For my fellow political junkies

[driver]

<p>Interesting article by Jonathan Rauch on party identity and the legendary independent/moderate voter. Don’t be put off by the beginning, blue-staters, it gets more hopeful for you at the end. Seriously, this is a well-written and researched piece worthy of those who are always trying to read the political tea leaves.</p>

<p>

Over almost 30 years, the picture is once again strikingly stable. And it is not ambiguous. What Wolfinger found in 1992 is still true: Independent leaners vote like weak partisans. Only true independents split their vote or swing.</p>

<p>A closer look at this chart reveals a few interesting details. First, the Democratic universe used to vote less loyally than did the Republican, but by 2004 the loyalty gap had pretty much closed. For that, Democrats can thank the Great Divider, President Bush.</p>

<p>Second, and more surprising: Democratic-leaning independents are usually more partisan in their voting behavior than are weak Democrats. Or perhaps, on reflection, this is not so surprising after all. Remember, some components of the traditionally Democratic base, such as union members and blacks, tend to be socially conservative, while many college-educated independents turn up their noses at partisan labels but are consistently liberal in outlook. (As the chart shows, Republicans once exhibited a similar confusion, but by 2004 they had aligned party affiliation with ideology. In time, Democrats will likewise sort themselves out.)</p>

<p>Finally, look at true independents. Since 1984, they have moved toward the Democratic column by a whopping 30 points, with an especially large lurch toward Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in 2004. Yet, over the same period, independents have grown less liberal and more moderate. Why, then, are they turning blue? The fierceness of the Republican base seems to have repelled them. Polling in 2005, after the ANES data came in, has shown independents’ support for Bush and the Republicans continuing to crumble at an alarming pace. Republicans’ edge-oriented strategy has not come without cost in the center.</p>

<p>Republicans might say, So what? With their small share of the population and smaller share of turnout, true independents are in no position to swing any but a close election. To judge by the ANES data, the idea of a quiet mass of independent swing voters waiting to be mobilized is the pipe dream of wishful moderates. Like me.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm[/url]”>http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[lizschup]

<p>Thanks for the link Driver - there is another good article on that site about “The Imperial Presidency” - it’s basically a historical view of the Presidency in the twentieth century and how it has been slowly strengthening over the course of time. I don’t know enough about political history to know if it’s accurate but it was an informative read - good information about Cheney’s point of view.</p>

<p>I of course hope the article you cited is true but I think there are many other factors at play that make it difficult to read the tea leaves. I agree that the solidity of the right and Bush in particular has galvanized the Dems but I’m more disturbed by the growing emphasis on "brand management " - it reveals the growth of money in politics, and the reduction of voting to the forces of marketing and advertising which I believe is a corrupting force long term - it’s why I despise Karl Rove. I realize that may be an idealistic and naive view. I would have voted for McCain solely on the issue of campaign finance reform.</p>

[driver]

<p>Another interesting one, by Andrew Sullivan: “If Rudy’s talking Jesus, he’s going to run.” I know this rains on TheDad’s and ID’s theories (based on their intimate knowledge of the “Religious Right”), but it’s been pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that Rudy’s popularity among the base is–and has consistently been–wide, deep, and stable.</p>

<p><a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

[ariesathena]

<p>Great article.</p>

<p>I do think that the one thing which would really help to swing elections (and therefore fundamentally change politics) would be instant runoff voting. Third-party candidates could run on similar platforms without “taking votes away” from the big players. Politicians might realize that you win by capturing a lot of second-place votes - which will strengthen the position of the moderates.</p>

[eulenspiegel]

<p>Compared to the rest of the democratic world, Americans are totally innocent, if that’s the word, of variations from what the British call “first past the post” voting in single member constituencies. But, don’t hold you breath waithing for reform. We can’t even get non-gerrymandered congressional districts.</p>