IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v16y1986i02p155-185_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Partisan Affinities of Independent ‘Leaners’

Author

Listed:
  • Keith, Bruce E.
  • Magleby, David B.
  • Nelson, Candice J.
  • Orr, Elizabeth
  • Westlye, Mark C.
  • Wolfinger, Raymond E.

Abstract

For almost a decade we have taken issue with the prevailing view of independent voters. We showed that Independents, as they were usually defined, had nothing in common, and in fact were more diverse than either Democrats or Republicans. Virtually no generalizations about Independents were correct, except by accident, because they comprise three very different kinds of people. Most Independents acknowledge that they are closer to one or the other party. The crux of our argument was that this ‘leaning’ should outweigh an initial claim of independence when deciding how to classify respondents. Our most striking finding was that leaners vote like outright partisans. We interpreted this as evidence that most professed Independents are not neutral between the parties, but are nearly as partisan as avowed Democrats and Republicans. This conclusion had major implications for both mainstream and revisionist views of American politics, all the more so because of the growing numbers of Independents, who accounted for 38 per cent of the adult population by 1978, thus matching the Democrats and leaving Republicans in a distant third place.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith, Bruce E. & Magleby, David B. & Nelson, Candice J. & Orr, Elizabeth & Westlye, Mark C. & Wolfinger, Raymond E., 1986. "The Partisan Affinities of Independent ‘Leaners’," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 155-185, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:16:y:1986:i:02:p:155-185_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123400003872/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. Urbatsch, 2010. "Isolationism and Domestic Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 471-492, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:16:y:1986:i:02:p:155-185_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.