Why do voters support candidates who undermine democracy? A new study offers answers

A new study published in the British Journal of Political Science sheds light on why voters in democratic countries sometimes support political candidates who undermine democratic norms. The research found that people hold diverse views on what democracy means. These differences shape how they evaluate political candidates and whether they recognize or excuse violations of democratic standards. This variation, the study suggests, can make democratic systems more vulnerable, as some voters are willing to overlook attacks on minority rights and restrictions on executive power.

“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said Marc Jacob, an assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”

In many democratic countries, political leaders have gained and maintained power while eroding democratic institutions. Unlike overt takeovers through military coups, these processes involve a gradual weakening of checks and balances, restrictions on media, and the marginalization of political opposition. Researchers have long questioned why voters allow this to happen, despite expressing broad support for democracy.

Previous studies have pointed to political polarization as a key factor. Some voters, driven by party loyalty, are more forgiving when candidates from their preferred party violate democratic norms. However, research on this topic has produced mixed results, and some scholars argue that focusing only on partisan bias does not fully explain voter behavior in these situations.

The new study explored an alternative explanation: that people have different interpretations of democracy itself. Instead of assuming that all voters share the same commitment to democratic principles, the researchers examined whether people’s own definitions of democracy influenced their willingness to hold candidates accountable for democratic violations.

Free daily newsletter

The researchers focused on Poland, a country that has experienced democratic backsliding in recent years. Since 2015, Poland has seen growing government control over the judiciary and public media, raising concerns about the state of its democracy. However, elections have remained competitive, making Poland an ideal setting to study voter behavior in response to democratic transgressions.

To test their ideas, the researchers conducted a large-scale experiment with nearly 2,000 Polish citizens. Participants were presented with profiles of hypothetical political candidates and asked to choose between them in simulated elections. The candidates’ positions varied in several ways, including their stances on judicial independence and media freedom. Some candidates expressed strong support for democratic norms, while others endorsed positions that aligned with a more authoritarian or majoritarian approach.

In addition to studying voter preferences, the researchers measured participants’ personal views on democracy. They asked respondents to rate how important different democratic principles were to them, including the separation of powers, protection of minority rights, and government accountability. Based on their responses, participants were categorized into three groups:

• Liberal democrats, who strongly supported checks on executive power and civil liberties.
• Majoritarians, who believed that decisions backed by the majority were inherently democratic, even if they restricted rights or weakened independent institutions.
• Authoritarian democrats, who prioritized social order and strong leadership over individual freedoms and pluralism.

By combining the results of the voting experiment with the respondents’ democratic beliefs, the researchers assessed whether voters’ views of democracy influenced their choices.

The study found that voters’ understandings of democracy played a significant role in how they evaluated candidates. Those who strongly identified with a liberal democratic perspective were much more likely to reject candidates who undermined democratic norms. In contrast, majoritarian and authoritarian-minded voters were less concerned with violations of democratic principles and did not strongly punish candidates who threatened judicial independence or media freedom.

“Where liberal democratic commitment is weak or unevenly distributed across the electorate, voters cannot reliably act as safeguards against democratic backsliding,” Jacob said.

Interestingly, the study did not find strong evidence that majoritarian and authoritarian voters actively preferred candidates who undermined democracy. Instead, these voters appeared to place less importance on democratic values when making their choices, making them more tolerant of candidates who weakened democratic institutions.

The study also examined how partisanship interacted with democratic beliefs. While party loyalty influenced voter decisions, it was not the only factor. Even within the same political party, individuals with stronger liberal democratic commitments were more likely to reject candidates who violated democratic norms. This suggests that partisan dynamics alone cannot fully explain why some voters overlook democratic backsliding.

The study was conducted in Poland, which has a unique political landscape. While the findings likely apply to other democracies experiencing similar challenges, future research should examine whether the same patterns hold in different political systems. Countries with weaker democratic traditions or different party structures may show different results.

Additionally, the study measured attitudes at a single point in time. Future research could explore how voters’ understandings of democracy evolve and whether political leaders influence these beliefs over time. Longitudinal studies could provide insight into whether shifts in democratic attitudes contribute to long-term changes in voter behavior.

The findings highlight a potential vulnerability in democratic systems: when citizens hold different views on what democracy means, some may fail to recognize or respond to its gradual erosion. This suggests that efforts to strengthen democracy should not only focus on protecting institutions but also on fostering a shared commitment to liberal democratic principles among citizens.

“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing and the rule of law directly benefit them — and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive,” Jacob said.

The study, “The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice,” was authored by Natasha Wunsch, Marc S. Jacob, and Laurenz Derksen.