Ryan Ammenheuser
Abstract: Does support for the racist conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement predicate support for authoritarianism? Have those that fear the loss of a white majority in the United States begun to turn against democracy because they worry that the newfound non-white majority may use democracy itself to marginalize a white minority? This is an important question to ask in an era where support for both the Great Replacement and authoritarianism is growing. This paper examines the relationship between support for tenets of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and authoritarian sentiment, finding that those prone to believing Great Replacement narratives are more supportive of authoritarian leaders. These findings demonstrate that much of the ongoing democratic backsliding in the United States has a racialized bent to it, a concerning discovery.
Affirmative Authoritarians: The Great Replacement and Democracy. Working paper.
Abstract: Do members of Congress learn to be team players the longer they serve? Or, are members with a shorter time in office more likely to buck the party line and cast opposing votes from their leadership? These questions are important for understanding under what circumstances party leadership’s power to control their caucus is limited, especially in an era with often tumultuous party politics and tenuous leader control. Using data from 1995 to 2024, this paper examines the relationship between representatives’ length of tenure and the likelihood of casting an oppositional vote from that of their party leader.
This House Ain’t Loyal: Examining Partisan Loyalty in Congress. Working paper.
Abstract: Are all criticisms of American democracy created equal, or do different critiques have heterogeneous effects on political participation? In an era where overwhelming majorities of survey respondents answer that they are disillusioned with American democracy or even believe it may be threatened, this is an important avenue of research for uncovering the effects that such negative attitudes may have on the political landscape. Using an exploratory factor analysis, this paper empirically distinguishes between “observable” (e.g., gerrymandering) and “non-observable” (e.g., massive voter fraud) criticisms of American democracy and tests for the effect that each type may have on individuals’ propensity to turn out to vote or otherwise participate in the democratic process. The findings provide strong evidence that observable criticisms can provide a mobilizing effect and spur participation, while non-observable criticisms demobilize and depress political participation. This effect, particularly when examined in connection with classic literature linking participation to legitimacy, paints a grim picture for the future health of American democracy.
Observable and Non-Observable Critiques of American Democracy and Their Influence on Participation. Paper prepared for an academic conference at the Barbour Center for the Study of American Politics in June 2026.
My dissertation is a set of three studies that examine how individuals come to support political violence, whether in relation to electoral outcomes or how based in reality one’s critiques of American democracy are. These studies examine the relationship between electoral outcomes, the perceived fairness of elections, and political violence support.
In chapter one, I examine the relationship between perceived electoral fairness and anticipated electoral outcomes. Given that extant scholarship demonstrates a persistent winner-loser gap in support for democracy, it is sensible that similar gaps may exist for political violence support. However, this cannot be the only variable at play. While it looks like violence is on the rise, electoral winners and losers have existed for as long as American democracy itself; chapter one therefore argues that the perception of rigged or otherwise compromised elections is what drives would-be electoral losers to support violence. These findings help explain recent patterns of electoral denialism and paint an ominous picture for the health of electoral democracy in the United States.
My second chapter examines the antecedents of belief that elections are (or are not) free and fair, and posits that the type of reason may also matter in predicting political violence support. To this end, it devises a categorization scheme for such criticisms, theoretically and empirically distinguishing between “observable” and “non-observable” critiques. An observable criticism fundamentally concerns something agreed upon by experts and is readily apparent, such as partisan gerrymandering or voter roll purges. Meanwhile, a non-observable criticism is the opposite, describing unverifiable and often conspiratorial ideas and can describe concerns of widespread and consequential voter fraud or manipulations by the “deep state.” I find that individuals who subscribe to non-observable criticism are more likely to support political violence.
Finally, the third chapter examines whether individuals can be compelled to support political violence over established democratic norms if they fear that “people like them” – whether cultural, ideological, or otherwise – may become a permanent minority within the country. In spite of the widespread grievances that Americans have with democracy as it currently functions (as seen in the first two studies), many still view democracy as ideal, even if it is not actively working in practice. This final chapter aims to find whether people support democracy on its own merits, or because they view it as beneficial to themselves specifically. The latter possibility implies that violence may become an attractive option for many who fear losing control of political power in the United States.