Via RSS
Via Twitter
As the Independent movement grows in strength, a backlash from the partisans of the major parties and political status quo is only to be expected, for they have the most to lose in the face of a truly Independent electorate. However, the supposed “myth of the Independent voter” is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that they are simply in denial.Read the rest.
In May 2009, the Pew Research Center declared: “Independents take center stage in the age of Obama.” In the months following the 2008 general election, Independent identification surged to its highest level in seventy years, surpassing that of both the Democratic and Republican party brands. Since then, there has been a relatively steady supply of commentary and analysis arguing that, for all intents and purposes, the supposed “Independent voter” does not in fact exist, but is rather a long-standing myth of American political culture.
Yet, our nation’s politicians continue to seek their favor, and the White House appears especially concerned about winning back the Independent vote following the Democratic party’s poor performance in the midterm elections. Last week, The Washington Post reported that White House advisers are “deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points.” In response, some liberal Democratic party strategists have resuscitated the myth of the “myth of the Independent voter” to aid in their opposition to this strategy.
In a widely circulated article published at The New Republic, John B. Judis seeks to correct the White House’s “misguided view of the Independent voter,” and in the process provides the reader with a series of arguments that have been common currency among strategists for the major parties since at least 1992, when a group of political scientists led by Bruce Keith published a work entitled The Myth of the Independent Voter. Let’s consider a sample of Judis’s arguments.
Debunking the Myth of the Independent Voter
From this week's column at CAIVN:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This finding is part of why it is quite hard to push for electoral reform that favors third parties significantly..., the US voters likely do not want an even playing field among umpteen parties.
Maybe, it's because of strategic voting, but such can be habituating.
What we need to do is ask "Who'd benefit" from an electoral reform and get them to suppport such...(I'll be posting on this after thanksgiving week is over).
dlw
dlw
That's interesting you write for CAIVN, I remember getting their pamphlets or advertisements in the mail endorsing the "Top Two" primary.
DLW is right though, I talk to so many people that frankly, just either don't care that third parties are given the shaft or think that they SHOULD be given the shaft, electorally speaking. So psychology certainly plays a role...
I hope to post over at Daily Kos about why Dems shd support 3-seated local elections that help local third parties win some seats.
It's too darn easy to rail against our 2-party system, but we need the support of those committed(possibly tacitly) to one of the 2 parties to get electoral reforms.
dlw
Be careful DLW, you might get banned for even positively mentioning third parties.
I advocate for "strategic election reforms" that are "local third" LT parties-friendly. LT parties would not try to rival the major parties and they would exacerbate tensions between tea-partiers and the Republican party and give moderate republicans exit threat when the religious right exerts too much sway over their party.
dlw
Post a Comment