Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rlmms Total loading time: 0.328 Render date: 2021-10-20T10:54:41.070Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Winners and losers reconsidered: party support, character valence, and satisfaction with democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2019

Debra Leiter*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri
April K. Clark
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois
Michael Clark
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois
*

Abstract

Studies of citizens’ satisfaction with democracy have established a connection between satisfaction and how well those citizens’ preferred parties perform in elections. Yet, the question remains whether ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ respond to the same system- and party-level factors when evaluating their political satisfaction. We build on extant literature to consider citizen satisfaction with democracy from the perspective of character valence. Using the Mannheim Eurobarometer trend file and content analysis-based data on parties’ character valence, we find that both winners’ and losers’ satisfaction with the political system is affected by parties’ character valence, but in differing (and somewhat surprising) ways. We find that winners respond to improvements in the character valence of opposition parties, whereas losers demonstrate greater concern with the valence of governing parties.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the European Consortium on Political Research, 3–6 September 2014, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

References

Aarts, K. and Thomassen, J. (2008), ‘Satisfaction with democracy: do institutions matter?Electoral Studies 27(1): 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, R., Adams, J., Clark, M., Easton, M., Ezrow, L., Kosmidis, S. and Neundorf, A. (2011), ‘When does valence matter? Heightened valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns’, Party Politics 19(1): 6182.Google Scholar
Adams, J. and Ezrow, L. (2009), ‘Who do European parties represent? How western European parties represent the policy preferences of opinion leaders’, Journal of Politics 71(1): 206223.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (2006), ‘Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513529.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Ezrow, L. and Leiter, D. (2012), ‘Partisan sorting and niche parties in Europe’, West European Politics 35(6): 12721294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J., Merrill, S. III, Simas, E.N. and Stone, W.J. (2011), ‘When candidates value good character: a spatial model with applications to congressional elections’, The Journal of Politics 73(1): 1730.Google Scholar
Almond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. (2000), ‘Economic voting and political context: a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 19: 151170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. and Guillory, C.A. (1997), ‘Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems’, The American Political Science Review 91(1): 6681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J. and Singer, M.M. (2008), ‘The sensitive left and the impervious right: multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 41(4): 564599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Listhaug, O. (2005), Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K., Weistanner, D., Engler, S., Potolidis, P., Gerber, M. and Leimgruber, P. (2011), Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2008, Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Belanger, E. and Meguid, B. (2008), ‘Issue salience, issue ownership and issue-based vote-choice’, Electoral Studies 27(3): 477491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, H.M., Fugate, G.A., Pruehs, R.R. and Still, D.R. (2004), ‘Satisfied? Institutional determinants of citizen evaluations of democracy’, Politics and Policy 32(1): 7296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, J. and Vatter, A. (2012), ‘Can’t get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy’, European Journal of Political Research 51(4): 435468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. and Karp, J.A. (2004), ‘Politicians, scandals, and trust in Government’, Political Behavior 26(3): 271287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchler, J. (2008), ‘The ‘V’ term: unpacking the dimensions of valence and their policy consequences’, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Tanenbaum, E. (2001), Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burden, B.C. (2004), ‘Candidate positioning in US congressional elections’, British Journal of Political Science 34(02): 211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D.M. and Powell, E.N. (2014), ‘Understanding the party brand: experimental evidence on the role of valence’, Journal of Politics 76(2): 492505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttice, M. and Stone, W.J. (2012), ‘Candidates matter: policy and quality differences in congressional elections’, Journal of Politics 74(3): 870887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canache, D., Mondak, J.J. and Seligson, M.A. (2001), ‘Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy’, Public Opinion Quarterly 65(4): 506528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, R.L. and Ensley, M.J. (2016), ‘Motivated reasoning and yard-sign-stealing partisans: mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal’, Political Behavior 38: 317335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (2009), ‘Valence and electoral outcomes in western Europe, 1976–1998’, Electoral Studies 28(1): 111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. and Leiter, D. (2014), ‘Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine western European democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 47(2): 171202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H.D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M.C., and Whiteley, P.F. (2009), Performance Politics and the British Voter, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L. (2017), Corruption, Ideology, and Populism: The Rise of Valence Political Campaigning, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Curini, L. and Martelli, P. (2015), ‘A case of valence competition on elections: parties’ emphasis on corruption in electoral manifestos’, Party Politics 21(5): 686698.Google Scholar
Curini, L., Jou, W. and Memoli, V. (2012), ‘Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: the role of policy preferences and past experience’, British Journal of Political Science 42(2): 241261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L., Jou, W. and Memoli, V. (2015), Why Policy Representation Matters: The Consequences of Ideological Proximity Between Citizens and Their Government, London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, S. and Linde, J. (2016), ‘Losing happily? The mitigating effect of democracy and quality of government on the winner-loser gap in political support’, International Journal of Public Administration 39(9): 652664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Farrell, D.M., and McAllister, I. (2011), Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. and Manow, P. (2019), Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Stable version. Accessed at =https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/-VtNCywywF7L46vTZp3m3?domainparlgov.org" http://www.parlgov.org/ Google Scholar
Ezrow, L. and Xezonakis, G. (2011), ‘Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings’, Comparative Political Studies 44(9): 11521178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, L., De Vries, C., Steenbergen, M. and Edwards, E. (2011), ‘Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?’, Party Politics 17(3): 275301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1974), Representatives, Roll-Calls, and Constituencies, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2007), ‘When voters and parties agree: valence issues and party competition’, Political Studies 55(3): 629655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. and Hobolt, S.B. (2008), ‘Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections’, Electoral Studies 27(3): 460476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012), ‘The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in out of power: an analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997’, European Journal of Political Research 51: 469503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2017), The Politics of Competence: Parties, Public Opinion, and Voters, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. (2008), ‘Satisfaction with democracy: the impact of winning and losing in Westminster systems’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 18(1): 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. (2012), ‘Citizen satisfaction with democracy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 50: 88105.Google Scholar
Howell, P. and Justwan, F. (2013), ‘Nail-biters and no-contests: the effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers’, Electoral Studies 32: 334343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R.F. (1990), Culture Shift: In Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, J.A. and Bowler, S. (2001), ‘Coalition politics and satisfaction with democracy: explaining New Zealand’s reaction to proportional representation’, European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 5779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, J.A., Banducci, S.A. and Bowler, S. (2003), ‘To know it is to love it? Satisfaction with democracy in the European Union’, Comparative Political Studies 36(3): 271292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990), ‘The case for motivated reasoning’, Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeper, T.J. and Slothuus, R. (2014), ‘Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation’, Political Psychology 35(1): 129156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, D. and Clark, M. (2015), ‘Valence and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of nine western European democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 54(3): 543562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1990), ‘Economics and elections: the major western democracies’, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1984), Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Linde, J. and Ekman, J. (2003), ‘Satisfaction with democracy: a note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics’, European Journal of Political Research 42(3): 391408.Google Scholar
Matsubayashi, T. (2007), ‘Population size, local autonomy, and support for the political system’, Social Science Quarterly 88(3): 830849.Google Scholar
McCurley, C. and Mondak, J.J. (1995), ‘Inspected by #1184063113: the influence of incumbents’ competence and integrity in U.S. house elections’, American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 864885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, B.M. (2008), Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Molden, D.C. and Tory Higgins, E. (2005), ‘Motivated thinking’, in K.Holyoak, J. and R.Morrison, G. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 295320.Google Scholar
Mondak, J.J. (1995), ‘Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents’, The Journal of Politics 57(04): 10431069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, J., Nyhan, B. and Torres, M. (2018), ‘How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment’, American Journal of Political Science 62(3): 760775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (1999), ‘Institutional explanations of political support’, in PNorris, . (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 217232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B. and Reifler, J. (2010), ‘When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions’, Political Behavior 32: 303330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, H.D. and Whitten, G. (2000), ‘Government competence, economic performance and endogenous election dates’, Electoral Studies 19: 413426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardos-Prado, S. (2012), ‘Valence beyond consensus: party competence and policy dispersion from a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 31(2): 342352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, J.R. (1996), ‘Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825850.Google Scholar
Pharr, S.J., Putnam, R.D. and Dalton, R.J. (2000), ‘A quarter-century of declining confidence’, Journal of Democracy 11(2): 525.Google Scholar
Poguntke, T. and Scarrow, S.E. (1996), ‘The politics of anti-party sentiment: introduction’, European Journal of Political Research 29(3): 257262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. (1982), Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P. (2002), ‘Hot cognition or cool consideration? testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision-making’, The Journal of Politics 64(4): 10211044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Rufino, R. (2013), ‘Satisfaction with democracy in multi-ethnic countries: the effect of representative political institutions on ethnic minorities’, Political Studies 61: 101118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S.P. (2014), ‘Not all election winners are equal: satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote’, European Journal of Political Research 53: 308327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S.P. and Thornton, J.R. (2016), ‘Strange bedfellows: coalition makeup and perceptions of democratic performance among electoral winners’, Electoral Studies 42: 114125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S.P., Karakoc, E. and Blais, A. (2012), ‘Differentiating winners: how elections affect satisfaction with democracy’, Electoral Studies 31: 201211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D. (1992), ‘Valence politics’, in D., Kavanagh (ed.), Electoral Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 141164.Google Scholar
Stokes, D.E. (1963), ‘Spatial models of party competition’, The American Political Science Review 57(2): 368377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, W.J. and Simas, E.N. (2010), ‘Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. house elections’, American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 371388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, C.S. and Lodge, M. (2006): ‘Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vonnahme, B. (2014), ‘Surviving scandal: an exploration of the immediate and lasting effects of scandal on candidate evaluation’, Social Science Quarterly 95(5): 13081321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, P., Farrell, D.M. and Holliday, I. (eds) (2002), Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J.M. and Krieckhaus, J. (2006), ‘Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis’, Political Research Quarterly 59(4): 569578.Google Scholar
Zakharova, M. and Warwick, P.V. (2014), ‘The sources of valence judgments: the role of policy distance and the structure of the left-right spectrum’, Comparative Political Studies 47(14), doi: 10.1177/0010414013516928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Leiter et al. supplementary material

Leiter et al. supplementary material 1

Download Leiter et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4 MB
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Winners and losers reconsidered: party support, character valence, and satisfaction with democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Winners and losers reconsidered: party support, character valence, and satisfaction with democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Winners and losers reconsidered: party support, character valence, and satisfaction with democracy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *