Why Must One Vote Straight Anyway?

You might be familiar with the “vote straight” slogan being put forward every election campaign, especially by local politicians or even in the school setting. In Muntinlupa City for example, there is not a single instance, may it be in rallies or in flyers, where such slogan is not mentioned. I first heard of the vote straight slogan when I went with my parents to a local campaign rally during the 2013 Midterm Elections. The candidates from Muntinlupa at the time, such as the late Rodolfo “Pong” Biazon, kept telling the attendees to vote straight. Being an eight-year-old child, I was curious what he meant by “vote straight." When I asked my mother, she said something along the lines of “basta sila lang iboboto,” the sila referring to Biazon’s party at the time which was the Liberal Party. Until now, the “vote straight” slogan is a prevailing strategy in endorsing political candidates, whether at the national or at the local level.

Layout by Romi Okada

The concept of straight voting primarily applies to candidates that are members of a political party. In the United States (U.S.), there is the so-called straight-ticket voting (straight party voting or STV) which means voting for every candidate from a specific political party. Some U.S. states, such as Michigan, provide ballots that offer a straight-ticket voting option (STVO) which when chosen, automatically means that the voter has selected every candidate from a certain political party. For example, a straight-ticket vote for the Republican Party means that the voter, with just one tick, has already voted for every candidate identifying as a Republican. Simply, instead of casting individual votes for each candidate, the STVO allows voting for a group of candidates all at once. The current Philippine electoral system slightly deviates from this form of straight party voting. Philippine ballots do not offer a straight-ticket voting option and so to vote straight in our context means to cast votes individually for every candidate from one party. Nevertheless, despite the difference on how straight voting is conducted in some U.S. states and in the Philippines, it is essentially a voting strategy and thus has significant implications on the candidates, on the voters, on the political parties, and on the party system as a whole.

An implication of the straight voting strategy on political candidates would be the discouragement of party defection or switching among party members. The straight voting strategy incentivizes party loyalty among candidates since individual characteristics matter less than party label. In other words, straight party voting puts a heavy emphasis on the role of political parties in endorsing candidates. Such emphasis allows weak or unknown candidates to win seats, as the focus is on the political party itself and not on individual members. Essentially, weak party members are “carried” by the stronger ones, helping them achieve electoral victory. Hence, these weak candidates have better chances of winning seats if they adhere to their party than if they defect and run independently.

On the voter’s side, the straight voting strategy favors the electorate by reducing the number of names they have to memorize. Since they would only be focusing on the political parties, voters need not to memorize the names of the individual candidates; they just have to know the candidate's party if they plan to vote straight. The situation is even much easier for those who opted for the STVO because their votes are summarized by just a single mark. As a result, the voting process becomes faster and more efficient for the voters hence encouraging participation. In the broadest sense, the straight voting strategy fosters party identification among the electorate. Using this strategy helps both partisan and non-partisan voters in deciding the political party to which they would align themselves. Ideally, this would bring together ideologically coherent voters, forming a stable support towards their preferred political party. 

However, as the party label is prioritized over the individual when straight voting, it is inevitable for the voters to overlook the credentials of the party members themselves. This gives opportunity for unqualified individuals to be elected, all because they have a strong party. Furthermore, while straight voting does guarantee party identification, it does not necessarily imply that the voters and party members have the same ideological stance. In the Philippines where patronage-based and candidate-centric politics prevail, it would be possible that straight voting and hence party identification is driven not by coinciding ideologies, but by the ability of party members to provide spoils to the electorate. In turn, this limits the voter’s ability in choosing more genuine and service-driven candidates.

It has been established numerous times that straight voting fosters party loyalty, which is a prerequisite for establishing highly institutionalized political parties. These highly institutionalized parties, in turn, form a strong and stable party system. Further, as party loyalty strengthens, ideological adherence also becomes stronger. As a result, a more polarized, ideologically-different party system may emerge. However, straight party voting may also pave the way for the establishment of a dominant or even a one-party system. Muntinlupa and Taguig exhibited this phenomenon during the 2025 Midterm Elections. Most if not all local positions in these cities have been dominated by one party (1Munti in Muntinlupa and Nacionalista Party in Taguig), indicating a straight voting phenomenon among their citizens. Such cases of party dominance could imply limited political diversity among the elected officials. Nevertheless, by valuing party labels over individual candidates, straight voting ensures a stable level of partisanship among voters, further highlighting the role of political parties as representative institutions. Thus, the proliferation of numerous identical political parties would be prevented, as candidates and voters now have a sense of party identification achieved through straight voting.

Numerous ideologically similar parties and party switching behaviors have dominated the Philippine party system, ultimately showing that party loyalty is either absent or lacking. The “vote straight” slogan, whatever purpose these politicians intended it for, is but the simplest yet the most tangible way in fostering party loyalty. However, so long as candidate-centric and patronage-based politics persist, the Filipino electorate will continue to hold individual candidates as having more substance than party labels. Further, given that straight voting is not institutionalized in the Philippines unlike the case of STVO in some U.S. states, it merely becomes a band-aid solution to the persisting problems of the country’s party system. 

The question therefore arises as to whether straight voting would become a preferred voting strategy in the long run, considering that the current political landscape seemingly hinders the Filipino people from realizing what it truly entails.