Straight-ticket voting or straight-party voting is the practice of voting for every candidate that a political party has on a general election ballot. In general, straight-ticket voting was a common occurrence until around the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time, straight-ticket voting has declined in the United States among the general voting population. In the early days of the parties, it was nearly impossible not to vote on a straight-party line vote. Voters would receive a colored ballot with that party's nominees on it. A split-ticket vote would require two different colored ballots; the voter would choose a specific party, vote for everyone from that party. Some states have had an option to select "vote straight-ticket Democrat" and "vote straight-ticket Republican" that voters can check instead of voting for each race. West Virginia and Iowa abolished this practice in 2015, 2016, 2017 though Michigan's repeal was blocked by a federal judge due to discrimination issues in 2016 but was reinstated by the 6th Circuit Court and Supreme Court in 2018.
Michigan voted to restore straight-ticket voting through a ballot proposal in 2018. Texas's straight-ticket repeal will be effective in 2020; the straight-ticket voting option differs from state to state. General-election ballots in Michigan have three sections: The partisan section, which includes candidates for partisan offices. Voters in Michigan had long been able to vote a split ticket. Straight-ticket voting only involved the partisan section of the ballot, meaning that if an individual wished to vote in a non-partisan race or for or against a proposal, they had to cast those votes individually. One area in which this issue received attention was in races for the Michigan Supreme Court. All parties on the ballot can nominate candidates for Justice of the Supreme Court at their party conventions. However, the races appear on the ballot in the nonpartisan section, meaning that a straight-ticket vote for either of these parties would not include a vote for that party's candidates for Supreme Court.
The Michigan Legislature passed and Governor Rick Snyder signed SB 13 on January 5, 2015, which repeals and abolishes straight-ticket voting in the state. This follows failed attempts to abolish it in 1964 and 2001-2002 after voter referenda repealing abolition. With a $5 million appropriation in SB 13, however, a voter referendum is no longer possible due to a constitutional prohibition on referenda on bills appropriating moneys by the Legislature. In 2018, Michigan voters passed a ballot proposal. North Carolina had an option for voting "straight party" that did not include a vote for the President and Vice President of the United States, through the 2012 elections. A voter ID law enacted in 2013 abolished all straight-ticket voting in the state, went into effect in 2014; the bill eliminating it was HB 589. Under the former system, North Carolina made separate selections for the President/Vice President and the straight-party option; this idiosyncrasy on the North Carolina ballot was described by some as "a ballot flaw," resulting in voters failing to cast a vote for President and Vice President when doing so was their intent.
It was introduced in the 1960s to shore up Democrats at the state level as Republicans were gaining strength at the national level. In the 2000 presidential election, there was a 3.15% "undervote". This means that in raw numbers, more than 92,000 North Carolina voters in the 2000 election turned out to vote but did not vote for president. In Texas, a vote for a straight-party ticket casts votes for all party candidates in all races where the party is fielding a candidate and the voter is eligible to cast a vote, from the President/Vice President to the county constable or justice of the peace. On June 1, 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law House Bill 25, which eliminates the straight-ticket voting option in Texas for all races beginning in 2020. A voter, may vote a straight-party ticket and subsequently cast an individual vote in a particular race; this may happen in cases where the voter's party did not field a candidate in a specific race, the voter wants to cast a vote in that race for one of the candidates from another party, and/or the voter does not wish to support the party's candidate in a specific race, but wishes to vote for another candidate in that race.
In some Texas counties, an individual vote will not override the straight-party vote: If a voter chooses the straight-party option votes for a single can
Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election fraud, election manipulation or vote rigging, is illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. What constitutes electoral fraud varies from country to country. Many kinds of election fraud are outlawed in electoral legislations, but others are in violation of general laws, such as those banning assault, harassment or libel. Although technically the term'electoral fraud' covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to describe acts which are legal, but considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of an election or in violation of the principles of democracy. Show elections, containing only one candidate, are sometimes classified as electoral fraud, although they may comply with the law and are presented more as referendums. In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the effect of a coup d'état or corruption of democracy.
In a narrow election, a small amount of fraud may be enough to change the result. If the outcome is not affected, the revelation of fraud can have a damaging effect, if not punished, as it can reduce voters' confidence in democracy. A list of threats to voting systems, or electoral fraud methods considered as sabotage are kept by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Electoral fraud can occur in advance of voting; the legality of this type of manipulation varies across jurisdictions. Deliberate manipulation of election outcomes is considered a violation of the principles of democracy. In many cases, it is possible for authorities to artificially control the composition of an electorate in order to produce a foregone result. One way of doing this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example by temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in flophouses. Many countries prevent this with rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an electoral district for a minimum period in order to be eligible to vote there.
However, such laws can be used for demographic manipulation as they tend to disenfranchise those with no fixed address, such as the homeless, Roma and some casual workers. Another strategy is to permanently move people into an electoral district through public housing. If people eligible for public housing are to vote for a particular party they can either be concentrated into one area, thus making their votes count for less, or moved into marginal electorates, where they may tip the balance towards their preferred party. One notable example of this occurred in the City of Westminster in England under Shirley Porter. Immigration law may be used to manipulate electoral demography. For instance, Malaysia gave citizenship to immigrants from the neighboring Philippines and Indonesia, together with suffrage, in order for a political party to "dominate" the state of Sabah. A method of manipulating primary contests and other elections of party leaders are related to this. People who support one party may temporarily join another party in order to elect a weak candidate for that party's leadership.
The goal is to defeat the weak candidate in the general election by the leader of the party that the voter supports. There were claims that this method was being utilised in the UK Labour Party leadership election in 2015, where Conservative-leaning Toby Young encouraged Conservatives to join Labour and vote for Jeremy Corbyn in order to "consign Labour to electoral oblivion". Shortly after, #ToriesForCorbyn trended on Twitter; the composition of an electorate may be altered by disenfranchising some classes of people, rendering them unable to vote. In some cases, states have passed provisions that raised general barriers to voter registration, such as poll taxes and comprehension tests, record-keeping requirements, which in practice were applied against minority populations to discriminatory effect. From the turn of the century into the late 1960s, most African Americans in the southern states of the former Confederacy were disenfranchised by such measures. Corrupt election officials may misuse voting regulations such as a literacy test or requirement for proof of identity or address in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for their targets to cast a vote.
If such practices discriminate against a religious or ethnic group, they may so distort the political process that the political order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-Reconstruction or Jim Crow era until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Felons have been disenfranchised in many states as a strategy to prevent African Americans from voting. Groups may be disenfranchised by rules which make it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote. For example, requiring people to vote within their electorate may disenfranchise serving military personnel, prison inmates, hospital patients or anyone else who cannot return to their homes. Polling can be set for inconvenient days, such as midweek or on holy days of religious groups: for example on the Sabbath or other holy days of a religious group whose teachings determine that voting is a prohibited on such a day. Communities may be disenfranchised if polling places are situated in areas perceived by voters as unsafe, or are not provided within reasonable proximity.
In some cases, voters may be invalidly disenfranchised, true electoral fraud. For example, a legitimate vo
Voter suppression is a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression, attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against a candidate or proposition; the tactics of voter suppression range from minor changes to make voting less convenient, to physically intimidating and physically attacking prospective voters, illegal. Voter suppression can be effective if a significant number of voters are intimidated or disenfranchised. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelby v. Holder that voting laws had resulted in voter suppression and discrimination. In Australia, it is mandatory for citizens to enroll to vote and it is their responsibility to update their enrollment when they change their address. So, it is estimated that about 6% of eligible Australian voters are not enrolled, or are enrolled incorrectly.
These are disproportionately younger voters, many of whom might neglect to enroll when they attain voting age. In 2006, the Howard Government legislated to close the electoral roll much earlier once an election was called. While voters had been allowed seven days of grace after an election had been called to arrange or update their enrollment, new voters were now allowed only until 8:00 pm on the day that the electoral writ was issued to lodge their enrollment form, while those who needed to update their addresses were allowed three days. In Australia, the Prime Minister has the right to determine the date of the election, so long as constitutional rules regarding the maximum term of the parliament are adhered to; this measure was therefore to result in many newer voters being precluded from voting in the first election for which they were eligible because the time to arrange their enrollment once an election is called had been reduced. The measure was seen as an attempt at voter suppression aimed at younger voters, who surveys had shown are more than the general population to vote for the opposition, the Australian Labor Party, or the Greens.
The Government denied that they were trying to suppress some voters, insisting that the purpose of the reform was to smooth the administration of elections and to reduce the possibility of electoral fraud. This was in spite of the fact that the Australian Electoral Commission had requested no such reform, there was no evidence of significant electoral fraud and that the Australian Electoral Commission had been dealing with hundreds of thousands of late enrollments without significant problems for decades. In July 2010, the left-leaning lobby group GetUp! launched a challenge to this law. The High Court of Australia expedited the hearing so that a ruling could be made in time for the 2010 federal election; the majority ruling struck down early closing of the roll, reinstating the old rule allowing voters seven days grace to arrange or update their enrollment. Australian citizens of the ages 16 or 17 can enroll online so that when they turn 18 they are able to vote. Shortly before the Canadian 2011 Federal Election, vote suppression tactics were exercised by issuing robocalls and live calls to notify voters that their polling station had changed.
The locations offered by these messages were intentionally false to lead voters several hours from the correct stations, identified themselves illegally as coming from Elections Canada. In litigation brought by The Council of Canadians, a federal court found that such fraud had occurred and had been perpetrated by someone with access to the Conservative Party's voter database, including its information about voter preferences; the court stated that the evidence did not prove that the Conservative Party or its successful candidates were directly involved. It did, criticize the Conservative Party for making “little effort to assist with the investigation”; the court did not annul the result in any of six ridings where the fraud had occurred, because it concluded that the number of votes affected had been too small to affect the outcome. In April 2019, during Israel's general elections for the 21st Knesset, Likud activists installed hidden cameras in polling stations in Arab communities. Election observers were seen wearing such cameras.
Hanan Melcer, the Head of the General Elections Committee, said. The following day, PR agency Kaizler Inbar took credit for the operation and said it had been planned in collaboration with Likud, they additionally claimed that voter turnout in Arab communities had fallen under 50% thanks to the presence of the agency's observers in the polling stations. Lutfur Rahman was the directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, in London until he was removed from office for breaching electoral rules, his supporters intimidated voters at polling stations. Current proposals by the Conservative Party to require one of several forms of expensive photo-ID in order to vote are to reduce the turnout of young and poor voters more to vote Labour. In the United States, elections are administered locally, forms of voter suppression vary among jurisdictions. At the founding of the country, the right to vote in most states was limited to property-owning white males. Over time, the right to vote was formally granted to racial minorities and youth.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Southern states passed Jim Crow laws to suppress poor and racial minority voters – such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses. Most of these voter suppression tactics were made illegal after the enactment
Virtual International Authority File
The Virtual International Authority File is an international authority file. It is a joint project of several national libraries and operated by the Online Computer Library Center. Discussion about having a common international authority started in the late 1990s. After a series of failed attempts to come up with a unique common authority file, the new idea was to link existing national authorities; this would present all the benefits of a common file without requiring a large investment of time and expense in the process. The project was initiated by the US Library of Congress, the German National Library and the OCLC on August 6, 2003; the Bibliothèque nationale de France joined the project on October 5, 2007. The project transitioned to being a service of the OCLC on April 4, 2012; the aim is to link the national authority files to a single virtual authority file. In this file, identical records from the different data sets are linked together. A VIAF record receives a standard data number, contains the primary "see" and "see also" records from the original records, refers to the original authority records.
The data are available for research and data exchange and sharing. Reciprocal updating uses the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting protocol; the file numbers are being added to Wikipedia biographical articles and are incorporated into Wikidata. VIAF's clustering algorithm is run every month; as more data are added from participating libraries, clusters of authority records may coalesce or split, leading to some fluctuation in the VIAF identifier of certain authority records. Authority control Faceted Application of Subject Terminology Integrated Authority File International Standard Authority Data Number International Standard Name Identifier Wikipedia's authority control template for articles Official website VIAF at OCLC
A ticket refers to a single election choice which fills more than one political office or seat. For example, in Guyana, the candidates for President and Parliament run on the same "ticket", because they are elected together on a single ballot question — as a vote for a given party-list in the Parliamentary election counts as a vote for the party's corresponding presidential candidate — rather than separately. A ticket can refer to a political party. In this case, the candidates for a given party are said to be running on the party's ticket. "Straight party voting" is voting for the entire party ticket, including every office for which the party has a candidate running. In the era of mechanical voting machines, it was possible to accomplish this in many jurisdictions by the use of a "party lever" which automatically cast a vote for each member of the party by the activation of a single lever. Ticket Splitters are people who vote for candidates from more than one political party when they vote for public offices, voting on the basis of individual personalities and records instead of on the basis of party loyalties.
While a ticket does refer to a political party, they are not the same. In rare cases, members of a political party can run against their party's official candidate by running with a rival party's ticket label or creating a new ticket under an independent or ad hoc party label depending on the jurisdiction's election laws. Depending on the party's rules, these rogue members may retain the membership of their original party, thus two individuals from one political party can oppose each other under different tickets. This was the case for Taiwanese politician James Soong, who withdrew from the Kuomintang and ran against its official candidate, Lien Chan, for election as President in the 2000 elections. Political party factions may sponsor tickets in primary elections; when that occurs, several candidates one for each office for which the party's nomination is being contested in the primary, endorse one another and may make joint appearances and share advertising with the goal of securing the party's nomination for the office each is seeking for all ticket members.
This system was seen in the "Solid South" era in the Southern United States when there was no effective two party system and victory in the Democratic Party primary was considered to be "tantamount to election"
In voting methods, tactical voting occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. For example, in a simple plurality election, a voter might sometimes gain a "better" outcome by voting for a less preferred but more popular candidate, it has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any single-winner ranked voting method, not dictatorial must be susceptible to tactical voting. However, the type of tactical voting and the extent to which it affects campaigns and election results can vary from one voting method to another. Compromising is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative higher in the hope of getting it elected. For example, in the first-past-the-post election, voters may vote for an option they perceive as having a greater chance of winning over an option they prefer. Duverger's law argues that, for this reason, first-past-the-post election methods will lead to two-party systems in most cases.
In those proportional representation methods that include a minimum percentage of votes that a party must achieve to receive any seats, people might vote tactically for a minor party to prevent it from dropping below that percentage, or alternatively those who support the viewpoints of a minor party may vote for the larger party whose views are closest to those of the minor party. Burying is a type of tactical voting in which a voter insincerely ranks an alternative lower in the hopes of defeating it. For example, in the Borda count or in a Condorcet method, a voter may insincerely rank a perceived strong alternative last in order to help their preferred alternative beat it. Push-over is a type of tactical voting in which a voter ranks a perceived weak alternative higher, but not in the hopes of getting it elected; this occurs in runoff voting when a voter believes that their favored candidate will make it to the next round — the voter ranks an unpreferred, but beatable, candidate higher so that their preferred candidate can win later.
In the United States, for instance, voters of one party sometimes vote in the other party's primary to nominate a candidate who will be easy for their favorite to beat after that favorite has secured their party's own nomination. Bullet voting is when a voter votes for just one candidate, despite having the option to vote for more than one due to a voting method such as approval voting, plurality-at-large voting, Condorcet methods. A voter helps their preferred candidate by not supplying votes to potential rivals. Bullet voting is a type of sincere voting; this strategy is encouraged and seen as sometimes beneficial in the methods of limited voting and cumulative voting. Election methods with no tactical advantage to bullet voting are said to satisfy the later-no-harm criterion, including instant runoff voting and single transferable vote. One high-profile example of tactical voting was the California gubernatorial election, 2002. During the Republican primaries, Republicans Richard Riordan and Bill Simon were vying for a chance to compete against the unpopular incumbent Democratic Governor of California, Gray Davis.
Polls predicted while Simon would not. At that time, the Republican primaries were open primaries in which anyone could vote regardless of their own party affiliation. Davis supporters were rumored to have voted for Simon because Riordan was perceived as a greater threat to Davis. However, he lost the election against Davis. In the 1997 UK general election, Democratic Left helped Bruce Kent set up GROT a tactical voter campaign whose sole aim was to help prevent the Conservative Party from gaining a 5th term in office; this coalition was drawn from individuals in all the main opposition parties and many who were not aligned with any party. While it would be hard to prove that GROT swung the election itself, it did attract significant media attention and brought tactical voting into the mainstream for the first time in UK politics. In 2001, the Democratic Left's successor organisation the New Politics Network organised a similar campaign. Since tactical voting has become a real consideration in British politics as is reflected in by-elections and by the growth in sites such as tactical2017.com who encourage tactical voting as a way of defusing the two party system and empowering the individual voter.
For the 2015 UK general election, http://voteswap.org was set up to help prevent the Conservative Party staying in government, by encouraging Green Party supporters to tactically vote for the Labour Party in listed marginal seats. In 2017 swapmyvote.uk was formed to help supporters of all parties swap their votes with people in other constituencies. In the 2006 local elections in London, tactical voting is being promoted by sites such as London Strategic Voter in a response to national and international issues; the question of whether this approach acts to undermine local democracy is receiving much debate. In Northern Ireland, it is believed that Unionist voters in Nationalist strongholds have
England is a country, part of the United Kingdom. It shares land borders with Wales to Scotland to the north-northwest; the Irish Sea lies west of England and the Celtic Sea lies to the southwest. England is separated from continental Europe by the North Sea to the east and the English Channel to the south; the country covers five-eighths of the island of Great Britain, which lies in the North Atlantic, includes over 100 smaller islands, such as the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight. The area now called England was first inhabited by modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic period, but takes its name from the Angles, a Germanic tribe deriving its name from the Anglia peninsula, who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in the 10th century, since the Age of Discovery, which began during the 15th century, has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world; the English language, the Anglican Church, English law – the basis for the common law legal systems of many other countries around the world – developed in England, the country's parliamentary system of government has been adopted by other nations.
The Industrial Revolution began in 18th-century England, transforming its society into the world's first industrialised nation. England's terrain is chiefly low hills and plains in central and southern England. However, there is upland and mountainous terrain in the west; the capital is London, which has the largest metropolitan area in both the United Kingdom and the European Union. England's population of over 55 million comprises 84% of the population of the United Kingdom concentrated around London, the South East, conurbations in the Midlands, the North West, the North East, Yorkshire, which each developed as major industrial regions during the 19th century; the Kingdom of England – which after 1535 included Wales – ceased being a separate sovereign state on 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union put into effect the terms agreed in the Treaty of Union the previous year, resulting in a political union with the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801, Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1922 the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, leading to the latter being renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name "England" is derived from the Old English name Englaland, which means "land of the Angles"; the Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages. The Angles came from the Anglia peninsula in the Bay of Kiel area of the Baltic Sea; the earliest recorded use of the term, as "Engla londe", is in the late-ninth-century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. The term was used in a different sense to the modern one, meaning "the land inhabited by the English", it included English people in what is now south-east Scotland but was part of the English kingdom of Northumbria; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that the Domesday Book of 1086 covered the whole of England, meaning the English kingdom, but a few years the Chronicle stated that King Malcolm III went "out of Scotlande into Lothian in Englaland", thus using it in the more ancient sense.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, its modern spelling was first used in 1538. The earliest attested reference to the Angles occurs in the 1st-century work by Tacitus, Germania, in which the Latin word Anglii is used; the etymology of the tribal name itself is disputed by scholars. How and why a term derived from the name of a tribe, less significant than others, such as the Saxons, came to be used for the entire country and its people is not known, but it seems this is related to the custom of calling the Germanic people in Britain Angli Saxones or English Saxons to distinguish them from continental Saxons of Old Saxony between the Weser and Eider rivers in Northern Germany. In Scottish Gaelic, another language which developed on the island of Great Britain, the Saxon tribe gave their name to the word for England. An alternative name for England is Albion; the name Albion referred to the entire island of Great Britain. The nominally earliest record of the name appears in the Aristotelian Corpus the 4th-century BC De Mundo: "Beyond the Pillars of Hercules is the ocean that flows round the earth.
In it are two large islands called Britannia. But modern scholarly consensus ascribes De Mundo not to Aristotle but to Pseudo-Aristotle, i.e. it was written in the Graeco-Roman period or afterwards. The word Albion or insula Albionum has two possible origins, it either derives from a cognate of the Latin albus meaning white, a reference to the white cliffs of Dover or from the phrase the "island of the Albiones" in the now lost Massaliote Periplus, attested through Avienus' Ora Maritima to which the former served as a source. Albion is now applied to England in a more poetic capacity. Another romantic name for England is Loegria, related to the Welsh word for England and made popular by its use in Arthurian legend; the earliest known evidence of human presence in the area now known as England was that of Homo antecessor, dating to approximate