Marking Period 3: Monday #4

(I needed another post with analysis and didn't feel like using one of the articles I had already summarized...)

Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.

Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources.  He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other.  Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors."  But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)

Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers:  Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents.  Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million.  Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000.  Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.

Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all.  A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics.  In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed."  That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.

Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently.  Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.)  Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future.  But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.