Drawing upon the ‘satisfaction with democracy’ and ‘divisive primary’ literatures, this article examines how losers of intra-party elections respond to defeat and the consequences that these choices have on party organization and strength. In other words, do losers of intra-party elections continue to support the party or do they, like losers of general elections, feel less satisfied with democracy and withdraw their support (or even ‘exit’ the party)? Exploring rates of membership activism and satisfaction from a recent study of Canadian party members, this article demonstrates that losers of intra-party elections are more likely to exit the party, significantly less likely to remain active and engaged in party politics, and significantly more likely to report dissatisfaction with party membership. These findings suggest that parties must find a way of keeping losers engaged with the party.
AndersonCBlaisABowlerS. (2005) Losers’s Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BalmasMRahatGSheaferT. (2014) Two routes to personalized politics: centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics20(1): 37–51.
3.
BilleL (2001) Democratizing a democratic procedure: myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties 1960–1990. Party Politics7(3): 363–80.
4.
BlaisAGelineauF (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
5.
BowlerSDonovanT (2002) Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 371–390.
6.
CartyKCrossW (2006) Can stratarchically organized parties be democratic? Evidence from the Canadian experience. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties16(2): 93–114.
7.
CartyRK (1991) Canadian Political Parties in the Constituencies. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
8.
CartyRKCrossW (2010) Political parties and the practice of brokerage politics. In: JohnCCSmithD (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 191–207.
9.
CartyRKCrossWYoungL (2000) Rebuilding Canadian Party Politics. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
10.
CartyRKEaglesM (2005) Politics is Local: National Politics at the Grassroots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ChengCTavitsM (2011) Informal influences in selecting female political candidates. Political Research Quarterly64(2): 460–71.
13.
ClarkA (2004) The continued relevance of local parties in representative democracies. Politics24(1): 35–45.
14.
ClarkPBWilsonJQ (1961) Incentive systems: a theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly6(2): 129–66.
15.
CrossW (2016) The importance of local party activity in understanding Canadian politics: winning from the ground up in the 2015 federal election. Canadian Journal of Political Science49(4): 601–620.
16.
CrossWGaujaA (2014) Evolving membership strategies in Australian political parties. Australian Journal of Political Science49(4): 611–625.
17.
CrossWPiletJB (eds) (2015) The Politics of Party Leadership: A Cross-national Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
CrossWKatzRS (eds) (2013) The Challenges of Intra-party Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
CrossWYoungL (2015) Personalization of campaigns in an SMP system: the Canadian case. Electoral Studies39: 306–315.
20.
CrossWYoungL (2013) Candidate recruitment in Canada: the role of political parties. In: KoopRBittnerA (eds), Parties, Elections, and the Future of Canadian Politics. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp. 24–45.
21.
CrossWKenigOPruysersS. (2016) The Promise and Challenge of Party Primary Elections: A Comparative Perspective. Toronto: McGill-Queens University Press.
22.
De LucaMVenturinoF (2016) The effects of primaries on electoral performance: France and Italy in comparative perspective. French Politics15(1): 43–56.
23.
De WinterLBaudewynsP (2015) Candidate centred campaigning in a party centred context: the case of Belgium. Electoral Studies39: 295–305.
24.
EderNJennyMMullerW (2015) Winning over voters or fighting party comrades? Personalized constituency campaigning in Austria. Electoral Studies39: 316–328.
25.
FranklinM (2002) The dynamics of electoral participation. In: LeDucLNiemiRNorrisP (eds), Elections and Voting in Global Perspective 2. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
26.
FranklinM (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HarmelRHeoUTanA. (1995) Performance, leadership, factions and party change: an empirical analysis. West European Politics18(1): 1–33
28.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
30.
JeffreyB (2010) Divided Loyalties: The Liberal Party of Canada, 1984–2008. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
31.
JohnsonDGibsonJ (1974) The divisive primary revisited: party activists in Iowa. American Political Science Review68(1): 67–77.
32.
KarlsenRSkogerbøE (2015) Candidate campaigning in parliamentary systems: individualized vs. localized campaigning. Party Politics21(3): 428–439.
33.
KatzR (1990) Party as linkage: a vestigial function?European Journal of Political Research18(1): 143–161.
34.
KenigOCrossWPruysersS. (2015) Party primaries: towards a definition and typology. Representation51(2): 147–160.
35.
KenigO (2009) Democratization of party leadership selection: do wider selectorates produce more competitive contests?Electoral Studies28(2): 240–247.
36.
KenneyPRiceT (1987) The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science31(1): 31–44.
37.
KeyVO (1964) Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 5th ed. New York: Crowell Company.
38.
KittilsonMCScarrowSE (2003) Political parties and the rhetoric and realities of democratization. In: CainBEDaltonRJScarrowSE (eds), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 59–80.
39.
LengleJOwenDSonnerM (1995) Divisive nominating mechanisms and democratic party electoral prospects. Journal of Politics57(2): 370–383.
40.
McAllisterI (2015) The personalization of politics in Australia. Party Politics21(3): 337–345.
41.
MeiselJMendelsohnM (2001) Meteor? Phoenix? Chameleon? The decline and transformation of party in Canada. In: GeorgeTWhitehornA (eds) Party Politics in Canada 8th edition. Toronto: Prentice-Hall, pp. 163–178.
42.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
NorrisP (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PerlinG (1980) The Tory Syndrome: Leadership Politics in the Progressive Conservative Party. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
45.
PiletJBCrossW (eds) (2014) Leadership Selection in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.
46.
PiersonJSmithT (1975) Primary divisiveness and general election success: a re-examination. Journal of Politics37(2): 555–562.
47.
PruysersSCrossW (2016a) Candidate selection in Canada: local autonomy, centralization, and competing democratic norms. American Behavioral Scientist60(7): 781–98.
48.
PruysersSCrossW (2016b) Negative personalization: party leaders and party strategy. Canadian Journal of Political Science49(3): 539–558.
49.
PruysersSCrossWGaujaA. (2017) Candidate selection rules and democratic outcomes: the impact of parties on women’s representation. In: ScarrowSEWebbPDPoguntkeT (eds.), Organizing Representation: Political Parties, Participation, and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
RahatG (2013) What is democratic candidate selection? In: CrossWKatzRS (eds) The Challenges of Intraparty Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–144.
51.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
52.
RahatGHazanR (2001) Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
53.
RahatGHazanRKatzRS (2008) Democracy and political parties: on the uneasy relationships between participation, competition and representation. Party Politics14(6): 663–683.
54.
SandriGSeddoneAVenturinoF (2015) Party Primaries in Comparative Perspective. Ashgate: London.
55.
SayersA (1999) Parties, Candidates, and Constituency Campaigns in Canadian Elections. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
56.
ScarrowS (1994) The paradox of enrollment: assessing the costs and benefits of party membership. European Journal of Political Research25(1): 41–60.
57.
ScarrowS (1996) Parties and Their Members. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
ScarrowS (1999) Parties and the expansion of direct democracy: who benefits?Party Politics5(3): 341–362.
59.
ScarrowS (2015) Beyond Party Membership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
SeydP (1999) New parties/new politics? A case study of the British Labour Party. Party Politics5(3): 383–405.
61.
SeydPWhiteleyP (1992) Labour’s Grass Roots: The Politics of Party Membership. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
62.
SeigfriedA (1907) The Race Question in Canada. London: Eveleigh.
63.
SouthwellP (1986) The politics of disgruntlement: nonvoting and defection among supporters of nomination losers, 1968–1984. Political Behavior8(1): 81–95.
64.
StewartD (1997) The changing electorate: an examination of participants in the 1992 Alberta Conservative leadership election. Canadian Journal of Political Science30(1): 107–128.
65.
van HauteEGaujaA (2015) Party Members and Activists. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
66.
WareA (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
WareA (1979) Divisive primaries: the important questions. British Journal of Political Science9(3): 381–384.
68.
WattenbergM (1995) The Rise Of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
69.
WebbPPolettiMBaleT (2017) So who really does the donkey work in ‘multi-speed membership parties’? Comparing the election campaign activity of party members and party supporters. Electoral Studies46(1): 64–74.
70.
WichowskyANieblerSE (2010) Narrow victories and hard games: revisiting the primary divisiveness hypothesis. American Politics Research38(6): 1052–1071.
71.
YoungLCrossW (2002a) The rise of plebiscitary democracy in Canada. Party Politics8(6): 673–99.
72.
YoungLCrossW (2002b) Incentives to membership in Canadian political parties. Political Research Quarterly55(3): 547–69.
73.
ZittelTGschwendT (2008) Individualised constituency campaigns in mixed-member electoral systems: candidates in the 2005 German elections. West European Politics31(5): 978–1003.
74.
ZittelT (2015) Constituency candidates in comparative perspective – how personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter?Electoral Studies39: 286–294.
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.
