Our Political Parties - V

Declining to State

You must pick one or the other although neither of them ought to be what they claim. –Bob Dylan.

I’ve scarcely mentioned one the biggest political blocs of all, the self-styled independents. They don’t rate an initial capital letter because they do not exist as a political party. They are defined by what they are not.

In my state, people who don’t choose a party when they register to vote are referred to as “Declined to State.” It makes them sound like they’re trying to hide something. I think “Unaffiliated” is a kinder moniker, and a more precise term.

Whatever you call them, unaffiliated voters are a big percentage of registered voters, about 30%. The biggest group of all, of course, is composed of those who don’t vote or don’t even register. At least the independents participate in the process.

In presidential election years, usually a little over half of the voting-age population actually makes it to the polls. Some years it will break the 60% barrier. In off-year elections, it’s usually less than 40%. (See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html for statistics from the years 1960-2008.)

The breakdown of Republicans, Democrats, and independents is roughly one-sixth of the eligible population each. Every year a few members of each of the two major parties choose to vote for the opposition candidate, but most of them stick with their own parties. That means that the independents are actually deciding general elections. The problem is that they have no voice in primary elections.

In order to win, a candidate from either party has to keep his party’s voters motivated and convince a majority of the independents that he is the best choice. Many good candidates who could put such a coalition together never get the chance, because the views of party members don’t always match those of independent voters. The result is a complicated dance to attract party members during the primary season without alienating independent voters who will be needed the following November.

I can understand why many people choose not to participate at the party level. They may see the parties as unnecessarily partisan and vociferous, but ironically they help make them that way by not getting involved and diluting the venom. Others simply find politics uninteresting. I can understand that. I feel the same way about sports, and ballet, and whatever the heck Lindsay Lohan does besides get in trouble. I can’t tell you who won the last World Series, or what teams are still in the running for the Super Bowl, but I can give you a pretty accurate list of the U.S. senators whose seats will be up for election next time, and which ones are likely not to run. Different strokes for different folks.

Some say we should have more than two parties, but no one seems to be able to put a viable third party together. Ross Perot came close, as did George Wallace before him, but there never seems to be a critical mass. Even if someone did succeed in creating a viable third party, I’d bet that it would soon replace one of the existing parties rather than compete with them both.

So I expect independents to remain a major force in our government for the foreseeable future, and I think that’s a good thing. A candidate from either party who sticks too closely to that party’s core message won’t make it. The party faithful may not support compromise, but their candidate has to. Independents haven’t found it desirable or comfortable to register in either party, so neither party line will attract their votes. The large number of independents requires candidates, especially presidential candidates, to espouse a less partisan approach and speak to the issues that concern the unaffiliated at the moment.

Two days after he barely won the 2004 election, George Bush, Jr. said, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” Just after the 2010 election, the new house speaker-apparent, John Boehner, said, “The American people spoke and I think it’s pretty clear the Obama-Pelosi agenda is being rejected by the American people.”

Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe that sentiment will work better for you than it did for Mr. Bush, but I doubt it. “The American People” in this case were a motivated Republican base and a majority of the independents who chose to vote this time around. If there was a mandate, it was for more jobs and a better economy. It remains to be seen if the tactics of the GOP in the House will bring those things about to the satisfaction of the independents who supported its candidates, or if they will decide to do so again in 2012.

Even the biggest landslides in recent history represent the votes of only 25% to 30% of eligible voters, and in no case was the winning party able to duplicate its success two years later.

Those of us who have chosen to be Democrats should remember that if we win next time around and avoid saying that it’s pretty clear the Boehner-McConnell agenda is being rejected by the American people.