What are the electoral consequences of winning a sovereignty referendum? While some argue that these referendums increase the electoral power of pro-sovereignty parties or even put in motion a slippery slope towards more (radical) demands, others sustain that sovereignty-related referendums are a “once in a generation” event, decrease the salience of territorial politics and hence the electoral appeal of pro-decentralisation parties. We put these narratives to the test using the newly compiled CONREF dataset, which includes comprehensive information on the type of sovereignty referendums, the party electoral outcomes before and after the referendum and their policy position. Our analysis shows no relationship between winning a sovereignty referendum and parties’ electoral fortunes. It also shows that referendums do not affect the territorial position of the parties–irrespective of the referendum outcome. If anything, we observe that the main party in the winner’s block loses support when the referendum passes by a small margin and that the opposition benefits when their side wins. In addition, looking at the EU referendums, we observe that when the position of anti-EU parties wins they become less Eurosceptic. Overall, our article improves our understanding of the dynamics of the winner-loser effects in sovereignty referendums and its spillovers to elections.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34(4): 589–610.
2.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
3.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers’ consent: elections and democratic legitimacy. In: Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BahcheliT (2004) Saying yes to eu accession: explaining the Turkish cypriot referendum outcome. Cyprus Review16(2): 55–66.
5.
BiggersDR (2011) When ballot issues matter: social issue ballot measures and their impact on turnout. Political Behavior33: 3–25.
6.
BowlerSDonovanT (2000) Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
7.
BrummelL (2020) ‘you can’t always get what you want’: the effects of winning and losing in a referendum on citizens’ referendum support. Electoral Studies65: 102155.
8.
Castro-ReaJWellerJ (2019) Is the Québec secession movement dead? Perspectives after Canada’s 2015 federal election. In: Claims for Secession and Federalism. Cham: Springer, 97–111.
9.
Cortés RiveraJJ (2020) Creating new states: the strategic use of referendums in secession movements. Territory, Politics, Governance11(1): 140–157.
10.
De AngelisAColomboCMorisiD (2020) Taking cues from the government: heuristic versus systematic processing in a constitutional referendum. West European Politics43(4): 845–868.
11.
DelisAMatakosKXefterisD (2020) Electoral spillovers in an intertwined world: Brexit effects on the 2016 Spanish vote. British Journal of Political Science50(3): 1169–1174.
12.
DonovanTTolbertCJSmithDA (2009) Political engagement, mobilization, and direct democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly73(1): 98–118.
13.
EggersACFowlerAHainmuellerJ, et al. (2015) On the validity of the regression discontinuity design for estimating electoral effects: new evidence from over 40,000 close races. American Journal of Political Science59(1): 259–274.
14.
FarrellDMSchmitt-BeckR (eds.) (2003) Do Political Campaigns Matter?: Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London and New York: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science. Taylor & Francis.
15.
FatkeMFreitagM (2013) Direct democracy: protest catalyst or protest alternative?Political Behavior35: 237–260.
16.
FieldhouseEProsserC (2018) The limits of partisan loyalty: how the Scottish independence referendum cost labour. Electoral Studies52: 11–25.
17.
FowlerAHallAB (2017) Long-term consequences of election results. British Journal of Political Science47(2): 351–372.
18.
HajnalZLLewisPG (2003) Municipal institutions and voter turnout in local elections. Urban Affairs Review38(5): 645–668.
19.
HarguindéguyJ-BSánchezESSánchezAS, et al. (2023) The rise of research on independence referendums. International Political Science Review44(4): 540–556.
20.
HendersonAMitchellJ (2018) Referendums as critical junctures? Scottish voting in British elections. Parliamentary Affairs71(suppl1): 109–124.
21.
HendersonAJohnsRLarnerJM, et al. (2022) The Referendum that Changed a Nation: Scottish Voting Behaviour 2014–2019. Cham: Springer Nature.
22.
HerbetM-ELeonardJSantangeloMG, et al. (2022) Dissimulate or disseminate? A survey on the fate of negative results. Learned Publishing35(1): 16–29.
23.
HoboltSB (2005) When Europe matters: the impact of political information on voting behaviour in EU referendums. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties15(1): 85–109.
24.
HoboltSB (2006) How parties affect vote choice in European integration referendums. Party Politics12(5): 623–647.
25.
HoboltSBRodonT (2020) Cross-cutting issues and electoral choice. EU issue voting in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. Journal of European Public Policy27(2): 227–245.
26.
JefferyC (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom: problems of a piecemeal approach to constitutional change. Publius: The Journal of Federalism39(2): 289–313.
27.
KeyVOJr (1955) A theory of critical elections. The Journal of Politics17(1): 3–18.
28.
KozlovM (2024) So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it?Nature631: 728–730.
29.
KriesiH (2005) Direct Democratic Choice: The Swiss Experience. Lanham: Lexington Books.
30.
KuokkanenR (2017) ‘To see what state we are in’: first years of the greenland self-government act and the pursuit of inuit sovereignty. Ethnopolitics16(2): 179–195.
31.
LaceyRJ (2005) The electoral allure of direct democracy: the effect of initiative salience on voting, 1990-96. State Politics and Policy Quarterly5(2): 168–181.
32.
LecoursA (2018) The political consequences of independence referenda in liberal democracies: Quebec, Scotland, and Catalonia. Polity50(2): 243–274.
33.
LeemannLStadelmann-SteffenI (2022) Satisfaction with democracy: when government by the people brings electoral losers and winners together. Comparative Political Studies55(1): 93–121.
34.
LehmannPFranzmannSBurstT, et al. (2023). The manifesto data collection. Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). version 2023a. Online.
35.
LijphartALijphartPPSAYale University Press (1984) Democracies: patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. In: Patterns of: Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
36.
LynchP (2005) Scottish independence, the Quebec model of secession and the political future of the Scottish national party. Nationalism & Ethnic Politics11(4): 503–531.
37.
MaletG (2022) Cross-national social influence: how foreign votes can affect domestic public opinion. Comparative Political Studies55(14): 2416–2446.
38.
MarienSKernA (2018) The winner takes it all: revisiting the effect of direct democracy on citizens’ political support. Political Behavior40: 857–882.
39.
MatsusakaJG (2003) Initiative and referendum. In: Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishing, 624–628.
40.
MendezFGermannM (2018) Contested sovereignty: mapping referendums on sovereignty over time and space. British Journal of Political Science48(1): 141–165.
41.
MoehlerDC (2009) Critical citizens and submissive subjects: election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science39(2): 345–366.
42.
MorisiD (2023) When voters follow the issue, not the leader: evidence from referendum campaigns.
43.
O’DriscollDBaserB (2020) Referendums as a political party gamble: a critical analysis of the Kurdish referendum for independence. International Political Science Review41(5): 652–666.
44.
PiazzaJA (2022) Sore losers: does terrorism and approval of terrorism increase in democracies when election losers refuse to accept election results?Political Research Quarterly75(4): 1201–1215.
45.
RadcliffBShufeldtG (2016) Direct democracy and subjective well-being: the initiative and life satisfaction in the American States. Social Indicators Research128: 1405–1423.
46.
San-EpifanioLELópez-BasagurenA (2019) Claims for Secession and Federalism: A Comparative Study with a Special Focus on Spain. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
47.
Sanjaume-CalvetM (2021) Plebiscitarianism revisited: a typology of independence referendums. Canadian Journal of Political Science54(3): 593–614.
48.
Sanjaume-CalvetMarcHarguindéguyJean-BaptisteSánchez SánchezAlmudena (2024) Self-determination vs. state sovereignty. What are the determinants of agreed-upon independence referendums in liberal democracies?Democratization31(7): 1564–1588.
49.
SchonfeldBWinter-LevyS (2021) Policy or partisanship in the United Kingdom? Quasi-experimental evidence from Brexit. The Journal of Politics83(4): 1450–1461.
50.
SczepanskiR (2022) What’s all the fuss about? Testing the impact of referendum rejections on issue-specific knowledge levels. Preprint, March 30.
51.
SmithMA (2001) The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science45(3): 700–706.
52.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics71(1): 238–248.
53.
SorensJ (2009) The partisan logic of decentralization in Europe. Regional & Federal Studies19(2): 255–272.
54.
SorensJ (2014) Legal regimes for secession: applying moral theory and empirical findings. Public Affairs Quarterly28(3): 259–288.
55.
SözenA (2005) The Turkish cypriot legislative election of February 2005: the rise of CTP/BG. South European Society & Politics10(3): 465–475.
56.
ThomasJC (2007). “Quebec and the Canadian Federation: From the 1980 Referendum to the Summit of the Canadas”. In Quebec and Canada in the New Century New Dynamics, New Opportunities, Michael Murphy (ed). Montreal, Kingston, London and Ithaca: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University McGill-Queen’s University Press. Chapter 9 (pages 201-232).
57.
TianDHuXQianY, et al. (2024) Exploring the scientific impact of negative results. Journal of Informetrics18: 101481.
58.
TolbertCJGrummelJASmithDA (2001) The effects of ballot initiatives on voter turnout in the American States. American Politics Research29(6): 625–648.
59.
van der EijkCRoseJ (2021) Winner–loser effects in contentious constitutional referenda: perceptions of procedural fairness and the brexit referendum. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations23(1): 104–120.
60.
VoigtSBlumeL (2015) Does direct democracy make for better citizens? A cautionary warning based on cross-country evidence. Constitutional Political Economy26: 391–420.
61.
WalkerM (2003) The Strategic Use of Referendums: Power, Legitimacy, and Democracy. In Farrell and Scmitt-Beck (eds). New York and Hampshire: Springer.
62.
WalterS (2021) Brexit domino? The political contagion effects of voter-endorsed withdrawals from international institutions. Comparative Political Studies54(13): 2382–2415.
63.
WernerHJacobsK (2021) Are populists sore losers? Explaining populist citizens’ preferences for and reactions to referendums. British Journal of Political Science52: 1409–1417.
64.
WilliamsonSDillonAHainmuellerJ, et al. (2023) Learning from null effects: a bottom-up approach. Political Analysis31(3): 448–456.
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.
