Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Independent Exodus

Opinion

The Independent Exodus
two stickers with the words i vote on them
Photo by Mockup Free on Unsplash

Every week, thousands of Americans - who live in the 30 states that register voters by party - go to the post office, DMV, or download a voter registration form, and change their registration status from “Democrat” or “Republican” to “Independent.”

This trend is accelerating. Nationally, 43% of Americans identify as independent. In a handful of states, registered independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined. But the response to this trend from the politics industry has been “nothing to see here, people…the two-party system is alive and well.”


The New Republic declared that independent voters are a myth. Gallup insists that 90% of independent voters are in fact “Democrat Leaners” or “Republican Leaners,” a clever way to make a trend disappear. And to be fair to Gallup, they are simply utilizing language and concepts that have been put forth by political science and adopted by Washington.

The assertion that independent voters are, in fact, partisans in disguise has endured for years. Like phrenology—the pseudoscience of studying skull bumps to determine personality traits—intellectual scams have a way of persisting.

But there are cracks in the facade. A few brave journalists like John Halpin insist that independents should not be ignored. Organizations like the Independent Center, Unite America, and the ASU Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy have begun studying independent voters. My organization, Open Primaries, has been fighting for full voting rights for independents since 2009. And a growing number of mainstream candidates—like Rob Sand of Iowa, Dan Osborn of Nebraska, Rick Bennett of Maine, and Mike Duggan of Michigan, to name just a few—have embraced the growing independent disillusionment with the “rip-the-opposition-to-shreds" status quo and are offering voters a new direction.

Something is happening in America. It’s not coordinated. It’s not a new party. It’s more accurately a rejection of partyism. But old ways of seeing the world do not die easily.

Enter CNN. With great fanfare, they released a “new and improvedtaxonomic understanding of independents this past week, which, on the surface, seems to take independent voters seriously. According to the authors, the poll results identify five distinct types of independents, with big implications for American politics. As party loyalty fades and the definition of that elusive swing voter shifts, elections are increasingly decided by who among these groups shows up to vote.

CNN divides independents into five categories: Democratic lookalikes, Republican Lookalikes, Checked Out Voters, the Disappointed Middle, and the Upbeat Outsiders. But when you dig into the numbers, the authors assert that 63% of independents are either partisan clones or don’t care about politics at all. Presto! While CNN gives lip service to the “big implications” of independents, they simultaneously atomize and diminish their existence. Harry Houdini would call that misdirection.

Are independents monolithic? No. They do not share a common ideology. Independents mix and match positions and policy and have no problem endorsing ideas from Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul or voting for Barack Obama and Donald Trump. They are as diverse as America. And by slicing and dicing them into silly, made-up categories, CNN perpetuates the myth that independents are not real simply because they are diverse. They miss the forest for the trees.

We live in a two-party system. And yet the largest group of voters is those who choose to separate themselves from both parties. They do so for many reasons, and the ramifications are real. Independents cannot vote in taxpayer-funded primaries in many states. And have no representation on the boards of elections and the FEC. Every aspect of politics — campaign finance, debates, and election administration — was created by Democrats and Republicans for the benefit of Democrats and Republicans. 10,000 Americans change their voter registration to independent every week, and they find themselves strangers in a strange land.

Don’t be fooled by the categories generated by the smartypants at CNN. They perpetuate the self-serving myth that independents are not truly independent. The real work is not to invent catchy categories that create the illusion of understanding. It is to recreate and reform our political process to fully include independents, the largest group of voters in the country.

John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.



Read More

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.

Keep ReadingShow less
Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.
white printer paper on white table

Oregon Pioneered Vote-by-Mail. Its Ballot Access Laws Are Still in the Covered Wagon Era.

Oregon's primary election was on May 19. Neither of the two major-party candidates in Oregon's 6th Congressional District faced a primary opponent. They'll automatically advance to November's general election ballot, without a single voter really needing to weigh in, without collecting a single petition signature, and without knocking on a single door. The Democratic incumbent represents a party that accounts for 29.75 percent of registered voters in this district. The Republican nominee represents a party with 24.78 percent of the vote. Together, the two parties represent a minority of OR-6's electorate, and both of their candidates are already on the November ballot.

I represent the largest voting bloc in this district. Nearly 40 percent of OR-6's registered voters are unaffiliated, more than either party. These voters have never had a candidate who answers only to them—not to party bosses, party lines, or special interests. I am trying to be that candidate. And I am still on the porch, clipboard in hand, collecting the 5,500 hand-signed paper petitions I will need just to guarantee that my name appears beside theirs in November.

Keep ReadingShow less
Election Officials Warn of Rising Threats As Security Funding Declines Ahead of Midterms

Reps. Laurel Lee (R-Fla) and Terri Sewell (D-Ala) at Wednesday’s House Administration Elections Subcommittee hearing titled, “Examining Best Practices for Strengthening Election Security.”

(Kaitlin Bender-Thomas/MedillNews Service)

Election Officials Warn of Rising Threats As Security Funding Declines Ahead of Midterms

WASHINGTON –Election officials warned lawmakers on Wednesday that threats against election workers and voting systems are escalating even as federal funding for election security remains far below 2020 levels, posing risks ahead of the 2026 midterms.

In 2020, Congress allocated $425 million for election security grants, compared to $15 million in 2025 and $45 million this year. The Trump administration has also proposed a $707 million cut to the CyberSecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s fiscal 2027 budget and ended the agency’s election security support for state and local governments.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Election-Litigation Complex
person holding white and red box

The Election-Litigation Complex

Since Bush v. Gore in 2000, election litigation has become a routine feature of American democracy. A few months ago, the Supreme Court made our litigious habit easier to indulge.

In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Court expanded who could sue to challenge election procedures (candidates no longer had to demonstrate individualized harm to bring a case). This ruling, likely to stoke litigation, lands in a country already losing faith in its electoral system and amid increasing pressure on the judiciary.

Keep ReadingShow less