On a 100-point scale, the experts gave the U.S. political system a health rating of 72. For the public it was 59.<\/div>\n
\u201cThe fact that the public is so concerned about the state of U.S. democracy is hardly surprising, given the extraordinarily low approval ratings we are seeing for Donald Trump,\u201d says Helmke. \u201cThat experts have a more positive view of how institutions are performing here may be due, at least in part, to their familiarity with other countries, such as Venezuela, Hungary, Poland, or Turkey, which have witnessed even greater democratic backsliding recently.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the survey, experts were asked to identify the dimensions of democracy they see as most important, and to rate how well the United States is performing on those measurements.\u00a0\u201cThe expert judgments do not line up predictably along a Trump versus anti-Trump axis,\u201d notes Helmke, which she says is \u201cevidence that our experts are not simply responding on a partisan, anti-Trump basis.\u201d<\/p>\n
The four scientists compared their data from the political experts against responses from the general public through a partnership with YouGov.<\/p>\n
The survey showed that political scientists drew sharp distinctions between dimensions that are crucial to democracy\u2014such as clean and inclusive elections\u2014 and others that they see as less crucial\u2014such as a common understanding of\u00a0facts.<\/p>\n
According to the findings, the experts viewed elections as basically fraud free, and the rights of association respected. On some other measurements, the performance of U.S. democracy scored lower, but these were often aspects of democracy that experts viewed as less important, such as politicians\u2019 impugning their opponents\u2019 patriotism, reasoning that \u201cAmerican democracy is not directly threatened by this lack of rhetorical restraint,\u201d according to the survey.<\/p>\n
One finding, however, astounded Helmke. \u201cGiven that we fielded the survey in the aftermath of [the violence in] Charlottesville, it was somewhat surprising to me that the expert performance ratings on political violence did not dip more,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, the survey showed that party-affiliation mattered: the researchers found the greatest polarization on issues of basic fairness in electoral competition, and on individual rights. On these matters, supporters of the Trump administration regarded American democracy as functioning well, with solid majorities holding that democratic standards were fully or mostly met, while those who disapprove of the president held much more negative views. By contrast, differences between Trump supporters and opponents were less pronounced on the performance of institutions essential to democracy such as the press, political parties, and constitutional and judicial checks on authority.<\/p>\n
While voters on both sides of the political aisle express a commitment to democracy, they also recognize that it is under threat, according to the survey. Both experts and voters were concerned, but surprisingly, the polled political scientists were less alarmed than the public: on a 100-point thermometer scale, the experts gave the U.S. political system a health rating of 72. For the public it was 59. On 27 dimensions of democratic performance that survey respondents considered, the experts offered more positive evaluations than the public on 16 of them, include freedom of the press, the ability of citizen to make their opinions heard, the political neutrality of government agencies, and protections against political violence.<\/p>\n
The authors found that the public was less discouraged than the experts about electoral fairness and worried less about electoral districts being biased, or votes having an unequal impact on outcomes, large donors determining electoral outcomes, and low election participation. \u201cOn all these counts, we suspect that the broader familiarity among experts with international standards might account for their relative pessimism,\u201d the authors surmised.<\/p>\n
Helmke\u2019s research focuses on democratic political institutions, the rule of law, and Latin American politics.\u00a0Her most recent book,\u00a0Institutions on the Edge: The Origins and Consequences of Institutional Instability in Latin America<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge University Press, 2017), shows that concentrating power in the presidency triggers political crises across all three branches of government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The third Bright Line Watch survey, co-authored by Rochester political scientist Gretchen Helmke, focuses on the health of U.S. democratic institutions and compares the results from thousands of political professionals with the general public.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":942,"featured_media":276902,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[456],"tags":[21462,8756,29492,18572,16072],"class_list":["post-275472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society-culture","tag-department-of-political-science","tag-elections","tag-gretchen-helmke","tag-research-finding","tag-school-of-arts-and-sciences"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Political experts say U.S. democracy healthier than public thinks<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n