apply to 2004?

In North Carolina, less than 0.4 percent of the presidential vote when to candidates other than Bush or Kerry:

http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/NCSBE/Elec/Results/resultsby_contest_summary.asp?ED=11xx02xx2004AGENERAL2004REPUUS%2520SENATE&B1=Submit

Nationally, more than 1 percent of the presidential vote went to candidates other than Bush or Kerry:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.pdf

Could the fact that, proportionately, North Carolina produced fewer than half as many "neither of the above" votes explain why our presidential undervote was twice the national average? I contend we just might have as many "neither of the above" voters here, but they simply aren't allowed as many alternative choices.

As I said in a previous post, I'm willing to consider this as a serious issue. At the same time, I'll choose to be cyncial about those who seem to be suddenly concerned about it only when a Democrat has a chance to win North Carolina.

On that subject, what was your position back in '04?

Moody's has finally moved the "Times'" financial rating (Junk Status) to match their editorial status!

Hopefully that is the first step on their journey to oblivion since it will be much more expenssive for them to borrow money, which they may need to continue to meet payroll since their subscription and ad revenues are plunging! Besides, who, outside of the elitist liberal bubble, gives a rat's rear end what the "Times" says about anything?

Spirited discussion!

Two things I would like to respond to. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Civil War ended in 1865. Please do not persist in perpetuating unsubstatiated stereotypes from either side (those yankees see us as rubes OR those southerners are rubes)

I do not believe the Times had a goal of placing North Carolinians in a pejorative light, so please, don't put yourselves there.

I do believe there will be an overwhelming number of inexperienced voters coming to the polls this election. I too voted on October 16, the first day of early elections, but did not vote a straight party ticket, and made my choices deliberately, as I believe many of the first time voters will be doing.

Doug, if the assumption about first time voters is based on the idea that they will be coming out to support Obama, I understand your extrapolation, but I was unable to draw that conclusion from the Times article.

Everyone sees through his own lense I guess.

If I am not mistaken, the touch screen SAYS that you must vote for president, and then the other candidates. Somone correct me if I am wrong, but is this option not offered if you vote a straight party ticket?

On a side bar, I used to live in Wake County, and I had to use a provisional ballot which of course they told me would be counted in 10 days. This happened because my estranged husband was taking my mail and his from the curb side mailbox, and I applied to have my mail sent to a PO box. The State Board of Elections does not allow information to be forwarded, and even though I was able to show up at my polling place, with my driver's license and the voter registration card confirming my street address (no p.o. boxes for the DMV either) I was NOT allowed to vote using a regular ballot.

When I moved to Greensboro and was able to have a street address again, one of the first things I did was register to vote. I believe in civic participation top to bottom, not just during a popular presidential election.

So, that is to let you know that a flaw does exist in the way things operate in elections, before you say it is someone's imagination or southerner bashing.

Thanks, Mia, for an illuminating perspective.

Sure, I relished a chance to hit back at the NYT. You make good points that N.C. can improve its voting process. But comparisons to the Palm Beach County butterly ballot are way off base. We'll see what kind of presidential undervote we end up with this election, but I'll be surprised if it's significant.

The News & Observer is running a similar story now. I hope that won't be blamed on New York liberals.

North Carolina's undervote for president is about 2 to 3 times the national rate. That we are so far out of line, and that we consistently are so, indicates that we have a problem voting.

Besides the undervote rate, we do have anecdotal evidence from voters, including educated ones - who say they were not aware of the straight ticket exception.

North Carolina is the only state in the country that has this rule. The other 14 states with straight ticket voting all include the president as part of the straight ticket.

NC lost approx 92,000 votes for President in 2004, and 75,000 votes for President in 2000. The original citation for that came from my website. The voter turnout was researched by Justin Moore, who found that reported data at the SBoE site was not complete. The problem was that counties do not report their data the same way, and some had not reported it at all.

The SBoE does not examine undervote rates, but voter advocate groups like the NC Coalition for Verified Voting do.

As for this being a partisan issue, straight ticket voting is an option for either party.

If the presidential contest is divided by 1 or 2 %, we will have the supporters of the loser of wondering if this ballot design cost their candidate the election.

NC Verified Voting works towards the goal that all votes will be counted as cast, and that voter intent will be recorded. With this straight ticket ballot exception, a significant number of voters will be tripped up.

NCVV sent out press releases about this in 2004, and found that some media, candidates and voters were surprised. With nearly a million new voters in NC this year, we certainly will have some who will be tripped up.

If we truly want to have a democracy, then we can enfranchise the most people by making voting simple and straight forward.

Read more here:
http://www.ncvoter.net/straightticket.html

Here's our editorial on the subject, published today:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2008/10/28/article/editorial_not_a_butterfly_ballot

It is asserted that poll workers verbally instruct every voter, but this cannot be ensured, particularly in a year with record turnout. My wife was not instructed of the need for a separate vote for president when she voted, though fortunately she knew about it already.

Our state ballot is flawed and there is no excuse for the anachronistic design.

Oh, it will be changed now that it no longer favors the Democrats.

Perhaps NC being between the North and the South are different by choice. I (NC-R) personally have been so dissatisfied with the presidential choices lately, and I refuse to choose lesser of two problems. Parties cause us to put too many eggs in a few baskets. NC's limit on the ballot listed candidates further limits our choices. I'm sick of the lack of choices. If you want lower taxes you have to chokedown big war and pro-life... It's no wonder we are so hated by other countries we are bossing them around when we can't straighten ourselves out.