[7] The earliest concept of independents is of a person whose political choices, by definition, were made based on issues and candidates (due to lack of party affiliation).
Additionally, self-identification could be easily captured either with a nominal question ("Do you self-identify with an existing political party?
Party identification seemed strongly affected by certain formative generational events (such as the Civil War, the Great Depression or the social upheaval of the 1960s).
[36][37][38][30][39] But if generational events affected partisanship, some scholars hypothesized that lesser political, social, and economic issues might as well.
[28][40] The concept of "retrospective voting"—in which the voter makes political judgments based on the party-in-power's performance over the past few years—deeply influenced studies of partisanship.
[29][44][45][46] Both repeated "minor shocks" and retrospective/prospective assessments of political party success are micro-level, rather than macro-level, variables.
Rather, partisanship and political independence may be two distinct variables, each of which must be measured separately and using different theoretical constructs.
In short, the vast majority of self-defined Independents are not neutral but partisan—a bit bashful about admitting it, but partisan nevertheless.
Inter-party competition, the organizational strength of each party, electoral variables (such as the ease of voter registration, voting procedures, the timing of primaries and elections, etc.
[56][57] There is a large swing vote in Iran, known as "Party of the Wind" (Persian: حزب باد, romanized: Ḥezb-e Bād), or "grey vote" (Persian: رأی خاکستری, romanized: Ra'ye Ḵākestarí), which can be rapidly excited.
[2] Scholars who hold to the behavioral measure of determining political independence point out that there has been little change in the level of ticket-splitting since the initial upsurge in the 1950s.
The political party and policies of the status quo were changed, and a new governing coalition installed which would rule for decades until the next critical election.
The theory of critical elections fit well with what scholars knew about generational effects and the emerging literature on "major shocks" as a variable in determining the existence, direction, and strength of partisanship.
It also helped explain the radical shifts in national politics which occurred irregularly in American history.
But beginning in the 1980s, political scientists began to conclude that realigning elections could occur on sub-national levels (such as regions or even within states).
[67] The large number of qualifications which must be made to the theory of critical elections has rendered it useless, it is argued.
Parties regulate the type and number of people seeking election, mobilize voters and enhance turnout, and provide the coalition-building structure essential for office-holders to govern.
Parties also serve as critical reference groups for voters, framing issues and providing and filtering information.
As independent voting and ticket-splitting rise, parties seek to insulate themselves from the whipsaw effect of elections.
As the parties distance themselves from the average voter and seem to offer limited policy options, dealignment worsens.
As ideology plays less and less a part in elections, it becomes more and more difficult for parties to forge coalitions of like-minded officeholders.
Governmental deadlock becomes common, further encouraging independent voting as citizens perceive "their" party to be ineffective.
As ticket-splitting rises, divided government becomes the norm, making it even more difficult for office-holders to enact and implement policies.
The "Imperial Presidency" becomes more important, since single officeholders with great power become the only politicians capable of governing.
Political parties have adapted to the realities of large numbers of independent voters, it is argued.
[75] A minority view, however, suggests that the evidence for a resurgence of political parties too equivocal, and that scholars lack the theoretical concepts to make such judgments.
Regional differences in the level and impact of dealignment simply point up the fact that major shifts in political coalitions are occurring.
These scholars argue that the surge in independent voters which began in the 1960s has ended, and that there are distinct signs that partisanship is on the rise again.