Study Notes on The Majoritarian Threat to Liberal Democracy 10/14/25

Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Incumbents often seek to wield power in ways that are legally permissible but informally rejected.
Explanation for voter support of these power grabs traditionally centers on polarization. This article offers a new perspective: many voters are majoritarian and view elected leaders' actions as democratic, even if they subvert liberal democracy.
Findings: Majoritarians' inclination to authorize actions of popularly elected officials represents a significant yet overlooked challenge to liberal democracy in the U.S.

Previous scholarship indicates that voters frequently fail to check incumbents' democratic subversions (Almond and Verba, 1963).
- Issue: Institutional checks like balances are necessary yet insufficient against power grabs; same applies to politicians' self-restraint (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018).
- Importance of citizen vigilance in maintaining liberal democracy (Weingast, 1997).
Common voter reactions to power grabs include indifference or compliance (e.g., Bermeo, 2016).
Prior explanations categorize voters into:
1. Autocrats: prefer non-democratic governance (Foa and Mounk, 2016).
2. Militants: sacrifice democratic principles for partisan goals (Graham and Svolik, 2020).
New focus: Majoritarians, those who grant substantial authority to elected officials, even amid subversion of liberal democracy norms.

Majoritarians perceive power grabs as aligned with democratic principles—prefer majoritarian rule over institutional safeguards.
Distinctions among voter categories:
- Autocrats: Acknowledge inconsistency with democracy but support power grabs.
- Militants: Recognize inconsistency but support co-partisan power grabs only.
- Majoritarians: Believe power grabs uphold democratic principles and endorse them regardless of partisanship.
- Emphasis: Majoritarian support is based on democratic ideals (not against them), distinguishing them from other categories.

Survey Experiments Conducted: 2 original survey experiments conducted in the U.S. Contextual scenarios simulating power grabs by state officials (Astor, 2018; Chappell, 2018; Levy, 2019).

A vignette presented discusses a state supreme court justice's retirement amidst a governing transition.
- Outgoing governor (from a differing party) appoints a replacement—an act defying norms of forbearance (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018).
Hypothesis Testing: Extent to which respondents endorse the power grab based on co-partisanship.
- Dependent variables: approval of the appointment and perceived consistency with democracy.
- Analysis of different voting cohorts (autocrats, militants, majoritarians).

Findings reveal increased approval and perceived consistency when the outgoing governor is a co-partisan.
Notable Insights:
- Majoritarians represent about 25% of survey respondents, a considerable segment supporting power grabs irrespective of party affiliation.
- Weak correlation between abstract democratic principles and support for specific democratic actions (World Values Survey).
Implications: This suggests traditional measures of democratic endorsement may misrepresent real-world attitudes.

Scenario: A same-party governor proposes a ballot initiative for exclusive control over the state budget to circumvent the legislature.
Justifications provided by the governor include:
1. Preventing an opposing party's extreme agenda (polarization argument).
2. Overcoming legislative gridlock.
3. Constraining special interests influencing the legislature.
Analysis Goal: To understand grounding justification effectiveness in garnering support for power grabs.

Key Findings: Prohibition of special interests was a compelling rationale for voters, indicating public antipathy towards their influence.
Results support the role of majoritarian values over mere partisan leanings.

Introduction of scenarios where prior judicial appointments either succeeded or failed affects future expectations of other power grabs.
Outcomes observed:
- Successful power grab scenarios increase anticipation for future successful grabs and maintain view of democracy's integrity.
Result interpretation: Majoritarian perspectives lead to reduced public backlash against perceived democratic erosions.

Voter tolerance of power grabs extends beyond polarization; it hinges on a significant majoritarian willingness to endorse actions of elected officials as democratic.
Future work is required to evaluate the implications of majoritarianism on democratic integrity and the overall health of liberal democracy in the U.S.

A comprehensive list of cited works includes notable contributions from works analyzing democratic norms, voter behavior, and political science theories.