A robust literature on citizens’ satisfaction with democracy argues that system satisfaction is based on the policy outcomes that citizens anticipate from electoral results. A tacit assumption in this research is that there are differences between the parties and that citizens are aware of the ideological and preference diversity in their political environment. Some citizens, however, fail to perceive these differences. Using a multi-national set of post-election surveys, regression analysis, and propensity score matching, perceived party difference is shown to substantially impact citizens’ systemic satisfaction. Those who believe all parties are the same are substantially less satisfied with the functioning of their democracy. The negative effect of perceived party homogeneity is mitigated by closeness to a political party and sense of representation. By manipulating the public’s reserve of democratic satisfaction, this perception of party homogeneity threatens democratic stability.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
AbramowitzAISaundersKL (2008) Is polarization a myth?The Journal of Politics70(2): 542–555.
3.
AldrichJBussingGAKrishnamurthyA, et al. (2020) Does a partisan public increase democratic stability? In: OscarssonHHolmbergS (eds) Research Handbook for Political Partisanship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
4.
AlesinaADevleeschauwerAEasterlyW, et al. (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth8(2): 155–194.
5.
AndersonCJ (2011) Electoral supply, median voters, and feelings of representation in democracies. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 214–237.
6.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
7.
AndersonCJJustA (2018) Tweedledum and Tweedledee? A cross-national analysis of how voters view the electoral supply. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
8.
BestREMcDonaldMD (2011) The role of party policy positions in the operation of democracy. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–237.
9.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
10.
BlaisAMorin-ChasséASinghSP (2017) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics23(2): 85–95.
11.
BoxellLMatthewGJesseMS (2020) Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization. No. w26669. National Bureau of Economic Research.
12.
BryanMLJenkinsSP (2015) Multilevel modelling of country effects: a cautionary tale. European Sociological Review32(1): 3–22.
13.
BryerJM (2013) TriMatch: an R package for propensity score matching of non-binary treatments. In: The R User Conference. Albacete, Spain: University of Castilla-La Mancha.
14.
CanacheDMondakJJSeligsonMA (2001) Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65(4): 506–528.
15.
CareyJMHixS (2011) The electoral sweet spot: low-magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 383–397.
16.
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2015) CSES Module 3 Full Release [dataset and documentation]. December 15, 2015 version. DOI: 10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15. Available at: https://www.cses.org.
17.
ConversePE (1969) Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies2(2): 139–171.
18.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al. (2020) V-Dem Codebook v10.
19.
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.
20.
DahlbergSLindeJ (2016) Losing happily? The mitigating effect of democracy and quality of government on the winner–loser gap in political support. International Journal of Public Administration39(9): 652–664.
21.
DahlbergSLindeJHolmbergS (2015) Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies63: 18–37.
22.
DaltonRJ (1985) Political parties and political representation: party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies18(3): 267–299.
23.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems: party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41(7): 899–920.
24.
DaltonRJ (2011) Left-right orientations, context, and voting choices. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103–125.
25.
DaltonRJAndersonCJ (2011). Citizens, context, and choice. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–32.
26.
DownsA (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150.
27.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
28.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
29.
FiorinaMPAbramsSJPopeJ (2005) Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
30.
GougouFTiberjV (2015) Tous les mêmes? Les votes pour les partis de gouvernement en temps de crise. Revue européenne des sciences sociales53(1): 95–120.
31.
HardingR (2011) Freedom to choose and democracy: the empirical question. Economics & Philosophy27(3): 221–245.
32.
HetheringtonMJ (2009) Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science39(2): 413–448.
33.
IyengarSSLepperMR (1999) Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology76(3): 349–366.
34.
IyengarSSLepperMR (2000) When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(6): 995–1006.
35.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
36.
JonesDR (2001) Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 125–141.
37.
KimM (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(1): 49–72.
38.
KnutsenO (1998) The strength of the partisan component of left-right identity: a comparative longitudinal study of left-right party polarization in eight west European countries. Party Politics4(1): 5–31.
39.
LaymanGCCarseyTM (2002) Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 786–802.
40.
LeeDSMorettiEButlerMJ (2004) Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the US House. The Quarterly Journal of Economics119(3): 807–859.
41.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: a note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
42.
LindeJPetersY (2020) Responsiveness, support, and responsibility: how democratic responsiveness facilitates responsible government. Party Politics26(3): 291–304.
43.
LinzJJGispertC (2004) Quel avenir pour les partis politiques dans les démocraties contemporaines?Pôle Sud2: 55–68.
44.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York, NY: Crown.
45.
LühisteK (2014) Social protection and satisfaction with democracy: a multi-level analysis. Political Studies62(4): 784–803.
46.
LupuN (2015) Party polarization and mass partisanship: a comparative perspective. Political Behavior37(2): 331–356.
47.
MaozZSomer-TopcuZ (2010) Political polarization and cabinet stability in multiparty systems: a social networks analysis of European parliaments, 1945–98. British Journal of Political Science40(4): 805–833.
48.
McCoyJRahmanTSomerM (2018) Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist62(1): 16–42.
49.
PowellGB (2011) Party polarization and the ideological congruence of governments. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197–213.
50.
RidgeHM (2020) Enemy mine: negative partisanship and satisfaction with democracy. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 12 November 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-020-09658-7.
51.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician39(1): 33–38.
52.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: how elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
53.
SteckerCTausendpfundM (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 492–511.
54.
ThoemmesFJKimES (2011) A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research46(1): 90–118.
55.
WagnerAFSchneiderFHallaM (2009) The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe—a panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy25(1): 30–41.
56.
WangC (2014) The effects of party fractionalization and party polarization on democracy. Party Politics20(5): 687–699.
57.
WellsJMKrieckhausJ (2006) Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 569–578.
58.
WesselsBSchmittH (2008) Meaningful choices, political supply, and institutional effectiveness. Electoral Studies27(1): 19–30.
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.
