Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy

Abstract

Previous research has shown that those who won an election are more satisfied with the way democracy works than those who lost. What is not clear, however, is whether it is the fact of winning (losing), per se, that generates (dis)satisfaction with democracy. The current study explores this winner/loser gap with the use of the 1997 Canadian federal election panel study. It makes a theoretical and methodological contribution to our understanding of the factors that foster satisfaction with democracy. At the theoretical level, we argue that voters gain different utility from winning at the constituency and national levels in a parliamentary system, and that their expectations about whether they will win or lose affect their degree of satisfaction with democracy. On the methodological front, our analysis includes a control group (non-voters) and incorporates a control for the level of satisfaction prior to the election. The results indicate that the effect of winning and losing on voters' satisfaction with democracy is significant even when controlling for ex ante satisfaction before the election takes place, and that the outcome of the election in the local constituency matters as much as the outcome of the national election. They fail to show, however, that expectations about the outcome of the election play a significant role in shaping satisfaction with democracy.The extant literature has provided ample empirical evidence that support for democratic institutions in liberal democracies varies among citizens. More precisely, the literature has convincingly demonstrated that those who vote for the winning party in electoral contests are generally more satisfied with democracy than those who vote for the losing parties.Yet we know relatively little about how and why this winner/loser gap is produced. We do not know whether winners become more satisfied (and losers more dissatisfied) immediately after the election or whether the difference emerges before the election. We do not know whether losers are more or less dissatisfied than those who do not play the game, non-voters. We do not know whether winning (or losing) in national elections matters more than winning (or losing) in local ones. Finally, we do not know whether expectations about the outcome of the election affect the extent to which winners and losers are satisfied with the way democracy works.This article examines the determinants of the winner/loser gap with the use of the 1997 Canadian Election Study (CES). Building on previous work on the subject, we develop a model that discriminates winners and losers at the local and national levels, includes non-voters and takes into account voters' expectations about whether they will win or lose. Our results indicate that the effect of

Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence From 25 Advanced Democracies

“…Before delving into the results of the multilevel models, we first present straightforward macro-level evidence on the general relationship between sociotropic congruence and 12 Anderson et al, 2005;Anderson and Guillory, 1997;Anderson and Tverdova, 2001;Anderson and LoTempio, 2002;Anderson and Mendes, 2006;Banducci and Karp, 2003;Blais and Gélineau, 2007;Curini et al 2012;Moehler, 2009;Singh 2013;Singh et al 2012. 13 Descriptive statistics for the variables included in our analyses can be found in the appendix, Table A2.…”

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

“…Increases in satisfaction with democracy were observed in the 1999 legislative election in New Zealand (Banducci and Karp 2003), the 2010 North RhineWestphalia election (Singh, Karakoç, and Blais 2012), and the French presidential election of 2012 (Beaudonnet et al 2014). Blais and Gélineau (2007) found a positive effect on voters in general and winners, particularly in the Canadian election of 1997. Finally, Blais, Morin-Chassé, and Singh (2015) found that satisfaction increased among those who voted for parties that gained greater shares of votes, seats, and cabinet portfolios.…”

Scandal Fatigue? Scandal Elections and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007

“…Does it measure overall democratic performance, trust in specific institutions, trust in politicians, support for democratic principles, or some mixture of these (Canache, Mondak, and Seligson 2001;Linde and Ekman 2003)? Its defenders agree that the meaning is unclear but maintain its usefulness as an overall measure of subjective legitimacy and trust (Klingemann 1999;Anderson 2002;Blais and Gélineau 2007). Given our interest in broad generalizations from specific events, our position is that multiple measures and finer distinctions would be desirable but are not absolutely crucial as long as we capture much of the broad category of general political trust.…”