Democracy for Realists stems from a long-standing, post-World War II (WWII) behavioral political science (BPS) tradition that utilizes empirical data to investigate political behavior instead of relying on theoretical assumptions. In the mid-20th century, researchers like Paul Lazarsfeld, Angus Campbell, and Philip Converse began using surveys and statistical analyses to evaluate how citizens were thinking politically. These studies found that there was little evidence of informed rational voters and showed that citizens have limited political knowledge, unstable political preferences, and lack ideological coherency. As a result, the BPS research tradition changed the focus of the discipline from idealized participatory models of democracy to descriptive investigations of election functions.

Achen and Bartels continue this empirical research while expanding upon it. They use decades of research from across the fields of political behavior, economics, and psychology to challenge common theoretical assumptions about democracy. Like most researchers working within the BPS tradition, Achen and Bartels utilize quantitative data on voting patterns, economic conditions, and public opinion to bolster their arguments. However, unlike many previous researchers who simply documented the limitations of voters, Achen and Bartels contend that two primary democratic theories, preference-based theory and retrospective voting theory, are inherently flawed.

Understanding this methodological context is crucial for comprehending the arguments presented in the book. Achen and Bartels do not offer a pure philosophical critique, instead basing their assertions on a substantial amount of empirical evidence. Their work illustrates an emerging trend in political science toward incorporating normative considerations with data- driven analysis, inviting readers to reassess how democracies actually function.