News Independent, the more mature choice?

[Willowz]

Do you think Independents are the more mature choice? I mean I don't know of an 18 year old who is independent. Or doubt there are many young people in the Independent camp.

Further, they don't seem to be clouded by any closed ideas or principles nor too open to overwhelming change. They seem to be successful or at least well of. Can take care of themselves and want the country to be taken care of. What do you think?

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm a 19 year old who's Independent, if it helps.

I chose Independent because I didn't want to be tied down to just one choice. I don't vote Democrat, I don't vote Republican. I just vote for who I think will best represent the country.

Most of my friends on the other hand don't give a hoot about politics.

 

[Willowz]

I'm a 19 year old who's Independent, if it helps.

You're one of a kind.

 

[Char. Limit]

You're one of a kind.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I choose to take it as a compliment.

 

[russ_watters]

Laws vary by state, but functionally the only difference being registered independent provides is disqualifying you from voting in primaries.

It certainly doesn't restrict your choices to register for a party!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you think Independents are the more mature choice? I mean I don't know of an 18 year old who is independent. Or doubt there are many young people in the Independent camp.

Further, they don't seem to be clouded by any closed ideas or principles nor too open to overwhelming change. They seem to be successful or at least well of. Can take care of themselves and want the country to be taken care of. What do you think?

I don't think it has anything to do with maturity.

There seem to be two distinct groups of Independents. One group runs with the tea crowd and see the Republicans as being too far to the left. Others [like me] land between the left and right and seek the middle.

I was a Republican for about half of my adult life [actually, going back to my teens where I was politically active before I could vote]. I became so disgusted with Bush I that I became a Democrat for a short time. Soon I registered as an Independent to show my dissatisfaction with both parties. So for me it was as much a political statement as anything.

I've been a member of the radical middle for almost twenty years now.

 

[WatermelonPig]

I'm pretty sure that young people are registering as independents more than ever.

 

[Willowz]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I choose to take it as a compliment.

Yes, that's what I meant. =]

 

[Willowz]

I've been a member of the radical middle for almost twenty years now.

Radical middle? Says who?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Radical middle? Says who?

It's a tongue-in-cheek dysphemism.

I've been accused of all sorts of crazy things here by some on the right.

 

[BobG]

Laws vary by state, but functionally the only difference being registered independent provides is disqualifying you from voting in primaries.

It certainly doesn't restrict your choices to register for a party!

Very, very key point.

If you live in a state with open primaries, then being an independent is a mature choice.

If you live in a state where you have to be registered in the party to take part in its primaries, then registering independent is a noble, but naive choice. You've just chosen to eliminate your voice in selecting at least one of the candidates for the general election. You've just chosen to choose between two candidates that were selected by the most fanatical wing of their party. (Voter turnout for primaries is much, much lower than turnout for the general election and the most ardent, extreme wings of each party seem to the likeliest to vote in primaries.)

 

[turbo]

Good point, Bob (regarding primaries).

I have been independent for many years, but registered as a Democrat a couple of decades ago so I could participate in the Dem caucus. I was rooting for Gephardt, and felt that Jackson wouldn't stand a chance in the general election if he got the Dem nomination.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just want to say that you don't necessarily have to vote Democrat or Republican either. I know a couple of people who vote third party. They call it a "protest vote".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Very, very key point.

If you live in a state with open primaries, then being an independent is a mature choice.

If you live in a state where you have to be registered in the party to take part in its primaries, then registering independent is a noble, but naive choice. You've just chosen to eliminate your voice in selecting at least one of the candidates for the general election. You've just chosen to choose between two candidates that were selected by the most fanatical wing of their party. (Voter turnout for primaries is much, much lower than turnout for the general election and the most ardent, extreme wings of each party seem to the likeliest to vote in primaries.)

I agree with your observation but not your conclusion. I feel that my status as an Independent voter has a greater impact than my vote in the primary elections. I vote once every two years, but I'm on the books as an Independent every day.

No doubt about it though, registering as an Independent can rob you of one of your votes. Clearly the two dominant parties want it that way, which is just another reason why I'm an Independent - I won't be bullied.

Besides, if I think a primary election is close and I have a serious concern, I can always register by party for the primary and change back later. So far it has never been an issue. Back when we moved here I could choose to vote in either [one] primary, but not anymore.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you think Independents are the more mature choice? I mean I don't know of an 18 year old who is independent. Or doubt there are many young people in the Independent camp.

Further, they don't seem to be clouded by any closed ideas or principles nor too open to overwhelming change. They seem to be successful or at least well of. Can take care of themselves and want the country to be taken care of. What do you think?

Most of the Independent's I know - don't want to toe a party line. As others have commented - it also allows you to choose the primary of your choice in some states (allows you to vote against someone/for a weaker candidate perhaps).

 

[SixNein]

Do you think Independents are the more mature choice? I mean I don't know of an 18 year old who is independent. Or doubt there are many young people in the Independent camp.

Further, they don't seem to be clouded by any closed ideas or principles nor too open to overwhelming change. They seem to be successful or at least well of. Can take care of themselves and want the country to be taken care of. What do you think?

I think it depends upon the person. Some people are independent because they do not know what they want, and they are uninformed on current events. A great deal of political rhetoric is targeted at those people. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people who refer to themselves as independents are independents. A real independent has to have the ability to take a cool dispassionate view of the world.

 

[turbo]

I think it depends upon the person. Some people are independent because they do not know what they want, and they are uninformed on current events. A great deal of political rhetoric is targeted at those people. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people who refer to themselves as independents are independents. A real independent has to have the ability to take a cool dispassionate view of the world.

This is perhaps an uninformed view. My wife and I are independent because we don't want to be seen as "easy" votes for either party. Most of our independent friends are the same, IMO. We are not uninformed, nor are we rudderless on current affairs - we simply don't want to blindly throw our support behind either of the major political parties.

The two-party system has become entrenched in the US, and is currently threatening to drive us into financial default due to irrational polarization. I don't want to be a follower of either major party right now, nor have I been for 30+ years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it depends upon the person. Some people are independent because they do not know what they want, and they are uninformed on current events. A great deal of political rhetoric is targeted at those people. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people who refer to themselves as independents are independents. A real independent has to have the ability to take a cool dispassionate view of the world.

What an amazingly fictional load of doo doo. Most Independents I know changed their designation [dumped their party] after gaining life and political experience - in a word, "wisdom". But I too was once a young buck full of partisan ideology, so I understand your confusion.

Beyond that, rhetoric is typically aimed at the base. Anyone with the slightest bit of political experience would know that.

 

[mege]

I think it depends upon the person. Some people are independent because they do not know what they want, and they are uninformed on current events. A great deal of political rhetoric is targeted at those people. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people who refer to themselves as independents are independents. A real independent has to have the ability to take a cool dispassionate view of the world.

I think this is far from true as well.

True independants just don't prioritize issues the same way that declared party voters do, I think that's really all there is to it. Those whom declare that they are 'independents' are either: turned off by the political title but are really aligned with one party pretty closely or truly movable in their political priorities (not neccesarilly beliefs, but priorities of those beliefs). I'd guess this is a 50/50 mix of different types of 'independents'.

However, I feel that trying to claim superiority of any kind because (generically) you're an 'independent' (or any political party) is kinda BS. IMO this is the thinking that is steering our country off the cliff from a rhetorical perspective. In order to have proper political discourse in Washington and in circles such as this, it's important to not feel superior because of your beliefs. This type of mentality is polarizing. By thinking yourself superior or thinking the other guys 'irrelevent' - there is no wiggle room, the discourse is already over. You (as an individual claiming superiority) have already established yourself versus the other based on some non-policy attribute and are dug in, less you become embarassed for being wrong to a 'lesser' someone.

 

[skippy1729]

The downside of actually registering as an independent is that in most states you don't get to vote in the primary elections.

 

[SixNein]

This is perhaps an uninformed view. My wife and I are independent because we don't want to be seen as "easy" votes for either party. Most of our independent friends are the same, IMO. We are not uninformed, nor are we rudderless on current affairs - we simply don't want to blindly throw our support behind either of the major political parties.

The two-party system has become entrenched in the US, and is currently threatening to drive us into financial default due to irrational polarization. I don't want to be a follower of either major party right now, nor have I been for 30+ years.

Research by political scientists tells a different story of independents.

These results suggest that the high level of support given by independent leaners to their own party’s presidential candidate was not due simply to a short-term preference for that candidate over his opponent but instead reflected longer-term ideological and policy preferences.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/aia2011070702/

 

[SixNein]

What an amazingly fictional load of doo doo. Most Independents I know changed their designation [dumped their party] after gaining life and political experience - in a word, "wisdom". But I too was once a young buck full of partisan ideology, so I understand your confusion.

Beyond that, rhetoric is typically aimed at the base. Anyone with the slightest bit of political experience would know that.

The overwhelming majority of independents are part of the base. They are independent in name only.

 

[SixNein]

I think this is far from true as well.

True independants just don't prioritize issues the same way that declared party voters do, I think that's really all there is to it. Those whom declare that they are 'independants' are either: turned off by the political title but are really aligned with one party pretty closely or truly movable in their political priorities (not neccesarilly beliefs, but priorities of those beliefs). I'd guess this is a 50/50 mix of 'independants'.

However, I feel that trying to claim superiority of any kind because (generically) you're an 'independant' (or any political party) is kinda BS. IMO this is the thinking that is steering our country off the cliff from a rhetorical perspective. In order to have proper political discourse in Washington and in circles such as this, it's important to not feel superior because of your beliefs. This type of mentality is polarizing. By thinking yourself superior or thinking the other guys 'irrelevent' - there is no wiggle room, the discourse is already over. You (as an individual claiming superiority) have already established yourself versus the other based on some non-policy attribute and are dug in, less you become embarassed for being wrong to someone 'less'.

In fact, most independents do prioritize issues the same way. See the link above.

 

[SixNein]

Here is another source discussing the issue:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_responds_how_par.html

 

[russ_watters]

This is perhaps an uninformed view. My wife and I are independent because we don't want to be seen as "easy" votes for either party.

Thanks for the honesty, tubo, your post matches pretty well what my perception has been. It does seem to me that many registered independents, particularly the more passionate ones, have a strong desire to be "seen" as independent, without necessarily being independent.

I don't see that view as being paritcularly valuable because I suspect that through statistical analysis, pollsters can figure out who really are "easy votes" and who are not. For me, personally, I don't care how people see me and believe pollsters probably see me accurately (er, wait - do you lie when polled so as to seem more undecided than you are?), so I don't see any need to attempt to project an appearance of something I'm not.

Also, it is worth pointing out that no one has yet defined the term "independent". It can mean a couple of things:

1. "Registered Independent" means not registered for either major party (duh). It does not on its own imply anything else. But it is often connected to:
2. "Undecided votor". Someone who really doesn't know who or what party they are going to vote for.
3. "Independent thinker". Someone who thinks for him/herself. Note, though, that being registered for a party does not mean one can't think for themself, just as being registered independent does not mean someone is an independent thinker. As Six said, there are several reasons why someone might register independent, and 'non-thinker' is one possibility as well. I think most people - and most importantly, pollsters, are capable of recognizing the difference.

 

[WhoWee]

I think it depends upon the person. Some people are independent because they do not know what they want, and they are uninformed on current events. A great deal of political rhetoric is targeted at those people. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people who refer to themselves as independents are independents. A real independent has to have the ability to take a cool dispassionate view of the world.

It's quite rare when I can agree with both turbo and Ivan in a unified response. Do you honestly believe 95% of Independents fit your description (don't know what they want and are uninformed) - or are you just trolling?

 

[russ_watters]

While I disagree with his characterization somewhat, according to his links, the number of truly independent voters is 7-10%. Everyone else only SAYS they are independent. I'm surprised you find that surprising.

 

[WhoWee]

While I disagree with his characterization somewhat, according to his links, the number of truly independent voters is 7-10%. Everyone else only SAYS they are independent. I'm surprised you find that surprising.

I don't agree with his characterization that only 5% of the group are informed - that is 95% fits his description? If he was describing specific groups (unions for instance) that automatically pull the Democrat lever - regardless of the name - I might not question him. It might not be the norm everywhere, but most Independents I know are more informed than lifelong Dems and look at each issue and each candidate and not just follow the herd.

 

[turbo]

It might not be the norm everywhere, but most Independents I know are more informed than lifelong Dems and look at each issue and each candidate and not just follow the herd.

I know party-line voters for both Dem and GOP, and you can see the campaign signs on their lawns and bumper-stickers on their vehicles. When you talk to them about politics, they are generally not very well-informed. At least not as well-informed as the Independents that I know. My wife and I always request absentee ballots, and we look them over very carefully. In the event that we have questions about candidates, bond issues, etc, we can research the issues on the Internet before marking the ballots. That's a whole lot more responsible, IMO, than showing up at the polling place without being fully informed.

Before the Internet, we relied on newspaper subscriptions to stay informed. We always voted for Bill Cohen (R) and George Mitchell (D) each time they came up for election, though. The two got along quite well, and they both had the interests of Maine people at heart. It will be interesting to see what our current senators will do (both R). If they are cowed by the Tea Party and help push the US into default, they will no longer get our votes. Margaret Chase Smith (R) ME was one tough old cookie, and I got to know her a bit after she retired. I don't think that either Snowe nor Collins have a fraction of her sand and independence.

 

[WhoWee]

It will be interesting to see what our current senators will do (both R). If they are cowed by the Tea Party and help push the US into default, they will no longer get our votes.

There goes our unified response. If the US defaults - it will more than likely be as a result of Presidential veto of a bipartisan Bill that doesn't extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 election - IMO.

Btw - the majority of TEA Party folks I've met are Independent and cite freedom to make decisions and courage to do the right thing - just like you turbo.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't agree with his characterization that only 5% of the group are informed...

That's not how I read the post. Perhaps it needed a paragraph break...

 

[BobG]

While I disagree with his characterization somewhat, according to his links, the number of truly independent voters is 7-10%. Everyone else only SAYS they are independent. I'm surprised you find that surprising.

Depends what you're measuring. I agree that classifying oneself as Independent is often more a statement that they refuse to drink the party kool-aid rather than a statement that they're truly middle of the road in their positions.

In fact, they probably still have quite a few views that fall far to the right or far to the left rather than all of their views falling somewhere in the middle. It's the fact that they have both some far right views and some far left views that make them feel they're independent, even if most of their views still correlate with the views of one party or another.

Personally, I don't think registering as a Republican or a Democrat should mean you've joined some team (in other words, they're still independent in their decision making process). But, from a party perspective, having a solid group of voters that are team members and won't make their decisions independently is a big plus. It's that "I don't care what you really think, you need to support us" attitude that causes a lot of voters to rebel and say they're independent even when most of their views still correlate with one party or another.

Or, you could register in one of the parties anyway and just not really give a damn if other Republicans call you a RINO or other Democrats call you a DINO whenever one of your own party's views are just too stupid to support.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I don't think independent is necessarily more mature, but I'm surprised people don't move parties more throughout their lifetime, especially as both US parties are shifting further and further to the right.

I was a strong believer in republican solutions of the 90s- cap and trade as a response to global warming, the Gingrich health care plan, etc. Unfortunately, both parties have moved far enough to the right that these are now Democrat positions. Was I a republican and now a Democrat? Or am I an independent in favor of a certain set of positions, who will vote for whoever seems to support them?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think independent is necessarily more mature, but I'm surprised people don't move parties more throughout their lifetime, especially as both US parties are shifting further and further to the right.

I was a strong believer in republican solutions of the 90s- cap and trade as a response to global warming, the Gingrich health care plan, etc. Unfortunately, both parties have moved far enough to the right that these are now Democrat positions. Was I a republican and now a Democrat? Or am I an independent in favor of a certain set of positions, who will vote for whoever seems to support them?

Interesting perspective PG. However, it seems the Dems have moved very hard and far to the Left - causing the Republicans to pull back to the Right - IMO. I have (lifelong Dem) family and friends (including union and government workers) that helped elect John Kasich in Ohio last fall and are ready to vote for any of the Republicans - instead of Obama.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Interesting perspective PG. However, it seems the Dems have moved very hard and far to the Left

Maybe on some local levels? Certainly not at all at the federal level. Obama's major legislative accomplishment is health care reform basically along the lines of Gingrich's plan from the 90s. And, again, its still the democrats pushing for cap-and-trade carbon legislation.

What have the democrats proposed that is so far to the left? Both of our parties would be right of center in any other developed country.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe on some local levels? Certainly not at all at the federal level. Obama's major legislative accomplishment is health care reform basically along the lines of Gingrich's plan from the 90s. And, again, its still the democrats pushing for cap-and-trade carbon legislation.

What have the democrats proposed that is so far to the left? Both of our parties would be right of center in any other developed country.

Here is an equally interesting perspective from the Right - it addresses your question.

http://conservativedailynews.com/2010/07/obama-keynesian-economics-or-cloward-piven-strategy/

 

[Willowz]

My grandmother being affiliated with a party would get these post cards telling her what to vote on and whom to vote for.

Crazy really. But, I don't blame her. She tries her best.

 

[mege]

I don't think independent is necessarily more mature, but I'm surprised people don't move parties more throughout their lifetime, especially as both US parties are shifting further and further to the right.

I was a strong believer in republican solutions of the 90s- cap and trade as a response to global warming, the Gingrich health care plan, etc. Unfortunately, both parties have moved far enough to the right that these are now Democrat positions. Was I a republican and now a Democrat? Or am I an independent in favor of a certain set of positions, who will vote for whoever seems to support them?

Cap-and-trade was a measured response to a straight Carbon Tax or other controlling Kyoto-imagined policies if I remember correctly. So the GOP position was still far to the right of the Democrat's solution. I think Al Gore's strong emotional support for some of the environmental issues is part of what causes the GOP to shy away from it*.

Right now, for most policies, the left solution is redistribution of wealth by making tax structure more progressive versus the right's solution of cutting spending and government. IMO those are pretty fundamental left v right arguments, and are overriding every discussion.

*A famous conservative talking head covers this type of change in detail, and trys to explain why the GOP has gone a little more right in the last 20 years (as well has the left becoming more extreme). His answer for the latter is the merging of causes with many leftist-oriented groups - SDS, for instance, is one of the largest student-based environmental activists as well as the dominant student socialist organization. These 'like interests' make it hard sometimes to differ between motives. Are environmental regulations just another form of wealth redistribution? While it's not meant to be intrinsically, environmental policy is also a good piggyback forthis type of collectivist issue (fight the bad capitalist pigs, right?).