U.S. Political Independents Don't Exist, and If We Do Exist, We Don't Matter

[Lemur]

This is an enlightening and depressing read. Apparently most of us Indies aren't very Indie. Most of us are what is called "weak partisans," which I suppose is better than being "fanatical partisans" or "smelly partisans."



Interesting tidbits:

The number of pure independents is actually quite small — perhaps 10% or so of the population. And this number has been decreasing, not increasing, since the mid-1970s. [...]

Again, there is really no difference between partisans of either stripe and independent leaners. As far as their views of Obama are concerned, it doesn’t really matter whether you say you’re a Democrat or an independent who leans Democrats, and the same is true on the other side of the aisle. Only “pure” independent appear to have evenly divided attitudes as of November, but, as above, these people are only a very small part of the sample — 7% overall. [...]

90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party’s candidate. This is why the story of presidential elections is so often a story about partisans and not the fence-sitters who CNN recruits for debate dial groups.

[Beskar]

There is also a fundamental problem with being in a two-party state. If you are independent, you are still stuck with one choice. Let's say you are a left-wing independent, you are not going to consider ever voting Republicans, so you will choose Democrats. So even though you aren't loyal or care about the party, it is just the one closest to your view and you don't want those furtherest away from getting into power.

This can get confused as "Independent who leans Democrats" when it is simply something else altogether, as it is basically "I am stuch with two bad choices and I don't want to pick the worse."

[al Roumi]

90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party’s candidate. This is why the story of presidential elections is so often a story about partisans and not the fence-sitters who CNN recruits for debate dial groups.

So winning an election in the US is about mobilising partisans and who can interest/motivate a greater number of theirs to get them to a ballot box?

[Aemilius Paulus]

90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party’s candidate. This is why the story of presidential elections is so often a story about partisans and not the fence-sitters who CNN recruits for debate dial groups.

That is patently false. From all the sociology books I have read, the US is composed of roughly 25% Republicans, 25% Democrats and the rest willing to vote for either, depending on the circumstances, and the qualities of the candidate (read: looks, bit of speech-making, and strong 'values' - esp. a family). It has always been a bell curve, with the moderates in the middle representing about half of the population.

I am not even going to state any sources, unless you wish them, because this fact is so universally accepted. One should always watch for those 'rogue' books challenging mainstream scientific consensus, offering 'secret' and 'stunning/never-before-heard' insights on the society, because frankly, we know our society well enough for such secrets to be rare. Oh, and guess what Glenn Beck loves to do? Yeah, he always claims he has those new pieces of knowledge that have been kept 'secret' or are simply unknown/unnoticed.

I do not know what the author means by 'pure' independent, because everyone who votes, votes for someone, and they normally vote based on their perception of what the ruling party has done/not done and what the opposition promises.

[Lemur]

I am not even going to state any sources, unless you wish them, because this fact is so universally accepted.

Um, the fact that this is "universally accepted" is the reason for the essay. The author is challenging the conventional wisdom, and he has numbers to back his thesis up. He is saying, in essence, that the national consensus about the makeup of the electorate is demonstrably wrong. That's why the essay is interesting, and that's why I linked to it.

-edit-

P.S.: The author of the essay is not, so far as I can tell, flogging a book or a particular agenda. It's a political science research blog, with its mission set out here. I don't believe that a comparison to the black helicopter conspiracy theorists is warranted.

[TinCow]

I do not know what the author means by 'pure' independent, because everyone who votes, votes for someone, and they normally vote based on their perception of what the ruling party has done/not done and what the opposition promises.

The point is that the vast majority of people who self-identify as independents end up voting for one party over the other in a fashion that very closely mirrors those who describe themselves as a Rep or a Dem in the first place. The 'pure' independent is the person who does not identify with either party and who has no pre-disposed inclination to choose one party over another.

Personally, I see this as another manifestation of American middle-class syndrome. Americans like describing themselves as middle-class, even when they're not. Americans similarly like describing themselves as independents, even when they're not.

[The Wizard]

The number of pure independents is actually quite small — perhaps 10% or so of the population. And this number has been decreasing, not increasing, since the mid-1970s. [...]

That is completely contrary to what I have been taught in university. The percentage of independents has been rising since the 1980s and is, IIRC, the highest ever right now.

EDIT: Aemilius beat me to it. But he's right.

EDIT2: Oh, and just 'cause he is in disagreement with scholarly consensus doesn't mean the author is right. In fact, in all likelihood, it means he's pretty damned wrong.

[Lemur]

Where's a proper poll-smoking number-cruncher when you need him? CountArach, could you do us all the favor of looking through the polls the author cites and telling us whether or not he's insane?

[The Wizard]

The graphs he uses look fancy and all, but a quick glance tells me that the differences between (what he terms) independent leaners and strong partisans seem to be statistically significant on average (>2.5% difference), with the possible exception of independents leaning Democratic. Which means no, the guy's wrong, partisans do behave differently than independents.

Moreover, what do you expect? All these polls have to be representative, which means as much as that they take a randomly selected cross-section of all of U.S. society and ask it questions. And that means that the majority of people asked are politically ill-informed, which research has pointed out means they are the people who are most easily swayed by political campaigns. No wonder the independents in the mix act like the partisans.

EDIT: By the way, how does an independent have an "own party"? Just a question, but it does smell fishy to me...

[Aemilius Paulus]

That is completely contrary to what I have been taught in university. The percentage of independents has been rising since the 1980s and is, IIRC, the highest ever right now

Yes, that is another vital trend in the US, and it was well of you to note that. Disillusionment is higher than before, especially with the unifying front of the Cold War gone and so many shady government actions exposed every day, some from the Bush Administration, and some from the days of the Cold War. Oh, and it is popular to claim that Nixon as well as the Vietnam War started this. Sounds fair enough to me.

@Lemur, yes I was aware the author was challenging conventional wisdom, which I precisely why I look upon him with great mistrust. Pure sciences such as physics for instance, are apt to change and evolve, although much of the change is adding on to the previous wisdom. The less pure a science is, the less it normally changes.

For example, sociology is about as 'impure' as sciences get, a fact on which great deal of the so-called scientists would agree with me. Social sciences are quite devoid of theory, comparatively speaking, and conventional wisdom is everything. Sociology measures people's collective attitudes, among other things, and in such a matter, the more scientists agree on a fact, the better. There is little of those revolutionary figures which donate other fields of study. And the author you speak of, Lemur, is debating statistics, or even more so. If you ask me for a better definition of charlatanist futility, I can give you none. Oh, and the book was manipulating definitions - what the Liberal Fascism did as well, by stretching (what an understatement) the definition of fascism (despite never actually setting out to concretely, concisely defining it).

There are always, always those who write those shocking books contrary to the scientific establishment, and nearly always, always, they are incorrect. Especially if this is a popular book, aimed at common people and not a scientific, peer-reviewed study published in a scientific journal, designed to make a valid argument in a scientific community as opposed to striving for glowing reviews and high profits from the sales. Glenn Beck-esque, the author is, to name the latest popular charlatan.

'Pure' independent? Who are those? Hippies who despise all politics? Angsty teens in a nihilistic stage, jarred by their new-fond realisation that the world is one big, steaming pile of hypocrisy? Everybody has to vote for somebody. A real-life 'pure' independent would be like that person who, fearing accusations of bias, say he owns neither a PC or a Mac, instead going without computers.

EDIT: Wait, there is no book. It is just a website, no, a blog. Yeah, that is certainly reliable... Blogs are the hotbeds of crackpot theories, one wilder than the other. What suspicions are 'not warranted', Lemur? The mission statement? This brings me to mind of the first time I read who beck and O'Reilly were, in Times article and an interview. When asked which party they identified with, they called themselves moderates. My point here is not that people are all partisans, but that you cannot trust people to say truth about themselves, especially in the field of politics. A smart politicians never reveals his/her own intentions. Neither would a political blog. All I can say is that the blogger learned well how to manipulate and juxtapose data.

But from what I gather, Lemur, you do not actually believe in this, right? You are merely evaluating the argument and sharing it with us, ne'st ce-pas?

EDIT2: Look, Lemur, I do not claim to be a smart person. I read like a true bookworm, I do very well in school, etc but I am not a scientist, I do not make that really annoying argument that I see so many of those challengers of conventions make - namely that they are rational, logical persons who can make a valid conclusion based on facts and statistics. That I do not claim to have - it is simply too advanced, and out of my field. But I have a healthy dollop of skepticism. I look for keywords and key-strategies in arguments to spot a fake. I stick with the consensus of the professionals in whatever field I may be touching upon. I am do not see why some blogger has the truth. Especially such a radical one.

I also have a hobby of examining right-wing extremism and the books Beck or O'Reilly may recommend. Such books bear worrisome similarity to the blog you showed us. And statistics are pointless without a credible analyst. Right-wing nutjob, as well as their left-wing counterparts have a knack for building their argument heavily on statistics, namely because it is so simple to misuse them. Believe me, those books are frightfully convincing. But as any fringe theory, they are not worth more than a pitcher of warm saliva, as the popular adage goes.

[Lemur]

But from what I gather, Lemur, you do not actually believe in this, right? You are merely evaluating the argument and sharing it with us, ne'st ce-pas?

I don't know. I haven't given much thought to it, even though I am a registered indie. But I have noticed that some self-described independents lean very strongly to the left or right, which makes them de facto partisans. Statistically significant? I don't know.

[Aemilius Paulus]

But I have noticed that some self-described independents lean very strongly to the left or right, which makes them de facto partisans.

But you are stating the obvious, save for the 'strongly' part. Everyone has a viewpoint, and any sort of view is liable to be categorised as left-wing or right-wing. Normally, you see people with mixed views, because few are Michael Moores or Glenn Becks in this nation. Even more simply shirk from 'complex' political arguments and simply vote based on what I call 'non-issues' (such as gay marriage, abortion, etc that are moral questions, and not political stances) and based on how much they like the candidate (as opposed to the party-voting prevalent in earlier America as well as most of Europe or the world for that matter).

Statistically significant? I don't know.

Not the strong ones. What do you mean? I mean, how can an independent have strong left- or right- wing views? They should have mixed stances, although the individual viewpoints - the single issues such as war, economy, immigration, etc can be very partisan in a person. People often feel strongly on certain issues.

What would a 'pure' independent be like? And what would a third-party thinker follow - I mean, the greens, the libertarians, the religion-focused parties? There are plenty of libertarians in US. Are they Reps or Dems?

[Lemur]

There are plenty of libertarians in US. Are they Reps or Dems?

This, at least, I can answer. The majority of self-described libertarians vote Republican.

-edit-

But you are stating the obvious, save for the 'strongly' part. Everyone has a viewpoint, and any sort of view is liable to be categorised as left-wing or right-wing.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't being very clear. What I was thinking (as opposed to what I clumsily wrote) was that some of the indies I know are party-less because they feel that the Republicans or Democrats aren't extreme enough for their tastes. In other words, a Green activist may call him or herself an indie because their overall agenda is not served by the Dems, but they're never going to vote Repub. Likewise, many of the most hardcore rightists that I know (self-described libertarians all) call themselves indies because they feel the Repubs are too corporate and liberal, but they will never vote Dem no matter what.

So there is a population of independents who are (from one point of view) more partisan than the average Dem or Repub. But I have no idea what percentage of independents they comprise.

[TinCow]

This discussion is in dire need of a definition of the term "independent."

[Lemur]

Well, in most states you can register as an independent, as opposed to picking a party. Maybe that's not deep enough, but it's a start.

[Louis VI the Fat]

An 'independent' to me is not somebody stuck exactly midway between the two main parties. An independent is somebody without party affiliation.

Independents can be anywhere on the political spectrum. Elections in the US, on the whole, end up as Democrat vs. Republican, and the indepenent voter will have to choose. So the more left-leaning independents will vote Dem, the rightist one GOP.

So I would say that independents do exist, but that their voting habit is nevertheless about as predictable as that of card-carrying party members.


Independents do have influence despite all that. They need to be mobilised to vote. And the 'net' a party throws out must catch the indepent vote. A narrow liberal fascist party will not cover a large share of the independent vote.

[Ser Clegane]

Well, in most states you can register as an independent

OK - now you lost me - I am claiming genuine ignorance on my end: What is the purpose of being registered as being "independent"?

Does it give you the right to support the nomination of an idependent candidate?

[Lemur]

Well Ser, to give you an example, in New York State the primaries are closed, so unless you register you cannot participate. I went ahead and registered as an indie for a simple reason; so that the politicians in my district would see that there were some independents. Letting my non-affiliation flag fly, as it were.

When you register to vote you are asked to tick off an affiliation, or at least you are in the states I've lived in since I've reached adulthood.

[Subotan]

That is patently false. From all the sociology books I have read, the US is composed of roughly 25% Republicans, 25% Democrats and the rest willing to vote for either, .

That is completely contrary to what I have been taught in university. The percentage of independents has been rising since the 1980s and is, IIRC, the highest ever right now..

My politics teacher said that psephological studies have revealed that 70% of the US Population is partisan, with the rest independents. Admittedly, at least some of those independents are leaners, or lolbertarians , but there are probably more than 10%.

So winning an election in the US is about mobilising partisans and who can interest/motivate a greater number of theirs to get them to a ballot box?

Yep. That's how Bush won in 2004. That's why they place such great emphasis on "energising the base"

[Ser Clegane]

Well Ser, to give you an example, in New York State the primaries are closed, so unless you register you cannot participate. I went ahead and registered as an indie for a simple reason; so that the politicians in my district would see that there were some independents. Letting my non-affiliation flag fly, as it were.

So other than a registered Democrat/Republican the registered Independent does not get the right to actively participate in the nomination of a candidate - but the registration rather serves the purpose tto demonstrate that you consciously did not register as Democrat/Republican as opposed to not registering because you are not interested in the whole election process anyway?

Just paraphrasing to make sure I understood it

[Lemur]

[T]he registration rather serves the purpose to demonstrate that you consciously did not register as Democrat/Republican as opposed to not registering because you are not interested in the whole election process anyway?

Not exactly, no. My intent is that when the politicos look at their district maps, they will see a percentage of independents. I think that's healthy for them.

And to be honest, I have chronic problems with both the Dems and the Repubs, and have no desire to be affiliated with either.

[drone]

So other than a registered Democrat/Republican the registered Independent does not get the right to actively participate in the nomination of a candidate - but the registration rather serves the purpose tto demonstrate that you consciously did not register as Democrat/Republican as opposed to not registering because you are not interested in the whole election process anyway?

Just paraphrasing to make sure I understood it

Here in Virginia, we have open primaries. Independents can vote in one party's primary (chosen when they get to the polls), which allows us to add votes for a more moderate candidate that may not appeal to the hardcore base.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here in Virginia, we have open primaries. Independents can vote in one party's primary (chosen when they get to the polls), which allows us to add votes for a more moderate candidate that may not appeal to the hardcore base.

This varies from state to state, as the comments of Drone and Lemur suggest.

You don't really "register" as a party member in VA. You simply choose your party ballot and select as appropriate at the polls. I'm an unregistered GOP-type, but voted for Hillary in the VA pres primary as a favor to Louis (and because I thought the GOP had a better chance against her than against Obama -- which proved to be true).

[drone]

You don't really "register" as a party member in VA. You simply choose your party ballot and select as appropriate at the polls. I'm an unregistered GOP-type, but voted for Hillary in the VA pres primary as a favor to Louis (and because I thought the GOP had a better chance against her than against Obama -- which proved to be true).

I'm also an unregistered conservative, but my voting patterns have gotten more cynical. Lately I've been either voting against incumbents (regardless of party affiliation), or voting with the aim of gridlock.

[KukriKhan]

U.S. Political Independents Don't Exist, and If We Do Exist, We Don't Matter

I think Lemur accidentally, but precisely lasers-in on the message, and intent of that study: at this particular time in US history, there's a sizeable movement within the Democratic Party that says: "To hell with bi-partisanship and the Natering Nabobs of Negativism! We'll get this boat turned around ourselves!".

That it gets published just before the State Of The Union Address is significant to me. You can argue the science and provenance of the numbers cited, but the underlying message is to the Dem leadership, I think: "go it alone".

(And it's a trap. Bush fell into the same swamp.).

[Subotan]

@ Kukri http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...soaring-speech

I'm not making an argument or something, I just thought you might find it interesting

[KukriKhan]

Yeah, that's a good find Subotan The drumsbeats are getting louder.

And speaking of Clinton, the Missus (angling for 2012?) won't be at the SOTU address tonight.

[Lemur]

And speaking of Clinton, the Missus (angling for 2012?) won't be at the SOTU address tonight.

I can't think of an incumbent President who has been unseated in a primary. It might have happened at some point in our history, but I'm coming up with nothing.

Hil is too calculated to go for a wild shot like that.

[CountArach]

Alright, let's see what we have here... Without reading the whole article (will get to that later), I'll try to debunk some of the things said in this thread.

That is patently false. From all the sociology books I have read, the US is composed of roughly 25% Republicans, 25% Democrats and the rest willing to vote for either, depending on the circumstances, and the qualities of the candidate (read: looks, bit of speech-making, and strong 'values' - esp. a family). It has always been a bell curve, with the moderates in the middle representing about half of the population.

First off, you are confusing Independents with Moderates. The terms are not interchangeable - there are a lot of moderate Democrats and quite a number of Republicans (particularly in the north-east). Further, the numbers you posted are wrong. Current Party Identification is 23% Republican, 32% Democrat and 38% Independent in polling. However, if you look at the graph you will notice the number of Independents rise as the number of Democrats falls. This is as "weak" Democrats, the kind that is discussed in this article, change their Party ID to Independent - thus meaning they could be thought of as still partisan (being unlikely to vote for a Republican, and with a self-identifying Democratic mentality), but as a protest against the party they don't identify that way any more. I seem to recall reading something about the same thing happening to the GOP in the period 04-06, but can't seem to find it now.

I have found some evidence to back up the claims of this author (again, I don't know if he uses these sources or not):

A Republican who is involved in the polling industry states:

These "leaners" are an important group. They represent a large chunk of the independents you read about in polls - in many cases as much as two-thirds of the group. But research has found these Americans are far from "independent." For example, those who "lean Democrat" vote for that party almost as consistently as partisans. The same pattern is true among independents who "lean Republican" - they vote heavily for the GOP. For example, in 2004, according to the American National Election Study poll, 83 percent of independents who "leaned" Democrat voted for John Kerry for president, just shy of his share among Democratic partisans. A similarly high percentage of "lean Republican" independents voted for George W. Bush. Both are a far cry from the conventional view of independents as an unpredictable "swing" group.
[...]
But while this allocation fixes one problem - by taking people who act more like partisans out of the independent camp - it creates another. The pool remaining "true independents" is then rather small - sometimes as low as 10 percent. Analysis of subgroups that small (for example, a random sample survey of 800 Americans might yield less than 40 "true" independent women) may not be accurate. So, lesson number one about independents and polls is to ask about the "leaners." Lumping them together in one group makes the "swing" voter universe appear bigger than it really is.

Another Republican Pollster says:

Though it's controversial, I believe that weighting for party ID is appropriate if done in a manner consistent with historical norms. I fall into the camp that believes party ID is far more static - that voters can change their preferences and the intensity of their partisanship often, but do not as frequently take the step of giving themselves a new party with which to identify. To me, party ID falls somewhere in between "demographic fact" and "variable question response". Preventing wildly fluctuating data outside historical norms provides a better picture of what real movement is occurring in the electorate on questions like the ballot test.

A Democratic Pollster says:

If you believe that party ID is like eye color, that we are all either Democrats, Republicans or something else and that we will always provide the same answer under any circumstances, even if shaken awake during a deep sleep, well...it probably doesn't matter how the pollster measures it. But there is a ton of evidence that although the aggregate party ID numbers change very, very slowly, at the individual level all sorts of things can alter the answers that respondents give, especially if they are borderline between independence and identifying with a party: the wording, when the question is asked, what questions come before, how hard the interviewer pushes for an answer, and so on.

That is completely contrary to what I have been taught in university. The percentage of independents has been rising since the 1980s and is, IIRC, the highest ever right now.

Not quite:

Independent identification grew from the 1950s to a peak at the end of the 1970s. It declined slightly during the 1980s and 1990s, but increased again in recent years to about where it was at its peak during the end of the Carter administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.

The issue is not whether Independents have been growing, but how they act as a voting bloc. They are fractured in the same way as Partisans on either side are.

I can find plenty more on this if anyone is interested.
EDIT:

I can't think of an incumbent President who has been unseated in a primary. It might have happened at some point in our history, but I'm coming up with nothing.

Hil is too calculated to go for a wild shot like that.

She wouldn't do it - the Progressives in the Democratic Party (A fair number, and IIRC often more motivated in primaries) would tear her apart and she would likely be kicked out of her current high-profile job. I wouldn't be surprised if she ran (and perhaps won the primary) in 2016.

[KukriKhan]

I can't think of an incumbent President who has been unseated in a primary. It might have happened at some point in our history, but I'm coming up with nothing.

Hil is too calculated to go for a wild shot like that.

You're probably right. Such a shot would be vastly premature. I just thought it an odd coincidence, with Mr. O. being so embattled right now, that one of the wagons would be missing during "circle the wagons" time.

Man, I sure mangled that metaphor, LOL.