Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters

Abstract

In the experiments, each candidate was described using eight characteristics: name, partisanship, positions on policies toward taxation and racial discrimination, and four positions reflecting democratic values. The characteristics of the candidates were randomly generated from the following sets of alternatives:• Name (gender and race/ethnicity): Each candidate was assigned a name from a list of 123 names designed to signal both gender (man or woman) and race/ethnicity (either white, black, or Hispanic) (see Butler and Homola 2017). • Partisanship: Democrat or Republican. • Policy positions: The surveys included two attributes reflecting salient party differences over policy-one on taxation, the other on racial discrimination (see Bartels 2018). -Taxation * Wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. * Wants to lower taxes on everyone, including the wealthy. -Racial discrimination * Believes the government should do more to prevent discrimination against racial minorities. * Believes discrimination against racial minorities is less of a problem now than in the past. • Democratic values: The surveys included four attributes related to core democratic values. -Judicial deference * Said elected officials must obey the courts even when they think that the decisions are wrong. * Said elected officials should not be bound by court decisions they regard as politicized. -Impartial investigations * Said law enforcement investigations of politicians and their associates should be free of partisan influence. * Said elected officials should supervise law enforcement investigations of politicians and their associates. -Compromise * Promises to work for compromise across party lines. * Promises to stand up to the other party.A-1 * Opposes new legislation to require voters to show state-issued ID at the polls. * Supports new legislation to require voters to show state-issued ID at the polls.

The Effect of Electoral Inversions on Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from the United States

“…Democrats also experienced an inversion in control of the House of Representatives during the same period. Though Democrats tend to express strong commitments to the related value of equal voting rights in general (Carey et al 2020), these past experiences with inversions might make them especially likely to view inversions as less legitimate. Such experiences might also increase Democrats' support for reforms that would eliminate inversions from presidential elections, which were endorsed by numerous Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 (Schneider 2019).…”

Updating with Others: Testing the Effect of Informational Social Influence on Political Attitudes

“…Ideologically congruent misperceptions are problematic because they are difficult to correct; partisans have little incentive to do so, even at the expense of democratic principles (Carey et al 2020). All else equal, individuals may desire to hold accurate beliefs, but in the case of ideologically congruent perceptions, all else is not equal-those beliefs are comfortable, even comforting.…”

“…While these attitudes are increasingly homogenous in American politics (Pew Research 2007), we think-following Nyhan and Reifler (2010)-ideology will be the relevant mechanism to cause attitude change because of the subtle difference in the way these two concepts work on attitudes. While partisanship is obviously a crucial predictor for behavior (Campbell et al 1960), partisans generally follow their leaders. Ideologues are different given a coherent worldview and policy prescripts that follow, but there are very few people in the general public who meet this standard (Converse 1964;Zaller 1992).…”

“…And does the identity of the "other people" matter for the direction and/or magnitude of the belief adjustment? 5 We expect that ISI matters for the processing of corrective 4 We specify partisan groups rather than ideological groups because partisanship is the most enduring heuristic in American politics (see e.g., Campbell et al 1960;Lewis-Beck et al 2009), and most Americans are not ideologues (see e.g., Converse 1964; Zaller 1992). 5 These questions implicate two distinct cognitive processes: (1) an individual chooses whether and how to accept the factual information as accurate, empirical evidence of their world; and (2) an individual adjusts their normative political beliefs regarding the policy implications of the factual information.…”

Would You Sell Your Vote?

“…Prominent scholars draw disturbing comparisons between recent developments in the U.S.—such as heightened political polarization, the success of extremist candidates, and weakened civil liberties—and warning signs that preceded democratic collapse in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, and beyond (Kaufman & Haggard, 2019; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Other recent studies demonstrate that a considerable share of US voters would support violence to achieve political ends (Bartels, 2020), sacrifice democratic principles to support candidates aligned with their ideological and policy preferences (Carey et al, 2020; Graham & Svolik, 2020), or favor authoritarian political systems (Foa & Mounk, 2016). Meanwhile, surveys of political scientists reveal a pervasive belief that key components of democratic quality—electoral and civil rights, the accountability of government officials, and civil discourse across ideological divides—are declining in America (Carey et al, 2019).…”