Pure political independents face a constant dilemma: confronting persistent suboptimal choices between the two political parties, they must decide among a host of “least-bad options” rather than making an affirmative choice for something they actually support.
I’m coming around to the anti establishment independent, but my solution requires a critical mass of voters like me. Main stream democrats and republicans unless there’s a blowout or it’s a “safe” congressional district, often get between 45 and 55% of the vote. But that’s the voters who *show up*. If turnout is only 50%, then really they each only got maybe 20-25% of eligible voters.
My proposition for people who are disgusted with this, is to show up and vote for anyone other than those two, regardless of the race. That increases the denominator of the vote while keeping the numerator of each candidate’s votes the same, thereby dropping the resulting percentage.
Most politicians know their real percentage is less than the stated one, but don’t care. They can make political hay of anything above 50%. But if we make the stated percentage look more like the real one, maybe then they’ll pay attention to all the ways they’re fucking up and do something about it.
You wrote, "A third independent may care deeply about civil liberties and free speech and reject any party or candidate who tries to restrict these freedoms."
This is still me, which is why I leaned towards Democrats until 2012 when it was apparent they became as authoritarian as the Republicans. I applauded Trump's rollback of the "Censorship Industrial Complex" (as Mike Shellenberger called it), but he's not exactly been a champion of free speech, either. So I'm at "a pox on both your houses" right now.
I should say, though, I believe that for all its flaws our system is still the best one out there just because it starts with limited government. We get the government we vote for; the current state of affairs is a testament to how well the Founding Fathers understood human nature, and to the checks and balances they put in place to restrain the worst of our passions.
If your primary interest is in civil liberties, you have the option of voting for a Libertarian. And as someone who supports that and centrist compromise on other issues, I consider voting for candidates of the Forward Party. In doing so I reject the self fulfilling prophecy that I am “throwing away my vote.” Especially in Congressional elections, electing just a few centrists nationwide would have a huge benefit in reducing the power of extremists of both major parties.
I won't vote this year and I may abstain in 2028 too. Both parties have stands I detest. RFK Jr, MAHA and anti vaccine stands ended my romance with the GOP, as did Trump's stupid war against Iran. But the Democrats had turned me off with gender affirming care for children, open borders, DEI, and a two tiered justice system. Yes I have more grievances against the Democrats, but opposition to vaccines tops them all.
Interesting. Thanks, Daniel. Sounds consistent with the constant struggles other voters face with two parties they really don't like. Not voting as an act of defiance or protest will surely grow among this group.
I live in California, so for all non-local elections I have no need to vote strategically and thus have no reason to not vote third-party. My wife complains about me doing this, and I told her that if a Democrat ever wins by less than a 5% margin (our congressional district had a +15% margin), I'll start voting strategically.
Parties promote themselves, and the country is always secondary to their own interests for the collection of ambitious people that drive our political parties. I don’t know why anyone would be a useful idiot for a party. Being an independent allows me to support policies and people I think make sense. We independents are the largest block of voters, nearly a third larger than either major party. I can only hope that the parties’ need for our votes will drive them to more sensible, centrist positions. When/if Independents reach 50% of the entire electorate (low 40’s now) you will see a much healthier political landscape.
As Boss Tweed observed more than a century ago, the only thing that really matters is the ability to choose the candidates.
Independents’ policy positions are irrelevant if both parties are free to disregard them, choose the candidates themselves whether independents like it or not, and rely on negative partisanship to drive independent votes.
Some fair points, though I would hesitate to cite Boss Tweed as an authoritative constitutional voice. While the parties can indeed choose their candidates, they can’t make us Independents vote for them. The upshot is that independents will support policies and candidates that tack to the center.
Equally important, the idea that a retail party member has the slightest impact on party policies and candidates is IMHO, a fantasy.
Of the last four presidents, 3 were picked by party elites: Bush W, Obama and Biden (essentially picked by James Clyburn.)Kamala lost, but she obviously was also. Retail party members are useful idiots for elites of both parties.
Independents, the largest “party”, are the swing factor in every election.
Exactly this. At this point, I try to focus on one or two issues, but it’s getting harder to not call a plague on both houses and just wait for the AI apocalypse….
Here in upstate New York, only position I'm voting on nationally this year is for my House district. Others are for state-level positions. Have a few independent candidates trying for the House rep and governor positions. Considering going for the independent candidates for two reasons.
First unlike both parties, they're serious about bringing attention to fiscal issues regarding government spending and auditing to see where there may be legitimate cases of mismanagement and abuse of our tax dollars. In light of our $40 trillion federal debt, would say this is a serious matter for the financial future of our country which both major parties have neglected over the past few decades and seem hesitant to address because of the short-term implications for elections.
Second, they give a hoot about addressing issues within rural areas that offer a comprehensive policy platform to address in various areas involving economic and infrastructure needs. At least over the past decade, took notice that rural areas in my voting district have only mattered to both parties during elections and then we don't matter with politicians largely either catering to suburban/ urban areas or occupied with advancing their political careers. In the latter case, took great offense to this with my current House rep, Elise Stefanik, who ran as a moderate for my district at first. But when Trump came into the picture politically, she flipped her public image to support him and became more focused on raising her national profile within the Republican party instead of serving our voting district and hasn't held public events like town halls for years to assess how things are within it.
Other state positions considering it's largely the two major parties duking it out, will have to assess where I'll have to lean voting for the "least of two evils" come November.
Independents are approximately half of the voter base. We aren't some insignificant fringe.
The two parties are ripe for a drubbing from a third party or pretty much anyone who shows they can beat the parties at their own game. And, yes, Donald Trump is one such person. Love him, hate him, he is the enemy of politics as usual. The people who most hate him are the usual politicians.
But he's just one guy. We need more people like him, not less.
In Nebraska we have an "Independent" (Dan Osborn) running for Senator. I put "Independent" in scary quotes because Jane Kleeb, the leader of the Nebraska Democrat party endorsed him and arranged for a democrat to run in the primary with the promise that if she won she would withdraw her name and throw her support to Osborn (which she did). He fundraises through Act Blue, and has had rallies funded by Soros PACs. He's no independent, he's just another Spanberger.
I have a particular dilemma. I am a confirmed centrist and incrementalist. But I live in California, particularly the San Francisco Bay Area. No matter what I do or how I vote, my representatives and senators are going to be liberal. So my only real opportunity is to vote for president.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020 or 2024. I cannot abide such a moron running the country. So this leaves me without any real options.
CA lacks any real competition, kind of like my state of MD. Maybe look into the political reform movement stuff on PR and other issues. There are tons of people in different environments that are essentially unrepresented minorities like yourself. Thanks for the note!
The problem is the disenfranchisement of independent voters by closed primaries and the binary choices between equally unacceptable candidates that the closed system produces.
Fully open primaries with ranked choice voting in all elections (and collusion by cross-endorsements outlawed), would solve both.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 47 percent of us identify as independents compared to 27% each for Democrats and Republicans. Instead of choosing a least bad alternative between 2 billionaire controlled parties who ignore our needs and concerns, we need to and assert our political strength. Our county’s history is filled with instances where groups with legitimate grievances – farmers. working people, African-Americans, women, gay people have come together to improve their lives and make this a better country. Accomplishing this requires organizing – working together with one another to identify our common needs and interests, define important policies we insist upon, and agree to disagree on things we differ on. Getting these policies enacted might require a third party, but could also be done using “pr-election coalition bargaining” – requiring a party to support us on key issues if they want our votes. I hope this affirmative possibility can be addressed and considered moving forward.
Or maybe stressing policy over party/people. We all have a social media platform today - if we spent our entire time, for instance, raging against that $40 trillion, we wouldn't have to worry about whether the lawmakers we all finally forced to solve the problem were Republicans or Democrats. Thanks for this great OP and discussion!
Maybe independents will be deciding elections, but few of them participate in local government and therefore don’t take on the responsibility of vetting candidates as do the parties. In that regard, it’s hard to respect this group who won’t do the heavy lifting of what makes up a platform and ultimately our democracy.
I am curious as to why independents choose not to vote in primaries. As a result of not primary voting, independents looses the opportunity to help bring moderate party candidates to the general elections. If independents would pick a party and vote in primaries, perhaps there would be more moderate candidates from which to choose.
I note you mentioned the GRIP voting process -- Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians... vote the ****s out, they're all ****s, as far as what they vote for.
If possible, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, I don't care if they're crazy, as they won't get elected, not here in NJ.
My major exception is for the local town council, I only and always for for the lone contrarian, the one who is the no vote on 6-1 votes. I probably don't agree his political views, but we need someone to question the status quo.
As far as "throwing away your vote", I don't understand that at all... when has one vote decided a race? ... maybe a small local one, so if that's the case, fine, spend the effort to figure out who is best/least bad and vote that way. Otherwise, if you vote for the candidate who wins, do you get a prize, does it make you feel good, like your sports team won? Will that carry you through when that candidate goes against your strongly held principles? Or, if you vote for the the number two candidate (loser) in a multi person race, what does that get you? I just won't vote for anyone unless I'm persuaded that I won't regret it. So, often I skip voting in various contests.
I’m coming around to the anti establishment independent, but my solution requires a critical mass of voters like me. Main stream democrats and republicans unless there’s a blowout or it’s a “safe” congressional district, often get between 45 and 55% of the vote. But that’s the voters who *show up*. If turnout is only 50%, then really they each only got maybe 20-25% of eligible voters.
My proposition for people who are disgusted with this, is to show up and vote for anyone other than those two, regardless of the race. That increases the denominator of the vote while keeping the numerator of each candidate’s votes the same, thereby dropping the resulting percentage.
Most politicians know their real percentage is less than the stated one, but don’t care. They can make political hay of anything above 50%. But if we make the stated percentage look more like the real one, maybe then they’ll pay attention to all the ways they’re fucking up and do something about it.
Protest strategy! I like it.
That's me, John. I've done almost all of that at one time or another, except to disengage completely.
Thanks, Paul! It’s no fun but we carry on.
You wrote, "A third independent may care deeply about civil liberties and free speech and reject any party or candidate who tries to restrict these freedoms."
This is still me, which is why I leaned towards Democrats until 2012 when it was apparent they became as authoritarian as the Republicans. I applauded Trump's rollback of the "Censorship Industrial Complex" (as Mike Shellenberger called it), but he's not exactly been a champion of free speech, either. So I'm at "a pox on both your houses" right now.
I should say, though, I believe that for all its flaws our system is still the best one out there just because it starts with limited government. We get the government we vote for; the current state of affairs is a testament to how well the Founding Fathers understood human nature, and to the checks and balances they put in place to restrain the worst of our passions.
Good perspective, thanks!
You’re welcome, and thank you.
If your primary interest is in civil liberties, you have the option of voting for a Libertarian. And as someone who supports that and centrist compromise on other issues, I consider voting for candidates of the Forward Party. In doing so I reject the self fulfilling prophecy that I am “throwing away my vote.” Especially in Congressional elections, electing just a few centrists nationwide would have a huge benefit in reducing the power of extremists of both major parties.
Yes, this is like the Manchin strategy.
Gee, I never thought of that...🙄
I won't vote this year and I may abstain in 2028 too. Both parties have stands I detest. RFK Jr, MAHA and anti vaccine stands ended my romance with the GOP, as did Trump's stupid war against Iran. But the Democrats had turned me off with gender affirming care for children, open borders, DEI, and a two tiered justice system. Yes I have more grievances against the Democrats, but opposition to vaccines tops them all.
Interesting. Thanks, Daniel. Sounds consistent with the constant struggles other voters face with two parties they really don't like. Not voting as an act of defiance or protest will surely grow among this group.
I live in California, so for all non-local elections I have no need to vote strategically and thus have no reason to not vote third-party. My wife complains about me doing this, and I told her that if a Democrat ever wins by less than a 5% margin (our congressional district had a +15% margin), I'll start voting strategically.
Parties promote themselves, and the country is always secondary to their own interests for the collection of ambitious people that drive our political parties. I don’t know why anyone would be a useful idiot for a party. Being an independent allows me to support policies and people I think make sense. We independents are the largest block of voters, nearly a third larger than either major party. I can only hope that the parties’ need for our votes will drive them to more sensible, centrist positions. When/if Independents reach 50% of the entire electorate (low 40’s now) you will see a much healthier political landscape.
Yes, agree thanks!
As Boss Tweed observed more than a century ago, the only thing that really matters is the ability to choose the candidates.
Independents’ policy positions are irrelevant if both parties are free to disregard them, choose the candidates themselves whether independents like it or not, and rely on negative partisanship to drive independent votes.
Some fair points, though I would hesitate to cite Boss Tweed as an authoritative constitutional voice. While the parties can indeed choose their candidates, they can’t make us Independents vote for them. The upshot is that independents will support policies and candidates that tack to the center.
Equally important, the idea that a retail party member has the slightest impact on party policies and candidates is IMHO, a fantasy.
I cited Boss Tweed as a scholar of political reality. Retail party members have a great deal of influence. It’s the independents who are shut out.
Of the last four presidents, 3 were picked by party elites: Bush W, Obama and Biden (essentially picked by James Clyburn.)Kamala lost, but she obviously was also. Retail party members are useful idiots for elites of both parties.
Independents, the largest “party”, are the swing factor in every election.
Exactly this. At this point, I try to focus on one or two issues, but it’s getting harder to not call a plague on both houses and just wait for the AI apocalypse….
Well said.
Here in upstate New York, only position I'm voting on nationally this year is for my House district. Others are for state-level positions. Have a few independent candidates trying for the House rep and governor positions. Considering going for the independent candidates for two reasons.
First unlike both parties, they're serious about bringing attention to fiscal issues regarding government spending and auditing to see where there may be legitimate cases of mismanagement and abuse of our tax dollars. In light of our $40 trillion federal debt, would say this is a serious matter for the financial future of our country which both major parties have neglected over the past few decades and seem hesitant to address because of the short-term implications for elections.
Second, they give a hoot about addressing issues within rural areas that offer a comprehensive policy platform to address in various areas involving economic and infrastructure needs. At least over the past decade, took notice that rural areas in my voting district have only mattered to both parties during elections and then we don't matter with politicians largely either catering to suburban/ urban areas or occupied with advancing their political careers. In the latter case, took great offense to this with my current House rep, Elise Stefanik, who ran as a moderate for my district at first. But when Trump came into the picture politically, she flipped her public image to support him and became more focused on raising her national profile within the Republican party instead of serving our voting district and hasn't held public events like town halls for years to assess how things are within it.
Other state positions considering it's largely the two major parties duking it out, will have to assess where I'll have to lean voting for the "least of two evils" come November.
Thanks, George. Excellent insights.
Independents are approximately half of the voter base. We aren't some insignificant fringe.
The two parties are ripe for a drubbing from a third party or pretty much anyone who shows they can beat the parties at their own game. And, yes, Donald Trump is one such person. Love him, hate him, he is the enemy of politics as usual. The people who most hate him are the usual politicians.
But he's just one guy. We need more people like him, not less.
A lot of people probably feel this way, thanks.
In Nebraska we have an "Independent" (Dan Osborn) running for Senator. I put "Independent" in scary quotes because Jane Kleeb, the leader of the Nebraska Democrat party endorsed him and arranged for a democrat to run in the primary with the promise that if she won she would withdraw her name and throw her support to Osborn (which she did). He fundraises through Act Blue, and has had rallies funded by Soros PACs. He's no independent, he's just another Spanberger.
I have a particular dilemma. I am a confirmed centrist and incrementalist. But I live in California, particularly the San Francisco Bay Area. No matter what I do or how I vote, my representatives and senators are going to be liberal. So my only real opportunity is to vote for president.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020 or 2024. I cannot abide such a moron running the country. So this leaves me without any real options.
CA lacks any real competition, kind of like my state of MD. Maybe look into the political reform movement stuff on PR and other issues. There are tons of people in different environments that are essentially unrepresented minorities like yourself. Thanks for the note!
The problem is the disenfranchisement of independent voters by closed primaries and the binary choices between equally unacceptable candidates that the closed system produces.
Fully open primaries with ranked choice voting in all elections (and collusion by cross-endorsements outlawed), would solve both.
Ranked choice voting is a scam.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 47 percent of us identify as independents compared to 27% each for Democrats and Republicans. Instead of choosing a least bad alternative between 2 billionaire controlled parties who ignore our needs and concerns, we need to and assert our political strength. Our county’s history is filled with instances where groups with legitimate grievances – farmers. working people, African-Americans, women, gay people have come together to improve their lives and make this a better country. Accomplishing this requires organizing – working together with one another to identify our common needs and interests, define important policies we insist upon, and agree to disagree on things we differ on. Getting these policies enacted might require a third party, but could also be done using “pr-election coalition bargaining” – requiring a party to support us on key issues if they want our votes. I hope this affirmative possibility can be addressed and considered moving forward.
Or maybe stressing policy over party/people. We all have a social media platform today - if we spent our entire time, for instance, raging against that $40 trillion, we wouldn't have to worry about whether the lawmakers we all finally forced to solve the problem were Republicans or Democrats. Thanks for this great OP and discussion!
Maybe independents will be deciding elections, but few of them participate in local government and therefore don’t take on the responsibility of vetting candidates as do the parties. In that regard, it’s hard to respect this group who won’t do the heavy lifting of what makes up a platform and ultimately our democracy.
I am curious as to why independents choose not to vote in primaries. As a result of not primary voting, independents looses the opportunity to help bring moderate party candidates to the general elections. If independents would pick a party and vote in primaries, perhaps there would be more moderate candidates from which to choose.
I note you mentioned the GRIP voting process -- Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians... vote the ****s out, they're all ****s, as far as what they vote for.
If possible, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate, I don't care if they're crazy, as they won't get elected, not here in NJ.
My major exception is for the local town council, I only and always for for the lone contrarian, the one who is the no vote on 6-1 votes. I probably don't agree his political views, but we need someone to question the status quo.
As far as "throwing away your vote", I don't understand that at all... when has one vote decided a race? ... maybe a small local one, so if that's the case, fine, spend the effort to figure out who is best/least bad and vote that way. Otherwise, if you vote for the candidate who wins, do you get a prize, does it make you feel good, like your sports team won? Will that carry you through when that candidate goes against your strongly held principles? Or, if you vote for the the number two candidate (loser) in a multi person race, what does that get you? I just won't vote for anyone unless I'm persuaded that I won't regret it. So, often I skip voting in various contests.