Going Independent Won’t Break the Two-Party Grip

“Voters do not need another political party telling them what to believe,” former Senator Joe Manchin wrote recently in The Washington Post. He argues that a handful of independent members, free to work with either side, could change a closely divided Congress. (The Washington Post)

Manchin is right that Americans deserve representatives who think for themselves and refuse to excuse wrongdoing simply because it comes from their own side. Independence of judgment and party membership are not opposites. The choice is between relying on exceptional individuals to navigate the system largely on their own and building an institution capable of electing independent-minded people, supporting them in office, and continuing that work after they are gone.

Manchin’s record shows how much influence an unusually well-positioned, independent-minded politician can exercise. In July 2022, while still a Democrat, he negotiated an agreement with Chuck Schumer on the Inflation Reduction Act. (Senate joint statement)

But his leverage depended heavily on the Senate’s narrow margins, his relationships, and the moment in which he served. A governing strategy cannot depend on repeatedly finding another Joe Manchin in exactly the right circumstances.

The larger question is how independent-minded legislators become more than a collection of individuals. Who helps elect them, prepares serious policy solutions, and carries the work forward when individual members leave?

Before the first vote

Consider what it would take to send a capable local leader to Washington on a promise to make housing more affordable. Before that person can help anyone buy a home, there is an election to win.

Someone must determine whether the district offers a realistic chance of victory. That means examining voting patterns, the strength of the other candidates, the cost of competing, and whether a newcomer would merely divide the vote and help elect the candidate their supporters oppose most.

Then come the signatures, deadlines, volunteers, voter contacts, and money. None of that becomes easier simply because the candidate chooses “independent” as a label.

Manchin recognizes this problem. The Independent Leadership Council he supports provides fundraising, campaign assistance, and analysis to identify promising districts. (NPR) In August, the council and its related PAC reported raising more than $10 million since their July launch. (Council announcement)

That is meaningful support, and it addresses an important weakness of purely individual campaigns. But helping candidates win is not the same as helping them govern.

The Centercratic Party, which I founded, is designed to support candidates before and after Election Day. The people who study districts would retain what they learn, the volunteers would remain active in their communities, and the fundraising operation would support both candidates and the continuing work of the party.

Party organization also offers a financing advantage. The Supreme Court’s June ruling removed the former ceilings on spending that eligible party committees plan with their candidates, giving them greater room to fund a shared campaign plan. (Federal Election Commission)

That advantage comes with legal requirements, not merely a new name. Centercratic must qualify under the applicable rules, and the ruling does not turn party fundraising into unlimited donations. (FEC qualification rules, FEC ruling summary)

After the victory

Now imagine our housing candidate wins. The election-night celebration ends, but the families who supported the campaign still cannot afford a home.

This newly elected representative needs more than good judgment and a willingness to cooperate. A serious proposal must explain what would increase housing supply, what it would cost, which decisions belong in Washington, and which belong to states and communities. It must also win enough support in Congress to become law.

That is why our plan includes a permanent policy team working with researchers, testing competing ideas, and using data to distinguish useful solutions from attractive promises. The same organization that helped elect the representative would help develop proposals and prepare for negotiations.

The work would not stop when a bill passed, either. We would need to examine whether it accomplished what was promised, listen to the people affected, and change course when the evidence called for it.

Suppose that representative later retires. The research, donor relationships, trained volunteers, and experience should not have to be assembled again from the beginning; they should help the next candidate and the next generation of legislators.

Supporting independent candidates is an electoral strategy. Building an organization that also develops policy, brings legislators together, and measures results is a governing strategy. The council’s public descriptions emphasize electing independent leaders, but do not describe the same continuing policy and operating structure. (Council announcement, Council website)

The council may develop those capabilities over time. If it does, it will be taking on the work of a political party, whatever it chooses to call itself.

Political scientist John Aldrich explained this basic problem in Why Parties?: parties help people organize campaigns and sustain the majorities needed to accomplish something in office. (University of Chicago Press) The practical lesson is that good intentions need people, resources, and working relationships that survive an election.

A Political Home for Moderate Americans

None of this means every independent belongs in a moderate party. Gallup found that 45 percent of American adults identified as independents. That total consisted of 20 percent of all adults who leaned Democratic, 15 percent who leaned Republican, and 10 percent who leaned toward neither party. (Gallup)

The Centercratic Party is not seeking to represent all independents. It is building a political home for moderate Americans, whether they currently identify as independents, Democrats, or Republicans.

What brings those voters together is more than dissatisfaction with the two major parties. They want leaders who take practical approaches to problems, weigh the evidence, and work across political differences to reach agreements.

Manchin writes that independent leadership “is not about standing alone.” (The Washington Post) I agree, but I would carry his argument further: Americans need a lasting organization that helps capable people win, equips them to govern, and remains answerable for the results. The Centercratic Party must earn the public’s trust by following its principles and doing what it promises.

Moderate voters do not have to surrender their judgment to recognize that political success depends on other people. They need an organization through which they can pool their resources, elect leaders, and turn shared priorities into law. The Republican and Democratic parties will not lose their hold on Washington simply because more Americans decline to join them. That requires a moderate party strong enough to compete with them, win against them, and govern more effectively than they have.