The authors seem to argue that the ease with which viewers of electoral debates were swayed by scientifically-clad distortion in the form of the "worm" is a danger to democracy. Certainly, their study should be worrisome for anyone invested in the good function of modern democratic polities, i.e., most of us.





However, I would argue that the study brings to the forefront an even greater problem: the ease with which voters are swayed. The effect of the distorted worm was non-trivial:









Advocates of democracy often claim that this form of constitution is superior because the outcome of an election is determined by the balance of interests of most people in society.





Yet, experiments such as this show that rather than a balance of rational interests, it may be a balance of influences by political marketers who act in many more ways than just the "worm" that determine who wins an election.