I think the argument made in the CNN clip is that it's users are now more equally distributed politically, which is reflective and a microcosm of the actual demographics of the country. I think it's a fair point. But I also agree with your take that many (like me as well) don't follow any political party (I kind of opted out around 2016). I do wish we could see a multidimensional politics rather than the polar system we have now, I know for example in some euro countries there are 5 or more parties debating policies in their houses of parliament.
> equally distributed politically, which is reflective and a microcosm of the actual demographics of the country
But it's not, for the reason you and I both gave: almost half the country identifies as independent, and party affiliation is at a record low[1]. So Twitter is not a mirror of the US, it is a representation of the extremes of the US (which is why taking Twitter seriously has been so dangerously wrong in the past).
> I do wish we could see a multidimensional politics rather than the polar system we have now, I know for example in some euro countries there are 5 or more parties debating policies in their houses of parliament.
This is and always will be impossible because many of our institutions (such as committee assignments in the Senate) are functionally locked into a bipolar structure that only a two-party system can conform to.
If you want more dimensions in your politics, you can look for more Bernie Sanders/Dan Osborn[2] candidates. They run as independents, but then they "round up" to caucus with whichever party they agree with. The key is that they eventually choose a side, though, because if either Democrats or Republicans split into separate parties, the other side (likely a minority party) will then dominate the country indefinitely.
