Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 74.139.69.214 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10) |
m One-word clarification edit |
||
(41 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|
{{Not to be confused with|Independent Party (disambiguation)|Independence Party (disambiguation)}}
{{Elections}}▼
{{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
By the 1960s, scholars attempted to define the independent based on behavior, rather than party identification or loyalty. Focusing on [[ticket splitters]], these studies depicted an independent voter who had the same level of political interest as strong partisans and who voted largely based on the issues with which they strongly agreed
▲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">Keith, Magleby, Nelson, Orr, Westlye, and Wolfinger, ''The Myth of the Independent Voter,'' 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>
▲By the 1960s, scholars attempted to define the independent based on behavior, rather than party identification or loyalty. Focusing on [[ticket splitters]], these studies depicted an independent voter who had the same level of political interest as strong partisans and who voted largely based on the issues with which they strongly agreed and/or disagreed.<ref name="Key" /> However, by focusing on voting behavior, this definition of the independent ignored non-voters. Critics claimed that the independent voter is merely a subset of the larger set of independents, which should also include non-voters.<ref name="Sorauf" /> Studies also found that voting and not-voting is deeply affected by the particular candidate running in an election. Voting, therefore, is more reflective of what candidate is running—and therefore a poor measure of partisanship.<ref name="AmericanVoter" /><ref>Ladd and Hadley, "Party Definition and Party Differentiation," ''Public Opinion Quarterly,'' Spring 1973.</ref><ref>Brody and Page, "Comment: Assessment of Policy Voting," ''American Political Science Review,'' June 1972; Fiorina, ''Retrospective Voting in American National Elections,'' 1981; Page and Jones, "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote," ''American Political Science Review,'' December 1979.</ref>
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==
There are several synonyms for the term ''independent voter'':
There are several synonyms for the term ''independent voter''. In the U.S. state of [[Massachusetts]], a registered voter who chooses not to [[Political parties and political designations in Massachusetts|enroll in a political party or designation]] is termed '''unenrolled'''.<ref name="Rhodes">{{Cite news |last=Rhodes |first=George |date=August 6, 2015 |title=In Mass., there's even a Pizza Party |work=Sun Chronicle |url=http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/columns/rhodes-in-mass-there-s-even-a-pizza-party/article_50ca637a-3cb1-11e5-bdda-e7cb96441501.html}}</ref><ref name="sos">{{Cite web |title=Massachusetts Directory of Political Parties and Designations |url=https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepar/paridx.htm |publisher=[[Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts]]}}</ref> In the U.S. state of [[Florida]], a registered voter who chooses not to affiliate with a political party is termed '''no party affiliation''' ('''NPA''').<ref name="Bousquet">{{Cite news |last=Steve Bousquet |date=November 20, 2015 |title=The Florida Voter: Dramatic growth of 'no party affiliation' reshapes Florida politics |publisher=Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald Tallahassee Bureau |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article45554313.html}}</ref>▼
* In the U.S. state of [[Florida]], a registered voter who chooses not to affiliate with a political party is termed '''no party affiliation''' ('''NPA''').<ref name="Bousquet">{{Cite news |last=Steve Bousquet |date=November 20, 2015 |title=The Florida Voter: Dramatic growth of 'no party affiliation' reshapes Florida politics |publisher=Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald Tallahassee Bureau |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article45554313.html}}</ref>
▲
* In the U.S. state of [[Oregon]], a registered voter who chooses not to affiliate with a political party is termed a '''non-affiliated voter''' ('''NAV''').<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/documents/vbm_manual.pdf |title=Vote by Mail Procedures Manual |date=March 2020 |website=[[Oregon Secretary of State|sos.oregon.gov]] |publisher=Elections Division |location=[[Salem, Oregon|Salem, OR]] |page=60 |access-date=October 17, 2021 |quote=An elector who has chosen not to be a member of any political party as indicated on the voter registration card.}}</ref>
==Partisan influence==
Line 30 ⟶ 31:
Life-cycle and generational effects also contribute to partisanship. Initially, studies indicated that the operative variable was the "life-cycle." That is, a person's partisan attachments naturally grew stronger over time as weak socialization became strong and strong socialization became stronger. Additionally, theorists suggested that older voters favored certain policy preferences (such as strong government pensions and old-age health insurance) which led them to (strongly) favor one party over another.<ref>Converse, ''The Dynamics of Party Support,'' 1976.</ref> Later studies showed that the initial strong effect of the life-cycle variable was mitigated by generational effects. Party identification seemed strongly affected by certain formative generational events (such as the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the [[Great Depression]] or the social upheaval of the 1960s). Several studies concluded that generational effects were distinct from life-cycle effects, and that both factors were significant in creating (or not) partisanship.<ref>Abramson, "Developing Party Identification: A Further Examination of Life-Cycle, Generational, and Period Effects," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' February 1979; Claggett, "Partisan Acquisition vs. Partisan Intensity: Life-Cycle, Generational, and Period Effects," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' June 1981; Jennings and Markus, "Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study," ''American Political Science Review,'' December 1984; Cassel, "A Test of Converse's Theory of Party Support," ''Journal of Politics,'' August 1993; Billingsley and Tucker, "Generations, Status and Party Identification: A Theory of Operant Conditioning," ''Journal Political Behavior,'' December 1987; Wong, "The Effects of Age and Political Exposure on the Development of Party Identification Among Asian American and Latino Immigrants in the United States," ''Political Behavior,'' December 2000.</ref><ref name="Shively">Shively, "The Development of Party Identification Among Adults: Exploration of a Functional Model," ''American Political Science Review,'' December 1979.</ref><ref name="Itemizing">Norpoth and Rusk, "Partisan Dealignment in the American Electorate: Itemizing the Deductions Since 1964," ''American Political Science Review,'' September 1982.</ref><ref name="Knoke" /><ref>Some scholars claim there is no life-cycle variable in determinants of partisanship. See: Abramson, "Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification in America: 1952-1974," ''American Political Science Review,'' June 1976.</ref>
But if generational events affected partisanship, some scholars hypothesized that lesser political, social, and economic issues might as well. Conceding that major "shocks" such as the Great Depression could realign or
Both repeated "minor shocks" and retrospective/prospective assessments of political party success are micro-level, rather than macro-level, variables.<ref name="Carsey">Carsey and Layman, "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' April 2006.</ref> That is, while very important in creating political independence, they affect individuals only. For example, John may come to believe that Party A is no longer effective and become an independent. Yet, Mary may come to the conclusion that Party A is still effective. Both voters see the same successes and failures, but their retrospective and prospective calculus of success varies.
Line 41 ⟶ 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 53 ⟶ 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 61 ⟶ 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"
Many scholars also
===Realigning elections===
Line 85 ⟶ 86:
==See also==
*[[Centrism]]
*[[Independent politician]]
*[[Independent Democrat]]
*[[Independent Republican (disambiguation)]]
*[[Radical centrism|Radical center (politics)]]▼
▲*[[Radical center (politics)]]
*[[Swing vote]]
==Notes==
Line 129 ⟶ 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 138 ⟶ 135:
*Clubb, Jerome M.; Flanigan, William H.; and Zingale, Nancy H. ''Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History.'' Rev. ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990. {{ISBN|0-8133-1031-8}}
*Converse, Philip E. ''The Dynamics of Party Support.'' Beverly Hills, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1976. {{ISBN|0-8039-0727-3}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Converse |first1=Philip E. |last2=Pierce |first2=Roy |date=September 1992 |title=Partisanship and the party system |url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45485/1/11109_2004_Article_BF00991980.pdf |journal=[[Political Behavior (journal)|Political Behavior]] |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=239–259 |doi=10.1007/BF00991980 |jstor=586229
*Cowden, Jonathan A. "Southernization of the Nation and Nationalization of the South: Racial Conservatism, Social Welfare and White Partisans in the United States, 1956-92." ''British Journal of Political Science.'' April 2001.
*Dalton, Russell J.; McAllister, Ian; and Wattenberg, Martin P. "The Consequences of Partisan Dealignment." ''Parties Without Partisans.'' New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. {{ISBN|0-19-924082-5}}
Line 155 ⟶ 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.
|