Why Independent Voters Are America’s Largest Political Group

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A paradox defines American politics today: while a record number of citizens identify as politically independent, the nation’s governance remains firmly controlled by two major parties.

This isn’t a fundamental shift that’s been building for decades, signaling a deep disconnect between voters and the political structures meant to represent them.

The rise of unaffiliated voters raises questions about the health of U.S. democracy. Who are these independent voters, and what’s driving their exodus from the major parties? More importantly, what changes to the political system could address a situation where a plurality of Americans feel unrepresented by either party?

The Numbers Tell the Story

The most significant change in American political identity over the past three decades has been the rise of the independent voter. Once the smallest of the three major political groups, independents now make up the largest political bloc in the United States.

Gallup’s long-term polling data shows this dramatic transformation. Both major parties have lost shares of the electorate. By 2024, 43% of U.S. adults identified as independent, while identification with both major parties had fallen to 28% each.

This high level of independent identification has become a permanent feature of the electorate. The 43% figure recorded in 2023 and 2024 ties the record high previously set in 2014. Self-identified independents have made up 40% or more of the public in nearly every year since 2011.

Pew Research Center data from 2025 confirms this finding, reporting that 41% of Americans identify as independents or “something else,” surpassing the 31% who identify as Republican and the 28% who identify as Democrat.

A revealing pattern within this trend is what researchers call the “presidential dip.” Independent identification often drops temporarily during presidential election years, as seen in 2016 and 2020 when the figure fell to 39%. This happens because the intense, binary nature of presidential campaigns forces many voters to temporarily align with one of the major parties to participate in primaries or feel relevant in the national contest.

After each election cycle ends, the percentage of independents typically rebounds. This suggests the underlying trend toward independence is even stronger than annual numbers indicate, persisting despite the powerful pull of two-party presidential contests.

Who Are America’s Independent Voters?

The term “independent voter” doesn’t describe a single type of person but rather a diverse coalition from various backgrounds. Understanding who these voters are helps explain why they’ve abandoned the major parties.

The Generation Gap

Age is one of the strongest predictors of independent identification. Younger Americans are far more likely to identify as politically independent than older generations.

Polling from 2022 showed that 52% of Millennials identify as independent, a figure that has actually increased as the generation has aged. This defies historical patterns where party loyalty typically strengthens over time. Generation Z shows similar resistance to party attachment, with 43% identifying as independent.

This contrasts sharply with older voters. Only 33% of Baby Boomers and 26% of the Silent Generation identify as independent. The generational persistence of non-affiliation signals a potentially permanent shift in American politics.

Unlike previous generations who followed a “life-cycle effect” and became more partisan with age, Gen X and Millennials have maintained or expanded their independence into middle age. Their formative political experiences—from the Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis to persistent gridlock—appear to have fundamentally altered their relationship with political parties.

As these generations become the core of the electorate, high levels of independent identification will likely be a permanent feature of American politics.

Demographics and Ideology

Other demographic factors also shape the independent electorate. Men and women identify as independent at similar rates, though men lean slightly toward Republicans and women toward Democrats when pressed to choose.

Race and ethnicity play important roles. While Black, Hispanic, and Asian American voters continue to align more with Democrats, recent years have seen notable erosion of that support, with many moving into the unaffiliated camp. This shift contributes to growing diversity within the independent bloc.

Ideologically, independents occupy the center of American politics. A clear plurality—48%—describe themselves as political moderates, while 30% identify as conservative and just 20% as liberal. This positions them as a crucial swing group, ideologically distinct from the increasingly polarized bases of both major parties.

A Detailed Look at the Electorate

Pew Research Center’s 2025 data provides a comprehensive demographic breakdown of American voters:

Source: Pew Research Center, National Public Opinion Reference Survey, 2025

The Leaner Problem

The most important nuance in understanding independent voters is the difference between “pure” independents and those who “lean” toward a major party. When pollsters ask self-identified independents which party they feel closer to, most express a preference.

When these “leaners” are grouped with their preferred party, the electorate appears far less independent and much more evenly divided. While 43% of Americans called themselves independent in 2024, combining leaners with partisans showed a near-even split: 46% Republican/Republican-leaning versus 45% Democrat/Democratic-leaning.

This creates an academic debate. One school of thought, famously argued in “The Myth of the Independent Voter,” claims that leaners are essentially “closet partisans.” Their voting patterns, policy positions, and political engagement levels often mirror those of open party members. From this view, the rise of independents represents a change in social labeling rather than true ideological realignment.

However, competing research shows that leaners exhibit significantly more “volatility” in their voting choices across multiple elections than even weak partisans. Their preferences can shift based on specific candidates or current issues, making their “lean” temporary rather than fixed.

This paradox might be best understood as a social phenomenon. In an era of intense partisan hostility, the “independent” label offers a way to reject political tribalism. Research suggests many Americans are embarrassed by negative stereotypes associated with the major parties and want to distance themselves from toxic partisanship.

A voter may privately align with Democratic positions but publicly identify as independent to project moderation and open-mindedness. This explains why many people call themselves independent while the two-party system remains electorally dominant—they’re rejecting the team jersey while still rooting for the same team on election day.

Why Americans Are Leaving the Parties

The mass exodus from formal party identification stems from several powerful forces reshaping American politics. Voters are being pushed away by intense polarization, eroding trust in institutions, and a desire for practical governance over ideological purity.

The Polarization Problem

The primary driver of disaffiliation is the widening gap between the two parties. Over three decades, Democrats and Republicans have undergone profound “sorting,” becoming more internally uniform and more distant from each other ideologically.

In 1994, most Democrats described their political views as moderate. By 2024, a clear majority (53%) identified as liberal. Similarly, the share of Republicans identifying as conservative reached a new high of 77% in 2024. This ideological purification leaves little room for moderates in either party, pushing out those who don’t subscribe to increasingly rigid orthodoxies.

This divide is intensified by “negative partisanship,” where political identity is defined less by support for one’s own party and more by animosity toward the opposing party. This creates a toxic environment that repels the 48% of independents who identify as moderate and prefer practical solutions to ideological warfare.

These voters often find themselves politically homeless, forced to choose between two parties whose platforms don’t fully represent their nuanced views.

Collapsing Trust

The flight from parties connects to a broader collapse in public trust. Decades of data show steady decline in citizens’ confidence in core institutions like Congress. This widespread disillusionment naturally leads voters to detach from the parties that control those institutions.

This crisis extends to democracy itself. Persistent misinformation has damaged public trust in election integrity. One poll found only 20% of Americans feel “very confident” in the electoral system, while another revealed 56% have “little or no confidence” that elections represent the will of the people.

This erosion of faith, fueled by false claims of voter fraud, creates “political alienation”—weakened attachment to central democratic institutions. This alienation shows up as feelings of powerlessness (believing one’s actions can’t create change) and normlessness (believing political leaders are corrupt and rules aren’t followed). For citizens alienated from the entire system, abandoning party labels becomes a logical response.

The Pragmatic Impulse

Many independents, particularly younger ones, want practical results over ideological conformity. The clearest evidence is split-ticket voting—casting ballots for candidates from different parties in the same election. This behavior is far more common among independents than partisans.

In 2024 elections, independents were twice as likely as Democrats or Republicans to split their votes between presidential and Senate races. This willingness to cross party lines shows a more selective approach to voting, where candidates are judged on individual merit or policy positions rather than party affiliation alone.

The fact that voters in swing states like Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin simultaneously elected a Republican president and Democratic senators in 2024 powerfully illustrates this trend. This pattern signals deep frustration with partisan gridlock and obstructionist rhetoric. By splitting tickets, these voters express clear preference for governance that transcends party divisions and prioritizes compromise and tangible solutions.

The Vicious Cycle

These forces don’t operate separately—they form a self-reinforcing loop. As parties become more ideologically extreme, they push moderate voters toward independence. As moderates exit, the remaining membership becomes more ideologically committed on average. This empowers the most extreme elements within each party’s base, who dominate low-turnout primaries and nominate more radical candidates.

These polarized officials are less willing to compromise, leading to legislative gridlock and perceptions of government dysfunction, which further erodes public trust. This decline in trust drives even more voters to abandon the parties, restarting the cycle.

This feedback loop explains why polarization has become so persistent. The very act of voters expressing displeasure by becoming independent may inadvertently give more power within the parties to the forces they’re rejecting.

The Structural Barriers to Change

The rise of independent voters and entrenchment of the two-party system aren’t natural phenomena but products of specific rules and institutions. Understanding these structural barriers is essential before exploring potential solutions.

The Electoral College Effect

The winner-take-all system used by 48 states and DC to award electoral votes creates perhaps the greatest barrier to third-party presidential campaigns. Under this system, a candidate can win 49% of a state’s popular vote and receive zero electoral votes.

This makes it nearly impossible for candidates to build national coalitions without backing from one of the major parties, which have the resources and infrastructure to compete across all 50 states. The system inherently encourages two-party contests and marginalizes alternative voices.

USAFacts provides detailed breakdowns of how electoral votes are apportioned across states, showing how the current system concentrates power in swing states while making most others uncompetitive.

Ballot Access Barriers

Major parties have constructed a web of state laws making it difficult for new parties or independent candidates to appear on ballots. These laws often require collecting tens of thousands of petition signatures within narrow timeframes, following complex filing procedures, or achieving high vote percentages in previous elections to maintain ballot status.

These hurdles, varying significantly by state, were designed by and for established parties to protect their duopoly by limiting competition.

Campaign Finance Advantages

The immense cost of competitive campaigns heavily favors Democratic and Republican parties. They have decades-old fundraising networks, benefit from favorable Federal Election Commission regulations regarding coordinated party spending, and access wealthy donors and Political Action Committees.

Minor parties and independent candidates struggle to raise funds necessary for campaign infrastructure, advertising, and effective competition.

Gerrymandering’s Impact

The practice of drawing legislative districts to maximize one party’s advantage creates numerous “safe” seats for both Republican and Democratic incumbents. By “packing” opposition voters into few districts and “cracking” them across many others, parties can virtually guarantee electoral outcomes before votes are cast.

This drastically reduces general election competition, making party primaries the only elections that matter. This system disempowers independent voters, who are often excluded from primaries, and entrenches the two parties by protecting incumbents from meaningful challenges.

The Congressional Research Service provides detailed analysis of the legal framework surrounding redistricting and its effects on electoral competition.

Reforming Primary Elections

One direct way to address independent voter disenfranchisement is reforming primary elections, which serve as gateways to political office.

The Closed Primary Problem

In states with closed primaries, millions of unaffiliated voters are barred from participating in the crucial first round of elections. In heavily gerrymandered districts favoring one party, the primary is effectively the general election. This forces candidates to appeal only to their party’s base—often more ideologically extreme than the general electorate—reinforcing polarization and ignoring independent voters’ concerns.

Open and Semi-Closed Alternatives

Potential solutions include more inclusive primary systems. In traditional open primaries, any registered voter can choose which party’s primary to vote in on election day. In semi-closed primaries, registered party members can only vote in their own primary, but unaffiliated voters can participate in the primary of their choice.

The theory is that expanding primary electorates to include moderate independents would incentivize candidates to moderate positions to build broader coalitions. However, empirical evidence on whether these reforms actually reduce polarization is mixed. Some studies find little effect, possibly because primary turnout remains low and dominated by highly motivated partisans regardless of rules.

The “Top-Two” System

A more radical reform, used in California and Washington for state and congressional elections, is the top-two primary. All candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single primary ballot. All registered voters, including independents, can vote for any candidate. The two highest vote-getters—regardless of party—advance to the general election.

This can result in two Democrats or two Republicans facing each other in November. The goal is rewarding candidates who appeal across party lines and build the broadest possible support, incentivizing moderation and reducing the power of ideological extremes.

While the system has created more competitive general elections in some districts, its overall effect on reducing legislative polarization remains debated among researchers.

Ranked-Choice Voting

Perhaps the most widely discussed electoral reform today is ranked-choice voting (RCV), which fundamentally changes how ballots are cast and counted.

How It Works

In RCV elections, instead of selecting one candidate, voters rank multiple candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. The counting process proceeds in rounds.

In the first round, all first-choice votes are tallied. If a candidate secures more than 50%, they win. If no candidate reaches a majority, an “instant runoff” occurs: the candidate with fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked the eliminated candidate first are redistributed to those voters’ second-choice candidates.

This elimination and redistribution process continues until one candidate achieves majority support.

The Case for RCV

Proponents argue RCV offers numerous democratic benefits. It gives voters more meaningful choices and eliminates the “spoiler effect,” where third-party or independent candidates can help elect the candidate voters like least by splitting votes with ideologically similar major-party candidates.

This frees voters to support their true favorite without fear of “wasting” votes. Because candidates have incentive to seek second- and third-choice rankings from opponents’ supporters, RCV supposedly fosters more civil, issue-focused campaigns with fewer negative attacks.

It ensures eventual winners have majority support, giving them stronger mandates to govern. Case studies from New York City, Minneapolis, and St. Paul suggest RCV can contribute to electing more women and candidates of color.

The Case Against RCV

Critics raise significant concerns. They argue ranking multiple candidates can be complex and confusing, potentially leading to errors or “ballot exhaustion,” where ballots are discarded because all ranked candidates have been eliminated. This complexity supposedly benefits more politically engaged voters at others’ expense.

Opponents question transparency and administrability of multi-round counting processes, which rely on computer algorithms and can be difficult to verify with hand recounts. They also argue RCV can produce winners with broad but shallow support rather than candidates who were passionate first choices of the largest plurality.

Fighting Gerrymandering

Because non-competitive districts entrench the two-party system and marginalize independent voters, redistricting reforms are central to making the political system more responsive.

How Gerrymandering Reinforces the Duopoly

Allowing the party in power to draw legislative maps incentivizes creating safe seats. Using sophisticated data and mapping software, partisans can “crack” opposition voters across multiple districts to dilute their strength or “pack” them into few districts to waste their votes.

The result is a landscape where most general elections aren’t competitive, primary elections are the only contests that matter, and incumbents are insulated from accountability to broader electorates.

Independent Redistricting Commissions

The most prominent reform proposal is removing map-drawing power from partisan legislators and giving it to independent, citizen-led commissions. The goal is creating processes that prioritize criteria like competitiveness, compactness, and keeping communities together over partisan advantage.

Growing research indicates Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRCs) are associated with more competitive elections and more transparent processes incorporating public feedback. However, commission effectiveness depends heavily on design.

Truly independent commissions insulated from legislative influence tend to produce fairer maps. Commissions still allowing elected officials to appoint members or veto maps are far more likely to suffer partisan deadlock and produce gerrymandered districts.

Campaign Finance Reform

A major source of public cynicism driving voters from major parties is the perception that the political system is dominated by wealthy donors and special interests. Money-focused reforms are crucial for restoring democratic faith.

The Problem

The enormous sums required to run for office create systems where politicians depend on large contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. This can lead to “rent-seeking,” where policy outcomes are shaped by lobbying and campaign donations to benefit private interests rather than public good.

This fuels widespread belief that the system is rigged, erodes trust, and pushes voters to disaffiliate from parties participating in this system.

Reform Proposals

Various reforms have been proposed to counter big money influence. One major goal is passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, which opened floodgates to unlimited independent spending by corporations and unions in elections.

Another prominent proposal is creating small-donor public financing systems. In these programs, small-dollar donations from ordinary citizens are matched with public funds (often at 6-to-1 ratios or higher), amplifying grassroots support power and reducing candidate reliance on large checks from elite donors.

Lobbying Reform

While lobbying is a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to petition government, many believe the current system gives special interests unfair access and influence. Proposed reforms aim to increase transparency by strengthening disclosure requirements for lobbying activities and limiting the “revolving door” phenomenon, where former government officials quickly take lucrative lobbying jobs to leverage their connections.

The goal isn’t eliminating lobbying but leveling the playing field and reducing potential for special interests to drown out ordinary citizens’ voices.

The Need for Comprehensive Reform

These potential reforms aren’t standalone options to choose from—they exist within an interconnected political ecosystem. One reform’s effectiveness often depends on implementing others.

Opening primary elections will have limited impact on moderation if districts remain so gerrymandered that primary winners are guaranteed general election victories. Ranked-choice voting can empower third-party and independent candidates by eliminating spoiler effects, but its potential goes unrealized if those candidates can’t overcome restrictive ballot access laws.

Creating competitive districts through fair redistricting is laudable, but without campaign finance reform, it could simply lead to spending arms races by super PACs and dark money groups, increasing rather than decreasing money’s influence in politics.

Meaningful, systemic change addressing root causes of voter disaffection and structural biases of the two-party system will likely require comprehensive suites of interlocking reforms.

State-by-State Progress

While federal reforms face significant hurdles, states have begun implementing various changes. Alaska adopted ranked-choice voting and open primaries. Maine uses ranked-choice voting for federal elections. Several states have created independent redistricting commissions with varying degrees of success.

These experiments provide real-world laboratories for testing reforms and their effects on electoral competition and representation. Early results suggest some reforms can increase competitiveness and potentially reduce polarization, though long-term effects remain to be seen.

The International Perspective

Other democracies offer models for different approaches to electoral systems. Many European countries use proportional representation systems that give smaller parties realistic chances of winning seats and influencing policy. Coalition governments, while sometimes unstable, can force parties to compromise and govern from the center.

However, importing foreign systems wholesale into the American constitutional framework would require massive changes that seem politically impossible. More realistic reforms would adapt existing American systems to be more inclusive and competitive.

Technology and Political Engagement

Digital platforms have transformed how Americans engage with politics, often in ways that reinforce the trends driving independent identification. Social media can create echo chambers that reinforce partisan divisions, but it can also give independent candidates and movements tools to organize and communicate without traditional party infrastructure.

Online fundraising platforms have democratized campaign finance to some degree, allowing candidates with grassroots appeal to raise money without relying solely on traditional party networks. This could potentially benefit independent and third-party candidates if other structural barriers were reduced.

Measuring Success

Any reforms aimed at addressing the disconnect between independent voters and the political system should be evaluated based on several criteria:

Electoral Competition: Do reforms increase the number of competitive races where outcomes aren’t predetermined?

Representation: Do elected officials better reflect the ideological diversity of their constituents?

Governance: Do reforms lead to more effective policymaking and reduced gridlock?

Participation: Do changes increase voter turnout and civic engagement, particularly among currently disaffected groups?

Legitimacy: Do reforms restore public trust in democratic institutions and processes?

Early evidence from states implementing various reforms suggests some positive effects, but comprehensive, long-term studies are still needed to evaluate their full impact.

The rise of independent voters represents a fundamental challenge to American democracy’s current structure. Nearly half of Americans have rejected formal identification with either major party, yet those parties continue to dominate governance through institutional advantages built up over decades.

This disconnect between citizen identity and political representation threatens democratic legitimacy and effectiveness. Whether through primary reform, ranked-choice voting, redistricting changes, campaign finance reform, or comprehensive packages combining multiple approaches, the American political system faces pressure to evolve.

The question isn’t whether change will come—the massive and growing independent identification suggests current arrangements are unsustainable. The question is whether that change will be gradual and constructive or sudden and disruptive. The choices made in the coming years will shape American democracy for generations to come.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.