We replicate and extend previous research that asks whether operational ideology moderates the relationship between trust in elections and non-voting political participation (NVP) in the United States. Using data from the 2024 American National Election Study (ANES, n = 4256), we find more evidence that operational liberals are positively associated with NVP regardless of trust, whereas distrusting operational conservatives, in particular, are associated with greater NVP. Panel data from the 2020–2024 ANES (n = 1857) further reveal that prior liberal operational ideology is positively associated with subsequent trust in elections and NVP. Together, our findings contribute to existing literature by demonstrating ideological heterogeneity in trust in elections, NVP, and the relationship between the two. Should these patterns continue, a central challenge of preserving democratic processes may be less about the inherent value of trust and participation, and more about under which conditions these factors signal broader democratic health.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science39(4): 825–846.
Arel-BundockVBriggsRCDoucouliagosH, et al. (2024) Quantitative political science research is greatly underpowered. The Journal of Politics88(1): 36–46.
5.
ArgyleLPPopeJC (2022) Does political participation contribute to polarization in the United States?Public Opinion Quarterly86(3): 697–707.
6.
BaiH (2022) The multiple matching perspective on value versus identity: investigating how political ideology and party identity contribute to citizens’ support for political candidates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin50(1): 58–77.
7.
BerlinskiNDoyleMGuessAM, et al. (2023) The effects of unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud on confidence in elections. Journal of Experimental Political Science10(1): 34–49.
8.
BirchS (2010) Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies43(12): 1601–1622.
9.
ChenPGGorenPN (2016) Operational ideology and party identification: a dynamic model of individual-level change in partisan and ideological predispositions. Political Research Quarterly69(4): 703–715.
10.
DanillerAMMutzDC (2019) The dynamics of electoral integrity: a three-election panel study. Public Opinion Quarterly83(1): 46–67.
11.
EllisCStimsonJA (2012) Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EndersAMUscinskiJEKlofstadCA, et al. (2021) The 2020 presidential election and beliefs about fraud: continuity or change?Electoral Studies72: 102366.
13.
FitzEBSaundersKL (2023) Reassessing the theory and measures of non-voting political participation in the American electorate. Working Papers, Available at:https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c65xr (accessed 27 June 2025).
14.
FitzEBSaundersKL (2024) Distrusting the process: electoral trust, operational ideology, and nonvoting political participation in the 2020 American electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly88(SI): 843–857.
15.
HetheringtonMJ (2006) Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
HoogheM (2017) Trust and elections. In: UslanerEM (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15: 635–650.
LucasRE (2023) Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science6(1): 25152459231158378.
20.
MalzahnJHallAB (2024) Election-denying Republican candidates underperformed in the 2022 midterms. American Political Science Review119(3): 1536–1541.
NorrisP (2014) Why Electoral Integrity Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
ReptH (2022) 117–663 Final report before the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States capitol of the house of representatives one hundred seventeenth congress second session. 22 December. Available at:https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/117th-congress/house-report/663/1 (accessed 29 June 2025).
25.
SaundersKLAbramowitzAI (2004) Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research32(3): 285–309.
26.
SchumerC(@SenSchumer) (2026) Remember when the supreme court gave DOGE the green light to access your social security data? X, 20 January, 2:54 PM. Available at:https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2013731825038848019 (accessed 21 January 2026).
27.
SettleJEBondRMCovielloL, et al. (2016) From posting to voting: the effects of political competition on online political engagement. Political Science Research and Methods4(2): 361–378.
Trump DJ (@realDonaldTrump) (2025) Big WIN for the great state of Texas!!! everything passed, on our way to FIVE more congressional seats and saving your rights, your freedoms, and your country, itself... truth social, 20 August, 9:47 PM. Available at:https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115064705209848959 (accessed 21 August 2025).
31.
Van der MeerTWGvan DethJWScheepersPLH (2009) The politicized participant: ideology and political action in 20 democracies. Comparative Political Studies42(11): 1426–1457.
32.
VerbaSNieNH (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.
33.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
ZuckerbergM (2021) The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that president Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power... Facebook. 7 January. Available at:https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112681480907401 (accessed 27 June 2025).
