Abstract Citizen perceptions of election legitimacy are integral to democratic longevity. When the public believes elections are fraught with fraud or suppression, they are less supportive of democracy and more supportive of antidemocratic means to seize and maintain power. Although previous work has examined American perceptions of voter fraud rates, less is known about perceptions of voter suppression or more specific opinions like who is perceived to be committing fraud or being suppressed, normative preferences for preventing fraud versus stopping suppression, and support for restrictive election policies. However, studying these attitudes is necessary to account for perceptions of illegitimacy, specify targets of blame, and design policy responses. Utilizing an elite-rhetoric model of election opinions, we demonstrate stark partisan differences in election integrity opinions. Compared to Democrats, Republicans are more likely to think fraud is frequent, less likely to think fraud is perpetrated by white Americans, more likely to think it is perpetrated by Democrats, and less likely to think non-white Americans or Democrats are suppressed. Republicans also prefer preventing fraud over stopping suppression and are more supportive of restrictive reforms that Republican elites argue prevent fraud but that Democratic elites argue suppress voters. These partisan divergences persist among Independent leaners, further demonstrating the extent to which partisan rhetoric has infiltrated public perceptions of election integrity. These differences comport with recent evidence that election-related opinions are largely elite-driven, demonstrating Americans disagree on basic electoral integrity facts and priorities, and showcasing the wide berth in election beliefs ripe for elite manipulation.
Shino et al. (Wed,) studied this question.