Agenda Control and the Crisis of Political Agency: An Assessment of the 'Democracy Versus Political Agency' Hypothesis

Introduction

The stability of democratic regimes has traditionally been assessed through the lens of procedural compliance, emphasizing regular elections, universal suffrage, and the peaceful transfer of power. However, contemporary empirical political science faces a structural paradox in which systems that satisfy the procedural requirements of electoral democracy simultaneously generate widespread subjective feelings of political powerlessness. To investigate this phenomenon, this report assesses the "democracy versus political agency" hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that a political system can satisfy the formal, procedural definitions of electoral democracy while entirely stripping voters of meaningful control over the available choices, thereby producing deep political alienation.

In evaluating regime types, standard typologies often fall into the trap of casually labeling a system as rigidly "democratic" or "anti-democratic." Such binary categorizations obscure the mechanical reality of political power and the multidimensional nature of governance. Instead, analytical rigor requires disaggregating the dimensions of democratic governance to determine precisely which conditions a system satisfies. A regime may exhibit flawless administration of ballots while simultaneously operating under a structurally oligarchic pre-electoral environment. By examining the United States as the primary case study, this report investigates whether ordinary citizens possess meaningful influence over the political agenda—namely, which issues become salient, which policy alternatives are considered, which candidates obtain resources, and which parties become electorally viable.

The crux of the matter is agenda control. While the procedural act of voting determines preferences among available alternatives, the entity that determines those alternatives wields the ultimate, superseding power. Consequently, this investigation rigorously tests the distinction between the dissatisfaction that arises from repeatedly losing democratic decisions and the profound systemic alienation that arises from the belief that one's preferred alternatives never reach the decision stage at all.

Conceptual Framework and Dimensional Definitions

To isolate the specific mechanisms of political powerlessness, it is necessary to establish precise definitions of the core concepts that govern democratic theory and empirical political science. These definitions separate the procedural mechanics of elections from the substantive, psychological, and institutional experience of political power.

 

By analyzing these variables independently, it becomes evident that a state can satisfy the dimensions of Electoral Democracy and Political Competition while simultaneously failing the dimensions of Representation, Political Agency, and External Political Efficacy.

The Centrality of Agenda Control: The Second Face of Power

The conceptual foundation of the "democracy versus political agency" hypothesis lies in the recognition that formal voting is only the final, and perhaps least consequential, stage of the political process. Decades of political theory have established that power is not solely exercised through direct decision-making in visible legislative or electoral arenas, which is known as the first face of power. Rather, as articulated by Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, power is equally, if not more effectively, exercised through agenda control—the "second face of power"14.

Agenda control involves the mobilization of bias to shape the political arena, dictating which issues are permitted to enter the sphere of public debate and which are actively suppressed15. In an electoral context, agenda control manifests in the pre-electoral phase. If a political system limits candidate viability to those who adhere to a narrow band of elite consensus, the eventual election merely ratifies a predetermined outcome. Bachrach and Baratz identified the concept of the "nondecision," which refers to the systemic suppression of challenges to the values or interests of the dominant decision-makers15.

While their initial framework was applied to local community power structures, its application to national electoral systems is profound. When the electorate's preferred policies or candidates are filtered out through nondecisions—whether by media gatekeeping, primary election mechanics, or campaign finance barriers—the procedural act of voting loses its substantive agency. Voters are relegated to expressing preferences among alternatives they did not choose, severely constraining their political agency while maintaining the procedural illusion of democratic participation. Thus, the locus of inquiry must shift from how votes are counted to how the menu of choices is constructed.

The United States as the Primary Case: Evaluating Citizen Influence

The United States serves as an optimal primary case study for evaluating whether a system can be procedurally democratic while producing widespread political powerlessness. The critical question is whether ordinary American citizens possess meaningful influence over the distinct phases of agenda control. A phase-by-phase empirical analysis reveals severe structural bottlenecks that alienate the median voter from the mechanisms of power.

1. Which Issues Become Politically Salient

Issue salience is rarely a direct reflection of grassroots priorities; rather, it is heavily mediated by agenda-setting theory, which posits that mass media and elite discourse do not tell people exactly what to think, but rather what to think about. The media’s agenda-setting function frequently aligns with the priorities of organized interest groups and partisan elites who possess the resources to sustain public relations campaigns. Issues favored by organized economic interests—such as corporate tax rates or deregulation—often receive sustained institutional focus. Conversely, structural economic reforms demanded by lower-income groups are frequently marginalized by media gatekeepers, preventing them from crossing the threshold into electoral salience. Consequently, ordinary citizens lack meaningful, independent influence over the macroscopic political agenda.

2. Which Policy Alternatives are Considered Realistic

The determination of which policies are deemed "realistic" or "viable" is largely a function of elite consensus and the "Overton Window." When evaluating the boundaries of acceptable policy, the landmark 2014 study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page provides a sobering empirical baseline. Testing theories of American politics against a dataset of 1,779 policy issues spanning two decades, Gilens and Page separated the independent impacts of average citizens (the 50th income percentile), economic elites (the 90th income percentile), and organized interest groups20. Their multivariate analysis concluded that economic elites and business-oriented interest groups wield substantial, highly significant, and independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens have little to no independent influence20. Therefore, policy alternatives only become realistic if they do not fundamentally threaten the consensus of the 90th income percentile or major interest group alignments.

3. Which Candidates Enter Races

Candidate entry is the first major institutional bottleneck. The emergence of political candidates is heavily regulated by the "invisible primary," a pre-electoral phase where party elites, power brokers, and major donors evaluate potential contenders. Ordinary citizens have virtually no influence at this stage. Candidates who do not align with the ideological or economic prerequisites of the party establishment are subtly discouraged from running or are denied the preliminary networking opportunities required to launch a viable campaign.

4. Which Candidates Obtain Resources

The necessity of vast financial resources to mount a viable electoral campaign serves as the primary gatekeeping mechanism of American politics. Campaign finance structures dictate that candidates who cannot secure early backing from affluent donors, Super PACs, or business-aligned networks rarely achieve electoral viability. The sheer cost of modern media campaigns means that economic elites control the supply of competitive candidates long before the general electorate casts a ballot. This financial filtering mechanism ensures that the candidates presented to the public have already been vetted and approved by a highly unrepresentative donor class.

5. Which Candidates Become Nominees

Primary elections, theoretically designed to democratize candidate selection, often exacerbate the loss of agency for the median voter. Primary electorates are typically smaller, more partisan, and more ideologically extreme than the general electorate. In the context of the Fiorina versus Abramowitz debate on political polarization, Morris Fiorina argues that the American public is not deeply polarized but merely "sorted," while the "political class"—including primary voters and activists—has polarized severely4. Because primary elections are dominated by this polarized activist class, the nominees produced frequently represent the ideological tails of the distribution rather than the moderate median25. Consequently, by the time the general election occurs, the ordinary citizen is forced to choose between two candidates who survived a primary process tailored to ideological extremes, truncating the availability of centrist or heterodox choices.

6. Which Parties Become Electorally Viable

The American two-party system, reinforced by single-member districts and plurality voting (first-past-the-post), mathematically suppresses the viability of third parties—a phenomenon known as Duverger's Law3. This institutional architecture enforces strict party cartels. Peter Mair's "cartel party" thesis, outlined in Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy, posits that mainstream parties have withdrawn from civil society, colluding with one another to protect their access to state resources while neutralizing substantive electoral competition12. Strategic voting further suppresses third-party viability; voters frequently abandon their preferred third-party candidate out of fear of acting as a "spoiler" and inadvertently helping their least preferred major-party candidate28. This forces voters to continuously ratify the two-party cartel, severely limiting the ideological breadth of viable political platforms3.

7. Which Policies are Pursued After Elections

Finally, post-election policy pursuit frequently diverges from campaign rhetoric. Because elected officials are cross-pressured by the necessity of satisfying their affluent donor base for re-election and the constraints of partisan legislative leadership, they frequently abandon popular policies that conflict with elite interests. Gilens notes that when the preferences of average citizens diverge from the preferences of economic elites, the affluent class almost entirely dictates the policy outcome22. In the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes, the American majority does not rule22.

The Microcosm of Machine Politics: Cicero, Illinois

To understand how procedural elections can completely diverge from political agency, historical instances of localized machine politics provide a stark microcosm. In the 1924 municipal elections in Cicero, Illinois, the procedural mechanics of an election occurred, complete with party competition between Republicans and Democrats30. However, the Chicago Outfit, functioning as a violent interest group and political machine, actively enforced agenda control. By usurping local political bosses and dominating the physical and financial landscape of the election, they dictated the candidate supply and ensured the election of their preferred slate30. While extreme in its reliance on physical violence and overt corruption, the Cicero case illustrates a fundamental theoretical point: if an organized faction can completely capture candidate selection, resource distribution, and the electoral environment, the resulting ballot—no matter how accurately counted—reflects an oligarchy rather than democratic agency30.

The "Democracy by Coincidence" Debate

The findings of Gilens and Page have generated significant academic debate, which further illuminates the distinction between procedural democracy and political agency. Critics such as Peter Enns, Christopher Wlezien, and Stuart Soroka argue that because the policy preferences of the middle class and the affluent are highly correlated on many issues, average citizens often receive their preferred policy outcomes5. This dynamic is termed "democracy by coincidence"29. In this view, representation occurs statically (congruence) even if the middle class lacks dynamic, causal influence over the policy6. Furthermore, researchers like Elkjær point to Simpson’s paradox, suggesting that methodological choices restricting data to "preference gaps" may exaggerate the perception of elite dominance5.

However, the "democracy by coincidence" critique inadvertently reinforces the "democracy versus political agency" hypothesis. As Enns and Gilens both note, congruence without causal influence leaves the average voter entirely dependent on the goodwill or aligned interests of the elite33. Research demonstrates that when citizens perceive that policy alignment is merely coincidental and that their voices lack independent political weight, they experience just as much dissatisfaction as when policy outcomes oppose their views29. Political equality and agency are valued independently of policy outcomes; thus, coincidental representation cannot compensate for the structural absence of political power20.

The Anatomy of Alienation: Losing the Vote vs. Lacking the Option

The distinction between losing a democratic contest and lacking a viable option is the theoretical core of understanding contemporary political alienation. A well-functioning procedural democracy relies on "loser's consent"—the willingness of citizens who supported the losing candidate to accept the election outcome and recognize the legitimacy of the winner35. Loser's consent is crucial for institutional stability and the rule of law16. Empirical literature, leveraging data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), consistently shows that "winners" (those who voted for the incoming government) express higher satisfaction with democracy than "losers"1. This winner-loser gap is one of the most robust findings in comparative political behavior38.

However, the psychological and systemic implications differ vastly depending on the origin of the political loss. The following comparison illustrates the vital distinction between ordinary electoral defeat and systemic agenda exclusion:

 

When citizens lose a fair contest where their views were championed by a viable candidate, their dissatisfaction is generally contained within the systemic rules. In these cases, electoral defeat is fundamentally compatible with strong democratic legitimacy because the voter retains the agency to try again.

Alienation diverges sharply from the standard winner-loser dynamic when the political agenda is tightly controlled by elites, parties, and interest groups, resulting in ballots lacking any candidate who aligns with the voter's primary policy preferences. Data from CSES Module 3 explicitly investigates voters' perceptions of meaningful choices and how contestation provides available options1. Empirical studies show that when voters perceive a lack of meaningful ideological choice, satisfaction with democracy plummets. This is distinct from the winner-loser gap. A study of East Asian democracies, using Asian Barometer Survey data, found that while losers have lower satisfaction than winners, non-voters—those who frequently abstain due to alienation or lack of choice—also exhibit deeply depressed evaluations of democratic legitimacy40. Abstention is frequently misinterpreted as tacit consent, but empirical analysis reveals it is highly conditional; it is a primary symptom of citizens recognizing their lack of agency42.

Furthermore, research on procedural justice emphasizes that procedures have utility above and beyond their outcomes16. If the pre-election procedures (candidate selection, debate inclusion, primary dynamics) are perceived as heavily skewed by money or constrained by party cartels, the ultimate election is viewed as illegitimate, severing the bond of loser's consent16. The anger generated by this realization drastically reduces a citizen's willingness to accept democratic outcomes, making them significantly less receptive to opposing points of view and pushing them toward anti-system dissent37.

The Pathway to Anti-System Sentiment: An Empirical Evaluation

The "democracy versus political agency" hypothesis proposes a specific, sequential causal pathway that translates a lack of representation into a demand for fundamental institutional overthrow. An empirical evaluation of this pathway reveals which transitions are rigorously supported by political science literature and which remain speculative.

 

The transition to anti-system sentiment is highly supported by the literature on populist mobilization. When citizens internalize their lack of political agency, populism becomes an extraordinarily potent mobilization tool. Populist movements—both left and right, depending on their "host" ideology—capitalize on the legitimate perception that elites have captured the agenda47. While populism is inherently pro-democracy in its majoritarian, popular sovereignty sense, it is frequently anti-liberal democracy46. Liberal democracy relies on institutions, pluralism, minority rights, and counter-majoritarian checks—precisely the mechanisms that alienated citizens believe the elite use to suppress their agency. Thus, citizens become open to fundamental political changes (such as executive overreach or the dismantling of independent judiciaries) because they view the established liberal institutional order not as a protector of rights, but as a cage that enforces elite agenda control46.

Alternative Outcomes: Abstention, Apathy, and Institutional Reform

It is crucial to note that anti-system populist radicalization is not the only outcome of lost political agency. The electorate is heterogeneous, and the response to structural powerlessness frequently fractures along socio-economic lines. The lack of political agency often results in political apathy and permanent abstention, representing a strategy of "exit" rather than "voice." Lower-income groups, who face the steepest deficits in both internal and external efficacy, are disproportionately more likely to withdraw from the political system entirely9. This unequal turnout creates a feedback loop: because alienated populations do not vote, politicians have even less incentive to represent their interests, further exacerbating the structural bias toward the affluent34.

Conversely, a subset of the electorate channels this alienation into advocacy for third-party expansion or institutional reform. However, third-party advocacy within a plurality system is incredibly difficult due to the psychological and mathematical barriers of Duverger's Law, leaving institutional reform as the primary logical outlet for those seeking to restore political agency without resorting to anti-system populism.

Comparative Institutional Alternatives and System Legitimacy

To determine whether the perceived absence of agency is an inherent flaw of democracy or a byproduct of specific institutional designs, it is necessary to compare the American plurality system with alternative arrangements. The objective of this comparison is explicitly not to determine which electoral system should be adopted, but to identify how different rules relocate agenda control and alter the mechanics of political agency.

 

This institutional comparison highlights a fundamental trade-off in democratic design. Systems like PR maximize pre-electoral agency by providing a wide array of choices, but often diminish post-electoral agency by placing government formation in the hands of elite party cartels53. The American plurality system, conversely, ostensibly provides clarity in government formation but severely constricts pre-electoral agency through ideological truncation and campaign finance gatekeeping. In either context, when the median voter recognizes the specific institutional mechanism that separates their vote from actual policy influence, system legitimacy degrades.

Conclusion

The empirical and theoretical evidence robustly supports the "democracy versus political agency" hypothesis. It is entirely possible for a political system to rigidly execute the procedural requirements of electoral democracy—free elections, universal suffrage, and accurate vote tabulation—while systematically denying ordinary citizens meaningful control over the political agenda.

The American case study reveals that economic elites, organized interest groups, and cartelized party structures hold immense, independent sway over issue salience, candidate emergence, and policy enactment12. The average citizen is frequently relegated to selecting among heavily constrained alternatives, resulting in a system where policy congruence, when it does occur, is largely coincidental rather than causally linked to mass agency29. This disconnect is exacerbated by primary systems and party sorting that force moderate or heterodox voters to choose between polarized elites who do not reflect the center of public opinion4.

This structural denial of agenda control produces a specific and potent pathology of political alienation. Dissatisfaction does not merely stem from "losing" an election, an outcome that healthy democracies manage through the generation of loser's consent16. Instead, profound alienation arises from the visceral recognition that pre-electoral filtering mechanisms—campaign finance barriers, media gatekeeping, and two-party cartelization—have prevented viable, representative options from ever reaching the decision stage at all1.

This perceived lack of representation triggers a measurable collapse in external political efficacy, leading vast segments of the electorate to abandon faith in standard electoral correction10. Consequently, this environment acts as a catalyst for anti-system, populist ideologies that reject the liberal institutional order as a mechanism of elite suppression rather than democratic expression46. Ultimately, contemporary anti-system sentiment is not an irrational rejection of democratic principles, but a highly rational response to a procedural democracy that has been hollowed of substantive political agency.

Works cited

1. About the Study - CSES - Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, https://cses.org/about-the-study/
2. CSES - Comparative Study of Election Surveys - GESIS, https://www.gesis.org/en/services/finding-and-accessing-data/cses
3. Abstract - arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2605.09784v1
4. Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate, https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/publications/unstable-majorities-polarization-party-sorting-and-political-stalemate
5. Economic Inequality and Political Responsiveness: A Systematic, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/economic-inequality-and-political-responsiveness-a-systematic-review/3364318C95A3D608048BA1800013C7E1
6. two theses on state capture and their normative assumptions and, https://www.scielo.br/j/rbcpol/a/6thTDKJhvxXHsCqB3LWrLkn/?format=html&lang=en
7. What Shapes Political Efficacy in Europe? | DEMOS, https://demos-h2020.eu/en/blog/2019/12/what-shapes-political-efficacy-in-europe
8. Alternative Measures of Political Efficacy: The Quest for Cross, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.665532/full
9. Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249277342_Survey_and_Experimental_Evidence_for_a_Reliable_and_Valid_Measure_of_Internal_Political_Efficacy
10. The (Dis)Connection Between Political Culture and External Efficacy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258125903_The_DisConnection_Between_Political_Culture_and_External_Efficacy
11. the anes guide to public opinion and electoral behavior, https://electionstudies.org/data-tools/anes-guide/anes-guide.html?chart=external_efficacy_index
12. Ruling the Void: The Hollowing Out of Western Democracy, https://www.stirtoaction.com/articles/review-of-peter-mairs-ruling-the-void
13. Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260744910_Electoral_Choice_Ideological_Conflict_and_Political_Participation
14. Bachrach and Baratz: " Two Faces of Power " - Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/32903087/Bachrach_and_Baratz_Two_Faces_of_Power_
15. Nondecisions and Power: The Two Faces of Bachrach and Baratz, https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v69y1975i03p889-899_24.html
16. Why do losers consent? Tom Tyler Yale Law School March, 2013, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/sela/SELA13_Tyler_CV_Eng_20130321.pdf
17. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited - Pippa Norris, https://books.google.com/books/about/Democratic_Deficit.html?id=vjox-RGmtCgC
18. 1. Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/1-peter-bachrach-and-morton-s-baratz-1962-two-faces-of-power-american-political-science-review-56-december-94752-cited-543-times/F6AD95D3039799E86AED071F0AA82499
19. [PDF] Two Faces of Power - Semantic Scholar, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Two-Faces-of-Power-Bachrach-Baratz/9b75515dd8b2948a4b7913875acbf77214a2976b
20. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278151684_Testing_Theories_of_American_Politics_Elites_Interest_Groups_and_Average_Citizens
21. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and, http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf
22. Gilens and Page: Average citizens have little impact on public policy, https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-little-impact-on-public-policy/
23. Gilens and Page: Average citizens have no political influence, https://equalitybylot.com/2014/04/16/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-no-political-influence/
24. Polarized or Sorted? Just What's Wrong With Our Politics, Anyway?, https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/03/11/polarized-or-sorted-just-whats-wrong-with-our-politics-anyway/
25. The Political Class versus the People - Morris P. Fiorina Matthew S, https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/RedAndBlueFiorinaSection.pdf
26. My View on Polarization in American Politics - Old North State Politics, http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/04/my-view-on-polarization-in-american-politics.html
27. Democracy in the 'Void': Peter Mair and party politics - Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07907184.2022.2045142
28. The Complexity of Ranked Choice Voting and How It Can Improve, https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/pper/chapter/the-complexity-of-ranked-choice-voting-and-how-it-can-improve-the-u-s-election-system/
29. Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285967084_Affluence_Influence_Economic_Inequality_and_Political_Power_in_America
30. 1924 Cicero, Illinois, municipal elections - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Cicero,_Illinois,_municipal_elections
31. Chicago Politics: The Machine, The Daleys, and What It Means for, https://chicagodetours.com/chicago-politics-history/
32. Corruption in the City of Chicago: - Political Science, https://pols.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/273/2018/10/ac_anticorruptionreport_4bb0d.pdf
33. The Insufficiency of “Democracy by Coincidence”: A Response to, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/insufficiency-of-democracy-by-coincidence-a-response-to-peter-k-enns/2D67B81823EC8D2B97D614D08AB1C06A
34. Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31290657_Inequality_and_Democratic_Responsiveness
35. What Electoral Outcomes Foster Electoral Consent and Dissent?, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/11468
36. Restoring Losers' Consent: A Necessary Step to Stabilizing our, https://www.rstreet.org/research/restoring-losers-consent-a-necessary-step-to-stabilizing-our-democracy/
37. Losers' consent and emotions in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:0b88200f-7908-4c36-bd2c-7eca8bdfaa6b/files/rw9505152f
38. Satisfaction with democracy after winning and losing without elections, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-political-research/article/satisfaction-with-democracy-after-winning-and-losing-without-elections/E4D1F46C4732A00B806E2FE60E342755
39. Reassessing the winner-loser gap in satisfaction with democracy, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11651613/
40. (PDF) Losers' Consent or Non-Voter Consent? Satisfaction with, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281396505_Losers'_Consent_or_Non-Voter_Consent_Satisfaction_with_Democracy_in_East_Asia
41. Political Parties and Loser's Consent in American Politics, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379136043_Political_Parties_and_Loser's_Consent_in_American_Politics
42. Why Voting Does Not Imply Consenting - Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2020.00005/full
43. Public opinion trends in American society: Lessons from social, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12930373/
44. Democratic deficit | Social Sciences and Humanities - EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/democratic-deficit
45. Critical citizens : global support for democratic government, https://discovered.ed.ac.uk/discovery/fulldisplay/alma9924440645402466/44UOE_INST:44UOE_VU2
46. Cas Mudde: "Populism is a thin-centered ideology" - Ufficio Stampa, https://www.ufficiostampa.provincia.tn.it/Comunicati/Cas-Mudde-Populism-is-a-thin-centered-ideology
47. Cas Mudde - Populism in the Twenty-First Century: An Illiberal, https://amc.sas.upenn.edu/cas-mudde-populism-twenty-first-century
48. POPUlISm | DAAD, https://www2.daad.de/medien/mudde_rovira_kaltwasser_2017_populism.pdf
49. Political Inequality in Rich Democracies - Annual Reviews, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052521-094617?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
50. "Democracy Cannot Really Function If It Is Not Liberal" - Interview, https://www.authlib.eu/interview-cas-mudde/
51. Mudde-Kaltwasser 378 WP final pdf, https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/378_0.pdf
52. Proportional Representation - Center for Effective Government, https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/proportional-representation
53. Satisfaction with Democracy, https://tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/432791/tpc.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
54. Electoral Systems - FairVote, https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/
55. Combating Gerrymandering with Ranked Choice Voting - PubsOnLine, https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/opre.2024.1167
56. Reform Meets Reality: How Ranked Choice Voting Impacts Election, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/reform-meets-reality-how-ranked-choice-voting-impacts-election-administration/
57. Election Reform and Women's Representation: Ranked Choice, https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/79146/1/ssoar-politicsgovernance-2021-2-richie_terrell_et_al-Election_Reform_and_Womens_Representation.pdf
58. What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting - Democracy, https://democracy.issuelab.org/resources/39164/39164.pdf