Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not

Which factors cause citizens to think that an election was determined by fraud? Fraud beliefs have been shown to be more common among supporters of losing candidates. In the current U.S. context, fraud beliefs are also higher among Republicans than Democrats. However, we know less about the roles of electoral margin and candidate race. Beliefs that candidates won due to fraud might be more likely in closely contested elections, where small shifts in vote share could be decisive, or when non-white candidates defeat white candidates given perceived associations between race and crime or corruption. We examine these questions with a unique survey in which a nationally representative sample (n = 2896) reported their beliefs about the legitimacy of a random subset of 2022 U.S. House election outcomes. Our results indicate that Republican participants are far more likely than are Democrats to believe that House election results were determined by fraud, and that the partisan gap is larger for contests the GOP candidate lost. However, we do not find convincing evidence that these perceptions were driven by the margin by which the losing candidate was defeated or the apparent race of the candidates. These results suggest that party is the dominant factor in perceptions of election legitimacy, trumping losing vote margin and candidate race.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Electoral Studies
Published
2024-12-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102880
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.23

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not

Ethan Weber, Brendan Nyhan, Brian J. Fogarty, Jason Reifler et al.
1 citations
Electoral Studies
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
2.23
article

Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not

Ethan Weber, Brendan Nyhan, Brian J. Fogarty, Jason Reifler, John M. Carey, Cecile Tobin, Ben Aronson, Sharanya Majumder, Hannah Tanenbaum
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Which factors cause citizens to think that an election was determined by fraud? Fraud beliefs have been shown to be more common among supporters of losing candidates. In the current U.S. context, fraud beliefs are also higher among Republicans than Democrats. However, we know less about the roles of electoral margin and candidate race. Beliefs that candidates won due to fraud might be more likely in closely contested elections, where small shifts in vote share could be decisive, or when non-white candidates defeat white candidates given perceived associations between race and crime or corruption. We examine these questions with a unique survey in which a nationally representative sample (n = 2896) reported their beliefs about the legitimacy of a random subset of 2022 U.S. House election outcomes. Our results indicate that Republican participants are far more likely than are Democrats to believe that House election results were determined by fraud, and that the partisan gap is larger for contests the GOP candidate lost. However, we do not find convincing evidence that these perceptions were driven by the margin by which the losing candidate was defeated or the apparent race of the candidates. These results suggest that party is the dominant factor in perceptions of election legitimacy, trumping losing vote margin and candidate race.

Electoral StudiesVol. 93
University of Notre Dame (US), Dartmouth College (US), University of Southampton (GB)
Dartmouth College, University of Southampton
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
2.23
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.