Growing numbers of independents
The number of voters who identify as independents rather than members of any political party has been growing.
Is it any wonder? The behavior of each party as a whole, and the disarray and/or corruption and/or stupidity and/or shortsightedness of so many of its elected representatives, falls far short of what we’d like to see in what used to be called our public servants.
However, I’ve got another theory about the growth of the block of independent voters (in whose ranks, by the way, I number myself). I think few of them are really true independents, the sort of people who just might vote Republican one election cycle and Democrat the next. I bet a sizable number almost never cross party lines, except perhaps in some local elections, but are pretty much wedded to one party or other in their actual voting behavior. The word “independent” is just for show in those cases.
If I’m correct (and I have no statistics to back it up), then why would this be? Some of it is the aforementioned dissatisfaction with the parties and politics as a whole; you can be angry at a certain party and not want to give it the satisfaction of joining, but still ally yourself very very reliably with its policies and its candidates.
In addition, there are the state primaries. Some of them require party affiliation in order to vote (closed), but a growing number are now open to all and this favors an increase in the number of people who call themselves independents because they are no longer shut out of the process.
And then there is the considerable attraction of the very word “independent.” Don’t we all like to think of ourselves as unowned by anyone, thinking independently and creatively and flexibly? The label “independent” instantly conveys that impression, whether or not the person adopting it actually exhibits those traits, or is instead the sort who doesn’t follow what’s going on except in a very surface way, ignoring the candidates and the issues until the last minute and then making a decision based on random superficial characteristics.
This one you’ve got right going and coming. Instead of “independent” a lot of these people should identify as “phony.”
Let’s be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Politics is by its nature a game of strategy.
When the strategy is not immediately obvious, the best we can hope is to maximize correlation between principles and process.
Unfortunately, the stable paths which remain open are gradually narrowing and disappearing. Sooner than later we will either face reality or reality will be imposed upon us.
In the meantime, the various interests (including individual) compete for their preferred position. I doubt there is anyone who is prepared to sacrifice themselves and the value of martyrdom is overstated anyway. It’s not as if we can expect an ideal candidate, since there does not exist an individual who is capable of simultaneously fulfilling everyone’s hopes and dreams, and those are diverse and often incompatible.
Applying a two-dimensional map to many-dimensional territory help little in understanding where anyone stands.
Even the smallest de-simplification, of making it a four-axis political map (liberal v. conservative on fiscal v. social issues) helps more than dem-ind-rep linearity.
With the politicization of everything, it is ever more difficult to find a major party that sufficiently embraces any person’s political views. In meatspace I am regularly reviled as the alleged opposite of whichever faction I talk with. Libertarians call me a statist, Republicans call me a hippie, and Progressives call me a fascist. So, am I independent?
Independent sounds so snobbish.
I say, with a bit of embarassment, that I’m “not registered with any political party” before admitting that 95% of my votes typically go to the same party…
“Progressives call me a fascist.”
This proves the adage “it takes one to now one”. 🙂
Iowa requires party registration to vote in a primary. I have often switched my affiliation in order to vote for or against a particular candidate. However, in my mind I’m ‘independent’. I vote for the libertarian candidate whenever it looks like the election is already in the bag for the democrat. In a close race I vote republican because pragmatically this is matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
The Dims have definitely gone full leftist. The Reps still think they can “just get-along” to be re-elected.
The best “party” might just be “anyone but an incumbent”.
Let your yays be yays and your nays be nays. Or better yet, just claim to be independant of all yays and nays that lead to our downfall.
[i]The word “independent” is just for show in those cases.[/i]
Bingo. It is the same with the word affectation “moderate” – which only means someone who wants other people to like them and is not going to stand for anything or even embrace the idea of having principles.
The moderate man stood not long in the markplatz
There was a plot to have him shot: volley of shots
rang out in the markplatz.
Heard by the witnesses:
“AllÄhu Akbar!” Raving, looting savages
bring to Christian and Jewish ears, their messages.
No, I’m not an independent. But what am I?
– I will under ^no^ circumstances vote for a Democrat. Those people so routinely insult my integrity that I will never vote for any one of them, because they make common cause with people for whom I have no use whatsoever.
– I will consider voting for a Republican if s/he shares enough of my values and sentiments.
– I will consider voting third-party if s/he shares enough of my values and sentiments, provided it’s a race where the outcome is pretty much decided anyway.
So again I ask of thee, what am I?
—–
I am a grump. If only I could officially register as one . . .
I don’t think it is as simple as “not choosing”. I simply will not allow Republicans to count me as one of them, as I see it, they left me.
If I vote, I vote Republican. But I don’t give them a rubber stamp. Some Republicans will simply not get my vote while no Democrat will. I will not give to a party leadership that I consider incompetent at best, treasonous at worst. I won’t lend my name to a party of fail. I can’t be a part of a party that, often, can’t be differentiated from liberals anywhere.
Hate me for it but I am not going back. Period. Don’t try your jedi mind tricks here, they won’t work. And, no, I won’t vote for Romney or Gingrich, no matter what. If we are going to have a liberal in office, it might as well be the one who is already in there. So shut it about telling me what I am or what you think of “independents”.
My experience with “independents” in my neighborhood is that they tend to dislike politics. They consider themselves above such confusing things because they (the politicians) are all a bunch of mostly self-serving people – except those who can make nice speeches about fairness, fair shares, and givinng back. ( heard any of those lately?) Those platitudes appeal to their better angels. Most have not spent any time connecting the dots between what is going on in the economy and how government regulations – particularly the EPA – affect GDP. They know the economy is bad but have no idea why except some foggy notion that the “bankers” screwed us. They don’t seem to understand the connectionn between the Endangered Species Act and the gradual shutting down of all our extraction industries. (Some of our best wealth producers.) They think the IPCC must be right because the MSM tells them that the “science is settled.”
I could go on and on about their cluelessness, but what it amounts to is a crime that such ill-informed people are allowed to vote. They will not pay much attention to the campaigns until next September and will depend on thirty second campaign ads to form their opinons. That is why we are getting more and more big governmment. The issues as presented in the dems ads are focus group developed to appeal to the inner good samaritan in most undecided voters. The message – “Only the government has the means, experience, and expertise to set things aright.”
I admit the issues are many and the MSM does not help inform the voters. But my daughter, 44 years old and working long hours in her own business makes time to stay informed. (Of course old Dad’s emails help point her in the right directions.) Still, anyone with a computer and a few hours a week could be pretty well informed. At least better informed than my “independent” neighbors.
I won’t mention my liberal neighbors except to point out that they tried to get the neighborhood association to force me to remove my political signs during the campaign in October/November. Nice folks, heh! Fortunately, the First Amendment rights are still in effect here.
“[i]The word “independent” is just for show in those cases.[/i]
Bingo. It is the same with the word affectation “moderate” — which only means someone who wants other people to like them and is not going to stand for anything or even embrace the idea of having principles.”
Whoa!!! I don’t give a pile of male bovine excrement about whether other people like me, nor do I refuse to stand up for what I believe or lack strong principles. So to put it mildly sexual intercourse you (or anyone else) very much for labeling me (not a zombie follower of either major party) as lacking principles.
Given our present circumstances the difference between the typical republican or democrat politician is merely a matter of 1.5 or 1.2 trillion in annual budget deficits. We independent, mostly libertarian minded, voters are not the problem. The real problem is that the majority of those who identify as republican, neocon or otherwise, are not so very different than the socialist – commie pinko democrats. The real problem is the republican politicians who want to be invited to the hipster cocktail parties inside the Beltway and fawned over by the MSM. You need to quickly (by the count of 1) put McConnell and Boehner in the category of “someone who wants other people to like them and is not going to stand for anything or even embrace the idea of having principles.”
Whether those descriptions of independent apply to Parker or not is immaterial. I don’t think that’s relevant to the topic at hand. However, such descriptions do apply to the voting electors and electorship at hand in the US as it stands now.
here in Massachusetts we have IINOs
Our independents pretty much vote democratic, I think a lot of people do this in order to say “I don’t vote the party etc etc etc.”
It’s just a talking point
IINO … love it!
From my outpost deep in Progressistan, I don’t come across many independents in meatspace. Even the democrats make sure to state they will enact progressive policy on their campaign literature. A declared Republican hasn’t won my local council or Mayor for over 40 years.
I ran for council a few years back and considered listing myself as a (D) just so people might give my platform a listen.
At the national level, I am with Parker, and despise the Bi-Factional Ruling Party whether they’re wearing the red or the blue jerseys. As politics gets more local, it gets more interesting. People see how those grandiose platform positions make it hard to open a business or redevelop blight. Most often around here, they stick with the platform and wonder why things are so screwed up. They blame the national enemy party for general conditions rather than the local goons who are the ones putting up the largest obstacles.
It is a problem of identity being derived from party politics. My neighbors have to be democrats, or they lose their sense of self. Even a small slide to IINO would be a harsh blow to personality and to their social relationships.
It looks silly to me that today’s university staffers and cubicle operators are so tightly tied to the plight of mineworkers from over 100 years ago.
Of course JJ, in the Soviet we now have “Prefers Democratic Party” or “Prefers Republican Party” as the party labels on our ballots. For most our our west-side Republicans, that seems more appropriate anyway.
Always trying to see a natural way rather than the trick
independants are th election deciders. Tell the left to register as independants, and come election their voting can be used to create a social banwagon to move the rest.
Ie, it’s not the first time systems were games
just as a few agitators in the crowd can fire up a riot,a sufficient num of insiders can move the maa
@Parker,
They tell me that the only President “Independents” ever elected was Barack Obama.
So much for the high horse “independents” pose for photographs on.
The “independent” stands for what exactly?
Later when early polls come in it will be from false flag independents with the idea that the crowd will reinforce the flow. So rather than get the real deal they will sway more
this time all the stops will come out
multiple voting
gamed machines
lost ballots found to late to matter
intimidation at the centers
skewed polls
Obama bribing “women” (which he already started)
fear fomented in minority welfare space
foreign monies
foreign expertise
mass events
even war, with anuclear incident possible
(note there have been several times nuclear war has nearly started and not even known in the publics memory. A near ‘rogue’ launch. Reagan twarting another plan by building up so they kept putting off to match it,etc)
old dirt on candidates only sticking to one side
right now they are choosing the candidate to lose by destroying any real candidate with potential and any not under their control
you all ain’t seen nothin yet
before we had ghe rule of law and the constitution
those two are effectively gone now through unchallenged precedent!!!
They just haven’t used that CHANGE in weapons yet but it’s their trump card
and don’t forget more race hate and violence against white males (which includes Jewish males)
laws specifically targeting the demographically dead race have increased several times over (ergo Obama buying off women who are too full of themselves and vanity and pavlovian skinnerian pc big lies)
Obama White House announces National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
So voting against him will be voting against all women globally, and guess which group biologically will fall for it (Hint: there is a real reason for then not being in politics before, and its not because of oppression. Its because they have fluid and situational morals and there sense of 50/50 is 80/20 in their favor. 90/10 in custody etc. In fact there is a new flood of books trying to make men men, defined as favoritism for women which is unreciprocated. Such unfairness and skewed justice is not what old mens honor codes were about from budhido to knights, to the foundations of out constitutional nation. It took the women to imagine state slavery as freedom, something the men would not have fallen for. Nor would they work for destruction of family and harm to their lineages as ok in trade for the ability to buy manolo blanicks without argument )
Blockquote failure given the iPhone I am stuck with in indonesia
arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!
This time the edumacTed women will be drafted
And the welfare ones without enough education or abIlity will be 4F when there are not enough men
Neo,
Your article sounds right on, although there may be some true independents, You sound like one yourself.
Voting for a candidate based on what one believes without caring what party they belong to is ideal but can be very difficult if one cares too much about what other people think.