Voter registrations. Why are there so many registered Independents?

[NorthCarolina]

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

It appears that following the 08 election many folks bolted the Democratic Party and the GOP, choosing to register as Independent of unaffiliated instead.

This was a telephone poll, as indicated in the chart, so those reached are pretty much those that are relied on for just about all of our political polls, so the polling method is not the culprit in these surprising number. What is?

On edit: The latest polling from Gallop for June 5th, 2016 reflects the following numbers:

Gallup for June 5th, 2016 indicates 41% registered independents, 30% Dem, 27% GOP.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. doesn't it sound a lot cooler to say you are independent? than to admit being a partisan?

[NorthCarolina]

3. It has real world implications though, so I would assume that the reasoning runs a bit deeper

than that, don't you?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. no, i don't really. i think Americans genuinely like to think of themselves as unique

and this society has grown more and more individualistic. so no, i think this has a lot to do with wanting to feel unique and independent.

most of these independent voters, vote in a specific way too. Also, a lot of them are republicans masking as independents.

[LongtimeAZDem]

8. Agreed (nt)

[treestar]

22. Amen

This is why they do it. I did it myself at one point.

[NurseJackie]

27. I think it's self-flattery. Little more than a vanity declaration. It implies ...

... that the people who calls themselves "independent" are somehow "smarter" and "brighter" than the rest. In my opinion, they fancy themselves as "free-thinkers" who aren't obligated to any party. (And, sadly, many of them also appear to believe that being "independent" is a way to influence the party.)

Or, like we've seen many here say, they're just P-Oh'd that their candidate didn't win, so they're acting-out.

I'm sure these observations apply equally to both parties in our two-party system.

[Exilednight]

2. Several polls have shown the same thing, not just this one.

Everybody has their reasons.

The question should be: Why can't the party retain voters?

[NorthCarolina]

4. You can phrase it either way, but the question remains the same.

Why?

[TwilightZone]

11. Actually, Gallup looks like an outlier and Dem party ID is increasing, not decreasing.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

[NorthCarolina]

15. Maybe on HuffPo, but not according to Gallup though.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[Exilednight]

29. Pull up the polls individually, instead of looking at the combined chart.

[floriduck]

5. If that 43% ever came to agree on most things, they would take over the country.

[NorthCarolina]

10. What bearing do you think that would have on

a candidate running as an independent on a populist platform? Do you think they could tap into the >43% formally registered as independents and unaffiliated, or do you think these independent voters would simply fold into the Clinton camp when push comes to shove in November?

[floriduck]

14. No I think they would develop their own identity and view issues that could agree with one party

and conflict with the other and vise versa. The end result is it would likely take the best of both worlds and attract outside voters as well as their own independent voters. That could be a powerful development that likely would force change in the two party system to attract the people the parties lost over the years.

[corkhead]

7. They didn't leave the parties

the parties left them

[Vinca]

34. Exactly right.

[TwilightZone]

9. That graph ends in 2014. Based on multiple polls, the number is now closer to 30%.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

In addition, looking at a variety of polls, Gallup looks like an outlier.

[NorthCarolina]

13. Gallup from June 5th, 2016 says 41% registered independents, 30% Dem, 27% GOP. I guess

the 30% you were seeing was registered Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[TwilightZone]

35. You clearly didn't click the link I provided.

Here, try again.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

As I noted, Gallup appears to be an outlier. The average is 36% Dem, 31% I, based on multiple polls, not just one.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. We actually have real data about that, not polling...

and about a third of our county voters are independant. Or at least not D or R. I've got the roster for one ED in my car for D signature collecting. Not many Dems registered, although a lot of I's lean Democratic.

When asked, they don't talk much, but when they do they often say they are disappointed in traditional parties. Much of it has nothing to do with the national nonsense everyone here is obsessed with, but local party failings felt by local people.

Anybody want a resurgence of "real" Democrats? You can't do shit about the DNC or Debbie, and Bernie can't help your county, so stop whining and get your asses out there to get your local parties and clubs working.

[Hortensis]

18. But WHY are they so disappointed?

Because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" promoted with 40 years of antigovernment propaganda meant to destroy confidence in our democratic institutions so that we'll join them in destroying them.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/author-jane-mayer-on-how-the-koch-brothers-have-changed-america-20160214?page=3

[WhiteTara]

31. good analysis! THanks

[Hortensis]

16. Certainly one factor. But the #1 factor in disaffect has to be

over 35 years of extremely well funded propaganda designed to destroy the electorate's faith in our government, government programs, regulations on business, political processes and parties.

Those who could be convinced it was all bad would help destroy, those who merely lost faith wouldn't fight to protect it.

Jane Mayer talks about the Kochs here, but they are only the two most powerful of many investing enormous fortunes to achieve the same ends. Other interviews and articles on her research and this subject are on the web.

What are some other examples of how American society looks different today because of the Kochs' influence?
This has been a 40-year project that Charles and David Koch have been funding with their vast fortunes to try to change the way Americans think. Another of their greatest accomplishments is in turning Americans against the idea of government being a force for good. It's not they alone who have done this, but they've pushed very hard on it, and public-opinion polls show that Americans' regard for government has just plummeted in recent years.

Many studies have shown that the priorities of the super, super rich are really very different from those of the rest of the country. Ninety percent of Americans think Citizens United was a bad idea and that there's too much money in American politics. But of course the big spenders see it differently, and they're the ones who are dominating. Majorities of Americans now think that climate change is real, and that mankind is causing it, and something needs to be done about it. But, again, the big private interests have captured the government on that issue, and nothing's getting done about it. Huge majorities of Americans in both parties want to see Social Security not weakened but strengthened. The very, very rich want to privatize it; they want to shred it. They don't want to pay for it. They don't need it.

One thing I always wonder about these guys is: Why are they doing this? Do they genuinely believe they have a better version for America, or are their efforts purely self-serving?
I think it's all of the above. I think that Charles Koch is a true believer in his own vision of what a perfect society would be. And he hasn't really changed his view very much since the late Sixties, when the group he belonged to was described as Anarcho-Totalitarian by William F. Buckley. They were so far to the right that conservatives like Buckley viewed them as the fringe; they are so anti-government that they bordered on anarchy. I have papers and documents I describe in the book, in which Charles Koch talks about how he wants to fund and build a movement that will be radical, that will destroy the "statist paradigm," as he calls it. He really believes it. Some of his ideas that seemed so crazy and fringe back in 1980, such as abolishing the IRS and the EPA, you're hearing those same ideas now echoing among the Republican presidential candidates. So these ideas have really gained a lot of traction through the years, in part because of their funding. Do they really believe it? Yes, they truly believe it. And is it good for their bottom line? That too.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/author-jane-mayer-on-how-the-koch-brothers-have-changed-america-20160214#ixzz4CbiRSB6g

[kerry-is-my-prez]

30. The Republican Party has used propaganda for many years. They employ a lot of psychologists.

It's their way of keeping people in the fold. They use a lot of wedge issues such as abortion, bigotry/fear/resentment against minorities, gblt people, etc.

[Zambero]

17. Some to the right of "mainstream" GOP, many left of Dems

Other states you are default independent unless you specifically choose a party preference.

[swhisper1]

19. because the partys have gone corporate and offer the people nothing

disenfranchisement en mass

[hobbit709]

28. That's what a lot of people tell me.

When you're on the bottom, you realize that both sides have little interest in you since you don't have the money they're looking for.

[KK9]

20. Must Depend on state primary format?

In Mass, we have "semi-closed" primaries, meaning "independent" voters can vote in any party's primary, but voters affiliated with a party can only vote in that one.

The term "independent" is misleading, though, as in many states, that implies the name of an actual political party. Here, we have the "United Independent Party". The correct term here, for those
with no party affiliation, is "unenrolled". Plenty of new voters got confused about this before the Mass primary, they thought they were "independent", when they were really "Independent" and found they couldn't vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. The Secretary of State's office put out all kinds of PSA announcements before the registration deadline, but some folks still missed the memo.

Because of the primary format, 53% of voters in Massachusetts are "unenrolled". I am, though I pretty much always vote Democrat. I don't see the point in affiliating with a party under the circumstances. And, being "unenrolled" does cut down on the amount of junk mail and phone calls. My husband was registered as a Republican for a short time and the phone calls on the landline were crazy. For me, being "unenrolled" is as simple as convenience, it has nothing to do with any statement I'm trying to make about myself, or any given political party.

IF we had closed primaries here, I would most certainly register as a Democrat. I would not want to miss an opportunity to vote in a primary because I wasn't properly registered to do so, and, over 36 years of voting, I most consistently agree with what the Democrats are offering.

I don't understand why people would be registered as "independent"/unenrolled/unaffiliated in states with closed primaries. That produces a burden of planning ahead to register with a party before every primary and then changing your registration back afterward. If you usually vote a particular party, register for that one and if, for some reason, you REALLY want to vote in another one, change your affiliation for just that one. I read somewhere that most "independent" voters really DO identify more with one party or another.

[NorthCarolina]

23. The GOP is actually up 1% in the most recent poll. Dem reg has remained a flat 30% since 2014. -nt-

[RazBerryBeret]

24. oddly, I was opposite.

Registered Independent my whole life, I switched to Democrat in 2008 so I could vote for Obama in the primary.

I think it's a mind set for people, not wanting to fit into a "group". You can be Liberal, but not agree with the entirety of the Democratic Platform. The media paints all democrats (and republicans) the same. Most people want to be considered more eclectic in their political leanings, not like a lemming following a group.

I have a 19 y/o son who I encouraged to register as a dem. I love to listen to he and his friends talking. 'You think you are a republican because your parents are", "socially and economically I am liberal, but Democrat is a dirty word in my house", they make fun of each other, talk about moral issues. It's really so interesting to me.

In a black or white world, a lot of people will choose gray, for many different reasons.

[NorthCarolina]

26. I have been a registered Democrat since 1976.

However, I do plan on taking a new look at that registration pending the outcome of the Dem convention.

[PADemD]

25. I'll bet those Independents would sure like

$15 minimum wage and universal single payer healthcare.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

32. Most of the independents I know are former Republicans who are fed up with the Reps but can't

bring themselves to declare themselves as a Democrat. A few are "Reagan Democrats" who are waiting for another Reagan to come along. One that I know swings "back and forth" and does vote for Reps and Dems - usually the most "moderate" person. She voted for Reagan, Clinton, thought Obama was too "liberal" (lol!) so voted for McCain and Romney. She flips from one party to the other. She refuses to vote for Trump and is Hillarys age so she will be voting for Hillary. She really liked Kucinich though - so talk about being confused.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The Establishment parties, and politics-as-usual are out of favor with the electorate.

People who are able to think for themselves are stating their preferences.