Replacement, Not Inducement: Why Citizens Dislike Politicians Who Care About Re-Election

Elections are the single most important feature of democracy, and politicians anticipating and forestalling electoral sanctions by changing positions is at the heart of many models of voting, party competition and representation. Yet, recent evidence suggests that citizens dislike politicians’ and parties’ sensitivity to electoral sanctions. We draw on a multinational (DK, FR, HU, NL, US) quantitative (N=10,000) and qualitative fieldwork (N=223) with open-ended questions, focus groups and interviews to explore the different prisms through which citizens evaluate politicians’ sensitivity to election results. First, we show that when asked about what characteristics and traits they wish for in a politician, responsiveness to win elections is rarely an accessible consideration to respondents. Yet, once confronted with the concept, we find overwhelmingly negative attitudes towards sensitivity to electoral sanctions. Parties and politicians who change track on major policies for electoral reasons are interpreted by citizens to fail on electoral promise-keeping, abandon the common good for opportunism, and lack valence personality traits (honesty, steadiness, accountability). Our results suggest that citizens wish elections to be a tool to replace rather than induce political personnel.