The paranoid style of American elections: explaining perceptions of electoral integrity in an age of populism

Norris, Pippa; Garnett, Holly Ann; Grömping, Max

doi:10.1080/17457289.2019.1593181

Cited by 54 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An April 2021 Dallas Morning News/UT Tyler Poll found a small majority of Texas voters (52 percent) did not believe there was widespread voter fraud in Texas' elections, compared to 28 percent who did. The contested Electoral College results presented a case where attitudes in Texas were opposite from what we would expect from the out-party (Alvarez et al, 2011;Biggers, 2019;Fried and Harris, 2020;Norris, Garnett, and Grömping, 2020). Despite losing the elections for President and Senate in Texas, 70 percent of Texas Democrats rejected claims of fraud.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…I assume the statements by Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton that an expansion of absentee voting would be a scam suggests that viewers of the network would distrust the process (Fried and Harris, 2020;Norris, Garnett, and Grömping, 2020). Therefore, viewers of Fox News will be less likely to use absentee voting and more likely to oppose the expanded use of absentee voting than voters who primarily get their news from other outlets (H3).…”

Section: Revisiting Theories Of Modes Of Voting and Attitudes On Absentee Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies of mass polarization about election administration point to partisan self-interest (Biggers, 2019;Bowler and Donovan 2016;Gronke et al, 2019) and populist conspiracies that instill distrust as causes of divergent opinions (Fried and Harris, 2020;Norris, Garnett, and Grömping, 2020). Voters see the same actions through a partisan lens and interpret election reforms as promoting fraud through illegal participation or disenfranchisement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health

Owens

2021

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how the rapid spread of COVID-19 and political discourse framed absentee ballots as a solution to keep voters safe or a threat to the election's integrity. Did the increased attention to the use of absentee ballots in our elections encourage more people to participate absentee and support changes in Texas's election code to allow no-excuse absentee voting? Methods: Four surveys of Texas voters were conducted in April, June, September, and October to track voter attitudes about absentee voting during the election. Results: Voters who were uncomfortable voting in person were more likely to vote absentee and support new reforms. However, voters exposed to messages by elected officials who negatively portrayed the use of absentee voting were less likely to vote absentee during the pandemic and more likely to oppose new reforms. Conclusion: Despite the predicted effects of political information, the public's consideration of the health of others create a significant and lasting effect favoring the acceptance of expanding absentee ballots in a state with no-excuse absentee voting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Revisiting Theories Of Modes Of Voting and Attitudes On Absentee Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health

Owens

2021

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One bulwark against such a future is the American public's desire for elections that are fair and legitimate. Most Americans believe that elections are currently free and fair, and place a high importance on free and fair elections (DeSilver 2016; Gibson and Caldeira 2009), though support for democracy has declined somewhat among younger generations (Foa and Mounk 2016) and belief in the integrity of American elections has declined in recent years as conspiracy theories about electoral fraud have taken hold (Norris, Garnett, and Grömping 2020). As long as these beliefs hold, the public has an incentive to impose costs on elites who push elections too far from the norms of free and fair democracy, in the form of electoral punishment (Graham and Svolik 2020) or protest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Democratic Principles Constrain the Effectiveness of Elite Cues on Election Rules?

McCarthy

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public's perception of the fairness of an election rule is an important determinant of popular support for that rule. Thus, the public's fairness principles might act as a constraint on party elite attempts to manipulate election rules for their own electoral benefit. However, if party elites are able to influence what the public considers fair, the effectiveness of this constraint would be limited. This paper posits two possible mechanisms by which this elite influence could function. First, elites could change the public's perception of whether a given fairness principle applies to a given election rule. Second, elites could attempt to directly change which fairness principles people prioritize or endorse. This study tests both mechanisms using survey experiments, finding that elites are able to influence opinion on voting policy issues even when their messages use inapplicable principles. However, elites are unable to directly affect the democratic principles that citizens prioritize.

show abstract

“…The literature has clearly established that winners, losers and abstainers tend to differ in their evaluations of the fairness of a referendum or an election (e.g. Anderson et al, 2005; Cho and Kim, 2016; Craig et al, 2006; Daniller, 2016; Marien and Kern, 2018; Moehler, 2009; Moehler and Lindberg, 2009; Norris et al, 2019). However, given the steady increase in the number of referendums held in recent decades (Qvortrup, 2018) and the extent to which perceived fairness of elections has been examined, it is remarkable that it has not been investigated so far how citizens evaluate the fairness of a national referendum from before casting a vote until long after the result is announced.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moaners, Gloaters, and Bystanders: Perceived Fairness of the United Kingdom’s 2016 Referendum on the European Union

Schaffner

2020

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Referendums divide the electorate into winners, losers, and abstainers. Research has shown that these three groups tend to differ substantially in their evaluations of the fairness of a referendum. However, no study has investigated the nature and determinants of citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of a national referendum from long before until long after the vote. I address this lacuna by studying perceived fairness of the Brexit referendum using a four-wave panel dataset that tracks perceptions of fairness from before the referendum to 10 months after. The results demonstrate that winners, losers, and abstainers differ significantly in their fairness expectations and fairness evaluations after the vote and that the gap between them widened over time. Strength of identification with the referendum camps substantially moderates perceived fairness. Winners who expected to win did not expect the referendum to be conducted more fairly than winners who expected to lose.

show abstract

The paranoid style of American elections: explaining perceptions of electoral integrity in an age of populism

Cited by 54 publications

References 47 publications

Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health

Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health

Do Democratic Principles Constrain the Effectiveness of Elite Cues on Election Rules?

Moaners, Gloaters, and Bystanders: Perceived Fairness of the United Kingdom’s 2016 Referendum on the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About