IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/pe2zg_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Grimmer, Justin
  • Holliday, Derek

    (Stanford University)

  • Lelkes, Yphtach
  • Westwood, Sean

Abstract

Faith in American elections is eroding, with politicians frequently questioning the legitimacy of election results and spreading misinformation about voter fraud. Substantial work has been done to refute misinformation and increase confidence in elections, but often without a clear picture of who skeptics are and why they are skeptical. Using extensive polling data from around the 2022 midterm election (N=5,244), we provide a comprehensive profile of election skeptics: their prevalence, views, and justification. We rely on a large nationally-representative survey and use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. We find that while skepticism is widespread in the American electorate, its underpinnings are not necessarily deep-seated. Over half of skeptics claim they are skeptical because of how elections are run and nearly one-in-five skeptics claim they are skeptical because of the other party's performance in recent elections, which we corroborate through an event study of the 2022 election.

Suggested Citation

  • Grimmer, Justin & Holliday, Derek & Lelkes, Yphtach & Westwood, Sean, 2023. "Who are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections," OSF Preprints pe2zg_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:pe2zg_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/pe2zg_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/64cd83bb2fe496318961b198/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/pe2zg_v1?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. Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting May Be Habit‐Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 540-550, July.
    2. Singh, Shane P. & Thornton, Judd R., 2019. "Elections Activate Partisanship across Countries," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 248-253, February.
    3. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    6. Fahey, James J., 2023. "The Big Lie: Expressive Responding and Misperceptions in the United States," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 267-278, July.
    7. Goel, Sharad & Meredith, Marc & Morse, Michael & Rothschild, David & Shirani-Mehr, Houshmand, 2020. "One Person, One Vote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 456-469, May.
    8. Rotem Botvinik-Nezer & Matt Jones & Tor D. Wager, 2023. "A belief systems analysis of fraud beliefs following the 2020 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1106-1119, July.
    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. Robert A. Jackson & Matthew Pietryka, 2022. "The influence of becoming a parent on political participation in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 565-580, May.
    2. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    3. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2003. "The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 94-112, September.
    4. repec:ehu:ikerla:6417 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    6. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    7. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    8. Ronconi, Lucas, 2019. "From Citizen's Rights to Civic Responsibilities," IZA Discussion Papers 12457, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Kevin Denny & Orla Doyle, 2009. "Does Voting History Matter? Analysing Persistence in Turnout," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 17-35, January.
    10. Grimmer, Justin & Holliday, Derek & Lelkes, Yphtach & Westwood, Sean, 2023. "Who are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections," OSF Preprints pe2zg, Center for Open Science.
    11. Li, Xiaolin & Rao, Raghunath Singh & Narasimhan, Om & Gao, Xing, 2022. "Stay positive or go negative? Memory imperfections and messaging strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1149.
    12. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. Sebastian Garmann, 2020. "Political efficacy and the persistence of turnout shocks," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 411-429, November.
    14. Ang, Desmond, 2018. "Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act," Working Paper Series rwp18-033, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Gaebler, Stefanie & Potrafke, Niklas & Roesel, Felix, 2020. "Compulsory voting and political participation: Empirical evidence from Austria," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    16. Matthew I. Jones & Antonio D. Sirianni & Feng Fu, 2022. "Polarization, abstention, and the median voter theorem," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    17. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.
    18. Kevin Arceneaux & David W. Nickerson, 2009. "Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    19. Daniel D. Bonneau & John Zaleski, 2021. "The effect of California’s top-two primary system on voter turnout in US House Elections," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Ethan Kaplan & Fernando Saltiel & Sergio Urzúa, 2023. "Voting for Democracy: Chile's Plebiscito and the Electoral Participation of a Generation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 438-464, August.
    21. Henry E. Brady & Kay Lehman Schlozman & Sidney Verba, 2015. "Political Mobility and Political Reproduction from Generation to Generation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 657(1), pages 149-173, January.

    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:osf:osfxxx:pe2zg_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.