This "Meet Our Researchers" series showcases the incredible scholars at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Through engaging interviews conducted by our undergraduate research assistants, we explore the journeys, passions, and insights of CDDRL’s faculty and researchers.

Can you talk to us a bit about your book, its research questions, context, and what inspired you to write it?

When I arrived at Stanford 10 years ago, I noticed a disconnect: while political science views strong political parties as essential for democratic success, public opinion often sees them as a problem. At CDDRL, I observed how many outside academia dislike or even distrust parties, despite their historical link to stability and democratic consolidation.

My book was inspired by this gap. It defends political parties, arguing that many of democracy’s challenges over the past 50 years stem from weaker parties—not stronger ones. My goal is to challenge the narrative that parties are the problem and show how strengthening them is key to addressing today’s democratic challenges.

Given that academic research often emphasizes the electoral functions of parties, should reforms focus on narrowing the scope of party roles to enhance public connection? How can parties prioritize their most responsive roles without deprioritizing critical functions like fundraising?

That's a critical question. Angelo Panebianco’s 1988 concept of the "electoral-professional party" highlights how professionalized parties prioritize winning elections over grassroots connections—a trend that has only intensified with today’s competitive elections and internal party factions.

Despite electoral success through strategies like PR and micro-targeting, parties struggle to meaningfully connect with voters, leading to dissatisfaction, distrust, and rising disillusionment. This indicates that a purely electoral focus is unsustainable.

Parties are unlikely to shift strategies without electoral losses. For instance, Democrats must rebuild trust and align policies with popular interests, while Republicans face the challenge of reconciling their traditional structure with the influence of the MAGA faction.

Both parties need to balance professionalization with public engagement by fostering grassroots connections and building sustainable support. Without recalibration, they risk further alienating voters and undermining trust in democratic institutions.
 

A lot of academic research tends to focus on how parties are becoming more polarized, but there are a lot of cleavages developing within the parties themselves. How do you think the Democrats and Republicans differing approaches to mobilization and organization will shape the future of partisanship in the U.S.? Do these differences create opportunities for a realignment of political coalitions, and how might this frame how we view partisanship in the future?

That’s a great question, and we’re already seeing a partisan realignment. Historically, Democrats and left-leaning parties represented the working class, but now they increasingly draw support from highly educated urban professionals. Meanwhile, right-leaning parties, traditionally backed by elites, are gaining support from the working class.

This shift, driven by education and economic divides, challenges both parties. Democrats must balance appealing to urban professionals and working-class voters, while Republicans struggle to reconcile small-government policies with the needs of a working-class base.

State and local parties may offer insights by experimenting with coalition-building strategies, such as Democrats succeeding in rural areas or centrist Republicans challenging MAGA influence. These cleavages create both opportunities and uncertainty, and how parties manage these divisions will shape the future of U.S. partisanship.

You mentioned that parties used to have a stronger social connection and representation role, which has now largely been replaced by social movements and NGOs. Should parties want to reclaim that function, how could they go about it? Would they need to replace NGOs, partner with them, or take another approach? How do you see this relationship evolving in the future?

As parties have become more professionalized, their community engagement has become episodic, focused mainly around elections. This has left advocacy and organizing to NGOs, civic groups, and social movements, many of which operate independently or are even anti-party.

To reclaim their social role, parties need to maintain a consistent presence in communities year-round, addressing local issues and collaborating with civic groups. NGOs and social movements, in turn, should see parties as potential partners rather than adversaries, working together to institutionalize their causes and foster democratic engagement.

This relationship should be a two-way street—parties investing in communities and NGOs collaborating within the party system. Together, they can rebuild connections and create a more integrated approach to representation and problem-solving.
 

Finally, what book would you recommend for students interested in a research career in your field?

I recommend Making Democracy Work by Robert Putnam. While Putnam is better known for Bowling Alone, this book initially captured my interest in political science. It compares governance in northern and southern Italy, introducing the concept of social capital as critical to local institutions' success. Putnam demonstrates how formal institutions and society are deeply interconnected, linking contemporary outcomes to historical legacies of conquest and political development.

Reading it in college while traveling through Italy was transformative—it brought the book to life and showed how political science connects institutions, societies, history, and economics. It’s a great introduction to the field, encouraging young researchers to tackle complex questions and piece together relationships to understand political challenges like democratic backsliding. Each piece of research adds to a larger puzzle, making this work so rewarding.

Maduro’s attempts at electoral fraud overshadowed Venezuela's presidential election on July 28, 2024. Afterward, the Venezuelan democratic movement provided evidence showing that their candidate, Edmundo González, had won with about 70% of the vote. Since then, the Maduro regime has stifled the opposition and thwarted democratic reforms as he seeks to regain office in January. Meanwhile, Machado has been forced into hiding to evade arrest by Maduro's regime but remains resolute in her decision to stay in Venezuela, where she continues to lead the movement.

In 2023, Machado won the Venezuelan opposition primaries with 93% of the vote. But the Maduro regime immediately, and illegally, disqualified her from running in the 2024 presidential election. She then took charge of revitalizing the country’s pro-democracy movement, rebuilding it from the ground up and infusing it with renewed purpose.

In introducing Machado, Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, said, “Her leadership has been a beacon of hope for millions of Venezuelans as she continues to inspire them in the fight against authoritarianism.”

‘We surprised everyone’

Machado spoke about the election aftermath and a “window of opportunity” to act now to safeguard democracy. “The final outcome of this process is certainly existential for the Venezuelan people. It is critically strategic for the region and of great importance for all Western democracies, especially for the United States, and that's why we've received bipartisan support.”

Today, Venezuela ranks last on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law index — 142 out of 142 countries. “Every single democratic institution has been devastated,” said Machado, describing the current situation as a “full-fledged tyranny” and adding that 8 million people have been forced to flee her country.

Despite such conditions, she said, in the past two years, Venezuelans have built up a democratic movement — “they told us it was impossible” — that reflects a deeper social response. “We decided to understand, to heal, and to trust each other.”

The regime underestimated the growth of this movement, she said. “We defeated the regime in the streets and in the hearts of Venezuelan people. We defeated them before in the spiritual dimension and then in the electoral process. And we've surprised everyone.”

They created a well-organized network of citizen volunteers who could be deployed in every single polling station and other places, all of whom were profoundly motivated around the cause, Machado said. “We did it without media at all,” since Maduro's government would not allow her to appear in traditional media channels and the campaign couldn't run ads on social media — there was no money.

Machado said, “We united a country around common values — human dignity, solidarity, justice, private property, and freedom. We united Venezuela around a profound desire: We wanted our kids back home; we wanted our families reunited.”

In the election, González won by a landslide, she said, roughly 70 percent to Maduro’s 30 percent. Immediately, the regime struck back, detaining and arresting thousands of pro-democracy advocates and even torturing some people.

“The reaction of the regime was ferocious,” she said. “We are facing a situation where the regime wants to create terror and totally paralyze this movement.”

But the Venezuelan pushback to the Maduro repression has been dramatic, she said. Machado estimates that if the election were held today, the pro-democracy candidate would get 90 percent of the vote.

“We have a united opposition, more than ever before,” she said, noting vows of support from the international community. January 10 is the day when Maduro would be sworn in again as president. “We will never give up, and I'm sure freedom will prevail in our country.”

International action

“The challenge,” Diamond said, “is to get President Maduro, who has lost the election, to acknowledge that he's lost and leave power.” He asked Machado what the international community should do. (On November 19, a day after the CDDRL event, the U.S. formally recognized González as the president-elect.)

She responded, “We have to make these people understand that they will be held accountable. If they keep repressing our people, international justice should act immediately, and that hasn’t happened yet.”

On top of this, she added, Maduro’s ties to criminal activities and black markets need to be examined by international partners. Even the Venezuelan military largely supported the pro-democracy opposition.

“The (global) law enforcement approach can be more comprehensive, involving different agencies and different countries, so these individuals understand this regime is not sustainable from financial, political, and human perspectives,” she said.

Diamond asked if criminal indictments of members of the Maduro regime could be on the table, whether by the United States, European countries, or the International Criminal Court.

Machado acknowledged this point and recommended a few international strategies: Maduro has to be totally isolated, and González has to be recognized as the president-elect; a global law enforcement approach needs to crack down on Maduro’s criminal activities; the International Criminal Court needs to make a decision on the election; and every democratic government in the world needs to advocate for a negotiated transition for Venezuela to peacefully move ahead.

Democracies worldwide

During the Q&A portion of the event, a student audience member asked what the expatriate Venezuelan community should know and do about the situation.

Machado said, “One of our main assets now is this great diaspora that has turned Venezuela into a global cause. People are preparing abroad, learning, and getting ready to come back and build a great society.”

She added that her country’s abundant oil reserves could literally transform Venezuelan society if used wisely, unlike under Maduro’s tenure, and be used as a key element to fund the country's energy transition.

As Stoner noted in her opening remarks, “The struggle for democracy in Venezuela is not just a national issue — it's a global one. The fate of Venezuela speaks to the broader challenges that democracies are facing worldwide, including our own.”

You can read more about this event in The Stanford Daily.

Race and the Pursuit of Multiracial Democracy

Hakeem Jefferson kicked off the discussion with a presentation on race's role in American politics, especially during the 2024 election season. He argued against perspectives that minimize the salience of this issue, noting that the January 6 insurrection was a stark example of the influence of White identity politics on electoral dynamics. Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science and a CDDRL affiliated faculty, underscored the continued prevalence of racial appeals and overt racism in political messaging, which significantly affects public perception and voter behavior. He also examined Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, emphasizing the complexities of identity politics and the challenges in representing diverse coalitions.

In his closing remarks, Jefferson tackled the narrative surrounding Black male voters’ declining support, advocating for a nuanced understanding of political behavior within this demographic. He emphasized that the United States is at a crossroads, needing to embrace the potential for a multiracial democracy to avoid losing its democratic identity.

The Paradox of Political Parties

Didi Kuo, a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), explored the challenges facing political parties in the United States. While parties seem strong due to the current state of polarization and surge in fundraising, they struggle with selecting candidates and managing extremist views, which has contributed to a decline in public trust. Historically, political parties acted as intermediaries, linking societal demands to political representation. However, the decline in support for mainstream parties and the rise of anti-system challengers reveal a troubling gap in responsiveness to critical issues.

Kuo noted that parties are transforming from grassroots organizations into professional campaign entities focused on fundraising, weakening their ties to the public, especially working-class voters. She mentioned that reforms like nonpartisan primaries reflect widespread dissatisfaction with how parties choose candidates. As nonparty actors assume traditional party functions, the future dynamics of political parties remain uncertain. Kuo called for parties to rebuild trust and re-engage with constituents to maintain their vital role in democracy.

Challenging Assumptions of Political Polarization

Professor of Political Science Jonathan Rodden challenged the prevailing belief that American political parties have become more homogenous. He argued that both the Democratic and Republican parties are becoming more diverse, complicating the narrative of ideological sameness. While contemporary politics often focuses on a single dimension of conflict, Rodden posited that American parties are increasingly varied in race, education, religion, and income.

Rodden explained that this growing diversity contributes to rising affective polarization, where animosity toward the opposing party intensifies. With party members holding a broader range of opinions, leaders face challenges in proposing policies that appeal to all constituents. This often leads to strategies that demonize the opposing party by emphasizing its extreme members, further deepening voter divides. Rodden's analysis illustrates that both parties are evolving into coalitions with diverse interests, inviting a reevaluation of political polarization in the U.S. 

Illiberal Populism: Patterns of Success and Failure

Putting the United States in comparative perspective, Professor of Political Science Anna Grzymala-Busse examined illiberal populism in Europe, focusing on why some populist leaders lose power despite initial successes. She defined illiberal populism as framing elites as corrupt while promoting an exclusivist concept of "the people." While populists can mobilize voter dissatisfaction, recent electoral defeats in Poland and the Czech Republic and anticipated losses in France highlight the vulnerabilities of such movements.

Grzymala-Busse, a senior fellow at FSI, where she serves as the director of The Europe Center, identified factors contributing to these populist setbacks. She noted that high voter turnout, especially among younger voters, can legitimize democratic processes and counter populist influence. Additionally, elite responses, such as isolating populists, have often proven more effective than attempts to co-opt their rhetoric. Lastly, she emphasized that populists frequently prioritize consolidating power over addressing core societal issues, leading to disillusionment among supporters. These dynamics illustrate the limitations of populist strategies and provide valuable lessons for democracies facing similar challenges.

The final event in our series will take place post-election on Tuesday, November 12, from 10:00 to 11:30 am on Zoom. You can register for that event here and catch up on previous sessions on the America Votes 2024 webpage.

Can We Trust The Polls?

Brandice Canes-Wrone, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, provided a succinct overview of different forecasting models, touching on their limitations and recent adaptations. Historically, models like that of economist Ray Fair have centered their election predictions on fundamentals like the economy. These models face two main limitations. First, they do not incorporate opinion polls on the candidates themselves. Second, even if voters care about economic performance, increasing partisanship has skewed subjective perceptions of the economy. Some forecasting models have responded by weighing partisanship more in their calculations, though these poll-reliant frameworks present their own limitations as well. Currently, even the most accurate models suggest this uniquely tight race remains too close to call.

Shifting to the two candidates themselves, Canes-Wrone points out that campaign messaging from both sides aligns with the expectations of most analysts. Reacting to high inflation rates, Donald Trump has centered his campaign on economic promises while Kamala Harris tries to “turn the page” to distance herself from President Joe Biden. Both their campaign strategies echo a historic shift from persuading swing voters to mobilizing their bases. Trump has taken a rather unconventional approach to the ever-important ground game, largely outsourcing mobilization to Super PACs. As Canes-Wrone argues, however, the factors determining presidential outcomes have changed far less than the rest of US politics in the last 50 years.

Restoring Trust in Elections

Americans have shown declining levels of trust in elections. While many picture January 6th as the root of this distrust, Justin Grimmer — Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution — argues this turning point occurred two months earlier when Trump falsely declared victory on election night. Since then, several Republican politicians have denounced electoral losses with a series of expansive voter fraud accusations. Some Democrats have also begun to mirror these undemocratic maneuvers under a different rhetoric.

Grimmer warns that if Trump were to win the election by a narrow margin, Democrats might argue that voter suppression caused them to lose. Yet, according to Grimmer, neither argument — voter fraud nor voter suppression — holds enough weight to justify overturning the election result. Studies show that election reforms provide no partisan benefit to either party. To restore Americans’ trust in their electoral institutions, both candidates must honestly accept the results of the November election, regardless of the outcome.

Ranked Choice Voting to Combat Polarization

Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, echoed Canes-Wrone and Grimmer in emphasizing the apparent hyper-partisanship and institutional distrust endangering American democracy. Diamond argued that, despite centuries of center-leaning politics under the Electoral College, this system now serves to heighten the social, economic, and informational factors driving polarization. The two-party dominant system is in dire need of structural reforms.

Diamond advocated for the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to reduce polarization. RCV is hardly a panacea, but it offers alternatives to bipartisanism by making room for moderate candidates, incentivizing parties to form broad coalitions, and affording voters more choices on their ballots. This transition, Diamond noted, is easier said than done as the polarized electorates that would benefit most from RCV are likely also most opposed to it. Beyond state-level efforts, Diamond stressed the need for bottom-up mobilization and education initiatives to accompany the implementation of RCV. 

The upcoming elections present both familiar and unprecedented challenges to American democracy. Economic fundamentals and campaign strategies have thus far reflected predictable historical trends, but bipartisan polarization and institutional distrust are at all-time highs. From structural reforms to personal integrity, everyone — states, media outlets, candidates, and voters — is responsible for safeguarding democracy.