Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102880
Cecile Tobin , Ben Aronson , Sharanya Majumder , Hannah Tanenbaum , Ethan Weber , John M. Carey , Brian Fogarty , Brendan Nyhan , Jason Reifler
{"title":"Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not","authors":"Cecile Tobin ,&nbsp;Ben Aronson ,&nbsp;Sharanya Majumder ,&nbsp;Hannah Tanenbaum ,&nbsp;Ethan Weber ,&nbsp;John M. Carey ,&nbsp;Brian Fogarty ,&nbsp;Brendan Nyhan ,&nbsp;Jason Reifler","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Which factors cause citizens to think that an election was determined by fraud? Fraud beliefs have been shown to be more common among supporters of losing candidates. In the current U.S. context, fraud beliefs are also higher among Republicans than Democrats. However, we know less about the roles of electoral margin and candidate race. Beliefs that candidates won due to fraud might be more likely in closely contested elections, where small shifts in vote share could be decisive, or when non-white candidates defeat white candidates given perceived associations between race and crime or corruption. We examine these questions with a unique survey in which a nationally representative sample (n <span><math><mo>=</mo></math></span> 2896) reported their beliefs about the legitimacy of a random subset of 2022 U.S. House election outcomes. Our results indicate that Republican participants are far more likely than are Democrats to believe that House election results were determined by fraud, and that the partisan gap is larger for contests the GOP candidate lost. However, we do not find convincing evidence that these perceptions were driven by the margin by which the losing candidate was defeated or the apparent race of the candidates. These results suggest that party is the dominant factor in perceptions of election legitimacy, trumping losing vote margin and candidate race.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102880"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001380","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Which factors cause citizens to think that an election was determined by fraud? Fraud beliefs have been shown to be more common among supporters of losing candidates. In the current U.S. context, fraud beliefs are also higher among Republicans than Democrats. However, we know less about the roles of electoral margin and candidate race. Beliefs that candidates won due to fraud might be more likely in closely contested elections, where small shifts in vote share could be decisive, or when non-white candidates defeat white candidates given perceived associations between race and crime or corruption. We examine these questions with a unique survey in which a nationally representative sample (n = 2896) reported their beliefs about the legitimacy of a random subset of 2022 U.S. House election outcomes. Our results indicate that Republican participants are far more likely than are Democrats to believe that House election results were determined by fraud, and that the partisan gap is larger for contests the GOP candidate lost. However, we do not find convincing evidence that these perceptions were driven by the margin by which the losing candidate was defeated or the apparent race of the candidates. These results suggest that party is the dominant factor in perceptions of election legitimacy, trumping losing vote margin and candidate race.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
败选预示着人们会认为选举是由舞弊决定的,但败选幅度和候选人的竞争却不会
哪些因素导致公民认为选举是由欺诈决定的?在落选候选人的支持者中,舞弊信念更为普遍。在当前的美国背景下,共和党人的欺诈信念也高于民主党人。然而,我们对选举差额和候选人竞选的作用知之甚少。在竞争激烈的选举中,候选人因欺诈而获胜的信念可能更有可能出现,因为选票份额的微小变化可能是决定性的,或者当非白人候选人击败白人候选人时,考虑到种族与犯罪或腐败之间的联系。我们通过一项独特的调查来研究这些问题,在这项调查中,一个具有全国代表性的样本(n = 2896)报告了他们对2022年美国众议院选举结果的随机子集的合法性的看法。我们的研究结果表明,共和党参与者比民主党人更有可能相信众议院选举结果是由欺诈决定的,而且在共和党候选人输掉的比赛中,党派差距更大。然而,我们没有找到令人信服的证据表明,这些看法是由败选候选人的差距或候选人的明显种族所驱动的。这些结果表明,政党是对选举合法性认知的主导因素,超过了败选率和候选人种族。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Greater intra-party democracy in candidate selection has different effects on gender, ethnicity and class The Green Gender Gap: Environmental attitudes and pro-environmental vote choice across Europe A populist incitement? Populism, attack rhetoric, and support for political violence Money talks? Party financial incentives to promote underrepresented groups Regional patterns in citizens’ reactions to a political assassination: Evidence from Japan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1