NPR: Are indpendents partisans in disguise?

[Deleted]

Independent voters have grown in recent years into a mega voting bloc. By some estimates they outnumber registered Republicans, and even registered Democrats.

Every election cycle, independents generate enormous amounts of interest as candidates, pollsters and the media probe their feelings. These voters are widely considered to hold the key to most elections.

Independents generally report that neither party fully represents their views. Some report being to the left of the Democratic Party or to the right of the GOP, but most report being in the middle and describe themselves as moderates. As a group, independents tend to prize their ability to think for themselves, rather than march lockstep with a party.

"It's a shame that ... more people don't do that," said Amin Sadri, 23, a Florida independent. "That more people, for lack of a better word, they almost feed at the trough. They are set on a certain mindset, so they only listen and gather information that is already predestined to go in a certain direction."

Sadri is an independent voter. He despises partisanship, and has close friends who are Republicans and Democrats. Even his religion — he subscribes to the Baha'i faith — has explicit rules about partisanship.

"It's an inherent aspect of politics that it's about one side versus the other," Sadri said in an interview. "So Baha'is, because we seek unity and because we seek to abstain from conflict and contention, partisan politics are something that Baha'is are forbidden to participate in."

There's a paradox, however: Even as the number of independents in the United States has soared, presidential election after presidential election in recent years has come down to the wire. If a third of the country is truly open-minded about supporting either the Republican or the Democrat for president, the math alone suggests elections should regularly produce outcomes other than a 50-50 split.

Political scientists have known for some time that significant numbers of independents vote consistently for Democrats or consistently for Republicans.

Sadri for example, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and plans to do so again in 2012. Going back to the presidential race between Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996 — when Sadri was a small child — the disputed 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Sadri said he has always wanted the Democrat to win.

So why isn't he a registered Democrat?

"See, that's the problem," he said. "As soon as I say that I'm a Democrat, people look at me and say, 'Oh, you believe in this, you believe in this, you believe in this,' and I don't!"

This fall, Sadri will count himself as an independent voter. But if the campaigns think he's persuadable, they'll be wasting their time.

Now, politicians, reporters and pollsters have known for a while that only a few independents are actually open to persuasion. The challenge lies in how to identify them.

That's where a new psychological test could be useful.

Brian Nosek is a psychologist at the University of Virginia. Along with graduate student Carlee Beth Hawkins, Nosek studies why people don't always do what they say they want to do — why there is a gap in many aspects of human behavior between what people intend to do and what they actually do.

Nosek and Hawkins believed this disconnect explains why many independents aren't independent when it comes to voting.

The psychologists used a test that purports to measure people's inner attitudes, including ones they don't know they have.

"The test is called the Implicit Association Test," Nosek said. "And it's been used for a variety of different topics — trying to measure people's racial attitudes, their anxieties about spiders, their self-esteem. In our case, we tried to measure how strongly people associate themselves with Democrats or Republicans."

The idea behind the test is simple. If you are a Republican deep down, you'll quickly categorize things that are Republican with things about yourself, because you identify with the Republican Party. You'll be slower to group things connected to the Democratic Party with things about yourself. (You can try the test for yourself here.)

The speed of those associations can be precisely measured. In the study, Nosek tested 1,865 U.S. citizens to see how fast they made these associations. The test easily identified registered Republicans and Democrats. Republicans were quick to link Republican words with themselves. Liberals made faster associations with words connected to the Democratic Party.

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But many did.

"It might break down into a third, a third, a third," Nosek said, referring to independents who leaned Democratic, leaned Republican and were neutral. "There are a large number of independents who are not in the middle, but show some degree of implicit partisanship."

Nosek and Hawkins proved the test was measuring people's real attitudes by asking the volunteers to evaluate different policies. Some were labeled Democratic ideas. Others were labeled Republican. Then Nosek secretly switched the labels. The idea that used to be called Democratic was now labeled Republican, and the idea that used to be Republican was now labeled Democratic.

"What we found was that independents who were implicitly Democratic tended to favor the plan proposed by Democrats," Nosek said. "And independents who were implicitly Republican tended to favor the plan proposed by Republicans. And it didn't matter which plan was which."

When a plan was labeled Democratic, in other words, independents who were implicitly Democratic supported it — and they opposed it when the label was changed to Republican. Party labels, not ideas, determined which proposals these voters supported. That's the definition of partisanship — where loyalty to the team comes first; the ideas come second.

The psychologists are publishing their study in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Nosek thinks the test can help independents figure out if they are walking the walk, or just talking the talk. Campaigns might use the test to find the minority of independents truly open to persuasion.

So this fall, don't be surprised if someone comes up to you and says, "Would you mind taking a little psychological test?"

[heliocentric]

I consider myself independent because there is no party that I fully agree with and I vote based on individual candidate, not party. Still, I know that many (maybe even most) of my views are more in alignment with the Democrats. I refuse to register as a Democrat, though, because I don't fully agree with them and feel like registering acts as a kind of approval of their entire platform.

It's probably crazy, but I feel like I am making a statement by saying I'm independent; as if I'm letting politicians know that my vote is not a given and they have to listen to me and work for it--because they do. I also feel like it is the only way to express my dissatisfaction with partisan politics and the lack of compromise on both sides. There is a huge spectrum of beliefs in this country and yet we only have two parties, so it's not a surprise a lot of people don't fully identify with either. I would love to see more parties/candidates on the ballots (and in the debates) and it infuriates me that it's so difficult.

In the meantime, when it's time to vote I will make a choice based on the individual candidate that I like most (or dislike least). What other option do I have?

[charminglife]

Here's the link to the test mentioned above: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

[eclaires]

My vote used to be more split, but it seems my options are pretty limited here in TN. It seems like in a lot of elections there are Republicans running unopposed.

I pretty much always voted Dem on a local level from 18 on (until I lived here), just because of where I lived and the options. At a federal level, it was more of a mixed bag. But I admit that for this election, there's not much that could happen to make me vote for Obama/Biden. It will probably be Romney/Ryan or 3rd party.

And I think that might be why the splits are 50/50. Because if you lean one way (but aren't a registered member of that party), but aren't thrilled about it, you're less likely to be swayed to the other party, and instead will either stay home or vote 3rd party.

[emilyj]

I classify myself as independent, and I don't ever see picking a party. I really am split on multiple issues - some I lean Dem, some Rep, now some Libertarian.

In some of our elections here, I have been asked "R or D" and given only that sheet. Drives me crazy.

[IIOY]

Aug 22, 2012 8:36:09 GMT -5 emilyj said:

I classify myself as independent, and I don't ever see picking a party. I really am split on multiple issues - some I lean Dem, some Rep, now some Libertarian.

This is me, which makes voting a miserable experience.

[emilyj]

Penny, CT is that way. I never voted in primaries when I lived there because I wouldn't register with party.

[Deleted]

Pretty much, at least according to my H who studies voter behavior for a living. Most true independents are actually very low information voters. Most people who are "independents" just say that because we don't like to think we're partisans.

Example: my mom claims she's an independent, but she thinks Jimmy Carter got a bad rap as president, and I confirmed with her that the last time she voted for a Republican in a presidential election was 1984. No, mom, voting for Kay Bailey Hutchison does not make you an independent. It makes you a Democrat stuck in Texas with no other choice.

[heightsyankee]

I've pretty much always felt this way. People say "I'm independent" but when you talk politics with them, they are very clear about what they believe. There is no information out there that is going to sway them.

[heliocentric]

I don't want to be an independent because I think it's cool or anything. I really wish there was a party I could better identify with. As mentioned, if I had to pick, I'd choose Democrat, but it just doesn't feel right.

Why does it even matter what I call myself? People within a party can't even agree on what they believe. Thus people still have to qualify themselves: "I'm conservative regarding the economy, but liberal on most social issues" or "I'm liberal, but think the current level of spending is unsustainable & would like smaller government" or whatever.

The article mentions that most Independents aren't actually open to persuasion. So? I'm not Independent because I'm not sure what I want. I'm Independent because I know what I want and neither party is offering it.

[SusanBAnthony]

I find this whole thing very interesting.

Most independents" that I know IRL fall into two categories: You Can't Label Me (that would be DH, lol, but really he always votes D) and Fiscally R, Socially D young people who would likely vote R if the R's dropped all the religious right motivated stuff.

[ladybrettashley]

I don't think there's anything wrong with qualifying why you are an independent. I think more than anything, that shows that you are actually a little more informed about the issues. As angryharpy said, a true independent who cannot qualify what they believe probably doesn't know anything about the candidates or issues.

[IIOY]

Aug 22, 2012 9:39:07 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Most people who are "independents" just say that because we don't like to think we're partisans.
.

I use "independent" as a proxy for "not committed to either party." I don't pretend for a nanosecond that I don't have strong ideas on many issues.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2012 10:12:25 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 22, 2012 9:39:07 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Most people who are "independents" just say that because we don't like to think we're partisans.
.

I use "independent" as a proxy for "not committed to either party." I don't pretend for a nanosecond that I don't have strong ideas on many issues.

There are also exceptions to every rule.

But statistically speaking, when you look at actual voter behavior, most people who claim to be independent vote just like partisans. It sort of doesn't matter what people label themselves if, at the end of the day, they still vote the same way the openly partisan do. And - again, always with exceptions to the rule - the independents who do not behave like partisans tend to be the least informed about politics.

[pedanticwench]

This is why we need a third party and even a fourth and a fifth.

[heliocentric]

Aug 22, 2012 10:12:25 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 22, 2012 9:39:07 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Most people who are "independents" just say that because we don't like to think we're partisans.
.

I use "independent" as a proxy for "not committed to either party." I don't pretend for a nanosecond that I don't have strong ideas on many issues.

This. My strong issues just don't seem to align with one particular party.

As for comments that many Independents aren't very informed, I am sure that's true. I think that's true for many Democrat and Republican voters, too.

[teflep]

My votes are very even if you factor in local races. I look at the issues as a whole and don't vote for one really. I consider myself independent though I certainly lean on certain issues, though lately this is 3rd party. The Npr person was fascinating...he always voted dem bug was independent based on his faith. Yeah, not really.

[teflep]

I don't agree with uninformed voter meme if you don't vote partisan but being more 3rdparty, that could be why it is the exception.

[basilosaurus]

Hmmm. I'm still independent, but I might be getting to the point where I register. I started as I b/c I really just didn't know. I grew up in a strong R household, where democrat is a dirty word. But the last time I voted R was in 2000, when I was in college and uninformed and still too influenced by my upbringing.

I think really I just don't like labels. I don't consider myself aligned to a party but to ideals. Theoretically I'd be willing to vote for anyone, regardless of party, that matched them, but I don't see the R party doing that anytime soon, even locally.

[msmerymac]

I'm an independent who considers myself left of the Democratic party. Some parties allow independents to vote in primaries in my state, if I choose to do so (I never really do). I was raised by (conservative) parents who were also independent and very much chose based on the candidate and the current issues, not necessarily the party (unlike my dad's parents, who always voted straight Dem). That's how I choose to vote. I don't donate money to parties, I occasionally donate to individual campaigns. I don't plan to run for office. So I don't see the need to belong to a political party.

I mostly vote Dem and Green Party, and occasionally independent. I think I've even voted for 1 or 2 Republicans.

[penguingrrl]

I have never registered with a party and have always considered myself independent. But as the right has been taken over by religious zealots who want to legislate their version of morality I've been pushed far far away from them. While I think fiscal issues are important, I vote far more on social issues, so I may register D at some point. For local elections I've been pretty split and not voted on party lines, for the presidential elections I've been able to vote in I've always ended up voting D but only after watching and learning as much as I could about the candidates and running mates.

[ringstrue]

I honestly don't understand aligning yourself with a party if you don't agree with the majority of their stances.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2012 12:10:24 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

for the presidential elections I've been able to vote in I've always ended up voting D but only after watching and learning as much as I could about the candidates and running mates.

To a political scientist, though, this makes you a Democrat. (And yes, I'm only talking about national races since local races can have their own oddities.) You may not consider yourself a Democrat, but if you were answering a poll, by the time the pollster got done with you, s/he would be able to (probably correctly) that you will vote for Obama in November.

[downtoearth]

Aug 22, 2012 8:15:50 GMT -5 charminglife said:

Here's the link to the test mentioned above: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

Hmmm...I took that test and it was more of a "are you a racist test" than and independant. Am I missing something?

Plus, I slightly favor african american famous people over white famous people. Whatever that means?

[IIOY]

Aug 22, 2012 14:28:43 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Aug 22, 2012 8:15:50 GMT -5 charminglife said:

Here's the link to the test mentioned above: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

Hmmm...I took that test and it was more of a "are you a racist test" than and independant. Am I missing something?

I had a similar reaction.

[heliocentric]

Aug 22, 2012 14:28:43 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Aug 22, 2012 8:15:50 GMT -5 charminglife said:

Here's the link to the test mentioned above: implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

Hmmm...I took that test and it was more of a "are you a racist test" than and independant. Am I missing something?

Plus, I slightly favor african american famous people over white famous people. Whatever that means?

I also favor famous African Americans and AAs in general. I didn't get any result on my political leanings.

[basilosaurus]

Fine, I took the test. Apparently I associate Romney with being Mormon more than I do Obama. Which should be a good thing considering only Romney is Mormon, right?

[IIOY]

Aug 22, 2012 15:40:23 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Fine, I took the test. Apparently I associate Romney with being Mormon more than I do Obama. Which should be a good thing considering only Romney is Mormon, right?

I associate Obama with being American. Imagine that!

/notabirther