IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politicians, Electoral Integrity, and Electoral Management Bodies: A Cross‐National Study on Satisfaction With Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Valere Gaspard

    (School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada / Leadership and Democracy Lab, Western University, Canada)

Abstract

Competitive elections that are free and fair are the bedrock of stable representative democracies. In this critical moment, in which there is an increase of democratic decline across states, it is imperative to (re‐)examine fundamental democratic processes, like elections. In addition to citizens, politicians are key actors in the electoral process. Politicians can influence the views of citizens, make changes within political institutions, and contribute to democratic breakdown or backsliding. Therefore, understanding their views about the way democracy works is crucial. While there has been a recent increase in the scholarship on politicians’ perceptions and behaviours, it has not yet considered whether aspects of the electoral process might affect politicians’ democratic satisfaction. Furthermore, while the literature on citizens’ democratic satisfaction is well‐established, our understanding of politicians’ satisfaction with democracy (SWD) is not. This article begins to address these gaps in the scholarship on SWD and politicians by examining whether electoral integrity and the characteristics of electoral management bodies influence politicians’ levels of SWD. By analyzing cross‐national data from The Comparative Candidates Survey covering 49 elections, in 21 countries, from 2005 to 2021, this article highlights three key findings: first, while electoral integrity affects levels of politicians’ SWD, it matters more for politicians who lost the election. Second, electoral management bodies’ independence does not affect politicians’ levels of SWD. Third, while electoral management bodies’ capacity influences politicians’ levels of democratic satisfaction, the strength of the effect differs for politicians on the ideological right and left. The implications of these findings are explained in the article.

Suggested Citation

  • Valere Gaspard, 2025. "Politicians, Electoral Integrity, and Electoral Management Bodies: A Cross‐National Study on Satisfaction With Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9762
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9762
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9762?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    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. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    2. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    3. Jetter, Michael & Molina, Teresa, 2022. "Persuasive agenda-setting: Rodrigo Duterte’s inauguration speech and drugs in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    5. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    6. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Jacob B. Rode & Peter H. Ditto, 2020. "Comparing the effects of a news article’s message and source on fracking attitudes in an experimental study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 255-269, September.
    8. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    9. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    10. Syon P. Bhanot & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2020. "Partisan polarization and resistance to elite messages: Results from survey experiments on social distancing," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    11. J. S. Maloy, 2015. "Intermediate Conditions of Democratic Accountability: A Response to Electoral Skepticism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 76-89.
    12. Natalia Garbiras-Díaz & Miguel García-Sánchez & Aila M Matanock, 2024. "Political elite cues and attitude formation in post-conflict contexts," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(5), pages 874-890, September.
    13. Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, 2013. "The Effect of Legal Expert Commentary on Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision Making," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 797-814, December.
    14. Dieter Dekeyser & Henk Roose, 2022. "Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1121-1138, June.
    15. Andrew Gooch, 2020. "Generating Support for a Hypothetical War: Presidential Cues and Justifications," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1761-1772, September.
    16. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    17. Romana Careja, 2016. "Party Discourse and Prejudiced Attitudes toward Migrants in Western Europe at the Beginning of the 2000s," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 599-627, September.
    18. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    19. Daniel J. Galvin, 2020. "Let’s not conflate APD with political history, and other reflections on “Causal Inference and American Political Development”," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 485-500, December.
    20. Mariano Torcal & Sergio Martini & Lluis Orriols, 2018. "Deciding about the unknown: The effect of party and ideological cues on forming opinions about the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 502-523, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9762. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.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.