A large literature shows that election outcomes affect satisfaction with democracy by separating voters into winners and losers. Moving beyond victory and defeat, I theorize that elections themselves boost satisfaction due to the psychosocial, representational, and economic utility they provide to citizens. I test my expectations across three separate studies. These leverage survey fieldwork that was interrupted by elections in several countries (Study 1), cross-national panel survey data (Study 2), and a survey experiment (Study 3). The timing of survey interviews in each study helps isolate the impact of elections from that of winning and losing in the sense of a voter’s party entering government. Results together show that elections increase satisfaction with democracy, and an investigation of the theoretical mechanisms suggests that this relationship is driven by the representational and economic benefits of elections.
AhujaS. (1994). Electoral status and representation in the United States senate: Does Temporal proximity to election matter?American Politics Quarterly, 22(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x9402200107
3.
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.DonovanT.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
4.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and Satisfac-tion with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952259
5.
ArzheimerK. (2009). Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980-2002. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00369.x
6.
AuerbachK.PetrovaB. (2022). Authoritarian or simply disillusioned? Explaining democratic skepticism in central and Eastern Europe. Political Behavior, 44(4), 1959–1983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09807-0
BanducciS. A.KarpJ. 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), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712340300019x
9.
BaskaranT.MinB.UppalY. (2015). Election cycles and electricity provision: Evidence from a quasi-experiment with Indian special elections. Journal of Public Economics, 126(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.011
10.
BeaudonnetL.BlaisA.BolD.FoucaultM. (2014). The impact of election outcomes on satisfaction with democracy under a two-round system. French Politics, 12(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1057/fp.2014.2
11.
BengtssonA.HansenK. M.NarudH. M.OscarssonH. (2013). The Nordic voter: Myths of exceptionalism. ECPR Press.
BlaisA.Morin-ChasséA.SinghS. P. (2017). Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics, 23(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815583200
15.
BrenderA.DrazenA. (2005). Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(7), 1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2005.04.004
16.
BruterM.HarrisonS. (2020). Inside the mind of a voter: A new approach to electoral psychology. Princeton University Press.
17.
BuenoN. S. (2017). Bypassing the enemy: Distributive politics, credit claiming, and nonstate organizations in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 51(3), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710255
18.
CattaneoM. D.IdroboN.TitiunikR. (2019). A practical introduction to Regres-sion discontinuity designs: Foundations. Cambridge University Press.
ClaassenC.MagalhãesP. C. (2022). Effective government and evaluations of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 55(5), 869–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211036042
21.
ClarkeH. D.DuttN.KornbergA. (1993). The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies. The Journal of Politics, 55(4), 998–1021.
22.
ColeS. (2009). Fixing market failures or fixing elections? Agricultural credit in India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.1.219
23.
ColemanS. (2013). How voters feel. Cambridge University Press.
24.
Conroy-KrutzJ.KerrN. (2015). Dynamics of democratic satisfaction in transitional settings: Evidence from a panel study in Uganda. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915589763
CuestaB. d. l.ImaiK. (2016). Misunderstandings about the regression discontinuity design in the study of close elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032015-010115
27.
DaoustJ.-F.CarolinaP.BlaisA. (2023). Are people more satisfied with democracy when they feel they won the election? No. Political Studies Review, 21(1), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211058390
28.
de HaanJ.KlompJ. (2013). Conditional political budget cycles: A review of recent evidence. Public Choice, 157(3/4), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0106-6
DesmetP.SpanjeJ. v.de VreeseC. (2015). European public sphere— discussing the democratic deficit: Effects of media and interpersonal communication on satisfaction with democracy in the European union. International Journal of Communication, 9(1), 3177–3198.
31.
DipoppaG.GrossmanG. (2020). The effect of election proximity on government responsiveness and citizens’ participation: Evidence from English local elections. Comparative Political Studies, 53(14), 2183–2212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020912290
ErberR.TesserA. (1992). Task effort and the regulation of mood: The absorption hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90050-t
EzrowL.XezonakisG. (2016). Satisfaction with democracy and voter turnout: A temporal perspective. Party Politics, 22(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068814549335
38.
FaheyJ. J.AllenT. J.AlarianH. M. (2022). When populists win: How rightwing populism affects democratic satisfaction in the U.K. and Germany. Electoral Studies, 77(1), 102469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102469
39.
FerrínM.MorenoM.CappialiT. M. (2020). Terrorist attacks and Europeans’ attitudes towards immigrants: An experimental approach. European Journal of Political Research, 59(3), 491–516.
40.
FoaR. S.KlassenA.SladeM.RandA.CollinsR. (2020). The global satisfaction with democracy report 2020. Centre for the Future of Democracy.
41.
FranklinM. N. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge University Press.
42.
FreseJ. (Forthcoming). The case for multiple UESDs and an application to migrant deaths in the Mediterranean Sea. Political Science Research and Methods.
43.
FreyB. S.BenzM.StutzerA. (2004). Introducing procedural utility: Not only what, but also how matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1628/0932456041960560
44.
GelmanA.HillJ.VehtariA. (2020). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press.
45.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.ShacharR. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00038
46.
GoldbergA. C.PlesciaC. (2024). Election integrity across Europe: Who thinks elections are held fairly and why?European Political Science Review, 16(4), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773924000055
47.
GoldsmithB. E.HoriuchiY.KellyM. (2021). Does public diplomacy sway foreign public opinion? Identifying the effect of high-level visits. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1342–1357. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000393
HansenS. W.KlemmensenR.SerritzlewS. (2019). Losers lose more than winners win: Asymmetrical effects of winning and losing in elections. European Journal of Political Research, 58(4), 1172–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12329
51.
HealyA.KosecK.MoC. H. (2017). Economic development, mobility, and political discontent: An experimental test of tocqueville’s thesis in Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305541700017x
52.
HealyA.LenzG. S. (2014). Substituting the end for the whole: Why voters respond primarily to the election-year economy. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12053
HigashijimaM.KerrN. (2023). When does the honeymoon end? Electoral cycles of democratic satisfaction in Africa. Political Psychology, 44(4), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12878
55.
HoernerJ. M.HoboltS. B. (2020). Unity in diversity? Polarization, issue diversity and satisfaction with democracy. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(12), 1838–1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1699592
56.
HolmbergS. (1999). Down and Down we go: Political trust in Sweden. In NorrisP. (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 103–122). Oxford University Press.
57.
HoogheM.StiersD. (2016). Elections as a democratic linkage mechanism: How elections boost political trust in a proportional system. Electoral Studies, 44(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.08.002
58.
KaneJ. V.BarabasJ. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12396
59.
KarpJ. A.BowlerS. (2001). Coalition politics and satisfaction with democracy: Explaining New Zealand’s reaction to proportional representation. European Journal of Political Research, 40(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00589
60.
KarpJ. A.MilazzoC. (2015). Democratic scepticism and political participation in Europe. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.996157
61.
KayserM. A.PeressM. (2012). Benchmarking across borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 661–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000275
KornbergA.ClarkeH. D. (1992). Citizens and community: Political support in a representative democracy. Cambridge University Press.
64.
KostelkaF.BlaisA. (2018). The chicken and egg question: Satisfaction with democracy and voter turnout. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096517002050
65.
KrishnarajanS. (2023). The democratic paradox: Are national elections always good for satisfaction with democracy in Europe?Socio-Economic Review, 31(3), 1679–1696. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwac029
66.
KöllnA.-K.AartsK. (2021). What explains the dynamics of citizens’ satisfaction with democracy? An integrated framework for panel data. Electoral Studies, 69(1), 102271.
67.
KönigP. D. (2022). Support for a populist form of democratic politics or political discontent? How conceptions of democracy relate to support for the AfD. Electoral Studies, 78(1), 102493.
68.
LovelessM. (2021). When you win, nothing hurts: The durability of electoral salience on individuals’ satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies, 69(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720910356
69.
MaukM.GrömpingM. (2023). Online disinformation predicts inaccurate beliefs about election fairness among both winners and losers. Comparative Political Studies, 57(6), 965–998. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193008
70.
MayneQ.HakhverdianA. (2017). Ideological congruence and citizen satisfaction: Evidence from 25 advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 50(6), 822–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016639708
71.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on post-treatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357
72.
MuñozJ.Falcó-GimenoA.HernándezE. (2020). Unexpected event during survey design: Promise and pitfalls for causal inference. Political Analysis, 28(2), 186–206.
73.
MutzD. C.PemantleR. (2015). Standards for experimental research: Encouraging a better understanding of experimental methods. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2015.4
74.
PlesciaC. (2019). On the subjectivity of the experience of victory: Who are the election winners?Political Psychology, 40(4), 797–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12562
75.
PlesciaC.DaoustJ.-F.BlaisA. (2021). Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European union democracy?European Union Politics, 22(1), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520970280
76.
PowellG. B.WhittenG. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111378
77.
QuarantaM.MartiniS. (2016). Does the economy really matter for satisfaction with democracy? Longitudinal and cross-country evidence from the European union. Electoral Studies, 42(1), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.02.015
SingerM. M. (2011). Who says ‘it’s the economy’? Cross-national and cross-individual variation in the salience of economic performance. Comparative Political Studies, 44(3), 284–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010384371
80.
SinghS. P. (2025). Replication data for: Elections increase satisfaction with democracy. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RXDMJV
81.
SinghS. P.KarakoçE.AndréB. (2012). Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies, 31(1), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2011.11.001
82.
SinghS. P.MayneQ. (2023). Satisfaction with democracy: A review of a major public opinion indicator. Public Opinion Quarterly, 87(1), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad003
83.
SinghS. P.TirJ. (2023). Threat-inducing violent events exacerbate social desirability Bias in survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12615
84.
SmithA. (2004). Election timing. Cambridge University Press.
StrömbäckJ.JohanssonB. (2007). Electoral cycles and the mobilizing effects of elections: A longitudinal study of the Swedish case. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 17(1), 79–99.
87.
TanisM.PostmesT. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.256
88.
TavitsM. (2008). Representation, corruption and subjective well-being. Comparative Political Studies, 41(12), 1607–1630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007308537
89.
TilleyJ.NeundorfA.HoboltS. B. (2018). When the pound in people’s pocket matters: How changes to personal financial circumstances affect party choice. The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1086/694549
90.
TorcalM. (2014). The decline of political trust in Spain and Portugal: Economic performance or political responsiveness?American Behavioral Scientist, 58(12), 1542–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534662
91.
van der MeerT. W. G.SteenvoordenE. (2018). Going back to the well: A panel study into the election boost of political support among electoral winners and losers. Electoral Studies, 55(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.06.007
92.
Weitz-ShapiroR.WintersM. S. (2011). The link between voting and life satisfaction in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(4), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2011.00135.x
93.
YaoJ.ZhangZ.-X.BrettJ.Keith MurnighanJ. (2017). Understanding the trust deficit in China: Mapping positive experience and trust in strangers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.12.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
