Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy (Electoral Studies 2012)
Previous research indicates that supporting a winning party in an election boosts satisfaction with democracy, but does not fully or adequately test the mechanisms behind this relationship. Using original survey data, we make a contribution on three fronts. First, we inquire what winning (or losing) an election really means in terms of the performance of one’s preferred party. Second, we employ panel data, which helps to determine whether an election outcome truly impacts satisfaction levels. Third, we examine the breadth of electoral victory, testing whether the satisfaction boost from a regional victory extends to the national and supranational levels. Findings indicate that the inclusion of one’s selected party in government is the most important factor for satisfaction with democracy, which attests to the importance of policy considerations in engendering satisfaction. In addition, winning a regional election strengthens satisfaction beyond the regional level, which indicates that the mere experience of being a “winner” also works to increase satisfaction.► We examine how winning or losing an election affects satisfaction in terms of changes in seat shares and government formation. ► We use original panel data from the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia. ► Choosing the party that formed the government is most important. ► There is some evidence that victory in a regional election shapes attitudes toward national and supranational governments.
2010
Previous studies have examined the gap between electoral winners and losers on various dimensions of political support, from specific institutional evaluations to more diffuse aspects concerning democratic principles and procedures, and found that winners express significantly greater support than losers at each level. However, these works define winners and losers in a static fashion by examining their attitudes at only a single time point, and employ a dichotomous categorization that neglect possible variations within each group. In this study we take into consideration both the past history of winning or losing on present attitudes, and the impact of ideological distance from the government on a widely used indicator of system support, i.e. satisfaction with democracy. By analyzing surveys covering 31 countries, we show that the relationship between winner/loser status and satisfaction with democracy contains both a marginal dynamic nature as well as policy content. Winning for the first time always boosts satisfaction with democracy. Moreover, the impact of winning status increases as voters perceive the cabinet as close to their own ideological position. For repeated winners, however, satisfaction only increases if they are ideologically close to the government; otherwise their winning status has no effect. Two normative conclusions can be derived: first, governments that, ceteris paribus, minimize the ideological distance between itself and the largest number of citizens (including both winners and losers), may serve to increase political support. Second, cabinet alternation helps to boost the overall level of satisfaction with democracy by expanding the proportion of voters who have experienced winning at least once in recent elections.
Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy
Political Studies, 2007
Previous research has shown that those who won an election are more satisfied with the way democracy works than those who lost. What is not clear, however, is whether it is the fact of winning (losing), per se, that generates (dis)satisfaction with democracy. The current study explores this winner/loser gap with the use of the 1997 Canadian federal election panel study. It makes a theoretical and methodological contribution to our understanding of the factors that foster satisfaction with democracy. At the theoretical level, we argue that voters gain different utility from winning at the constituency and national levels in a parliamentary system, and that their expectations about whether they will win or lose affect their degree of satisfaction with democracy. On the methodological front, our analysis includes a control group (non-voters) and incorporates a control for the level of satisfaction prior to the election. The results indicate that the effect of winning and losing on voters' satisfaction with democracy is significant even when controlling for ex ante satisfaction before the election takes place, and that the outcome of the election in the local constituency matters as much as the outcome of the national election. They fail to show, however, that expectations about the outcome of the election play a significant role in shaping satisfaction with democracy.
The impact of election outcomes on satisfaction with democracy under a two-round system
French Politics, 2014
Previous research has found a positive relationship between having voted for a party that is part of the government and satisfaction with democracy. However, no research has examined this relationship in the specific case of a two-round system. Relying on original panel data survey conducted before and after the 2012 legislative election in France, this article addresses the question of how vote choices in the first and second rounds affect satisfaction with democracy. We find that both rounds have a similar impact and that voters who rallied a winning party in the second round are as happy with the democratic process as early supporters.
Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy
This paper disentangles the relationship between election outcomes and satisfaction with democracy. As the first comparative study to employ a measure of satisfaction immediately before and after elections, we can be unusually confident that any changes we observe are attributable to election outcomes. Following previous work, we affirm that voting for parties that win more votes, more legislative seats, and more cabinet seats boosts satisfaction with democracy. In addition, we demonstrate for the first time that voters are sensitive to deficits in representation; satisfaction with democracy decreases when one's party's seat share falls short of its vote share.
European Journal of Political Research, 2012
Are citizens in consensus democracies with developed direct democratic institutions more satisfied with their political system than those in majoritarian democracies? In this article, individual-level data from the second wave of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and an updated version of Lijphart's multivariate measure of consensus and majoritarian democracy covering 24 countries are used to investigate this question. The findings from logistic multilevel models indicate that consensual cabinet types and direct democratic institutions are associated with higher levels of citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore, consensus democracy in these institutions closes the gap in satisfaction with democracy between losers and winners of elections by both comforting losers and reducing the satisfaction of winners. Simultaneously, consensus democracy in terms of electoral rules, the executive-legislative power balance, interest groups and the party system reduces the satisfaction of election winners, but does not enhance that of losers.
The Effect of Parties on Voters’ Satisfaction with Democracy
Politics and Governance
Electoral ‘winners’ (i.e., voters casting a ballot for a party included in the post-electoral government) are acknowledged to be more satisfied with democracy than supporters of opposition parties. However, little is known about the influence of parties and their specifics on the boost in satisfaction with democracy experienced by their voters. To address this question, the research utilizes 17 surveys from 12 countries included in the European Social Survey rounds 1–8, for which a government replacement took place during the survey period. This allows this research to employ discontinuity design and examine the effect of two attributes related to parties—differences in party vote shares, and voters’ feeling of closeness to a party. The findings suggest that these factors have a negligible influence on voters’ satisfaction with democracy and only scant evidence is found that closeness to a party tends to increase their satisfaction. When voters’ attitudes from before and after a gov...
Party Politics
Popular consent is an essential element for success and stability of democracies. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that “electoral winners” (i.e. voters casting a ballot for government parties) are more satisfied with democracy than supporters of the opposition parties. However, little is known about the dynamics of satisfaction during the electoral cycle: Do winners become happier and losers even more discontent over time? We approach this question by utilizing an interview date in the European Social Survey (rounds 1–8) to position individuals within the different stages of electoral cycle. The results based on 199,207 responses from 199 surveys in 31 countries suggest that satisfaction with democracy stays relatively stable during the electoral cycle across various electoral systems if the political development is predictable. However, if actions of the parties are uncertain, namely the alternations of governments tend to be frequent, partial, and opened to all parties, and h...
The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout
PS: Political Science and Politics, 2018
Political scientists, analysts and journalists alike have for long believed that the degree of satisfaction with the functioning of democracy determines voter turnout. In this article, we use survey data from 24 panel studies and demonstrate that the causal relationship is actually reversed: voter turnout affects satisfaction with democracy and not the other way around. We also show that this reversed relationship is conditioned by election type, electoral system, and election outcomes. These findings are important since: a) They question conventional wisdom and a large body of scientific literature; b) They invite a more nuanced approach in the study of the relationship between evaluations of regime performance and political participation; c) They underline the central role of elections in shaping citizens'
Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics
European Journal of Political Research, 2003
This article offers a critical investigation of one indicator of support for democracy frequently used by comparativists. Departing from a theoretical multidimensional model of political support, and drawing on large-scale public opinion surveys, we argue that the survey item 'satisfaction with the way democracy works' is not an indicator of support for the principles of democracy. Rather, it is an item that taps the level of support for the way the democratic regime works in practice. At the same time, we show that this item is far from a perfect indicator of support for the performance of a democratic regime, since it is highly sensitive to different institutional contexts. By demonstrating empirically some of the problems involved when trying to asses the levels of support for democracy in postcommunist Europe, we argue for a more cautious approach when analysing problems of legitimacy in processes of democratic consolidation. We also advocate the need for multiple indicators when analysing political support.