Does the end justify the means? Affective polarization and the support for electoral misconducts in the pursuit of victory

Partisans, politicians, and parties have one primary objective during elections, which is to secure an electoral victory. Yet, no matter how strong the desire for a favourable election result may be, electoral wins should never be pursued by any means. In a healthy democracy, it is essential that citizens and politicians prioritize democratic principles and electoral rules above partisan interests. As such, they should refrain from endorsing activities that might enhance the probability of winning but that are deemed undemocratic (e.g., voter suppression, gerrymandering). Indeed, there is increasing scholarly attention for the role of winners as a democratic check, since they are required to exercise restraint following their victory: If the democratic process is flawed, they are expected to be critical and prioritize democracy over their political interests, rather than blindly accept their win (i.e., winners’ restraint) (Werner et al. 2023). Yet, when levels of vertical affective polarization are high, the willingness of winners to exercise restraint may become less obvious. Moreover, we know little about their behaviour in their pursuit of victory before the election takes place. Scholars have argued that affective polarization can drive citizens to prioritize their preferred party over democracy (Graham & Svolik 2020), and as a result pursue electoral victories at all costs. Indeed, Levitsky and Ziblatt (2019) state that when people start to perceive the political opponent as an existential threat, they "may decide to employ any means necessary to defeat them – and therein lies a justification for authoritarian measures". Though various scholars have argued that affective polarization can drive citizens to abandon restraint, empirical evidence is scarce. As such, in this study, we empirically test to what extent vertical affective polarization drives citizens to condone unfair electoral processes in their pursuit of victory. We conduct a survey-experiment leading up to the 2024 US presidential elections, in which we manipulate respondent’s level of vertical affective polarization. Subsequently, we empirically test whether vertical affective polarization has a causal effect on citizens’ support for undemocratic electoral measures that increase the likelihood of an in-party win. In addition to creating an original manipulation of vertical affective polarization, this study will provide insights into whether polarized citizens are willing to prioritize fair democratic processes above their partisan electoral interests.