IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v708y2023i1p164-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey Layman
  • Frances Lee
  • Christina Wolbrecht

Abstract

Social science has established that political parties have been indispensable to American democracy and their most active members as keepers of the democratic flame. The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election raised questions about the role of the parties in protecting democracy, particularly the fundamental democratic norm of “loser’s consent.†We argue that recent political developments—close elections, ideological polarization, participatory party nominations, and changes in campaign finance and media—have worked to undermine the parties’ commitment to loser’s consent. We use recent survey data to show that party activists no longer demonstrate greater commitment than do ordinary citizens to democratic norms—especially to loser’s consent. We also examine how parties and voters responded to the post-2020 crisis of democratic legitimacy, finding that both parties prioritized their political interests over democratic health. However, a small number of voters did deviate from normal partisanship and helped to shore up American democracy in the 2022 elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey Layman & Frances Lee & Christina Wolbrecht, 2023. "Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 164-183, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:164-183
    DOI: 10.1177/00027162241229309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162241229309
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00027162241229309?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. R. Michael Alvarez & Jian Cao & Yimeng Li, 2021. "Voting Experiences, Perceptions of Fraud, and Voter Confidence," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1225-1238, July.
    2. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    3. Kenkel, Brenton, 2019. "Signaling Policy Intentions in Fundraising Contests," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 14(2), pages 225-258, April.
    4. Layman, Geoffrey C. & Carsey, Thomas M. & Green, John C. & Herrera, Richard & Cooperman, Rosalyn, 2010. "Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 324-346, May.
    5. Kevin Arceneaux & Johanna Dunaway & Martin Johnson & Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2020. "Strategic Candidate Entry and Congressional Elections in the Era of Fox News," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 398-415, April.
    6. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    7. Douglas D. Roscoe & Shannon Jenkins, 2021. "Amateur hour: The dominance of purposive benefits among local political party chairs," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1602-1614, July.
    8. Graham, Matthew H. & Svolik, Milan W., 2020. "Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 392-409, May.
    9. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    10. Ming Ming Chiu & Chong Hyun Park & Hyelim Lee & Yu Won Oh & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2022. "Election Fraud and Misinformation on Twitter: Author, Cluster, and Message Antecedents," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 66-80.
    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. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2005. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom," Working Papers 05-8, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    2. Christian Weyand, 2013. "Why Political Elites Support Governmental Transparency. Self-Interest, Anticipation of Voters' Preferences or Socialization?," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 04-02, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    4. Riccardo Ladini & Nicola Maggini, 2023. "The role of party preferences in explaining acceptance of freedom restrictions in a pandemic context: the Italian case," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 99-123, April.
    5. Schäfer, Armin, 2011. "Republican liberty and compulsory voting," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/17, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. Diana C. Mutz, 2023. "Freedom of Speech in the Post-Floyd Era: Public Support for Political Tolerance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 184-205, July.
    7. Byron Shafer & Richard Spady, 2002. "The issue context of modern American politics: semiparametric identification of latent factors from Discrete data," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    8. Quinton Mayne & Brigitte Geißel, 2018. "Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-47.
    9. T. Y. Wang & Lu‐huei Chen, 2008. "Political Tolerance in Taiwan: Democratic Elitism in a Polity Under Threat," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 780-801, September.
    10. C. Middendorp & G. Vries, 1981. "Attitudinal referents, statement items and response set: The effect of using differential item-formats on the structure of an ideological domain," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 249-277, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Nam, Taewoo, 2019. "Understanding the gap between perceived threats to and preparedness for cybersecurity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    13. Michal Shamir & John L. Sullivan, 1985. "Jews and Arabs in Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 283-305, June.
    14. Wayne Eastman & Deirdre Collier, 2012. "The Optimal Bargain between the Elite and the Majority: Party and Managerial Ideologies as Devices to Control Politicians and Managers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 475-494, July.
    15. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    16. Cees Van Der Eijk, 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 325-341, August.
    17. Seth C. McKee & Antoine Yoshinaka, 2021. "Profiles in party switching: The case of Southern Party activists," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1615-1637, July.
    18. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    19. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    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:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:164-183. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.