Talk:Independent (voter)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Independents in Primary Elections

In the US, independent voters are allowed to vote in some primary elections- it varies from state to state. Forming an independent party would definately not guarantee independents the oppurtunity to participate in primaries which they are currently barred from. If the Anon who made this claim knows something that I don't, they should back it up with sources. For now I will remove it as I believe it is simply untrue. J. Tyler 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the unenrolled article is a mess. Even if it accepted as a US-only article, this varies from state to state. In roughly half of the states you have to register with a party affiliation to participate in that party's process of selecting candidates (by primary election and/or caucus), in roughly half you don't. Even "unenrolled" is a regional usage. The Independent voter article already covers this, accurately. No merge. Lisamh 02:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registered affiliation - not 'uniquely American'??

People in the UK can choose to join the Conservatives, Labour etc, so surely this classes as non-American 'registered affiliation'. Can someone please confirm I've understood this correctly before I/they remove the sentence "Registered affiliation with a single political party is a uniquely American concept." Cheers, Jilly 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC) It sounds that some American thinks the world begins and ends with the USA. I am an American and its lauphable. Merlinus

[edit] Merging with Unenrolled

I don't think it should include unenrolled. The concept of an independent voter is not just American one. It's especially misleading considering there are 'Chapters' of unenrolled voters. One would consider independents not associated with any form of political organisation wouldn't they? Anyway, I think this needs to be discussed. Shudda 13:03, 6 April 2006 (+13GMT)

  • I don't believe it should include Unenrolled either. Unenrolled is merely a really obscure synonym for independent (I've never heard it outside wikipedia). There really should be just one article for independent voters and it should be this one. J. Tyler 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, don't merge it. Especially since there is a line on unenrolled that says that unenrolled voters typically vote for a Republican or a Democrat after weighing the options. I do not believe this to be true of independents. Tromboneguy0186 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A clear distinction between Unenrolled voters and Independent voters needs to be made, and as a non-American I would like an explaination as to why anyone would willingly disclose their policial affiliation to anyone. I was under the impression that the USA ran secret ballots, just like all other good democracies. Josh Parris#: 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Unenrolled

Unenrolled should not be merged with Independent voter. There is a distinct difference between those who are undecided or unenrolled and those who are registered Independents.

Those who are undecided or unenrolled are undecided. Those who are registered independents have made a decision and they choose to retain individual thought, as well as vote for any candidate of ANY party (or independent) that they individually feel is the right choice.

Unenrolled is completely different than Independent. Can't imagine why anyone would want to merge these.Fl295 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent party

Why is there a link to an independent party? Isn't that an oxymoron? Josh Parris#: 06:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 out of the 535 members of Congress?

Despite previously running as a democrat, Senator Joe Liebrman ran as an independent in the latest midterm elections. Shouldn't we include Senator Joe Lieberman as an independent as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.139.23 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Added sections on Myth of Independent voter, Attitudinal Independent, Behavioral Independent, the Impact of the Independent voter in U.S. electoral system.

Hi Everyone:)

My name is RP. I wrote the following sections to Independent voter: sections on Myth of Independent voter, Attitudinal Independent, Behavioral Independent, the Impact of the Independent voter in U.S. electoral system. All information from Party Politics in America by Majorie Randon Hershey. This is for a school project, so if you could not delete these sections or dramatically edit the above mentioned sections for just a few weeks, I would greatly appreciate it. I wrote a [1] in brackets next to all of my written text to indicate that this information is derived from the source listed as number one under the "Source List". All of the information comes from Party Politics in America by Majorie Randon Hershey. Thanks again Rpchristiano 03:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent, Unaffiliated, and Swinging Voters

Can somebody clarify the distinction between independent voter, unaffiliated voter, and swinging voter? Should the articles be merged? 203.173.46.125 10:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


The commentary on Independent voters in this article is more appropriate for an editorial page than an encyclopedia. Comments such as, "Pure Independents on the other hand tend to be the least politically active and the least politically informed out of voting population. While they claim to be the most independent of thinkers, whose ideas are not tied up in partisan politics, it has been shown that pure independents do not care enough nor know enough to get involved on either side of the spectrum." are nothing more than derisive comments directed at a group the author is clearly in disagreement with. The author has a chip on his/her shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.25.250.246 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CLEANUP!

This article needs a ridiculous amount of work. I hope someone will fix it. Timneu22 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be the worst article I've ever seen on here. Like this:

Pure Independents on the other hand tend to be the least politically active and the least politically informed out of voting population. While they claim to be the most independent of thinkers, whose ideas are not tied up in partisan politics, it has been shown that pure independents do not care enough nor know enough to get involved on either side of the spectrum. The 2004 American National Election Study shows that only 54% of registered independents voted in the 2004 Presidential election. This lack of voter turn out can be explained by Independent voter's lack of interest in politics. Lacking in political interest leads them to not form an identification with either party or their issues. When it comes to election time, their lack of interest in politics leads them to be poorly motivated. Having no stake in the outcome of the election Independents feel no need to get out to vote.

How does one back that up? The 2004 study shows nothing - some independants don't vote in elections because ALL OF THE CANDIDATES BLOW! Whoever wrote this article has some serious basic political science to get reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.69.45 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This article just went through a major rewrite. All the original research is gone. All the NPOV statements are gone. Claims as to the mental state or thinking of independent voters are gone. I intend to add information on realigning elections and dealignment to the "Impact" section, and add references to the research on formation of partisan identity and why that may be changing. But that will come tomorrow. - Tim1965 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I think I've added all I can. There are many sources now, most of the literature is covered in depth, and the "impact" of independent voting is covered without any digressions into third-party candidates and why they are so good. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AD HOMINEM ATTACKS

"Unsigned" and "Tim1965",

Your ad hominem attacks against my contributions to this article are despicable. Deleting the contributions is fine, that's your right. You do not have the right, however, to engage in personal and childish attacks against an individual you do not even know. My research was from numerous studies documented in Political Science Journals.

I am a Political Scientist,I am a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, as an undergraduate. An honor not often given to undergraduate students. I can e- mail both of you my membership credentials in this elite national honor society, and my degree as proof to counter "unsigned's" claim that this person, "needs to do a little political science reading".

Such personal attacks demonstrate your lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity. I happen to be an Independent, I am a member of CUIP, and I subscribe to The Neo Independent, therefore, my knowledge of the Independent political movement/philosophy is well versed. I was in no way 'attacking' Independents. Rpchristiano (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia doesn't rely on credentials of editors. (If it did, my Ph.D. in political science would outweight your BA.) I personally did not think you were attacking independents (although I could see how the article, as previously written could have been interpreted that way). I don't care which parts of the article you wrote, I wrote, or Santa Claus wrote. The article was severely lacking in citations, and was not comprehensive. Additionally, the portions of the piece which focused on groups of independent voters gave undue weight to this aspect of the topic, while ignoring major subjects such as the role of independents in realigning elections. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)