Shrug And Move On: How Democratic Indifference Could Be Eroding American Democracy

Most Americans would never say they support a politician who wants to jail political rivals or censor the press. But what about the millions who simply shrug?

A new study published in Nature Human Behaviour finds that roughly half of Americans express neutrality toward at least one undemocratic practice when asked about it in surveys. They don’t agree with it, but they don’t disagree either. And when it comes to choosing candidates, those fence-sitters behaved the same way as people who openly endorse anti-democratic actions. Neither group penalizes politicians for taking anti-democratic stances.

That finding challenges recent research concluding that overwhelming majorities oppose violations of democratic norms. That conclusion, the new research argues, was built on a basic mistake: lumping together people who actively oppose anti-democratic practices with people who simply didn’t pick a side.

The ‘Neither Agree Nor Disagree’ Problem

For years, political scientists have tried to solve a puzzle. If so few Americans say they support undemocratic practices, like shutting down polling stations in areas that favor the opposing party or ignoring court decisions from judges appointed by political rivals, then why do voters keep electing candidates who do exactly those things?

The research team, led by Matthew E. K. Hall and B. Tyler Leigh of the University of Notre Dame’s Department of Political Science and Brittany C. Solomon of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, believes the answer has been sitting in plain sight on survey forms. It’s the middle option: “neither agree nor disagree.”

Previous studies typically split respondents into two camps, those who supported undemocratic practices and everyone else. Anyone who didn’t explicitly endorse undermining democratic norms got counted as effectively pro-democracy. People who choose the neutral middle ground, a group the researchers call “democratic neutrals,” deserve their own category and their own scrutiny.

Half of Americans Fall Into the Neutral Zone

To document the pattern, the team analyzed data from three separate surveys totaling more than 48,000 American adults. All three surveys asked participants about the same four undemocratic practices, including reducing polling stations in areas that support the opposing party and censoring partisan media outlets.

Across all three surveys, small minorities said they agreed with these actions. But much larger portions chose the neutral midpoint. When the researchers looked at whether people expressed neutrality toward at least one of the four practices, about half of respondents in each sample fell into that category. Combining neutral responses with outright support, roughly 58% to 68% of respondents were either neutral toward or supportive of violating at least one democratic norm, though many in that group didn’t actively endorse anything. They simply declined to oppose it.

What ‘Neutral’ Actually Means for Democracy

One obvious question: are these people just not paying attention? The researchers tested this directly and found no meaningful link between failing attention checks and choosing the neutral option. Less than 1% of neutral respondents said inattention explained their choice.

When participants who selected the midpoint were asked to explain themselves, a range of motivations emerged. Some felt uncertain or poorly informed. Others were frustrated with politics or wanted to stay uninvolved. Some were genuinely torn. And the largest group said their answer depended on circumstances: they might oppose an undemocratic practice in general but could imagine scenarios where they’d accept it.

In a follow-up structured question, 47% of those who had selected the midpoint cited conditionality (“it depends”) as their reason. Ambivalence came second at about 28%, followed by uncertainty at 10%. Prior research has linked ambivalent attitudes toward undemocratic practices to a greater willingness to engage in extreme political behaviors.

Some democratic neutrals may also be concealing anti-democratic views behind a socially acceptable non-answer. When measured using a scale that offered no neutral option, those same respondents scored higher on anti-democratic sentiment, pointing to the midpoint as a kind of cover.

Democratic Neutrality at the Ballot Box

Perhaps the most consequential part of the study was a candidate-choice experiment embedded in one of the surveys. Participants read profiles of two hypothetical candidates, one Republican and one Democrat, with randomly assigned characteristics including whether the candidate endorsed a pro-democracy or anti-democracy position.

For people who scored low on support for undemocratic practices, a candidate’s anti-democracy stance significantly hurt that candidate’s appeal. For people who scored high in either support for or neutrality toward undemocratic practices, the candidate’s position on democracy had no measurable effect on their choice. Both groups failed to penalize anti-democratic candidates, and their results were statistically indistinguishable within the experiment. People who expressed neutrality also tended to be less educated, consumed less news, participated less in politics, and expressed lower trust in the political system.

If roughly half of Americans are neutral toward at least one undemocratic practice, and if that neutrality may help explain why voters continue to elect candidates who engage in such behavior, then the threat to American democracy isn’t coming primarily from a small fringe that openly cheers for authoritarianism. It’s coming from a much larger group that simply isn’t bothered enough to push back. Anti-democratic leaders don’t need enthusiastic followers. They just need people who won’t get in the way.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a peer-reviewed study and is intended for informational purposes only. The findings reflect the views and conclusions of the study’s authors and do not constitute political advice or endorsement of any party or candidate.

---