Winner Loser Gap Research Articles

Winners, losers, and affective polarization

We analyze the winner-loser gap in affective polarization. Using data from 37 countries over years 1996 – 2016 from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), we find that winners’ affective polarization is significantly greater than losers’, and the difference is due to winners’ consistently higher in-party favoritism. These findings are robust when controlling for partisanship and ideological distance to winning party. Although much of the literature focuses on the impact of out-party dislike on affective polarization, our results align with research in social identity theory indicating that intergroup discrimination is driven primarily by in-group favoritism rather than out-group dislike. Given that winners are more likely than losers to support their favored party’s violation of democratic norms, our work suggests that in-party favoritism is an important but overlooked contributor to problematic implications of affective polarization.

Social trust and the winner-loser gap

The electoral winner-loser gap literature has shown sharp differences between citizens who vote for winning and losing options in key indicators of political support. In this article, we claim that the influence of election results can extend beyond the political domain and reach citizens’ level of social trust. Indeed, elections can reveal to citizens who voted for the winning option that their preferences are aligned with the majority opinion of society, while it signals the opposite to electoral losers. We hypothesize that this contrast will trigger a gap in the level of social trust between winners and losers, and that this gap will be larger among politically engaged voters relative to those more disinterested in political affairs. To contrast our hypotheses, we conducted two online panel surveys with a pre-post electoral design during two recent elections in Chile. Estimates from Two-way Fixed Effects regression models support our main theoretical expectations.

Can political parties narrow the intra-party winner-loser gap? An experimental test of the moderating impact of strategic communication

Recent empirical studies show that winning or losing an intra-party decision affects party members' attitudes and behavior concerning their party. This paper builds on these findings and examines how political parties can narrow this intra-party winner-loser gap. More specifically, it argues that the gap in attitudes and behavior of party members is influenced by how the outcome of a decision is justified. A survey experiment conducted among two Flemish parties examines the effect of winning or losing the decision of government participation and the moderating impact of focusing on a specific set of a party's goals and negative references to other parties. Results show a negative effect of focusing on a specific set of a party's goals on the level of decision acceptance but this effect does not spill over to other potential attitudinal or intentional behavioral reactions including party and membership satisfaction, support for the decision-making process, activity within the party, leaving the party, and casting a deviant vote. In addition, no moderating impact is found for negative references to other parties.

Anti-Democratic Attitudes, the Winner-Loser Gap, and the Rise of the Left in Mexico

Weak support for democratic norms and institutions poses a serious challenge to the survival of democracy. Studies of public opinion often assume that citizens hold politicians accountable for respecting democratic norms. This study examines citizens’ attitudes toward democracy in Mexico. It focuses on the 2018 election as a critical juncture when Andrés Manuel López Obrador (MORENA) won the presidential election on his third attempt. Data from the LAPOP’s Americas Barometer (2012-2019) show that—consistent with the loser-winner gap literature —President López Obrador’s supporters increased their satisfaction with democracy after the 2018 election. However, unlike most voters who elected winners of elections, they did not become more committed to democracy. Even in some cases, after 2018, AMLO voters are more likely than other partisan groups to suppor t anti-democratic interventions, particularly support for a coup when crime is high. The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of the winner-loser gap in the context of Mexico’s democratic erosion. Although the results of this paper are based on exploratory evidence, they highlight that an important portion of voters is willing to sacrifice democracy and support their co-partisans’ actions that undermine democracy.

Only losers use excuses? Exploring the association between the winner-loser gap and referendum attitudes following a local referendum

ABSTRACT Consultative referendums are becoming more widely used as a way of responding to rising public discontent with the workings of representative democracy. Consequently, consultative referendums have become an integral part of democratic decision-making processes across the world. However, how the population reacts to the referendum outcome is expected to differ among the population as referendums, by design, divides the participants into winners and losers. In turn, creating a winner-loser gap with potentially polarizing societal consequences. This study therefore seeks to explore how this winner-loser gap is associated with several types of referendum attitudes following the outcome of a local referendum. Using survey data (N = 3113) gathered after a high stakes local referendum in Finland, the more explicit research purpose is therefore to analyze how individual-level opinions about referendums, turnout thresholds and margin of victory thresholds are related to the winner-loser gap. Additionally, we also control for whether these associations are moderated by external efficacy and political trust. The results clearly imply that the winner-loser gap have consequences for several types of referendum attitudes, contributing to scholarship about the effects derived from the winner-loser gap.

Sweet victory, bitter defeat: The amplifying effects of affective and perceived ideological polarization on the winner–loser gap in political support

AbstractAccepting defeat in the aftermath of elections is crucial for the stability of democracies. But in times of intense polarization, the voluntary consent of electoral losers seems less obvious. In this paper, I study whether affective and perceived ideological polarization amplify the winner–loser gap in political support. Using multilevel growth curve modelling on pre and post‐election panel data from the British Election Study Internet Panel collected during the 2015 and 2019 UK general elections, I show that the winner–loser gap is indeed more pronounced amongst voters with higher levels of affective and perceived ideological polarization. Moreover, the results illustrate that polarized voters experience a stark decrease in their support for the political system following their electoral loss. Given the high and, in some Western democracies, rising polarization levels, these findings have important implications for losers’ consent and the stability of democracies in election times.

Electoral outcomes and satisfaction with democracy: A comparison of regional and national elections

Subnational governments have become more numerous and more powerful around the world, increasing the importance of subnational elections. However, we still know little about the impact of regional electoral outcomes on citizens' political support, and there is no systematic comparison of the impact of election outcomes on citizens' satisfaction with democracy. In this research note, we provide such a comparison by investigating how the winner-loser gap in citizens’ satisfaction with democracy differs across regional and national elections. Using data from Canada, Germany and Spain, we first show that there is a winner-loser gap in satisfaction with democracy following regional elections. The winner-loser gap at the regional level is, however, substantially smaller than the one generated by national election outcomes. Next, we find heterogeneous effects for voters who believe that the regional government strongly influences their quality of life. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

Suspicious Minds: Unexpected Election Outcomes, Perceived Electoral Integrity and Satisfaction With Democracy in American Presidential Elections.

A great amount of research has noted the existence of a gap between election winners and losers in relation to perceptions of electoral fairness and satisfaction with democracy. One aspect of the winner-loser gap that has been overlooked is the impact of citizens' expectations about election outcomes on these attitudes. More precisely, how do citizens react to unexpected defeats and victories? Are individuals on the losing side less critical of the electoral process or dissatisfied with democracy when they recognize beforehand that their favourite party or candidate was likely to be defeated? Does experiencing a surprise victory lead to a boost in perceived electoral integrity or democratic satisfaction? To answer these questions, I use data from the 1996, 2000, 2004, 2012, 2016 and 2020 ANES. While there is little evidence that expectations exert a major influence on post-election attitudes, outcome unexpectedness seems to have decreased confidence in the vote counting process among losers, independents and even winners in the 2020 election. The results show the considerable influence that fraud claims and conspiracy theories can have on public opinion when elected officials and candidates push a consistent story line of electoral malfeasance and corruption in an effort to denigrate political opponents.

Mind the gap(s): Winning, losing, and perceptions of electoral integrity in mixed-member proportional systems

This study investigates whether and how experiences of winning and losing at the ballot box shape voters' views about the integrity of the electoral process in Germany's mixed-member proportional system. Relying on comprehensive data from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES) 2021, the analysis provides evidence for a consistent winner-loser gap in voters' electoral-integrity perceptions, with electoral losers evaluating the electoral process systematically more negative than electoral winners. Moreover, the analysis shows that the winner-loser gap is particularly pronounced for voters who lost in two consecutive federal elections (‘repeated losers’) as well as for those who suffered electoral defeat with both their list and district votes (‘double losers’). These findings provide novel insights on how voters in mixed-member proportional systems cope with winning and losing at the ballot box, highlighting that electoral losers place (part of) the blame for their electoral defeat on the electoral process and procedures as such. In addition, the findings point to the relevance of specific features of electoral systems in shaping winner-loser gaps in electoral-integrity beliefs.

Revisiting the Winner–loser Gap in Support for Democracy: Exploring Election, Government–Opposition, and Partisan Explanations

Revisiting the Winner–loser Gap in Support for Democracy: Exploring Election, Government–Opposition, and Partisan Explanations

Lost but not blown away: How do losers of party leadership contests react?

Many Western parties have opened up the process of leadership selection in order to increase the party’s attractiveness, but negative reactions of losers in such contests might undermine these efforts. It has extensively been documented that losers of elections or referendums become less supportive of the political system, but the question is whether such a winner-loser gap also occurs in the context of intra-party elections. We examine unique panel data collected before and after the leadership elections of the Flemish Christian-Democratic Party and Liberal-Democratic Party and investigate the difference in change in attitudes and behavior of party members who voted for the losing candidates and those who voted for the winner. Contrary to earlier research on candidate selection, we find that only decision acceptance differs between winners and losers, while there is no gap in support for the electoral process, party membership satisfaction, and members’ activity within the party.

Does the Election Winner–Loser Gap Extend to Subjective Health and Well-Being?

Political scientists have studied extensively the gap between winners and losers of democratic elections with regard to satisfaction with democracy. We ask whether the winner–loser gap extends beyond the political domain to subjective health and well-being as well. Building on insights from biology and coalitional psychology, we hypothesize that winning and losing elections could affect one’s outlook on life, happiness, and subjective health. We comprehensively test these theoretical propositions with cross-sectional data from the 2012 and 2018 waves of the European Social Survey. We document significant gaps between winners and losers with respect to measures of subjective personal well-being. To further probe the causal nature of these winner–loser effects, we trace changes in well-being following election wins and losses using a panel dataset from the Netherlands, where we find weaker supportive evidence. Overall, our results suggest that winning and losing democratic elections can have much wider-reaching consequences than previously recognized.

Designing a Winner–Loser Gap for WTA in Subthreshold. Resolution Performance Revisited

The paper pioneers a thorough mathematical approach for the Lazzaro variant of the W(inner) T(ake) A(ll) maximum rank and amplitude analog selector. Two exact levels of output which split the maximum and determine the resolution, are found for the first time. At the input, a list of currents left( I_{1},I_{2},ldots ,I_{N}right) from a large family {{mathcal {L}}} with smallest relative distance Delta on a left[ 0,I_{M}right] scale is applied. To distinguish the largest current I_{w} (the winner) from the second largest I_{l} (the loser), the paper proposes two decision levels, {overline{D}} and {underline{D}}, for the output voltage list left( U_{1},U_{2},ldots ,U_{N}right) . The upper level {overline{D}} is surpassed only by the U_{w} winner and encodes the winning rank w. All other ranks are placed under the lower level {underline{D}}. Two rigorously treated optimization problems with inequality constraints lead to the identification of two input lists that yield the levels {overline{D}} and {underline{D}} as outputs. They are valid for processing any list in the {mathcal {L}} family. The index left( {overline{D}}-{underline{D}}right) /U_{M}—“the output resolution”—expresses how large the gap between the first and the second component on the left[ 0,U_{M}right] scale is. It exceeds “the input resolution,” i.e., the similar index Delta /I_{M} at the input and the two depend monotonically on each other. Widely commented numerical examples are presented.

Regime types and winner-loser Gaps in support for democracy in East Asia

ABSTRACT What is the effect of regime type on democratic support among political winners and losers? Existing studies on the winner-loser gap in political attitudes mostly discuss satisfaction with democracy and political trust without testing the conditional effect of political regimes. We argue that because winners and losers have different understandings of the word “democracy,” support for democracy as an ideal political system is not a valid measurement of democratic support in autocracies. In this article, we examine support for liberal democratic values in different regime types. We find a clear winner-loser gap in competitive authoritarian regimes since supporters of the ruling parties are less enthusiastic about democratic principles that would constrain executive power than those who support the opposition. In democracies, this gap is much smaller as all voters may become political underdogs after free and fair elections; both winners and losers prefer civil liberties and limited executive power, therefore they uphold democratic values at similar levels. We test our argument using four waves of the Asian Barometer Survey.

Essential Victories, Painful Defeats: The Moderating Effects of Polarization on the Winner-Loser Gap in Political Support

Essential Victories, Painful Defeats: The Moderating Effects of Polarization on the Winner-Loser Gap in Political Support

Winning, Losing, and the Quality of Democracy

Citizens who voted for a party that won the election are more satisfied with democracy than those who did not. This winner–loser gap has recently been found to vary with the quality of electoral democracy: the higher the quality of democracy, the smaller the gap. However, we do not know what drives this relationship. Is it driven by losers, winners, or both? And Why? Linking our work to the literature on motivated reasoning and macro salience and benefiting from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project—covering 163 elections in 51 countries between 1996 and 2018, our results show that the narrower winner–loser gap in well-established electoral democracies is not only a result of losers being more satisfied with democracy, but also of winners being less satisfied with their victory. Our findings carry important implications since a narrow winner–loser gap appears as a key feature of healthy democratic systems.

Voting and winning: perceptions of electoral integrity in consolidating democracies

ABSTRACT How do voters in consolidating democracies see electoral integrity? How does election affect the change in perception of electoral integrity among these voters? What role does winning play in seeing an election as free and fair? Building on the theory of the winner-loser gap, we answer these questions using original two-wave panel surveys we conducted before and after three parliamentary elections in Southeast Europe in 2018 and 2020. The article focuses on changes of perception of electoral integrity as a function of satisfaction with the electoral results in contexts where the quality of elections has always been at the centre of political conflict. We specifically explore the socialization effect of elections in environments with notoriously low trust in political institutions and high electoral stakes. The article goes beyond the “sore loser” hypothesis and examines voters’ both political preferences and personal characteristics potentially responsible for the change in perception of electoral integrity over the course of electoral cycle.

Legislative strength and democratic satisfaction in presidential democracies

The gap between electoral winners and losers in democratic satisfaction has been well documented in the literature. Scholars further argue that in consensual systems, where the institutional design involves more power sharing, the winner-loser gap is smaller than in majoritarian systems. However, how the powers of legislatures, the primary national-level agency to impose restraints on the executive, affect the winner-loser gap has not been thoroughly studied. Utilizing data of 29 countries in the world over ten years, this paper verifies that in presidential democracies, when legislatures have more oversight power, the winner-loser gap in satisfaction tends to be reduced. The relationships are particularly evident when opposition parties have distinct policy platforms, as these oppositions are better able to utilize the legislative arena to voice their positions. Furthermore, the effect of legislative strength on losers’ consent is more pronounced among voters who are more interested in politics.

Electoral Systems and Political Attitudes: Experimental Evidence

The quality of a democracy is, in part, determined by citizen attitudes. In particular, electoral winners and losers should believe that elections are fair, and interparty animosity should be minimal. While scholars have argued that disproportional electoral institutions increase the perceived system legitimacy gap between electoral winners and losers and increase affective polarization, they have relied on cross-sectional observational data. As correlates of electoral systems are also correlated with these attitudes, causal statements linking systems to attitudes are problematic. We also do not know whether people react to unfairness endemic to plurality systems or the downstream effects of these institutions, such as more vitriolic campaigns or elite polarization. Using a novel large-scale behavioral game that randomized participants to different electoral systems with other participants and that varied both in rules and number of parties to choose from, we examine whether electoral institutions directly affect subsequent attitudes. We find that non-plurality systems with many parties have the smallest winner-loser gap. While increasing the number of parties decrease interparty animosity, we found, surprisingly, that plurality systems on their own had the lowest levels of interparty animosty. However, within proportional systems, increasing the number of parties decreases interparty animosity.

Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?

We provide the first individual-level test of whether holding supranational elections in the European Union fosters satisfaction with European Union democracy. First, we examine whether participation at the European Parliament election fosters satisfaction with democracy and whether, among those who participated, a winner–loser gap materializes at the EU level. Second, we examine under which conditions participating and winning in the election affect satisfaction with European Union democracy, focusing on the moderating role of exclusive national identity. Our approach relies on panel data collected during the 2019 European Parliament elections in eight countries. We demonstrate that while participating and winning increase satisfaction, such positive boost does not materialize among those with exclusive national identity. These findings hold an important message: elections are no cure to deep-seated alienation.