Regime legitimacy and survival rely on citizens’ consent to election results, even when these results are unfavorable. Theories posit that individuals with pro-democratic attitudes are more accepting of electoral losses. We test this assumption by analyzing the empirical relationship between support for democratic principles, such as universal suffrage, and electoral consent to randomly generated, hypothetical but plausible electoral outcomes. Using data from a representative sample of Germans, we find a negative correlation between the two variables. Furthermore, those with the strongest democratic convictions are those most influenced in their consent by partisan preferences. Part of the explanation stems from reactions to the far-right, anti-democratic party Alternative for Germany, as many respondents strongly dislike this party and are unwilling to consent to outcomes in which it performs well. However, even among other respondents, democratic support does not correlate positively with losers’ consent.
AbramowitzAIWebsterS (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
2.
AndersonCDMcGregorRMStephensonLB (2022) Us versus them: Do the rules of the game encourage negative partisanship?European Journal of Political Research61(4): 1060–1079.
3.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
4.
AndersonCJMendesSM (2006) Learning to lose: Election outcomes, democratic experience and political protest potential. British Journal of Political Science36(1): 91–111.
5.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
6.
AndersonCJBolDAnandaA (2021) Estimating humanity’s attitudes about democracy and political leaders: Patterns and trends. Public Opinion Quarterly85(4): 957–986.
7.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2018) The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis26(1): 112–119.
8.
BirchS (2011) Electoral Malpractice. Oxford University Press.
9.
BlaisABolDBowlerS, et al. (2023) What kind of electoral outcome do people think is good for democracy?Political Studies71(4): 1068–1089.
10.
BlaisAMorin-ChasséASinghSP (2017) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics23(2): 85–95.
11.
BolD (2026) Experiments in political science. In: Reese-JonesA (ed.) Handbook of Experimental Methods in the Social Science. Edward Elgar, pp. 535–550.
ClaassenCAckermannKBertsouE, et al. (2025) Conceptualizing and measuring support for democracy: A new approach. Comparative Political Studies58: 1171–1198. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241259458
14.
ClaassenCMagalhãesPC (2022) Effective government and evaluations of democracy. Comparative Political Studies55(5): 869–894.
15.
ClarkWRGolderMGolderSN (2024) Principles of Comparative Politics (4th ed.). Sage/CQ Press.
16.
CohenMJSmithAEMoseleyMW, et al. (2023) Winners’ consent? Citizen commitment to democracy when illiberal candidates win elections. American Journal of Political Science67(2): 261–276.
17.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al. (2024) V-Dem [country-year/country-date] dataset v14. Varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project. https://doi.org/10.23696/mcwt-fr58
18.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press.
19.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press.
20.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41(7): 899–920.
21.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
22.
EnglerSGesslerTAbou-ChadiT, et al. (2023) Democracy challenged? How different party families politicize different democratic principles. Journal of European Public Policy30(10): 1961–1983.
23.
EsaiassonP (2011) Electoral losers revisited: How citizens react to defeat at the ballot box. Electoral Studies30(1): 102–113.
24.
EsaiassonPPerssonMGilljamM, et al. (2019) Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49(1): 291–314.
25.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
26.
GesslerTWunschN (2025) The demand side of democratic backsliding: How divergent understandings of democracy shape political choice. European Journal of Political Research64: 1593–1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12751
27.
GidengilEStolleDBergeron-BoutinO (2022) The partisan nature of support for democratic backsliding: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research61(4): 901–929.
28.
GrahamMHSvolikM (2020) Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review114(2): 392–409.
29.
JollySBakkerRHoogheL, et al. (2022) Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies75: 102420.
30.
KernAMarienSMuradovaL (2024) The effect of accumulated losses on perceptions of legitimacy. European Political Science Review16(3): 465–482.
31.
KriesiHGrandeEDolezalM, et al. (eds) (2012) Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press.
32.
LagiosNMéonP-GTojerowI (2025) Media, spillovers and social norms: The electoral impact of anti-far-right protests in the 2002 French election. The Economic Journal135(669): 1575–1608.
33.
LandwehrCSteinerND (2017) Where democrats disagree: Citizens’ normative conceptions of democracy. Political Studies65(4): 786–804.
34.
LeviM (1997) Consent, Dissent, and Patriotism. Cambridge University Press.
35.
LührmannALindbergSI (2019) A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it?Democratization26(7): 1095–1113.
36.
MillJS (1861) Considerations on Representative Government. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
37.
Monsiváis-CarrilloA (2022) Permissive winners? The quality of democracy and the winner–loser gap in the perception of freedoms. Political Studies70(1): 173–194.
38.
MüllerJ-W (2012) Militant democracy. In: RosenfeldMSajóA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, pp.1253–1269.
39.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the election outcome: The effect of participation on losers’ consent. British Journal of Political Science23(4): 553–563.
40.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press.
41.
NorrisP (2014) Why Electoral Integrity Matters. Cambridge University Press.
42.
PrzeworskiA (1991) Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
43.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press.
44.
RidgeHM (2022) Enemy mine: Negative partisanship and satisfaction with democracy. Political Behavior44(3): 1271–1295.
45.
SinghS (2014) Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 308–327.
46.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
47.
SvolikM (2023) Voting against autocracy. World Politics75(4): 647–691.
48.
TorreblancaCDinneenWGrossmanG, et al. (2025) The credibility revolution in political science. arXiv Working paper, arXiv:2601.11542.
49.
WernerHJacobsK (2022) Are populists sore losers? Explaining populist citizens’ preferences for and reactions to referendums. British Journal of Political Science52(3): 1409–1417.
50.
WernerHMarienS (2022) Process vs. outcome? How to evaluate the effects of participatory processes on legitimacy perceptions. British Journal of Political Science52(1): 429–436.
51.
ZasloveAMeijersM (2024) Populist democrats? Unpacking the relationship between populist and democratic attitudes at the citizen level. Political Studies72(3): 1133–1159.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
