IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i3p85-d826848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Rose

    (Department of Politics, People, and Place, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK)

  • Cees van der Eijk

    (School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK)

Abstract

Almost all academic literature about the causes and consequences of fairness of elections and referenda is based on retrospective evaluations. One of the strongest findings of such studies is that nonvoting is higher among citizens who retrospectively perceived an election as unfair. However, on logical grounds, it is impossible to attribute lower rates of voting to retrospectively perceived unfairness because at the time of the vote citizens can only rely on their prospective expectations of fairness. Moreover, it is well documented that retrospective evaluations are strongly influenced by the outcome of the election which is, at the time of voting, still unknown. In view of the dearth of earlier studies on prospective views of electoral fairness, this article presents the first major exploratory analyses of determinants and consequences of prospective expectations of electoral fairness. Using data from Britain about expectations of fairness of three general elections and two referenda in the period between 2014 and 2019, it shows that the public hold mixed views about the fairness they expect to find when voting. The article demonstrates that these prospective fairness beliefs are sometimes noticeably different to retrospective beliefs in terms of their predictors. Moreover, in sharp contrast to literature based on retrospective evaluations, this article also finds that prospective evaluations do not importantly affect the decision to vote. These findings have important implications for how we understand and evaluate the inclusiveness of elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Rose & Cees van der Eijk, 2022. "The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:85-:d:826848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/3/85/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/3/85/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Benoit Hardouin & Angelique Bonnaud-Antignac & Veronique Sebille, 2011. "Nonparametric item response theory using Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(1), pages 30-51, March.
    2. Esaiasson, Peter & Persson, Mikael & Gilljam, Mikael & Lindholm, Torun, 2019. "Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 291-314, January.
    3. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 425-441, June.
    4. Nadeau, Richard & Blais, André, 1993. "Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers' Consent," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 553-563, October.
    5. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 425-441, June.
    6. Cees van der Eijk & Jonathan Rose, 2015. "Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data – Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-31, March.
    7. Shane Singh & Ignacio Lago & André Blais, 2011. "Winning and Competitiveness as Determinants of Political Support," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 92(3), pages 695-709, September.
    8. Moehler, Devra C., 2009. "Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election Losers and Winners in Africa," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 345-366, April.
    9. Ian McAllister & Stephen White, 2011. "Public Perceptions of Electoral Fairness in Russia," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(4), pages 663-683.
    10. Matthew DeBell & Jon A. Krosnick & Katie Gera & David S. Yeager & Michael P. McDonald, 2020. "The Turnout Gap in Surveys: Explanations and Solutions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 1133-1162, November.
    11. Toby S. James & Alistair Clark, 2021. "Delivering electoral integrity under pressure: local government, electoral administration, and the 2016 Brexit referendum," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 186-207, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mayne, Quinton & Hakhverdian, Armen, 2016. "Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies," Scholarly Articles 25302405, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    3. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    4. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    5. Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    6. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    7. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    8. Angeline G. A. Nariswari & Qimei Chen, 2016. "Siding with the underdog: is your customer voting effort a sweet deal for your competitors?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 701-713, December.
    9. Carolina Plescia & Jean-François Daoust & André Blais, 2021. "Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 94-113, March.
    10. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    11. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    12. John, Peter & Sjoberg, Fredrik M, 2020. "Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Mei Zhang & Xinliang Wang, 2023. "Measurement of Common Prosperity of Chinese Rural Households Using Graded Response Models: Evidence from Zhejiang Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-16, March.
    14. Hartung, Peter, 2020. "The impact of self-awareness on leadership behavior," Journal of Applied Leadership and Management, Hochschule Kempten - University of Applied Sciences, Professional School of Business & Technology, vol. 8, pages 1-21.
    15. Ignacio Lago & Sandra Bermúdez & Marc Guinjoan & Pablo Simón, 2014. "Turnout and fractionalization," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 1404, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    16. Susumu Ohnuma & Miki Yokoyama & Shogo Mizutori, 2022. "Procedural Fairness and Expected Outcome Evaluations in the Public Acceptance of Sustainability Policymaking: A Case Study of Multiple Stepwise Participatory Programs to Develop an Environmental Maste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    17. Christopher Foote & Tyler Hounshell & William D. Nordhaus & Douglas Rivers & Pamela Torola, 2021. "Measuring the U.S. Employment Situation Using Online Panels: The Yale Labor Survey," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2282, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Olivier Beaumais & Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2024. "Unaware corporate social responsibility: impact of firm size, motivations and external pressures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(20), pages 2386-2406, April.
    19. Mohammad Al Khasawneh & Abdel-Aziz Ahmad Sharabati & Shafig Al-Haddad & Rania Al-Daher & Sarah Hammouri & Sima Shaqman, 2023. "Consumer’s Attitude towards Display Google Ads," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    20. Bol, Damien & Blais, André & Coulombe, Maxime & Laslier, Jean-François & Pilet, Jean-Benoit, 2023. "Choosing an electoral rule: Values and self-interest in the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:85-:d:826848. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.