This paper disentangles the relationship between election outcomes and satisfaction with democracy. As the first comparative study to employ a measure of satisfaction immediately before and after elections, we can be unusually confident that any changes we observe are attributable to election outcomes. Following previous work, we affirm that voting for parties that win more votes, more legislative seats, and more cabinet seats boosts satisfaction with democracy. In addition, we demonstrate for the first time that voters are sensitive to deficits in representation; satisfaction with democracy decreases when one’s party’s seat share falls short of its vote share.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
AdamA (2014) Do elections bring optimism?Electoral Studies33(1): 137–143.
3.
AlmondGAVerbaS (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
4.
AndersonCJ (1998) Parties, party systems, and satisfaction with democratic performance in the new Europe. Political Studies46(3): 572–588.
5.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
6.
AndersonCJSingerMM (2008) The sensitive left and the impervious right: Multilevel models and the politics of inequality, ideology, and legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies41(4): 564–599.
7.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
ArceneauxKNickersonDW (2009) Modeling certainty with clustered data: A comparison of methods. Political Analysis17(2): 177–190.
9.
BanducciSAKarpJA (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.
10.
BlaisA (2010) Making electoral democracy work. Electoral Studies29(1): 169–170.
11.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing, and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
12.
BlaisALoewenPJ (2007) Electoral systems and evaluations of democracy. In: CrossW (ed.) Democratic Reform in New Brunswick. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, pp. 39–57.
13.
BlaisAGidengilEDobrzynskaA. (2003) Does the local candidate matter? Candidate effects in the canadian election of 2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science36(3): 657–664.
14.
BoothJASeligsonMA (2009) The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Public Support and Democracy in Eight Nations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BowlerSDonovanT (2002) Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 371–390.
CameronACGelbachJBMillerDL (2008) Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics90(3): 414–427.
18.
CanacheDMondakJJSeligsonMA (2001) Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65(4): 506–528.
19.
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, pp. 232–253.
20.
ClarkeHDKornbergA (1992) Support for the Canadian federal Progressive Conservative Party since 1988: The impact of economic evaluations and economic issues. Canadian Journal of Political Science25(1): 29–53.
21.
Conroy-KrutzJeffreyNicholasKerr (2015) Dynamics of democratic satisfaction in transitional settings: Evidence from a panel study in Uganda. Political Research Quarterly. Epub online ahead of print June 16, 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1065912915589763.
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.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
DaltonRJAndersonCJ (2011) Citizens, context, and choice. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–30.
25.
DonnerAKlarN (2000) Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. New York: Arnold Publishers.
26.
FuchsD (1993) Trends of political support in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: Berg-SchlosserDRytlewskiR (eds) Political Culture in Germany. London: MacMillan, pp. 232–268.
27.
GinsbergBWeissbergR (1978) Elections and the mobilization of popular support. American Journal of Political Science22(1): 31–55.
28.
GreenDPVavreckL (2008) Analysis of cluster-randomized experiments: A comparison of alternative estimation approaches. Political Analysis16(2): 138–152.
29.
HendersonA (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: The impact of winning and losing in westminster systems. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties18(1): 3–26.
30.
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.
31.
KlingemannH-D (1999) Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–56.
32.
KornbergAClarkeHD (1992) Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KornbergAClarkeHD (1994) Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: The Canadian case. Political Research Quarterly47(3): 537–563.
34.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
35.
ListhaugOAardalBEllisIO (2009) Institutional variation and political support: An analysis of cses data from 29 countries. In: KlingemannHD (ed.) The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–108.
36.
McCaulKDGladueBAJoppaM (1992) Winning, losing, mood, and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior26(4): 486–504.
37.
MarshM (2007) Candidates or parties? Objects of electoral choice in Ireland. Party Politics13(4): 500–527.
38.
MillerAH (1974) Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review68(3): 951–972.
39.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
Ruiz-RufinoR (2013) Satisfaction with democracy in multi-ethnic countries: The effect of representative political institutions on ethnic minorities. Political Studies61(1): 101–118.
41.
SinghSP (2014) Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 308–327.
42.
SinghSPKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
43.
SinghSPLagoIBlaisA (2011) Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support. Social Science Quarterly92(3): 695–709.
44.
ThomassenJ (2014) Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
Weitz-ShapiroRWintersMS (2011) The link between voting and life satisfaction in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society53(4): 101–126.
46.
WillsonGVKerrJH (1999) Affective responses to success and failure: A study of winning and losing in competitive rugby. Personality and Individual Differences27(1): 85–99.
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.
