Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?

Aarts, Kees; Thomassen, Jacques J.A.

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.005

Cited by 207 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The level of proportionality generated by the electoral system has no relevant impact. Hence, our results are in the line with those reported by other previous research such as Aarts and Thomassen (2008) or Norris (1999) and opposed to Lijphart (1999). Finally, neither the size of the legislative assembly nor the number of citizens per representative follow the expectations in the literature (Farrell & McAllister, 2006), since neither seems to be relevant in explaining the level of satisfaction with democracy.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Lijphart, 1999) others do not (i.e. Aarts & Thomassen, 2008;Norris, 1999). Thus, the importance of proportionality is still an open question that requires more research.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Finally, we also include some other system-specific control variables that the literature has considered as important factors in accounting for support for democracy: the age of the democratic system (i.e. Aarts & Thomassen, 2008) Statistical methods. Since we combine individual and national level variables, we use the multilevel regression technique.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ballot Structure and Satisfaction with Democracy

Bosch¹,

Orriols²

2014

Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes the influence of ballot structure over satisfaction with democracy. In line with previous literature, we hypothesize that some ballot structures -such as preferential ballots -generate more satisfaction with democracy than closed ones. Yet, we expect these differences to be especially relevant among the more knowledgeable electorate, since any open ballot structure requires more sophisticated voters. Using CSES surveys, our results do not show a clear and parsimonious relation between ballot openness and satisfaction with democracy as some previous research seems to suggest. Our findings rather suggest that is preferential ballots and open lists the only ballot structures that generate more satisfaction than most of the remaining ballot structures. Yet, this relation is restricted only among the more knowledgeable electorate. The liberty of choice that ballot structure offers only concerns a reduced portion of the electorate, namely the more politically sophisticated one.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Lijphart, 1999) others do not (i.e. Aarts & Thomassen, 2008;Norris, 1999). Thus, the importance of proportionality is still an open question that requires more research.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ballot Structure and Satisfaction with Democracy

Bosch¹,

Orriols²

2014

Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, the positive effect of elections on satisfaction should be weak or inexistent in EP elections. On a more general level, following Aarts and Thomassen (2008), we expect that elections under majoritarian electoral rules allow for more accountability and, therefore, boost…”

Section: Hypothesis 2: Electoral Participation Increases Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout

Kostelka

Blais

2018

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political scientists, analysts and journalists alike have long believed that the degree of satisfaction with the functioning of democracy determines voter turnout. We use survey data from 24 panel studies to demonstrate that this causal relationship is actually reversed: voter turnout affects satisfaction with democracy. We also show that this reversed relationship is conditioned by election type, electoral system, and election outcomes. These findings are important because: (1) They question conventional wisdom and a large body of scientific literature; (2) They invite a more nuanced approach towards the study of the relationship between evaluations of regime performance and political participation; and (3) They emphasize the vital role of elections in shaping citizens’ perception of the democratic process.

show abstract

“…6 Furthermore, in regards to public perceptions, few studies compare mixed systems to pure systems. Aarts and Thomassen (2006) for example use the Comparative Study of Election Systems (CSES) data and find that mixed systems do worse than both majoritarian and proportional systems in public perceptions of accountability, representation, and democratic satisfaction. 7 Cursory evidence from 33 countries in the World Values Survey (WVS) also shows a lower percentage identifying as satisfied in mixed systems (33.71%) compared to non-mixed systems (46.45%).…”

Section: Losers' Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Losers Consent in Mixed Systems: Public Perceptions of Taiwan’s 2008 Legislative Yuan Election

Rich¹

2016

J. Contemp. East. Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elections are the foundation of representative democracy. Partisan differences in opinion naturally arise, yet until recently, few researchers analyzed the perceptions of democratic quality between those who win versus those who lose out in electoral competition. Losers' consent remains crucial for democratic stability and the variance in perceptions between winners and losers provides a means to assess the stability in democracies young and old. Despite the insight from this growing literature, researchers continue to focus primarily on Western democracies. Furthermore, what constitutes a winner requires greater clarity, particularly in mixed legislative system elections where voters choose both a district candidate and a party list. This paper intends to extend our understanding of losers' consent through a multilevel conception of electoral success, a conception more in tune with the dynamics of mixed systems.By definition mixed legislative systems employ at least two mechanisms to allocate seats in one chamber of a legislature. Most of these combinations are single member districts (SMDs) like those in the United States and United Kingdom, combined with seats by proportional representation (PR) allocated at the national or provincial level.1 Mixed systems were a rarity prior to 1990 with Germany as the only democracy to consistently employ a mixed legislative system. Since 1990 however, mixed systems have arisen in East and Southeast Asia, the former communist world, Latin America, Africa, and New Zealand. Just as pure PR systems were the electoral system of choice in the twentieth century, mixed systems have the potential to proliferate in a similar

show abstract

Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?

Cited by 207 publications

References 10 publications

Ballot Structure and Satisfaction with Democracy

Ballot Structure and Satisfaction with Democracy

The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout

Assessing Losers Consent in Mixed Systems: Public Perceptions of Taiwan’s 2008 Legislative Yuan Election

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About