Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction

by Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov

The number of independent voters in America increases each year, yet they remain misunderstood by both media and academics. Media describe independents as pivotal for electoral outcomes. Political scientists conclude that independents are merely 'undercover partisans': people who secretly hold partisan beliefs and are thus politically inconsequential. Both the pundits and the political scientists are wrong, argue the authors. They show that many Americans are becoming embarrassed of their political party. They deny to pollsters, party activists, friends, and even themselves, their true partisanship, instead choosing to go 'undercover' as independents. Independent Politics demonstrates that people intentionally mask their partisan preferences in social situations. Most importantly, breaking with decades of previous research, it argues that independents are highly politically consequential. The same motivations that lead people to identify as independent also diminish their willingness to engage in the types of political action that sustain the grassroots movements of American politics.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Academia, Read For School

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 31, 2016

Reviews

[Rodger Payne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is relevant to a current project and I needed to read it through (something I rarely do with academic books) because I obtained it via interlibrary loan. While political scientists have long argued that Independents are mostly undercover partisans (because they lean to either the Republican or Democratic party and vote fairly consistently with their leanings), Klar and Krupnikov demonstrate that declaring Independent status is typically an effort at impression management. Since partisanship is viewed quite unfavorably, a growing portion of Americans will take great effort to avoid revealing any partisan preference even if they secretly have one. This means they are less likely to engage in certain kinds of political behavior that would "out" them (ranging from wearing buttons to attaching stickers to posting yard signs and talking to friends, family, or neighbors). The scholars employ a measure of "self monitoring" and members of their samples who score highly on this are especially likely to hide any hint of partisanship. The authors' experiments reveal the depth of these views, the political implications already mentioned, and the startling finding that these "independents" do not actually favor political compromise or centrist policies. They get angry at partisans for compromising with the opposition! I wondered after reading whether declaring independence extends to voter registration and whether that has significant implications for the kinds of candidates that parties select. The authors mention that elected officials (in Congress especially) are increasingly polarized. Does the withdrawal of these voters from the primary process help contribute to that?

[Brock T · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good study on independents and their role in the electorate

[Dillon Shipley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good. A lot of statistics and could have easily been condensed into a report, but interesting conclusions. Will use for an upcoming research paper.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Through innovative experimental research Klar an Krupnikov show that the seeming rise in the number self-identified "independents" is primarily a function of "impression management," particularly when partisan disagreement is high. In short, those who believe it's not socially acceptable to reveal their partisanship, i.e., if they believe others will view them negatively, are most likely to go "undercover" and claim they are independent. This then leads to a reluctance to openly express their true partisanship and undermines the ability of parties to spread their messages.