According to the chart the rise of independents began in 2008 and rose rapidly until 2014.
The recent increase in independent identification is partly attributable to younger generations of Americans (millennials and Generation X) continuing to identify as independents at relatively high rates as they have gotten older.
Seems the youngsters say “A pox on both your political houses!”
Perhaps establishment political parties are not addressing their needs.
IMO, the problems is the way elections are structured. You have primaries for each party. The most extreme elements generally win the primaries. Then when you get to the general election you have a fascist vs a communist (note: exaggerating to make the point). Most of America is somewhere in the middle, and neither party gives them that in the general. I’m always having to vote for the “least bad” candidate.
Ranked voting would probably address some/most of that.
Another possibility is that political parties have never “addressed their needs” the way people today expect to be catered to, and youngsters are unable to deal with the fact that being part of a team large enough to build a national majority will always require being willing to support a party that has positions you don’t like.
Proceeds to yell at clouds and adjust the onion on his belt….
Maybe they realize that the left wing and right wing belong to the same vulture that is trying to pick their bones clean.
I read an article awhile back arguing the USA needs to switch to a more parliamentary form of government. Or at least how representatives are chosen. Right now, in theory, one party could win 50% + 1 in every election but have 100% of representatives. Parliament, party A get 30% votes, B 20, C 35, and D 15 they get the same % representatives. Which reflects the population better. Current system will never allow for anything other than 2 parties.
Is that true? In the most recent UK Parliamentary election, Labour received 33.7% of the vote….and took 63% of the seats, a pretty disproportional outcome. That seems to be an outlier, but in the prior election the conservatives took 43.6% of the vote but took 56% of the seats - while the Liberal democrats took 11% of the vote but only won 1.7% of the seats. Seems like distribution of votes within districts matters quite a bit in parliamentary systems as well….
Rank choice voting is problematic. People know how to abuse the system. And very complex. Allowing top two vote getters from primary to compete in final election regardless of party is a better, less complex, more workable system. It usually gets winner w over 50% of the vote.
At least w parliamentary system, leadership fails in a vote of confidence and elections are called on a specific issue. Voters then get to chose which path they prefer.
Our timed voting has the problem that we select candidate to vote on based on dozens of issues or simply on party affiliation. Voters have a choice but candidates try to appeal to their concerns. But issues and future paths are less clear. Grid lock is easy as a way to block any action.
Parliamentary system allows winning party to pass legislation but does less to protect minority. Minority protection makes our system cumbersome and often ineffective. Compromises are required to govern.
The Democrats think talking about major tax increases on the wealthy is a non starter for campaigning in swing states. So the Democrats run silent for the most part on how to structure the economy successfully.
I am convinced that this is the heart of the majority of our problems. If we could find a way to have open “jungle” primaries with rank choice voting, I think sooo many of our issues will be resolved. At the top of my wish list is an amendment that makes such national.
Any qualified voter is allowed to register as a candidate. That part is very open. And if you run in local election for dog catcher handshaking and knowing lots of people may be enough. To run for Congress probably requires a million dollar war chest. That requires lots of donations — often by businesses. Party support becomes essential.
Like it or not money talks. Voters respond to ads and marketing. Not for amateurs.
Is there any analysis that shows this would be the case, though?
I mean, we can imagine that changing the primary process would change the trend towards more extreme legislators….but is that true? Similar claims were made about California’s switch away from party primaries altogether into a “top two” system - but they don’t appear to have had much effect or impact in electing more moderate legislators. There’s as much of a track record for RCV primary voting, but the most high-profile instance of it (NYC’s recent primary) didn’t result in the more moderate candidate winning, but instead created a mechanism for elements in the party’s base to prevail over the more moderate “establishment” candidate. Which is part of the appeal: RCV allows the various factions in a political party to organize and support candidates that might not be in the mainstream of the party without risking the prospect that these “wasted votes” will cost the party a chance at winning. But one consequence to that is that you end up with a larger number of outside-the-mainstream candidates, thus increasing the chance that one or more of them will win despite not being able to go through the “consensus candidate” gauntlet that a traditional party primary requires.
Again, I don’t know. Doesn’t seem to be obvious that RCV will necessarily reduce these problems in overwhelmingly one-party cities/districts/states.
No, not enough data as it is too new within the states. There is anecdotal evidence that it is true in the few locals where it has been established:
CA doesn’t couple their jungle primary with instant run-off. Plus, CA is a bad example because Reps are largely not competitive in so many races. Alaska is a better example. Alaska is top 4 with instant runoff.
Instant runoff is key as it requires those top 2 or top 4 to appeal to more people to gain their second and third choice vote. If all you do is a jungle primary, then candidates can still win by appealing to a small(er) plurality of voters even where another candidate might have won the majority of votes if second and third choices were considered.
But does that result in more moderate candidates? That’s the system NYC used for their mayoral primary, for example - and I don’t think anyone would argue that Mamdani was the most moderate of the candidates there.
Requiring the top candidates to appeal to more people to gain second and third choice votes is one aspect of RCV - but it’s not the only effect. What it also does is give a wider range of candidates (including more extreme candidates) the ability to enter the race, and for factions and institutions within the party to support a wider range of candidates (including more extreme candidates) without risking having their votes and resources “wasted.” In a situation where the far left/far right of the party might otherwise be willing to support and vote for a more centrist candidate in a traditional campaign, they now have the ability to cultivate a candidate that more closely matches their far left/far right views.
IOW, RCV might make things worse, rather than better. Right now, people look for a candidate that can win 50%+1 in their support - and the problem is that in single-party districts/cities/states, that candidate is going to reflect the center of only the party in control. So you get less moderate candidates. But if you RCV, you’ll have candidates that can get less than 50%+1 support of the party that suddenly become viable. The hope is that those candidates will directionally come more towards the center than the old 50%+1, but the system also allows those candidates to come from further to the extreme side of the old 50%+1.
One case where it may not have worked is not evidence that it doesn’t work, any more than missing a free throw is somehow evidence that practicing doesn’t work.
And, I think you are misreading the results of the NYC election. It won’t always result in the most moderate candidate. What it should result in is the candidate most favored by the majority of voters - even if that candidate is more liberal or more conservative than the next runner up. I think NYC primary illustrates that fact. Additionally, the more moderate candidate was SEVERELY flawed so not a really good example. It is entirely possible that a less flawed moderate candidate might have lead to a different result.
And if that far left or far right candidate is so popular that enough second or third place votes wants them in office, then so be it. Smells like democracy.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I thought that since you had responded to 1pg’s lament that the more extreme candidates were winning, you were suggesting that RCV would reduce that from happening.
Oh I absolutely think it will - but it won’t always be 100%. In areas of heavy concentration (NYC, Oklahoma), it may not. Additionally, more moderate but otherwise flawed candidates may still struggle to win. I think that is OK. Personally, I don’t mind that Cuomo lost. I might have felt different if it was a POTUS election - but then maybe not.
It’s problematic to use NYC as an example. Mamdani won because he was running against the worst group of candidates in the history of the world. Whoa, that’s a bit too much, but not too far off the mark.
It might not. RCV, like other voting systems, suffers from the “center squeeze effect.” There’s a link at the bottom, but the TL;DR is that’s when majority-preferred centrist candidates get knocked out in early rounds of voting, leaving only the extreme candidates to compete in later rounds.
The heart of our problem is not voting or electing officials.
We are at a certain point in the economic cycle where everything is going to go or let loose. The haves are not industrialists. Meaning they won’t support a true reindustrialization process.
Does it?
Let’s look at something similar to your example, but changing the names to avoid debates over whether the real world HRC and Bernie and Liz deserve the term “moderate.” Imagine a Democratic primary where you have a very well-liked sort-of moderate candidate who has “good” but not extreme positions on almost all Democratic issues. We’ll call that guy 1PG. He’s running against three very extreme candidates: Tom, who is a hardcor green; Dave, who is the biggest racial justice guy that ever was; and Vladimir Ilyich, who is a pure socialist.
Everyone in the party loves 1PG. He’s the first choice for about 22% of the party, and the second choice of every other single voter. But the party has about 26% Greens, who love 1PG but will put Tom as their first choice. It also has about 26% DEI folks, who love 1PG also but will put Dave as their top choice. The other 26% are Reds, who are voting for VI over there on the first ballot but are delighted with the more centrist 1PG as a second choice.
In a head to head, 1PG would clean the floor with any other candidate. He’d win 74-26 in any paired matchup. But you see what happens with RCV. 1PG is the moderate and is the most-preferred candidate, but he gets “squeezed” out because he gets so few of the first round votes. All of the more “extreme” candidates end up boxing him out, and he never makes it to the later rounds that are supposed to reveal which candidate has the broadest support (rather than the most first-choice votes).
So when you create a system that allows the more extreme candidates that otherwise would flame out (a small number of people love them but won’t “waste” their vote), you create a condition where the moderate candidates can get squeezed and you can end up with more extreme candidates.