Warum eine Abstimmung mit „weder“ der amerikanischen Demokratie schaden könnte. Forscher fanden heraus, dass etwa die Hälfte der US-Bevölkerung eine Haltung der demokratischen Neutralität zum Ausdruck bringt – oder „eine mangelnde Bereitschaft, Richtlinien oder Praktiken zu unterstützen oder abzulehnen, die die Demokratie untergraben“.

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

I think it is too late as the US is currently not a 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.

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?

No, I’m not obligated to pick a side.

„Science says that people who don’t vote for my guy are bad.“

This reads like someone who just is so focused on politics that they can’t believe people don’t share their priorities.

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.

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.

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.

People tend focus on what they wish to be their locus of control. “I wish I could support a third candidate” or “I wish I could vote my conscience.” This prevents them from exercising the power they DO have to give power to the person they prefer in the field of two. Preferring democrats over republicans doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that I agree with everything about a candidate, just that I would rather they have power than the fascists currently in charge.

You have exactly one thing you actually control every election: which of the two major parties gets your vote.

If you want to influence either party toward moderation or voting reform, the best way to do that is to attend caucus and vote in primaries rather than sitting out the general. Your chance to influence the choices in front of you has long passed by November.

The American voting system is as undemocratic as it can be without being a straight dictator ship. At best you get around 50% representation.

It’s almost like screeching about how awful team [insert binary choice here] is doesn’t work. They have to actually earn votes. Whodathunk it…

Yeah because the US electoral system is broken. The system is designed to elect one of two incumbent parties so you will only get one of two incumbent parties and they have no impetus to do better. They just need to be slightly better than the other party – which is a very low bar.

I understand why so many Americans percieve it as pointless. I don’t think resigning is the right choice but I do understand the sentiment.