Reddit reviews Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction

In addition to the fact that it would demobilize that parties activists, like /u/vincentstaples already mentioned, because "single-issue voters" aren't really voting based on a single issue, they are using a single issue as a litmus test for ideology. If that test was taken away they'd just get another one.

According to Lau and Redlawsk (2006), single issue voters don't really care about only one issue. They just use politicians stance on some issue (i.e. abortion, marijuana, gay rights, etc...) as a heuristic for a specific bundle of other preferences. And it's effective too. For example, if I told you, "I am pro-choice," would you be able to reliably guess my opinion on the Affordable Care Act, gerrymandering, medical marijuana, or Kavanaugh's confirmation? You probably could make a pretty accurate guess. That's because my (hypothetical) support for women's choice is associated with my other preferences due to a phenomenon known as partisan conflict extension (Layman and Carsey 2002).

​

For example:

>I am Pro- choice.
>
>Pro-choice people are probably liberal.
>
>Liberals probably think X.
>
>Therefore: If I am pro-choice then I am probably a liberal.
>
>Therefore: If I am a liberal I probably think X.

​

People who are "single-issue" voters are really no less partisan than anyone else. Even "independents" predominantly vote for one party over the other (V.O. Key 1966, Klar 2016). The only difference, according to Lau and Redlawsk, is that single-issue voters use a tiny-amount information in one key area and about only one candidate to determine if that candidate is sufficiently conservative or liberal (Republican or Democrat). Meaning: a Low-information, Low Comparability strategy.

Interestingly, low information voting was more effective at determining the candidate closest to the voters own naive-preferences than "rational-actor" strategy (high information, high comparability) for all but the most politically knowledgeable voters. Lau and Redlawsk suggest this is because voters don't know how to prioritize and process the huge amount of information available to them in the "rational actor" strategy. Voting for your party ID (low information, high comparability) was actually the most effective strategy for choosing the candidate that best matched their net preferences.

So what does this mean to your question? It means that if a party switched positions on, for example, abortion and the Democrats became "pro-life" then "pro-life" would stop being a useful proxy for "Republican" and those single issue voters would just select a different heuristic.

​

>Hi reddit!
>
>In advance of this year's national election, AAAS is bringing together scientists who have studied how people make up their minds about political issues and, once their opinions are set, how people can change their views.
>
>Science Magazine has published a few articles on this topic in 2016. One paper, by Noah Friedkin, explored the question "how do some beliefs within groups persist in the face of social pressure, whereas others change and, by changing, influence a cascade of other beliefs?" Another written by two of us, David Broockman and Joshua Kalla, describes our field experiment that showed that 1 in 10 Miami voters shifted their attitudes toward transgender individuals and maintained those changed positions for 3 months.
>
>We are joined by Drs. Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov, authors of "Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction."
>
>In the final weekend before the election, we suspect that many family and friends will be speaking about issues that are important to them. Ask us anything on the science of political persuasion!
>
>Dr. David Broockman is Assistant Professor of Political Economy, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
>
>Joshua Kalla is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at University of California, Berkeley
>
>Dr. Samara Klar is Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Arizona.
>
>Dr. Yanna Krupnikov is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University.
>
>We’ll be back at noon EST (9 am PST, 4 pm UTC) to answer your questions, ask us anything!

>Hi reddit!
>
>In advance of this year's national election, AAAS is bringing together scientists who have studied how people make up their minds about political issues and, once their opinions are set, how people can change their views.
>
>Science Magazine has published a few articles on this topic in 2016. One paper, by Noah Friedkin, explored the question "how do some beliefs within groups persist in the face of social pressure, whereas others change and, by changing, influence a cascade of other beliefs?" Another written by two of us, David Broockman and Joshua Kalla, describes our field experiment that showed that 1 in 10 Miami voters shifted their attitudes toward transgender individuals and maintained those changed positions for 3 months.
>
>We are joined by Drs. Samara Klar and Yanna Krupnikov, authors of "Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction."
>
>In the final weekend before the election, we suspect that many family and friends will be speaking about issues that are important to them. Ask us anything on the science of political persuasion!
>
>Dr. David Broockman is Assistant Professor of Political Economy, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
>
>Joshua Kalla is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at University of California, Berkeley
>
>Dr. Samara Klar is Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Arizona.
>
>Dr. Yanna Krupnikov is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University.
>
>We’ll be back at noon EST (9 am PST, 4 pm UTC) to answer your questions, ask us anything!