As for “It is only to the degree that independents (or any grouping) are organized and advocating a specific policy preference that they are relevant,” — this is exactly the crux of the matter. On this issue of being organized — no quarrel there! However, while it’s true that independents came out of the woodwork in 2006 to oppose the war in Iraq, and then in the primaries to support both anti-machine candidates and in the general election in support of the progressive change candidate Barack Obama, what makes independents relevant to this moment is that we are the folks who haven’t bought into the political status quo. We (as a people, as a nation) I believe are moving toward a nonpartisan political culture. Independents are leading that shift, and increasing numbers of Americans see that shift as critical to moving forward as a country, and even to “re-gaining” (whatever that means) our stature as a world leader.

The issues that are on the table right now are process issues — who gets to participate? Why do entrenched special interests have more voice than voters? — and that is exactly what “herds these cats”. That’s why there’s such an uproar about open primaries right now. With 40% of voters self-identifying as independents, and 99% of legislators towing the party line, something has to give!

I’ll give you that 2010 may not be a watershed year. It will be on-the-ground mundane tedious organizing that will increase the power of the independent voice. And watch out 2012!

A lot to chew in in your comment, so I’ll just wade in.

I do consider myself an independent, although I have been registered Republican for the last two years, after being registered Dem for the the 23 years before that (and looking forward to registering Dem again in 2012). As an independent voter, I’ve been a big fan of your blog for a while, although I have not contributed much in the way of comments. As is probably obvious to you by now, the commentariat here are more in need of my help (you know – to each according to their needs).

I’m in complete agreement with the effort of Independents to promote open primaries, and institute the kind of reform that would open the electoral process more to third parties. I think these are the kind of efforts where an “independent movement” can have meaning and impact.

However, in the area of national policy as opposed to electoral process, I just don’t see how you can hold both that “Independents, almost by definition, are all over the place”’ and also that “this grouping is increasingly organized and is having a profound impact”. It just seems to me that it is practically a tautology that independents (or any grouping) that cannot speak with predominantly one voice on any given issue or candidate, cannot ever have any meaningful impact on that issue or candidate. It is only to the degree that independents (or any grouping) are organized and advocating a specific policy preference that they are relevant. As I was trying to say in my comment, independents were relevant in ’06 and ’08, precisely because they did align to a large degree against the policies of the Bush administration. That organizing principle is gone. I’m not sure what takes its place in 2010, if anything. If there is nothing that “herds these cats” in 2010, they are simply not going to be a relevant factor in the election.

@kritter
I look forward to “rubbing you the wrong way” with increasing frequency over the next 14 months. As I’ve explained before, voting for divided government does not involve belief in a magic talisman (although it may indeed be a fetish).

It is a practical voting heuristic that has been shown as a historical fact to achieve certailn policy objectives that I support. I find it to be much more reliable and dependable than voting based on what a candidate tells you they are going to do. Believing in what candidates or politicians say as opposed to what they do, is what I consider to be magical and faith based thinking.

That said, I don’t agree that voters cancel each other out. Is our system corrupt? Yes. But we are still a democracy, and we do still have a one-”-man”-one-vote process where we get to choose among various candidates. The reason that independents are demanding open primaries is that, being the pragmatists that we are, we prefer to vote for the candidate, not the party.

In terms of independents voting as a bloc, if you are looking for an independent ideological bloc that speaks for the left, center or right, I don’t think that’s in the hopper! Independents, almost by definition, are “all over the place” — as you say, how do we herd these cats?!

However, there is an increasingly self-conscious movement towards a non-ideological, anti-partisan, self-defining political grouping that is process-oriented. thinks we need political reform, and thinks we need to put the interests of the country and the people ahead of the interests of the parties and the special interests.

As a grassroots independent political activist who has been involved in door-knocking, phone-calling and blogging for 30 years, I feel greatly encouraged by the progress we have made over the recent past.

Whether this “bloc” is a grouping of “true independents”, I don’t know. But I do know that this grouping is increasingly organized and is having a profound impact on national and local politics.

I also want to make note that my News Headlines for Independent Voters is a compilation of articles relevant to folks interested in independent politics, and NOT my personal viewpoint. I present to you the various MSM and other posts that might be helpful in moving us forward to a nonpartisan political era…

Don’t hesitate to reach me personally at hanks_nancy@msn dot com

Looking forward to much more open dialog!
NH

When turnout is that low the folks who show up are disproportionately die-hard partisans who have an ideological reason to vote. That means independants are a much smaller chunk of the electorate than usual.

That’s why the Dems have to get something done on health care. They need to be able to tell their partisans that the work of ’08 got something important done, otherwise they won’t show up. The GOP needs to kill health care so they can give their partisans they have a reason to vote.

MW, I am not sure how much is achieved via various argument typecasting likely voter behavior in the way you do, speculating about who cancels out who, and so on. But then I have to admit that your enthusiasm for a mechanistic approach (to simply vote to achieve a divided government, apparently to be prioritized over regard for the positions of the candidates) rubs me the wrong way. IOW, while I thnk there’s some virtue in divided government, it’s not IMO magical enough to be raised to a fetish.

Every election has its own unique dynamics, and things are always ion flux, so we’re always at risk when we bet our money on whatever trends can be divined from the last couple elections. I say beware of most or even all “kingmaker” arguments. They’re usually all spin.

But I will say that I really like that there are efforts underway to open more primaries, and in general to revise various states’ systems to be more responsive to modern political perspectives. Namely, those that see past various established political schticks, and that consider that partisanship may be part of the problem. I hope that this trend continues, and that the coming years bring us more congressfolk whose loyalty favors the people and not the parties. Time will tell.

“Independent voters are the kingmakers of American politics. Roughly the same number of Democrats and Republicans will vote and cancel each other out”. – hankster Tim Hadachek*

To the degree that this is true, it is true for the last two elections and may be the exception to the rule. First, as pointed out in your prior post, self-identified “Independents” are less independent than they seem, with most voting exactly like partisans for the party they lean toward. The remaining “true” independents (being independent), are more likely to be the ones that cancel themselves out and irrelevant in a national election. The success of the Rove electoral strategy was based on the understanding that a more effective GOV campaign targeting your partisans (and faux independent partisans) will swamp the effect of swinging true independent voters.

For the small sliver of true independents to have a critical or determinative effect on an election, they actually have to vote mostly the same way, they have to be a voting “block” as opposed to a self-canceling voting segment, – that means they have to be organized around something. For ’06 and ’08, their organizing principle was essentially loathing of the Bush administration. They voted as a block against Bush and had a major impact.

That organizing principle is now gone. In 2010 and 2012, if there is no similarly effective organizing principle to herd these cats, they will again cancel each other out and be an irrelevant factor in the election.

I know what I would hope that organizing principle to be for these “social liberals, fiscal conservatives” (which is how I self-identify BTW) in ’10 and ’12 – a vote for divided government. If the independent vote organizes around that principle, they will again shape the outcome of the election. This is, or course, aspirational and not a prediction.

*edited to fix incorrect attribution of this quote