Although less common, split-ticket voting can potentially be used as a form of tactical voting.

Split-ticket voting may also occur in elections where multiple voting systems are employed.

Split-ticket voting and issue-oriented voting increase, leading to political volatility.

These were the first elections in Honduras to have separate ballots for the presidency, congress and local elections allowing split-ticket voting.

Split-ticket voting is in contrast to straight-ticket voting in which a voter chooses candidates from the same political party for every office on the ballot.

As Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, has shown, split-ticket voting has declined steadily.

Other consequences of prohibitions on split-ticket voting include centralization of political power, decreased voter efficacy, misrepresentation of the political climate, and distortion of results.

As politics, issues, and voter preferences can vary vastly between national, state, and local levels, prohibitions on split-ticket voting are a significant source of cognitive dissonance for some voters, particularly independent voters and others with less party loyalty.

A relatively large percentage of the populace of the USA [over 20%] purposely votes a split ticket because of this belief, according to "Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism" by Lewis-beck and Nadeu.

Comencini's Liga Veneta was the strongest national section of the League: it gained 29.3% of the vote in Veneto, 19 deputies and 9 senators, mostly elected in single-seat constituencies, in which the party, favoured by split-ticket voting, gained a total 32.8% of the vote.

A recent example of split-ticket voting in the United States is the 2004 elections in Montana, where Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Schweitzer was elected governor 50.4% to 46.0%, while incumbent Republican President George W. Bush simultaneously defeated Democrat John Kerry 59% to 39% in the state.