I often wonder: if there were more parties in America, how many of these independents would register with one of them?
In other words, if there's a record-high number of independents, how much of it is "market failure" where people want more options than the usual 2 parties?
At least in Bulgaria, 60% of people don't vote. Granted that we aren't that socially active as a country, I think that any amount of parties wouldn't bring much difference. Until the system starts working again, as in convicting criminals, preventing policymakers from benefiting from "timely" investments and overall bringing the wealth gap down, I don't think that you'd be able to reach all of the people
Totally agree. But I mean: supposing that we had a voting system where minor parties were more viable and didn't play spoiler. What % of independents would register as Greens, or Libertarians, etc, in that system?
The chart I found most interesting was "U.S. Political Ideology Identification, 1992-2025".
Conservative has remained more or less static the whole time, 36% in 1992, 35% in 2025, which I guess makes a kind of sense, while moderate has dropped 10%, with a corresponding increase in liberal.
I would personally call this social progress, though of course conservatives would disagree. On the other hand, the specific political policies supported by self-described conservatives and liberals has sometimes changed radically over those years, which can make my eyes roll and my head spin—for example, I remember a time when conservatives were free-trade internationalists—so I think it's a separate question whether US political policy itself has become too conservative or too liberal. In any case, the leaders of both parties tend to advance the interests of themselves and their donors over the interests of their voters or the public at large.
I've come to see political parties, political ideologies, and even religions more as social groups than as repositories for specific beliefs, where the identity and attitude of the members is more important than consistency, logic, or truth.
“ I've come to see political parties, political ideologies, and even religions more as social groups than as repositories for specific beliefs, where the identity and attitude of the members is more important than consistency, logic, or truth.”
Even more concerning is when you realize no one even formally controls these beasts. Doing “what is best” for the party/church/company is sufficient to both drive the outcomes we observe, make it impossible to ever effect change from status quo since this is what any replacement piece would do, and offer a fig leaf of moral justification or even cognitive dissonance that this is what ought to be done whether you like it or not. Thousand generations upholding these zombie meta human organizations that march towards what, no one knows.
> I would personally call this social progress, though of course conservatives would disagree.
I would call this the effect of mass immigration. To no one's surprise, nearly everyone who chain migrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh--a socialist country--in the last 20 years identifies with the liberal party.
Not that your other claims about Bangladesh or Bangladeshis have an empirical basis either.
But it was probably a mistake even to reply, because I'm well aware of you and have no interest in arguing with you again. It's pointless and frustrating.
I’m obviously using Bangladesh as one example. What part of my post do you even disagree with? Are you disputing that most immigration to the US is from third-world countries where people have a different view of the relationship between the people and the government than is traditionally the case in America? Or do you think immigrants and their children just shed those beliefs when they set foot on US soil?
Besides, what you’re overlooking is that the definition of “liberal” and “conservative” changes over time. Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in many ways embraced traditional small-government conservatism. That’s an idea that basically doesn’t exist outside the Anglosphere.
I always have a skepticism with this... in my extended Facebook network (so acquaintances from work, the fire departments I used to be with)... there's a lot of people who identify as "libertarian" or "independent". You'd think that averaged out, their beliefs should align reasonably equally between conservative and liberal and those parties (either issue to issue or overarching).
No. They are almost always fairly tightly and heavily lockstep aligned with the Republican party.
My fiance has a few friends in the dating scene. Their comments mirror this: "If someone has "apolitical/I'm not into politics/centerist" on their profile you can generally assume they are quite conservative.
I don't think it's that independents in general are embarrassed republicans, but that independents who constantly talk about being independents are embarrassed republicans. I know some independents who are to the left of democrats on most things (Sanders types), for example.
Independents almost by definition have less trust in institutions, and that includes voting. They're also quite unpredictable in what issues they'll find salient. For example, I suspect that in 2026, there will be a lot of independents who are directionally aligned with Trump on immigration, DEI, etc., but who will vote Democrat because Trump hasn't brought down grocery store prices like he promised.
My experience matches pretty closely with FireBeyond's.
But I also think its worth noting that there's a difference between the group of people who are legitimately not political (don't really think or talk about politics) and the group of people who proactively identifies themselves as "independent" or "apolitical" when not specifically asked.
It is the latter group of people who (in my experience also) are very likely to be conservative.
I think you're correct that independents are broadly non-liberal, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they're in "lockstep" with anyone. Largely because the modern GOP is quite factionalized: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso..... See Figure 2.
Independents clearly are aligned with Trump on many issues. For example, 63% support eliminating racial preferences in hiring and awarding government contracts, 65% favor closing the border, and 63% align with Trump on various gender-identity issues.
On the other hand, independents also in-conflict with the establishment GOP on a number of other issues. 86% favor measures to lower Medicare drug prices, while only 36% support adding work requirements to Medicaid. (Harvard-Harris doesn't poll on abortion, but independents tend to be genuinely between the parties on that issue.)
I think in the social circles of people who are still dating, whether someone is liberal or conservative is defined in terms of views on immigration or gender, rather than medicaid work requirements. So independents present as overwhelmingly conservative in that context. But that doesn't mean that independents are "lockstep aligned with the Republican Party" on tax cuts or other issues like that.
My experience aligns strongly with yours (self-declared 'independents' being almost universally conservative leaning) but anecdotally I also think a significant part of the growing number of people who identify as "independents" recently may be left leaning folks who are simply fed up with Democratic party leadership (or lack thereof) and the inability of the party to act as a true opposition party as our democracy falls apart.
> there's a lot of people who identify as "libertarian" or "independent". You'd think that averaged out, their beliefs should align reasonably equally between conservative and liberal and those parties (either issue to issue or overarching).
According to the article, 27% of independents describe themselves as conservative (not to mention the 20% of Republicans who describe themselves as moderate). Also, the article talks about the "Republican-leaning independents" category, so I'm not sure about the basis for skepticism here.
You're noting how they describe themselves, but my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
> my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
Nobody is denying the existence of this phenomenon. And there's perhaps good reason for people to eschew identification with political parties, which are corrupt in various ways, though one may hold one's nose and vote for some major party candidate on election day.
I dispute the "always" claim, however, which appears to be based on your own anecdotal experience. I would trust Gallup polling more than that. Moreover, the existence of the Green party for example would appear to be proof that independent does not equate with conservative/Republican. The Libertarian party of course gets votes too.
lmao, That's like being an independent during Nazism. Like, seriously? You can't figure out the right side here? You just can't count on some people to be on the right side of history quite frankly.
Leaving the Republican party is so close to leaving a cult as to be indistinguishable. They are so dead set on vilifying outsiders that they won't even associate with non-republicans and Democrats in a civil fashion. I once had a family member threaten to punch me in the face for mentioning UBI.
Ensuring the poor are made to suffer for being poor is a core tenant of the republican ethos. If you don’t have someone to punch down upon you might have a chance to consider your own position in this world, which is dangerous to the power structures that be.
I often wonder: if there were more parties in America, how many of these independents would register with one of them?
In other words, if there's a record-high number of independents, how much of it is "market failure" where people want more options than the usual 2 parties?
At least in Bulgaria, 60% of people don't vote. Granted that we aren't that socially active as a country, I think that any amount of parties wouldn't bring much difference. Until the system starts working again, as in convicting criminals, preventing policymakers from benefiting from "timely" investments and overall bringing the wealth gap down, I don't think that you'd be able to reach all of the people
Probably close to zero. American voters vote defensively, always for the candidate that has the best chance of winning against the other guy.
Totally agree. But I mean: supposing that we had a voting system where minor parties were more viable and didn't play spoiler. What % of independents would register as Greens, or Libertarians, etc, in that system?
The chart I found most interesting was "U.S. Political Ideology Identification, 1992-2025".
Conservative has remained more or less static the whole time, 36% in 1992, 35% in 2025, which I guess makes a kind of sense, while moderate has dropped 10%, with a corresponding increase in liberal.
I would personally call this social progress, though of course conservatives would disagree. On the other hand, the specific political policies supported by self-described conservatives and liberals has sometimes changed radically over those years, which can make my eyes roll and my head spin—for example, I remember a time when conservatives were free-trade internationalists—so I think it's a separate question whether US political policy itself has become too conservative or too liberal. In any case, the leaders of both parties tend to advance the interests of themselves and their donors over the interests of their voters or the public at large.
I've come to see political parties, political ideologies, and even religions more as social groups than as repositories for specific beliefs, where the identity and attitude of the members is more important than consistency, logic, or truth.
“ I've come to see political parties, political ideologies, and even religions more as social groups than as repositories for specific beliefs, where the identity and attitude of the members is more important than consistency, logic, or truth.”
Even more concerning is when you realize no one even formally controls these beasts. Doing “what is best” for the party/church/company is sufficient to both drive the outcomes we observe, make it impossible to ever effect change from status quo since this is what any replacement piece would do, and offer a fig leaf of moral justification or even cognitive dissonance that this is what ought to be done whether you like it or not. Thousand generations upholding these zombie meta human organizations that march towards what, no one knows.
> I would personally call this social progress, though of course conservatives would disagree.
I would call this the effect of mass immigration. To no one's surprise, nearly everyone who chain migrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh--a socialist country--in the last 20 years identifies with the liberal party.
"An estimated 300,000 people in the United States identified as Bangladeshi in 2023, according to estimates published by the U.S. Census Bureau." https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/fact-sheet/as...
Not that your other claims about Bangladesh or Bangladeshis have an empirical basis either.
But it was probably a mistake even to reply, because I'm well aware of you and have no interest in arguing with you again. It's pointless and frustrating.
I’m obviously using Bangladesh as one example. What part of my post do you even disagree with? Are you disputing that most immigration to the US is from third-world countries where people have a different view of the relationship between the people and the government than is traditionally the case in America? Or do you think immigrants and their children just shed those beliefs when they set foot on US soil?
Besides, what you’re overlooking is that the definition of “liberal” and “conservative” changes over time. Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton in many ways embraced traditional small-government conservatism. That’s an idea that basically doesn’t exist outside the Anglosphere.
> Besides, what you’re overlooking is that the definition of “liberal” and “conservative” changes over time.
I literally said that in my original comment, indeed immediately after the sentence of mine that you quoted.
Good day, sir.
I always have a skepticism with this... in my extended Facebook network (so acquaintances from work, the fire departments I used to be with)... there's a lot of people who identify as "libertarian" or "independent". You'd think that averaged out, their beliefs should align reasonably equally between conservative and liberal and those parties (either issue to issue or overarching).
No. They are almost always fairly tightly and heavily lockstep aligned with the Republican party.
My fiance has a few friends in the dating scene. Their comments mirror this: "If someone has "apolitical/I'm not into politics/centerist" on their profile you can generally assume they are quite conservative.
I don't think it's that independents in general are embarrassed republicans, but that independents who constantly talk about being independents are embarrassed republicans. I know some independents who are to the left of democrats on most things (Sanders types), for example.
Independents who are left of democrats usually just call themselves leftists though.
Not disputing your personal experience, but if that were true, democrats would never win any elections.
There are far more NPA than either democrats or republicans.
David Shor's Blue Rose Research, which is a top polling firm that works for Democrats, found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won the 2024 election by 4.8 points: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (page 6). Pew separately found a smaller, but significant 3 point margin: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec....
Independents almost by definition have less trust in institutions, and that includes voting. They're also quite unpredictable in what issues they'll find salient. For example, I suspect that in 2026, there will be a lot of independents who are directionally aligned with Trump on immigration, DEI, etc., but who will vote Democrat because Trump hasn't brought down grocery store prices like he promised.
My experience matches pretty closely with FireBeyond's.
But I also think its worth noting that there's a difference between the group of people who are legitimately not political (don't really think or talk about politics) and the group of people who proactively identifies themselves as "independent" or "apolitical" when not specifically asked.
It is the latter group of people who (in my experience also) are very likely to be conservative.
I think you're correct that independents are broadly non-liberal, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they're in "lockstep" with anyone. Largely because the modern GOP is quite factionalized: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso..... See Figure 2.
Harvard-Harris does great issue polling that breaks down views on issues by political affiliation. Check out page 23 of the following: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HHP...
Independents clearly are aligned with Trump on many issues. For example, 63% support eliminating racial preferences in hiring and awarding government contracts, 65% favor closing the border, and 63% align with Trump on various gender-identity issues.
On the other hand, independents also in-conflict with the establishment GOP on a number of other issues. 86% favor measures to lower Medicare drug prices, while only 36% support adding work requirements to Medicaid. (Harvard-Harris doesn't poll on abortion, but independents tend to be genuinely between the parties on that issue.)
I think in the social circles of people who are still dating, whether someone is liberal or conservative is defined in terms of views on immigration or gender, rather than medicaid work requirements. So independents present as overwhelmingly conservative in that context. But that doesn't mean that independents are "lockstep aligned with the Republican Party" on tax cuts or other issues like that.
Smells like "Republican but associating myself with that label is now shameful"...
My experience aligns strongly with yours (self-declared 'independents' being almost universally conservative leaning) but anecdotally I also think a significant part of the growing number of people who identify as "independents" recently may be left leaning folks who are simply fed up with Democratic party leadership (or lack thereof) and the inability of the party to act as a true opposition party as our democracy falls apart.
> there's a lot of people who identify as "libertarian" or "independent". You'd think that averaged out, their beliefs should align reasonably equally between conservative and liberal and those parties (either issue to issue or overarching).
According to the article, 27% of independents describe themselves as conservative (not to mention the 20% of Republicans who describe themselves as moderate). Also, the article talks about the "Republican-leaning independents" category, so I'm not sure about the basis for skepticism here.
You're noting how they describe themselves, but my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
> my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
Nobody is denying the existence of this phenomenon. And there's perhaps good reason for people to eschew identification with political parties, which are corrupt in various ways, though one may hold one's nose and vote for some major party candidate on election day.
I dispute the "always" claim, however, which appears to be based on your own anecdotal experience. I would trust Gallup polling more than that. Moreover, the existence of the Green party for example would appear to be proof that independent does not equate with conservative/Republican. The Libertarian party of course gets votes too.
lmao, That's like being an independent during Nazism. Like, seriously? You can't figure out the right side here? You just can't count on some people to be on the right side of history quite frankly.
Leaving the Republican party is so close to leaving a cult as to be indistinguishable. They are so dead set on vilifying outsiders that they won't even associate with non-republicans and Democrats in a civil fashion. I once had a family member threaten to punch me in the face for mentioning UBI.
It takes years to shrug off the programming.
I once had a family member threaten to punch me in the face for mentioning UBI.
lol!
How could someone become so stingy in life?
Ensuring the poor are made to suffer for being poor is a core tenant of the republican ethos. If you don’t have someone to punch down upon you might have a chance to consider your own position in this world, which is dangerous to the power structures that be.