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 , Ben Aronson , Sharanya Majumder , Hannah Tanenbaum , Ethan Weber , John M. Carey , Brian Fogarty , Brendan Nyhan , 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":2.9000,"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":"","PubModel":"","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.
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.