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

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2025-02-01 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":2.9000,"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.
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
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
How congruent are populist parties with their constituencies? Evidence from the 2019 European Parliament Elections in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden Editorial Board Explaining 2020 Trump support: The role of anti-Muslim, pro-police, and anti-BLM attitudes Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not Explicit partisan candidate support and bureaucratic responsiveness in hyper-partisan environment: Evidence from a field experiment
×
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:481959085
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