The article by Andrew T. Little and Anne Meng examines the empirical evidence for global democratic decline, a topic that has received significant attention in recent years. Despite the widespread narrative of democratic erosion, the authors find limited support for this claim through objective indicators of democracy. They argue that most studies of global backsliding rely heavily on subjective indicators, which can be biased due to coder bias and the strategic use of subtle undemocratic actions by leaders. To address these issues, the authors survey objective indicators of democracy, focusing on electoral competitiveness and other key dimensions such as executive constraints and media freedom. They find that incumbent parties have not become more dominant in elections, and the rate of turnover remains relatively constant. Additionally, there is no significant increase in the number of elections or attacks on the press. The authors also examine trends in executive constraints, finding that constitutional rules limiting executive power have remained stable. The authors explore two theoretical models to explain the discrepancy between subjective and objective indicators. The first model suggests that changes in coder bias, driven by increased media attention to backsliding and motivated beliefs, can create time-varying biases in expert-coded data. The second model posits that leaders may be strategically shifting to more subtle undemocratic actions, which are more difficult to detect with objective measures. The article concludes that while major backsliding may be occurring in ways that elude objective measurement, the evidence does not strongly support the claim of a global democratic decline. The authors emphasize the importance of accurate measurement and encourage future research to improve expert-coding practices and explore other mechanisms driving the observed trends.The article by Andrew T. Little and Anne Meng examines the empirical evidence for global democratic decline, a topic that has received significant attention in recent years. Despite the widespread narrative of democratic erosion, the authors find limited support for this claim through objective indicators of democracy. They argue that most studies of global backsliding rely heavily on subjective indicators, which can be biased due to coder bias and the strategic use of subtle undemocratic actions by leaders. To address these issues, the authors survey objective indicators of democracy, focusing on electoral competitiveness and other key dimensions such as executive constraints and media freedom. They find that incumbent parties have not become more dominant in elections, and the rate of turnover remains relatively constant. Additionally, there is no significant increase in the number of elections or attacks on the press. The authors also examine trends in executive constraints, finding that constitutional rules limiting executive power have remained stable. The authors explore two theoretical models to explain the discrepancy between subjective and objective indicators. The first model suggests that changes in coder bias, driven by increased media attention to backsliding and motivated beliefs, can create time-varying biases in expert-coded data. The second model posits that leaders may be strategically shifting to more subtle undemocratic actions, which are more difficult to detect with objective measures. The article concludes that while major backsliding may be occurring in ways that elude objective measurement, the evidence does not strongly support the claim of a global democratic decline. The authors emphasize the importance of accurate measurement and encourage future research to improve expert-coding practices and explore other mechanisms driving the observed trends.