Ticket Splitters are those who split their tickets for public office, voting on the basis of individual personalities and records instead of on the basis of party loyalties. Those who split their tickets tended to be better educated and more politically aware than those who did not, even though both political activists and political scientists tended to advocate party loyalty as the most sensible political strategy.

Ticket splitting's greatest appeal was to moderate voters who believed that Democrats and Republicans should put aside partisan differences and work together. Ticket splitters tended to find appealing both Democratic pleas to expand social programs and Republican pleas to reduce taxes; in a sense they are responsible for today's massive budget deficits at the federal level.

Other forces favoring ticket splitting included pro-incumbent voting, political action committees analysis of individual voting records, and intense media coverage of individual office holders and candidates.

Ticket splitting's greatest heyday was from the mid 1960's through the early 1990's, when Republican campaigns in a clearly majority Democratic nation argued that voters should "vote the man and not the party." It was fueled by the rise of political consultants, who led campaigns in crafting messages aimed at voters in various demographic categories. Advertising in the mass media gave voters information to justify voting on the basis of personalities.

Since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and the election of George Bush in 2000, the differences between the parties have deepened, and the amount of ticket splitting has declined. In both the Democratic and Republican Party, many more well educated voters than before are accepting that party affiliation should trump personal characteristics in making voting decisions.