The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

An independent voter, those who register as an unaffiliated voter in the United States, is a voter of a democratic country who does not align him- or herself with a political party. Independents are variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship;^[1] a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party;^[2][3] a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election;^[4][5] or a voter who self-describes as an independent.^[6]

Definition[link]

The definition of an "independent voter" is controversial and fraught with implications.

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). Furthermore, early studies of voting behavior conclusively demonstrated that self-identified independent voters are less interested in specific elections than partisan voters, poorly informed about issues and candidates, and less active politically. However, a contrary view emerged: The independent usually voted on the basis of deeply-ingrained beliefs, attitudes and loyalties, and is more like the strongly partisan voter than any other voter (or the idealized "independent").^{[6][7][8][9][10]}

By the 1960s, scholars attempted to define the independent based on behavior, rather than party identification or loyalty. Focusing on ticket splitters, these studies depicted an independent voter who had the same level of political interest as strong partisans and who voted largely based on the issues with which they strongly agreed and/or disagreed.^[4] However, by focusing on voting behavior, this definition of the independent ignored non-voters. Critics claimed that the independent voter is merely a subset of the larger set of independents, which should also include non-voters.^[1] Studies also found that voting and not-voting is deeply affected by the particular candidate running in an election. Voting, therefore, is more reflective of what candidate is running—and therefore a poor measure of partisanship.^[6][11][12]

More recently, scholars focused on self-identification as a good measure of a person's political independence. The value of self-identification as a measure of a person's political independence or partisanship is that it is seen as a proxy for the behavior which should be exhibited by the independent voter. Additionally, self-identification could be easily captured either with a nominal question ("Do you self-identify with an existing political party?", a question which is answered with a "yes" or a "no"), or by a structured ordinal question ("Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or what?").^[13] The first analyses of this measure of political independence found that there were significant differences between those individuals who self-identified as "independent" and those who listed "no preference" as to party identification.^[14] Individuals who expressed "no preference" usually exhibited low levels of interest in politics, low levels of knowledge about the candidates and issues, low frequency of voting, and less confidence in their ability to influence politics.^[1]

Although some scholars continue to conclude that self-description is the best measure of partisanship or independence,^[2] a number of studies have found debilitating problems with this measure. The nature of the voter registration system and the appearance of the ballot, the way the question reinforces a unidimensional interpretation of the political arena, the measure's failure to function in a multi-party political system, the measure's confusion of the theoretical relationship between partisanship and the intent to vote, question wording errors which confuse a social group with a political party, failure to predict policy (versus candidate) preferences, question order, and failure to measure partisanship accurately when there are sizeable differences in party size all confound accurate measurement of partisanship and independence using this measure.^{[15][16][17][18]} Even the nature of a survey instrument as a measure of partisanship and independence has been called into question.^[19]

Partisan influence[link]

To many scholars, independence seemed the flip-side of partisanship. Identifying the variables which are significant in creating partisanship would, therefore, identify the variables which are significant in creating political independence. Subsequently, a very large body of scholarship has emerged which has attempted to analyze partisanship.

Parents appear to be a primary source of political socialization and partisanship. Much of the theoretical basis for this hypothesis emerged from the fields of child psychology and social learning, which studied the ways in which children are socialized and values inculcated in them. Studies of political partisanship have found that partisanship is strongest when both parents have the same political loyalties, these loyalties are strong, both parents have similarly strong party loyalties, and parental partisanship accords with socio-economic status (for example, the wealthy are Republicans or the poor are Labour supporters).^{[20][21][22][23][24][25][26]}

Social groups are another source of partisanship. Friends, relatives, and neighbors often have the same partisan loyalties and strengths as one's parents. The more homogeneous the social group, the more likely the individual will be to develop strong partisan loyalties. When social group homogeneousness is low, the individual is likely to be less strongly socialized into partisan politics and more likely to seek a different party loyalty (whether by disengaging from partisanship or switching partisan loyalties).^{[1][21][25][26][27][28]}

Life-cycle and generational effects also contribute to partisanship. Initially, studies indicated that the operative variable was the "life-cycle." That is, a person's partisan attachments naturally grew stronger over time as weak socialization became strong and strong socialization became stronger. Additionally, theorists suggested that older voters favored certain policy preferences (such as strong government pensions and old-age health insurance) which led them to (strongly) favor one party over another.^[29] Later studies showed that the initial strong effect of the life-cycle variable was mitigated by generational effects. 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). Several studies concluded that generational effects were distinct from life-cycle effects, and that both factors were significant in creating (or not) partisanship.^{[30][31][32][24][33]}

But if generational events affected partisanship, some scholars hypothesized that lesser political, social, and economic issues might as well. Conceding that major "shocks" such as the Great Depression could realign or dealign partisanship, some scholars reasoned that a series of smaller shocks over time could also dramatically influence the direction and strength of partisanship. Many scholars became convinced that partisanship was not bedrock but shifting sand. Important childhood events (such as becoming aware of a presidential campaign) as well as events in adulthood (such as recessions, war, or shifting racial policies) could also affect the level of partisanship.^[22][34] 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.^{[25][35][36][37][28]} Applying the concept of retrospectiveness to partisanship, more recent analyses have concluded that retrospective and prospective political party success play a significant role in the direction and strength of partisanship.^{[23][38][39][39][40]}

Both repeated "minor shocks" and retrospective/prospective assessments of political party success are micro-level, rather than macro-level, variables.^[41] That is, while very important in creating political independence, they affect individuals only. For example, John may come to believe that Party XYZ is not longer effective and become an independent. Yet, Mary may come to the conclusion that Party XYZ is still effective. Both voters see the same successes and failures, but their retrospective and prospective calculus of success varies.

This has led some scholar to conclude that independence is not the flip-side of partisanship. Rather, partisanship and political independence may be two distinct variables, each of which must be measured separately and using different theoretical constructs.^{[10][31][36][42]} Other scholars have concluded that the causal direction of partisanship must be questioned. While it has long been assumed that partisanship and the strength of partisanship drive attitudes on issues,^[43] these scholars conclude that the causal relationship is reversed.^[41]

Increase of independent voters[link]

In the United States[link]

Using the self-identification method of measuring political independence, surveys found an increasing number of independent voters beginning in 1966.^[32][36] In 1952, when modern polling on the issue began, the number of independent voters nationwide was 22 percent. By 1976, the number had risen more than half, to 36 percent of the electorate. Regionally, the rise of the independent voter was even more apparent. In the non-Deep South, the number of independent voters had risen from 22 percent to 37 percent. But in the Deep South, the number of independents rose steeply from 14 percent in 1952 to 32 percent in 1976 (and would rise even further, to 35 percent, by 1984).^[2][44][45]

Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification).^[46]

But by other measures, the number of independents has not increased at all.

A very different interpretation of the last quarter century results if one distinguishes between respondents who are adamant about their independence and those who concede closeness to a party. ... In short, the vast majority of self-defined Independents are not neutral but partisan—a bit bashful about admitting it, but partisan nevertheless. Once this is recognized, the proportion of the electorate that is truly neutral between the two parties is scarcely different now than from what it was in the Eisenhower era. Moreover, because these "pure Independents" now are less inclined to vote, their share of the voting population is, if anything, a bit smaller now than in the 1950s and 1960s.^[47]

Several analyses conclude that (whether through survey error or misconceptualization of the nature of political independence) the number of independent voters has remained relatively unchanged in the United States since the 1950s.^[7][10][16]

In the United Kingdom[link]

Election results in the UK since 1987 have shown a steady increase in the numbers of people voting for independent candidates.^{[48][49][50][51]} In 1987 less than 10,000 voted for independent candidates, now that support is over 140,000 people.

Currently the UK Parliament has more Independent MPs that at any other time in its history; a total of 5.^[52] Although a couple may be described as Cross-Benchers. During the 2005 election over 160 Independents ran for election, a feat that hasn't been achieved since the 1880s.^[53]

Since the 2005 election the Independent Network has supported independent candidates in local, regional, national and European elections. At their launch, they were the first organisation of its kind; a loose association which imposed no ideological or political influence on the candidates it supported. Most importantly, the Independent Network was and is not a political party. It was real milestone in the British political landscape.

Since the Independent Network was founded, many other 'umbrella' organisations have stepped up the chase to get independent politicians elected. In 2009, the Jury Team was founded by Paul Judge, a millionaire and politician, with the hope of getting independent candidates elected to Parliament.

Reasons thereof[link]

If political independence is the flip-side of partisanship, then a decrease in a number of variables—parental socialization and homogeneousness, the strength of parental partisanship, social group socialization and homogeneousness, and the strength of social group partisanship—and the lack of a generational event should increase the level of independent voting. Additionally, an aging populace (life-cycle effects) should mitigate these effects. On the individual level, repeated minor politico-socio-economic "shocks," and changes in retrospective and prospective assessments of the chances for political party success should also be influential.

However, the evidence in this regard is mixed. For example, in the U.S., voter identification as an independent varies widely across regions as well as states. 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.), and even turnout seem to greatly affect the number of independents in a state.^[37][44] The effect of these variables is not uniform across all the states, either.^[44]

Impact[link]

Because independent voters do not have strong affectional ties to political parties, scholars who adhere to the self-identification method for measuring political independence theorize that independents may be more susceptible to the appeals of third-party candidates. It has also been suggested that the more independent voters, the more volatile elections and the political system will be.^[9] Others hypothesize that the amount of ticket-splitting will increase, leading to greater parity between the strongest political parties, an increase in the number of minor political parties (particularly "down-ballot" in state, county or local races), or possibly even a breakdown in the political party system.^[2]

However, 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. They also point out that, when independents who strongly lean toward one party are included in the same group as that party's strong partisans, there has also been little change in party loyalty since the 1950s. For example, partisan Republicans and independents who lean Republican tend to vote for Republican candidates just as frequently in the 1990s as they did in the 1950s.^[3] Indeed, in the United States, the tendency of both strong and weak partisans to vote a straight ticket in down-ballot races is even stronger than it is for presidential and congressional races.^[2]

Many scholars also point out that partisanship is only one of many variables which predict voting choice. A decline in partisanship may have little to no impact on election outcomes, and much depends on fluctuations in these other factors.^{[1][4][6][7][54]}

Realigning elections[link]

For more than half a century, the concept of a realigning election—a dramatic shift in the electoral coalition supporting the existing political system—has been an important one in political theory. First enunciated by V. O. Key, Jr. in 1955,^[55] the theory of realigning elections suggested that certain "critical elections" created sudden, massive shifts in the electorate. 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. Scholars also hypothesized that realigning elections rejuvenated public support for the political system, which helped explain the relative stability of American political structures.^[26][56] In time, scholars refined the theory somewhat. The concept of "secular realignment" was developed to account for gradual shifts in politics which had similar effects (eventually) to a critical realigning election. Some studies concluded that "secular realignment" came in short, jerky, periods called "punctuations."^[57][58] Initially, the concept of a realigning election was monolithic, that is, the effects were believed to be national in effect. 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).^{[32][39][58][59]}

But with the "rise of the independent voter" and no realigning election, scholars developed the theory of the "dealigning election." In the dealigning election, all political parties lose support as partisanship decreases and political independence rises. Split-ticket voting and issue-oriented voting increase, leading to political volatility. Divided government (one party controls the executive branch, while another controls the legislature) becomes the norm.^{[32][36][39][45][60]}

A number of scholars have dismissed the theory of realignment and dealignment, however. They argue that the concept is vague and the data do not support mass change in electoral behavior.^[61] The large number of qualifications which must be made to the theory of critical elections has rendered it useless, it is argued.^[62] The theory of secular realignment has been particularly criticized. The replacement of elderly voters (who die) with a new generation of voters (who come of age and are eligible to vote) is normal, not a unique and irregular "punctuation" or "surge," it is claimed.^[31][63] Still other scholars claim there are no regional dealignment variations^[64] while others argue that the concept of realignment and dealignment is no longer useful in an era in which political parties are no longer very important in the political system.^[65]

Impact of dealignment[link]

Scholars^[who?]who conclude that there has been a significant rise in independent voting and a concomitant dealignment of the American political system also often conclude that democracy has suffered as a result.

These scholars argue that political parties play a critical supportive role in democracies. 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. These functions, it is claimed cannot otherwise be accomplished, and democracies collapse without them. Only political parties serve these roles.^[9][66]

Dealignment—the rise in the number of independent voters—has an extremely deleterious effect on democracy, these scholars claim. Dealignment leads to the rise of candidate-centered elections in which parties and ideologies play little part^{[citation needed]}. Without parties, candidates rely ever-more heavily on mass media for communication, political action committees (PACs) for funds, special interest groups for staff, and political consultants for expertise. The increasing reliance on mass communication leads to a withering of political discourse as the sound bite and an emphasis on the horse-race aspect of politics becomes the norm. This limits the amount and kind of information the public receives, leading to less choice for voters. When voters can stay at home and watch television rather than participate in civic life, the public no longer perceives the need to become involved in democracy—and so the civic life of the democracy withers. As PACs and interest groups become more important, the number of people speaking to the public, providing political information and different political choices and views, declines^{[citation needed]}. Additionally, PAC and interest group spokespeople may not be representative of the public or the groups they claim to speak for, creating disenfranchisement of various (often minority) groups. As independent voting and ticket-splitting rise, parties seek to insulate themselves from the whipsaw effect of elections. The power of incumbency becomes increasingly important, and accessibility by the public declines. Parties seek increasingly moderate positions in order to stay electorally viable, further limiting political choice ("both parties look and sound the same"). As the parties distance themselves from the average voter and seem to offer limited policy options, dealignment worsens^{[citation needed]}. 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. Politics becomes increasingly volatile, with first one party and then another governing. Although parties once held politicians accountable for their actions, their increasing irrelevance in politics leads to a decline in accountability (and thus even less responsiveness and less democracy). The "Imperial Presidency" becomes more important, since single officeholders with great power become the only politicians capable of governing.^[67][68]

Other scholars conclude that dealignment has not harmed democracy. Political parties have adapted to the realities of large numbers of independent voters, it is argued. The candidate-centered election has actually revitalized parties, and led to new party structures and behaviors which have allowed parties to survive in the age of mass communication.^[69] 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.^[70]

Yet another strain of thought has concluded that "realignment" is occurring. The slow "secular realignment" is not yet over, these scholars say. Regional differences in the level and impact of dealignment simply point up the fact that major shifts in political coalitions are occurring. Slowly but surely, these studies conclude, realignment is happening and will be obvious within a generation. 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.^[60]

See also[link]

• Independence Party (various political parties)
• Independent (politician), a politician who is not affiliated with any political party.
• Independent Party (various political parties)
• Swinging voter, a voter who may not be affiliated with a particular political party or who will vote across party lines.
• Unaffiliated (New Jersey), a voter in New Jersey who has not affiliated with a political party prior to voting in a primary. A person is automatically affiliated with a party once they have voted in that party's primary.
• Unenrolled voter - In the U.S., this is a voter who has not declared their voting intention. In most of the rest of the world, this is a person who is not registered to vote.

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Abramowitz, Alan I. and Saunders, Kyle L. "Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate." Journal of Politics. August 1998.
• Abramson, Paul R. "Developing Party Identification: A Further Examination of Life-Cycle, Generational, and Period Effects." American Journal of Political Science. February 1979.
• Abramson, Paul R. "Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification in America: 1952-1974." American Political Science Review. June 1976.
• Abramson, Paul R.; Aldrich, John H.; and Rohde, David W. Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections. Paperback ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005. ISBN 1-933116-69-2
• Achen, Christopher H. "Parental Socialization and Rational Party Identification." Journal of Political Behavior.June 2002.
• Aldrich, John H. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Paperback ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. ISBN 0-226-01272-7
• Allsop, Dee and Weisberg, Herbert F. "Measuring Change in Party Identification in an Election Campaign." American Journal of Political Science. November 1988.
• Alvarez, R. Michael. "The Puzzle of Party Identification: Dimensionality of an Important Concept." American Politics Research. October 1990.
• Ambinder, Marc. "A Nation of Free Agents." Washington Post. September 3, 2006.
• Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursh-César, Gerald. Survey Research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981. ISBN 0-471-02543-7
• Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. ISBN 0-13-816744-3
• Bartle, John. "Improving the Measurement of Party Identification in Britain." In British Elections & Parties Review. Philip Cowley, David Denver, Justin Fisher and Andrew Russell, eds. London: Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0-7146-5015-9
• Beck, Paul Allen. "Partisan Dealignment in the Postwar South." American Political Science Review. June 1977.
• Beck, Paul Allen and Jennings, M. Kent. "Family Traditions, Political Periods, and the Development of Partisan Orientations." Journal of Politics. August 1991.
• Beck, Paul Allen and Jennings, M. Kent. "Parents As 'Middlepersons' in Political Socialization." Journal of Politics. February 1975.
• Berry, Jeffrey M. and Wilcox, Clyde. The Interest Group Society. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2006. ISBN 0-321-43015-8
• Billingsley, Keith R. and Tucker, Clyde. "Generations, Status and Party Identification: A Theory of Operant Conditioning." Journal Political Behavior. December 1987.
• Bishop, George F.; Tuchfarber, Alfred J.; and Oldendick, Robert W. "Change in the Structure of American Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording." American Journal of Political Science. May 1978.
• Brody, Richard and Page, Benjamin I. "Comment: Assessment of Policy Voting." American Political Science Review. June 1972.
• Brody, Richard A. and Rothenberg, Lawrence S. "The Instability of Partisanship: An Analysis of the 1980 Presidential Election." British Journal of Political Science. October 1988.
• Buckley, Kara Z. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. 4th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. ISBN 0-7425-2670-4
• Bullock III, Charles S.; Hoffman, Donna R.; and Gaddie, Ronald Keith. "Regional Variations in the Realignment of American Politics, 1944-2004." Social Science Quarterly. September 2006.
• Burnham, Walter Dean. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. Paperback ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1971. ISBN 0-393-09397-2
• Campbell, Angus; Converse, Phillip E.; Miller, Warren E.; and Stokes, Donald E. The American Voter. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1960.
• Campbell, David E. "The Young and the Realigning: A Test of the Socialization Theory of Realignment." Public Opinion Quarterly. Summer 2002.
• Campbell, James E. "Party Systems and Realignments in the United States, 1868-2004." Social Science History. Fall 2006.
• Campbell, James E. "The Revised Theory of Surge and Decline." American Journal of Political Science. November 1987.
• Carmines, Edward G.; McIver, John P.; and Stimson, James A. "Unrealized Partisanship: A Theory of Dealignment." Journal of Politics. May 1987.
• Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A. "Issue Evolution, Population Replacement, and Normal Partisan Change." American Political Science Review. March 1981.
• Carsey, Thomas M. and Layman, Geoffrey C. "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate." American Journal of Political Science. April 2006.
• Cassel, Carol A. "A Test of Converse's Theory of Party Support." Journal of Politics. August 1993.
• Chaffee, Steven H.; McLeod, Jack M.; and Wackman, Daniel B. "Family Communication Patterns and Adolescent Participation." In Socialization to Politics: A Reader. Jack Dennis, ed. New York: Wiley. 1973. ISBN 0-471-20926-0
• Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E. "Realignment and Institutionalization." In New Directions in American Politics. John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson, eds. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1985. ISBN 0-8157-1405-X
• Claggett, William. "Partisan Acquisition vs. Partisan Intensity: Life-Cycle, Generational, and Period Effects." American Journal of Political Science. 1981.
• Clarke, Harold D. and Kornberg, Allan. "Support for the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party Since 1988: The Impact of Economic Evaluations and Economic Issues." Canadian Journal of Political Science. March 1992.
• Clarke, Harold D. and Suzuki, Motoshi. "Partisan Dealignment and the Dynamics of Independence in the American Electorate, 1953-88." British Journal of Political Science. January 1994.
• Clubb, Jerome M.; Flanigan, William H.; and Zingale, Nancy H. Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties, and Government in American History. Rev. ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990. ISBN 0-8133-1031-8
• Converse, Philip E. The Dynamics of Party Support. Beverly Hills, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1976. ISBN 0-8039-0727-3
• Converse, Philip E. and Pierce, Roy. "Partisanship and the Party System." Political Behavior. September 1992.
• Cowden, Jonathan A. "Southernization of the Nation and Nationalization of the South: Racial Conservatism, Social Welfare and White Partisans in the United States, 1956-92." British Journal of Political Science. April 2001.
• Dalton, Russell J.; McAllister, Ian; and Wattenberg, Martin P. "The Consequences of Partisan Dealignment." Parties Without Partisans. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-19-924082-5
• Dennis, Jack. "Political Independence in America, Part I: On Being an Independent Partisan Supporter." British Journal of Political Science. January 1988.
• DeVries, Walter and Tarrance, Lance. The Ticket Splitter. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972.
• Eldersveld, Samuel J. and Walton, Hanes. Political Parties in American Society. 2d ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. ISBN 0-312-22688-8
• Finkel, Steven E. and Opp, Karl-Dieter. "Party Identification and Participation in Collective Political Action." Journal of Politics. May 1991.
• Finkel, Steven E. and Scarrow, Howard A. "Party Identification and Party Enrollment: The Difference and the Consequences." Journal of Politics. June 1985.
• Fiorina, Morris. Divided Government. Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan, 1992. ISBN 0-02-337760-7
• Fiorina, Morris. "Parties and Partisanship: A 40-Year Retrospective." Journal of Political Behavior. June 2002.
• Fiorina, Morris P. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981. ISBN 0-300-02557-2
• Flanigan, William H. and Zingale, Nancy H. Political Behavior of the American Electorate. 6th ed. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Publishers, 1988. ISBN 0-697-06796-3
• Franklin, Charles H. and Jackson, John E. "The Dynamics of Party Identification." American Political Science Review. December 1983.
• Giles, Michael W. and Hertz, Kaenan. "Racial Threat and Partisan Identification." American Political Science Review. June 1994.
• Goldberg, Arthur S. "Social Determinism and Rationality As Bases of Party Identification." American Political Science Review. March 1969.
• Green, Donald; Palmquist, Bradley; and Schickler, Eric. Partisan Hearts and Minds. Paperback ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-300-10156-2
• Green, Donald Philip. "On the Dimensionality of Public Sentiment Toward Partisan and Ideological Groups." American Journal of Political Science. August 1988.
• Green, John C. and Coffey, Daniel J. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties. 5th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. ISBN 0-7425-5322-1
• Green, John C. and Herrnson, Paul S. Responsible Partisanship?: The Evolution of American Political Parties Since 1950. Paperback ed. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas, 2003. ISBN 0-7006-1217-3
• Greene, Steven. "Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach." Political Psychology. June 1999.
• Hart, Roderick P. Campaign Talk. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-691-00126-X
• Hart, Roderick P. Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter. Rev. ed. Beverly Hills, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1998. ISBN 0-7619-1624-5
• Heath, Anthony and Pierce, Roy. "It Was Party Identification All Along: Question Order Effects on Reports of Party Identification in Britain." Electoral Studies. June 1992.
• Hershey, Marjorie. Party Politics in America. 12th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. ISBN 0-321-41491-8
• Hess, Robert D. and Torney, Judith V. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
• Hetherington, Marc J. and Keefe, William J. Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. 10th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2006. ISBN 1-933116-79-X
• Holbert, R. Lance. "Television News Viewing, Governmental Scope, and Postmaterialist Spending: Assessing Mediation By Partisanship." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. December 2005.
• Huckfeldt, Robert; Levine, Jeffrey; Morgan, William; and Sprague, John. "Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations." American Journal of Political Science. July 1999.
• Huddy, Leonie. "From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory." Political Psychology. March 2001.
• Jacoby, William G. "The Impact of Party Identification on Issue Attitudes." American Journal of Political Science. August 1988.
• Jennings, M. Kent and Markus, Gregory B. "Partisan Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three-Wave Political Socialization Panel Study." American Political Science Review. December 1984.
• Johnston, Richard. "Party Identification Measures in the Anglo-American Democracies: A National Survey Experiment." American Journal of Political Science. May 1992.
• Kamieniecki, Sheldon. Party Identification, Political Behavior, and the American Electorate. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985. ISBN 0-313-24358-1
• Keith, Bruce E.; Magleby, David B.; Nelson, Candice J.; Orr, Elizabeth; Westlye, Mark C.; and Wolfinger, Raymond E. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1992. ISBN 0-520-07720-1
• Key Jr., V.O. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.
• Key, Jr., V.O. "Secular Realignment and the Party System." Journal of Politics. May 1959.
• Key, Jr., V.O. "A Theory of Critical Elections." Journal of Politics. February 1955.
• King, Anthony. The New American Political System. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1990. ISBN 0-8447-3710-0
• Knoke, David and Hout, Michael. "Social and Demographic Factors in American Political Party Affiliations, 1952-72." American Sociological Review. October 1974.
• Ladd, Everett Carll. "Like Waiting for Godot: The Uselessness of 'Realignment' for Understanding Change in Contemporary American Politics." In The End of Realignment? Interpreting American Electoral Eras. Byron E. Shafer, ed. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. ISBN 0-299-12974-8
• Ladd, Carll Everett. "The 1994 Congressional Elections: The Postindustrial Realignment Continues." Political Science Quarterly. Spring 1995.
• Ladd, Everett C. and Hadley, Charles D. "Party Definition and Party Differentiation." Public Opinion Quarterly. Spring 1973.
• Lawrence, David G. "On the Resurgence of Party Identification in the 1990s." In American Political Parties: Decline or Resurgence? Jeffrey E. Cohen, Richard Fleisher, and Paul Kantor, eds. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001. ISBN 1-56802-585-8
• Levine, Myron. Presidential Campaigns and Elections: Issues and Images in the Media Age. 2d ed. Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers, 1995. ISBN 0-87581-394-1
• Lilleker, Darren. Key Concepts in Political Communication. Paperback ed. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2006. ISBN 1-4129-1831-6
• Lockerbie, Brad. "Change in Party Identification: The Role of Prospective Economic Evaluations." American Politics Research. July 1989.
• Lockerbie, Brad. "Party Identification: Constancy and Change." American Politics Research. December 2002.
• Mackay, David. Essentials of American Politics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8133-6755-7
• Maisel, Louis Sandy, ed. The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns. 4th ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8133-6455-8
• Mayhew, David R. Electoral Realignments. Paperback ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-300-09365-9
• McAllister, Ian and Watternberg, Martin P. "Measuring Levels of Party Identification: Does Question Order Matter?" Public Opinion Quarterly. Summer 1995.
• McSweeney, Dean and Zvesper, John. American Political Parties. New York: Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0-415-01169-8
• Miller, Warren E. "Party identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics." American Political Science Review. June 1991.
• Miller, Arthur H. and Wattenberg, Martin P. "Measuring Party Identification: Independent or No Partisan Preference?" American Journal of Political Science. February 1983.
• Nardulli, Peter F. "The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change." American Political Science Review. March 1995.
• Niemi, Richard G. and M. Kent Jennings. "Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification." American Journal of Political Science. November 1991.
• Norpoth, Helmut and Rusk, Jerrold G. "Electoral Myth and Reality: Realignments in American Politics." Electoral Studies. June 2007.
• Norpoth, Helmut and Rusk, Jerrold G. "Partisan Dealignment in the American Electorate: Itemizing the Deductions Since 1964." American Political Science Review. September 1982.
• Norrander, Barbara. "Explaining Cross-State Variation in Independent Identification." American Journal of Political Science. May 1989.
• Page, Benjamin I. and Jones, Calvin C. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote." American Political Science Review. December 1979.
• Paulson, Arthur. Realignment and Party Revival: Understanding American Electoral Politics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger Publishers, 2000. ISBN 0-275-96865-0
• Petrocik, John R. "An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification." Political Methodology. Summer 1974.
• Pomper, Gerald. "The Classification of Presidential Elections." Journal of Politics. August 1967.
• Pomper, Gerald. Voter's Choice: Varieties of American Electoral Behavior. Rev ed. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1983. ISBN 0-8191-3188-1
• Pomper, Gerald. Voters, Elections and Parties: The Practice of Democratic Theory. Paperback ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1988. ISBN 1-56000-561-0
• Prior, Markus. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-85872-0
• Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Paperback ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-7432-0304-6
• Putz, David W. "Partisan Conversion in the 1990s: Ideological Realignment Meets Measurement Theory." Journal of Politics. November 2002.
• Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties. Paperback ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. ISBN 0-7425-0888-9
• Rosenof, Theodore. Realignment: The Theory that Changed the Way We Think About American Politics. Paperback ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-7425-3105-8
• Sabato, Larry J. and Larson, Bruce. The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 2001. ISBN 0-321-08912-X
• Sears, David O. and Valentino, Nicholas A. "Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for Preadult Socialization." American Political Science Review. March 1997.
• Shea, Daniel M. "The Passing of Realignment and the Advent of the 'Base-less' Party System." American Politics Research. March 1999.
• Shively, W. Phillips. "The Development of Party Identification Among Adults: Exploration of a Functional Model." American Political Science Review. December 1979.
• Sinclair, Barbara. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Paperback ed. Stillwater, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. ISBN 0-8061-3779-7
• Smith, Steven S. Party Influence in Congress. Paperback ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-70387-5
• Sorauf, Frank J. and Beck, Paul Allen. Party Politics in America. 6th ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1988. ISBN 0-673-38750-5
• Sundquist, James L. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1983. ISBN 0-8157-8225-X
• Thurber, James A. and Nelson, Candice J., eds. Campaigns and Elections American Style. 2d ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8133-4181-7
• Tubbesing, Carl D. "Predicting the Present: Realigning Elections and Redistributive Policies." Polity. Summer 1975.
• Valentino, Nicholas, and Sears, David O.. "Event-Driven Political Socialization and the Preadult Socialization of Partisanship." Political Behavior. July 1998.
• Wattenberg, Martin P. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-19435-7
• Wattenberg, Martin P. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-674-77130-3
• Weakliem, David and Heath, Anthony. "Regional Differences in Class Dealignment: A Comment on Johnston and Pattie." Political Geography. November 1995.
• Wolfinger, Raymond E. "The Promising Adolescence of Campaign Surveys." In Campaigns and Elections American Style. James A. Thurber and Candice J. Nelson, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1995. ISBN 0-8133-1966-8
• Wong, J.S. "The Effects of Age and Political Exposure on the Development of Party Identification Among Asian American and Latino Immigrants in the United States." Political Behavior. December 2000.

External links[link]

• The Independent Activist
• DCIndependents.org — Washington, D.C.
• IndependentVoice.org
• Independent Digest
• The Neo Independent
• Independent Voting.Org
• Independent Voters Center

Bill Maher
Maher at a ceremony to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in September 2010
Birth name	William Maher, Jr.
Born	(1956-01-20) January 20, 1956 (age 56) New York, New York, U.S.
Medium	Stand-up, television, film, books
Nationality	American
Years active	1979–present
Genres	Satire, Political satire, News satire, Observational comedy
Subject(s)	American politics, current events, American culture, pop culture, freedom of speech, environmentalism, religion, human sexuality, recreational drug use, libertarianism, American liberalism, American conservatism
Influences	Steve Allen, George Carlin, Johnny Carson, David Frost, Robert Klein, Don Rickles, Gore Vidal, Lenny Bruce
Notable works and roles	Elliot on Charlie Hoover Host of Politically Incorrect Host of Real Time with Bill Maher Religulous
Website	BillMaher.com

William "Bill" Maher, Jr. ( /ˈmɑːr/; born January 20, 1956) is an American stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, author, and actor. Before his current role as the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher hosted a similar late-night talk show called Politically Incorrect originally on Comedy Central and later on ABC.

Maher is known for his political satire and sociopolitical commentary, which targets a wide swath of topics including religion, politics, bureaucracies of many kinds, political correctness, the mass media, greed among people and persons in positions of high political and social power, and the lack of intellectual curiosity in the electorate.^[1] He supports the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage, and serves on the board of PETA.^[2] He is also a critic of religion and is an advisory board member of Project Reason, a foundation to promote scientific knowledge and secular values within society.^[3] In 2005, Maher ranked at number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time.^[4] Bill Maher received a Hollywood Walk of Fame star on September 14, 2010.^[5]

Early life and education[link]

Maher was born in New York City, the son of Julie (née Berman), a nurse, and William Maher, Sr., a network news editor and radio announcer.^[6] He was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, remaining unaware that his mother was Jewish until his early teenage years.^{[7][8][9][10]} Due to Maher's father's disagreement with the Catholic Church's position on birth control, he stopped taking Maher and his sister to Catholic church services when Maher was thirteen.^[11]

Maher was raised in River Vale, New Jersey, and graduated from Pascack Hills High School in Montvale in 1974. He received a B.A. in English and history from Cornell University in 1978.^[12]

Early career[link]

Maher began his career as a stand-up comedian and actor. He was host of the New York City comedy club Catch a Rising Star in 1979. Thanks to Steve Allen, he began appearing on Johnny Carson's and David Letterman's shows in 1982. He made limited television appearances including a recurring role in Sara (1985), appeared in Max Headroom (1987), two separate appearances on Murder, She Wrote (1989, 1990), a recurring role in Charlie Hoover (1991) and other productions. He has also appeared in several films, usually in a comic role. His feature film debut was in D.C. Cab (1983), and he also appeared in Ratboy (1986) Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1988) and Pizza Man (1991), among others.

Television career[link]

[edit] Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher

Maher assumed the host role Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, a late-night political talk show that ran on Comedy Central from 1993 to 1997 and on ABC from 1997 to 2002. The show regularly began with a topical monologue by Maher preceding the introduction of four guests, usually a diverse group of individuals from show business, popular culture, political pundits, political consultants, authors, and occasionally news figures. The group would discuss topical issues selected by Maher, who also participated in the discussions.^[13] Jerry Seinfeld, a regular guest on the show, stated that Politically Incorrect reminded him of talk shows from the 1950s and 60s "when guests interacted with each other as much as with the host."^[14]

Politically Incorrect won an array of awards, including an Emmy Award for Outstanding Technical Direction, two CableACE awards for Best Talk Show Series, and a Genesis Award for Best Television Talk Show. Maher earned numerous award nominations for his producing, writing and hosting of Politically Incorrect, including ten Emmy nominations, two TV Guide nominations, and two Writers Guild nominations. ABC decided against renewing Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002, after he made a controversial on-air remark shortly after the September 11 attacks.^[15] He agreed with his guest, conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza, that the 9/11 terrorists did not act in a cowardly manner (in rebuttal to President Bush's statement calling 9/11 hijackers cowards). Maher said, "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right." Maher later clarified that his comment was not anti-military in any way whatsoever, referencing his well-documented longstanding support for the American military.^[16][17][18]

In the context of the attacks, some corporate advertisers found the comment too insensitive and controversial. Several companies, including FedEx and Sears Roebuck, pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned.

The show was cancelled on June 16, 2002, and the Sinclair Broadcast Group had dropped the show from its ABC-affiliated stations months prior. On June 22, 2002, just six days after the cancellation of Politically Incorrect, Maher received the Los Angeles Press Club president's award (for "championing free speech"). Maher was on the board of judges one year for the PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.

Maher's remarks after 9/11 were not the first time he had sparked controversy on Politically Incorrect. In the same year, Maher was widely criticized for comparing dogs to retarded children. He apologized for his comments.^[19]

[edit] Real Time with Bill Maher

In 2003, Maher became the host, co-producer and co-writer of Real Time with Bill Maher, a weekly hour-long political comedy talk show on the cable television network HBO. During an interview, Maher told Terry Gross (on NPR's Fresh Air) that he much prefers having serious and well-informed guests on his program, as opposed to the random celebrities that fleshed out his roundtable discussions on Politically Incorrect.^[20]

As with his previous show, Politically Incorrect, Maher begins Real Time with a comic opening monologue based upon current events and other topical issues. He proceeds to a one-on-one interview with a guest, either in-studio or via satellite. Following the interview, Maher sits with three panelists, usually consisting of pundits, authors, activists and journalists, for a discussion of the week's events. In the segment "New Rules" at the end of each show, Maher delivers a humorous editorial on popular culture and American politics.

In late May 2005, Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus sent a letter to Time Warner's board of directors requesting Real Time be cancelled after remarks Maher made after noting the military had missed its recruiting goals by 42 percent. Bachus said he felt the comments were demeaning to the military and treasonous. Maher stated his highest regard and support for the troops and asked why the congressman criticized him instead of doing something about the recruitment problem.^[21]

Real Time has earned widespread praise. It has been nominated for more than ten Primetime Emmy Awards and six Writer's Guild awards. In 2007, Maher and his co-producers were awarded the Television Producer of the Year Award in Variety Television by the Producers Guild of America.^[22] Maher holds the record for the most Emmy nominations without a win, having been nominated on 22 occasions and not winning once. Eleven of the nominations were for Politically Incorrect, while nine were for Real Time. The other two were nominations for two of his HBO comedy specials: Bill Maher: I'm Swiss and Bill Maher: The Decider.^[23]

HBO announced in July 2011 the show was renewed for a tenth season.^[24]

Christine O'Donnell[link]

On September 17, 2010, Maher aired a clip of Delaware Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell from the October 29, 1999 episode of his old show Politically Incorrect on his current show Real Time with Bill Maher,^[25][26] where she discussed that she had "dabbled in witchcraft." This was one of the most notable of numerous controversial statements by O'Donnell that made her the most covered candidate in the 2010 mid-term election cycle.^[27][28]

Political commentator[link]

Maher is a frequent commentator on various cable news networks, namely CNN, MSNBC, and HLN. Maher has regularly appeared on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer^[29] and has also been a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews,^[30] The Rachel Maddow Show^[31] and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.^[32] Maher has also appeared as a guest on HLN's The Joy Behar Show.^[33]

Maher hosted the January 13, 2006 edition of Larry King Live, on which he was a frequent guest. Maher appeared as a special guest on the June 29, 2010 edition of the show, on which CNN anchor Larry King announced his retirement.^[34] Maher co-emceed the final show of Larry King Live on December 16, 2010 with Ryan Seacrest.^[35]

Since May 2005, he has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.

Views and beliefs[link]

Politics[link]

Maher and Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA. Maher is on the board of directors of the animal rights group.

Maher eschews political labels, referring to himself as "practical".^[36] In the past, he has described himself as a libertarian and has also referred to himself "as a progressive, as a sane person".^[37][38]

Maher favors a partial privatization of Social Security, ending corporate welfare and federal funding of non-profits, and legalization of gambling, prostitution, and marijuana. Maher is a member of the advisory boards for both the NORML and Marijuana Policy Project, organizations which support regulated legalization of marijuana.^[39][40] He describes himself as an environmentalist, and he has spoken in favor of the Kyoto treaty on global warming on his show Real Time. He often criticizes industry figures involved in environmental pollution.^[41]

Maher is a board member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Before the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Maher became candid in his stated opposition to the re-election of George W. Bush and in his support for John Kerry.^[42]

Known for protesting against the demonization of the word "liberal", during the campaign Maher criticized Kerry for being ashamed of the word. On his show, the comedian has noted the paradox of people claiming they distrusted "elite" politicians while at the same time wanting elite doctors to treat them and elite lawyers to represent them in court.^[43] Maher supports the death penalty. Since the 9/11 attacks, he has endorsed the use of racial profiling at airports.^[44]

He was originally against the Iraq War, and has summarized his opinion by saying that the United States and the world have had to pay too high a price for the war. He is skeptical of Iraq surviving without civil war.^[45]

In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Maher announced his support for Barack Obama.^[46] Although Maher welcomed Obama's electoral victory, he has subjected him to criticism once in office for not acting boldly on health care reform and other progressive issues.^[47]

On February 23, 2012, after his 'Crazy Stupid Politics' special streamed on Yahoo! Screen, Maher announced that he was contributing $1 million to Priorities USA, the Obama SuperPAC.^[48][49]

Religion[link]

Maher is highly critical of religion, and views it as not worth the bother. He has referred to himself as an apatheist - a pragmatic atheist - on Scarborough Country on April 24, 2007, and again in July 2011.^[50][51] He has reiterated this stance in subsequent interviews, rejecting both the certitude of the existence, as well as the certitude of nonexistence of deities, concluding, "I'm saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings."^[52] He is an advisory board member of author Sam Harris's Project Reason, a foundation that promotes scientific knowledge and secular values within society.

Maher and director Larry Charles teamed up to make the feature film Religulous (2008), described by trade publication Variety as a documentary "that spoofs religious extremism across the world." It was released on October 3, 2008.^[53][54]

While Maher is critical towards Christianity, he is an outspoken critic of religion as a whole, including Islam. On October 29, 2010, during a Real Time segment, Maher commented on a news story saying that the name Mohammed had become the most popular baby name in the United Kingdom. He asked, "Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? Sharia law is being institutionalized in England? Well, then I am right, I should be alarmed."^[55] He later defended his comments on CNN, saying, "And when I say Westerner, I mean someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not. Like separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather. These things are not just different from cultures that don’t have them. ... It’s better. ... I would like to keep those values here." ^[56]

Maher received the Richard Dawkins Award for 2009 from Atheist Alliance International "for his efforts to further the values science and reason in the world."^[57]

Maher was ranked first by MormonVoices, a group associated with Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, on its Top Ten Anti-Mormon Statements of 2011 list for saying "By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion".^[58]

Health care[link]

Maher has stated that the AMA is a powerful lobbying group and one of the primary reasons why the United States had failed to enact health care reform.^{[59][dead link][60]}

On August 24, 2009, Maher was a guest on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. On the topic of getting health care reform legislation passed, Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, "he only needs 51." "Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent — sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country — he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them."^[61]

Maher has expressed the view that most illness is generally the result of poor diet and lack of exercise, and that medicine is often not the best way of addressing illness. In an episode of his show about the 2008 presidential candidates' health plans, Maher stated that poor nutrition is a primary cause of illness, and that "the answer isn't another pill."^[62] He also has said:" If you believe you need to take all the pills the pharmaceutical industry says you do, then you're already on drugs!"^[63]

He has expressed his distaste for the pharmaceutical and health care industries in general, on the grounds that they make their money out of curing people who are made sick by consuming unhealthy food that corporations urge upon the public. He maintains that mass consumption of high-fructose corn syrup is a contributor to the rise in frequency of obesity in the United States.^[64]

In a discussion with Michael Moore about the film Sicko, Maher said, "The human body is pretty amazing; it doesn't get sick, usually, for no reason. I mean, there's some genetic stuff that can get to you, but, basically, people are sick in this country because they're poisoned. The environment is a poisoning factor, but also, we gotta say, they poison themselves. They eat shit. People eat shit, and that's, to my way of thinking, about 90 percent of why people are sick, is because they eat shit. Would you agree?"^[65]

On October 9, 2009, on his HBO show, Maher debated the effectiveness of flu vaccinations with Bill Frist and stated, "Why would you let them be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine or any vaccine. I don’t trust the government, especially with my health." Maher also expressed skepticism about the seriousness of the swine flu and whether completely healthy people could die from it. His comments have generated criticism, and his remarks have been called unscientific and even harmful.^[66]

Maher responded to the criticism, noting, "What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."^[67]

He supports the current abortion laws and giving the terminally ill the right to assisted suicide.

Criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories[link]

Maher has been a critic of 9/11 conspiracy theories. On October 19, 2007, Maher confronted several 9/11 truthers and had them ejected from his show audience after they interrupted the live show numerous times by calling out from the audience. The incident drew significant media attention and praise from Fox News talk show host and frequent critic John Gibson.^[68]

Personal life[link]

Maher has never married. In 2003, he began dating former Playboy Cyber Girl Coco Johnsen. In November 2004, at the end of their 17-month relationship, she sued him for USD $9 million for "pain and suffering" for alleged "insulting, humiliating and degrading racial comments." Her suit^[69] stated that Maher promised to marry her and father her children, support her financially, and purchase a Beverly Hills home. Her suit also alleged that she quit her job as a flight attendant and occasional model to be with him. Maher's lawyers in their response filed on November 23, 2004, in Los Angeles Superior Court said Maher is a "confirmed bachelor, and a very public one at that" who "never promised to marry [Johnsen] or to have children with her."^[70]

Maher's filing stated that, after the relationship had ended, Johnsen "launched a campaign to embarrass, humiliate, and extort ridiculous sums of money from Bill Maher." Johnsen accused another former boyfriend of rape and kidnapping in 1997, and the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence.^[71] Her lawsuit against Maher was dismissed on May 2, 2005.

Maher next to his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in September 2010

Maher enjoys his bachelor status and states that he does not want to get married. On his website, he is quoted as saying, "I'm the last of my guy friends to have never gotten married, and their wives — they don't want them playing with me. I'm like the escaped slave — I bring news of freedom."^[72]

In 2005, he began dating Karrine Steffans, best-selling author and former hip hop model.^[73][74][75] When commentators suggested there was a pattern to his dating because both his girlfriend and former girlfriend were black, Maher said, "People say I'm into black women. Robert De Niro is into black women. I'm just into women who are real, and they happen to be black."^[74]

From 2009 to 2011, Maher dated the neuroscientist and science educator Cara Santa Maria.^[76]

Credits[link]

Bibliography[link]

• True Story : A Novel, 1994 (ISBN 0-7432-4251-3)
• Does Anybody Have a Problem With That? Politically Incorrect's Greatest Hits, 1996 (ISBN 0-679-45627-9)
• Does Anybody Have a Problem with That? The Best of Politically Incorrect, 1997 (ISBN 0-345-41281-8)
• When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on Terrorism, 2003 (ISBN 1-893224-90-2)
• Keep the Statue of Liberty Closed: The New Rules, 2004 (ISBN 1-932407-47-2)
• New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer, 2005 (ISBN 1-59486-295-8)
• The New New Rules: A Funny Look at How Everybody but Me Has Their Head Up Their Ass, 2011 (ISBN 0-39915-841-3)

Filmography[link]

References[link]