Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:57:48.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Campaigns and Elections

Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy

Citizens, Processes and Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2023

Jean-François Daoust  and
Richard Nadeau
Jean-François Daoust
Affiliation:
Université de Sherbrooke École de politique appliquée Sherbrooke, Quebec
Richard Nadeau
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal Political Science, Quebec

Summary

Satisfaction with democracy is a vastly studied research topic. In this Element, the authors aim to make sense of this context by showing that elections (electoral processes and outcomes) influence citizens' satisfaction with democracy in different ways according to the quality of a democratic regime. To do so, they leverage the datasets from the Comparative Study on Electoral Systems (CSES) and uphold the belief that social scientists must take advantage of the increased availability of rich comparative datasets. The Element concludes that elections do not only have different impacts on citizens' satisfaction with democracy based on the quality of the democratic regime that they live in, but that the nature of the meaning attributed to electoral processes and outcomes varies between emergent and established democracies.
Get access

Keywords

satisfaction with democracyelectionspolitical behaviourwinner–loser gapLosers’ consent
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Campaigns and Elections
Online ISBN: 9781009128032
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 05 October 2023

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

Aarts, K. and Thomassen, J., 2008. “Satisfaction with Democracy: Do Institutions Matter?” Electoral Studies 27(1): 5–18.Google Scholar
Achen, C. and Blais, A., 2016. “Intention to Vote, Reported Vote, and Validated Vote.” In Johan, A. E. and Farrell, D. M. (eds), The Act of Voting: Identities, Institutions and Locale. London: Routledge, pp. 195–215.Google Scholar
Alemika, E. E., 2007. “Quality of Elections, Satisfaction with Democracy and Political Trust in Africa.” Afrobarometer Working Paper No. 84. www.afrobarometer.org/files/documents/working_paper/AfropaperNo84.pdf (May 15, 2015).Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. M., Adams-Cohen, N., Kim, S. Y. S., and Li, Y., 2020. Securing American Elections: How Data-Driven Election Monitoring Can Improve Our Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ananda, A. and Bol, D., 2021. “Does Knowing Democracy Affect Answers to Democratic Support Questions? A Survey Experiment in Indonesia.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 33(2): 433–443.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J. and Guillory, C. 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.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J. and LoTempio, A. J., 2002. “Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America.” British Journal of Political Science 32(2): 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. J. and Mendes, S., 2005. “Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential.” British Journal of Political Science 36(1): 91–111.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J. and Tverdova, Y. V., 2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes towards Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 91–109.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J., Bol, D., and Ananda, A., 2021. “Humanity’s Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders: Patterns and Trends.” Public Opinion Quarterly 85(4): 957–986.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., and Listhaug, O., 2005. Loser’s Consent and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Apolte, T. 2018. “A Theory of Autocratic Transition. Prerequisites to Self-Enforcing Democracy,” Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2018: Digitale Wirtschaft – Session: Institutions, No. A17-V1, ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Kiel, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Ariely, G., 2015. “Democracy-Assessment in Cross-National Surveys: A Critical Examination of How People Evaluate Their Regime.” Social Indicators Research 121(3): 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K. and Guthman, K., 2014. “Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support in European Countries, 2007–2011.” European Journal of Political Research 53(3): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, E. and Hyde, S. D., 2009. “In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion: Strategic Manipulation, International Observers, and Election Boycotts.” Comparative Political Studies 42(3): 392–415.Google Scholar
Bélanger, E. and Aarts., K., 2006. “Explaining the Rise of the LPF: Issues, Discontent, and the 2002 Dutch Election.” Acta Politica 41(1): 4–20.Google Scholar
Bernauer, J. and Vatter, A., 2011. “Consensus Democracy Indicators in 35 Democracies, 1997–2006.” Berne/Konstanz: Department of Political Science.Google 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): 435–468.Google Scholar
Best, R. E. and Seyis, D., 2021. “How Do Voters Perceive Ideological Congruence? The Effects of Winning and Losing under Different Electoral Rules.” Electoral Studies 69: 102201.Google Scholar
Birch, S., 2008. “Electoral Institutions and Popular Confidence in Electoral Process: A Cross-National Analysis.” Electoral Studies 27(2): 305–320.Google Scholar
Birch, S., 2011. Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. and Daoust, J.-F., 2020. The Motivation to Vote: Explaining Electoral Participation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Blais, A. and Daoust, J.-F., 2021. “A Better Way to Hold Leaders’ Debates in Elections.” Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/october-2021/a-better-way-to-hold-leaders-debates-in-elections/.Google Scholar
Blais, A. and Gélineau, F., 2007. “Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Studies 55(2): 425–441.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Bol, D., Bowler, S. et al. 2021. “What Kind of Electoral Outcome do People Think is Good for Democracy?” Political Studies, 00323217211055560.Google Scholar
Bol, D., Blais, A., Gillard, X., Lopez, L. N., and Pilet, J. B., 2018. “Voting and Satisfaction with Democracy in Flexible List PR.” Electoral Studies 56: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, D., Giani, M., Blais, A., and Loewen, P. J., 2021. “The Effect of COVID‐19 Lockdowns on Political Support: Some Good News for Democracy?” European Journal of Political Research 60(2): 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, N.-C. and Golder, M., 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2011.” Electoral Studies 32(2): 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, N.-C. and Golder, M., 2013. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2011” Electoral Studies 32(2): 360–369.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., 2016. “I Study Democracies, and What I’ve Learned Is This: They Collapse without Graceful Losers.” The Big Idea. October 14. www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/14/13277626/losers-democratic-transition-sanders-trump.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Brunell, T., Donovan, T., and Gronke, P., 2015. “Election Administration and Perceptions of Fair Elections.” Electoral Studies 38(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Bratton, M. and Mattes, R., 2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental?” British Journal of Political Science 31(3): 447–474.Google Scholar
Brody-Barre, A. G., 2013. “The Impact of Political Parties and Coalition Building on Tunisia’s Democratic Future.” The Journal of North African Studies 18(2): 211–230.Google 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): 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantu, F. and Garcia-Ponce, O., 2015. “Partisan Losers’ Effects: Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in Mexico.” Electoral Studies 39(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Carey, J. M., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B. et al. 2021. “The Effect of Electoral Inversions on Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 52(4): 1–11.Google Scholar
Carreras, M. and Irepoglu, Y., 2013. “Trust in Elections, Vote Buying and Turnout in Latin America.” Electoral Studies 32(4): 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervas, J. R. and Grofman, B., 2019. “Are Presidential Inversions Inevitable? Comparing Eight Counterfactual Rules for Electing the US President.” Social Science Quarterly 100(4): 1322–1342.Google Scholar
Chernykh, S. and Slovik, M. W., 2015. “Third-Party Actors and the Success of Democracy: How Election Commissions, Courts and Observers Shape Incentives for Electoral Manipulation and Post-Electoral Protests.” Journal of Politics 77(2): 407–420.Google Scholar
Chong, D. and Druckman, J. N., 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christmann, P., 2018. “Economic Performance, Quality of Democracy and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 53(1): 79–89.Google Scholar
Citrin, J., Levy, M., and Wright, M., 2014. “Multicultural Policy and Political Support in European Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 47(11): 1531–1557.Google Scholar
Claasen, C., 2020. “Does Public Support Help Democracy Survive?” American Journal of Political Science 64(1): 118–134.Google Scholar
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H. et al. 2018. “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v8. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.”Google Scholar
Cordero, G. and Simón, P., 2016. “Economic Crisis and Support for Democracy in Europe.” West European Politics 39(2): 305–325.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): 241–261.Google Scholar
Dahl, R., 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R., 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R., 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google 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): 652–664.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, S., Linde, J., and Holmberg, S., 2015. “Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the Importance of Democratic Input and Governmental Output.” Political Studies 63(S1): 18–37.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J., 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J. and Welzel, C., 2014. The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J., Sin, T., and Chou, W., 2007. “Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places” Journal of Democracy 18(2): 142–156.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F. and Blais, A., 2017. “How Much Do Voters Care about the Electoral Outcome in Their District?” Representation 53(3–4): 233–246.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F. and Blais, A., 2021. “Electoral Behaviour in Multilevel Systems.” In Lago, I. (ed), Handbook on Decentralization, Devolution and the State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F., and Nadeau, R., 2021. “Context Matters: Economics, Politics and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 74: 102133.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F., Blais, A., and Péloquin-Skulski, G., 2021. “What Do Voters Do When They Prefer a Leader from Another Party?” Party Politics 27(2): 308–316.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F., Plescia, C., and Blais, A., 2023. “Are People More Satisfied with Democracy When They Feel They Won the Election? No.” Political Studies Review 21(1): 162–171.Google Scholar
Daoust, J.-F., Ridge, H. M., and Mongrain, P., 2023. “Electoral Outcomes and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Comparison of Regional and National Elections.” Electoral Studies 84: 102642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassonneville, R. and Hooghe, M., 2017. “The Noise of the Vote Recall Question: The Validity of the Vote Recall Question in Panel Studies in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29(2): 316–338.Google Scholar
Dassonneville, R. and McAllister, I., 2020. “The Party Choice Set and Satisfaction with Democracy.” West European Politics 43(1): 49–73.Google Scholar
Dassonneville, R., Blais, A., Hooghe, M., and Deschouwer, K., 2020. “The Effects of Survey Mode and Sampling in Belgian Election Studies: A Comparison of a National Probability Face-to-Face Survey and a Nonprobability Internet Survey.” Acta Politica 55(2): 175–198.Google Scholar
Dassonneville, R., Blais, A., Sevi, S., and Daoust, J.-F., 2021. “How Citizens Want Their Legislator to Vote.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 46(2): 297–321.Google Scholar
Davis, D. W., 2000. “Individual Level Examination of Postmaterialism in the US: Political Tolerance, Racial Attitudes, Environmentalism, and Participatory Norms.” Political Research Quarterly 53(3): 455–475.Google Scholar
Daxecker, U. and Fjelde, H., 2022. “Electoral Violence, Partisan Identity, and Perceptions of Election Quality: A Survey Experiment in West Bengal, India.” Comparative Politics 55(1): 47–69.Google Scholar
Daxecker, U. and Schneider, G., 2014. “Electoral Observers: The Implications of Multiple Monitors for Electoral Integrity.” In Norris, P., Frank, R. W., and Martinez I Coma, F. (eds), Advancing Electoral Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–93.Google Scholar
Daxecker, U., Amicarelli, E., and Jung, A., 2019. “Electoral Contention and Violence (ECAV): A New Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research 56(5): 714–723.Google Scholar
Dennis, J., 1970. “Support for the Institution of Elections in the Mass Public.” American Political Science Review 64(3): 819–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennison, J., 2019. “A Review of Public Issues Salience: Concepts, Determinants and Effects on Voting.” Political Studies Review 17(4): 436–46.Google Scholar
Donovan, T. and Karp, J., 2017. “Electoral Rules, Corruption, Inequality and Evaluations of Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research 56(3): 469–486.Google Scholar
Easton, D., 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Easton, D., 1975. “A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5(4): 435–457.Google Scholar
Enders, A. M. and Thornton, J. R., 2021. “Racial Resentment, Electoral Loss, and Satisfaction with Democracy among Whites in the United States: 2004–2016.” Political Behavior 44(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Estlund, D., 2007. “On Following Orders in an Unjust War.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15(2): 213–34.Google Scholar
Evans, G. and Whitefield, S., 1995. “The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment: Support for Democracy in Transition Societies.” British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 485–514.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. M., and McAllister, I. 2006. “Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate‐Centred Systems Make a Difference?” European Journal of Political Research 45(5): 723–749.Google Scholar
Fauvet, J., 1964. Histoire du Parti communiste français. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D., 2011. “Self-Enforcing Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 1661–1708.Google Scholar
Felsenthal, D. S. and Miller, N. R., 2015. “What to Do about Election Inversions under Proportional Representation?” Representation 51(2): 173–186.Google Scholar
Ferland, B., 2015. “A Rational or a Virtuous Citizenry? – The Asymmetric Impact of Biases in Votes-Seats Translation on Citizens’ Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 40: 394–408.Google Scholar
Ferland, B., 2021. “Policy Congruence and Its Impact on Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 69: 102204.Google Scholar
Ferrin, M., 2016. “An Empirical Assessment of Democracy.” In Ferrin, M. and Kriesi, H. (eds). How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 283–306.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. and Sällberg, Y., 2020. “Electoral Integrity- The Winner Takes All? Evidence from Three British Elections.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22(3): 404–420.Google Scholar
Foa, R. S. and Mounk, Y., 2017. “The Signs of Deconsolidation.” Journal of Democracy 28(1): 5–15.Google Scholar
Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and Williams, R.., 2020. The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020. Cambridge, UK: Centre for the Future of Democracy.Google Scholar
Fortin-Rittberger, J., Harfst, P., and Dingler, S. C., 2017. “The Costs of Electoral Fraud: Establishing the Link between Electoral Integrity, Winning an Election, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27(3): 350–368.Google Scholar
Gafuri, A., 2021. “Can Democracy Aid Improve Democracy? The European Union’s Democracy Assistance 2002–2018.” Democratization 29(5): 777–97.Google Scholar
Gallet, L., 2015. “Le FN, premier parti de France? Une question dépassée.” L’Express, août 2015.Google Scholar
Garnett, H. A., 2019. “On the Front Lines of Democracy: Perceptions of Officials and Democratic Elections.” Democratization 26(8): 1399–1418.Google Scholar
Gattermann, K., Meyer, T. M., and Wurzer, K. 2021. “Who Won the Election? Explaining News Coverage of Election Results in Multi‐Party Systems.” European Journal of Political Research 61(4): 857–77.Google Scholar
Gehlbach, S. and Sonin, K., 2014. “Government Control of the Media.” Journal of Public Economics 118: 163–171.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. and Hill, J., 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geruso, M., Spears, D., and Talesara, I., 2022. “Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836–2016.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 14(1): 327–357.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B. and Weissberg, R., 1978. “Elections and the Mobilization of Popular Support.” American Journal of Political Science 22(1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B., 1982. The Consequences of Consent: Elections, Citizen Control and Popular Acquiescence. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Golder, S. N., Lago, I., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., and Gschwend, T., 2017. Multi-level Electoral Politics: Beyond the Second-Order Election Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H., 2012. Econometric Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Halliez, A. A. and Thornton, J. R., 2022. “The Winner-Loser Satisfaction Gap in the Absence of a Clear Outcome.” Party Politics 29(2): 260–69.Google Scholar
Han, S. M., and Chang, E. C., 2016. “Economic Inequality, Winner-Loser Gap, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 44(1): 85–97.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. A. and Olsen, J., 2019. “Flesh of the Same Flesh: A Study of Voters for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the 2017 Federal Election.” German Politics 28(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Harteveld, E., 2021. “Fragmented Foes: Affective Polarization in the Multiparty Context of the Netherlands.” Electoral Studies 71: 102332.Google Scholar
Harteveld, E., Kokkonen, A., Linde, J., and Dahlberg, S., 2021. “A Tough Trade-off? The Asymmetrical Impact of Populist Radical Right Inclusion on Satisfaction with Democracy and Government.” European Political Science Review 13(1): 113–133.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T., Kweon, Y., and Vowles, J., 2020. Democracy under Siege? Parties, Voters, and Elections after the Great Recession. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooghe, M. and Dassonneville, R., 2018. “A Spiral of Distrust: A Panel Study on the Relation between Political Distrust and Protest Voting in Belgium.” Government and Opposition 53(1): 104–130.Google Scholar
Hooghe, M. and Stiers, D., 2016. “Elections as a Democratic Linkage Mechanism: How Elections Boost Political Trust in a Proportional System.” Electoral Studies 44: 46–55.Google Scholar
Huang, M.-h., Chang, Y.-t., and Chu, Y.-h., 2008. “Identifying Sources of Democratic Legitimacy: A Multilevel Analysis.” Electoral Studies 27(1): 45–62.Google Scholar
Hyde, S. and Marinov, N., 2012. “Which Elections Can Be Lost?” Political Analysis 20(2): 191–210.Google Scholar
Hyde, S. D. and Marinov, N., 2014. “Information and Self-Enforcing Democracy: The Role of International Observation.” International Organization 68(2): 329–359.Google Scholar
Hyde, S. D. and Marinov, N., 2019. Codebook for National Elections across Democracy and Autocracy Dataset, 5.0. http://nelda.co.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., 1999. “Postmodernization Brings Declining Respect for Authority but Rising Support for Democracy.” In Norris, P. (ed). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 236–56.Google Scholar
Jungkunz, S., Fahey, R. A., and Hino, A., 2021. “How Populist Attitudes Scales Fail to Capture Support for Populists in Power.” PLoS One 16(12): e0261658.Google Scholar
Kaniovski, S. and Zaigraev, A., 2018. “The Probability of Majority Inversion in a Two-Stage Voting System with Three States.” Theory and Decision 84(4): 525–546.Google Scholar
Karp, J. A. and Banducci, S. A., 2008. “Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty–Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 38(2): 311–334.Google Scholar
Karp, J. A., Nai, A., and Norris, P. 2018. “Dial ‘F’ for Fraud: Explaining Citizens Suspicions about Elections.” Electoral Studies 53: 11–19.Google Scholar
Keefer, P., 2007. “Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy Choices of Young Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 804–821.Google Scholar
Kernell, G. and Mullinix, K. J., 2019. “Winners, Losers, and Perceptions of Vote (mis) Counting.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 31(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Kittilson, M. C. and Anderson, C. J., 2011. “Electoral Supply and Voter Turnout.” In Dalton, R. J. and Anderson, C. J. (eds). Citizens, Context, and Choice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
König, P. D., Siewert, M. B., and Ackermann, K., 2022. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizens’ Preferences for Democracy: Taking Stock of Three Decades of Research in a Fragmented Filed.” Comparative Political Studies, 55(12): 2015–49.Google Scholar
Kornberg, A. and Clarke, H. D., 1994. “Beliefs about Democracy and Satisfaction with Democratic Government: The Canadian Case.” Political Research Quarterly 47(3): 537–563.Google Scholar
Kostelka, F. and Blais, A., 2018. “The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout.” Political Science & Politics 51(2): 370–376.Google Scholar
Krieckhaus, J., Son, B., Bellinger, N. M., and Wells, J. M., 2014. “Economic Inequality and Democratic Support.” The Journal of Politics 76(1): 139–51.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z., 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480–98.Google Scholar
Kurrild‐Klitgaard, P., 2013. “Election Inversions, Coalitions and Proportional Representation: Examples of Voting Paradoxes in Danish Government Formations.” Scandinavian Political Studies 36(2): 121–136.Google Scholar
Lago, I. (Ed.). 2021. Handbook on Decentralization, Devolution and the State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Layard, R., Mayraz, G., and Nickell, S., 2008. “The Marginal Utility of Income.” Journal of Public Economics 92(8): 1846–57.Google Scholar
Lehoucq, F., 2003. “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 6(1): 233–256.Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y., 2016. “Winners, Losers, and the Press: The Relationship between Political Parallelism and the Legitimacy Gap.” Political Communication 33(4): 523–543.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S. and Stegmaier, M., 2013. “The VP-Function Revisited: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after over 40 Years.” Public Choice 157(3): 367–385.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: 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): 391–408.Google Scholar
Linz, J. J. and Stepan, A. C., 1996a. “Toward Consolidated Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 7(2): 14–33.Google Scholar
Linz, J. J. and Stepan, A. C., 1996b. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M., 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53(1): 69–105.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. and Taber, C., 2000. “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., and Popkin, S. L. (eds), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–213.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S., 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loveless, M. and Binelli, C., 2020. “Economic Expectations and Satisfaction with Democracy: Evidence from Italy.” Government and Opposition 55(3): 413–429.Google Scholar
Lühiste, K., 2014. “Social Protection and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Multi-Level Analysis.” Political Studies 62(4): 784–803.Google Scholar
Lührmann, A., Lindberg, S. I., and Tannenberg, M., 2017. “Regimes in the World (RIW): A Robust Regime Type Measure Based on V-Dem.” V-Dem Working Paper No. 47.Google Scholar
Magalhães, P. C., 2016. “Economic Evaluations, Procedural Fairness, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Research Quarterly 69(3): 522–534.Google Scholar
Marien, S. and Kern, A., 2018. “The Winner Takes It All: Revisiting the Effect of Direct Democracy on Citizens’ Political Support.” Political Behaviour 40(4): 857–882.Google Scholar
Martini, S. and Quaranta, M., 2019. “Political Support among Winners and Losers: Within-and between-Country Effects of Structure, Process and Performance in Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 58(1): 341–361.Google Scholar
Mattes, R. and Bratton, M., 2007. “Learning about Democracy in Africa: Awareness, Performance, and Experience.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 192–217.Google Scholar
Mauk, M., 2020. “Electoral Integrity Matters: How Electoral Process Conditions the Relationship between Political Losing and Political Trust.” Quantity and Quality 56(3): 1709–28.Google Scholar
McAllister, I. and Quinlan, S., 2022. “Vote Overreporting in National Election Surveys: A 55-Nation Exploratory Study.” Acta Politica 57(3): 529–547.Google Scholar
McAllister, I. and White, S., 1994. “Political Participation in Post-communist Russia: Voting, Activism, and the Potential of Mass Protest.” Political Studies 42(4): 593–615.Google Scholar
McAllister, I. and White, S., 2011. “Public Perceptions of Electoral Fairness in Russia.” Europe Asia Studies 63(4): 663–683.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T., 2001. “Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice.” Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 527–553.Google Scholar
Miller, A. H., Hesli, V., and Reisengen, W. M., 1997. “Conceptions of Democracy among Mass and Elite in Post-Soviet Societies.” British Journal of Political Science 27(1): 157–190.Google Scholar
Mochtak, M., Lesschaeve, C., and Giaurdic, J., 2021. “Voting and Winning: Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in Consolidating Democracies.” Democratization 28(8): 1423–1441.Google Scholar
Moehler, D. C., 2009. “Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election Losers and Winner in Africa.” British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 345–366.Google Scholar
Morin-Chassé, A., Bol, D., Stephenson, L. B., and St-Vincent, S. L., 2017. “How to Survey about Electoral Turnout? The Efficacy of the Face-Saving Response Items in 19 Different Contexts.” Political Science Research and Methods 5(3): 575–584.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Blais, A., 1993. “Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers’ Consent.” British Journal of Political Science 23(4): 553–563.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Arel-Bundock, V., and Daoust, J.-F., 2019. “Satisfaction with Democracy and the American Dream.” The Journal of Politics 81(4): 1080–1084.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Daoust, J.-F., and Dassonneville, R., 2023. “Winning, Losing, and the Quality of Democracy.” Political Studies 71(2): 483–500.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Lewis-Beck, M. S., and Bélanger, É., 2013. “Economics and Elections Revisited.” Comparative Political Studies 46(2): 551–573.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Nevitte, N., and Gidengil, E., 2000. “Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC, August 30–September 3, .Google Scholar
Nadeau, R., Bélanger, É., Lewis-Beck, M. S., Gélineau, F., and Turgeon, M., 2017. Latin American Elections: Choice and Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Nannestad, P. and Paldam, M., 1994. “The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 years.” Public Choice 79(3): 213–245.Google Scholar
Newman, M., 2002. “Reconceptualising Democracy in the European Union.” In Anderson, J. (ed), Transnational Democracy: Political Spaces and Border Crossings. London: Routledge, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
Nisbet, E. C., Mortenson, C., and Li, Q., 2021. “The Presumed Influence of Election Misinformation on Others Reduces Our Own Satisfaction with Democracy.” The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review no 7.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press .Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2013. “The New Research Agenda Studying Electoral Integrity.” Electoral Studies 32(4): 563–575.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2014. Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2015. Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2017. Strengthening Electoral Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P., 2019. “Do Perceptions of Electoral Malpractice Undermine Democratic Satisfaction?: The US in Comparative Perspective.” International Political Science Review 40(1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Norris, P., Frank, R., and Martinez I Coma, F., 2014. “Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A New Dataset.” Political Science and Politics 47(4): 789–798.Google Scholar
Norris, P., Garnett, H. A., and Grömping, M., 2020. “The Paranoid Style of American Elections: Explaining Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in an Age of Populism.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 30(1): 105–125.Google Scholar
Oesch, D., 2008. “Explaining Workers’ Support for Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland.” International Political Science Review 29(3): 349–373.Google Scholar
Otjes, S. and Stiers, D., 2021. “Accountability and Alternation. How Wholesale and Partial Alternation Condition Retrospective Voting.” Party Politics 28(3): 457–67.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, C. and Schneck, S., 2017. “Do Unfair Perceived Own Pay and Top Managers’ Pay Erode Satisfaction with Democracy?” Applied Economics Letters 24(17): 1263–1266.Google Scholar
Plescia, C., 2019. “On the Subjectivity of the Experience of Victory: Who are the Election Winners?” Political Psychology 40(4): 797–814.Google Scholar
Plescia, C., Blais, A., and Högström, J., 2020. “Do People Want a ‘Fairer’ Electoral System? An Experimental Study in Four Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 59(4): 733–751.Google Scholar
Plescia, C., Daoust, J.-F., and Blais, A., 2021. “Do European Elections Enhance Satisfaction with European Union Democracy?” European Union Politics 22(1): 94–113.Google Scholar
Politico. 2022. “OSCE Recommends Full-Scale Electoral Monitoring Mission in Hungary.” February 5. www.politico.eu/article/osce-recommends-full-scale-election-mission-in-hungary-viktor-orban/Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr, 2004. “The Quality of Democracy: The Chain of Responsiveness.” Journal of Democracy 15(4): 91–105.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., 2005. “Democracy as an Equilibrium.” Public Choice 123(3–4): 253–273.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., 2008. “The Poor and the Viability of Democracy.” In Krishna, A. (ed), Poverty, Participation and Democracy: A Global Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–147.Google Scholar
Quaranta, M., and Martini, S., 2016. “Does the Economy Really Matter for Satisfaction with Democracy? Longitudinal and Cross-country Evidence from the European Union.” Electoral Studies 42: 164–174.Google Scholar
Quaranta, M. and Martini, S., 2017. “Easy Come, Easy Go? Economic Performance and Satisfaction with Democracy in Southern Europe in the Last Three Decades.” Social Indicators Research 131(2): 659–80.Google Scholar
Quaranta, M., Cancela, J., Martín, I., and Tsirbas, Y., 2021. “Trust, Satisfaction and Political Engagement during Economic Crisis: Young Citizens in Southern Europe.” South European Society and Politics 26(2): 153–79.Google Scholar
Radcliff, B., 2001. “Politics, Markets, and Life Satisfaction: The Political Economy of Human Happiness.” The American Political Science Review 95(4): 939–952.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., and Emmerson, K. M., 2010. “The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever ‘Get It’?” Political Psychology 31(4): 563–593.Google Scholar
Reher, S., 2015. “Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Relationship between Priority Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research 54(1): 160–181.Google Scholar
Repucci, S., 2019. Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral. Freedom House: Freedom and the Media 2019. freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/media-freedom-downward-spiral.Google Scholar
Ridge, H. M., 2022. “Electoral Outcomes and Support for Westminster Democracy.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 32(4): 887–906.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R., 1974. Rational Legitimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, R. and Loveless, M., 2010. “Macro Salience: How Economic and Political Contexts Mediate Popular Evaluations of the Democracy Deficit in the European Union.” The Journal of Politics 72(4): 1029–1045.Google Scholar
Rooduijn, M., Van Der Brug, W., and De Lange, S. L., 2016. “Expressing or Fuelling Discontent? The Relationship between Populist Voting and Political Discontent.” Electoral Studies 43: 32–40.Google Scholar
Saïkkonen, I.-L. and White, A. C., 2021. “Strategic Targeting: Authoritarian Capacity, State Dependent Populations, and Electoral Manipulation.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 31(2): 159–179.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schakel, A. H. and Romanova, V., 2018. “Towards a Scholarship on Regional Elections.” Regional & Federal Studies 28(3): 233–252.Google Scholar
Schedler, A., 2013. The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schedler, A., 2002a. “The Nested Game of Democratization by Elections.” International Political Science Review 23(1): 103–122.Google Scholar
Schedler, A., 2002b. “The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 36–50.Google Scholar
Selb, P. and Munzert, S., 2013. “Voter Overrepresentation, Vote Misreporting, and Turnout Bias in Postelection Surveys.” Electoral Studies 32(1): 186–196.Google Scholar
Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simpser, A., 2013. Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice and Implications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P., 1973. Democracy and Disobedience. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P., 2018. “Compulsory Voting and Dissatisfaction with Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 48(3): 843–854.Google Scholar
Singh, S. P. and Mayne, Q., 2023. “Satisfaction with Democracy: A Review of a Major Public Opinion Indicator.” Public Opinion Quarterly 87(1): 187–218.Google Scholar
Singh, S., Karakoç, E., and Blais, A., 2012. “Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy.” Electoral Studies 31(1): 201–211.Google Scholar
Singh, S., Lago, I., and Blais, A., 2011. “Winning and Competitiveness as Determinants of Political Support.” Social Science Quarterly 92(3): 695–709.Google Scholar
Skovoroda, R. and Lankina, T., 2017. “Fabricating Votes for Putin: New Tests of Fraud and Electoral Manipulation from Russia.” Post-Soviet Affairs 33(2): 100–123.Google Scholar
Solt, F., 2019. “The Standardized World Income Inequality Database, Versions 8–9,” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LM4OWF, Harvard Dataverse, V7.Google Scholar
Stiers, D., Daoust, J.-F., and Blais, A., 2018. “What Makes People Believe That Their Party Won the Election?” Electoral Studies 55: 21–29.Google Scholar
Stiers, D., Hooghe, M., and Dassonneville, R., 2020. “Voting at 16: Does Lowering the Voting Age Lead to More Political Engagement? Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment in the City of Ghent (Belgium).” Political Science Research and Methods 9(4): 849–56.Google Scholar
Stockman, D., 2012. Media Commercialisation and Authoritarianism in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D., 1994. “Positive Illusions and Well-Being Revisited: Separating Fact from Fiction.” Psychological Bulletin 116(1): 21–27.Google Scholar
Torcal, M., 2014. “The Decline of Political Trust in Spain and Portugal: Economic Performance or Political Responsiveness?” American Behavioral Scientist 58(12): 1542–1567.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). 2015a. CSES Module 1 Full Release (Dataset, 2015 Version). Ann Arbor: CSES.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). 2015b. CSES Module 2 Full Release (Dataset, 2015 Version). Ann Arbor: CSES.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). 2015c. CSES Module 3 Full Release (Dataset, 2015 Version). Ann Arbor: CSES.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). 2018. CSES Module 4 Full Release (Dataset and Documentation, 2018 Version). Ann Arbor: CSES.Google Scholar
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). 2021. CSES Module 5 Third Advance Release (Dataset and Documentation, 2021 Version). https://doi.org/10.7804/cses.module5.2021-07-20, www.cses.org.Google Scholar
Valgarðsson, V. O. and Devine, D., 2021. “What Satisfaction with Democracy? A Global Analysis of ‘Satisfaction with Democracy’ Measures.” Political Research Quarterly 75(3): 576–90.Google Scholar
Van Ham, C., 2014. “Getting Election Right: Measuring Electoral Integrity.” Democratization 22(4): 714–737.Google Scholar
Van Ham, C., Thomassen, J., Arts, K., and Andeweg, R., 2017. Myths and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vidal, X. M., 2018. “Immigration Politics in the 2016 Election.” Political Science & Politics 51(2): 304–8.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. F., Schneider, F., and Martin, H., 2009. “The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 25(1): 30–41.Google Scholar
Waldron, J., 1999. “Deliberation, Disagreement, and Voting.” In Slye, R. C. (ed), Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 210–226.Google Scholar
Werner, A., 2019. “Voters’ Preferences for Party Representation: Promise-Keeping, Responsiveness to Public Opinion or Enacting the Common Good.” International Political Science Review 40(4): 486–501.Google Scholar
Werner, H. and Marien, S., 2022. “Process vs. Outcome? How to Evaluate the Effects of Participatory Processes on Legitimacy Perceptions.” British Journal of Political Science 52(1): 429–436.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., and Stewart, M., 2016. “Why Do Voters Lose Trust in Governments? Public Perceptions of Government Honesty and Trustworthiness in Britain 2000–2013.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18(1): 234–254.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2019. “GINI Index (World Bank Estimate) – Australia, Germany.” World Development Indicators, The World Bank Group, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=AU-DE (July 31, 2020).Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy
  • Jean-François Daoust, Université de Sherbrooke École de politique appliquée Sherbrooke, Quebec, Richard Nadeau, Université de Montréal Political Science, Quebec
  • Online ISBN: 9781009128032
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy
  • Jean-François Daoust, Université de Sherbrooke École de politique appliquée Sherbrooke, Quebec, Richard Nadeau, Université de Montréal Political Science, Quebec
  • Online ISBN: 9781009128032
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy
  • Jean-François Daoust, Université de Sherbrooke École de politique appliquée Sherbrooke, Quebec, Richard Nadeau, Université de Montréal Political Science, Quebec
  • Online ISBN: 9781009128032
Available formats
×