Separate-Party Ballot Used in New Mexico they come, they make mistakes.[1] Thirdly, the Massachusetts form encourages independent voting and will lead to the breaking up of parties. Fourthly, the candidates whose names stand first in the groups have an advantage over those lower down. Fifthly, the fatigue of marking every name causes a falling off from the head of the ticket.
In defense of the Massachusetts plan it is argued that: First, it requires a very short time to mark the tickets, and if sufficient booths are provided, the electors deposit their marked ballots as fast as they can pass the check officials, and there is very little delay, even in large precincts. Secondly, the less educated do not stay away from the polls; the percentage of registered electors voting in the less educated wards is higher than in the more educated wards. Thirdly, the office-group plan is more favorable to independent voting, because it is as easy to vote independently as to vote straight. The Massachusetts form compels some consideration of each candidate, and in those states where the office-group type prevails, independent voting is high.[2] Fourthly, there is a falling off from the head of the ticket through fatigue, but this is not universally true. This falling off in the vote for minor offices is more of an argument against the length of the ballot than against its form. Fifthly, the slight advantage to the candidate whose name appears first practically makes no difference when the public has an opinion to express. Sixthly, the office-group form does away with the difficulty of ascertaining the voter’s intention. Since the ballot has no party circle, and as only the names marked can be credited with votes, the election officers can make no mistakes.[3] Seventhly, it places all voters on an equality in the preparation of the ballots.[4]
