Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 820

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 142 of the 142 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy

Anderson, Christopher J., Blais, André, Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, Listhaug, Ola·2005
DOI 10.1093/0199276382.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Democratic elections are designed to create unequal outcomes—for some to win, others have to lose. This book examines the consequences of this inequality for the legitimacy of democratic political institutions and systems. Using survey data collected in old and new democracies around the globe, the authors argue that losing generates ambivalent attitudes towards political authorities. Because the efficacy and ultimately the survival of democratic regimes can be seriously threatened if the losers do not consent to their loss, the central themes of this book focus on losing—how losers respond to their loss and how institutions shape losing. While there tends to be a gap in support for the political system between winners and losers, it is not ubiquitous. The book paints a picture of losers’ consent that portrays losers as political actors whose experience and whose incentives to accept defeat are shaped both by who they are as individuals as well as the political environment in which loss is given meaning. Given that the winner-loser gap in legitimacy is a persistent feature of democratic politics, the findings presented in this book have important implications for our understanding of the functioning and stability of democracies since being able to accept losing is one of the central, if not the central, requirement of democracy. The book contributes to our understanding of political legitimacy, comparative political behaviour, the comparative study of elections and political institutions, as well as issues of democratic stability, design, and transition.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/0199276382.001.0001

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 142 references

Research works printed but not linked: 89

  1. 2000, System Change, Learning, and Public Opinion about the Economy, British Journal of Political Science, 10.1017/S0007123400000077 · doi:10.1017/s0007123400000077
  2. Andrews,, .., Strategic Fools; Electoral Choice Under Extreme Uncertainty, Electoral Studies
  3. Angus,, 1952, Note on the British Columbia Election in June 1952, Western Political Quarterly, 10.2307/442689 · doi:10.2307/442689
  4. Balch,, 1974, Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept Sense of Political Efficacy, Political Methodology
  5. Barber,, 1984, Strong Democracy
  6. Bartolini,, 1990, Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability
  7. Blais,, 2004, How Good are Voters at Sorting Out the Weakest Candidate in their Constituency?, Electoral Studies, 10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00031-3 · doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(03)00031-3
  8. 2001, Measuring Party Identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States, Political Behavior, 10.1023/A:1017684329835 · doi:10.1023/a:1017684329835
  9. 2002, Comparing Democracies: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting
  10. Boston,, 1997, From Campaign to Coalition: New Zealand's First General Election Under Proportional Representation
  11. Voting at the Political Fault Line: California's Experiment with the Blanket Primary
  12. Campbell,, 1960, The American Voter
  13. 1954, The Voter Decides
  14. Cigler,, 1977, Conflict Reduction in the Post-Election Period: A Test of the Depolarization Thesis, Western Political Quarterly, 10.2307/447936 · doi:10.2307/447936
  15. 1992, Do National Elections Affect Perceptions of MP Responsiveness: A Note on the Canadian Case, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10.2307/440057 · doi:10.2307/440057
  16. 1997, Tory Trends: Party Identification and the Dynamics of Conservative Support since 1992, British Journal of Political Science, 10.1017/S000712349721015X · doi:10.1017/s000712349721015x
  17. 1992, Controversies in Political Economy: Canada, Great Britain, The United States
  18. Daalder,, 1983, Western European Party Systems
  19. Dahl,, 1971, Polyarchy
  20. 1989, Democracy and its Critics
  21. 2002, How Democratic is the American Constitution?
  22. Donovan,, 1994, Support for Legislative Term Limitations in California: Group Representation, Partisanship and Campaign Information, Journal of Politics, 10.2307/2132150 · doi:10.2307/2132150
  23. 1965, A Systems Analysis of Political Life
  24. Evans,, 1993, Identifying the Bases of Party Competition in Eastern Europe, British Journal of Political Science, 10.1017/S0007123400006712 · doi:10.1017/s0007123400006712
  25. 1964, Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance
  26. 1987, The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support, Journal of Politics
  27. 1989, Economic Crisis, Incumbent Performance and Regime Support: A Comparison of Longitudinal Data from West Germany and Costa Rica, British Journal of Political Science, 10.1017/S0007123400005512 · doi:10.1017/s0007123400005512
  28. Fiorina,, 1981, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections
  29. Freedom, 2001, Freedom in the World: Country Ratings 1972–73 to 2000–01
  30. Fuchs,, 1993, Political Culture in Germany
  31. 1989, Continuities in Political Action
  32. 1995, Citizens and the State
  33. Gabriel,, 1989, Regierungswechsel und politische Unterstützung: Implikationen des Parteienwettbewerbs für die Struktur politischer Unterstützung in der Demokratie, Politische Vierteljahresschrift
  34. Gamson,, 1968, Power and Discontent
  35. Green,, 2002, Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters
  36. Guinier,, 1998, Lift Every Voice
  37. Gunther,, 1989, Electoral Laws, Party Systems, and Elites: The Case of Spain, American Political Science Review, 10.2307/1962063 · doi:10.2307/1962063
  38. Habermas,, 1975, Legitimation Crisis
  39. Harmel,, 1986, Government Stability and Regime Support: A Cross-National Analysis, Journal of Politics, 10.2307/2131011 · doi:10.2307/2131011
  40. Held,, 1987, Models of Democracy
  41. Holmberg,, 1999, Critical Citizens,
  42. 2003, Are Political Parties Necessary?, Electoral Studies, 10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00016-1 · doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(02)00016-1
  43. 1974, Postindustrial Politics: How Benign will it be?, Comparative Politics, 10.2307/421460 · doi:10.2307/421460
  44. 1991, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century
  45. Huseby,, 1999, Challenges to Representative Democracy: Parties, Voters and Public Opinion
  46. Inglehart,, 1976, Party Identification and Beyond
  47. Jackson,, 1998, New Zealand Adopts PR
  48. 1995, Jahrbuch für Politik
  49. 1995, Beliefs in Government
  50. Klingemann,, 1979, Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies
  51. 1999, Critical Citizens
  52. Küchler,, 1991, Eurobarometer: The Dynamics of European Public Opinion, Essays in Honor of Jacques-Rene Rabier
  53. Lagos,, 1997, Public Opinion in New Democracies. III. Latin America's Smiling Mask, Journal of Democracy, 10.1353/jod.1997.0042 · doi:10.1353/jod.1997.0042
  54. Lamare,, 1996, Party Interests, Public Opinion and Institutional Preferences: Electoral System Change in New Zealand, Australian Journal of Political Science, 10.1080/10361149651085 · doi:10.1080/10361149651085
  55. Lambert,, 1986, Effects of Identification with Governing Parties on Feelings of Political Efficacy and Trust, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 10.1017/S0008423900055116 · doi:10.1017/s0008423900055116
  56. Lasswell,, 1953, Politics: Who Gets What When and How
  57. 1999, Patterns of Democracy
  58. 1960, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics
  59. Listhaug,, 1995, Citizens and the State
  60. 208Listhaug, and Bernt Aardal (2003). ‘Support of Democracy in Europe’. Paper presented at the Conference on Democracy in the New Europe, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, February.
  61. 2004, European Values at the Turn of the Millennium
  62. Listhaug,, 1995, Citizens and the State
  63. Lopez, 1994, The Nature of Political Support and Legitimacy in Spain, Comparative Political Studies, 10.1177/0010414094027003002 · doi:10.1177/0010414094027003002
  64. McClelland,, 1987, Human Motivation
  65. McGuire,, 1968, Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook
  66. Miller,, 1994, An Organizational History of the Intellectual Origins of the American National Election Studies, European Journal of Political Research, 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1994.tb00420.x · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1994.tb00420.x
  67. 2002, Learning and Re-learning Regime Support: The Dynamics of Post-Communist Regimes, European Journal of Political Research, 10.1111/1475-6765.00002 · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00002
  68. Pedersen,, 1983, West European Party Systems: Continuity and Change
  69. Powell,, 1986, Extremist Parties and Political Turmoil: Two Puzzles, American Journal of Political Science, 10.2307/2111101 · doi:10.2307/2111101
  70. 2000, Elections as Instruments of Democracy
  71. 1982, Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice
  72. 1983, Political Science: The State of the Discipline
  73. 1986, The Art of Political Manipulation
  74. Sanders,, 1999, The Dynamics of Party Preference Change in Britain, 1991–1996, Political Studies, 10.1111/1467-9248.00197 · doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00197
  75. Scarbrough,, 2003, On the Shoulders of Giants: A Tribute to Warren E. Miller, Electoral Studies, 10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00012-4 · doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(02)00012-4
  76. 2003, Losers in Politics (and How They Sometimes Become Winners): William Riker's Heresthetic, Perspectives on Politics, 10.1017/S1537592703000227 · doi:10.1017/s1537592703000227
  77. Stevenson,, 2002, The Cost of Ruling, Cabinet Duration, and the “Median-Gap” Model, Public Choice, 10.1023/A:1020351406757 · doi:10.1023/a:1020351406757
  78. Stokes,, 1996, Introduction. Public Opinion and Market Reforms: The Limits of Economic Voting, Comparative Political Studies, 10.1177/0010414096029005001 · doi:10.1177/0010414096029005001
  79. Stricker,, 1964, The Operation of Cognitive Dissonance on Pre- and Post-Election Attitudes, Journal of Social Psychology, 10.1080/00224545.1964.9922218 · doi:10.1080/00224545.1964.9922218
  80. Thompson,, 1970, The Democratic Citizen
  81. Torcal,, 2002, Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges
  82. Tsebelis,, 2003, Veto Players
  83. Tyler,, 1990, Why People Obey the Law
  84. 1999, Trust and Democratic Governance
  85. Vowles,, 1995, The Politics of Electoral Reform in New Zealand, International Political Science Review, 10.1177/019251219501600107 · doi:10.1177/019251219501600107
  86. Vowles,, 2002, Proportional Representation on Trial
  87. 1991, Mapping the Ties that Bind: Legitimacy, Representation and Alienation, Western Political Quarterly, 10.2307/448778 · doi:10.2307/448778
  88. Wenzel,, 2000, Citizen Opinion and Constitutional Choices: The Case of the UK, Political Behavior, 10.1023/A:1026614314233 · doi:10.1023/a:1026614314233
  89. Westle,, 1989, Politische Legitimität: Theorien, Konzepte, empirische Befunde

Cited by

See all 820

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O.
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Published
2005-01-13
DOI
10.1093/0199276382.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4235111501
Cited by
820
References
142
FWCI
27.23
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0199276382.001.0001
The paper
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199276382.001.0001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.