Several studies have demonstrated a gap in support for the political system between electoral winners and losers. This research has generated a large stock of knowledge about the causes and effects of this winner–loser gap. However, we know little about the dynamics of the winner–loser gap over time. Drawing on a unique Swedish panel survey, this study investigates the stability of the winner–loser gap among Swedish voters over an electoral cycle of four years. The empirical analyses demonstrate a substantial consistency of the gap over time also when controlling for other determinants. The winner–loser gap thus seems to be a stable phenomenon rather than a short-lived election effect. The results are robust to different specifications and statistical techniques.
AndersonChristopher JGuilloryChristine A (1997) Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
2.
AndersonChristopher JLoTempioAndrew J (2002) Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 335–351.
3.
AndersonChristopher J.TverdovaYuliya V. (2001) Winners, Losers, and Attitudes about Government in Contemporary Democracies. International Political Science Review47(1): 321–338.
4.
AndersonChristopher JTverdovaYuliya V (2003) Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science47(1): 91–109.
5.
AndersonChristopher JBlaisAndréBowlerShaunDonovanToddListhaugOla (2005) Losers Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BanducciSusan AKarpJeffrey 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 Science33(3): 443–467.
7.
BernauerJulianVatterAdrian (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 Research51(4): 435–468.
8.
BlaisAndréGélineauFrançois (2007) Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
9.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd (2007) Reasoning about Institutional Change: Winners, Losers and Support for Electoral Reforms. British Journal of Political Science37(3): 455–476.
10.
CampbellRoss (2013) Winners, Losers and the Grand Coalition: Political satisfaction in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Political Science Review36(2): 168–184.
11.
CanacheDamarysMondakJeffery JSeligsonMitchell A. (2001) Meaning and Measurement in Cross-National Research on Satisfaction with Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65(4): 506–528.
12.
ChangEricChuYun-hanWuWen-chin (2014) Consenting to Lose or Expecting to Win? Inter-temporal changes in voters winner–loser status and satisfaction with democracy. In ThomassenJaques (ed) Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232–253.
13.
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org) (2015) CSES Modules 1 2 3. Full releases. December15, 2015 version. doi: 10.7804/2015-12-15.
14.
CraigStephen CMartinezMichael DGainousJason (2006) Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 579–592.
15.
CuriniLuigiJouWillyMemoliVincenzo (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.
16.
CutlerFredNuesserAndreaNybladeBen (2013) Evaluating the Quality of Democracy with Individual Level models of Satisfaction: Or, a complete model of satisfaction with democracy. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, 4–7 September 2013.
17.
DahlbergStefanLindeJonasHolmbergSören (2015) Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies63(S1): 18–37.
18.
DahlbergStefanLundmarkSebastianMartinssonJohan (2012) How Representative is a Self-Selected Web-Panel? The effect on representation of different sampling procedures and survey modes. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Conference in Orlando, May 17–May 20, 2012.
19.
EsaiassonPeter (2011) Electoral Losers Revisited – How citizens react to defeat at the ballot box. Electoral Studies30(1): 102–113.
20.
HolmbergSören (1999) Down and Down We Go: Political Trust in Sweden. In NorrisPippa (ed) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103-122.
21.
KlingemannHans-Dieter (1999) Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In NorrisPippa (ed) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–56.
22.
LindeJonasEkmanJoakim (2003) Satisfaction with Democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
23.
LühisteKadri (2006) Explaining Trust in Political Institutions: Some illustrations from the Baltic states. Communist and Post-Communist Studies39(4): 475–496.
24.
MoehlerDevra C (2009) Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science39(2): 345–366.
25.
MoehlerDevra CLindbergStaffan I. (2009) Narrowing the Legitimacy Gap: Turnovers as a cause of democratic consolidation. Journal of Politics71(4): 1448–1466.
26.
NarudHanne MartheAalbergToril (1999) Challenges to Representative Democracy: Parties, Voters and Public Opinion. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
SinghShaneKarakoçEkremBlaisAndré (2012) Differentiating Winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
29.
WeibullLennartHolmbergSörenOscarssonHenrik EkengrenMartinssonJohanMarkstedtElias (2013) Super-Riks-SOM 1986–2011, v2013.1.2. Göteborgs Universitet: SOM-institutet.
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.
