From briefly looking through the results and the survey design, I have some practical concerns with the design of the candidate choice survey part of the study

From briefly looking through the results and the survey design, I have some practical concerns with the design of the candidate choice survey part of the study as they relate to the “party over democracy” conclusion, specifically, the fact that there were no "pro-democratic" candidate positions, only "undemocratic" and "generic". This lets the voter faced with a choice between an undemocratic candidate and a candidate who has nothing to say on the "democracy" issues project the undemocratic positions onto the "generic" candidate. This seems especially problematic because anti-electoral fairness positions and rule by executive order, widely used in America by both parties, make up half of the undemocratic positions used. For many Americans these seem to be intractable issues because (1) these abuses are already widespread, and (2) almost no political candidates, aside from more fringe single-issue ones, run on ending them or can be expected to do anything to oppose or end them if perpetrated by their own party. So to me it seems perfectly reasonable to vote for a candidate of who explicitly supports gerrymandering and rule by executive order over a candidate less aligned with you on other policy issues who has nothing to say about them. Chances are, the other guy supports those things too. Am I missing some part of the study that accounts for this?