Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


‘Independent’ Voters Are Generally Not

• July 28, 2009 • 12:00 PM

They are prized by pollsters, but are smaller in number and less influential than most think.

Politico.com had disheartening news for Democrats on July 9. “Independents edge away from Obama,” declared the Web site’s top story, which noted a Virginia poll in which independent voters in the state disapproved of the president’s job performance by 52 to 38 percent.

The piece called this “a potentially alarming trend for the White House,” a statement which reflects the importance political journalists place on the views of independents. Their shifts in opinion are carefully monitored in the media and often treated as a bellwether, signaling which way the electorate is leaning.

The result is a distorted picture of the nation’s political makeup, according to political scientist John Petrocik of the University of Missouri. In an analysis just published in the journal Electoral Studies, he argues that the definition of independent voters used by many pollsters is far too broad.

Americans, he noted, “prefer to think of themselves as independent-minded and inclined to judge candidates on their individual merit.” But, he finds, “Very few Americans lack a party preference.”

Although an increasing number of Americans are calling themselves independents, Petrocik argues this is “more a matter of self-presentation than an accurate statement about our approach to elections, candidates, the parties and politics in general.”

So why do so many fixate on what is, in many ways, a phantom population? Perhaps it’s because of the widely held misconceptions regarding what the term “independent voter” truly means.

In the public imagination, independents are a relatively stable demographic made up of engaged but unaffiliated people who can be persuaded one way or another. They are thought of, essentially, as swing voters. No doubt much of the fascination with how independents are thinking is based on that premise.

Which, it turns out, is false.

“There are an awful lot of people who call themselves independent because it’s fashionable in some circles,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “But their voting behavior is predictable. They are not swing voters.”

“While a disproportionate numbers of swing voters are independents, two-thirds of independent voters are not swing voters,” added Tom Jensen, communications director of Public Policy Polling.

“This idea of the sage citizen who eschews party affiliation, is unbiased and persuadable by reason and facts, is very much a myth,” said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “Most people are committed to a party.

“They may not like the label, so some call themselves independents. But there are very few people who fit the archetypes of the wise, centrist independent. People who don’t have a lot of opinions tend to be disengaged from politics and less likely to vote.”

There are two key facts in thinking about political independents. First, they comprise a self-defining group that shrinks and grows, sometimes dramatically, as the nation’s political mood changes. If you compare how “independents” feel today as opposed to how they felt five or 10 years ago, you are not studying the same group of people.

Second, the precise makeup of this intensely scrutinized demographic is highly debatable. Given their prominence in the press, it is surprising that there is no agreed-upon definition of precisely who “independent voters” are. (There is also an American Independent Party and an America’s Independent Party, both right-leaning. Neither ever appear to carry much electoral weight, although their registrations sometimes surge, in part, some theorize, because “independent” — i.e. nonpartisan or decline to state — voters identify themselves incorrectly with those third parties.)

In May, the Pew Center released a report stating that the percentage of Americans who define themselves as political independents — 36 percent — matches the 70-year high previously reached in 1992 (the year of Ross Perot’s candidacy for president). However, that figure includes people who call themselves independent, but admit they lean Democrat or Republican when pressed by a pollster. Exclude them, and the number of true independents goes down to around 15 percent, according to Keeter.

In April 2009 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reported 19 percent of Americans are “strictly independent,” while another 23 percent call themselves independent but “lean” either Republican or Democratic. That poll found an almost equal number of “leaners” toward each party, while the Pew survey found a significantly higher percentage lean Democrat than Republican.

When it comes to voting, working in campaigns, giving donations or any other facet of political life, “leaners” behave identically with those who consider themselves a “weak” party member, according to Petrocik. He argues that placing them among independents is simply wrong; they should be included with other members of their party.

With that in mind, let’s return to the Virginia poll highlighted by Politico, which was conducted by the firm Public Policy Polling. Who exactly are the independents who have turned against the president’s policies?

“We have voters self-identify their party affiliation in all of our polls,” explained Jensen. “So we ask them if they’re Democrats, Republicans, or ‘other’ and if they say other we classify them as independents. We do not prod those who identify as independents on which way they lean. In Virginia, they comprise 33 percent of the electorate with 34 percent as Democrats and 33 percent as Republicans.”

In other words, the “leaners” are in there. And in Virginia, they tend to lean to the right.

“In Virginia the demographic profile of independents is that 5 percent identify as liberals, 61 percent as moderates, and 35 percent as conservatives,” Jensen said. “I think there is somewhat of a tendency for independents to skew in a conservative direction after the last four or five years because some Republicans unhappy with President Bush or congressional Republicans are now identifying as independents instead of Republicans, even if they maintain their conservative ideology.”

That phenomenon has been widely noted in the press over the past few years. And yet, even with the knowledge that the makeup of the “independent” pool has grown to include more Republican-leaning voters, it is often treated as news when this group expresses opposition to Obama’s policies.

So is the media overstating, or overdramatizing, some rather predictable results? Jensen suggested as much on a recent entry on the Public Policy Polling blog: “Our polls have pretty universally shown Barack Obama’s approval rating dropping with independents lately, but when you take a look at who those voters are it seems almost inevitable.”

Pew’s Keeter agrees — up to a point.

“We’re talking about a 3- to 6-point increase in the percentage of independents relative to a couple of years ago,” he noted. “If you go from 30 percent a couple of years ago to an average of 36 percent now, you’re up 6 points in independents and down 5 points in Republican affiliation.

“So you’re only talking about 5 percent out of the total 36 percent of independents who are refugees from the Republican party who are possibly returning home because they’re conservative ideologically and don’t like what they see. If the swing (away from supporting Obama’s policies) is bigger than that, it is reaching into the more neutral group of independents.”

At least one major poll, the one by Quinnipiac University, does things the right way, from Petrocik’s point of view. “If they say they are independents, we ask if they lean either way,” said that poll’s Brown. “If they say yes, we list them as a D or an R. If they say no, we list them as an independent.”

So what do their numbers tell us? According to a Quinnipiac survey of Ohio residents released July 7, 38 percent of independents said they approved of Obama’s policies, while 48 percent said they disapproved. That’s a four-point difference in the disapproval number, which may reflect the fact Ohio and Virginia are two different states — and/or the fact leaners were excluded in the Ohio survey.

Fourteen percent of Ohio independents said they didn’t know or otherwise didn’t answer the question, which confirms that true independent voters are more likely to be disengaged from the political process. In contrast, only 3 percent of Democrats and 6 percent of Republicans failed to answer the question.

Why don’t all pollsters restrict their surveys of independents to people who are genuinely unaffiliated with a party? Petrocik believes the problem is the small number of people in that category.

“Without the leaners, the base of independents could be as small as 150 respondents in the typical national sample of 1,000 or so that we read about,” he said. “The sampling error of such a small number would be very large — 15 percentage points. It is hard to take a seven-point shift seriously if you are dealing with a 15 or more percentage point sampling error.”

The pollsters defend their practice by arguing that the fact some partisans are unwilling to identify with their party is interesting information, even if it doesn’t necessarily predict voting patterns.

“More often than not, we (include leaners in the independent category), although we know many of them are likely to consistently vote for one party or the other,” said Keeter. “The fact they’re unwilling to affiliate with a party is of some value, at least in telling you how popular the party’s brand is.

“The declining number of Republicans, at the same time we don’t see a rising number of Democrats, is valuable information. It tells us there is a departure from the Republican Party, or at least the willingness to publicly affiliate with it. But there is no comparable movement over to the Democratic side, which suggests the pull of their brand is not all that great.”

Pew’s Keeter and the University of Missouri’s Petrocik agree on one thing: A major realignment of party affiliation is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, in spite of Democrats’ hopes of forging a new majority.

“There was a big surge toward the Republicans in 1981 following Carter’s loss in the 1980 election, Democratic unpopularity at the time, and the [positive reaction] to Reagan,” Petrocik noted. “[But] by the end of 1981, the balance of Republicans and Democrats had returned to the status quo ante.

“I don’t think we are viewing a replay of 1933-34, when a new equilibrium emerged. It looks more like 1981 to me.”

Keeter noted that the big Democratic coalition formed during the Depression included Southern Democrats. “They were conservative and at odds with the national Democratic Party but maintained their alignment with the party for a variety of reasons having to do with old loyalties,” he said. “This held until the civil rights movement and the choice of the national Democratic leadership to take the party in a pro-civil rights direction. You then had the fracture, in which a lot of Southern Democrats moved away from the party, and eventually found a home in the Republican Party.”

With that redoalignment complete, “We now have a more ideologically consistent set of divisions than we had back then,” he said. That being the case, he doesn’t see any basis for a major realignment.

For such a shift to occur, you’d need a lot of independent-minded, persuadable people, and neither Keeter nor Petrocik believe there are that many out there.

“The ‘rise of the independent voter’ is mostly a mirage,” Petrocik said. “I confess that I helped to contribute to it with a book I collaborated on many years ago.

“The parties have lost a bit of their appeal to many of the least political among us,” he added. “But this group of ‘shy’ partisans quickly display their underlying party attachments in many ways.”

So to sum up: Most “independents,” as pollsters and pundits commonly define the term, are in fact committed to one party or the other. Those that are truly unaffiliated tend to be less politically engaged, and are thus less likely to vote.

Sounds like a group not particularly worth keeping your eye on.

Sign up for our free e-newsletter.

Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.

Follow us on Twitter.

Add our news to your site.

Tom Jacobs
Staff writer Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Ventura County Star.

More From Tom Jacobs

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 17 • 4:00 PM

What All Military Families Need to Know About High-Cost Lenders

Lessons from over a year on the beat.


October 17 • 2:00 PM

The Majority of Languages Do Not Have Gendered Pronouns

A world without “he.” Or “she.”


October 17 • 11:01 AM

How to Water a Farm in Sandy Ground

Physicists investigate how to grow food more efficiently in fine-grained soil.


October 17 • 10:00 AM

Can Science Fiction Spur Science Innovation?

Without proper funding, the answer might not even matter.


October 17 • 8:00 AM

Seattle, the Incredible Shrinking City

Seattle is leading the way in the micro-housing movement as an affordable alternative to high-cost city living.


October 17 • 6:00 AM

‘Voodoo Death’ and How the Mind Harms the Body

Can an intense belief that you’re about to die actually kill you? Researchers are learning more about “voodoo death” and how it isn’t limited to superstitious, foreign cultures.


October 17 • 4:00 AM

That Arts Degree Is Paying Off

A survey of people who have earned degrees in the arts find they are doing relatively well, although their education didn’t provide much guidance on managing a career.


October 16 • 4:00 PM

How (Some) Economists Are Like Doomsday Cult Members

Cognitive dissonance and clinging to paradigms even in the face of accumulated anomalous facts.


October 16 • 2:00 PM

The Latest—and Most Mysterious—Player in the Nasty Battle Over Net Neutrality

As the FCC considers how to regulate Internet providers, the telecom industry’s stealth campaign for hearts and minds encompasses everything from art installations to LOLcats.


October 16 • 12:00 PM

How Many Ads Is Too Many Ads?

The conundrum of online video advertising.


October 16 • 11:00 AM

Unlocking Consciousness

A study of vegetative patients closes in on the nature of consciousness.


October 16 • 10:00 AM

The False Promises of Higher Education

Danielle Henderson spent six years and $60,000 on college and beyond. The effects of that education? Not as advertised.


October 16 • 8:00 AM

Faster Justice, Closer to Home: The Power of Community Courts

Community courts across the country are fighting judicial backlog and lowering re-arrest rates.


October 16 • 6:00 AM

Killing Your Husband to Save Yourself

Without proper legal instruments, women with abusive partners are often forced to make a difficult choice: kill or be killed.


October 16 • 4:00 AM

Personality Traits Linked to Specific Diseases

New research finds neurotic people are more likely to suffer a serious health problem.


October 16 • 2:00 AM

Comparing Apples to the Big Apple: Yes, Washington, D.C., Is More Expensive Than New York City

Why shouldn’t distant locales tied to jobs in the urban core count in a housing expenditure study?


October 15 • 4:00 PM

Why Asian American Parents Are the Least Likely to Spank Their Kids

Highly educated, middle-class parents are less likely to use corporal punishment to discipline their children than less-educated, working-class, and poor parents.


October 15 • 2:00 PM

The Federal Government’s New Doctor Payments Website Is Worthy of a Recall

Charles Ornstein takes a test drive using the federal government’s new website for drug and device payments and finds it virtually unusable.


October 15 • 12:00 PM

How Cosmetic Companies Get Away With Pseudoscience

Anti-aging creams make absurd claims that they repair DNA damage or use stem-cell treatments. When cosmetics companies and dermatologists partner to maximize profits, who is responsible for protecting the consumer?


October 15 • 10:00 AM

What Big Data Can Tell Us About the Things We Eat

Pizza might be the only thing that can bring men and women together.


October 15 • 9:04 AM

‘Looking’ at Art in the Smartphone Age

Technology is a great way to activate gallery space, but it shouldn’t take it over.


October 15 • 8:00 AM

A Brief History of High Heels

How what was once standard footwear for 16th-century Persian horsemen became “fashion’s most provocative accessory.”


October 15 • 7:22 AM

Advice for Emergency Alert Systems: Don’t Cry Wolf

A survey finds college students don’t always take alerts seriously.


October 15 • 6:00 AM

The Battle Over High School Animal Dissection

Is the biology class tradition a useful rite of passage or a schoolroom relic?


October 15 • 4:00 AM

Green Surroundings Linked to Higher Student Test Scores

New research on Massachusetts schoolchildren finds a tangible benefit to regular exposure to nature.


Follow us


How to Water a Farm in Sandy Ground

Physicists investigate how to grow food more efficiently in fine-grained soil.

Unlocking Consciousness

A study of vegetative patients closes in on the nature of consciousness.

Advice for Emergency Alert Systems: Don’t Cry Wolf

A survey finds college students don't always take alerts seriously.

Brain’s Reward Center Does More Than Manage Rewards

Nucleus accumbens tracks many different connections in the world, a new rat study suggests.

A City’s Fingerprints Lie in Its Streets and Alleyways

Researchers propose another way to analyze the character and evolution of cities.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.