In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, social media posts and poll results showing support for political violence have been seized upon by members of both parties to blame their opponents, justify retribution or even raise fears of a civil war.

In the wrong corner of the internet, it can certainly seem as if there’s widespread support for political violence. And in recent polls, as many as one in five Americans say political violence can be justified.

But while a small percentage of Americans do endorse violence, that percentage is much smaller than either the polls or social media make it seem. Only a vanishingly small number of Americans support political violence in any meaningful sense.

In theory, public polls seem like a reasonable way to measure support for political violence. Pollsters ask voters whether they support various ideas and policies all the time. And unlike social media, which is dominated by a tiny number of extreme, widely shared and algorithmically promoted voices, political surveys obtain a reasonably representative sample of people across the population.

But support for political violence is not easy to quantify. The measurement issues are so serious that The New York Times/Siena Poll has never once asked about it over the last decade (plenty of people have asked us to do so). The usual poll questions — for instance, “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to use violence to achieve political goals” — aren’t quite up to the task.

For starters, what’s “political violence”? In the context of this article, it evokes the assassination of political opponents simply for their political views. But that’s not the only thing poll respondents might imagine when they hear the question. It might not even be the only kind of assassination they imagine. What about the baby Hitler problem? What about violence that’s nothing like an assassination, like revolt against a colonial oppressor after nonviolent protest failed? What about violence that isn’t murder? The violent destruction of property — like dumping tea into a harbor — could plausibly be political violence. Nowadays, some people even call speech “violent” if it causes psychological distress or reinforces supposed structures of power and domination.