Democratic Neutrality: The Overlooked Force Behind Antidemocratic Politicians’ Success

Scholars affiliated with the Rooney Democracy Institute at the University of Notre Dame examined more than 48,000 respondents from YouGov, NORC at the University of Chicago and Bovitz surveys conducted between September 2022 and July 2025. They identified a sizable “democratic neutrality” segment—voters who neither support nor oppose antidemocratic practices. At times this group comprised as much as 52 % of the electorate, far larger than the 8 % who explicitly endorse measures such as making it harder for opponents to vote. When neutrality is combined with the roughly 25 % who favor party loyalty over constitutional fidelity, over one-third of Americans become open to candidates who prioritize partisan goals above constitutional norms.

The Conversation

Regression analysis revealed that neutral respondents behave similarly to outright supporters of antidemocratic policies in hypothetical voting experiments. Voters who expressed neutrality were just as likely to back candidates advocating voter suppression, political violence, or other democratic backsliding measures. Only those who explicitly opposed such policies punished antidemocratic candidates at the ballot box; neutral or supportive voters did not. Across multiple antidemocratic issues, nearly two-thirds of the public were either neutral or supportive, indicating a majority willing to tolerate democratic erosion.

The Conversation

The prevalence of democratic neutrality helps explain why politicians who reject constitutional norms continue to win elections despite low explicit public support. Dozens of Republicans secured primary victories in 2026 despite denying the 2020 presidential election outcome, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who later challenged certified results in four states and won the GOP Senate nomination. In a polarized environment with gerrymandered districts, securing a partisan primary often translates into electoral victory, allowing antidemocratic candidates to advance even when a small minority actively backs them.

The Conversation

Researchers argue that neutrality is not a passive stance but a tacit endorsement of democratic erosion. They contend that preventing further decline requires voters to reject candidates who undermine core democratic principles, even when those candidates share their party affiliation. The study suggests that mobilizing the neutral majority could be decisive in safeguarding American democratic norms.

The Conversation