Federalism and the Split-Ticket Voter's Comeback
Several electorates are fixing to buck national partisan labels on ballot measures across the federation.
In a couple of weeks, voters in several states will be casting ballots on a number of measures related to abortion, wages, criminal justice, citizenship, marijuana, and more—including in states where voters who have elected one party to power, and by all indications will continue to do so, are set to diverge sharply from that ruling party’s positions.
In Florida, a GOP+17 state according to That Patchwork’s Master Electoral Index, polling indicates that voters are poised to deregulate abortion access up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for the “patient’s health.” Florida is also considering recreational marijuana legalization, which has similarly led in polls. In Missouri, a GOP+19 state, a measure to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and require employers to offer earned sick leave appears to have support, with an August poll showing 57 percent of registered voters in favor. Missourians will also vote on deregulating abortion access, with a September poll suggesting it may pass.
Side note: Unfortunately, there isn’t nearly the same frequency of polling on these ballot measures as there is on the presidential race, so keep that in mind when interpreting the results.
On the flip side, in DEM+26 California, Democrats are divided over a measure that would increase penalties for certain drug offenses and past convictions. In Arizona, a competitive state with a Democratic governor, one Democratic senator, and a leading Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate, voters appear to support a measure authorizing police to arrest non-citizens entering Arizona outside designated ports of entry. In Washington State, a measure to prohibit a “cap and trade” policy to reduce greenhouse emissions is up for a vote, with local polls showing it may fail, though a significant share of voters remain undecided. In Colorado, DEM+17 at the state level, voters will decide whether to enshrine a right to school choice.
Voters seem ready to again defy party lines and simplistic media narratives about red and blue states, as well as Trump and Biden states. This trend could extend to races for the presidency and U.S. Senate. In Florida, victories for Donald Trump and Rick Scott could be paired with voter approval for abortion protections.
All of this suggests that 2024 could see a resurgence of the once-dormant trend of split-ticket voting—or at least what I’ll call “split-cycle” voting. Split-ticket voting refers to selecting candidates from different parties on the same ballot, while “split-cycle” voting reflects voters’ willingness to transcend ideology or party across multiple elections.
This trend could easily extend to ballot measures. Over the last decade, election analysts have noted a decline in split-ticket voting as political polarization has aligned party support up and down the ballot. But as polarization seems to plateau, the potential for split-ticket and split-cycle voting to rise is significant. Given the pressures each party faces to deviate from orthodoxy on a range of national and local issues a revival of these voting patterns wouldn’t be surprising.
It’s worth noting that split-ticket voting can be misinterpreted. Aggregate data may suggest individuals are splitting their tickets when, in reality, different groups of voters within the same area may favor different candidates. Incomplete ballots can also create the illusion of deliberate ticket-splitting. Therefore, a better indicator of split-ticket voting might be analyzing vote totals and shares for candidates or ballot measures.
Even when ballots are left incomplete, the outcomes still provide insights into the partisan leanings of a locality or state. Looking beyond a single election, when partisan outcomes shift across multiple elections, the potential for split-cycle trends to influence political offices becomes clearer.
In states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio, incumbent Democratic senators have been considered particularly vulnerable this year, as Donald Trump has made these states more competitive at the presidential level. However, these Democratic senators have maintained narrow but consistent leads over their Republican challengers, buoyed by strong re-election performances during the Democratic wave in 2018. As the races tighten, surprises could emerge from split-ticketing or other factors driving split-partisan outcomes.
There’s an upside to this trend. Earlier this year, I argued that depolarization could weaken democracy by aligning both parties around a more technocratic and muscular federal government. On the flip side, split-ticket voting and split-cycle outcomes could help mitigate federal power while easing polarization.
Split-ticket voting, whether for candidates or ballot measures, can reduce polarization by encouraging moderation and promoting state-level policymaking. When voters choose candidates from different parties, it signals a desire for balanced governance. This dynamic allows politicians to pursue policies they might otherwise avoid due to national narratives or party platforms. For example, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a bill that could have allowed undocumented workers to receive unemployment benefits. In Texas, Republicans have invested in clean energy, making the state the nation’s largest wind power producer. In Illinois, lawmakers expanded tax credit scholarships as part of a bipartisan school choice initiative. Each of these policies might have been more challenging to implement if those responsible had to align with national narratives or run alongside a presidential candidate.
When lawmakers lead by example, they can encourage voters to consider policies more thoughtfully, reducing federal influence over state-level compromises. Election results that split federal power also allow states to better address local needs, strengthening representative democracy in ways federal policymaking cannot. Importantly, voters who split their ballots demonstrate independence, prioritizing issue-based decisions over strict party loyalty, which helps weaken extremes. While not a cure-all for polarization, split-ticketing and split-cycling can enhance accountability and public influence on policy in ways that federal power cannot.
If 2024 does usher in a resurgence of split-ticket and split-cycle voting, it could signal what party affiliation trends often do: that voters are increasingly unwilling to be boxed into partisan lines. At the federal level, polling suggests that regardless of who the newly elected president is, there’s a fair probability Washington will face narrowly divided government—something not seen since 1988 and only four times since 1920.
This unwillingness to adhere to a particular camp may frustrate technocrats and partisans who view a divided government as dysfunctional or outdated. They will say it is the result of only a few states that get to decide the fate of the country. That’s a view predicated on a disregard for the constellations of democratic institutions to which America’s resilience as an experiment is owed. Whatever the result, it’s all but certain that this election will be another that acts as a check on what we believe to be our very best intentions — a predictable and appropriate outcome in this patchwork of democracy.
In a political media dominated by national narratives, That Patchwork is the only newsletter about democracy from a decentralist angle. To preserve democratic pluralism means challenging the primacy of national narratives that presume central power knows best.