Independent voters? The term is meaningless.
Independent voters, blah, blah, blah. A perspective from someone who studies countries with multiparty systems:
Here's my beef with the fascination in the US with "independent" voters: I've no idea what they mean. And pundits don't seem to either. Because there seems to be this idea that there are only two "positions" in US politics: Republican & Democrat. Sure, they sometimes distinguish between "moderate" and "extreme" versions of each. But is that all there is?
Look, here's what I think of when I hear the term "independent" voter: I think some of them are "centrist" (right between the GOP and Democratic position), which is how pundits seem to discuss them.
But many (perhaps most?) of the "independents" are probably either to the left or right of both major parties (and that's only if we assume a unidimensional political spectrum!). A Libertarian is not an "independent" voter; he/she is merely neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The same is true for a socialist (to the left of Democrats) or a religious conservative (to the right, traditionally, of the "mainstream" GOP).
If I treat people to the left and right of and in between of the two major parties as one single voting block with similar preferences I'm going to get a lot of noise in my data and nothing substantive. Period.
Instead, it would be more useful to actually ask people questions about issues, then track those to candidates (bypassing partisanship). Or ask people to place themselves on a left-to-right spectrum, and then track that to candidates.
But, please. Enough already with the "independent" voter meme. It's not only bad political science—it's just absurd on its face value.
