Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T19:28:36.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Partisan Gaps in Satisfaction with Democracy after Contentious Elections: Evidence from a US 2020 Election Panel Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2023

Sam Whitt Open the ORCID record for Sam Whitt [Opens in a new window] ,
Alixandra B. Yanus Open the ORCID record for Alixandra B. Yanus [Opens in a new window] ,
Mark Setzler Open the ORCID record for Mark Setzler [Opens in a new window] ,
Brian McDonald ,
John Graeber Open the ORCID record for John Graeber [Opens in a new window] ,
Gordon Ballingrud Open the ORCID record for Gordon Ballingrud [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin Kifer Open the ORCID record for Martin Kifer [Opens in a new window]
Sam Whitt
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Alixandra B. Yanus
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Mark Setzler
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Brian McDonald
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
John Graeber
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Gordon Ballingrud
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Martin Kifer
Affiliation:
High Point University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What effects do contentious elections have on partisan appraisals of democracy? We consider the case of the November 2020 US election, a highly polarized partisan contest but also an objectively free and fair election by credible accounting. We conducted a panel study embedded within two nationally representative surveys before and after the election. Results indicate a familiar but underexamined partisan gap, in which satisfaction with democracy decreases among Republicans and increases among Democrats relative to nonpartisans. We find that the gap is fully mediated by partisan shifts in satisfaction with elections and the news media that cover them. Our results underscore how eroding institutional confidence can undermine democratic legitimacy in hitherto consolidated democracies. To overcome partisan divisions following contentious elections, we highlight the need to bolster confidence in democratic institutions to reduce partisan fears and uncertainties—both rational and irrational—that electoral losses may trigger.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 2024 , pp. 8 - 15
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Llewellyn, Morgan H.. 2008. “Are Americans Confident Their Ballots Are Counted?” Journal of Politics 70 (3): 754–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., Blais, André, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Listhaug, Ola. 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., and Guillory, Christine A.. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., and LoTempio, Andrew J.. 2002. “Winning, Losing, and Political Trust in America.” British Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 335–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan A., and Karp, Jeffrey A.. 2003. “How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects, and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 443–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, Julian, and Vatter, Adrian. 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): 435–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Morin-Chassé, Alexandre, and Singh, Shane P.. 2017. “Election Outcomes, Legislative Representation, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Party Politics 23 (2): 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1980. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Stephen C., Martinez, Michael D., Gainous, Jason, and Kane, James G.. 2006. “Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (4): 579–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, Luigi, Jou, Willy, and Memoli, Vincenzo. 2012. “Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Stefan, and Linde, Jonas. 2017. “The Dynamics of the Winner–Loser Gap in Satisfaction with Democracy: Evidence from a Swedish Citizen Panel.” International Political Science Review 38 (5): 625–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2002. “Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter. 2011. “Electoral Losers Revisited: How Citizens React to Defeat at the Ballot Box.” Electoral Studies 30 (1): 102–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrer, Benjamin, and Zingher, Joshua N.. 2019. “A Global Analysis of How Losing an Election Affects Voter Satisfaction with Democracy.” International Political Science Review 40 (4): 518–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, Thomas Edward, and Nooruddin, Irfan. 2012. “The Effect of Elections on Postconflict Peace and Reconstruction.” Journal of Politics 74 (2): 558–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Svolik, Milan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114 (2): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Sung Min, and Eric, C. C. Chang. 2016. “Economic Inequality, Winner–Loser Gap, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 44:85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Patrick, and Justwan, Florian. 2013. “Nail-Biters and No-Contests: The Effect of Electoral Margins on Satisfaction with Democracy in Winners and Losers.” Electoral Studies 32 (2): 334–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng. 2014. Analysis of Panel Data. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1): 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Nicholas, and Lührmann, Anna. 2017. “Public Trust in Manipulated Elections: The Role of Election Administration and Media Freedom.” Electoral Studies 50:50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A.. 2002. “Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2019. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Levy, Morris. 2020. “Winning Cures Everything? Beliefs about Voter Fraud, Voter Confidence, and the 2016 Election.” Electoral Studies 65:102–56.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Loveless, Matthew. 2021. “When You Win, Nothing Hurts: The Durability of Electoral Salience on Individuals’ Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Studies 69 (3): 538–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa (ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Shapiro, Robert Y., and Dempsey, Glenn R.. 1987. “What Moves Public Opinion?” American Political Science Review 81 (1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock, James Roland. 2015. Democratic Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, Smith, Steven S., and Tucker, Patrick D.. 2018. “‘It’s Largely a Rigged System’: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect in 2016.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (4): 854–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Shane P. 2014. “Not All Election Winners Are Equal: Satisfaction with Democracy and the Nature of the Vote.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (2): 308–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Shane, Karakoç, Ekrem, and Blais, André. 2012. “Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 31 (1): 201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. 2012. The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2013 [1919]. Politik Als Beruf. BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Wells, Jason M., and Krieckhaus, Jonathan. 2006. “Does National Context Influence Democratic Satisfaction? A Multi-Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (4): 569–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Sam, Yanus, Alixandra B., Setzler, Mark, McDonald, Brian, Graeber, John, Ballingrud, Gordon, and Kifer, Martin. 2023. “Replication Data for ‘Explaining Partisan Gaps in Satisfaction with Democracy after Contentious Elections: Evidence from a US 2020 Election Panel Survey.’” PS: Political Science & Politics. DOI: 10.7910/DVN/KDRC0I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Whitt et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 551.6 KB