Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States/Archive 1

This article reads like it could have been written by the Daily KOS or Occupy Democrats
Wikipedia is not even pretending to be neutral anymore. Come on guys, at least post an opposing voice or two in the article.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:5C36:3E57:A06E:63C6 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the United States is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. The United States of America started off as a confederation but, when that was seen to not work, the founders gathered to frame a new constitution. The result has persisted to this date—the U.S. is a constitutional republic. Delete this article. 97.70.111.66 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

V-Dem is not mainstream
There is a good bit of literature relating to V-Dem, but my reading is not that V-DEM is not exactly something that has academic consensus as a good measure of democracy—I specifically recall my professors in college excoriating what they described as flaws in the dataset. I really don't think that the V-DEM chart is due in the lead unless we're willing to put a Wikivoice agreement that V-DEM's measurements are valid for quantifying "democracy". — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you may want to improve V-Dem Institute, as this perspective is not in that article. Regardless of the quality of the data, I think the timescale muddles the message it is trying to convey; I would focus solely on the 21st century. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair, though I'll have to get fuller access to some of the sources that are somewhat hidden, though the various attempts to quantify "democracy" generally lack interchangeability for purposes of drawing statistically valid conclusions (see here, where effect sizes massively vary depending on the chosen "democracy" proxy); the question of whether or not quantifying "democracy" on a numerical scale reflects what democracy actually is is extremely pertinent here. VDEM is better in some respects than old ways, but it's — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is mainstream and used in research. The chart is attributed so I don't think that anyone could be misled into thinking Wikipedia endorses it as the one and only measurement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole notion of quantifying something that's obviously qualitative ("extent of democracy") is suspect from the get-go. While there are many, many qualitative analyses that would likely be useful, I'm left wondering why López & Luna (2021) is cited for the fact that they argued that both democratic continuity and reversal are possible rather than the meat of the paper, which is to expose the methodological shortcomings of QCA for these sorts of things. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still believe that the timeframe is too wide compared to the scope of the article; the relevant part of the graph is barely visible as a small dip in at the far-right end of the graph. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 06:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The timescale allows for noticing a rise-peak-decline pattern. Nxavar (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight to Huq (2022)
Huq (2022) appears to have been cited a whopping 1 time, but takes up more than half of the lead and takes up half of the causes section. He's also a lawyer by training and a professor of Law, not a political scientist. I don't think that this is consistent with the principle of due weight, especially since Huq is the only person being cited in the lead for the causes of democratic backsliding. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The other sources say pretty much the same thing (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the causes that Huq gives for the democratic backsliding from the lead since they do not represent consesus or even an attept by Huq to summarize existing scholarly opinion. Nxavar (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2022
Democratic backsliding in the United States → Strength of democracy in the United States – There appear to be some scholars, most notably Weyland (2020) that seem to not endorse the view that democracy in the United States is backsliding. The move would allow for the topic to be covered more neutrally, for the topic of the article to cover changes in democratic strength that precede 2010, and to focus on the concept of "democratic strength" (which has quite a wide scholarly corpus) rather than its first derivative (which has a more narrow corpus) and would be of use in improving the article to cover the topic more coherently. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Democratic strength would cover the full political history of the United States. This article covers the perceived decline in the 21st century. A better alternative is to have an RfC so that in this article sources about democratic strenght in the covered period are relevant to the topic. It seems self-evident but seems to strongly disagree. Changing the title so that we can do that is succumbing to legalistic behaviour. 141.237.7.228 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title "Strength of democracy in the United States" is no less politically charged. It implies a very certain understanding of American history, its present global political context, and what its future will be—Wikipedia is not a platform for American patriotism and propaganda (which this phrase definitely feels like). The proposed title says nothing about the actual contents of the article, and anyways there exist article out there of criticized notions; that's what "Criticism" sections are for. 209.2.234.239 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal is an invalid move request as backdoor deletion since Democracy in the United States and Democratization of the United States are separate topics that should exist as Wikipedia articles but don't yet. Cited sources already amply show notability of the topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Canada Relations
Is the last part of this really valid in any way? You have a random researcher who had approximately 6 articles to her name and a random news article. So basically two somewhat unnotable opinions. I don't think this meets the standard of "objective information." Perhaps if it was at least some notable people in government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.130.3 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"According to scholars"
It would seem that enough scholars are cited in the body of the article that this (vague) qualifier could be removed from the first sentence. Otherwise, I would suggest qualifying the statement more clearly - like "according to [insert field/bias/affiliation/etc of scholar here] scholars". Any ideas? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Correct, that should not be there because as far as I can tell there is no disagreement in RS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate voicing opinions on topics where I am not qualified to hold one, I am inclined to disagree. It seems to me that research into this topic is a relatively niche and that it would be premature to state unequivocally in wikivoice that democratic backsliding is indeed occurring; twelve sources is by no means a large body of literature. My instinct is that different views could probably be found among scholars using different vocabulary to describe the same basic concepts. I'm not sure how much help I can actually be here, though, since I have chosen to keep my knowledge of US politics negligible. I suppose I could ask some of the professors at my college, if you like; they might be able to refer me to some more right-leaning literature on the subject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a left right issue though. And until/unless you produce some sources equally credible to those cited that found different results, it would be inappropriate to insert a caution based on your personal beliefs about the topic. People's comments to you can't be cited as they are not verifiable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to get this response whenever I muse on US politics talk pages; I guess I should stop doing it. Yes, believe me, I'm aware that my thoughts are unactionable; you'll note that I've not suggested any changes. And no, democratic backsliding is not a left-right issue and I think it would be safe to say that many major political thinkers in the US today from both sides would agree that it is happening; nevertheless, the fact that the points raised in this particular article only implicate the Republican party is. I'm sure I can find literature discussing the same basic ideas with respect to, e.g., the Obama administration's reliance on executive orders to circumvent a gridlocked Congress. I'll do some research and get back with you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that Steven Breyer is exactly an independent source here, but his 2021 book that was published by Harvard University Press seems to take an optimistic view of the way that the court brigs about American democracy. A 2020 book that focuses on Judiciaries from a comparative perspective discusses the relationship between the U.S. Supreme Court and liberalization and finds that, taking a long view, the court has cut both towards and away from liberalization at different times. Others have at times praised the Supreme Court for being at the core of American Democracy.
 * Most importantly for me is that the topic of backsliding pre-dates 2016, with books in 2015 and 2013 covering the topic. Others, such as Scalia, regarded the concept of democratic backsliding as a theoretical question that was of active interest to Supreme Court jurisprudence as it pertained to American fidelity to the original public meaning of the Constitution (and it's discussed in other places as well). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Article never says that backsliding started in a particular year though... Any sources that don't cover democratic backsliding may not be cited here as that would be original research. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why an otherwise quality source that explicitly contradicts a claim in this article is unacceptable simply because it doesn't use the phrase "democratic backsliding." Within a given field, scholars who share a perspective will coin unique terms of art to describe what they are looking at; if you focus on the vocabulary instead of the ideas, you're going to unintentionally cage yourself. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Buidhe is actually *intentionally" caging *everyone else*. I've seen this kind of nyah-nyah literalist gatekeeping on other pages, but usually by people who have more expertise on the topic and a clearer understanding of the diversity of wikipedia.
 * Almost every one of this editor's comments has a defensive tone, fending off challenges to the status quo of the page with "thou shalt not" statements, rather than saying something like, "that could be good for balance, please find a reliable source" (or even suggesting a source, if he/she actually has read anything to support NPOV).
 * From the DYK nomination, which I suppose seemed relevant to current events, so attentiveness to NPOV became lax, thereby undermining WP's credibility as a neutral source of info:
 * Buidhe: "there are objective measures of democracy". No, there are not. Supposed measures are based on axioms that seem logical or maybe just in vogue. Democracy is a social, political, and cultural phenomenon that is frequently conflated with the concept of "republic". It's not measurable like "did a person die?" or "how far is it from the earth to the moon?' The V-Dem section of Talk cogently challenges their self-authorization as an objective arbiter of democracy. Academic or Think Tank consensus is not the same as objectivity.
 * Buidhe: "if there is any RS that covers Democratic gerrymandering...". Well, yeah. How about reading the article on Elbridge Gerrymander (a VP and also a governor of Massachussetts), for whom Gerry-mandering is named?
 * Buidhe's lame rebuttal to Bahnfrend calling out POV in the Neutrality section: "The sources cited in a different article can't be used here..." Say what? There are countless pages that cite reliable sources that are also used for related topics. Just read a few pages on historical events. Or look at any page that has a link under a heading to a more detailed discussion of that section. Please don't concoct rules that show your own narrowmindedness. Martindo (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about collecting information from reliable sources. In political issues there always questions of how impartial a particular source is. What I take issue here is that those that are trying to deny the democratic backsliding among the scholars - Kurt Weyland for example - are silenced. Adding the opposing view in the current state of the article would be a big contrast with the opinionated tone that the affirming view is presented. We need to remove editorialism here. Nxavar (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A source that directly addresses democratic backsliding and says it's not happening is eligible to be cited, but one that isn't about democratic backsliding can't, it would be original research. That has nothing to do with me, it's Wikipedia's content policy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I partially misunderstood the comment you repeat above. It seems you are referring specifically to OR that interprets related sources as relevant. However, Democratic backsliding has its own page already, where synonyms are given: "also known as autocratization, is the decline in democratic qualities of a political regime" with additional synonyms in a footnote.
 * Therefore, I don't see the need for legalistic interpretation of WP rules here. Any article about "autocratization" or "erosion of democracy" (IMO, a more appropriate term because it covers countries where democracy is still evolving, like the Philippines) is relevant BY DEFINITION of the generic page on this topic.
 * If we want to insist on WP rules, the one about notability should be applied here: let's merge the content of this page into Democratic backsliding under the section Prevalence and Trends, which already has a link to Democratic_backsliding_by_country, a page that was designed to accommodate details. I don't see the need to devote a whole page to American exceptionalism, which appears to have been generated by recent academic pronouncements, unverifiable measurements based on a limited set of axioms, and thinly veiled panic about the current direction of SCOTUS.
 * Omitted measures/axioms include: one-party rule (Japan for a long time, Singapore still), political parties founded by prominent personalities with few policy statements but a strong desire to become president (Thailand and Indonesia), and suspiciously high turnouts achieved by pressuring people to vote (e.g., missing an election means you need to re-register to vote in the future) among other indicators.
 * The POV tag here is relevant and IMO the ideal solution would be to merge this page with either of the two more general pages about Democratic backsliding, where a wider range of editors with deeper experience can sift the content to remove the POV.
 * It's important to recognize that simply quoting an academic article and dubbing it a "reliable source" is not enough. Blatant POV should give one pause because it is grounds for excluding that source. For example, the sole source in the section Public Opinion is an anti-racist journal article that narrowly blames white people, failing to mention the tendency of some non-whites to be oblivious to the principle "innocent until proven guilty" (e.g., confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh).
 * The same journal article is cited under History and Forecast to support the claim that gerrymandering is increasing. Somehow it omits the historical fact that the term was named after Elbridge Gerry, elected governor of Massachussetts in 1810 for his opposition to the Federalists. I don't see why anyone would say a citation from his page or gerrymandering is OR, given that the topic already appears here.
 * Further, asserting that there is consequently no reliable source about Democrats undermining democracy implies you forgot that Gerry became VP when Madison of the Democratic-Republican_Party won the presidency in 1812. This was the party that grew into the current Democratic_Party_(United_States). Martindo (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
I see a POV tag now added; I tend to agree that I found this reads like it was written with many citations but without showing attempt to balance or be neutral. For a small example, this article featured today with a sentence about the supreme court, but that section here cites the Roberts Court actions without including easily referenced Warren Court criticisms or conservative scholarship about judicial activism and its undemocratic role at that period of history. I am only a layperson on this, but I registered surprise at this at least appearing to lack neutrality on a featured American political topic tagging a highly topical supreme court on English Wikipedia. Revr J (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Revr J your comment cannot be actioned unless you provide sources discussing democratic backsliding. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not some editor's opinion (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Revr J. As to whether there are reliable sources, that is not the main issue. This article is poorly written, with a lack of focus. It reads more like a 21st century political statement than an encyclopedia article. The "Background" section is far too short; it should begin with some commentary to the effect that the present US political system was established in the 18th century (when, eg, slavery was still lawful in many parts of the US), and was intended to limit democracy (eg by the use of electoral colleges as opposed to direct election) at a time when democracy was unusual worldwide (the Aziz Z. Huq assertions to which the article refers rely upon this point, without expanding upon or explaining it). The "Background" section should also comment, eg, that Gerrymandering is a very longstanding practice in the USA, that there were allegations of electoral fraud by the Kennedy campaign in 1960 (allegedly involving persons who had allegedly been involved in earlier electoral frauds), that the Watergate scandal in the 1970s concerned another threat to democracy, and that there was controversy in 2000 over Bush v. Gore. There is also the now 50-year old controversy over whether Roe v Wade should have removed from the elected legislatures of the States the power (or limited their power) to make laws outlawing or regulating abortion (an issue quite distinct from the question whether abortion should be lawful). The "Causes" section should begin with the Aziz Z. Huq assertions, and then set out the other views, in a logical order (and there must surely be a commentator asserting, somewhere, that intolerant, authoritarian, identity politics is also associated with the Democratic Party). The "History" section (which should come before the "Causes" section) assumes detailed background knowledge of US politics, and focuses on statements by commentators rather than on the facts of the events on which they are commenting. It should focus on the facts of the events, as the commentary is of secondary importance. There is no mention in the article of any of the freedom indices and what they say about the US (eg the Economist Democracy Index now rates the US as only a "flawed democracy" whereas the US-based Freedom in the World still rates the US as "free"). There is also no mention of the increasing polarisation of US politics, which is a product of attitudes on both sides of the political spectrum, and not just one of those sides. Additionally, the article as a whole refers to the alleged attitudes and prejudices of white people without acknowledging, eg, that Black Lives Matter is a political movement that relies heavily upon theories of Black Marxism and causes mayhem in the US (and elsewhere) without necessarily benefiting people of color in any way. I have no doubt that reliable sources can be found, mainly in existing Wikipedia articles on related topics, to support all of the content that needs to be added to ensure that this article has a NPOV. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V is policy. So no changes can be made until you provide sources directly tying any proposed content to democratic backsliding. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already answered this point. I'm not going to repeat my answer, other than by noting, merely as a non-exhaustive example, that reliable sources are cited here for my points that both Gerrymandering and the increasing polarisation of US politics should be mentioned in this article, which, frankly, is indefensible in its present form. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources cited in a different article can't be used here and are irrelevant unless they cover democratic backsliding. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Backsliding is key here. This article treats history in relative terms, i.e. if democracy is weakened or strengthened. The fact that the US has been less democratic in the past than it is today is not an argument for or against backsliding. I agree that polarization must be metioned. Nxavar (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless we think the democratic backsliding article needs to redefine the term not as a general descriptor of a process, but a narrower school of scholarship, I am unclear why zero of those examples would be relevant.

Are we saying only modern scholars who use the exact phrase "democratic backsliding" are relevant? The broader positioning of the topic would suggest multiple democracy rankings and many ebbs and flows in democratization would be potentially relevant.

We know editors' own views aren't what the article is for, but what we choose to cite and how the topic is positioned seem quite relevant. If we narrow the field of what is belongs here, the topic used to define the article shouldn't be positioned as generally covering the process or perceived process of the US becoming less democratic overall. Revr J (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is about the United States in particular. There is scholarship that denies that democratic backsliding is happening or can even happen at all. As it stands the article does not present all views. Look at this publication - Assessing the Risk of Democratic Reversal in the United States: A Reply to Kurt Weyland - which is also used as a source here. Nxavar (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a typical call for false balance. The fact that some scholars out there hold an opinion is no indication that said opinion is widely held. Weyland's referenced article primarily looks at Europe and Latin America and looks at the United States only as a target to apply lessons from those areas examined. Given the self-characterisation of the Journal, it is not even clear to what degree the publication was peer-reviewed. And one of the arguments for US resilience provided, "Moreover, its susceptibility to reinterpretation is constrained by the inertial force of judicial precedent. " can hardly be maintained anymore in good faith. It overlooks, in any case, the stacking of SCOTUS in which, in contrast to Weyland's claims, "the President's own party" very much colluded in the abrogation of checks and balances in favor of ensuring their own ideas could be promoted. Most ironic, however, given that it was published in 2020, is the notion that a major crisis in the United States was inconceivable, an assumption rendered obsolete with the pandemic within weeks. "I can find a publication which says something" is not scholarship. It's cherrypicking. --2A02:8106:258:3A00:F1ED:3DC7:A9BC:F68A (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR in Background section
The recently added second paragraph in the Background section is argumentative original research with only a single, rather vague, secondary source. It should be removed or completely rewritten to conform with core Wikipedia policies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a cosistent attempt to compare and contrast the notions of democracy and republic. I suppose this helps some to better understand the democratic backsliding phenomenon. As it stands now, the Background section is a crude assortment of possibly relevant info. Calling it original research is a stretch. It just isn't clear how this particular info is relevant. Nxavar (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I called the second paragraph original research because it is based mainly on quotes from primary sources dating from early in American history. These sources need context from reputable secondary sources to be used. Otherwise the reader has no way of knowing their significance or whether they are representative. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

first paragraph
I found the first paragraph to be a combination of unsourced OR plus UNDUE weight on one person's perspective. I cut that text and am pasting it here for improvements.
 * Democracy is a form of government where majority of citizens vote to rule. Free and fair elections, universal suffrage, protection of civil rights is based on the vote of the majority, and the rule of law which the majority decides the law. Robert Mickey, an associate professor who studies American political history, believes that the United States only became a proper democracy after the federal government ended the one-party, authoritarian enclaves of the Southern states, which had been characterized by majority rule "state-mandated segregation, the disenfranchisement of Blacks and many whites, and restrictions on multiparty competition with state-sanctioned violence", although Mickey believes that there were obstacles to fair, multiparty electoral competition in some states and localities until the 1980s. The Constitution has delegated States with fixed representation regardless of population in the Senate. The House of Representatives was established as a bicameral legislative body with the Senate. The United States Supreme Court role is to check the powers of the legislative and executive branch of government.

It would be nice to use a standard citation format too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences need RS support
 * There is 'way too much emphasis on Prof Mickey's opinions

PS some related articles to study as we look to make improvements
 * Democratic_republic
 * Republic
 * Democracy in the United States is a redirect to Politics in the United States, but....
 * Republicanism_in_the_United_States is a standalone article. I'm dubious of this arrangement and wonder if the latter should merge to the former?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the new background section consists only of cherry-picked quotations for figures of 200 years ago talking about direct democracy. This now skews matters strongly the other way (ETA: or rather, back the same way as when this section was begun, and before the paragraph quoted above was cut). This article is important, but it really needs a background section that leads clearly into the main subject, doesn't indulge in either equivocation or partisan rhetoric, and cites relevant, appropriately recent sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

blatant POV-pushing
''Beyond the national level, democratic backsliding has occurred in American states under unified Republican Party control while Democratic Party-controlled and divided states have become more democratic. Grumbach also states "policies are more varied across the states as red and blue party coalitions implement increasingly distinct agendas."''

Why is this stated in the lead paragraph as if it's fact when it is just Grumbach's opinion? It's also worth noting that Grumbach is a liberal Democrat. Exzachary (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinion stated as fact
The lead sentence was "Democratic backsliding has been ongoing in the United States since the late 2010s." This is a theory, not a fact, and I've adjusted the lead to reflect that. I see in the History that a change similar to this was promptly reverted with an admonition to take it to the Talk page. So here you go: presenting it as a statement of fact is indefensible. Kirkpete (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * who are "interest groups?" soibangla (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)