Do perceptions of electoral malpractice undermine democratic satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective

Abstract

Doubts about the legitimacy of the 2016 US elections continue to reverberate and deepen partisan mistrust in America. A perfect storm followed Republican allegations of fake news and massive voter fraud, Democratic complaints of voter suppression and gerrymandering, discontent with the Electoral College's awarding of victory to a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote, compounded by intelligence reports of Russian meddling. These issues raise the broader question: how serious do perceived electoral flaws have to be to raise doubts not just about the election but about democracy itself? Do ordinary people actually care about the quality of their elections or are they more concerned with jobs, growth and taxes and/or influenced by partisan cues? And how do attitudes vary among electoral winners and losers? The key findings of this research, based on World Values Survey data, are that doubts about electoral integrity do indeed undermine general satisfaction with how democracy works.

The presumed influence of election misinformation on others reduces our own satisfaction with democracy

“…When people's preferred candidate or party may lose an election, they accept the loss and remain satisfied and committed to electoral democracy as long as they view that the procedures that determined the outcome were free and fair. On the other hand, when citizens feel that democracy's procedures have been manipulated or tainted in some way, for example, due to the influence of misinformation, they are in turn less satisfied with it (Erlingsson et al, 2014;Magalhães, 2016;Norris, 2019;Tyler et al, 1985).…”

“…This erosion of satisfaction with democratic processes due to PIM may have long-term effects on people's commitment to those processes and to democratic politics as a whole (Erlingsson et al, 2014;Magalhães, 2016;Norris, 2019). Erosion of democratic satisfaction and commitment may lead to (1) decreased voter engagement, (2) placing greater impact on electoral outcomes rather than democratic processes, (3) winning candidates enjoying less legitimacy, and (4) increased political polarization.…”

Arresting Confidence: Mass Incarceration and Black–White Differences in Perceptions of Legal Authorities

“…Top‐down theories of political confidence further suggest that legal contexts steer confidence in legal authorities. These accounts emphasize the features of communities, systems, and societies that contextualize how people think about political institutions (Norris, 2019). The effects of social contexts on individuals’ attitudes may be uniform or group specific.…”

What Does Rigged Mean? Partisan and Widely Shared Perceptions of Threats to Elections

“…To date, much of the research on how the public interprets allegations surrounding threats to elections has employed closed-ended measures in surveys and experiments (Karp et al, 2018;Lehoucq, 2003;Norris, 2017Norris, , 2019Norris et al, 2018). The benefits of conducting research with these "pre-established categories" (Roberts et al, 2014(Roberts et al, , p. 1064 include that they are efficient to analyze, allow scholars to employ similar metrics, offer participants a frame of reference, and do not discriminate against peoples' verbal skills (Geer, 1988;Schuman, 1966).…”

“…Policy researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice conduct rigorous work disputing such claims and turn to their think tank, advocacy, and communications teams to correct misinformation about threats to elections. Political scientists show how “doubts about electoral integrity undermine general satisfaction with how democracy works” (Norris, 2019, p. 5) and connect it to lower levels of reported voter turnout (Norris, 2017, p. 43). Technology experts warn public officials, particularly Democrats, not to overreact to Trump’s charges lest they unknowingly dismiss concerns about election mechanics (Stokes, 2016).…”