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 New Fight Over Election Observation
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The New Fight Over Election Observation

As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.S. has signed the foundational agreement committing all participating states to open elections to external scrutiny and inviting fellow members to observe through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The 2024 ODIHR observation mission to the U.S. found the fundamentals reassuring—a well-run process, active engagement, free campaigning—but issued 31 recommendations to align U.S. elections with international standards and commitments. Four stand out: federal pre-clearance legislation against discriminatory election-law changes; reassessing the Electoral College; balanced representation in election administration; and guaranteed access for international and nonpartisan observers—notable, since 17 states still legally bar international observation, which is at odds with commitments made by all 57 OSCE states. Yet over a year later, follow-through is thin: no pre-clearance restoration, no Electoral College review, unchanged observer-access laws. Where movement exists—in disinformation tools, in financial disclosure—it remains piecemeal.

An uncomfortable convergence

Keep ReadingShow less
Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less
10 Organizations Independent Voters Need to Watch

Young woman at voting booth

Canva

10 Organizations Independent Voters Need to Watch

Independent voters are no longer a political afterthought. They are the majority.

And when these voters look at the state of politics in the US, they see the lack of accountability, representation, competition, and meaningful choice that the system produces.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Gerrymandering Solution
person holding white and red box

The Gerrymandering Solution

The 250th anniversary of American independence should remind us what’s wrong with gerrymandering. Due to partisanship, however, it now not only persists but rachets tighter in a tit-for-tat cycle that threatens to strangle representative rule. There is a solution to gerrymandering, however, if only politicians will act.

Inspired by revolutionary Enlightenment Era ideals, the Declaration of Independence and the new state constitutions of 1776 call for representative rule. The people would be sovereign, they proclaimed, with governments drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed. Nothing of the sort had ever been tried on a large scale and the founders struggled with how to implement it. Everything turned on establishing a truly representative governing assembly for each newly independent colony or state.

Keep ReadingShow less