How do institutional parameters affect citizens’ evaluations of a political system as democratic? While attitudes to existing institutions have mostly been studied only in terms of support, this article uses experimental data to explore and compare citizens’ institutional design preferences in Germany and the US. Findings show that participation of voters in decision-making, deliberative decision-making, delegate representation, and the presence of revision and appeal lead to more positive perceptions of democratic quality in both countries. While in Germany, we find these effects to be influenced by party affiliation as well as citizens’ conceptions of democracy, we do not find meaningful differences for partisanship and less pronounced effects of conceptions of democracy in the US. We conclude that while discrepancies between citizens’ design preferences and institutional reality constitute a potential threat to democracy, institutions could be reformed to meet citizen preferences without compromising the core of liberal democracy.
AckermannKBraunDFatkeM, et al. (2023) Direct Democracy, Political Support and Populism–Attitudinal Patterns in the German Bundesländer. Regional & Federal Studies33 (2): 139–162.
2.
ArnesenSPetersY (2018) The Legitimacy of Representation: How Descriptive, Formal, and Responsiveness Representation Affect the Acceptability of Political Decisions. Comparative Political Studies51 (7): 868–899.
3.
BächtigerASchwaigerV (2022) Deliberative Innovations and the (Re-)Inclusion of Disadvantages and Underrepresented Citizens. In: LandwehrCSchäferASaalfeldT (eds) Contested Representation. Challenges, Shortcomings and Reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.259–276.
4.
BedockCPiletJB (2021) Who Supports Citizens Selected by Lot to Be the Main Policymakers? A Study of French Citizens. Government and Opposition56 (3): 485–504.
5.
BellamyR (2007) Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BoixC (1999) Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies. American Political Science Review93 (3): 609–624.
7.
BryanJD (2023) What Kind of Democracy Do We All Support? How Partisan Interest Impacts a Citizen’s Conceptualization of Democracy. Comparative Political Studies56 (10): 1597–1627.
8.
BurkeE (1949) Selected Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke on Reform, Revolution, and War (eds HoffmanRJSLevackP). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
9.
CanenNJKendallCTrebbiF (2021) Political Parties as Drivers of Us Polarization: 1927-2018. Working Paper no. w28296, 4 January. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
CarmanC (2007) Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties17 (1): 1–19.
11.
CekaBMagalhaesPC (2020) Do the Rich and the Poor Have Different Conceptions of Democracy? Socioeconomic Status, Inequality, and the Political Status Quo. Comparative Politics52 (3): 383–412.
12.
ChristensenHSSetäläM (2024) Do Populists Want Direct Democracy? Examining How Thick and Thin Populist Attitudes Are Associated with the Finnish Citizens’ Initiative. Contemporary Politics30 (4): 534–552.
13.
ChristensenHSHimmelroosSGrönlundK (2017) Does Deliberation Breed an Appetite for Discursive Participation? Assessing the Impact of First-Hand Experience. Political Studies 65 (suppl. 1): 64–83.
14.
ClaassenC (2020a) Does Public Support Help Democracy Survive?American Journal of Political Science64 (1): 118–134.
15.
ClaassenC (2020b) In the Mood for Democracy? Democratic Support as Thermostatic Opinion. American Political Science Review114 (1): 36–53.
16.
CloseCLegeinTLittleC (2024) Party Organisation and the Party-Delegate Style of Representation. Party Politics30 (2): 247–259.
17.
ConnollyWE (1974) Essentially Contested Concepts in Politics. In: Connolly WE (ed.) The Terms of Political Discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.10–44.
18.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al. (2021) V-Dem Dataset V11. 1. Available at: https://v-dem.net (accessed 3 October 2024).
19.
DahlbergSLindeJHolmbergS (2015) Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the Importance of Democratic Input and Governmental Output. Political Studies63 (1): 18–37.
20.
DaltonRScarrowSCainB (2004) Advanced Democracies and the New Politics. Journal of Democracy15 (1): 124–138.
21.
DonovanTKarpJA (2006) Popular Support for Direct Democracy. Party Politics12 (5): 671–688.
22.
DryzekJSBächtigerAChambersS, et al. (2019) The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation. Science363 (6432): 1144–1146.
23.
ElsterJ (1983) Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2017) Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?Comparative Political Studies50 (6): 739–765.
25.
EspinozaM (2022) Donald Trump’s Impact on the Republican Party. In: JamesTS (ed.) The Trump Administration. London: Routledge, pp.134–150.
26.
Fernández-MartínezJLFontJ (2018) The Devil Is In the Detail: What Do Citizens Mean When They Support Stealth or Participatory Democracy?Politics38 (4): 458–479.
27.
FerrínMHérnandezE (2021) Preferences for Consensus and Majoritarian Democracy: Long —and Short-Term Influences. European Political Science Review13 (2): 209–225.
28.
FerrínMKriesiH (2016) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FreitagMVatterA (2009) Patterns of Democracy: A Sub-National Analysis of the German Länder. Acta Politica44: 410–438.
31.
GanghofS (2021) Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism: Democratic Design and the Separation of Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
GermannMMarienSMuradovaL (2022) Scaling Up? Unpacking the Effect of Deliberative Mini-Publics on Legitimacy Perceptions. Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 2 December 2022. DOI: 10.1177/00323217221137444.
33.
GESIS (2023) GESIS Panel Standard Edition. GESIS Datenarchiv Köln. ZA5665 Data File Version 48.0.0. DOI: 10.4232/1.14111.
34.
GoldbergS (2021) Just Advisory and Maximally Representative: A Conjoint Experiment on Non-Participants’ Legitimacy Perceptions of Deliberative Forums. Journal of Deliberative Democracy17 (1): 56–75.
35.
GoldbergSBächtigerA (2023) Catching the ‘Deliberative Wave’? How (Disaffected) Citizens Assess Deliberative Citizen Forums. British Journal of Political Science53 (1): 239–247.
36.
HainmuellerJHangartnerDYamamotiT (2015) Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112 (8): 2395–2400.
37.
HeldD (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
38.
HeyneL (2019) The Making of Democratic Citizens: How Regime-specific Socialization Shapes Europeans’ Expectations of Democracy. Swiss Political Science Review25 (1): 40–63.
39.
HibbingJTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy. Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HibbingJTheiss-MorseEHibbingM, et al. (2023) Who Do People Want to Govern?Party Politics23 (1): 3–15.
41.
KernAMarienSMuradovaL (2024) The Effect of Accumulated Losses on Perceptions of Legitimacy. European Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 25 January 2024. DOI: 10.1017/S175577392300036X.
42.
KönigPDSiewertMBAckermannK (2022) Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizens’ Preferences for Democracy: Taking Stock of Three Decades of Research in a Fragmented Field. Comparative Political Studies55 (12): 2015–2049.
43.
LandwehrC (2020) Backlash against the Procedural Consensus. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations22 (4): 598–608.
44.
LandwehrCSteinerND (2017) Where Democrats Disagree: Citizens’ Normative Conceptions of Democracy. Political Studies65 (4): 786–804.
45.
LandwehrCHarmsP (2020) Preferences for Referenda: Intrinsic or Instrumental? Evidence from a Survey Experiment. Political Studies68 (4): 875–894.
46.
LenznerTHadlerPNiessenD, et al. (2021) Vignettenstudie Zu Demokratiekonzeptionen Von Bürger*innen Und Eliten in Deutschland Und Den USA. Kognitiver Online-Pretest. GESIS Projektbericht. Version 1.0. Gesis-Pretestlabor. DOI: 10.17173/pretest99.
47.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.
48.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
LustigDWeilerJH (2018) Judicial Review in the Contemporary World—Retrospective and Prospective. International Journal of Constitutional Law16 (2): 315–372.
50.
McCoyJSomerM (2021) Overcoming Polarization. Journal of Democracy32 (1): 6–21.
51.
McLeanI (1991) Forms of Representation and Systems of Voting. In: HeldD (ed.) Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.172–196.
52.
MickeyR (2022) Challenges to Subnational Democracy in the United States, Past and Present. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science699 (1): 118–129.
53.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
OffeCCohenJL (1983) Political Legitimation Through Majority Rule?Social Research50 (4): 709–756.
55.
PiletJBBedockCTalukderD, et al. (2023) Support for Deliberative Mini-Publics among the Losers of Representative Democracy. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 4 December 2023. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123423000479.
56.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
ReiserMReiterR (2023) A (New) East–West-Divide? Representative Democracy in Germany 30 Years after Unification. German Politics32 (1): 1–19.
58.
RojonSRijkenAJKlandermansB (2019) A Survey Experiment on Citizens’ Preferences for “Vote-Centric” Vs “Talk-Centric” Democratic Innovations with Advisory Vs Binding Outcomes. Politics of Governance7 (2): 213–226.
59.
SaalfeldT (2002) The German Party System: Continuity and Change. German Politics11 (3): 99–130.
60.
SawardM (2021) Democratic Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
Schmitt-BeckRRoßteutscherSSchoenH, et al. (2022) A New Era of Electoral Instability. In: Schmitt-BeckRRoßteutscherSSchoenH, et al. (eds) The Changing German Voter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.3–24.
62.
SigelmanLSigelmanCKWalkoszBJ (1992) The Public and the Paradox of Leadership: An Experimental Analysis. American Journal of Political Science36 (2): 366–385.
63.
SteinerNDLandwehrC (2023) Learning the Brexit Lesson? Shifting Support for Direct Democracy in Germany in the Aftermath of the Brexit Referendum. British Journal of Political Science53 (2): 757–765.
64.
StrebelMAKüblerDMarcinkowskiF (2019) The Importance of Input and Output Legitimacy in Democratic Governance: Evidence from a Population-based Survey Experiment in Four West European Countries. European Journal of Political Research58 (2): 488–513.
65.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
Understanding America Study (2023) UAS 443: Democracy and Democratic Decision-Making Procedures. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR), University of Southern California.
67.
Von SchoultzAWassH (2016) Beating Issue Agreement: Congruence in the Representational Preferences of Candidates and Voters. Parliamentary Affairs69 (1): 136–158.
68.
WarrenME (2017) A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory. American Political Science Review111 (1): 39–53.
WegscheiderCRovira KaltwasserCVan HauwaertSM (2023) How Citizens’ Conceptions of Democracy Relate to Positive and Negative Partisanship Towards Populist Parties. West European Politics46 (7): 1235–1263.
71.
WernerH (2020) If I’ll Win It, I Want It: The Role of Instrumental Considerations in Explaining Public Support for Referendums. European Journal of Political Research59 (2): 312–330.
72.
WernerHJacobsK (2022) Are Populists Sore Losers? Explaining Populist Citizens’ Preferences for and Reactions to Referendums. British Journal of Political Science52 (3): 1409–1417.
73.
WernerHMarienS (2022) Process Vs Outcome? How To Evaluate the Effects of Participatory Processes on Legitimacy Perceptions. British Journal of Political Science52 (1): 429–436.
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.
