The impact of election rules and context on election satisfaction in the United States

How do election rules and context impact American voters’ satisfaction with their electoral systems? Election rules define how candidates win – either by plurality or majority – but little attention has been given to the contexts of these systems to see how voters respond to them. We test three theoretical perspectives in two nationally representative survey experiments. Using election system vignettes as treatments, we first find that subjects in runoff election scenarios expressed more satisfaction with the electoral system compared to subjects in plurality-winner or instant runoff systems. Additionally, we find that subjects in runoff election scenarios are more likely to believe their votes will be counted fairly compared to those in a plurality condition. However, when these systems are contextualized for voters by explaining how winning is achieved, plurality system voters are as satisfied as, or more satisfied than, voters in runoff elections. Furthermore, as with satisfaction, when electoral systems are contextualized, plurality voters become significantly more likely to agree that votes will be counted fairly. Our findings have crucial implications for the literature on democratic satisfaction, and they help inform would-be election administration reformers.