Now researchers, reporters, and armchair pundits have immediate access to America’s diverse views on 40 top policy issues.
Topic: Research
Blog
Elections Program Research: Winter 2019 Roundup
Democracy Fund’s Elections Program research is off to a strong start in 2019, with the release of the first brief out of the 2018 Democracy Fund-Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials (LEOs)—which will be released in full this summer. The brief focuses on voter education and accessibility and was previewed at the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Conference and the Democracy Fund-Bipartisan Policy Center event on “The Voting Experience: 2018 and the Future.” Outlined below are key insights from the brief, in addition to key insights from the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA) Annual Conference and a grantee spotlight on the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Stay tuned in the coming months as we gear up and plan for the 2020 Presidential Election!
New Research at the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA):
In January, the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA) met for its annual conference in Austin, Texas. Outlined below are the highlights shared by Democracy Fund partners, including:
- University of San Diego’s Evan Crawford, Reed College’s Paul Gronke, and Portland State University’s Paul Manson: It’s difficult to interpret survey results from local election officials because of variations in jurisdiction size and work responsibilities.
- University of Texas at Austin’s Nadine Suzanne Gibson: While there were no detrimental effects to voter experience or confidence when using private vendor service packages, there were also no data supporting the claim that election services vendors improve the administration of elections.
- Auburn University’s Bridgett A. King: State-level election statutes and administration requirements for poll workers have variable effects on whether African American or Hispanic/Latino American voters are more or less likely to see a poll worker that matches their race or ethnicity.
- Mississippi State University’s Thessalia Merivaki: There was inconsistent implementation of youth pre-registration in Miami-Dade and Hillsborough Counties in Florida despite uniform rules within the state, meaning that where a pre-registrant lived influenced the odds of whether their applications would be invalidated.
- Fairfield University’s Gayle Alberda: In-person early voting had a negative effect on voter turnout in municipal elections across Ohio.
Preview of 2018 LEO Survey Results at NASS and BPC:
In early February, Democracy Fund’s Elections Program participated in two events. First, we sponsored a breakfast at the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Conference that brought secretaries of state and members of the advocacy community together. Second, we partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center on “The Voting Experience: 2018 and the Future.” At each event, we presented a sneak peek of results from the 2018 Democracy Fund-Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials (LEOs). Some of our preliminary findings include:
- LEOs surveyed believe that it is easier today for voters to register and vote, and it is easier for LEOs to administer registration and voting processes;
- Ninety percent of LEOs enjoy educating voters, but only 35 percent say that they have the time and resources to do so, along with their responsibilities to administer the election; and
- LEOs felt prepared for the 2018 election, and were confident that their states would secure systems from outside interference and successfully count votes as intended.
Note: The full report can be viewed on www.electionline.org under Research and Reports.
Research Grantee Spotlight: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE):
Tuft University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that involvement in the post-Parkland gun violence prevention movement contributed to an increase in youth voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections. Young people under 21 years old who reported being actively involved in the movement were 15 percent more likely to have been contacted by a campaign both before October and in the last six weeks before the election, and young people who reported that they were actively involved in the movement or agreed with it were 21 percentage points more likely to self-report that they voted in the election.
Blog
Learning from History to Plan for What’s Next
American democracy is in crisis. At a time of deepening polarization and social strife, many of our elected officials – most notably our chief executive – routinely disregard, and indeed actively undermine, the very norms and institutions that buttress our democratic system. At every turn, the foundational values of American democracy are under attack.
Fortunately, the threats facing our democracy are not unique and there is much to learn from other countries and from our own history – both about democratic backsliding and about strategies to reverse its course. Understanding the experiences of other democracies can help us grapple with challenges we are experiencing today, and plan for those that may lie ahead.
Democracy Fund invited Rachel Kleinfeld and David Solimini of the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace to write What Comes Next? Lessons for the Recovery of Liberal Democracy to tackle just this question. Through their research, Rachel and David dig into several case studies and offer insightful recommendations on what might be done in the United States to recover from the path of institutional decline.
Rachel and David’s analysis challenges us to revisit many of the assumptions Democracy Fund has made in assessing our democracy’s vulnerabilities and deploying strategies to protect it. Our staff has grappled these insights in ways that have enriched our thinking and the approach to our work. Among others:
- We are affirmed in our work focused on ensuring the independence of a robust, healthy media that can hold those in power to account. The watchdog function of the media cannot be underestimated.
- We take to the warning against placing too much hope in the political parties and legislature to defend themselves against abuses of power by a strong executive. We must explore ways to find, pressure, and incentivize, alternative champions of democracy.
- While the paper corroborates our fears on the risk of the American’s system reliance on informal norms, we were encouraged to read how federalism should be considered an important tool in combatting the worst overreaches of an embattled federal government.
Democracy Fund regularly publishes research relating to our established program areas, and we occasionally commission work that is intended to push our thinking in new directions. We, like others, have much to learn. We are all well-advised to engage deeply with new, big ideas that challenge our assumptions. The research is a platform for rigorous scholarship that can help us identify new strategies to build a healthier democracy.
Read the Full Report Here
Report
What Comes Next? Lessons For The Recovery Of Liberal Democracy
Democracy in America suffers from a decades-long pattern of institutional decline. The candidacy and election of President Donald Trump is a symptom as well as an accelerant of this institutional degradation, catalyzing reactions from other institutions, parties, and voters. On the positive side, President Trump’s brazen disregard for the longstanding norms of American governance has drawn attention to long-running problems, creating new interest in what the United States might learn from the experience of other countries in similar situations.
What can we learn from other democracies that have faced executive degradation1 of preweakened democratic institutions, particularly countries with polarized populations? Based on the trajectories of other nations, what damage might we expect to see by the end of the Trump administration? Are there lessons for renewal that can be applied the day this administration exits the scene?
Few countries are directly comparable to the United States. As the world’s oldest continual democracy, the United States has far more established institutions than most other states. And yet the laws protecting the checks and balances of our government are older and thinner than those of most modern democracies, creating the impression of a strong state that has in practice relied more on norms than law to maintain its institutions. America’s implementation of federalism is deeper than in most other countries and is a significant buffer against executive overreach. On the other hand, its population is deeply — and often evenly — polarized by identity-driven divisions that do not lend themselves to compromise. For both sides, every political fight is an identity battle and each battle is potentially winnable. The temptation to engage in undemocratic behavior is significant.
In declining order of direct comparison, we looked at cases of democratic decline and subsequent renewal in Italy under Silvio Berlusconi, Colombia under President Álvaro Uribe, Louisiana during the Huey Long period, Argentina during the populist regimes of Carlos Menem and the Kirchners, South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye, Peru during the reign of Alberto Fujimori, and India under Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. We also looked at the similarities and differences between these states and countries that faced executive degradation and have not yet recovered, particularly Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela.
Press Release
New Study Confirms Majority of Americans Have Confidence in the Integrity and Results of Elections
Washington, D.C. – Today, Democracy Fund, in collaboration with Reed College Professor Paul Gronke, released a new report on Understanding The Voter Experience: The Public’s View of Election Administration and Reform. It shows that while most Americans approve of the job their election officials are doing and trust the results of the election, confusion about voting processes and lack of information about candidates are the top reasons people decide not to vote. Recognizing the information gap between voters and local and state election officials, Democracy Fund is also proud to announce the relaunch of electionline.org—a crucial resource for trusted, politics-free news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections.
“Understanding the experiences that American voters face during an election cycle is key to improving the electoral system and increasing voter turnout,” said Natalie Adona, Senior Research and Learning Associate with Democracy Fund’s Elections Program. “Our data provides insights into the voter journey from beginning to end: individual level decisions to vote or not, general awareness and familiarity with voter registration requirements, and the public’s trust and confidence in U.S. elections.”
Highlights from Understanding the Voter Experience, include:
- The public ranks election administration well in terms of trust when compared to other institutions—outranking Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Press. In 2016, 95 percent of people gave a good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers and nearly 60 percent gave high rankings to their local election officials.
- 87 percent of respondents were confident that their own ballot was counted as cast in 2016, but only 71 percent were confident in the national vote count.
- In general, people understand they are responsible for their voter registration, but nearly half of the respondents were confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements.
- 30-40 percent of respondents consistently felt they did not have enough information to vote on key races like state attorney general, secretary of state, and state senator.
“Far too many respondents felt that they did not have enough information to vote,” said Adam Ambrogi, Director of Democracy Fund’s Elections Program. “Democracy only works if the American public understands how to vote, has enough information to make informed decisions, is confident in our election process, and trusts the results.”
As part of Democracy Fund’s commitment to fostering a modern, trusted, voter-centric election system, it is also unveiling the new and improved electionline, which continues to be the only place to find state-by-state curation of daily election administration news. In addition to publishing the classic electionline Weekly newsletter, the website will also share original reports and exclusive content from leaders and experts in the field—making the site a must-read for local election officials, civic organizations, and journalists who cover elections.
###
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND
Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $100 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.
ABOUT ELECTIONLINE
Electionline is America’s only nonpartisan, non-advocacy clearinghouse for news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections and a hub for sharing tools, best practices, and innovative ideas for improving the voting experience. A project of Democracy Fund, electionline aims to support voter-centric elections that are accessible, fair, and secure. To learn more, visit www.electionline.org or follow @electionline.
Report
Understanding The Voter Experience: The Public’s View Of Election Administration And Reform
This report provides insights into the state of public opinion about election administration and reform. The findings are primarily drawn from the 2008–2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), a survey conducted each federal election year since 2006. i We hope that the findings contained in this report, and suggestions for future research, will help election officials, lawmakers, advocates, and others understand attitudes of the American people toward one of their most-cherished rights.
The takeaways in this report include:
Deciding to Vote
- A significant number of nonvoters choose not to participate because they do not like the candidates, and some may be generally unenthusiastic about participating.
- Lack of information may keep people from voting in certain contests, especially down-ballot races.
Navigating Voter Registration
- Many people know that they are responsible for registering and updating registration. Most know where to register and that a move requires them to update their information. Most people are likely to rely on internet searches for registration information.
- Many people could benefit from ongoing education about how the voter registration process works in their states, especially states that have recently implemented modernization reforms.
- The majority of people support online voter registration but might not know whether it is available in their state. Some continue to prefer to use the paper registration form. The public does not currently express strong support or opposition to automatic voter registration.
The Voter Experience
- There is not one most-preferred method of voting. Many like the convenience of early in-person and absentee or vote-by-mail voting. Absentee or vote-by-mail voters are more likely than early in-person voters to say that they distrust certain aspects of the voting process. Not surprisingly, voters provide compelling reasons to continue to vote in the way they have done before.
- People express a higher tolerance for waiting in line when they are told that the wait is 15 minutes. Tolerance decreases as the anticipated wait time increases. i More about the CCES is offered in the Survey Methodology section of this report and on the project’s website at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu.
- Significant numbers of people are confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements. Many appear to learn about these requirements during election cycles, suggesting the need for ongoing education.
- Overwhelming majorities of people provide good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers. Most people like that poll workers are polite and knowledgeable and demonstrate other signs of excellent customer service.
Trust and Confidence Measures
- Election administrators enjoy higher levels of public trust when compared to officials in other public institutions. State and local election officials should continue to enjoy high public approval if they are viewed as nonpartisan experts.
- Levels of voter confidence are influenced by the voter’s polling place experience, partisanship, and support for the winner (sometimes referred to as the “winner’s effect”). Most are confident that their own votes and votes across the country are counted as intended, though there is a noticeable gap between individual and national level confidence. There was a dramatic up-tick in voter confidence levels among Republicans and Trump supporters in 2016.
- Perceptions of voter fraud, electoral integrity, and electoral fairness are deeply intertwined and powerful indicators of a healthy democracy. Most people believe that our elections are run with integrity and that outcomes are fair, but perceptions about the prevalence of voter fraud raise concerns.
We hope that readers find this informative report as interesting as we do. Thank you for reading!
Blog
New Report: A Growing Gap in Philanthropic Support for Newsroom Diversity
Journalism has long struggled to reflect the diversity of the communities it serves, and over the past decade, most efforts to support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in news outlets have been unsuccessful in creating meaningful change within the stories, sources, and staff of newsrooms across the United States.
New research released today by Democracy Fund traces half a decade of philanthropic investment in organizations, programming, and research aimed at increasing DEI in journalism. We commissioned this report to learn from the important work undertaken up to this point, to guide our future investments, and to spark discussions across philanthropy regarding the urgent need to address these challenges with significant new resources.
This report is based on data from the Foundation Maps for Media Funding, created by the Foundation Center for Media Impact Funders. The data set has some important limitations due to the nature of self-reporting and challenges around how grants are categorized. Even so, Katie Donnelly and Jessica Clark at Dot Connector Studio have done great work to reveal larger trends in the field.
Recent research by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard and Northeastern University, using the same Foundation Center data as well as a study of foundation 990 tax forms, found that there is simply not enough philanthropic dollars flowing into journalism to make up for the gaps in what has been lost from legacy newsrooms. Amongst the funding that does exist there are troubling gaps and disparities. Our report provides a deeper look at one of those gaps, showing that there are even fewer dollars are going to DEI efforts within the industry.
Here are a few interesting takeaways, according to data as of February 2018:From 2009 to 2015, there were 1,105 grants totaling $105.6 million from 274 funders to 294 recipients pertaining to either racial and ethnic groups, women and girls, or LGBTQI populations.
- Funding has declined in these areas overall, both in terms of dollar value by $1.3 million and total number of grants by 18.
- When it comes to funding that serves racial and ethnic groups, relatively few dollars go towards financial sustainability compared to programming and project-specific funding.
- There has been significantly less investment in gender-related news and staffing compared to racial and ethnic groups.
- Funding serving LGBTQI populations in journalism remains extremely limited.
The past efforts represented in these numbers faced stiff headwinds and real challenges, including a dramatic financial downturn that strained the news industry. But tight budgets alone cannot explain the persistent gap in employment opportunities between minorities and their white counterparts seeking jobs in journalism. Nor does it excuse the historic leadership failure of legacy outlets to fulfill their promise to diversify their ranks.
Reviewing this history, we are left with more questions than answers: How should we think about supporting programs and investigative projects looking at inequality when they may be housed at news outlets with a weak history of supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion internally? How do we rethink equitable funding so that program-specific funds at ethnic media outlets don’t exacerbate financial and structural uncertainty? And how do we ensure that investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion have broad and measurable impact across the industry?
Prior to this research we created a public database of organizations invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion in journalism, and we’ve got more research on the way that we hope will provide a better snapshot of the field of ethnic media and the challenges and opportunities facing those outlets.
Democracy Fund isn’t represented in the data released today because we only became an independent foundation in 2014. However, in our first few years we’ve prioritized this work. So far we are:
- Working with News Integrity Initiative, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and Gates Foundation in diverse leadership training from the Maynard Institute;
- Collaborating with Google News Initiative to help revamp the ASNE Diversity Survey led by Dr. Meredith Clark;
- Investing in new models like City Bureau with the MacArthur Foundation
- Partnering with funders like Knight Foundation and Open Society Foundations to support data training from the Ida B. Wells Society;
- Co-funding the National Association of Black Journalists with the Ford Foundation;
- Working alongside the Heising-Simons Foundation to support paid internships for aspiring journalists of color through the Emma Bowen Foundation.
Together with these funders, we are learning from the research we released today to ensure that our strategies are as effective and equitable as possible. We are committed to supporting innovations in engaged journalism through grantmaking, partnerships, and collaboration. This report is part of that commitment.
Press Release
Voter Study Group Releases New Reports on Voter Attitudes Towards Muslims and Checks and Balances
Washington, D.C. – June 6, 2018
New reports from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group reveal mixed signals about support for traditional pillars of democracy: Americans strongly support Congressional oversight of the executive branch and believe the president is subject to courts and law. However, support is lower for media scrutiny of the president and attitudes toward Muslim Americans suggest a troubling lack of commitment to religious diversity.
The Voter Study Group is a research collaboration of leading analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum. The two new reports analyze robust survey data about attitudes of Americans toward our political systems’ checks and balances and Muslim Americans:
- ”Muslims in America: Public Perceptions in the Trump Era,” by John Sides (George Washington University) and Dalia Mogahed (Institute for Social Policy and Understanding)
- ”Testing the Limits: Examining Public Support for Checks on Presidential Power,” by Lee Drutman (New America), Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution) and Joe Goldman (Democracy Fund)
In “Muslims in America,” Sides and Mogahed analyzed unique data from the July 2017 wave of the Views of the Electoral Research (VOTER) Survey from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. Key findings include:
- Americans view many Muslims in the United States as insufficiently “American.” The survey asked respondents what percent of Muslim Americans are described by a specific statement. For each statement, respondents moved a slider on a scale of “none” (0%) to “all” (100%). On average, Americans believed that only 56% of Muslim Americans want to fit in and be part of the U.S., and that an even smaller portion (51%) respects American ideals and laws.
- Perceptions of Muslim Americans are strongly related to partisanship and cultural conservatism. On average Democrats believed that a substantial majority of Muslims (67%) wanted to fit in but Republicans believed that only 36%, or less than half, of Muslim Americans wanted to fit in.
- Perceptions of Muslim Americans cross partisan lines on three dimensions: Democrats and Republicans did not differ much in their perceptions of how many Muslims are religious, have outdated views of women, and have outdated views of gays and lesbians.
- Negative perceptions of Muslim Americans do not match how Muslim Americans describe themselves. For example, a large majority of Muslim Americans express patriotic sentiments. In a 2017 Institute for Social Policy and Understanding poll of Muslim Americans, 84% of Muslims said they identified strongly with being an American, as did 84% of Protestants and 91% of Catholics.
- Almost 20% of Americans would deny Muslims who are American citizens the right to vote.
“In this report, we document a wide gap between what most Americans say about Muslims living in the United States and how Muslim Americans see themselves,” said John Sides, associate professor of political science at The George Washington University and research director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. “This gap is accompanied by substantial support for policies targeting Muslims; nearly one in five Americans would even deny Muslims who are U.S. citizens the right to vote. With the Muslim share of the U.S. population projected to double by 2050, the civil rights and liberties of Muslim Americans appear to have a tenuous status in American public opinion.”
“This paper highlights the misperceptions that fuel Islamophobia,” said Dalia Mogahed, director of research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. “Muslims have been part of America since its inception and are just as likely to be patriotic as non-Muslims, yet many Americans believe Muslim Americans are not ‘fully American.’ These misperceptions hurt not only Muslim Americans, but all Americans.”
The second analysis released today tackles another pillar of our political system – checks and balances – and suggests Americans who exhibit less religious tolerance are also less likely to be supportive of the media’s role in scrutinizing the executive branch. The new brief, “Testing the Limits,” examines how Americans think about the relationship between presidential authority and three specific checks on presidential power: the Congress, the courts, and the press. The brief builds upon “Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism,” also authored by Drutman, Diamond and Goldman. Key findings include:
- Large majorities of Americans believe the president should be subject to oversight and restraints on executive power. For example, 91% of respondents agreed that “the president must always obey the laws and the courts, even when he thinks they are wrong.”
- However, President Trump’s supporters are much more likely to express support for other types of accountability and oversight. For example, 48% of respondents with a favorable view of President Trump agreed that “the media shouldn’t scrutinize the president.”
- Among President Trump’s supporters, lower levels of education and lower levels of interest in news are associated with lower support for checks on executive authority.
“It is encouraging that support for checks on the presidential authority remains high,” said Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman. “Even among Trump supporters who express dissatisfaction with democracy or openness to authoritarian alternatives, many support Congressional oversight and say the president must be bound by the law. However, it is extremely concerning that support for media scrutiny of the president – a pillar of our democracy – is not as high, particularly among the president’s supporters.”
“Our analysis found strong support for American democracy’s distinctive set of checks and balances,” said Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America. “However, the differences in partisan attitudes toward these key institutions is worrisome, as it highlights the fragility of essential democratic institutions that are currently under attack.”
“Our democracy depends on popular support for its norms and institutions, including Congressional oversight of the executive branch, a free and independent press, and the rule of law,” said Larry Diamond, senior fellow, Hoover Institution. “We can take heart that most Americans express support for democratic norms and institutions, but we have work to do to increase understanding of their importance and the values that they represent.”
The full reports can be found at www.voterstudygroup.org, along with other research from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.
Blog
Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network Support Independent Analysis of Facebook’s Role in Elections
Today Facebook announced a new initiative which will provide independent researchers access to Facebook data to study the impact the social network has on our elections and our democracy. Democracy Fund, along with the Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation and several other leading foundations have come together to support the research efforts that will be enabled through this program. We believe that independent funding of this research is critical, and hope that the program will help the public and policymakers better understand how Facebook is shaping our elections, social fabric, and democratic life.
This announcement comes amidst a firestorm of attention focused on the social media giant’s role in allowing vast amounts of personal data to be released, data which was then used to target shady and divisive political ads at Americans. Last week Facebook revealed that tens of thousands more people were affected by that breach than was first reported. As a foundation fundamentally concerned with the health of our democracy, we have been following this story closely.
In fact, Democracy Fund and the Omidyar Network have been raising the alarm about these issues for sometime. Late last year, the organizations published an in-depth paper asking, “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” and identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to our democratic ideals. We have signed on to support this research initiative, but are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort and are approaching it as one part of a multipronged strategy to create a safer, stronger and more meaningful digital public square.
We are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy. We currently fund a range of efforts focused on combating hyper-partisanship, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust fourth estate locally and nationally.
Grantees like Prof. Zeynep Tufekci and ProPublica are doing powerful work on algorithmic accountability. Prof. Young Mie Kim tracked political ads on Facebook in 2016 and Politifact is helping sort truth from fiction on the platform. The German Marshall Fund is tracking Russian misinformation and Free Press is organization diverse communities around the rights to connect and communicate. The Center for Democracy and Technology is helping strengthen election cybersecurity, and spreading best practices for data privacy in voter registration databases and campaign data. Launched in 2017, the Social Science Research Center’s Media & Democracy program encourages academic research, practitioner reflection, and public debate on all aspects of the close relationship between media and democracy, including how changes in the political landscape, such as increasing polarization, have affected the media.
However, in our work with activists, organizations, and scholars in the field we have consistently heard that we can’t address what we don’t know. Through this new research effort Facebook says it will give researchers unpresented access to its data in ways it never has before. The research will be driven by a diverse coalition of scholars. Research projects will have to go through relevant university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews, will be rigorously peer reviewed, and may be vetted to ensure Facebook lives up to its legal and ethical commitments to users. Crucially, the research results themselves will not be subject to approval by Facebook
The emphasis of this first announcement is on Facebook’s role in elections, but the committee is also expected to address how Facebook’s systems influence viral deceptions, polarization, and civic engagement. Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement but has also created a fertile ground for abuse, harassment and manipulation that hurt our communities and our society. As this research is planned Democracy Fund will pay special attention to ensuring that the voices and the priorities of those disproportionately harmed by social media are included.
The flood of news about bad actors gaming the system have revealed a troubling disregard for the critical responsibility social media companies have had over our personal privacy and public debate. Facebook, and other platforms, need to acknowledge the oversized role they play in our society and truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. We are realistic about the complexities here, but see this research partnership as a key step towards that goal. Through this program, and in separate endeavors, we are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy.
Press Release
While Most Americans Prefer Democracy, More Than One in Four Express Sympathy for Authoritarianism
Voter Study Group report questions conventional wisdom that democracy is in decline, but finds concerning trends as authoritarian support consolidates among Trump supporters
Washington, DC — Americans’ support for an authoritarian leader declined for the first time in two decades, according to a new report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. “Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism,” nevertheless finds worrying developments among the 29% of Americans who say that an authoritarian alternative to democracy would be favorable.
The new report by Lee Drutman (New America), Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), and Joe Goldman (Democracy Fund) is part of a unique, multi-year study from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a research collaboration of leading analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum examining the evolving views of American voters.
“The good news is that the sky is not falling — Americans are not abandoning democracy,” said Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman. “But in the midst of historic levels of polarization and new pressures on our constitutional checks and balances, the reality that more than a quarter of the American public seems open to turning away from democracy should worry anyone who cares about a healthy, responsive political system.”
Key findings from the report include:
- The overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy and most of those who express negative views about it are opposed to authoritarian alternatives. In fact, the report finds no relationship between dissatisfaction with democracy and support for an authoritarian system in which a strong leader doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections.
- Nearly a quarter of Americans say that a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections would be “fairly” or “very good,” and 18 percent say that army rule would be “fairly” or “very good.”
- Support for a strong leader declined to 1995 levels after a two-decade increase. During these two decades, Democrats expressed greater support for a strong leader, but this reversed in 2017 as Republicans became far more likely to say that having a “strong leader” is a good system.
- Thirty-two percent of Trump primary voters support a “strong leader” who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. Support for this option is especially high (45 percent) among those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
- The highest levels of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected, disengaged from politics, deeply distrustful of experts, culturally conservative, and have negative views towards racial minorities.
“While the overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy, there is a reason to be concerned, as support for democracy in the U.S. and rejection of authoritarian options is weaker than in many of our peer democracies around the world,” said Larry Diamond, senior fellow, Hoover Institution. “We need to renew our understanding of and commitment to democracy and the values that undergird it-pluralism, mutual respect and tolerance, flexibility, a willingness to compromise, and critical thinking. We cannot take democracy for granted.”
“This report highlights a problem with our current two-party system,” said Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America. “If some Americans feel a political party does not represent them, they are left with only one other option. If that party becomes a party of racial resentment and authoritarian leadership, many individuals will update their beliefs to fit with their partisan identity. Otherwise, they can drop out of the political system altogether, which will presumably lead to more doubts about democracy.”
The full “Follow the Leader” report can be found at www.voterstudygroup.org, along with other research from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.
###
About the Voter Study Group
In the coming months, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group will be releasing a number of in-depth reports and data sets exploring public opinion on trade, immigration, democracy, and millennials, among other topics. Most recently, the group of experts commissioned the July 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2016, 2011, and 2012. The Voter Study Group will put a third survey into the field in March 2018.
Please sign up for email alerts here. The 2016 and 2017 VOTER Surveys and reports were made possible by a grant from Democracy Fund to the Ethics and Public Policy Center to conduct new research about changing trends among the American electorate.
VOTER Survey Methodology Summary
In partnership with the survey firm YouGov, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group commissioned the 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2011, 2012 and 2016. A complete 2017 survey methodology is available here.
About Democracy Fund
Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square.