IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v52y2022i4p1891-1901_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Electoral Inversions on Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Carey, John M.
  • Helmke, Gretchen
  • Nyhan, Brendan
  • Sanders, Mitchell
  • Stokes, Susan C.
  • Yamaya, Shun

Abstract

When a party or candidate loses the popular vote but still wins the election, do voters view the winner as legitimate? This scenario, known as an electoral inversion, describes the winners of two of the last six presidential elections in the United States. We report results from two experiments testing the effect of inversions on democratic legitimacy in the US context. Our results indicate that inversions significantly decrease the perceived legitimacy of winning candidates. Strikingly, this effect does not vary with the margin by which the winner loses the popular vote, nor by whether the candidate benefiting from the inversion is a co-partisan. The effect is driven by Democrats, who punish inversions regardless of candidate partisanship; few effects are observed among Republicans. These results suggest that the experience of inversions increases sensitivity to such outcomes among supporters of the losing party.

Suggested Citation

  • Carey, John M. & Helmke, Gretchen & Nyhan, Brendan & Sanders, Mitchell & Stokes, Susan C. & Yamaya, Shun, 2022. "The Effect of Electoral Inversions on Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from the United States," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 1891-1901, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:4:p:1891-1901_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000712342100048X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:4:p:1891-1901_21. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    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.