For decades, American politics has revolved around a familiar character: the independent voter. Candidates chase them, strategists invoke them, and journalists frame elections around their presumed preferences. Independents are often described as pragmatic, moderate, and persuadable—citizens hovering between the parties, waiting to be convinced.
Yet political science research has long suggested that this picture is misleading. While millions of Americans identify as independents, most are not politically unanchored. Instead, many lean consistently toward one party and behave much like partisans at the ballot box. The “independent voter,” as commonly imagined, may be more myth than reality.
Still, the idea persists—and it continues to shape how American politics is practiced and understood.
Who Are Independents, Really?
Survey data consistently shows that around 35–45 percent of Americans describe themselves as independents when asked about party identification. At first glance, this suggests a country drifting away from partisan loyalty. But when surveys probe further—asking independents whether they “lean” toward one party—most do.
The American National Election Studies (ANES) has documented this pattern for decades. When leaners are included, the share of voters who consistently support one party looks much larger, and the pool of genuinely non-aligned voters shrinks considerably. Political scientists Jeffrey Klar and Yanna Krupnikov estimate that “pure independents” make up closer to 10 percent of the electorate—and many of them are less politically engaged than partisans or leaners.
Voting behavior reflects this reality. Leaning independents vote for their preferred party at rates similar to self-identified Democrats and Republicans. They also hold comparable ideological views and respond similarly to partisan cues.
In other words, independence is often a matter of identity, not neutrality.
Sources:
-
American National Election Studies (ANES), Time Series Studies
-
Klar, Jeffrey, and Yanna Krupnikov. Independent Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2016)
-
Pew Research Center, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology”
Why Independence Still Appeals
If independents behave like partisans, why do so many Americans prefer the label?
One answer lies in social norms. Survey research suggests that identifying as “independent” allows respondents to distance themselves from the negative stereotypes associated with political parties—tribalism, rigidity, or ideological extremism. Calling oneself independent signals openness and autonomy, even when voting patterns suggest otherwise.
There is also a growing distrust of political institutions. As confidence in parties, Congress, and government more broadly has declined, disavowing party affiliation can feel like a form of protest. Independence becomes less about policy moderation and more about institutional skepticism.
This helps explain why the rise in independent identification has coincided with increasing polarization rather than moderation—a trend that initially puzzled observers.
Sources:
-
Gallup, “Party Affiliation” historical trends
-
Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government”
-
Klar & Krupnikov, Independent Politics
The Strategic Power of a Myth
Even if independents are not the swing voters they are often imagined to be, belief in them has real consequences.
Campaigns routinely frame messaging around appealing to the “middle,” often emphasizing tone, temperament, and symbolic gestures over policy shifts. Media coverage reinforces this dynamic by interpreting election outcomes as referenda on moderation, regardless of turnout patterns or partisan mobilization.
The myth also shapes how political legitimacy is discussed. Victories are described as mandates when they appear to capture independents—even when those voters were, in practice, predictable leaners. Losses are interpreted as failures to persuade the center, rather than failures of turnout or coalition-building.
In this way, the independent voter functions less as a demographic reality and more as a narrative device—one that structures how Americans talk about democracy, compromise, and representation.
Sources:
-
Fiorina, Morris. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America
-
Abramowitz, Alan. The Disappearing Center
-
Media framing analyses from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy
What This Reveals About American Politics
The persistence of the independent voter myth points to a deeper tension in American political culture. Many citizens want to see themselves as thoughtful individuals rather than partisan actors, even as political conflict intensifies. Independence offers a language for that self-image.
At the same time, the emphasis on persuading an elusive center can obscure more fundamental dynamics: unequal participation, geographic sorting, and the growing importance of mobilization over persuasion.
Understanding independents as they actually are—not as they are imagined—does not resolve polarization. But it does clarify it. The challenge facing American democracy may not be how to win over a vast, moderate middle, but how to govern a country where political identities are stronger, and trust in institutions weaker, than the independent label suggests.
Sources:
-
Pew Research Center, “Political Polarization in the American Public”
-
ANES voter turnout and partisan behavior data
-
Masket, Seth. Learning from Loss: The Democrats, 2016–2020