Talk:General ticket

message: As this is new info to me, I'm a little confused.  The descriptions I have found seem to indicate that the candidates were elected as a bloc, from a single party, in the same way that the President and Vice President are elected nowadays.  But a few descriptions seem to suggest that the highest vote-getters were elected, more like original method for choosing the President and Vice President.  I guess a overly-complex table will better illustrate my question:
Example, with 3 seats up for grabs:
----
Scenario A:
Dem-Reps     100,000 votes
Smith
Smithson
Schmidt
Federalists  200,000 votes
Johnson
Johnssen
Johns
Thus, the three seats would go to Johnson, Johnsen, and Johns.
----
Scenario B:
Dem-Reps
Smith     50,000 votes
Smithson  25,000
Schmidt   25,000
Federalists
Johnson   70,000
Johnssen   30,000
Johns     100,000
Thus, the three seats would go to Johns, Johnson, and Smith.
----
I hope my question makes some sense to someone, because I want to be sure how this worked, and the article needs to clarified about it.  Xyzzyva 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I question whether states with multiple at-large districts automatically were elected on a "general ticket.” This article describes general tickets as a way for a "single party to control the entire delegation," which implies one voted by party, and not by candidate, or the candidates all ran against each other, similar to elections to the South Dakota House of Representatives, where all candidates run on one ticket and the top two vote-getters are elected.
However, it appears that some at-large seats were contested as separate elections. Take South Dakota's two at-large seats, for example. These are referred to as being on a general ticket, but according to the 1890 edition of the Congressional Directory for the 51st Congress.
*Oscar Sherman Gifford: Elected to the Fifty-first Congress, as a Republican, receiving 54,135 votes against 22,153 votes for S. M. Booth, Democrat
*John A. Pickler: Elected to the Fifty-first Congress as a Republican, receiving 53,873 votes against 23,242 votes for L. A. Jeffries, Democrat.
I read this description as two separate elections on two separate tickets. If this were a general ticket election all four candidates would be running against each other (or both parties running against each other), so Jeffries and Booth would have come in 3rd and 4th, respectively, and it would not be listed as Gifford-Booth and Pickler-Jefferies.
Alabama is another example. The state received two additional seats after the 1870 census, which were allocated at-large until 1877. This is how the two seats are described in the Congressional Directory for 1876.
*William Henry Forney: Elected to the Forty-fourth Congress as a Democrat, receiving 106,080 votes against 89,909 for C. C. Sheets, Republican.
*Burwell Boykin Lewis: Elected to the Forty-fourth Congress as a Democrat, receiving 106,023 votes against 90,938 votes for A. White, Republican.
In this situation as with South Dakota in 1889, the top two vote-getters were elected. However, the specific mention of separate opponents indicates to me these were not elected on a general ticket. I would refer to them as At-large 1 and At-large 2, but would count them as separate districts.
I agree that is some cases, some elections were general tickets, particularly when the record shows one single district (other than at-large) with more than one representative. I just think we should be clearer in how we define a general ticket to ensure that only true general tickets are counted. I think the way Markles is doing the Georgia congressional delegations is the right way. Count them as at large, but list them as "1st seat, 2nd seat, 3rd seat, and so on." But they should only be listed as a general ticket if that is indeed how the seats were filled.Dcmacnut 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doest At-large always mean general ticket?

message: Looking at the detailed results, the elections involved individual candidates running on a multi-member, statewide basis. The required number of candidates, with the most individual votes, were elected. I do not know how many votes each elector had, but it may be as many as there were vacancies to fill. Is this sort of election what is meant by general ticket?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary J (talk • contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connecticut 1789-1837

message: valid[
--75.43.204.24 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  d4384978 

message: This file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electoral_systems_map.svg on wikimedia links to this page under 'party bloc voting' which lists Chad, Djibouti and Signapore as examples, but the page doesn't talk about these countries. The countries it talks about are not listed under that category on the wikimedia link. Can anyone add info about this countries? - 37.173.191.45 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocentric 

message: I've edited out Brazil, which doesn't use this method. A possible source of confusion that led to the wrong inclusion of the country in the article is that the word "ticket" (chapa) is used, but it refers to a set of one main candidate and two alternates (suplentes), who fill in if the main one dies or resigns. Each state elects two such sets, who might well be from different parties, meaning this is not party-block voting. 2001:1530:70:535:E234:E838:8F89:E586 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate of Brazil