Trust in Elections

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Daedalus Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1162/daed_a_01953
Charles Stewart
{"title":"Trust in Elections","authors":"Charles Stewart","doi":"10.1162/daed_a_01953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The sometimes violent movement to reject the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election draws our attention to the topic of trust in the institution of American election administration. An examination of this topic must make an important distinction between trust in elections (a psychological construct) and the trustworthiness of election results (a legal construct). The history of election administration in the United States is full of examples of efforts to increase the trustworthiness of elections to ensure that results are based on fair and competent administration. The resilience of these efforts was on display following the 2020 election, as formal institutions rejected claims that the election was fraudulent. Still, the past two decades have seen a decline in trust in American elections that has primarily been driven by a slow but steady decline in trust among Republicans. Surprisingly, the increased polarization in trust most recently has been due more to Democrats suddenly becoming more trusting. Election officials must continue to try to overcome attacks on trust in the system, but it is unclear how long they can sustain the legal system guaranteeing free and fair elections without broad-based public trust in how we administer elections.","PeriodicalId":47980,"journal":{"name":"Daedalus","volume":"151 1","pages":"234-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Daedalus","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01953","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The sometimes violent movement to reject the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election draws our attention to the topic of trust in the institution of American election administration. An examination of this topic must make an important distinction between trust in elections (a psychological construct) and the trustworthiness of election results (a legal construct). The history of election administration in the United States is full of examples of efforts to increase the trustworthiness of elections to ensure that results are based on fair and competent administration. The resilience of these efforts was on display following the 2020 election, as formal institutions rejected claims that the election was fraudulent. Still, the past two decades have seen a decline in trust in American elections that has primarily been driven by a slow but steady decline in trust among Republicans. Surprisingly, the increased polarization in trust most recently has been due more to Democrats suddenly becoming more trusting. Election officials must continue to try to overcome attacks on trust in the system, but it is unclear how long they can sustain the legal system guaranteeing free and fair elections without broad-based public trust in how we administer elections.
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
选举中的信任
反对2020年美国总统大选结果的暴力运动引起了我们对美国选举管理制度信任的关注。对这一主题的研究必须在选举信任(一种心理建构)和选举结果的可信度(一种法律建构)之间做出重要区分。美国选举管理的历史充满了努力提高选举可信度以确保结果建立在公平和称职的管理基础上的例子。这些努力的弹性在2020年大选后得到了体现,因为正式机构否认了选举存在欺诈的说法。尽管如此,过去二十年来,人们对美国选举的信任有所下降,这主要是由共和党人对选举的信任缓慢而稳定地下降造成的。令人惊讶的是,最近信任两极分化的加剧更多是由于民主党人突然变得更加信任。选举官员必须继续努力克服对制度信任的攻击,但如果公众对我们管理选举的方式没有广泛的信任,他们还能维持保障自由公正选举的法律制度多久,目前还不清楚。
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
Daedalus
Daedalus Multiple-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Daedalus was founded in 1955 as the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It draws on the enormous intellectual capacity of the American Academy, whose members are among the nation"s most prominent thinkers in the arts, sciences, and humanities. Each issue addresses a theme with authoritative essays on topics such as judicial independence, reflecting on the humanities, the global nuclear future, the challenge of mass incarceration, the future of news, the economy, the military, and race.
期刊最新文献
Disorders of Mood: The Experience of Those Who Have Them Rethinking Psychiatry: Solutions for a Sociogenic Crisis Two Sides of Depression: Medical & Social Indigenous Historical Trauma: Alter-Native Explanations for Mental Health Inequities The Biology of Mental Disorders: Progress at Last
×
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