Serious question (not trying to bait anyone). What do you make of the rise of Independents?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I don't mean candidates specifically, I mean non affiliated voters. What are the implications of the fact that a plurality of Americans now actively choose NOT to register as members of any political party, even though that often prevents them from voting in primaries that choose the most viable candidates in General Elections? We here on DU pretty much have a consensus that there are major differences between the two major political parties, so why does an increasing percentage of Americans see no reason to affiliate with one over the other?

I used to not think about this much, falling back on the old cliche that non affiliated voters were "swing voters" balanced at the center of our political spectrum. But true swing voters have always been a pretty small percentage of the electorate, certainly not a larger percentage of voters than those who choose to identify as Democrats. Personally I have always seen strong advantages in belonging to a political party, and I am active in our local Democratic Party. But it is getting near impossible for us to "recruit" anyone below 50 into becoming active in the Democratic Party as an institution.

Millennials are even less likely to register as members of a political party than is the population as a whole. It doesn't take fortune telling ability to understand the progression of that trend line. I'll state one firm opinion here; lecturing people on why the should be Democrats clearly isn't working, whether or not one in fact believes that they should indeed be Democrats.

How much meaning does party loyalty, or even identification, still have in a society where most citizens reject the very concept of belonging to any political party?

[el_bryanto]

1. Well it's problematic in some ways and positive in other ways

But with the winner takes all, two party system in our nation that is probably a net negative. Party Loyalty wins elections, and if you weaken party loyalty, if that loyalty is disproportionately distributed in favor of Republicans (i.e. people who generally have liberal ideals but are unwilling to commit to a Democratic party, while Republicans to a greater extent do identify as Republicans) it makes it harder to win elections.

I don't know - I like the idea of people thinking for themselves, but I hate the idea of people supporting stupid policies.

Bryant

[mythology]

16. I would argue that the bigger issue is that it inforces polarization

The people most closely aligned to the parties are the more relative edge. That leads to more extreme candidates, it has also led to an echo chamber where each side believes not only that the other side is bad, but people believe factually inaccurate things. Before you say Democrats don't, look at how many people here insist that actual votes were changed in 2016 or that anybody who disagrees is a Russian agent.

It also leads to a government that is ineffective and swings wildly. For example look at the dozens of attempts to repeal the ACA or the pressure on Republicans to make bigger "better" tax cuts.

By having a wider array of voices in the party you moderate the influence of the the extreme ends of the party (both the more liberal and more conservative ends).

[JayhawkSD]

58. I would say it's the other way around.

That the extreme positions taken by party politics has driven less extreme people out of the parties.

The issue is the primary system, where party elites insist on "purity of position" by candidates.

In California, for instance, the phrase goes, "Get in line on this issue or we will primary you." It's delivered to the incumbent, who would otherwise run in the primary unopposed, by the party officials in order to coerce the incumbent to vote the party line. If he does not do so, then party officials introduce another candidate into the primary who uses dirty politics to run against the incumbent, accusing him of not being in line with the party's agenda.

That is the process which drives party positions to extreme and runs off people, like me, who do not subscribe to knee jerk, extremist political modus operandi.

[rpannier]

87. I might agree except, for the last century or so, that's how it has worked

Both parties throughout the 20th century would field primary challengers for anyone who seriously got out of line
I also think that parties run less extreme candidates against incumbents, since more extreme candidates tend to be harder to corral

[JayhawkSD]

98. No, they create the extreme candidates.

And they do so for the express purpose of destroying the moderate candidates, especially incumbents, because the moderates are not toeing the party line.

[Garrett78]

90. Most so-called independents are highly partisan, and independents who support Democrats...

...are more likely to vote for Democrats than are 'soft' Democrats.

[dawg day]

27. I used to say I was an independent....

Because it sounded brave or something. But I realized that I always voted Democratic, so why pretend?

[Garrett78]

91. You're not alone. That's a big reason why people call themselves "independent."

That and they like to think they oppose partisanship, even though the vast majority are highly partisan.

And some, I imagine, want a way to avoid uncomfortable conversations or confrontation.

Very few "independents" are actually swing voters. So-called "soft" Democrats/Republicans are more likely to vote for the opposition party than are 'independents'. Again, most independents are quite steadfast in their support of one party or the other. Numerous studies have made that clear, and I've written about this on numerous occasions.

[marylandblue]

2. It's not that they seen no difference between parties

It's that they don't like either one. In practice, most independents align with one party or the other, just not enough to formally commit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Of course it goes beyond that as well. If non voter was a candidate in 2016, non voter would...

...have won a majority of the electoral college to become non President. One can say that most people align with one party over the other, but that is pretty weak sauce when they not only refuse to register with a party, but often fail to show up to vote for its candidate.

[brush]

39. They don't want to commit but they sure want to vote in primaries to pick the candidates.

[shanny]

70. democratically voting on candidates is a bad thing? who knew?

[brush]

83. Who knew allowing repugs to vote on who Democratic candidates are was a good thing?

Last edited Fri Aug 31, 2018, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course none of that would happen if party members voted for who they wanted to represent their party.

[JayhawkSD]

59. That would describe me.

I am independent. Sometimes I vote for the Republican candidate, more often for the Democratic one, and sometimes I write in a name of my choice or, when that is a choice not permitted, just omit voting for that office because I find both candidates repugnant.

Don't start screeching at me that "by not voting you are effectively voting for the incumbent" or some such blah. Voting is an expression of my choice, and I will never cast a vote which betrays that principle.

[Garrett78]

92. Most of them align very strongly with one party or the other. But they also tend to be...

...less engaged.

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.

Rising polarization—and the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politics—has had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

[honest.abe]

3. Cowards.

Unwilling to take a stand and pick a side.

[Garrett78]

93. Most of them have very much picked a side.

They just don't admit it for one reason or another. But the vast majority are strongly aligned with one party or the other.

[honest.abe]

97. Its the "admitting" part that makes them cowards.

I dont have much respect for anyone who claims to be progressive or liberal and cant see that the Democratic party is our only hope... especially now.

[SunSeeker]

106. Exactly. nt

[NoMoreRepugs]

4. Rise of independents or simply a whole

bunch of apathetic individuals just trying to get by in a complicated world? Not everyone shares the DU passion and fervor for doing what's right for the many versus the few.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I understand apathy. Don't respect it but I undrstand it.

But if someone goes to the trouble of registering to vote in the first place, it takes no more effort to pick a party to register with than not to. That's different than whether or not someone actually gets off their ass to make it to the polls on election day. Are the party brands so indistinct in the minds of most Americans that they can't even openly identify with one? No one is forced to vote party line on election day. Relating to oneself as a Democrat or Republican doesn't eliminate the option of crossing party lines.

[marlakay]

43. We have automatic registration in OR

When you sign up for drivers license, if you don’t pick a party they put you in no party.

No party is largest party here. We don’t have a regular independent party here.

I am thinking its the people mostly not into politics.

[shanny]

71. I'm thinking its the people mostly uninspired by the parties. nt

[C_U_L8R]

5. Republicans who are ashamed of being Republican.

[Funtatlaguy]

7. Repubs ashamed of Trump

They will still vote for their gop governors and representatives.

[Cousin Dupree]

12. My right wing brother in law takes offense when you call him a republican. He's an Independent!

[Mariana]

78. "I'm no Republican, I'm a Conservative!"

Sure, and they vote Republican roughly 100% of the time.

[C_U_L8R]

21. They still don't want to pay taxes for the common good

but they also want legal marijuana and don't want their porn taken away.
Libertarian bros.

[Cosmocat]

49. By and large

this ...

Mostly people who reflectively babble "they are both the same" when republicans fuck up while having a few pet peeves that align with "conservatism."

[LiberalLovinLug]

101. And Democrats embarassed to be known as Democrats

Not that they should be. I 'm talking about in Red States, or in Republican strong holds. I can see many Democratic voters when asked by their neighbour Bubba or it is insinuated that everyone who is smart, patriotic, God-fearing etc....must be a Republican. And all the persons work mates and family are brainwashed deplorables, its probably the safe bet to register as an independent, and say that. Because no one knows if you are a right leaning I or a left leaning I. And deplorable communities would just assume you are with them. Its a knee jerk way to survive socially for some I gather.

[hlthe2b]

8. I think it is similar to millenial females supporting equal rights but denying support for "feminism

As long as they support Democratic policies and candidates, I'm not overly concerned.

[shanny]

9. It says to me that they are not happy

with either party. It's easy to see why on the GOPee side; what about ours?

[MaryMagdaline]

10. They are ashamed of both parties

They do not want to belong to the party of feminist women and minorities (Democrats) and they are too proud to register as out and out racists (Republicans).

I see it more as a problem for us. The Independents are able to vote in primaries, the more separated they feel and the angrier they get.

Not feeling loyalty to a group hurts us more than Republicans because they have economic power and we have nothing without the vote.

[Autumn]

11. One thing that I have been told by young people that I know is that

they don't see either party as representing them or looking out for their interests. They are working low paying jobs, are burdened with debt, struggling to make rent and many see home ownership to be out of reach. If they are married it takes two jobs to make ends meet. For a lot of them life is a day to day struggle and most are one paycheck away from being homeless or depending on Mom and Dad to help them. You can tell them how much worse things will be under Republicans and the answer seems to be that the Democrats don't bother to do that much better to look out for their needs.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. This is the feedback I find most worrisome n/t

[shanny]

72. and there you have it nt

[Recursion]

14. *Is there* a rise of Independents?

Gallup has them at about 40%, which is where they've been the entire 21st century so far.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. The 21st century is still rather "young". 40% is historically high

But even if you view that figure as "static", why is it so high?

[Recursion]

24. Because consumerism has taken over democracy. People look at voting as an act of self-expression.

They want to find the political Brand That's Right For Them™ rather than vote in the way that does the least harm and (very occasionally) advances the most good.

This consumerist sentiment leads them to see the two-party system, which is actually a pretty mathematically guaranteed outcome of a winner-take-all first-past-the-post district election system, as some kind of conspiracy to suppress their political self-expression. Rather than deal with the messy reality of the factional compromises our voting system pretty much insures (or -- God forbid -- actually volunteering for a party and being in the damn room where those compromises happen) they act like shoppers clipping coupons on Sunday and playing the two grocery stores in town off of each other ("Well Kroger will sell turkey for 80 cents a pound!" ).

When confronted with the question "why should a national coalition of multiple interests cater to your whims rather than the other way around?" they get upset, because in consumer situations having your whims catered to even at ruinous cost is the name of the game. The idea that voting is a service they perform is completely gone.

There's probably something about avocado toast I could add, but I think that's a decent description of how we got here.

[JHan]

44. very good analysis +++++++

[ZeroSomeBrains]

68. Your spot on

I would only add that apathy and generally not caring about politics because it means they have to stand for something. People can be very shallow. If they don't see it directly effect them than it doesn't matter.

[Snotcicles]

18. I find the Rank Choice Voting method of selecting candidates interesting. Keeping an eye on Maine.

I think the best candidate has a better chance at rising to the top. People may start out voting tribal but usually it's common/shared interests that win in the end. That is the theory anyway.
I think Independents are more inclined to agree.

[shanny]

73. I like it.

Seems to me it allows people to vote their conscience / "send a message" without fucking up the election entirely. I wonder how it would have worked if used nationally in 2016.

[RDANGELO]

19. It's something we need to be aware of and seriously take into account.

There are a lot of liberal independents who, for whatever reason, don't have the faith in the Democratic Party that they should. It's the reason that there should be open primaries.

[NCTraveler]

20. Propaganda from both parties is working and this trend will continue with the 24 hr news cycle...

and the internet.

Negative propaganda is driving this. It happens because it works.

Would you want to affiliate with a socialist party that want everything for free and supports violent groups like ANTIFA?

This is what is being taught to LIV's online and on Fox News.

It works.

[OriginalGeek]

37. Yep

I know quite a few liberal-leaning independents. Every one of them is mad at the Democratic party and registered independent because they fell for some facet of the right-wing propaganda. Except one - he is an avowed independent but registered Democrat because he wants to vote in primaries.

Of the ones I know, they and their friends and their friends of friends are nearly all gun owners. They support regulation but definitely no outright bans. I think most of them are smart enough to see through NRA bullshit but they are still a little concerned about losing any of their rights.

The only good news is that most of them hate tRump more than they hate us so they will vote against him. I hope it's enough.

[Cosmocat]

50. The right wing propoganda has been three pronged my entire adult life

going into the early 90s.

Track One - conservative brainwashing, you are victim/the best christian/patriot in the world! The evil liberal boogyman is out to get you, demogue minorities, gays, etc.

Track Two - Negatively framing democrats - tax and spend, weak on defense, this and that ...

Track Three - when Rs fuck up, THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME

Because they scream like their heads and blowing off, and Ds hide in a corner afraid of their shadows:

1) They fully assimilate people who have the biases, fears, hatred they appeal to
2) The people "in the middle" who aren't paying attention here them losing their minds over Hillary, liberals, etc. and since there is not counter balance to that, come off thinking SOMETHING must be there.

[shanny]

74. "...a socialist party that want (sic) everything for free and supports violent groups like ANTIFA."

two objections:

1) in what way is wanting something back for your tax dollars (other than the world's most bloated-while-ineffective military) the equivalent of wanting "everything for free" and

2) please cite some links or whatever that indicate "a socialist party" supports violent groups. I'll wait. Meantime:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/?utm_term=.424099629687

btw, is resisting fascism a bad thing now? I get so confused sometimes.

[NCTraveler]

75. I'm pretty sure you misread something. Nt

[shanny]

76. My apologies. nt

[NCTraveler]

77. No problem at all.

I get what you were saying and fully agree with the context.

[Towlie]

22. The term "Independent" doesn't embrace any ideology, it only rejects.

People who identify as "Independents" might think at first that they comprise a unified group with a common goal, but that impression won't last long when they start comparing specifics. It's the Goldilocks fallacy: Just because the first choice is too much and the second choice is too little, that doesn't mean the third choice is just right.

[JHan]

23. they're strange to me.

"independent" is also a way people brand themselves.

If they see all political brands as awful, they'll brand themselves "independent" to signal how different and special they are.

Millennials might not register for a number of reasons - but based on my own experience, many of us don't because we were nurtured to see politics as a terrible sordid business. And since we live in a world where one of the worst hot takes is that "both parties are the same", and the media loves bothsideism narratives, a lot of this "independent" talk is based on ignorance.

"But it is getting near impossible for us to "recruit" anyone below 50 into becoming active in the Democratic Party as an institution. "

Not sure about that, there's active recruitment going on but there's this as well:

"Progressives aren’t just out of sync with their own need to recruit and retain young people. They’re also lagging behind conservative interests. A 2017 study found that between 2008 and 2014, conservative donors gave three times more to millennial outreach groups than liberal donors. Much of that funding, Thompson says, went to things like paid fellowships, travel stipends and study grants ― creating the feeder system that will guide young people into actual jobs with political campaigns and think tanks.

“The Republicans are building an army, while the Democrats are still paying you in ‘making the world a better place,’” said Carlos Vera, the executive director of Pay Our Interns, a watchdog group. “I’ve had older people say to me, ‘Well, I did unpaid internships and I was fine.’ Then you ask them when that was and they say, ‘1972.’ You could work your way through college back then. That simply is not the case anymore.”

Vera spent last year calling every lawmaker in the House and Senate and asking whether they paid their interns. His report, Experience Doesn’t Pay the Bills, found that more than half of Republican senators offered paid internships, compared to fewer than a third of Democratic senators. In the House it was even worse: Twice as many Republicans as Democrats paid their interns.

This year, Vera has been calling nonprofits and think tanks and asking them the same thing. So far he’s found the same pattern: The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity pay their interns. The Progressive Policy Institute, Let America Vote and the Human Rights Campaign don’t.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/right-wing-millennial-machine_us_5b049aebe4b07c4ea102e0c3

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Thanks for those specific insights

Especially the aspect of conservatives investing money into recruits. My comments about recruiting those below 50 into the workings of our Democratic Party is a data point based on our own experience where I live. I am not saying that younger people are disinterested in politics, or even progressive politics. They tend not to relate to the official Democratic Party though or take much interest in involvement inside of it. We can speculate on why and I'm sure experiences vary from community to community. But I'll observe that, like every large group undertaking, the Democratic Party itself becomes a social community revolving around those who have been most active in it in the past. If a real effort isn't made to make new people feel welcome and included inside of it, even when their involvement carries with it an element of "culture shock", it becomes, defacto, pretty much a closed loop.

[JHan]

35. I've never felt unwelcome but I agree that there's always room for improvement.

Whether new groups feel welcome, it depends on what their aims are and how they go about it..how they relate to others within the organization. After all, the Dem Party is a large tent, more a coalition than a strict hierarchy with some clearly defined "establishment".

[NurseJackie]

26. Exactly! It's a vanity label. A way to say "look at me" and to suggest to others...

Exactly! It's a vanity label. A way to say "look at me" and to suggest to others that they're better or smarter or more discerning than others. It's an attention-getting device and a cynical way to try and manipulate others to "prove their worth" so that their vote can be "earned".

The whole thing is very Sarandonesque... and many want to "send messages" more than they want to ACTUALLY make progress, compromise or find common ground.

[JHan]

30. Vanity yes but more accurately I think, consumerization of politics.

If the focus is on material improvement, then you ally yourself with the party more likely to deliver it - and that means join.

To me this is real simple to understand.

.. That voting is not personal, but social because voting and elections are about consequences, needs to be understood I think.

[secondwind]

28. Proud grandmother of a 19 yr old Democrat.

I think most colleges register incoming students.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. I Suppose It Depends On How You Define Independent

I'm not actually registered to any party. That said, the only R i ever voted for was a middle of the road guy, that i knew personally, who ran for county board, and he was the head of the local ESDA for years.

This guy was light years from being a teabagger.

Other than that, i've been a dem voter since i voted for Carter in '76.

Yet, in the statistics, i'd probably show up as an independent. But, i'm not really.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. The research indicates there are very few true swingers

Most voters swing in one direction.

[KPN]

66. Yup! IF they vote. Many don't every election.

[Nitram]

32. What do I make of an increase in the number of independents? To me it suggests that the

false equivalency parroted by the right has persuaded too many Americans that "both parties are to blame," that "both sides do it," and that automatically supporting one party over the other is placing partisanship over principles. If I had to guess, I suspect Millennials might be prone to view the current state of politics as a cynical game established by Boomers and the generations that preceded them. That would lead many to identify as independents, and vote for a libertarian or green candidate rather than the Democratic nominee. If they vote at all.

[moriah]

33. I've known several, and they're a mixed bag.

In my state, Arkansas, we had the problem that confused the hell out of people trying to analyze the 2004 Florida panhandle for fraud a little longer -- the state-level races have traditionally only been competitive during the Democratic primary, as especially in rural counties the Republican party didn't even try. Yet those voters will often end up voting Republican in the election for federal candidates in the general, even if the only local candidates they knew are running as Democrats so they voted in that primary.

The Republican party has now built up more, but because we don't have to declare a party in advance or even just be unaffilated to vote in either primary (probably because of people wanting to be able to have influence in local politics without giving up their primary party affiliation), people see voter registration as more important than declaring a party. It truly doesn't matter here what's on your card, it's a vanity plate for all it's worth. You make the ballot choice of Republican or Democratic primary ballot st the polling place. Aka, true opem primary.

So, the mixed bag of nuts/fruits/people just used to how it is here:

1) My mother. She's technically unaffiliated. Votes Democratic at federal level, but says "it's about the person, not the party -- the last decent candidate they put up was McCain and he ruined his chances with me by choosing that dummy to be his VP, oh Tina Fey is so funny! Now, my favorite was Carter. I really liked him." Voted for Obama in the 08 primary, Hillary in 16. However, I must admit my mom has doormat syndrome. She's likely to say what she thinks people want to hear because she doesn't like disagreement. Middle-to-late Boomer.

2) My grandfather, when he was alive. My mother probably got the "It's the person, not the party" line from him. He said to me "Vote Republican when we need a war won, vote Democratic when we need the economy better." He missed Clinton's second term, but voted for Carter in 76 and 80, fell for the Willie Horton smear in 88, and had been quite intrigued by Perot during the debates. Wished Nixon hadn't been a crook because he thought Ford was too weak. Seemed to have equal respect and contempt for each party, but definitely DIDN'T think they were the same. Instead, felt the cycle of going from one party to another was a necessary part of the process, and each party had strengths and weaknesses. I think the realization that was a cynical view was why he was intrigued with Perot. Probably the precursor to views like the following:

3) My sister and brother-in-law -- unaffiliated, used to vote Democratic until 2008, now middle-age with no kids, a lot of chickens, and guns. Have been promoting "libertarian" views since the platform included cannabis legalization. Feels their vote for President doesn't matter in such a red state so third party is fine. Probably would vote Blue if in a swing state, part of why I hate the focus on "swing states". Disaffected, not really liking politics, definitely not liking taxes, but socially liberal.

4) An ex from an upper-middle-class but socially liberal family, Yankee transplant. Thinks vehemently Republican or vehemently Democratic people are both under the same delusions, that the people running in their parties actually care about the issues as much as they themselves do. Likes to stoke debate and pick on people who care either way. Complained about taxes and welfare, but stopped after getting called out on accepting WIC assistance with his first child (so hypocritical but at least ashamed of it). Has been single for a long time, but is contented enough with different hands for variety that while he's a hopeless flirt and often gets his heart broken, isn't unhappy with his current partners (aka, not an incel because he knows that's impossible, but definitely volunteers to help any ladies who feel they have that problem, especially when he knows it's just banter). Smokes a ton of reefer now, so again right now he's proudly Libertarian. But I wouldn't be surprised if his voting history was Nader, no vote in 04/08, then Johnson in '12 and I know in '16.

5) Too many to name: Socially conservative in views but poor so they like politicians helping the needy. Claim to not be interested in politics. Often thinly veiled racism. Usually quite religious, and for real. Aka, the old Dixiecrat-style voter who did vote for state Democrats because of trying to improve the state, but have wedge issues that if young have resulted in voting against their own self-interest federally their entire lives, potentially voted for Clinton "to make him leave" but really because he was their boy, possibly for Carter if they were alive then.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Thanks for writing such a detalled survey summary

It's obvious that non affiliated voters don't all fit one simple description, you gave a great overview of some of the variety that encompasses.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

80. "Vote Republican when we need a war won"?

Has he any clue who was President the entire duration (other than the last four months) of WWII? Or who was President during WWI?

[moriah]

82. He had some interesting opinions about WWII from being stateside during it.

But I believe that particular opinion was less about Roosevelt or Truman (both Ds) and more about believing Eisenhower had been right about drawing the line at Laos rather than Vietnam.

Also, by the time he was talking about politics to me, he was speaking during a time when military service wasn't as much of a resume checkoff for public service for both parties -- the Republicans were obviously the war-hawk party by the time he was saying his opinion to me.

Considering I watched The Day After far too young, him saying that made me pretty sure I would always vote Democratic, as I couldn't see needing to fight a war enough to pursue it or choose my voting strategy around the possibility.

[shanny]

94. Fwiw, a Democrat was President

for the last 4 months of WWII also.

[Freethinker65]

34. I am technically Independent. I vote in Democratic Primaries and other elections

Neither Michigan, where I grew up, nor Illinois where I currently live require being a party member to vote in either primary.
My parents always voted Democratic and were never Party members.

There are plenty of Independents that reliably vote Democratic or Republican but choose not to be officially associated with either Party. There are also Independents that were once members of a Party that feel their Party left them so they no longer want to be considered an official member. Those Independents may continue to vote for their old Party, choose alternative candidates, or choose not to vote at all.

[seaglass]

36. I am an unenrolled voter (unaffiliated) who is loyal to the Democratic Party.

I don't really see a need to join. I vote for D candidates only, donate to D candidates only. I am in a semi-open primary state (MA) where unenrolled voters (the majority) can vote in either a D or R primary while registered Ds and Rs can only vote in their own primary. If the primaries were closed I would register as a Democrat.

Candidates know which primary ballot I pull and I am listed as a Democratic voter. I get email/mailings from the DNC and Democratic candidates. Certainly we are past the days when candidates build their lists solely off of voter registrations.

I'm not a millennial. My daughter who is a millennial is registered as a Democrat.

I'm not worried about this, analysis of voting patterns have been done repeatedly and the % of actual non-partisan, swing voters is around 10%. Have not seen any new analysis that changes this info.

[Oneironaut]

38. Honestly, I think both parties failed them in some way.

They’re fed up with a system that they think only serves to enrich a select few, and there’s no room for mobility anymore. I can’t blame them.

I also think that they can be won back. We need to sell a platform that has clear benefits to them.

[leftofcool]

40. There is no such thing as an "Independent" voter

They vote either Democrat or Republican. Registering as an Independent just means you choose the person you think either A will most likely win or B the one that comes closer to your values or C a gorilla because you are pissed your person didn't get the nomination.

[Turbineguy]

41. To me, Independent"

always means: "I'm a republican, but I like to think I'm not crazy!"

[Iggo]

42. LOL @ Agnostics.

[moondust]

45. Dissatisfaction with the duopoly?

The "center" has moved steadily rightward over the past few decades. Some moderate GOP and "far left"/FDR Dems apparently lost interest.

Of note is that John Brennan, former CIA director and now Drumpf critic and Presidential punching bag, says he has never belonged to a political party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Thanks to all who shared opinions on this here

A lot of thoughtful answers, some contradicting others but all offering valid insights. Clearly there is no one answer for why such a large percentage of Americans choose not to register as Democrats or Republicans. But I think this is a topic that more of us, especially those of us who do believe in the Democratic Party to the extent we do, need to be pondering - at least from time to time.

As someone known to have supported Bernie Sanders in the last presidential primaries I thought I could help this discussion most by mostly listening to what others had to say after posing the question, which is a lot larger than how any of us feel about any specific candidate and/or how they chose to pursue their political careers.

[Garrett78]

48. "Most independents are just partisans who are turned off by partisanship."

I often cite this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

Both candidates’ supporters—and Donald Trump—have it mostly wrong. While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

[BlueWI]

107. I hear this.

I would describe myself as a liberal independent. I have voted for exactly one Republican since I started voting in 1982. In 1984 I voted for Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, back when liberal Republicans existed. He earned my vote. The election before that I volunteered for his opponent's campaign, but I learned more about Leach and voted for him based on what I learned.

I have occasionally voted Green Party when there's an candidate that earned my vote. 1-2 of these candidates won. I lived in one city with a Socialist mayor. I voted for her, although I think the office was officially nonpartisan.

Contrary to some of the handwringing and insults on this thread, I think it's healthier for a democracy to have multiple parties than to have identified voting blocks that do not always get served well by the aligned parties. As a black man and a liberal outlier who reliably votes Democratic, I do not feel that the Democratic party is as consistent as it should be in advocating policies that support my interests. That's why I remain open to the possibility that individual candidates, and sometimes third parties, can earn my vote.

All that said, I have voted and volunteered for Democrats for decades. Just donated to a Democratic candidate for state Senate this week. Maybe the folks that don't like independents should listen more, fret less, and earn a few more votes by respecting honest differences and truly embracing the concept of a big tent party.

Plus, if there were fewer independents, there's no guarantee that this would help Democrats win.

[guillaumeb]

51. Some poeple will state they they believe that both major parties are the same.

I do not agree with that argument, but it is a popular one to make.

The question is, how can we inspire the 45% who rarely or never vote that voting is important?

[KPN]

67. I agree. That's exactly what I hear from folks who say they are Independent. They don't trust

either party to actually be looking out for their interests so they have loyalty to neither. And most of them say they don't vote most of the time except on local stuff (ballot measures, city/town council, county commissioners, school board, etc. -- at least the ones I've run across) I hear these statements repeatedly:

"They are all politicians"
"They are all the same"
"They all say one thing and do another"

From younger people I also hear: "voting in national and congressional elections is just an illusion, something to make you feel like you have a say when you actually don't"; "it's a rigged system, by both parties -- they are all about maintaining the two party system."

[guillaumeb]

79. My own feeling is that those who say that both aprties are the same...

need to pay more attention.

[KPN]

85. Yeah, that's kind of a "duh!" for me. At the same time,

I find it’s instructive to try and understand why they feel that way. I find they have some legitimate concerns. I share some of them but they elicit a different response from me. Maybe just because I am sometimes inclined to tilt with windmills.

[Hekate]

52. I think the older ones are ashamed to say they are Republicans & the younger ones don't know enough

Simplistic analysis, I know.

[AlexSFCA]

53. are independents less likely to participate in primaries?

they probably can’t in most states. This means they probably aren’t gonna vote on any other issues typically attached with primaries and just vote every two years or so in general elections only. Time for nationwide open primaries like in Cali? If we are to mandate automatic voter registration, everyone will be registered as independent?

[DeminPennswoods]

54. Ind is a pitstop for those on the road to switching parties

I'm not sure if it's Pew or Gallup, but one tracks voters by the party they currently identify with regardless of current party registration. Self-identifying Rs have been falling. It's down at 28% from 32%, iirc. Those 4% of voters went somewhere. I doubt many are ready to register as or identify as Dems, but think most are like Steve Schmidt and now are identifing/registering themselves as Independents.

[SharonAnn]

104. That's what it was for me. Republican to Independent, then Democrat.

Had to leave the GOP but couldn’t do it one step. Then realized I voted straight D so I officially changed to D.

[DeminPennswoods]

105. For me as well

It also helped living in a heavily Dem city and a state with closed primaries where the primary was essentially the general election.

[dlk]

55. In Many Ways It's Another Manifestation of "Bothsiderism"

It’s an easy out for those who aren’t interested in taking the time to understand the issues in depth. For some, it’s just the hip way to express political affiliation without actually getting involved.

[Chakaconcarne]

56. I do it hoping to get solicitations from the GOP

so I can tell them to piss off......

Whether that works or not....

[leftstreet]

57. I'm not sure that's the right question

You make some thoughtful observations

The question I see needing an answer is what do we make of the rise of political campaigners who, despite being an R or D, tend to run as independent. I've noticed this more and more over the past few years. Here in the west it's especially prevalent. You can look through a candidates literature or peruse their road signs....no indication of party affiliation

[SeloverB]

60. From and ex-Dem

I was a Dem for a lotta years, but the moderation and corporate cash of the Dems just makes me angry. I loved Jimmy Carter, but Clinton's moderation just didn't do it for me, and the fact that Repubs have been getting away with the "trickle down" lie since Reagan, without it being countered at all by the Dems makes me sick.
I became a Green after reading Nader's book Crashing the Party. I wanted the Dems to know that I was on their LEFT flank. I voted for Ralph, and have NEVER believed the Dem BS about costing Gore the election. The Dems and Gore lost that election all by themselves. Give me someone I can vote for and I will, but better give me instant runoff voting, and eliminate the stupid two party system that alienates folks like me.
I switched back to the Dems just for the Colorado caucus and supported Bernie, quickly going back to Green afterwards. I voted for Hillary as my next best option. When Colorado went to a primary system, and now lets Independents vote in either the Dem or Repub primary (Yes I got both ballots, and could return the one I wanted), I became an Independent. I can now support the Dems, mess with the Repubs, or do nothing at all (not my option).
I have been waiting since Jimmy for a Dem to stand up to Repubs and stand for the people. Why have the Dems let this "trickle down" crap go on, let the health care system go so out of control, let the two party system alienate folks, let the prison-military-industrial complex go unchallenged? Dems ARE complicit in the madness we face today. My faith in the Dems is limited. My hope is with our younger generation seeing this for what it is.
What shallow hope I can muster is that with Trump, the Repubs can more easily be seen for what they are. I would have preferred Hillary, but maybe we needed a Trump to make things THAT obvious, because the Dems NEVER did!

[KPN]

65. Honest answer. Now some honest questions: why are you still here at DU? why have you

only posted 24 times since 2006?

BTW, there are many of us who share your frustration regarding ineffective pushback against trickle-down, the health care skyrocket, etc. Me included, but I've always voted D as the only rational choice.

[bucolic_frolic]

61. It's a question with an economic answer

More people no longer see themselves as in a fixed lifetime career that depends upon party to protect their workplace, benefits, and retirement. They have a series of career gigs, and a part time business/hobby gig, and want to start their own business. I think Independents kind of embrace parts of both parties, at least the freedom, non-affiliation, self-reliance for working people parts. Democrats have to encourage such folks, have policies that protect what they have. Some independents undoubtedly think the GOP taxes them to give to the richest among us, and Democrats tax them to give to the laziest. I'm not saying it's true, but that is how they think. Independents are so self-reliant they believe nothing bad will ever happen to them. Like a stolen pension, or illness, or ill health. Democrats have to reach them and show that government policies matter to their well being and wherewithal.

[betsuni]

62. Because Americans are obsessed with individualism.

[Awsi Dooger]

63. Republican Party is unpopular but Democratic Party is not particularly popular

Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2018, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess I would summarize it that way, if forced. Just yesterday I looked at a link regarding millennial voting trends and voting registration. Their approval rating of the Republican Party was dismal at 26% positive 60% negative, but hardly glowing of our party at only 44%-42% net positive.

Here, I found that link:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17795718/poll-millennial-young-vote-2018-midterms

Naturally if you want to register to vote for the first time but don't have a strong favorable impression of one, and have a decisive distaste for the other, that third uncommitted option seems appealing.

Actually I don't really care about party affiliation. I realize it impacts primaries. But I began studying politics carefully in 1992 for betting purposes and it was quickly obvious that ideology blew away party identification, especially in statewide races. So all I focus on is ideology and how it is evolving. Right now even though there are more independents there are actually fewer moderates than when I started in 1992. It has become an increasingly polarized nation, which shouldn't shock anyone. More and more Americans are willing to call themselves liberal, while the conservative tag goes up and down within the same basic range. In 2016 we cut the conservative to liberal deficit to 9% in the national exit poll. That was surreal. I stared at it for hours. It was easily the biggest and most meaningful untold story of 2016. When I began in 1992 it was 12%, then 11%, finally 10% and when I saw that 35-26% net I was ecstatic. Yeah, Trump may have technically won the electoral college but that dip down to 9% verified that all the friendly demographic shifts were indeed in place, and there is nothing the other side can do about them long term. Lying and colluding and suppression are desperate stabs at the inevitable.

Here's a link regarding more liberals and fewer moderates:

https://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/a-more-liberal-nation-fewer-americans-are-calling-themselves-conservative-these-days/

[Honeycombe8]

64. It's inevitable, as the 2 major parties move to their respective more extreme corners.

Leaves the moderates with nowhere to go, at least temporarily.

We've seen some Repubs change to become Independent because the Repub Party has gotten too extreme. But they don't align with the Democratic policies, either, esp. since the Dem Party is also becoming less moderate.

I regard these people as different from The Green Party and such. Those people have "movements," and are activists who care mainly about their movement, or as we've seen recently, exist to defeat the Democratic Party. Real Independents are really independent, I think. They don't fully agree with either of the major parties.

[recentevents]

69. Shame

I know a few former Republicans who now state they are Independents.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

81. Party registration doesn't really tell you much.

When I lived in Kansas a lot of Democrats I knew registered Republican so they could vote in the primary. I bet here in New Mexico a lot of Republicans register as Democrats for the same reason.

Then there are the states that either have no registration by party, or you can vote in whatever primary you wish, regardless of your registration.

When I was first voting I registered as an Independent because I quite frankly didn't want everyone knowing where my true feelings lay. In the past I have been known to vote for a Republican if I honestly thought that person was the better choice. That hasn't happened in quite a while now. Also, it's much more important for me to vote in primaries than it was in my youth, and I've always lived in states with closed primaries. Hence, my registration as a Democrat.

It is simplistic, perhaps ignorant to consider all Independents as cowardly, or really Republicans, or really Democrats. There are lots and lots of reasons a person will claim Independent status, and you don't automatically know anything about a person who claims such status.

[RainCaster]

84. Lots of people abandoning the GOP

Quite simply

[Garrett78]

86. Party affiliation is holding pretty darn steady actually.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[autorank]

88. The Republicans are repellant to all but 30% or so

...of the people. Hence, sane Republicans leave the party and take on the independent status. The Democrats have much better programs and values but when they're in power, fail to deliver in a big way or underdeliver leaving people frustrated.

Big years for the Democrats in federal elections almost always follow spectacular failure by the Republicans. It looks like one of those years. If the Democrats follow up with real changes, this will be different from the other big years when followup was less than promised.

Andrew Gillum is the candidate to watch imho. He's credible and makes a strong, unapologetic case for liberal values. If he wins and executes in Florida, he could be the paradigm/model for a return to New Deal policies and programs.

One can always hope.

[OxQQme]

89. The first half of my 78 years I was a non-voter.

I didn't have any interest, as raising a family and the 'daily grind' kept my interests away from active political attention.
I did feel, from the occasional headline here and there, that it didn't really matter which candidate was qualified.
Politicians were removed from the working class and cared more for their own status. Not mine.

From tales told around large holiday family gatherings, (Dad was from a family of 11 bro/sis who migrated from Missouri to Cali in '38) as I was growing up in the later 40's and 50's and forming opinions/beliefs of 'my own' (lol) FDR was a HERO.
I guess, as I grew older and paid a little more attention, that all the candidates presented by the 'elite' class, were never going
to measure up to him (FDR).

Ike was a good man in my eyes. Warning us about the MIC. I spent some times in the Marines and saw the waste and over spending.

JFK caught my attention. Good man. But he was, again, an 'Elite' who couldn't possibly know what it's like to be a wage slave.

Jimmy Carter also made me feel a little better when he put the solar panels on the WH roof.
He's probably still doing that in Habitat for Humanity.
A fine example.
I even went on a hunt for, and bought some Billy Beer.

My first presidential vote was for Bill Clinton. Then the world seemed in a better place. For a while.
Then - f**k! Same old same old BS from those posers. All of them. Left and Right. Buncha kabuki actors. Good cop, bad cop.

Ross Perot had my radar up. "Can you hear that sucking sound?" Yes I could. But still withheld from voting.

And then along comes Obama. WOW! I voted again. More like him would be good.!!!!

And then......Bernie! Yes! Speaking my language. (And FDR's.)
That little bird in his Portland event sent chills of hope.
He'd have been the 'swamp drainer' in my opinion.
Until super delegates took that away. Boo!
How in hell can 'the system' be so f'd up as to install a candidate with lesser crowds at rallies.

I held my nose and voted for Hillary as drumpf is one scary dude. The likes of which I've encountered along my path.
I'd bet, though, that many Bernie supporters held their noses and didn't vote at all out of frustration.
"Same old, same old" comes around again for them.

Trickle down is piss.

[SkyDancer]

95. This is a great thread, thank you

Fantastic thread which I've bookmarked.

I wish we could talk openly & freely here without risk of getting in trouble for doing so because I truly believe this is a very important discussion which we need to have. We need to figure out how to get these people on board with us and in doing so it would be a pretty harsh reality we'd be talking about.

The answers are all interesting; from those admonishing indies to those who seem to want to listen to them so we can bring new voters into our party.

Great stuff!

[Vinca]

96. I think it's people voting their values and not labels.

Incumbents can no longer count on automatic re-election. If they don't walk the walk in addition to talking the talk, they're gone. It's a good and bad thing. People become more involved, but if they don't understand the weight of numbers and that sometimes you need to vote for someone you don't care for in order to be in control, it can be a nightmare. Think 2016.

[Garrett78]

102. The percentage of independents has held pretty steady and the incumbent re-election...

...rate continues to be sky high.

Anyway, see post #48. There are many false myths about independents.

[Answerman]

99. I'm an independent

who votes Democratic only to keep Republicans out of office. When we have an electoral system that allows for multiple parties,

I"ll register as a socialist.

[SMoss]

100. Can't admit that Dems have the good ideas

All of the new independents save one that I know are disgusted with the repugs but can't admit that the Democrats have al the good ideas. They are calling themselves Independents and trying to forget they were repugs. Every great advancement that our country has made, from passing Social Security to the Interstate Highway System to Medicare/Medicaid has been Democrats with GOPosaurs fighting the ideas all the way. It is really hard for some folks to admit they were wrong, and grow.
The one new independent dumped the Democratic party over the awful treatment of Al Frankin. I was considering that move myself.

[bluescribbler]

103. I can't answer for all, I just know of one example.

My dad was unenrolled his whole life. Here in Massachusetts, the law allows unenrolled voters to choose their ballots in primary elections. He explained that as a registered Democrat, he would have no choice but a Democratic ballot. As an unenrolled voter, he could vote in either primary, depending on the candidates. My older sister and brother in law have followed his lead, though neither can remember the last time they chose a Republican, Green, or Independent ballot.

[Progressive dog]

108. Younger people have less interest in politics, IMO.

nt

[bigbadR]

109. serious indeed!

I think the problem with both the Republican and Democratic parties is that they are so similar in their surrender to big money's influence and interests at the expense of the majority of the American people. I consider the Republican Party corrupted by big money from Reagan's presidency and the Democratic Party corrupted by big money from Clinton's presidency. I view corruption as not JUST quid-pro-quo but the simple affect of access (lobbyists/elected officials) which often yields undue influence. A big arm of this undue influence is the America Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) made up of corporate lobbyists and congresspeople. This unholy alliance often pass laws written verbatim by the corporate lobbyists and passed by Congress. THIS IS A MAJOR REASON WHY WE HAVE SUCH VAST INEQUALITY in today's society. I do not see that this will change, regardless of which party is in power, until ALL elections are publicly funded ONLY! It costs multi millions of dollars to be elected to a measly 2 year term in the US House. Congress men and women spend a huge portion of their time raising money for the next term instead of governing. As for myself, I have been a Democrat for most of my voting life (although I once registered as a Republican just so I could vote against Ronald Reagan in his first presidential primary!) and once in a while would vote for a member of another party if I thought they would do a better job. Today, I have little trust in the Democratic Party because of this stated corruption and because of the very undemocratic existence of the 'super delegates' and because of the way Sanders was treated. The corruption is also a major reason so few people vote.

This abysmal greed and exploitation of all of us, our ecosystem, our planets continued ability to support life is why I can't support either party. I will continue to vote, researching each candidate and pick the person that I think will do the least harm here at home and abroad.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

110. I think youre seeing a problem where none exists - many states like mine dont require registration

as one or the other to vote in a primary , so it honestly just never crossed my mind that that was something I would want to do! The only "swing" voting Ive done is I might have voted Progressive Dane (a local party) or Green at some point....

Would never vote Reptilian.

I would like to see more info OP - has there been a corresponding decline in R and D registrations, and is one taking more of a hit than the other?