For those who view the political world in purely blue and red hues, the post-election world must be a terribly confusing place. 

Beyond the unexpected gains Donald Trump made among certain demographics, there’s plenty of evidence that the usual partisan tendencies of certain voters aren’t nearly as strong as they once were. 

For example, voters in the key swing states of Arizona and Nevada not only voted to send Trump back to the White House, but they also voted to advance protections for abortion access — two electoral outcomes that seem as if they should be at odds with one another. As a report in The Nevada Independent put it last week, the fact that such popularity for abortion access didn’t give a substantial boost to Democrats this year is a bit of a “conundrum.”

Perhaps part of the explanation could be that voters actually believed Trump when he expressed opposition to a national abortion ban on the campaign trail. Or, maybe, voters simply believed their state-level protections would shield them from the worst impulses of the Republican Party’s more extreme pro-life policy positions. 

It’s also possible that Vice President Kamala Harris was such an insufferably weak candidate, even some voters showing up to the polls for purely “progressive” reasons couldn’t be bothered to give her their endorsement.

Regardless, one thing that’s certain to mystify both parties moving forward is that a great many voters are seemingly no longer corralled by the sort of traditional partisan expectations that were once so prominent in electoral politics. Trump may have won the Silver State, for example, but voters weren’t as keen to replace Democrats in the House or the Senate. Voters also gave their initial approval to a Voter ID ballot question in Nevada and ensured our Republican governor retained his veto ability — two additional election results that traditionally would have been an affront to the political sensibilities of an electorate anxious to strengthen access to abortion. 

In other words, voters in swing states like Nevada were more than willing to split their tickets between the progressive and conservative issues, candidates and proposals on the ballot, leaving political pundits, prognosticators and strategists to wonder: What does all of this mean? 

Well, for starters, it means the sort of party-driven tactics that used to dominate politics may no longer be as effective as they once were now that true independents are growing in numbers and the coalitions within each party are shifting. 

However, it also means we may have to confront the possibility that our two-party system is doing an abhorrent job of representing most people’s political views with a binary “us or them” approach to today’s complex amalgamation of social and economic challenges. 

Once upon a time, the somewhat disparate coalitions of issue-driven voters within each party made a fair amount of sense. The fiscal, social and national-defense “conservatives” were largely united by their opposition to global socialism — and a great many Democrats were united by a shared counter-cultural opposition to the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan era of traditional social conformity. 

The world has changed a fair bit since that bygone era. And as a result, many of the allegiances and coalitions that made sense in past elections no longer apply as well in 2024. 

For example, just because someone values access to abortion doesn’t mean they are also enthusiastic about the Democratic Party’s views on the economy, Israel or criminal justice. Similarly, someone who trusted Trump on the economy doesn’t necessarily agree with the Republican Party by default on any number of other disconnected issues — issues such as trans rights, immigration or foreign policy. 

Contrary to what most partisan cheerleaders would like everyone to believe, it’s apparent that a growing number of voters don’t believe each election boils down to choosing between a supposed Freedom or Fascist Party. 

Reality is a bit more complex than the cartoonishly binary choices we’re presented with in our current electoral system, with both parties offering any number of policy proposals and perspectives that voters find attractive — as well as plenty of others that many find abhorrent. It’s therefore no wonder many voters seem interested in ordering ad hoc from the policy menu rather than buying the pre-packaged collection of priorities that political parties have hobbled together as their respective platforms. 

Indeed, voter registration and exit polls from the last election indicate this is a trend that is likely growing. Self-identified “independents” made up a larger portion of the 2024 vote than Democrats and they quite nearly outpaced Republicans as well. We’re not really a nation split “down the middle” as much as we’re an electorate with a growing swath of individuals who don’t align neatly with either of the major political parties. 

Undoubtedly, this new political world is confounding strategists, candidates and pundits who live in deeply partisan echo chambers. For anyone willing to step out of such confined ideological boxes, however, there are plenty of elections left to win. Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.