Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Paradox for Independents

Opinion

The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.


Since they do not speak with one voice—after all, there are about 60 million independents or unaffiliated voters in the United States, not to mention a large percentage of the 85 million 'eligible' voters who are not 'registered' to vote—there is no one path they should all follow.

The most reasonable path forward for independents is to pursue their independence from both major parties even as they advocate for what I have called a tripartisan system of governance in Washington. This would be a system in which there are three political forces in Washington, not two. The time has come for the United States to jettison the goal of bipartisanship and replace it with the goal of tripartisanship. Bipartisanship is not the goal in multiparty democracies throughout the world.

The paradox for independents is that in order to achieve their independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties they must commit to working with them and not trying to overtake them. Like women in progressive quarters in the last two generations, political independents must separate from the two powerful parties even as they seek to create a new relationship with them. The woman who needs her own identity over and above mother and wife, notably via having a career, may seek this identity even as she seeks to transform her marriage with her husband. Of course, some women may divorce their husbands and find new husbands or marry women or not marry at all. Yet, there is a model where the dominated woman, whose identity is suppressed, affirms her identity and demands that her spouse affirm it, too.

Political independents running for the U.S. Senate in 2026, for example, may advocate for the tripartisan ideal and the creation of an Independent Caucus in the U.S. Senate. They may run against Democrats and Republicans in their own state, or like Dan Osborn in his 2024 Nebraska Senate race, run as an Independent against a Republican. Yet, part of their campaign would be devoted to advocating for the tripartisan ideal.

By the time there are five or six independents in the U.S. Senate—Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among the handful of Republicans in the Senate who might convert—this Independent Caucus would create the foundation for what Charles Wheelan called a "fulcrum strategy," only he was focused on electing centrist members of a Centrist Party.

Tripartisans should not blast the Trump administration. The Democrats will take care of that. Indeed, the two parties are destined to fight bitterly with each other for the next four years. Tripartisans must be committed to overcoming the intense polarization in Washington and pave the way for the post-Trump years. Of course, many Republicans are hoping for post-Trump years that sustain the populist, ultra-right-wing perspective being unveiled every day. The tripartisan ideal can actually help either majority party.

To be clear: Because tripartisans are not ideologically aligned, they are not passionate about the same policies. Rather, they would each support various, though not all, policy bills (ranging from climate change to entitlement reform) because they want to end polarization and dysfunction in Washington as well as keep their seats in the U.S. Senate and the Independent Caucus.

The tripartisan model is designed to transcend the battlefield of American politics over the next two to six, and probably ten years, and integrate political independents with their own voices, attitudes, and ideas into the political process. If Senator Murkowski converted to an Independent in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, that would be a major development: One small step for the U.S. Senate, one giant leap for the United States.

Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Read More

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse
Getty Images, Mario Tama

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse

Prop 50 is redrawing California’s political battlefield, sparking new fears of gerrymandering, backroom mapmaking, and voters losing their voice. We cut through the spin to explain what’s really changing, who benefits, and what it could mean for competitive elections, election reform, and independent voters. Plus, Independent CA-40 candidate Nina Linh joins us to spell out how Prop 50’s map shifts are already reshaping her district - and her race.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting map
A map of new Texas Senate districts can be seen on a desk in the Legislature.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

SCOTUS Upholds Texas Map, Escalates Gerrymandering Crisis

In the closing weeks of 2025, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court moved our democracy in the wrong direction by clearing the way for a gerrymandered congressional map in Texas to be in place for the 2026 midterm elections in its Abbott v. LULAC decision. Aside from the fact that the new Texas map illegally discriminates to weaken the voting power of the state’s Black and Latino voters, the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply problematic on a number of other levels.

Most disturbingly, the majority in this opinion takes an appalling new turn on the issue of partisan gerrymandering. To illustrate the Court’s backward slide, consider that in 2004 then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote as a concurrence to an opinion in a key redistricting case that, if a state declared it would redistrict with the goal of denying a certain group of voters “fair and effective representation” for partisan reasons, then the Court “would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people with two books, open in front of them.

At Expand Democracy, scholarship is a democratic tool. How research on elections, representation, and governance shapes reform.

Getty Images, Pichsakul Promrungsee

Why Academic Work Matters for a Movement

When I began publishing research on elections and representation, I always imagined the audience as primarily academic - political scientists, methodologists, perhaps a few practitioners who hunt for new data. But as my work with Expand Democracy deepens, I find myself reflecting on how scholarship shapes the public conversation and why academic writing is not necessarily a detour from democracy but can be a foundation for it.

This essay reflects on that specific interaction: how academic work contributes to our understanding of democratic institutions, why it remains essential for reform movements, and how my own research aligns with Expand Democracy’s evolving mission.

Keep ReadingShow less