Winning is not everything: Public perceptions of losers and non-voters in South Africa

Rich, Timothy S.; Holmes, Carolyn E.

doi:10.1057/ap.2015.17

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GLES surveys find 28.33% of voters split their votes across two parties, compared with 19.42% in 2013. 6 For a counter-example, see Rich and Holmes (2015). 7 These included the SPD-FDP-Greens and the CDU/CSU-FDP-Greens.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Losers’ and Non-voters’ Consent: Democratic Satisfaction in the 2009 and 2013 Elections in Germany

Rich¹,

Treece²

2016

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on losers’ consent identifies clear distinctions in perceptions of democracy between electoral losers and winners. However, little of the literature addresses the complexities of mixed member electoral systems or compares this winner–loser divergence to that of non-voters. An analysis of post-election surveys in Germany in 2009 and 2013 allows for a disaggregation of types of losers and non-voters. Results find that voting for a district candidate from a losing party has a greater effect on perceptions than voting for a losing party in the proportional representation tier, while losing in both appeared to slow the decline in positive evaluations of the system. Meanwhile clear distinctions between perceptions of different types of non-voters emerge.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Losers’ and Non-voters’ Consent: Democratic Satisfaction in the 2009 and 2013 Elections in Germany

Rich¹,

Treece²

2016

Gov. & oppos.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, nonvoters commonly are excluded from the analysis entirely (e.g., Loewen & Blais, 2006), ignored by basing winner–loser status on party preference and not voting behavior (e.g., Jou, 2009; Moehler, 2009; Moehler & Lindberg, 2009), or treated as a homogenous group (e.g., Blais & Gélineau, 2007; Tavits, 2008). Similarly, little attention falls on nonvoters who carry a partisan attachment, who may have opted not to vote because they expect the election not to be competitive (e.g., Rich & Holmes, 2016). Meanwhile, Rich and Treece (2016), for example, found that while all nonvoters showed lower satisfaction with democracy compared to electoral winners, the coefficient sizes were smallest for those who preferred winners versus those without a party preference.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, perceptions of the National Assembly and the Blue House (President), the former consistently poorly evaluated by the public, would be expected to influence perceptions of democratic politics in general. Furthermore, with rare exceptions (e.g., Campbell, 2015; Dahlberg & Linde, 2017; Rich & Holmes, 2016), most studies of losers' consent view a country only for one time period, rather than multiple elections. Data from the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) allow for an analysis of multiple years across elections to identify generalizable patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Winners, losers, and the others: Disaggregating South Korean satisfaction with politics

Rich

2020

Asian Politics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What factors influence satisfaction with politics after elections? The literature on losers' consent consistently finds diverging perceptions between electoral winners and losers, but rarely disaggregates the electorate further into nonpartisan voters and nonvoters. In addition, the literature relies heavily on individual elections in isolation and thus is rarely able to address general trends. This study uses Korean General Social Survey (KGSS) data across multiple elections and finds electoral winners consistently have higher evaluations than those who identified and voted for electoral losers. This pattern holds after demographic controls and evaluations of the executive and legislative institutions as well. However, no consistent pattern emerges among nonpartisans and nonvoters.

show abstract

“…One would also expect, in a dominant party system, that those preferring the opposition may not vote, seeing the action as futile (e.g. Rich and Holmes, 2016). Admittedly, concerns about a wasted vote or an election blowout in the Korean case should have been minimal based on information available at the time.…”

Section: Views Of Losers and Nonvotersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Lingering Effects of Losing and Nonvoting on Institutional Trust: An Analysis of South Korea

Rich

Knight

Dahmer

2020

Journal of Asian and African Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do supporters of electoral losers and nonvoters maintain lower evaluations of institutions post-election? A sizable literature identifies a divergence in perceptions among winners and losers regarding democratic satisfaction, with few studies extending this to perceptions of other electoral and nonelectoral institutions nor to include nonvoters. The timing of the 2015 Asian Barometer survey in South Korea allows us to identify evaluation prior to Park Geun-Hye’s impeachment scandal. Analysis consistently finds that those who supported the losing presidential candidate in 2012 maintained lower evaluations of institutions, with inconsistent results regarding nonvoters.

show abstract

Winning is not everything: Public perceptions of losers and non-voters in South Africa

Cited by 6 publications

References 47 publications

Losers’ and Non-voters’ Consent: Democratic Satisfaction in the 2009 and 2013 Elections in Germany

Losers’ and Non-voters’ Consent: Democratic Satisfaction in the 2009 and 2013 Elections in Germany

Winners, losers, and the others: Disaggregating South Korean satisfaction with politics

The Lingering Effects of Losing and Nonvoting on Institutional Trust: An Analysis of South Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About