>

No, that is the mathematical principle known as diverger's law.
Trying to make fun of math does not make it go away.
ok, and, as the article mentions, the vast majority of independents vote for one party overwhelmingly. 
People seem to love to talk about the fact that people choose not to identify with parties as much as they used to. Party identity doesn't matter though, votes do. >

Why do you think Sanders got even less votes in the primaries the second time he ran?  What's the conspiracy theory that explains that? >

Significantly more candidates running? >

How about squandering four years of name recognition, hiring terrible PR people and otherwise blowing the biggest lead in Democratic primary history by failing to speak to people of color? >


How about squandering four years of name recognition

Subjective 

hiring terrible PR people

Subjective 

blowing the biggest lead in Democratic primary history by failing to speak to people of color?

Source for him having the biggest lead "in democratic primary history"? And how did he fail to speak to people of color? >


Guess what voters use to determine who they vote for.

Probably not your personal opinions about the man. Your article has a pay wall so I can't read it but it's from before any of the 2020 primaries... I asked for a source for him "blowing the biggest lead in Democratic primary history", it would be pretty wild if he managed to do it before the first primary. >


Who was the poll leader before the primaries? 
Sanders. 

Who was the poll leader before the 2016 general election? Clinton. 

Who won the most primaries going into Super Tuesday? 
Sanders 

He effectively tied with Buttigieg in Iowa, outright won two pre super tuesday states, Joe got one. Your article doesn't help your case either: 

rivals are sounding the alarm over his growing strength and warning that he could effectively secure the presidential nomination on Super Tuesday if Democrats don’t quickly align behind an alternative. 

The Democrats quickly aligned behind an alternative, Biden. 

Who had the most money in the 202 primary election? 
Sanders 

Who had the most money in the Georgia gubernatorial race? Abrams. 

I mean, by most metrics, having the biggest poll lead, most early wins and largest ever campaign chest and yet still losing is blowing it. 

I agree, that's not what you originally said though. >

There's been a lot of research on this, independents mostly aren't (independent).
They mostly hew pretty closely to one of the two poles in the left/right field, but have some idiosyncratic views that don't fit.  You cant' make a platform out of it, you can't make a consistent national campaign out of it, and you for damned sure can't make a party out of it.
It wouldn't dominate anything, it would sit in a corner and argue with itself.  Any candidate that actually won an 'independent party' primary wouldn't even get 50% of the vote from their own party. >

Exactly. Polling shows that "independents" still adhere to one of the two major party platforms. There's just a small subset of independent voters who are truly independent. >

If independents formed a party it would kinda defeat the point of claiming to be independent. >

If independents were a party, the party's views would range widely from far right to far left. They would be a big tent party with internal factions vying for control. They would be Democrats. >


The rise of the independents comes at a time of widespread public disillusion with both parties

Also rising distrust of pollsters and anyone else involved in identifying, categorizing, tracking them, and attempting to manage their behavior. Answering independent can be a way of saying: none of your business. >

Yeah I sometimes select "prefer not to respond" when asked my gender on web forms FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME I AM THE REVOLUTION >

That's not how our FPTP system works.
If an "independent" party gained enough popularity to surpass one of the other parties, the least popular faction would atrophy and - surprise, surprise, we'd have two major parties again.
The overton window may shift a bit, but "independents" would simply replace the conservative or liberal political faction.
At the end of the day, we have the same voters, the same corrupt campaign financing, the same constitution at the state and federal level.. And the same grievances and complaints will arise with "independents" that existed with any of the others.
America will always gravitate back to two parties as long as we have this system. >

Not to mention that most independents are basically just people who don't care enough to get involved in politics in the 1st place. So even if there were a more representative system that allowed them to pick a different party, they likely would not still. >

Respectfully, anecdotal experience is meaningless. And thinking both sides have equal merit is only possible through ignorance or malice. >


If "Independent" Were A Party, It Would Dominate US Politics

It wouldn't since independents have a variety of views on government.  Example: the Bernie Sanders independents want nothing to do with the Ron Paul independents. >

Even if somehow voters managed to elect in a majority of people to Congress for both the House and Senate, with a common unified agenda in mind, Congresspeople would still disagree on how best to implement that agenda and would need to hash out every detail before they would have the votes to pass a bill to the President's desk for signing. The bill would be a compromise between various views on the agenda at best, and some voters would still be upset about it. >

If independent were a party it would be dysfunctional as fuck. >

What a silly assumption. They're splitting the voting populace three ways, R, D, and Everyone Else. Just because they don't (admit) to supporting R's or D's doesn't mean they would, en masse, support an Independent party. >

I went independent when Reagan was elected, for decades voting for quality candidates of either party. The rise of Trump and Trumpism changed that. I can't vote for members of a party that supports insurrection, either openly or tacitly. >

Similar here. I was always registered as independent since I could vote and would actually try to research and consider candidates. Then when the tea party showed up as an astroturfed movement and held the debt ceiling hostage I decided I’d never vote for anyone involved with that mess. Then when Republicans just blatantly refused to do their job under Obama, especially refusing to even consider his Supreme Court appointment, I changed my registration from independent to democrat. They’ve only gone further off the rails since then. I can’t imagine ever voting for a republican again at this point.
I wish there was a serious debate between the parties on how to handle issues. In that case independent is a reasonable position to be in. As we are now, the Republicans shifted so hard right towards authoritarianism, intolerance, and willful ignorance that I don’t see how anyone can be “undecided”. >

90% of the time, when someone tells me they're Independent, it really means one of two things:


"I don't like talking about politics."


"I think all elections are rigged, both sides are collaborating against us it's all Kabuki theatre, the Democrats are exactly equally as bad as the GOP" >

No, It wouldn't. It'd just be republicans in disguise. >

I know plenty of people who would leave the Democrat party too. >

Usually because they only care about their pockets. Or…more likely, they don’t understand how congress works. >

If independent were a party, then it wouldn’t be independent. >

Independents are just republicans that don't want the baggage associated with the party. >

Well it can't be a party because two private institutions have been able to create rules that only put up barriers to creating additional parties. We don't have a real democracy. We only have a choice between two parties and whomever they choose to shove down our throats. >

That is why if you want better candidate you vote in the primaries. >

Yep.  About 60% of the electorate votes in Presidential elections.
About 40% vote in mid-term elections.
Only about 20% vote in primaries.
​
Want better parties?  Get involved early. >

It is also the only way we are ever going to get rid of 1st pass the poll elections. It would require a lot of people in both parties to care enough about that to vote for people in the primaries whoogle vote for that.
So the people in here arguing that we should just say fuck it until we get different polling methods are being counterproductive as hell. >

If "Independent" were a party, they'd likely lose because an incredible number of them are people too ignorant or apathetic to actually engage in politics. >

I counter. A lot of them are the ones who don’t blindly follow a party platform >

Independents are half closeted fascists who vote republican and half people who don't like any of these clowns and adding more clowns wouldn't change that. >

Sure, but the vast majority of independents are confused and lean one way or the other, their are not that may true independents >

Confused? >

That’s basically trying to apply some purity test to someone who simply doesn’t label themselves as a member of one party or the other. No True Scotsman fallacies about independent voters seems silly on its face, don’t you think? >

Maybe, but if you agree with one party more than the other, don’t you lean that way more? >

Sure... but that doesn't mean you have to be a member of the party. Being an independent doesn't mean you have to have a neutral ideological perspective, it just means you aren't interested in joining a political party. I've considered myself an independent since reaching voting age. My votes these days go almost exclusively towards Democrats. It wasn't always that way, but Republicans have moved into territories ideologically that I simply can't abide. That doesn't make me a Democrat, it makes me an independent with limited options.
Since this topic always seems to follow the discussion of independents voting... Third party candidates aren't viable in a first past the post system. I am not interested in voting for candidates who stand zero chance of winning. If we had ranked choice voting on a national level then third party candidates would have a chance and I would consider voting for them. Until then they simply act as vote splitters/spoilers in my opinion. >

Pretty clear most people are disgusted with BOTH parties. >

And that sounds to me like a desperate and dishonest attempt to act like both parties are the same when one is trying to violently overthrow democracy. >

Just because one party is worse doesn't mean I can't be disgusted with the other one. Republicans being worse doesn't make Democrats good. >

If you want things to change for the better, actually get involved in the party that is not a bunch of treasonous monsters and make it better.
I have volunteered on 10 campaigns in my life. What are you up to? >

Then answer the question directly. What do you do that you think actually opposes republicans? >

Why did you describe that as opposing republicans only to go home to say that you occasionally give them your vote?
At this point it is very clear that you are just arguing in circles and I am wasting my fucking time. >

They never said they actively oppose every single republican themselves if you actually read what they said. >

And that's why there's not a third party.