Shawn Griffiths
Photo by Joshua Woroniecki on Unsplash
Exit polling from Edison Research shows that self-identified independents made up a larger share of the 2024 vote -- but with independent ID reaching a majority of the electorate, this bloc has yet to fully make its presence felt in presidential elections.
Data points show that self-identified independents outvoted members of one of the two major political parties for the first time since Edison, a New Jersey-based research group, began exit polling US elections in 2004. Specifically, independents outperformed Democrats.
They tied Republicans.
The independent share of the 2024 electorate was 34%, compared with 34% for Republicans and 32% for Democrats. From this, we can get a clearer picture how President-Elect Donald Trump was able to win -- but it wasn't because a majority of independents broke for him.
But enough did.
Edison found that the independent vote was nearly evenly divided, with 50% voting for Harris and 45% voting for Trump. This, according to the published data, is a 4-percentage point increase for Trump from 2020, despite more independents once again voting for the Democratic nominee.
Democrats made up less of the voting pool in 2024. Independents made up more of it. And more independents favored Trump compared to 2020. It's easy to see how he won.
Are Independents Still A Sleeping Giant in Elections?
Gallup publishes a poll on party affiliation every month. It is difficult to tell how reliable the poll is because of how much the numbers shift, but in June 2024, Gallup found that as much as 51% of the electorate self-identifies as independent.
This is the highest the research group has shown independent ID in the history of its polling.
Historically, this number has always dropped going into an election day. The last poll ahead of November 5 showed independent ID at 37% (see how wildly this number fluctuates?). However, even if it was this low, independents were still short of their full potential.
Especially, when the 37% is higher than Democrats (32%) and Republicans (29%). The question then becomes, why?
The US has an election system that enforces at every level this idea that voters only have two options, and it is whatever candidates the two major political parties give them each election cycle. These candidates never change much -- something that has been quite literal for the GOP.
And Harris did not do much to break from the policies of the current administration or the status quo in her party's leadership.
It may account for why independents have yet to outperform members of both parties in presidential elections. When stuck with the same choices each election cycle, what is the incentive to keep pushing the red or blue button and expect anything different?