Cees van der Eijk and Jonathan Rose estimate the causal effects of the EU referendum on public perceptions of its fairness. They demonstrate that worryingly large groups of citizens have rather dim views of the fairness of electoral processes in the UK

Rosenhead, Jonathan

van der Eijk, Cees

English

LSE Research Online

Declining	confidence	in	electoral	fairness	from	thoseon	the	losing	side	is	a	serious	problem	–	and	it	isgetting	worseCees	van	der	Eijk	and	Jonathan	Rose	estimate	the	causal	effects	of	the	EUreferendum	on	public	perceptions	of	its	fairness.	They	demonstrate	that	worryinglylarge	groups	of	citizens	have	rather	dim	views	of	the	fairness	of	electoral	processesin	the	UK.Democracies	require	–	amongst	other	matters	–	that	their	citizens	accept	thelegitimacy	of	popular	verdicts	as	expressed	in	elections	and	referenda.	That	doesnot	mean	that	all	citizens	will	be	happy	about	the	outcomes;	in	general,	this	will	not	be	the	case	because	somehave	‘won’	and	others	have	‘lost’.	Yet,	the	resulting	disappointment	on	the	side	of	the	losers	should	not	stand	in	theway	of	them	recognising	the	legitimacy	of	an	outcome	that	is	based	on	the	other	side(s)	having	received	moresupport.	This	‘loser’s	consent’	is	necessary	for	democracy	and	for	peaceful	transfers	of	power	after	elections,	but	itsexistence	cannot	be	taken	for	granted.A	lively	field	of	research	has	evolved	studying	winner-loser	effects:	differences	in	regime-supporting	attitudesbetween	winners	and	losers	of	an	election	that	cannot	be	attributed	to	other	factors	than	being	on	the	winning	orlosing	side.	The	magnitude	of	any	such	differences	varies	across	countries	and	elections,	but	the	direction	is	almostinvariably	the	same:	winners	score	higher	in	regime-supporting	attitudes	than	losers.	We	focus	here	on	beliefsabout	the	fairness	of	the	electoral	process,	which	is	of	central	importance	for	the	legitimacy	of	electoral	results.Differences	in	this	belief	between	winners	and	losers	reflect,	if	they	cannot	be	attributed	to	other	factors,	that	thelegitimacy	of	election	outcomes	is	undermined	for	those	who	have	lost,	and/or	that	legitimacy	in	the	eyes	of	thewinners	merely	reflects	the	fact	that	they	were	on	the	winning	side.The	winner-loser	literature	implies	that	pronounced	winner-loser	effects	are	regrettable	because	they	suggest	thatsupport	for	democracy	is	not	intrinsic	but	dependent	on	whether	one	is	or	is	not	on	the	winning	side.	However,	notall	winner-loser	differences	in	perceived	fairness	are	equally	relevant	in	this	respect.	If,	for	example,	the	belief	in	thefairness	of	an	election	is	boosted	among	winners	but	remains	flat	among	losers,	one	would	be	hard	pressed	to	seethat	as	problematic	for	democracy.	If,	however,	confidence	in	electoral	fairness	were	to	decline	not	only	for	thelosers	of	an	election	but	also,	perhaps	to	a	smaller	degree,	for	the	winners,	then	that	would	be	more	concerning.Most	concerning	of	all	would	be	the	combination	of	a	strong	boost	in	confidence	in	the	fairness	of	an	electionamong	the	winners	combined	with	a	strong	decline	among	the	losers.	The	importance	of	beliefs	about	the	fairnessof	elections	is	not	just	a	matter	of	abstract	academic	concern.	In	the	last	few	months	the	US	came	perilously	closeto	a	disruption	of	the	peaceful	transition	of	power	based	on	a	lie	from	Trump	and	his	enablers	that	the	election	wasprocedurally	unfair	and	that	the	result	was	being	‘stolen’	from	them.In	a	recently	published	paper,	we	studied	the	beliefs	of	citizens	in	Great	Britain	about	the	fairness	of	the	conduct	ofthe	2016	referendum	about	membership	of	the	EU.	We	did	so	using	data	from	the	British	Election	Study	InternetPanel,	a	set	of	repeated	surveys	with	a	large	sample	of	citizens.	Because	many	of	the	interviewees	wereinterviewed	repeatedly,	we	can	observe	not	only	their	beliefs	at	a	given	moment,	but	also	how	these	beliefschanged	over	time.	We	can	also	compare	those	who	eventually	turned	out	to	be	winners	(the	Leave	voters)	orlosers	(the	Remain	voters)	at	times	before	the	referendum,	when	they	themselves	could	not	yet	regard	themselvesin	those	terms	and	track	how	their	beliefs	developed	thereafter.Before	the	referendum,	44.4%	of	the	respondents	expected	the	referendum	to	be	(very	or	somewhat)	fair,	while30.9%	thought	it	would	be	(very	or	somewhat)	unfair.	Immediately	after	the	referendum,	these	percentageschanged	only	slightly	to	44.2%	and	32.5%	respectively,	while	almost	a	year	after	the	referendum,	thesepercentages	were	still	very	similar	at	45.8%	and	34.6%.	The	changes	in	these	percentages	are	in	the	direction	ofdiminishing	confidence	in	the	fairness	of	the	referendum,	but	they	are	very	small.	Yet	this	appearance	of	stability	ismisleading.	When	distinguishing	between	those	who	voted	Leave	(the	winners)	and	those	who	voted	Remain	(thelosers)	we	see	very	large	changes	indeed,	as	visualised	in	the	figure	below.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Declining confidence in electoral fairness from those on the losing side is a serious problem – and it is getting worse Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-04-27Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/winner-loser-effects-uk-elections/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Before	the	referendum,	people	who	later	would	vote	Leave	expressed	doubts	about	its	fairness.	This	is	not	becauseof	the	outcome	of	the	referendum,	which	had	not	yet	been	held,	but	because	–	for	whatever	reasons	–	they	hadless	trust	and	confidence	in	politics.	If	we	express	beliefs	about	the	fairness	of	the	referendum	on	a	scale	from	+2(very	fair)	to	-2	(very	unfair),	with	0	reflecting	neither	fair	nor	unfair,	then	the	average	confidence	of	fairness	beforethe	referendum	had	been	conducted	was	-0.54	for	Leave	voters.	Remain	voters	had,	on	average,	a	much	morepositive	expectation,	scoring	+0.28.	These	beliefs	changed	considerably	after	the	referendum,	to	+0.22	for	Leavevoters	and	-0.64	for	Remain	voters.	Because	these	before-after	comparisons	are	based	on	exactly	the	samerespondents,	they	can	be	attributed	to	what	happened	in	the	interval:	the	referendum	itself,	and	its	outcome.These	changes	are	of	an	unprecedented	magnitude.	Moreover,	they	highlight	two	key	issues.	Firstly,	they	representa	dramatic	change	from	a	couple	of	decades	ago	and	suggest	that	the	increases	in	contestation	of	the	legitimacy	ofdemocratic	electoral	outcomes	is	part	of	a	larger	trend.	As	noted	above,	the	aggregate	percentage	of	people	whobelieved	that	the	EU	referendum	was	conducted	unfairly	was	30.9%,	raising	to	32.5%,	and	then	to	34.6%	a	yearafter	the	referendum.	When	the	same	questions	were	asked	for	the	2017	general	election	23%	saw	the	election	asunfair	(before)	and	25%	(after).	While	this	is	lower	than	for	the	referendum	it	is	considerably	higher	than	for	the2015	general	election,	which	16%	saw	as	unfair	before	it	took	place,	and	much	higher	than	a	very	similar	questionasked	in	the	BES	of	1997	(4%).	In	short,	the	referendum	may	have	been	bad	on	this	metric,	but	there	is	clearly	aworrying	trend	of	declining	confidence	in	the	fairness	of	elections.Secondly,	the	dramatic	winner	loser	effect	observed	in	the	EU	referendum	is	notable	because	it	existed	withoutsignificant	elite	contestation.	There	was	no	Trump-like	figure	insisting	Remain	actually	won,	and	that	Leave	hadhidden	votes,	stuffed	ballot	boxes,	and	rigged	counts.	Instead,	this	lack	of	confidence	in	the	fairness	of	the	process	appears	to	have	arisen	largely	organically	from	the	bottom	up,	and	in	its	way	produced	a	larger	winner-loser	effectthan	has	ever	been	reported	in	the	literature.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Declining confidence in electoral fairness from those on the losing side is a serious problem – and it is getting worse Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-04-27Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/winner-loser-effects-uk-elections/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/The	UK’s	EU	referendum	never	did	result	in	insurrection	or	rebellion	against	the	idea	of	accepting	democraticdecisions	that	cut	against	one’s	own	desires	–	but	it	would	be	arrogant	in	the	extreme	to	think	that	there	is	not	fertileground	for	exactly	the	same	kind	of	problems	the	US	has	recently	seen.	The	challenge	for	public	officials	the	worldover	is	to	understand	the	nature	of	the	problem,	and	to	consider	how	to	build	and	maintain	the	losers’	consent._____________________Note:	the	above	draws	on	the	authors’	published	work	in	the	British	Journal	of	Politics	and	International	Relations.About	the	AuthorsCees	van	der	Eijk	is	Professor	of	Social	Science	Research	Methods	and	Director	of	the	Methodsand	Data	Institute	at	the	University	of	Nottingham.		Jonathan	Rose	is	Associate	Professor	in	Politics	and	Research	Methodologyat	De	Montfort	University.				Photo	by	Hello	I’m	Nik	on	Unsplash.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Declining confidence in electoral fairness from those on the losing side is a serious problem – and it is getting worse Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2021-04-27Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/winner-loser-effects-uk-elections/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Declining confidence in electoral fairness from those on the losing side is a serious problem – and it is getting worse

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110659/1/politicsandpolicy_winner_loser_effects_uk.pdf

Declining confidence in electoral fairness from those on the losing side is a serious problem – and it is getting worse

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online