The Role of Electoral Fraud and Winning–Losing for Mass Affective Polarization: Cross-National Evidence

This study investigates the impact of electoral fraud and election outcomes on mass affective polarization across 149 elections in 48 countries from 1996 to 2020. By analyzing citizens’ assessments of political parties using a like–dislike scale from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and electoral integrity scores from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (Tufis and Hudson, 2022), this research reveals that manipulative electoral strategies directly contribute to increased mass affective polarization. These findings remain consistent when using alternative measurements of electoral integrity offered by Perceptions of Electoral Integrity data (Garnett et al., 2022). In addition, this study identifies that winning–losing status (i.e., whether an individual voted for the winning party in the previous election) plays a role in amplifying mass affective polarization. I posit that those who voted for the losing party may reconcile their support for the losing party by forming stronger associations with other political parties compared with supporters of the winning party. Furthermore, the research uncovers that the relationship between low electoral integrity and heightened affective polarization is more pronounced among individuals who voted for the winning party. These findings have significant implications for our understanding of mass polarization, democratic legitimacy, and winner–loser status.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2024.0014
Primary Topic
Media Influence and Politics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Role of Electoral Fraud and Winning–Losing for Mass Affective Polarization: Cross-National Evidence

Hatice Mete
Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy
Media Influence and Politics
article

The Role of Electoral Fraud and Winning–Losing for Mass Affective Polarization: Cross-National Evidence

Hatice Mete
article en

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of electoral fraud and election outcomes on mass affective polarization across 149 elections in 48 countries from 1996 to 2020. By analyzing citizens’ assessments of political parties using a like–dislike scale from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and electoral integrity scores from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (Tufis and Hudson, 2022), this research reveals that manipulative electoral strategies directly contribute to increased mass affective polarization. These findings remain consistent when using alternative measurements of electoral integrity offered by Perceptions of Electoral Integrity data (Garnett et al., 2022). In addition, this study identifies that winning–losing status (i.e., whether an individual voted for the winning party in the previous election) plays a role in amplifying mass affective polarization. I posit that those who voted for the losing party may reconcile their support for the losing party by forming stronger associations with other political parties compared with supporters of the winning party. Furthermore, the research uncovers that the relationship between low electoral integrity and heightened affective polarization is more pronounced among individuals who voted for the winning party. These findings have significant implications for our understanding of mass polarization, democratic legitimacy, and winner–loser status.

Election Law Journal Rules Politics and PolicyVol. 24(2)
Bilkent University (TR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Media Influence and Politics
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.