Folks, It's science. Independents are still a myth.
According to a study done by Third Way (a think tank--whatever that means) shows that Independents, over time, do change their votes more often than partisans. This hints towards the idea that they are not pretending. Many scholars have posited over time that Independents are "closeted partisans", of a sort. This study shows that the rule only typically applies to each election cycle, and shows over time that these Independents really do (sometimes) change their votes (slightly).
Jamelle Bouie (awesome name) argues that this study does little do actually dispute the previous theory that Independents don't really exist for a few reasons. Firstly, the study doesn't take into consideration the geographical implications of party ID. Many southern Democrats are actually quite conservative, and vote for conservatives in major elections. However, because of history, these voters still belong to the Democratic party.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters vote based on their personal circumstances. If they have a job, if they own a house, if they have investments with Goldman Sachs - they vote accordingly. Independents are most certainly partisan towards some direction, and show that in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Circumstances en masse do change, and Independents aren't more pleased with middle-of-the-road policies. They are pleased or displeased with the same partisan policy everyone else is.
This article is great, because it shows some of the good and bad things about the new media. In the new media, academic studies aren't just glossed over in the first sentence of a news-brief. They are picked apart and analyzed. The good part is that sometimes the blogger is right. The bad part is that sometimes the blogger is wrong. Really wrong. It will be interesting to see which group of bloggers (the right and the wrong) prevails in the coming decade or so.
To me, this study is very interesting. In fact, I think I agree with what you have said in your blog post (scary, I know). I think it is interesting that so much time is spent examining independents and how they may change their votes. I mean, do independents really change any more than partisans? It is true that in the 2008 presidential election many independents voted for President Obama. But, I also know many Republicans who were ready for change and subsequently ended up voting for Obama. I think our obsession with independent voters may be a little excessive. I mean, sure they are very important and there is no doubt that winning candidates have to do well among independent voters. However, partisan voters have been known to fluctuate as well, so it is equally important to study their changing positions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I completely agree with your comments on the new media. I think it is great that these bloggers examine issues in-depth and provide analysis for those of us who want to read such articles. I think the impact of these bloggers has yet to be fully felt/understood. Bloggers haven't been around long enough for us to be able to measure they're contribution to the political process. However, I think it is safe to say that new media sources are beginning to play a significant role in the process. In fact, if you watch mainstream broadcast media sources on any given day, you will see a blogger who was called in to analyze a situation.
We live in an ever changing media world and I, for one, think it is great that we get to examine the evolution of the media's role in our political process.
The white paper from Third Way is documenting a different trend without noticing it, methinks. True independents are still a myth, but the left-right spectrum we've all become a little too familiar with is still straining to fit the current century with the infrastructure of the last. Our unique brand of birth-certificates-except-for-fetuses partisanship is the only thing keeping the current system going, and it's already changing into a different kind of partisanship, the early 20th century kind where the real issue was individualism vs. collective democracy.
ReplyDelete