Perhaps our system of government requires too much depth of thought and strategy. Defending the straight-party voting option, John Callaci of Cranston writes:

I suggest that splitting the ticket is often irrational. For example, one can easily understand someone voting for Sen. Jack Reed or Governor Carcieri but not both, as many Rhode Islanders have done. The two men stand for very different and conflicting principles. Or, for example, it is easy to understand Massachusetts’s residents voting for Sen. Edward Kennedy or former Gov. Mitt Romney but not both, as many Massachusetts residents have done. Both men stand for polar opposite policies and principles.
Without the straight-ticket option, my individual votes will be the same. What does this have to do with a “corrupt legacy of machine politics”?

Put aside the specifics of the candidates: How could one not see the possibility for different voting strategies at the state and federal level? On the executive and the legislative? Having answered those questions, perhaps we can move on to wondering how an interest in “a veto- and filibuster-proof majority” ought to be seen as reason to grant a near monopoly of power.