IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v14y2026a11468.html

What Electoral Outcomes Foster Electoral Consent and Dissent?

Author

Listed:
  • André Blais

    (Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, Canada)

  • Damien Bol

    (Department of Political Science, Sciences Po Paris, France)

  • Carolina Plescia

    (Department of Government, University of Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Losers’ consent is a key indicator of democratic vitality. In a functioning democracy, citizens should accept electoral outcomes regardless of which party wins. Contrasting with previous studies on the topic, we, in this article, directly measure the types of electoral outcomes to which over 5,000 German adults, representative of the national population, are willing to consent/dissent. We find that respondents are more likely to accept, and less likely to protest, outcomes in which their preferred party performs well, and their most disliked party performs poorly. Meanwhile, structural features of the outcomes, such as the number of parties in government or whether the Chancellor comes from the party with the most seats, have little to no effect. These results support the idea that partisanship is the main driver of electoral consent/dissent, and that negative preferences have a unique explanatory power in this respect.

Suggested Citation

  • André Blais & Damien Bol & Carolina Plescia, 2026. "What Electoral Outcomes Foster Electoral Consent and Dissent?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v14:y:2026:a:11468
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.11468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/11468
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.11468?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. Garrett Glasgow & Matt Golder & Sona N. Golder, 2011. "Who “Wins”? Determining the Party of the Prime Minister," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 937-954, October.
    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. 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.
    4. Anderson, Christopher J. & Guillory, Christine A., 1997. "Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(1), pages 66-81, March.
    5. Svolik, Milan W., 2015. "Which Democracies Will Last? Coups, Incumbent Takeovers, and the Dynamic of Democratic Consolidation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 715-738, October.
    6. Christopher Claassen, 2020. "Does Public Support Help Democracy Survive?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(1), pages 118-134, January.
    7. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    8. Fournier, Patrick & Soroka, Stuart & Nir, Lilach, 2020. "Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 775-791, August.
    9. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    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. Troy D. Thomas & Koen Abts & Koen Stroeken, 2025. "Explaining Support for Democracy in Guyana," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(3), pages 21582440251, September.
    2. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    3. Reutzel, Fabian, 2024. "The grass is always greener on the other side: (Unfair) inequality and support for democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Fuchs, Dieter, 1998. "The political culture of unified Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 98-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Alexander F. Wagner & Friedrich Schneider, 2006. "Satisfaction with Democracy and the Environment in Western Europe – a Panel Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 1660, CESifo.
    6. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Claes de Vreese & Rachid Azrout & Judith Moeller, 2016. "Cross Road Elections: Change in EU Performance Evaluations during the European Parliament Elections 2014," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 69-82.
    8. Thomas Isbell, 2024. "Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 817-836, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Friedrich Schneider & Alexander F. Wagner & Mathias Dufour, 2003. "Satisfaction not guaranteed-Institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe," Economics working papers 2003-03, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    12. Kristin M Bakke & Marianne Dahl & Kit Rickard, 2025. "Conflict exposure and democratic values: Evidence from wartime Ukraine," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(5), pages 1376-1392, September.
    13. Mario Quaranta & Sergio Martini, 2017. "Easy Come, Easy Go? Economic Performance and Satisfaction with Democracy in Southern Europe in the Last Three Decades," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 659-680, March.
    14. Ji, Chengyuan & Jiang, Junyan & Zhang, Yujin, 2024. "Political trust and government performance in the time of COVID-19," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. König, Pascal & Arnesen, Sveinung, 2025. "How government uses of artificial intelligence affect the perceived warmth and competence of civil servants," SocArXiv 732ez_v1, Center for Open Science.
    16. Daron Acemoglu & Nicolás Ajzenman & Cevat Giray Aksoy & Martin Fiszbein & Carlos Molina, 2025. "(Successful) Democracies Breed Their Own Support," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(2), pages 621-655.
    17. 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.
    18. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Voting for compromises: alternative voting methods in polarized societies," ECON - Working Papers 394, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Heinz Welsch, 2022. "What Shapes Satisfaction with Democracy? Interests, Morals, and the German East–West Divide," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 197-217, August.
    20. Claes de Vreese & Rachid Azrout & Judith Moeller, 2016. "Cross Road Elections: Change in EU Performance Evaluations during the European Parliament Elections 2014," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 69-82.

    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:v14:y:2026:a:11468. 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.