Hubbry Logo
Independent voterIndependent voterMain
Open search
Independent voter
Community hub
Independent voter
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Independent voter
Independent voter
Independent voter
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of the Politics series
Elections
Ballot box
Basic types
Terminology
Subseries
Lists
Related
icon Politics portal

An independent voter, often also called an unaffiliated voter or non-affiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who 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 political ideology or partisanship;[1] a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party;[2][3] a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election;[4][5] or a voter who self-describes as an independent.[6]

Many voting systems outside of the United States, including the British parliamentary system, do not utilize a party affiliation system as part 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 votes, who do not consistently vote for a particular party.[7]

Definition

[edit]

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").[6][8][9][10][11]

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 or disagreed.[4] 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.[1] 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.[6][12][13]

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?").[14] 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.[15] 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.[16]

Although some scholars continue to conclude that self-description is the best measure of partisanship or independence,[2] 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 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.[17][18][19][20] Even the nature of a survey instrument as a measure of partisanship and independence has been called into question.[21]

Terminology

[edit]

There are several synonyms for the term independent voter:

  • 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).[22]
  • In the U.S. state of Massachusetts, a registered voter who chooses not to enroll in a political party or designation is termed unenrolled.[23][24]
  • 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).[25]
  • In the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, registered voters may choose the designation unaffiliated in lieu of a party affiliation.

Partisan influence

[edit]

To many scholars, independence seemed the flip-side of partisanship. Identifying the variables which are significant in creating partisanship would, therefore, identify the variables which are significant in creating political independence. Subsequently, a very large body of scholarship has emerged which has attempted to analyze partisanship.

Parents appear to be a primary source of political socialization and partisanship. Much of the theoretical basis for this hypothesis emerged from the fields of child psychology and social learning, which studied the ways in which children are socialized and values inculcated in them. Studies of political partisanship have found that partisanship is strongest when both parents have the same political loyalties, these loyalties are strong, both parents have similarly strong party loyalties, and parental partisanship accords with socio-economic status (for example, the wealthy are Republicans or the poor are Labour supporters).[26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

Social groups are another source of partisanship. Friends, relatives, and neighbors often have the same partisan loyalties and strengths as one's parents. The more homogeneous the social group, the more likely the individual will be to develop strong partisan loyalties. When social group homogeneousness is low, the individual is likely to be less strongly socialized into partisan politics and more likely to seek a different party loyalty (whether by disengaging from partisanship or switching partisan loyalties).[1][27][31][32][33][34]

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.[35] 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 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.[36][37][38][30][39]

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 dealing 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.[28][40] 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.[31][41][42][43][34] 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.[29][44][45][46]

Both repeated "minor shocks" and retrospective/prospective assessments of political party success are micro-level, rather than macro-level, variables.[47] 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.

This has led some scholars to conclude that independence is not the flip-side of partisanship. Rather, partisanship and political independence may be two distinct variables, each of which must be measured separately and using different theoretical constructs.[11][37][42][48] Other scholars have concluded that the causal direction of partisanship must be questioned. While it has long been assumed that partisanship and the strength of partisanship drive attitudes on issues,[49] these scholars conclude that the causal relationship is reversed.[47]

Increase of independent voters

[edit]

In the United States

[edit]

Using the self-identification method of measuring political independence, surveys found an increasing number of independent voters beginning in 1966.[38][42] 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).[2][50][51]

Gallup polls data shows independent leaning voters represent the majority of American voters,[52] 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).[53]

..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.[54]

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.[8][11][18]

Reasons

[edit]

In the United States, voter identification as an independent varies widely across regions as well as states. Inter-party competition, the organizational strength of each party, electoral variables (such as the ease of voter registration, voting procedures, the timing of primaries and elections, etc.), and even turnout seem to greatly affect the number of independents in a state.[43][50] The effect of these variables is not uniform across all the states, either.[50]

In Europe

[edit]

In the British parliamentary system, a similar concept of a "floating voter" is used to describe voters who can change their voting alignment and freedom from political parties.[7] This term may be applied in referendum votes, such as in the vote for "Brexit".[55] Dutch politics also uses the term floating voter to describe party non-affiliation.[56][57]

In Iran

[edit]

There is a large swing vote in Iran, known as "Party of the Wind" (Persian: حزب باد, romanized: Ḥezb-e Bād), or "grey vote" (Persian: رأی خاکستری, romanized: Ra'ye Ḵākestarí), which can be rapidly excited.[58][59]

Impact

[edit]

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.[10] 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.[2]

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 posit 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.[3] In the United States, the tendency of both strong and weak partisans to vote a straight ticket in down-ballot races is even stronger than it is for presidential and congressional races.[2]

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.[1][4][6][8][60]

Realigning elections

[edit]

For more than half a century, the concept of a realigning election—a dramatic shift in the electoral coalition supporting the existing political system—has been an important one in political theory. First enunciated by V. O. Key, Jr. in 1955,[61] the theory of realigning elections suggested that certain "critical elections" created sudden, massive shifts in the electorate. The political party and policies of the status quo were changed, and a new governing coalition installed which would rule for decades until the next critical election. The theory of critical elections fit well with what scholars knew about generational effects and the emerging literature on "major shocks" as a variable in determining the existence, direction, and strength of partisanship. It also helped explain the radical shifts in national politics which occurred irregularly in American history. Scholars also hypothesized that realigning elections rejuvenated public support for the political system, which helped explain the relative stability of American political structures.[32][62] In time, scholars refined the theory somewhat. The concept of "secular realignment" was developed to account for gradual shifts in politics which had similar effects (eventually) to a critical realigning election. Some studies concluded that "secular realignment" came in short, jerky, periods called "punctuations."[63][64] Initially, the concept of a realigning election was monolithic, that is, the effects were believed to be national in effect. But beginning in the 1980s, political scientists began to conclude that realigning elections could occur on sub-national levels (such as regions or even within states).[38][45][64][65]

But with the "rise of the independent voter" and no realigning election, scholars developed the theory of the "dealigning election." In the dealigning election, all political parties lose support as partisanship decreases and political independence rises. Split-ticket voting and issue-oriented voting increase, leading to political volatility. Divided government (one party controls the executive branch, while another controls the legislature) becomes the norm.[38][42][45][51][66]

A number of scholars have dismissed the theory of realignment and dealignment, however. They argue that the concept is vague and the data do not support mass change in electoral behavior.[67] The large number of qualifications which must be made to the theory of critical elections has rendered it useless, it is argued.[68] The theory of secular realignment has been particularly criticized. The replacement of elderly voters (who die) with a new generation of voters (who come of age and are eligible to vote) is normal, not a unique and irregular "punctuation" or "surge," it is claimed.[37][69] Still other scholars claim there are no regional dealignment variations[70] while others argue that the concept of realignment and dealignment is no longer useful in an era in which political parties are no longer very important in the political system.[71]

Impact of dealignment

[edit]

Scholars argue that political parties play a critical supportive role in democracies. Parties regulate the type and number of people seeking election, mobilize voters and enhance turnout, and provide the coalition-building structure essential for office-holders to govern. Parties also serve as critical reference groups for voters, framing issues and providing and filtering information. These functions, it is claimed cannot otherwise be accomplished, and democracies collapse without them. Only political parties serve these roles.[10][72]

Dealignment—the rise in the number of independent voters—has an extremely deleterious effect on democracy, these scholars claim. Dealignment leads to the rise of candidate-centered elections in which parties and ideologies play little part. Without parties, candidates rely ever-more heavily on mass media for communication, political action committees (PACs) for funds, special interest groups for staff, and political consultants for expertise. The increasing reliance on mass communication leads to a withering of political discourse as the sound bite and an emphasis on the horse-race aspect of politics becomes the norm. This limits the amount and kind of information the public receives, leading to less choice for voters. When voters can stay at home and watch television rather than participate in civic life, the public no longer perceives the need to become involved in democracy—and so the civic life of the democracy withers. As PACs and interest groups become more important, the number of people speaking to the public, providing political information and different political choices and views, declines. Additionally, PAC and interest group spokespeople may not be representative of the public or the groups they claim to speak for, creating disenfranchisement of various (often minority) groups. As independent voting and ticket-splitting rise, parties seek to insulate themselves from the whipsaw effect of elections. The power of incumbency becomes increasingly important, and accessibility by the public declines. Parties seek increasingly moderate positions in order to stay electorally viable, further limiting political choice ("both parties look and sound the same"). As the parties distance themselves from the average voter and seem to offer limited policy options, dealignment worsens. As ideology plays less and less a part in elections, it becomes more and more difficult for parties to forge coalitions of like-minded officeholders. Governmental deadlock becomes common, further encouraging independent voting as citizens perceive "their" party to be ineffective. As ticket-splitting rises, divided government becomes the norm, making it even more difficult for office-holders to enact and implement policies. Politics becomes increasingly volatile, with first one party and then another governing. Although parties once held politicians accountable for their actions, their increasing irrelevance in politics leads to a decline in accountability (and thus even less responsiveness and less democracy). The "Imperial Presidency" becomes more important, since single officeholders with great power become the only politicians capable of governing.[73][74]

Other scholars have concluded that dealignment has not harmed democracy. Political parties have adapted to the realities of large numbers of independent voters, it is argued. The candidate-centered election has actually revitalized parties, and led to new party structures and behaviors which have allowed parties to survive in the age of mass communication.[75] A minority view, however, suggests that the evidence for a resurgence of political parties too equivocal, and that scholars lack the theoretical concepts to make such judgments.[76]

Yet another strain of thought has concluded that "realignment" is occurring. The slow "secular realignment" is not yet over, these scholars say. Regional differences in the level and impact of dealignment simply point up the fact that major shifts in political coalitions are occurring. Slowly but surely, these studies conclude, realignment is happening and will be obvious within a generation. These scholars argue that the surge in independent voters which began in the 1960s has ended, and that there are distinct signs that partisanship is on the rise again.[66]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Independent voter

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An independent voter is an elector who does not affiliate with any , enabling selection of candidates based on individual positions and qualifications rather than partisan loyalty. In the , this status allows participation in general elections without restriction, though access to closed primaries varies by state, often excluding independents from party-specific nominating contests. Independent voters represent a substantial and growing segment of the electorate, with Gallup polls consistently showing them as the largest group, outnumbering both Democrats and Republicans in party identification since the early ; in recent years, their share has reached a record high of 45%, primarily driven by younger generations such as millennials and Generation Z identifying as independents at higher rates than previous cohorts. Their significance stems from lower predictability in compared to partisans, frequently tipping outcomes in competitive races, as evidenced by the 2024 presidential election where self-identified independents comprised a larger proportion of the vote than registered Democrats and showed increased ticket-splitting. Empirical studies indicate that while many independents lean toward one —comprising about 80% of the group—pure independents exhibit fluid patterns, often voting against incumbents or based on specific issues rather than consistent ideological alignment. Characterized by skepticism toward party establishments and a preference for pragmatic, issue-driven decisions, independent voters tend to prioritize fiscal responsibility alongside tolerance for diverse social views, contributing to demands for electoral reforms like open primaries and ranked-choice voting to amplify their influence. Controversies surrounding independents include debates over their true neutrality, with some analyses revealing underlying partisan leanings masked by non-affiliation, and systemic barriers in party-dominated systems that limit their role in candidate selection despite their electoral weight. Recent surveys post-2024 highlight their diversification into distinct subgroups, challenging outdated notions of a monolithic swing bloc and underscoring their potential to reshape American amid eroding two-party dominance.

Definition and Terminology

Core Characteristics

Independent voters are defined by their lack of formal affiliation with any , distinguishing them from partisans who identify with the Democratic or Republican parties. This non-affiliation manifests in where possible, or in self-reported identification in surveys, reflecting a deliberate rejection of party labels. In empirical surveys, about 38% of U.S. adults identify as independents, though this group includes both those who lean toward a major party (81% of independents) and a smaller subset of "pure" or non-leaning independents (19%) who express no partisan tilt. A key behavioral characteristic is reduced reliance on party cues in decision-making, with independents more likely to evaluate candidates based on personal qualities, policy specifics, or issue stances rather than partisan loyalty. Pure independents, in particular, demonstrate lower engagement, including reduced turnout rates—33% voted in the 2018 midterms compared to 48-54% for leaning independents and 59-61% for partisans—and less frequent participation in activities like donating to campaigns or attending rallies. This volatility makes their support less predictable across elections, as they are more susceptible to shifts driven by candidate appeal or external events rather than enduring party allegiance. Ideologically, independents cluster toward , with 43% self-identifying as moderate compared to higher proportions of liberals among Democrats and conservatives among Republicans. Non-leaning independents amplify this , showing weaker ideological commitments and more on issues like , , and marijuana legalization, where their positions diverge from partisan extremes but align variably with leaners. Demographically, independents skew (56%) and include a higher share under 50 (63%) than partisans, though they span diverse racial, educational, and income groups without stark overrepresentations. Their views of major parties are often negative, with 28% of independents—rising to 37% among non-leaners—holding unfavorable opinions of both Democrats and Republicans, underscoring a core skepticism toward institutionalized partisanship.

Variations in Usage

The term "independent voter" exhibits variations in usage primarily within polling methodologies and electoral registration systems, particularly , where it is most commonly applied. In self-identification surveys, such as those conducted by Gallup, respondents are asked whether they consider themselves a Republican, Democrat, or independent; those selecting "independent" comprise a raw category that averaged 43% of U.S. adults in 2023, the highest since tracking began in 1988. Follow-up questions often probe party leanings among this group, revealing that a —typically around 50% or more—tilt toward one , effectively behaving as partisan in voting patterns despite the label. This distinction separates "pure" independents, who reject leaning toward either party (about 10-15% of the electorate), from "leaners," who align psychologically with Democrats or Republicans but avoid formal identification. Pew Research Center similarly differentiates these subgroups, noting that while 81% of self-identified independents lean toward one of the two major parties, pure independents tend to exhibit lower political engagement, weaker ideological consistency, and more variable compared to leaners, who mirror partisans in issue preferences and turnout. In contrast, data—tracked by state offices—defines independents (or "unaffiliated" voters) strictly by the absence of enrollment, excluding leaners entirely; as of 2024, this group represented about 25-30% of registered voters nationwide, varying by state (e.g., higher in open-primary states like at over 20%). Registration-based independents face restrictions in closed-primary states, where they cannot participate in nominating contests, highlighting a practical usage tied to institutional rules rather than self-reported attitudes. Behavioral and academic analyses further diverge, often portraying many self-declared independents as "closet partisans" whose independence is nominal rather than substantive. Research by political scientists, including in the 1992 study The Myth of the Independent Voter, demonstrates through that leaners and even some pure independents vote consistently with a preferred party over time, driven by underlying ideological affinities rather than true non-partisanship; this challenges polling aggregates that treat all independents as a homogeneous swing bloc. In electoral contexts, the term sometimes connotes swing voters pivotal in close races, but empirical vote shares show independents (including leaners) splitting predictably along demographic lines, such as younger or non-white independents favoring Democrats by margins of 10-20 points in recent cycles. These variations underscore that "independent voter" lacks a singular , with polling firms like Gallup and prioritizing self-identification for broad trends, while registration data and behavioral studies emphasize verifiable non-affiliation and action.

Historical Context

Origins in Political Theory

The concept of the independent voter originates in Enlightenment , which prioritized individual reason and autonomy over collective or hierarchical allegiances in civic participation. John Locke's (1689) established that political authority derives from the explicit or tacit consent of free individuals possessing natural rights, thereby framing the electorate as composed of rational agents capable of independent evaluation of rulers and policies rather than subjects bound by or decree. This foundational view implies voters as sovereign entities exercising judgment detached from intermediary powers, a principle echoed in subsequent liberal theories of representation where consent requires personal discernment unmediated by factions or parties. James extended this framework in the early republican context, addressing the risks of alism—defined as groups driven by common passions or interests adverse to the public welfare—in (1787). Madison contended that a extended republic's scale and diversity would prevent any single from dominating, as electors, drawn from the broader citizenry, could prioritize aggregate interests through informed selection of representatives. This mechanism presupposes an electorate with sufficient independence to counteract partisan impulses, relying on the republican form to filter factional effects without assuming uniform voter virtue or total detachment. In the , refined these ideas amid rising party organization, arguing in Considerations on Representative Government (1861) that robust party systems often degenerate into machines stifling individual intellect and merit-based choice. Mill proposed reforms like for the educated and open balloting to cultivate voter responsibility as a , enabling selections based on candidates' personal qualities over and thereby preserving electoral independence as essential to preventing majority tyranny or . His emphasis on "personal representation" underscored the theoretical ideal of voters as discerning actors fostering diverse, non-partisan in legislatures.

Evolution in Modern Democracies

In the , the proportion of voters identifying as independents has risen steadily since the mid-20th century, reflecting a broader dealignment from traditional party structures. Gallup polls from the and showed independents comprising around 20-25% of the electorate, amid stronger partisan attachments tied to socioeconomic cleavages like class and . By the , this figure averaged 31%, increasing to 38% in the as economic shifts, media fragmentation, and scandals eroded party loyalty. The trend accelerated in the , peaking at a record 43% in 2014 and remaining near that level through 2023, with Democratic identification hitting a modern low of 27%. This evolution correlates with rising polarization, where voters reject party brands despite often leaning toward one side—Pew Research found 81% of independents lean partisan in , suggesting the label signals disillusionment rather than pure neutrality. European democracies exhibit a parallel but distinct pattern, characterized by declining mass party membership and voter volatility rather than a stark rise in self-identified independents, due to multiparty systems and . Post-World War II, parties anchored in religious, class, or ideological divides commanded high loyalty, with membership rates exceeding 10-20% of electorates in countries like the and in the . By the and 2000s, these rates plummeted below 5% amid , , and the erosion of cleavages, fostering "dealignment" where voters treat elections as issue-based referenda. Negative partisanship—aversion to established parties—has boosted support for independents and outsiders; for example, in Ireland's 2024 elections, independent candidates surged amid debates on , capturing seats from traditional parties. Similarly, low trust in parties across 14 nations, with medians of under 30% viewing them favorably in 2019 surveys, has amplified volatility, though structural factors like closed lists limit independent candidacies compared to the . This transatlantic shift stems from causal factors including expanded education and information access, which weaken inherited loyalties, and institutional changes like direct primaries in the or EU-wide elections diluting national party dominance. In both contexts, independents now act as swing blocs, with data showing they split tickets more frequently—e.g., 20-30% crossover in presidential-congressional votes since —amplifying their electoral leverage despite comprising fluid cohorts. However, mainstream sources like and Gallup, while data-rich, may understate pure non-leaners due to survey framing that encourages partisan self-placement, and academic analyses often reflect institutional biases toward viewing dealignment as destabilizing rather than adaptive to voter agency.

Prevalence and Demographics

In the United States, the share of adults self-identifying as political independents has risen markedly since the , accelerating after the and partisan polarization, to become the plurality group by the early . Gallup's annual averages show independent identification climbing from approximately 35% in the early to 40% in 2011, then hitting a record 43% in 2013—a plateau sustained through subsequent years amid persistent two-party dissatisfaction. This stability contrasts with fluctuations in partisan shares, where Democrats and Republicans each hovered around 27-28% in 2023-2024, making independents the largest cohort at 43% in 2024. Recent data confirm this high plateau, with Gallup reporting 43% pure independent identification in 2024, tied for the all-time high and unchanged from 2023, rising to a record-high 45% in 2025 while Democrats and Republicans each stood at 27%. Center's 2025 survey pegged pure independents at 41%. Voter registration trends mirror national identification shifts, with independents and third-party affiliates surging nationwide as of mid-2025, particularly in states like and , where unaffiliated registrations exceeded Democratic gains. In the 2024 presidential election, exit polls indicated self-identified independents outnumbered registered Democrats, highlighting their growing numerical edge in pivotal battlegrounds. Demographically, independents skew younger, with the recent surge primarily driven by younger generations such as Generation Z and millennials identifying as independents at high rates—majorities in these groups per Gallup's 2025 data—turning away from the major parties compared to older cohorts. Surveys show over 40% of voters aged 18-29 classifying as such, compared to lower rates among those 50 and older. They are also more common among men (who exhibit higher independent rates than women) and non-college graduates, per Pew's 2025 analysis, though racial breakdowns show whites slightly overrepresented relative to Hispanics and Blacks, who lean more partisan. These patterns suggest causal drivers like economic pressures and institutional disproportionately affect non-elite, mobile demographics, fostering detachment from rigid party structures.
YearIndependent Identification (%)Source
201140Gallup
201343Gallup
202343Gallup
202443Gallup
202545Gallup

Global Patterns

In established democracies, the share of voters not closely attached to any —often termed independents or non-partisans—varies by institutional and measurement, but a common pattern is gradual dealignment from traditional parties, driven by factors such as declining social cleavages, increased voter volatility, and dissatisfaction with established institutions. In two-party dominant systems like the , self-identified independents reached 43% of adults in 2023, per Gallup polling, marking a record high amid polarization and in major parties. This contrasts with multi-party systems in , where surveys measure "closeness" to parties rather than strict independence; the European Social Survey recorded 52% of respondents feeling close to a party in 2002, a figure that declined steadily, reflecting broader erosion of partisan loyalty across . In , non-partisan identification hovers around 25-30% in recent federal election studies, with voters showing higher volatility than in prior decades, as evidenced by swings between Liberal and Conservative support in 2019-2021 elections. exhibits a similar dynamic, where sustains turnout but party attachment weakened post-2010, with Australian Election Study data showing about 30% of voters not leaning toward Labor or the Liberal-National by 2022, fueled by preferences for minor parties or independents in parliamentary seats. and display lower baseline party closeness—around 30-40% feeling attached per wave 7 (2017-2022)—exacerbated by fragmentation, where non-attachment correlates with support for challenger parties like or amid immigration and economic discontent. Cross-nationally, this rise in correlates with cognitive and media fragmentation, reducing reliance on cues, as analyzed in comparative studies; for instance, partisan strength fluctuates with electoral cycles but trends downward in advanced economies. In developing democracies, attachment remains higher due to clientelistic ties, but urbanizing regions show emerging patterns akin to the West. Pew Research surveys across 24 countries in 2025 underscore low favorability for most parties (majorities unfavorable in over half the nations), signaling potential for further growth in non-partisan blocs influencing volatile outcomes. Overall, while absolute percentages differ—higher in the U.S. (40%+) versus (30-50% non-attached)—the directional shift toward challenges stability globally.
Country/RegionApprox. % Non-Partisan/Independent (Recent Data)Source Notes
43% (2023)Self-ID as independent; Gallup, amid two-party dominance.
40-60% not close (post-2010 ESS)Decline from 48% closeness in 2002; multi-party volatility.
25-30% (2020s)Higher swings; dynamic with vote.
~30% (2022 AES)Non-leaners amid .
/60-70% not strongly attached (WVS 2017-22)Low closeness; populist shifts.

Motivations for Independence

Disillusionment with Parties

Independent voters frequently identify disillusionment with the major as a central reason for rejecting partisan affiliation, stemming from perceptions of entrenched partisanship, governmental , and failure to deliver on core public priorities. Surveys consistently show that this group harbors lower trust in parties compared to identifiers, with many viewing both Democrats and Republicans as unresponsive to voter needs. For instance, a 2022 study found that 63% of U.S. adults supported forming a third major party, reflecting widespread frustration with the two-party system's adequacy in representation, a sentiment particularly acute among independents who often express negativity toward partisan structures. Empirical data underscores this detachment: Gallup polling from 2023 recorded independent identification at 43%, a record high tied with 2014, correlating with record-low Democratic affiliation at 27% and stagnant Republican levels, as respondents cited dissatisfaction with performance amid economic and social challenges. Independents tend to frame their political views more negatively than partisans, emphasizing opposition to party-driven policies rather than endorsement of alternatives, according to a 2023 study analyzing multiple experiments where independents were 15-20% more likely to express positions rooted in anti-partisan sentiment. Specific grievances include legislative stalemates and perceived , exacerbated by rising polarization since the ; for example, a 2019 Pew analysis of independents revealed that 38% of the public self-identified as such, with this cohort disproportionately citing party infighting and ethical lapses—such as influence peddling scandals—as reasons for disengagement. Gallup's 2025 assessment further confirmed neither party's dominance in public favorability or trust, with independents rating both similarly low (around 30-35% positive views), attributing this to chronic policy gridlock on issues like and . This pattern holds across demographics, though younger independents (under 30) report heightened exasperation with the duopoly's rigidity, per a 2025 NBC News poll where over 50% of this subgroup voiced outright rejection of both parties' platforms.

Ideological and Practical Factors

Independent voters often cite ideological misalignment with the rigid platforms of major parties as a key motivation for eschewing affiliation, frequently identifying as moderates who prioritize pragmatic policy over doctrinal purity. A 2019 Pew Research Center analysis found that 43% of independents describe their views as moderate, compared to 29% conservative and 24% liberal, reflecting a preference for centrist positions that blend elements from both sides rather than adhering to partisan orthodoxy. This ideological independence is exemplified by the common profile of fiscal conservatism paired with social tolerance, allowing voters to support market-oriented economic policies alongside permissive stances on personal liberties without party constraint. Such voters frequently express aversion to the perceived extremism or inconsistency within party ideologies, viewing both Democrats and Republicans unfavorably at rates higher than partisans. Pew data indicates that 28% of independents hold unfavorable opinions of both major parties, with "pure" non-leaners (7% of the public) reaching 37%, driven by a desire to evaluate issues on individual merits rather than tribal allegiance. This stems from a causal recognition that party labels often prioritize group signaling over empirical policy outcomes, leading independents to reject ideologies that demand lockstep agreement on unrelated issues. Practically, independence affords flexibility in electoral choices, enabling and support for candidates based on performance rather than loyalty oaths. Independents vote across party lines at twice the rate of partisans, as seen in their shifting presidential preferences—net +8% for Obama in , +4% for Trump in , +13% for Biden in 2020, and +3% for Harris in 2024—allowing adaptation to evolving circumstances without retrospective partisan regret. In states with open or semi-open primaries, this status permits participation without affiliation, though in closed-primary systems (prevalent in about half of states), it underscores a principled : forgoing early influence for general-election and from party fundraising pressures or donor expectations. This practical reinforces as a for maximizing personal agency in a duopolistic where affiliation might otherwise compel suboptimal alignments.

Behavioral Analysis

Voting Patterns and Predictability

Independent voters exhibit voting patterns marked by higher volatility than partisans, with pure independents—those without a partisan lean—switching their support between major parties more frequently across election cycles. of American National Election Studies data spanning 1972 to 2020 demonstrates that self-identified independents display fluid behavior, challenging the notion that they function as latent partisans; instead, they often diverge from consistent party alignment due to weaker ideological commitments. This results in patterns where independents prioritize candidate performance, economic indicators, and specific issues over enduring loyalty, leading to swings in support that correlate with incumbency dissatisfaction or macroeconomic shifts. In recent U.S. presidential elections, independents have proven pivotal, comprising a growing share of the electorate and frequently determining victors through their margins. Self-identified independents accounted for 34% of voters in 2024, tying with Republicans and surpassing Democrats in turnout, with their ticket-splitting in swing states contributing to narrow outcomes. While the majority of independents (around 81%) hold leanings that align their voting with partisan trends, the non-leaning minority—typically 10-20% of the —shows distinct patterns of cross-party voting, amplifying their role as true swing elements. The predictability of independent voters lags behind that of partisans, as their preferences exhibit greater intra-campaign flux and sensitivity to transient factors like media exposure and events, rendering forecasting models less reliable. Empirical research underscores this unpredictability, noting that independents resist categorization as "shadow partisans" and instead respond dynamically to valence issues, which erodes stability in their aggregate behavior. Consequently, campaigns targeting independents emphasize over , focusing on economic messaging and outsider appeals to capture their variable support.

Independence Versus Partisan Leaning

Among self-identified independent voters in the United States, a significant distinction exists between those with no partisan leaning—often termed "pure" independents—and those who lean toward one despite rejecting party identification. Pure independents represent a minority, comprising approximately 8% of U.S. adults as of mid-2025, while the remainder of independents, totaling around 41% of adults, predominantly express a leaning: 18% toward Democrats and 15% toward Republicans. This breakdown reveals that self-identified independents as a group mask underlying partisan attachments, with leaners effectively functioning as weaker adherents to their preferred party. Partisan leaners among independents exhibit voting behaviors and ideological alignments closely resembling those of explicit partisans. For instance, independent leaners toward Democrats vote for Democratic candidates at rates comparable to weak Democrats (around 85-90% in presidential elections), while Republican leaners show similar fidelity to GOP candidates. In contrast, pure independents display greater volatility, splitting their votes more evenly across parties—often 50-60% for one side in recent cycles—and are less predictable, with turnout and preferences fluctuating based on specific issues or candidate appeal rather than enduring loyalty. This difference underscores that partisan leaning, even without formal identification, correlates strongly with consistent electoral support, views, and responsiveness to messaging. The prevalence of leaning among independents challenges assumptions of widespread non-partisanship, as leaners' attitudes on issues like , , and align more with their leaned party than with pure independents' more eclectic or centrist positions. Gallup data from indicates that when leanings are factored in, the effective partisan balance shifts to near parity (46% Republican or leaning Republican versus 45% Democratic or leaning Democratic), reducing the apparent independent bloc to under 10%. Pure independents, though numerically small, contribute to electoral unpredictability in close races, as their lack of leaning allows for cross-party voting driven by candidate-specific factors rather than ideological consistency. This dynamic highlights how in label does not equate to in practice for the majority of self-identified independents.

Electoral Impact

Role in Swing Elections

Independent voters are instrumental in determining the outcomes of swing elections, particularly , where presidential contests and competitive congressional races often turn on razor-thin margins in battleground jurisdictions. These voters, unbound by partisan loyalty, respond to candidate-specific factors such as economic performance, leadership perceptions, and appeals, enabling shifts that can flip results in states or districts with margins under 2-3 percentage points. For example, in the 2020 presidential election, battleground states like Georgia (Biden margin: 0.23%), (0.31%), and (0.63%) were decided by fewer than 45,000 votes combined, underscoring how independent preferences—capturing 26% of the national electorate—provided Biden with a 54%-41% edge among them, per exit polls, bolstering his victory. Historical patterns illustrate this volatility: in 2016, Donald Trump captured 48% of independents to Hillary Clinton's 42% nationally, according to exit polling data, which facilitated his flips of swing states like (0.23% margin), (0.72%), and (0.77%). This reversal from Democratic-leaning independents in prior cycles highlights causal drivers like dissatisfaction with establishment and economic anxieties, rather than fixed ideologies, amplifying their role in realigning electoral maps. Pew Research analysis confirms that non-partisan independents (excluding leaners) swung toward Biden in 2020 by 52%-43%, yet their smaller but persuadable cohort remains pivotal in close races, as partisan leaners largely mirror base turnout. In the 2024 election, independents expanded their influence further, comprising a record share of voters—tying Republicans at 37% and surpassing Democrats at 36%, per Edison Research exit polls—while skewing younger (26% Gen Z in swing states) and splitting votes in ways that favored Trump in key battlegrounds like and . Their heightened turnout and ticket-splitting tendencies, as documented in post-election surveys, underscore a trend where independents not only decide swing outcomes but also pressure parties toward centrist or pragmatic platforms to capture their support, though empirical challenges persist in distinguishing true swing voters from latent partisans amid polling inconsistencies.

Influence on Policy and Realignment

Independent voters exert influence on primarily through their role as a pivotal bloc in competitive elections, where their support can determine outcomes and compel parties to adjust platforms toward broadly appealing positions rather than ideological extremes. Empirical analyses of U.S. elections show that self-identified independents, comprising about 34% of the electorate according to exit polling, often prioritize pragmatic issues like the over partisan signaling, forcing candidates to emphasize fiscal responsibility and border security to secure their votes. In the presidential race, for instance, Donald Trump's margin among independents—approximately 52% to 44% for per aggregated exit data—contributed decisively to his victory, highlighting how failure to address independent concerns on and can lead to electoral losses and subsequent recalibrations within losing parties. This electoral leverage also drives realignments by amplifying shifts in voter coalitions when independents defect from traditional alignments. Voter preference models indicate that demand-side changes, such as independents and less-educated voters moving toward Republican candidates on economic grounds since 2016, have reshaped party bases independently of elite-driven supply factors, with turnout among these groups no longer favoring Democrats as in prior eras. For example, the results reflected a realignment where independents' of progressive policies on and cultural issues bolstered Republican gains among working-class demographics, pressuring Democrats to reconsider stances on and identity-focused initiatives to regain competitiveness. Such dynamics underscore causal realism in : parties adapt or face obsolescence, as independents' non-partisan volatility—evident in their higher rates of ticket-splitting—rewards convergence on median voter preferences over polarization.

Criticisms and Realities

The Myth of Pure Independence

Self-identified independent voters represent approximately 43% of the U.S. electorate as of 2023, marking a record high according to Gallup polling. However, this figure encompasses a broad category that includes both those with partisan leanings and a smaller subset of "pure" independents who profess no affinity toward either . Empirical analyses consistently reveal that the notion of a large cohort of truly non-partisan voters—who vote unpredictably across elections without underlying ideological or partisan predispositions—is largely illusory. When independents are probed further about leanings, data from 2019 indicates that 81% align with either the Democratic or Republican Party, behaving in voting patterns akin to weak partisans rather than detached swing voters. These "leaners" demonstrate high loyalty: for instance, Republican leaners voted for Republican presidential candidates at rates of 71% across four elections, comparable to weak Republicans at 76%. Pure independents, comprising roughly 10-20% of self-identified independents, exhibit lower turnout, reduced political knowledge, and more volatile but still patterned voting, often influenced by short-term factors like candidate appeal rather than complete ideological detachment. This distinction underscores a causal reality: in is shaped by enduring psychological attachments, social identities, and value hierarchies that rarely yield pure neutrality. Studies tracing voter over multiple cycles, such as those examining 1972-2020 elections, find that even self-proclaimed independents rarely sustain cross-party consistency without latent leanings, challenging claims of a massive, pivotal independent bloc free from partisan gravity. The persistence of the "pure independent" in media narratives may stem from overemphasis on self-identification surveys, which capture disillusionment or strategic non-affiliation more than behavioral detachment, as evidenced by longitudinal showing minimal true volatility among non-leaners. Critics of the pure ideal, drawing from Michigan School frameworks, argue that party identification functions as a perceptual filter, rendering wholesale independence psychologically improbable for most adults with accumulated life experiences. While a small fraction—estimated at under 10% of the electorate—may approximate this ideal through consistent abstention from partisan cues or third-party support, their electoral influence remains marginal, as turnout among pure independents lags behind partisans by 10-15 percentage points in presidential contests. Thus, the perpetuates an exaggerated view of voter fluidity, potentially misleading strategic assessments in campaigns that prioritize courting a supposedly autonomous middle over mobilizing core bases.

Empirical Challenges and Democratic Implications

Self-identified independent voters present empirical challenges in measurement and analysis, as the majority exhibit partisan leanings that align their behavior with affiliated voters. A 2019 analysis found that 81% of independents lean toward either the Democratic or Republican Party, with these "leaners" demonstrating voting patterns nearly identical to explicit partisans in presidential elections from 1976 to 2016. This blurring complicates efforts to quantify "pure" independents—those without leans—who constitute only about 10-15% of the electorate and vote at lower rates, often abstaining or splitting tickets inconsistently. Academic studies, such as those revisiting Keith et al.'s 1992 work The Myth of the Independent Voter, confirm that over multiple cycles reveals independents' apparent volatility as an artifact of leaner subgroups rather than genuine non-partisanship, with panel surveys showing stability in underlying preferences despite self-label shifts. These findings highlight survey design pitfalls, including toward "independent" as a socially desirable signal amid distrust in parties, which peaked at 43% self-identification in Gallup polls by 2023. Further challenges arise in predicting independent behavior, as traditional models reliant on party identification falter, necessitating proxies like patterns. A 2023 study in Social Science Computer Review analyzed survey data from over 1,000 independents, finding that exposure to partisan outlets (e.g., or MSNBC) predicted vote preference with 70-80% accuracy, outperforming demographics alone and revealing hidden ideological sorting. Independents also display higher negativity and lower political , per a 2023 Ohio State University analysis of American National Election Studies data, correlating with erratic turnout—e.g., pure independents voted at 55% rates in 2020 versus 70% for partisans—exacerbating underrepresentation in empirical models. Longitudinal research, such as Arizona State University's 2023 examination of voting over four cycles, identifies a "fluid" subset (10-20% of independents) that switches parties, but attributes this to weak attachments rather than principled , challenging causal claims of issue-based voting over identity. These empirical realities carry democratic implications, as the inflated perception of independents as decisive swing voters—despite their behavioral partisanship—can distort campaign and moderation incentives. Exit polls from the 2024 U.S. indicated self-identified independents outnumbered registered Democrats, comprising about 30% of voters and breaking toward Republicans by 5-10 points, yet post-hoc analyses showed leaners drove outcomes, not pure independents, underscoring how overreliance on this group misleads forecasting. In closed-primary states (22 in 2024), over 27 million independents were excluded from presidential nominating processes, per Unite America Institute data, fostering alienation and reducing the electorate's representativeness in a where parties pre-select candidates. This exclusion, combined with independents' empirical predictability via leans, reinforces two-party dominance, limiting third-party viability and constraining voter choice, as evidenced by in empirical electoral studies. On balance, while independents signal institutional —rising to 44% identification in 2024 per Gallup—their latent partisanship tempers disruptive potential, preserving stability but impeding reforms like ranked-choice voting that could amplify non-major-party voices. A 2025 poll of 1,500 independents revealed no monolithic "swing" bloc, with preferences fragmented by (e.g., 40% economically conservative, 30% socially liberal), implying democracy's resilience to polarization hinges on addressing measurable disillusionment through inclusive mechanisms rather than courting mythical neutrals. Failure to empirically disentangle leaners from true independents risks perpetuating inefficiencies, such as inefficient targeting in a media-saturated environment where independents' negativity amplifies chambers without fostering cross-partisan consensus.

References

  1. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/independent-voter
  2. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/united-states-history-since-1945/independent-voters
  3. https://ballotpedia.org/Independent
  4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
  5. https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx
  6. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5517986-independent-voters-rise-us/
  7. https://theconversation.com/in-2024-independent-voters-grew-their-share-of-the-vote-split-their-tickets-and-expanded-their-influence-245125
  8. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103123000951
  10. https://www.independentcenter.org/resources/what-is-an-independent-voter
  11. https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-growing-cohort-of-independent-voters-becomes-critical-segment-of-electorate
  12. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2025/09/politics/independent-meaning-politics-poll-vis/
  13. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz841/files/gamechangers.pdf
  14. https://ivn.us/posts/cnn-poll-finds-five-distinct-kinds-independent-voters-2025-09-26
  15. https://spa.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz801/files/2023-01/The%2520Fluid%2520Voter.pdf
  16. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/
  17. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/2018-07/66009.pdf
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/independent-vote-measurement-characteristics-and-implications-for-party-strategy/1C3F2150B3964F40B81D84A396216794
  19. https://news.gallup.com/poll/548459/independent-party-tied-high-democratic-new-low.aspx
  20. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655157/gop-holds-edge-party-affiliation-third-straight-year.aspx
  21. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1m3nb12x&chunk.id=0&doc.view=print
  22. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
  23. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/mill/repgov/repgov.c10.s01.html
  24. https://news.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx
  25. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf
  26. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/political-parties/
  27. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2024/06/04/ireland-the-2024-european-parliament-elections-rise-of-the-independents/
  28. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/
  29. https://news.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
  30. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/fact-sheet/party-affiliation-fact-sheet-npors/
  31. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/democratic-voter-registrations-decline-independents-surging-rcna213772
  32. https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-significant-share-of-young-voters-are-independents
  33. https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/rising-tide-of-independent-voters-sweeps-across-america/
  34. https://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp3413a.pdf
  35. https://research.utwente.nl/files/7043740/LeDuc81dynamic.pdf
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Party-identification-in-five-countries-over-time_fig5_352955821
  37. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp
  38. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/694783
  39. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/15/how-people-in-24-countries-feel-about-their-political-parties/
  40. https://academic.oup.com/book/40374/chapter/347072049
  41. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/
  42. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/spoiler-alert
  43. https://news.osu.edu/political-independents-are-more-negative-than-partisans/
  44. https://news.gallup.com/poll/696635/neither-party-dominates-favorability-trust.aspx
  45. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/young-independents-grapple-frustration-two-party-system-rcna203087
  46. https://goodparty.org/blog/article/10-pros-cons-independent-voter
  47. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12517
  48. https://theconversation.com/independent-voters-can-be-decisive-in-elections-but-theyre-pretty-unpredictable-not-shadow-partisans-196618
  49. https://www.independentcenter.org/articles/independent-voters-hold-the-power
  50. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/first-us-independent-turnout-tops-democrats-ties-republicans-edison-research-2024-11-06/
  51. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08944393231214027
  52. https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx
  53. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
  54. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/president/
  55. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/politics/2020-2016-exit-polls-2024-dg/
  56. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
  57. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/INDEPENDENTS/lgpdnbxjzpo/
  58. https://ivn.us/posts/why-did-donald-trump-win-2024-11-16
  59. http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/assets/pdf/conference32/longuet-marx-nicolas-party-lines-or-voter-preferences-explaining-polticial-realignment.pdf
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X231206149
  61. https://theconversation.com/independent-voters-are-few-in-number-influential-in-close-elections-and-hard-for-campaigns-to-reach-231567
  62. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/aia2009082001/
  63. https://academic.oup.com/book/46618/chapter/410041157
  64. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/leaners-dont-fall-the-myth-of-the-myth-of-the-independent-voter
  65. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1m3nb12x;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print
  66. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8894552B576EADD9FE8E1E376CDF2A9D/9781316471050c2_p15-37_CBO.pdf/inside_the_mind_of_an_independent_voter_in_america.pdf
  67. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1m3nb12x;chunk.id=d0e10344;doc.view=print
  68. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/fiorina_independents_essay6_final.pdf
  69. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft1m3nb12x
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297477721_The_Myth_of_the_Independent_Voter_Revisited
  71. https://www.uniteamericainstitute.org/research/not-invited-to-the-party-primary-independent-voters-and-the-problem-with-closed-primaries
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.