Editorial: Ending single-party option would limit voters' choices

 

Sunday March 20, 2016 12:01 AM

 

The Issue: U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent wants to eliminate single-button straight-party voting in federal elections.

 

Our Opinion: The proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

In a year when little that's sensible seems to be resonating, one could be tempted to go for U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent's proposal to eliminate straight-party voting.

 

The proposal by the congressman had, as of March 15, just a single co-sponsor besides Dent: U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

 

Given some of the ballots Texans face - the "2010 ballot in Houston, Texas (Harris County), included 72 judicial races," according to an academic paper on straight-party voting by two Georgetown University scholars - Cuellar's co-sponsorship makes sense. Voters should not be encouraged to vote straight-party because they're worn out by a ballot's length.

 

Dent's "People Before Party" legislation would outlaw the option of taking a straight-party shortcut. Voters could no longer check one box or push a single button to vote for all candidates of a single party in a general election for a federal office.

 

Kevin Boughter, chairman of the Berks County Democratic Committee, made the solid point that, if Dent's proposal moves forward, Harrisburg ought to do the same at the state level to avoid confusion.

Unfortunately for Dent, a Lehigh County Republican who represents parts of Berks County, the idea appears to lack any traction in Harrisburg. The Department of State - the agency that administers elections in Pennsylvania - has heard of no proposal similar to Dent's affecting ballots for state and local races, according to spokeswoman Wanda Murren. The department typically is consulted on any such proposal, she said.

 

And supporting Dent's bill at the state level does not appear to be a priority for Gov. Tom Wolf, either.

"Our goal is to increase voter participation," Wolf spokesman Jeffrey Sheridan said. "What they do once in the ballot box is their prerogative."

 

Dent's argument is that he's not stopping anyone from voting straight-party; he simply wants to require voters to choose candidates one by one.

 

"Individuals who wish to vote a straight-party line may certainly continue to do so," Dent says, "but they should not be offered a shortcut or a one-touch workaround from the need to consider their vote for each individual candidate and for each office. This bill will empower voters to elect thoughtful leaders and reduce the power of the parties."

 

While this may not be an eloquent translation, Dent's argument comes down to protecting voters from themselves. Who's to say that voters who pull a straight-party ticket are not doing so both thoughtfully and forcefully? Perhaps they want to send a message to a party that has disappointed them or show loyalty to one that has represented them well.

 

As for the power of parties, those who vote in primaries take control, defying any authority party leaders might wish to wield, as we have seen during the Republican presidential nomination process.

 

While the Georgetown scholars' paper, "Check One and Accountability Is Done," makes a compelling argument about judicial elections, it loses something when applied through Dent's proposal. Pennsylvanians elect their judges in odd-numbered years, and Dent's bill would affect only elections in even-numbered, federal-election years.

 

In a federal election held in Pennsylvania, where closed primaries give the major parties power, straight-party voting might be the voters' best vehicle to send a message. No need to fix what isn't broken.

 

 

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/editorial-ending-single-party-option-would-limit-voters-choices