The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Electoral Inversions on Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from the United States
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract When a party or candidate loses the popular vote but still wins the election, do voters view the winner as legitimate? This scenario, known as an electoral inversion , describes the winners of two of the last six presidential elections in the United States. We report results from two experiments testing the effect of inversions on democratic legitimacy in the US context. Our results indicate that inversions significantly decrease the perceived legitimacy of winning candidates. Strikingly, this effect does not vary with the margin by which the winner loses the popular vote, nor by whether the candidate benefiting from the inversion is a co-partisan. The effect is driven by Democrats, who punish inversions regardless of candidate partisanship; few effects are observed among Republicans. These results suggest that the experience of inversions increases sensitivity to such outcomes among supporters of the losing party.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This suggests conditions ripe for citizens' misconstruing violations of democratic norms (also see Carey et al., 2022).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Carey et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- 10.3386/w26247 · DOI
- Levy, 2020, Winning cures everything? Beliefs about voter fraud, voter confidence, and the 2016 election, Electoral Studies, 102156
- 10.2139/ssrn.2785971 · DOI
- Dahl, 2008, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition
- 10.1007/s11238-018-9660-1 · DOI
- 10.1177/1065912918768006 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780190913854.001.0001 · DOI
- Organization of American States (2017) Segundo informe preliminario de la mision de observacion electoral en Honduras. Available from http://www.oas.org/fpdb/press/Segundo-Informe-Preliminar-MOE-Honduras-18dic-FINAL.pdf
- Nadeau, 1993, Accepting the election outcome: the effect of participation on losers’ consent, British Journal of Political Science, 23, 553, 10.1017/S0007123400006736 · DOI
- 10.1080/00029890.1948.11999218 · DOI
- 10.2307/2952259 · DOI
- 10.1017/S153759271900001X · DOI · Paper page
- Stewart, C III (2019) A Voter's Eye View of Elections, 2008–2016. Unpublished manuscript. Available from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3361952 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055415000635 · DOI
- 10.1177/106591290605900407 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781315723068-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/ajps.12122 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781003008620 · DOI
- Vickery, 2018, When Are Elections Good Enough? Validating or Annulling Election Results, International Foundation for Electoral Systems
- 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.08.004 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Carey, J. M., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B., Sanders, M., Stokes, S. C., & Yamaya, S.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- University of Rochester (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carey, John M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-12-06
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1891-1901
- ISSN
- 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2112
- OpenAlex
- W4226226783
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Democracy Fund, Inc. (R-201802-02250)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- democratic legitimacy, popular vote, presidential elections, partisan bias, US presidential election
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
