Pure independents face a constant dilemma: confronting suboptimal choices between the two political parties, they must decide among a host of “least-bad” options every election cycle rather than making an affirmative choice for something they actually support. Partisan Democrats and Republicans, and independents who consistently vote one way or the other, do not face this same dilemma. The mental shortcut of partisan identification or affinity resolves the predicament: partisans can support their party and its agenda even when they are dissatisfied with its actions or leaders.
The psychology of independence often produces frustration or resignation among political free agents. Some plow ahead with maddening choices election after election and learn to grin and bear it, while others choose to exit the political process altogether. For those who confront the dilemma, there are several strategies for resolving the choices between poor options, at least for the moment.
First, independents will try to determine what is “sufficient” for the current election. “I don’t particularly like either one of these parties or their candidates, but I’ll pick the one who least offends my sensibilities and values or advances a short-term political goal I feel is important.” Judging by the responses to my last column on Trump’s waning support among this group, many independents are engaging in this thinking ahead of the midterms. “I really don’t like the president’s performance in office so far. But I also don’t trust congressional Democrats or Republicans, so maybe I’ll choose divided government to put a check on all of them.” In the past few presidential elections, many independents made similar decisions about sufficiency based on which party and candidate was perceived to be better on key national priorities like inflation and immigration.
A second approach independents employ to temporarily resolve a political dilemma is to focus on one or two issues that really matter to them and make decisions between the two parties based on their positions and performance on these issues. For example, an independent may really care about health care affordability and vote for the party that is promising to do something tangible about it even if they don’t prefer them on other matters. Another independent may really dislike foreign interventions and will vote for the party actually committed to ending American involvement in overseas conflicts. A third independent may care deeply about civil liberties and free speech and reject any party or candidate who tries to restrict these freedoms. Likewise, independents often make unpleasant party choices based on a candidate’s position on taxes, Israel, abortion, or transgender issues. The issue list is long, but by choosing to focus on their most important issues, political independents can make informed decisions between two parties they view skeptically.
A third way independents choose to resolve their political dilemma is to say no to the status quo. “I will vote against whoever is in power and refuses to change anything to make the political system more representative of people like me.” This strategy can lead to third-party voting and refusal to accept the terms of the debate on offer from the two major parties along with support for structural changes to elections and government. An anti-status quo framework may also lead to disengagement from politics. “If nothing is going to change, and the choices are always the same subpar ones offered by Democrats and Republicans, I’m out and I’m going to focus on other things in my life.”
Regardless of the method employed, the end result for independents is perpetual disappointment with unsatisfactory choices and political outcomes they feel unfairly reward the most partisan Americans at their expense.
Yet, as independents continue to make up a large share of the electorate—while the two parties descend further into negative polarization and short-term power struggles—expect these free agent Americans to play a much larger role in determining the outcome of narrowly contested elections. The parties may not respect them as individuals, but independents still control which party is allowed to run things for a while before they decide to vote them out.
If you force a growing number of people to make “least-bad” choices all the time, don’t expect much stability or continuity in politics. This is a rational response to an increasingly irrational and disappointing political situation for independents.
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.
That's me, John. I've done almost all of that at one time or another, except to disengage completely.