Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T11:22:09.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2020

Yale University
Yale University
*Matthew H. Graham, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Yale University,
Milan W. Svolik, Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University,


Is support for democracy in the United States robust enough to deter undemocratic behavior by elected politicians? We develop a model of the public as a democratic check and evaluate it using two empirical strategies: an original, nationally representative candidate-choice experiment in which some politicians take positions that violate key democratic principles, and a natural experiment that occurred during Montana’s 2017 special election for the U.S. House. Our research design allows us to infer Americans’ willingness to trade-off democratic principles for other valid but potentially conflicting considerations such as political ideology, partisan loyalty, and policy preferences. We find the U.S. public’s viability as a democratic check to be strikingly limited: only a small fraction of Americans prioritize democratic principles in their electoral choices, and their tendency to do so is decreasing in several measures of polarization, including the strength of partisanship, policy extremism, and candidate platform divergence. Our findings echo classic arguments about the importance of political moderation and cross-cutting cleavages for democratic stability and highlight the dangers that polarization represents for democracy.

Research Article
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


We would like to thank Jacob Hacker, David Hendry, Greg Huber, Steven Levitsky, David Mayhew, Nolan McCarty, Adam Przeworski, Arturas Rozenas, Daniel Treisman, Bonnie Weir, and audiences at APSA, EPSA, Boston University, Caltech, Columbia, Georgetown, Harvard, IAS Toulouse, Peking University, Technical University of Munich, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley, UT Austin, Vanderbilt, and Yale for their helpful comments and conversations and Isaiah Affron and Lily Engbith for research assistance. This project was supported by the Institution for Social and Policy Studies and the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, both at Yale University. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse:



Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization and Myth?The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlquist, John S., Ichino, Nahomi, Wittenberg, Jason, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. “How Do Voters Perceive Changes to the Rules of the Game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian Elections.” Journal of Comparative Economics 46 (4): 906–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2009. “Elections with Platform and Valence Competition.” Games and Economic Behavior 67: 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael J., and McCarty, Nolan. 2015. Causes and Consequences of Polarization. In Solutions to Political Polarization in America, ed. Persily, Nathaniel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 15–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, David A. 2018. Disenfranchising Democracy: Constructing the Electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Michael, and Brouard, Sylvain. 2019. “Executive Accountability beyond Outcomes: Experimental Evidence on Public Evaluations of Powerful Prime Ministers.” Unpublished Manuscript, IAST Toulouse.Google Scholar
Bermeo, Nancy. 2003. Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Duflo, Esther, and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2004. “How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 249–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, and Trivedi, Pravin K.. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., Helmke, Gretchen, Nyhan, Brendan, Sanders, Mitchell, and Stokes, Susan. 2019. “Searching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (3): 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., Clayton, Katherine P., Helmke, Gretchen, Nyhan, Brendan, Sanders, Mitchell, and Stokes, Susan C.. 2018. “Party, Policy, Democracy and Candidate Choice in U.S. Elections.” Report, Bright Line Watch.Google Scholar
Chen, Jowei, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2013. “Unintentional Gerrymandering: Political Geography and Electoral Bias in Legislatures.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (3): 239–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Wendy K. Tam, and Liu, Yan Y.. 2016. “Toward a Talismanic Redistricting Tool: A Computational Method for Identifying Extreme Redistricting Plans.” Election Law Journal 15 (4): 351–66.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 971–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., ed. 1966. Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven: Yal.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. 2014. “Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (4): 441–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel A., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2008. “Polarization in the American Public: Misconceptions and Misreadings.” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 556–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Mounk, Yascha. 2017. “The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect.” The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect 27 (3): 5–17.Google Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Ong, Elvin. 2019. “Committed or Conditional Democrats? Opposition Dynamics in Electoral Autocracies.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (4): 948–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2008. “Scaling Regression Inputs by Dividing by Two Standard Deviations.” Statistics in Medicine 27 (15): 2865–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, Matthew, and Svolik, Milan W.. 2019. “Turnout as a Democratic Check?” Unpublished Manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Hersh, Eitan, Meredith, Marc, Mummolo, Jonathan, and Nal, Clayton. 2018. “Obstacles to Estimating Voter ID Laws Effect on Turnout.” The Journal of Politics 80 (3): 1045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, and Kaufman, Robert R.. 2016. Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites, and Regime Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multi-Dimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Poltical Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z., and Ginsburg, Tom. 2018. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” UCLA Law Review 65 (1): 78–169.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Welzel, Christian. 2010. “Changing Mass Priorities: The Link between Modernization and Democracy.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 551–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2018. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States Affective Polarization: An Outgrowth of Partisan Social Identity.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Robert R., and Haggard, Stephan. 2019. “Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?Perspectives on Politics 17 (2): 417–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J., Hobolt, Sara B., and Tilley, James. Forthcoming. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A.. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C., Mettler, Suzanne, Pepinsky, Thomas B., Roberts, Kenneth M., and Valelly, Richard. 2019. “The Trump Presidency and American Democracy: A Historical and Comparative Analysis.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (2): 470–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Luo, Zhaotian, and Przeworski, Adam. 2018. “Subversion by Stealth: Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding.” Unpublished Manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCoy, Jennifer, and Somer, Murat. 2019. “Polarizing Polities: A Global Threat to Democracy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681: 1–273.Google Scholar
Mickey, Robert. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Michael K., Szakonyi, David, and Morgenbesser, Lee. 2017. Authoritarian Warning Survey.Google Scholar
Nalepa, Monika, Vanberg, Georg, and Chiopris, Caterina. 2018. “Authoritarian Backsliding.” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Chicago and Duke University.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 2019. Crises of Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2002. “The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svolik, Milan. 2019. “Polarization vs. Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 30 (3): 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svolik, Milan W. 2020. “When Polarization Trumps Civic Virtue: Partisan Conflict and the Subversion of Democracy by Incumbents.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 15 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4): 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2017. “Are People Really Turning Away from Democracy?Journal of Democracy Web Exchange: 1–16.Google Scholar
Waldner, David, and Lust, Ellen. 2018. “Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding.” Annual Review of Political Science 21: 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R. 1997. “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law.” American Political Science Review 91 (2): 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Graham and Svolik Dataset

Supplementary material: PDF

Graham and Svolik supplementary material

Supplementary Appendix
Download Graham and Svolik supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 5.4 MB