This article examines the conceptual and measurement issues in assessing democratic backsliding, particularly focusing on the debate between "objective" and "subjective" measures of democracy. The authors argue that the assessment of democratic decline hinges on the conceptualization and operationalization of democracy, which can vary significantly across different indices. They critique Little and Meng's (2023) claim that "objective" measures show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding, suggesting that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. The article discusses the limitations of objective measures, such as those used by Freedom House, which often fail to capture the multidimensional nature of democracy and suffer from redundancy and conflation. In contrast, V-Dem's approach, which includes both objective and subjective indicators, is argued to be more comprehensive and less prone to systematic bias. The authors present empirical tests to assess the potential for bad-vibes bias in V-Dem's expert-coded data, finding no evidence of systematic pessimism among experts. The article also highlights common misconceptions about the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" indicators, emphasizing that all measures, whether objective or subjective, involve some form of human judgment. It further evaluates the conceptualization of democracy and backsliding, noting that different conceptualizations can lead to varying interpretations of trends in democracy. Finally, the authors provide a detailed critique of Little and Meng's (2023) objective measures, identifying issues with their conceptualization, operationalization, and missing data. They conclude that while conceptual and measurement choices affect the observed extent of backsliding, the balance of evidence clearly indicates recent global democratic backsliding. The article underscores the importance of a broad set of measures to adequately assess the state of democracy and the need for more evaluative approaches in measuring democratic institutions.This article examines the conceptual and measurement issues in assessing democratic backsliding, particularly focusing on the debate between "objective" and "subjective" measures of democracy. The authors argue that the assessment of democratic decline hinges on the conceptualization and operationalization of democracy, which can vary significantly across different indices. They critique Little and Meng's (2023) claim that "objective" measures show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding, suggesting that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. The article discusses the limitations of objective measures, such as those used by Freedom House, which often fail to capture the multidimensional nature of democracy and suffer from redundancy and conflation. In contrast, V-Dem's approach, which includes both objective and subjective indicators, is argued to be more comprehensive and less prone to systematic bias. The authors present empirical tests to assess the potential for bad-vibes bias in V-Dem's expert-coded data, finding no evidence of systematic pessimism among experts. The article also highlights common misconceptions about the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" indicators, emphasizing that all measures, whether objective or subjective, involve some form of human judgment. It further evaluates the conceptualization of democracy and backsliding, noting that different conceptualizations can lead to varying interpretations of trends in democracy. Finally, the authors provide a detailed critique of Little and Meng's (2023) objective measures, identifying issues with their conceptualization, operationalization, and missing data. They conclude that while conceptual and measurement choices affect the observed extent of backsliding, the balance of evidence clearly indicates recent global democratic backsliding. The article underscores the importance of a broad set of measures to adequately assess the state of democracy and the need for more evaluative approaches in measuring democratic institutions.