8.5 Citizen Satisfaction
Comparing indicators like turnout and proportionality can be instructive, but elections are complex systems with dozens of unique features that are buttressed by country-specific election laws and legal systems. Cross-country comparisons may not tell us much. For example, in Australia, voter turnout is higher than in many other countries. That figure could be a product of a responsive government, an effective electoral system, or it could simply be the product of Australia’s mandatory voting laws. Voter turnout may also be linked to citizen satisfaction with the electoral process.
Did your team win?
What do people think about the performance of their electoral system? Naturally, people are more likely to be satisfied with an election outcome if they deem it a success for their preferred party. Conversely, voters who feel that their party lost the election are unlikely to feel as satisfied. This difference is known as the winner-loser gap (Daoust & Nadeau, 2023). This gap is larger in lower-quality regimes where the electoral process might not meet standards of fairness and transparency, yet it is smaller in democracies with higher-quality elections (Daoust & Nadeau, 2023). This suggests that winners and losers are more satisfied when they view the election to be effective.
The Process or the People?
Political Scientists Andre Blais and Damien Bol (2023) suggest that proportional systems are viewed as being more effective than winner-take-all systems:
In a nutshell, although citizens are, on average, similarly satisfied under every electoral system, the rules organizing elections have consequences for the gap in satisfaction between winners and losers. On this criterion, PR systems seem to perform better due to their inclusiveness.
Depression and Dissatisfaction
Some evidence suggests that individual-level factors, such as experiencing depression, may produce negative evaluations of elections (Landwehr et al., 2025).
Lots of research on electoral performance focuses on the responsiveness and representativeness of the electoral system; however, this is not to ignore other important features of electoral regimes, such as ballot design, accessibility, party competition, campaign finance laws, and redistricting procedures (Grofman & Lijphart, 1986). These are all important factors to consider.
Comprehensive Comparison
To facilitate a more meaningful comparison, different indicators and features can be analyzed. The chart below displays results for 7 different democracies across 6 metrics.
| Country | Turnout | System | ENPP | Type of Government | % of Women in Legislature | Average citizen satisfaction* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 92% | SMP | 3.2 | Single-party majority | 30% | 1.7 |
| Canada | 68% | SMP | 2.5 | Single-party majority** | 29% | 1.7 |
| France | 49% | Two-round Majority | 3.0 | Coalition majority | 40% | 1.5 |
| Germany | 76% | MMP | 5.6 | Coalition majority | 31% | 1.5 |
| Japan | 54% | MMP | 2.5 | Coalition majority | 10% | 1.6 |
| Sweden | 87% | PR | 5.6 | Coalition minority | 47% | 1.9 |
| USA | 67% | SMP | 2.0 | Single-party majority | 23% | 1.8 |
As you can see, countries can vary considerably across indicators. Some systems might produce more effective party representation, but they are lacking in other areas, such as the representation of women. There is no magic electoral formula for ensuring responsive and representative governments that satisfy all voters.
