Independent voter: Difference between revisions

{{short description|A voterVoter not aligned with any political party}}

An '''independent voter''', often also called an '''unaffiliated voter''' or '''non-affiliated voter''' in the [[United States]], is a [[votingVoting|voter]] who [[Voter_registration_in_the_United_StatesVoter registration in the United States#Party_affiliationParty affiliation|does not align]] themselves with a [[political party]]. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a [[List of political ideologies|political ideology]] or [[Partisan (politicalpolitics)|partisanship]];<ref name="Sorauf">Sorauf and Beck, ''Party Politics in America,'' 1988.</ref> a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a [[politicalPolitical partiesparty|political party]];<ref name="Zingale">Flanigan and Zingale, ''Political Behavior of the American Electorate,'' 1988.</ref><ref name="Wolfinger">Wolfinger, "The Promising Adolescence of Campaign Surveys," in ''Campaigns and Elections American Style,'' 1995.</ref> a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from [[election]] to election;<ref name="Key">Key, ''The Responsible Electorate,'' 1966.</ref><ref>DeVries and Tarrance, ''The Ticket Splitter,'' 1972.</ref> or a voter who self-describes as an independent.<ref name="AmericanVoter">Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, ''The American Voter,'' 1960.</ref>

VotingMany voting systems outside of the United States, including the [[Westminster system|British parliamentary system]], maydo includenot independentutilize votersa party affiliation system as beingpart of their voter registration process; rather, participation in party affairs is based on enrolling as a member within the party itself, and the number of party members is much smaller than the party's total electorate (for example, the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany]], which received 12 million votes in the [[2021 German federal election]], only has 400,000 members). The closest equivalent is the so-called "floater voters" or [[swing vote]]s, who do not consistently vote for a particular party.<ref name=":0" />

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 vexaciousvexatious issue. Some studies conclude it biases results, and creates a survey artifact which shows large numbers of independents. See: Heath and Pierce, "It Was Party Identification All Along: Question Order Effects on Reports of Party Identification in Britain," ''Electoral Studies,'' June 1992. Other studies conclude that survey order has no effect. See: McAllister and Watternberg, "Measuring Levels of Party Identification: Does Question Order Matter?", ''Public Opinion Quarterly,'' Summer 1995.</ref><ref>Some studies draw the conclusion that a unidimensional concept of partisanship is nevertheless accurate. See: Green, "On the Dimensionality of Public Sentiment Toward Partisan and Ideological Groups," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' August 1988.</ref> Even the nature of a survey instrument as a measure of partisanship and independence has been called into question.<ref>In one study, scholars found wide differences in survey respondents' abilities to recall political ideologies and apply them to questions about how they feel about policy issues of the day. Independents, it was suggested, have a lower level of ability to apply ideological tools of assessment to policy issues. The survey instrument, with its focus on making snap judgments, may therefore falsely measure the level of political independence. See: Huckfeldt, Levine, Morgan, and Sprague, "Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' July 1999.</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 dealigndealing partisanship, some scholars reasoned that a series of smaller shocks over time could also dramatically influence the direction and strength of partisanship. Many scholars became convinced that partisanship was not bedrock but shifting sand. Important childhood events (such as becoming aware of a presidential campaign) as well as events in adulthood (such as recessions, war, or shifting racial policies) could also affect the level of partisanship.<ref name="NiemiJennings" /><ref>Sears and Valentino, "Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for Preadult Socialization," ''American Political Science Review,'' March 1997; Valentino and Sears, "Event-Driven Political Socialization and the Preadult Socialization of Partisanship," ''Political Behavior,'' July 1998; Franklin and Jackson, "The Dynamics of Party Identification," ''American Political Science Review,'' December 1983.</ref> The concept of "retrospective voting"—in which the voter makes political judgments based on the party-in-power's performance over the past few years—deeply influenced studies of partisanship.<ref name="GilesHertz" /><ref>Fiorina, ''Retrospective Voting in American National Elections,'' 1981.</ref><ref name="ClarkeSuzuki">Clarke and Suzuki, "Partisan Dealignment and the Dynamics of Independence in the American Electorate, 1953-88," ''British Journal of Political Science,'' January 1994.</ref><ref name="Allsop">Allsop and Weisberg, "Measuring Change in Party Identification in an Election Campaign," ''American Journal of Political Science,'' November 1988.</ref><ref name="FinkelOpp" /> Applying the concept of retrospectiveness to partisanship, more recent analyses have concluded that retrospective and prospective political party success play a significant role in the direction and strength of partisanship.<ref name="Achen" /><ref>Lockerbie, "Party Identification: Constancy and Change," ''American Politics Research,'' December 2002; Lockerbie, "Change in Party Identification: The Role of Prospective Economic Evaluations," ''American Politics Research,'' July 1989; Brody and Rothenberg, "The Instability of Partisanship: An Analysis of the 1980 Presidential Election," ''British Journal of Political Science,'' October 1988.</ref><ref name="CarminesMcIver">Carmines, McIver, and Stimson, "Unrealized Partisanship: A Theory of Dealignment," ''Journal of Politics,'' May 1987.</ref><ref>Some disagree that retrospective assessments affect partisanship. The rise of independent voting is less a product of dissatisfaction with political parties than it is the increasing irrelevancy of political parties in the modern electoral process, which is focused on mass communication and candidates rather than parties. See: Miller and Wattenberg, "Measuring Party Identification: Independent or No Partisan Preference?", ''American Journal of Political Science,'' February 1983.</ref>

{{quoteblockquote|A very different interpretation of the last quarter century results if..If one distinguishes between respondents who are adamant about their independence and those who concede closeness to a party. ... In short, the vast majority of self-defined Independents are not neutral but partisan—a bit bashful about admitting it, but partisan nevertheless. Once this is recognized, the proportion of the electorate that is truly neutral between the two parties is scarcely different now than from what it was in the Eisenhower era. Moreover, because these "pure Independents" now are less inclined to vote, their share of the voting population is, if anything, a bit smaller now than in the 1950s and 1960s.<ref>Wolfinger, "The Promising Adolescence of Campaign Surveys," in ''Campaigns and Elections American Style,'' 1995, p. 184-185.</ref>}}

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.|last=van Kessel|first=Stijn|date=|website=|publisher=|access-date=2016-01-07}}</ref">{{Cite web |last=van Kessel |first=Stijn |title=Swaying the disgruntled floating voter. The rise of populist parties in contemporary Dutch politics. |url=https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sei-working-paper-no-113.pdf&site=266 |access-date=2016-01-07}}</ref>

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" /> Others hypothesize that the amount of [[ticket-splitting]] will increase, leading to greater parity between the strongest political parties, an increase in the number of minor political parties (particularly "down-ballot" in state, county or local races), or possibly even a breakdown in the political party system.<ref name="Zingale" />

However, scholarsScholars 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 point outposit that, when independents who strongly lean toward one party are included in the same group as that party's strong partisans, there has also been little change in party loyalty since the 1950s. For example, partisan Republicans and independents who lean Republican tend to vote for Republican candidates just as frequently in the 1990s as they did in the 1950s.<ref name="Wolfinger" /> Indeed, inIn the United States, the tendency of both strong and weak partisans to [[Straight-ticket voting|vote a straight ticket]] in down-ballot races is even stronger than it is for presidential and congressional races.<ref name="Zingale" />

Many scholars also point outsay 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>

*[[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.

* {{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 |ref=harv |hdl=2027.42/45485|s2cid=53341805 |hdl-access=free }}

*[[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}}