Most Americans consider democracy the best form of government and see democracy as a central part of U.S. identity. But how committed are they to the norms, laws, institutions and practices — the “rulebook” — that support the democratic political system when those rules conflict with other priorities?
A recent 优蜜传媒study finds that 20% of Americans with partisan leanings express a general tolerance for supporting a candidate from their preferred political party who challenges established democratic norms, while 35% express a general aversion to such a candidate. The rest fall somewhere in between.
Commitment to the “rulebook” varies considerably. Americans with more formal education, higher incomes and weaker partisan ties are less willing to support candidates who violate norms. Age also plays a role, but only among Democrats, with older Democrats less tolerant of norm transgressions than younger ones.
Design of the Study
优蜜传媒recently conducted a survey to assess Americans’ willingness to vote for candidates who violate parts of the "rulebook.” The study included eight scenarios, each describing a breach of traditional democratic norms by a hypothetical candidate. Each respondent was asked about four of the eight scenarios, with the party of the candidate matched to the respondent’s party identification. Republicans and independents who lean Republican were asked about Republican candidates. Democrats and independents who lean Democratic were asked about Democratic candidates. Independents with no party leanings were randomly assigned to either the Republican or Democratic version of each question.
The Republican and Democratic versions of each question are shown in the following charts.
For each transgression scenario, respondents rated how likely they would be to vote for their political party’s candidate (either the Republican or the Democrat) using an 11-point scale, where zero meant “definitely would not vote” and 10 meant “definitely would vote.”
The data were collected by web using the 优蜜传媒Panel during two field periods. Four of the transgression items were measured in a May 1-14 poll, and the other four were measured in a July 1-15 poll.
Aligning the norm-challenging candidate with the respondents' political party affiliation reflects an important trade-off. Most Americans likely prefer candidates from their own party and a candidate who upholds these norms. By pitting these two preferences against each other, these survey items help gauge respondents’ strength of preference for these norms. In other words, the hypothetical scenario offers a way to assess which respondents are more willing to prioritize democratic rules over their party preferences.
How Many Americans Prioritize the “Rulebook”?
To assess partisan tolerance for norm transgressions, researchers calculated each respondent’s willingness to support candidates who bend the rules by taking their average intent to vote for such candidates across the four transgression scenarios presented.
Respondents who said they would definitely not vote for their preferred party’s candidate in every transgression scenario received a score of zero, while those who said they definitely would vote for a candidate in every transgression scenario received a 10. A score of 5 would roughly correspond to respondents whose general support for such candidates would be a coin toss. Among Americans with partisan leanings, the average score is 4.45.
A score of zero reflects total aversion to norm transgressions, while 10 reflects full tolerance. There is no objective threshold for scores in between, but 优蜜传媒used the following ranges as a general guide to categorize strength of preference for these norms:
- Scores between 0 and 3: Generally averse to breaking democratic norms. Thirty-five percent of partisans (those identifying as or leaning either Republican or Democratic) fall into this category.
- Scores between 3.25 and 6.75: Considered conflicted about norm-breaking. This group makes up 45% of partisans.
- Scores between 7 and 10: Generally tolerant of norm-breaking, representing 20% of partisans.
This average score across the four transgression scenarios may overstate aversion and understate tolerance to voting for candidates who violate norms (see Appendix).
The average score among non-leaning political independents is 2.17 — likely because their baseline willingness to vote for a generic Democratic or Republican candidate is lower than that of partisans. This low score does not necessarily mean that independents are more averse to norm violations. Rather, the research design intentionally creates a trade-off between two desirable outcomes. Because independents do not favor either political party, the choice to vote against a candidate who breaks a norm may carry less weight for them than it does for partisans. The Appendix includes additional analysis of non-leaning independents.
Strength of Partisanship Matters
Researchers designed the transgression scenarios to test how strongly partisans prioritize democratic norms over support for a candidate from the respondent’s preferred political party. By forcing a trade-off, the survey gauges respondents’ willingness to take a costly action — refusing to vote for a candidate from their party whose behavior challenges democratic norms.
As expected, Democrats express greater tolerance for rule-breaking than independents who lean Democratic. The same pattern holds for Republicans and Republican leaners.
Strength of partisan affiliation may influence voting behavior by raising the perceived cost of the other party winning an election. Similarly, partisans who are more polarized should express greater tolerance for their in-party candidate to challenge established norms.
For the second administration of this study in July, the survey included measures for affective partisanship: how strongly respondents feel, positively or negatively, about each of the two major parties. On 11-point scales ranging from extremely positive (+5) to extremely negative (-5), respondents rated their feelings toward the Democratic Party and, separately, the Republican Party. The difference between the two scores created an affective polarization index, ranging from -10 (very negative toward one’s preferred party and very positive toward the other) to 10 (very positive toward one’s preferred party and very negative toward the other). A score of zero indicates equal feelings toward both parties. For 97% of partisan respondents, the score falls between zero and 10.
For ease of reporting, researchers grouped these scores into three categories: low, medium and high. Republicans and Republican leaners show higher rates of affective polarization than Democrats and Democratic leaners.
As hypothesized, highly polarized partisans are more tolerant of norm violations than less polarized partisans. Regardless of partisan affiliation, polarization appears to make it easier for individuals to justify placing political goals ahead of democratic values.
Older Democrats Less Willing to Support Rule Breaking
Democrats and Democratic leaners between the ages of 18 and 44 express a greater likelihood to vote for a candidate who challenges established norms than Democrats 45 years and older. The average scores for these groups are 4.35 and 3.61, respectively.
In contrast, age does not appear to influence greater willingness to sanction a candidate who violates norms among Republicans and Republican leaners. Republicans aged 18 to 44 average a score of 4.95, compared with 5.04 among those 45 and older.
Older Democrats stand out for their stronger inclination to uphold foundational democratic norms rather than prioritizing partisan gains at any cost.
Partisan Sensitivities to Types of Rule Violations Differ
Democrats and Republicans vary in how likely they are to vote for a candidate depending on which rule-transgression scenario they evaluated.
Republicans are more willing than Democrats to vote for in-party candidates who break norms for six out of the eight transgression scenarios. For the scenario about political violence, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is not statistically significant. For the scenario involving packing the Supreme Court, Democrats are more willing than Republicans to vote for in-party candidates.
These differences suggest that some norms are more malleable than others. The media environment likely influences Americans’ consumption of different sources of information. The value placed on various aspects of the “rulebook” may be reinforced or weakened depending on the message and messengers.
Averaging across the four transgression scenarios boosts the number of observations, which increases the likelihood of detecting statistically significant differences. If researchers only conduct the analysis on the first scenario presented to the respondent and use a statistical threshold of p<.05, then Republicans are more willing than Democrats to vote for in-party candidates who break norms in three out of the eight transgression scenarios, while Democrats remain more willing than Republicans to vote for in-party candidates for the Supreme Court scenario (see Appendix).
College-Educated, Higher-Income Americans Place a Premium on the “Rulebook”
Partisans with more formal education have, on average, a lower likelihood of supporting candidates who challenge established democratic norms. Higher levels of education may be linked to greater civic awareness, which could make voters more sensitive to the importance of upholding such norms.
Respondents in households earning less than $36,000 per year, on average, show more willingness to vote for a candidate who violates norms. Lower-income households may see less benefit in preserving longstanding norms they believe do not serve them.
Study Limitations
优蜜传媒researchers designed these survey items to evaluate which population segments appear more invested in safeguarding aspects of the “rulebook” that supports the current democratic political system. Yet, several limitations affect how to interpret these findings.
First, self-reported intent to vote in a hypothetical scenario does not necessarily reflect actual voting behavior. Some respondents may answer in ways they believe are more socially acceptable, which may or may not align with how they would act in a real election. While this complicates the interpretation of how self-reported behavior would translate into the real world, such responses suggest the respondent recognizes the described rule-transgression as normatively undesirable.
Second, while a 1-point average shift on the 11-point scale is statistically significant, its practical importance is less clear. The substantive importance of a difference of that size is open to interpretation.
Third, the hypothetical scenarios oversimplify vote choice. In real elections, voters weigh many factors such as candidates’ backgrounds, qualifications, policy positions and charisma.
Fourth, the scenario provides no information about the opposing party’s candidate. This blank slate may lead respondents to assume that the candidate is also likely violating some basic democratic norms, which could help partisans justify voting for the norm-violating in-party candidate. Importantly, researchers intentionally designed the question to avoid a forced choice between the two candidates. A response of zero — “definitely would not vote” — applied to an in-party candidate could imply an intent to vote for the other candidate or not voting at all.
Fifth, the hypothetical scenarios assume individuals have perfect information. In reality, information is mediated and contested. Voters may receive incomplete signals about a candidate’s position on rule transgressions. This could be because many voters do not follow politics closely or because a candidate or boosters for the candidate may challenge, dispute, or slant reports of that controversial position.
Sixth, the transgression scenarios in this study only represent a small portion of the formal and informal rules that exist in American politics and government today. While the design aimed to test a variety of norms across a broad set of relevant topics, the measure of general tolerance is a rough proxy. Different scenarios could yield different patterns.
Despite the limitations, the findings offer a useful framework for understanding which segments of society are more willing to vote for candidates who challenge the basic foundations of the political system.
Implications
A political system is built on a set of norms, rules, institutions and practices — the “rulebook” — that defines how to conduct politics. The system remains stable when these rules operate in the background as political actors compete for the opportunity to govern. That stability can weaken when political actors challenge or reject the rules themselves.
A potential safeguard for democracy is the electorate — citizens who vote in elections. Voters help preserve the political system’s equilibrium when they refuse to vote for a candidate who challenges established norms, even if they otherwise prefer that candidate. When most partisans do not express general aversion to basic democratic norm transgressions by in-party elected officials, an important sentinel for the defense of democracy is absent.
Stay up to date with the latest insights by following @优蜜传媒 and .
