Split-ticket voting is the practice of voting for candidates of different political parties for different offices on the same ballot, such as choosing a Democratic presidential nominee but a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. This voting behavior stands in contrast to straight-ticket voting, where an elector casts votes exclusively for candidates of a single political party across the entire ballot.
For much of the 20th century, split-ticket voting was a common feature of American politics, representing a electorate that prioritized individual candidate appeal, local issues, and ideological moderation over rigid party loyalty. Today, however, split-ticket voting is at historic lows. As partisan polarization has intensified and local elections have become increasingly nationalized, American voters are aligning their choices from the top of the ticket all the way to municipal offices. Understanding how split-ticket voting works, why it has declined, and what its disappearance means for government functionality is essential for anyone analyzing modern political behavior.
How Split-Ticket Voting Works in Practice #
When a voter enters a voting booth or fills out a mail-in ballot, they are presented with a list of offices to be filled, ranging from the presidency and Congress down to state legislatures, county commissioners, and local judges. A split-ticket voter evaluates each office independently, selecting the individual candidate they prefer regardless of party affiliation.
To understand the mechanics, consider a hypothetical ballot in a swing state during a general election:
- Office of the President: The voter selects the Democratic candidate.
- Office of the U.S. Senator: The voter selects the Republican candidate.
- Office of the U.S. Representative: The voter selects the Democratic candidate.
- Office of the Governor: The voter selects an Independent or third-party candidate.
This voter has successfully “split” their ticket. Conversely, a straight-ticket voter would simply select the Democratic or Republican candidate for every single office listed on the page.
In some states, historical ballot design made straight-ticket voting exceptionally easy by featuring a single box or lever at the top of the ballot that allowed voters to select an entire party line with one action. Over the last several decades, most states have abolished this “straight-ticket device,” requiring voters to manually select candidates for each office. Yet, despite the physical necessity of casting individual votes, actual ticket-splitting has declined dramatically.
The Historical Peak of Ticket Splitting #
Ticket-splitting was not always a rarity. In the mid-to-late 20th century, it was a dominant force in American electoral politics. This era was characterized by weaker partisan identities, ideologically diverse coalitions within both major parties, and a strong emphasis on candidate brand and constituency service.
The Ideological Overlap of the 20th Century #
From the 1950s through the 1980s, both major parties were big tents containing significant ideological diversity. The Democratic Party hosted both liberal northern progressives and highly conservative southern Democrats. The Republican Party featured both conservative midwesterners and liberal or moderate northeastern Republicans.
Because party labels did not perfectly align with ideology, voters frequently looked past the party brand. A moderate Republican voter in New York might comfortably vote for a liberal Democratic Senator, while a conservative Democratic voter in Georgia would easily vote for a Republican presidential candidate while supporting local Democrats for Congress.
Historic Split Outcomes #
This behavior resulted in massive ticket-splitting at the macro level. In 1972, Republican President Richard Nixon won a historic landslide victory, carrying 49 states. Yet, on the very same ballots, voters elected a robust Democratic majority to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Similarly, in 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan won 49 states, but the House of Representatives remained firmly under Democratic control. Voters during these eras actively chose a divided government, using their split ballots to balance the power of the executive and legislative branches.
Historically, this behavior was driven by the belief that local representatives should serve local interests, independent of national party platforms. To see how today’s voters behave differently in real-time, you can track current polling data and compare historical trends with the Election Tracker mobile app.
Why Split-Ticket Voting Is Declining #
In the 21st century, split-ticket voting has gone from a common practice to an endangered species. The primary drivers of this decline are ideological sorting, the nationalization of local politics, and the rise of negative partisanship.
1. Ideological Sorting #
Over the past forty years, the ideological overlap between the two parties has virtually disappeared. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats have become extinct. Today, the most conservative Democrat in Congress is still generally more liberal than the most liberal Republican, and vice versa.
Because the parties are now ideologically cohesive, a voter’s policy preferences are highly likely to align perfectly with one party across all issues. A voter who supports abortion rights, environmental regulation, and progressive taxation will find no viable candidates on the Republican side of the ballot, eliminating the logical basis for splitting their ticket.
2. The Nationalization of Local Politics #
Elections for the Senate, the House, and even state governorships have increasingly become referendums on national political figures and cultural debates. Local issues—such as state infrastructure, regional economic development, or a candidate’s personal character—now take a backseat to nationalized controversies.
When a Senate race is framed entirely around which party will control the majority and steer the judicial confirmation process, voters treat their Senate vote as an extension of their presidential preference. Consequently, a voter who wants a Democratic president is highly unlikely to vote for a Republican senator, knowing that doing so could hand control of the Senate to the opposing party and block the president’s agenda.
3. Negative Partisanship #
Political scientists have documented a powerful shift in voter motivation known as negative partisanship. Rather than being driven by a positive affinity for their own party, many voters are primarily motivated by a deep dislike and fear of the opposing party.
When voters view the opposition party as an existential threat to the country, the idea of voting for even a single member of that party becomes unthinkable. Negative partisanship acts as a powerful psychological barrier against ticket-splitting, cementing straight-ticket voting as the default behavior.
The Modern Reality: Data and Real-World Examples #
The collapse of split-ticket voting is clearly visible in recent election data. The alignment between presidential voting and congressional voting at the state level has reached nearly unprecedented levels.
The Senate-Presidential Correlation #
In the 2016 election, a historic milestone was reached: for the first time in the history of popular Senate elections, every single state that held a Senate race voted for the same party for Senate as it did for President. All 34 states with Senate contests on the ballot aligned perfectly.
In 2020, this trend remained nearly absolute. Out of 35 Senate races, 34 voted for the same party’s presidential and senatorial candidates. The sole exception was Maine, where Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden won the state’s statewide popular vote, but incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins won reelection.
Pockets of Deviation: Gubernatorial Races #
While ticket-splitting has nearly vanished in federal races, it still occasionally manifests in state-level gubernatorial elections. Governors are often judged on highly localized executive performance, state budget management, and disaster response, which can insulate them from national political headwinds.
For example, states like Vermont and New Hampshire have regularly elected Republican governors (such as Phil Scott and Chris Sununu) while voting overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates. Similarly, Kentucky and Kansas—both deeply conservative states in presidential elections—have elected and reelected Democratic governors (Andy Beshear and Laura Kelly).
Despite these high-profile executive exceptions, the overall legislative trend remains highly polarized. If you want to see how these polarized dynamics impact executive popularity, you can monitor presidential approval ratings and trend charts in real-time.
The Consequences of the Decline #
The near-extinction of split-ticket voting has profound implications for how the American government functions and how political campaigns are run.
- The Loss of the “Governing Center”: When split-ticket voting was common, politicians in swing or opposing territories had to appeal to moderate voters to win. A Republican running in a Democratic-leaning state had to govern as a moderate. Today, because voters rarely cross party lines, politicians are primarily threatened by primary challenges from their own party’s extremes, leading to increased ideological rigidity and legislative gridlock.
- The Demise of Swing Districts: Because voters stick strictly to their party line, the partisan lean of a district or state almost entirely dictates the outcome of its elections. There are fewer “swing” districts than ever before, leaving most congressional races pre-determined by district boundaries.
- The Dominance of Party Over Candidate Quality: In an era of high ticket-splitting, a highly qualified, charismatic candidate could overcome their party’s unpopularity in a region. Today, even exceptionally strong candidates often lose simply because the letter next to their name does not match the dominant party of the electorate.
Keeping tabs on these diverging margins is easier when you can compare state-level Senate polls side-by-side with presidential matchups. You can access these comprehensive datasets using Election Tracker’s political data dashboard.
Frequently Asked Questions #
What is the opposite of split-ticket voting? #
The opposite of split-ticket voting is straight-ticket voting (also known as straight-party voting). This occurs when a voter selects every candidate from a single political party across the entire ballot.
Why do some voters still split their tickets? #
Voters who split their tickets today are usually motivated by a candidate’s personal reputation, strong local record, or moderate positioning that distances them from the national party. Some voters also split their tickets intentionally to promote a divided government, believing that having different parties control the presidency and Congress prevents either party from passing extreme legislation.
Is split-ticket voting permitted in all U.S. states? #
Yes. Every state allows voters to split their tickets in general elections. While some states have eliminated the “straight-ticket device”—a single ballot option that automatically selects all candidates of one party—voters in every state are free to manually select candidates of different parties for different offices.
Does split-ticket voting happen in primary elections? #
No, split-ticket voting generally does not occur in primary elections. In most states, primaries are partisan events where voters are given a ballot containing only the candidates of a single party to determine who will represent that party in the general election. Even in states with “open” or “jungle” primaries, the purpose of the primary is to narrow down the field rather than elect candidates to office across different branches of government.