Many Western parties have opened up the process of leadership selection in order to increase the party’s attractiveness, but negative reactions of losers in such contests might undermine these efforts. It has extensively been documented that losers of elections or referendums become less supportive of the political system, but the question is whether such a winner-loser gap also occurs in the context of intra-party elections. We examine unique panel data collected before and after the leadership elections of the Flemish Christian-Democratic Party and Liberal-Democratic Party and investigate the difference in change in attitudes and behavior of party members who voted for the losing candidates and those who voted for the winner. Contrary to earlier research on candidate selection, we find that only decision acceptance differs between winners and losers, while there is no gap in support for the electoral process, party membership satisfaction, and members’ activity within the party.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersonCJMendesSM (2006) Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential. British Journal of Political Science36: 91–111.
3.
ArnesenSBroderstadTSJohannessonMP, et al. (2019) Conditional legitimacy: how turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums. European Union Politics20: 176–197.
4.
BernardiLSandriGSeddoneA (2017) Challenges of political participation and intra-party democracy: bittersweet symphony from party membership and primary elections in Italy. Acta Politica52: 218–240.
5.
BernsteinRA (1977) Divisive primaries do hurt: U.S. senate races, 1956—1972. Am Polit Sci Rev71: 540–545.
6.
CarmanC (2010) The process is the reality: perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies58: 731–751.
7.
ClarkPBWilsonJQ (1961) Incentive systems: a theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly6: 129–166.
8.
CloseCKelbelCvan HauteE (2017) What citizens want in terms of intra-party democracy: popular attitudes towards alternative candidate selection procedures. Political Studies65: 646–664.
9.
CrossWBlaisA (2012) Who selects the party leader?Party Politics18: 127–150.
10.
CrossWPruysersS (2019) Sore losers? The costs of intra-party democracy. Party Politics25: 483–494.
11.
CrossWYoungL (2008) Factors influencing the decision of the young politically engaged to join a political party: an investigation of the Canadian case. Party Politics14: 345–369.
12.
CuriniLJouW (2016) The conditional impact of winner/loser status and ideological proximity on citizen participation. European Journal of Political Research55: 767–788.
13.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DeschouwerK (2009) The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
EsaiassonPPerssonMGilljamM, et al. (2016) Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49: 291–314.
16.
HeidarKSaglieJ (2003) A decline of linkage? Intra-party participation in Norway, 1991-2000. European Journal of Political Research42: 761–786.
17.
HeidarKWautersB (2019) Do Parties Still Represent?London: Routledge.
18.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard university.
19.
HowellPJustwanF (2013) Nail-biters and no-contests: The effect of electoral margins on satisfaction with democracy in winners and losers. Electoral Studies32: 334–343.
20.
JohnsonDBGibsonJR (1974) The divisive primary revisited: party activists in Iowa. The American Political Science Review68: 67–77.
21.
KenigO (2009) Classifying party leaders’ selection methods in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19: 433–447.
22.
KenigORahatGHazanR (2015) Leadership Selection versus Candidate Selection: Similarities and Differences. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 21–39.
23.
KöllnA-KPolkJ (2017) Emancipated party members: Examining ideological incongruence within political parties. Party Politics23: 18–29.
24.
MarienSKernA (2018) The winner takes it all: revisiting the effect of direct democracy on citizens’ political support. Political Behavior40: 857–882.
25.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannHD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
MoehlerDC. (2009) Critical citizens and submissive subjects: election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science39: 345–366.
27.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the election outcome: the effect of participation on losers’ consent. British Journal of Political Science23: 553–563.
28.
PedersenHHSchumacherG (2015) Do Leadership Changes Improve Electoral Performance?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
PiletJ-BCrossW (2014) The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies. A Comparative Study. Routlege.
30.
PiletJ-BWautersB (2014) The selection of party leaders in Belgium. In: PiletJ-BCrossW (eds) The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies. London: Routledge, pp. 30–46.
31.
PoguntkeTScarrowSEWebbPD, et al. (2016) Party rules, party resources and the politics of parliamentary democracies: how parties organize in the 21st century. Party Politics22: 661–678.
32.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics7: 297–322.
33.
RahatGHazanRY (2007) Political participation in party primaries: increase in quantity, decrease in quality? In: ZittelTFuchsD (eds) Participatory Democracy and Political Participation. London: Routledge, pp. 73–88.
34.
SandriGAmjahadA (2015) Party membership and intra-party democracy: how do members react to organizational change within political parties? The case of Belgium. Partecipazione e conflitto8: 190–214.
35.
ScarrowSE. (1999) Parties and the expansion of direct democracy: who benefits?Party Politics5: 341–362.
36.
SchaffnerFS. (2021) Moaners, gloaters, and bystanders: perceived fairness of the United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum on the European Union. Political Studies69: 278–306.
37.
ShomerYPutG-JGedalya-LavyE (2018) Does intra-party democracy affect levels of trust in parties? The cases of Belgium and Israel. Acta Politica53: 167–183.
38.
SinghSP (2014) Not all election winners are equal: satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research53: 308–327.
39.
StiersDDaoustJ-FBlaisA (2018) What makes people believe that their party won the election?Electoral Studies55: 21–29.
40.
TeorellJ (1999) A deliberative defence of intra-party democracy. Party Politics5: 363–382.
41.
TylerT (2010) Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42.
van der EijkCRoseJ (2020) Winner–loser effects in contentious constitutional referenda: perceptions of procedural fairness and the Brexit referendum. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations23: 104–120.
43.
van der MeerTWGSteenvoordenEH (2018) Going back to the well: a panel study into the election boost of political support among electoral winners and losers. Electoral Studies55: 40–53.
44.
van HauteEAmjahadABorrielloA, et al. (2012) Party members in a pillarised partitocracy. An empirical overview of party membership figures and profiles in Belgium. Acta Politica48: 68–91.
45.
Van HauteEGaujaADowdingKM, et al. (2015) Party Members and Activists. London: Routledge.
46.
WautersB. (2014) Democratising party leadership selection in belgium: motivations and decision makers. Political Studies62: 61–80.
47.
WautersBKernA (2021) Does it pay off? The effects of party leadership elections on parties’ trustworthiness and appeal to voters. Political Studies69: 881–899.
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.
