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.
AbdelzadehA (2014) The impact of political conviction on the relation between winning or losing and political dissatisfaction: Findings from Sweden. Sage Open4(2): 1–14.
2.
AltmanDPérez-LiñánA (2002) Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness, and participation in eighteen Latin American countries. Democratization9(2): 85–100.
3.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
4.
AndersonCJMendesSM (2006) Learning to lose: Election outcomes, democratic experience and political protest potential. British Journal of Political Science36(1): 91–111.
5.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2001) Winners, losers, and attitudes about government in contemporary democracies. International Political Science Review22(4): 321–338.
6.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing, and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
8.
BlaisARubensonD (2013) The source of turnout decline: New values or new contexts?Comparative Political Studies46(1): 95–117.
9.
BlaisAGidengilENevitteN, et al. (2004) Where does turnout decline from?European Journal of Political Research43(2): 221–236.
10.
BrownJDDuttonKA (1995) The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68(4): 712–722.
ChangECCChuY-H (2006) Corruption and trust: Exceptionalism in Asian democracies?The Journal of Politics68(2): 259–271.
13.
ChangEChuY-HWuW-C (2014) Consenting to lose or expecting to win? Inter-temporal changes in voters’ winner-loser status and satisfaction with democracy. In: ThomassenJ (ed.) Elections and Representative Democracy: Representation and Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232–253.
14.
ChiEKwonHY (2016) The trust-eroding effect of perceived inequality: Evidence from East Asian new democracies. The Social Science Journal53(3): 318–328.
15.
ChoK (2000) Regional Elections and Rational Voters. Seoul: Nanam.
16.
ChoY (2014a) Appraising the quality of democracy as a developmental phenomenon: How South Koreas appraise the quality of their democracy. Social Indicators Research116: 699–712.
17.
ChoY (2014b) How well ordinary citizens understand democracy: The case of the South Korean electorate. Democratization21(2): 195–219.
18.
ChoYKimYC (2016) Procedural justice and perceived electoral integrity: The case of Korea’s 2012 presidential election. Democratization23(7): 1180–1197.
19.
ClarkeHDDuttNKornbergA (1993) The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies. Journal of Politics55(4): 998–1021.
20.
CraigSMartinezMDGainousJ, et al. (2006) Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly39(4): 579–592.
21.
CroissantA (2002) Strong presidents, weak democracy? Presidents, parliaments and political parties in South Korea. Korea Observer33(1): 1–45.
22.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2012) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner–loser debate: The role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 241–261.
23.
DaltonRJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
DiamondL (2008) The democratic rollback. Foreign Affairs87(March/April): 36–48.
25.
DiamondLMorlinoL (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
27.
FranklinMNLyonsPMarshM (2004) Generational basis of turnout decline in established democracies. Acta Politica39: 115–151.
28.
FuchsD (1993) Trends of political support. In: Berg-SchlosserDRytlewskiR (eds) Political Culture in Germany. New York: St. Martin’s, pp. 232–269.
29.
GrayMCaulM (2000) Declining turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: The effects of declining group mobilization. Comparative Political Studies33(9): 1091–1122.
30.
HahmC-B (2008) Korea’s miraculous democracy. Journal of Democracy19(3): 128–142.
31.
HartlynJMcCoyJMustilloTM (2008) Electoral governance matters: Explaining the quality of elections in contemporary Latin America. Comparative Political Studies38(8): 73–98.
32.
HellmanO (2011) A historical institutional approach to political party organization: The case of South Korea. Government and Opposition46(4): 464–484.
33.
HimmelweitHTBiberianMJStockdaleJ (1978) Memory for past vote: Implications of a study of bias in recall. British Journal of Political Science8(3): 365–375.
34.
HollanderBA (2014) The surprised loser: The role of electoral expectations and news media exposure in satisfaction with democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly91(4): 651–668.
35.
HoogheMKernA (2017) The tipping point between stability and decline: Trends in voter turnout, 1950–1980–2012. European Political Science16(4): 535–552.
36.
HowellPJustwanF (2013) Nail-biters and no-contests: The effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers. Electoral Studies32(2): 334–343.
37.
HuangK-PLeeF-YLinT-M (2013) Partisanship and institutional trust a comparative analysis of emerging democracies in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy9(1): 47–71.
38.
JouW (2009) Political support from elections losers in Asian democracies. Taiwan Journal of Democracy5(2): 145–175.
39.
KahnemanDWakkerPPSarinR (1997) Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics112(2): 375–406.
40.
KangW (2015) Inequality, the welfare system and satisfaction with democracy in South Korea. International Political Science Review36(5): 493–509.
41.
KarpowitzCFQuin MonsonJNielsonL, et al. (2011) Political norms and the private act of voting. Public Opinion Quarterly75(4): 659–685.
42.
KerrN (2013) Popular evaluations of election quality in Africa: Evidence from Nigeria. Electoral Studies32(4): 819–837.
43.
KimM (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(1): 49–72.
44.
KimS (2010) Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter?Public Administration Review70(5): 801–810.
45.
KornbergAClarkeHD (1994) Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: The canadian case. Political Research Quarterly47(3): 537–63.
46.
LeeHY (2003) South Korea in 2002. Asian Survey43(1): 64–77.
47.
LoewenPBlaisA (2006) Testing publius’ federalism: Losers consent, winners Lament?Paper prepared for the Conference on the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 26 March, Seville. Available at: www.cses.org/plancom/2006Seville/LoewenBlais2006.pdf.
MoehlerD (2009) Critical citizens and submissive subjects: Election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science39(2): 345–366.
50.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the election outcome: The effect on participation on losers’ consent. British Journal of Political Science23(4): 553–563.
51.
NorrisP (ed.) (1999) Critical Citizens. New York: Oxford University Press.
ParkC-M (2011) Political discontent in South Korea. International Review of Sociology21(2): 391–412.
55.
ParkC-M (2017) Political trust in the Asia-Pacific region. In: ZmerliSvan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 220–225.
56.
ParkK (2010) Party mergers and splits in new democracies: The case of South Korea. Government and Opposition45(4): 531–552.
57.
RichTS (2015) Losers’ consent or non-voter consent? Satisfaction with democracy in East Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science23(3): 243–259.
58.
RichTS (2019) Explaining the success of the people’s party: An analysis of South Korea’s 2016 legislative elections. Asian Politics & Policy11(1): 27–42.
59.
RichTSHolmesC (2016) Winning is not everything: Public perceptions of losers and non-voters in South Africa. Acta Politica51(3): 328–345.
60.
RohJ (2017) The incumbency disadvantage in South Korean national assembly elections: Evidence from a regression discontinuity approach. Electoral Studies46: 112–122.
61.
Ruiz-RufinoR (2013) Satisfaction with democracy in multi-ethnic countries: The effect of representative political institutions on ethnic minorities. Political Studies61(1): 101–118.
ShinDCChoY (2010) How East Asians understand democracy: From a comparative perspective. ASIEN: The German Journal on Contemporary Asia116(July): 21–40.
65.
SinghSLagoIBlaisA (2011) Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support. Social Science Quarterly92(3): 695–709.
66.
SinghSP (2014) Not all elections winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 308–327.
67.
SinghSPKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
68.
SonB (2016) Are the poor the weak link? Democratic support and income levels in post-crisis South Korea. Journal of East Asian Studies16(2): 219–237.
69.
TavitsM (2008) Representation, corruption, and subjective well-being. Comparative Political Studies41(12): 1607–1630.
70.
ThalerR (1994) The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
71.
WagnerAFDuFourMSchneiderF (2003) Satisfaction not guaranteed: Institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe. CESIFO Working Paper No. 910.
72.
WhiteheadL (2007) The challenge of closely fought elections. Journal of Democracy18(2): 14–28.
73.
WilsonGVKerrJH (1999) Affective responses to success and failure: A study of winning and losing in competitive rugby. Personality and Individual Differences27(1): 85–99.
74.
WongTKWanP-SHsiaoM H-H (2011) The bases of political trust in six Asian societies: Institutional and cultural explanations compared. International Political Science Review32(3): 263–281.
75.
WrightGC (1993) Errors in measuring vote choice in the National Election Studies, 1952–88. American Journal of Political Science37(1): 291–316.
76.
YunSMinH (2012) Democracy in South Korea: Consolidated but in deficit. Korea Observer43(1): 145–174.
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.
