Why voting ‘neither’ could harm American democracy. Researchers found that about half of the U.S. population expresses an attitude of democratic neutrality — or an “unwillingness to support or oppose policies or practices that undermine democracy,
https://news.nd.edu/news/why-voting-neither-could-harm-american-democracy/
29 Comments
If you were to ask democracy scholars what they consider the greatest threat to American democracy, you might assume it is voters who support undemocratic practices or policies. But the real answer may surprise you: These voters are not the main problem.
According to a recent study from the University of Notre Dame, voters who are comfortable living in the middle — neither agreeing nor disagreeing when asked about substantive issues relevant to upholding democracy — might be the largest group to blame for democratic decline in the United States.
These “democratic neutrals” are what the study’s co-authors consider some of the most dangerous voters in the current political environment.
Neutrality as leverage in democratic backsliding
Using three surveys of more than 45,000 voting-age Americans, the researchers found that about half of the U.S. population expresses an attitude of democratic neutrality — or an “unwillingness to support or oppose policies or practices that undermine democracy,” explained Matthew E.K. Hall, lead author of the study recently published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
“Neutrality towards democracy, rather than outright opposition, has enabled democratic backsliding among various Western democracies as elected officials leverage citizens’ neutral attitudes to pursue antidemocratic outcomes,” Hall and his two co-authors wrote in their study.
The danger in this “neither support nor oppose” mentality lies in its lukewarm approach to what matters and to which lines should or should not be crossed when it comes to protecting our democracy. And that, Hall said, is problematic because if the public isn’t willing to hold its leaders accountable, then there’s nothing to stop them from behaving in ways that undermine democracy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02430-7
“You think both sides are a pile of crap, you are the problem”
I think it is too late as the US is currently not a democracy.
Apathy is the death of democracy
Listen, the DNC is far from perfect. The time for democratic voters to show them how they feel is in the primaries. For the national election, there is no truth to the “both sides are equally bad, just in different ways” nonsense.
Favorable attitudes toward democracy must be taught. For those with the privilege of growing up with its benefits without seeing the exact causal relationship between them, it is easy to take for granted.
It boggles the mind that so many races come down to a few thousand votes…apparently among people who care enough to participate we’re evenly split? How can this be?
Pretty sure ranked choice voting would solve this. We would move more central, slightly left or right leaning, without insane swings.
No, I’m not obligated to pick a side.
The problem seems to be “there aren’t enough people who care about democracy”. How is that not the same as “there are too many people who want to dismantle democracy”? This feels like it relies on the assumption that ambivalent people are immune to being swayed to become actively antidemocratic, or in other words, assuming that if they cared, they would be pro-democracy.
The way this is phrased makes it seem like even if the neutral people became actively anti-democratic, it would be better. That can’t possibly be true.
If you lost due to a group of people voting ‘neither’, you should reevaluate your approach towards that group instead of blaming them for your loss. It’s you who failed to earn those votes, not then that failed you, or society.
Nothing is more irritating than an enlightened centrist who still inserts their opinion. Like bro, you stand for nothing. Being contrarian is just annoying and they contribute literally nothing to society.
First, I have concerns that ChatGPT was utilized as part of the study to identify issues. Second, I don’t know that the conclusion is supportable. The idea that neutrality is more a threat to democracy than the polarization that has been growing for decades seems implausible. I note that American political engagement has fallen for decades as we stop being members of various organizations, and there is growing frustration with the political establishment not reflecting the constituencies they are courting. This is the result of decades of manipulation of districting practices and closed primary systems, wherein extreme candidates will win primaries due to their strong appeal to the most fervent members of the party and then win the district because it has been gerrymandered out of contention. This leads to a sense of futility and in turn a lack of political engagement. In that way, neutrality is probably the end result of the polarization, and so the real threat to democracy is likely the ideological extremes, with the lack of opposition being the end result of the machines which gave power to the extremes.
It’s wild to blame this on the people when our politicians absolutely refuse to legislate based on the needs of ordinary citizens.
It’s a failure of the system if we’re constantly forced to pick our politicians just so we can prevent a worse politician from winning.
This is actually a decent look at “democratic” practices. The 4 examples used in the survey were:
– reducing outparty polling stations
– ignoring outparty court decisions
– remaining loyal to the party over the Constitution
– censoring partisan media
There *are* correct answers to these questions assuming you support a liberal democracy, and it doesn’t surprise me that members of both parties have become increasingly hostile to the notion of upholding one. That’s not apathy, though. It’s hatred of the opposition. Both sides “hate” each other more than they did 20+ years ago, and they are beginning to feel it’s impossible to live with one another. When that happens support for a liberal democracy erodes, and that is an incredibly unhealthy place for a country to be in.
System: Puts money over human life.
Me: That’s bad. You are bad.
System: Why does no one want to support me anymore?
I know no one reads articles, but these comments are just sad.
They aren’t talking Republican v Democrat.
They are taking about “voters who are comfortable living in the middle — neither agreeing nor disagreeing when asked about substantive issues relevant to upholding democracy”
“Neutrality towards democracy, rather than outright opposition, has enabled democratic backsliding among various Western democracies as elected officials leverage citizens’ neutral attitudes to pursue antidemocratic outcomes,” Hall and his two co-authors wrote in their study.
All those top comments who feel absolutely certain being neutral between parties is right should attempt to challenge their assumptions and read the article before being absolutely sure they actually still disagree.
Also known as not wanting to put in the effort of forming an opinion and just defaulting to boarding the victor’s chariot after all is done.
The hard truth is that most people don’t really care what the form of government is so long as it stays out of the way of what they want/need to do day-to-day. Or at least provides a method to do those things in some form.
1/3 of the population will stand by while 1/3 of the population oppresses 1/3 of the population.
I remember stading in the voting booth and looking at two names, Trump or Clinton. I would never vote for Trump but Clinton was a very tough pill to swallow.
When the leaders of the US’A actually want to represent people with policy, I will vote for them. Not a moment sooner. Show us with action, not empty handed words.
Neither indeed.
The sad thing is that there is NO minimum requirement for votes in a Presidential Election, meaning it’s not possible to abstain because even if only 10 people vote that still validates an election even though the vast majority chose to abstain because they wanted neither party
America needs to get rid of 1st Past the Post AND implement Ranked Voting to allow 3rd parties a viable chance because as it stands the 2 party system enables each party doing as little as possible because there are no other viable options so there is no reason for either party to change
When states undermine or reverse the will of the voters it is difficult to get some voters to vote again.
Examples: Voters voted for legal weed in S. Dakota. The government said nah and found petty reasons to overturn it.
Prop 187 in California was overturned by the state courts.
Then add in Citizens United and I can see why people vote neither
I wish I had a solution to political apathy. It has been the cause of so much destruction, ignorant leadership and lack of progress.
China is eating our lunch because of the one step forward and two steps backward chaos we call government.
These people aren’t voting “neither,” they’re not voting at all. If we made voting mandatory, maybe some would leave the ballot blank and literally vote “neither,” but most would probably vote one way or another if required to.
Oh well, on to a better form of government. Mob rule had a good run.
Can’t harm something that’s already dead. The question now is how to start over. We’ll need to rebuild it from the rubble. Propping the corpse up and pretending it’s still alive like Weekend at Bernie’s isn’t going to solve anything.
I don’t vote because the system is broken. I can’t support a system I don’t believe in.