Independent voters how many

The third-party organization Americans Elect gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in more than half the states, but did not attract a candidate who could generate much interest and officially suspended its effort Thursday.

Many independent voters think it is more realistic to push for open primaries, and campaign finance and congressional redistricting reform that would open up the process to all voters and candidates, than it would be to try to create a competitive third party.

Independent voters are more diverse in age, race, gender and income than Republican and Democratic voters. Most independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives. Sixty percent of independents say they are not aligned with a party because they agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.

I think of independent voters as falling into four key constituencies: NPR Republicans who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative; America First Democrats who tend to be male and more socially conservative formerly known as Reagan Democrats ; the Facebook generation of voters younger than 35 who lean libertarian on social and economic issues; and Starbucks Moms and Dads, suburban voters who make up a huge chunk of the electorate and are reliably unpredictable.

Washington and the nation at large may seem polarized, but a majority of voters consider themselves somewhere in between the two parties.

These are not just independents, but centrists and moderates who still may be registered with one party, but at times vote for the other.

In other words, many Americans are so dissatisfied with politics and turned off by how ugly and partisan it has become that they now refuse to openly identify with either party — even though most still consistently back one party.

This is troubling because it suggests that Americans not only are less willing to share their political beliefs but also no longer engage in politics in ways that go beyond just voting — developments that have negative ramifications for the health of our democracy. The abandonment of voters openly identifying with one of the two parties has led to less political engagement, which means Americans are exerting less influence on what the parties look and sound like.

As political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Julia Azari wrote for Vox in , the defining characteristic of our politics may be that the parties are weak while partisanship is quite strong.

The past week has brought both positive and negative news for supporters of expanded access to voting by mail. During last week's election, voters in New York rejected a ballot proposal that would have directed the Legislature to pass a bill allowing for no-excuse absentee ballots.

The result caught many by surprise, as most states — especially those that tend to vote Democratic — have such policies in place. Instead, only 38 percent of voters in the nation's fourth most populous state supported the proposal. Meanwhile, the D. City Council began the process this week for institutionalizing vote-by-mail for the nearly , residents of the nation's capital. While Americans used mail-in voting at a historic rate in , New York lagged behind most other states. According to a report issued this summer by the federal Election Assistance Commission, But only According to Ballotpedia, 34 states either provide all voters with a mail ballot or allow the use of an absentee ballot without providing a reason.

The remaining 16, primarily Republican-dominated states in the South, require voters to meet certain requirements in order to vote by absentee ballot. Another proposal, which would have allowed people to register to vote and cast a ballot on Election Day, was also defeated.

Proponents of such policies argue that same-day registration increases turnout, considered a key component of a strong democracy. And a third proposal, one that would have reformed the state's redistricting process, went down as well.

Anti-democracy forces are drowning out common-sense reforms with fear mongering scare tactics, and voters are listening. According to The Guardian, the Conservative and Republican parties vastly out-spent Democrats to fight those proposals and devoted significant on-the-ground resources as well.

While New York has settled these issues for the time being, some potential election reforms are just getting underway in Washington, D. New legislation was introduced Tuesday to make a series of changes to D. The city made a one-time decision to mail ballots to all voters for the general election, and this bill would codify such a system for future elections. The bill would also increase the use of ballot drop boxes, establish voting centers and make Election Day a holiday.

In doing so, we will broaden the number of people who are able to participate in our elections and feel more invested in their government. In addition, Allen will chair a hearing Nov. Political campaigns in the U. In this episode of Democracy Works, the team looks at the political discourse around nine particularly deplorable elections. Listen now. This is the first in a two-part series on election integrity. The second part will look ahead to the election and the third will discuss why all Americans should oppose efforts to politicize vote-counting.

Until recently, asserting that the presidential election would mark the end of American democracy would have seemed hyperbole, even ludicrous. No longer. Observers as diverse as Bill Maher and the Cato Institute's Andy Craig have warned that a "slow-moving coup" or the "end of peaceful transfer of power in America" has already been put in motion by Donald Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party.

Their case is persuasive. Trump Republicans have been purging the party of apostates on the national, state and local levels, as well as enacting state laws that would allow party operatives to overrule nonpartisan election officials and substitute election results more to their liking. According to Craig, "Fringe legal theories about how to subvert the election are being workshopped and moved into the mainstream of Republican thought even as we speak.

If Trump runs again, a near certainty, and the election result is close, the country could face a constitutional crisis with a potential for political violence that would make look tame. That subversion of a free and fair election is even possible is due to deep flaws in the Constitution, which does not include specific rules as to how presidential elections will be conducted and certified.

Most Americans are both unaware of these shortcomings and blissfully ignorant of the potential for a would-be autocrat to suborn the electoral process and seize power. In addition, most of those who believe a fraudulent presidential election would not be possible are unaware that one has already occurred.

In , Republican Rutherford B. Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden. The Republicans, the party of Lincoln, had been champions of equal rights for newly freed slaves and had even initiated an army of occupation in the defeated Confederacy to ensure them.

Democrats, at least in the South, were the party of white supremacy. But the nation had grown weary of Reconstruction and Tilden won the popular vote handily. He could also clearly claim electoral votes, one short of the number needed for election. Hayes could claim only Twenty electoral votes were in dispute, nineteen of which were in the three Reconstruction states still titularly under Republican control: Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina.

In each of those, election officials declared Tilden the winner, but accounts of fraud and voter intimidation against African Americans were widespread. The Army could not be everywhere. Nonetheless, given an absence of proof, Tilden seemed to deserve the presidency.

Reid, had been a prisoner of war at the infamous Andersonville stockade during the Civil War. Reid loathed Democrats and convinced Republican leaders to contest the result. New York Republicans wired partisans in the disputed states to hold out. Governor Hayes Elected. Only after the Times ran its piece did Republicans in the three states appoint canvassing boards, which not surprisingly ignored the reported vote totals, confirmed the Times assertion and declared Hayes the winner.

Democrats howled fraud. Threats of armed insurrection spread throughout Washington. Calls for secession were heard for the first time since the war. A shot was fired at Hayes' home in Ohio while the candidate was having dinner inside. No constitutional provision existed to handle this crisis, but the necessity to devise some solution was apparent to both sides.

Eventually, the decision was reached to appoint a man Electoral Commission: five senators; five representatives; and five Supreme Court justices.

Fourteen would be members of the two parties, divided equally, and the fifteenth nonpartisan. Little knowledge of politics and even less of arithmetic is necessary to recognize that, in effect, one man, hopefully worthy of Diogenes, would choose the president.

Incredibly, such a man seemed to both exist and be available. In what was certain to be an vote, he would be the ideal eighth. So trusted as an independent was the justice that it was said, "No one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred. But before the commission could meet, the Democratic-controlled legislature in Illinois offered Davis a vacant seat in the U.

Senate, hoping Davis would decline but be grateful to Democrats for the gesture. Republican newspapers denounced the scheme, but Davis flummoxed the Democrats by resigning from the bench to accept the appointment.

With Davis now ineligible, one of the remaining four justices would be forced to sit in his place. Each was associated with one of the political parties.

Grant was chosen to take Davis' place. Democrats claimed a fix, but after the Davis fiasco their credibility was strained. Bradley accepted the appointment and thus became the only man in American history empowered to choose a president on his own.

Before deciding which man would be declared the winner, Bradley meticulously drew up a written opinion for each man, and then, after all this supposed soul-searching, surprised no one and chose Hayes. Democrats once more threatened rebellion. Rumors circulated that an army of , men was prepared to march on the capital to prevent "Rutherfraud" or "His Fraudulency" from being sworn in.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats began a filibuster to prevent Hayes' inauguration. What happened next has been a subject of debate among scholars ever since. There, in the traditional smoke-filled room, emissaries of Hayes agreed to abandon the Republican state governments in Louisiana and South Carolina while southern Democrats agreed to abandon the filibuster and thus trade off the presidency in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. As one of his first orders of business, this supposed defender of African American rights ordered federal troops withdrawn from the South.

When the soldiers marched out, they took Reconstruction and equal rights with them. The election had all the elements that will potentially be present in a nation cleaved in two; a resurgence of white supremacy; accusations of voter fraud; corrupt election officials; an influential media outlet seeking to overturn the result; even the distinct possibility of armed conflict.

But that election had something the contest will not — a convenient scapegoat that allowed both sides to overcome their mutual loathing and come together in compromise: African Americans. Democrats were so determined to end the military occupation in the South and thereby have an open field to restore white minority rule and return Black Americans to slavery in all but name that they were willing to sacrifice the presidency to do it.

The perpetuation of free elections, the cornerstone of democracy, transcends — or should transcend — partisan politics. All Americans, be they Democrats, Republicans or independents, can and should commit themselves to thwarting any effort, no matter from where on the ideological spectrum it emanates, to destroy that which untold thousands of their fellow citizens fought and died for.

Democracy is precious but cannot be preserved through apathy. The nation needs desperately for people of good faith, regardless of political affiliation, to join together so that our form of government can be passed on to generations to come.

Eight months after Inauguration Day, one-third of Americans told pollsters they still believed Donald Trump actually won the election and that Joe Biden stole it away from the incumbent. A new report offers a mix of government and corporate reforms to limit the spread and influence of such election disinformation. The Common Cause Education Fund, an affiliate of the democracy reform advocacy group Common Cause, issued a report in late October reviewing the state of disinformation campaigns and a series of recommendations designed to stem the tide.

The report groups its 14 recommendations in three categories: statutory reforms, executive and regulatory agency reforms, and corporate policy reforms for social media businesses. While many of the solutions require some mix of legislative activity, increased civic education and media literacy, and grassroots advocacy, others are easier to achieve — particularly self-imposed corporate reforms, said Jesse Littlewood, vice president of campaigns for Common Cause.

For example, he suggested it would not be complicated for social media platforms to consistently enforce their own standards. Some aspects of these proposals already exist in federal legislation that has stalled in Congress. Littlewood said access to the data is one of the most important recommendations, as it influences the potential to achieve others.

It's very difficult to come up with recommendations that balance the private interests of the platform and the public interest. That's got to be our starting point. Read the full report. Jasper Johns' work will be on display in two of the country's most famous art museums concurrently, through Feb. Johns' career spans some 65 years. A Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, the painter came of age around the time abstract expressionism had taken hold in the New York art world.

The same trend is evident among independents who lean toward a party. In both parties, the shares of partisan identifiers and leaners with unfavorable impressions of the opposition party are at or near all-time highs. Perhaps more important, intense dislike of the opposing party, which has surged over the past two decades among partisans, has followed a similar trajectory among independents who lean toward the Republican and Democratic parties.

It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research.

Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account. Research Topics.