Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy

Singh, Shane P.; Karakoç, Ekrem; Blais, André

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2011.11.001

Cited by 169 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well established that, after an election, winners and losers differ in their attitudes about the winner's right to govern (Nadeu and Blais, 1993), their trust in government, their satisfaction with democracy, and their views that elections make officials respond to the public (Anderson and LoTempio, 2002;Banducci and Karp, 2003;Bowler and Donovan, 2007;Esaiasson, 2011;Singh et al, 2012). Yet as some basic level, democratic elections 'work' because (or if) losers and winners see the outcome as the result of a fair, legitimate process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Election administration and perceptions of fair elections

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Election administration and perceptions of fair elections

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is possible that the increase in legitimacy recorded in those studies results from these other more salient nonjudicial races. Elections increase the perceived legitimacy of the overall political system and its constituent institutions (Esaiasson 2011;Singh, Karakoc, and Blais 2012). If this is the case, a state supreme court will receive a boost in legitimacy over the course of an election, even when no judge faces election or it is an appointed court.…”

Section: Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gibson (2012) and Gibson et al (2011) show that many types of campaigning decrease perceived legitimacy, but elections are also the quintessential legitimizing event of any democracy. During an election, the public gets to hold their representatives accountable, and empirical evidence suggests elections provide democratic legitimacy to a political system and its constituent institutions (Esaiasson 2011;Singh, Karakoc, and Blais 2012). Determining the overall effect of elections on perceived legitimacy requires taking into account both the positive boost provided by electoral accountability and the negative effects caused by campaign activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions

Woodson

2017

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial elections have two opposing effects on legitimacy perceptions for state supreme courts. Elections not only provide a boost to legitimacy through the chance to hold officials accountable but also involve campaign activity that decreases legitimacy perceptions. This article examines these two opposing effects using a nationally representative survey that includes items assessing diffuse support for state supreme courts. It uses multiple indicators to differentiate between states with highly active election systems involving large amounts of campaign activity and states with less active elections systems that involve little campaign activity. The results from the survey show that the legitimacy of elected courts is higher than appointed courts but only in states with little election activity. In states with high amounts of election activity, the legitimacy of elected courts is lower than appointed courts.

show abstract

“…It follows that authority is one important dimension that produces the winner-loser gap in voters' satisfaction with democracy (Anderson et al 2005;Han and Chang 2016;Singh, Karakoç, and Blais 2012). Individual citizens will be more satisfied when the electoral process results in the installation of those who share their policy preferences in positions of authority.…”

Section: Authority Voice and Democratic Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Merkley¹,

Cutler²,

Quirk³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As studies using macro-level evidence have shown, citizens are more satisfied with democracy when they feel that their instrumental preferences are represented in government, and this feeling is more likely in non-majoritarian institutional contexts. Scholars have given less attention to whether such institutions also increase satisfaction by providing more inclusive political discourse. Citizens may value having their voice represented in politics, regardless of the resulting authority. This paper presents the first micro-level evidence of this mechanism by having subjects experience a simulated election campaign that manipulates both the political discourse and the outcome independently. We find that subjects were less satisfied with democracy when their party lost the election; but this effect disappeared when the campaign discourse had featured thorough discussion of an issue they felt was important. The findings suggest that institutions and party systems that provide more diverse voices may soften the blow of losing elections.

show abstract

Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy

Cited by 169 publications

References 41 publications

Election administration and perceptions of fair elections

Election administration and perceptions of fair elections

The Two Opposing Effects of Judicial Elections on Legitimacy Perceptions

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About