Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:01:25.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Don't Partisans Sanction Electoral Malpractice?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2022

Laurits F. Aarslew Open the ORCID record for Laurits F. Aarslew [Opens in a new window]
Laurits F. Aarslew*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: lfaa@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Partisans rarely punish their party at the polls for violating democratic norms or cheating in elections. However, we know little about the underlying reasons. I examine why partisans rarely sanction in-party malpractice. Using pre-registered survey experiments in Denmark and Mexico, I examine the different steps in how partisans adjust their views in response to revelations of electoral malpractice and distinguish between two substantively different explanations. Do pervasive biases prevent partisans from viewing in-party malpractice as illegitimate? Or, do partisans accurately update their views when learning about malpractice but refrain from voting against their party? The analysis demonstrates that partisans do not apply double standards when evaluating malpractice. However, although partisans punish in-party malpractice, they hold opposing parties in such low esteem that even revelations of malpractice do not change their minds. These findings contribute to our understanding of how partisans think about electoral malpractice and political malfeasance more broadly.

Keywords

electoral malpracticepartisanshipelectionspublic opinionsurvey experimentdemocracy
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 407 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarslew, LF (2022) Replication data for: ‘Why don't partisans sanction electoral malpractice?’ Harvard Dataverse V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WQVJDOGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, AI and Webster, SW (2018) Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology 39(S1), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, CJ and Tverdova, YV (2003) Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47(1), 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, CJ et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anduiza, E, Gallego, A and Munoz, J (2013) Turning a blind eye: experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies 46(12), 1664–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APSA Council (2020) Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research. Technical Report. Available from https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JTOSEWCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, E et al. (2018) Priors Rule: When Do Malfeasance Revelations Help or Hurt Incumbent Parties? NBER Working Paper No. 24888. Available from http://www.nber.org/papers/w24888Google Scholar
Banducci, SA and Karp, JA (2003) How elections change the way citizens view the political system: campaigns, media effects and electoral outcomes in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science 33(3), 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2002) Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, E (2014) From voter ID to party ID: how political parties affect perceptions of election fraud in the U.S. Electoral Studies 35, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S (2008) Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: a cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies 27(2), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S (2011) Electoral Malpractice. Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisgaard, M (2015) Bias will find a way: economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. The Journal of Politics 77(3), 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisgaard, M (2019) How getting the facts right can fuel partisan-motivated reasoning. American Journal of Political Science 63(4), 824–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blader, SL and Tyler, TR (2003) A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a ‘fair’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(6), 747–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blair, G and McClendon, G (2021) Conducting experiments in multiple contexts. In Druckman, J and Green, DP (eds), Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøggild, T (2016) How politicians’ reelection efforts can reduce public trust, electoral support, and policy approval. Political Psychology 37(6), 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøggild, T and Petersen, MB (2015). The evolved functions of procedural fairness: an adaptation for politics. In Shackelford, TK and Hansen, RD (eds), The Evolution of Morality. Cham.: Springer, 247–276.Google Scholar
Breitenstein, S (2019) Choosing the crook: a conjoint experiment on voting for corrupt politicians. Research & Politics 6(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J and Wiesenfeld, BM (1996) An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin 120, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campell, A et al. (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cantú, F (2019) The fingerprints of fraud: evidence from Mexico's 1988 presidential election. American Political Science Review 113(3), 710–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J et al. (2020) Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 32(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Claassen, RL and Ensley, MJ (2016) Motivated reasoning and yard-sign-stealing partisans: mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal. Political Behavior 38, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, D and Wolak, J (2012) When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior 34(2), 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Easton, D (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science 5(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, AC (2014) Partisanship and electoral accountability: evidence from the UK expenses scandal. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9(4), 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elklit, J (2020) The electoral system: fair and well-functioning. In Christiansen, PM, Elklit, J and Nedergaard, P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Danish Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–75.Google Scholar
Fjelde, H and Höglund, K (2016) Electoral institutions and electoral violence in sub-Saharan Africa. British Journal of Political Science 46(2), 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, BJ et al. (2007) Same facts, different interpretations: partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, AS and Green, DP (1999) Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science 2(1), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilley, B (2009) The Right to Rule. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, MH and Svolik, MW (2020) Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review 114(2), 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D and Yamamoto, T (2015) Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8), 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbing, JR and Theis-Morse, E (2008) Voice, validation, and legitimacy. In Sullivan, BA, Snyder, M and Sullivan, JL (eds), Cooperation: The Political Psychology of Effective Human Interaction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 123–142.Google Scholar
Hill, SJ (2017) Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. The Journal of Politics 79(4), 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klašnja, M (2017) Uninformed voters and corrupt politicians. American Politics Research 45(2), 256–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klašnja, M and Tucker, JA (2013) The economy, corruption, and the vote: evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies 32(3), 536–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramon, E (2016) Electoral handouts as information. World Politics 68(3), 454–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, PJ and Cropanzano, R (2000) Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research 13(4), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M, Sacks, A and Tyler, T (2009) Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist 53(3), 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, SM (1960) Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Magalhães, PC and Aguiar-Conraria, L (2019) Procedural fairness, the economy, and support for political authorities. Political Psychology 40(1), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauk, M (2020) Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust. Quality & Quantity Online First, 1–20Google Scholar
McCann, JA and Domínquez, JI (1998) Mexicans react to electoral fraud and political corruption: an assessment of public opinion and voting behavior. Electoral Studies 17(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, DC (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P and Grömping, M (2019) Electoral integrity worldwide. Electoral Integrity Project, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15294.33603. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333385734_Electoral_Integrity_WorldwideGoogle Scholar
Parker-Stephen, E (2013) Tides of disagreement: how reality facilitates (and inhibits) partisan public opinion. The Journal of Politics 75(4), 1077–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter, OJ and Szakonyi, D (2021) Electoral manipulation and regime support: survey evidence from Russia. World Politics 73(2), 275–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rød, EG (2019) Fraud, grievances, and post-election protests in competitive authoritarian regimes. Electoral Studies 58, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A (2013) The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, J and Gerring, J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2), 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, A (2013) Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice, and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solaz, H, De Vries, CE and de Geus, RA (2019) In-group loyalty and the punishment of corruption. Comparative Political Studies 52(6), 896–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svolik, MW (2019) Polarization versus democracy. Journal of Democracy 30(3), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szakonyi, D (2021) Candidate filtering: the strategic use of electoral manipulations in Russia. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 649–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, CS and Lodge, M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, M and Weeks, JLP (2020) Public opinion and foreign electoral intervention. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 856–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, TR (1997) The psychology of legitimacy: a relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(4), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57(1), 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulbig, SG (2008) Voice is not enough. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(3), 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M (2020) Affective polarization in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies 69, 1–13.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, R and Winters, MS (2017) Can citizens discern? Information credibility, political sophistication, and the punishment of corruption in Brazil. The Journal of Politics 79(1), 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilking, JR (2011) The portability of electoral procedural fairness: evidence from experimental studies in China and the United States. Political Behavior 33(1), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, JR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Aarslew Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WQVJDO
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Aarslew supplementary material

Aarslew supplementary material

Download Aarslew supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 467.3 KB