This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the US, independent voters are allowed to vote in some primary elections- it varies from state to state. Forming an independent party would definately not guarantee independents the oppurtunity to participate in primaries which they are currently barred from. If the Anon who made this claim knows something that I don't, they should back it up with sources. For now I will remove it as I believe it is simply untrue. J. Tyler 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, the unenrolled article is a mess. Even if it accepted as a US-only article, this varies from state to state. In roughly half of the states you have to register with a party affiliation to participate in that party's process of selecting candidates (by primary election and/or caucus), in roughly half you don't. Even "unenrolled" is a regional usage. The Independent voter article already covers this, accurately. No merge. Lisamh 02:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

People in the UK can choose to join the Conservatives, Labour etc, so surely this classes as non-American 'registered affiliation'. Can someone please confirm I've understood this correctly before I/they remove the sentence "Registered affiliation with a single political party is a uniquely American concept." Cheers, Jilly 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC) It sounds that some American thinks the world begins and ends with the USA. I am an American and its lauphable. Merlinus reply

The two systems work very differently. The UK and, to my knowledge, most western democracies have never nationalised political parties. In the UK one joins a political party in the same way one joins any other private organisation. Candidate selection is done internally by the party members (apart from a few "open primaries" where local residents can come and vote at selections).

Although it's far less strong now than in the past, a lot of UK voters will always vote for the same party and elections are decided by "floating voters" but there's no formal registration process that defines a floating voter.

As I understand it the US, however, has public elections and voters can formally register their support for a party so that they can vote in primary elections to select candidates, amongst other things. This creates a much wider concept of involvement, but is not the same thing as card carrying party membership in the UK. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think the question, as initially posed, is whether a person in the U.K. (for example) must register with public authorities as a Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour, etc. In the U.S., the answer is "it depends." One does not have to do this for federal elections or primaries. But some states require a party registration (although this is slowly going away), and some do not. Some require it only for the primary or caucus, and some do not. As I understand your answer, Timrollpickering, it is a moot issue in the U.K. as candidates are selected through internal party processes (not even public caucuses, as in the U.S.). I cannot speak to other political systems in other countries.

However, in the U.K., as I understand it, political parties have strong control over who can be a member. This is untrue in the U.S., where political parties have absolutely no control over who calls themself a Republican, Democrat, Green, Communist, etc. whatsoever. In fact, crossover (for example, Republicans voting in Democratic primaries) voting is quite common, and sometimes done maliciously (for example, polemicist Rush Limbaugh asked Republican women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008). I cannot speak to political party "discipline" (the ability to control who joins, who participates in candidate selection, who is expelled, etc.) in other countries. - Tim1965 ( talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think it should include unenrolled. The concept of an independent voter is not just American one. It's especially misleading considering there are 'Chapters' of unenrolled voters. One would consider independents not associated with any form of political organisation wouldn't they? Anyway, I think this needs to be discussed. Shudda 13:03, 6 April 2006 (+13GMT)

• I don't believe it should include Unenrolled either. Unenrolled is merely a really obscure synonym for independent (I've never heard it outside wikipedia). There really should be just one article for independent voters and it should be this one. J. Tyler 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, don't merge it. Especially since there is a line on unenrolled that says that unenrolled voters typically vote for a Republican or a Democrat after weighing the options. I do not believe this to be true of independents. Tromboneguy0186 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

A clear distinction between Unenrolled voters and Independent voters needs to be made, and as a non-American I would like an explaination as to why anyone would willingly disclose their policial affiliation to anyone. I was under the impression that the USA ran secret ballots, just like all other good democracies. Josh Parris # : 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think society as a whole understands the difference between independent and unaffiliated, in fact my experience is that unless you are a Democrat or a Republican, people see you as independent/unaffiliated. I wish I had a nickel for every time I fillwed out a form that asked for my party and I had to write it in -- scratching out "independent" (most forms give you three choices, Democrat, Republican, or Independent). I am also unsure why anyone would care what party I was in (BTW, I am in one of the many "third parties" in America, which is math beyond anyone's understanding). In the Commonwealth of Virginia, where I live, no party is on our registration so there are no records of our party -- I guess that means all 6 million or so of us are unaffiliated. NB: The USA is not a democracy, it's a consitutional republic. Bogomir Kovacs ( talk) 19:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Unenrolled should not be merged with Independent voter. There is a distinct difference between those who are undecided or unenrolled and those who are registered Independents.

Those who are undecided or unenrolled are undecided. Those who are registered independents have made a decision and they choose to retain individual thought, as well as vote for any candidate of ANY party (or independent) that they individually feel is the right choice.

Unenrolled is completely different than Independent. Can't imagine why anyone would want to merge these. Fl295 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Why is there a link to an independent party? Isn't that an oxymoron? Josh Parris # : 06:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Oxymoron or not, there are parties with "Independent" or "Independence" in their name. We can't decide what others choose to call themselves. SlowJog ( talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Despite previously running as a democrat, Senator Joe Liebrman ran as an independent in the latest midterm elections. Shouldn't we include Senator Joe Lieberman as an independent as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.139.23 ( talk) 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC). reply

Hi Everyone:)

My name is RP. I wrote the following sections to Independent voter: sections on Myth of Independent voter, Attitudinal Independent, Behavioral Independent, the Impact of the Independent voter in U.S. electoral system. All information from Party Politics in America by Majorie Randon Hershey. This is for a school project, so if you could not delete these sections or dramatically edit the above mentioned sections for just a few weeks, I would greatly appreciate it. I wrote a [1] in brackets next to all of my written text to indicate that this information is derived from the source listed as number one under the "Source List". All of the information comes from Party Politics in America by Majorie Randon Hershey. Thanks again Rpchristiano 03:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Can somebody clarify the distinction between independent voter, unaffiliated voter, and swinging voter? Should the articles be merged? 203.173.46.125 10:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know anything about using a wiki, so please forgive any trampling on da rules.

I don't think there is any accepted definition anywhere, but I usually define a swing voter as anyone who doesn't vote straight ticket. Under that definition, many swing voters are affiliated with a party.

Conversely, unaffiliated voters are simply not affiliated with any party. They may nonetheless vote a straight party ticket if they are so inclined.

I no longer use the term independent voter to describe myself, because too many partisans assume that it means I'm somehow associated with the Independent Party, which I agree is an oxymoron, but still doesn't hold a candle to the Committee to Establish a Unified Independent Party (CUIP), LOL. Partisans also assume we are predisposed to vote for Ralph Nader for some reason I cannot fathom. For this reason, I would not like to see them equated . But perhaps they could be merged into an article on "Non-Partisan Voters"? Or something like that.

I don't know if this will help. I've talk to a lot of unaffiliated/independent/swing voters and done a lot of thinking on the matter, but I have no sources to cite. Almost everything I've read on the topic is unsubstantiated junk of the kind that has already been posted here by poli sci whiz kid.

How does one sign a wiki post by typing four tildes? That's not my name. 24.225.74.125 ( talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The commentary on Independent voters in this article is more appropriate for an editorial page than an encyclopedia. Comments such as, "Pure Independents on the other hand tend to be the least politically active and the least politically informed out of voting population. While they claim to be the most independent of thinkers, whose ideas are not tied up in partisan politics, it has been shown that pure independents do not care enough nor know enough to get involved on either side of the spectrum." are nothing more than derisive comments directed at a group the author is clearly in disagreement with. The author has a chip on his/her shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.25.250.246 ( talk) 08:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

In the US - Unaffiliated voter: one who does not belong to a political party; Independent voter: formerly synonymous with Unaffiliated but now assigned by default to a member of the Independent Party; Swing voter: a party member who votes for candidates of another party; Swinging voter: a promiscuous elector.

In my state, voters have become so disenchanted with the two main-line, hard-line political parties, that slightly under 50% of all voters are now unaffiliated. Imagine - we vote for the person! Although we are now by far the largest single voting block, we have no say on how the elections or election audits are run (the Registrars, Poll Workers and Election Auditors must be either Republicans or Democrats, and we have no say in who is selected in the primaries to run for office. I'd say that's pretty close to disenfranchisement, wouldn't you? Come the revolution we will be heard! (g) Unafilliated1 ( talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This article needs a ridiculous amount of work. I hope someone will fix it. Timneu22 ( talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This might be the worst article I've ever seen on here. Like this:

Pure Independents on the other hand tend to be the least politically active and the least politically informed out of voting population. While they claim to be the most independent of thinkers, whose ideas are not tied up in partisan politics, it has been shown that pure independents do not care enough nor know enough to get involved on either side of the spectrum. The 2004 American National Election Study shows that only 54% of registered independents voted in the 2004 Presidential election. This lack of voter turn out can be explained by Independent voter's lack of interest in politics. Lacking in political interest leads them to not form an identification with either party or their issues. When it comes to election time, their lack of interest in politics leads them to be poorly motivated. Having no stake in the outcome of the election Independents feel no need to get out to vote.

How does one back that up? The 2004 study shows nothing - some independants don't vote in elections because ALL OF THE CANDIDATES BLOW! Whoever wrote this article has some serious basic political science to get reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.69.45 ( talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• This article just went through a major rewrite. All the original research is gone. All the NPOV statements are gone. Claims as to the mental state or thinking of independent voters are gone. I intend to add information on realigning elections and dealignment to the "Impact" section, and add references to the research on formation of partisan identity and why that may be changing. But that will come tomorrow. - Tim1965 ( talk) 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Done. I think I've added all I can. There are many sources now, most of the literature is covered in depth, and the "impact" of independent voting is covered without any digressions into third-party candidates and why they are so good. - Tim1965 ( talk) 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

"Unsigned" and "Tim1965",

Your ad hominem attacks against my contributions to this article are despicable. Deleting the contributions is fine, that's your right. You do not have the right, however, to engage in personal and childish attacks against an individual you do not even know. My research was from numerous studies documented in Political Science Journals.

I am a Political Scientist,I am a member of Pi Sigma Alpha, as an undergraduate. An honor not often given to undergraduate students. I can e- mail both of you my membership credentials in this elite national honor society, and my degree as proof to counter "unsigned's" claim that this person, "needs to do a little political science reading".

Such personal attacks demonstrate your lack of intellectual curiosity and integrity. I happen to be an Independent, I am a member of CUIP, and I subscribe to The Neo Independent, therefore, my knowledge of the Independent political movement/philosophy is well versed. I was in no way 'attacking' Independents. Rpchristiano ( talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia doesn't rely on credentials of editors. (If it did, my Ph.D. in political science would outweight your BA.) I personally did not think you were attacking independents (although I could see how the article, as previously written could have been interpreted that way). I don't care which parts of the article you wrote, I wrote, or Santa Claus wrote. The article was severely lacking in citations, and was not comprehensive. Additionally, the portions of the piece which focused on groups of independent voters gave undue weight to this aspect of the topic, while ignoring major subjects such as the role of independents in realigning elections. - Tim1965 ( talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. My apologies for being overly combative. Rpchristiano ( talk) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

"An independent voter register as an unaffiliated voter in the United States" -- that doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure how to correct it. Is what's tried to be said "An independent voter, registered as an unaffiliated voter, in the United States"? ProfessorTofty ( talk) 06:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I fixed it. It looks like a bad edit or vandalism occurred on the way and the original sentence got messed up. - Tim1965 ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Unenrolled voter describes the exact same thing as Independent voter -- the legal terminology is simply different from state to state. Both mean that the voter does not wish to be affiliated, at least on the registration rolls, with a political party. In Massachusetts they say "unenrolled" to mean the exact same thing as what Rhode Islanders call "unaffiliated" and most of the rest of the USA calls small-i "independent". That page ought to be merged into this one, as a section labeled "Terminology" dealing with the different names in different states (and, in the bargain, also dealing with the difference between true "independents" and the proliferation of "Independent Party" third parties). _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• I agree with that. - Tim1965 ( talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• I agree with that as long as Unenrolled voter and Unaffiliated voter are both maintained as redirects and each of the two terms is bold-faced in context in the intro and given its own section in the body if necessary. Swliv ( talk) 01:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't know much on the subject and I won't pretend to but it sounds to me like voting independent means a registered voter may vote for either party whereas unenrolled is simply not being registered to vote, broadly speaking. It does seem like in the US, they're one in the same. That's just my two cents. 69.244.229.106 ( talk) 11:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Closing, given that this is a stale discussion with no consensus and unopposed (if weak) opposition. Klbrain ( talk) 10:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC) reply