A study on the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. election revealed a significant partisan gap in satisfaction with democracy, with decreases observed among Republicans and increases observed among Democrats. Importantly, the new findings, published in PS: Political Science & Politics, provide evidence that perceptions of electoral legitimacy and media fairness fully accounted for this partisan gap.
“This research project was the result of a collaboration among all faculty in High Point University’s Department of Political Science,” said corresponding author Samuel Whitt, an associate professor at the university. “Since we were unable to attend conferences due to the pandemic, we decided to pool our research and travel funds to conduct a panel study of the 2020 election, which we all agreed would be an important event to study in greater detail. We enjoyed the opportunity to collaborate across subdisciplines on a common project and we hope the results are of interest to researchers.”
The research team conducted a panel study embedded within two nationally representative online surveys. These surveys were strategically scheduled: the first wave was deployed between October 27 and November 1, 2020, just before the election, and the second wave followed from November 10 to 23, 2020, capturing the immediate aftermath of the election results.
The study boasted a sample size of 1,564 respondents, with 955 participating in the first wave and 609 in the second. Crucially, 504 of these respondents completed both survey waves, providing a longitudinal view of changes in democratic satisfaction.
The core of the study’s inquiry centered on measuring satisfaction with democracy. This was operationalized through a specific survey question asking respondents to rate their satisfaction with the quality of democracy in the United States on a four-point scale, ranging from “not at all satisfied” to “very satisfied.”
The researchers confirmed their hypothesis that a partisan gap in satisfaction with democracy would emerge following the election, with winners experiencing an increase in satisfaction and losers a decrease. Among Democrats, there was a notable increase in satisfaction with democracy after the election, reflecting their status as the electoral winners. Conversely, Republican satisfaction decreased, reflecting their loss. Independents showed little change in their levels of satisfaction.
Economic concerns and emotional reactions did show some influence on satisfaction levels, but the most striking mediator was institutional confidence, particularly confidence in the electoral process.
Republicans, who were the electoral losers, exhibited significant declines in confidence in the electoral system. This included increasing doubts about whether American elections are free and fair, and these doubts were linked to reduced satisfaction with democracy. However, Republicans who maintained confidence in the electoral system exhibited no significant partisan gap in their satisfaction with democracy.
“We were surprised that affective polarization did not play a greater role in accounting for changes in either dissatisfaction with democracy or with the way the 2020 election was conducted. We also found little in the way of economic predictors of discontent,” Whitt told PsyPost. “Instead, dissatisfaction was tied most clearly to declines in institutional confidence, which suggests potentially more fundamental problems with American democracy that may be more difficult to than dissatisfaction tied to short term fluctuations in the economy, or the stirring of passions during a heated electoral cycle.”
Satisfaction with how the media covered the elections also emerged as a crucial factor. The researchers found that when individuals, regardless of their partisan affiliation, felt that the media fairly and accurately reported on the elections, their satisfaction with democracy was higher. This suggests that perceptions of electoral fairness and unbiased media coverage can significantly mitigate the negative impact of electoral loss on democratic satisfaction.
“Our work underscores how perceptions of the electoral process influence citizens’ appraisals of democracy in the aftermath of contentious elections,” Whitt explained. “Winners tend to become more satisfied with democracy, and losers more dissatisfied, but in the 2020 election, rising dissatisfaction with democracy among Republicans was clearly linked to their dissatisfaction with the electoral process, which they did not perceive as free or fair. If an electoral loss triggers not only discontent about the outcome, but the process as well, this raises concerns about democratic stability in the United States.”
Despite the study’s insightful findings, the researchers acknowledged certain limitations. The observational nature of the data and the reliance on self-reported measures introduce challenges in establishing causality. Additionally, the study’s focus on the 2020 election, while timely and relevant, means the findings might not be universally applicable to other electoral contexts or in the face of evolving political and media landscapes.
“Our results should be evaluated with respect to broader trends in the literature and with respect to other studies surrounding the 2020 election specifically,” Whitt said.
The study points to the need for more research into the mechanisms through which institutional confidence and media satisfaction influence democratic satisfaction among the electorate.
“We hope to encourage other researchers to engage in collaborative projects with their departmental colleagues on issues of shared concern,” Whitt said. “We also hope our study sheds light on public opinion surrounding a particularly contentious election, especially since the upcoming 2024 election is shaping up to be a repeat of 2020.”
The study, “Explaining Partisan Gaps in Satisfaction with Democracy after Contentious Elections: Evidence from a US 2020 Election Panel Survey,” was authored by Sam Whitt, Alixandra B. Yanus , Mark Setzler, Brian McDonald, John Graeber, and Martin Kifer.