Content deleted Content added
Davide King (talk | contribs) m →Impact: ce |
m One-word clarification edit |
||
(23 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Voter not aligned with any political party}}
{{Not to be confused with|Independent Party (disambiguation)|Independence Party (disambiguation)}}
{{Globalize|date=November 2020|article|United States}}
{{Elections}}
An '''independent voter''', often also called an '''unaffiliated voter''' or '''non-affiliated voter''' in the [[United States]], is a [[
==Definition==
The earliest concept of independents is of a person whose political choices, by definition, were made based on issues and candidates (due to lack of party affiliation). Furthermore, early studies of [[voting]] behavior conclusively demonstrated that self-identified independent voters are less interested in specific elections than partisan voters, poorly informed about issues and candidates, and less active politically. However, a contrary view emerged: The independent usually voted on the basis of deeply ingrained beliefs, attitudes and loyalties, and is more like the strongly partisan voter than any other voter (or the idealized "independent").<ref name="AmericanVoter" /><ref name="Myth">{{cite book |author1=Keith |author2=Magleby |author3=Nelson |author4=Orr |author5=Westlye |author6=Wolfinger |title=The Myth of the Independent Voter |date=1992 }}</ref><ref>Petrocik, "An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification," ''Political Methodology,'' Summer 1974.</ref><ref name="Hershey">Hershey, ''Party Politics in America,'' 2007.</ref><ref name="Dennis">Dennis, "Political Independence in America, Part I: On Being an Independent Partisan Supporter," ''British Journal of Political Science,'' January 1988.</ref>
Line 15 ⟶ 14:
More recently, scholars focused on [[self-identification]] as a good measure of a person's political independence. The value of self-identification as a measure of a person's political independence or partisanship is that it is seen as a proxy for the behavior which should be exhibited by the independent voter. Additionally, self-identification could be easily captured either with a nominal question ("Do you self-identify with an existing political party?", a question which is answered with a "yes" or a "no"), or by a structured ordinal question ("Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an independent, or what?").<ref>Backstrom and Hursh-César, ''Survey Research,'' 1981.</ref> The first analyses of this measure of political independence found that there were significant differences between those individuals who self-identified as "independent" and those who listed "no preference" as to party identification.<ref>Miller and Wattenberg, "Measuring Party Identification: Independent or No Partisan Preference?", ''American Journal of Political Science,'' February 1983.</ref> Individuals who expressed "no preference" usually exhibited low levels of interest in politics, low levels of knowledge about the candidates and issues, low frequency of voting, and less confidence in their ability to influence politics.<ref>More recent research has found that individuals expressing "no preference" but who have moderate to high levels of political interest behave more like those self-describing themselves as "independents" than they do others who self-describe as "no preference." Wattenberg, ''The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996,'' 1998.</ref>
Although some scholars continue to conclude that self-description is the best measure of partisanship or independence,<ref name="Zingale" /> a number of studies have found debilitating problems with this measure. The nature of the voter registration system and the appearance of the ballot, the way the question reinforces a unidimensional interpretation of the political arena, the measure's failure to function in a [[multi-party system|multi-party political system]], the measure's confusion of the theoretical relationship between partisanship and the intent to vote, question wording errors which confuse a social group with a political party, failure to predict policy (versus candidate) preferences, question order, and failure to measure partisanship accurately when there are sizeable differences in party size all confound accurate measurement of partisanship and independence using this measure.<ref>Finkel and Scarrow, "Party Identification and Party Enrollment: The Difference and the Consequences," ''Journal of Politics,'' June 1985; Green, Palmquist, and Schickler, ''Partisan Hearts and Minds,'' 2004; Clarke and Kornberg, "Support for the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party Since 1988: The Impact of Economic Evaluations and Economic Issues," ''Canadian Journal of Political Science,'' March 1992; Converse and Pierce, "Partisanship and the Party System," ''Political Behavior,'' September 1992; Alvarez, "The Puzzle of Party Identification: Dimensionality of an Important Concept," ''American Politics Research,'' October 1990; Bishop, Tuchfarber, and Oldendick, "Change in the Structure of American Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' May 1978; Bartle, "Improving the Measurement of Party Identification in Britain," in ''British Elections & Parties Review,'' 1999.</ref><ref name="Johnston">Johnston, "Party Identification Measures in the Anglo-American Democracies: A National Survey Experiment," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' May 1992.</ref><ref>Survey question order is still a
==Terminology==
Line 43 ⟶ 42:
Using the self-identification method of measuring political independence, surveys found an increasing number of independent voters beginning in 1966.<ref name="Itemizing" /><ref name="ClarkeSuzuki" /> In 1952, when modern polling on the issue began, the number of independent voters nationwide was 22 percent. By 1976, the number had risen more than half, to 36 percent of the electorate. Regionally, the rise of the independent voter was even more apparent. In the non-[[Deep South]], the number of independent voters had risen from 22 percent to 37 percent. But in the Deep South, the number of independents rose steeply from 14 percent in 1952 to 32 percent in 1976 (and would rise even further, to 35 percent, by 1984).<ref name="Zingale" /><ref name="Norrander">Norrander, "Explaining Cross-State Variation in Independent Identification", ''American Journal of Political Science'', May 1989.</ref><ref name="BeckDealignment">Beck, "Partisan Dealignment in the Postwar South," ''American Political Science Review,'' June 1977.</ref>
Gallup polls data shows independent leaning voters represent the majority of American voters,<ref>{{cite web | url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx | title=Party Affiliation | date=20 September 2007 }}</ref> a trend since 2004.
Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification).<ref>Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde, ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections,'' 2005; Ambinder, "A Nation of Free Agents", ''Washington Post'', September 3, 2006.</ref>▼
▲Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification).<ref>Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde, ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections,'' 2005; Ambinder, "A Nation of Free Agents", ''Washington Post'', September 3, 2006.</ref>
{{
Several analyses conclude that (whether through survey error or misconceptualization of the nature of political independence) the number of independent voters has remained relatively unchanged in the United States since the 1950s.<ref name="Myth" /><ref name="Dennis" /><ref name="Johnston" />
Line 55 ⟶ 54:
=== In Europe ===
In the British parliamentary system, a similar concept of a "[[Swing vote|floating voter]]" is used to describe voters who can change their voting alignment and freedom from political parties.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Butler |first1=David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wrmwCwAAQBAJ&q=%22independent+voter%22+britain&pg=PA31 |title=Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice |last2=Stokes |first2=Donald |date=1969-06-18 |publisher=Springer |isbn=9781349001408 |language=en}}</ref> This term may also be applied in [[referendum]] votes, such as in the vote for "[[Brexit]]".<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Young |first1=Sarah |last2=Pitas |first2=Costas |last3=Piper |first3=Elizabeth |title=Undecided voters may hold the UK's future in their hands |url=https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-undecided/ |access-date=2017-01-07 |website=Reuters|date=20 May 2016 }}</ref>
Dutch politics also uses the term floating voter to describe party non-affiliation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Marcel |first1=Boogers |last2=Voerman |first2=Gerrit |date=2003-01-01 |title=Surfing citizens and floating voters |url=http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/surfing-citizens-and-floating-voters(f8a4b7be-2a34-44e5-9d61-de192b68c76f).html |journal=Information Polity |language=English |volume=8 |issue=1–2}}</ref><ref name="sei-working-paper-no-113.pdf&site=266|title=Swaying the disgruntled floating voter. The rise of populist parties in contemporary Dutch politics.
=== In Iran ===
Line 63 ⟶ 62:
==Impact==
Because independent voters do not have strong affectional ties to political parties, scholars who adhere to the self-identification method for measuring political independence theorize that independents may be more susceptible to the appeals of third-party candidates. It has also been suggested that the more independent voters, the more volatile elections and the political system will be.<ref name="Hershey"
Scholars who hold to the behavioral measure of determining political independence point out that there has been little change in the level of [[ticket-splitting]] since the initial upsurge in the 1950s. They also
Many scholars also say that partisanship is only one of many variables which predict voting choice. A decline in partisanship may have little to no impact on election outcomes, and much depends on fluctuations in these other factors.<ref name="Sorauf" /><ref name="Key" /><ref name="AmericanVoter" /><ref name="Myth" /><ref>Miller, "Party identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics," ''American Political Science Review,'' June 1991.</ref>
Line 87 ⟶ 86:
==See also==
*[[Centrism]]
*[[Independent politician]]
*[[Independent Democrat]]
*[[Independent Republican (disambiguation)]]
*[[Radical centrism|Radical center (politics)]]▼
▲*[[Radical center (politics)]]
*[[Swing vote]]
==Notes==
Line 132 ⟶ 126:
*Carmines, Edward G.; McIver, John P.; and Stimson, James A. "Unrealized Partisanship: A Theory of Dealignment." ''Journal of Politics.'' May 1987.
*Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A. "Issue Evolution, Population Replacement, and Normal Partisan Change." ''American Political Science Review.'' March 1981.
*[[Thomas M. Carsey|Carsey, Thomas M.]] and [[Geoffrey Layman|Layman, Geoffrey C.]] [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x/full "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate]." ''American Journal of Political Science.'' April 2006.
*Cassel, Carol A. "A Test of Converse's Theory of Party Support." ''Journal of Politics.'' August 1993.
*Chaffee, Steven H.; McLeod, Jack M.; and Wackman, Daniel B. "Family Communication Patterns and Adolescent Participation." In ''Socialization to Politics: A Reader.'' Jack Dennis, ed. New York: Wiley. 1973. {{ISBN|0-471-20926-0}}
Line 158 ⟶ 152:
*Green, Donald; Palmquist, Bradley; and Schickler, Eric. ''Partisan Hearts and Minds.'' Paperback ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004. {{ISBN|0-300-10156-2}}
*Green, Donald Philip. "On the Dimensionality of Public Sentiment Toward Partisan and Ideological Groups." ''American Journal of Political Science.'' August 1988.
*[[John C. Green|Green, John C.]] and Coffey, Daniel J. ''The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties.'' 5th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. {{ISBN|0-7425-5322-1}}
*Green, John C. and Herrnson, Paul S. ''Responsible Partisanship?: The Evolution of American Political Parties Since 1950.'' Paperback ed. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas, 2003. {{ISBN|0-7006-1217-3}}
*Greene, Steven. "Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach." ''Political Psychology.'' June 1999.
|