Authoritarian actors wish to undermine democracy by pretending to uphold its principles while covertly subverting them. This results in political systems that hold potentially competitive elections but undermine democratic norms by various authoritarian means. Such political systems are often labelled ‘illiberal democracies’, but they should not even be granted the veneer of democracy, as their procedures significantly skew elections. Instead, illiberal regimes should be called authoritarian to more accurately reflect reality. That said, there meaningful distinctions that can be made between various forms of authoritarianism. Compared to systems of closed authoritarianism, so-called illiberal democracies are more democratic in many ways, so the titles of electoral authoritarianism and competitive authoritarianism are more fitting. Authoritarian strategies are varied. They can involve seizing control of the media, undermining the rule of law, or mobilizing state resources for campaigning. Authoritarian actors can also improve their chances with technical decisions: enacting voter suppression, redrawing district boundaries, or changing electoral rules, for instance. However, more blatantly authoritarian strategies such as banning political opposition outright and widespread voter fraud are more closely aligned with closed authoritarianism. Identifying authoritarian strategies is vital to opposing them sufficiently early and hopefully preventing the slide towards authoritarian government.