This book explores a subject matter that has dominated and fascinated the research agendas of political scientists for decades—the issue of partisanship. More specifically, it addresses the puzzle of why nearly a third of Americans consider themselves to be nonpartisan or Independent. What makes this work so innovative and important is its examination of partisanship through a lens that has often gone ignored in the American politics literature—that of race, ethnicity, and immigration. Zoltan Hajnal and Taeku Lee manage to eloquently and deftly weave together the literature on race, ethnicity, and politics with an abundance of research devoted to partisanship and political behavior.

The authors ground their work in two of the most well-understood and well-established theories in the discipline—the Michigan model of partisanship and the Downsian approach to political competition. They question whether these two theories can adequately explain the partisan preferences of Americans in light of the ethnic and racial diversity that has transformed the electorate over the last 50 years. While by no means do they call for an abandonment of these two theories, they do advocate for a modification of these two schools of thought. First, instead of construing partisanship in a unidemensional fashion, Hajnal and Lee contend that party identification should be reconfigured as a two-dimensional space, with one axis capturing citizen attitudes toward political parties and the other measuring citizen attitudes toward political independence. As such, they challenge the conventional wisdom that Independents hold ideological views that are in the “middle of the road” or at the midpoint of the scale. Second, because the Michigan school emphasizes the importance of parental socialization in determining one's partisanship, the partisan choices that immigrants make cannot fully be explained by this theory.

Hajnal and Lee develop a theory of (non)partisanship that is rooted in three concepts: ideology, information, and identity. Their theory takes into account individuals' underlying motivations for choosing to identify as a nonpartisan. They argue that information uncertainty, ideological ambivalence, and identity formation are critical in shaping the partisan preferences, or nonpreferences, of individuals. In terms of information uncertainty, they argue that, because of their distinct socialization processes (e.g., parents were not born in the United States), immigrant groups such as Latinos and Asians have less information on which to base their political decisions, especially about partisanship. Given these constraints, Latinos and Asians are more likely to identify as Independents, a choice that the authors contend is a “rationally skeptical” response to an unfamiliar political environment, especially if their ideological beliefs do not fit nicely into the linear, unidimensional, left–right framework that characterizes American politics.

Ideological ambivalence accounts for the fact that most immigrants have not fully assimilated into the political concepts and institutions that define American politics. Ambivalence might also arise because immigrant groups are largely concerned with specific issues, such as those pertaining to their racial or ethnic group; as a result, they can be especially vulnerable to political change. Finally, the conception of identity formation posits that Latino and Asian social-group identities are currently in flux and that the extent to which these identities affect the political decisions of individuals varies from one context to another.

Hajnal and Lee empirically test the importance of ideology, identity, and information in the partisan choices of America's three largest ethnic and racial minority groups, as well as for Caucasian Americans. Using time series data from the American National Election Studies, they find that conventional explanations of partisanship predict Independence among Caucasian Americans fairly well, yet fails to fully account for the decision to choose Independence for the rest of the electorate.

What, then, explains the partisan decisions of African Americans? Consistent with the authors' theory, their empirical analysis reveals that African American partisan identity is driven less by ideology than by a sense of linked fate, as well as considerations about whether the mainstream parties are suitable vehicles for African Americans to pursue their collective interests. That some see little difference between the efforts of Democrats and Republicans to promote basic interests helps to explain the shift in their preferences towards Independence. Among white Americans, Independence stems from a number of factors that range from ideological extremism to ambivalence and uncertainty. These findings go against the existing research that Independents are largely apolitical and ideologically moderate.

The partisan preferences of Latinos and Asians, Hajnal and Lee contend, need to be understood in terms of a multistage, sequential process, which helps to explain why more than a third of immigrants consider themselves as Independents and nonpartisans. The first stage of the process is to determine whether or not one identifies with a party, and the second stage involves the selection of a party—Democrat, Republican, or Independent. The authors empirically estimate each stage separately using probit analysis, though other estimate strategies such as a bivariate probit approach or a selection model could also be useful. The results indicate that acculturation, years in the United States, information, and feelings of linked fate are key to moving Latinos and Asians from Independence or nonpartisanship toward a Democratic or Republican affiliation.

While Hajnal and Lee's framework of partisanship is indeed new and innovative, it will make an impact on our existing understanding of party identification only if scholars put this convincing account of partisanship into practice. The existing research on Asian and Latino partisanship has followed the conventional approach that views partisan choice as a simultaneous one (meaning that the choice of nonpartisanship is included in the set of all choices); if they are persuaded by Hajnal and Lee's argument, then scholars should move away from this model of partisanship toward this multistage approach. Furthermore, public opinion surveys that researchers rely on to study partisanship must also consistently offer a response category that better captures nonpartisanship than the ones that are currently being used (e.g., “don't know” or “not sure”). For example, the 2006 Latino National Survey questions includes a response category for saying that one does not “think of oneself” in partisan terms. Ultimately, researchers interested in fully understanding the partisan preferences of our nation's racial and ethnic minorities would do well to follow Hajnal and Lee's theory of partisanship.

The penultimate chapter examines the behavioral implications of nonpartisanship. Does the voting behavior of partisans and nonpartisans vary? Distinctions indeed exist between partisans and nonpartisans. As we would expect, Independents are not loyal to any one party, especially when compared to partisans. Among Asians, African Americans, and Latinos, the most loyal voters among nonpartisans are African Americans; nearly three-quarters of them support the Democratic candidate in national elections.

Overall, this book investigates the concept of partisanship and, in particular, nonpartisanship by focusing on the concepts of ideology, information, and identity. The authors' careful analyses of each of the major ethnic and racial groups in the nation reveal the different ways that ideology, information, and ideology operate for each group in the partisan (or nonpartisan) choices made. The significant groundwork and findings laid out in this book provide scholars numerous avenues for future research. For example, while the authors look at the concept of ideology in some of their analyses, it could be argued that they do so in a manner similar to that which they are critiquing; that is, their understanding of ideology is unidimensional and takes much for granted. Further, the use of focus groups or in-depth interviews could shed further light on the reasons that more than one-third of immigrants choose independence or nonpartisanship. It could also offer some important insights for political parties that wish to win the allegiance of these coveted groups of voters.

Why Americans Don't Join the Party is an important piece of scholarship that calls for a reexamination of one of the most important concepts in the discipline, partisanship, in light of the changing demographics of the nation. As such, this book will appeal to a wide array of scholars; those studying partisanship, race and ethnic politics, immigration, and political behavior in general would benefit greatly from this work.