Among  American political scientists and partisans of the Democratic and  Republican parties, it is widely held that the so-called “Independent  voter” is nothing more than a myth.  This might come as news to the  millions of Independent voters in the United States.  Are you an  Independent-in-name-only?

Given  the growing number of self-described Independents nationwide, the  corresponding increase in their political clout, and the well-developed  media narratives that seek to pigeon hole them between the Democratic  and Republican parties, it is only to be expected that they should  encounter increasing resistance – and even outright attacks – from the  partisans of the political status quo.  One of the most common critiques  of Independents states that the Independent voter is nothing more than a  myth.  Most recently, Alan Abramowitz has sought to “set the record  straight” by “correcting myths about Independent voters” in an article for the Center for Politics blog.

“The  large majority of independents are independents in name only. Research  by political scientists on the American electorate has consistently  found that the large majority of self-identified independents are  “closet partisans” who think and vote much like other partisans,” writes  Abramowitz.

The political science research to which Abramowitz alludes is based to a great extent on a book from 1992: The Myth of the Independent Voter by Bruce E. Keith et. al.  The influence of the work is apparent, for  instance, in an academic paper published earlier this year in The  California Journal of Politics and Policy by Edward L. Lascher, Jr. and  John L. Korey.  In the paper, entitled “The Myth of the Independent  Voter, California Style,” the authors analyze a series of field polls of  the California electorate dating back to the early 1980’s and argue  that the basic propositions put forward in Keith’s book “generally hold  up well.”

Confronting  “the sharp rise in the proportion of voters declining to state a party  preference and the supposed increasing importance of political  independents,” Lascher and Korey advise skepticism on the basis of the  fact that 1) the majority of self-described independents “lean toward”  one or the other major party and tend to vote in a manner consistent  with that leaning, and 2) that the proportion of Independents who do not  lean toward either major party has not increased significantly in  recent years, even with the increase in Independent identification, and  these so-called “pure” Independents tend to be less politically engaged  than partisan “leaners.”

But  how trustworthy are such findings?  The results are, of course,  conditioned by the questions put forward in the field polls under  consideration.  Typically, respondents are asked if they think of  themselves “as a Republican, a Democrat an Independent or what?”  Those  who answer that they are Republicans or Democrats are then asked if they  are strong or weak supporters of the party in question, while those who  state that they are Independent are then asked whether they lean toward  one or the other major party.

In other words, Independents are prodded  to identify themselves with a major party, while Democrats and  Republicans are simply asked to state their level of identification with  their chosen affiliation.  Significantly, Democrats and Republicans are  never asked whether they “lean Independent” or toward a third party,  and Independents are never asked whether they would rather support an  Independent or third party over the Democrats or Republicans.

Furthermore,  the fact that Independents tend to vote for Republicans or Democrats  does not imply that they are not Independent.  In many if not most  elections, voters have no choice but to vote for Republicans or  Democrats because the Republican and Democratic parties have rigged our  system to exclude Independent and third party candidates from the  ballot.  If you do not lean toward one or the other major party, what  incentive do you have to vote in an election where there are only  representatives of those parties on the ballot?  Perhaps the majority of  Independents are not casting their ballots for one major party, but  rather against the other.

While  such research may help dispel the conventional wisdom popularized in the  political press which posits that Independents are a monolith of non-partisan  moderates and centrists, it actually tells us very little about  Independents themselves and may even do nothing more than replace one myth with another, namely, that Independents effectively do not exist.

Yet Independents are virtually everywhere.  They span the ideological spectrum.   There are conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian and progressive  Independents.  What they all have in common, however, and what  distinguishes them from Democrats and Republicans, is their refusal to  identify with the Democratic and Republican parties, and indeed, their  rejection of any party affiliation whatsoever.

In much of the political science research devoted to Independents, one  key aspect of our nation’s politics is rarely if ever mentioned, let  alone considered with a critical eye: the two-party system itself.  Beginning as early as 1950, when the American Political  Science  Association’s Committee on Political Parties released an  influential  report entitled “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party  System,” American political scientists have long provided academic  cover for the consolidation of the  two-party state and the centralization of all political power in the hands of the  Democratic and Republican parties.

In fairness to the field however, it must be noted that not  all American political scientists are willing to carry water for the  Democratic and Republican parties.  Reflecting on three decades of  political science research that followed the report, Theodore J. Lowi of  Cornell University noted in 1983: “One thing they do not question at  any time: the virtue of a two-party system and the need to focus all  reform recommendations on its preservation.”