Thread 1/13--I wrote an article on a Protect Democracy project here uncoverdc.com/2022/08/03/nat…
But in that document is this link- which was updated in October 2024
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2145…
But in that document is this link- which was updated in October 2024
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2145…
2/what does this Protect Democracy white paper say??
3/The report, “Advantaging Authoritarianism: How the U.S. Electoral System Favors Antidemocratic Extremism,” is a 60+ page Protect Democracy paper by Grant Tudor (first published 2022, updated Oct. 2024). It argues that the design of the U.S. electoral system—especially winner-take-all, single-member House districts and party primaries—structurally helps what it calls America’s “authoritarian faction,” which it locates primarily on the Trump-aligned right.
4/At a high level, this paper is subversive to the right because it redefines normal conservative politics as “authoritarian extremism” and then uses that redefinition to justify rewiring the electoral system specifically to marginalize Trump-aligned Republicans.
Here’s how it does that, piece by piece:
Here’s how it does that, piece by piece:
5/1. It bakes in the premise that “authoritarianism = the Trump right”
The report doesn’t treat “authoritarianism” as a neutral analytic category. It functionally uses it as a synonym for:
•Trump
•MAGA Republicans
•Anyone who questioned the 2020 election
•Anyone who supported Jan. 6 defendants or objected to certification
Once that premise is established as true, the entire argument becomes:
“The system is structurally biased in favor of authoritarianism, and the ‘authoritarian faction’ is the Trump right — therefore, we need to change the rules so that faction doesn’t get power.”
That is not a neutral democracy-defense project. It is a partisan attempt to permanently recode a major faction of the right as illegitimate.
The report doesn’t treat “authoritarianism” as a neutral analytic category. It functionally uses it as a synonym for:
•Trump
•MAGA Republicans
•Anyone who questioned the 2020 election
•Anyone who supported Jan. 6 defendants or objected to certification
Once that premise is established as true, the entire argument becomes:
“The system is structurally biased in favor of authoritarianism, and the ‘authoritarian faction’ is the Trump right — therefore, we need to change the rules so that faction doesn’t get power.”
That is not a neutral democracy-defense project. It is a partisan attempt to permanently recode a major faction of the right as illegitimate.
6/2. It pathologizes any serious investigation of 2020 as anti-democratic
The paper draws a hard line:
•If you said the election was stolen, you are an “election denier” (authoritarian).
•If you didn’t say “stolen” but supported audits, questioned process, or refused to recite the official narrative, you are an “election doubter” (still part of the problem).
That framing collapses valid investigative work, litigation, audits, and legislative scrutiny into a single bucket labeled “authoritarian threat.”
In practice, that means:
•Investigators, legislators, and attorneys who dig into irregularities become data points in an “extremism” study.
•Grassroots citizens questioning 2020 are treated as a pathology the system needs to suppress, not as earnest participants in democratic accountability.
So the document doesn’t just criticize specific claims; it delegitimizes the entire act of contesting the 2020 election—something the left has routinely done in other years (2000, 2004, 2016) without being labeled authoritarian.
The paper draws a hard line:
•If you said the election was stolen, you are an “election denier” (authoritarian).
•If you didn’t say “stolen” but supported audits, questioned process, or refused to recite the official narrative, you are an “election doubter” (still part of the problem).
That framing collapses valid investigative work, litigation, audits, and legislative scrutiny into a single bucket labeled “authoritarian threat.”
In practice, that means:
•Investigators, legislators, and attorneys who dig into irregularities become data points in an “extremism” study.
•Grassroots citizens questioning 2020 are treated as a pathology the system needs to suppress, not as earnest participants in democratic accountability.
So the document doesn’t just criticize specific claims; it delegitimizes the entire act of contesting the 2020 election—something the left has routinely done in other years (2000, 2004, 2016) without being labeled authoritarian.
7/3. It turns safe GOP districts into a moral crime, but treats blue safe seats as normal
The report focuses heavily on how single-member, winner-take-all districts and partisan primaries “advantage” the authoritarian faction by allowing them to win and hold safe seats.
But look at what’s going on rhetorically:
•Safe Republican districts that elect strong Trump supporters are presented as a systemic democratic failure.
•Safe Democratic districts that elect Squad-style progressives aren’t treated as a structural emergency at all.
The structure (winner-take-all districts, primary incentives) is symmetrical; what changes is which side the authors label “authoritarian.”
So the “structural reform” conversation is only really about neutralizing one side’s base voters—conservative populists—in the name of democracy. It also argues for fusion voting.
The report focuses heavily on how single-member, winner-take-all districts and partisan primaries “advantage” the authoritarian faction by allowing them to win and hold safe seats.
But look at what’s going on rhetorically:
•Safe Republican districts that elect strong Trump supporters are presented as a systemic democratic failure.
•Safe Democratic districts that elect Squad-style progressives aren’t treated as a structural emergency at all.
The structure (winner-take-all districts, primary incentives) is symmetrical; what changes is which side the authors label “authoritarian.”
So the “structural reform” conversation is only really about neutralizing one side’s base voters—conservative populists—in the name of democracy. It also argues for fusion voting.
8/4. It weaponizes “pro-democracy coalition” as code for a permanent anti-MAGA front
Throughout, the document calls for building a broad “pro-democracy coalition” and claims current institutions make it too hard for that coalition to defeat the authoritarian right.
In reality, “pro-democracy coalition” =
Democrats + NeverTrump Republicans + center-left NGOs + institutional right that will break with Trump.
The “coalition” they want to empower is essentially:
•The existing liberal- progressive establishment,
•Plus a curated, compliant slice of the center-right willing to oppose Trump and accept the 2020 baseline. (RINOs, never Trumpers)
That coalition is then framed as democracy itself. Anyone outside it is not a legitimate democratic actor but part of an authoritarian problem to be managed structurally. Gaslighting perfected.
Throughout, the document calls for building a broad “pro-democracy coalition” and claims current institutions make it too hard for that coalition to defeat the authoritarian right.
In reality, “pro-democracy coalition” =
Democrats + NeverTrump Republicans + center-left NGOs + institutional right that will break with Trump.
The “coalition” they want to empower is essentially:
•The existing liberal- progressive establishment,
•Plus a curated, compliant slice of the center-right willing to oppose Trump and accept the 2020 baseline. (RINOs, never Trumpers)
That coalition is then framed as democracy itself. Anyone outside it is not a legitimate democratic actor but part of an authoritarian problem to be managed structurally. Gaslighting perfected.
9/5. It uses technical electoral engineering to justify kneecapping the populist right
The reforms sound dry and procedural—fusion voting, proportional multi-member districts, House expansion—but the political logic is clear:
•Fusion voting: Let multiple “pro-democracy” parties (Democrats, bulwark-style conservatives, etc.) pile onto one anti-MAGA candidate, creating a formalized front against Trump-aligned Republicans.
•Proportional multi-member districts: Break the current GOP coalition into smaller parties and reward moderate/anti-MAGA factions while making it harder for a disciplined populist bloc to control the party.
•House expansion / system tweaks: Add more seats and design rules that dilute the influence of rural and working-class conservative voters without ever saying that’s the goal.
None of this is framed as “how can we represent the right and left more fairly?” It’s framed as:
“How can we structurally reduce the ability of the Trump right to gain legislative power—even when they win in their districts?”
That is a soft form of regime-engineering disguised as neutral institutional design. REGIME CHANGE
The reforms sound dry and procedural—fusion voting, proportional multi-member districts, House expansion—but the political logic is clear:
•Fusion voting: Let multiple “pro-democracy” parties (Democrats, bulwark-style conservatives, etc.) pile onto one anti-MAGA candidate, creating a formalized front against Trump-aligned Republicans.
•Proportional multi-member districts: Break the current GOP coalition into smaller parties and reward moderate/anti-MAGA factions while making it harder for a disciplined populist bloc to control the party.
•House expansion / system tweaks: Add more seats and design rules that dilute the influence of rural and working-class conservative voters without ever saying that’s the goal.
None of this is framed as “how can we represent the right and left more fairly?” It’s framed as:
“How can we structurally reduce the ability of the Trump right to gain legislative power—even when they win in their districts?”
That is a soft form of regime-engineering disguised as neutral institutional design. REGIME CHANGE
10/6. It creates a ready-made linguistic, blacklist logic for institutions, donors, and platforms
By counting “election deniers” and “doubters,” tracking their win rates, and mapping which districts elect them, the paper provides:
•A target list for donors: where to fund primary challengers and “pro-democracy” alternatives.
•A signal to tech platforms, banks, foundations, and universities: these are the “anti-democratic” actors you should treat as risky.
•A template for future research and NGO campaigns to pressure institutions to de-platform or marginalize anyone in those categories.
So the work doesn’t just analyze; it supplies the language, the terms, the conceptual ammo for broader, coordinated efforts to isolate the Trump-aligned right from institutional life.
By counting “election deniers” and “doubters,” tracking their win rates, and mapping which districts elect them, the paper provides:
•A target list for donors: where to fund primary challengers and “pro-democracy” alternatives.
•A signal to tech platforms, banks, foundations, and universities: these are the “anti-democratic” actors you should treat as risky.
•A template for future research and NGO campaigns to pressure institutions to de-platform or marginalize anyone in those categories.
So the work doesn’t just analyze; it supplies the language, the terms, the conceptual ammo for broader, coordinated efforts to isolate the Trump-aligned right from institutional life.
11/7. It narrows the Overton window on legitimate conservative positions
Because the paper fuses core right-of-center positions with “authoritarianism,” it shifts the Overton window:
•Skepticism about 2020 → authoritarian.
•Support for Trump or America First policies → authoritarian.
•Resistance to institutional narratives about Jan. 6 → authoritarian.
Once those positions are coded as authoritarian, any robust, populist, or anti-establishment form of conservatism is framed as inherently dangerous.
What’s left as “acceptable” right-of-center politics is a narrow, de-fanged, establishment Republicanism that will not fundamentally challenge the 2020 narrative or the post-Trump institutional order.
Because the paper fuses core right-of-center positions with “authoritarianism,” it shifts the Overton window:
•Skepticism about 2020 → authoritarian.
•Support for Trump or America First policies → authoritarian.
•Resistance to institutional narratives about Jan. 6 → authoritarian.
Once those positions are coded as authoritarian, any robust, populist, or anti-establishment form of conservatism is framed as inherently dangerous.
What’s left as “acceptable” right-of-center politics is a narrow, de-fanged, establishment Republicanism that will not fundamentally challenge the 2020 narrative or the post-Trump institutional order.
12/8. It erases left-wing authoritarian risks to justify one-sided structural changes
For something billed as a democracy-defense document, there is essentially no serious treatment of left-wing authoritarian tools:
•Emergency powers, lockdowns, and censorship regimes.
•Government-platform “disinformation” partnerships that pressure speech moderation.
•Weaponized financial controls (de-banking, payment processors, etc.).
By pretending the authoritarian danger is entirely on the Trump right, the paper builds the case for:
•Structural reforms that only constrain the populist right, and
•A free hand for left-aligned institutions and NGOs to continue using state and quasi-state power to police information and opposition.
That one-sided framing is exactly what makes it feel “subversive”: it uses the language of democracy to rationalize asymmetric constraints on one side of the spectrum.
For something billed as a democracy-defense document, there is essentially no serious treatment of left-wing authoritarian tools:
•Emergency powers, lockdowns, and censorship regimes.
•Government-platform “disinformation” partnerships that pressure speech moderation.
•Weaponized financial controls (de-banking, payment processors, etc.).
By pretending the authoritarian danger is entirely on the Trump right, the paper builds the case for:
•Structural reforms that only constrain the populist right, and
•A free hand for left-aligned institutions and NGOs to continue using state and quasi-state power to police information and opposition.
That one-sided framing is exactly what makes it feel “subversive”: it uses the language of democracy to rationalize asymmetric constraints on one side of the spectrum.
13/Putting it all together
So, why is this subversive to the right?
Because it:
1.Relabels a major political faction as “authoritarian” by definition.
2.Delegitimizes investigations of 2020 and election integrity concerns as extremism.
3.Argues the electoral system is broken precisely because that faction can still win.
4.Promotes structural reforms designed to reduce the power of Trump-aligned voters and candidates.
5.Provides a conceptual and data framework for donors, NGOs, and institutions to sideline the populist right in the name of “saving democracy.”
It’s not just an analysis of democratic risk. It’s a strategic blueprint for politically and structurally isolating the Trump-aligned right while cloaking that project in the high language of “pro-democracy system design.” FIN
So, why is this subversive to the right?
Because it:
1.Relabels a major political faction as “authoritarian” by definition.
2.Delegitimizes investigations of 2020 and election integrity concerns as extremism.
3.Argues the electoral system is broken precisely because that faction can still win.
4.Promotes structural reforms designed to reduce the power of Trump-aligned voters and candidates.
5.Provides a conceptual and data framework for donors, NGOs, and institutions to sideline the populist right in the name of “saving democracy.”
It’s not just an analysis of democratic risk. It’s a strategic blueprint for politically and structurally isolating the Trump-aligned right while cloaking that project in the high language of “pro-democracy system design.” FIN
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
