Straight-ticket

Cross posted at Political Arguments.

UPDATE: A couple of years ago, Jacob Levy wrote in much more detail about this question. "[W]hat's the rational voter to do, when confronted with two candidates with similar positions on the voter's primary issue or issues, one of whom belongs to a party that shares those views, one of whom does not?"

• • •

I've always been a straight-ticket voter, because the political institutions under which I've lived allocated legislative power on the basis of party membership. The delegation's majority ultimately determines legislative policy, and the occasional dissenter from any given issue contributes to that majority. Sure, I'd find it hard to vote for a pro-lifer, a homophobe, or a Dixiecrat, and might abstain or even cross party lines to get an especially odious character out of office, but most of the time I'd put party over person and let the system sort things out.

Now the Daily Kos takes issue with NARAL's endorsement of pro-choice Republican Lincoln Chafee. (Via Mark Kleinman.)

Armando has rightly taken NARAL to task for their endorsement of Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee. NARAL was one of the groups that fully opposed anti-abortion Democrat Jim Langevin's short bid for the Senate seat.

Nevermind that Langevin would've crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn't ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.

more...

Kos is right, but his loyalty to party seems institutionally deficiant. A set of governing principles does lead one to make a checklist of prefered policies, and it is the hope that this checklist will be voted into law that leads one to make the strategic choice to vote the straight-ticket. Statements like this

Problem is, abortion and choice aren't core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather, things like a Right to Privacy are. And from a Right to Privacy certain things flow -- abortion rights, access to contraceptives, opposition to the Patriot Act, and freedom to worship the gods of our own choosing, or none at all.

are politically meaningless. The right of privacy means different things to different people, and to some the importance of reproductive rights will be a dealbreaker. Political parties are not organized around vague principles, but from different interpretations and application of those principles. You can't avoid coalitions.

If anything, NARAL is guilty of tactical short-sightedness, if even that. NARAL is not in the business of propping up the Democratic party, but of advancing reproductive rights. In most cases, electing Democrats in congressional elections willl advance that goal. In some others promoting the candidacy of a pro-choice governor or President, even if a Republican, could be more advantageous to the cause. In this case, NARAL may have very well decided that propping up a vew pro-choice Republicans will take some of the edge off the conservative majority.

It could cost them, both in the missed opportunity to get a pro-choice congressional majority—which, given the current landscape, will only come from the election of a Democratic majority—and from the ill-will that they may reap from slighted Democrats. But ultimately, in the coalition game, the question is how much you can bring to the other side. It's all about the checklists. Live with it.