Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Having no party ID is actually taking a side — for independence


"Being a stringent 'die-hard' of anything can almost never be a good thing and if more voters took the time to consider that there are more than two sides to every issue, our democracy would be all the better for it," writes Alexa Mikalaski.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Mikalaski is a staff writer for Independent Voter News and marketing coordinator for IVC Media, a digital marketing firm affiliated with IVN.

In a country that often feels divided between two camps, the Republicans and the Democrats, independent voters could really be the future of politics in America.

While polarized, if not combative, politics are nothing new (e.g., the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 that tore the nation apart), there is something undeniably different about the political climate that we have had for the last few years.

Independents know it too, as made obvious by the substantial amounts of voters leaving both political parties. According to a poll by Gallup, the trend of voters who consider themselves as independents has steadily increased to over 40% in 2020.

Our political views are no longer limited to general perspectives of how the world should work or the ideal size, scope, and function of government. These are the politics of old, that have long since been replaced with a newfound sense of identity and in some cases, stringent party loyalty.

These days, your political beliefs define you.

Whether a member of the Republican Party, Democratic Party, or no party at all, our political beliefs have become the very foundation of who we are as individuals.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Or is that just what the two major parties and mass media want us to think? Could it be that it works in the two parties' favor for us to remain divided on our deeply ingrained moral principles? Food for thought...

The Study

If you search for studies regarding why people get so worked up over politics a million results will pop up with headlines such as, "Americans are making themselves sick over politics", "Why is America so angry?", and "Today's Politics May Be Bad for Your Health".

Is this all a testament to just how nasty our party politics have become?

In 2016, a study by Jonas Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of Southern California, showed just how closely we hold political beliefs in relation to our personal identities.

The study involved the use of functional MRI to measure the brain activity of 40 individuals with strong liberal political views as they encountered arguments against their beliefs.

Some of the challenged beliefs were considered strongly-held but non-political beliefs such as "A college education generally improves a person's economic prospects."

Other statements were considered strongly-held political beliefs such as "Taxes on the wealthy should generally be increased."

While it's not surprising that participants were more resistant towards challenges to their political beliefs over their non-political beliefs, what was especially intriguing was how participants' brains responded.

Resisting challenges to political beliefs was associated with increased activity in brain regions involved in contemplating identity and internally-focused cognition.

These brain structures also signaled threats to deeply held beliefs in the same way they might signal threats to physical safety.

The function of the brain regions associated with challenges to non-political beliefs related to adjusting learned associations that may be important for the process of changing one's beliefs in response to counter-evidence.

Essentially, the study found that the way we approach challenges to our political views is extremely personal.

Kaplan explains, "We think it's because political beliefs are important to our identity, to our sense of who we are. They are part of our social selves as well and can define who we spend time with and how they relate to us...When the brain considers something to be part of itself, whether it's a body part or a belief, then it protects it in the same way."

It is not only difficult to change people's minds about their political beliefs but people often feel like their personal identity is being threatened and so often respond with emotion and resistance. Instead of looking outward and listening to other perspectives, we immediately disengage from reality and search inward for the best rebuttal.

When confronted with counter-evidence, we naturally experience negative emotions as a result of the conflict between the perceived importance of the existing beliefs and the uncertainty of the new information.

The study specifically details, "In an effort to reduce these negative emotions, people may begin to think in ways that minimize the impact of the challenging evidence: discounting its source, forming counterarguments, socially validating their original attitude, or selectively avoiding the new information."


So, what does all of this have to do with independent voters?

One of the most common criticisms surrounding independent voters I've come across is that independent voters can't make up their minds about anything and fail to choose a side on important issues.

The very idea that you must "choose a side" in order to have a valid opinion is problematic to our democracy because there is really not one single correct answer on any one issue.

Our world is far more colorful than the black or white picture the two major parties paint.

Refusing to join a party does not mean that independent voters "can't make up their minds" but rather, would like to come to their own conclusions without having a party agenda breathing down their necks.

Truthfully, it can be challenging to not bring emotions into politics, especially on topics such as immigration and abortion that affect the lives of people in a very real way.

As human beings, we all have our biases and as Kaplan's study pointed out, we often feel undeniably threatened when some of our closely held beliefs are called into question.

However, being an independent voter does remove much of the pressure of party loyalty. I have found that it is much easier to be angry and place blind blame on one side or the other when overly invested in the black or white narrative the two major parties and mass media often promote.

Being a stringent "die-hard" of anything can almost never be a good thing and if more voters took the time to consider that there are more than two sides to every issue, our democracy would be all the better for it.

Visit for more coverage from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less