This question has been answered affirmatively by most
political scientists since the publication of the Myth of the Independent Voter in 1992. There are many comments on
blogs that advise journalists and pundits to realize that the large percentage
of independents (as many of 40 percent of respondents) in polls conducted to
ascertain a person’s partisan affiliation does not truly reflect their voting
behavior. That is, about two-thirds of so-called independents are “leaners,”
which means that when they are pressed in a follow-up question, they will
divulge a preference for the Republican or Democratic Party. Thus, only about
10 percent of independents are truly independent, or as they’re referred to,
“pure” independents.
Recently, I had an exchange with Professor Steve Greene,
whom I respect a lot, on his blog: http://fullymyelinated.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/election-night-losers/
. I contend, and have for some time, that leaners are partisan in their
behavior because they recall for whom they voted in the most recent election.
They are not partisans, and they should not be called partisans. Lumping them
together with partisans deludes candidates and political operatives into
believing that leaners have decided how they’re going to vote and that they are
not available to be persuaded to vote differently. That is not necessarily
true.
Recently, I discovered a book by Zoltan Hajnal and Taeku Lee
entitled Why Americans Don’t Join the
Party: Race, Immigration, and the Failure (of Political Parties) to Engage the
Electorate, which confirms much of what I have stated, although much more
thoroughly and elegantly. A long quotation is in order:
These findings are, however, limited in a number
of important respects. First, and most
obviously, they only apply to white Americans.
It should be clear that just because white Independent leaners “display an impressive tendency to vote for the candidate
of the party they feel closer to” does not tell us a lot about the partisan
proclivities of Latino, African American, or Asian American Independents
(1992:65). If we are right, and the
factors that drive party identification do differ across groups, this is a
glaring omission.
Second, the analysis presented in the Myth of
the Independent Voter and other accounts of Independents often fails to
consider the full range of options available to nonpartisans in any given
electoral contest. If, as we have
suggested, neither party represents the interests of the multitude of Americans
whose views do not fit neatly along the partisan divide, then logically we
might expect many Independent voters to be searching for an alternative course
of action (or inaction). Following the
logic of Albert Hirschman (1970), we argue that assessments of the behavior of
nonpartisans need to examine all of the options available including exit,
voice, and loyalty. As we will see,
under the right circumstances, Independent leaners are especially apt to not
remain loyal and to choose either exit or voice. In presidential contests, for
example, we will show that white Independent leaners are more than twice as
likely as weak partisans to choose to vote for a third party. Similarly, since nonpartisans who are
ambivalent and uncertain about partisan options have much less reason to go to
the polls in the first place, it is not surprising that we find that leaners
and other types of nonpartisans are quite likely to abstain from voting
altogether.
Third, these findings tend to ignore the
possibility that that the reason independent
leaners appear to vote consistently as partisans is that they lean
to the party that they just voted for in the current election. Keith and his colleagues’ own data shows that
from just one presidential contest to the next a surprisingly large portion of
leaners – 30 percent – switched their votes and vote for the other party. Moreover, of these vote switchers a third
altered their partisan leaning to match their vote change. Using a range of panel data, our analysis
will show that much of the perceived loyalty of leaners to one party is
illusory. [emphasis added)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all of
this ignores context. How often
nonpartisans express active support for candidates from one of the two major
parties will vary significantly with the options that voters are afforded. Wolfinger and his colleagues and others who
examine the partisan proclivities of Independents focus exclusively on cases
where partisan defections are highly unlikely
- elections where the two parties are
dominant and where there is little incentive or opportunity to choose an
alternate candidate or party. Thus,
partisan voting among leaners may be less the result of affinity for a
particular party and more the result of a lack of a viable alternative. The importance of context is evident even in
Presidential elections – as we will see in Chapter Eight. In most Presidential elections, no third
party candidate is even listed on the ballot across most states. In these elections, it is not surprising to
find that few leaners defect to a third party.
It is also not surprising to find that defections among leaners jump in
Presidential elections which have third party candidates who are on the ballot
across most states. Even though these third party candidates do not have a real
chance of winning, roughly a quarter of all Independent leaners vote for the
third party candidate in recent decades.
In elections involving viable candidates who do not represent the two
parties, we find markedly higher partisan defections among Independents of all
stripes.
None of these
criticisms refutes the fact that most Independent leaners in most elections
will likely vote for the party they lean towards but they do raise important
questions about just what Independence means across different groups and
different contexts. They also suggest that it may be too early
to categorize all Independent leaners as partisans and thus too problematic to
simply lump leaners in with other partisans when analyzing party
identification. [emphasis added]
I’m finding this book fascinating not only for
its consideration of independents (including partisan leaners) but also in its
development of a theory of party identification that is compelling. I strongly
recommend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment