Such partisans are not truly rare or imaginary. Analysis is seldom on the whole ticket. It typically reduces to a single-office view like President for just a few cycles. Certainly if we are looking back over more than the past couple of years this evident. No, it does not, no matter how many times you say it. There are self professed Democrats and Republicans that occasionally contribute to and vote for the opposition my mother and step father to name two.
There are self professed independents that vote and if they contribute do so to a single party Tillman to name one. There is enough overlap in the voting and contributing behaviors of a large portion of self professed independents with self professed partisans that you would not be able to statistically disentangle them. Thus, they are behaviorally indistinguishable from the Democrats or Republicans that they side with repeatedly in elections.
Yet, somehow those predictions bear out time after time.
Just when you thought politics couldn't sink lower
Then if we see self professed Democrats at say 0. There we have people that claim different political stances, yet are indistinguishable by the metric that matters most, their votes. Certainly no argument I ever made involved them, other than to say that voters reside in a position space, and politicians and parties may position themselves within it too. That is actually a restatement of my claim , that at the margin voters are very similar. That is NOT a restatement of your position that:.
Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics - Google книги
When you use the plural form you are arguing medians, that independents are like who Republicans or Democrats, who often vote straight tickets in party loyalty. If you have a sack containing white and black balls, and you draw out 3 black balls in a row, what is the chance of the next ball being black?
Human nature tends to rate it high, when in fact the mathematical answer, the true answer, is that you have no idea.
The problem is unbounded. By the way,. Certainly no argument I ever made involved them. I assume that your definition for an open partisan is at least as stringent, it would be ridiculous for it to not be. People elected to office for their parties are open partisans.
Your definition of partisan is so stringent that even open partisans are not as lock step as is required for your definition. When you use the plural form you are arguing medians, that independents are like who Republicans or Democrats. The independents are like the group they vote with. You are for some reason assuming that Democratic partisans vote straight ticket Democrat every time and Republican partisans vote straight ticket Republican every time. That is simply not the case. There are substantial numbers of self professed independents that vote as lock step or even moreso than professed partisans.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that these voters probable behavior follows their professed label of independent. The data in the studies referenced runs counter to that claim. A sizable chunk and given the data it looks like a majority of independents have voting habits that are not distinguishable from the people who self identify with the party that they vote with repeatedly. It is not that I misunderstand probability, but that you seem to misunderstand human nature. You assume for purposes of your argument that all self professed independents fall more to the middle of the probability distribution and self professed partisans fall to the tails.
In reality there is not likely a nice bell curve but a very clumpy distribution and the clumps on either end contain both self professed partisans and self professed independents. Maybe only mostly partisan. Southern Democrats self identify as Democrats. Which of those two groups do you think would be more likely to split a ticket? This rejects my continuous appeal to the continuous function. Thus it is an unserious or deceptive argument. Yes, there are full partisans, but in your original argument you did not distinguish between full and slight partisans.
Vatican official attacks U.S. Democrats as “party of death”
In fact if you had opened with the idea that people toward the center were partisan in a smaller degree than people further out, this would have been over. You would not have made crazy claims like independents being indistinguishable from party members. You would have immediately understood that loosely attached voters are less partisan than straight ticket voters. I explicitly did not say all party members are straight ticket voters.
I fact I gave actual results from the field which are not that. The output, the vote, cannot tell you the probability unless you have a very constrained system and sufficient samples to characterize that system. A President election is different every time, and only happens every four years.
- Just when you thought politics couldn't sink lower - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
- The Dedalus Book of Greek Fantasy (Dedalus Literary Fantasy Anthologies)!
- Tackling Tumblr: Web Publishing Made Simple.
- The Gift of Dyslexia: Why some of the brightest people cant read and how they can learn.
- Quick and Dirty Guide for Developers: Adobe Edge Preview 3 in 4 Hours (Quick and Dirty Guide in 4 Hours Book 2);
- Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics!
- Gender Inequalities, Households and the Production of Well-Being in Modern Europe (Gender and Well-Being);
Yes, there are full partisans, but in your original argument you did not distinguish between full and slight partisans…. Because those were not the labels I was using.
- Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 65.
- Anatomic Basis of Echocardiographic Diagnosis.
- Similar authors to follow.
- The Psychology of Progressive Hostility - Quillette?
- The Rancho Gordo Heirloom Bean Growers Guide: Steve Sandos 50 Favorite Varieties;
Part of the confusion is because three ways of grouping people have been used here: self identification, behavior, and issue polling. In the self identification classification we had Democrats and Republicans making up the partisan ends and small i independents making up the supposed center. Then in the behavior camp we have voting patterns. Finally in the position polling we have another more complex metric. All of those measures have some value. Where I have taken issue is with the value you seem to place on self identification vs behavior.
Yes people have a variety of personally held views and yes some of those may not fit neatly within party platforms. What matters most at the end of the day is how they act on those beliefs. Several studies linked in this thread and others show that most voters have consistent voting patterns regardless of whether they tell a pollster they are affiliated with a party or independent.
Expanding on my tea party example: we have a large group if tea partiers that self identify as independent, yet make up the most partisan tail of the Republican party. Can you not see how their self identification is in direct conflict with their actual behaviors? On the other hand you have Southern Democrats, that self identify as Democrats thus they are by common usage partisans , yet they are much more likely to compromise and as voters much more likely to split a ticket and so behave more independently than the self professed independents of the tea party.
Why people choose a party either openly or operationally is a complex process. It is partly based not only on gross numbers of positions they hold that are in party platforms, but by which of those positions they hold most closely.
There are other factors that confound these and make predictions based thereon dicey. People are creatures of habit. The political preference of the parent, at least early in life, is a much better predictor of how they will vote than answers to issue polling. Those voting patterns once established, tend to be pretty constant unless there is a major upheaval, such as what happened with civil rights legislation and the adoption of the Southern strategy by the GOP. Absent such major upheavals society changes more gradually and the political parties are carried along with the rest of us, leaving largely unquestioned voting patterns intact.
Our democracy would be a much healthier place if people actively evaluated their positions on a wide variety of issues and voted for the candidates that most closely aligned with that rational evaluation. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the world we live in. Yet predictions based on exactly that provide results that correlate very strongly with that supposedly unpredictable outcome.see url
Brexit is not the will of the British people – it never has been
People are creatures of habit, not coins to be flipped or marbles to be plucked from a sack. Each time that I asked if we are done, I reminded that this was about the assertion that most independents were closet partisans. Over many posts I reminded that this was not a step function, it was continuous, and the accepted definition of a partisan was a high bar. I have also explained the limits to prediction given both a small sample and an unconstrained system. Self identification as an independent means less than you think it does and past voting behavior tells us more than you think it does.
Yet the predictions of future voting behavior based on past voting behavior are born out time and again. Why do you think that is? I remind you that despite self identification the voting behavior of most independents overlaps nearly completely with self identified members of of one party or the other.
Do you have information on what percentage of independents do Straight Ticket Votes for one party or the other? Since the number of Straight Ticket Votes is below the number of registered party members it seems straightforward to me that these would be members, of the most dedicated type.